What's a Heretic to Do?

[Master Vigil]

And again Alaric, some are lies, some are not. That is where the truths collide and cease to become truth. What you may believe as truth another may not. The only difference is, you require physical evidence, they do not. That to me does not dispel either side, but only makes the truth's even more different and distinct. And I don't see how someone being happy in a religion hurts anyone (except in religious wars, but even then no one is happy.) Instead I see people living peacefully, and dying happily. Whats wrong with that?

 

[Lightkeeper]

Why would anyone want to make someone question their faith? If you are secure in your beliefs you probably wouldn't want to do that. Live and Let live. When we are new to a belief system we tend to have a great need to spread the word, probably to bolster your own beliefs. We can only teach what we are. If you are a truly happy person, people will probably want to know why and will ask.

 

[Rex]

Doesn't stimulating your mind make you a happier person?

 

[Master Vigil]

I taught a class on Taoism and Zen, and it was through their questions that I came to the understanding I have now. And it was through their "interigation" that I came to love Taoism enough to understand that my own philosophy is Taoism. But if it wasn't for their questioning and my teaching, that would never of happened.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What about belief in Santa?

Children believe in this ridiculous lie for years....is it right to take their fantasy away?

If the truth will only cause harm and no good, then isn't ignorant bliss the way to go?

How about a third example: in school they test to see what your IQ is, but they never tell (usually) students because there is no value in knowing one's own IQ. Would it be better to know the IQ and not be ignorant, or to not know the IQ but not risk limiting yourself or being arrogant?

 

[Alaric]

And again Alaric, some are lies, some are not. That is where the truths collide and cease to become truth. What you may believe as truth another may not. The only difference is, you require physical evidence, they do not. That to me does not dispel either side, but only makes the truth's even more different and distinct. And I don't see how someone being happy in a religion hurts anyone (except in religious wars, but even then no one is happy.) Instead I see people living peacefully, and dying happily. Whats wrong with that?

I just think there are some subtle effects that slowly erode away at your being - they might think they're happy, but not realise that it can be a lot better. What most concerns me most, however, is when they rely on some 'truth' and build on it, meaning that as soon as those foundations start to crumble, the whole house falls down.

There is also the problem of truths not being useful alone. Even if you can prove a fact, your ignorance about other things can cause you to react inappropriately to your 'fact'. That is why for me, the foundation is not made of facts, but of true methods of evaluating certain 'facts'. The foundation of science is not simple laws of physics, but the scientific method, and the foundation of morality is not built around laws or even empathy, but the categorical imperative (the best I've seen). So for example, I would be interested in Taoism if it prescribed some method of looking at the world, rather than a fact or set of facts through which to look at the world.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it better to know the truth, or to not know the truth but be happier?

Hi, Mr_Spinkles.

In my opinion: so long as happiness is benign and non-intrusive, happiness trumps knowledge.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Is it better to know the truth, or to not know the truth but be happier?

Hi, Mr_Spinkles.

In my opinion: so long as happiness is benign and non-intrusive, happiness trumps knowledge.

I agree with this. To each his own. Not everyone has the same truth.

 

[Master Vigil]

I understand alaric. The Tao does not give laws or rules, only nature. And we learn from nature and ourselves to live like the Tao.

 

[Ceridwen018]

This really is a good tough question, and the answer really depends on what kind of person you are. As for me, I absolutely love questioning and debating. In fact, I can get so frustrated sometimes trying to figure out how people, who would say something like 'live and let live', think and how their minds work, because that attitude is so foreign to me. I'm not saying that it is an inferior attitude, per say, its just not something I can easily understand.

Christians would say, of those who are not Christian, that ignorance is certainly not bliss, because to be aware of god's word is one's own resposibility, which if neglected, can earn you a ticket to hell. From an atheistic perspective however (aka, no afterlife), the seeming negative effects of 'false beliefs' are perhaps not as apparent. It certainly would be easy to say 'live and let live' because we do not believe in any supernatural consequences, however like Alaric was saying, the truth is out there, and wether we're happy with our lives as they are or not, it will come upon us all sooner or later.

Bottom line? I think that everyone should be open to other's opinions, with the thought that they can learn something. Questions exercise your mind, and yes Lighteeper, strengthen your faith. think of it this way: if your faith really is true and strong, what's a little questioning gonna hurt? *smiles sweetly and innocently* :roll:

 

[Ceridwen018]

Think about this:

You don't see any Jehovah's Witnesses worrying about this issue, do ya? Lol, why should we treat it any differently?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Because, Ceridwen, as atheists I feel we are called to a higher moral standard than that of the non-nonbeliever. :lol:

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

I believe that is alright to question others on their faith. However, I can't understand the reaction of those Christians, you talked about at the beginning of this thread. I would become depressed about an athiest's comments, I would more or less pitty their lack of knowledge about Christ's sacrifice for us on the cross.

 

[Ceridwen018]

LCMS,

Pitty to your heart's content. Just as long as you can back up your side for a lively debate, I'll be happy!

 

[harold e. rice]

Srinkles wrote;

The point I'm making is that even if we suppose there is no God: is it ethical to cause beilevers to question their faith, when their faith helps them be happy or do good deeds? Is it better to know the truth, or to not know the truth but be happier?

============================================

Most of my family and friends are fundamental Christians who believe the bible literally. I go out of my way to feel the care of my friend and not offend them when they are reaching out for care and understand. If they refer to verses in the bible that give them serenity and hope, I support their direction. If they believe that their goodness and strength comes from God, I support their direction.

The only time I disagree with their religious and biblical beliefs is when thy try to covert my way of thinking or condemn me to the imaginary HELL. I feel that it is okay to defend yourself when attacked or presented with false information that could be detrimental and fatal to enlightenment.

Sometimes you have to make a conscious decision whether or not to save an individual that is drowning. Do you tell them the truth or do you avoid the truth? One must be wise enough to realize that you can't save an individual from drowning if he doesn't think that he or she is sinking in deep water.

As an ex-fundamental Christian I'm thankful to friends who told an convinced me of these facts:

# The earth was older than 6 thousand year. (Perhaps 4.5 billion year old)

# That Adam and Eve and story of Noah were ancient myths.

# That Joshua couldn't have stopped the Sun because the sun doesn't move.

# That Job in the bible wasn't a real person.

# That Easter and Christmas are pagan holidays.

# That the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses.

# That the bible is loaded with errors and contradictions

and many other facts.

I really think that each case has to be weighed and judged on individual bases.

 

[Runt]

We're all on a quest for truth, and I think sometimes it is too easy for us to get trapped in our own thoughts, come to a conclusion, and because of the lack of any other outside ideas, decide that what we think IS truth. We might need someone else, an outside mind, to help us get back on the path to truth again. Therefore, I think it is okay for people to cause others to doubt their faith, if it is done with the intention of helping them... but what annoys me is that many people try to get others to doubt their faith (I have been guilty of it as well) simply because they want to try to convince them that THEIR way is more correct. In my opinion this is wrong. It is okay to point out the logical fallacies in people's beliefs and introduce fresh ideas... but it must be done without hoping for gain for oneself.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I agree Runt. I think that getting people to question their beliefs is entirely necessary and good, but only when done for that person's own benefit and spiritual growth, not so you can put another notch on your bible or something.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I have something to add to this.

When you look at a Christian's post, it goes a little something like this:

"God is this, god is that. If you don't accept god this will happen to you. This is what god wants, this is what he doesn't want"

Basically, just them telling you how it is. An atheist on the other hand, seems to take a more passive point of view:

"Well, if that were true, then how is this true? Why is that true? Why is that not true?"

Pretty much just a lot of questions. Basically (and I don't mean to offend anyone here--I'm just venting a little perhaps), I'm a little tired of people telling me how it is and then getting mad when I question. There are some people here who don't seem to realize that they've wandered into the debate forums. My point here though is this: Atheists should feel freer to tell the Christians how it is from time to time:

"God doesn't exist, the bible is crap, sorry"

Maybe we'd see a little role-reversal, which would be a nice break. (I think I've said the words 'circular reasoning' no less than a billion times)