Religion: Real or fake, the poll

[Wezil]

Belief and hope are not the same thing.

[Jon Miller]

No, but I didn't say that they are.

Do people who support democracy in the Middle East just hope it will be a good government/etc/etc/etc?

No, they actually believe it.

Despite lacking evidence.

JM

[Wezil]

From this.

Believing things with lacking evidence is rational behavior. Everyone does it. From people who believe their team will win, to people who support democracy in the Middle East, to people who think that providing health care to everyone is a better system then the US one.

JM

[giblets]

No, but I didn't say that they are.

Do people who support democracy in the Middle East just hope it will be a good government/etc/etc/etc?

No, they actually believe it.

Despite lacking evidence.

JM

At this point there is plenty of evidence that democracy is a good system of government. There are plenty of well established democracies you can look at.

[Lorizael]

JM, do you believe (haha) that belief without evidence is rational because of the psychological benefits? That is, you're going to enjoy the game more if you believe your team will win, or you're going to be more motivated to change the healthcare system if you believe the alternative is better?

[Wezil]

I might "believe" that my team will do better next year because they added a new star or replaced the coach (evidence) but simply believing they will do better because they are my team is "hope".

[Jon Miller]

JM, do you believe (haha) that belief without evidence is rational because of the psychological benefits? That is, you're going to enjoy the game more if you believe your team will win, or you're going to be more motivated to change the healthcare system if you believe the alternative is better?

No.

But for me to spend effort and money and lives supporting democracy in the middle east, even my own life (which I don't do, but I know others that do), I need to believe in it.

Just like people believe in religion.

For people who really believe, religion is far more important than democracy in the middle east/etc.

JM

[giblets]

I might "believe" that my team will do better next year because they added a new star or replaced the coach (evidence) but simply believing they will do better because they are my team is "hope".

Religion is more like believing an invisible, supernatural sports team will win next year.

[Jon Miller]

I might "believe" that my team will do better next year because they added a new star or replaced the coach (evidence) but simply believing they will do better because they are my team is "hope".

And you show your lack of reading skills by not reading anything else I wrote but the one example.

Yes, people can hope that their team will win, and they can believe in their team. Yes, they are two different things.

Yes, people do both. Although that is not a requirement of my argument.

If you have a hard time with that one, focus on the other ones.

Display some critical thinking and reading skills, please.

JM

[Wezil]

Ah, I knew it wouldn't be long till the insults started.

JM. How christian of you.

[Jon Miller]

Ah, I knew it wouldn't be long till the insults started.

JM. How christian of you.

Why should I treat you differently than you deserve?

JM

[Wezil]

Keep it up. You'll convert me to that christian love.

It seems to be your default debate style.

1) Take on a losing position
2) Flail about a bit trying to support said position
3) Resort to insults when 2) fails.

[Lorizael]

No.

But for me to spend effort and money and lives supporting democracy in the middle east, even my own life (which I don't do, but I know others that do), I need to believe in it.

Just like people believe in religion.

For people who really believe, religion is far more important than democracy in the middle east/etc.

JM

I'm having trouble understanding why you think belief without evidence is specifically "rational." If it's not for some psychological benefit, why is it rational? Are you arguing that it's rational because it's necessary? That one cannot support a cause without "believing" in it? Does that mean skeptics, who may not believe in an idea but may have evidence that it is superior to the alternative, are incapable of supporting a cause, or are irrational if they support a cause?

[Jon Miller]

I am arguing it is rational because it is necessary.

Most people won't die for things/devote themselves for things/put lots of effort into things without believing in them. Yet doing so is how most of our achievements (all?) have came about.

Most things that require action lack sufficient evidence to be true without any belief.

Additionally, I think if you look at philosophy it would be impossible to do any science/engineering/etc without belief.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Keep it up. You'll convert me to that christian love.

It seems to be your default debate style.

1) Take on a losing position
2) Flail about a bit trying to support said position
3) Resort to insults when 2) fails.

Your default response seems to be:

Lie
Not read what you are responding to
Make stuff up

I base this on the last thread.

When you prove you can talk in a fashion about religion that deserves any civility on my part, you will get it.

JM