GodBotherin - Discuss

Mahatma coat

since the dawn of civilisation small groups of people (Lizzzzzards) have desired to control larger groups of people (Sheeple) for their own gain.

Religion has been one of the tools employed by these groups, work hard now get your reward in the afterlife, break our laws and you will burn in hell, basic terrorisim & mind control against the population.

now even though our society has evolved in a secular maner over the last few generations there still seems to be an oldguard clinging to these outmoded lies

WHY?

Because people can believe whole heatedly in thing regardless of a lack of proof or indeed in spite of proof to the contrary.

javaboy

Mahatma coat wrote: »

now even though our society has evolved in a secular maner over the last few generations there still seems to be an oldguard clinging to these outmoded lies

WHY?

Because you cannot prove they are lies. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Mahatma coat

OK what freaks me out abit is the large amount of conspiracy sites that are also Christian Fundies,

it seems to me that these people think Irony is something like Coppery but less orange

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK what freaks me out abit is the large amount of conspiracy sites that are also Christian Fundies,

it seems to me that these people think Irony is something like Coppery but less orange

Yea imagine a person holding a ridiculous belief and biases without evidence to support them.

Mahatma coat

ah now Biases dont come about all by htemselves they develop over time, same as CT beliefs, they develop, this religion lark is handed to you fully formed as a child and you will burn in hell should you question it.

CT is about questioning everything, religion is the opposite its about blind faith and never asking questions

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ah now Biases dont come about all by htemselves they develop over time, same as CT beliefs, they develop, this religion lark is handed to you fully formed as a child and you will burn in hell should you question it.

And sweeping generalisations are just plain silly.
How about people who change the religious beliefs over time and convert?
How about people who attend church but do not agree with 100% of the doctrine?
How about those who see the bible as fables rather than historical fact?
How about the religions who don't believe in hell?
How about the people who believe in a non interfering god?

Being part of a religion does not mean you are inherently fundamentalist.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

CT is about questioning everything, religion is the opposite its about blind faith and never asking questions

Questioning everything except themselves apparently.

Mahatma coat

So Believing that there are a group of people in a Cabal orchestrating all these things to keep the population subdued is silly, even tho there is evidence to suggest this.

but believing in an invisible being that lives in the sky and watches over you is aceptable,even tho when asked for evidence we get the 'God relys on Faith' Bullshit

WHY?

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So Believing that there are a group of people in a Cabal orchestrating all these things to keep the population subdued is silly, even tho there is evidence to suggest this.

but believing in an invisible being that lives in the sky and watches over you is aceptable,even tho when asked for evidence we get the 'God relys on Faith' Bullshit

WHY?

I don't believe there is a god, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

I've asked many times on this forum for evidence and I've never seen anything solid. Or get an answer like "of course there's no evidence, it's been covered up!"

There are some who believe in god and try to present evidence in different forms (miracles, apparitions, prophecies etc.) though they always have a rational explanation.
Just like conspiracy theories.

This thread has many layers of irony!

Mahatma coat

OK I dont believe there is a God either, but, do you believe that religion is one of the oldest conspiracies designed to subdue the population?

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK I dont believe there is a God either, but, do you believe that religion is one of the oldest conspiracies designed to subdue the population?

I'll give you two guesses.

Are you actually taking in what I've been saying?

Mahatma coat

Yes I've read what you havebeen saying, how about telling us what you do believe in rather than sniping from the fence, some form of theory maybe

I believe hypotheses must stand up the critical evaluation before they are to be believed.
I believe extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I believe the less you have to assume the more likely you are right.

I believe that conspiracy theories do not stand up to critical evaluation, nor provide evidence proportional to their claims, and that you have to assume a lot of things for them to work.
Evidently none of this seems to bother believers.

Mahatma coat

yeah OK, but you still labour under the asumption that I am Wrong and you are right

my question is still, why do people believe the God lie and yet they rail against the NWO trying to control them, I understand that we could both go off on tangents here, I can see the direction that you want to take this thread in and I recomend that you start a new thread to discuss that.

the topic for discussion here is why do people Believe blindly in Religion, yet are citical of the opressive regiemes trying to control our minds

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yeah OK, but you still labour under the asumption that I am Wrong and you are right

To critically evaluate your claims I must assume the negative, then examine your evidence. It's how crictical inquiry works. If your theory is sound it can stand up to every argument and call for evidence. It usually comes up short.

But doesn't everyone on opposing sides of the debate assume the other side is wrong?
Is it an assumption when you fail to prove your side?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the topic for discussion here is why do people Believe blindly in Religion, yet are citical of the opressive regiemes trying to control our minds

Because most of the people who blindly follow conspiracy theories do not blindly follow an organised church like the catholic church in my experience.
They tend to have their own faith or are part of a small congregation, rather than an international church.
Sometimes they're just nutters that cherry pick parts from the bible.

Why exactly do you believe that conspiracy theories are more valid than religious beliefs? Both have the same amount of evidence (i.e. very, very little.) Can you use any of the arguments you have against religion against you own beliefs?

javaboy

Consider the hypothesis: "There is a God"
Is there any evidence to support this hypothesis? No.
Is there any way of proving this hypothesis? No.

And consider the hypothesis: "There is no God"
Is there any evidence to support this hypothesis? No.
Is there any way of proving this hypothesis? No.


Now consider the hypothesis: "The NWO is trying to oppress us"
Is there any evidence to support this hypothesis? Some.
Is there any way of proving this hypothesis? Yes.


So the difference between the two situations is that one (the NWO conspiracy) can be proved by somewhat scientific methods such as gathering evidence, assembling a case, getting actual members of the NWO to confess etc. whereas the God/No God debate cannot be answered by normal scientific methods. That is why NWO and other conspiracies are rightfully subjected to objective and often sceptical criticism. It is the very fact that they are more valid as theories than the existence (or not) of God that makes the difference in how we approach them.

One can be treated as a theory and proved or not accordingly. The other can only be treated as a belief. Essentially it's pointless to apply the same critical and sceptical techniques to a hypothesis that there is or is not a God that we apply to other provable theories.

bonkey

CT is about questioning everything,

I disagree. By its very name, CT is about offering explanations, not questioning. Those explanations fall into two categories - explanations for the otherwise inexplicable, and alternate explanations for the already-explained.

It could be argued that CTs come about from questioning, but thats no different to where religion/faith comes from. Religion (and faith in general) are explanations which arise from questioning.

religion is the opposite its about blind faith and never asking questions

Again, I disagree.

There are, unquestionably, proponents of some religions who insist that their truth is the one truth, and that there can be no questioning.

There are also proponents of religions who insist that one must question one's beliefs, and that all they have to offer is the answers that they have reached themselves, that they believe in.

Drawing a parallel...

There are those who insist that 911 was an inside job, and that you're a complete fool if you don't accept that truth. There are others who say that they have considered the events of 911, and the answer that they have personally reached and believe in is that it was an inside job, and encourage others to similarly question the events even if they don't reach the same conclusion.

I'm sure we can agree that there are certainly posters who'd be offended if I ignored this second group, and portrayed all of those who believed 911 was an inside job as blind adherents to an unquestionable faith. We should (hopefully) be able to agree that it would be equally wrong of me to ignore the first group, and pretend that all believers in 911 being an inside job make it clear that they are only encouraging others to question, and do not for one moment claim that their beliefs are unquestionable truth, or use terms like the official account being a "lie".

Assuming we can agree on that, the next step is to ask why we (apparently) don't agree that the same courtesy should be afforded religion / faith....but its not a question that needs answering in this thread.

yeah OK, but you still labour under the asumption that I am Wrong and you are right
...
my question is still, why do people believe the God lie

How can you call it a lie, unless you're labouring under the assumption that you are right, and they are wrong?

You can neither show it to be deomnstrably false, nor show that those who claim belief in God are know it to be false. By what benchmark is it therefore a "lie"?

By calling it a lie, you're not asking us to question the existence of God. By calling it a lie, you're implicitly asking us to accept your belief (that God doesn't exist) as unquestionably true. You apparently do this in the name of objecting to people putting forward beliefs as being unquestionable!

Ironic, no?

the topic for discussion here is why do people Believe blindly in Religion, yet are citical of the opressive regiemes trying to control our minds

Why do people believe in oppressive regimes trying to control our minds, but not in the teachings of religion?

I'm not trying to be smart here...any useful answer to your question must also serve as the answer to that question.

Rather than framing your question in what could be perceived as an attack on religion, generalise it:

People believe in things that can neither be proven true or false.
The same people reject other that that can neither be proven true or false.
You are one of those people.

You want to know why other people do this. Ask yourself why you do it. If you can answer that, then the next step is to try and explain why this can't be generalised into an acceptable reason for others.

Mahatma coat

yeah OK Should have been a little less on the attack front with the phrasing of my questions, tis hard to win tho, ya get shot down for generalisin some beliefs and then ya get shot down for not generalisin enough on others, dunno, but calling it the God Lie was taking it a step too far in the I'm right ye're all fools direction:o, but like you say tis a matter of beliefs init.

I disagree with you on your first point, how do we arrive at the explanations without first askin the questions.

where CT differs from religion is that with CT people by and large draw their own conclusions and formulate the explanations themselves, with Religion all the 'explanations' are already neatly packaged into some book/dogma by some organisation intent on convincing you that theirs is the only way, either by the Dogmatic set of strict rules like your first example or the softly softly approach of the second example, but the end result is the same you become a convert to their way of thinking.

OK I know that someone is gonna mention Alex Jones and the rest of the interwebwarriors trying to shill their view of the world, and to be honest with you I'd hold them in the same light as the TV Evangalists, but these guys only exist to service a market, much like the churches.

as for 'Why do people believe one set of intangible hypothesis unquestionably yet pour scorn and derision on others who believe in a different set of intangible hypothesis'?

jaysus if I could figure that one out I'd be a wealthy man

Time Magazine

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as for 'Why do people believe one set of intangible hypothesis unquestionably yet pour scorn and derision on others who believe in a different set of intangible hypothesis'?

I will either father a child some day, or I will not. There is no evidence either way. Either are possibilities. Neither is a ridiculous position to hold.

I will either turn into a homicidal maniac some day, or I will not. There is no evidence either way. Either are possibilities. One is a ridiculous position to hold.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I disagree with you on your first point, how do we arrive at the explanations without first askin the questions.

That wasn't exactly my first point. Some people ask questions. Some people merely listen to the answers offered to them from those who have already asked the questions. Religion/Faith is no different in this regard.

OK I know that someone is gonna mention Alex Jones and the rest of the interwebwarriors trying to shill their view of the world, and to be honest with you I'd hold them in the same light as the TV Evangalists, but these guys only exist to service a market, much like the churches.

Much liks some of the churches...yes.

as for 'Why do people believe one set of intangible hypothesis unquestionably yet pour scorn and derision on others who believe in a different set of intangible hypothesis'?

jaysus if I could figure that one out I'd be a wealthy man

Well, hey, its effectively the question you said you wanted to discuss here.

To keep the discussion going (and maybe to keep it interesting), let me give one possibility. It doesn't answer for everyone, but I believe its valid for some people.

People need something to believe in. Consciously or subconsciously, they have a problem accepting that there isn't some Greater Plan. The idea that the universe might just be random, for example, is not one they're comfortable with. So the idea of a Supreme Being strikes a resonance with them. They know that they can never answer all of the questions about this SB and its Plan, but they can attribute any number of things to being "Part Of The Great Plan". Despite the unknown nature of this Plan, its mere existence is a comforting belief.

Other people look at events happening on earth. Capitalism...politics...war...crime...they're all just so unfathomable. Its discomforting to believe that there is no over-arching Plan behind it all....that at the end of the day, its somehow just some chaotic concept which we sometimes call Human Nature to describe how people are all different and follow different goals. Instead, they find comfort in the idea that there is a hidden plan...that there are Powerful Beings behind it all, and that much of the chaos is really a well-orchestrated plan. They know they can never answer all questions about these PBs, and their Plan, but they can attribute any number of things to being "Part of the Great Plan". Despite the dark nature of the Plan, its mere existence is a comforting belief.

These two beliefs aren't mutually contradictory. One can believe in the SB and the PBs, and the Plans of both.

In all cases, this comforting belief then colours how we look at the world. It doesn't determine whether we question or do not question, but rather how we process information. When we seek answers, we are more ready to accept those that fit better with our (subconscious) notion of The Plan. When we are given information where we hadn't questioned, our initial reaction is at least coloured by the same concept...does it fit with our nebulous vision of The Plan.

Now, I said at the start that I don't believe this answer fits everyone. I don't even believe it fits every religious person, nor every Conspiracy Theory believer. I do believe it fits some unknown quantity of both....but that's just part of The Picture that I have in my head about how things work.