Thiests Believe But What is the Level of Certainity?

[tariqkhwaja]

Assalamualaikum.

If you knew there was snake in a hole, would you ever put your hand into that hole? Never, right? If you were 100% certain that a poisonous snake resided in that hole and it would strike the moment you put your hand in there, would you ever put your hand into the hole. If all the people in the world came together and told you and tried to convince you to put your hand into the hole you would not have done it.

If you were only 10% certain you probably would have done it. If you were 50% certain it would take more convincing but eventually you would have succumbed. If you were 90% certain it would really take something extraordinary for you to do it. But if you were 100% certain that there was nothing to gain from and only loss of life if you put your hand into that hole you would never do it. Ever.

In the same way the fact that we, Thiests, commit sin despite our belief in God and in the Day of Judgement proves that although we believe in both in principle our certainity in our belief is less and far less that 100%.

That is the philosophy of sin. That is why we sin. It is simple logic and I hope you understand it.

The remedy ... well I will get to that remedy after everyone understands the above.

 

[Father Heathen]

We "sin" because that's religion's name for human nature.

 

[Wandered Off]

In the same way the fact that we, Thiests, commit sin despite our belief in God and in the Day of Judgement proves that although we believe in both in principle our certainity in our belief is less and far less that 100%.

Of course a belief is less than 100% certainty. 100% certainty would be knowledge.

 

[Charity]

We "sin" because that's religion's name for human nature.

Very good Heathen, now your starting to think like us...... :group:

 

[michel]

We "sin" because that's religion's name for human nature.

The spirit may be willing, but the flesh is weak.........

 

[tomspug]

We "sin" because that's religion's name for human nature.

I whole-heartedly agree, except that we don't believe that this was "original" human nature. And that certainly doesn't mean that everything that comes naturally is bad, but that everything that is 'easy' usually is.

The battle between good and easy!

 

[Halcyon]

I whole-heartedly agree, except that we don't believe that this was "original" human nature. And that certainly doesn't mean that everything that comes naturally is bad, but that everything that is 'easy' usually is.

The battle between good and easy!

Exactly, but I don't think that is a good thing. Religion expects us to be more than human, and when we succumb to our human natures we are called sinners. I think the world would be a far better place if religions accepted that people are just people.
Christianity is perhaps one of the better ones with its emphasis on forgiveness, its just a shame that in our modern society this aspect of Christianity is often ignored in favour of divine vengeance and judgement.

 

[tomspug]

Exactly, but I don't think that is a good thing. Religion expects us to be more than human, and when we succumb to our human natures we are called sinners. I think the world would be a far better place if religions accepted that people are just people.
Christianity is perhaps one of the better ones with its emphasis on forgiveness, its just a shame that in our modern society this aspect of Christianity is often ignored in favour of divine vengeance and judgement.

Are you suggesting that law is not a good thing? THAT expects us to not succumb to our human natures, doesn't it, by definition?

 

[Magic Man]

Assalamualaikum.

If you knew there was snake in a hole, would you ever put your hand into that hole? Never, right? If you were 100% certain that a poisonous snake resided in that hole and it would strike the moment you put your hand in there, would you ever put your hand into the hole. If all the people in the world came together and told you and tried to convince you to put your hand into the hole you would not have done it.

If you were only 10% certain you probably would have done it. If you were 50% certain it would take more convincing but eventually you would have succumbed. If you were 90% certain it would really take something extraordinary for you to do it. But if you were 100% certain that there was nothing to gain from and only loss of life if you put your hand into that hole you would never do it. Ever.

In the same way the fact that we, Thiests, commit sin despite our belief in God and in the Day of Judgement proves that although we believe in both in principle our certainity in our belief is less and far less that 100%.

That is the philosophy of sin. That is why we sin. It is simple logic and I hope you understand it.

The remedy ... well I will get to that remedy after everyone understands the above.

This is possibly the weirdest explanation of why we sin I've seen. I think we understand the above, but it's wrong. That's not why we "sin". We sin because, as FH pointed out, we're human. I'm not even sure how you conclude that the fact that theists sin is because their belief is less than 100% certainty. For one, belief is always less than 100% certain, or else it would be called knowledge. For another, the fact that theists sin is completely irrelevant to that point.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

I think we understand the above, but it's wrong. That's not why we "sin". We sin because, as FH pointed out, we're human.

None of you refuted or offered a rebuttal to my argument. You just restated your own hypothesis which has no logical basis.
One makes mistakes because making mistakes is human. But mistakes are not consciously made. Mistakes are when you accidentally make 2+2=5 in your exam.
But I am talking about conscious choices. Religions tell us that if you do the following sin you will suffer the following consequences. These consequences are supposedly far worse than death.
Yet, as I stated, no human would ever drink poison if he/she is 100% it is poison. There are no two ways around it.
We sin so, by inference, we are not certain of the consequences. And I can say a thousand times that I believe the bottle contains poison but if I still go ahead and drink it it only shows that my words and my heart don't go hand in hand.

 

[Storm]

Yet, as I stated, no human would ever drink poison if he/she is 100% it is poison. There are no two ways around it.

Bad example. Poison is a time-honored method of suicide. Plenty of humans have drunk poison precisely because they were 100% certain it was poison.

We sin so, by inference, we are not certain of the consequences. And I can say a thousand times that I believe the bottle contains poison but if I still go ahead and drink it it only shows that my words and my heart don't go hand in hand.

What if you don't believe in sin?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Bad example. Poison is a time-honored method of suicide. Plenty of humans have drunk poison precisely because they were 100% certain it was poison.


What if you don't believe in sin?

I don't like it when instead of trying to understand the point people start digging into the example.
Would any human do an act if he/she was 100% certain there was only loss and no gain in that act? Would you drink a bottle of liquid if you were 100% certain it was poison and you did not want to die?

And we are talking about Thiests and their claim to belief. If you don't believe in sin the above argument doesn't apply to you (and you could be thought off ... in a way ... as honest and one whose acts and word are the same).

 

[Storm]

I don't like it when instead of trying to understand the point people start digging into the example.
Would any human do an act if he/she was 100% certain there was only loss and no gain in that act? Would you drink a bottle of liquid if you were 100% certain it was poison and you did not want to die?

:sorry1: (Although, I can think of situations in which the answer would be yes.)

And we are talking about Thiests and their claim to belief. If you don't believe in sin the above argument doesn't apply to you

There are plenty of theists who don't believe in sin, I wasn't referring to myself.

(and you could be thought off ... in a way ... as honest and one whose acts and word are the same).

Excuse me? Are you calling me dishonest?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

:sorry1: (Although, I can think of situations in which the answer would be yes.)

I SWEAL I'LL ... DO YOU GET THE POINT OR NO!!!! (breath slowly ... relax Tariq he/she doesn't mean it ... relax).

There are plenty of theists who don't believe in sin, I wasn't referring to myself.

Oh. Are you referring to agnostics? Or other than that?

Excuse me? Are you calling me dishonest?

Did I say dishonest? I meant hypocrite. Ahem ...

 

[Storm]

I SWEAL I'LL ... DO YOU GET THE POINT OR NO!!!! (breath slowly ... relax Tariq he/she doesn't mean it ... relax).

I said sorry. And I'm a she.

Oh. Are you referring to agnostics? Or other than that?

No. IMX, most Wiccans don't believe in sin, for example.

Did I say dishonest? I meant hypocrite. Ahem ...

That's a charge I take extremely seriously. How am I (or the above mentioned Wiccans) hypocritical for not believing in sin? Do you even know what the word means?

 

[Magic Man]

None of you refuted or offered a rebuttal to my argument. You just restated your own hypothesis which has no logical basis.
One makes mistakes because making mistakes is human. But mistakes are not consciously made. Mistakes are when you accidentally make 2+2=5 in your exam.
But I am talking about conscious choices. Religions tell us that if you do the following sin you will suffer the following consequences. These consequences are supposedly far worse than death.
Yet, as I stated, no human would ever drink poison if he/she is 100% it is poison. There are no two ways around it.
We sin so, by inference, we are not certain of the consequences. And I can say a thousand times that I believe the bottle contains poison but if I still go ahead and drink it it only shows that my words and my heart don't go hand in hand.

The problem in your line of thinking is that people will only do something for certain reasons. Some people do drink poison knowing 100% that it's poison. Most people wouldn't do that because they don't want to get hurt or die. Most "sins" are committed knowing full well the consequences. Most theists commit sins still believing 100% that God exists.

Just because you drink that poison doesn't mean you don't believe it's poison.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't like it when instead of trying to understand the point people start digging into the example.

As I said, we understand the example. It's just wrong, and our comments are an attempt to show why it's wrong.

Would any human do an act if he/she was 100% certain there was only loss and no gain in that act? Would you drink a bottle of liquid if you were 100% certain it was poison and you did not want to die?

Here's the problem. People don't do things that they know only results in loss and no gain. They do things, including sinning, that result in some kind of gain for them. For instance, a man who cheats on his wife gains the pleasure of the moment. If he knew that he wouldn't even gain that, he wouldn't do it.

And we are talking about Thiests and their claim to belief. If you don't believe in sin the above argument doesn't apply to you (and you could be thought off ... in a way ... as honest and one whose acts and word are the same).

The above argument doesn't apply to anyone.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

No. IMX, most Wiccans don't believe in sin, for example.

Dunno what IMX means. In any case I was referring to believers in God and who believe that God will hold us accountable for all our actions. For them to commit sin just shows the degree of their uncertainity in their belief.

That's a charge I take extremely seriously. How am I (or the above mentioned Wiccans) hypocritical for not believing in sin? Do you even know what the word means?

No I was referring to those who claim to believe something is wrong and yet commit that wrong. They really are not completely honest with themselves are they? Their acts oppose their statements.
Athiests, on the other hand, don't believe in God or the Day of Judgement and don't make a secret about it. So in that sense, at least, one can say they are honest and their words and acts are the same.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Here's the problem. People don't do things that they know only results in loss and no gain. They do things, including sinning, that result in some kind of gain for them. For instance, a man who cheats on his wife gains the pleasure of the moment. If he knew that he wouldn't even gain that, he wouldn't do it.

Okay would any human do anything about which he/she was certain of an overall loss? And certain that the loss was far greater than the gain? Would any human drink poison knowing 100% it was poison even if it was the tastiest poison ever?

 

[Magic Man]

No I was referring to those who claim to believe something is wrong and yet commit that wrong. They really are not completely honest with themselves are they? Their acts oppose their statements.

What? Who are these people that do this?