• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Some new nonsense

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
HelplessAgnostic

Some new nonsense

Unread post

Is it irrational to ignore your psychological and emotional needs? Can submitting your intelligence in favor of your emotions be more rational than denying any sort of superstitions in favor of your intellect?Many people would say, "believe whatever makes you happy." Carl Sagan speaks about this in many of his books. He denies believing in something that he obviously admitted comforts him. It seems to comfort all of us. I'm speaking of the idea that the stars and the Universe were created for us. It is conceited, of course, but it makes us happier to believe in the reality of this claim, doesn't it? Most people say yes.
It's impossible to convince a believer of anything because his belief is not based on evidence, but on a deep-seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
But is believing wrong? Science can't answer whether or not believing in superstitions is wrong enough simply because science does not deal in right or wrongs. Science can only illuminate the many possibilities that we have at our fingertips for choosing. Science cannot, and won't, choose for us. Science gives us a number of choices. But whether or not the choices are right or wrong depend on ethics. Science is morally ambiguous. We human tend to believe in what we DESIRE. If you desire for there to be a god you will more than likely believe in one at least some time in your life. Our emotions are profound motivators for what we make our intellect believe in. We rarely believe in inconclusive claims if we don't DESIRE for these claims to be TRUE. We can fool ourselves into believing anything if the desire for these things is profound enough.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
For things that we desire to believe in skepticism seems to fly out the window, being replaced by gullibility. This is why so many people believe psychics when they claim they have contacted their spiritual relatives.Now let's get to me, personally. I am so much like Carl Sagan that it frightens me. This is why I quote him so much. Our opinions are so much alike. Carl, in so many words, explains that for him he rather see the universe as it really is rather than persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. - Albert Einstein
Does this mean that there is no place in my life for inconclusive claims like god etc? No. I often ponder these ideas and try to make sense of them. Another thing Einstein said is that science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind. A happy medium is fine for me.
CSflim

Some new nonsense

Unread post

A man was very shocked when he read in a book that smoking was extremely bad for his health.As a 20-a-day man, this caused him great stress and anxiety.So he gave up reading.
Sakis Totlis

Re: Some new nonsense

Unread post

Belief is a certain potential presented inside us each time two premises outside match fairly well with each other. It obviously depends on the gullibility, high or low interest, or the highly trained eye of anybody to accept this matching. A painter's trained eye, for instance, would see differences between two hues that an untrained eye would fail to see and it would be a lot harder to persuade an experienced painter for a match between two hues.Talking about God now, we see that the very name (to say the least
Doc Tiessen

Re: Some new nonsense

Unread post

Helpless: science does not deal in right or wrongsExactly! Science is concerned with the truth. It is ethically neutral. Religion is concerned with moral values. I think that it is Ok to believe in Santa Claus as long as this makes you happy and you do not harm other people by your beliefs. The purpose of science is not to make you happy... it only helps to make you more efficient by allowing you to predict the future with certain degree of accuracy... which at the same time gives you technological capabilities. Diversity is Good!
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17000
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3500 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Some new nonsense

Unread post

DocWell said.Chris
Luck of the Draw

some new nonsense....

Unread post

Why is the desire/need to belive in god so strong? Such a universal thing amongst people? And, are skeptics/true believers born that way? Predetermined/pre-programmed?
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”