Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[accelafine]

Walker,

First, let me thank you for your thoughtful post, which arrived at an unexpected juncture for me. I had recently decided to move on from these discussions, not out of disinterest but because I’ve come to a rather discouraging conclusion: most people here, religious or not, cannot be trusted to engage honestly in any meaningful way. Too often, these conversations spiral into deflection, misrepresentation, or outright denial of even the most basic principles of determinism. It’s not just frustrating; it feels futile. I had made up my mind to seek other spaces where dialogue might be more productive, where I might find people willing to approach these ideas with curiosity and intellectual honesty.

Well said Mike, why you decided with another 9 paragraphs after this one is beyond me, and anyone with a functioning brain.

That's just mean-spirited. I've really enjoyed having BM gracing us with his presence. He won't stay of course. It's only moronic male wankers who hang around on here long past their used-by date, posting the same illiterate and/or proselytising drivel day after day.

[attofishpi]

Walker,

First, let me thank you for your thoughtful post, which arrived at an unexpected juncture for me. I had recently decided to move on from these discussions, not out of disinterest but because I’ve come to a rather discouraging conclusion: most people here, religious or not, cannot be trusted to engage honestly in any meaningful way. Too often, these conversations spiral into deflection, misrepresentation, or outright denial of even the most basic principles of determinism. It’s not just frustrating; it feels futile. I had made up my mind to seek other spaces where dialogue might be more productive, where I might find people willing to approach these ideas with curiosity and intellectual honesty.

Well said Mike, why you decided with another 9 paragraphs after this one is beyond me, and anyone with a functioning brain.

That's just mean-spirited. I've really enjoyed having BM gracing us with his presence. He won't stay of course. It's only moronic male wankers who hang around on here long past their used-by date, posting the same illiterate drivel day after day.

Unfortunately people like you think a book needs to be written where one paragraph can state all that is needed.

[Wizard22]

Trust is the bedrock of any meaningful interaction, whether personal, social, or intellectual. But when it comes to religious individuals, particularly in discussions involving uncomfortable truths—like those grounded in determinism—trust can become a complicated question. For me, and perhaps for others, it sometimes feels as if certain religious people deliberately distort their own beliefs or outright deny what they clearly recognize as logical, deterministic facts. Why? Is it a defense mechanism? A desire to maintain their worldview? Or is it something deeper—an unconscious, perhaps even willful, refusal to confront contradictions between their faith and evidence-based reasoning?

You have this recurring flaw in your arguments and rationality: that the masses/proletariat are driven by "evidence-based reasoning"...

They're not. "Evidence-based Reasoning" begins at 110+ IQ levels, and even then, really smart people are also heavily susceptible to emotionally laden arguments and common logical fallacies--because of Confirmation Bias. Confirmation Bias affects even the smartest of the smart. Nobody is immune. So, to me, your beef is with the masses in general, not just "the religious".

From a deterministic perspective, we know that all beliefs and behaviors arise from prior causes: upbringing, culture, biology, education, and so on. Yet, this doesn’t erase the suspicion that some religious individuals might actively choose—or, more precisely, be caused by their environment—to obscure their true thoughts or intentions when faced with challenges to their faith. For instance, how many times have we presented clear, rational arguments only to see them sidestepped or met with assertions of "mystery" or "faith"? At what point does this shift from an honest struggle with complex ideas to an intentional lack of intellectual integrity?

Again, Appealing to Authority, the political, non-religious Left use "Trust the Science, Trust the Experts" in the exact same way the political, religious Right use "Trust the Faith, Trust in God".

The masses cede "Authority" to their perceived and socially legitimized, or appointed, Leaders. To the religious, argumentation and rhetoric are matters of their Priestly leaders and authorities. You, condemning the flock, the sheep, for being sheep, does very little, in their mind, to persuade them. In fact, it does nothing. Because religious followers do not perceive You as a legitimate authority, even if, you were 'right' or 'correct' in your reasoning and argumentation.

This discussion aims to explore the dynamics of trust in dialogues with the religious. Do they genuinely believe what they claim, even when their statements seem illogical or contradictory?

Yes, they believe in Superstitions. So do the non-religious.

Are they grappling honestly with the discomfort of deterministic truths that challenge their worldview, or are they, consciously or not, protecting their faith at the expense of truth? And if trust requires a shared commitment to intellectual honesty, can we ever fully trust those who adhere to faith-based reasoning over evidence-based understanding?

They don't know, and don't have answers, which is why they assign their 'Trust' to their local Priest or religious leader, or whatever religious Faith they have.

This proves that the masses are not intended, or simply have no drive for, "individualistic" thinking, or "figuring it all out on their own".

Do you know the ins and outs of car mechanics? Are you a specialist on jet engines and fighter pilots? Are you a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon?

No, you trust 'The Experts' in the exact same way "the religious" trust their Experts.

I invite you all to weigh in. Have you encountered moments where you felt a religious individual was being less than honest in their beliefs or arguments? How do we differentiate between genuine belief, cognitive dissonance, and deliberate avoidance? Most importantly, what does trust look like in these kinds of philosophical engagements?

In my experience, the non-religious are sometimes much worse than religious ignoramuses, because non-religious tend to be even worse in their intellectual blind-spots, believing themselves to be 'perfectly rationale' when they're highly selective with confirmation biases.

[accelafine]

Well said Mike, why you decided with another 9 paragraphs after this one is beyond me, and anyone with a functioning brain.

That's just mean-spirited. I've really enjoyed having BM gracing us with his presence. He won't stay of course. It's only moronic male wankers who hang around on here long past their used-by date, posting the same illiterate drivel day after day.

Unfortunately people like you think a book needs to be written where one paragraph can state all that is needed.

You can't even write one paragraph on here, and what you do write is just bat-shit insane.
I enjoy reading someone who can actually write, and whose writing you don't have to 'translate' or fight your way through masses of grammatical errors that make it incoherent.

[attofishpi]

That's just mean-spirited. I've really enjoyed having BM gracing us with his presence. He won't stay of course. It's only moronic male wankers who hang around on here long past their used-by date, posting the same illiterate drivel day after day.

Unfortunately people like you think a book needs to be written where one paragraph can state all that is needed.

You can't even write one paragraph, and what you do write is batshit insane.

Does this mean you no longer want to have supersonic sex with me?

[Atla]

Perhaps the higher perch is not about belief or persuasion but about clarity—about seeing and helping others see the beauty and inevitability of this deterministic universe.

Unless that deterministic universe isn't as beautiful as your 'spiritual' determinism portrays it to be.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, no, I’m not a teacher. But if my words offer you something to reflect on, if they help illuminate some part of this shared reality, then perhaps I’ve played a small role in the deterministic unfolding of your understanding, just as your post has done for me. And maybe that’s enough before I move on.

That entire post was an object lesson in intellectual narcissism. As is this self-preening paragraph.

[BigMike]

It’s easy to look at the young and see in them a kind of freedom that, in some ways, feels enviable. The freedom to be silly for the sake of it. To offend, not with malice, but with a kind of gleeful irreverence. To laugh at the world, at authority, at themselves, and feel as though time is infinite, stretched out before them like a long summer day. It’s part of what it means to be young, I suppose—that sense of limitless possibility, the feeling that there’s always more time to figure out what matters.

But five years ago, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, and that idea of infinite time was shattered. I don’t think I’d ever fully reckoned with just how finite life is until that moment. Of course, we all know it, intellectually. We know that life has an end, but we push that knowledge to the back of our minds because it’s uncomfortable. But when the person you love most in the world is suddenly staring down the possibility of not being here, that uncomfortable truth comes charging to the front. It demands your attention. And once it’s there, you can’t look away.

Her diagnosis drove home the reality that not just her time, but mine—and all of ours—is finite. There’s only so much of it. And it made me realize something I hadn’t quite understood before: that wasting time isn’t just a disservice to yourself; it’s a disservice to everyone around you. It’s taking something precious and throwing it away.

For me, that realization brought urgency. An urgency to stop wasting my time and to stop wasting other people’s time. I’m not saying there’s no room for laughter or for joy. God knows, laughter is what kept us afloat through some of the darkest moments. But what I’m saying is that there’s a difference between joy and distraction. There’s a difference between humor that connects and humor that tears down. There’s a difference between living fully and simply filling the hours.

If I have something to say before I leave this world—and, like it or not, we all leave it—I feel an urgency to say it now. Because the clock is ticking for all of us, whether we choose to hear it or not. My wife’s fight with cancer didn’t just remind me of that truth; it demanded that I live it. That I stop putting things off. That I stop wasting the time I’ve been given. And maybe more than anything, that I stop indulging in the kind of emptiness that serves no one.

So yes, there’s fun to be had in being silly, in pushing boundaries, in being irreverent. But at some point, if we’re lucky, we’re confronted with the reality that time isn’t infinite. And when that happens, we have a choice: to keep distracting ourselves or to get serious about the kind of legacy we’re leaving behind. For me, that legacy is about honesty, connection, and doing what I can to leave the world a little better than I found it. Because when all is said and done, that’s what matters most. At least, that’s what I’ve come to believe.

[Wizard22]

It’s easy to look at the young and see in them a kind of freedom that, in some ways, feels enviable. The freedom to be silly for the sake of it. To offend, not with malice, but with a kind of gleeful irreverence. To laugh at the world, at authority, at themselves, and feel as though time is infinite, stretched out before them like a long summer day. It’s part of what it means to be young, I suppose—that sense of limitless possibility, the feeling that there’s always more time to figure out what matters.

But five years ago, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, and that idea of infinite time was shattered. I don’t think I’d ever fully reckoned with just how finite life is until that moment. Of course, we all know it, intellectually. We know that life has an end, but we push that knowledge to the back of our minds because it’s uncomfortable. But when the person you love most in the world is suddenly staring down the possibility of not being here, that uncomfortable truth comes charging to the front. It demands your attention. And once it’s there, you can’t look away.

Her diagnosis drove home the reality that not just her time, but mine—and all of ours—is finite. There’s only so much of it. And it made me realize something I hadn’t quite understood before: that wasting time isn’t just a disservice to yourself; it’s a disservice to everyone around you. It’s taking something precious and throwing it away.

For me, that realization brought urgency. An urgency to stop wasting my time and to stop wasting other people’s time. I’m not saying there’s no room for laughter or for joy. God knows, laughter is what kept us afloat through some of the darkest moments. But what I’m saying is that there’s a difference between joy and distraction. There’s a difference between humor that connects and humor that tears down. There’s a difference between living fully and simply filling the hours.

If I have something to say before I leave this world—and, like it or not, we all leave it—I feel an urgency to say it now. Because the clock is ticking for all of us, whether we choose to hear it or not. My wife’s fight with cancer didn’t just remind me of that truth; it demanded that I live it. That I stop putting things off. That I stop wasting the time I’ve been given. And maybe more than anything, that I stop indulging in the kind of emptiness that serves no one.

So yes, there’s fun to be had in being silly, in pushing boundaries, in being irreverent. But at some point, if we’re lucky, we’re confronted with the reality that time isn’t infinite. And when that happens, we have a choice: to keep distracting ourselves or to get serious about the kind of legacy we’re leaving behind. For me, that legacy is about honesty, connection, and doing what I can to leave the world a little better than I found it. Because when all is said and done, that’s what matters most. At least, that’s what I’ve come to believe.

A heart-string tugging story for certain, but...

God knows,

Doesn't this shoot your OP in the foot?

Aren't you supposed to be non-Religious?

[henry quirk]

Don't kick a man when he's down, Wiz.
and, most certainly, he is down

[Alexis Jacobi]

From The Denial of Death by Ernst Becker (1973)

When we are young we are often puzzled by the fact that each person we admire seems to have a different version of what life ought to be, what a good man is, how to live, and so on. If we are especially sensitive it seems more than puzzling, it is disheartening. What most people usually do is to follow one person's ideas and then another's depending on who looms largest on one's horizon at the time. The one with the deepest voice, the strongest appearance, the most authority and success, is usually the one who gets our momentary allegiance; and we try to pattern our ideals after him. But as life goes on we get a perspective on this and all these different versions of truth become a little pathetic. Each person thinks that he has the formula for triumphing over life's limitations and knows with authority what it means to be a man, and he usually tries to win a following for his particular patent. Today we know that people try so hard to win converts for their point of view because it is more than merely an outlook on life: it is an immortality formula.

Yet, at the same time, as the Eastern sages also knew, man is a worm and food for worms. This is the paradox: he is out of nature and hopelessly in it; he is dual, up in the stars and yet housed in a heart-pumping, breath-gasping body that once belonged to a fish and still carries the gill-marks to prove it. His body is a material fleshy casing that is alien to him in many ways—the strangest and most repugnant way being that it aches and bleeds and will decay and die. Man is literally split in two: he has an awareness of his own splendid uniqueness in that he sticks out of nature with a towering majesty, and yet he goes back into the ground a few feet in order to blindly and dumbly rot and disappear forever. It is a terrifying dilemma to be in and to have to live with. The lower animals are, of course, spared this painful contradiction, as they lack a symbolic identity and the self-consciousness that goes with it. They merely act and move reflexively as they are driven by their instincts. If they pause at all, it is only a physical pause; inside they are anonymous, and even their faces have no name. They live in a world without time, pulsating, as it were, in a state of dumb being. This is what has made it so simple to shoot down whole herds of buffalo or elephants. The animals don't know that death is happening and continue grazing placidly while others drop alongside them. The knowledge of death is reflective and conceptual, and animals are spared it. They live and they disappear with the same thoughtlessness: a few minutes of fear, a few seconds of anguish, and it is over. But to live a whole lifetime with the fate of death haunting one's dreams and even the most sun-filled days—that's something else.

Beyond a given point man is not helped by more “knowing,” but only by living and doing in a partly self-forgetful way. As Goethe put it, we must plunge into experience and then reflect on the meaning of it. All reflection and no plunging drives us mad; all plunging and no reflection, and we are brutes.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I am thankful for, and all should be thankful for, is that in your peculiar way you are animated and propelled by the essential concerns that (to use a convenient word) drive philosophy. For this reason I think your posts gain purchase and naturally provoke thought and conversation.

Since I alone achieved immortality (it was on the morning of May 17th, 2011) through advanced applied alchemy (I deal on this in Chapters 10-14 in Section Six of The Course) I have surmounted the crass fear of death and for this reason my thought and all my ideas, recommendations, advice and spiritual practices have an effervescent luminous lightness and float over all enmity and conflict. Surely you have noticed?

Unbeknownst to you I have hatched you with all the care of a Mother Hen and now — YES! — you are ready to proceed to the Next Level!

Go my child, go! Go because you must! Go because causal forces impel you! But go with my blessing!

Remember always: “We are gods with assholes.”

[attofishpi]

What I am thankful for, and all should be thankful for, is that in your peculiar way you are animated and propelled by the essential concerns that (to use a convenient word) drive philosophy. For this reason I think your posts gain purchase and naturally provoke thought and conversation.

Since I alone achieved immortality (it was on the morning of May 17th, 2011) through advanced applied alchemy (I deal on this in Chapters 10-14 in Section Six of The Course) I have surmounted the crass fear of death and for this reason my thought and all my ideas, recommendations, advice and spiritual practices have an effervescent luminous lightness and float over all enmity and conflict. Surely you have noticed?

Unbeknownst to you I have hatched you with all the care of a Mother Hen and now — YES! — you are ready to proceed to the Next Level!

Go my child, go! Go because you must! Go because causal forces impel you! But go with my blessing!

Remember always: “We are gods with anuses.”

I love U Jacobi..and I find it unfathomable that women such as accelefine find you repugnant and instead prefer BigMike and all his eloquent speech from whence one can whittle ones way down rabbit holes, warrens of pure deterministic crap, to an end of n o alternative....destiny was always and ONLY what event_u_waits

[Belinda]

Perhaps the higher perch is not about belief or persuasion but about clarity—about seeing and helping others see the beauty and inevitability of this deterministic universe.

Unless that deterministic universe isn't as beautiful as your 'spiritual' determinism portrays it to be.

The "unless" is the reason for religion. Cosmos is deterministic, and the Salt of the Earth are Cosmic forces too.

[Belinda]

What I am thankful for, and all should be thankful for, is that in your peculiar way you are animated and propelled by the essential concerns that (to use a convenient word) drive philosophy. For this reason I think your posts gain purchase and naturally provoke thought and conversation.

Since I alone achieved immortality (it was on the morning of May 17th, 2011) through advanced applied alchemy (I deal on this in Chapters 10-14 in Section Six of The Course) I have surmounted the crass fear of death and for this reason my thought and all my ideas, recommendations, advice and spiritual practices have an effervescent luminous lightness and float over all enmity and conflict. Surely you have noticed?

Unbeknownst to you I have hatched you with all the care of a Mother Hen and now — YES! — you are ready to proceed to the Next Level!

Go my child, go! Go because you must! Go because causal forces impel you! But go with my blessing!

Remember always: “We are gods with anuses.”

I love U Jacobi..and I find it unfathomable that women such as accelefine find you repugnant and instead prefer BigMike and all his eloquent speech from whence one can whittle ones way down rabbit holes, warrens of pure deterministic crap, to an end of n o alternative....destiny was always and ONLY what event_u_waits

Each of us ,including yourself, seeks the God that means most to each . What really matters is what your God inspires you to do.

Obviously from what you write you do not understand determinism. Why not just leave determinism , put it on the back burner, and seek God in your own way.