Religious lies. Why do we knowingly accept them?

[Hermit]

[quote=""Greatest I am""]

GIa, the question is not about "we". In your opening post you wrote: "Religious lies. Why do we knowingly accept them? "I want to know if you really mean that we accept lies even though we know they are lies? Do you think, for instance, that adherents of the Catholic Christian denomination believe their Church's dogmata even though they know they are lies? If not, what do you mean?

I mean that, for example, if people who call themselves Christian truly believed the lies they have accepted, they would be fervent Christians. That does not seem to be the case.

For instance, in Finland, where about 95% claim to be Christian, only about 4% ever go to church even once a year.

Not quite what a true believer would do. No?[/QUOTE]
What sort of an argument is that? If people who call themselves Christian truly believed the lies they have accepted, they would not regard those lies as lies but as truths.

Your statistics concerning Finland are out of date, but near enough, so there's no need to argue about them. What do they tell us? Almost none of the members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland go to church on a weekly basis. Duh.

Now tell me how any of this leads to the conclusion that "we accept lies even though we know they are lies". What lies are the Finns shown to accept even though they know they are lies by hardly ever going to church?

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""Hermit""]

GIa, the question is not about "we". In your opening post you wrote: "Religious lies. Why do we knowingly accept them? "I want to know if you really mean that we accept lies even though we know they are lies? Do you think, for instance, that adherents of the Catholic Christian denomination believe their Church's dogmata even though they know they are lies? If not, what do you mean?

I mean that, for example, if people who call themselves Christian truly believed the lies they have accepted, they would be fervent Christians. That does not seem to be the case.

For instance, in Finland, where about 95% claim to be Christian, only about 4% ever go to church even once a year.

Not quite what a true believer would do. No?

What sort of an argument is that? If people who call themselves Christian truly believed the lies they have accepted, they would not regard those lies as lies but as truths.

Your statistics concerning Finland are out of date, but near enough, so there's no need to argue about them. What do they tell us? Almost none of the members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland go to church on a weekly basis. Duh.

Now tell me how any of this leads to the conclusion that "we accept lies even though we know they are lies". What lies are the Finns shown to accept even though they know they are lies by hardly ever going to church?[/QUOTE]

They are accepting the lie that their God is God. If they thought he really was, they would be more attentive to him.

This is an assumption, yes, but a damned good one if you apply logic and reason.

Most of the speakers against religions that I have listened to and read have mentioned that when push comes to shove in their face to face with religious right winger, even the most literal reading fundamental will eventually admit that there are no talking serpents and donkeys. That is when he usually backs off and starts saying that the bible also has allegories and other wisdom writings in it.

Regards
DL

[Hermit]

[quote=""Greatest I am""]

GIa, the question is not about "we". In your opening post you wrote: "Religious lies. Why do we knowingly accept them? "I want to know if you really mean that we accept lies even though we know they are lies? Do you think, for instance, that adherents of the Catholic Christian denomination believe their Church's dogmata even though they know they are lies? If not, what do you mean?

I mean that, for example, if people who call themselves Christian truly believed the lies they have accepted, they would be fervent Christians. That does not seem to be the case.

For instance, in Finland, where about 95% claim to be Christian, only about 4% ever go to church even once a year.

Not quite what a true believer would do. No?

What sort of an argument is that? If people who call themselves Christian truly believed the lies they have accepted, they would not regard those lies as lies but as truths.

Your statistics concerning Finland are out of date, but near enough, so there's no need to argue about them. What do they tell us? Almost none of the members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland go to church on a weekly basis. Duh.

Now tell me how any of this leads to the conclusion that "we accept lies even though we know they are lies". What lies are the Finns shown to accept even though they know they are lies by hardly ever going to church?

They are accepting the lie that their God is God. If they thought he really was, they would be more attentive to him.

This is an assumption, yes, but a damned good one if you apply logic and reason.[/QUOTE]
Using logic and reason, as you put it, it's more reasonable to assume that those who only go to church for christenings, weddings and funerals, if at all, are actually refusing to accept the lie that their god requires regular church attendance.

[quote=""Greatest I am""]Most of the speakers against religions that I have listened to and read have mentioned that when push comes to shove in their face to face with religious right winger, even the most literal reading fundamental will eventually admit that there are no talking serpents and donkeys. That is when he usually backs off and starts saying that the bible also has allegories and other wisdom writings in it.[/quote]
The recognition that the Bible also has allegories and other wisdom writings in it is not an indication that "we accept lies even though we know they are lies". You may well disagree with some or all of those allegories and other wisdom writings, but you cannot call them lies, but even if you do call them lies, you have yet to provide evidence that anyone accepts them, knowing that they are lies.

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""Hermit""]

I mean that, for example, if people who call themselves Christian truly believed the lies they have accepted, they would be fervent Christians. That does not seem to be the case.

For instance, in Finland, where about 95% claim to be Christian, only about 4% ever go to church even once a year.

Not quite what a true believer would do. No?

What sort of an argument is that? If people who call themselves Christian truly believed the lies they have accepted, they would not regard those lies as lies but as truths.

Your statistics concerning Finland are out of date, but near enough, so there's no need to argue about them. What do they tell us? Almost none of the members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland go to church on a weekly basis. Duh.

Now tell me how any of this leads to the conclusion that "we accept lies even though we know they are lies". What lies are the Finns shown to accept even though they know they are lies by hardly ever going to church?

They are accepting the lie that their God is God. If they thought he really was, they would be more attentive to him.

This is an assumption, yes, but a damned good one if you apply logic and reason.

Using logic and reason, as you put it, it's more reasonable to assume that those who only go to church for christenings, weddings and funerals, if at all, are actually refusing to accept the lie that their god requires regular church attendance.

[quote=""Greatest I am""]Most of the speakers against religions that I have listened to and read have mentioned that when push comes to shove in their face to face with religious right winger, even the most literal reading fundamental will eventually admit that there are no talking serpents and donkeys. That is when he usually backs off and starts saying that the bible also has allegories and other wisdom writings in it.[/quote]
The recognition that the Bible also has allegories and other wisdom writings in it is not an indication that "we accept lies even though we know they are lies". You may well disagree with some or all of those allegories and other wisdom writings, but you cannot call them lies, but even if you do call them lies, you have yet to provide evidence that anyone accepts them, knowing that they are lies.[/QUOTE]

It is that or they are in intellectual and moral dissonance as they are following a genocidal son murdering prick of a God who creates talking serpents and donkeys.

Pick what you want to believe.

Regards
DL

[Hermit]

[quote=""Greatest I am""]

What sort of an argument is that? If people who call themselves Christian truly believed the lies they have accepted, they would not regard those lies as lies but as truths.

Your statistics concerning Finland are out of date, but near enough, so there's no need to argue about them. What do they tell us? Almost none of the members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland go to church on a weekly basis. Duh.

Now tell me how any of this leads to the conclusion that "we accept lies even though we know they are lies". What lies are the Finns shown to accept even though they know they are lies by hardly ever going to church?

They are accepting the lie that their God is God. If they thought he really was, they would be more attentive to him.

This is an assumption, yes, but a damned good one if you apply logic and reason.

Using logic and reason, as you put it, it's more reasonable to assume that those who only go to church for christenings, weddings and funerals, if at all, are actually refusing to accept the lie that their god requires regular church attendance.

[quote=""Greatest I am""]Most of the speakers against religions that I have listened to and read have mentioned that when push comes to shove in their face to face with religious right winger, even the most literal reading fundamental will eventually admit that there are no talking serpents and donkeys. That is when he usually backs off and starts saying that the bible also has allegories and other wisdom writings in it.

The recognition that the Bible also has allegories and other wisdom writings in it is not an indication that "we accept lies even though we know they are lies". You may well disagree with some or all of those allegories and other wisdom writings, but you cannot call them lies, but even if you do call them lies, you have yet to provide evidence that anyone accepts them, knowing that they are lies.[/QUOTE]
It is that or they are in intellectual and moral dissonance as they are following a genocidal son murdering prick of a God who creates talking serpents and donkeys.

Pick what you want to believe.[/QUOTE]Either way, the claim that "we accept lies even though we know they are lies" is a nonsense bereft of any evidential support whatsoever. A more reasonable one would be to claim "we are irrational idiots." At least there is scientific evidence for that. This link Koyaanisqatsi provided elsewhere would go toward substantiating it.