Why has religion retained its appeal?

[dutch]

That's impressive, you've managed yet more gibberish.

 

How about demonstrating these claims of yours, peer reviewed papers would be a good start,

 

Or are they slaves to their master mind?

 

This is not for lazy people who want demonstrations. I am writing on this forum for the odd one who will understand it. It could possibly be helpful to them, it depends on where they are and what way they go in becoming aware of their consciousness again.

 

I am not writing on this forum for you, can have a laugh but you wont get it the way you look at this.

[SnailyBoy]

This is not for lazy people who want demonstrations. I am writing on this forum for the odd one who will understand it. It could possibly be helpful to them, it depends on where they are and what way they go in becoming aware of their consciousness again.

 

I am not writing on this forum for you, can have a laugh but you wont get it the way you look at this.

 

Links to peer review papers then, you must have something.

 

Why should anyone believe you?

[Cyclone]

Because it's become incredibly boring with Dutch and Danot, I'll engage this one with some pedantry

 

You're probably right, but only because 'disbelief' doesn't appear to mean believing in the polar opposite (i.e, that gods do not exist)

 

"Disbelief;

 

-Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real

 

-Lack of faith"

 

From here

 

Neither of those definitions mean that you have to hold the polar opposite belief (refusing to believe that someone has a Ferrari just because they said they do does not necessarily mean that you believe they don't have a Ferrari)

 

 

Ah, but in the case of a bound set, where only A or B is possible and they are opposites, then not believing A implies that you believe B. Ownership is a good example of that I think, I either own something or I don't and if you don't believe that I own it, then you DO believe that I don't own it.

 

Perhaps though if you say "I can't be sure, I don't have enough evidence" then you haven't believed the ownership, but nor have you disbelieved the ownership... Which would then be saying that a lack of belief is not quite the same as disbelief!

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2018 at 12:24 ----------

 

My personal interpretation of the word atheist, and this is a purely personal interpretation. Is that an atheist doesn't understand or know what religion really is and that the pope himself is an atheist, he has no idea what jesus really meant when he said "I am god, god is one, god is all"

 

Again for clarity, I am not religious and I don't support Christianity!

 

You don't get to just redefine the word to be something else

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2018 at 12:28 ----------

 

This is not for lazy people who want demonstrations.

 

Refusal to demonstrate... Typical technique of religion I believe. Scriptures normally expressly prohibit any testing of faith.

[dutch]

 

Ah, but in the case of a bound set, where only A or B is possible and they are opposites, then not believing A implies that you believe B. Ownership is a good example of that I think, I either own something or I don't and if you don't believe that I own it, then you DO believe that I don't own it.

 

Perhaps though if you say "I can't be sure, I don't have enough evidence" then you haven't believed the ownership, but nor have you disbelieved the ownership... Which would then be saying that a lack of belief is not quite the same as disbelief!

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2018 at 12:24 ----------

 

 

You don't get to just redefine the word to be something else

 

In my case I see religion different than those poor people praying confessing chopping genitals. I see religion as the wonderful experience of being one with consciousness again. To me the pope is without religion and atheist.

It depends on how far the experience goes, do you believe or have you become fully aware again.

[RootsBooster]

I'm going to pursue this because I find debating the finer points of the meaning of words, with you, much more enjoyable than trying to decipher Dutch's extensive and woolly posts.

 

Ah, but in the case of a bound set, where only A or B is possible and they are opposites, then not believing A implies that you believe B. Ownership is a good example of that I think, I either own something or I don't and if you don't believe that I own it, then you DO believe that I don't own it.

 

I don't think that makes any difference, if my neighbour told me he owns some of my land, I wouldn't believe him until he had shown me substantial evidence. That doesn't mean I would believe he doesn't own the land until he provides evidence.

In the paragraph I've just written above, I've mentioned two beliefs;

 

1)Belief that he does own the land

2)Belief that he doesn't own the land

 

Each of these has a binary option, either present or absent (yes or no/positive or negative if you prefer). To say that the binary alternative of believing in one thing is to believe the polar opposite means that there is no room to reserve judgement until proof has been provided, because that would be a third option (not binary)

 

Perhaps though if you say "I can't be sure, I don't have enough evidence" then you haven't believed the ownership, but nor have you disbelieved the ownership... Which would then be saying that a lack of belief is not quite the same as disbelief!

Surety and certainty are words relating to knowledge though, not belief. It doesn't change anything about what you do or don't believe.

 

(as highlighted in post #452, the word desbelief doesn't appear to mean what you think. I think we should probably avoid using the word for the time being)

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2018 at 13:05 ----------

 

Believing or non believing in god is still an believe.

If believing is a belief and not believing is also a belief, then...

 

 

When believing stops in a conscious state, if that happens, few people will go that far, you can still see what religion talks about. But the confused mind does not interfere and the actual meaning or meaninglessness is seen in absolute conscious clarity.

 

...nothing can change! If that person has stopped believing then by your logic they still believe

Edited August 9, 2018 by RootsBooster
highlighting

[Robin-H]

In my case I see religion different than those poor people praying confessing chopping genitals. I see religion as the wonderful experience of being one with consciousness again. To me the pope is without religion and atheist.

It depends on how far the experience goes, do you believe or have you become fully aware again.

 

But I thought according to you atheism is religion, so the Pope would be religious? Hard to keep track of the nonsense..

[Cyclone]

Belief is a statement of knowledge isn't it?

 

If I say I know I have 4 apples, that's the same as saying that I believe that I have 4 apples.

I know that gravity exists, I believe in gravity.

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2018 at 14:59 ----------

 

Isn't the "reserving judgement" a function of knowledge?

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2018 at 15:00 ----------

 

In my case I see religion different than those poor people praying confessing chopping genitals. I see religion as the wonderful experience of being one with consciousness again. To me the pope is without religion and atheist.

It depends on how far the experience goes, do you believe or have you become fully aware again.

 

So you've had to redefine what religion is as well.

 

What's the point of having a discussion where you redefine the key terms to mean something else? How can you expect anyone to understand you?

[RootsBooster]

Belief is a statement of knowledge isn't it?

No!

If I say I know I have 4 apples, that's the same as saying that I believe that I have 4 apples.

I believe you have 4 apples but I don't know you have 4 apples

I know that gravity exists, I believe in gravity.

That's fine, if you know something then you'd automatically also believe it (although that could be debated too, sometimes people know that something is true but have a hard time believing it)

 

Isn't the "reserving judgement" a function of knowledge?

That entirely depends on if you're making a judgement of belief or knowledge. It's worth noting that a judgement (of the mind) isn't always something you have control over.

 

 

 

Look at this way, if we follow your idea that if you don't believe in something you must believe in the polar opposite then-

 

"I don't believe there's a god therefore I believe there's no god"

and

"I don't know there's a god therefore I know there's no god"

[Cyclone]

That's just repeating my original assertion back to me isn't it?

 

I don't believe you have a ferrari, so I do believe that you don't have a ferrari.

 

I can't claim to know those things though.

[SnailyBoy]

Belief is a statement of knowledge isn't it?

 

If I say I know I have 4 apples, that's the same as saying that I believe that I have 4 apples.

I know that gravity exists, I believe in gravity.

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2018 at 14:59 ----------

 

Isn't the "reserving judgement" a function of knowledge?

 

How about 'Belief is the acceptance that a proposition is true or likely true'?

 

I'd say knowledge is a subset of belief as it's possible to believe a proposition without the knowledge that it's true or likely true.

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2018 at 15:23 ----------

 

That's just repeating my original assertion back to me isn't it?

 

I don't believe you have a ferrari, so I do believe that you don't have a ferrari.

 

I can't claim to know those things though.

 

What about the earlier gum-ball analogy?

 

Just because you didn't believe the number in the jar was even, you wouldn't automatically believe it was odd, would you?

Edited August 9, 2018 by SnailyBoy