mererdog

Think about humor. You don't make a decision to find things funny, you simply react to things, finding some things to be funny. Those reactions are largely shaped by your prior experiences, on a level well below the conscious- and also by the hormones that shape your mood. This is why we often laugh when we don't want to, or even when doing so is inconvenient or even dangerous. Belief seems to be very similar. We don't seem to be wired to believe certain ways, our beliefs just seem to be more or less beyond our control. Something that happens to us rather than something we do. We "become convinced" rather than "deciding to be convinced." If this is true, it means it is as patently unfair to fault someone for a bad belief as it is to fault someone for having a broken leg. It also means that avoiding bad beliefs is reason to feel fortunate, not reason to brag.

Why? Is it your experience that you can pick and choose what to believe? In my experience, it simply does not work that way- and the science seems to back up my experience. All the empirical evidence I have seen suggests that anyone claiming they chose to believe something is simply wrong. It further suggests that anyone who claims to be able to know whether or not they can be swayed by evidence is also wrong. The reason is simple: belief does not seem to be produced by a conscious, rational process, but rather by a subconscious process that is largely emotionally-driven. Now, for the record, the agnostic "party line" does not welcome evidence. When we declare something "unknowable" we are saying that we arent going to bother to look at new evidence, because we have already decided that new evidence will not lead to new knowledge. And while not all self-described agnostics make the "unknowable" declaration, it has historically been a key component of the common definitions of the term. The whole "I don't know, but neither does anybody else" thing is not really an indicator of an open mind, in my opinion...

It is very similar. The important difference is that people rarely make the argument "I have free will but your actions are deterministic in nature." Usually, it is a given that either we all have free will or none of us do. But there is a sort of reflexive tendency to treat closedmindedness solely as a flaw that The Other has...

Is it where you only eat humans?

Consider for a moment that the only difference between the two may be self-awareness. The agnostic may believe he can be persuaded by evidence but, in reality, maybe he cannot. The agnostic may believe he has been convinced by evidence, but maybe his base-level bias has simply led to different specific beliefs over time. It poses the interesting question: If my mind is closed, is it useful to think my mind is open? As for what faith has produced... Throughout history, faith has given men the courage to follow their dreams and struggle against adversity. It was faith that made the trip across the ocean to the New World a possibility for many. Faith has motivated the creation of great works like the Pyramids and Hoover Dam. Faith gave scribes and artists the time and resources they needed to practice, and provided an incentive for their works to be protected through the ages. It was faith that let leaders believe they could trust their fellow men enough to allow for the establishment of liberal democracy and the expansion of human rights. On a personal level, without faith, I could not be married. None of this is to say that faith has not led to tragedy and terror. But it is a simple fact that everything that is powerful is also dangerous.

According to modern cognitive science, how we interpret evidence is largely determined by our preexisting biases. When we are preconditioned to believe something, it is very difficult to see anything as evidence that it is not so, but easy to see everything as evidence that it is. This means that it is entirely possible to continue waiting for evidence long after seeing evidence- to think we are looking for proof when we are really ignoring proof. It is a phenomenon that is usually easy to spot when it happens to others, but is usually impossible to spot when it happens to ourselves. A very funny and very scary twist on this is that I may only believe the cognitive scientists about bias because I am biased to do so.

"Note: No group is excluded from posting a reply in any area. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to participate everywhere. Others who do not study the same practice are welcomed to add comments and questions to compare, contrast and learn."

The reason they are called outside influences is that they influence. If they are not a factor in your decisions, you are calling them the wrong thing. No one makes decisions in a vacuum. Truth be told, none of us are truly free in our thinking. We are all shackled by our biases and chained to our conditioning. It is both a bug and a feature. On the one hand, it can blind us to important truths. On the other hand, it can allow us to act with confidence in the face of objective uncertainty.

Are you getting cryptic on us? I figure you can't really plan for the sort of thing you're talking about. My best asset in that sort of situation is probably that I am used to not planning. I know how to assess and improvise on the fly. Strangers can be a great asset, as you say, but relying on strangers is basically just relying on luck, so it is probably not a good survival strategy.

Your sister's take on the subject seems to be innaccurate (as was mine, and thank you for pointing that out to me) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes_in_Judaism

Technically speaking, tithes are the money given by the congregation to support the church.

Ok. Personally, I don't think it is true. Maybe metaphorically, depending on the metaphor, but not literally. I also hold that the present is a cultivated illusion, though...

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I don't usually enjoy reading scripts. The exceptions to the rule have been the screenplay for Back To The Future, and the script for a stage adaptation of the movie Adaptation (not to be confused with a stage adaptation of The Orchid Thief).

Actually, it doesn't. Mostly because the conscience is not rational. I am capable of being completely convinced I am doing the right thing, yet completely wracked with guilt over what I am doing. It seems to be the same basic phenomenon as being angry with someone for doing something, even though you know they should have done it. Its kind of stupid and kind of unavoidable.

It helps to alleviate the guilt and shame that inevitably come from being an imperfect being with a conscience. In other words, being forgiven helps us forgive ourselves.

I don't think it is. At best, I think you can just forget about it temporarily. Once reminded of the wrong you did not forgive, the anger will come bubbling back up, the same as ever. That is how it works in my experience, anyway. It isn't until I can get past the idea that someone owes me a debt that I can stop resenting it not being paid. If I hold onto the grudge, the grudge keeps its hold on me. I suspect we may end up talking past each other on this one by each saying the same things but with words the other finds unfamiliar...

You can't really know yourself, any more than you can know the wind. Nothing about you is permanent. Everything about you has changed, is changing, and will change. The self is a cultivated illusion.

And if no one ate meat, no one would be a vegetarian. Since no one eats diamonds, we don't have a word for people who don't eat diamonds, you dig? Vegetarianism exists as a response to meat eating. Atheism exists as a response to theism. Pacifism exists as a response to violence. Anarchism exists as a response to government. Without the one, you can't have the other. Without understanding the one, you can't understand the other.

If no one ever claimed that god existed, why would you ever say you didn't believe in god? Atheism is a response to the claim that god(s) exist(s). Without the theist to contrast to, the term is meaningless.

"I dont believe you" is the core of atheism. A theist says "There is a god!" and an atheist replies "I dont believe you." Details will differ with temperament, but the core remains unchanged. Note that without the theist to reply to, atheism becomes a moot concept. Atheism is not falsifiable because atheism does not make any claims or predictions that can be tested. Atheists make claims. Atheism does not.

Atheism is an umbrella term. There is no built-in specificity to the word. I really don't get why you keep capitalizing it. Are you talking about a specific person or group that claims the word as a title, rather than the generic descriptor.

The correct answer is "everyone." You get to define it. I get to define it. The Pope gets to define it. You don't have to be limited by how the Pope defines it. The Pope doesn't have to pay any attention to my definition. I don't have to agree with your definition. Aside from trademark issues, no one owns words. You get to use them how you like, defining them accordngly. And so does everyone else. If I wish to define "Christian" as "a small bag of sand" there is no real reason I shouldn't- It would just leave me in a position where it takes extra effort to understand and be understood.

What is an"actual definition"? The term started as a pejorative used by religious people to mock nonbelievers. It has been used in a lot if different ways by a lot of different people since then. Atheism has no hierarchy and no leader, so no one to provide an "official definition." Merriam-Webster lists the most common definition as- Definition of atheism 1a :a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods b :a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

No it isn't. You can neither prove nor disprove the statement "I don't believe you."