How Religious People Think

[Neverlandrut]

Unbelief is not a choice. It is what happens when you learn otherwise.

 

Bob believes all cars are red. One day, bob sees a blue car. Bob incorporates the new information and amends his belief saying, "I was wrong. Not all cars are red because there is, at least, one blue car." Now let's say Bob religiously believes all cars are red. One day bob sees a blue car. Bob immediately concludes that the blue thing cannot possibly be a car because it is blue. Therefore, all cars are still red.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the difference between rational belief and religious belief. Thoughts?

[Thurisaz]

Just my standard remark - not all religious belief is fanatical, literalist and reality-denying. Inasmuch though as "religion" means babblical literalism or comparable shit, yup you're right

[Neverlandrut]

Just my standard remark - not all religious belief is fanatical, literalist and reality-denying. Inasmuch though as "religion" means babblical literalism or comparable shit, yup you're right

Yes, I am referring to the literalist fundamentalists who insist things like creationism be taught as equally valid with evolution.

[Bhim]

Just my standard remark - not all religious belief is fanatical, literalist and reality-denying. Inasmuch though as "religion" means babblical literalism or comparable shit, yup you're right

Yes I think this is an important point. A lot of criticism I see of "religion" is really only relevant to Christianity. And even then only evangelical Christianity. I'm not offended by any means. But I think it's important to qualify these statements, otherwise you end up spending a lot of time fighting a perceived enemy who isn't even out to get you.

 

People here make many great arguments. Let's lay them squarely against evangelical Christianity, so that others can properly understand their enemy.

[midniterider]

Unbelief is not a choice. It is what happens when you learn otherwise.

 

Bob believes all cars are red. One day, bob sees a blue car. Bob incorporates the new information and amends his belief saying, "I was wrong. Not all cars are red because there is, at least, one blue car." Now let's say Bob religiously believes all cars are red. One day bob sees a blue car. Bob immediately concludes that the blue thing cannot possibly be a car because it is blue. Therefore, all cars are still red.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the difference between rational belief and religious belief. Thoughts?

 

The 'blue' car is actually just a different shade of red. :-) Just have faith. With faith you will see that the blue car is and always has been red. Cars are red yesterday, today and tomorrow. Your anger at cars is clouding your perception. If you deny the red car, the red car will deny you. Stop thinking about cars with your head but use your heart instead. The truth is veiled to the non-believer...that's why you see the wrong color. Once you start praying and believing, the truth of the red car will be revealed to you. 

 

We're having a meeting at the car lot tonite, wanna come? :-)

[florduh]

This line of "reasoning" is required for any unfounded supernatural belief, not just fundamentalist Christians.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

Unbelief is not a choice. It is what happens when you learn otherwise.

 

Bob believes all cars are red. One day, bob sees a blue car. Bob incorporates the new information and amends his belief saying, "I was wrong. Not all cars are red because there is, at least, one blue car." Now let's say Bob religiously believes all cars are red. One day bob sees a blue car. Bob immediately concludes that the blue thing cannot possibly be a car because it is blue. Therefore, all cars are still red.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the difference between rational belief and religious belief. Thoughts?

The blue car is actually just a different shade of red. :-)

Ah, nice! Of course color is subjective. Red or blue is really up to the individual's interpretation. It's a matter of faith to believe all cars are still red even though one looks blue but is actually a different shade of red because the bible tells us so. Lol.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

You put the word "religious" in the same sentence as the word "think".  LOL.

[Jedah]

This assessment is spot on when it comes to morality. They have it drilled into them so harshly that it is impossible to be a good person without Gawd that they cannot accept or comprehend it when they see an atheist doing something kind. They assume that the non believer must be doing good with some kind of ulterior motive behind it.

[Ellinas]

What I know is what I can objectively prove.

 

What I consider is what I can objectively evidence short of proof.

 

What I believe is what I think based on by own reasoning where the objective evidence runs out.

 

The problem with fundamentalist belief is that it masquerades as knowledge and therefore is regarded as proven.

 

It is actually dishonest.

[RipVanWinkle]

"You put the word "religious" in the same sentence as the word "think".  LOL."  RNP

 

Yeah, religion and "think" is an oxymoron. The only thinking most Xtians do is to remember what their gurus tell them. Then they apply what they remember in multiple different and inconsistent ways.

 

Apologists, on the other hand, are specialists in intellectual dishonesty.They use George Orwell's "doublethink" repearedly with a straight face.   bill

[Guest afireinside]

Unbelief is not a choice. It is what happens when you learn otherwise.

 

Bob believes all cars are red. One day, bob sees a blue car. Bob incorporates the new information and amends his belief saying, "I was wrong. Not all cars are red because there is, at least, one blue car." Now let's say Bob religiously believes all cars are red. One day bob sees a blue car. Bob immediately concludes that the blue thing cannot possibly be a car because it is blue. Therefore, all cars are still red.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the difference between rational belief and religious belief. Thoughts?

God put 2 cars in the garden of Eden, eve chose to drive the blue one but Gods will was only for red cars. God sent his custom built red Ferrari to drive our highways and he crashed it into the blue car on our behalf, writing it off in a firey crash. But 3 days later the red Ferrari started up and drove out of the wreckers yard and ascended into Heaven and is now parked at the right hand side of God

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Just my standard remark - not all religious belief is fanatical, literalist and reality-denying. Inasmuch though as "religion" means babblical literalism or comparable shit, yup you're right

But doesn't all religious belief deny reality in that it accepts a god as existing when there is no evidence to support such a belief?

[Neverlandrut]

 

Just my standard remark - not all religious belief is fanatical, literalist and reality-denying. Inasmuch though as "religion" means babblical literalism or comparable shit, yup you're right

Yes I think this is an important point. A lot of criticism I see of "religion" is really only relevant to Christianity. And even then only evangelical Christianity. I'm not offended by any means. But I think it's important to qualify these statements, otherwise you end up spending a lot of time fighting a perceived enemy who isn't even out to get you.

 

People here make many great arguments. Let's lay them squarely against evangelical Christianity, so that others can properly understand their enemy.

You know... I amend my previous explanation. I don't aim this just at fundamentalist Christianity. I wrote this as a general illustration of how faith works in the mind. Now, true, not all religious people hold to faith based beliefs to the complete neglect of rationality. But I submit to you that those religious rational people probably don't take their faith's beliefs that seriously. They likely interpret their faith's beliefs in light of reality. But, many serious believers do disbelieve reality in favor of their faith's beliefs.

[Neverlandrut]

 

Just my standard remark - not all religious belief is fanatical, literalist and reality-denying. Inasmuch though as "religion" means babblical literalism or comparable shit, yup you're right

Yes I think this is an important point. A lot of criticism I see of "religion" is really only relevant to Christianity. And even then only evangelical Christianity. I'm not offended by any means. But I think it's important to qualify these statements, otherwise you end up spending a lot of time fighting a perceived enemy who isn't even out to get you.

 

People here make many great arguments. Let's lay them squarely against evangelical Christianity, so that others can properly understand their enemy.

I disagree. Islam is like this illustration as well. I know many non-fundamentalist, passive Christians who still reject scientific evidence of evolution (for example) simply because it contradicts their religious beliefs. People are free to believe what they want, and I would not mock them to their faces. I write this as an illustration of the irrationality of faith. I write it as a criticism of how irrational I was as a believer, because that is precisely how I used to think.

[Thurisaz]

 

Just my standard remark - not all religious belief is fanatical, literalist and reality-denying. Inasmuch though as "religion" means babblical literalism or comparable shit, yup you're right

But doesn't all religious belief deny reality in that it accepts a god as existing when there is no evidence to support such a belief?

 

 

Not necessarily. "No evidence to support" is not the same as "evidence for it being wrong". And going the infamous "god of the gaps" route also avoids reality denial, strictly speaking (unless the gaps are just in the respective religion's worldview and not in the current theories of science).

 

I rarely think of how exactly I could/should define the nature of my own faith (because fortunately I rarely have to) but I think I can best describe it as a number of symbols/archetypes. For example, I wouldn't claim that Tyr (Asatru god of justice and honorable warfare, among other things) really sits in his hall somewhere in Asgard somehow guiding what's happening in all the courtrooms of the world, I more see him as an anthropomorphized symbol of the concept of justice. Same pretty much with the rest of what the sagas tell about the ideas of my faith.

 

So yeah that is very different from the kind of religion that most of us in here have left behind. I don't know what you'll say about it but I hope you understand what I mean at least a little

[Wololo]

Fundamentalists do a disservice to those of us that are more reasonable with our beliefs. There are plenty of Christians that are intelligent and careful thinkers, just as there are nonbelievers who are intelligent thinkers. What's unreasonable is to write off all religious people as being stupid. Not all of us believe that the Bible has to be taken 100% literally all the time. I have no problem with science, in fact I welcome deep study into such things.

 

I'm not afraid of my beliefs being questioned either. Go ahead, by all means. I love to discuss.

 

Side note: Authentic Christian Believer? Hahahaha. That looks so obnoxious.

[Guest afireinside]

I don't think religious people are stupid per se. I think in a lot of instances they are very smart but choose faith over reason which is a stupid thing to do. A lot of atheists are idiots but choose to not even consider things or weigh up what is true and what isn't, they just choose atheism because it's the path of least resistance for them and they are too lazy to look at theism as a reality. I think the most authentic people are those that consider both atheism and theism(some living out both) and by reason, evidence and experience accept that the existence of God and the authority/accuracy of the Bible is not worthy of belief. Some intelligent people deliberately derail reason in order to follow a belief system and that is stupid because it's being deliberately dishonest with themselves.

[Ellinas]

 

 

Just my standard remark - not all religious belief is fanatical, literalist and reality-denying. Inasmuch though as "religion" means babblical literalism or comparable shit, yup you're right

Yes I think this is an important point. A lot of criticism I see of "religion" is really only relevant to Christianity. And even then only evangelical Christianity. I'm not offended by any means. But I think it's important to qualify these statements, otherwise you end up spending a lot of time fighting a perceived enemy who isn't even out to get you.

 

People here make many great arguments. Let's lay them squarely against evangelical Christianity, so that others can properly understand their enemy.

You know... I amend my previous explanation. I don't aim this just at fundamentalist Christianity. I wrote this as a general illustration of how faith works in the mind. Now, true, not all religious people hold to faith based beliefs to the complete neglect of rationality. But I submit to you that those religious rational people probably don't take their faith's beliefs that seriously. They likely interpret their faith's beliefs in light of reality. But, many serious believers do disbelieve reality in favor of their faith's beliefs.

 

I'm not going to involve myself in arguing over whether my beliefs make me irrational.  Anyone who wishes to regard me as such is welcome to do so.

 

But I do not accept that rational people who hold to beliefs in deity fail to take their beliefs seriously.  They have merely found a personalized belief system that makes sense in the light of with their worldview - and generally take it very seriously.  They do not, however, generally conform to expected patterns of belief and behaviour.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Fundamentalists do a disservice to those of us that are more reasonable with our beliefs. There are plenty of Christians that are intelligent and careful thinkers, just as there are nonbelievers who are intelligent thinkers. What's unreasonable is to write off all religious people as being stupid. Not all of us believe that the Bible has to be taken 100% literally all the time. I have no problem with science, in fact I welcome deep study into such things.

 

I'm not afraid of my beliefs being questioned either. Go ahead, by all means. I love to discuss.

 

Side note: Authentic Christian Believer? Hahahaha. That looks so obnoxious.

How do you decide which parts of the bible to believe as true?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

Just my standard remark - not all religious belief is fanatical, literalist and reality-denying. Inasmuch though as "religion" means babblical literalism or comparable shit, yup you're right

But doesn't all religious belief deny reality in that it accepts a god as existing when there is no evidence to support such a belief?

 

 

Not necessarily. "No evidence to support" is not the same as "evidence for it being wrong". And going the infamous "god of the gaps" route also avoids reality denial, strictly speaking (unless the gaps are just in the respective religion's worldview and not in the current theories of science).

 

I rarely think of how exactly I could/should define the nature of my own faith (because fortunately I rarely have to) but I think I can best describe it as a number of symbols/archetypes. For example, I wouldn't claim that Tyr (Asatru god of justice and honorable warfare, among other things) really sits in his hall somewhere in Asgard somehow guiding what's happening in all the courtrooms of the world, I more see him as an anthropomorphized symbol of the concept of justice. Same pretty much with the rest of what the sagas tell about the ideas of my faith.

 

So yeah that is very different from the kind of religion that most of us in here have left behind. I don't know what you'll say about it but I hope you understand what I mean at least a little

 

I sort of understand.  Ok not really, lol.  You say you see him as a symbol of the concept of justice.  What does that mean?  What is justice?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Here's my two cents.  I don't necessarily think that beliefs are irrational per se.  Religious beliefs can be somewhat defended by argument and a very low kind of "logic" (okay, more apologetic than logic).  To defend one's beliefs in any sincere and meaningful way requires that those beliefs be examined in some sort of rational manner.  Many rational people are also religious, and devote sincere intellect toward their beliefs.  Even non-religious people sometimes hold certain beliefs.  For example, I believe that I will still have a job to go to next week.

 

Faith, on the other hand, is by very definition, irrational.  Faith is simply accepting something as truth without a single shred of proof as to its validity.  No amount of objectivity is required or expended; the "truth" is simply accepted without examination.  Unfortunately, faith is the foundation for every other belief a religion offers.  So while any particular belief may be defended based upon this particular passage of scripture or that particular tradition, at the core of every belief is the irrational acceptance of faith.  christianity is a house of cards--each belief supports the next.  Pull the cornerstone of faith and the whole rotten structure comes tumbling down.

[Neverlandrut]

I first want to say that I apologize if I came across as antagonistic or hateful. Not my intent. That beig said these responses raise an interesting point and a question for me. It seems to me that some of you with religious beliefs have more of a symbolic interpritation of the bible or of Norse hedonism, or whatever you follow. It seems like you accept reality but anthropomorphise it, and so don't take your religions teachings to be literal. If that is so, I don't suppose I see a problem with it. I just find it unnecessary. When scientific theories work just fine on their own at explaining reality, and adding a deity does nothing to change the description of reality, I find invoking one an unnecessary exercise, but to each his own. If you are a Christian and take some parts of the bible literal, and some symbolic, then how do you possibly decide which to interpret one way and which to interpret the other way?

[Neverlandrut]

A bit about my background. I was a fundamentalist Christian for 20 years. My beliefs started hard core literal (young earth creationist), and then as I learned more and more over the years, I eventually saw that there was no evidence to support my beliefs, including my belief in god's existence. During the transition, I had a very symbolic interpretation of the bible so I think I understand where many of you are coming from. But eventually I had to twist the biblical and Christian teachings so much, in order to fit reality, that I found holding into them to be superfluous and unhelpful. That's an oversimplified explanation. For a long time, it was very personally meaningful and fulfilling. But once I found it to be untrue, it lost it's meaning for me.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

A bit about my background. I was a fundamentalist Christian for 20 years. My beliefs started hard core literal (young earth creationist), and then as I learned more and more over the years, I eventually saw that there was no evidence to support my beliefs, including my belief in god's existence. During the transition, I had a very symbolic interpretation of the bible so I think I understand where many of you are coming from. But eventually I had to twist the biblical and Christian teachings so much, in order to fit reality, that I found holding into them to be superfluous and unhelpful. That's an oversimplified explanation. For a long time, it was very personally meaningful and fulfilling. But once I found it to be untrue, it lost it's meaning for me.

 

I guess it all comes down to how important it is, or not, that the things one believes are true.  I try to believe as many true things and not believe as many untrue things as possible.