About Beliefs and Thinking

Debate Room
1

About Beliefs

I sometimes wonder if people know what these actually are. People can tell you the definition of beliefs, but I do not think many know what beliefs actually are. How about some questions about beliefs before I spew My Brain Diarrhea.

Foremost, please realize that “god-thing” is not a derogative term. Rather it saves me from typing “that Thing you religious believers reference as a god” every time.

Why must I believe Your beliefs?

Why can I not have mine own beliefs? Mine own god-thing?

Why must Your happiness derive from whether I have the same beliefs as your beliefs?

How do you Know Your beliefs are true when you cannot prove them true?

Why does it truly matter whether I believe in any god-thing or not?

Most people who are religious, especially the inexorably religious, cannot answer those questions. Not One.

Yet, those questions are the Crux of beliefs. Regardless of what ANY Apologist can say to the contrary, ALL BELIEFS ARE RELATIVE to each individual person.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ABSOLUTE RELIGION.

Yes. Many will agree. However, just as many will disagree. Just because many have the same beliefs never makes them universal, or absolute. What I choose to believe is that which I can prove True with objective hard empirical evidence and FACTs (FACT = Formal Accurately Codified Truth (i.e.–Scientific Theory)). Otherwise, I can believe in all the fantastical ideas me tiny miscreant mind can create; HOWEVER, I shall always Know it is only true inside me tiny miscreant mind. Religious, especially the inexorable ones, persons are incapable of distinguishing the difference between their personal Beliefs and True Reality. The very definition of a Schizophrenic Disorder, which can also lead to Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That is another thing no religious person can understand, the DSM-V. At least I ain’t seen any that can. Of course, that is my No True Scotsman Fallacy. But until I know of any theist that can understand the DSM-V, I only know none can.

If you wish to know My Beliefs (IF I am to be said to have any), Humanity shall always supercede fantasy. I am more occupied and interested with the well-being of me fellow humans than I am about the feelings of anyone that believes in some invisible sky spook they cannot be prove true.

Note: “IT” in all-caps is always used as a placeholder for whatever IT is. Why do us intellectual free thinkers always have to explain such to the theists? Why does it seem no theist can understand the language they use?

Beliefs are nothing more than the fantasies we create in our minds to explain things we cannot understand, then LIE to our self’s to convince our self’s those beliefs are true. Just because you cannot understand some thing does NOT automatically require that divine resignation. For resignation it is to invoke the Argumentum ad imploro dei hiatus (God-Gaps Fallacy). It is much more intellectually honest and of greater integrity to just admit: “I do not know.” I for one am PROUD to admit “I do not know” if it is something I am agnostic of. And why can no religious persons understand the definition of “agnostic”. Simplest = without knowledge, Period. There is no other definition for agnostic.

Beliefs are ultimately the LIES we convince our self’s are true even though we cannot prove them true. And Beliefs are only true for the individual believer. No one else. No two persons have the same beliefs system. You may have to dig deeply, sometimes very deeply, to find those differences, but they ARE there.

And here is where a total lack of understanding of the Principles of Probability comes to play. Those principles dictate that throughout the entire gamut of beliefs, there will be many similarities. Those same principles also dictate there will be just as many differences.

Every last Believer whom speaks is ALWAYS speaking of only their personal beliefs. Never any one else’s beliefs. And definitively not universal beliefs, for there are no universal beliefs. And here is where all Believers show their complete lack of understanding of the Principles of Logic. For even the Believers cannot comprehend that beliefs ARE Relative to each individual person. Not the whole population. Else, why are there 25,000+ Cults of Christinsanity? Three, four, five cults of Islam? And, so many, many, … many other cults. This almost includes ALL religions. No matter how sweet or skanky. No two persons will have the same beliefs system. As Agent Smith said, “IT is Inevitable.”

BTW: Skanky = highly offensive or disgusting; arousing aversion or disgust. Yep, that defines religion.

Your beliefs shall never be my beliefs. Just as my beliefs shall never be anyone else’s. Furthermore, my lies will never be the same as your lies. Einstein proved it.

Everything IS Relative TO Everything.

No matter how well you may define your Frame of Reference (FoR), Point of View (PoV), worldview, or whateverview, IT IS RELATIVE TO ALL INFINITE OTHERS. And have any of you Believers ever thought that there truly is no such thing as “worldview”. There is only your FoR or PoV. Believers prevaricate from only one FoR: Utter Absolutism.

My FoR is always based on Relativism since I Know there are no absolute FoRs or PoVs.

Ultimately, and wholly truthfully, ALL beliefs are nothing more than the lies we convince our self’s are true. Try and Think about that.

There are as many god-things as there are humans. Now more than 8 billion. One of the methods of determining a cult is, “Is one person’s beliefs the predominant beliefs system?” No matter where you may go, no matter which church you may visit, the answer is always, Yes. Every individual church, every individual person, is governed by a single person’s beliefs. They claim to be governed by an august (oxymoron) body, but that is false. That “body” is nothing but a scapegoat. A thing to pawn off any suspicion.

Now. Think about this: Since Your personal beliefs system is predominantly based on YOUR beliefs only, that makes every person a Single Member Cult. T…H…I…N…K…

Ultimately, beliefs can never be proven True. They are ONLY true inside the mind of the believer. No where else in Reality are they true.

About Thinking

There are only two forms of thinking. Many different methods, but only two forms:

  1. Intellectual
  2. Emotional

And it is the capacity for Intellectual Thinking that sets us apart from the other animals. Some animals even have problem-solving capacity, having some intellectualism just like us humans. Some animals can solve some problems faster than us humans. Specifically, it is the Level of Intellectual capacity that sets us Sapiens apart.

And, never under-estimate the intellectual capacity of an animal. It just may out-think you. A meme I have seen: “Animals do not have gods. They are too intelligent for that.”

There is ONLY one FACT that “emotions” can prove True: Us animals have them. Otherwise, emotions can never prove any thing true.

It is only with Intellectual Thinking by which True Truth can be deduced and determined. Or, as close as us primitive, barbaric apes can get to True Truth.

Where does these two forms of thinking originate?

Science PROVED long ago that Intellectual Thinking ONLY comes from the Prefrontal Cortex. Frontotemporal Lobar. The Forebrain. And if you do not accept this FACT, or won’t believe it, then answer this question truthfully, “What exactly do you think were the RESULTS of those lobotomies done long ago?” They went up through the nose. Right into the Forebrain. Later psychological studies found those who had one of those lobotomies could no longer think reasoningly, rationally, critically, logically very well. Some not at all. More drooling animals rather than human.

Emotional Thinking comes exclusively from the Hindbrain. The region of the brain responsible for stimuli response, autonomic biological functions, and emotions. Duh. In fact there is very little thinking in the Hindbrain.

The Midbrain seems largely responsible for data storage/recall. It also serves as mediator between the Forebrain and Hindbrain.

It is the very FACT that emotions also set of stimuli response. That “OH YEAH!” light bulb moment. The Pulpit Prevaricators also Know this fact for they are trained for it in those oxymoron seminaries. They know the only way their beliefs can be believed is if they can stimulate that Hindbrain into self-reinforcing the concept of those beliefs inside individual minds. Basically, those Pulpit Prevaricators are utilizing a form of Psychological Warfare known as Empathic Predation. A method that goes only for the emotions to enforce belief. By any other word(s), those tactics are also known as “Mind-Fuck” or “Skull-Fuck” or “Brain-Fuck” in the Vulgar Tongue.

Recap:
Forebrain - ALL thinking
Midbrain - data storage/recall
Hindbrain - autonomic functions, stimuli, emotions

This Begs the Question: “Why would you use the most fallacious and irrational region of your brain to determine truth?”

Here is another question, specifically for Believers: Do any of you know and understand what happens to regions of your brain that are not used regularly and as well as should be?

They degenerate. Allow degeneration long enough, and that region of the brain will completely cease functionality. Basically, a self-lobotomization.

The Believers exclusively use the Hindbrain in order to get that self-reinforcement their beliefs are true. They do not use the Forebrain. Let me make another list… What is the Forebrain specifically responsible for?

  1. Critical Thinking
  2. Reasoning
  3. Rationality
  4. Logical Deduction
  5. Intellectualism
  6. Invention
  7. Imagination
  8. Play

And if you compare the brain pan of a Neander and Sapien skulls, you will see the reason us Sapiens extincted the Neanders. Although the Neander had a brain about 20% larger than a Sapien brain, it is the difference between the Forebrain and Hindbrain that gave us Sapiens an infinite advantage against the Neanders. With the Neander, their Hindbrain was about 3 times the size of the Sapien Hindbrain. Obversely, the Sapien Forebrain is about 3-4 times larger than the Neander. We simply out-thought them scientifically which allowed us to out-compete them on a level that could be called God Mode in comparison.

I have also submitted a hypothesis that the Neanders had such a large Hindbrain because it was needed as “genetic memories” unspooled into the brain. We Sapiens lost those genetic memories. I also hypothesize that the Neander infants could out-perform Sapien infants due to those genetic memories unspooling. But at about perhaps 6yo, Sapiens excelled beyond the pale. This hypothesis came about due to the fact that other animal infants are sometimes born ready to run. Those genetic memories. Basically, Sapiens were geniuses compared to primitives.

So… Theists are infamous for never using the Forebrain. Just listen to their rhetoric. None of it is critically thought or logically deduced. After decades, usually 4 or more, of that kind of thinking, theists literally self-lobotomize their Forebrain. Kenneth Copeland, Ken Ham, Matt Slick are poster children for this phenomena (all are 70+ like me). Frank Turek is beginning to show signs of this phenomena. Others include William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, William Lane Craig (whom I call Sociopathic Bill because of one his speeches), Dennis Prager, Jordan Peterson, Oral Roberts, Lee Strobel, Warner Wallace, … There are too many others to list all.

HA!, Brain Fart. There was one theist who challenged me to make an acronym of PragerU (said was impossible) when I claimed I could make an acronym of almost anything. Here was my offering: Pathetic Retired Aged Grandpa Everyone Reviles Universally. Do I need to say that theist did not like that one? Dennis Prager his self tried to sue for slander and libel, but was thrown out.

So… It will depend on the age of any theist you may have a discourse with on how capable they are of actually being able to think intellectually. The younger they are, the more likely you MAY be able to convince them of the lies of religion they tell them self’s.

Author’s Notes

The above is literally pulled out me arse from me life-long studies and insatiable thirst for True Knowledge (I can never get enough). There are far too many sciences I have delved into that I cannot list them. My majors were Biology/Genetics (because I have always been supremely fascinated by Abiogenesis), Abnormal Psychology (trying to understand what happened to me brother’s mind after a disaster), Volcanology (if could, I would live inside one), Global Climatology (due to anthropogenic biosphere modifications). Yes, very weird mix. The above is what I would call Brain Diarrhea which is literally ANY thought you can have. Veracity, or Mendacity, is determined else wise. Since all the above is mine own Brain Diarrhea, now comes questions needed answering when comparing my Brain Diarrhea to the Brain Diarrhea of the theists.

Whose Brain Diarrhea is more reasonable?
Whose Brain Diarrhea is more rational?
Whose Brain Diarrhea is more logically deduced?
Whose Brain Diarrhea is more critically thought?
Whose Brain Diarrhea is more comparable with True Reality?

And I remember something someone wrote that I read a long, long time ago in this local galaxy: “There is no shame in being self-taught, seeking learning and knowledge for one’s self. The ONLY shame comes from not seeking in the first place.” Wish I could remember where I read that before home computers ever existed.

And me favoritest: “Simple solutions? Ain’t none.”

Franklin

2

I think this is the crux of the matter. Belief in religions, conspiracies, and stereotypes are all exercises in avoiding uncertainty – and, of course, in being right, and cementing our belonging in some desired in-group.

The ability to sit with uncertainty is, in my experience, rare. In fact for most people it’s acutely uncomfortable for various reasons – two big ones being, the fear of being judged and/or excluded for not knowing what “everyone else” pretends to know, and anxiety at not having certain answers to whatever questions one considers critical – or perhaps knowing on some level the answer (we are mortal) and avoiding awareness of that knowledge.

For me at least the breakthrough was discovering that the fact of my mortality isn’t an unthinkable horror, and actually comes with some benefits and peace of mind. Much of religion manufactures fake problems and concerns so they can sell you the “remedy”. It isn’t really that hard to accept that when you die that it’s “lights out”. But I had a lot of learned helplessness around it.

3

I agree that many people express opinions about “beliefs” that has little or noting to do with how that word is defined.

“The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines belief broadly as a mental acceptance of a claim, idea, or statement as true, often without absolute, empirical proof.”

So all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, if you never express it, then that claim is an internal mental claim, otherwise we are expressing a claim to others.

Now we arrive at a departure, because people set different thresholds for credulity, and so base belief on widely varying evidentiary standards.

Well I have found they all answer in the same way, but their answers don’t reflect objective reality, the argument from morality for example, which is not supported by the objective evidence. When measured on any level playing field research has shown for decades that atheists are at least as moral as theists.

That’s actually a black swan fallacy, and maybe an argument from personal incredulity, there are qualified psychiatrists who are also theists, so it also seems unlikely.

For me the fact that religious beliefs change from place to place and overtime, is compelling objective evidence that they are subjective, and not based on objective evidence. Compare this to scientific ideas, which are the same regardless of the place or time, and only change on rare occasions in line with new evidence, a very important aspect of that method and one of its greatest strengths, its ability to allow for doubt, and to admit to error if the evidence demands it.

Hmm, well I believe the world is not flat, and that all living things evolve slowly over time, so I think this assertion is too generic, of course it might be true of some beliefs, but not all.

I agree, and I’d go further, not knowing if something is true or not is not a reason to believe it, so if I don’t know if an idea is true, then it is has not reached my threshold for credulity.

I am not sure either of those is true, see the examples above. We all form beliefs about the world, and likely would be unable to function without them, but the evidence that supports them can vary widely. Unless you mean to describe only subjective beliefs ike religious beliefs of course, perhaps I have misunderstood?

Ah, this suggests you were referring exclusively to religious beliefs, I see. Well the best i can say is that in every instance the “evidence” theists offer for their beliefs is always subjective, not once have I seen any objective evidence for the existence of any deity.

While those are two distinct ways of thinking psychology has idented quite a few separate and distinct ways in which people think. HERE is a list. How reliable they are would the subject of some ongoing debate of course, but I personally think methods like science and logic are far more reliable than any others at helping us understand objective reality, and I have seen no compelling argument or objective evidence that something exists beyond objective reality, outside of our imagination anyway.

Anyway it was a long post, and I have to go for now. It might be an interesting thread, thank you.

4

In addition, how much effort we put into investigating and locating validating facts to back our beliefs is a function of the consequentiality of the claim. As I look out my office window right now I can see that it’s sunny so I believe it will be a pleasant day. I can’t be arsed to look at the detailed weather forecast but if it is cloudy and starts raining an hour from now it’s of no consequence as I don’t plan to go out anyway.

On the other hand if someone wants me to believe in an invisible sky wizard because it has the power to decide whether I experience eternal pleasure or pain, they are going to have to evidence that much more consequential claim. Or if say someone is dating, met someone just yesterday and is thinking they might be marriage material, that should involve some rather extensive research and evaluation since it would effect the rest of that person’s life.

Many, arguably most, things we “believe” can be based on one’s gut or past experience with very little thought because most things just don’t particularly matter. Although it’s true that once you get used to being a critical / skeptical thinker, you apply that thinking to more and more things just to exercise that “muscle” and so that you don’t go through life in an un-self-aware fashion.

5

Some people also separate subjective claims from objective reality, if I claim (hypothetically) that I like red more than any other colour, I am not saying it is objectively true that red is superior in any way, only that I enjoy my perception of it more than other colours. This then is how religious apologists I encounter always end up framing their beliefs in a deity, as a personal preference, and that of course is one explanation of why those beliefs vary so widely.

And of course claims about the probability of minor changes in the weather are not just (largely) inconsequential. We know that what we believe might happen is objectively and nomologically possible, unlike deities and the supernatural, which at best can only be claimed to be epistemically possible, and where those concepts of deities can be falsified, even through logical extrapolation, I might be inclined not to believe even epistemic possibility. For example where a concept of deities is claimed to have characteristics that violate a principle of logic, like the law of non-contradiction. for example claiming (as at least one Muslim apologist did) that the deity he imagines knows everything including the future, and yet we (and it of course) retain any autonomy of choice.

6

I doubt they ever admit to it in those words though. They see it as revealed Truth, backed by feelings or other forms of personal experience.

Back in the day we would be taught our sect’s hermeneutic (interpretational system for scripture) which implies there are other systems – and at more advanced levels we were taught about those other, obviously inferior or just plain wrong interpretational systems. That we used our system (basically, dispensationalism) was therefore our choice and so a preference – but we NEVER viewed it as a mere preference. It was to us the only system that “made sense”, that explained any apparent contradictions, etc. It was a foundational assumption that our system was the “correct” one. It was part of our identity.

I still remember the day I began to see the light on this issue. Dispensationalism, like any other system, can’t cover all topics. I was part of a non-charismatic group (did not believe in “the gift of tongues” and similar). At one point I found myself in a Bible study led by what I’d call a soft-core charismatic pastor, and he explained the basis for his belief in the charismata, citing a half-verse in the book of Acts. I asked, with what I hoped was polite incredulity, if there were any other citations he might have. He had none. Then I asked him, “so you base all your teachings about spiritual gifts on this half-dozen words that you squint at in a particular way?” And he sputtered a little bit and then blurted out, “But if we did not accept this interpretation of these words, we wouldn’t BE charismatics!”

And there you have it in a nutshell. He was in effect saying, “this personal preference about reading this verse in this way defines who I am”. But he would never have used the actual words, “personal preference” because a True Believer™ always believes he has been given divine revelation. It is always on God, not on the believer.

1 Like
7

It is usually denied quite emphatically, though with little more than handwaving in my experience. Just as @JustCurious did recently in another thread. The evidence was never addressed at all of course.

Yes, this is most often the position they express.

I’ve seen this in action from theists as well, when I frequented a particular Christian group with a close friend who was and remains a believer. One man in the group was quite forceful in policing what he viewed as potential new recruits, and when he sensed I was not buying into it, but not offering outright challenges to the claims, he not only offered himself as my personal teacher, but decried any time I spent away from the church as inevitably “leading away from god”. It was the reason I’d been looking for to end the association to be honest, and a relief to be my own man again. It’s one of the few things no can take away from us, the ability to think for ourselves.

Yes, we see that here as well, and once invested in that belief they don’t seem able to doubt the experience or examine it critically, or even allow others to do so. We have seen how painful they often seem to find that experience here.

8

THANKS for the correction. Scotsman (my entire ancestry) was first to pop-in. And absolutely correct. It is an incredulity fallacy, but until falsified…

I was generalizing. Most, if not all, of those would go under Intellectual. In me opinion only, those are methods of Intellectual Thinking. Of course, I am wrong about that generalization, but when trying to reach those whom do not have very deep knowledge of things, one has to horribly generalize to make a point. Thanks for the clarification.

My biggest problem with those inexorable believers is when they ask a question and the only answer I can give is, “I do not know. Give me time to find out.” They respond back, “No. Because if you don’t know, then I am correct.” That is when I walk away. Sometimes run.

And, about believing the world is not flat, you have evidence it is not flat. Yes, easy to believe, but it ain’t no longer a belief if you can back it with objective evidence, it then becomes a Known Truth. Not False Belief. Guess I should have added that…

Franklin