WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

[POI]

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

[We_Are_VENOM]

You had a flush from pride for not being the jerk your wife wanted you to be, therefore, Holy Spirit. Yeah, right. Too funny.

1Corin 1:18

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

I know, brunumb. It is quite foolish to you, huh?

[brunumb]

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

I know, brunumb. It is quite foolish to you, huh?

As foolish as blindly accepting the words of a shonky car salesman trying to sell me a lemon.

[We_Are_VENOM]

As foolish as blindly accepting the words of a shonky car salesman trying to sell me a lemon.

How about offering some actual substance in your posts for a change, brunumb?

Instead of the same, one to two sentences of complete and utter smugness?

[brunumb]

As foolish as blindly accepting the words of a shonky car salesman trying to sell me a lemon.

How about offering some actual substance in your posts for a change, brunumb?

Instead of the same, one to two sentences of complete and utter smugness?

My apologies WAV, but I take my inspiration from whatever you post. Your comment is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The opinions expressed by anonymous biblical authors carry no weight with me so I don't understand why you would bother to quote them.

[JoeyKnothead]

As foolish as blindly accepting the words of a shonky car salesman trying to sell me a lemon.

How about offering some actual substance in your posts for a change, brunumb?

Instead of the same, one to two sentences of complete and utter smugness?

Presents two sentences complaining about perceived "smugness", and nothing to refute the actual meaning of the referenced statement.

We must now consider brunumb's kettleness.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #115]

Okay, I read what you are saying. I don't know that I yet agree? Case/point...

Say you tell your best friend his wife is cheating on him. Many 'signs' are there, but he still fails to acknowledge any of the 'signs'. I see this more as possibly possessing a genuine cognitive dissonance. But at some point, unless he never actually catches her in the act himself, he may retain this cognitive dissonance. If he does ever catch her, he might then go from dissonance to now 'knowing' his wife is a cheater. At some point, the evidence overwhelms him enough, to where he accepts the claim you had already made to him. He then has to admit to the presented evidence, regardless of his bias and/or compartmentalization.

Before I get started here, one of the folks I referenced, who was opposed to Christianity, who went on to investigate the claims in order to demonstrate Christianity would be false, only to become a Christian, happens to work in the field of law. He talks about how they will go about picking a jury. In other words, before the trial begins, there is a process in which they will ask the potential jurors certain questions, and they will strike potential jurors, based upon the answer they give. In other words, there are certain folks who are not allowed to hear the case. Now, he goes on to compare this to folks he engages with the Gospel. In other words, he claims there are certain folks, with whom it would be a waste of time to have the conversation with, based upon the way in which they respond.

He is not suggesting their intelligence is lacking. He is not saying, they just do not get it. He is also not saying, they have just not had that, "aha moment" yet. Rather, he is referring to those, who already have their mind set. In other words, it really does not matter the argument being made, if the mind is already made.

I am beginning to see where he may be correct? Because you see, you quote me, attempting to demonstrate how there are those who purposely attempt to shift the burden to the Christian, (which you brought into the conversation) by being careful not to make any assertions themselves, and go on to claim it is the Christian who is making the assertions, and therefore own the burden. I go on to demonstrate, the Christian who is simply sharing what they believe to be true, without making any assertions which cannot be demonstrated to be true, does not own any sort of burden.

Instead of you addressing this point, you go off on some sort of analogy, attempting to pin me down to some sort of confirmation bias, or cognitive dissonance, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with what you quoted from me! Moreover, even if you could in fact demonstrate that I would be guilty of such things, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with if there would be reasons to believe the Christian claims. Rather, what it seems to demonstrate to me is, you were a Christian at one time, who discovered you were a product of indoctrination, along with being guilty of confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance, and somehow this convinces you that anyone else who now holds the same position you once held, must, and has to be guilty of such things. This is the only way I can explain how one could use my quote above, and then go off on an analogy, concerning indoctrination, confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with what you have quoted? But again, even if you were to be able to demonstrate that I would be guilty of such things, it would get you no closer as to whether there would actually be reasons to believe the Christian claims.

Having made this point, allow me to ask you to consider something for a moment. Seriously! I would like you to take a moment to sit back and ponder what I am about to ask you to consider. You have ask me below to consider a video, and I have, so please sit back and consider what I am about to ask.

Could it possibly be, that it is you, who cannot get past your own "indoctrination"? In other words, you were a convinced Christian at one time, who came to realize that you believed simply based upon this indoctrination, which went on to cause you to be guilty of confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance, which seems to be blinding you from the actual arguments being made? Therefore, any argument being made, your reaction is, "indoctrination, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance"? So then, maybe it is you, who cannot get past your indoctrination?

Do you feel this is where you stand, when it comes to the "resurrection" claim? (i.e.) All the 'signs'/evidence are there, just short of seeing it actually happen? And that the ones who state they do not believe it, for whatever reason, have not had that iron-clad aha moment?

As you seem to be demonstrating, it has nothing to do with any sort of "aha moment". Rather, it seems to be there are those who cannot seem to get past the reasons they were once believers, (i.e. indoctrination, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance) to the point they cannot even hear the arguments others are making, but rather continue to bring up these things, even though it has nothing to do with the argument being made by the other, nor does it have a thing to do with whether there would be reasons to believe, what they were once convinced of. As an example, when I began my study of the Christian claims, I was fully convinced, and knew without a doubt, that many of the Christians I encountered were indeed guilty of the things you bring up. However, I was fully aware as well, that this would not factor into the equation, because I understood it would have nothing to do with it. Again, you seem to not be able to get past your own, indoctrination, confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance, when you were once convinced, which seems to be blinding you to the actual arguments being made. I mean what in the world would myself being indoctrinated, having confirmation bias, and or, cognitive dissonance, have to do with my argument against the atheist who attempts to shift the burden to the Christian, which you brought into the conversation? This is indeed a waste of time, if you cannot concentrate upon the actual points I am making?

Thank you for your explanation. I'm not offended in any way. I just feel that too many 'shots', (in both directions), will distract from what may instead be a productive conversation. Honestly, I see that few of these (believer v. doubter) conversations ever are... But maybe this one is going to be different?

What I am attempting to understand is, why anyone would be concerned as to how another expresses themselves? As I have said, I have been on this site for years now, and you cannot imagine some of the things which have been said to me. In fact, years ago, I received a PM from another member, explaining to me that if I brought my ideas into the forum, I would be "devoured". These sorts of things have no effect upon me, because I and more concerned with the truth, than I am about my feelings.

If you feel it's relevant, after you should decide to watch it, feel free to engage. If not, I'll assume this is still not up your alley. BTW (please ignore the title of the presented video), Also, you may want to fast forward passed the first two minutes and thirty seconds:

I wonder why you ask me to, "ignore the title of the presented video"? Could it in fact be because you are fully aware, the content would not in any way be evidence against the Christian claims? My friend, the speaker actually referred to it as evidence, but I can assure you that he is incorrect! It is not evidence in the least. I really do not like to comment of these videos, because it is not as easy as "copy and paste" as to what they have to say. However, I have in fact listen to the video, and I cannot imagine anyone listening to this, coming away with the idea that it would be evidence, or that, these things would even be a reason for doubt?

This is my whole point, you continue to ask me to give you some sort of, "main reason" I believe, and I attempt to tell you that it is not that simple. You go on to explain to me things such as, indoctrination, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, false positive, etc., which I am fully aware of, (other than the false positive which I am aware of now) none of which would be a reason to doubt the Christian claims. My point is, certainly, there is more to your doubt than what you have supplied? If so, then you are making my point, that one cannot supply a main reason, since one has put so much time, and effort into the thought process. If not, then it is certainly sad, that your "main reason" would be based upon, no reason at all to doubt the claims of Christianity.

As an example, your guy in the video, talks about animals in the wild, who make a "false positive" confusing the wind for predators. He goes on to talk about the fact the animal does not have time to collect more data. But my friend, we are not in such a situation. No one is forcing us to make snap decisions, without collecting data. As I have explained in my case, it was more than a 2 year process. Therefore, I was not simply guessing as to whether it may be a wild animal, as opposed to the wind.

Next, at lot of what he says would in fact be true. However, the conclusions he draws concerning these facts, would be fallacious. As an example, it would in fact be true, that man has created gods. There is no doubt about that. But I cannot imagine one coming to the conclusion that this fact, constitutes that all gods would have been the product of human imagination? Because you see, I did not create Christianity? More importantly, I did not create the evidence which support the claims. It is very plain to see here. Your guy is making the argument, that all religious folks, no matter the religion, are the product of whatever they were taught, with hope, against all hope, that they just so happen to have it right. Again, the thing is, he would be correct in most cases. In fact, I would suggest that even most Christians would fit into this category. However, this would have nothing to do with, whether what they believe would be true, nor would it have a thing in the world to do with whether there would be evidence to support what they believed. It is really sad to see a room full of folks listening to this presentation being convinced this person is making a case against Christianity, or any other religion for that matter.

Because you see, the thing is, the fact that men have created gods, the fact that there are many, many, folks who cannot get past their indoctrination, (including Christians), the fact that many of these folks would be guilty of confirmation bias, and or, cognitive dissonance, the fact that many, many of us are guilty of making "false positives", and especially the fact that there are animals in the wild in Africa, who may confuse the wind for predators, demonstrates nothing whatsoever, as far as whether the Christian claims would be true, or whether there would be evidence in support of the claims.

The Bible makes a lot of claims.

My friend, the Bible could not possibly make any sort of claims. It would be the authors contained in the Bible who make the claims.

Which ones resonate with you more, and which ones do you ignore?

Again, you are pleading for easy answers, and I have none! I am not aware of anything I ignore, maybe you can demonstrate where I do ignore certain things?

Case/point, "Venom" and WLC believe the "Holy Spirit" communicates with them. Should I assume this is only because they have not read this specific passage you cited?

Did you believe the Holy Spirit communicated to you when you were a Christian? If so, was it because, "the Bible said it, you believed it, and that settled it"? Or, was it because other Christians said they had experienced such things? Since you have failed to supply any sort of Biblical passage supporting such a thing, I can only imagine it would be because of other Christians? Unless of course you want to say, when you were a Christian, you were never under the impression The Holy Spirit was communicating to you?

I disagree. Maybe you would abandon ship altogether, and either become an agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, or look to other religions? Maybe you just found what suites your logic better, in the 'Christian church next door'? But at the end of the day, it's still under the same large umbrella.

You see, you continue to demonstrate, if one does not come to the conclusion as you, that everything they were taught as a child concerning Christianity would be false, then it must be they cannot get past their indoctrination. I think we are beginning to see, you have not really gotten past your own indoctrination?

My abandonment came, when I realized there exists very little, if any evidence to suggest a resurrection took place. For starters, when I realized there was not hundreds of independent 'eyewitnesses', by definition.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Because you see, you have continued to ask me for some sort of "main reason", and when I have refused to participate, you have criticized me, and have gone on to give me reasons for your doubt which would include, indoctrination, confirmation bias, false positives, (including a video), which I have demonstrated would be no reason to doubt in the least, and now above, you are giving me something completely different, which sort of demonstrates, there would be a lot more involved to your doubt. This is exactly my point! Hopefully, there is a lot more involved! In other words, there is a lot more involved to your doubt, which is demonstrated when you say, "for starters". I take this to mean, there would be a lot more involved than this?

What you need to understand at this point is, I have no problem with your doubt, and I am not going to insist you have no reason for your doubt, as long as it does not involve things which would have nothing whatsoever to do with it such as, indoctrination, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, false positives, etc. The problem will come in, when, and if you insist, I have no reason to believe as I do. It will be at this point, where you will own, "the burden of proof"! In other words, I am not making the assertion, you have no reason to doubt, (as long as it does not simply involve, indoctrination, confirmation bias, false positives, etc.). The question now is, are you insisting I have no reason to believe? I will be more than happy to take up that debate!

Because you see, we do in fact have, not one, not two, not three, but four different disconnected sources, (unless of course you would like to demonstrate how they would have been connected) who report upon the same exact resurrection. One of these sources, tells his audience at the time, "MANY have undertaken the task of compiling an account of the things accomplished among us". The thing is though, the number of folks who report an event, has nothing to do with whether the report would be true, or false. Again, if this sort of thing causes doubt in your mind, I have no problem with that in the least. But certainly there must be more involved than this, which is exactly my point. In other words, hopefully there is way more involved to your doubt than you have listed thus far, because none of what you have listed as of yet, have anything to do with whether the claims would be true, or false. Therefore, if you have given me your "main reasons" for your doubt, I see no reason at all for your doubt.

In the same way, if I were to attempt to give you some sort of "main reason" as you continue to insist, I highly doubt you would agree that it would be a sufficient reason to believe. As an example, if I were to say, "one of the main reasons I believe is, the four different disconnected sources who report upon the same exact resurrection" you would be correct to insist, there has to be way more involved than simply the fact we have the reports. The point is, you have given me some of the reasons for your doubt, and as we have seen, really is no reasons at all for doubt, which hopefully demonstrates there is way more involved to your doubt, than you can possibly list here in a single post.

What comes to mind first? What category mostly draws this certainty?

You continue to seem to look for easy answers. I have none. However, if you would actually like to have a debate concerning the facts involved, let us begin with the fact that we do in fact have the 4 different disconnected sources who report upon the same exact resurrection. While the fact we have the reports, would not be a sufficient reason to believe the reports, it certainly is not a cause for doubt. So please do explain to me, why I should doubt these reports? If you take me up on this offer, I think we will begin to see, just how involved it really is. You see, this is how one goes about explaining what they believe, and why they actually believe it. In other words, one does not simply attempt to give some sort of, "main reason". Nor do they attempt to give what may "come to mind first" because of the fact there would be way more involved.

I currently feel that had you truly shed your 'conformation bias' and 'indoctrination', you might instead be, as stated above - an agnostic/gnostic atheist, or ascribe to another agnostic/gnostic religion?

So now we have left the realm of facts, and evidence, and are dealing with your "feelings"? My friend, I cannot argue with your "feelings", but I do not see how your "feelings" factor into the equation? However, I do believe we have demonstrated, that it may in fact be you who cannot get past your own, indoctrination, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance. So then, your "feeling" is, unless I completely and totally reject what I was taught as a child, this somehow demonstrates I must, and have to be holding on to my indoctrination, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance? Well then, please explain those, who were opposed to Christianity, who had a confirmation bias against it, who become convinced it would be true?

So what exactly still keeps you under the same (large umbrella) as your parents?

We will more than likely get to that, if you take up the offer above.

It's not like Jesus wrote anything to paper Himself.

You make a pretty good point here. In other words, we do not have a single word in writing from Jesus himself, and yet, this same Jesus who has left us nothing in writing himself, has had more written about him, than any other figure in history. Now, do you want to talk about, "extraordinary"?

I said,

As I have already said, I have addressed all but one of them in post 77. The problem with them is, none of them would have a thing in the world to do with the truth of the matter. As an example, I agree, and am thoroughly convinced that many Christians (maybe even most) are stuck in their indoctrination, and do not really know what they believe, or why they believe it. However, I can assure you, this is not in any way whatsoever evidence against the Christian claims. This is why I say, if it is these sort of things which cause your doubt in Christianity, then you really have no reason for your doubt.

To which you reply,

Yes, knowing the problem is half the cure. But this is not why I doubt.

My friend, you have just made my point! You have just admitted the things you have listed would not be a reason to doubt, which goes on to HOPEFULLY demonstrate, there has to be way more involved to your doubt. And yet, you continue to want to insist that I pin down some sort of "main reason" when you cannot even accomplish this yourself? However, I have some bad news for you. The things you list, would not even be a "problem" so it is not in any way, "half the cure".

Oh, I already have a pretty good idea about how the NT was formed.

Well, your comments certainly do not demonstrate this to be the case.

But as I stated prior, to verify a one time miraculous event, in the ancient passed, we would need many corroborated independent eyewitnesses.

Again! "Verify" is a mighty strong word! As an example, I cannot "verify" man has walked on the moon. However, there are some mighty strong reasons to believe this to be the case. In other words, there would be any number of things I believe to be true, which I cannot "verify". Maybe there are those who only believe the things which can be "verified", but I highly doubt this to be the case.

Later authors, writing about what other believed, doesn't really count.

Are you claiming this is what we have contained in the NT? If so, you will have to "verify" (demonstrate) this to be the case, and I do not believe you can accomplish this task.

Thus, a resurrection is an extraordinary claim. Just like a haunted house is an extraordinary claim.

Agreed!

Extraordinary evidence, to support these extra ordinary claims, could/would be many independent and corroborated eyewitnesses.

How in the world would this be considered to be, "extraordinary" evidence? What is out of the ordinary for many folks to report the same event? What would be "extraordinary", of the many who report witnessing the events of 9-11, since many would have been there to witness the event? Simply because there may not have been "many" (as you put it) to witness a certain event, does not cause the witnesses we do have, to be any less reliable.

Again, the claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not something you have come up with on your own. Rather, it is a clever saying, which sounds good to the ears, but has no real substance.

But even today, though we have countless haunted house claims, which require 'evidence', we somehow do not get all these corroborated 'eyewitness' accounts. Or do we? Many believe these things exist, and many don't.

As I told you prior, I do not currently accept any 'supernatural' claims as fact; as the evidence for all such claims is lacking. Why? Because the evidence is not extraordinary... Maybe if all the doubters to these haunted houses hired their own independent film crew, captured a bunch of 'haunting' footage, and then the skeptics to the claim verified no modification?

You are "way out there now" bringing in things which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the claim of the resurrection? In other words, debating the evidence which may, or may not support one extraordinary claim, would have nothing to do with the evidence supporting another. It would be best to simply stick to the evidence we have for the claim of the resurrection, and we can do this if you take up the offer above.

I'll do you one better. For decades, what compelled me to retain my belief that "Jesus must have actually resurrected" was the ongoing claim that we have 100's of 'eyewitnesses'. This was, of course, until I read the Bible for myself. When I got to this arena, I was quite disappointed to find out we likely have little or no evidence to support the assertion/claim made in 1 Corinthians 15:6

Or how about the claim in Matthew 27:52? No others notice this and record it? The rising dead must have not been extraordinary, during these times? It was so mundane, no one reported it, besides the anonymous claim itself. Sure, you could say that most were illiterate and couldn't write about it. But again, then God is telling the reader to rely upon 'faith' that such an extraordinary event actually happened.

I am afraid you have not "done me one better". Because you see, the question was, "why don't you give me any sort of evidence that what we have contained in the NT would be, "legend, oral tradition"? What you have supplied, would not be evidence in the least.

Aside from using the "Book", how might I investigate a resurrection claim?

The first thing you can do is to stop thinking the "Book" is making any sort of claims. Rather, what we have contained in the "Book" is multiple disconnected witnesses who report the same exact event. The next thing I would suggest, is to take up my offer above.

[otseng]

Moderator Intervention

OK, that's enough of the personal comments. Please return to discussing the OP.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[We_Are_VENOM]

My apologies WAV, but I take my inspiration from whatever you post.

Your comment is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

This is projection at its finest right here.

The opinions expressed by anonymous biblical authors carry no weight with me so I don't understand why you would bother to quote them.

So, there is nothing for you to worry about, correct?

[otseng]

This is projection at its finest right here.

Moderator Warning


I said to cease the personal comments.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #128]

Bring all the smoke here..

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38947

This topic is asking why you really believe. My interest is to explore the main topic which drives your god belief. Though I'm sure 'first cause' and 'the resurrection' are near and dear to your heart, I have my doubts this is the lynch pin to your god beliefs. We are just starting to touch upon a topic, for which may be the actual driving force for your god belief. This is what I would like to instead really explore further. You claim the 'Holy Spirit" speaks with you. Heck, you have even alluded to the notion that the 'Holy Spirit" speaks with me... So I ask you anew:

1. Did you always agree with the Bible's position on slavery, women in church, whipping your kids, and the gays, (or) did you need to be persuaded about any of these topics by the Holy Spirit?

2. When you feel a 'heat wave', I guess this is the Holy Spirit? If so, how do you know 'heat wave sensation' is His method of communication?

3. Does this mean, when a Christian is whipping their child, keeping a slave, telling a woman not to lead in church, or telling a gay person (s)he is going to hell, and this Christian feels a 'heat wave', this means the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding or rewarding them too?