Choosing a faith

Wiki defines it. Authoritarianism We also had that Canadian guy who wrote the book called The Authoritarians.
​ If you and the peanut gallery voted in a government that seized everyone's gold, as FDR did, that would be an authoritarian action. Especially after gold became legal to own again even though Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold. No. Only Jesus is Holy. Even a Theocracy would not be "holy" though it might be authoritarian. China is run by Socialists. Note how they lock people down against their will "ostensibly" for the good of the people.

I'll give you that. Your argument is rational. But what do you make of the thousands of claims of personal experience with an unexplainable variable? Are all of them just wishing "it" were real? Are all of them prone to confirmation bias? Just because science cant (so far) investigate such claims does not mean that the claims were made up. You also have a point there. You really make me work for my arguments, don't you? Another good point. Your mind is singing this morning.(Lord knows ) Lets assume for a moment that Jesus actually existed and did miracles beyond the usual carny hucksterism of the pretenders. If He had waited until today to make His first appearance, do you really think that mass communication would be on His side? According to dogma, Satan runs the world anyway. That much has not changed.

Most people at that time experienced the Depression. Even the wealthy were not spared from it, though Joseph Kennedy was astute enough to get out of the stock market before it tanked.More precisely, (and according to Dalio's model) World War II rescued America from the Great Depression. We were in it with or without Roosevelt.

Browsing the posts, I saw your reply and googled that. What I got was this:
The Appeal of Echo Chambers The specific "hit" that I chose to read was, of course, the first sponsored hit on Google. A sloppy way to *do* homework to be sure, but since it was from the University of Idaho, I justified it due to an "appeal to legitimacy".
to wit:

The Appeal of Echo Chambers:

---

Bert Baumgaertner recognizes that there’s something deeply satisfying about being surrounded by people with like-minded ideologies. But in his business of truth-seeking, he tries to avoid such scenarios, instead surrounding himself with as many dissenting opinions as possible.

​

As assistant professor of philosophy, Baumgaertner researches the phenomenon of echo chambers — the spaces, such as online forums, media outlets or social groups, in which people exclusively surround themselves with others of similar, often extreme, mindsets, which creates highly structured populations and leads to an amplification of opinions. The result is polarization — when division occurs between groups of people because of different viewpoints. He explores this dynamic in his paper “Yes, No, Maybe So,” published in 2014 by Springer, and more recently in his September 2016 paper “Opinion Strength Influences the Spatial Dynamics of Opinion Formation” in The Journal of Mathematical Sociology.

​

Baumgaertner built what he calls an agent-based model to research how patterns, with regard to echo chambers and polarization, emerge in different human interactions. This computer simulation program allows individual agents to interact with others based on various sets of rules.

​

He began with the assumption that amplification of opinion occurs when people find others who agree with them and therefore feel validated even if no new evidence or argument is presented to them. What became his most significant finding was how polarization can occur with even the slightest bit of amplification. Individuals with the most extreme opinions and least tolerance for compromise become the most influential, even if there are very few of them.

​

“You might have some agents who make due diligence to meet everybody in the middle,” Baumgaertner said. “And you expect that populations will move toward the center on issues and not toward one side. But if you have even a tiny bit of bias, you can actually produce polarization if the population is structured” — or if individuals only interact with other like-minded people.

​

The downfall of polarized societies, Baumgaertner said, is that they are “less receptive to the truth,” which proves problematic when attempting to create change.

​

“Collective action depends on us being able to reach some kind of consensus,” he said. “If we’re highly polarized and the thing creating this polarization has to do with our population structure, it will be more difficult to get that consensus.”

​

By contrast, Baumgaertner said, “If you have a population that’s less polarized, that means you’re going to listen to people with dissenting opinions on a pretty frequent basis. You’re going to be able to adapt more quickly to whatever influence you’re getting from the outside. It has to do with how responsive populations are to external stimuli, and polarized populations aren’t going to be receptive.”

​

Baumgaertner noted that with the rise of the internet, the assumption existed that people would have more exposure to dissenting opinions, and evidence-based truths would become more apparent. In fact, the opposite happened.

​

“I can go to Bert’s forum for everything that Bert agrees with and nothing that Bert disagrees with,” Baumgaertner said. “And I don’t have to listen to what’s being said on other outlets. I can find people online with my exact views and just have interactions with them. The internet had this weird opposite effect where people can find these assenting niche opinions and ignore people on the outside with dissenting opinions.”

​

He added: “The truth is often inconvenient. We have a natural inclination to meet with people similar to us. We have to be extra diligent and cautious of the type of situations we put ourselves in given that disposition.”

​

Baumgaertner’s next research project will deal with people’s abilities and willingness to discern fake news from evidence-based news, which he hopes will “highlight just how important philosophy is.”

---

Next, I noted my own behavior and kneejerk reply to Tangle's post. So I am guilty of confirmation bias. Next, I am going to look further into Tangles' case for prosecution. IIRC, from my own earlier college days 22 years ago, (and 20 more years before THAT!) I learned that a Prosecutor, by definition "fully investigates a case or an individual." Prosecutors are of course trying to win a given case, but they do so by gathering all of the facts...not just their own set of facts favorable to their client. I try and behave like Baumgaertner, but at this point in time,I would not make a good prosecutor/private investigator because I am, admittedly biased in favor of Christianity and Jesus. Why on earth would I argue against Him?

Note my response to Taqs post about "Echo Chambers". This describes the peanut gallery to a tee! To be fair, though...(and to follow up on my homework) I will examine the next few hits on the search engine apart from that first one.

No. Confirmation bias exists in atheists as well as believers.

So in an "expert" appeal to authority, this author knows for a fact that Jesus was likely a fictional character and yet he can't even tell us who the author of Matthew was? He needs to brush up on his homework.

I would say that those three things are mindless.
I would *not* suggest that Dragonflies are mindless, however. See the distinction?We all know that Vegetables are or were at one point a living thing.
We all know that minerals are not alive
​

*Touche*But if you are implying that God preferred one people over others, why is that a bad thing? I'm not Jewish, but I have no problem being a stepchild. And what about Isaac and Ishmael?

If you are referencing the OT, keep in mind that there were no stepchildren at that point. The adoption papers were not signed until the crucifixion and even then the public-at-large were informed that they too could become stepchildren if only they accepted the Father. (Families are messy like that )And how on earth was Ishmael the legitimate heir? This gets interesting...

I can reply to the first point The second part of this post will be answered here in this topic, Choosing a faith.(sorry...im running late for an appointment. Will respond more thoroughly later... )

after all, the book was written, edited, and redacted by us. Either we are listening to inner wisdom or we are plotting on behalf of fake wisdom. No Ph about it!

That's a POTM sentence right there! In my opinion, the best thing you have said regarding belief. It caused me to pause, think, pray, and meditate. Then repeat.

What caught my attention this morning is your phrase "staying in his field" referring to Dawkins but previously applicable to Ray Dalio (no Economist) Sam Harris (another pompous "ass" as you put it IIRC) and a smattering of "believers" who dared cross the line into History.Perhaps I will begin with a question.

Why is a "believer" with a genuine interest in human nature, evidence (or lack of evidence) regarding original sin, and bias against Jesus Christ being a factor not counted as being an expert? I realize I am being facetious and as usual, applying hyperbole in this, but we need to nail down the definition of "expert" and apply that to the overall discussion regarding choosing a faith.

​

I can grant you the fact that an expert by definition is trained academically in the field of discipline related specifically to a category. Some categories would of course be

History

Archeology

Linguistics

Philosophy

Comparitive Religions

Sociology etc.
I am applying the same methodology that you applied to Ray Dalio. And I am not challenging you on your instincts for spotting a fox among hens (con among rubes?)
You were right about Ravi. He was a con among rubes and many Christians were shocked that it was so. We could *not* deny the evidence in front of our faces, however, and chalked it up as a lesson learned.

​

IIRC, back then I was defending Ravi (arguing with you) and scrambled around trying to find evidence in his favor. I found none. He faked his academic credentials. He bamboozled many religious leaders who were guilty of the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity and appeal to emotionalism and in retrospect, was the perfect con.

​

His words were a quite well-tossed word salad and I knew it even back then. I did not trust critics such as you because I thought you were simply bashing the faith and were naturally biased against Jesus Christ. Sometimes I still feel that way, but am evaluating you in a more critical manner. Anyway...back to my point.

Theo writes:

​

As for Dawkins, he needs to stay in his field. He no spokesperson for atheists...

Whom would you list as the best spokespersons for "atheists" (as if atheism is a valid subgroup in and of itself )

​

How on earth could one even be an expert in atheism? The closest I could come would be Matt Dillahunty, but my criticism of him is only that he sells books and makes a profession out of his argument.

I listened to it at the 38-minute mark, but I am wondering why you promote this and why it means something to you for us to hear it. It *does* broaden my perspective, so I figure it can cause me no harm. I wish you followed the links and videos I provide as a tit-for-tat experience, but you guys are convinced I am but a loon! One thing stuck out: "Memories are no better in the ancient world than they are today...which is a valid point. Believers would retort that *important information* is always recalled whereas a "State Of The Union" address is as boring as Biden himself! (Or as loud and obnoxious as Trump! )