Quote Originally Posted by sloth View Post
Gnosticism is the only belief that I don't agree with. I can never know for sure that a gnostic doesn't know everything. Maybe he is a demigod, or maybe he has a magic 8 ball that actually works and tells him all of the mysteries of the universe. I don't think it's likely though, so I don't like the idea of gnosticism. It's egotistical and foolish.

What is the difference between believing something, knowing something, having faith in something, and thinking something to be true? This is a sincere question. I can't figure this out.

We shouldn't make it illegal, but churches shouldn't be forced to perform them. They want to be discriminatory. So be it. Let them be prejudice. They don't think they are because they validate everything in their own mind, but everybody around them knows, and history will know as well. A hundred years from now, I don't want people to look back and say "Well the church ALLOWED for gay marriage because it is understanding and enlightened." No. I want people a hundred years from now to see the truth. I want them to look back and say "There was a debate regarding same-gender marriage a hundred years ago, because the church was discriminatory, got tax breaks for being prejudice, made a lot of money in "donations", and this is why the church isn't around today."

There is no religion that exists to day that invented marriage. The concept of marriage predates recorded history, and was not originally religious in nature. The church literally adopted the idea that was already ages old, called it their own, made up their own rules about it, and decided by themselves that nobody else could perform marriage.
This is why I am not married. I will not condone this prejudice act. Let the church do what it has always done. Don't prevent it. Religion is on a decline in America, and I'm pretty sure it's because of issues like this. So, let them dig their own graves. Let them act prejudice, so that the masses finally see the truth, and so that we, as a people, do not forget the hate, bigotry, lies, and discrimination performed against a particular group of people by the church. Let it become part of the history books.
You know, I actually agree with what you say about letting the church keep on practicing the way they do. Normally it's the way I'd see it too, and still kinda do. I'm actually quite unsure about what I said when it comes to taxation. I think it's something I haven't thought enough about, and the idea of churches being exempt from taxation is a bit irritating, and I was just trying to find some loophole that will either require them to pay up or shut up if you know what I mean.

As far as your question about knowledge, faith, etc. goes, and what the difference even is... I have often thought about this myself. When you look at it only from the present (which in itself is elusive anyway, I can get into how the brain rewrites memory so that sensory information that arrives within 0.08 ms of each other appear to happen simultaneously rather than at different times if anybody wants), they appear to be exactly the same. We can never know something. Any knowledge we have is based off a set of assumptions. The difference lies in how assumptive those assumptions are, and whether one has completely foregone trying to reduce how assumptive an assumption is. The latter is an example of faith. If you don't care that you are making an assumption that isn't based off of evidence, you obviously don't care how assumptive that position is. A belief that it is going to rain two days from now has a greater probability of being true than a matter of faith alone, but less probability of being true than something that can be tested for under controlled conditions, with outcomes that can be reproduced. In the end, every last bit of "knowledge" we have can be questioned and a new assumption it is based on can be discovered. Knowledge itself is a fairly lofty concept, but there is a definite difference between say, the knowledge that gravity (whether our definition of what it is or how it works changes) exists, or that the sun exists, or whatever. And even then, all that depends on whether or not we actually exist, which we can't be sure of. I mean, yeah, I am writing this right now, but then you can start getting into that subjective universe, dreams, hallucinations stuff. Assuming that the latter means nothing can be real is something you can do, but from a practical standpoint, and from one you can test, it appears that there really is at least some shared medium or "objective reality" that you and other human beings inhabit. Otherwise, you rely on your memories for everything. I could be experiencing the first day I've ever been alive every time I wake up, but if my memory tells me that I've lived before, that's all I have to go on. Every single moment could exist in that way. It's just a safer bet to treat things in a way that allows progress, don't you think?