Why has religion retained its appeal?

[danot]

You're missing Snaily's point entirely.

 

He believes his phone (or insert other subject - car/life, etc) will switch on because it is a reasonable assumption to make based upon experience and positive history of it doing so reliably. This is the evidence he uses.

He isn't saying he knows it will switch on and he doesn't discount the possibility (or someday, the inevitability) that it won't. There is no evidence to suggest that it likely won't switch on.

 

Getting back to your belief, if you're going to insist on your comparisons;

 

-You believe in something greater than yourself (an extremely ambiguous statement which could apply to anything from coral reefs to elephants, to child prodigies, a solar system, the universe itself, etc) but you are unable to define or even loosely describe or explain what this thing is. Your argument doesn't make it past this point really because you can't even outline what it is you're trying to argue.

 

-You tried comparing this to dark matter, which has a 'beginning hypothesis', you tried saying that there's a beginning hypothesis in the bible too (post#81) yet you also state that you don't believe in any gods at all (post#60), so this point is irrelevant to your belief. This is a logical fallacy commonly known as a red herring.

 

-You claim that everything you look at tells you 'there is something greater' (stated in a belittling way, post#65). You could apply the same (false) logic to a puddle, that its very existence shows that someone poured it there from a bucket, or that because a tree exists on the hill, a man must have planted it there.

Without any evidence or reason, you are simply jumping to a conclusion. This is a logical fallacy, much worse than simply reserving judgement.

 

-You repeatedly display that you don't know the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof', this makes any reasonable discussion with you on this subject almost impossible, as you are inadvertently moving the goalposts each time either one is referenced.

 

In short, you are arguing with yourself, in a way that only makes sense to yourself.

The 'something' I believe in does exist. Religious folk refer to it as God, some may refer to it as nature, which I believe defines everything in existence, not just nature as we know it. You seem to be suggesting that past positive history is able to influence tomorrow in some way. Obviously, it can't, which is why it has no baring on the likelihood of anything that happens tomorrow. Regarding my apparent inability to differentiate between 'evidence' and 'proof'. I was referring to how difficult it would be to prove the existence of love as it's abstract and totally subjective. You mentioned evidence which I assume to mean signs of affection and loving words etc, which may or may not be sincere, sometimes it's not. nevertheless, unless we have faith and believe it is sincere we'll never experience the feeling of being loved.

[Anna B]

The 'something' I believe in does exist. Religious folk refer to it as God, some may refer to it as nature, which I believe defines everything in existence, not just nature as we know it. You seem to be suggesting that past positive history is able to influence tomorrow in some way. Obviously, it can't, which is why it has no baring on the likelihood of anything that happens tomorrow. Regarding my apparent inability to differentiate between 'evidence' and 'proof'. I was referring to how difficult it would be to prove the existence of love as it's abstract and totally subjective. You mentioned evidence which I assume to mean signs of affection and loving words etc, which may or may not be sincere, sometimes it's not. nevertheless, unless we have faith and believe it is sincere we'll never experience the feeling of being loved.

 

Good post.

Pretty much how I feel too.

[SnailyBoy]

The 'something' I believe in does exist. Religious folk refer to it as God, some may refer to it as nature, which I believe defines everything in existence, not just nature as we know it. You seem to be suggesting that past positive history is able to influence tomorrow in some way. Obviously, it can't, which is why it has no baring on the likelihood of anything that happens tomorrow. Regarding my apparent inability to differentiate between 'evidence' and 'proof'. I was referring to how difficult it would be to prove the existence of love as it's abstract and totally subjective. You mentioned evidence which I assume to mean signs of affection and loving words etc, which may or may not be sincere, sometimes it's not. nevertheless, unless we have faith and believe it is sincere we'll never experience the feeling of being loved.

 

So is this 'something' natural or supernatural?

[danot]

Your earlier posts kind of suggests otherwise. You think about dying on a daily basis. "I'm aware of each day potentially being my last."

 

You'd have to be in some dire circumstances for that to be the case, the front line of a war for example.

 

Is it something to do with your yet to be defined belief in 'something greater' out there?

It's more to do with the unpredictability of life. Clearly, at this moment in time, you see no reason why you wont be alive tomorrow. But neither do those who are going to die unexpectedly tomorrow. Forget probability and likelihood. Forget dire circumstances that increase the likelihood of death. It's a certainty that ordinary people, just like you and me are going to die unexpectedly tomorrow. I realise that I could be one of them, Potentially. I see no reason to exclude myself from the possibility based on the amount of days that's passed without incident.

[RootsBooster]

The 'something' I believe in does exist. Religious folk refer to it as God, some may refer to it as nature, which I believe defines everything in existence, not just nature as we know it.

[/Quote] You said earlier that you don't believe in any gods, now you're saying that you believe in something that other people call God. Do you see how erratic and illogical your posting is?

If it is nature then fine, but it already has a name and is fully definable, so why try to cloud it in ambiguity?

You seem to be suggesting that past positive history is able to influence tomorrow in some way. Obviously, it can't, which is why it has no baring on the likelihood of anything that happens tomorrow.

That would be ridiculous and I haven't suggested anything of the sort. If you know anything about probability, good understand that a reliable history can be a good basis (to a degree) on which to make a prediction. It obviously doesn't actually affect anything that happens in the future.

Regarding my apparent inability to differentiate between 'evidence' and 'proof'. I was referring to how difficult it would be to prove the existence of love as it's abstract and totally subjective. You mentioned evidence which I assume to mean signs of affection and loving words etc, which may or may not be sincere, sometimes it's not. nevertheless, unless we have faith and believe it is sincere we'll never experience the feeling of being loved.

Well no, actually, it was you who mentioned evidence (post#105), I just responded to it. Clearly You conflate the two, or you wouldn't keep confusing yourself like this.

[Cyclone]

It's more to do with the unpredictability of life. Clearly, at this moment in time, you see no reason why you wont be alive tomorrow. But neither do those who are going to die unexpectedly tomorrow. Forget probability and likelihood. Forget dire circumstances that increase the likelihood of death. It's a certainty that ordinary people, just like you and me are going to die unexpectedly tomorrow. I realise that I could be one of them, Potentially. I see no reason to exclude myself from the possibility based on the amount of days that's passed without incident.

 

The fact that some people are going to die unexpectedly in the next few seconds doesn't make it likely that you (or I) are amongst that group. So to believe that you are would not be evidence based.

To believe that you aren't WOULD be evidence based, and logical.

Which doesn't mean that I won't slip on the stairs in a few minutes, but it isn't faith to believe that I won't.

[SnailyBoy]

It's more to do with the unpredictability of life. Clearly, at this moment in time, you see no reason why you wont be alive tomorrow. But neither do those who are going to die unexpectedly tomorrow. Forget probability and likelihood. Forget dire circumstances that increase the likelihood of death. It's a certainty that ordinary people, just like you and me are going to die unexpectedly tomorrow. I realise that I could be one of them, Potentially. I see no reason to exclude myself from the possibility based on the amount of days that's passed without incident.

 

Wow, you really did miss my point. I don't know how much more i and others can explain it.

[danot]

The other factors being the chance of a random death by accident or violence... The chances of which are quite easily established and very low.

 

---------- Post added 29-07-2018 at 15:22 ----------

 

 

If you don't believe that you will be alive later why ever make any plans?

No one knows their fate. I make plans because that's what everyday life involves. It also involves making plans in the event of death, which could be years away, it could be tomorrow, I don't know. But I hope it's years away, which is why I plan for the future.

 

---------- Post added 29-07-2018 at 17:08 ----------

 

So is this 'something' natural or supernatural?

Most definitely supernatural by our definition.

[SnailyBoy]

Most definitely supernatural by our definition.

 

How would you go about demonstrating this supernatural something?

[danot]

You said earlier that you don't believe in any gods, now you're saying that you believe in something that other people call God. Do you see how erratic and illogical your posting is?

If it is nature then fine, but it already has a name and is fully definable, so why try to cloud it in ambiguity?

That would be ridiculous and I haven't suggested anything of the sort. If you know anything about probability, good understand that a reliable history can be a good basis (to a degree) on which to make a prediction. It obviously doesn't actually affect anything that happens in the future.

 

Well no, actually, it was you who mentioned evidence (post#105), I just responded to it. Clearly You conflate the two, or you wouldn't keep confusing yourself like this.

I said religious people refer to the 'something' as God. I prefer to refer to it as 'something far greater than myself '. How is that erratic and illogical? If it is nature, then our understanding of universal and natural laws don't apply to it, because it defies them. It defies logic. Now that does sound erratic and illogical.

 

---------- Post added 29-07-2018 at 17:22 ----------

 

How would you go about demonstrating this supernatural something?

Definition of supernatural: "A force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".

 

 

Now that's a silly question. C'mon.