what is believing all about?

XFixYourBrainX: When people believe, we tend to believe in things that we know might not be real and still we believe.

Even when we want to believe in something and we are even unsure if its real or not we sometimes convince ourselves to believe anyways and sometimes it could be something that doesn't even logically make sense.


Why is this?

And what causes us to have this bad thinking to continue?

XFixYourBrainX: It makes sense that we believe in ideas or things that can comfort us.

XFixYourBrainX: This topic is rarely discussed

Waverid3r: I think your thoughts are more why do we believe in things that seem
wrong logically?

Though I understand and believe your in the right, I think its
more of a question of, Why can people not learn to question certain
things that they believe in, if these things maybe wrong.

Religion and the power of believing in something can turn the
smartest person, into to most dumbest sometimes.

I do believe that religion was to be based on good intentions,
to provide peace and understanding between all people.
I think though someone took that plan and made alot of changes to it.

StuckInTheSixties: Pokerman says:
"Even when we want to believe in something and we are even unsure if its real or not we sometimes convince ourselves to believe anyways and sometimes it could be something that doesn't even logically make sense."

Can something logically NOT make sense?

Or ...

Can something ILLOGICALLY make sense?

Take your pick ...

GreatGrammy: When you get old, you begin to see that things that logically made very good sense at one time do not now. I believe that it was Benjamin Franklin, who explained that when a man comes to a fork in the road he can logically argue that the right fork is the one that should be taken, unless he decides to walk the left fork, in which case he can produce sound logical arguments for that decision. In reality, logic only touches on truth occasionally. Belief has that same distinction. If you doubt me, just ask a 5 year old, a 10 year old, a 15 year old, etc. up to a 50 year old the same question. The variety of answers should be fun.
We believe because we need to for many reasons. Don't lose your faith.

StuckInTheSixties: I have no faith. I'm devoid of faith.

(shrughs)

Edit:

I misspelled "shrugs."

GreatGrammy: Sixties, That's OK with me. When I was younger, I went through that "is God real" thing and made some pretty good arguments. I think that I damaged some peoples faith, and so I try really hard not to do that. To each his own.

Point5andahalf: I think a shrug denotes a careless attititude.
... though I'm no expert on body language. Maybe a lack of comprehension?

To answer the original question...
:shrugs:
I can see why this topic is rarely discussed.
But it does seem to be true that "we believe in ideas or things that can comfort us".
Though "we" also can believe in terrifying things.

It's got a lot to do with imagination I think. Our mind tries to make sense of the world around us, and we tend to imagine the things that are unknown to us. Which may prove to be wrong.

StuckInTheSixties: GG, I think it's fine to "damage" people's faith. It makes no sense to have an absolute, certain belief in something for which there is no evidence. It does make sense to shrug, acknowledge that uncertainty.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrug

The first sentence of this article (my emphasis added in CAPS) :

A shrug is a form of nonverbal communication that is performed by lifting both shoulders up, and is an indication of an individual either NOT KNOWING AN ANSWER TO A QUESTION, or not caring about a result.

Hence, my shrug, Point5.

GreatGrammy: Sixties, What do you mean no evidence? There are reams of evidence. Just because some of it has been disputed and may not be wholly accurate does not dismiss the evidence. Most evidence of belief is historical and through witness and legend, but it still exists.

I do not believe in intentionally causing "damage" to anyone's faith unless said damage is necessary to also heal and restore faith. If you break it, you must fix it, or at least try. My Momma taught me that. Causing damage, because you want to, puts me in mind of a three year old in a temper fit. Very bad manners.

You can "shrug" if you want to, but you do care, and I know it. Otherwise you would not be here, nor would you have responded. You can't fool the Great Grammy.

I don't know what caused your disillusionment, but I'm sure that you have some faith. I had faith that the sun would come up today. That my legs would hold me when I got out of bed. That my cup would hold my coffee this morning. Small things, but important to me. A person who truly believes in nothing and has no faith is a person living with terror. What do you have faith in Sixties?

StuckInTheSixties: GreatGrammy says:
"Sixties, What do you mean no evidence? There are reams of evidence. Just because some of it has been disputed and may not be wholly accurate does not dismiss the evidence. Most evidence of belief is historical and through witness and legend, but it still exists."

You caught me on one of the rare occasions when I carelessly just said "evidence." Usually I say "objective, tangible evidence." There is no objective, tangible evidence of God.

GreatGrammy says:
"I do not believe in intentionally causing "damage" to anyone's faith unless said damage is necessary to also heal and restore faith."

You're dancing around the semantics of "damage" here. Is it possible to have a difference of opinion in matters of philosophy or religion without the risk of "damaging" someone else's opinion or beliefs? Should we lie, and nod in agreement, or just shut up? The hypocrisy of that lies in the simple fact that you're stating disagreement with my way of thinking, a way of thinking that you seem to insist is my "faith" or something. Aren't you concerned you'll be "damaging" MY "faith"?

GreatGrammy says:
"You can "shrug" if you want to, but you do care, and I know it. Otherwise you would not be here, nor would you have responded. You can't fool the Great Grammy."

Read this again more carefully, paying attention to the emphasis (IN CAPS) and the word "or" that separates the two definitive parts of the statement:

(from the Wiki article) A shrug is ... an indication of an individual either NOT KNOWING AN ANSWER TO A QUESTION, or not caring about a result.

GreatGrammy says:
"I don't know what caused your disillusionment, but I'm sure that you have some faith."

Why would you assume I'm "disillusioned" because I don't have faith? That's kind of a grand, and, in my opinion, arrogant assumption. I don't share your view of things, thus I must be "disillusioned."

GreatGrammy says:
"I had faith that the sun would come up today (etc.)"

You attribute your belief in these things to "faith." I don't. When I consider things like this, I consider them in terms of "likelihood," or "probability." Since there is no objective, tangible evidence to assume that the sun won't come up today, the probability is that it will. ( Thinking that way isn't dependent upon "faith." )

GreatGrammy says:
"A person who truly believes in nothing and has no faith is a person living with terror."

Arrogant bullshit. Again, because my philosophical approach to life and the universe doesn't depend upon the irrationality of "faith," you leap to the conclusions that I believe in "nothing" and I'm "living with terror." I can assure you that neither of those things is true.

GreatGrammy says:
"What do you have faith in Sixties?"

As stated before, I have no faith. I'm devoid of faith. I simply don't operate that way.

(shrugs)

GreatGrammy: OK Sixties, you've got me laughing now. Let me relate a story to you about "objective tangible evidence".

For many years I have watched as one and two year old children sat in their high chairs and threw food onto the floor, then watched as a parent, grandparent, etc., picked it back up. My Mother-in-law once asked me, "Why do they all do that?" Every little kid that I have ever known did it. They throw something over the side and then laugh with delight as they watch it go "down". Babies have been studying the game of "gravity" for thousands of years, but "gravity" did not exist as "objective tangible evidence" until an apple dropped on a man's head. So you are saying that God can't exist until you have "objective tangible evidence?

StuckInTheSixties: GreatGrammy says:
"... Babies have been studying the game of "gravity" for thousands of years, but "gravity" did not exist as "objective tangible evidence" until an apple dropped on a man's head."

Of course gravity existed. It simply didn't have a scientific explaination until Newton. That "analogy" is irrelevant.

GreatGrammy says:
"So you are saying that God can't exist until you have "objective tangible evidence?"

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm not eliminating the POSSIBILITY of God. I'm only saying that it's irrational to have "faith" in things for which there is no objective, tangible evidence. If such evidence could be had, I'd instantly become a believer in God. It wouldn't require faith.

It's really not very complicated.

XFixYourBrainX: Waverid said this,

"Why can people not learn to question certain things that they believe in, if these things maybe wrong."

Well if this is something that should be asked. Let me ask this.

Why do people not question illogical uncertainties?

XFixYourBrainX: Sixties says this,

" Can something logically NOT make sense?"


Logic means "science of reasoning"

Sixties, are you asking "Can something logically not make sense in the science of reasoning?"

StuckInTheSixties: No, I was making fun of your mangling of the English language.

XFixYourBrainX: Your the one that said it. So now I'm making fun of you. Hahahaha atleast boast when you make fun so the other person knows that your being a funny clown.

GreatGrammy: Sixties, I think that we are talking at cross purposes. Look up the word "faith". It means to trust and have confidence in something. I believe that you are using it solely as a word denoting religion and/or God. I was not.

I enjoy a discussion about religion and philosophies, but also am new to this site and do not wish to cause harm. Yes. If you have a strong personality, you can cause damage to some people, but I could not possibly damage your "faith" because you don't have any. It is not possible to damage something which does not exist.

Regarding your "shrug", my point was that you do care; therefore, you must not know the answer. I understood perfectly.

Yes. I am very arrogant and have never denied it. Do you understand that you are also very arrogant? My comments about "faith" should be interpreted to be about trust, as I was not talking about religion at that time. Trust is learned in our first years of life, or distrust is learned in our first years of life. Psychology teaches us that. It is therefore reasonable to assume that anyone who has a big problem with trust/faith has been disillusioned at some point.

When I talked about the "terror" of having no faith in anything, I was thinking of my son, who suffers from schizophrenia. Believe me, when one can not put their faith in ANY reality, life is terror. Hence the high rate of suicide in schizophrenics. I was not talking about you.

When I read the first comment in this forum, I was not sure of the context that was being explored. Maybe it was religion. Maybe it was some guy who wondered why he believed that his girlfriend had given up her extra bed partner? It was about belief and why we continue to believe when it makes no sense. This question is too general to be answered and can only be discussed.

Do you want to talk about religion? or God? or do you think they are the same thing? Or maybe you just want to deny that anything exists outside of your own reality pushing your opponent into defense of something that you consider indefensible. Let's see that arrogance.

XFixYourBrainX: Well put greatgrammy

GreatGrammy: Pokerman, Is there any chance that you are an attorney or judge? You seem obsessed with the "logic" of things and I could not help but compare it to what the Court calls the "reasonable man" theory. This theory has been used in the courts for hundreds of years and generally means, "What would a reasonable man do in this circumstance?" Sounds good. Very logical. But this pure logic was the basis for witch burning, and throwing children in dungeons for stealing food, and proving without a doubt that noblemen were superior to common men. All very logically proven. And often cases are just as ridiculous today as they were then.

The problem with logic is that it only works if you have ALL of the relevant information, and usually we don't. Logical certainties are undone every day. Illogical certainties are proven logical with amazing regularity. Neither logic nor belief will answer the question of uncertainties. If we tried to question all that seems uncertain, we would spend our whole lives on the questions and still die without the answers. So most people are smarter than you and I. They simply draw their line in the sand and decide that what falls on one side will be accepted and what falls on the other will not. Maybe that is wisdom or hope, I don't know, but it works for them.

XFixYourBrainX: A wide range of things should be considered when thinking. A wise man listens, and a logical man can tell the difference.

- Joshua Scott

StuckInTheSixties: GreatGrammy says:
"Look up the word "faith". It means to trust and have confidence in something."

Note my added emphasis (IN CAPS):

Encarta Dictionary: English (North America)
faith
1. belief or trust
belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT LOGICAL PROOF
• I wouldn't put my faith in him to straighten things out.
2. religion or religious group
a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
3. trust in God
belief in and devotion to God
• Her faith is unwavering.
4. set of beliefs
a strongly held set of beliefs or principles
• people of different political faiths

GreatGrammy says:
"I could not possibly damage your "faith" because you don't have any. It is not possible to damage something which does not exist."

But earlier you insisted I had faith: "I'm sure that you have some faith."

GreatGrammy says:
"I am very arrogant and have never denied it. Do you understand that you are also very arrogant?"

Perhaps, but there's a difference. You have the audacity to make gross judgments, based solely upon my statement that I don't use faith as a means of examining the world, that I must be "disillusioned," that I "believe in nothing," and that I am "living with terror." (Although I now know the "terror" remark was not directed at me, I didn't understand that at the time I characterized your words as "arrogant." ) I certainly made none of those kinds of judgments about you for your beliefs, did I? The closest I've come to that is my insistence that faith is irrational. Had I used the word near-synonimous "illogical," that statement would have been wholly within the dictionary definition.

GreatGrammy says:
"My comments about "faith" should be interpreted to be about trust, as I was not talking about religion at that time. Trust is learned in our first years of life, or distrust is learned in our first years of life."

Trust generally comes about through experience. We learn to trust people because experience teaches us that people are generally trustworthy. You trust the bannister on a staircase because bannisters are generally strong enough to work. etc. etc. Generally speaking, we trust people because they "earn" that trust. We use the "evidence" we've gathered as the basis for that trust. Faith is quite a different matter. The two words/concepts are related, but not synonymous.

StuckInTheSixties: GreatGrammy says:
"Psychology teaches us that. It is therefore reasonable to assume that anyone who has a big problem with trust/faith has been disillusioned at some point."

Psychology teaches a lot, much of which is total bullshit. Psychology, unless applied to large numbers in a statistical way, is wholly subjective. One qualified psychologist can state as "fact" something diametrically opposed to the "fact" presented by another psychologist.

GreatGrammy says:
"When I talked about the "terror" of having no faith in anything, I was thinking of my son, who suffers from schizophrenia ... I was not talking about you."

My sympathies about your situation with your son. Can you understand why I would assume you were talking about me? The short paragraph in which that statement was made began with your judging me as being "disillusioned," and ended with my name. Anyone reading it would assume that it was about me, not your son.

GreatGrammy says:
"Do you want to talk about religion? or God? or do you think they are the same thing?

Most religious people practice theistic religion, and for them, the two things are inseparable. I understand that it's possible to be "religious" in a non-theistic way. But for my way of thinking, religion inescapably implies the utilization of faith. And you know what I think of faith. I tend to assess ANY belief system based on faith the same way - I find it irrational. I like science, and beliefs based on objective, tangible evidence.

GreatGrammy says:
"Or maybe you just want to deny that anything exists outside of your own reality pushing your opponent into defense of something that you consider indefensible. Let's see that arrogance."

I don't think of "reality" as being relative, like you have YOUR reality and I have MINE. That's nonsense. Reality is reality. The PERCEPTION of reality, and the semantics use/abuse of the word "reality," are other things entirely. I'm quite comfortable with people of faith, so long as they're not being hypocritical about it. If they attempt to shove the square pegs of their faith into the round hole of science, I'll argue. And if they want to criticize me because I don't share their faith, or force that faith upon me, then they'll have a real fight on their hands.

StuckInTheSixties: Pokerman, who is Joshua Scott?

A Google search on that quote turns up nothing.

A Google search on Joshua Scott turns up a photographer, a musician, an actor, somebody on facebook, somebody on Twitter, a soccer player, a security professional, a sports medicine doctor/pediatrician, a computer game designer, and a computer programmer previously known as "LiberalFascist."

???

XFixYourBrainX: Me