Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

Asch

I'll give a brief explanation to give you a better understanding;It works better when you're actually physically, in a group. To save being the odd one out, you would start to agree with the others, if most of them kept stating the incorrect answer. I've seen it happen. A bunch of actors get the wrong answer and the genuine guy conforms in the end. No one wants to be the odd one out. In the end, they will simply conform in order to go with the flow, and be accepted by the others.Even if the suggestion is immoral, you could eventually conform, despite being a decent chap. Frightening but true. Maybe we should analyze our own actions more, in order to stop them.You must have sensed this at one time. When you walk away from a group and wonder, "why did I act like that?".Same with a young person in say, a religious institution or whatever. I'm sure he'd rather go to burger king, but if chopping up raw cow for sacrificial religious reasons, is the norm, then it's time he got his knife out. With enough pressure, he's sure to crack, and kill the cow. Same in an army. If you woke up all of a sudden, with general-fu*ktard standing above you at 6am in the morning, shouting at the top of his voice, you'd probably comply, as everyone else would be. After a while, You might even feel nervous if you didn't conform. I guess you'd better get up, if you woke up in that situation.I remember I was with a group of ex-prisoners who seemed to enjoy talking about violence. My resolve was good, and I didn't join their social-group, but I got nervous, and felt threatened. They could tell I wasn't one of them. This might have made me laugh at their jokes a bit more when I didn't want to. Who knows, if I'm pushed enough, I might even pick up a gun and become a disposable hero.In short, I guess we act like this for self-preservation, so I think it's understandable as to why we act like this. Do we really blame every German family that agreed with Hitler at the time? Did they really agree?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-02-2005 11:06 AM

P.Y.I didn't mean for it to sound like I was trying to teach you. I was just trying to show why my link is relevant, as the Asch test shows that there is infact a psychological reason for people's behaviour pertaining to conformity. Would you say your dislike of it renders it a useless concept?You don't think "peer pressure" is psychological?

Hi Riverrat. That's an unfair accusation.I think what Shraff is trying to tell you is that there is no way to discern God-thoughts from her own, because they're infact, all her own thoughts. Maybe you just think God speaks to you like this, as it doesn't suggest anything about this formula, in the bible. Well, that's the first positive statement I've heard. That end bit was atleast a new one on me. Usually it's, "now go and burn in hell for eternity for enjoying the taste of chicken". Atheistic-pressure doesn't exist.I agree lots of people do wrongs in life (sins), but if I'm honest, I don't think I've ever done anything to deserve an eternity in hell. It's probable that neither has Shraff. So why bother her at all with pressuring her to pray when she is obviously content to live agnostically, and then go to heaven afterwards?Don't tell me. My theology is a lie from the devil. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-04-2005 08:32 AM

So you checked the whole system? You are one thorough guy! That's the thing though. I prayed and believed my socks off, and received no Holy Spirit, or any experience. Probably because I wasn't in a crowd, so the parts of my brain that fabricate religious experience wasn't stimulated.Infact I've tried like stink to have any kind of experience, for many years, but when I see it on the TV, these guys getting hit on the head and falling to the floor, I think "God, you know that my belief is stronger than theirs, yet you apparently put on this farcical show of an idiot in a white suit tapping people's heads, and they pretend to be drunk or whatever". Yet God never gave me any kind of HS experience. Probably I asked, atleast twenty times, and I got nothing.Your group laughing on the floor sounds like hysterics to me. I couldn't act like that if you payed me. Laughing at thin air? How much did they pay you? (Only kiddin') I don't think you're nuts. I'm just thinking that there probably is a natural explanation for your group laughter-event. Seldom is a skeptic wrong when he's gets his trusty instruments out.I can't believe God would let people starve yet make another group of people laugh. Understand the problem? So, tell me my problem if I have one.I don't recall any of these experiences being mentioned by Jesus, nor why I should believe I have to go to a group of people and have some guy push me over, in order to experience God.P.S. You're a decent guy, and I understand why you believe as you do. I also understand that trying to explain these things rationally, is like describing chocolate, in a scientific capacity, which in no way is any substitute for the experience. So you see, I am aware of all the factors. God bless.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-05-2005 09:18 AM

Laughter is contagious. My sister laughs hysterically when I am laughing. I don't know why, but there's nothing funnier to her, than my laughter.Maybe there was some suggestion you didn't quite notice before. Maybe you seen someone laughing, but didn't register it consciously, but you did subconsciously, so you went back to get in on the fun.This is my explanation of what chocolate tastes like, I don't expect you to exchange your experience for it. (I don't expect you to believe me).That's the thing about an objective analysis; It's boring, and I don't expect a person of character to exchange their experience for a boring explanation. But in all likelyhood, the objective evaluation is probably the correct explanation of events, if we are honest with ourselves.So when you said, earlier on, that you can "know" God exists, I have to disagree. Formerly I would have agreed, but the fact is that there is always a natural explanation for the occurences we attribute to the supernatural. And I'm okay with that nowadays. I know what you mean. It's an incentive. I lost this incentive when I had my three weeks of atheism, as I didn't feel any pressure to give, or that there was nay universal or heavenly ramifications. But I have to admitt, the feeling I get of being clean, when I give, brought me back to God, which is why I say to people, that God is atleast my good works.

Well, it was involuntary. I switched many things off, psychologically, over that more atheistic period.So, well, I would say it's just my own self evolving and adapting to the true situation of the way things are. I think many believers equate inexplicable events with the supernatural. Because something is unexplained, it doesn't mean it's a cause of the heavens. But sure, I suppose I would also be convinced if I had your experience.I've seen skeptical people become convinced by experience. The problem is, that like me, the majority of skeptics don't have any experience, even when they ask to. Well, I suppose you're attempting to say that my faith wasn't strong, so I didn't have an experience?But it was strong for many years infact. Infact, I was convinced I would have a religious experience at times, simply because my belief was through the roof, and I was almost "willing" it to happen, with 110% belief.Guess what I got? Silence. Tell me if the spirit of truth tells you if that's true. Bit vague isn't it. Could apply to anyone.I don't think great things are on the cards. And when I did it did me harm.If you do have the spirit of truth, tell me my middle name and my date of birth. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-06-2005 09:58 AM

I suppose that's a common name and date?Incorrect.

You see. That right there is called slothful induction. It's a fallacy where you ignore the fact that the majority of the evidence allows you to infer that science works.It's like saying, " the other team wins nearly every time, but I'm telling you - they're not the best because they lost one game to us "The fact is that the fingerprint-case (if your meme is true), is just one-case scenario, and doesn't negate the true inductive inference that infact science works the majority of the time.Even a mistake in theory is likely the human's fault, not science's.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-07-2005 08:02 AM

January. In fairness to Riverrat, he did suggest that his abilities don't incorporate such information. So to be fair, this doesn't actually negate what he is saying. You see how honest I am?

You're wrong you know.Science has no apriori dogma. It searches through a method which holds no biases. It is based on logic. It is not based on absolutes.Religion is the antithesis of science, by definition;Religion holds that an absolute incorruptible dogma is true, and then attempts to rule out anything that comes against that dogmaThe opposite;Science holds a tentative theory, which is held as a premise which should be supported by evidence, and attempts to falsify that theory, in order to assure and infer correctlyLiterally the opposite. And I'm sure more educated minds could explain this better than I.Infact, science is under logic and allows itself to be tested, falsified or confirmed.If you make a statement against religion, you are met with disgruntlement amongst the religious, and even hatred and intolerance of your scientific viewpoint.If I said, "let's suggest Yahweh isn't real", then the religious person would absolutely protest, as you are not protecting the fabric of the religious meme. You are threatening the belief he holds as absolutely unshakably true. Science doesn't even say anything about truth, as it is logical. Logic knows that absolutes are stumbling blocks.Here's an example of how absolutes don't work in inductive logic;If you want to say that Pete's raven is blackAll ravens are black
Pete has a raven

​

therefore Pete's raven is black.The first premise is an absolute, and can't be supported, unless you observe every raven. The first premise is religious.The correct way to say he raven is black, is to go on what you have, and forget absolutes. Thus;Every observed raven is black
Pete has a raven

​

Pete's raven is black.For reasons you might not know (or the readers), this is the difference between religion and science. You can, with evidence, if not, absolutely infer, still atleast have a justified true belief that his raven is black, as it is obviously "observed" and evidenced. Whereas the dogma of absolutes, guarantee a faulty argument.You're under slothful induction IMHO.P.s. Sorry I didn't respond to your other post adressed to me. I will respond when I can.

It's January.Ofcouse, even though you did state that you're not a fortune teller, post-question, rather than divulging the information precedingly, I'll give you the benefit of the meme , and assume you get "words for specific individuals" rather than specific information.You did however, say that you have the spirit of truth so you know when people are lying, but not always. Care for a test? Don't tell me; It's not right to test the Lord your God if he has to answer for some bull he's been feeding your ears. As it doesn't glorify him.Can't you see how that's a religious meme? In that;X claims Y is all-powerful.
Person B then asks person X to show the power of Y.Person X then makes a post-statement, after the fact, and excuses himself by saying it would be most wrong to ask Y to prove he has power.This is the case with every religious problem. If you say X doesn't exist, then X will send you to hell. Therefore, you are scared into believing X, and never questioning the problem of X not existing.I advise you read up on logic. There's an underlying world of logic that reveals the truth about people's actions and motives. It's truly fascinating what you can find out by means of deduction and simply improving your craftiness. I'd advise starting by watching a few episodes of Columbo as his deductions are based on real logic.I also like Jesus's logic the best. His is this;Jesus has to deal with group Y which attacks him by means of X(the law).So Jesus's technique is an excellent logic. He infact says that group Y fall short of X (the law). In essence, he uses their own doctrine against them. He attacks them because they claim perfection via the law, so he raises the game, and says that infact they haven't even understood their own law and fall way short of it. So how can they possibly attack him via X?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-07-2005 10:49 AM

I like you Riverrat. You're a nice guy and I'm enjoying our exchanges.I understand why you passionately defend. If only I could articulate why in my opinion, there are many holes in what you're saying.I'll answer your post when I can. I leave this to poor Shraff, to sort you out.

I'm so glad now that I used the qualifier, "if your meme is true". Ofcourse, that's assuming NWR's quoted meme, is true.

I can answer your post now.. Science deals more with the veracity and validity aspect. Facts.I think you refer to truth in another way. But it's simply a neutral un-biased filter. I think you confuse the absolute-aspect and religious dogma, with a paradigm. A paradigm is based on assumptions. In many cases, one evidence against a paradigm can be useless if it doesn't allow you to logically conclude that the paradigm is incorrect.This gives you a false sense, that paradigms are absolute dogmas in science. It's not true though, it's that you don't want to do away with a paradigm because of a discrepency. It would be foolish to say that a whole theory has been turned on it's head because of an inexplicable one-off evidence that doesn't support the paradigm. I think you believe this is the case. But there is no collusion of preceding dogmas. It would have been de-bunked long ago as a farce. Lol. In what way? "Oh Jesus, heal me...and if you don't, then it's my fault as I didn't pray hard enough,,,..or...erm...you're on an off day". Huh? How so? This doesn't mean anything though. Everything was invented by man that is manmade. Being "subject to the mistakes of man" is the middle term [shared].If you are saying that religion and science are the same because they share something, then this is the undistributed middle termand is a fallacious argument. Here is a funny example.Infact, scientific theories are found wrong all of the time via the very efficiency science provides. I suppose the difference is that with religion, you can have the capacity to do an incorrect thing correctly. But with science, you'd have to do a correct thing incorrectly. (Sorry for acting a a smart arse) I think to some extent you'r correct. Genuine people are after genuine truth.However, in the film The name of the Rose with Sean Connery, the religious man says; " We are here to preserve knowledge; NOT to search for knowledge ".And herein lies the problem with religious people. They don't accept any outside input as valid, depending on how reasonable they are. That's the problem isn't it? You can't prove Yahweh wrong because he's unfalsifiable. Although I admitt difficulty in understanding what you're getting at here. God is an anthropomorphic concept atleast. Even he would admitt that he, on earth, has only been referred to, religiously. Good point. I agree absolutes are stumbling blocks in religion.I don't know about your other points. As far as I know, absolutes are simply not relevant to investigation. But, we certainly have the capacity to be stumblingblocks. I'd agree with you on that score.I think you have a good point about both being man made and capable of making mistakes. It's just that so far, only science has been confirmed as being correct.