-
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!
expectations of the so-called “christain”?
- Thread starter DPMartin
- Start date
The reason I don't believe in the Christian god is unrelated to the behavior of Christians. My reason is that I am a skeptic, meaning I need a reason to believe anything. I have no reason to believe that the Christian god or any other god exists, so I don't believe it. That is not an argument that gods don't exist, just that the evidence for them is insufficient to justify belief.
Then I would have belief commensurate with the quality and quantity of that evidence. That's what being skeptical means.
Yes, that's another way of writing what being skeptical means.
I could, but I wouldn't guess unless forced to. Why guess? Just remain agnostic ("I don't know") if that's all the evidence supports.
PureX
Veteran Member
I think we are all trapped in the bias of our own expectations. It's part if the human condition. The difference is in being able and willing to acknowledge this fact, or not. It's humbling to acknowledge the hopelessness of our own subjective bias, but it keeps us willing to learn, and open to others. Whereas those of us who are not willing to be so humbled become unteachable; ignorant and rigid, and unnecessarily abrasive to their fellow humans.
Honesty and humility are essential for a life well lived, and for relations well shared. We can't help our innate bias, but we can minimize the significance of it's effect in our lives with self-awareness, and practice.
Honesty and humility are essential for a life well lived, and for relations well shared. We can't help our innate bias, but we can minimize the significance of it's effect in our lives with self-awareness, and practice.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Conviction justifies belief of all types. People believe what they believe for a variety of reasons. No reason exists in a vacuum, thus if one's belief hinges on a single thing it is not likely to endure new information regardless of what that single reason is.
It's never the reason, therefore never an excuse. Are people bound to excuse their behavior for some reason, though?
Justify it, no. Cause one to become disillusion about the religion, probably.
What justifies my lack of belief is an inability to justify belief. That really has nothing to do with anybody else or their behavior. However the hypocrisy I found in several church leaders I came across led me down a road to try and justify belief. I'd suppose if the people to teach you about God could be admired you'd be less likely to start to question what they are teaching.
lukethethird
unknown member
Whatever, I is what I is and I just do what I want regardless of my belief in God of Jesus Christ that has ways of dealing with people like you.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
This justification business gets tricky, though. Even a charlatan that pretends to provide "miracles" to take people's money has a justifiable reason for doing it: to get their money. We may not agree with their justification, morally, because we do not accept their Darwinist philosophy of life, humanity, and commerce, but that doesn't make it any less reasonable, or even unjust, according to the paradigm being used by the actor, to assess it.
So the question always ends up being; 'by whose conception of justice are we determining the justification of the beliefs and actions of others'? And the answer is, obviously, our own. But by what right or reason are we presuming our own to trump all others? People adopt and use religions for all sorts of different reason, and we must assume that they have justified doing so by their own criteria of what "justified" means. And for a great many of us, that criteria is mostly based on what 'works for us' in our lives. The justification is functionality. And that's as true for the charlatan as for his victims. And is probably true for you and I, as well, to at least some degree.
And this all leaves us in an odd position. As we are each justifying our own religious beliefs based on our own needs and attitude toward the world, and yet we are then applying our own justifications to everyone else's choices. Which would seem to me to be quite illogical. And yet we do so almost instinctively.
Well its true that to be aware of one’s own nature and to have honest expectations of one’s own nature is better than not.
Thing is in this case, there is the part of human nature that is to blame, and to place blame for being the victim of.
Na, the conviction that the earth’s surface was formed by glaciers, continents and all was taught in schools and school books for years in 50’s 60’s 70’s until satellites data proved that to be wrong.
What proves the to the person that causes conviction also proves the conviction maybe in error. What is trusted as truth or the source of truth causes a belief of conviction. In the case expressed here in this posing science and tech is the trusted source of truth.
therefore, in context, the church is supposed to be a trusted source of information about the God of Jesus Christ.
PureX
Veteran Member
Perhaps it' the placing of blame enables our "lesser angels" in the first place, though. It may be that in some instances, humility and self-awareness means setting aside that inclination all together. We may not be able to make it 'go away' as a part of our nature, but we may be able to choose not to act on it's behalf.
no one always acts on one's own behalf. no matter what. even if its what one loves most, its still an act of one's own behalf because of the love, whether it be correct or not.
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
My rejection is based on their claims rather than their behaviour. On the other hand, one can surely judge a tree by it's fruit.