I just posted two questions, both called "Do you agree with this?". Both questions contain obviously fallacious reasoning, but one concludes that God must exist, and the other concludes that God does not exist.
The interesting thing is that among the answers saying "you got the logic wrong" we find a rather interesting pattern. Nobody agreed with the "God does not exist" one, but some people did agree with the "God does exist" one. There were no emotional responses to the "God does exist" one but plenty of emotional responses to the "God does NOT exist" one.
This seems to indicate to me that there is a difference in the way believers and non-believers reach their conclusions.
Interesting, no?
2006-09-23 01:44:15 · 18 answers · asked by gee_whillickers 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Funny.
2006-09-23 01:50:50 · answer #1 · answered by *duh* 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
while they obviously reach their conclusions in different ways, this "experiment" is not yet valid, you could have just gotten some random evidence, and it was probably a biased study.
you do not really need an experiment to prove that religious people are more emotional when confronted about their beliefs, because an atheist does not believe in anything therefore is not defending a faith.
2006-09-23 02:00:19 · answer #2 · answered by мΛІ€ҢΛр™ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
--Thomas Jefferson
2006-09-23 01:48:14 · answer #3 · answered by changRdie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are passionate in our expressing the belief that God does exist. It is not that God needs defending because he does not. It is a form of worship that we be passionate about the existence of God. God desires worship and he desires that his followers be passionate towards him. Passionate thought is every bit as important as passionate action. Typing on the computer is more a thought process than action because of the creative aspect of it. It requires that we draw upon our faith and God does look at our faith very closely. Jesus loves you.
2006-09-23 02:00:09 · answer #4 · answered by Preacher 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are some subtleties at work, which seem to escape the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.
A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.
For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."
See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."
But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.
And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight, to be appropriately incorporated into one's world-view However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode, for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down... and ultimately, it will.
So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies, misrepresentations and pseudo-science that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They just keep blithely bopping along, doing what science does... trying to figure out how nature works.
No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded (willing to honestly consider alternative possibilities), intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a conviction that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.
We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.
When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are closed-minded, seeking only VALIDATION of their beliefs... and hence, of their self-description.
*****************
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig
2006-09-23 02:07:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because we do not know how something happened does not prove the existance of God. It just is a lame excuse for not looking for the truth of our existance
2006-09-23 01:56:49 · answer #6 · answered by Stu B 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
sure this is interesting but when you take a survey such as this to expand your knowledge and wisdom you need to expect certain strong opinions on the topic chosen. there are many on both sides who take their position seriously and defend one side or the other in more emotional terms because of their personality.
2006-09-23 01:50:45 · answer #7 · answered by Marvin R 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not surprising to me. One group uses evidence, one uses faith.
What would be interesting is contrasting that with "Do leprechauns exist?".
Funny how the faithful will insist upon the existence of one supernatural being, but decry the other one as ridiculous.
2006-09-23 01:47:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Proving whether or not god exists is a journey with no end.
believing in God requires "Faith" that is believing even though you don't have any "Proof"
2006-09-23 01:52:27 · answer #9 · answered by jlinder_1 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Interesting yes. But I'm not surprised.
2006-09-23 01:49:08 · answer #10 · answered by novagirl117 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋