The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Blind Guardian]

Agnostics like myself have neither suppressed nor encouraged it though. Road fork ignored.

 

[AchrisK]

Obviously you were never put into my hypothetical scenario.

However, you are still useful.

How would you, AcK, a respectable Christian, handle the situation if your child one day went up to you and renounced their faith?

Basically, just as Dakryn said. My love would not change, and it is the highest calling of my faith. The bottom line regarding my son's faith is that it is between him and God. Thus it is with love and prayer that I would deal with it.

I might also have discussions and encourage him to read this or that book, or try to discuss the reasons for his decision (for I believe that a majority of Atheists are pushed in that direction by things other than a lack of evidence for God). I would encourage him to continue to care about and seek truth, and then I could only leave it up to God.

The fact is that my son is 15, and as with most kids (myself included), there is a likelyhood that he could stray from, or even reject, the faith we have modeled and taught.

 

[seedofvengeance]

(for I believe that a majority of Atheists are pushed in that direction by things other than a lack of evidence for God).

No. Just no. In fact, it's more true of religion that people are pushed into it, rather than guided by evidence.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You have to understand that peoples' views don't dictate the truth. Not mine, not a Muslim's and not an Atheist's. The truth is what it is, and either nobody is right, or some "religion" has the truth. I believe my beliefs. So, based on that, I feel that Atheists are wrong in their beliefs. Thus I feel that God is there and that he has placed the knowledge of himself into every human. Humans, to varying degrees, have suppressed or encouraged this inborn knowledge, but it is something that is just there. So that is the basis of my statement. I am not asking for agreement, but do you see the logic?

You mean the logic that you choose to make baseless assumptions about something which is essentially impossible to know? You talk about truth as if it's fine to just make it out to be whatever we want. Furthermore, you call atheists "wrong" for not making an assumption where none can realistically be made. I don't know how you can consider such a perspective on truth an intellectually honest one.

 

[AchrisK]

You mean the logic that you choose to make baseless assumptions about something which is essentially impossible to know? You talk about truth as if it's fine to just make it out to be whatever we want. Furthermore, you call atheists "wrong" for not making an assumption where none can realistically be made. I don't know how you can consider such a perspective on truth an intellectually honest one.

a) Don't forget to understand the context of this discussion. You seem to constantly ignore context and jump on statements made as if they were made as new, standalone statements. Try to stop that.

b) My perspective on truth is not solely intellectual, it is primarily spiritual. But it is also made, and evaluated, with intellect.

c) I do not "talk about truth as if it's fine to just make it out to be whatever we want.". Can you point out where I did that? Or is it just what you think based on ignoring context?

 

[AchrisK]

No. Just no. In fact, it's more true of religion that people are pushed into it, rather than guided by evidence.

To know the real truth about this, you must know the real truth. If Christianity is true, then your statement is false (where Christianity is concerned). If there is no God, then your statement is true. Do you know the truth?

 

[cookiecutter]

You have to understand that peoples' views don't dictate the truth. Not mine, not a Muslim's and not an Atheist's. The truth is what it is, and either nobody is right, or some "religion" has the truth. I believe my beliefs. So, based on that, I feel that Atheists are wrong in their beliefs. Thus I feel that God is there and that he has placed the knowledge of himself into every human. Humans, to varying degrees, have suppressed or encouraged this inborn knowledge, but it is something that is just there. So that is the basis of my statement. I am not asking for agreement, but do you see the logic?

This is logical if we assume the premise that you are right, however I can tell you right now that I have never felt a supernatural truth even when I wanted to.

To answer Zeph's question it was really easy for me to tell my family I was an atheist because my mom in an atheist. Before I was an atheist I wasn't really any religion but I had tried to believe in God because that's what everyone seemed to be doing. At around age 16 I began thinking and evaluating the existence of God and after a while I came to the conclusion that it could not be rationally or empirically justified so I became an atheist.

 

[skeptik]

I don't entirely remember how I told my parents that I was an atheist, but I'm sure it wasn't easy. I was told that my grandfather started drinking heavily after he heard that I was an atheist. I don't remember how old I was when I told them, probably around 15, but I felt that way for a couple years prior already.

Actually, one thing that I do remember about the experience is that my mother kept telling me, for years, that it was just a phase and that I'll grow out of it. My parents have accepted it now, and every once in a while we talk about it, but they get angry at some things that I say sometimes, which I can understand coming from their perspective.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

a) Don't forget to understand the context of this discussion. You seem to constantly ignore context and jump on statements made as if they were made as new, standalone statements. Try to stop that.

Could you explain to me what context allows you to call someone wrong for not jumping to a conclusion on an unanswerable question? In what sense are atheists "wrong" in not believing that there is a god?

b) My perspective on truth is not solely intellectual, it is primarily spiritual. But it is also made, and evaluated, with intellect.

Perhaps you could give me your definition of "truth", and then I might be able to determine whether you're actually talking about truth, or just belief.

c) I do not "talk about truth as if it's fine to just make it out to be whatever we want.". Can you point out where I did that? Or is it just what you think based on ignoring context?

Well you just said that your perspective on truth is more spiritual than intellectual, so I think I have reason to suspect that you're bending the definition of truth just a bit. I'll have to see what your definition is, though.

 

[Dak]

I think the point AcK is trying to make is that it is really unfair to try and define truth in the way that is attempted by secular society to the exclusion of the unproven spiritual aspect.
IF spirituality (God, spirit in man, other spiritual beings, etc) IS truth, then the current secular definitions are not true but instead are lies, or "untruth" at best. AcK is pointing he has embraced a different possible [truth]. As have I for that matter.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think the point AcK is trying to make is that it is really unfair to try and define truth in the way that is attempted by secular society to the exclusion of the unproven spiritual aspect.
IF spirituality (God, spirit in man, other spiritual beings, etc) IS truth, then the current secular definitions are not true but instead are lies, or "untruth" at best. AcK is pointing he has embraced a different possible [truth]. As have I for that matter.

You know, there is a reason we have words such as "faith", "belief", and "possibility" in the English language. And it's important to recognise when you accept a proposition on those terms rather than on truth. They're not the same. And they should never be recognised as the same either, because there have been countless atrocities throughout human history which arose from equating faith with truth.

 

[Dak]

So we need to define what truth means. Imo, there is absolute truth, known or unknown. Then there is "the most current proven facts", which is what the majority of the world labels "truth". You should not confuse the two because they are different. And yes you would go round and round about the faith vs fact, but neither side can lay claim to having a firm grasp absolute truth.

Edit: TBH athiests are exhibiting as much faith as those in a religion. You have to have faith that the invisible does not exist as opposed to having faith that it does exist.

 

[AchrisK]

This is logical if we assume the premise that you are right, however I can tell you right now that I have never felt a supernatural truth even when I wanted to.

No, it is logical no matter what you believe. I am not saying that my beliefs are logical, I am saying that me holding those views is logical, based on my beliefs.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So we need to define what truth means. Imo, there is absolute truth, known or unknown. Then there is "the most current proven facts", which is what the majority of the world labels "truth". You should not confuse the two because they are different. And yes you would go round and round about the faith vs fact, but neither side can lay claim to having a firm grasp absolute truth.

Absolute truth is an abstract concept which we really cannot apply to anything we experience. Science has no greater claim over absolute truth than religion does. Of course, religion and philosophy put forth various models for what absolute truth could possibly be, but as far as real knowledge goes, those models can never be anything more than mere possibility.

Edit: TBH athiests are exhibiting as much faith as those in a religion. You have to have faith that the invisible does not exist as opposed to having faith that it does exist.

Since when is it "faith" to reserve judgment on something unknowable? Atheists are by no means committed to believing with certainty that there is no god. It's merely the most logical explanation. There is no leap of faith involved with atheism, so I don't see how you can accuse it of such.

 

[AchrisK]

You know, there is a reason we have words such as "faith", "belief", and "possibility" in the English language. And it's important to recognise when you accept a proposition on those terms rather than on truth. They're not the same. And they should never be recognised as the same either, because there have been countless atrocities throughout human history which arose from equating faith with truth.

Dude, you're a mess.

I think it is you who do not grasp the definition of truth. Why don't you give us your definition. Mine is similar to Dakryn's, and that is that truth is the way things actually are. I think any clear thinking person would agree. But let's hear your definition.

Do you think that when someone believes something that they believe it as if it were not the truth? Do you think that holding a belief means that a person feels they can say with absolute certainty that they know that the way they believe is 100% in line with absolute truth? I hope your answer to both of those is correct.

Faith and belief are not synonyms for truth, or the religious alternative words for truth. Faith is a belief in something as truth, that one cannot see. Belief is being well enough convinced to hold something as truth. We all have faith in certain things and we all believe certain things. Faith and belief do not alter truth.

One does not, as you imply, accept things on the terms of truth. Truth is what you accept things as. People accept things as truth based on many different things, like evidences, facts, experiences, things you are told, and the list goes on.

You should read one of them logic books.

 

[AchrisK]

Could you explain to me what context allows you to call someone wrong for not jumping to a conclusion on an unanswerable question? In what sense are atheists "wrong" in not believing that there is a god?

Context doesn't "allow" things, it explains why things that are said are said. Try it sometime.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You should read one of them logic books.

You should try actually understanding what I'm trying to say instead of going on a giant condescending lecture.

Dakryn said that because religious beliefs could possibly be true, that gives religious believers a basis to accept the beliefs as truth. If you don't see a problem with this statement, you have no business whatsoever lecturing me about logic.

That said, I don't see any mention of this leap-of-faith problem anywhere in your above post. Please explain to me how having faith that there is a god is in any way whatsoever on the same level of truthfulness as having faith in verifiable observations of nature. Five paragraphs of word games and rhetorical questions does not suffice.

 

[Dak]

You obviously don't understand the difference between absolute truth and verified data.
I am saying that what may in the future be verified but is unverified now is still truth, we just don't know it yet. It isn't not truth now because we haven't verified it yet.
The religious are drawing a conclusion one way or another about the unknown existing(spiritually speaking) while athiests are drawing the conclusion the reason it is unknown is because it doesn't exist.
Neither side can claim that their position is truth, only that they believe that it is.

Dakryn said that because religious beliefs could possibly be true, that gives religious believers a basis to accept the beliefs as truth. If you don't see a problem with this statement, you have no business whatsoever lecturing me about logic.

See, here you are confusing the word truth with "verified fact". They are two different concepts.

Atheists are by no means committed to believing with certainty that there is no god.

I loled

 

[skeptik]

1) Unlike Christians, Atheists can change their beliefs based on evidence. If God revealed himself, Atheists would accept him. But the nature of Christian belief is that there is no tangible evidence. Nothing can be done that is not already out there in the world to change a Christian's beliefs.

2) Evidence versus no evidence is an important distinction.

3) It is informally logical to deduce that something that has no proof to support its existence does not exist. You do not believe in the existence of Vishnu or Odin, for example, as Atheists do not believe in the Christian God.

 

[AchrisK]

You should try actually understanding what I'm trying to say instead of going on a giant condescending lecture.

...

I apologize for any condescension on my part.

But I still think you are having trouble following the logic, and with taking things said out of context.