Open religious (or not) discussion thread

NSMike wrote:
LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

On what score? It's self-evident, like programming. If a program contains code for blue, it will show the color blue. If it's not showing the color blue, then blue isn't in the code, or isn't being accessed correctly - there's a bug. It's either working correctly coding for blue, or it's not.

So, you either truly believe in the Word and act according to its principles, or you don't really believe in it (even when you say you do) and act otherwise. In what way could human nature be different?

Wouldn't believers who sin basically fall into a third category, Larry? If I read all of the principles of Christianity, for example, correctly, they all fall under one overarching mandate: Thou Shalt Not Sin. Can a sinner, who fails to follow the principles of Christianity, be logically called an unbeliever?

I guess the analogy here is not every criminal is a traitor? You can break a law without being guilty of no longer being a member of the group associated with that law?

DSGamer:

I am. It is not inconsistent to be agnostic and a theist at the same time. This has been covered in other threads ad nauseum. I think there's no need to rehash. Let me forestall. You've shown hostility to me in the past, and I understand that you wanted to ignore me henceforth, which is perfectly great by me. I don't want this to go anywhere ugly, so I hope you'll understand if I just stop responding to you if I feel uncomfortable.

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

On what score? It's self-evident, like programming. If a program contains code for blue, it will show the color blue. If it's not showing the color blue, then blue isn't in the code, or isn't being accessed correctly - there's a bug. It's either working correctly coding for blue, or it's not.

So, you either truly believe in the Word and act according to its principles, or you don't really believe in it (even when you say you do) and act otherwise. In what way could human nature be different?

Human nature isn't computer code. Or at least not computer code written in a language we can understand.

Communication (especially in this form) requires words and words are subjective. The number one is always the number one. The word "believe" or "belief" relies on how one interprets language.

Thus the "Word" can mean two different things to two different people. Computer code lacks this ambiguity.

LarryC wrote:

DSGamer:

I am. It is not inconsistent to be agnostic and a theist at the same time. This has been covered in other threads ad nauseum. I think there's no need to rehash. Let me forestall. You've shown hostility to me in the past, and I understand that you wanted to ignore me henceforth, which is perfectly great by me. I don't want this to go anywhere ugly, so I hope you'll understand if I just stop responding to you if I feel uncomfortable.

The only reason I responded is because you said that all Catholics have sin. I don't see how it's compatible to be agnostic and to believe in literal "sin".

Please don't drag this into personal attacks again. That's very much against the code of conduct and I'm asking a serious question. I don't understand how being agnostic jives with believing in the concept of "sin".

I'm atheist and I believe in good and evil. I believe a person can do bad. But I admit these are subjective ideas that fall generally under the heading of the Golden Rule. Sin is very absolute and is a religious concept.

LarryC wrote:

Americans have strange ways in which they use the word "believe." I don't know how else to word the idea.

Do Australians or the British or other native English speakers use that word in a different way? If not, you can't say Americans use it in a strange way: it's that you've got the wrong idea about what an English word means.

TheArtOfScience:

I suppose. Americans have strange ways in which they use the word "believe." I don't know how else to word the idea. If you truly believed that a snake bite is poisonous and will imminently kill you, you act in ways consistent with that information. Likewise, if you truly believed in the Word, you would act in ways consistent with its principles. I hope that makes the connotation clearer.

DSGamer:

Firstly, there is no personal attack. I'm merely forestalling. I may cut off response if I feel offended. That's all. Please take further response along this topic (our differences) between us to PM, though I would rather this line end now.

Secondly, sin is basically an offense against God, and since believing in God is not inconsistent with Agnosticism, sin is also not incompatible. Again, this has been done to death already. I don't feel it interesting at this time to beat this particular dead horse. Perhaps others may find it interesting to speak of it here.

CheezePavilion:

I'm using the Merriam-Webster definitions.

LarryC wrote:

TheArtOfScience:

I suppose. Americans have strange ways in which they use the word "believe." I don't know how else to word the idea. If you truly believed that a snake bite is poisonous and will imminently kill you, you act in ways consistent with that information. Likewise, if you truly believed in the Word, you would act in ways consistent with its principles. I hope that makes the connotation clearer.

But the need to interpret the "Word" means that two people can abide by the same law yet have different ways of interpreting correct application of that law.

For instance I could believe in a religion that says "Thou shalt not eat toast." This seems rather absolute but there are a variety of behaviors that can develop from that simple rule.

At what point is bread toasted? Is toast still toast if you put bacon, lettuce, and tomato on it? At that point it is a BLT. Perhaps another person would wage a personal battle against toasters as evil devices. Does an English Muffin count?

There is no "Word". There are a bunch of words that are altogether too vague to be anywhere close to definitive.

How one interprets the "Word" directly influences how one behaves in accordance to their understanding of it.

TheArtOfScience:

My apologies. "The Word" is another way to refer to Jesus and New Testament teaching (hence the capitalization). I had thought this was a common way to use the term. This is a clarification.

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

I'm using the Merriam-Webster definitions.

I think you're mis-using the definitions, then. According to the online version:

to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>

I'm sure you can find a lot of South Africans and New Zealanders and Canadians who have a firm conviction as to the efficacy of exercise who nevertheless don't work out much.

CheezePavilion:

True. That is because whether or not you exercise depends on more factors than just your belief in the efficacy of exercise. Thus, not exercising can still be consistent with belief in exercise's benefits.

LarryC wrote:

TheArtOfScience:

My apologies. "The Word" is another way to refer to Jesus and New Testament teaching (hence the capitalization). I had thought this was a common way to use the term. This is a clarification.

I know how you meant it. I chose "toast" as an example because frankly, New Testament, Old Testament, Koran, Tao De Jing, Book of Mormon, *insert religious text here*, are all subject to my argument.

The New Testament is subjective ergo any actions taken to abide by its laws are subject to the way these laws are interpreted.

To me there is no difference between the bible and any other book of scripture or, for that matter, any other book period. It is forced to abide by the limitation of language and translation.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is holiness.

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

True. That is because whether or not you exercise depends on more factors than just your belief in the efficacy of exercise. Thus, not exercising can still be consistent with belief in exercise's benefits.

Excellent. Glad we could clear your misunderstanding up.

TheArtOfScience:

It's good to be specific. We've both been dragged around enough for you to understand my cautiousness, I hope. Faith, at its heart, is a very personal thing. It is something you decide for yourself within yourself, where words do not vary in meaning from what you intend. How you act is always consistent with what you truly believe, regardless of what others truly believe. They themselves act in ways that are true to their own personal convictions.

LarryC wrote:

TheArtOfScience:

It's good to be specific. We've both been dragged around enough for you to understand my cautiousness, I hope. Faith, at its heart, is a very personal thing. It is something you decide for yourself within yourself, where words do not vary in meaning from what you intend. How you act is always consistent with what you truly believe, regardless of what others truly believe. They themselves act in ways that are true to their own personal convictions.

I completely disagree with this.

How we act changes as we grow older and experience life. How we interpret things changes and how we act is not solely predicated on our faith or belief. We are animals and often act upon instincts that have been wired into us for millenia. Faith is very personal and unless it is blind it is also ever changing.

Have you never witnessed something that changed your opinion on a matter? Have you never had an epiphany that the person you were is NOT the person you are?

So not only are words subjective in their meaning to us but that meaning changes as we change.

CheezePavilion wrote:
kaostheory wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
kaostheory wrote:

In the end it all comes down to faith. I have faith this book is divine. I have faith that these parts are literal and these parts are literary.

I'm not sure that's true. It might all come down to faith, but that doesn't mean the division between 'literal' and 'literary' is faith. Maybe the division between 'scientific' and 'literary' does, but that's a different dichotomy.

Religion/God is what you make of it. If you want it to be literal, it's literal. If you want it to be literary, it's literary. You're already using your faith to assert there is a god, why not just decide which parts to believe literally and which are just morality tales? If the holy spirit disagreed, you wouldn't be able to believe it, right?

There's a difference between what someone *could* do, and what someone is *actually doing*.

LarryC wrote:

If you really believed in the Word, it goes without saying that you would live your life according to its principles.

I have to disagree with your view of human nature.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

What people are *actually doing* is deciding that something is the truth and believing it on pure faith.

What I don't understand is why there becomes this great, difficult question about which parts are literal and which aren't. You already said, "I know the nature of God" why can you not just extend that same knowing to the literal/non-literal nature of each word of the Bible?

TheArtOfScience:

Acting consistent with your true personal beliefs doesn't mean that those beliefs cannot change. Your actions will reflect a change in your beliefs, but they will always be consistent with what is current.

Instinct and consciousness covers an entirely different (and broad) topic. I do not feel equipped to answer that question theologically, but I do feel equipped to handle it scientifically, if you don't mind the shift in gear.

The human brain isn't wired like how it commonly is in other animals. We have spinal reflexes and we have certain basic instincts and we are predisposed to form neural pathways along certain lines. Beyond that, it is remarkably malleable and changeable. Exposed to certain stimuli, humans will react in certain, predictable ways, but in the sense that those reactions are hard-wired, they are not subject to belief, for or against. It does not go against any faith or belief of whatever kind to have a literal knee-jerk reaction. That's just a body reflex mediated by a spinal arc - it doesn't even get to the brain.

Using CheezePavilion's exercise analogy, how we act at all times is mediated by many factors. Reacting purely by mechanistic instinct does not preclude consistency with personal convictions just as not exercising does not preclude a belief in the efficacy of exercise.

kaostheory wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

What people are *actually doing* is deciding that something is the truth and believing it on pure faith.

What I don't understand is why there becomes this great, difficult question about which parts are literal and which aren't. You already said, "I know the nature of God" why can you not just extend that same knowing to the literal/non-literal nature of each word of the Bible?

Because they don't want to? Sure it would be a simpler way of getting to the same place, but I guess they don't want to take the simpler way.

You might consider that silly, but that's another discussion.

LarryC wrote:

TheArtOfScience:

It's good to be specific. We've both been dragged around enough for you to understand my cautiousness, I hope. Faith, at its heart, is a very personal thing. It is something you decide for yourself within yourself, where words do not vary in meaning from what you intend. How you act is always consistent with what you truly believe, regardless of what others truly believe. They themselves act in ways that are true to their own personal convictions.

I disagree with this for a different reason than TAOS. Have you never acted in a way you didn't believe was good? Your actions are absolutely able to be separated from your beliefs. I don't believe it's right to hurt people, but I've definitely done and said really hurtful things.

It's not that much different from when a priest diddles a little kid or a fundamentalist Christian gets an abortion for their 15 year old daughter, or cheats on their wife, or has gay sex despite believing it is wrong. We are weird, f*cked up creatures that are absolutely capable of doing things we actively know/believe are wrong.

CheezePavilion wrote:
kaostheory wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

What people are *actually doing* is deciding that something is the truth and believing it on pure faith.

What I don't understand is why there becomes this great, difficult question about which parts are literal and which aren't. You already said, "I know the nature of God" why can you not just extend that same knowing to the literal/non-literal nature of each word of the Bible?

Because they don't want to? Sure it would be a simpler way of getting to the same place, but I guess they don't want to take the simpler way.

You might consider that silly, but that's another discussion.

It feels like if you were to play the "I win" game with a child (you know the game where they make up the rules as they go along so that they always win) and then part way in the child looks at you very seriously and asks, "why does this beat that?". You're playing by a game that you make up the rules to, how can anyone else tell you why/how the game works?

Man, I don't understand religion.

The mixture of rational and irrational just makes my brain melt. The whole concept is just a huge Catch-22 with me.

I don't understand. :/

I'm not trying to be snarky or dickish either. It just seems that theological discussions always end up with me utterly unable to put myself in a believer's shoes.

kaostheory wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
kaostheory wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

What people are *actually doing* is deciding that something is the truth and believing it on pure faith.

What I don't understand is why there becomes this great, difficult question about which parts are literal and which aren't. You already said, "I know the nature of God" why can you not just extend that same knowing to the literal/non-literal nature of each word of the Bible?

Because they don't want to? Sure it would be a simpler way of getting to the same place, but I guess they don't want to take the simpler way.

You might consider that silly, but that's another discussion.

It feels like if you were to play the "I win" game with a child (you know the game where they make up the rules as they go along so that they always win) and then part way in the child looks at you very seriously and asks, "why does this beat that?". You're playing by a game that you make up the rules to, how can anyone else tell you why/how the game works?

I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

CheezePavilion wrote:
kaostheory wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
kaostheory wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

What people are *actually doing* is deciding that something is the truth and believing it on pure faith.

What I don't understand is why there becomes this great, difficult question about which parts are literal and which aren't. You already said, "I know the nature of God" why can you not just extend that same knowing to the literal/non-literal nature of each word of the Bible?

Because they don't want to? Sure it would be a simpler way of getting to the same place, but I guess they don't want to take the simpler way.

You might consider that silly, but that's another discussion.

It feels like if you were to play the "I win" game with a child (you know the game where they make up the rules as they go along so that they always win) and then part way in the child looks at you very seriously and asks, "why does this beat that?". You're playing by a game that you make up the rules to, how can anyone else tell you why/how the game works?

I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

I'm not sure I'm asking you anything, just making an analogy I think is apt.

kaostheory:

If you acted in a way that was against your morals, then you didn't really believe in those morals to begin with - its just that you have a conflict in your internal belief system that's causing you to feel guilt when you act according to your true convictions. I personally and truly believe that if I stab my wife with a knife to the heart and an intent to kill (and I know where to aim), she will die. I have never and cannot imagine acting contrary to that belief. If I stab my wife, it's because I want her to die, not because I don't believe she will (unless that conviction were somehow overturned in the future).

I have acted in ways that I personally don't approve of, but that's because I don't really believe 100% in the morality of what I violated. I am self-aware enough to realize this. It is possible to truly, honestly, and absolutely believe in the horror of an action, and still do it, but most people who do generally kill themselves afterwards, because the pain of guilt becomes unbearable. That is also consistent with their belief system.

TheArtOfScience:

What I said goes outside religion and goes into psychology and psychiatry; I'm assuming you will have more respect for those disciplines based on your personal convictions, even though i personally don't give them much credit. There's also some neurology in there, which I believe is more reliable.

Belief in something is held to be a normal and necessary human maturity event, psychologically speaking. It's part of the human need to pattern-recognize. Once you get past a certain age, it's considered normal to associate certain things broadly, and abnormal not to.

Here's a great example Larry: "If you acted in a way that was against your morals, then you didn't really believe in those morals to begin with"

How can you actually believe this? You are a very rational person in many arguments and you have scientific training and it seems like you have decent life experience.

I don't understand how you can be so logical in many ways and yet make an assertion as obtuse as this. A statement like this indicates a lack of understanding about human nature to me.

I'm not trying to attack you I genuinely don't understand.

In your line of reasoning there is no such thing as hypocricy?

kaostheory wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
kaostheory wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
kaostheory wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

What people are *actually doing* is deciding that something is the truth and believing it on pure faith.

What I don't understand is why there becomes this great, difficult question about which parts are literal and which aren't. You already said, "I know the nature of God" why can you not just extend that same knowing to the literal/non-literal nature of each word of the Bible?

Because they don't want to? Sure it would be a simpler way of getting to the same place, but I guess they don't want to take the simpler way.

You might consider that silly, but that's another discussion.

It feels like if you were to play the "I win" game with a child (you know the game where they make up the rules as they go along so that they always win) and then part way in the child looks at you very seriously and asks, "why does this beat that?". You're playing by a game that you make up the rules to, how can anyone else tell you why/how the game works?

I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

I'm not sure I'm asking you anything, just making an analogy I think is apt.

I guess the best I can offer is that in that analogy, even if the kid can change the rules if they don't like your answer to their question, that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to listen to your explanation of their made-up rules, decide they like your explanation, and tell you you're right.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

Here's a great example Larry: "If you acted in a way that was against your morals, then you didn't really believe in those morals to begin with"

How can you actually believe this? You are a very rational person in many arguments and you have scientific training and it seems like you have decent life experience.

I don't understand how you can be so logical in many ways and yet make an assertion as obtuse as this. A statement like this indicates a lack of understanding about human nature to me.

I'm not trying to attack you I genuinely don't understand.

In your line of reasoning there is no such thing as hypocricy?

I think LarryC is having trouble expressing himself. He keeps talking about the use of the word "belief" by others as being weird but he doesn't realize he's saying the equivalent of 'some beliefs are more believed than others." For instance:

"I don't really believe 100% in the morality of what I violated"

"you didn't really believe in those morals"

"act according to your true convictions"

"truly believe"

It's sort of like he's using the word "believe" in the sense of having a certain internal psychological state--"a conflict in your internal belief system"--without realizing he's ignoring that the definition he's telling us he's relying on only calls belief something "firm" not something that rises to the level of 100%.

TheArtOfScience:

Of course there is. A hypocrite believes in the applicability of a morality to others, but not to himself. That is consistent with applying a morality strictly to others, while secretly violating it with or without guilt.

What others think is your morality may not be what your actual morality is. Similarly, what you think is your morality may not actually be your morality. The former is known as a secret, the latter is known as a blind spot.

If you are acting against what you think are morals you believe in (and you don't want to seriously kill yourself), then it's probable that you don't really believe in them at all.

Please rest assured that this is, as is consistent with me, entirely logical and quite rational. As I said, this is not limited to morality or to religion, or to beliefs you personally don't entertain. It is true for all beliefs. For clarity, another empirical example.

If you believe that jumping off a bridge onto rocks will kill you, then you will always act consistently with that belief, though that does not preclude your actually jumping from the bridge, if you wanted to kill yourself. If you didn't want to kill yourself, and I saw you jumping off the bridge, and I knew that you believed that the rocks were going to kill you, then it follows that you somehow have altered your belief - you now believe that jumping off the bridge, somehow, is no longer going to kill you. It is logical to infer that you now believe that you have some means of escaping death.

CheezePavilion:

I was hoping that the qualification "true" would signify the slightly different meaning.

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

I was hoping that the qualification "true" would signify the slightly different meaning.

I think telling people they have a weird use of the unqualified word gets in the way ; D

Also, I wouldn't say that's a slightly different meaning. It's a pretty radical difference. Like I said, what you are talking about (I think) is someone's internal psychological state at any exact moment: the 'winner' of the 'conflict' in the internal belief system. When other people say 'believe' they are talking about something more like a pattern in their conscious thoughts, even a specific category of their thoughts. Big difference.

edit: maybe this will make it simple--how would you categorize someone who acts one way towards snakes and rocks 99% of the time, but 1% of the time acts another way?

and don't say "agnostic" : )

I appreciate your taking the time to express it in the appropriate wording. I hope it'll help me express what I've been saying for people to read your take on it.

EDIT: Shrug. Hard to say just from that data. He may have a belief system that hard-codes the exception, or he may have an underlying belief that he doesn't know about supercede his conscious beliefs for that 1%, or it could be an instinctive reaction based on purely neuromechanical pathways. There are probably other possibilities I'm not accounting for.