The great and all powerful religion thread!

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Just because you have the opinion that Atheists are wrong, and because I have the opinion that Christians are wrong doesn't make either of us know "the truth" explicitly, and it doesn't make these kind of discussions worthless. Obviously we disagree on terms we'll probably never come to an agreement on, but such is human nature.

And by the second part, I mean that both atheists and religious people can be mutually hateful towards each other. Both have their own reasons. It doesn't matter how we treat each other then, since we both hold certain antipathies towards each other's beliefs and worldview; it matters WHY we treat each other this way, and we're trying to get to the real reason, that isn't just "well because you believe in god you are wrong to me!"

 

[Death Aflame]

By believing that there is no God, you automatically are of the opinion that all Christians are wrong.

Just to be clear, atheism is the negation of belief and not a belief in itself. This is a small but significant difference.

Edit: For instance you said 'by believing that there is no God', which is a bad argument form to atheists who would say instead, 'I do not believe in God' which only states a non-belief as opposed to a direct belief. This, anyways, is how atheists would criticize your summary of their position.

 

[Dak]

What are you talking about? Explain to me how I'm misinterpreting your posts. You definitely talked about taking the possibility of a truth as actual truth.

Not exactly. Actual truth is constant, regardless of whether it is proven or not. Since neither the existence or non-existence of the supernatural has been proven, there is equal possibility that my beliefs or your beliefs ARE actual truth, and obviously we both hold our beliefs to be [in] actual truth otherwise we would not hold those beliefs.
Like I said, there is a difference between verified facts and absolute truth.

I really don't know how many more ways I can explain this point.

Just to be clear, atheism is the negation of belief and not a belief in itself. This is a small but significant difference.

Edit: For instance you said 'by believing that there is no God', which is a bad argument form to atheists who would say instead, 'I do not believe in God' which only states a non-belief as opposed to a direct belief. This, anyways, is how atheists would criticize your summary of their position.

False. It is not "the absence of faith", it is instead faith in the absence [of the supernatural].

That isn't how truth OR opinion work, sorry.

But it is though.

 

[AchrisK]

Just because you have the opinion that Atheists are wrong, and because I have the opinion that Christians are wrong doesn't make either of us know "the truth" explicitly, and it doesn't make these kind of discussions worthless. Obviously we disagree on terms we'll probably never come to an agreement on, but such is human nature.

I agree with everything you said. Neither of us can make an absolute claim on the truth. I think a misunderstanding has arisen based on statements I made to seed. Yes, these conversations can be great and interesting. I just wasn't, at this time, entering into such a conversation. Now if you follow the offshoot which developed between Dodens and myself (and Dakryn), it is more in line with that type of discussion.

And by the second part, I mean that both atheists and religious people can be mutually hateful towards each other. Both have their own reasons. It doesn't matter how we treat each other then, since we both hold certain antipathies towards each other's beliefs and worldview; it matters WHY we treat each other this way, and we're trying to get to the real reason, that isn't just "well because you believe in god you are wrong to me!"

I guess I see your point. But I don't think that the holding of differing views has to dictate our treatment of each other. I tend to hold people at a high value, and worthy of respect, unless they really go to great lengths to change that. I see peoples' world views as separate from them to some degree. Not separate in that I realize people are made up of their world views, to a degree. But separate as far as adding value to, or subtracting value from that individual, for the most part.

Hopefully I am not just off on a tangent.

 

[AchrisK]

Just to be clear, atheism is the negation of belief and not a belief in itself. This is a small but significant difference.

Edit: For instance you said 'by believing that there is no God', which is a bad argument form to atheists who would say instead, 'I do not believe in God' which only states a non-belief as opposed to a direct belief. This, anyways, is how atheists would criticize your summary of their position.

You may be right, and I was not especially careful in choosing my words. I should have more accurately said, "by being an Atheist...", but I wanted to vary my writing. But I am not sure it alters the point that Atheists believe Christians to be incorrect (wrong) in their beliefs.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

False. It is not "the absence of faith", it is instead faith in the absence [of the supernatural].

No, it's not. You're just wrong tbh. Atheism is not a "belief" (in a spiritual way) that there is no god, it is an affirmation with oneself that no god can exist. Belief, in the sense you're using it, is religious. For atheists, beliefs are not religious. I believe I'll go downstairs 5 minutes from now. If I do, my belief came true. It wasn't religious. It's the same as Christians misunderstanding/misappropriating the scientific definition of theory, thinking that since it's "just a theory" that invalidates the findings presented.

 

[Dak]

It is a belief in a "spiritual way" because it is belief in non existence of [the spiritual]. You are still recognizing the concept of the spiritual and just choosing to not believe in it's actuality.Belief in a future personal action isn't even close to an appropriate analogy to belief/disbelief in the supernatural.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Atheism has at least two meanings - "belief that there is no god" and "lack of belief that there is a god". I pretty much avoid using the term these days just because it's so easy for people to misunderstand what is meant by it.

Agnosticism also has multiple incompatible connotations which make it an annoying term to use as well. I prefer to just stick with "unreligious".

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

facepalm

"Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith."

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Not exactly. Actual truth is constant, regardless of whether it is proven or not. Since neither the existence or non-existence of the supernatural has been proven, there is equal possibility that my beliefs or your beliefs ARE actual truth, and obviously we both hold our beliefs to be [in] actual truth otherwise we would not hold those beliefs.
Like I said, there is a difference between verified facts and absolute truth.

I really don't know how many more ways I can explain this point.

See above about how I don't believe that there is positively no god, thus rendering your argument here wrong. You are choosing to make baseless assumptions about the nature of the universe, and I am not making any such assumptions.

 

[AchrisK]

No, it's not. You're just wrong tbh. Atheism is not a "belief" (in a spiritual way) that there is no god, it is an affirmation with oneself that no god can exist. Belief, in the sense you're using it, is religious. For atheists, beliefs are not religious. I believe I'll go downstairs 5 minutes from now. If I do, my belief came true. It wasn't religious. It's the same as Christians misunderstanding/misappropriating the scientific definition of theory, thinking that since it's "just a theory" that invalidates the findings presented.

tbh it sounds more like a semantics game designed to make Atheists feel better.

So you believe there is a God?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

wat

No, I don't "believe" spiritually anything about any god. I know, personally, that no god exists. Since god seems to be a very personal phenomenon, given Dakryn's admission that he has his own "personal truth", I simply deny the existence of any god to my own person/mental cognition, and take it one step further by positing that god does not exist at all, to anyone (obviously I can't prove this, but since I consider myself essentially a hard/staunch atheist, it comes with the territory imo). Just to be controversial, and because I don't like religion or think it has any benefits that can't be obtained through less ridiculous means.

It's NOT semantics! It's an EXTREMELY important distinction to make. "Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false"

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Okay Ack, here is my detailed reply to your post, as requested:

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.

Yes, truth is the way things actually are. I agree with this definition. Did I suggest otherwise somewhere?

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.

Yes, belief implies that a person accepts something as true (or at least 99.999...% likely to be true). I wasn't commenting on the definition of "belief" or "truth" so much as the means people use to arrive at belief. My comment was basically that it is impossible to accept what the Bible says with 99.999...% certainty, so it requires a leap of faith, i.e. similar to accepting as truth the idea that you will win the lottery next time you play it.

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.

I know what each of the terms means, okay? I was using them a bit loosely in the post you quoted, and you seem to have paid far more mind to my language usage than to the actual message I was conveying. What I was trying to say is that religious beliefs require a significant degree of faith in order to consider them true, whereas natural observations require a trivial degree of faith.

 

[AchrisK]

Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false

Sounds like semantics. Answer these simple questions:

If it's not true, it is _______.

A false thing is not ________.

Where are you quoting from?

 

[AchrisK]

Okay Ack, here is my detailed reply to your post, as requested:

Yes, truth is the way things actually are. I agree with this definition. Did I suggest otherwise somewhere?

Yes, belief implies that a person accepts something as true (or at least 99.999...% likely to be true). I wasn't commenting on the definition of "belief" or "truth" so much as the means people use to arrive at belief. My comment was basically that it is impossible to accept what the Bible says with 99.999...% certainty, so it requires a leap of faith, i.e. similar to accepting as truth the idea that you will win the lottery next time you play it.

I know what each of the terms means, okay? I was using them a bit loosely in the post you quoted, and you seem to have paid far more mind to my language usage than to the actual message I was conveying. What I was trying to say is that religious beliefs require a significant degree of faith in order to consider them true, whereas natural observations require a trivial degree of faith.

Ok, then it seems we agree. I know Christianity requires faith. Yes, I take different things as evidence, but I cannot (and do not) claim that these things equate to proof that I can hand to another person, who will have to accept them. I did make a statement that I thought Atheism was wrong (incorrect), but that was in reference to backing up a statement made to seedofvengeance. I can no more prove Atheism wrong than I can prove God's existence.

 

[Dak]

See above about how I don't believe that there is positively no god, thus rendering your argument here wrong. You are choosing to make baseless assumptions about the nature of the universe, and I am not making any such assumptions.

So then why the big fuss if you don't positively believe there is no god? Also, you claim my assumptions are baseless but only based off of your own experiences. They aren't baseless to me. You are still ignoring that [athiests] are making an assumption of there being no supernatural based off of a lack of natural evidence. I consider this at least as equally absurd as athiests consider believing in a god is.

 

[AchrisK]

... You are still ignoring that [athiests] are making an assumption of there being no supernatural based off of a lack of natural evidence. I consider this at least as equally absurd as athiests consider believing in a god is.

Word!

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

There's no assumption. No god exists to me. I'm not assuming, just as your beliefs are not the assumption that your god exists, but that he just DOES.

 

[Dak]

To clarify where I am going with my arguements:

I am defending the equal validity of believing in the supernatural(a god/spirit world in general) as opposed to not believing in the supernatural.

The rampant bashing of anyone religious in general on these boards for often no other reason than believing in the supernatural is equally as asinine as any particular religious group activily bashing any other belief.

How individuals or groups choose to attempt [interaction/following] their concept of the supernatural is kind of a grey area, since it is based on trying to comprehend something that is beyond our scope of possible complete understanding IF it exists.

If you want to attack someone on [religious] grounds, attack inconsistencies in what they believe (contradictory doctrines) or not "practicing what they preach", as opposed to repeatedly attacking a belief in the supernatural itself.

 

[Dak]

There's no assumption. No god exists to me. I'm not assuming, just as your beliefs are not the assumption that your god exists, but that he just DOES.

But IF there is a God, would it matter whether "he existed to you" or not? No.

On the flip side, IF He didn't exist, my belief in Him wouldn't matter either.

An unproven belief is an assumption, to try and argue otherwise is getting into semantics in effort to ignore the actual arguement.