• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abandon hope all Ye who enter here (attachment to a belief)

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
That is, religious texts will explain all, and any rational or reasonable explanation (most probably arising from science) is not required if an account exists in such texts to explain everything - even if it is just ludicrous.

How do people get to such a state? We seem to have more than enough on this forum - and I'm not referring to the majority having a religious belief and who sensibly don't take religious texts verbatim but do understand the times they were written in and the audience intended.

Where do these people get such allegiances?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Because people aren't looking for science or anything like scientific explanations for anything within these texts. That's just completely missing the point.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Because people aren't looking for science or anything like scientific explanations for anything within these texts. That's just completely missing the point.

The point being - they are willing to believe whatever they want over evidence?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
That is, religious texts will explain all, and any rational or reasonable explanation (most probably arising from science) is not required if an account exists in such texts to explain everything - even if it is just ludicrous.

How do people get to such a state? We seem to have more than enough on this forum - and I'm not referring to the majority having a religious belief and who sensibly don't take religious texts verbatim but do understand the times they were written in and the audience intended.

Where do these people get such allegiances?
What makes you think the 'majority' can tell what a good interpretation is? You think that religious organizations don't have agendas, could be wrong, ?

So, the differential there, doesn't infer anything. The texts straight are 'more correct' than the interpretations the majority are told, [they're different.

Better to read the text first
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
What makes you think the 'majority' can tell what is a good interpretation is? You think that religious organizations don't have agendas, could be wrong, ?

So, the differential there, doesn't infer anything. The texts straight are 'more correct' than than the interpretations the majority are told, [they're different.

Better to read the text first

What I meant was that many or most today do not believe the literal meanings in such texts and do realise when they were written. I was being kind to them. If, as you suggest, many more do believe in the literal accounts (or any subsequent variants) then so much the worse for them. Choosing between such and scientific evidence (as per NECs) is a losing rather than winning process.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
The point being - they are willing to believe whatever they want over evidence?
Most people are.

And some people honestly couldn't give less of a damn what modern god capital S Science has to say.

Or some can fit in scientific theory with more mystical takes in a way you may find paradoxical, but that works perfectly in a religious worldview that doesn't assume everything has to make human sense.

Or maybe some just don't find the evidence compelling.

Some may be actual literalists who think that scientific theory, if accepted, would kill their faith. You're not going to change their minds without destroying their religious views in the process, so bon chance with that.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Most people are.

And some people honestly couldn't give less of a damn what modern god capital S Science has to say.

Or some can fit in scientific theory with more mystical takes in a way you may find paradoxical, but that works perfectly in a religious worldview that doesn't assume everything has to make human sense.

Or maybe some just don't find the evidence compelling.

Some may be actual literalists who think that scientific theory, if accepted, would kill their faith. You're not going to change their minds without destroying their religious views in the process, so bon chance with that.

And I think you summed it up in the last two sentences, which unfortunately makes them out to be dishonest. Which hardly surprise me - for those so gullible. :oops:
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
And I think you summed it up in the last two sentences, which unfortunately makes them out to be dishonest. Which hardly surprise me - for those so gullible. :oops:
I wouldn't say they are dishonest, only rejecting what they feel contradicts their worldview. We all do that.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
What I meant was that many or most today do not believe the literal meanings in such texts and do realise when they were written. I was being kind to them. If, as you suggest, many more do believe in the literal accounts (or any subsequent variants) then so much the worse for them. Choosing between such and scientific evidence (as per NECs) is a losing rather than winning process.
Too many variables here, too broad. Otherwise, happy to discuss something.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That is, religious texts will explain all, and any rational or reasonable explanation (most probably arising from science) is not required if an account exists in such texts to explain everything - even if it is just ludicrous.

How do people get to such a state? We seem to have more than enough on this forum - and I'm not referring to the majority having a religious belief and who sensibly don't take religious texts verbatim but do understand the times they were written in and the audience intended.

Where do these people get such allegiances?

Probably because their heads have been filled with this kind of talk since they've been old enough to walk. Their parents got it from their parents, and it's passed from generation to generation.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
(as per NECs)

NEC?

NEC is a Japanese electronics manufacturer, formerly "Nippon Electric Company".

NEC may refer to:

Companies and organizations[edit]
Exhibition centres[edit]
  • National Exhibition Centre, a very large exhibition centre in the West Midlands, England
    • NEC Group, the British company operating the National Exhibition Centre and other venues
Educational institutions[edit]
Engineering[edit]
Sports[edit]
Health[edit]
Science and mathematics[edit]
Military[edit]
Other[edit]
----

Well, I give up. I can't figure out from this list what you might be referring to.

DTOA! (Death to obscure acronyms!)
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The point being - they are willing to believe whatever they want over evidence?

Generally speaking, I find it helpful to categorize evidence either as objective or subjective. I think what you'll find is that a rational religious person does have reasons for their beliefs. But because these reasons are purely subjective, then they are not valued or convincing to people who are looking for objective evidence.

So if the person is rational, they are not "believing whatever they want over evidence". It's just that their evidence is subjective and not convincing.

Edit to add: By the way, when a person denies objective evidence in favor of subjective evidence... they can sound delusional in an argument.
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
NEC?

NEC is a Japanese electronics manufacturer, formerly "Nippon Electric Company".

NEC may refer to:

Companies and organizations[edit]
Exhibition centres[edit]
  • National Exhibition Centre, a very large exhibition centre in the West Midlands, England
    • NEC Group, the British company operating the National Exhibition Centre and other venues
Educational institutions[edit]
Engineering[edit]
Sports[edit]
Health[edit]
Science and mathematics[edit]
Military[edit]
Other[edit]
----

Well, I give up. I can't figure out from this list what you might be referring to.

DTOA! (Death to obscure acronyms!)

Perhaps YECs might be better. :D
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I wouldn't say they are dishonest, only rejecting what they feel contradicts their worldview. We all do that.

I think we owe it to ourselves to be honest, that is, impartial and accepting, even if we don't like the answers we get. Which is not what I tend to see with many having religious views who then seem to have to distort their reasoning to ensure their beliefs line up with some particular doctrine.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Perhaps YECs might be better. :D

Yukon Energy Corporation?

YEC may refer to:

yec may refer to:

 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
That is, religious texts will explain all, and any rational or reasonable explanation (most probably arising from science) is not required if an account exists in such texts to explain everything - even if it is just ludicrous.

How do people get to such a state? We seem to have more than enough on this forum - and I'm not referring to the majority having a religious belief and who sensibly don't take religious texts verbatim but do understand the times they were written in and the audience intended.

Where do these people get such allegiances?

The uncontested unconscious mind.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Or maybe some just don't find the evidence compelling.
Some may be actual literalists who think that scientific theory, if accepted, would kill their faith. You're not going to change their minds without destroying their religious views in the process, so bon chance with that.

And I think you summed it up in the last two sentences, which unfortunately makes them out to be dishonest. Which hardly surprise me - for those so gullible.

??? The gullible are dishonest ???
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
I think humanity likes having a hard footing to stand on--a base from which they can operate. Religion is often that base: knowing something greater than themselves is looking over them is helpful to some people, so any source that can provide that and work with that person's particular worldview is likely very tempting even with contrary evidence. That is also assuming they have the understanding or even the desire to understand contrary evidence.
 
Top