Dishonesty and religion.

[Technosoul]

Are religious people really dishonest just because they do not worhship science as the most hight authority?

[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul Are religious people really dishonest just because they do not worhship science as the most hight authority?

I am sorry, but that is retarded.

They are dishonest because they use the same reasonings that other religions use, yet they reject those reasonings. They put their religion on a lower standard and put other religions on a higher standard. Meaning, it is ok to believe the magical claims of their own religion, but when it comes to other people's magical claims they reject them.

Edit to add: I must not be articulating this clearly because I have been saying this for quite some time now.

[texasdave]

The Bible is extremely honest.It honestly lays out all the most dispicable aspects of mankind, then it points to hope, Jesus Christ.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: rez I am sorry, but that is retarded.

How come you get to say that?

[rez]

Quote by: Zhavric How come you get to say that?

Because what he said was backwards...

If theists were honest they would investigate and understand the stance they reject. Once they would understand the position they rejected, they would see how absurd their faith has made them.

[arielmessenger]

Talk about stupid positions to make in public, here on these boards we continue to see day after day the atheist drivel purposely directed at the theist members least able to defend themselves.

Wake Up, atheists! and look up from your computers. Do you seriously think theism springs from fantasies, delusions?

You know it's a valid argument for atheists to point to all the modern conveniences and health benefits that have come from science discoveries meaning that theists' parading the Word of God over science was hypocritical. Well, let's turn the argument around.

Unless you atheists are willing to lie you will admit that the earliest and ancient human civilizations that lifted human beings out of the constraints of the natural world's food delivery system were all based on worship of gods or goddesses, in human form, animal form, invisible, visible, whatever.

Unless you atheists are willing to lie to yourselves you will admit that religious identification has matched intellectual achievement, tremendous intellectual achievement, the glory of human civilization in fact, of Western Civilization by people firmly believing in God. The atheist intellectual achievers in our past are greatly outnumbered by theistic achievers.

Now, because science of history delved into the ancient religious texts in earnest in the last 200 years or so and of course discovered the historical truth of religious lies founding our major religions, atheists "believe" and I use that word purposely, that they've debunked God and religion. But all they've debunked is the old religious mythologies, not God, not spiritual experiences that continue to change people's lives.

It would be like saying that because I can prove atheistic Communism is a fascist ideology based on "scientific materialism" that was nothing more than economic and political myths without any real basis in reality as Communists took a hundred and fifty years to prove, that therefore the communism is debunked when it never has been, only the poorest example of it. Take on the best example of theism and Christianity and see how far you get with your atheist no-nothing.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez Because what he said was backwards... If theists were honest they would investigate and understand the stance they reject. Once they would understand the position they rejected, they would see how absurd their faith has made them.

Most Christians do not reject "science" for the most part, medical dicoveries and inventions are not rejected by most Christians when they are in need of medical attention. And they might even support science sending a space probe to Mars, and other such things.

Science as an industry actually originated in the shaman religions and then seperated from that later on in history.

But they do not worship science as the top authority like much of the more secular people might. In a court of law then might call in an expert in the field of science as a "top authority". His opinon might effect the outcome of a case and a persons life. The court would not call in an expert from a church. Meanwhile the one on trial (if really innocent) might be doing a lot of praying.

But here is the point. They do not accept the idea that life on earth and all it's balanced complexities just happen due to accidental and random events that were without guidence. If Christians used physics the odds of that taking place would be like a miricle. Because a miricle would be an event that by known odds cannot happen or if it did it would be very rare indeed. So the basics supporting the "orgin of the spieces" is founded on a miricle because it is difficult to imagine such can take place logically.

The car I am driving was made by science, but if science told me that it just came together by random events as a working automoble and for me to believe it, because the physics can prove that such might be possible, then I would respectfully reject their theory.

Is that being dishonest?

I would not respond to the use of the word "retarded" because then you can claim I got mad and that anger is not Christian like. Which is not acturally a problem because I do like owning or wearing name tags.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: Are religious people really dishonest just because they do not worhship science as the most hight authority?

No. I know some religious people who are honest, forthright people of integrity, BUT, they practice religion in regards to THEIR choices, and don't force those choices or subjective morals or "duties" on others.

People who DENY objective reality, IN PLACE of subjective faith, are dishonest with themselves, which leads to problems in the REALITY of the objective world.

Rez said: I am sorry, but that is retarded. They are dishonest because they use the same reasonings that other religions use, yet they reject those reasonings. They put their religion on a lower standard and put other religions on a higher standard. Meaning, it is ok to believe the magical claims of their own religion, but when it comes to other people's magical claims they reject them.

I agree.

Rez said: Edit to add: I must not be articulating this clearly because I have been saying this for quite some time now.

No, you are articulating quite well, but some refuse to accept reality for what it is, while some of us have accepted it all along, or from some point at which objective reality became clear.

TexasDave said: The Bible is extremely honest.It honestly lays out all the most dispicable aspects of mankind, then it points to hope, Jesus Christ.

Uhhh, yea....

Why not Budda? Why not Allah? Why not a fig tree?

Seperate subjective from objective, and have another stab?

Ariels Messenger said: Talk about stupid positions to make in public, here on these boards we continue to see day after day the atheist drivel purposely directed at the theist members least able to defend themselves.

Blame their faith for not allowing them to defend themselves from common sense, objective reality and logic, not the MESSENGERS.

ArielsMessenger said: Wake Up, atheists! and look up from your computers. Do you seriously think theism springs from fantasies, delusions?

No, it springs from men intent on controlling others of little education or those who place faith above education due to indoctrination, lack of self-image, or willpower.

Arielsmessenger said: You know it's a valid argument for atheists to point to all the modern conveniences and health benefits that have come from science discoveries meaning that theists' parading the Word of God over science was hypocritical. Well, let's turn the argument around. Unless you atheists are willing to lie you will admit that the earliest and ancient human civilizations that lifted human beings out of the constraints of the natural world's food delivery system were all based on worship of gods or goddesses, in human form, animal form, invisible, visible, whatever.

No doubt, but you alledge it was BECAUSE of religion?

Arielsmessenger said: Unless you atheists are willing to lie to yourselves you will admit that religious identification has matched intellectual achievement, tremendous intellectual achievement, the glory of human civilization in fact, of Western Civilization by people firmly believing in God. The atheist intellectual achievers in our past are greatly outnumbered by theistic achievers.

Proof?

Arielsmessenger said: Now, because science of history delved into the ancient religious texts in earnest in the last 200 years or so and of course discovered the historical truth of religious lies founding our major religions, atheists "believe" and I use that word purposely, that they've debunked God and religion. But all they've debunked is the old religious mythologies, not God, not spiritual experiences that continue to change people's lives.

Well, I am not here to defend athiests, as I am agnostic. I have no religious axe to grind, nor any anti-religious axe to grind UNTIL it interferes with peoples INTERPRETATION and PERCEPTION of objective reality, which most religions do to some point.

[dalin]

Quote by: rez Because what he said was backwards... If theists were honest they would investigate and understand the stance they reject. Once they would understand the position they rejected, they would see how absurd their faith has made them.

I don't see how the shared idea of a deity or supreme being precludes discussion or disagreement on the nature of the universe in general. People within the same religion disagree all the time.

[Jack]

Ariel, your post indicates a frustrated hostility toward atheists. I find that odd. If you hold the high ground as your maintain, we shouldn't worry you.

I don't find the average believer (in any religion) to be either dishonest or retarded. I find them sincere and often truly noble. I may not agree with their motivations, but I can appreciate the results.

Unfortunately, they are unable to make their beliefs absolute. Both as a group and as individuals, they find loopholes in the creeds they hold dear, if for no other reason than an unconscious awareness of the impossibility to live up to the expectations of their religions. Their goal is to rise above their human limitations, to be more than human. Yet they comprehend that they are humans, and so the goal must always remain just out of reach, just beyond the next vale.

In general I've found theists to be hard-working, well-intentioned people, as nice to be around as most of the atheists I know. But they do follow a teaching that I can't accept, so there'll always a slight rift in our relationships, a need to avoid certain topics in conversations.

Here, it's a slightly different story. This is a debate forum, a place to come when you're willing to have your beliefs challenged, a place to defend your beliefs.

Kam once started a thread about condescension. I forget what was said at the time, but I basically agree with him. We're all here, supposedly, because we want to comment on the opinions of others and read their comments on ours. Some of us think our opinions are sacred, above reproach, not to be challenged. That attitude needs to be left at the door. No one's opinion is above debate. There are some here on both sides of every isle who cannot post without a rude and condescending tone. Sometimes it's funny. But usually it's just annoying. Yes, we understand. You believe you are right. Well, here's some news for you, we all do. What sensible person lives by a philosophy he doesn't think is the right, or at the very least the best, possible one? We're all legends in our own minds.

I like most Christians I meet. I don't agree with them on a number of issues, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate their personalities.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No. I know some religious people who are honest, forthright people of integrity, BUT, they practice religion in regards to THEIR choices, and don't force those choices or subjective morals or "duties" on others. People who DENY objective reality, IN PLACE of subjective faith, are dishonest with themselves, which leads to problems in the REALITY of the objective world. I agree. No, you are articulating quite well, but some refuse to accept reality for what it is, while some of us have accepted it all along, or from some point at which objective reality became clear. Uhhh, yea.... Why not Budda? Why not Allah? Why not a fig tree? Seperate subjective from objective, and have another stab? Blame their faith for not allowing them to defend themselves from common sense, objective reality and logic, not the MESSENGERS. No, it springs from men intent on controlling others of little education or those who place faith above education due to indoctrination, lack of self-image, or willpower. No doubt, but you alledge it was BECAUSE of religion? Proof? Well, I am not here to defend athiests, as I am agnostic. I have no religious axe to grind, nor any anti-religious axe to grind UNTIL it interferes with peoples INTERPRETATION and PERCEPTION of objective reality, which most religions do to some point.

Forcing religion on others is dishonest. But "not agreeing" with other religions or secular opions has nothing to do with using force.

If I watched a DVD and thought it was "the best movie ever" and I told everyone is that being dishonest?

Perhaps so because others would think other movies are "best" and people do not even agree with the Ocar award people. Others would say that "no such thing as the one best movie ever".

But it is really my passion to get other to watch that movie, why that would even matter I am not sure. But is it dishonest... Is it an intended lie to deceave people. If one acts out of an emotion is that dishonest?
Or being true to your own feelings?

[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul Most Christians do not reject "science" for the most part, medical dicoveries and inventions are not rejected by most Christians when they are in need of medical attention. And they might even support science sending a space probe to Mars, and other such things.

But when something contradicts their spiritual sensibilities, they get a little upset.

But here is the point. They do not accept the idea that life on earth and all it's balanced complexities just happen due to accidental and random events that were without guidence.

This does not have to deal with them being honest. There is no reason to suspect that is the case with the universe. The universe is much more complex then that.

If Christians used physics the odds of that taking place would be like a miricle. Because a miricle would be an event that by known odds cannot happen or if it did it would be very rare indeed. So the basics supporting the "orgin of the spieces" is founded on a miricle because it is difficult to imagine such can take place logically.

Yeah, maybe to someone that doesn't actually take the time to read about how nature works. Instead, theists just study their personal revelations and try to get other people to by into them.

The car I am driving was made by science, but if science told me that it just came together by random events as a working automoble and for me to believe it, because the physics can prove that such might be possible, then I would respectfully reject their theory.

Considering that we know cars are built by humans, it would require one to reject that theory.

Is that being dishonest?

I don't really know what you mean by that sentence? Are you saying that life can not emerge through randomness and chaos? Are you using the watch maker argument?

[dalin]

Well said Isherwood

[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul But it is really my passion to get other to watch that movie, why that would even matter I am not sure. But is it dishonest... Is it an intended lie to deceave people. If one acts out of an emotion is that dishonest? Or being true to your own feelings?

This was not what I was talking about at all.

Look, all supernatural religions are on the same level with each other. There is just as much evidence for Vishnu as their is God and Thor. What makes a theist dishonest is when they reject Vishnu on the very same basis that I reject God or Thor. Just like a theist I would say "Thor is just superstition, that is not real". But the difference between me and theists is that I reject all gods with a consistent logical deduction. What makes theists dishonest is by the way they approach their beliefs. Since texasdave does not believe in Mohammed and Vishnu, then he shouldn't find it unreasonable that I do not believe in his god. We both use the same reasoning and both have the same amount of evidence.

[dalin]

Quote by: rez This was not what I was talking about at all. Look, all supernatural religions are on the same level with each other. There is just as much evidence for Vishnu as their is God and Thor. What makes a theist dishonest is when they reject Vishnu on the very same basis that I reject God or Thor. Just like a theist I would say "Thor is just superstition, that is not real". But the difference between me and theists is that I reject all gods with a consistent logical deduction. What makes theists dishonest is by the way they approach their beliefs. Since texasdave does not believe in Mohammed and Vishnu, then he shouldn't find it unreasonable that I do not believe in his god. We both use the same reasoning and both have the same amount of evidence.

Not quite the same. You disagree with the idea of a supernatural being entirely. When a theist says "Thor is just superstition" they are talking about a specific god, a specific idea, not the idea of a god in general. Also the theist wouldn't arrive at the conclusion in the same way you would. He would talk about an intuition or personal experience, while the atheist would use reason and physical evidence.

[dalin]

I guess the next logical question is how can a theist talk about intuition and personal experience as the foundation to something he claims to be the concrete reality of the universe

[DEEJ85]

It is hard to justify personal experience or intuition as evidence. If I listen to a Sermon I really enjoy and it gets me fired up, another person could listen to the same Sermon and feel or intuit something completely different.

[rez]

Quote by: dalin Not quite the same. You disagree with the idea of a supernatural being entirely.

It would make sense to even accept all supernatural beings entirely.

When a theist says "Thor is just superstition" they are talking about a specific god, a specific idea, not the idea of a god in general.

So what? There is not much sense in accepting one set of supernatural claims and rejecting another's. You are basing it on your own personal superstitions - and that my friend is dishonest.

Also the theist wouldn't arrive at the conclusion in the same way you would. He would talk about an intuition or personal experience, while the atheist would use reason and physical evidence.

oh no? If a bum was on the street corner claiming he was Jesus, a Christian would think he was mentally ill, just like I would.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez But when something contradicts their spiritual sensibilities, they get a little upset. This does not have to deal with them being honest. There is no reason to suspect that is the case with the universe. The universe is much more complex then that. Yeah, maybe to someone that doesn't actually take the time to read about how nature works. Instead, theists just study their personal revelations and try to get other people to by into them. Considering that we know cars are built by humans, it would require one to reject that theory. I don't really know what you mean by that sentence? Are you saying that life can not emerge through randomness and chaos? Are you using the watch maker argument?

I guess the "watch maker argument" is old hat by now. Science once used the invention of the clock to discribe the universe, it was called the "machanical universe" theory if I am not misstaken. And that was how religious people responded to the scientific idea that they universe operated like a gaint clock. But now science has left that idea behind them and came up with a new idea based on another invention.

I think the Bible also said that the universe was "void and without form" and so that would be simular as "randomness and chaos". More or less. And then "order" was effected.

But the point in this particular post that you responded too here is this.

Here is the question I posed. "If one is true to their own feelings is that being dishonest"? Or are you being honest to say "this is how I feel and the facts as presented are not powerful enough to change that feeling".

The post is not about what is acturally true or false, (or in question), but about honesty verses dishonesty.

About personal revelations: "You must imagine it, and believe in it, before you can do it". That is a standard rule that motivational speakers often advocate if you seek success in life. That is what Henry Ford did in spite of critics who told him that he was crazy and that it cannot be done. Belief in self, and standing firm in our beliefs, is being honest even if the odds that we are right is not popular with our peers or our critics.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isherwood Ariel, your post indicates a frustrated hostility toward atheists. I find that odd. If you hold the high ground as your maintain, we shouldn't worry you. I don't find the average believer (in any religion) to be either dishonest or retarded. I find them sincere and often truly noble. I may not agree with their motivations, but I can appreciate the results. Unfortunately, they are unable to make their beliefs absolute. Both as a group and as individuals, they find loopholes in the creeds they hold dear, if for no other reason than an unconscious awareness of the impossibility to live up to the expectations of their religions. Their goal is to rise above their human limitations, to be more than human. Yet they comprehend that they are humans, and so the goal must always remain just out of reach, just beyond the next vale. In general I've found theists to be hard-working, well-intentioned people, as nice to be around as most of the atheists I know. But they do follow a teaching that I can't accept, so there'll always a slight rift in our relationships, a need to avoid certain topics in conversations. Here, it's a slightly different story. This is a debate forum, a place to come when you're willing to have your beliefs challenged, a place to defend your beliefs. Kam once started a thread about condescension. I forget what was said at the time, but I basically agree with him. We're all here, supposedly, because we want to comment on the opinions of others and read their comments on ours. Some of us think our opinions are sacred, above reproach, not to be challenged. That attitude needs to be left at the door. No one's opinion is above debate. There are some here on both sides of every isle who cannot post without a rude and condescending tone. Sometimes it's funny. But usually it's just annoying. Yes, we understand. You believe you are right. Well, here's some news for you, we all do. What sensible person lives by a philosophy he doesn't think is the right, or at the very least the best, possible one? We're all legends in our own minds. I like most Christians I meet. I don't agree with them on a number of issues, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate their personalities.

Some good ideas, and perhaps the one poster you were addressing needs a little help to help him reduce his infraction "marks".

Anger or getting upset often will distroy any debate, because the only way to win an emotional debate is with war. (or to burn the other guy at the stake). Only debates between reasonalble people who share the framework you outlined can be productive... of something perhaps?

But even if not productive they should not be distructive. A "stalemate" is also okay. Like in the game of Chess.