Why Are Things Believed ?

@moonbus said
What you’re talking about are mores. The customs of your tribe or society. It occurred to some Hebrews and Babylonians and Greeks and others to write them down at some point in the distant past, and they were delivered to us as if from a higher power. Transcendental ventriloquism.

The question here is, how do people come to believe that? What is the psychological process, ...[text shortened]... way we learn a language and table manners and nursery rhymes and which side of the road to drive on.

The question here is, how do people come to believe that? What is the psychological process,


If you would please go back and read my post, you'd see I already answered your questions. People come to believe that because God wrote the law on their hearts, people who have never read the Bible instinctively know there is a God. As to your 2nd question, there is no "psychological process" It is simply divinely inspired instinct.

@mchill said
People come to believe that because God wrote the law on their hearts, people who have never read the Bible instinctively know there is a God.

People who have never read the Bible instinctively know there is a God

Gosh.

@kellyjay said
Some people, if you want to segregate people, then do so.

"Segregate"?

@kellyjay said
Some people don't believe in the holocaust either, some don't believe man walked
on the moon, and some think dead dirt is the origin of all life by a long string of
good fortune.

So you accept that your Jesus-Auschwitz-Birkenau stuff is just your personal opinion in a way that's comparable to personal opinions about the holocaust not happening, the moon landings being fake, and about "dead dirt is the origin of all life"? You are now accepting that your faith is a set of interlocking opinions?

@fmf said
So you accept that your Jesus-Auschwitz-Birkenau stuff is just your personal opinion in a way that's comparable to personal opinions about the holocaust not happening, the moon landings being fake, and about "dead dirt is the origin of all life"? You are now accepting that your faith is a set of interlocking opinions?

I accept there are historical truths, and truth specifically can be denied or accepted.

@kellyjay said
I accept there are historical truths, and truth specifically can be denied or accepted.

Yes, but your assertions about supposedly "historical truths" related to supernatural causality are just personal opinions/beliefs.

@fmf said
Yes, but your assertions about supposedly "historical truths" related to supernatural causality are just personal opinions/beliefs.

Historical truth isn't opinion, it is what happened.
Where natural explanations fail what is left is something that must transcend the
natural world.

@kellyjay said
Historical truth isn't opinion, it is what happened.

The claims people make about "historical truths" related to supernatural causality are just opinions, whether they are yours or mine.

@kellyjay said
Where natural explanations fail what is left is something that must transcend the
natural world.

We can but speculate about things that our current "natural explanations" cannot yet account for.

@kellyjay said
Pick one dive, I can answer you and you still make it up as you go, it doesn't really
matter what I say to you.

If you didn’t want to answer my question, and I can understand why you don’t, then all you had to do was say so.

@fmf said
The claims people make about "historical truths" related to supernatural causality are just opinions, whether they are yours or mine.

You say that as if you know it's a fact you cannot know anything about it, which is
a contradiction, if you couldn't know anything, you wouldn't know, you couldn't
know anything.

You admit you can only have opinions, yet you speak for everyone else as if you
know what they can and cannot know, which isn't just an opinion its a truth
statement about the knowledge of people you do not know.

@divegeester said
If you didn’t want to answer my question, and I can understand why you don’t, then all you had to do was say so.

I think talking to you is a total waste of time; you don't attempt to understand what
another person is saying and most of your conversations are filled with insults.

Did you understand that?

@kellyjay said
You say that as if you know it's a fact you cannot know anything about it, which is
a contradiction, if you couldn't know anything, you wouldn't know, you couldn't
know anything.

This riff, to which you return repeatedly, is discursive drivel.

@kellyjay said
You admit you can only have opinions, yet you speak for everyone else as if you
know what they can and cannot know, which isn't just an opinion its a truth
statement about the knowledge of people you do not know.

We can both only share our opinions on this matter. Both you and me. You use the words "know" and "knowledge" and "the truth" in these conversations like a propagandist and a narcissist.

@fmf said
We can both only share our opinions on this matter. Both you and me. You use the words "know" and "knowledge" and "the truth" in these conversations like a propagandist and a narcissist.

The declaration of limitations of what everyone could know is an assertion you
must repeat several times a week as if it's an unquestionable truth. It assumes
quite a bit as if you know all the variables that would make that true.