Do believers really believe?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Philosophy has an entire branch of study pertaining to knowledge and if you're going to rely upon such an incomplete usage, then go ahead and be sloppy, because I don't accept that definition as complete enough to satisfy a proper examination of the subject.

That's a cop out -- an artful dodge -- demonstrable of an unwillingness to truly embrace the 'entire branch of study' you have now just lauded.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Be a fundamentalist, I actually hope to learn to think about theological matters, not simply regurgitate stuff without thought. A fundamentalist approach requires little thought and automon logic. But that approach appears irrational to me.

Because it's a straw man.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Authority.

Politics is about emotion more than reason, and if one can summon authority from on High, one resorts to a power that cannot be questioned.

It sounds to me as though you're talking about the politicians' motivation in maintaining the discourse. What about the rest of us? Why do we allow them to continue to use religious rhetoric to maintain political power, when they have no intention of considering the goals or desires of the religious population while in office?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

I think both sides ought to lay down their arms on this one. It is unreasonable for somebody to tell another person that they don't really believe what they profess to believe.

It is also quite stylish to do so these days. We had a discussion the other day in our Roman Revolution class on religion and its effect upon Roman society, and the notion that most Romans didn't really believe in the religion that they publicly professed. Cicero is the golden boy for those who so argue. In public, he would praise the gods and cite their aid, especially in the Catalinarian orations, whenever it served his own interests. In private correspondence, however, he openly disparaged and dismissed theology. But what is likely true in the case of Cicero is almost certainly not true in the case of the Pontifex Maximus, Julius Caesar. Everything we have from Caesar suggests that he personally, deeply, and intensely believed in the intervention of the gods, and was influenced by that belief in his personal affairs. For future generations to dismiss his belief as feigned is itself a self-serving gesture.

And what has been true of the evaluation of the beliefs of the ancients holds true today. For whatever reason, atheism, the world's "fastest growing religion," feels an intense need to win over its own converts, even post mortem (just like us, come to think of it). It would do them credit if no reasonable or intelligent being gave any credence to the divine, and this article is just one more example of the attempt to explain away the fact that many do.

As for the other side of the argument, once you've stated and explained your argument such that the other side understands what you are arguing, why do we feel the need to quibble over semantics? They know what we mean when we say that we "know." They understand what kinds of evidence have compelled us to state our belief in terms that strong. If they still don't buy it, cui malo?

Holy crap, you are smart!

I bow to your awesome-ness.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

That's a cop out -- an artful dodge -- demonstrable of an unwillingness to truly embrace the 'entire branch of study' you have now just lauded.

you embrace an incomplete definition because it lets you be sloppy. Go ahead but you continue to have needless debates and disagreements because you will talk past another and nothing will be accomplished.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I'm actually curious about Whyte's other question: Why, if government serves as such an ineffective vehicle for the Christian agenda, do we insist on infusing a religious rhetoric into our political discourse?

Religion and our Representative Republic are inextricably intertwined. You can no more remove religious rhetoric from politics than you can money. They are born of the same womb.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Person B is asking Person A use the same language as in Person B's language and in the language of common usage, Person A's declaration does not fit the definitional confines of the common language.

I see that. But why do Persons B get to set the rules? Why does all discussion need to be confined to a realm acceptable to Persons B? This is the religion forum and I would think that any discussion of gaining "knowledge" would not exclude a religious component.

Sure the semantics are different. But is it any less relevant?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Holy crap, you are smart!

I bow to your awesome-ness.

I didn't mean to give that impression. Sorry if I sounded arrogant.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I see that. But why do Persons B get to set the rules? Why does all discussion need to be confined to a realm acceptable to Persons B? This is the religion forum and I would think that any discussion of gaining "knowledge" would not exclude a religious component.

Sure the semantics are different. But is it any less relevant?

I doubt that anyone was suggesting that A need remain silent to begin with. I think it was suggested that A need not continue to defend himself if he's comfortable with his faith, unless he just enjoys the argument.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

It sounds to me as though you're talking about the politicians' motivation in maintaining the discourse. What about the rest of us? Why do we allow them to continue to use religious rhetoric to maintain political power, when they have no intention of considering the goals or desires of the religious population while in office?

Why, because we don't focus and we enjoy being told what we want to hear.