A Question For Those In The Know

[gall]

I'm starting to think that none of the christians/other religious people really believe. Because if they really really believe, they'd hold the bible and god to a higher standard than themselves. But they don't. It's just a show or something. I mean if you really believe, you wouldn't have to deny evidence. You can face up to the evidence and say you still believe. IDK, it occurred to me in the subway today when I was looking at this ad that says: does the bible confuse you? Join a 6 week course on how to understand the word of God.

And it's like dude, if my report confuses anyone, I'm failing my lab. But if god's only book is confusing that's ok? Come on, you have to expect better from a god.

I know a lot who think they believe. In reality they just cling to it to cover the fear they often feel. Not sure why they would get fat with faith rather than stay healthy mentally with reason. Reason distills fear it forces fear to conform to itself. Reason brings light into darkness not gods or blind faith.

They should hold a higher standard and they don't. One good indication it is a shallow greedy belief that they will be saved. They don't give a damn about mankind. They only do so in that they are instructed to care. Tell someone something long enough they just might fall for it. Some small part of us usually remains trying to protect reason though our minds last defense if you will. You can crush him to dust if you want but then one is truly lost. If they can't expect better things from their god why would they try to hold themselves to a better standard either?

It really is a show and it makes you wonder who they really are performing for? God was never there to watch, never bought a ticket, sent a flower, clapped at all...

Its all funny/sad/pukey all at once. The stage of life with players who expect someone else to memorize their lines.

[John V]

I'm curious. Do the resident christians really believe
all of the stuff they post? Which ones are real and
which are trolling? Or, are their beliefs really as
troll-ish as some of them sound? I'm starting to think
that christians are out of their minds. I'll name names
if anyone asks, but please don't ask me to quote posts
by them - I'm trying to forget.

I don't believe all of what I post, as it's sometimes easier to address an argument based on the opponent's beliefs. Aside from those situations, yes, my posts reflect my beliefs.

[Minimalist]

I think, for the most part, the ones who post believe the shit they spout. It is hard to take the literalists seriously but, in general, I think they are more honest than the cherry-pickers.

Of course, in that sense, "honesty" only means that they are really crazy.

[Bad Writer]

Even Joseph Smith, the man who conned thousands into believing his made up Mormon religion, believed his own bullshit.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Even Joseph Smith, the man who conned thousands into believing his made up Mormon religion, believed his own bullshit.

I disagree. I think Smith was a fraud who knew he was a fraud and discovered early on that being a confidence trickster was easier than working for a living.

Boru

[Angrboda]

Even Joseph Smith, the man who conned thousands into believing his made up Mormon religion, believed his own bullshit.

I disagree. I think Smith was a fraud who knew he was a fraud and discovered early on that being a confidence trickster was easier than working for a living.

I think it's possible for both to be true. To my eye, to be human is to be constantly deceived, not so much by others as by ourselves.

It's a fairly common complaint where people collide over religious belief to become convinced that the people on the other side are either "lunatic, liar, or loser." Whether it's atheists assessing theists, theists assessing atheists, Democrats assessing Republicans, or what have you. I believe the tendency to frame things this way, and to become convinced that someone who believes dramatically differently than you do in such terms, is just an artifact of the way the brain processes things. It's a combination of a couple of things. First, a naive model of cognition which says that people have the capacity to be aware of things equally, and that people, unless they intentionally deny or blind themselves, have reasonably good access to what they think and why they think it. The second is the mechanisms for resolving cognitive dissonance, which can even go so far as to rewrite memory or create memories that never occurred.

In schematic, the average person holds the following beliefs:
1. I'm a reasonable person.
2. Failing specific evidence otherwise, most other people are reasonable.
3. Reasonable people believe reasonable things.
4. I as an X'er believe 'X'.
5. That person, as a Y'er believes 'not X'.

However, these beliefs are not mutually consistent. If reasonable people believe reasonable things, and other people are reasonable, then 'not X' must be reasonable; but I'm reasonable and I believe the opposite, so how can that also be true?

The mind is generally less concerned about truth than it is about maintaining a consistent worldview, and in order to make the set of beliefs consistent, one of them has to go. Usually it's the assumption that the other person is reasonable (and not a liar, lunatic, or loser).

I'm no different than anyone else. I know this and believe this, yet I still find myself coming to the conclusion that so-and-so is an idiot or a liar, though I recognize that is likely an illusion, caused by the way the human mind works. But I can't shake the feeling that they are! (I guess it just goes to show that our biases are stronger than we are.)

[Ryantology]

The Scriptures can be read on so many levels. That's why I find them so fascinating.

Exceptions apparently apply when one reads scripture and comes away with the impression that God is the embodiment of all human evils, because even though God exhibits, to extremes, virtually every negative personality trait humans possess, if you're not making a special exception for God, you're told that you're not understanding it correctly. The message here is that reading between the lines is acceptable only when doing so leads you to conclusions which do not contradict certain basic premises which absolutely must be accepted in spite of any evidence to the contrary. It makes mockery of the idea that theology is the practice of discovering universal truth.

[ThomM]

I'm curious. Do the resident christians really believe
all of the stuff they post? Which ones are real and
which are trolling? Or, are their beliefs really as
troll-ish as some of them sound? I'm starting to think
that christians are out of their minds. I'll name names
if anyone asks, but please don't ask me to quote posts
by them - I'm trying to forget.

Actually - just as ancient Egyptians Believed that their rulers were gods - there are xtians that do believe the statements of their religion. THere are a number of reasons why they do

1- Early Indoctrination - as Oscar Hammerstein wrote - YOU have to be taught to hate and fear - it has to be drummed in your dear little ear - you have to be taught before its too late - to hate all the things your relatives hate. Example - most children believed in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus - because their most trusted people - normally their parents - led them to believe they WERE real.

And since religion is taught to SCARE people for the most part - it is hard to overcome the overwhelming early education of religion.

We do tend to trust our "family" when it comes to things that otherwise cannot be explained to THEM.

2 - SO that brings number two - education. Religion is largely believed by people around the world who have less education or are of less intelligence - and it is far less believed by people of high intelligence or of higher education. OUR parents were not taught science in the same way we have been - and they do not accept science as being proven true.

That is not to say that there are not otherwise intelligent people who believe in religion - but it is to say that most people have not actually questioned their religion - and simply expect it to have been "already proven" =- of course it has not been though.

3 - People are looking for something more - some type of reward for living a good life - and religion promises them a reward - while reality fails to do that. So some people cannot except that they are just another - albeit higher level - animal on earth.

Now - as early religious education is waning - as well as higher education being more available - then less and less people will believe based simply on what is said in religion - and as they ASK QUESTIONs - that were formerly things religion refused to address - religion cannot hide any longer.

Religion is waning in the Western world - people are less religious and getting more so every day. Eventually - beleif in Leprechauns will end.

[Bad Writer]

Religion is waning in the Western world - people are less religious and getting more so every day. Eventually - beleif in Leprechauns will end.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think it's possible for both to be true. To my eye, to be human is to be constantly deceived, not so much by others as by ourselves.

Granted, but in the case of Smith, I think it is important to remember that he was convicted of deliberate fraud before all the rubbish about the 'golden plates'. His founding of Mormonism appears, based on the available evidence, to have been just another scheme to avoid being stuck on a farm for the rest of his life (having been raised on a farm myself, I can - to a certain extent - sympathize with him).

Boru