Belief in Deity vs Belief in Fictional Four

I suppose the problem is that the word "religion" can mean so many different things.
I agree completely when we use "religion" to mean active belief in any of the abused religions that exist today, especially in western society.
I don't agree, however, if you include certain versions of deism within the word "religion" (which I do). There does exist some beliefs that someone can hold which have no effect upon their dealings with physical reality one way or the other. Especially beliefs that start with "As long as it doesn't contradict physical reality, I irrationally believe that..." Such beliefs may not make up an existing religion today, however, there is nothing preventing religions from evolving into such a system. In fact, many have started just such a path (like universalism). Agreed. I never intended my use of the term "religion" to imply "as generally abused in western society." That's what I thought, but wanted to make sure. Afterall, I wouldn't have been given the chance to make such a thorough explanation as my discussion with Phage allows if I hadn't of said anything. I also tend to have fluctuating levels of OCD which sometimes force me to flush out an answer to a scrutiny that's likely mostly irrelevent in the first place

Because, in the end you know best what to do with their life, both in a practical and moral sense.I certainly understand the real reason, it is because you want them to be alive regardless of what they want. It just sounds bad to choose your personal ethics surrounding death over their rights as sentient beings, but reconciling those two is the responsibility of the individual.

What you say here most certainly is ignoring reality. This isn't, however, what I've been talking about. Again, I'm talking about a known fiction that one uses to quell fears of reality. Your example doesn't touch on what I've been discussing. Of course it would. But it's not what I'm talking about, so why would I care?If you are incapable of imagining a situation where someone can use an irrational excuse to quell fears about something totally unrelated to other tasks in life, then this is a problem you'll have to deal with yourself. I'm afraid I've run out of different ways to explain it. I seem to be unable to put together a sentence that you can comprehend so I'll have to leave this conversation. I have no desire to continue posting "that's not what I'm talking about" to you over and over again.

I suppose I have misunderstood what you are saying then. Would you mind providing a pertinent example?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I, in no way, claim to know best what someone else should do with their life. I have trouble enough figuring that out for my life. You're the one who offered the situation where telling someone a lie was the onyl way to keep them alive, and indicated that I lacked compassion for saying we shoudl tell the truth at any and all cost. I wasn't saying that, and I was agreeing with you. I'm a strong advocate of a person's right to commit suicide should they choose to do so in a rational way and are competent at the time the decision is made. If someone is in emotional turmoil over a recent tragic event, they are not in a competent frame of mind to make such an irreversible decision. If, after sober reflection, the individual determines that life is still not worth living, then they have the right, as a sentient, competent individual to make that decision.I also assert that the loved ones of said individual have the right to try and change that person's mind and to try and help them find something worth living for.

I don't think I did, perhaps you were confused by my rudely butting in to your exchange with Stile. I do however think that choosing to lie in such a situation is to make the decision that you deserve to choose what to do with their life, and then alter the facts so they do what you want them to. If this is morally repugnant is an exercise left to the reader. This is exactly what I was talking about; this is an excellent argument for taking control of someone's life away from them. They would not necessarily have waited had you pointed out their emotional involvement. The question is, knowing that they may well still end up killing themselves when would you judge it to be appropriate to relinquish said control?

You're right. I thought Stile had replied to me rather than you. My apologies. I don't think I have the right to dictate what a person does with their lives, however, I do think letting a person make a decision in a moment of weakness, when a little time to gain perspective would change their minds is justified when the decision is of such importance and so irreversible as death. You're right, this is an excellent argument for taking control of someone's life away from them when they are not competent. In fact, it is very close to the argument currently entrenched in law, though perhaps a bit more libertarian, since I don't make the assumption that someone wanting to commit suicide is by definition incompetent.Competency is a major factor in law. For example, a child, a person with severe mental handicaps, people who are drunk or under the influence of other drugs, undergoing severe emotional trauma etc are not deemed competent and cannot usually enter into binding contracts or be found criminally guilty of crimes. This is because all of these conditions affect the decision making skills of a person and allow them to make decisions they would not make under normal circumstances.If you have children, or if you can imagine having children under your care, would you deem it a breach of morality to "control their lives" and make decisions for them that they may not want to make for themselves? That, understandably, is a difficult question to answer. I would guess it would depend on the person and the situation. If I could see that they were sober and thinking without imparement, then I would "relinquish control." Though, in my case, "control" consists mostly of talking to the person and perhaps changing their minds. In a normal circumstance, I would not lie to them, and I would try to help them come to terms with whatever was wrong or find something they find worth living for. At that point, I would have to let them make their decision and live with it.Doing something or saying something that is contrary to reality to save the life of a temporarily (or permanently) impared, incompetent person is justified in my mind. Determing when competency has returned may be a difficult thing to assess, and I don't profess to be an expert on other people's emotional states, and I hope I'm never placed in such a situation (with the exception of child-rearing).

Certainly not. Of course the moral authority afforded over my children is significantly greater than that I consider to hold over my common man. I think we agree conceptually, and in the understanding that the particulars are perhaps impossible to determine in broad strokes. I also think we agree though that making such control an institutional norm is not desirable.

Under normal circumstances, this would seem to be evident to me. Though there are those who might disagree...Of course, the question at hand is under decidedly abnormal circumstances. I would say, it is only a slight, though definitely extant, difference between the authority you have over your kids and the authority you have over someone else's kids under these extreme circumstances. And only a slight, though extant, difference between your authority over someone else's kids and an adult suffering some impairment to their decision making faculties.For example, it is not even a question whether you can and should stop your kid from running out into a busy street after a ball. It is also well within your right to stop a random kid from running out into the same street. And it's also within your right to stop a drunk person from stepping into a busy street because they didn't stop to look both ways. Emotional turmoil is perhaps less obvious to a random observer, but in someone I love and am close to, it becomes perhaps more obvious, and thus more permissible to stop them from running into that street until they have a chance to reconsider their objective. I think we agree on about 99% of this issue, but one of the things I like about philosophy is that that last 1% can lead to some very interesting discussions.

Nobody ever said it was a lie. That too is an unsupported assertion. It all revolves around ones personal beliefs. Why is it that some people allow no form of cultural mythos to enrich their lives? Our lives are not coldly rational with no room for belief or imagination. Santa Claus, as an example, can be a great cultural mythos and does not have to be coldly labeled as a lie.

I was speaking more hypothetically. You said that belief was a comfort, but implied in that statement, at least in my mind, is "whether it's true or not," since we can't determine for sure whether it is or not. I allow all sorts of cultural mythos to enrich my life. I love reading mythology, tall tales, fiction, etc. I just don't go to the extent of believing it, I enjoy it for what it is, an exploration of culture and the human psyche...or even just pure entertaining flights of fancy. It can be great fun, and even traditional to teach a child about Santa Claus while they're young. It brings a little magic into the life of a child, but I think even you would agree that a 45 year old believing in Santa Claus is unhealthy.