For Robin Yergenson: seeking honest engagement

[Metacrock]

Hi Metacrock,

You say,

Meta:I think the atheist dread of subjectivity is a foolish position and a total mistake. My position is that objectivity does not exist. Its' an illusion; there are only varying states of subjectivity. Being subjective is not some big disproof of truth... Being experimental means a prori being subjective. We have no objective basis in our perceptions. I think it's true that there is an empirical basis even to logic itself, that doesn't make the subject/object dichotomy valid.

Yergenson: Okay, but don’t confuse it with my position just yet. I associate subjectivity with experience, awareness, perceptions, consciousness, thoughts, ideas, perspectives, opinions, and beliefs (this is probably not exhaustive). These are all very real and highly valued by the subject. And I associate objectivity with facts, actualities, truths, that which comports with reality. There does exist the subject “I,” the subjective experience of “I,” and objective facts. Given these two categories, we can see that since everything that we offer as our position in a discussion is subjective, it isn’t saying very much and it’s confusing to accuse someone of being subjective.

Brovo! now please go tell that to the atheists on CARM!!!

Yergenson: It might be appropriate to refer to someone’s position which does not comport with reality or cannot be demonstrated in any way as being subjective in the sense that it is not also objective, but I try to avoid such confusion. If I experience something that I believe to be an elephant’s tail only to learn later that it is actually the pull rope on window drapes, only the later is objectively true. Now, wouldn’t you agree that objectivity exists in this sense?

The phenomena itself is objective, but never our perception of it. We are not capable of being totally objective, but we can be less subjective.

Yergenson: It doesn’t require that inanimate matter exists or even that space exists apart from the mind itself. But even if that which exists is the mind of God, this is an objective fact of reality.

Yes, a fact in reality but not in our perceptions.

Yergenson: Regarding logic, things are what they are and are not what they are not, and those things have relationships with other things. These are objective facts that logic is rooted in. These facts are prior to any statement made about them. Everything that exists exists in this way. Since our experience is always an experience “of” something (whether physical or imagined) our experience demonstrates these logical conditions but our experience isn’t necessarily required for those conditions to exist. Two objects can logically relate to one another whether any conscious entity realizes it or not. Do we agree?

Not entirely, but in principle. Our experiences are always filtered through our perceptions which are necessarily limited. We can't get outside them to check them. So they will always be subjective. Being subjective does not necessarily make them wrong.

Yergenson: Thanks for the Kierkegaard recommendations. I’ll check them both out.

No problem.

Yergenson: I had asked, “But regarding this current thread, where are we at?” You say,

Meta: I think we are bogging down in preliminaries. I wish you would just lay out your cards regarding the issues on why Christian doctrines contradict?

Yergenson: My argument is laid out in your original post. It only makes sense to auger in on particular areas of contention once those contentions are raised. You initially considered my views to be circular and we’ve talked through that. We’ve discussed how tradition and truth differ. My argument is focused on the contradiction entailed in much of Christianity claiming that a just God holds people in condemnation for unbelief. If this claim does not correlate with your view of Christianity, it’s not that I’m holding up a strawman since much of Christianity aligns to this.

right I don't blame you for arguing against the badly understood false doctrines that are so popular because that's what the main body of lay chruch people run around spouting. Yet the fact is the Christian tradition is an intellectual tradition and it is maintained by a huge body of intellectual thinkers and scholarship stretching back 2000 years. It's the popular misconception that people are condemned for not believing the right things. That misconception has been feed by bad churchmen whose work ceased to uphold the nobility of the tradition at one time or another.

We only condemned for rejecting the light of God that we given either naturally or supernaturally. We can't assume that all "unbelievers" are rejecting it. Certianly some of them are.

Yergenson: Anyway, the essential question is whether you can ever blame and condemn someone for failing to believe that which the evidence has failed to compel them to believe. We have agreed (I think) on my first point where I begin to demonstrate that the answer to this question is no. If we agree that the answer is no, then I don’t need to demonstrate it. If we don’t agree, then let’s step through this demonstration and see which point you first disagree with and we’ll auger in there. Let’s not move beyond that first point of disagreement. Here it is again (you have already agreed with the first point, right?) I'm including them all so you see them "laid out," but stop at the first point of disagreement okay?:

Problem: The basis of "belief" is not "evidence." God is speaking to the heart, and draw people from the heart it's not a matter of putting together the proper intellectual pieces and rationally solving a puzzle. It's a matter of responding to the heart. Now we as a habit of the kind of creatures we are set what we are called by into the form of argument and find aspects of nature that seem to reaffirm it as a means of checking and understanding or seeking to understand the calling. But the call is primary existential and it's primarily a matter of "the heart." Some atheists smirk at the notion of heart but I define it as sub conscious illumination on truth that is communicated through phenomenological means.

No one is condemned because they put together a logical teratus and come up with the cosmological argument. In the bible people are condemned for, as it says in the book of Revelation "according to what we have done" The way we treat others for example.

Yergenson: 1. As rational beings, our success at arriving at an accurate knowledge base for guiding our choices and actions correlates to a great degree with our ability to be rational, in particular, to correctly associate and integrate effects with their causes. This is what rational beings ought to do.

that's true and there is a rational or logical correlation bewteen this "calling of the heart" and the fragments of thought that people try to pull together into argument to illustrate it. I see God arguments as an attempt to win others by showing them the logic of what they themselves have experienced at a much more psychological level. There is a correspondence between reality and the calling of the heart, and we can find some aspects of that correspondence and illustrate it, although probably badly I think.

Yergenson: 2. Since a supernatural/miraculous cause is a cause that is not constrained by natural preconditions (natural laws, causal chains, etc.), miracles are in principle always a possible cause for every event or existent yet, erroneously appealing to the miraculous as a cause can have devastatingly adverse consequences which we ought not do.

that's true. It's also true that healing can leave traces of their supernatural origins in the inexplicable nature of the traces of the problem. There's always an epistemological gap that can only be surmounted by judgment rather than fact (a leap of faith). That hampers the skeptic as much as the believer.

Yergenson: 3. To avoid adverse consequences, we ought to believe in miracles only when it is justified and rational (for example, when the miraculous event can be demonstrated on demand and when it can be shown that a natural explanation is not at least a possibility).

sure that's the rule at Lourdes.

Yergenson: 4. Concluding miracles as a cause prior to it being justified is in effect allowing a belief in miracles to erode and undermine rationality, and is therefore unjustified, irrational, and immoral (acts that one ought not do).

There's actually not that much claim of miracles going on. I think a lot of people assume the sense of the numinous is a miracle and it's not. It's natural. That in itself does not prevent it as the trace of God.

Yergenson: 5. Therefore, a God that requires rational beings to do what is unjustified, irrational and immoral in order to escape His judgment is an unjust God, and a God who also eternally torments all those who fail to do so is an extremely unjust God.

the problem you are trying to define orgiastic belief which is warranted by a thousand and one thinks that are all around us and requires only the proper attitude to pay off, as this sort of unjustified irrational thingamie and I think that's because you are working under the misconceptions of fundamentialism.

Yergenson: 6. Further, this injustice does not depend upon whether or not arbitrary belief in miracles is in fact irrational, unjustified, and immoral or not. A God that requires rational beings to do what they genuinely consider to be irrational, unjustified, and immoral and who eternally torments all those who fail to do so, is an extremely unjust God.

If that were the case it would be a bad deal.

Yergenson: Since such faith systems claim that God requires just such irrational, unjustified, and immoral belief and since they also claim that God is just, an internal contradiction exists within their fundamental tenets demonstrating them to be false systems which none of you should be holding to.

Rob

here's where you jump over the grand canyon in logic and move from the premise that "if this were the case it would be wrong" to "this is the case so therefore, it is wrong" but that's based upon bad press rather than actual theology.

[Robin Yergenson]

Hi Metacrock,

I usually get time on business trips to do personal things when not in meetings but not last week. I had previously offered an example of raw perceptual data that was falsely mapped to an elephant’s tail, to which you say,

The phenomena itself is objective, but never our perception of it. We are not capable of being totally objective, but we can be less subjective.

As subjective beings we make judgments about the phenomena being perceived. The perception itself is prior to judgment and as such is also prior to any possibility of error. It is only after we judge it to be of one category verses others that we introduce the possibility of an error in judgment. The judgment of the subject is always subjective, but if our judgment comports with reality then it is not merely subjective. If, as subjects, we were always successful in this way then all our subjective judgments would also be objective, but even then, our subjective judgments would not be totally objective since they are performed by subjects and are still also subjective. Bottom line, objective judgments are always also subjective since they are always executed by subjects, but judgments (which are always subjective) are often not objective, so it really is a confusing and inappropriate way to classify judgments. Do you agree?

Regarding the Christian fundamental requirement of belief you say,

We only condemned for rejecting the light of God that we are given either naturally or supernaturally. We can't assume that all "unbelievers" are rejecting it. Certainly some of them are.

There are certainly things that each of us reject every day, even every moment, things that we sincerely judge to be nonessential, irrelevant, extraneous, of too little value for further consideration. We are forced to do this because our senses are inundated with data, most of which actually are in fact irrelevant, extraneous, of too little value for further consideration. But with our innocent honest sincere judgments that we are required to make in order to survive and thrive, there is always the risk of error, but there is no room for condemnation for innocently rejecting the light of God that we are given either naturally or supernaturally. And since judgments, whether correct or erroneous, are never anything but innocent honest sincere, there is no room for condemnation for rejecting the light of God, not ever. This is pivotal to our point of disagreement, so we’ll need to stay here a while. Belief, judgment, is always innocent honest sincere. These qualities are entailed in belief. To not believe what you actually do believe is a contradiction and contradictions don’t exist. You say,

Problem: The basis of "belief" is not "evidence." God is speaking to the heart, and draw people from the heart it's not a matter of putting together the proper intellectual pieces and rationally solving a puzzle. It's a matter of responding to the heart. Now we as a habit of the kind of creatures we are set what we are called by into the form of argument and find aspects of nature that seem to reaffirm it as a means of checking and understanding or seeking to understand the calling. But the call is primary existential and it's primarily a matter of "the heart." Some atheists smirk at the notion of heart but I define it as sub conscious illumination on truth that is communicated through phenomenological means.

No one is condemned because they put together a logical teratus and come up with the cosmological argument. In the bible people are condemned for, as it says in the book of Revelation "according to what we have done" The way we treat others for example.

Thanks for defining “heart.” I think you are saying that when the “heart” is illuminated on truth, we ought to form belief. When we don’t form belief, it is because we are evil and deserve to be eternally condemned by God. But if this illumination is sufficiently compelling, we cannot help but believe, and if it is not sufficiently compelling, we ought not believe. What part of this has anything to do with being evil? Even evil people want to believe true things and to avoid believing false things. How can they expect to be successful at doing their evil deeds if they don’t have the facts right? You say,

The problem [is] you are trying to define orgiastic belief which is warranted by a thousand and one [things] that are all around us and requires only the proper attitude to pay off, as this sort of unjustified irrational thingamie and I think that's because you are working under the misconceptions of fundamentialism.

I’m not sure how “orgiastic” as a descriptor for belief is useful. I for one don’t know what this is, so we’re not communicating. Once again, the central question (a rhetorical one) is whether you can ever blame and condemn someone for failing to believe that which the evidence has failed to compel them to believe.

Rob

[Metacrock]

Hi Metacrock,

As subjective beings we make judgments about the phenomena being perceived. The perception itself is prior to judgment and as such is also prior to any possibility of error. It is only after we judge it to be of one category verses others that we introduce the possibility of an error in judgment. The judgment of the subject is always subjective, but if our judgment comports with reality then it is not merely subjective. If, as subjects, we were always successful in this way then all our subjective judgments would also be objective, but even then, our subjective judgments would not be totally objective since they are performed by subjects and are still also subjective. Bottom line, objective judgments are always also subjective since they are always executed by subjects, but judgments (which are always subjective) are often not objective, so it really is a confusing and inappropriate way to classify judgments. Do you agree?

No. subjective usually means empirical in the old philosophical sense of directly experienced. What atheist call "objective" is usually trucked reduced form of reality where the phenomena has been lost and only that which reaffirms their reductionist world view is understood as valid.

Objectivity is an illusion, there is no objectivity. there is objective truth but we do not perceptively it objectively. We can only perceived it less subjectively.

Objectivity is a pretense, and that pretense is engaged through reductionism.

phenomenology calls for us to allow the sense data to select it's own categories of truth for us.

Regarding the Christian fundamental requirement of belief you say,

We only condemned for rejecting the light of God that we are given either naturally or supernaturally. We can't assume that all "unbelievers" are rejecting it. Certainly some of them are.

There are certainly things that each of us reject every day, even every moment, things that we sincerely judge to be nonessential, irrelevant, extraneous, of too little value for further consideration. We are forced to do this because our senses are inundated with data, most of which actually are in fact irrelevant, extraneous, of too little value for further consideration. But with our innocent honest sincere judgments that we are required to make in order to survive and thrive, there is always the risk of error, but there is no room for condemnation for innocently rejecting the light of God that we are given either naturally or supernaturally. And since judgments, whether correct or erroneous, are never anything but innocent honest sincere, there is no room for condemnation for rejecting the light of God, not ever. This is pivotal to our point of disagreement, so we’ll need to stay here a while. Belief, judgment, is always innocent honest sincere. These qualities are entailed in belief. To not believe what you actually do believe is a contradiction and contradictions don’t exist.

You assert that we are always innocent in rejecting light. what's called he "light of God that we have" refers to what we clearly see is truth. We can't reject it Innocent because that would be metaphorical constriction since the phrase refers to what what we understand.

Of course there are aspects of truth we just don't get. That rejection is innocent that that part of the light that we have. For some it might be rejecting Jesus as savior for others it might be as simple as not being nice to people. It's a matter the individual is in his/her understanding.

I'll stop there I'd like to go faster but probalby should do fewer increments of thought at a time for clarity.

I'll try to get to the rest of the post latter.

[Robin Yergenson]

I am really sorry Rob. I did a bad thing. I accidentally wrote my repose in the edit version of yours. I don't know how I did that or why> I didn't' realize it but i think I edited your post. man I'm sorry. the basis of your post is still intact in the answers I gave. so I hope you understand.

I don't know how it happened.

Hi Metacrock,

I had said,

Rob: As subjective beings we make judgments about the phenomena being perceived. The perception itself is prior to judgment and as such is also prior to any possibility of error. It is only after we judge it to be of one category verses others that we introduce the possibility of an error in judgment. The judgment of the subject is always subjective, but if our judgment comports with reality then it is not merely subjective. If, as subjects, we were always successful in this way then all our subjective judgments would also be objective, but even then, our subjective judgments would not be totally objective since they are performed by subjects and are still also subjective. Bottom line, objective judgments are always also subjective since they are always executed by subjects, but judgments (which are always subjective) are often not objective, so it really is a confusing and inappropriate way to classify judgments. Do you agree?

To which you say,

Metacrock: No. subjective usually means empirical in the old philosophical sense of directly experienced.

Y: I would like to avoid the confusion tied to the term “subjective.” You haven’t offered an argument refuting what I said above. Yes, “subjective” means empirical in the old philosophical sense of directly experienced. Everything that we can say anything about is ultimately reduced to subjective perceptual empirical data. What is essential is not that some things that are believed are subjective and that some are not, but that some of the judgments that we form from that subjective data comport with reality and are “objective” and those judgments that do not comport with reality are not. Let’s focus on essentials okay? And you say,

The problem is most atheists assume judgments derived from the subjective are never trustworthy. So alluding to the subject/object dicotyledon to characterize experience and arguments and reasons and judgments is misleading and crates a false image that trade off of in their rhetoric. The religious belief is characterized as "subjective" then the atheist deals in the "fortress of facts" mentality which is an illusion and unscientific to begin with. Yet that whole subject/object dichotomy is catering to the illusion of the fortress of facts and the mystique of the scientific that wraps atheist ideology in an aura of "priesthood of knowledge."

Y: If all the data that we start with is subjective, and if only some of the judgments we make can be demonstrated to comport with reality, why is it not appropriate that we differentiate between those that do comport with reality from those that do not? And why isn’t it appropriate to use the term “objective” to differentiate this essential difference?

For the reason I said above, it trades in a false dichotomy. Creates a false impression.

Rob (Y): There are certainly things that each of us reject every day, even every moment, things that we sincerely judge to be nonessential, irrelevant, extraneous, of too little value for further consideration. We are forced to do this because our senses are inundated with data, most of which actually are in fact irrelevant, extraneous, of too little value for further consideration. But with our innocent honest sincere judgments that we are required to make in order to survive and thrive, there is always the risk of error, but there is no room for condemnation for innocently rejecting the light of God that we are given either naturally or supernaturally. And since judgments, whether correct or erroneous, are never anything but innocent honest sincere, there is no room for condemnation for rejecting the light of God, not ever. This is pivotal to our point of disagreement, so we’ll need to stay here a while. Belief, judgment, is always innocent honest sincere. These qualities are entailed in belief. To not believe what you actually do believe is a contradiction and contradictions don’t exist.

Meta's response:

Metacrock:You assert that we are always innocent in rejecting light. What's called the "light of God that we have" refers to what we clearly see is truth. We can't reject it Innocent because that would be metaphorical constriction since the phrase refers to what we understand.

Of course there are aspects of truth we just don't get. That rejection is innocent that that part of the light that we have. For some it might be rejecting Jesus as savior for others it might be as simple as not being nice to people. It's a matter the individual is in his/her understanding.

I'll stop there I'd like to go faster but probably should do fewer increments of thought at a time for clarity.

I'll try to get to the rest of the post latter.

Rob Y:Right. Things that we know to be true are believed. Things that are true that we do not know to be true are not believed.

But clearly there has to be a since in which we reject what we know is right, then rationalize it. Otherwise no one would ever be blameworthy. You don't think southern bigots who murdered Goodman, Chainy and Schwerner (three civil rights workers in 1964 portrayed on movie Mississippi burning had no idea that murdering them was wrong? Of cousre they did. They had been to Church, they had been taught "thou shalt not kill." They rationalized their actions "we're helping God, what they are doing is so bad it justifies the mere sin of murder."

Rob Y:An example for me it is not believing that Jesus is savior. I innocently and sincerely lack believe that he is.

I don't believe God is going to turn you away because you don't bleieve it. Now there may be people who in their hearts can see that the evidence ads up and maybe they should give more credence but they don't want to. God looks on the heart. We can't do that so we have preach to everyone equally. We can't assume "Fred is rejecting the Gospel innocently but John really sees the truth and is just ignoring it." We have to assume all need to know equally.

Yet, I don't believe that God is going to say "You didn't believe, so sorry I can't help it, even your non bleief was sincere and innocent lack of putting it all together the technical fact is you didn't believe so you go to hell." I think that's the comic book version and it's not good. It's caused a lot of harm. That's a mis application of the gospel.

Rob Y:Another example for me is the innocent sincere belief that there are people that I should not be nice to. Yes, it's a matter my individual understanding.

there's being nice and there's being decent. I am not nice to a lot of people who are not nice themselves, but I still believe in treating them with a basic human decency. I wouldn't hurt them or destroy their rights or take away their jobs or anything, and I try to insult them as people. I fail in that a lot. I don't believe you have to be sugary sweet to everyone. Some people need to be told "you are an asshole."

Rob Y:What I would like you to address is whether you can ever blame and condemn someone for failing to believe that which the evidence has failed to compel them to believe.

Of course not.

Rob Y:Since judgments, whether correct or erroneous, are never anything but innocent honest sincere,

those are two different things. saying you can't condemn someone for not seeing the way the evidence stacks up for you is not the same as saying that all judgments are always innocent.

Rob Y:there is no room for condemnation for rejecting the light of God, not ever.

of course there is. you mixing metaphors. I said what is in the light is known. rejecting the light is rejecting what we know is right. then you are doing a bait and switch. you say "don't believe that you can't be blamed for rejecting what you don't know?? Yes. 'then it's ok to reject what you know (the light).

you say You can't be blamed for rejecting what's in the dark, so it's ok to reject the light. that doesn't work.

dark = what we don't know

light = what we do know.

you can' reject the light becuase that's what we know.

I think the confusing comes where you take the light to mean the gospel as a whole and I'm using it as a metaphor for what the individual understands. Rejecting the light for one is not necessarily rejecting the Gospel, but it might be for another.

Rob Y:This is pivotal to our point of disagreement, so we’ll need to stay here a while. Belief, judgment, is always innocent honest sincere. These qualities are entailed in belief. To not believe what you actually do believe is a contradiction and contradictions don’t exist.

Rob

we need a chase cutter (cut to the chase). this might be it:

I don't believe that people are condemned just for not being Christians per se. We are condemned for rejecting God, but we can be rejecting God in many forms. Like the KKK guys killing the three civil rights workers, they were telling themselves "these guys communists, they are not Christians, I'm a Christian, I love Jesus so I'm killing them to help God." mayabe they thought Yes I go to chruch because the kids need an example but all the Jesus stuff is just for women. we men know what's really important.

In the first case he's rejecting the content of the Gospel even though he's embarrassing it by name. that's just as bad as rejecting it by name. The second example the guy is embarrassing it by name but hypocritically because he really doesn't believe it. He can't be let off the hook on the grounds that he innocently doesn't believe because he at least knows there's a problem with murder. IF he accepts the idea that kids need an example he knows murder is wrong.

It's complex but I don't thin that condemnation is as simplistic as just not joining a social club called "Christianity" but in rejecting what we know in our hearts is right.

[Robin Yergenson]

Hi Metacrock,

Maybe you have some super-user capability that we don't have and you accidentally hit "edit" instead of "quote." As you had pointed out, my previous post is still intact in your response so nothing that I said seems to be compromised.

I had said,

Rob: I would like to avoid the confusion tied to the term “subjective.” You haven’t offered an argument refuting what I said above. Yes, “subjective” means empirical in the old philosophical sense of directly experienced. Everything that we can say anything about is ultimately reduced to subjective perceptual empirical data. What is essential is not that some things that are believed are subjective and that some are not, but that some of the judgments that we form from that subjective data comport with reality and are “objective” and those judgments that do not comport with reality are not... If all the data that we start with is subjective, and if only some of the judgments we make can be demonstrated to comport with reality, why is it not appropriate that we differentiate between those that do comport with reality from those that do not? And why isn’t it appropriate to use the term “objective” to differentiate this essential difference?

To which you reply,

Metacrock: The problem is most atheists assume judgments derived from the subjective are never trustworthy. So alluding to the subject/object dicotyledon to characterize experience and arguments and reasons and judgments is misleading and creates a false image that trade off of in their rhetoric. The religious belief is characterized as "subjective" then the atheist deals in the "fortress of facts" mentality which is an illusion and unscientific to begin with. Yet that whole subject/object dichotomy is catering to the illusion of the fortress of facts and the mystique of the scientific that wraps atheist ideology in an aura of "priesthood of knowledge."

Tell you what. I’ll try to avoid “alluding to the subject/object dicotyledon” if you will. Can we agree that some claims are demonstrable and therefore justified for belief and that some are not? For example, would you agree that the claim “I exist” is justified and that the claim “magical unicorns physically exist” is not? And could we quit talking about “atheist ideology” and just recognize one another as fellow rational beings who both prefer to discover and align to the truth and to avoid believing false and unjustified claims?

Regarding belief, I had said,

Rob: There are certainly things that each of us reject every day, even every moment, things that we sincerely judge to be nonessential, irrelevant, extraneous, of too little value for further consideration. We are forced to do this because our senses are inundated with data, most of which actually are in fact irrelevant, extraneous, of too little value for further consideration. But with our innocent honest sincere judgments that we are required to make in order to survive and thrive, there is always the risk of error, but there is no room for condemnation for innocently rejecting the light of God that we are given either naturally or supernaturally. And since judgments, whether correct or erroneous, are never anything but innocent honest sincere, there is no room for condemnation for rejecting the light of God, not ever. This is pivotal to our point of disagreement, so we’ll need to stay here a while. Belief, judgment, is always innocent honest sincere. These qualities are entailed in belief. To not believe what you actually do believe is a contradiction and contradictions don’t exist...Things that we know to be true are believed. Things that are true that we do not know to be true are not believed.

To which you responded,

Metacrock: But clearly there has to be a since in which we reject what we know is right, then rationalize it. Otherwise no one would ever be blameworthy.

Blame is an appropriate response to a volitional being who willfully harms another volitional being in an undeserving way. But without exception, and in every case, the action has stemmed from honest sincere belief. Even rationalizing is just making an extreme yet honest attempt to make the pieces fit a particular scenario. It's never "I know that this is false but I believe that it is true."

Metacrock: You don't think southern bigots who murdered Goodman, Chainy and Schwerner (three civil rights workers in 1964 portrayed on movie Mississippi burning had no idea that murdering them was wrong? Of course they did. They had been to Church, they had been taught "thou shalt not kill." They rationalized their actions "we're helping God, what they are doing is so bad it justifies the mere sin of murder."

Well, I can’t get inside their heads to know what they were thinking, but I’m pretty sure you are right about what they had been taught. Here’s what we can be reasonably sure of. We can be reasonably sure that they acted in ways consistent with certain beliefs that they did in fact hold. This does not mean that their beliefs were internally coherent. They may have believed:
• That God created some races to be subservient to other races and that that order was being threatened and it was consistent with God’s order that they act in a decisive way, or
• That all this talk about God was myth-based and that maintaining white supremacy was what mattered, or
• That Satan would one day defeat God and only those who committed heinous atrocities against the innocent would rule with him.
But who knows? All we know is that they acted out of honest sincere belief. You say,

Metacrock: I don't believe God is going to turn you away because you don't believe it. Now there may be people who in their hearts can see that the evidence ads up and maybe they should give more credence but they don't want to. God looks on the heart. We can't do that so we have preach to everyone equally. We can't assume "Fred is rejecting the Gospel innocently but John really sees the truth and is just ignoring it." We have to assume all need to know equally.

Yet, I don't believe that God is going to say "You didn't believe, so sorry I can't help it, even your non belief was sincere and innocent lack of putting it all together the technical fact is you didn't believe so you go to hell." I think that's the comic book version and it's not good. It's caused a lot of harm. That's a mis application of the gospel.

And when asked “whether you can ever blame and condemn someone for failing to believe that which the evidence has failed to compel them to believe” You say,

Metacrock: Of course not.

So then neither you nor I believe in a God who requires belief in order to be saved. We are both lack belief in that God and are therefore atheists with respect to that God, right?

Now, we still need some closure on whether belief is always innocent, honest, and sincere, since you say,

Metacrock: Those are two different things. Saying you can't condemn someone for not seeing the way the evidence stacks up for you is not the same as saying that all judgments are always innocent.

Yes, you are right. One doesn’t follow from the other. We agree that you cannot condemn someone for innocent belief/unbelief. Let’s step back to consider what’s entailed in belief:
1. First, belief is defined to be mental accent to a proposition. Do you agree that this definition comports with reality? If not, why not?
2. If you claim that you believe/disbelieve something that you do not actually believe/disbelieve, then it is a lie and it is not really belief/disbelief at all. How is it possible to not actually assent in you own thinking and still be assenting? Do you agree that this assent being actual comports with reality? If not, why not?
3. Can the assent that is actual be dishonest to yourself and still be an actual assent?
4. Can the assent that is actual and honest be insincere and still be an actual honest assent?
5. Can the assent that is actual and honest and sincere not also void of any dishonest insincere deceitful motives and therefore also innocent?

I had said, “there is no room for condemnation for rejecting the light of God, not ever.” You say,

Metacrock: Of course there is. you mixing metaphors. I said what is in the light is known. rejecting the light is rejecting what we know is right. then you are doing a bait and switch. you say "don't believe that you can't be blamed for rejecting what you don't know?? Yes. 'then it's ok to reject what you know (the light).

you say You can't be blamed for rejecting what's in the dark, so it's ok to reject the light. that doesn't work.

dark = what we don't know

light = what we do know.

you can' reject the light because that's what we know.

I think the confusing comes where you take the light to mean the gospel as a whole and I'm using it as a metaphor for what the individual understands. Rejecting the light for one is not necessarily rejecting the Gospel, but it might be for another.

I follow your thinking here. We agree that we can’t be condemned for the things we don’t know (the things we’re in the dark about). And I would go further to say that since belief entails sincere honest innocent judgment, anything that we do know we do also believe. If I know that I owe you $5 I also believe that I owe you $5 and I cannot possibly believe that I do not owe you $5. This is because while the set of things that we believe is larger than the things that we know, it does include all the things that we know. To cut to the chase, we need to focus on the 5 points above which focus on the qualities entailed in belief.

Rob

[Metacrock]

Yes, you are right. One doesn’t follow from the other. We agree that you cannot condemn someone for innocent belief/unbelief. Let’s step back to consider what’s entailed in belief:

right although we have a dispute about what that means.

1. First, belief is defined to be mental accent to a proposition. Do you agree that this definition comports with reality? If not, why not?

not necessary. We can use that as a tentative operational definition for the moment. I reserve the right to interject more to it if the need arises.

2. If you claim that you believe/disbelieve something that you do not actually believe/disbelieve, then it is a lie and it is not really belief/disbelief at all. How is it possible to not actually assent in you own thinking and still be assenting? Do you agree that this assent being actual comports with reality? If not, why not?

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not aware that I've ever done that.

3. Can the assent that is actual be dishonest to yourself and still be an actual assent?


4. Can the assent that is actual and honest be insincere and still be an actual honest assent?
5. Can the assent that is actual and honest and sincere not also void of any dishonest insincere deceitful motives and therefore also innocent?

I had said, “there is no room for condemnation for rejecting the light of God, not ever.” You say,

I really can't say until I know what you are talking about.

[Robin Yergenson]

Hi Metacrock,

I had said, “there is no room for condemnation for rejecting the light of God, not ever.” You had previously responded,

Metacrock: Of course there is. you mixing metaphors. I said what is in the light is known. rejecting the light is rejecting what we know is right. Then you are doing a bait and switch. You say you can't be blamed for rejecting what's in the dark, so it's ok to reject the light. That doesn't work.

dark = what we don't know

light = what we do know

You can' reject the light because that's what we know.

I think the confusion comes where you take the light to mean the gospel as a whole and I'm using it as a metaphor for what the individual understands. Rejecting the light for one is not necessarily rejecting the Gospel, but it might be for another.

I responded with,

I follow your thinking here. We agree that we can’t be condemned for the things we don’t know (the things we’re in the dark about). And I would go further to say that since belief entails sincere honest innocent judgment, anything that we do know we do also believe...To cut to the chase, we need to focus on the 5 points above which focus on the qualities entailed in belief.

My 5 points demonstrate that belief does in fact entail sincere honest innocent judgment. Once you agree with this you will also agree that there is no room for condemnation for rejecting (failing to acknowledge as true and in so doing, failing to believe) both the known and the unknown truth of God, not ever, mixed metaphors included (I’m going to quit using “light” due to the confusion of mixed metaphors). That is because the only kind of truth that anyone ever rejects is the truth that we don’t know, the truth that we lack awareness of. But, you still need convinced of this, so let’s step through my 5 points on what’s entailed in belief:

1. First, belief is defined to be mental accent to a proposition. If this isn’t what you mean by “belief” then you need to say so now so that we don’t talk past each other.
2. If you claim that you believe/disbelieve something that you do not actually believe/disbelieve, then it is a lie and it is not really belief/disbelief at all. How is it possible to not actually assent in you own thinking and still be assenting? Do you agree that this assent being actual comports with reality? If not, why not? You responded,

Metacrock: I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not aware that I've ever done that.

Sorry. I didn’t mean “you” in particular. I’m simply saying that when someone says that they believe something that they do not actually believe, then it is a lie and it is not really belief at all. And when someone says that they do not believe something that they actually do believe, then it is a lie and it is not really disbelief at all. How is it possible to not actually assent in their own thinking and still be assenting? Do you agree that this assent being actual comports with reality? Your take-away from point #2 should be that belief entails actual accent. Belief cannot lack actual accent and still be belief. And the remaining points that you need to consider are:

3. Can the assent that is actual be dishonest to yourself and still be an actual assent?
4. Can the assent that is actual and honest be insincere and still be an actual honest assent?
5. Can the assent that is actual and honest and sincere not also void of any dishonest insincere deceitful motives and therefore also innocent?

You see, there is no room in the notion of belief for willfully rejecting the truth that is known to be true. None. You either actually, honestly, sincerely, and innocently accent to a particular claim or you actually, honestly, sincerely, and innocently do not accent to that particular claim. No one is even capable of denying the truth of what they know to be true. The category of rational beings that do so is a null set.

Rob

[Metacrock]

I follow your thinking here. We agree that we can’t be condemned for the things we don’t know (the things we’re in the dark about). And I would go further to say that since belief entails sincere honest innocent judgment, anything that we do know we do also believe...To cut to the chase, we need to focus on the 5 points above which focus on the qualities entailed in belief.

that doesn't follow. you are affirming the consequent.

My 5 points demonstrate that belief does in fact entail sincere honest innocent judgment. Once you agree with this you will also agree that there is no room for condemnation for rejecting (failing to acknowledge as true and in so doing, failing to believe) both the known and the unknown truth of God, not ever, mixed metaphors included (I’m going to quit using “light” due to the confusion of mixed metaphors).

no that doesn't follow. You are assuming that if you can make any honest innocent judgment than all your judgments are like that. this doesn't follow.We are often "double minded," as the book of James calls it. We can mixed motives. We are often contradictory in motivations. For example we will be kind of our own children or to individual children that we see, even children not our own who are underprivileged we will give money and time and effort to help. then we can turn around and vote for policies hat murder thousands of children in far away places and rationalize that we doing it for the long term good.

That is because the only kind of truth that anyone ever rejects is the truth that we don’t know, the truth that we lack awareness of. But, you still need convinced of this, so let’s step through my 5 points on what’s entailed in belief:

now how could that be true? The German people knew the Jews had dissapeared they knew the camps were there. They knew the Jews had to ware distinctive clothing. Then they were taken away. They knew what was happened but they preferred to pretend they did not.

1. First, belief is defined to be mental accent to a proposition. If this isn’t what you mean by “belief” then you need to say so now so that we don’t talk past each other.

That's part of it. I'm not sure that captures the whole nature of belief.

2. If you claim that you believe/disbelieve something that you do not actually believe/disbelieve, then it is a lie and it is not really belief/disbelief at all. How is it possible to not actually assent in you own thinking and still be assenting? Do you agree that this assent being actual comports with reality? If not, why not? You responded,

No not totally. I've already explained some of that above. You are assuming that people are always rational and consistent, and weknow they they are not.

Metacrock: I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not aware that I've ever done that.

Sorry. I didn’t mean “you” in particular. I’m simply saying that when someone says that they believe something that they do not actually believe, then it is a lie and it is not really belief at all

I would have to know what specifically you are talking about. Some aspect of a belief system that one hasn't really thought about or understood is not a lie. If you say "I am a Christian." Then someone asks "as a Christian how can you believe that the spirit proceeds from both the father and the son?" you say "I haven't thought about it," you weren't lying when you said "I am a Christian" just because an aspect of being a Christian you haven't considered.

you seem to want things to be tucked away very neatly and to assume that people are rational and consistent. That doesn't ring true with what we know of human nature or life.

And when someone says that they do not believe something that they actually do believe, then it is a lie and it is not really disbelief at all. How is it possible to not actually assent in their own thinking and still be assenting? Do you agree that this assent being actual comports with reality? Your take-away from point #2 should be that belief entails actual accent. Belief cannot lack actual accent and still be belief. And the remaining points that you need to consider are:

It depends upon how you use the term. there are at least three different ways to use it:

(1) "I have my Beliefs;" as in a general belief system

(2) I believe in that, as in, a specific proposition

(3) I believe in the good of humanity, a general statement of hope and support not necessarily aimed at any particular proposition.

all three of these aspects are involved in religious belief. Someone who subscribes to 1 and 3 then reject some specific proportion related ot the object of belief is not lying, but speaking in a different since.

3. Can the assent that is actual be dishonest to yourself and still be an actual assent?

depends upon which sense

4. Can the assent that is actual and honest be insincere and still be an actual honest assent?


5. Can the assent that is actual and honest and sincere not also void of any dishonest insincere deceitful motives and therefore also innocent?

all of these depend upon which sense is being used.

You see, there is no room in the notion of belief for willfully rejecting the truth that is known to be true. None.

I disagree, in fact I think it's bull shit. I just demonstrated examples of human inconsistency and examples where different senses require different relations to the issue. Now those inconsistencies are perhaps thing for which one is blameworthy, that doesn't mean we don't do them.

You either actually, honestly, sincerely, and innocently accent to a particular claim or you actually, honestly, sincerely, and innocently do not accent to that particular claim. No one is even capable of denying the truth of what they know to be true. The category of rational beings that do so is a null set.

Rob

that extremely naive. there's no way you will ever convince me that a huge portion of atheist don't hate God. they all say they don't. They all say "I can't hate someone what I don't think exists." I know they do. Their hatred of religious is so unreasoning it must be a stand in for their hatred of God.

[Robin Yergenson]

Hi Metacrock,

I had said, “We agree that we can’t be condemned for the things we don’t know (the things we’re in the dark about). And I would go further to say that since belief entails sincere honest innocent judgment, anything that we do know we do also believe...” To which you responded,

Metacrock: That doesn't follow. You are affirming the consequent.

Okay, there does seem to be a logical error there, but I would say it’s more of a non-sequitar than affirming the consequent. Let me I’ll take another run at it. Belief entails sincere honest innocent judgment. Things that we “know” coincide with, are accompanied by, sincere honest innocent judgment, so that anything that we know we also believe.

I had said, “My 5 points demonstrate that belief does in fact entail sincere honest innocent judgment. Once you agree with this you will also agree that there is no room for condemnation for rejecting (failing to acknowledge as true and in so doing, failing to believe) both the known and the unknown truth of God, not ever, mixed metaphors included (I’m going to quit using “light” due to the confusion of mixed metaphors).” You responded,

Metacrock: No that doesn't follow. You are assuming that if you can make any honest innocent judgment than all your judgments are like that. this doesn't follow. We are often "double minded," as the book of James calls it. We can mixed motives. We are often contradictory in motivations. For example we will be kind of our own children or to individual children that we see, even children not our own who are underprivileged we will give money and time and effort to help. then we can turn around and vote for policies hat murder thousands of children in faraway places and rationalize that we doing it for the long term good.

Yes, we have lots of mixed motives. We are motivated to help our own children. Less often we are motivated to help underprivileged children in our community. Still less often we are motivated to help underprivileged children in faraway places. When we see a policy like “yes, do kill thousands of children in faraway places” or “no, do not kill thousands of children in faraway places” nearly all of us vote no so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Bottom line, we do our best to prioritize our motives so that we are not pursuing a lesser value at the expense of a greater value. Sometimes we make errors in that prioritization process, but it does not follow that because we make innocent errors, therefore our own internal judgments are not always honest and sincere.

Earlier I had said, “…the only kind of truth that anyone ever rejects is the truth that we don’t know, the truth that we lack awareness of.” And you say,

Now how could that be true? The German people knew the Jews had disappeared. They knew the camps were there. They knew the Jews had to wear distinctive clothing. Then they were taken away. They knew what was happening but they preferred to pretend they did not.

Right. And I would ask that you avoid confusing pretense with belief. I’m not making any claims about how we may honestly and sincerely believe that it is best to deceive someone else. The Germans may have believed that the Jews were being punished by God, that they were being exiled from Germany, and that somehow they deserved it. Or perhaps they believed that their own life was a higher priority to them than that of an unfortunate Jew and that while fighting for the less fortunate is good, it is not good if it means losing your deepest value by being sent off to some death camp yourself. These are just guesses, but one thing is certain, they did hold honest sincere beliefs that their actions (or inactions) were rooted in.

I said, “1. First, belief is defined to be mental accent to a proposition. If this isn’t what you mean by ‘belief’ then you need to say so now so that we don’t talk past each other.” You responded,

Metacrock: That's part of it. I'm not sure that captures the whole nature of belief.

You are being obtuse and evasive. Please don’t. You seem perfectly fine using the term but I can’t seem to get you to clarify that we both mean the same thing, and if you don’t mean what I mean, what is it that you do mean by the term? Or, don't tell me so that we can just continue to talk past each other. That’s productive.

And I had said, “…when someone says that they believe something that they do not actually believe, then it is a lie and it is not really belief at all.”You responded,

Metacrock: I would have to know what specifically you are talking about. Some aspect of a belief system that one hasn't really thought about or understood is not a lie. If you say "I am a Christian." Then someone asks "as a Christian how can you believe that the spirit proceeds from both the father and the son?" you say "I haven't thought about it," you weren't lying when you said "I am a Christian" just because an aspect of being a Christian you haven't considered.

You seem to want things to be tucked away very neatly and to assume that people are rational and consistent. That doesn't ring true with what we know of human nature or life.

No. I agree that people are often irrational and inconsistent. I agree that belief often fails to comport with reality and are therefore untrue. The only point that I’m making here is that when people believe, they do so honestly and sincerely, no exceptions. To your earlier comment, if someone expresses a sincere belief by saying “I am a Christian,” there are specific things that they mean by the term “Christian,” otherwise their statement would be incoherent. That’s why definitions are so important. Bottom line, as long as their statement expresses their sincere belief, they are not lying, not ever. You say,

It depends upon how you use the term [belief/believe]. There are at least three different ways to use it:

(1) "I have my Beliefs;" as in a general belief system

(2) I believe in that, as in, a specific proposition

(3) I believe in the good of humanity, a general statement of hope and support not necessarily aimed at any particular proposition.

All three of these aspects are involved in religious belief. Someone who subscribes to 1 and 3 then reject some specific proportion related ot the object of belief is not lying, but speaking in a different since.

A belief system is a set of specific beliefs (2) and your (3) is one particular example of a specific belief (2). I have said repeatedly that belief in this context is assent to a proposition which is entirely consistent with (2).

I said, “You see, there is no room in the notion of belief for wilfully rejecting the truth that is known to be true. None.” You responded,

I disagree, in fact I think it's bull shit. I just demonstrated examples of human inconsistency and examples where different senses require different relations to the issue. Now those inconsistencies are perhaps thing for which one is blameworthy, that doesn't mean we don't do them.

Try to avoid inflammatory comments okay? Please take a look at my responses to your examples and let’s go over it again. Let’s see if we can converge. I am not your enemy.

I had said, “You either actually, honestly, sincerely, and innocently accent to a particular claim or you actually, honestly, sincerely, and innocently do not accent to that particular claim. No one is even capable of denying the truth of what they know to be true. The category of rational beings that do so is a null set.” You say,

That is extremely naive. There's no way you will ever convince me that a huge portion of atheist don't hate God. They all say they don't. They all say "I can't hate someone what I don't think exists." I know they do. Their hatred of religious is so unreasoning it must be a stand in for their hatred of God.

You say there’s no way to convince you? How about: “Not only atheists, but even more so theists (for good reason) can and often do hate notions of God that they consider to be false. Both you and I are that way, but anyone that hates God is a theist who believes in God and hates Him.” There, did I convince you?

Rob

[Metacrock]

Hi Metacrock,

I had said, “We agree that we can’t be condemned for the things we don’t know (the things we’re in the dark about). And I would go further to say that since belief entails sincere honest innocent judgment, anything that we do know we do also believe...” To which you responded,

Metacrock: That doesn't follow. You are affirming the consequent.

Okay, there does seem to be a logical error there, but I would say it’s more of a non-sequitar than affirming the consequent.

hey sorry man a logical error that is non-sequitar pretty self serving. Your argument rests upon that point is more than non-sequitar.

Let me I’ll take another run at it. Belief entails sincere honest innocent judgment. Things that we “know” coincide with, are accompanied by, sincere honest innocent judgment, so that anything that we know we also believe.

that doesn't prove that isn't also self deceptions.

I had said, “My 5 points demonstrate that belief does in fact entail sincere honest innocent judgment. Once you agree with this you will also agree that there is no room for condemnation for rejecting (failing to acknowledge as true and in so doing, failing to believe) both the known and the unknown truth of God, not ever, mixed metaphors included (I’m going to quit using “light” due to the confusion of mixed metaphors).” You responded,

stop repeating it. We've already covered it. you are making the same mistake you just go through making. One doe snot rule out the other!

Metacrock: No that doesn't follow. You are assuming that if you can make any honest innocent judgment than all your judgments are like that. this doesn't follow. We are often "double minded," as the book of James calls it. We can mixed motives. We are often contradictory in motivations. For example we will be kind of our own children or to individual children that we see, even children not our own who are underprivileged we will give money and time and effort to help. then we can turn around and vote for policies hat murder thousands of children in faraway places and rationalize that we doing it for the long term good.

Y:Yes, we have lots of mixed motives. We are motivated to help our own children. Less often we are motivated to help underprivileged children in our community. Still less often we are motivated to help underprivileged children in faraway places. When we see a policy like “yes, do kill thousands of children in faraway places” or “no, do not kill thousands of children in faraway places” nearly all of us vote no so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Bottom line, we do our best to prioritize our motives so that we are not pursuing a lesser value at the expense of a greater value. Sometimes we make errors in that prioritization process, but it does not follow that because we make innocent errors, therefore our own internal judgments are not always honest and sincere.

you are making an even worse mistake now in attributing to "mixed motives" worthy valid motives that are not sinful and yet totally ignoring sinful ones as though they don't exist.

YEarlier I had said, “…the only kind of truth that anyone ever rejects is the truth that we don’t know, the truth that we lack awareness of.” And you say,

Meta: Now how could that be true? The German people knew the Jews had disappeared. They knew the camps were there. They knew the Jews had to wear distinctive clothing. Then they were taken away. They knew what was happening but they preferred to pretend they did not.

YRight. And I would ask that you avoid confusing pretense with belief.

No that's where your argument tubes. you are merely covering up the counter evidence the evidence that your position is wrong. My whole argument stems on the idea that we do have self deception for our true motives, and we desire sinful thing sand wrong things for self interest and rationalize it and convince ourselves our motives are fine. you can't set that aside as though it's a different issue, it's not. The coutner to your argument!

YI’m not making any claims about how we may honestly and sincerely believe that it is best to deceive someone else. The Germans may have believed that the Jews were being punished by God, that they were being exiled from Germany, and that somehow they deserved it. Or perhaps they believed that their own life was a higher priority to them than that of an unfortunate Jew and that while fighting for the less fortunate is good, it is not good if it means losing your deepest value by being sent off to some death camp yourself. These are just guesses, but one thing is certain, they did hold honest sincere beliefs that their actions (or inactions) were rooted in.

Now you are making up rationalizations they could have used that would cast rlgion as the villain in the excuses that they came up with. that doesn't get your position off the hook because it still means they were able to rationalize something they knew was wrong with some BS.Although you have no proof that's really they way they thought about it, supposes it was. That's not proof that religion caused them to rationalize it way, it was just handy if indeed that's even what they thought.

you can't dismiss that process because it disproves your whole argument!

Y:I said, “1. First, belief is defined to be mental accent to a proposition. If this isn’t what you mean by ‘belief’ then you need to say so now so that we don’t talk past each other.” You responded,

Metacrock: That's part of it. I'm not sure that captures the whole nature of belief.

You are being obtuse and evasive. Please don’t. You seem perfectly fine using the term but I can’t seem to get you to clarify that we both mean the same thing, and if you don’t mean what I mean, what is it that you do mean by the term? Or, don't tell me so that we can just continue to talk past each other. That’s productive.

This is a serous point, don't call something obtuse just because you don't understand it. Belief is more than just accepting a proposition. Religious belief implies a level of felt realization. Beliefs stem from personal experience, mystical experience, enlightenment, as well logical argument. They stem from empirical relationship with qualia that serves as warrant for belief. Beliefs are as much predicated upon phenomenological and existential means as they are logical or reasonable means.

Y:And I had said, “…when someone says that they believe something that they do not actually believe, then it is a lie and it is not really belief at all.”You responded,

Metacrock: I would have to know what specifically you are talking about. Some aspect of a belief system that one hasn't really thought about or understood is not a lie. If you say "I am a Christian." Then someone asks "as a Christian how can you believe that the spirit proceeds from both the father and the son?" you say "I haven't thought about it," you weren't lying when you said "I am a Christian" just because an aspect of being a Christian you haven't considered.

You seem to want things to be tucked away very neatly and to assume that people are rational and consistent. That doesn't ring true with what we know of human nature or life.

No. I agree that people are often irrational and inconsistent. I agree that belief often fails to comport with reality and are therefore untrue. The only point that I’m making here is that when people believe, they do so honestly and sincerely, no exceptions.

O sorry your ideology is showing. I never said any of that. you are fainign agreement when I never agreed with this ideologically tainted version belief. You are basing this on the atheist notion that faith is belief without reasons or evidence. That is not anyone's definition. This is not a religious definition. ti's a straw man.

my example was about aspects of faith one has not delved into but accepts as part of a larger package. you are assuming that means irrational, stupid, unthinking, it does not. Just becuase hasn't studied the Athenasian creed or the reasons for the split between Eastern orthodoxy and Rome doesn't mean they are not thinking about their beliefs.

Y:To your earlier comment, if someone expresses a sincere belief by saying “I am a Christian,” there are specific things that they mean by the term “Christian,” otherwise their statement would be incoherent. That’s why definitions are so important.

No! self identification always belongs to the person identifying himself/herself. There can be examples of those who are misinformed about their self identification, or those who are not well versed in the tradition but never the less identify with it. So an atheist never has the preoperative to say who is a Christian and who is not! There can be deceivers who are lying about their identification but that doesn't mean it's the non self identifier who the right to decide if that is the case.

Just the other day my last day posting on CARM this moron tried to pass himself off as a Christian I just said "I doubt that you are." A few days latter looking at it (I wont post there again) I saw he's not one. I didn't say "I you are not a Christian." It's not my call.

Y:Bottom line, as long as their statement expresses their sincere belief, they are not lying, not ever.

I agree there. I must have misunderstood you. Imagine that!


You say,

Meta: It depends upon how you use the term [belief/believe]. There are at least three different ways to use it:

(1) "I have my Beliefs;" as in a general belief system

(2) I believe in that, as in, a specific proposition

(3) I believe in the good of humanity, a general statement of hope and support not necessarily aimed at any particular proposition.

All three of these aspects are involved in religious belief. Someone who subscribes to 1 and 3 then reject some specific proportion related ot the object of belief is not lying, but speaking in a different since.

YA belief system is a set of specific beliefs (2) and your (3) is one particular example of a specific belief (2). I have said repeatedly that belief in this context is assent to a proposition which is entirely consistent with (2).

there's one big difference in what you say above and what you say here (I agreed with you above, immediately above th quote my me you just made: "Bottom line, as long as their statement expresses their sincere belief, they are not lying, not ever"

I agree with that, the problem is that's not necessary religious bleief. it's just a sincere belief. It's not necessarily determinate of membership in a religious community.

A belief system is a set of particular beliefs but that doesn't mean that belonging to the community or self identifying with a tradition is just a matter of ascent to a proposition. Those are two different things. Belief systems are not synonymous with religious traditions. Traditions have contain belief systems, but they are not identical to them. There are also phenomenological factors, it's not facts upon which "being a Christian" depends.

Y:I said, “You see, there is no room in the notion of belief for wilfully rejecting the truth that is known to be true. None.” You responded,

Meta:I disagree, in fact I think it's bull shit. I just demonstrated examples of human inconsistency and examples where different senses require different relations to the issue. Now those inconsistencies are perhaps thing for which one is blameworthy, that doesn't mean we don't do them.

Try to avoid inflammatory comments okay? Please take a look at my responses to your examples and let’s go over it again. Let’s see if we can converge. I am not your enemy.[/quote]

O good point I think I misunderstood you anyway. perhaps if you would just make your overall point this would be more clear. I thought you were saying that identification with a religious tradition entailed perfect conformity to a particular proportion and didn't allow for mistakes or variations. That's not the same as saying one is willfully rejecting a proposition that means they violate the propositional truth test.

YI had said, “You either actually, honestly, sincerely, and innocently accent to a particular claim or you actually, honestly, sincerely, and innocently do not accent to that particular claim. No one is even capable of denying the truth of what they know to be true. The category of rational beings that do so is a null set.” You say,

That is extremely naive. There's no way you will ever convince me that a huge portion of atheist don't hate God. They all say they don't. They all say "I can't hate someone what I don't think exists." I know they do. Their hatred of religious is so unreasoning it must be a stand in for their hatred of God.

You say there’s no way to convince you? How about: “Not only atheists, but even more so theists (for good reason) can and often do hate notions of God that they consider to be false. Both you and I are that way, but anyone that hates God is a theist who believes in God and hates Him.” There, did I convince you?

Rob

No those are two different things. becasue you don't make the argument simply and clearly in the beginning so I still feel like you are trying to set up a trap.

atheists saying they cant' hate God when they do is not the same thing as theists hating notions of God they consider to be false.