I’ve been apart of several debates and discussions in my day and I’ve always saw that real trouble usual came when the topic was discussing truisms that were only relevant to the poster, specifically the theological one that claims “God exists”

The one thing that gets me is that there are so many people who identify their set of truths with themselves that they are incapable of acknowledging a more convincing set of truths. The sheer magnitude of their investiture in these personal truths would necessitate, if found to be false, a entire reworking of their lives.

Can any belief system be argued at any level except for it’s the historical and cultural significance?

Objective reality exists outside us, but it seems that each person comes up with or accepts someone else’s interpretation of reality, and they call that truth.  While a few are able to examine their beliefs and recognize inconsistencies or errors, then modify their view of reality, most appear to be incapable or unwilling to do that.  We see examples of the former in this Forum from members who have said they were raised and believed in theism, but later saw that it didn’t square with reality. 

I think most belief systems should be argued or accepted based only on observed physical reality. 

Occam

I’ve found that many people would rather believe something that is self-serving and reassuring than something perhaps more bleak and evidential. In the end, they don’t believe certain truths because it is emotionally hurtful and raises anxiety. It’s very tiresome to try to convince people of obvious truths when they would rather plug their ears and believe they go to Disney Land when they die.

Callisto Enceladus - 20 March 2014 08:40 AM

I’ve found that many people would rather believe something that is self-serving and reassuring than something perhaps more bleak and evidential. In the end, they don’t believe certain truths because it is emotionally hurtful and raises anxiety. It’s very tiresome to try to convince people of obvious truths when they would rather plug their ears and believe they go to Disney Land when they die.

I have run into that a lot with Christians. Many have told me they believe in their god because they cannot live with the reality (not their word) that there is no god.

That’s certainly true, but I’ve found in the past few years that as many people get really old they begin to get sick and tired of living and can’t wait to be finished with it.  I figure I’ve got about five to seven more years of having fun and giving people hell, then I’ll probably decide I’m ready. 

Occam

Callisto Enceladus - 20 March 2014 08:40 AM

I’ve found that many people would rather believe something that is self-serving and reassuring than something perhaps more bleak and evidential. In the end, they don’t believe certain truths because it is emotionally hurtful and raises anxiety. It’s very tiresome to try to convince people of obvious truths when they would rather plug their ears and believe they go to Disney Land when they die.

Getting comfortable with death and having a basis for morality were the two biggest obstacles o dropping theism for me. And as Pascal’s Wager is so widely known, I suspect it is true for many. The difficulty in overcoming them is you have to develop the non-theistic system before you can accept it. It’s harder to do than just reading it in a book.

For me, I needed to get a better understanding of both evolution and cosmology. Maybe I was a harder sell than some but at least I had the freedom and resources to explore it for myself. If you are surrounded by the counter claims and kept busy with your sacraments, you never even get a chance to consider the alternatives.

Occam. - 20 March 2014 05:49 PM

That’s certainly true, but I’ve found in the past few years that as many people get really old they begin to get sick and tired of living and can’t wait to be finished with it.  I figure I’ve got about five to seven more years of having fun and giving people hell, then I’ll probably decide I’m ready. 

Occam

More likely you will then say, “I figure I’ve got about five to seven more years of having fun and giving people hell, then I’ll probably decide I’m ready.” 

Lausten - 23 March 2014 06:25 AM

Callisto Enceladus - 20 March 2014 08:40 AM

I’ve found that many people would rather believe something that is self-serving and reassuring than something perhaps more bleak and evidential. In the end, they don’t believe certain truths because it is emotionally hurtful and raises anxiety. It’s very tiresome to try to convince people of obvious truths when they would rather plug their ears and believe they go to Disney Land when they die.

Getting comfortable with death and having a basis for morality were the two biggest obstacles o dropping theism for me. And as Pascal’s Wager is so widely known, I suspect it is true for many. The difficulty in overcoming them is you have to develop the non-theistic system before you can accept it. It’s harder to do than just reading it in a book.

For me, I needed to get a better understanding of both evolution and cosmology. Maybe I was a harder sell than somebut at least I had the freedom and resources to explore it for myself. If you are surrounded by the counter claims and kept busy with your sacraments, you never even get a chance to consider the alternatives.

I doubt that, since you did change. Many people refuse to accept any evidence or to understand Evolution. I can’t tell you the amount of times I’ve heard something like, “If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?” or watching someone’s face as you answered the question of what came first—the chicken or the egg. The very fact that you changed your position and were open to new information, to me, tells me you’re not that hard of a sell; everyone needs thorough convincing.

I think the egg came first.  I think it was laid by some creature that was not quite a chicken (the newly forming chicken inside the egg, being a mutation of its progenitor).