• 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
??? The gullible are dishonest ???

Perhaps 'wilfully gullible' is better (and hence dishonest) - when some refuse to even look at alternative (and perhaps better) sources of knowledge - or do so with blinkers on - or are willing to accept as truth one particular viewpoint. Like claiming there is no life elsewhere other than on earth - because the Bible doesn't mention such - and where we have hardly even scratched the surface of this issue, but knowing that there are likely to be trillions (or whatever, but a very large number) of planets in such searching. And almost anyone can Google how many galaxies there are (that we know of) if one was open to such knowledge. Being a few examples.

List of galaxies - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
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.

Which is where I probably diverge from many - in not believing that subjective experiences (or anything derived from such) are that relevant to reality - knowing a little how we are deluded or see illusions as truth so often.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
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?

I believe we will need science to go through religion with a fine tooth comb to sort out the superstitious from the reality.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known 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?


I suspect it has strongly to do with Self-Identity. I knew a young lady who as, in her words, "Staunchly Catholic". But she never attended mass, apart from when she was a child, she did not obey the Catholic Dogma with respect to pretty much everything. It's not that she did as she pleased all the time, far from it, but she certainly never paid that much attention to the Catholic Edicts, with respect to daily living.

But, by gum, was she Catholic or what? Anything that did not impact her daily living, such as the origins of life, and whatnot? She turned to Catholicism, and could regurgitate their teachings quite accurately, not that such questions meant anything to her. She just wasn't that inquisitive with respect to the Big Picture. Again, it did not affect her daily routine in the least.

I think that sums up a great many folk: Whatever does not impact their lives directly? They fall back on whatever their childhood religion was, and pay it no further heed.

In short, just as my casual friend did above? They'll cheerfully partake of modern conveniences, like birth control, medicine, cell phones, coffee or Coke and so on, even if their childhood religion forbids such practices.
 

BilliardsBall

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?

People "get in such a state" by, IMHO, following false religion. The true religion, biblical Christianity, demand fidelity to rationality, the scientific method, and embracing scientific advances.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Perhaps 'wilfully gullible' is better (and hence dishonest)

Gullibles are gullible; the dishonest are dishonest.
Indubitably, some gullibles are dishonest some of the time; but it seems a huge stretch of imagination to declare all gullibles dishonest all the time.
Indubitably, some dishonest are gullible some of the time, but it seems an equally huge stretch of imagination to declare all dishonest people gullible all of the time.
One doesn't have to be gullible to be dishonest any more than one has to be dishonest to be gullible.

Personally, I believe that "Absolute Space" is an abstract noun that refers to an to an unbounded nothingness through which an unlimited amount of stuff always moves, has always moved, and will always move. So, in my worldview, there's stuff and space, or what Anaximander called the apeiron. That's a whole lot of stuff and plenty of space to move around, and, moreover, the makings of what I believe, more likely than not, to be a veritable plethora of lifeforms (e.g. beings) and planets to occupy. One thing I don't believe in are entities that are neither pure space nor stuff; nor non-physical spirits or Consciousness.

Am I gullible? Certainly not willfully and not, upon self-examination, unreasonably biased.
Am I dishonest? Show me where, and I'll work on it.
Do I believe a Being exists somewhere in all that stuff that I call God? Yeah, I do. And I'm inclined to believe, more than not, that that Being has made contact with some folks on earth.
And, from what I read in my scriptures, that Being would like to have my attention and wants me to play nice.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The point being - they are willing to believe whatever they want over evidence?
Actually, yes.

Doesn't everyone?

It is depressingly easy to be carried by that temptation. Particularly once one is raised inside a family or wider community that has too much of an echo chamber quality to it.

It is quite hard to pursue an enlightened view while going against the grain of one's own support network, particularly if we are kept significantly distant from alternative viewpoints and of the consequences of the shortcomings of our own beliefs.

It is perhaps a bigger problem in politics than in religion proper, though.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Gullibles are gullible; the dishonest are dishonest.
Indubitably, some gullibles are dishonest some of the time; but it seems a huge stretch of imagination to declare all gullibles dishonest all the time.
Indubitably, some dishonest are gullible some of the time, but it seems an equally huge stretch of imagination to declare all dishonest people gullible all of the time.
One doesn't have to be gullible to be dishonest any more than one has to be dishonest to be gullible.

Personally, I believe that "Absolute Space" is an abstract noun that refers to an to an unbounded nothingness through which an unlimited amount of stuff always moves, has always moved, and will always move. So, in my worldview, there's stuff and space, or what Anaximander called the apeiron. That's a whole lot of stuff and plenty of space to move around, and, moreover, the makings of what I believe, more likely than not, to be a veritable plethora of lifeforms (e.g. beings) and planets to occupy. One thing I don't believe in are entities that are neither pure space nor stuff; nor non-physical spirits or Consciousness.

Am I gullible? Certainly not willfully and not, upon self-examination, unreasonably biased.
Am I dishonest? Show me where, and I'll work on it.
Do I believe a Being exists somewhere in all that stuff that I call God? Yeah, I do. And I'm inclined to believe, more than not, that that Being has made contact with some folks on earth.
And, from what I read in my scriptures, that Being would like to have my attention and wants me to play nice.

Perhaps I am being a little hard on many, but I did include 'wilfully', in that many will not even look at other evidence and just accept what they are given. In my eyes that is being dishonest - if they might know better - but agreed that many don't even know that. And of course many don't even bother asking many of the questions that tend to cause chasms between the religious and the non-religious such that no conflict arises all too often.

As I've probably often said, I have no issues with any particular religious belief until it tends to dent reality (often somewhat alarmingly) or where it tends to cause more pain for others than the supposed blessings it bestows.
 
Top