Is a lie more useful than the truth? (Religion)

Alyosha said:The whole notion that you can just pluck God out from the center of your worldview and expect everything else to stay exactly the same... it's pure fantasy. It’s just one of those rhetorical parlor tricks people use to sound clever, but honestly? It doesn't hold any water.

I don't even get what "removing God while keeping the rest of your worldview intact" is supposed to mean?
Just because you spent the day at Disneyland doesn't mean reality isn't going to hit you right in the face like it does the rest of us...

Sam Martinez9 said:

feralranger As I have noted before, there is a certain weight to these discussions that often goes unacknowledged. It reminds me of a conversation I had years ago while sitting in a quiet corner of a library in Chicago; we were discussing the inherent difficulty of progress, much like the eternal struggle of Sisyphus. One cannot simply expect immediate results when dealing with such complex matters. There is a rhythm to these things, a slow unfolding that requires patience rather than reactionary outbursts. We must look at the broader context if we want to make any sense of the current situation.
It’s just such an incredibly pedantic way to approach things—completely stripping away any sense of context regarding him or his specific body of work.

By attempting to overextend your knowledge, you’ve actually just increased the amount of contextual misunderstanding. You end up tripping over your own feet at a point that most people find perfectly clear.

It’s like Wand—he goes about things with this almost pedantic, textbook precision, then struts around acting like he's the absolute alpha and omega of the subject. But honestly? There are massive gaps in his grasp of the fundamentals.

As far as I can tell, neither Wand nor I are actually the subject of this discussion. So, if we're looking for someone who's straying off-topic, I’d say you're the one.

No, you aren't, but by failing to grasp the context, missing the nuances that stem from pure academic pedantry, and fundamentally misinterpreting the core content, you are merely increasing the overall level of misunderstanding.

Melissa Stewart6 said:It’s a sentiment you see quite often in various animistic traditions, which suggest that a living spirit resides in everything.

Exactly. That’s why people say we’ve seen a return to the beginning with the New Age movement; our understanding of nature is essentially a snake biting its own tail.

Our ancestors lived in harmony with the wild rather than being boxed into concrete skyscrapers. They were surrounded by flora and fauna, observing them intimately every single day of their lives. It stands to reason, then, that they recognized the profound similarities between humans and all other living beings.

They even attributed animistic qualities to inanimate objects—to rivers, massive boulders, and simple stones...

Living creatures aren't just mindless robots merely reacting to external stimuli.

There are far too many arguments against that view.

Sam Martinez9 said:Exactly. That’s why people say we’ve seen a return to the beginning with the New Age movement; our understanding of nature is essentially a snake biting its own tail.

Our ancestors lived in harmony with the wild rather than being boxed into concrete skyscrapers. They were surrounded by flora and fauna, observing them intimately every single day of their lives. It stands to reason, then, that they recognized the profound similarities between humans and all other living beings.

They even attributed animistic qualities to inanimate objects—to rivers, massive boulders, and simple stones...

Living creatures aren't just mindless robots merely reacting to external stimuli.

There are far too many arguments against that view.

But if that's true, consciousness would exist in everything, and humanity would be its greatest achievement—what Christianity describes as being made in the image of God.

Melissa Stewart6 said:But if that's true, consciousness would exist in everything, and humanity would be its greatest achievement—what Christianity describes as being made in the image of God.

I think we can observe traces of consciousness everywhere. Plants, animals, even inanimate objects react to their environment in subtle ways. Personally, I’m not a believer, so my worldview isn't restricted by Christian doctrine.

Sam Martinez9 said:I think we can observe traces of consciousness everywhere. Plants, animals, even inanimate objects react to their environment in subtle ways. Personally, I’m not a believer, so my worldview isn't restricted by Christian doctrine.

Why do you feel like it’s a limitation?

Melissa Stewart6 said:Why do you feel like it’s a limitation?

If a religion demands that a person think specifically according to what is written in the Bible, then that is a restriction. If someone is forced to believe they were created in God's image and isn't permitted to entertain any other perspective, then we are talking about a restriction, aren't we?

Sam Martinez9 said:If a religion demands that a person think specifically according to what is written in the Bible, then that is a restriction. If someone is forced to believe they were created in God's image and isn't permitted to entertain any other perspective, then we are talking about a restriction, aren't we?

You don't have to see it that way. Why wouldn't someone be able to think differently?

astor pec said:So, what about reflecting on belief? Nothing?

Thinking about belief just leads you to believe whatever that thinking spits out. It’s an observation process—it isn't some conscious choice.

Melissa Stewart6 said:You don't have to see it that way. Why wouldn't someone be able to think differently?

I’m struggling to follow this logic.

Doesn't religion essentially require its followers to adhere to the doctrines laid out in their sacred texts?

To put it plainly: can a Catholic, for instance, really view Jesus through a lens that contradicts the Bible or the interpretations provided by their priests and the Pope?

A Catholic can't simply conclude: *Jesus wasn't God; he was just an ordinary man, a historical figure preserved through oral tradition and eventually recorded in the Gospels. Therefore, gods aren't real.*

If one starts from the fundamental premise that God exists and that Jesus was indeed God, then true free thought becomes an impossibility.

Sam Martinez9 said:I’m struggling to follow this logic.

Doesn't religion essentially require its followers to adhere to the doctrines laid out in their sacred texts?

To put it plainly: can a Catholic, for instance, really view Jesus through a lens that contradicts the Bible or the interpretations provided by their priests and the Pope?

A Catholic can't simply conclude: *Jesus wasn't God; he was just an ordinary man, a historical figure preserved through oral tradition and eventually recorded in the Gospels. Therefore, gods aren't real.*

If one starts from the fundamental premise that God exists and that Jesus was indeed God, then true free thought becomes an impossibility.

You don't have to start from that premise, and you certainly don't have to be a believer.
Sure, if you're an active member of the Church, there's an expectation to align with official doctrines, but being a believer isn't mandatory.
Personally, I'm more interested in Christianity as a cultural tradition rather than the Church or its specific rituals...

Melissa Stewart6 said:You don't have to start from that premise, and you certainly don't have to be a believer.
Sure, if you're an active member of the Church, there's an expectation to align with official doctrines, but being a believer isn't mandatory.
Personally, I'm more interested in Christianity as a cultural tradition rather than the Church or its specific rituals...

Good grief, what was I actually getting at in my last couple of posts?

I'm talking about believers—people who actually belong to a religion—not atheists or agnostics. My point is: how does a member of a faith actually differ from an atheist, an agnostic, or someone who just doesn't subscribe to any religion at all?

Besides, an atheist can certainly be fascinated by Christianity (or Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) as a tradition or a historical phenomenon. Just because someone studies religions doesn't mean they are a believer or a member of that faith. A Catholic can study Islam all day long without suddenly becoming a Muslim.

However, if someone *is* a believer, and they truly adhere to Christian teachings, then they must believe in the existence of God and that Jesus was God.

An atheist isn't bound by those beliefs; they are free to view the world however they see fit, following wherever their own mind leads them.

Sam Martinez9 said:Good grief, what was I actually getting at in my last couple of posts?

I'm talking about believers—people who actually belong to a religion—not atheists or agnostics. My point is: how does a member of a faith actually differ from an atheist, an agnostic, or someone who just doesn't subscribe to any religion at all?

Besides, an atheist can certainly be fascinated by Christianity (or Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) as a tradition or a historical phenomenon. Just because someone studies religions doesn't mean they are a believer or a member of that faith. A Catholic can study Islam all day long without suddenly becoming a Muslim.

However, if someone *is* a believer, and they truly adhere to Christian teachings, then they must believe in the existence of God and that Jesus was God.

An atheist isn't bound by those beliefs; they are free to view the world however they see fit, following wherever their own mind leads them.

An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in God. You can believe in God, or even in Jesus, without being an active follower of a specific religion.

Melissa Stewart6 said:An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in God. You can believe in God, or even in Jesus, without being an active follower of a specific religion.

However, you can't just walk away from the core tenets of your faith. You don't necessarily have to sit in a church pew every Sunday, but you can't claim that Jesus wasn't God.

Everything else we believe about how this world works is ultimately built upon those foundational principles.

Sam Martinez9 said:However, you can't just walk away from the core tenets of your faith. You don't necessarily have to sit in a church pew every Sunday, but you can't claim that Jesus wasn't God.

Everything else we believe about how this world works is ultimately built upon those foundational principles.

True, though it sounds to me like you're describing a closed mindset.
A believer can lose their faith, and an atheist can certainly become religious.

For me, asking whether Jesus was God or not isn't enough. The much more interesting question is what it actually means to be God, or even what "God" signifies in the first place.

Melissa Stewart6 said:True, though it sounds to me like you're describing a closed mindset.
A believer can lose their faith, and an atheist can certainly become religious.

For me, asking whether Jesus was God or not isn't enough. The much more interesting question is what it actually means to be God, or even what "God" signifies in the first place.

If a believer stops believing, they cease being a believer and become an atheist. If an atheist begins to believe, they stop being an atheist and become a believer.

The last point serves as a fine illustration—you aren't doubting that Jesus was God; rather, you are pondering the nature of divinity itself.

Sam Martinez9 said:If a believer stops believing, they cease being a believer and become an atheist. If an atheist begins to believe, they stop being an atheist and become a believer.

The last point serves as a fine illustration—you aren't doubting that Jesus was God; rather, you are pondering the nature of divinity itself.

True. People are free to change their minds and become atheists, Buddhists, or whatever else they choose. Having an open or closed mind isn't inherently tied to your stance on God.

I can doubt if I want to, too. You can question anything. Sometimes, though, choosing to believe is a much stronger act than doubting.

Melissa Stewart6 said:True. People are free to change their minds and become atheists, Buddhists, or whatever else they choose. Having an open or closed mind isn't inherently tied to your stance on God.

I can doubt if I want to, too. You can question anything. Sometimes, though, choosing to believe is a much stronger act than doubting.

Of course, otherwise atheism wouldn't even exist as a concept.

However, as long as someone identifies as a believer, they operate from a set of established foundations—principles like the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus—that they aren't meant to abandon. These truths serve as the bedrock upon which they build all their other perspectives on the world.

In that sense, their degree of intellectual freedom is somewhat limited.

Take your current position, for example. You are clearly a believer, and you seem unable to accept the premise that believers are inherently bound to believe in God. Because you're already working within that constraint, you're exerting quite a bit of effort to try and prove that such a limitation doesn't actually exist.

Sam Martinez9 said:Of course, otherwise atheism wouldn't even exist as a concept.

However, as long as someone identifies as a believer, they operate from a set of established foundations—principles like the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus—that they aren't meant to abandon. These truths serve as the bedrock upon which they build all their other perspectives on the world.

In that sense, their degree of intellectual freedom is somewhat limited.

Take your current position, for example. You are clearly a believer, and you seem unable to accept the premise that believers are inherently bound to believe in God. Because you're already working within that constraint, you're exerting quite a bit of effort to try and prove that such a limitation doesn't actually exist.

"As long as someone is a believer"... but people aren't stuck being believers forever.
We have the freedom to change our minds. If someone chooses to limit themselves, that's a choice they're making voluntarily.
If you look closely, this applies to everything. If you want to read Hegel, you have to go in believing he's worth reading. If you're a Marxist, you have to accept that Marxist theory is correct.

Melissa Stewart6 said:"As long as someone is a believer"... but people aren't stuck being believers forever.
We have the freedom to change our minds. If someone chooses to limit themselves, that's a choice they're making voluntarily.
If you look closely, this applies to everything. If you want to read Hegel, you have to go in believing he's worth reading. If you're a Marxist, you have to accept that Marxist theory is correct.

But once they transition to atheism, they simply cease to be believers. My focus here isn't on that shift; rather, I am looking at the fundamental ways in which believers perceive the world versus how atheists do. It is an exploration of those core cognitive differences.

I am comparing the internal logic and perspectives of the atheist and the believer.

To be clear, I'm not discussing the journey of how a believer becomes an atheist, or vice versa. That is a massive, separate subject entirely—just as expansive as the question of *how believers and atheists actually conceptualize reality.*