MemePilot wrote:

AcesLucky wrote:

My desire to be altruistic, or at the least unbiased,

Nice goal but you can never be unbiased towards your own beliefs.

I can't? I am constantly trying to prove my own beliefs wrong! It's how
I learn. And it's more efficient than trying to prove them right.

at first led me to
your very conclusion. But upon closer inspection, I discovered that it
was in fact really an attempt (an intent) to spread an untruth! I know
that sounds unjustified as you presented, but hear me out.)

OK

Let's say that there IS in fact a god, just as described in the bible.
Now suppose a parent (who honestly believes in the biblical god) teaches
their child through the normal indoctrination process to believe the
same thing.

Ask the parent, "is there a god?" And their answer is "yes." Ask, "How
do you know?" And they will tell you it's ultimately a matter of faith!
Plus, they will also tell you it is the "truth". In fact they (pastors,
priests, believers, etc..) will outright call it "The Truth." And they
will refer to the bible as "God's word."

But what really happened along the way?

First it was necessary to have FAITH. But why? Because they know it is a
"process" of belief. Faith means (internally) to pretend that something
is true, regardless of any evidence. If it were factual or had ample
evidence, faith wouldn't be necessary.

So right from the start they agree to LIE, that is.. to "pretend" it's
the truth. Now.. why is that a lie?

It is a lie because (as stated above) even though there is a factual god
just as described in the bible...THEY DON'T KNOW IT! They are in fact
agreeing to PRETEND that is the truth, even though it may very well be
the truth!

But to me, and I admit this is only my belief, you are still only
seeing through your own belief, you seem to project onto them your own
knowledge of the world and then say they are lying and pretending
because they don't take the same course of action you do. You claim
THEY DON"T KNOW IT but they think they do. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of them actually believe that they "know" what
they say is true and I sure many of them see us as pretending.

That's your first argument, which at one point I accepted on their
behalf, as you do now. But if that were true, then they would NEVER have
a need for Faith!

But yet faith is a requirement...before...they can internalize the
belief as true.

See, no person comes "into" the religion "already knowing it to be true"
before they even know what that religion is! We are first TOLD what to
believe, and that we must accept it on faith. See, if we already knew it
to be true, there would be no requirement for the faith in the first place.

So, No! They don't "think they do." They really honestly don't
know...when they first start...and then later, through
indoctrination...begin to internalize that faith 'as if' it's a knowing.

Faith is the transformer of belief from "I don't know" to "I know."

If a child has never heard of god and they are asked if they believe in
god, they will say "what's god?"

They will not say "I know there is a
creator of the universe." They will not say "..the creator of the
universe made me." They will say "I don't know" or " ...mommy and daddy
made me."

That is dishonesty. It is lying.

Only if they believe something different than what they are saying. Do
you actually believe that a person can be dishonest when he tells you
what he believe to be true.

No, not if he tells you it's his /belief/.
If he tells you it's a /fact/, when he knows it's a matter of belief,

he's being dishonest.

It's dishonest to teach your child that god is a FACT, whose name is
MemePilot, (even if you believe it).
It is not dishonest to teach your child that you /believe/ that there is
a god whose name is MemePilot, if you really believe it.

In court, if you testify that you believe the car was blue, and it
turns out to be red, it's not perjury.
If you testify that the car was /in fact/ blue, and it turned out to be
red, it's perjury. (Even if you believed it to be blue.)

They are coercing another human being
to believe something that neither can prove as truth. And there lies the
dishonesty. To teach or misrepresent something as truth, when in fact
the teacher doesn't know it to be factual, is intentionally dishonesty.
I short, they are lying (even if it turns out to be true) the fact may
be true but 'person' is lying.

So, no. It doesn't boil down to "differences of belief". One party is
honest about what they don't know, and other is not.

The preacher doesn't say "we are agnostic about god, but we have faith."
He says, "there is in fact a god, and this (book) is his word!"

Because, like you, he believes he "knows" what is the truth and to say
anything other than what he believes as the truth would be dishonest
and a lie.

Again, if he "knows" it, then it wouldn't be a matter of faith. It would
be honest to state "he believes, even with all his heart", but it is
still dishonest to call a belief a fact, especially when he does know
that it's a matter of faith.

Truth at least on the individual level is subjective and
totally dependent on beliefs of the viewer. For example:
a Christian fundamentalist might believe the world is full of miracles
and demons and that's what he sees in his world.

Right.

All events will have
purpose and causes and represent the glory of the lord or influence of
the devil. He will work hard to do the lords bidding and know he will
be rewarded.

he believes he will be rewarded

And when bad things happen he know he is being tested on
his.

he believes he is being tested on this

And when he strays he knows it is the work of the devil and if he
will repent and renounces the devil, he will be forgiven. And those who
don't repent will join the devil masses and ultimately be consumed in
the fires of hell. To them, science is a lie for the devil uses it and
those who expound it to corrupt our youth and pull them away from the
path of the lord.

He knows he /believes/ these things!

Now for us logical scientific types this all the biggest packs of
falsehoods and dilutions, but to them this is their world, their
absolute truth.

No, it is their "chosen" set of beliefs, and they are even SUBJECT to
change, with denomination or sect, or science, or events in life.

They
know their beliefs are not absolute but they pretend that they are to
hold true to the belief. Many atheists, for example, have come from
religious backgrounds. Clearly those 'beliefs' were subject to change.

How can a Priest, for example, molest a child in god's face? Repeatedly?
Clearly, the Priest no longer believes.

For the overwhelming majority of them, when real-world
events unfold in their lives it will on serve to strengthen and
reaffirm their beliefs. At least from their view their understanding
of the truth is complete and unshakable and everyone else is a liar.

In fact, faith can really be defined as 'pretend its
the truth'.

that's an Ok definition but only for those of your faith. I don't like
definition that are myopic and require a specific POV to accept or even
understand. A more practical definition is that Faith is the acceptance
of a belief without need for justification.

...acceptance of a belief without need for justification!

Wonderfully put. There is no meaning here different than what i just
said. Mine only made plain the 'process' for achieving that acceptance.
(How else could you accept a belief without justification if not to
pretend?)

Notice I did not say without justification, I said "without the NEED
for justification".

I stand corrected. I should have said:
"How else could you accept a belief without the need for justification
if not to pretend?"

The belief may and usually has been adequately
justified to the owner of that belief, through association with an
authority (pastor or professor), learned through life (parents school,
church), and through other stronger beliefs like god or the scientific
method. I'm not saying that all faiths are the same or that we have
the same faith in all our beliefs. I'm just saying that everyone gets
to the point where they no longer need to justify a belief or set of
beliefs, they have fought that fight. Through faith we prevent
ourselves from endlessly waist our time with useless debate and help
protect our own beliefs from the onslaught of arbitrary beliefs we may
be subjected to on a daily basis.

I would agree; it's how our minds work to create efficiency. Practically
everything we perceive is based on this principle.

Please understand, I'm not criticizing the neurology of belief; just
the original intent to mislead (on purpose) the neurology of belief.

We
are often taught at a very young and impressionable age that certain
beliefs are actually facts! The METHOD of that process is "pretend it's
the truth" and it later "becomes" or has the same value as truth! That's
the part that is born out of dishonesty. Children are taught belief as
fact, on purpose.

Therefore Christian faith
is this unshakable, unreasonable belief in their god and related dogma
that we have come know. In my view faith is just a stage in belief and
ultimately all stable belief system rest on faith. Even science and the
atheism. I know many would argue the point that science and atheism are
not belief and definitely not based on faith. They might argue that
Science is based on evidence and the physical world and atheism is the
lack of belief. The problem is that they see only the context of their
belief without seeing the structure of all beliefs within our minds.
Science like all abstract systems exists only in the minds of man as a
belief regardless of how strong the perceived justification. And if
you believe you're an atheist, its still a belief; and how you envision
is relationship to the perceived belief of other is a totally separate
belief. You may argue that you know science and you know you're an
atheist, but to the brain they all look just like any other belief. We
may want to believe our beliefs are fundamentally different than those
we disagree with but that is ultimately our own delusion.

I can agree with virtually all of this but for one minor detail. One set
of beliefs is based on verified information (with the intent of
discovering truth), while another set of beliefs is purposely not
verified because it already makes claim to the truth regardless of
verifiable information. The first set is based on honesty, the second
set precludes it.

As for the faith thing, we all get to the point where for any one of
our beliefs or sets of beliefs our acceptance is such that we know
longer question it or challenge it. Examples of this is abound in this
newsgroup. Although many of us love to debate our various beliefs, it
appears that it is very rare that we actually question our own beliefs
in the process. Our faith protects us from the potential barrage of
endless debate usually associated with truly questioning you own
beliefs. .

I constantly assault my beliefs. But then, my quest is for truth (as
opposed to salvation).

Constantly assault your beliefs, interesting if true in any significant
since. Have you mapped how your beliefs have change over the years?

Yes, concerning religion, god, and my overall belief structure. That's
why I constantly attempt to disprove them, instead of confirm them.

(it would be interesting to what beliefs you give up to sustain that
one.)

The belief that I am right. (The one worthy of giving up.)

But what that says about your beliefs is that the "assaulting
your beliefs" as a method for fulfilling your quest for the truth is
probably your strongest belief and it would be interesting to see how
that belief has varied with time. My suspicion is that it has remained
pretty constant or strengthened over time; although that is like to be
a stressful belief to sustain so enthusiasm may have fluctuated over
time.

Quite the contrary. My first love is learning. I'm in glee when I'm
shown wrong. When I'm shown wrong (actually, when I fully understand
that I am wrong and why) it's like a light bulb illuminating more of the
world. It's that moment of really understanding something. And it's
actually gotten greater over time, not constant. But then, I'm more
crafty at getting to the points that would make me wrong, too!

By the way you say it I suspect it is something you have strong
faith in. Now you probably have other strong dominant beliefs such as a
belief in god or family that compete with it.

As for you Quest for the truth, well I tend to think the "truth" is
highly overrate as something useful to possess. Truths only work when
you're "preaching to the faithful"; namely when your interacting with
people of like beliefs. When dealing with beliefs significantly
different than your own or opposing your beliefs, you're own view of
the truth can be nearly useless in effecting change. The truth from an
individual perspective tends to be very subjective in that, what we
think we know about the world is tied to how we perceive the world and
how we perceive the world is tied directly to what we believe. I.e.
"Believing is seeing"

I knew you'd get around to that.

I figured it out earlier based on your handle "MemePilot".

Are you by any chance a fan of Milton Erickson, or more
contemporaneously, Richard Bandler or John Grinder?

I think they would all agree with you, to an extent.

But I believe (choice of word intentional) that the external world is
oblivious to our beliefs, and not subject to them. Truth can be internal
or external. You're talking about internal truths. Unfortunately, the
external truth (a.k.a. the Real world) is the world in which extinction
takes place literally. You can be god-like, with internal truths, while
the local two-bit thug bashes your lights permanently out, in exchange
for your wallet.

Instead of Truth I prefer to seek Understanding. (But I'll save that
for another day)

From there, virtually any argument can be tortured into
anything else. A Day becomes a thousand years, and statements
represented as factual become parables and metaphors.

Despite all the incarnations of religions belief systems; for an
individual believer or single congregation, the spectrum beliefs is
usually quite limited. It is that when they argue outside their own
beliefs (like creationism) but still limited to their own construct
that you get some of the weirder manifestation

Agreed.

It's pointless to
reason with religious people because they aren't allowed to give it
higher value than faith.

So I thought I'd ask atheists, which are in a sense 'bound' to reason.

I think you mean logic. every body reasons

Correction well taken...logic.

The significance of that is that logic is not common to all humans (you
might even argue that it is a rarity) and more linked to western
science and enlightenment (historically speaking). Logic like science
and the scientific method is rarely applied at an individual belief
level.

Agreed. Emotion is hard wired from evolutionary pressures to survive.
Logic must actually be learned.

Note one thing I just realized that I have little
justification/explanation for what I sure looks like irrational
tendency to try to see my beliefs and others from a neutral perspective
(or at least why I am trying)

.

Because underneath it all, you value the knowledge of how things
"actually" work, as opposed to how you or others "believe" they do.