Faith is not absolute. That's the main answer. But if it were, why would you not still be unhappy with pain and suffering.

Not that I know of. I don't know much about the history of the idea, but I think it actually came out of the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics and eventually migrated into evolutionary psychology, most prominently in Cosmides and Tooby's articles in The Adapted Mind. I don't remember if they discuss religion in those articles.

Really? I don't see how someone's theism affects whether or not they think if they walk off a cliff they'll fall. Or rather, if it does, they'll probably die real quickly.

That being said, it is true that religious beliefs seem to have at least some impact on behavior. What I really wanted to emphasize is that there are much more immediate and costly harms from, say, false beliefs about our immediate perceptions of the world than from believing that thunder is the result of a god's anger. Also, notice that my primary argument is not that being religious doesn't impact our behavior, but rather that this impact comes from a variety of sources in religion, only one of which are the beliefs characteristic of that religion.

It should be.

That's close but it's not quite that simple. If I have a 'premise', it's that there are varying levels of conviction or doubt that can be held with regard to beliefs and that those who act in a manner contrary to a belief that carries with it highly significant and non-trivial consequences may not actually have the level of conviction that an external observer, or even the believer themselves, feels that they have.

Ahhhh... weasel words. The open door for baseless speculations pretending to be insightful observations.

I don't know what you think you're dissecting because I didn't make an argument at all. I asked a genuine question because I wanted to understand other people. Think of it as Kramer wanting to know more about the humans. I made no explicit or implicit judgment of the rationality of non-devout Christians, and I don't appreciate such words/conclusions being put into my mouth.

However, I might replace the sequence with:
a) Humans are basically rational.
b) Humans are doing X irrational thing.
c) How do we explain (b)?

If I thought, "You are irrational", then I would have seen no need to ask this question in the first place, because humans acting irrationally would have been no mystery.
I asked if people not really caring about fuel economy was the correct explanation. I didn't outright say it is. And in fact I don't think it is, or I don't really know what I think because as I expressed earlier, I'm a bit confused about this topic (hence again, genuine question). I did like OrP's post a while back though.

Generally speaking, I find Straw Man arguments to be extremely worthless.

Two insults in only two short sentences, pretty efficient even by your standards. Do you have to ponder this stuff or does the acidic tone come naturally to you?

What I was actually doing was avoiding unreasonable certainty, something that you would no doubt have also criticised me for. I take it then that since that's the only criticism you had that you can't find any fault with my expanded 'premise', (to use your word).

So, given the measure of the risk entailed in acting contrary to religious belief, I find it hard to understand how believers can be anything but devout, even in the face of earthly temptation (particularly that), peer pressure and those beliefs not having much to do with the empirical world (MToM as described by OrP). If MToM explains how religious believers can act in a manner contrary to those beliefs (even given the incredible risk they're taking with their eternal soul) what I want to know is why there exist believers who act devoutly, what's different about them that they have the conviction of their beliefs and act accordingly? Are they the theist equivalent of strong atheists?

This can be dealt with very easily. There is apparently a piece of information that you lack.

People can behave contrary to deeply and sincerely held beliefs for many reasons such as lack of personal discipline, momentary lapses of judgment, failed impulse control, temper, alcohol impairment, etc. It is quite common and I have observed it in myself and others. I actually do not doubt that a little introspection will reveal to you that it is present in your life also. Those failures in your life should provide to you the insight needed to understand the failures in other's lives.

By the way, if you feel that you are being insulted it is just that some people may be trying to mock you out of a ridiculous position. Atheists sometimes defend that technique when used against theists so you may understand the intent.

I fully understand the reasons being offered as to why people may act contrary to deeply held beliefs, I exhibit them myself. My position is that religion is a different type of belief from many where this behaviour might be observed, with consequences so significant and important that it should drive a different set behaviours.

I consider very different an example of me watching my expanding waist line, telling people that I believe I should eat less but then eating too much anyway, to my risking my eternal soul by acting contrary to the instructions of an all powerful deity. My eternal soul, in Hell suffering torment for eternity, not a couple of extra pounds and slightly increased chance of heart attack.

First, theological FAIL.

Second, as an atheist that doesn't believe in a soul, you understand that you're risking YOUR ENTIRE BEING by not taking care of your body. That is, you are doing making decisions that cause maximal damage to the entirety of your being.

You keep wanting to pretend that somehow religion falls into a different mental category. It just doesn't work that way.

I think this is where you are going wrong. You appear to be regularly setting religious belief up as a special kind of belief ( not just in this thread, but in every thread you participate in), separate and different from normal beliefs. but its not. Its just a belief, like any other, subject to the same pressures, mistakes, misconceptions etc. It works in exactly the same way as every other belief( ok, I dont know exactly how beliefs work, im not a neuroscientist). The fact that there appear to be severe consequences for acting against the belief and yet people still act against the belief, happens in both religious beliefs and non religious beliefs.

Also, (christian) religion gives you an "out", in that it states that no one can live up to the christian ideal ( except jesus) and everyone is fallible. So part of the belief includes the fact that you will fail, be found weak, etc.

There's plenty to criticize. It's just that the most obvious thing is that you've failed to present an actual argument, and you're using weasel words to hide the fact that you've gone down the path of empty speculation.

You find lots of things hard to understand. That doesn't mean that they're not understandable. It could mean that you're incapable of understanding it. Even obvious things are apparently slipping your grasp because you're so emotionally tied by your disdain for religion.

Yes. Some people are better at controlling their behaviors than others. It's really quite simple.

Is this a serious question? If so, it's a really stupid question to ask.

Just to mention one very obvious and relevant part of the puzzle...

This is your error. Religion is a belief subject to human failing just like any other. Asserting that the religious should be somehow superhuman in their commitment is interesting, but hardly rational.

Not taking sides in the argument between you two, I skipped most of the posts. But this is a bad analogy. An "entire being" that ends at the end of this life and transitions to peaceful nothingness, or unification with everything, or reincarnation or whatever he believes, isn't quite the same as an "entire being" that continues for eternity to either heaven or hell. If his life ends 5 years sooner because of donuts and beer, that's not as big a deal for him as it is for a Christian going to Hell forever / not going to Heaven for doing some sinning. Some people actually prefer to live a shorter and less inhibited life, whereas not many people would argue that the sins they commit are worth eternal torture.

Doesn't really take a superhuman, there are plenty of strongly committed people. I feel like the mindset of, "Oh only Jesus or a superhuman can be that perfect" is half of what makes it difficult to begin with. I was in Catholic school for a bit and they would say we're gonna commit a bunch of sins between confessions and have lots of things to confess. Kind of a loser's mentality, making us accept that we'll do a bunch of sinning (and confess it all away later if we're lucky) makes us try less hard not to sin. Why attempt the impossible?

If someone has a gun to their head, they'll do a lot of things no problem. Especially if they'll also get rewarded 1 billion dollars for obeying. I think Mighty is saying that the threat of damnation + promise of Heaven is somewhat like a gun to your head and a 1B reward. (Except its presence isn't tangible and right in front of your face physically.)

Sure. People can be suicidal and shorten their life spans intentionally or whatever.

But the presumption that MB put forth is that he *knows* he should behave in certain ways, but doesn't. He is aware of the maximal consequences to his existence and agrees that his behaviors have a negative effect that is undesirable (to him), but is choosing to behave in those ways anyway. It's the exact same thing that religious people do. Being aware of maximal negative consequences doesn't automatically drive all behaviors. (See also "death penalty as a deterrant" or "three strikes laws").

His objection boils down to "But it's RELIGION!" and from there the whole thing just crumbles.

I don't get it. On the one hand god is greater than anything that can possibly be imagined, nothing can possibly compare to him, his power, his knowledge. He created the universe and everything in it including us and has the power to damn us to eternal torment. On the other hand, theists are claiming that believing in this god is no different from believing in anything else. You believe that smoking can kill you but do it anyway? That's the same as a an omnipotent God telling you that if you do this thing you'll go to Hell and suffer torture for all eternity and you do it anyway... If I believed in god, you can be sure that I'd be making a much greater effort not to commit sins than the majority of theists.

In what way are they the same? Is this some semantic or philosophical issue over what 'belief' and 'same' mean? Why are there some believers more devout than others? Are they wasting time being so devout when they could be yucking it up with the other theists or do most people go to hell?

Do you treat your spouse with the absolute highest levels of respect, honor, and dignity all the time? Is such a thing possible? Why bother trying? (If you're not married, just pretend.)

But that analogy is theologically wrong on a large number of levels, thus creating a strawman.

Interesting to know that to you, your religion and your god are nothing special, that your god is apparently no more important to you than your spouse and you make no greater effort with one than the other. I believe in Sasquatch, this apparently is a belief on equal footing with your belief in an omnipotent universe creating deity who can send you to Hell for eternity.

Ok.

But you're not talking about "effort." The standard you introduced was "observed behavior." So the question is this: If you believed in God, do you think you would behave perfectly (as defined by God)?

Nothing special in terms of how beliefs guide and impact human behaviors. Oh, the glorious fallacy of conflation and the hilarity of the shallow mind that can't see the difference.

So in your behaviour with your wife, you make no greater effort than you do with your god? Neither are more or less important than the other? Rules imposed on you are no more or less binding or meaningful, and consequences no different than those resulting from rules imposed on you by your god?

I thought it was about observed behaviors, not effort.

And if I were married, I would say that the two sets of behaviors are not distinct from each other, so it's really hard to meaningfully parse what you're asking.

(Does your wife impose a bunch of rules on you?)

That's your question (strawman) because I never said that I'd be perfect. As Neeel pointed out, it's not even possible according to the very same scriptures that are no more important than anything else that can be believed in.

As I said a few posts back, I would make a much greater effort than I regularly witness (I speak for the whole human race in much the same manner that you do) in theists.

Of course you didn't:

It's a really simple question Aaron. If your (imaginary) wife imposed a rule on you (or in any way required a certain behaviour from you), with both good and bad consequences depending on your actions, would it have the same importance to you and would you make no greater effort to follow it than you do with the rules imposed on your behaviour by your god?

Would your belief that certain bahaviours are conducive to a pleasant marriage (should that be desirable to you) be more or less important than your belief that certain behaviors are required of you to avoid spending eternity in Hell because you defied your god?