3 ms·

> But a religious person is wired in a way were they are unable to admit this fact. This religious person can. I am not 100% on anything via reason, I just don

> But a religious person is wired in a way were they are unable to admit this fact. This religious person can. I am not 100% on anything via reason, I just don’t think reason is the only way of knowing. I can’t be certain that my dad loves me via reason but I know he loves me via human faith because I know my father, I don’t simply know about him. Authentic Christian faith in God is similar to that. Thankfully not all non-religious people are wired to make such sophomoric sweeping generalizations as you.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
It's not at all unusual for people to start off comfortable with their level of faith in others, and then discover their faith was misplaced. I gave up on Christians specifically when I discovered that Christians all believe different things. I would literally ask in chat rooms for a group to define one thing they all agreed on, and then watch as fights broke out - because when pushed they all disagreed violently on core ethics and dogma, and yet they also believed they were right and other people with different views "Weren't real Christians." It turns out there is no real content to that kind of religion. It's all meta-justification for a person's existing moral leanings, and meta-interpretation of a "sacred text" which is broad enough to rationalise pretty much anything, including some appalling and terrible things. (History has plenty to say about that.) The only true common belief is that religious self-justification is a valid and respectable process. That was the one thing they had in common. Specifics and details were wildly variable window dressing, and heavily customised to personal taste.
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > I would literally ask in chat rooms for a group to define one thing they all agreed on, and then watch as fights broke out > It's all meta-justification for a person's existing moral leanings There is a vibrant and ancient school of Christian moral teaching that still permeates to the core of western law and governance. Talking to strangers in chatrooms is not a serious confrontation of this reality nor any basis for dismissing it all. > interpretation of a "sacred text" which is broad enough to rationalise pretty much anything, including some appalling and terrible things. (History has plenty to say about that.) Interestingly, those Christians who did appalling things used the same cherry picking strategy with Scripture that you use with history.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  I came to the same conclusion with my experience of religious people. Good people will justify their deeds through their religion, and bad people will justify their deeds through religion.
koonsolo 5y ago
> This religious person can. So I'm guessing you are Christian because you were raised in an environment like that. If you were raised in Pakistan, you would have been a Muslim. So how much chance would you give each religion to be the correct one? Because they all contradict each other, and believing in one basically states that the other can't be true. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism & others.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

It's not at all unusual for people to start off comfortable with their level of faith in others, and then discover their faith was misplaced. I gave up on Christians specifically when I discovered that Christians all believe different things. I would literally ask in chat rooms for a group to define one thing they all agreed on, and then watch as fights broke out - because when pushed they all disagreed violently on core ethics and dogma, and yet they also believed they were right and other people with different views "Weren't real Christians." It turns out there is no real content to that kind of religion. It's all meta-justification for a person's existing moral leanings, and meta-interpretation of a "sacred text" which is broad enough to rationalise pretty much anything, including some appalling and terrible things. (History has plenty to say about that.) The only true common belief is that religious self-justification is a valid and respectable process. That was the one thing they had in common. Specifics and details were wildly variable window dressing, and heavily customised to personal taste.

nyokodo 5y ago
> I would literally ask in chat rooms for a group to define one thing they all agreed on, and then watch as fights broke out > It's all meta-justification for a person's existing moral leanings There is a vibrant and ancient school of Christian moral teaching that still permeates to the core of western law and governance. Talking to strangers in chatrooms is not a serious confrontation of this reality nor any basis for dismissing it all. > interpretation of a "sacred text" which is broad enough to rationalise pretty much anything, including some appalling and terrible things. (History has plenty to say about that.) Interestingly, those Christians who did appalling things used the same cherry picking strategy with Scripture that you use with history.
koonsolo 5y ago
I came to the same conclusion with my experience of religious people. Good people will justify their deeds through their religion, and bad people will justify their deeds through religion.

koonsolo 5y ago

> This religious person can. So I'm guessing you are Christian because you were raised in an environment like that. If you were raised in Pakistan, you would have been a Muslim. So how much chance would you give each religion to be the correct one? Because they all contradict each other, and believing in one basically states that the other can't be true. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism & others.