People are products of our environment which is largely controlled by the public opinion-molding machine in our environment. Religions take on different natures based upon who is in control of the public opinion-molding machine in their environment and what is in the interests of those in control. Before modern technology, views were molded by clergy who guided people's thoughts towards whatever aspects of the holy texts they found most interesting to them, which would naturally most often be the things that best serve their interests..like tithing would be a thing everyone one would know about for instance. And because the King could do what the King could do, his interests get involved in it no matter what.  As these cults progress along and situations change in the world, the leaders would find all kinds of holy text to highlight to get the common people to serve their interests for any particular occasion. And fast forward to now, and the same thing is still happening. Those with elevated status in society are in control of what holy text gets highlighted and accepted as normal via them having control of the public opinion-molding machine.

Hamby, one of the things that causes CD has to go against another thing.

You mentioned one thing [The chosen verses in the bible], but not what it goes against.

That is what causes the CD with respect to verse Y in the Bible but not to verse X?

I'm talking about CD independent of the the other verses.

For example, X, Y condratict each other, so they must choose one and only one.  So what makes them choose X over Y? If I get what you're saying Y causes too much CD so they pick X.

But what is causing the CD for Y? It can't be X seeing as they haven't choosing it yet, and they could have as easily choosen Y.

Then I'm totally lost.  The Bible and Koran are internally contradictory.  If someone has read them and believes them to be accurate, they are reconciling CD.

I can't answer this without knowing what kinds of things you're talking about.  Can you give me an anecdotal example?

My opinion is that religious types cherry-pick from their idiotic books because they are too chickenshit to just opt out completely.

I don't have a problem with that.

I also agree with that.

This is not to say that religion is not a factor in predicting behavior, but as I'm sure you're well aware, if you give a hundred people a RWA assessment, the 20 highest scores are also extremely likely to be the 20 most fervently religious people.  In other words, an authoritarian personality is a good predictor of religious acceptance, which correlates highly to acceptance of CD.

Put another way, if you have someone who is a double high RWA but was raised in a totally atheist environment, they're still going to display signs of RWA and expect blind devotion and acceptance of cognitive dissonance from their followers.  (Cough... cough... Stalin... Stalin...)

I'm so scared you're going to try to use this to say religion doesn't alter people's behavior, though... I have to point you to the article by Greta Christina from which I got my current signature.  The difference between religion and pretty much anything else is that there's no reality check with religion, so it, more than any other model, allows the runaway train effect.

Whatever it is that a person cherry picks out of a religion -- which fits their personality, and which we probably could have predicted if given the chance -- doesn't have a reality check on it.  It is contrary to science, and revealed through some unfalsifiable means.  Those who choose to cherry pick moderate beliefs don't go too far because the beliefs are moderate.  Those who pick nasty things can go very, very, very far down bad roads, and nothing anybody can say or do will ever serve as a reality check.

Any other system -- including communism -- has been held accountable to reality, since it exists within the realm of reality.  Communism doesn't work.  China and Russia are the two primary examples of how fucked up life gets for the proletariat under communism.  Communists claim that communism does X, Y, and Z.  History shows them to be wrong.  Therefore, communism is out of favor in most of the world, and holding on by a few bare threads where it's still in control.  The world stood up and said NO to communism because of a reality check.

That's why religion is dangerous.  It claims exemption from reality checks.  That's why it's different, and why even though you're exactly right, it's still not a get out of jail free card for religion.

If you need a real life example, look at the number of cases of parents depriving their children of medical care or other necessary services (including proper education) in America.  Pretty much the only cases that make it to court are those where the parents claim religious exemption.  Why, if religion doesn't exacerbate irrationality, are there not strict and comprehensive prohibitions on such behavior across the board?  Why do they only go to court over religion?

I do, and I find them to be identical.  Remember that for my purposes, a religion is a set of beliefs that is in opposition to science and claims exemption from scientific scrutiny.  I know it's too broad a definition, but I get tired of writing out "religion, or any belief system which has all the same hallmarks of religion, most notably a set of beliefs that is in opposition to science and claims exemption from scientific scrutiny."

It's just easier to say "religion."

It is likely, however, that the 9/11 truther has read all the conspiracy books, seen all the movies, and spent a few hundred late nights with Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM.

They've probably also sent off for their own mystical power bracelet at some point or another.

Most likely, they were not raised in an environment where science, logic, and critical thinking were taught objectively.  Most of the 9/11 truthers I've known (and alien abductees, and Illuminati conspirists, etc...) have been people who either did too much acid in the 70s or grew up with hippies.

I agree.

Not quite.  If 9/11 truthers, NWO conspirators, Communists, etc... did reality checks, there wouldn't be 9/11 truthers, etc.  I've done the reality checks, which is why I reject all of them.  I was a Christian, but lucky for me, I had several really good teachers in college, and several good friends who were able to help me learn how to think.  I did the reality check.

I assume no such thing.  In fact, if you reflect on most of my writing, you'll see that I think rationality must be taught, practiced, and adhered to despite human nature.  It's an artificial and learned thought pattern.

With regards to morality, the cherry-picking of religious texts by religious followers is evidence that they do not in fact base their morality on their bible, but instead have a rational or biological ethical code which they live by, and then they simply pick the verses that suit this ethical code.

The same is true of other cherry-picking. Moderate Christians tend to ignore facets of the bible which contradict facts or opinions they already hold to be true. For instance, moderate Christians may ignore the creation myth, calling it "allegorical," because it doesn't fit their scientific understanding of the world. They may ignore the commands of God in the old testament because they were "too brutal" and "intended for a people of an earlier time," while cherry-picking some bubble-gum philosophy from the new testament, simply because it fits their modern, enlightened view of morality.

The only difference between fundamentalist Christians and moderate Christians is that fundamentalist Christians are willing to circumvent beliefs they hold, or facts they know to be true, and assert that the Bible is a higher truth than those things.

Now, nobody is stupid enough to take the Bible completely literally. Afterall, it is a piece of literature rich in metaphor. Nobody believes that peter is really a rock, or that Jesus really was a lamb--they understand these to be metaphorical. Moderates are just willing to assert that things which were obviously intended to be factual are actually allegorical. The creation story is written in a manner as to allude to fact, or at least to a description of litearary events, and geneologies. Much of the old testament is written in the form of a historical record. If these were intended to be metaphorical, then the author had to have been either the best or worst wordsmith in the world, I cannot quite decide.

I assert that when given the choice between two contradictory statements in the Bible, christians will choose the one which best fits their worldview, and that if given the choice between a Biblical statement and facts they know to be true, they will only choose the Bible if they are very serious about their religion.

 Our biology puts limits of what we can do/learn.

As I've said before, you might as well try to turn a homosexual into a heterosexual.

Nobody is 100% rational, my faith in humanity is in steady decline, andwe think "That will never happen to me!" only because of the psychological defence mechanism of attribute the negative of the outgroup to intrinsic factors and the negative of the ingroup to the extrinsic ones.

It's simple the way our nervous systems work. There is a priority in our decision making process that humans always follow:

1. Self Preservation. That why when you touch something hot, you automaticaly pull away. It's obvious you don't have free will to do anything else.

2. Comfort and Convinience. We pursue maximum pleasure with minimum pain.

3. Social acceptance. That's why religion and morals is usually decided by family and social groups.

4. Adherence to a moral code and religious belief.

Religionists like to think they can put 4 ahead of the others. They can't(no free will), so they just adjust their code and beliefs to be able to put their hedonistic priorities first. How convienient.

Vastet, I don't think that's the kind of cherry picking the Captain is asking about.  I think she means why do they choose certain bits of the bible to follow and not others.  Like, they don't stone their children, even though it's right there in Leviticus (?), but they believe whole hearedtly in turning the other cheek.