limpid Posted July 2, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 2, 2015 So to answer the question of why do people believe in God and not Harry Potter, it's because millions or billions of people believe in (a?) God and have done for thousands of years, therefore it's a lot more believable than a book that everyone knows is fiction, nobody believes is the truth and was written in the past 20 years. That's not true. It's more acceptable to believe in it because others do. It is not more believable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 So to answer the question of why do people believe in God and not Harry Potter, it's because millions or billions of people believe in (a?) God and have done for thousands of years, therefore it's a lot more believable than a book that everyone knows is fiction, nobody believes is the truth and was written in the past 20 years. That's not true. It's more acceptable to believe in it because others do. It is not more believable. Harry Potter is actually more believable and less likely to offend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 2, 2015 So to answer the question of why do people believe in God and not Harry Potter, it's because millions or billions of people believe in (a?) God and have done for thousands of years, therefore it's a lot more believable than a book that everyone knows is fiction, nobody believes is the truth and was written in the past 20 years. That's not true. It's more acceptable to believe in it because others do. It is not more believable. Yes it is. Again, the content of what is being believed or not believed is irrelevant. If you give somebody two scenarios, and tell them scenario A has been believed by billions of people for thousands of years, and scenario B is believed by nobody, then Scenario A is more believable. It matters little what the scenarios actually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 2, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 2, 2015 No, that's not correct. The degree to which a claim is believable is not in anyway affected by the number of people who believe it. You are mixing cause and effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 2, 2015 No, that's not correct. The degree to which a claim is believable is not in anyway affected by the number of people who believe it. You are mixing cause and effect. I disagree. I'm not talking about the scientific or literary definition of "believable". Merely the increased likelihood of someone believing a certain scenario. If you don't think that likelihood increases if billions of people believe it and have done for centuries then that's fair enough. But I wholeheartedly disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YGabbana Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 All of the attacks are disgusting but there must be a slight difference in how they are reported and the reasons behind them I suppose. Both are committed by words removed, that's a given but 1 is driven by the hate of actual tangible things, they can point and say "Don't like them because they are X, Y or Z colour, size or whatever". This is a social problem combined with education and opportunities. Targeting of churches is just a "Hit em where it hurts"mentality, what else could the rocket polishers they burn if not the churches. They have nothing else. The other is driven by a concept that is essentially for the weak minded and 100% made up but causes the death of millions of people but is pushed by some as a religion of peace. Neither are solvable unless people take some decisions to stop it all once and for all. What things are called is irrelevant in the big scheme of things and especially to those it is happening too also. They have to live with it unfortunately. Both attacks are the definition of terrorism and both killers were extremeists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 2, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 2, 2015 No, that's not correct. The degree to which a claim is believable is not in anyway affected by the number of people who believe it. You are mixing cause and effect. I disagree. I'm not talking about the scientific or literary definition of "believable". Merely the increased likelihood of someone believing a certain scenario. If you don't think that likelihood increases if billions of people believe it and have done for centuries then that's fair enough. But I wholeheartedly disagree. No, I absolutely agree with herd mentality. That doesn't increase the believability of something though. This is the fallacy of an appeal to popularity. It doesn't matter how many believe in something; that does not change the nature of the thing. However, as you insist and acknowledge that you are using the word incorrectly, we should leave it there. We are arguing about definitions, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 2, 2015 Confirmation bias, innit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 2, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 2, 2015 Confirmation bias, innit? No, but I'm not arguing about what that means either Confirmation bias is the tendency to only remember or acknowledge things to be true if they fit your extant world view. It's what makes people believe in lucky pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) No, that's not correct. The degree to which a claim is believable is not in anyway affected by the number of people who believe it. You are mixing cause and effect. In this particular argument the author of Harry Potter would tell us, if we asked, that she made it all up. The authors of the bible are not and likely would not tell us that anyway. So I don't really understand your point of view, of course the bible is more believable than Harry Potter, because there is empirical evidence that the later is a false narrative. With the former that kind of evidence is much more difficult to find, we have to rely on logic and common sense. Edited July 2, 2015 by dont_do_it_doug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 2, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 2, 2015 No, that's not correct. The degree to which a claim is believable is not in anyway affected by the number of people who believe it. You are mixing cause and effect. In this particular argument the author of Harry Potter would tell us, if we asked, that she made it all up. The authors of the bible are not and likely would not tell us that anyway. So I don't really understand your point of view, of course the bible is more believable than Harry Potter, because there is empirical evidence that the later is a false narrative. With the former that kind of evidence is much more difficult to find, we have to rely on logic and common sense. What does that have to do with what you quoted? How does the number of people believing something have anything to do with your argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Is this about terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 2, 2015 It's not a fair comparison. The Bible is not 'fiction' - in the Harry Potter sense of being imaginative fantasy, consciously created for the purpose of entertainment. It's a compendium of folk legends, poetry, political propaganda, history, moral advice and general 'Chinese whispers'. As with many such ancient texts, it's fascinating, and incredibly useful for historical research. As for the stories of Jesus (and Mohammed in the Koran), they got passed around by word of mouth, growing in the telling. No doubt people believed them, because they wanted to - and it was a time when millennial cults were very much in fashion. But the point is that EVERY text should be read critically - even with supposedly 'dispassionate' modern non-fiction (history, biography, even the sciences), the authors' own opinions and backgrounds will inevitably skew the selection, interpretation and presentation of source material. To use one book as a guide for life (let alone a justification for war) is utterly barmy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 No, that's not correct. The degree to which a claim is believable is not in anyway affected by the number of people who believe it. You are mixing cause and effect.In this particular argument the author of Harry Potter would tell us, if we asked, that she made it all up. The authors of the bible are not and likely would not tell us that anyway. So I don't really understand your point of view, of course the bible is more believable than Harry Potter, because there is empirical evidence that the later is a false narrative. With the former that kind of evidence is much more difficult to find, we have to rely on logic and common sense. What does that have to do with what you quoted? How does the number of people believing something have anything to do with your argument? Apologies, my post was a general one geared towards your overall assertions that the two are similar. They're not. I believe they are both bollocks. But logic dictates that one is more believable to some than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 2, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 2, 2015 Apologies, my post was a general one geared towards your overall assertions that the two are similar. They're not. I believe they are both bollocks. But logic dictates that one is more believable to some than the other. No worries. I don't see how seven headed dragons, talking donkeys or volcano gods are more believable than a magic school. You appear to see things the same way I do in that respect. Perhaps childhood indoctrination leads some to give more credence to some made up stuff differently to other made up stuff due to it's unknown source. There's no logic in that though. My argument here was that it doesn't become more believable just because a lot of people believe it. That's a fallacy. It's an extraordinary claim that the Bible is in some way special just because we don't know its originators. Do we give the same credence to whoever first wrote about Santa? Robin Hood? King Arthur? The tooth fairy? Elves? Are they more believable because we don't know who made them up? I'm not arguing here that those stories are all equally believable, I'm providing examples of other things with dubious origins / historicity / authenticity and asking whether belief in them is stronger because we don't know where they came from. I'd suggest that the opposite is true. Is the Bible different? If someone would like to suggest a reason why the Bible is more believable than any other set of stories then we can continue the conversation. Otherwise we're all just posturing and hoping for a debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Apologies, my post was a general one geared towards your overall assertions that the two are similar. They're not. I believe they are both bollocks. But logic dictates that one is more believable to some than the other. No worries. I don't see how seven headed dragons, talking donkeys or volcano gods are more believable than a magic school. You appear to see things the same way I do in that respect. Perhaps childhood indoctrination leads some to give more credence to some made up stuff differently to other made up stuff due to it's unknown source. There's no logic in that though. My argument here was that it doesn't become more believable just because a lot of people believe it. That's a fallacy. It's an extraordinary claim that the Bible is in some way special just because we don't know its originators. Do we give the same credence to whoever first wrote about Santa? Robin Hood? King Arthur? The tooth fairy? Elves? Are they more believable because we don't know who made them up? I'm not arguing here that those stories are all equally believable, I'm providing examples of other things with dubious origins / historicity / authenticity and asking whether belief in them is stronger because we don't know where they came from. I'd suggest that the opposite is true. Is the Bible different? If someone would like to suggest a reason why the Bible is more believable than any other set of stories then we can continue the conversation. Otherwise we're all just posturing and hoping for a debate. Surely if a 'story' can have such an influence on the way millions of people live and shape society as a whole one is inclined to think certain elements of it are more believable than other stories with dubious origins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 2, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 2, 2015 Surely if a 'story' can have such an influence on the way millions of people live and shape society as a whole one is inclined to think certain elements of it are more believable than other stories with dubious origins? I agree completely, but allowing "certain elements" just leads to cherry picking. Certain elements of Harry Potter equally make it more believable. King's Cross station in London is real. This has no influence whatsoever on my belief that Harry Potter as a whole is fiction. I believe that elements of the Bible are true. The Roman occupation of the Middle East was real. This has no influence whatsoever on my belief that the Bible as a whole is fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) No, that's not correct. The degree to which a claim is believable is not in anyway affected by the number of people who believe it. You are mixing cause and effect. I disagree. I'm not talking about the scientific or literary definition of "believable". Merely the increased likelihood of someone believing a certain scenario. If you don't think that likelihood increases if billions of people believe it and have done for centuries then that's fair enough. But I wholeheartedly disagree. No, I absolutely agree with herd mentality. That doesn't increase the believability of something though. This is the fallacy of an appeal to popularity. It doesn't matter how many believe in something; that does not change the nature of the thing. However, as you insist and acknowledge that you are using the word incorrectly, we should leave it there. We are arguing about definitions, nothing more. believable bɪˈliːvəbl/ adjective able to be believed; credible. I'd argue billions of people believing something makes it both more able to be believed AND lends it a lot of credence. So I don't believe I'm using the word wrongly, just differently to you. Edited July 2, 2015 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YGabbana Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 What thread am i in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 What thread am i in? You wouldn't believe it if I told you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts