Anti-Christian Bias in American Society

[Grim]

Reason, logic and almost always intuition should never exclude the role of emotion, especially regarding belief which is undoubtedly dependent on the function of an organ so closely related to the said sensations of emotion. People open themselves more fully in belief than in reason, and many are know to weep openly at the foot of a crucifix or proclaiming to love a particular deity tying belief and emotion firmly together.

The power of a belief is a function of the believers power to imagine. The degree of my ability to believe is limited by my imagination first, and by my exposure to the beliefs of others second. The knowledge that belief can hope lend is a fuller understanding of the self or a more omniscient comprehension of humanity which can then be communicated as factual knowledge only when completely separated from whatever belief the truth originated from. Belief and truth oppose as strongly as holy water and oil.

Through belief people compare themselves to their very imaginations of a divine order, beauty, truth, and perfection. Those who do not share in the imagining are not able to accept the divinity of the intangibles only the truths, that there is an order, that there is truth. Spreading belief is equivalent to telling tall tails that the storyteller takes to be true, which can insult those who are being decieved and will undoubtably insult the teller to be corrected.

Would it be better to (a) not fully understand the god/imagination/belief suggested while make weak correlation to how the person feels/emotes/thinks they would achieve perfection, or (b) to obtain a greater understanding of morality/humanity/self through deep reflection in the supporting environment of belief and talk carefully of the results without the divine/imagined/believed correlation?

Is morality a belief or something much more basic and as such a truth, or do you have to believe in it for it to be real?

Show me the philosophy and knowledge you speak of, they are nothing, all but figments of your imagination!

[Interbane]

Grim: "Belief and truth oppose as strongly as holy water and oil."

This is a good starting point. Are you saying that we should believe things in complete disregard of the truth? Such as believing some people are witches, then burn them at the stake? The truth is the very thing that washes away such stupidity!

Grim: "Reason, logic and almost always intuition should never exclude the role of emotion, especially regarding belief..."

Emotion and belief are strongly tied together, and that is also a problem! It leads to irrational conclusions, fear of neighbors, love and protectiveness of false ideals! When forming conclusions, exercise critical thinking skills first, speak of them so others may scrutinize them, and if found reasonable enough, only then believe and be emotional about them.

Grim: "The degree of my ability to believe is limited by my imagination first"

Imagination of what? Do you simply believe whatever pops into your head? What of reality? Imagination is good, as long as the product is spoken about on an objective basis philosophically, or tested scientifically, or considered rationally and without emotion.

Grim: "Spreading belief is equivalent to telling tall tails that the storyteller takes to be true, which can insult those who are being decieved and will undoubtably insult the teller to be corrected."

Speak about such beliefs so others may test their merit, not to spread them! If your beliefs hold up to scrutiny, perhaps they do have merit. Perhaps the idea that the world is round had merit.

Grim: "Is morality a belief or something much more basic and as such a truth, or do you have to believe in it for it to be real?"

Morality isn't a belief per se, and you don't have to believe in it for it to be real. It's also neither true nor false, although explanations of it could be considered true or false.

Grim: "Would it be better to (a) not fully understand the god/imagination/belief suggested while make weak correlation to how the person feels/emotes/thinks they would achieve perfection, or (b) to obtain a greater understanding of morality/humanity/self through deep reflection in the supporting environment of belief and talk carefully of the results without the divine/imagined/believed correlation?"

In the first one, how would you come across the belief in the first place? Someone would have to speak of it to you. Then you digest it per your second answer to come to a conclusion. In most cases, you'll find that it is not a belief worthy to be assimilated. Then you are back to relaying a different belief, which in turn you ponder or discuss for it's merit.

Grim: "Those who do not share in the imagining are not able to accept the divinity of the intangibles only the truths, that there is an order, that there is truth."

I guess I have no imagination then. Did you come up with the idea of God all on your own, or was it told to you? My imagination is able to accept what you say, proof being had when I was younger and believe in the divine. After using critical thinking skills, I see that though it is a profound imagining, it is not worthy of acceptance.

Grim: "Show me the philosophy and knowledge you speak of, they are nothing, all but figments of your imagination!"

Show you physically, or reference you to this very post, where I philosophize? Is the roundness of our Earth considered knowledge, a fact? This knowledge was a figment of another person's imagination, but just so happened to pass the test. Show me your most prized figment, God.

[Grim]

The imagination is a personal concept. My imagination of "monster" is as vastly different as it is minutely nuanced from anyones else's conception of the term. I think that when a belief is held in the mind of an individual it would constitute a functioning of the brain that would most likely show a strong relationship to the process of creativity or imagination, if there is any difference between the three. I'm sure there are slight differences but I am not sure this is the place to express my opinions about them. Now the best way to express an idea is to make it real, to “give the form substance” as it were. Painters do this, so do poets, priests and architects. All are taking insubstantial ideas and making them real, you do the same writing a paragraph. There is nothing wrong with expressing your ideas, there is something wrong in believing that your ideas are absolutely correct or somehow true without need of substantiation. I understand that this is where religions, at least those centered on myth, are forever doomed to fail the test of reason, I don't see how a belief can be proven true and still remain a belief. Faith attempts to bridge the gap created in the minds of believers. The only true aspect of many beliefs is the fact that people believe in them. A god in a persons head is real enough to me in that it in some way influences their ideas and actions as they interact with society. I feel that when something like the Bible is created it goes beyond the normal limits of belief and becomes a manifesto for the patterning of free thinking individuals, it attempts to create its own separate truth that is somehow beyond both reason and proof but which will always rely on the idea of faith. I know that to believe in something like the Bible is perfectly acceptable, it is your freedom as a person to believe whatever you find most intellectually satisfying, but I also feel that it is wholly unacceptable to use the belief in public discussion as if it were somehow inherently true despite other participants rational, reasoned thought's to the contrary, in the same way I think that it is totally unacceptable to use someones belief or faith to discount their opinions that are truthful and rational.

[Thomas Hood]

There are so many of you with birds in your profile pictures that I thought it prudent to remind everyone how dangerous they are by posting a warning in mine.

Birds Kill


:king:

Tra-la-la, tweedle-a-dee-dee, Camacho

Tom

When the sun in the morning looks over the hill
and kisses the roses on my windowsill,
then my heart beats with gladness as I hear the trill
of the birds in the treetops on mockingbird hill.

Tra-la-la, tweedle-a-dee-dee, it gives me a thrill,
to wake up in the morning on mockingbird hill.

On the wings of a snow-white dove
He sends His pure sweet love
A sign from above
On the wings of a dove

When troubles surround us, When evils come
The body grows weak, The spirit grows numb
When these things beset us, He doesn't forget us
He sends down His love
On the wings of a dove

On the wings of a snow-white dove
He sends His pure sweet love
A sign from above
On the wings of a dove

[geo]

There are so many of you with birds in your profile pictures that I thought it prudent to remind everyone how dangerous they are by posting a warning in mine.

Birds Kill


:king:

LOL.

Like my new avatar?

[President Camacho]

That's disturbing.

[Interbane]

Grim: "I think that when a belief is held in the mind of an individual it would constitute a functioning of the brain that would most likely show a strong relationship to the process of creativity or imagination, if there is any difference between the three."

Absolutely, but only to an extent. How far should we let our imaginations roam, and still believe in the imaginings? With regards to what we believe, there must be an approximation to what is real, found through utilization of critical thinking skills.

Grim: "Now the best way to express an idea is to make it real, to "give the form substance" as it were. Painters do this, so do poets, priests and architects."

There is a difference of type, art vs explanations.

Grim: "There is nothing wrong with expressing your ideas, there is something wrong in believing that your ideas are absolutely correct or somehow true without need of substantiation. I understand that this is where religions, at least those centered on myth, are forever doomed to fail the test of reason..."

Religion is also based on faith, which bypasses the requirement for critical analysis in the mind of it's believers. An idea such as this is the problem, it is parasitic and immune to disproof.

Grim: "I don't see how a belief can be proven true and still remain a belief."

Nothing short of analytic propositions can be proven true. Perhaps mathematics, but that is also subject to discussion. There is always a small amount of faith required, but should only be used when critical thinking skills are exhausted. The theory of evolution cannot be proven true, but it can be believed as true, with the gap bridged by a small order of faith.

Grim: "I know that to believe in something like the Bible is perfectly acceptable, it is your freedom as a person to believe whatever you find most intellectually satisfying..."

This is true in most cases, but religion, when believed, cannot be disproven and so should be critically analyzed before belief. In that sense, it is not okay to believe in something like the bible prior to analysis since within that worldview, indoctrination of others is not only okay, it is deemed a good deed. It is the perfect recipe for a parasitically spreading false belief.

Grim: "I also feel that it is wholly unacceptable to use the belief in public discussion as if it were somehow inherently true despite other participants rational, reasoned thought's to the contrary, in the same way I think that it is totally unacceptable to use someones belief or faith to discount their opinions that are truthful and rational."

Some beliefs, when mixed with human behavior, will always cause some people to express them as inherently true. The problem is with the belief, which shouldn't be believed in the first place if it is parasitic with no reasonable foundation.

[Grim]

Right, I mean the connection of the belief and creativity should be enough that it should not be discarded off handedly. But it is clear that the nature of belief, as a structured non-rational faith based process, predisposes its proper place in socitey firmly within the minds of the believers and not much further. I mean to this point I feel that there is something immoral about raising childern in a belief centered environment. After all to have decided for someone before they can make up your own mind what they are supposed to think is one thing, but to begin encouraging structured belief?

If the natural place of belief of any manner must truly be limited to an individuals mind for the right's of non-consenting individuals to be maintained, and outwardly only to those who open themselves intimately to the believer should hear of another individuals faith, would there be a point to the religion v. athiesm arguement?

[Interbane]

Grim: "But it is clear that the nature of belief, as a structured non-rational faith based process, predisposes its proper place in socitey firmly within the minds of the believers and not much further."

Belief should not be faith based. It should be critical thinking(rationally) based, with faith the small bridge as it is short of being knowledge. I think you're way off base here. It is our dispositional beliefs, those we have without knowing of them, that we may not yet have promoted to a core belief and thus examined it. Those dispositional beliefs may perhaps be faith based, but only in the sense what we aren't even aware of these beliefs.

Grim: "After all to have decided for someone before they can make up your own mind what they are supposed to think is one thing, but to begin encouraging structured belief?"

No please don't indoctrinate them! Simply teach them critical thinking skills!

[Grim]

Yes, and in this arguement are the dissenting atheists any better than the religious believer, merely lower themselves to the level where an arugment is validated in some way by opinion? Some would not even recognize the reality of the imagination of the believers!