Do believers really believe?

[BarbaraGordon]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4761159.ece

This Brit atheist doesn't think so. I think she may have a point.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Some interesting points, although I think that he ignores the very basic notion that we all, atheists and believers alike, would like to be much better people than we are, but that our natural tendencies hold us back.

I also think you could just as easily turn this around and show that most atheists' actions don't really reflect their belief that this life is all there is. Beyond just the basic idea that "there are no atheists in foxholes", people of all types perform many actions without regard for their personal welfare. Why ever perform a good deed that will go unrecognized? What's the point of following any sort of moral code? Why would we consider it noble for a person to give their life for something or someone? It seems rather idiotic, if we're only viewing things from the standpoint of this life.

Why do people spend money on life insurance?

That was my thought. If this world was all there was, and there was absolutely nothing after this life, wouldn't it be logical to do whatever it takes to enjoy this life as much as possible, even at the expense of other people? And yet, I doubt very much that most atheists take that approach.

What's more, even though a church teaches that people must do certain things to go to heaven, a person can certainly still believe in God, but simply believe that God's requirements aren't as strict as those taught by the church. A person could give stronger credence to the notion of God's mercy and think that as long as the person is generally living a good life, even if not in strict conformance with the teachings of that person's church, the person could still live with God.

[BarbaraGordon]

The intellectual honesty of atheists aside, I think he touches on a couple of interesting questions.

1) What is the purpose of infusing Christian rhetoric into our politics? If, after decades and decades it's now clear (and I believe it is) that cloaking conservative politics within a religious discourse fails to conceal the fact that religious social agenda is in no way being advanced in this country, why do we maintain the dialogue? Why continue to fool ourselves?

2) Do he majority of believers really *believe* what they espouse? Or, alternately, do they simply hope to be true what they claim to believe?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

The intellectual honesty of atheists aside, I think he touches on a couple of interesting questions.

1) What is the purpose of infusing Christian rhetoric into our politics? If, after decades and decades it's now clear (and I believe it is) that cloaking conservative politics within a religious discourse fails to conceal the fact that religious social agenda is in no way being advanced in this country, why do we maintain the dialogue? Why continue to fool ourselves?

2) Do he majority of believers really *believe* what they espouse? Or, alternately, do they simply hope to be true what they claim to believe?

1) I wish Christian rhetoric wouldn't be infused into politics. One of the reasons for the fall of the Republican party is their selling their sould to the religious right.

2) There are all different levels of belief, and most religious will fully admit different levels of belief (well, except for Mormons in F&T meeting). Personally, I believe different principles with different levels of certainty, and I think my actions, at least the well-thought out ones, reflect these different levels of certainty.

[SeattleUte]

What happened to ER's first post. Freaky.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What happened to ER's first post. Freaky.

Interesting article. Similar to some epistemology discussions in classical philosophy. Generally speaking, early Christians were ridiculed by philosophers for relying on "pistis" (faith) instead of "logismos" (reasoned conviction).

LDS take it to the next level, often claiming to "know."

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

LDS take it to the next level, often claiming to "know."

But really, they don't.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

But really, they don't.

I KNOW there is a God. It is a truth to which I am intrinsically bound. I have communed with God and I will not deny it because intellectually it is unfashionable. The only evidence I can offer to support my knowledge is my life and a sincere willingness to change my nature. To contend with my knowledge you must contend with my life. And I assume no person, even you, is so arrogant as to suggest that they could walk in my shoes and truly understand me … that role was reserved for deity; the son of God, Jesus Christ.

Amen

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I KNOW there is a God. It is a truth to which I am intrinsically bound. I have communed with God and I will not deny it because intellectually it is unfashionable. The only evidence I can offer to support my knowledge is my life and a sincere willingness to change my nature. To contend with my knowledge you must contend with my life. And I assume no person, even you, is so arrogant as to suggest that they could walk in my shoes and truly understand me … that role was reserved for deity; the son of God, Jesus Christ.

Amen

No one has to walk in your shoes to say that you don't know there is a God. It's not a matter of your perception. You can't know there is a God, unless you severely mangle the conventional notion of what constitutes knowledge. Why is it so important that you "know" there is a God?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

No one has to walk in your shoes to say that you don't know there is a God. It's not a matter of your perception. You can't know there is a God, unless you severely mangle the conventional notion of what constitutes knowledge. Why is it so important that you "know" there is a God?

Why is it so important for you to tell me what I can and cannot know? What compels you to even begin to suggest that you can understand my experience and render judgement on said experience with little or no exposure to said experience?

The conventional notions of knowledge are:

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things
....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

The only person doing the mangling is you. How can you 'know' I don't know when you ARE NOT aquainted with the facts, truths or principles etc. I am? It is a matter of perception ... the perception you lack!