Americans are fucking children who believe in ghosts and Santa and shit
Especially those who tend to vote for Trump
>>67514584
But witches are real
Loo Witches
You can't be Christian and not believe in witches
Witches are in the Bible
>>67514584
>30% of demos believe in reincarnation
There's no way that number can be that high.
There's no way any of these numbers can be that high.
>>67514741
Witches exist though. The modern term for them is radical feminist.
>>67514584
>Implying people who believe in Santa don't vote for Bernie
lmao
interesting how faith in god went down but belief in spooky shit went up
>>67514584
Why would you believe in God but not heaven? This doesn't make any sense....
>>67515191
>christians pick cherries
>no way
That's awful. Pedophiles lusting after naive children.
Only 47 percent for evolution? 47 percent of people acknowledge a proven scientific fact? What the fuck.
>>67514584
If you believe in anything off that list except for Darwin, you should kill yourself
>>67515576
Probably just as many bongs think GMOs are dangerous
>>67515576
murrica'
>>67515934
>Astrology isn't real
okaaay
>>67515191
Why? Belief isn't something you want, a belief is what you think is the truth. I would love for there to be a god and an afterlife, but I don't think so, so that makes me an atheist. And these guys think theres a higher power but not an afterlife. Not that hard to fathom.
>>67514584
>Old generation knows what a "witch hunt" is and that they dont exist
>Everyone after lost the connection with the past and now thing witches are real again
>>67515934
UFOs exist dude, it's when things fly around and people don't know what it is.
>>67514584
>echo boomers
>>67514584
Republicans are less likely than Democrats to believe in ghosts, UFOs, astrology, and reincarnation.
Liberals BTFO.
The bait is getting desperate today.
There is actually evidence for ghosts and UFO's not the rest of them though.
tfw Dutch people are just as retarded
But UFOs do exist.
It's literally just a term that can be applied correctly pretty much every time you see something you don't know what it is
>>67516191
Seems weird to me, if the bible told you their was a god and you believed that why wouldn't you believe in heaven? I mean heaven is the positive part of the fairy tale is it not?
>>67516105
Astrology isn't real, astronomy (what you are referring to) is
>>67517017
Heaven without a God does not compute.
God without a heaven is very plausible.
>>67517440
Someone who believes in God but not heaven is stupid. I have some respect for a Christian but believing in a God with no heaven is just retarded where they getting that idea from? I've never heard of such a religion, they would have no basis for this expect their own airy fairy thinking.
>>67518664
Your imagination is narrow. There are an infinite amount of scenario's one can create where there is some form of a higher power or deity but no fairy tail happy after life.
Not all believers are religious. Hinduism a fairly large one, does not have a heaven.
>>67514584
How does more people believe in heaven than survival of the soul after death?
>>67519086
yeah their is a heaven is hinduism. you can go to any number of heavens its just not permanent you can go into a lower realm again. So you still can't give me a religion with no heaven. Also you need to have a basis for your belief, just sitting in a corner imagining what you think reality is with no basis, is pretty dumb!
>>67520708
The point was that believe in a deity/higher power/ 'God' does not require believe in an afterlife or heaven-type institution.
You say it doesn't make sense to believe in God without a heaven. To me this makes the same amount of sense as God with a heaven. All unfalsifiable, unproven beliefs are equally valid and plausible.
>Also you need to have a basis for your belief, just sitting in a corner imagining what you think reality is with no basis, is pretty dumb!
Everyone has the same basis, empiral reality, that which we can perceive. This is a very weak basis for belief in something supernatural. There is no solid basis.
>>67514584
>UFOs
But UFOs are unarguably real. A UFO is simply a flying object which has not been identified.
>>67521848
your just brain farting everywhere, there's no real history or tradition of this and it's just a bunch of idiots who think their smart by saying god exists but not any heaven!
A solid basis for the religious person is a holy book(s), masters basically tradition. I mean if you create your own religion in your head how can you justify this to yourself?
>>67514584
got some hot source for that?
>>67522914
>here's no real history or tradition of this
The statistics prove that there is. Not organized but individuals or small groups with their own unique set of beliefs.
>A solid basis for the religious person is a holy book(s), masters basically tradition. I mean if you create your own religion in your head how can you justify this to yourself?
There is no meaningful difference. At some point Christianity and all other religions were just that - some folks creating their own religion in their heads.
Looks like OP took the blue pill.
>>67514584
>not believing in ghosts
You must be a real joy to party with.
>>67514584
maybe if people in Finland did as well you wouldn't be so compelled to kill yourselves all the fucking time
Witches are real
I've known a few of them.
americans lol
>>67515191
Although I agree that doesn't make sense, what REALLY doesn't make sense that 68% believe in heaven but only 58% believe in hell
how do you believe in heaven but not in hell
>>67523329
I'd like to see those stats! I've never come across them.
Well yes their is, at least the people who started all religions I heard about had the decency to make up some evidence (at the least). The people sat in a corner thinking up reality don't even make a good piece of evidence up, their justifying their reality on nothing but their cotton candy brain waves!
>>67524170
thats jews I think, bloody goyum! They have heaven without a hell I think... not sure if that would account for 10% difference though
>>67514584
UFOs are real OP. orange triangles in the sky are no joke
>be atheist nord
>believe all races are equal
>not retarded
>>67524535
>I'd like to see those stats! I've never come across them.
OP and all stats on beliefs I've seen for Dutch population show that more people believe in 'God' than in 'heaven'. Thus there quite some individuals who believe in a higher power without also adopting a belief in heaven.
>make up some evidence
>make up evidence
>make up
Wow bro, you really are almost an atheist or agnostic, you're very close!
You are describing perfectly how religion is actually quite a stupid thing (taking in account only rational thinking)
>>67514584
The parties are virtually in sync on witchcraft.
>>67516105
You're a bit confused there, buddy.
>>67525195
I am an atheist Dutchy and I'll be more specific.
>>tradition<<
>>Evidence<<
At least religious people have the above two and I do have some respect for Christians as it is our native religion.
People TODAY seem to think their shity little brain trumps tradition or evidance.
>>67526486
>tradition
>evidence
pick one
>At least religious people have the above two
No, they only have tradition
>People TODAY seem to think their shity little brain trumps tradition or evidance.
Which is just as valid if done in a proper rational fashion. And a good thing, because it reveals how arbitrary a supernatural belief is.
i miss the 90s
>>67526915
well "Evidence" in the sense they at least they believe their is evidence which shows some rational thinking. I pick both not one.
People today I think can justifiably not believe in God due to scientific evidence.
People can believe in religion because of tradition in their culture, in which case they must follow the evidence given to them through that tradition i.e. the Bible but believing in some higher entity with no heaven in this day and age is retarded. Because their is no evidence and their is no tradition for this. So where does the rational thinking come into play here? I can see the rationality of a Christian but not of someone who believes in God with no heaven... where did they get the idea from, where is the rational thinking?
This thread is feeling strangely anti-Christian for /pol/. Now my pa and his pa didn't die in a goddamn war to see America become a bunch of mouth-breathing air--headed atheists. Ya hear?
>Darwin's theory of evolution 36 52 51
JUST
>>67529866
lol well don't worry I'll join in the crusade you just won't see me at church on Sundays!
>>67528934
>Because their is no evidence and their is no tradition for this.
There is equal evidence for God+heaven as there is for God without heaven (none)
Tradition is not evidence. Tradition is no solid basis for belief - the only traditions that are helpful, will, when examined, be based upon evidence.
>I can see the rationality of a Christian but not of someone who believes in God with no heaven.
I have been confusing when using the term rational. No belief in the supernatural is rational. But the form of one's thinking can be logically valid and consistent. We do not know whether anything supernatural exists or not (per definition it lies outside the realm of our observation). Therefor it is possible that it does or that it doesn't exist. This is as far as rational thinking goes. To then choose one specific supernatural story or scenario (out of an infinite set) is arbitrary and irrational. But all are equal. Only option is to be open for new evidence (supernatural could have the possibility to enter our realm) and till then discard all.
Discard all because believe in story A is just as plausible as the exact polar opposite of that story. (Which is also why Pascal's wager is a fallacy - deathbed confession is just as likely to have negative consequences as it could have positive ones)
>>67514584
How are the beliefs in Heaven, Jesus is God, The Resurrection, and the Immaculate Conception not all equal? American Christianity is full of heresy.
>>67514584
>>67524170
the devil is doing a great job in tricking people hell isn't real.
>everyone gets to go to heaven!
Typical catholic sermon
>>67531191
Universalism has grown quite popular in recent years.
>>67514584
>Americans are fucking children who believe in ghosts and Santa and shit
So they won't fuck a child if it doesn't believe in ghosts and Santa?
>>67531367
because kids want to do whatever they want and not have to worry about hell
>>67531593
I think it mostly has to do with the idea that if God is good, how can he condemn someone to torment, a specific interpretation Rom 14:11 and Phil 2:10-11, and an incorrect interpretation of The Judgement.
>>67532717
that probably too.
it's a shame. It's so bad in the UK i was a total outcast because I didn't get drunk twice a week
>>67514584
>no sources
>>67530677
I don't see those two scenarios as equal. Yes scientifically speaking both are not disproved but not proven. Therefore stating God as existing without heaven is actually coming from scientific culture but without the scientific way of thinking. A theory must be proven.
ok for us discard all because we take science as what guides us which is fair enough but what if you take a religious tradition as what guides you? Your going to have theology backing you up, culture, a religious text and have guidance. This is why I understand Christianity, their is a lot to persuade you but someone who makes up their own religion is very different I think. It strikes me as someone who is deluded because they believe their thoughts above everything else out their.
>>67532968
>because I didn't get drunk twice a week
Isn't that just fiscally responsible?
Fiscal responsibility and accountability are other Christian doctrines that have fallen out of favor.
>yfw you read 2 Thess 3:8-11
>>67514584
but your country believes in Allah.
>>67533294
Rationally they are equal
You are right that they are unequal but only if we factor in things like general intelligence and other irrational factors.
>Therefore stating God as existing without heaven is actually coming from scientific culture
Empiricism yes
>but what if you take a religious tradition as what guides you? Your going to have theology backing you up, culture, a religious text and have guidance
Yes this explains why there are so many more Christians than obscure niche believers. Humans often just believe as their parents / church tells them.
>It strikes me as someone who is deluded because they believe their thoughts above everything else out their.
Same amount of delusion, but more arrogance I'd say
>>67514584
>being a heathen
>UFOs
FOR FUCKS SAKE UFOS EXIST YOU IDIOT, THEY'RE JUST A TERM FOR ANY FLYING OBJECT THAT WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WHAT IT IS
IF YOU MEAN ALIENS/FLYING SAUCERS, THEN SAY ALIENS/FLYING SAUCERS
FUCK
>>67515576
Proven?????
>>67533294
Actually, I think those people know quite well that their belief will be irrational. Then they just create one that they feel is good for them emotionally and spiritually. This is not per se delusion, but just a way of living life more comfortably.
>>67514867
I'm not surprised that Dems are more likely to believe in reincarnation. Dems will happily lap up silly supernatural bullshit as long as it doesn't come from a Western religion.
Plus it appeals to their natural egoism. OMG I JUST FEEL LIKE I WAS TOTES, LIKE, JOAN OF ARC IN A PAST LIFE OR SOMETHING. I'M JUST, LIKE, AN OLD SOUL.
>>67534723
> You are right that they are unequal but only if we factor in things like general intelligence and other irrational factors.
I think it is fair to factor in general intelligence and tradition into the debate. I do not believe traditions are irrational factors. Even if these traditions are wrong they are to be respected as they are logical.
> Same amount of delusion, but more I'd say
XDDD well put sir! However I don't think these people are equally delusional because a Christian is not necessarily deluding themselves. They are thinking things through logically within their traditions, culture etc
>>67536226
*arrogance
>>67514867
>>67536110
Well I'm a Hindu so yeah, I believe in reincarnation
>>67536226
If you're interested in developing your thoughts on these issues I'd advise you to study some logic (start with the beginning, Aristotle and syllogisms - work your way up to Russel and Wittgenstein)
Helps clarify concepts and their exact meaning like intelligence, rationality and logic(al form)
>>67515191
Non-Christian religions--Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc.
>>67537004
What happens if you reincarnate into a poo?
>>67537277
Thats the ultimate state of existence for a Hindu. Be revered and float around peacefully next to all the washing filthy humans and rotting corpses.
http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/filthy-india-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html
>>67537214
Well if I want to defeat your argument with that terminology but I don't have to do that, victory to me my son
>>67535394
yes, proven. go fuck a cow
>>67537218
They all believe in heaven M8 what's your point?
>le trump supporters are stupid meme
Reddit is down the hall and to the left.
>>67514584
haha old people believe less bullshit
>>67538127
It's not about defeating an argument it's about actually understanding what you're saying and what I'm saying
>>67515576
It's a theory, although very well supported, still a theory
>>67538456
>not knowing what "hypothesis" and "scientific theroy" means
>>67538446
well I understand what I'm saying and what your saying and defeating your argument :D 10 points to Gryffindor
>>67514584
Did mustakrakish the lake troll help you write that post after a long day at the lumber yard?
babbies
>>67530677
Define rational
>>67538771
>>67530395
darwin was wrong on many things
>>67538908
I'd allow for differentation between theoretical and practical rationality. I've been using the term as theoretical rationality. Theoretical rationality has a formal component that reduces to logical consistency and a material component that reduces to empirical support, relying on our inborn mechanisms of signal detection and interpretation.
>>67539526
brain fart, speak as we speak greek boy!
>>67539771
Means you need empirical evidence and then use your brain to produce logically valid conclusions
>>67539526
I use this definition: https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/reason
>The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically:
And then I define logic as this: https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/logic
>Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity:
Does reason necessarily have to be a posteriori? Does it necessitate an empirical component?
If so, why?
>>67539526
>>67540043
Also, to avoid circularity and to make it more clear, let's use this definition for logic
>Thinking* conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity:
>>67539988
I'll let the fellow Brit take over he seems to have a good grasp of things. Anyway good night to you sir, always fun to debate!
>>67540705
Take care mate
>>67514584
dunno about ghosts and santa but I believe in shit because all the evidence that shit is real is in your post you stupid mongol fuck
>>67514584
>witches
The fuck do they think Wiccans are?
>>67540043
>Does reason necessarily have to be a posteriori?
Using your definition then no, it's about form.
>Does it necessitate an empirical component?
No, but rationality does for those of us who are empiricists.
>>67541187
I'm a rationalist. Are you aware of the difficulties of taking your philosophy to its logical conclusion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Verification-_and_falsification-principles
>inb4 a critique of pure reason
>>67541466
Yes unfortunately we don't really know anything for sure.
I figured out that Santa was fake because I realized he had the exact same handwriting as my dad
>>67541996
You sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Philosophical_skepticism
>A quarter of americans believe in witches
Wtf america?
>>67542208
Natural language creates such paradoxes as we discuss things that are actually just confusions of our mind trying to make sense of things like truth or knowledge.
>>67542412
We can't avoid it. Even as you just spoke you made claims that, with your previously stated beliefs, are self-refuting
It's just a matter of life
>>67534723
Even if reason is always dependent on natural reality, what makes you think it is impossible for that same reason based on natural observations to point to something beyond itself ie the supernatural?
>>67542412
The only way around it is axioms or an infinite regression
Don't assume you can avoid it
>>67542329
We simultaneously condemn religion and encourage 'spiritualism'
Life is suffering
>>67542692
>>67542920
Don't assume, ah like a rationalist does. No I don't assume. I take the verification- and falsification-principles to be the best method, purely pragmatically to gain 'knowledge'. Knowledge not ever being certain, I accept that, maybe the term knowledge loses its meaning then, I can live with that.
>>67542771
If it could, it would simply be natural?
>>67514867
>>30% of demos believe in reincarnation
>There's no way that number can be that high.
>There's no way any of these numbers can be that high.
Why not...
"Racism is absurd; you COULD HAVE BEEN born a nigger" That line of thinking implies a belief in metempsychosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metempsychosis
Democraps also believe in Magical/Numinous/Therapeutic niggers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro
etc.
That chart is ridiculously biased.
>>67542920
No, there is another way you dont see
You assume language is determined by logic, when it is the other way arround, logical argumentation is just an aspect among many of language and therefore language can never be reduced to a set of logical norms without it suffering a severe mutilation in its function
Clear language is possible once we agree on for what are we using language, as long as we dont use language in the same manner, we are speaking to our respective mental walls, included me, which I dont consider a mistake in my case since I have already accepted it and therefore I can find true enjoyment in this language-as-a-exchange-of-monologues
>>67543679
B-but you can't assume, mate. Cause as soon as you do you end up refuting yourself
You can't just cheat like that. :^(
It's (unjustified) special pleading (in the case of academic scepticism). And an outright contradiction in the case of verificationalism (extreme empiricism)
*Unless. And that's why I've said it just before. You realise and admit to using axioms
>>67544346
There's only the linguistic illusion of a refution. The concept of knowledge simply is not meaningful. An axiom is considered to be self-evident. My basis is not self-evident but only self-serving - to create useful information to lead our lives.
>>67544282
>No, there is another way you dont see
You assume language is determined by logic, when it is the other way arround,
I assume there is such a thing as logic - by this definition: >>67540322 It doesn't need to cover all language. There is such a thing as alogical language. Like onomatopoeias for instance
>logical argumentation is just an aspect among many of language and therefore language can never be reduced to a set of logical norms without it suffering a severe mutilation in its function
It doesn't need to be completely reduced to such. See the above
>Clear language is possible once we agree on for what are we using language, as long as we dont use language in the same manner, we are speaking to our respective mental walls, included me, which I dont consider a mistake in my case since I have already accepted it and therefore I can find true enjoyment in this language-as-a-exchange-of-monologues
I would like us to use our language now as *validly as possible
*According to the rules of logic
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/valid
>>67543679
Yes and no, I claim part of Nature is unobservable, I refer to this as the supernatural eventough it is still technically nature
But it is beyond what people commonly understand as nature so it is not wrong to call it supernatural
Of course I dont have knowledge about it, I cant tell you that there are 45 celestial planes that contain 4 light spheres each, I only claim one can rationally prove the existence of supernatural realities, and at the same time that this proves reveals nothing about the pecularities of this realities except that at an absolute fundamental level they share the same form as material reality or concious reality or any reality you can access as a human, or as you say, this unobservable supernatural realm is still part of Nature yet completely distinct from the Nature we know except in basic principles that allow existence to be possible
>>67544839
>The concept of knowledge simply is not meaningful
How in God's name does this not just cancel itself out?
>>67545383
Ye that would be something different from what I was thinking of being 'supernatural'. Which would be outside our universe, divine. I'm not sure what the implications are of your 'supernatural'.
>>67545475
Yes frustrating isn't it, but I can live with this.
>>The concept of knowledge simply is not meaningful
As you would expect from the statement, I don't mind it not being knowledge.
>>67545121
I know enough about logic to understand that beyond pragmatic reasons a definition of logic is actually unattainable
Definitions are logical objects, you cant use logic to create logic. We are not even debating logic here, we are discussing what a dictionary says about logic.
And I cant give you a true use, that I can provide you with knowledge is restricted to logical argumentation. And believe me no one here is using strict logical structures to prove anything. You will understand the true use of language once you engage in it, there is no preestablished chain of letters I can provide you to convince you of anything, the closest I can say is that it is that kind of words you use when you are not aware that you are using words
>>67546373
But how do you know it's not knowable?
You can't just keep zoning it out of your head every time it pops up
One day you'll have to face it. And take a leap of faith
Or quite a few, as I did
>>67546373
My supernatural has no interaction with this universe, I obviously believe it is absurd to believe in a supernatural world inhabited by beings worried about this world and acting upon it and to where one can go after death
I do believe there might be intelligences there, but their concern for our universe is the same as ours for theirs, they know we exist but they know nothing about us
>>67546651
>I know enough about logic to understand that beyond pragmatic reasons a definition of logic is actually unattainable
>Definitions are logical objects, you cant use logic to create logic.
Definition are alogical. There do not have to follow the rules of logic. They are axiomatic in nature
>We are not even debating logic here, we are discussing what a dictionary says about logic.
What's wrong with using dictionaries? :)
>And I cant give you a true use, that I can provide you with knowledge is restricted to logical argumentation.
What's wrong with logical argumentation?
>And believe me no one here is using strict logical structures to prove anything.
You don't need to. Just use them to the best of your ability. Only formal logicians and mathematicians use them strictly
Just use informal logic and try to avoid these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies
They're on the front page of /pol/ as well. You should have seem them
>You will understand the true use of language once you engage in it, there is no preestablished chain of letters I can provide you to convince you of anything, the closest I can say is that it is that kind of words you use when you are not aware that you are using words
I don't know mate. You need to know the beauty of convincing someone of something through reason. Doesn't happen often, but it's a sight when it does
>>67547542
*Definitions
*They
>>67546656
I realize I'm swimming in contradictions, always have been, but I don't see a better option.
>>67547814
>>67547542
>should have seen*
>>67548083
Take that God damn leap of faith anon. Dare to have a starting point
The act of thinking is literally impossible without that
>>67538456
ever heard of mrsa?
>>67538456
please kill yourself, fellow american.
>>67514584
Nobody actually believes in anything here. Not even Christians.
"I'm a Christian!"
>hasn't read the bible
>doesn't go to church
>works on the sabbath
>eats forbidden food
>doesn't follow any of the rules
Saying "I believe in reincarnation." or, "I believe in God." in modern day US is basically saying, "I'd like to believe in this, because it'd be pretty cool."
>>67514584
kebabs are fucking children on trains in norway and in the streets of german
>>67548719
I work as a Cemetarian, and I can tell you that most people don't believe in God, at least not in the sense that most people believe other people believe in God.
If you sincerely thought that your loved one had just passed from life to Heaven, and is now at the Creators side for the rest of eternity in a place of infinite happiness and joy....why the fuck are you chimping out at the casket?
>>67548315
I'm young, maybe I'll cave maybe I won't. I feel a bit trapped in Wittgenstein's doctrine where philosophy has basically been replaced by science and all that is left to think about are meaningless concepts we only think have meaning because of language.
>>67549243
Because their body is a symbol of the person that once was with them
They're missing them you autist
>>67549243
Same reason people dislike suicide.
B-B-B-BUH IF U KILL URSELF I WON GET TO TALK TO YUSE NO MORE
It's a selfish act. A person who actually believes in Christianity would be happy their child died during cancer, so they got to live with god instead of be tormented on Earth.
>>67549459
I thought exactly like you. It took me half a decade to finally get some clarity of thought in my philosophy
Started out being a fedora as well
Never lose faith in logic first and foremost. Then, as you get better at understanding it you'll be able to see the light of God
>Also google "The Argument from Reason"
>>67514584
>evolution
>only 48%
I see, I'm in a country of retards
Whatever. Atleast they dont have cognitive dissonance
As a psychologist, I've seen more liberals who believe in evolution AND astrology than you'd think. Makes no fucking sense famalam
And it takes a special kind of idiot to believe astrology. Creationism has a place...sort of (i can see where it comes from) astrology does not
>>67550270
They have the creationism % very low too, so i don't know.
>>67530395
Darwin was moving in the right direction but his path would never reach the destination he sought.
