Theists and the Truth

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's what they call truth. That's what they believe to be truth. In fact is neither are truth, it's just their belief and nothing more.

That's what my point was. People call truth what they believe it is.

And that is why philosophers need epistemology - which attempts to distinguish between opinion and knowledge. Yes, belief is a part of what "knowledge" means, but it is by no means all of it. To be labelled "knowledge," your belief must also be justified (you must have a valid, justifiable reason for believing it) and it must also be true. Without those additional predicates, it remains your opinion, and worth no more than any other uninformed opinion. Unfortunately, most people are content to stop at merely believing their opinions true, without bothering with the rest.

Of course, if it's considered belief then fine. But when belief is considered truth then and sold as truth without indipendanty verifyable evidence then i believe ;-) the believer is deceiving themselves.

The believer is deceiving themselves --- and others.

 

[Estro Felino]

And that is why philosophers need epistemology - which attempts to distinguish between opinion and knowledge. Yes, belief is a part of what "knowledge" means, but it is by no means all of it. To be labelled "knowledge," your belief must also be justified (you must have a valid, justifiable reason for believing it) and it must also be true. Without those additional predicates, it remains your opinion, and worth no more than any other uninformed opinion. Unfortunately, most people are content to stop at merely believing their opinions true, without bothering with the rest.

I think that the Truth is something more tangible.

Let's say history books say that the person X killed the person A.
But actually it's the person Y who killed A.

Which means that what we read in those books is a lie.
Whereas the Truth says the perpetrators is another person.

I have demonstrated you how often people call lies " theTruth"

 

[Valjean]

I think that the Truth is something more tangible.

Let's say history books say that the person X killed the person A.
But actually it's the person Y who killed A.

Which means that what we read in those books is a lie.
Whereas the Truth says the perpetrators is another person.

I have demonstrated you how often people call lies " theTruth"

It's a lie only if it's an intentional untruth. When something can't be fully researched, tested or examined, we're left with degrees of probability.

 

[ppp]

I think that the Truth is something more tangible.

Let's say history books say that the person X killed the person A.
But actually it's the person Y who killed A.

Which means that what we read in those books is a lie.
Whereas the Truth says the perpetrators is another person.

I have demonstrated you how often people call lies " theTruth"

That's not a lie. That is a mistake.
And historians understand that historical accounts have differing degrees of reliability.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a lie only if it's an intentional untruth. When something can't be fully researched, tested or examined, we're left with degrees of probability.

Ok, maybe untruth is the correct term, here.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's my experience that atheists are constantly proclaiming how open-minded and free-thinking they are, but when you present them with even the slightest suggestion to the contrary, they quickly become ultra-defensive and close-minded. Most of the atheists I encounter are far more certain in their opinion that no gods exist than most theists I meet are certain that their version of God, does. Even though most theists like to proclaim their "belief in God" while most atheists will employ all manner of subterfuge to avoid actually admitting out loud that they don't believe any gods exist.

Well, they certainly do like to proclaim their own righteousness. But honestly, what group of humans doesn't?

Something no one ever seems to consider around here, though, is ... In the same way that it's not the blowhard standing in the middle of the bar telling everyone how tough he is that you have to be careful of. It's the quiet guy sitting down at the end that isn't saying anything that you want to steer very clear of. Because he doesn't need to tell anyone how tough he is. He just is tough, and he knows it.

Same is true in many cases among the religious. The louder they proclaim the certainty of their religious belief, the less faith they actually have what they are saying. It's WHY they are always proclaiming it.

There are a thousand theists in the world for every one atheist. So of course there is less sectarianism among atheists.

Also, there are endless ways of imagining the nature and existence of God/gods. There is only one way of imagining the non-existence of any gods. So what is there for atheists to argue about?

How wrong you are. First, there are not "a thousand theists for every one atheist." There are more like 14.3 theists for every atheist. That's quite a large error on your part.

Second, as an open-minded atheist, I have asked many, many theists many, many times to show some reason why I should suppose the existence of a god or gods, and most of the time, it comes down to something like: "there's no other explanation for existence" or "complexity of life is impossible without design," or something of that order. Which is -- at its very heart -- exactly like saying, "well, because I can't explain X, it must be God." And I'm sorry, but the correct answer is not "God," but "I don't know." Unless, of course the theist is actually trying to say "what I don't know is God." In which case, of course, they gain nothing.

Ever seen the comic strip "The Family Circus?" Whenever something has gone wrong, and the parents ask the kids who did this, the answer is always "I dunno," which conjures up the notion of a ghostly being doing whatever is in question. Ida Know.

 

[PureX]

How wrong you are. First, there are not "a thousand theists for every one atheist." There are more like 14.3 theists for every atheist. That's quite a large error on your part.

That's not even remotely accurate. But the internet is full of lies you can run to and pretend to be "evidence". Also, atheists constantly confuse and conflate theism with religion. So I expect you are probably thinking that 14:1 religious to non-religious means 14:1 theists to atheists.

It doesn't. Not even close.

Second, as an open-minded atheist, I have asked many, many theists many, many times to show some reason why I should suppose the existence of a god or gods, and most of the time, it comes down to something like: "there's no other explanation for existence" or "complexity of life is impossible without design," or something of that order.

The problem here is that you weren't asking them for a "reason", which they can easily give you, you were demanding 'objective proof'. Which you already knew could not be provided because God is not an objective proposition. If you want a reason, here's one: faith works. Placing our faith in something that we hope to be so even when we don't know that it is so helps us to act as if it's so, and thereby helps to make it becomes so through our actions. Those weird platitudes about dreaming your best life into a reality are not just platitudes. They can actually help to make our dreams come true. And the ideal of "God" can provide us with a focal point to help us define our best desires. And then provide us with encouragement to work toward them. Even when our reality makes it appear to be otherwise hopeless. Faith can take us were reason dare not tread.

Which is -- at its very heart -- exactly like saying, "well, because I can't explain X, it must be God." And I'm sorry, but the correct answer is not "God," but "I don't know." Unless, of course the theist is actually trying to say "what I don't know is God." In which case, of course, they gain nothing.

Why don't you stop calling them stupid for not explaining it to you, and start figuring it out for yourself.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why don't you stop calling them stupid for not explaining it to you, and start figuring it out for yourself.

Stupid is not a word I used in my post. If you're going to make things up to slander me, well, that's on you and your ethics.

And there, in that "start figuring it out yourself" is your demand -- and it is a demand -- that I accept your reasons for myself, and then, of course, I'll be just as wise as you.

Not gonna happen.

 

[PureX]

Stupid is not a word I used in my post. If you're going to make things up to slander me, well, that's on you and your ethics.

And there, in that "start figuring it out yourself" is your demand -- and it is a demand -- that I accept your reasons for myself, and then, of course, I'll be just as wise as you.

Not gonna happen.

It's not a demand at all. It's just common sense. You're the one here questioning theists about their theism, and then bemoaning the answers that you aren't getting. So figure it our for yourself then, if your so keen to understand it ... and since you don't can't assimilate anything they have to say. Billions of humans on this planet and billions more throughout history have found good reason to adopt theism as a way of life. I'm pretty sure you could figure out why if you really wanted an answer.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's not even remotely accurate. But the internet is full of lies you can run to and pretend to be "evidence". Also, atheists constantly confuse and conflate theism with religion. So I expect you are probably thinking that 14:1 religious to non-religious means 14:1 theists to atheists.

It doesn't. Not even close.

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You tell me what the errors are in this well-researched article that gets you to 1000:1 theists:atheist. Or was that an exaggeration, as in "Not even close?"

If you want a reason, here's one: faith works.

Sometimes, and in a limited fashion. Sure, Placebos can appear to work sometimes, because I agree that the mind is capable of more than we fully appreciate. But the physician who gives a placebo in place of insulin to a person with brittle (or labile) diabetes would be guilty of serious malpractice.

Faith may help in times of grief, when a child dies or a spouse is diagnosed with a terminal illness. But it won't bring the child back, and it won't stop the progress of the illness. And there are other sorts of help that work equally well: love, friendship, the support of family, friends and community, even the well-known 7 step process of dealing with grief. And, yes, the outlook and principles of humanism.

But one problem that faith cannot help -- not ever -- is it does absolutely nothing for the person who cannot believe in a deity. You don't seem able to accept that there are such people, supposing, I guess, that we twist ourselves up in knots of denial for some perverse reason or other, but I'm sorry, 'tis not so. I have never in my life, so far back as I can recall, believed in a god. I cannot do -- and trust me, I know as much as I do about religion because I have given it much attention. Faith is utterly useless to me. It doesn't work for me. I can't work for me.

Yes, religious belief can serve as a comfort, guide and inspiration -- when it is benign, which it all too often isn't. The less comfortable and larger truth is that religion is all too often a form of enslavement, mental and even literal, and a source of harm from which the world needs liberation.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's not a demand at all. It's just common sense. You're the one here questioning theists about their theism, and then bemoaning the answers that you aren't getting. So figure it our for yourself then, if your so keen to understand it ... and since you don't can't assimilate anything they have to say. Billions of humans on this planet and billions more throughout history have found good reason to adopt theism as a way of life. I'm pretty sure you could figure out why if you really wanted an answer.

I'll give you one excellent reason for theism -- "the major reason for the continuance of religious belief in a world which might otherwise have long moved beyond it, is indoctrination of children before they reach the age of reason, together with all or some combination of social pressure to conform, social reinforcement of religious institutions and traditions, emotion, and (it has to be said) ignorance -- of science, of psychology, of history in general, and of the history and actual doctrines of religions themselves." (A.C. Grayling, emphasis added)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I guess the word "truth" can have multiple definitions. There is a truth that @ChristineM described:

I see the truth as "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

Which I wouldn't want to miss out on.

But there's also a "truth" theists talk about, which is almost like "spiritual truths", but involves conspiracy theories, and tries to rely on the idea of those conspiracy theories being correct. Kind of like having a very strong "That which you see isn't as it really is" mentality.

Whether I identify as theist, non-theist, or atheist at any given time.... I really don't care much about the latter any more. They seem to just get in the way of the type of truth that was described by @ChristineM

 

[ChristineM]

I guess the word "truth" can have multiple definitions. There is a truth that @ChristineM described:



Which I wouldn't want to miss out on.

But there's also a "truth" theists talk about, which is almost like "spiritual truths", but involves conspiracy theories, and tries to rely on the idea of those conspiracy theories being correct. Kind of like having a very strong "That which you see isn't as it really is" mentality.

Whether I identify as theist, non-theist, or atheist at any given time.... I really don't care much about the latter any more. They seem to just get in the way of the type of truth that was described by @ChristineM

I don't see "what i want to believe is true is true" has any credence in the real world

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't see "what i want to believe is true is true" has any credence in the real world

It doesn't, but such ideas still affect the mindset of some Americans here quite a bit, anyway. So I just try to understand or sympathize. Especially since I've kind of "been there" before myself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

May I ask you this question?
What is the Truth in your opinion?

Truth about what?
And why capitalize that word?

 

[Estro Felino]

Truth about what?
And why capitalize that word?

About historical facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

About historical facts.

That doesn't clarify what you are asking about at all.
I also seriously fail to see how it ties into what I was saying concerning the topic of intellectual lazyness vs having incentive to at least attempt to tackle hard questions.

 

[Estro Felino]

That doesn't clarify what you are asking about at all.
I also seriously fail to see how it ties into what I was saying concerning the topic of intellectual lazyness vs having incentive to at least attempt to tackle hard questions.

This thread is about the Truth.
I don't understand what your discourse has to do with the Truth, that is the topic.
First I need you to define what the Truth is.

 

[chinu]

I believe that when I die, God will tell me all the things I want to know about the greatest mysteries of our time.

You believe, but not sure ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This thread is about the Truth.

Is it? It starts to look as if it really is about nothing at all.

And again, why the capitalization?
What's the difference between "truth" and "Truth"?
And truth about what?

I don't understand what your discourse has to do with the Truth, that is the topic.

Your OP asked a question and I answered that question.

First I need you to define what the Truth is.

Why? You are the one who feels the need to capitalize that word. I don't know why.