Thread: Why People Believe Weird Things

Originally posted by Placebo

Yep, actually I was born a catholic, and changed religions at the age of 14 of my own choice.
Thankfully at the time my mother was pretty unhappy about being a catholic herself.

Lately I find myself in the unusual situation where I'm questioning my beliefs once again. And this time the change would have a massive impact on my family.
It's a really frustrating situation, so I can relate to the family religion point.

Nevertheless, there are some that CHOSE their religion

What did you change to then, Placebo, and what are you looking at becoming now? I'm terribly curious.

WOW I can't believe I've missed this thread for so long.

I really liked this one: "- Morality and Meaning - Science does not offer moral messages and answers to our questions about the meaning of our existence. Superstitions give us answers to these ultimate questions." Science is a cold hard thing...but so are facts and truth. Learn to embrace them rather than try to find "meaning" in everything.

BradyBaker is one of the most original thinkers on this board in my opinion and bravo for this topic.

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
What did you change to then, Placebo, and what are you looking at becoming now? I'm terribly curious.

I feel uncomfortable about mentioning my current religion, due to my mixed feelings on it.
And I don't have a religion I intend going 'to'

I have no better religion in mind as an alternative, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily 100% happy with what I have.

Originally posted by bradybaker
^ It's always easier to believe if you can convince someone else of the same thing.

And as it happens, the things you believe are in the majority. I believe most of what you say as well. But nothing is a constant.
There are ever changing theories and laws of physics, ideas, realism etc.
So to lable something as "wierd" to me is just an act of agreeing with the majority.
Instead of questioning everything and dare stand on the side of the minority, it is much easier to jump on the band wagon of the popular view and lable this and discount that.

Originally posted by Feeble Wizard
I was just pointing out the similarities and making the point that this thesis is not really bradybaker's own ideas, but something that he got out of a book. I really didn't make that very clear at all, though; sorry about that

I apologize for offending you?

I actually got the ideas from a philosophy lecture at school. I guess my prof liked that book.

I thought it was interesting so I decided to share it with the board.

I usually source any ideas that I get from places other than my head.

Next time I'll be more careful

Back on topic..

as it happens, the things you believe are in the majority.[/b]

I do not entirely agree. About 85% of the world still believes in God and some form of afterlife, although that number is coming down.

So to lable something as \"wierd\" to me is just an act of agreeing with the majority.[/b]

I prefer to label anything that defies logic and reason to be 'weird'. Screw the majority.

BradyBaker is one of the most original thinkers on this board in my opinion and bravo for this topic.[/b]

Thanks Ophelia. Bravo to you.

What do you think about Quantum Mehcanics Bradybaker?

You do have a lot of good original ideas in this thread (after the first post), so I certainly mis-worded that last sentance. You didn't offend me, and I think that this is a good topic. That's why I stressed so much (at the beginning and the end) in my first post that it really didn't matter that it came from a book. My second post sounded like I was trying to discredit you, but really I was just feeling silly because I thought that it looked as if I just reluctantly offered up a book to read for no real reason. I guess I'm not very good at communicating .

I liked the book and agreed with a lot of what was in it. This thread really cought my attention because the first post was a summary of the book, and that's why I posted here. I mean it just seemed very odd that people would argue for seven pages about an outline of a book without ever once mentioning the book ; but now I see how it happened -- professors often do "teach to a book."

Originally posted by Jammy
What do you think about Quantum Mehcanics Bradybaker?

I would label it as "weird"....if it weren't one of the most solid and thoroughly tested theories in the history of science.

Incredible predictions have been confirmed and a ton of technological advances have been made possible because of quantum mechanics.

Not only that but it support themes such as "The Supernatural", and open up am entirly new look on reality, for us in the west at least. The only downside, for scientist mostly that worked with the old view on reality, is that QM becomes more like a philosophy. Now its harder to work "objective", if such a thing every existed. Its the subjective viewpoint that matters now, as the observer of matter. Many questions have arised. But thats an entierly differnt topic.

Firstly, I would like to thank BradBaker for starting this topic. All of you have kicked my mind hard enough to expand it beyond it's previous (however minute) dimension. There is enough I'd like to discuss regarding this topic that a six-pack of Bud and a bottle of Jack would easily find themselves arriving on tab. What I offer you all right now is some uncommon perspective on religion and it's potential for harmony with science, since much of the mention of religion here focuses on it's (Mostley Abrahamic rooted) in-compatibility with science. There are to follow, selections from: http://www.geocities.com/scimah/obscurantism.htm.

May we all strive to "see with eyes unclouded" as Prince Ashitaka put it so tidily in Princess Mononoke.

Let us begin.

"...Hasn't religion always been anti-scientific? Is there any possible compromise?

The combination of bad relations throughout history and the current activities of fundamentalists have convinced many scientists that all religion is intrinsically irrational and anti-scientific. Mention religion and they reach for Occams' chainsaw.

This is a Western problem - Buddhist cultures don't carry this sort of baggage.
The point of this website (see link above) is that the struggle between science and religion is not inevitable. It's a culturally conditioned view resulting from an ongoing 350 year old feud in Europe and America. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way and other cultures don't carry this baggage.

So how is Buddhism different from obscurantism? Buddhism could be described as a religion, but it could equally well be described as a philosophy or a technology of the mind. It isn't dogmatic or intrinsically paranoid. It doesn't expect you to believe six impossible things before breakfast. The refreshing thing about Buddhism is that in many respects it is an empirical methodology and a liberal tradition of free enquiry. It's not so much a set of things to believe as a set of things to do. As the Buddha told his students "Don't believe anything I say just because I said it - try it out for yourselves". Which really is the only way that anyone learns anything."

- Sean Robsville

"Buddhist philosophy is evolutionary and thus agrees with the scientists rather than the theologians. Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading . Buddhist philosophers consequently rejected the Platonic idea of production from 'ideal forms' as being the fallacy of 'production from inherently existent other'. According to most schools of Buddhism there is nothing whatsoever that is inherently or independently existent..

The two main creationist objections to evolution are:
1 Disagreement with Genesis
2 Blurring of the theological distinction between human and animal

Neither of these pose any threat to Buddhist philosophy. The first objection is based on the need to maintain the truth of a particular creation story in order to preserve the underlying basis for all Biblical truth. This is not a worry to Buddhists because there is no corresponding Buddhist creation myth, and Buddhist philosophers have always accepted that the universe is many hundreds of millions of years old"


The following is a quote from Mr. e=mc^2 himself:

"If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism"
-Albert Einstein

Now I am not "pushing" Buddhism, I took a "religion test" that rated me at 86% Mahayana Buddhist in all it's finite wisdom, so I agree with it's teachings in many respects. The reason for this post is more to inform the larger Western audience of the practical aspects of the original guidlines (Dharma) that the Historical Buddha (only a man, not a god) taught to help us see the Truth and make sense of our being here.

I believe we paint reality with our own respective minds. We CAN choose what we paint. I believe this may be scientifically proven. I believe all humans and most animals like being treated with kindness, this also may be proven with the Method. I believe that to live in ignorance of these personal (non-doctrinal) observations which I have made with my own mind would lead me to a miserable existence.

Did most of you know this, or have I observed the same thing as you, that there is a great deal of misinformation generated by the Western cinematic and newsmedia portrayal of Buddhism, which seems to be rooted in an ignorance, unwillingness or laziness to look with true intent upon the living truth of what the historical Buddha Gautama said?

Cheers and may you all attain perfect peace,
John