Religious lies. Why do so many knowingly accept them?

[Hermit]

Yes and that speaks to their gullibility when it extends to belief in talking serpents and donkeys or 72 virgins in heaven.

So, can we agree that in fact a vanishingly small number of people accept lies they know to be wrong? In other words, that the title of your thread is wrong?

No. A few exceptions does not forgive the what, 3 billion Christians and Muslims, who still knowingly believe or say they believe the lies.

I don't know any Christians and Muslims, who believe something they know to be a lie. It would be an oxymoronic thing to do. Just imagine someone saying: "X is a lie. I know it is a lie. I believe X is true."

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

No. A few exceptions does not forgive the what, 3 billion Christians and Muslims, who still knowingly believe or say they believe the lies.

I don't know any Christians and Muslims, who believe something they know to be a lie. It would be an oxymoronic thing to do. Just imagine someone saying: "X is a lie. I know it is a lie. I believe X is true."

Yet when push comes to shove, most literalist fundamentals will go into their, --- well maybe there is no real talking serpents, but duh, there must have been in the past. It's in the WORD of God.

I have even had priests back off on some of their more stupid statements. Or try to deflect which is the forte of all con men.

Regards
DL

 

[Hermit]

No. A few exceptions does not forgive the what, 3 billion Christians and Muslims, who still knowingly believe or say they believe the lies.

I don't know any Christians and Muslims, who believe something they know to be a lie. It would be an oxymoronic thing to do. Just imagine someone saying: "X is a lie. I know it is a lie. I believe X is true."

Yet when push comes to shove, most literalist fundamentals will go into their, --- well maybe there is no real talking serpents, but duh, there must have been in the past. It's in the WORD of God.

Most Christians are not literalist fundamentalists. 95% of the Christians I know, for instance, regard the creation of Adam and Eve as a metaphor and go with the theory of evolution instead.

As for the talking snake, would you kindly provide chapter and verse where the Bible mentions it?

I still insist that believing in something one knows to be a lie is an oxymoron, a logical impossibility.

 

[remez]

That belief itself seems so important that the act of believing (having faith) becomes a sacred thing is unfortunate.

Like simply believing that only scientific naturalism can supply all knowledge. Like beleiving the Galileo affair was solely about church vs. science. Like beleiving theism has no evidence.

I actually don't believe any of that. I don't see how "scientific naturalism" can supply all knowledge, I actually put science alongside things like poetry, art and other subjective experience. And I don't think the Galileo affair was solely about church vs. science, it was a brief sentence because the main point was something else (that religiosity wasn't the reason to believe geocentrism among ancient persons). Finally I didn't say theism has no evidence, I said it has no good evidence... "good" meaning convincing to anyone except persons who want to believe it. As someone drawn to pyrrhonic skepticism cuz I feel like it, though a bit exaggerative perhaps, is a useful philosophical tool, it's weird that you're attributing the act of believing, in and of itself, as a sacred thing to me.

You ought to try to not read minds, you're not very good at it.

Thank you for the powerful insight. Your post really highlighted our differences. Let me attempt to delineate them.

Parsed below.

Finally I didn't say theism has no evidence, I said it has no good evidence... "good" meaning convincing to anyone except persons who want to believe it.

First the issue of good evidence….. Huge semantic issue with “good” verses “compelling”. This is offered as to why we were talking past one another there. In this context of evidence and argument, “good” and “compelling” play distinctly different roles. For and argument (evidence) to be VALID the conclusion must follow from the premises consistent to the rules of logic. For the argument to be GOOD, we should have some REASON to believe it. Therefore to be a good argument (evidence) each premise should be more plausible than its alternative. Now you could still volitionally choose to judge the argument UNCOMPELLING. That is different from good in this context. You would not need to support your volition that the argument remains uncompelling but if you are claiming the evidence is not good then that needs a defense, because you are claiming some alternative is better. That’s where I was at with challenging you on good evidence. If instead you asserted the evidence was uncompelling then I would certainly have addressed that differently. I’m almost certain that I’ve expressed this to you before in the “different reasons” thread a couple years ago. Again that is not a correction to you, only offered to show you where my education differed from yours.

Next….

As someone drawn to pyrrhonic skepticism cuz I feel like it, though a bit exaggerative perhaps, is a useful philosophical tool,

Clever pun. But logically it’s a volitional epistemology. You believe it because that’s what you want to believe, because that’s what makes you happy. Wisdom is not the goal, happiness is. Thus this……

Finally I didn't say theism has no evidence, I said it has no good evidence... "good" meaning convincing to anyone except persons who want to believe it.

….to be consistent, is not a declaration of wisdom but one what makes you happy. Which now from my understanding of your position makes me happy too, we both win.
Because…..
For me it is not an issue of want….it is an issue of wisdom. If I did not reason Christianity to be true then I would not believe it.

One more time………super curious…….

Finally I didn't say theism has no evidence, I said it has no good evidence... "good" meaning convincing to anyone except persons who want to believe it.

What evidence is there for God that you don’t feel is compelling evidence?

 

[remez]

I was directly asserting that scientific naturalism is not the sole pathway to knowledge.

Yes, you were indeed. I replied that scientific knowledge, being based on observation and experiment as well as reproducibility, is testable. If it fails the test, such knowledge will be rejected. This has happened repeatedly. If the results of an experiment cannot be reproduced, such knowledge is at best questionable. More likely knowledge based on such an experiment will simply be ignored. I then asked how knowledge based on faith could be tested for validity. So far I heard nothing from you.

The point was that for you, "free thinkers", to just BELIEVE in scientific naturalism would hypocritically place you in the blind faith camp you're complaining about.

Speaking for myself, my belief is limited to regarding knowledge gained through observation, experiment and testability as superior to any other because it has this wonderful property of allowing us to weed out knowledge that tests prove to be incorrect. I do not believe that such knowledge will ever enable us to discover an absolute or objective truth. It will forever remain provisional - subject to falsification. Blind faith does not enter into any of it. Therefore hypocrisy does not either.

Parsed….

First

I then asked how knowledge based on faith could be tested for validity. So far I heard nothing from you.

I did……here….

Misinterpretation on your part. Trust in part, is an act of intellectual ascension to knowledge based on the evidence. Not the other way around.

My belief is based on knowledge not the other way around. If I did not reason Christianity to be true then I would not believe it. I don’t trust in things I know aren’t true.

Yes, you were indeed. I replied that scientific knowledge, being based on observation and experiment as well as reproducibility, is testable. If it fails the test, such knowledge will be rejected. This has happened repeatedly. If the results of an experiment cannot be reproduced, such knowledge is at best questionable. More likely knowledge based on such an experiment will simply be ignored.

Absolutely. Science provides us with a strong pathway to knowledge. I’m asserting that it is not the only way or even the best way to knowledge. Now that does not infer that faith is the better pathway to knowledge either. Good philosophy is the paradigm to knowledge. Science is a powerful subset of that paradigm. My trust is based on the knowledge gained through good philosophy, which definitely includes science.

Secondly, I still contend that you are eliminating the forensic and historical sciences by narrowing the scope of science to your methodology of observation, repetition and experimentation only. It’s also important to point out that this belief/definition of yours is not scientific. It’s philosophical and yet you believe it all the same.

The point was that for you, "free thinkers", to just BELIEVE in scientific naturalism would hypocritically place you in the blind faith camp you're complaining about.

Speaking for myself, my belief is limited to regarding knowledge gained through observation, experiment and testability as superior to any other

Exactly. That assertion is a metaphysical affirmation of weak scientism. You cannot defend that with science. You are believing in a bad philosophy which posits that scientific propositions have greater epistemic authority than other fields like philosophy. Therefore you are believing that the conclusions of science are more certain than the philosophical presuppositions of science used to reach and justify those conclusions. Observationally, that’s absurd. Further you cannot scientifically support your belief here, you can only attempt to do so philosophically.

Blind faith does not enter into any of it. Therefore hypocrisy does not either.

Then please provide some evidence for your blind faith in scientism.

 

[Juma]

Yes, you were indeed. I replied that scientific knowledge, being based on observation and experiment as well as reproducibility, is testable. If it fails the test, such knowledge will be rejected. This has happened repeatedly. If the results of an experiment cannot be reproduced, such knowledge is at best questionable. More likely knowledge based on such an experiment will simply be ignored. I then asked how knowledge based on faith could be tested for validity. So far I heard nothing from you.


Speaking for myself, my belief is limited to regarding knowledge gained through observation, experiment and testability as superior to any other because it has this wonderful property of allowing us to weed out knowledge that tests prove to be incorrect. I do not believe that such knowledge will ever enable us to discover an absolute or objective truth. It will forever remain provisional - subject to falsification. Blind faith does not enter into any of it. Therefore hypocrisy does not either.

Parsed….

First

I then asked how knowledge based on faith could be tested for validity. So far I heard nothing from you.

I did……here….

Misinterpretation on your part. Trust in part, is an act of intellectual ascension to knowledge based on the evidence. Not the other way around.

My belief is based on knowledge not the other way around. If I did not reason Christianity to be true then I would not believe it. I don’t trust in things I know aren’t true.

Yes, you were indeed. I replied that scientific knowledge, being based on observation and experiment as well as reproducibility, is testable. If it fails the test, such knowledge will be rejected. This has happened repeatedly. If the results of an experiment cannot be reproduced, such knowledge is at best questionable. More likely knowledge based on such an experiment will simply be ignored.

Absolutely. Science provides us with a strong pathway to knowledge. I’m asserting that it is not the only way or even the best way to knowledge. Now that does not infer that faith is the better pathway to knowledge either. Good philosophy is the paradigm to knowledge. Science is a powerful subset of that paradigm. My trust is based on the knowledge gained through good philosophy, which definitely includes science.

Secondly, I still contend that you are eliminating the forensic and historical sciences by narrowing the scope of science to your methodology of observation, repetition and experimentation only. It’s also important to point out that this belief/definition of yours is not scientific. It’s philosophical and yet you believe it all the same.

The point was that for you, "free thinkers", to just BELIEVE in scientific naturalism would hypocritically place you in the blind faith camp you're complaining about.

Speaking for myself, my belief is limited to regarding knowledge gained through observation, experiment and testability as superior to any other

Exactly. That assertion is a metaphysical affirmation of weak scientism. You cannot defend that with science. You are believing in a bad philosophy which posits that scientific propositions have greater epistemic authority than other fields like philosophy. Therefore you are believing that the conclusions of science are more certain than the philosophical presuppositions of science used to reach and justify those conclusions. Observationally, that’s absurd. Further you cannot scientifically support your belief here, you can only attempt to do so philosophically.

Blind faith does not enter into any of it. Therefore hypocrisy does not either.

Then please provide some evidence for your blind faith in scientism.

Blind faith? (Empirical) science works. Religion doesnt. What brought you the tool you are using to write the post? Jesus? ROFL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yet when push comes to shove, most literalist fundamentals will go into their, --- well maybe there is no real talking serpents, but duh, there must have been in the past. It's in the WORD of God.

Most Christians are not literalist fundamentalists. 95% of the Christians I know, for instance, regard the creation of Adam and Eve as a metaphor and go with the theory of evolution instead.

As for the talking snake, would you kindly provide chapter and verse where the Bible mentions it?

I still insist that believing in something one knows to be a lie is an oxymoron, a logical impossibility.

The talking serpent is in Gen 3.

You are likely right that most literalists are now accepting evolution which puts their God in the Gap.

That is why I wrote that O.P. on the scientific and religious Gods all now being in the Gap.

I do not with your numbers though. 75% or so of Christians believe in Satan and 100% or so believe in Jesus and thus must read some scriptures literally.

Regards
DL

 

[Ramaraksha]

Religious lies. Why do so many knowingly accept them?
People, I hope, are not foolish or gullible enough to really believe in the talking serpent and donkey of the bible, nor the 72 virgins of the Qur’an. I also hope their gullibility is not broad enough to have them swallow all the other supernatural ideas floated by religions. The ancients intelligently knew that nothing could be known of the supernatural.
http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Modern priests, preachers and imams ignore the unknowability of the supernatural constantly while lying to us about the Gods.
I do not want to believe that we are as gullible as some people seem to be.
Why then do you think we knowingly pay and support priests, preachers and imams, perpetual liars in my view, to lie to us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcjpags7JT8
Regards
DL

We have moved forward so much in every other aspect of our lives but when it comes to religion, sadly, it is our ancients that are ahead of us. So much for all our education and intelligence. That God is but a King stands out like a sore thumb & yet even the best of minds can't seem to see it. The ancients lived under Kings, naturally they shaped the heavens the same way. The King rewarded obedience and loyalty and God does the same - believers will be rewarded with heaven, unbelievers get hell! Simple primitive division that doesn't take individuality to account - collective condemnation and reward - like Hitler condemning all Jews - All Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists are to be sent to gas chambers waiting for us in hell

The way to heaven is to make sure we join the "right" religion, pray to the "right" God - that's like saying your resume won't get you the job unless you grease some palms or have the right contacts. The dominant religions are corrupt to the core and yet few see it

Simply amazing

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Religious lies. Why do so many knowingly accept them?
People, I hope, are not foolish or gullible enough to really believe in the talking serpent and donkey of the bible, nor the 72 virgins of the Qur’an. I also hope their gullibility is not broad enough to have them swallow all the other supernatural ideas floated by religions. The ancients intelligently knew that nothing could be known of the supernatural.
http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Modern priests, preachers and imams ignore the unknowability of the supernatural constantly while lying to us about the Gods.
I do not want to believe that we are as gullible as some people seem to be.
Why then do you think we knowingly pay and support priests, preachers and imams, perpetual liars in my view, to lie to us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcjpags7JT8
Regards
DL

We have moved forward so much in every other aspect of our lives but when it comes to religion, sadly, it is our ancients that are ahead of us. So much for all our education and intelligence. That God is but a King stands out like a sore thumb & yet even the best of minds can't seem to see it. The ancients lived under Kings, naturally they shaped the heavens the same way. The King rewarded obedience and loyalty and God does the same - believers will be rewarded with heaven, unbelievers get hell! Simple primitive division that doesn't take individuality to account - collective condemnation and reward - like Hitler condemning all Jews - All Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists are to be sent to gas chambers waiting for us in hell

The way to heaven is to make sure we join the "right" religion, pray to the "right" God - that's like saying your resume won't get you the job unless you grease some palms or have the right contacts. The dominant religions are corrupt to the core and yet few see it

Simply amazing

U C 20/20.

I think people do see it but put their tribal associations ahead of their moral sense.

Not to get political but we saw that in play in the political arena when Trump was elected.

Reps love to hate so much that they ignored their morals to have a leader that knew how to hate all those that they hate.

The key to reverse that tribal affiliation from ignoring their moral sense will be what kills the immoral religions.

Let us pray to all the Gods that secular forces find that key soon.

Regards
DL