Are theists dumb by default?

[gnostic]

I won't ask you your age gnostic, but I can assure you from experience that memory doesn't improve with age.

Thank you, Ben.

And yes, I agreed.

My most active years with Timeless Myths were between 1999 and 2007. By 2009 and onwards, I was way too busy to focus on my site, but kept it running until last year when I sold my site.

The site is still running, look different, but they are all my works.

Anyway, I have lots of materials (eg research notes) that didn’t make it to the site. So there are a lot of things that I only remember today, are generalities rather than specific. Too much materials that I can only vaguely recall.

For instance, not recalling WHO did WHAT - WHEN ...is part of the problem with my memory. Like when you remember the face but not the name of the person.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As I've noted before Jimmy gnostic, you have done some impressive research. Home

Congratulations for what you have created with your life, and the hard work that went with it. Keep it up, there is infinite potential for the human spirit waiting to unfold imho.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact it's something we all do

The fact is that it has nothing to do with my original point about ignorance vs intellect.
Having a genius-like IQ does not, in any way, mean that you are incapable of holding irrational beliefs.

So your initial comment of "then all humans are dumb", does not at all follow from the statement I made that you replied that too.

Newton was a genius and without a doubt had a massive IQ.
And as mentioned, that didn't stop him from going all-in on alchemy.

Dumb, ignorant, irrational. 3 separate things.

You can be dumb and yet rational.
You can be ignorant and irrational, but not dumb.
You can be intellectual and ignorant and yet rational.
Etc

These are 3 different things and one does not exclude (or necessarily include) the other.

And if someone believing something that can be shown to be wrong makes that person dumb

I never said that. That's what you made of it.
In fact, I alluded to the opposite by saying Newton was a genius yet believed irrational things (alchemy) due to ignorance. So no, regardless of his pursuit of alchemy, Newton was a genius.

A genius is very capable of being wrong. Or irrational.

, then we are all dumb because we all are guilty of believing stuff that isn't true and can be shown it isn't true. There's no getting out of it. It's a part of being human.

We can all be wrong. That doesn't mean we are all dumb.
Being wrong doesn't mean one is dumb.

 

[gnostic]

I don’t think being wrong or ignorant as bad, as long as that person recognize and acknowledge his or her error, and learn from it and accept when corrected.

 

[halbhh]

Of course you can. People ask Gods for things all the time. When they don't work out they have pre-set answers - God had something better in mind down the road or I needed to go through thing. There are many ways to account for a non-answer.
But occasionally you get something you asked for that seemed like a longshot. For one thing longshots do happen, especially if you are putting your attention on something. But if you prayed to a God first then it's going to stand way out as a "hit" or as an answered prayer.

When I was religious all amazing luck went to God power and when I wasn't nothing changed I just realized stuff sometimes works out.
Even people with a serious illness that has only 20% survival rate, if there are 1000 people with the disease this year there will be 200 people who survived. Those who prayed will conclude a miracle happened and they were saved by a supernatural agent.
Studies have been done as well on prayer and never produced positive results in terms of mortality rates and illness.

Zeus will answer your prayers at the exact same frequency as any other God if you really believed he could. That's how it works.
When you turn your attention to something things start happening. You make connections, put yourself out there. If one thinks a God is helping them they will ignore dead ends and notice when interesting coincidences happen.

I just heard a fundamentalist police officer say Jesus told him to look behind him while he was in his car looking for a man with a gun. He then saw the man.
Except when you are in a car and looking for a gunman who is on foot your head is looking everywhere. There is no doubt he looked behind him several times. The time he looked and saw the guy he convinced himself that was the time an "inner voice" was telling him. Obviously when looking for a gunman every so many seconds your brain is going to say "LOOK BEHIND YOU AGAIN!"
Then he thought that people being shot in the same spot on the chest and some dying and some living meant a supernatural agent was at work.
somehow he forgot that not all guns are fired from the same distance, angle, the person is moving different and any slight angle change will change the way the energy is dispersed. Causing sometimes a fatal shot and sometimes and near-miss.
This is all confirmation bias.

Here's something that might help (but only if you can hear it).

You try to paint that I have merely a (frankly foolish) unawareness of confirmation bias or can't think clearly.

That I'd take just unusual coincidence as some proof, etc. Like someone that can't even think clearly or hasn't a clue about basic stuff anyone learns in the sciences. (that we need reproducible evidence and so on, really basic science standards)

Your speculation about me and my experience -- a characterization -- you just wrote above.

Consider: is it the best way to find more of what's out there to just try to make someone else's experiences fit your preferred theory/viewpoint? -- whether it's that nothing miraculous can happen, God can't exist, all 'miracles' are self-deception, confirmation bias, etc.

Your own statement: "This is all confirmation bias."

And that attempt, itself, you are doing to paint what I try to report as just confirmation bias, etc. -- the insistence it has to be that way --

Is itself actually a type of confirmation bias!

So much better, for anyone, than just trying to make all the world fit our theories, is to instead of that to begin more to test and explore and find new things, unexpected.

The Universe is vast, full of amazing things. So much to find and learn and explore.

 

[joelr]

Here's something that might help (but only if you can hear it).

You try to paint that I have merely a (frankly foolish) unawareness of confirmation bias or can't think clearly.

That I'd take just unusual coincidence as some proof, etc. Like someone that can't even think clearly or hasn't a clue about basic stuff anyone learns in the sciences. (that we need reproducible evidence and so on, really basic science standards)

Your speculation about me and my experience -- a characterization -- you just wrote above.

Consider: is it the best way to find more of what's out there to just try to make someone else's experiences fit your preferred theory/viewpoint? -- whether it's that nothing miraculous can happen, God can't exist, all 'miracles' are self-deception, confirmation bias, etc.

Your own statement: "This is all confirmation bias."

And that attempt, itself, you are doing to paint what I try to report as just confirmation bias, etc. -- the insistence it has to be that way --

Is itself actually a type of confirmation bias!

So much better, for anyone, than just trying to make all the world fit our theories, is to instead of that to begin more to test and explore and find new things, unexpected.

The Universe is vast, full of amazing things. So much to find and learn and explore.

Yeah the universe is great. But you seem to forget what I was responding to, it was this:

"Right, Zeus isn't a real god, because of course I can't ask him to do something extremely unlikely or such and then have it happen, against the current circumstances."

Well that sounds exactly like confirmation bias????? What does "current circumstances" mean?
You didn't say you can't ask him to re-grow limbs, allow you to fly, feed hungry by creating bread and fish from nothing, heal so many people from end stage cancer or fatal diseases with no known cure that it goes against the mortality rates for the people in that age/economic status, or somehow do something the laws of physics would not normally allow?

Current circumstances means none of those things. It sounds like a vague statement that will allow you to pick an event that trends in a slightly different direction and call it "God power" helping you.

Things we set out to do will often go against current circumstances. Every person in every religion and non-religion has moments where someone defeated odds or had an amazing coincidence that changed their life for the better. That is part of normal life. If you happen to pray to a deity and any of those things happen (they will) then it's an automatic "hit"?
If you have a problem with me framing that as confirmation bias then why write it in the first place?

You wrote down an example of a "miracle" as the most mundane circumstance possible. How often does everyone have a time where everything is going against then despite trying hard, then suddenly some amazing thing happens. You get that dream job, or a new mate, or blah, blah. Welcome to everyone's life. That is not a miracle. It's probability. When you try to create changes, meet new people, new connections, stuff happens. You do it. Not miracles.

If you ask Zeus enough (combined with action) you will find your answered prayers. You will look back and see how he led to all the perfect places to learn all the lessons you needed. When you finally get to where you are going you will then see why the road was long and how everything happened for a reason.
If it works for Islam, Krishna, Scientology, Jesus, Buddha, and everything people pry on then it will work for Zeus.

 

[halbhh]

Yeah the universe is great. But you seem to forget what I was responding to, it was this:

"Right, Zeus isn't a real god, because of course I can't ask him to do something extremely unlikely or such and then have it happen, against the current circumstances."

Well that sounds exactly like confirmation bias????? What does "current circumstances" mean?
You didn't say you can't ask him to re-grow limbs, allow you to fly, feed hungry by creating bread and fish from nothing, heal so many people from end stage cancer or fatal diseases with no known cure that it goes against the mortality rates for the people in that age/economic status, or somehow do something the laws of physics would not normally allow?

Current circumstances means none of those things. It sounds like a vague statement that will allow you to pick an event that trends in a slightly different direction and call it "God power" helping you.

Things we set out to do will often go against current circumstances. Every person in every religion and non-religion has moments where someone defeated odds or had an amazing coincidence that changed their life for the better. That is part of normal life. If you happen to pray to a deity and any of those things happen (they will) then it's an automatic "hit"?
If you have a problem with me framing that as confirmation bias then why write it in the first place?

You wrote down an example of a "miracle" as the most mundane circumstance possible. How often does everyone have a time where everything is going against then despite trying hard, then suddenly some amazing thing happens. You get that dream job, or a new mate, or blah, blah. Welcome to everyone's life. That is not a miracle. It's probability. When you try to create changes, meet new people, new connections, stuff happens. You do it. Not miracles.

If you ask Zeus enough (combined with action) you will find your answered prayers. You will look back and see how he led to all the perfect places to learn all the lessons you needed. When you finally get to where you are going you will then see why the road was long and how everything happened for a reason.
If it works for Islam, Krishna, Scientology, Jesus, Buddha, and everything people pry on then it will work for Zeus.

If you need to insist I have only confirmation bias and cannot think of how to test things more objectively like any scientist...

If that's what you need to think, no one will stop you.

But you could.

 

[joelr]

If you need to insist I have only confirmation bias and cannot think of how to test things more objectively like any scientist...

If that's what you need to think, no one will stop you.

But you could.

Where do I say you only have confirmation bias? You provided one example of which I was commenting on. That example sounds like confirmation bias. Your example wasn't even of any type of miraculous nature. Events happening that go against current circumstances is something that happens all the time.
On top of that usually the event is something we are actively attempting to manifest. Eventually, with effort, causing an event that goes against current circumstances is almost certain.
You actually can get the same results praying to Zeus and I personally know others who have done this praying to Allah, Krishna and using the law of attraction to manifest their reality.

In all cases they also used confirmation bias to attribute the events to their supernatural connection. Why did you use this example if you are now so insulted by a basic analysis of it?

Being able to be objective and scientific doesn't mean that someone still cannot hold beliefs in one area that are not supported by good evidence and may also use confirmation bias to support those beliefs.

 

[halbhh]

Where do I say you only have confirmation bias? You provided one example of which I was commenting on. That example sounds like confirmation bias. Your example wasn't even of any type of miraculous nature. Events happening that go against current circumstances is something that happens all the time.
On top of that usually the event is something we are actively attempting to manifest. Eventually, with effort, causing an event that goes against current circumstances is almost certain.
You actually can get the same results praying to Zeus and I personally know others who have done this praying to Allah, Krishna and using the law of attraction to manifest their reality.

In all cases they also used confirmation bias to attribute the events to their supernatural connection. Why did you use this example if you are now so insulted by a basic analysis of it?

Being able to be objective and scientific doesn't mean that someone still cannot hold beliefs in one area that are not supported by good evidence and may also use confirmation bias to support those beliefs.

Your view is rational, plausible, logical, and often correct in my view.

Also, you might not have a way to know you've suggested I'm doing what I see as a very simple, basic error -- that confirmation bias is what anyone should check for first, and 2nd, and repeatedly, if they have much good sense.

So, basically, you have to see me as especially incompetent then, it appears.

If that's your attitude, I think that no one can fix that but you. You'd have to be the one that chooses to investigate if something surprising could exist, contrary to current view, in a non biased new way. (instead of only seeking repeated confirmation of an old view)

 

[joelr]

Your view is rational, plausible, logical, and often correct in my view.

Also, you might not have a way to know you've suggested I'm doing what I see as a very simple, basic error -- that confirmation bias is what anyone should check for first, and 2nd, and repeatedly, if they have much good sense.

So, basically, you have to see me as especially incompetent then, it appears.

If that's your attitude, I think that no one can fix that but you. You'd have to be the one that chooses to investigate if something surprising could exist, contrary to current view, in a non biased new way. (instead of only seeking repeated confirmation of an old view)

If you are someone who is praying and attributing success in your life as answered prayer (it sounds like this is the case) then why are you suggesting I am the one who needs a non-bias view?
Science has already told us the world is probabilistic and that humans are pattern seeking and tend to back up belief systems by ignoring some events and highlighting others that back up beliefs. There has also been comprehensive prayer studies done which can be found online and well as the realization that the thing people pray for the most is their health and heath of others.
But we have very consistent mortality rates for illness. So there is no outside force changing these statistics.
So unless one has stories of the laws of biology or physics being broken then there are no answered prayers.
I am always interested in hearing about a miracle story. But "unbiased" doesn't mean forgetting probability, logic and so on?

I'm not sure what you are getting at?

 

[halbhh]

If you are someone who is praying and attributing success in your life as answered prayer (it sounds like this is the case) then why are you suggesting I am the one who needs a non-bias view?
Science has already told us the world is probabilistic and that humans are pattern seeking and tend to back up belief systems by ignoring some events and highlighting others that back up beliefs. There has also been comprehensive prayer studies done which can be found online and well as the realization that the thing people pray for the most is their health and heath of others.
But we have very consistent mortality rates for illness. So there is no outside force changing these statistics.
So unless one has stories of the laws of biology or physics being broken then there are no answered prayers.
I am always interested in hearing about a miracle story. But "unbiased" doesn't mean forgetting probability, logic and so on?

I'm not sure what you are getting at?

A scientist doesn't form a conclusion about unobserved things. If they have a view, they admit it is only a viewpoint or guess.

While most people won't have that really excellent standard a scientist has, it's a good standard to aim for in life where possible, and try to do, in my opinion.

So, therefore my own attitude is the every atheist position that believes God absolutely cannot exist isn't the best approach, in my view, because it is not the approach of a scientist. Therefore, I see only agnostics alone among atheists as having the best standard, in that regard.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I voted "No"; and if the answer is "yes", then atheists are also "dumb by default".

Theists are not stupid. Many are unwilling or unable to set aside their religious views or to change their views to be in accordance with observable reality. The reality of human psychology can be summed up as thus: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". The enigma of human beings holding to a given belief in spite of contradictory evidence is a phenomenon with implications beyond religion; and as it is a trait that all human beings share, it is inappropriate to single out one group of human beings, call them "stupid", and insult them. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Belief perseverance - Wikipedia