As I’ve posted over the years, various impressions have nestled in my booze drenched mind. One, for example, is that religious folk never actually convince unreligious folk that a God exists and visa versa. No matter how strong their arguments, I’ve not ever once seen one person converted either way. If something is so rigid, it can only be right. And considering the two are contradictory (either there is a God or there is not), it can only mean that God is personal. You either believe or you don’t. Which means, to me, that it’s either genetic or brainwashed.
But, that’s a whole other topic for a whole other thread (or my manuscript: “The g gene”, should you ever be able to get hold of it).
Another theme I’ve noticed is that no matter how much proof one arguments a political stance with, people who are opposed to it always refer to it is as conspiracy nonsense.
Whether it’s right-wingers declaring there’s a Southern American communist coup happening or it’s left-wingers claiming the Iraq war was about the price of oil. The opposite side screams: “Conspiracy.”
To do a Carrie Bradshaw on you: “Is calling ‘conspiracy’ then an actual exclamation of defeat? Does it mean you can’t win the argument with facts?”
Sorry. I hate her monologues too.
A recent example from a two friends of mine:
One of them suggested that the Chinese were responsible for the European renaissance. Another cried: “Rubbish.”
The argument commenced and eventually they were both calling each other conspiracy nuts.
Funnily enough, the whole debate is based upon a single semi-academic, known bender of truths and drunken submarine captain who wrote one book on the subject, which was never scientifically tested and was laughed at by all his peers (including me, when I read he’d actually caused a submarine accident as well… there goes one’s reliable sources… hehehe).
But back to politics.
I claim that Israel is actively undermining any peace initiative with the Palestinians, because they want the whole of Israel for themselves.
I claim that Iran is building nuclear weapons and is hell bent on blowing Israel back to 1001BC… just before they had a homeland.
There would seem ample proof in both cases. Yet some of us will shout conspiracy at one of them. Some of us will shout conspiracy at the other of them.
How many of us shout conspiracy at both or neither of them?
Does this mean that we’re so simplistic that our personal politics actually stop us from looking into matters in more detail? And if so, does calling “conspiracy” actually mean: “Too lazy to actually bother?”
Or, what if someone claims their house is being bugged by aliens. They claim there’s a conspiracy against them and we claim that they’re a conspiracy theorist.
And in this case, it would seem that calling someone ‘a conspiracy theorist’ is actually calling them paranoid. And it’s not nice to call people names, especially considering that just because they’re paranoid, doesn’t mean the aliens aren’t out to get them.
What do you reckon?
Originally posted by shavixmirThat makes no sense.
One, for example, is that religious folk never actually convince unreligious folk that a God exists and visa versa. No matter how strong their arguments, I’ve not ever once seen one person converted either way. If something is so rigid, it can only be right. And considering the two are contradictory (either there is a God or there is not), it can only mea ...[text shortened]... l. You either believe or you don’t. Which means, to me, that it’s either genetic or brainwashed.
For the past hundred years (give or take a few decades), how can anyone dispute that the percentage of atheists/deists/agnostics/anyone who doesn't believe in religion, has increased with every generation, especially in the West?
Obviously, many or most of those were born religious and had to be convinced.
Originally posted by shavixmirYou cant convince me ever to try fromunda cheese.
As I’ve posted over the years, various impressions have nestled in my booze drenched mind. One, for example, is that religious folk never actually convince unreligious folk that a God exists and visa versa. No matter how strong their arguments, I’ve not ever once seen one person converted either way. If something is so rigid, it can only be right. And cons ...[text shortened]... because they’re paranoid, doesn’t mean the aliens aren’t out to get them.
What do you reckon?
Originally posted by shavixmirI was converted both to and from religion. It just didn't happen in a moment.
As I’ve posted over the years, various impressions have nestled in my booze drenched mind. One, for example, is that religious folk never actually convince unreligious folk that a God exists and visa versa. No matter how strong their arguments, I’ve not ever once seen one person converted either way. If something is so rigid, it can only be right. And cons ...[text shortened]... because they’re paranoid, doesn’t mean the aliens aren’t out to get them.
What do you reckon?
Originally posted by sh76Referring to someone as being "born religious" and being "raised in a religious environment" are completely different. The first would be a crackpot theory, the second is common or garden inculcation and manipulation. Different things. It was a very odd choice of words on your part.
I mean born to a religious family and raised in a religious environment, where religious belief and religious practice are expected.
Originally posted by sh76That doesn't make sense.
That makes no sense.
For the past hundred years (give or take a few decades), how can anyone dispute that the percentage of atheists/deists/agnostics/anyone who doesn't believe in religion, has increased with every generation, especially in the West?
Obviously, many or most of those were born religious and had to be convinced.
Try convincing someone to be religious or not. It "usually" doesn't work.
It seems to me that it's more likely an X-percentage of the population has religion and an Y-percentage doesn't. On top of that you have indoctrination, like in the middle-ages.
So, say 70% of the population believes in a God, but 99% of the population thinks it believes in a God.
The only convincing happening (one way or another), is when someone thinks something, but isn't actually it.
Didn't Darwin change his mind?
In my expirence when a person comes to a point where they have hit the bottom, some suddenly realise there might be a God and call out to Him, even if they decided long ago that He didn't exist.
I think it's to do with one's concept of God, and if it fits what they beleive a god should be like; for example say you read in the Bible that God changed His attitude towards humans, and you imiagined that a god in your picture of a god wouldn't be changing; you'd be unable to except that He exists becasue the two things don't fit. But if you challange your picture of God then perhaps....
Originally posted by yo its meI think people call out God's name because that's what they're used to doing.
Didn't Darwin change his mind?
In my expirence when a person comes to a point where they have hit the bottom, some suddenly realise there might be a God and call out to Him, even if they decided long ago that He didn't exist.
I think it's to do with one's concept of God, and if it fits what they beleive a god should be like; for example say you read ...[text shortened]... casue the two things don't fit. But if you challange your picture of God then perhaps....
So, my answer is. I think to call something a conspiracy is to say that you don't fully understand what's happened either because you're too lazy to look at all the facts or they're not avaliable to you. There must be somethings that aren't in the public domain like evidene that people have messed up, the fabrication of weapons of mass distruction for example. So how would you know if it's a real cover up or if it's laziness? Only if, as you say, what's in one's head differs to what the reality is, but how would anyone know which is which!? haha