Christians=Liars?

[mr.perfecto]

Faith:

Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.

The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind.

In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Caesar.

Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith, is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God's character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God's testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation.

----

So, are you saying that if a person accept the doctrines a particular religion on faith and refuses to accept the doctrines of another religion through faith then he is being dishonest?

[Sean]

This topic is getting ridiculous. Answer each other's questions and stop with the insults.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto So, are you saying that if a person accept the doctrines a particular religion on faith and refuses to accept the doctrines of another religion through faith then he is being dishonest?

If the person thought that faith was sufficient for acceptance than that is their standard. If they will only apply it to one religion and not all other religions then that is a double standard. Holding a double standard is dishonest. It is how you fool yourself into accepting one claim but reject another claim that has as much justification for acceptance as the original claim. If it is not good enough for one then it is not good enough for the other or if it is good enough for one then it is good enough for both. However it is not limited to faith. In the example faith was just used as a particular standard. It could be the feeling in the heart criterion or it could be mythical content or unusual evidence or what ever. What ever the standard is, it is dishonest to allow one claim to qualify and dismiss all others that meet the same standard.

Starboy

[italiangm]

Quote by: mr.perfecto So, are you saying that if a person accept the doctrines a particular religion on faith and refuses to accept the doctrines of another religion through faith then he is being dishonest?

If I may reword slightly:

A double standard exists when Person A believes in Religion X on faith, but does not respect Person B's belief in Religion Y on faith.

Whether Religion X or Y is "The Truth" or not is secondary to the argument.

The existence of a double standard in this case is clearly not a lie, but it does show disrespect.

[Starboy]

Quote by: italiangm If I may reword slightly: A double standard exists when Person A believes in Religion X on faith, but does not respect Person B's belief in Religion Y on faith. Whether Religion X or Y is "The Truth" or not is secondary to the argument. The existence of a double standard in this case is clearly not a lie, but it does show disrespect.

You would have a point if it was only respect we were dealing with. When a supernaturalists uses this double standard in an attempt to convince someone of their claims when they would not be convinced by the same argument then that is clearly dishonest. How can anyone in good conscious say that my methods of acceptance only work for my religion but do not work for any other religion without being at least dishonest. Frankly that sort of tactic is something I would expect from a con man.

Starboy

[italiangm]

Quote by: Starboy You would have a point if it was only respect we were dealing with. When a supernaturalists uses this double standard in an attempt to convince someone of their claims when they would not be convinced by the same argument then that is clearly dishonest. How can anyone in good conscious say that my methods of acceptance only work for my religion but do not work for any other religion without being at least dishonest.

Dishonesty implies a willful perversion of truth with intent to deceive, cheat, or defraud. Does acceptance of belief in one "truth" over another meet this standard?

[Gorgo]

What I have heard people say, Starboy, is that some people "feel" their particular beliefs to be right for them. It would be dishonest for them to say that "feeling" is an improper method for others to discern what is right for them, but it would not be dishonest for them to say that they "feel" that other ways are not the best way for them.

Isn't that what we're dealing with here and would that be dishonest?

[Starboy]

Quote by: italiangm Dishonesty implies a willful perversion of truth with intent to deceive, cheat, or defraud. Does acceptance of belief in one "truth" over another meet this standard?

You should look up the legal definition of fraud. As with many laws ignorance is no excuse. If you make fraudulent claims and convince people to act on those claims but a reasonable person should have known that they were fraudulent then that is still fraud. The problem that the supernaturalist have is that they are making claims and representations about things that they would know better not to make if it were in any other context. The fact that their particular religion has done a good job of blindsiding them still does not relieve any person of taking the time to think about what they are advocating before they do it. And if they were just too stupid to see the dishonesty then too bad. They can still be tried, found guilty and serve time for doing it. It happens all the time except of course to those that have managed to get the law to apply a double standard.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: italiangm Dishonesty implies a willful perversion of truth with intent to deceive, cheat, or defraud. Does acceptance of belief in one "truth" over another meet this standard?

If you are perfectly capable of seeing that distinction in other situations then I think it does. And the fact that the advocate of supernatural religion often can see that other supernatural religions have no basis for their claims indicates that they have this ability. It would only be those that did indeed say that all supernatural religions are as valid as any other that could honestly claim to be honest. However such supernaturalists are very rare and far between. Supernatural religions are not in the business of validating other supernatural religions. They are in competition with other supernatural religions. And the advocates of those religions very well reflect that competition. It is just that they do it dishonestly.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo What I have heard people say, Starboy, is that some people "feel" their particular beliefs to be right for them. It would be dishonest for them to say that "feeling" is an improper method for others to discern what is right for them, but it would not be dishonest for them to say that they "feel" that other ways are not the best way for them. Isn't that what we're dealing with here and would that be dishonest?

I would have to ask that person what their thoughts were regarding religions they had no feelings for. It they claimed that even one supernatural religion was false then I would question their honestly. If feeling is good enough to validate their religion then it should be good enough to be accepted as the validity of any other religion. And if they reject this other religion because it makes claims that cannot be verified then have they applied that same standard of rejection to their own religion.

Starboy

[italiangm]

Quote by: Starboy You should look up the legal definition of fraud. As with many laws ignorance is no excuse. If you make fraudulent claims and convince people to act on those claims but a reasonable person should have known that they were fraudulent then that is still fraud.

Fraud: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right; an act of deceiving or misrepresenting.

I'm sorry. The fraud angle isn't making a connection here. I realize "The Truth" for a believer may feel absolute in nature to them, but it is up to the intended recipient to discern the basis for such belief.

Quote by: Starboy The problem that the supernaturalist have is that they are making claims and representations about things that they would know better not to make if it were in any other context. The fact that their particular religion has done a good job of blindsiding them still does not relieve any person of taking the time to think about what they are advocating before they do it. And if they were just too stupid to see the dishonesty then too bad. They can still be tried, found guilty and serve time for doing it. It happens all the time except of course to those that have managed to get the law to apply a double standard.

My response does not address those who instill fear to make a profit. That's a whole different thread. I'm focusing on people who latch onto a belief for reasons other than deception.

In your issue of law, the burden of proof rests with the injured party. They must convince a judge or jury that another person deceived them into sustaining a specified tangible (or with more difficulty, intangible) loss.
.

[Gorgo]

From what I've seen, there are some people that "feel" what is right for them, and say that they respect others for what they "feel" is right for them. They "feel" that no belief system is more valid than the other as all would be tailored for where each person is in his evolution. However, I think if you questioned them more, you'd find that they had stronger "feelings" against some ideas than others. They would tell me that because I "feel" that atheism is right for me, then there is something wrong with me, and by suggesting that atheism is right for me, that somehow I'm insulting them and attacking them.

[Starboy]

Quote by: italiangm Fraud: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right; an act of deceiving or misrepresenting. I'm sorry. The fraud angle isn't making a connection here. I realize "The Truth" for a believer may feel absolute in nature to them, but it is up to the intended recipient to discern the basis for such belief.

I was specific. I said the legal definition of fraud.

LawInfo.com

Quote by: Fraud Fraud Deceitful conduct designed to manipulate another person to give something of value by (1) lying, (2) by repeating something that is or ought to have been known by the fraudulent party as false or suspect or (3) by concealing a fact from the other party which may have saved that party from being cheated. The existence of fraud will cause a court to void a contract and can give rise to criminal liability.

I specifically refer to (2) and (3). It can be shown that most supernaturalists know when other supernatural religions are false or suspect. The fact that they do not apply those standards to their own supernaturalism doesn't let them off the hook. They **ought** to know that what they are promoting is at least suspect. And if they withhold or conceal that they reject other supernatrual religions for reason A and it can be applied to the religion they advocate then they are guilty under (3). It is information that would have saved the party from being cheated.

Fact is calling most supernaturalists dishonest is being nice. The vast majority would qualify as out and out frauds. Many should be serving jail time. But they have managed to get the entire nation to practice a double standard.

My response does not address those who instill fear to make a profit. That's a whole different thread. I'm focusing on people who latch onto a belief for reasons other than deception.

Sure, but my primary claim was concerning dishonesty. Certainly one can be dishonest with oneself.

In your issue of law, the burden of proof rests with the injured party. They must convince a judge or jury that another person deceived them to the point where they sustained a specified tangible, or with more difficulty, an intangible loss.

I understand that, but I am stating that a case could be made for it. And certainly cases have been made and won for damages far less then have been caused by supernatural religion.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo From what I've seen, there are some people that "feel" what is right for them, and say that they respect others for what they "feel" is right for them. They "feel" that no belief system is more valid than the other as all would be tailored for where each person is in his evolution. However, I think if you questioned them more, you'd find that they had stronger "feelings" against some ideas than others. They would tell me that because I "feel" that atheism is right for me, then there is something wrong with me, and by suggesting that atheism is right for me, that somehow I'm insulting them and attacking them.

I have seen the same too many times to count. There is no way that these supernaturalist are being honest.

Starboy

[italiangm]

Quote by: Starboy I specifically refer to (2) and (3). It can be shown that most supernaturalists know when other supernatural religions are false or suspect.

Except they do so by comparing two entirely subjective sets of beliefs. This may meet your personal standard for dishonesty, but I doubt it fulfills the legal standard.

Quote by: Starboy The fact that they do not apply those standards to their own supernaturalism doesn't let them off the hook. And if they withhold or conceal that they reject other supernatrual religions for reason A and it can be applied to the religion they advocate then they are guilty under (3).

Except no damage is sustained. There were no donations/tithes misused by fiduciaries. There are no parishoners receiving damages for time lost while unknowingly committing a crime perpetrated by a religious leader. Where's the injury?

Quote by: Starboy I am stating that a case could be made for it. And certainly cases have been made and won for damages far less then have been caused by supernatural religion.

I'm not convinced. Any caselaw to support your assertion? Or will you be first?

[Starboy]

Quote by: italiangm Except they do so by comparing two entirely subjective sets of beliefs. This may meet your personal standard for dishonesty, but I doubt it fulfills the legal standard.

No they do it by applying two different standards. When you examine most supernatural religions they are all very similar in regards their standards for acceptance. In order to claim religion "A" is "true" and religion "B" is not you must apply two different standards. This practice in and of itself should cause any rational person to at least suspect both claims. They **ought** to know that their claim is at least suspect.

Except no damage is sustained. There were no donations/tithes misused by fiduciaries. There are no parishoners receiving damages for time lost while unknowingly committing a crime perpetrated by a religious leader. Where's the injury?

Some people think that wasting half or more of their life on a superstition is great damage. I would concur. You can file for damages based on what you might have accomplished if you had not been damaged. If supernatural religion wants to keep clear of this problem then they should stop proselytizing forthwith. If they ain't selling it then there are no buyers. But they better be careful that they are not attractive nuisances either.

I'm not convinced. Any caselaw to support your assertion? Or will you be first?

None that I am aware of but as far as I can tell it could very well be an entirely new legal precedent. It was not all that long ago where I would have been severely punished for even mentioning any of this. There are still places in the world where I would be punished for it to this very day. Give it time. In any case fraud is fraud.

Starboy

[fedfem]

Starboy is trying to say(I think)that the method used by christians to assert their religion is truth is disingenuous.

All religious extremists/fundamentalists use the same arguments...historical, scriptural, a feeling, number of followers, etc. to defend their beliefs. That argument applied would imply all religious extremist/fundamental religious sects must be true. To call another sect or religion false is a lie because they use the same justification for their own beliefs.

I personally would call it illogical rather than a lie.

[Starboy]

Quote by: fedfem Starboy is trying to say(I think)that the method used by christians to assert their religion is truth is disingenuous. All religious extremists/fundamentalists use the same arguments...historical, scriptural, a feeling, number of followers, etc. to defend their beliefs. That argument applied would imply all religious extremist/fundamental religious sects must be true. To call another sect or religion false is a lie because they use the same justification for their own beliefs. I personally would call it illogical rather than a lie.

I didn't specifically claim it was a lie but I would agree that it was. This may be splitting words but I said that it was dishonest. I say this because it is a form of foolery. The people involved may not be out to fool others but they have at least fooled themselves. Especially if they have demonstriated even to themselves that they know better by rejecting other religions that are as acceptable as their own religion by their own standards.

Starboy

[fedfem]

Quote by: Starboy I didn't specifically claim it was a lie but I would agree that it was. This may be splitting words but I said that it was dishonest. I say this because it is a form of foolery. The people involved may not be out to fool others but they have at least fooled themselves. Especially if they have demonstriated even to themselves that they know better by rejecting other religions that are as acceptable as their own religion by their own standards. Starboy

Correct, you didn't. I was assuming you started the thread with that title. Sorry.

I do agree the so-called leaders are outright liars though. It is impossible to study theology and world history and believe any of the myths they preach.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Starboy No they do it by applying two different standards. When you examine most supernatural religions they are all very similar in regards their standards for acceptance. In order to claim religion "A" is "true" and religion "B" is not you must apply two different standards.

No, it's a matter of subjective interpretation.

Let's say the rules of Religion A require formal confession to a priest in a box, and Religion B does not. After reading the common document shared by both religions (the bible) I come to the (entirely subjective) conclusion that confession is necessary but not as Religion A requires.

My claim is that Religion B is false based on my subjective opinion and nowhere close to deceptive or dishonest.

Quote by: Starboy This practice in and of itself should cause any rational person to at least suspect both claims. They **ought** to know that their claim is at least suspect.

Surely, you must see the irony of that statement. :)

Quote by: Starboy Some people think that wasting half or more of their life on a superstition is great damage. I would concur. You can file for damages based on what you might have accomplished if you had not been damaged.

And who was it that twisted these people's arms to practice said religion, at least in the US?

Quote by: Starboy None that I am aware of but as far as I can tell it could very well be an entirely new legal precedent. It was not all that long ago where I would have been severely punished for even mentioning any of this. There are still places in the world where I would be punished for it to this very day. Give it time. In any case fraud is fraud.

There's only two places I might buy this argument:

[1] Parental imposition of religious belief
[2] A state's requirement to express belief in a supreme being under oath to hold office