Then how about "indistinguishable from the imaginary"? Is that not accurate?
It probably is accurate. Then add that those who have faith are confident of the reality of these things that are unseen, or seemingly imaginary.
Theists cannot all be right, so it follows that basically, they are all wrong. There might be one singular exception, but no one has demonstrated that yet.
I never did get anyone to actually show me what Jesus said that is not true. Would you like to show me whether you think He was wrong? Besides someone who is walking talking truth (Jesus the Christ), I would agree that everyone must be wrong about some things. No theist would be an exception to this. Does this fit with the point you were making? Did you assume that I would have identified some theists as being right while others were wrong? (Y/N please, I like resolution).
Sure you did.
Right. So why did you choose to make a joke about it? Do you think I have not met people who love truth, or did you think I would only consider such a person to be a Christian? HitchSlap comes to mind, for one example that might challenge your expectation. Arhcaeopteryx is another one. Many Muslims love the truth, even though they have been locked into systems of thought that prevents them from considering the bible as containing truth. But so it is about beliefs.. by their very nature, beliefs are what prevents us from exploring and accepting the truth! and yet, a realisation of truth is what causes us to form the beliefs we have!
Sociopathy - the word element socio has been used in compound words since around 1880.[157][158] The term sociopathy may have been first introduced in 1909 in Germany by biological psychiatrist Karl Birnbaum and in 1930 in the US by educational psychologist George E. Partridge, as an alternative to the concept of psychopathy.[157] It was used to indicate that the defining feature is violation of social norms, or antisocial behavior, and has often also been associated with postulating social as well as biological causation.[159][160][161][162]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy
It seems to me that these people have suppressed their conscience and formed a system of beliefs that they can use to feel comfortable about what they do, even though their conscience says they should do otherwise. I know too, that this is a natural thing to do. For instance, a guy who likes to sleep around has in his conscience the knowledge that man should be dedicated to his wife. Yet he will build beliefs to justify his promiscuity. Then later in life when he has a promiscuous wife, he will realise the value of his conscience's judgement because a promiscuous wife is humiliating whereas a faithful wife gives him honour. So although a person's conscience might conflict with their desires and this causes them to rather form belief structures that justify their behaviour, the conscience itself does not condone the immoral behaviour. I'd like to know whether you would disagree with this and the thoughts you can present to describe how/why.
And how did you determine that? Do you have one of those new mind-reading hats? They are not very accurate, based on the results that have been posted in these forums.
It's the assumption I determined most likely based on Occam's Razor, though when forming this reply I can see probably I have to change this assumption a bit. Here's how I came to this realization:
Take these two statements:
"When someone is comfortable in their spiritual standing before God"
"those who live with good conscience do not feel His condemnation"
These two statements were presented to describe someone who has faith in God (or a righteous higher power), who strives to live a life to it's pleasure (this really could describe people found in many different religions).
.. there is naturally three ways for a person to achieve this situation, whereby they are comfortable in their self that they don't feel convicted by the judgements of their conscience:
1) Live right according to their conscience
2) Bury their conscience with beliefs that justify their immoral behaviours
3) Rationalize His condemnation as something else (similar to #2, but more bespoke - the denial of God)
While I was defining these coping mechanisms, I found that #3 is more bespoke than #2, because such a person does not necessarily attempt to justify their immorality but rather they only seek to cope with it. I think that everyone probably employs some combination of all three throughout their course in life, and the challenge for us all, is to repent to address and overcome the core dishonesty that causes us to rely on #2 and #3 for such comfort.
For instance, you'll be not wanting to admit that you gain comfort with your conscience by operating this way. You might feel comfortable to suggest that because I can't know what words are going through your head that I don't know full well what you are thinking. In doing so, you are tempted to be dishonest. I know that temptation. I judge in all likeliness, that motive is what produces that action. I don't know of another possible explanation. Furthermore, the understandings I express this way are learned both by experience and observation.
Replace with "exercise repentance". Whatever fits.
It makes no difference really. The grammatical expression is foreign to me:
"Why would I exercise repentance to a fictional character?"
This is like saying that if God is real, then we need to repent to Him. It doesn't really make sense to say such a thing. Repentance is about recognizing one's error and resolving to do right. "Repenting to" God just isn't an idea I am familiar with. Did you learn this at a church? Were you raised by people who would use this expression? Have you heard people tell you that if you repent to God then you will be saved? It seems like cliche that doesn't really convey any useful meaning when it is said that way. Do you get what I mean and why I've identified it?
I hate that trend.
