The great and all powerful religion thread!

[AchrisK]

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.

Actually your semantics here are causing problems, and you have set up an illogical double-standard. If by calling someone a Christian you are saying that by definition they must believe in God, then by the same token when you call someone an Atheist they must never believe in God. In the real world, Atheists become Christians and Christians become Atheists. We all have these choices. This is a non-point.

2) Evidence versus no evidence is an important distinction.

Again, evidence is only stuff. What we decide based on that evidence is what we believe. Evidence doesn't = empirical proof.

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.

What do you mean "informally logical"?

 

[Zephyrus]

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.

You stated that your idea of truth is a personal matter, implying it is subjective. Logic by definition is purely objective. Truth by definition is an object proved by logic.

 

[AchrisK]

You stated that your idea of truth is a personal matter, implying it is subjective. Logic by definition is purely objective. Truth by definition is an object proved by logic.

No, I stated that my definition of truth is "the way things actually are".

Can you please quote for me where I said what you claim I said?

 

[cookiecutter]

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.

I really don't understand what your point is. If spirituality is not true then I am right and what you believe is untruth. What is the point of even discussing this. What we should be discussing is how we can evaluate what actually is true.

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.

I do not think there is absolute truth. There is only what is and what is not. The only way to discover that is to observe things in a rational manner/

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.

This is not true. Does it take faith to not believe in Zeus for you? I don't think so. You don't believe in Zeus because it's ridiculous to think there is some guy on Mount Olympus hurling thunderbolts and impregnating women .

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.

Again, not sure what your point is. Of course Christian beliefs are logical based on Christian beliefs. If I believed the world was going to end in a year it would be incredibly logical to use all my money and not save for the future. That doesn't mean that my beliefs have any truth value or that the actions that stem from them have any value based on the observed state of the world.

 

[Vimana]

Next topic:
How did some of you handle your conversion to atheism with regard to your family and friends?

My Mom was pissed when I became an Atheist. I became a hardcore Atheist around age 12 or so. But I had doubted God ever since I was 6 or 7. My Dad and my friends were cool with it though.

 

[Ender Rises]

My dad expected it, my mom accepted it after it became obvious that I wasn't going to change my mind.

 

[Winter.]

My Mom was pissed when I became an Atheist. I became a hardcore Atheist around age 12 or so. But I had doubted God ever since I was 6 or 7. My Dad and my friends were cool with it though.

It was different for me. My mother is Catholic and my father is from a Protestant background, but has never followed in the footsteps of the Orange Order. So when I lost my faith, they accepted my decision, and they don't make a great deal of it provided I don't say anything blasphemous .

 

[rms]

It's just sad that so many people, who see the evils of religion poisoning this planet, remain silent because they fear isolation.

didn't you say you didn't tell your dad you were an atheist

 

[Zephyrus]

didn't you say you didn't tell your dad you were an atheist

Congratulations. You saw through my rhetoric.

Yes. As far as I know my parents still think I'm Catholic. They know I don't go to church anymore (except on holidays, or when I happen to be home on a Sunday), and it's no inconvenience to keep it that way. Yes, this is hypocrisy, but it can only do harm to myself, and I'm putting up with it quite well.

And I'm doubly screwed because I was "heavily encouraged" to be the godfather to my sister's son (the baptism was in August). It's enough that my sister raps on me for listening to "evil music."

I'm just unsure how long this facade will hold up. I'm really hoping that my parents can approach me first, in case they pick up any clues. And if that happens, I'll be 100% honest with them.

According to the part of the post you quoted, I'm especially hypocritical. But if I ever have kids, I will raise them as atheists. My parents will be dead in 15-20 years, so converting them shouldn't be a priority if I have a more just future in mind.

 

[rms]

Why are you going to 'brainwash' your children and why would you feel necessary to convert your parents

 

[Zephyrus]

Why are you going to 'brainwash' your children and why would you feel necessary to convert your parents

(1) I'm not going to "brainwash" my children like Christianity brainwashed me. I'll bring them up teaching them to think for themselves, which is the exact opposite of brainwashing.

(2) I don't find it necessary, as I just stated.

 

[Tonka Time]

Was raised Lutheran, still belive in god.
Though i am not really a religious person at all.

 

[seedofvengeance]

I'll raise my kids to be devout Muslims, and then I'll disown them at 15 if they don't convert to Judaism.
Sounds like a fun social experiment.

 

[Tonka Time]

I'll raise my kids to be devout Muslims, and then I'll disown them at 15 if they don't convert to Judaism.
Sounds like a fun social experiment.

are you going to teach them to believe in jihad?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

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.

I think I'm following the logic quite well actually. As I said, Dakryn talked about taking the possibility of a truth and accepting it as actual truth. You have not yet made it clear what connection you think there is between religious belief and truth other than a leap of faith.

 

[AchrisK]

...
Again, not sure what your point is. Of course Christian beliefs are logical based on Christian beliefs. If I believed the world was going to end in a year it would be incredibly logical to use all my money and not save for the future. That doesn't mean that my beliefs have any truth value or that the actions that stem from them have any value based on the observed state of the world.

In my case I was setting up some reasoning behind my statements to seed. I was merely stating that based on the fact that I am a Christian, I obviously think Atheism is incorrect. I mean, it's LDO! By you calling yourself an Atheist you, by definition, think that Christianity is incorrect.

But then vihris-gari had to go and attack my statement out of context like it was me trying to prove something, and then you jump on that train of thought.

 

[skeptik]

Actually your semantics here are causing problems, and you have set up an illogical double-standard. If by calling someone a Christian you are saying that by definition they must believe in God, then by the same token when you call someone an Atheist they must never believe in God. In the real world, Atheists become Christians and Christians become Atheists. We all have these choices. This is a non-point.

You're missing my actual point. My point is that the Christian position can't be swayed by anything new in the world, while the Atheist position can't. What I'm saying is, foremost, that the inherent nature of the discussion rests on the premise that God can never be proven not to exist, but also that because God can never be proven not to exist, there is no requirement for evidence in order to believe in him. This is contrary to the Atheist position which requires evidence before there is acceptance. I question why you don't believe that there is an invisible dildo flying around the globe right now, because there is just as much evidence to support that this is true, and it, likewise, cannot be disproven. To restate my point, just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean it's logically acceptable to believe it.

Again, evidence is only stuff. What we decide based on that evidence is what we believe. Evidence doesn't = empirical proof.

Evidence is not "only stuff," it is the foundation upon which all humans are able to function in the world. Or rather, all creatures. We use evidence to determine how to live our lives. We see that the sun rises every day at approximately the same time and we take this as evidence that it will continue to do so despite the fact that this is not a purely logical assumption, and nonetheless we use this to plan out the way that we live. Evidence is one of the most powerful tools that we as humans have access to, at least insofar as it can be referred to as such. The fact that there is no evidence to believe that something is true in any other situation in life would generally reach the conclusion that we most likely should not believe that it's true. This is no different from a purely logical standpoint. Attributing a positive attribute, namely existence, to something for which there is no basis to attribute that positive attribute is no way to live your life and can lead you into dangerous territory.

What do you mean "informally logical"?

I mean informally logical in the same sense of 'logical' that can be applied to our assumption that I mentioned earlier that the sun will continue to rise on a daily basis. While it is not strictly logical, there is a sufficient amount of evidence to suggest that it's true and is an assumption that must necessarily be made in order to function properly. Likewise, we rest on the default position that there is no god because we have no reason to believe that there is one, just as we would not assume that the sun will eventually rise if we have never seen it rise before or hear of anybody tell of a time when the sun once rose and was credible.

 

[Death Aflame]

I'm just unsure how long this facade will hold up. I'm really hoping that my parents can approach me first, in case they pick up any clues. And if that happens, I'll be 100% honest with them.

Keep it up as long as possible. I say this from experience. Last week I told my mother I don't consider myself a Christian (I also don't consider myself an Atheist) because I made the stupid assumption that she already knew about considering past discussions on religion. Needless to say the reaction was pretty bad, she even told me to leave the house and go to my dad's place.

Of course in time this passed, but it was a painful experience while it lasted. And keep in mind this is without any tangible ties to the religion--being a godfather and then renouncing the religion to your family will not be a pleasant experience, I would imagine.

 

[Dak]

I really don't understand what your point is. If spirituality is not true then I am right and what you believe is untruth. What is the point of even discussing this. What we should be discussing is how we can evaluate what actually is true.

We shouldn't need to even discuss how to verify what is true. My point is, current lack proof of [spirituality] does not exclude a future discovery from being current truth.

Analogy:
The world was believed to be flat. The "testing" at the time "proved" that it was "truth". ACTUAL truth was that the earth is round. The earth didn't become round because we proved it was. It always was, we just finally "caught up to the truth".

Currently there is no concrete proof of spirituality. This does not mean it doesn't exist. [takes deep breath before repeating for third time] For something that is possible yet unproven neither side can claim truth for certain,yet both sides can claim that they believe that what they believe is the truth, for otherwise it would be illogical for them to hold their belief.

I do not think there is absolute truth. There is only what is and what is not. The only way to discover that is to observe things in a rational manner/

That is the most illogical, contradictory thing a human can possibly say. (That's the nicest way I could put that)

 

[AchrisK]

Keep it up as long as possible. I say this from experience. Last week I told my mother I don't consider myself a Christian (I also don't consider myself an Atheist) because I made the stupid assumption that she already knew about considering past discussions on religion. Needless to say the reaction was pretty bad, she even told me to leave the house and go to my dad's place.

Of course in time this passed, but it was a painful experience while it lasted. And keep in mind this is without any tangible ties to the religion--being a godfather and then renouncing the religion to your family will not be a pleasant experience, I would imagine.

This makes me sad.