Religious people only 'half believe'

[lightburst]

Half-believe is NOT a technical term.

 

I argue that religious people do have it in them that their faith is not as real as they tell it to be, that their faith is not as real as reality is real. Committing a sin which damns a person to hell for all eternity is a bit low priority from any other type of (physical) harm. Hey, we panic more from someone breaking something in their body than seeing somebody on an all-out sinning-spree.

 

At least, I haven't met anyone who actually behaves as though divine punishment is as good as any, even trivial, real world dangers/pain/harm. Even my extra religious friends whom I've seen cry and be emotional in church (the whole shebang).

 

I started out religious, though maybe not as extreme in practice as other people but I've taken the whole ideology seriously (academically, even), so no free will, 'let god decide', or 'it tears me inside to see' crap because that was never the first thing that came to my head when things happened.

 

I don't mean to offend or flame, if I come off that way. It's just a thought that came to me in the shower.

[pwagen]

I'd say it depends. Some people say they believe in this or that, but can't specify anything at all when asked about it. Then there are the people who know exactly what they believe, and actually believe in it, for real. And then there's a whole range of people in between. There's no one mindset of a believer, everyone treats their beliefs and faiths differently.

[lightburst]

I do suppose that there are people who 'truly' believe in what they say as much as they believe physical reality. I mean, the westboro baptist church sure go out of their way. Not even my religious friends go that far to recruit church members or persuade people.

 

But I would also argue that most religious people (at least christians. I can't really speak for other folk) do have a sense of separation in priorities in terms of what is divine and physical. Given my experiences so far. I live in a predominantly christian/religious country, and atheism hasn't caught on in the same way it has caught on in the west. In fact, superstition is the closest in terms of being treated as 'real', as compared with faith.

[Dekan]

 

Half-believe is NOT a technical term.

 

I argue that religious people do have it in them that their faith is not as real as they tell it to be, that their faith is not as real as reality is real. Committing a sin which damns a person to hell for all eternity is a bit low priority from any other type of (physical) harm. Hey, we panic more from someone breaking something in their body than seeing somebody on an all-out sinning-spree.

 

At least, I haven't met anyone who actually behaves as though divine punishment is as good as any, even trivial, real world dangers/pain/harm. Even my extra religious friends whom I've seen cry and be emotional in church (the whole shebang).

 

 

 

 

Yes, doesn't it seem puzzling why Christians always get upset when someone dies.

 

According to the Christian religion, a good deceased person goes to Heaven - a place of eternal bliss. Which would seem to make the funeral a happy occasion.

 

Whereas, a bad deceased person goes to Hell - a place of sadness and eternal torment.

 

So if, at a funeral, relatives and friends go about looking mournful and sad, what does that imply about their opinion of the person? Is it libellous?

[Ophiolite]

If, at a funeral, relatives and friends go about looking mournful and sad, what does that imply about their opinion of the person? Is it libellous?

It is certainly not libellous, unless they are taking notes about how sad and mournful they feel. You might be able to make an argument for it being slanderous.

[zapatos]

   

 

Yes, doesn't it seem puzzling why Christians always get upset when someone dies.

People really don't have much control over their emotions. Even Christians. Not really that puzzling I would say.

[TheVillageAtheist]

Half-believe is NOT a technical term.

 

I argue that religious people do have it in them that their faith is not as real as they tell it to be, that their faith is not as real as reality is real. Committing a sin which damns a person to hell for all eternity is a bit low priority from any other type of (physical) harm. Hey, we panic more from someone breaking something in their body than seeing somebody on an all-out sinning-spree.

 

At least, I haven't met anyone who actually behaves as though divine punishment is as good as any, even trivial, real world dangers/pain/harm. Even my extra religious friends whom I've seen cry and be emotional in church (the whole shebang).

 

I started out religious, though maybe not as extreme in practice as other people but I've taken the whole ideology seriously (academically, even), so no free will, 'let god decide', or 'it tears me inside to see' crap because that was never the first thing that came to my head when things happened.

 

I don't mean to offend or flame, if I come off that way. It's just a thought that came to me in the shower.

 

This is an interesting observation, and I think you're right. At least in the west, where adhering to religious practice is impractical, we see few strict observers. I think that's why some of them have trouble believing that religion is the chief cause of unrest in areas like the middle east. After all, it isn't a chief cause of anything in their own lives, so how could it possibly be the cause of something like deadly violence?

 

Real belief is pretty serious business, particularly in the Abrahamic faiths, where there exists strict dietary and social restrictions.

[Dekan]

Lightburst's OP raises a point about Catholics.

 

Do they really believe in their religion? Some of them don't seem to take it seriously.

For example, this verse is from an old Dennis Wheatley novel. The 007-predecessor Gregory Sallust is about to engage in fornication with a Pussy Galore-style bit of stuff.

 

Before doing the deed, they ribaldly intone:

 

"Holy Virgin, we believe,

That without Sin, Thou didst conceive;

And now we pray, in Thee believing,

That we may Sin without conceiving."

 

The word-play is clever and amusing. But what does it imply, from a religious angle?

[jp255]

People really don't have much control over their emotions. Even Christians. Not really that puzzling I would say.

I don't know much about religion but the point seems fair. If they believe good people are to go to such a great place after they die then shouldn't Christians be happy overall when a loved one dies? Of course the loss will be painful but heaven sounds a lot nicer than Earth! so much so that they should be more happy than sad when someone dies?

[zapatos]

I don't know much about religion but the point seems fair. If they believe good people are to go to such a great place after they die then shouldn't Christians be happy overall when a loved one dies? Of course the loss will be painful but heaven sounds a lot nicer than Earth! so much so that they should be more happy than sad when someone dies?

I think that intellectually they believe the person is in a better place. Emotionally it is a different story. You miss the person. If they were looking at eternity in heaven, why not stay here on earth with me for a few mores years? What difference would it have made in scope of things?

 

My son moved out of town to go to school. I know he is in a better place, and am overall happy for him, but emotionally I still miss him. When he left I was still sad, and in that case I knew he would be back for Thanksgiving!

[Dekan]

I think that intellectually they believe the person is in a better place. Emotionally it is a different story.

Isn't that the wrong way round? More likely:

 

- Emotionally, they want to believe the person is in a better place, ie heaven.

- Intellectually, they know the person is extinct.

 

This encapsulates the essential distinction between Religion and Science. One is based on wishful thinking, the other on hard facts.

 

Mind you, nowadays the distinction seems to be getting less clear-cut.

[MonDie]

I suspect that Christians find religion palatable because they leave a lot open to interpretation. We all know they use loose interpretations to make the Bible compatible with things like heliocentrism and evolution. In addition, I think Christians would eventually realize that, hypothetically, a spiritual entity might find itself at a loss of words when describing spiritual things (like heaven) that have no earthly equivalents. Given these points, they may not think heaven is a literal after-life, like their death will be immediately followed by heaven tennis with their aunt.

Of course, you can then ask: (1) Why didn't God think to include illustrations? (2) Doesn't understanding what a thing is necessarily precede beleiving in it? But those are topics for another thread.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die