Theists and the Truth

[RestlessSoul]

Belief claimed as truth.

Belief often goes hand in hand with doubt. But still, it’s good to believe in something.

 

[ChristineM]

Belief often goes hand in hand with doubt. But still, it’s good to believe in something.

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.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

I think we can agree that theism is based on belief, but would you agree that atheism is based in belief as well?

And yes, I'm aware of the catch phrase, "lack of belief," but at the end of the day, it's still rooted in belief that no gods exist since the non-existence of gods cannot be supported by evidence.

 

[PureX]

My thread was not meant to judge atheists and theists and to generalize.
I just wanted to understand how these two categories perceive the meaning of existence, which is made up of truths.

That's easy, they both believe the truth is that they're right.

 

[syo]

puppies.

Puppies are pagans.

 

[ChristineM]

I think we can agree that theism is based on belief, but would you agree that atheism is based in belief as well?

And yes, I'm aware of the catch phrase, "lack of belief," but at the end of the day, it's still rooted in belief that no gods exist since the non-existence of gods cannot be supported by evidence.

While l there is no definitive evidence for or against the existence of a god or gods then yes i believe.
My belief is based on secondary evidence, i.e. evidence that contradicts the most common claims of gods.

 

[Audie]

Belief often goes hand in hand with doubt. But still, it’s good to believe in something.

Believe as in no possibility of doubt or change?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is interesting to me, generally speaking, that the theists say they don't know the whole truth now, but will know it eventually, while the atheists think they already know the whole truth because there is no whole truth to be known. One is ignorant, but hopeful, while the other is arrogant, and hopeless.

Just sayin'!

True enough... but I think you switched the attributions.

 

[Stevicus]

It is interesting to me, generally speaking, that the theists say they don't know the whole truth now, but will know it eventually, while the atheists think they already know the whole truth because there is no whole truth to be known. One is ignorant, but hopeful, while the other is arrogant, and hopeless.

Just sayin'!

My experience is that atheists tend to be more open-minded free thinkers, whereas the theists tend to express certainty that they are correct - even when they presume to correct and argue with other theists. Whole religious schisms have been caused by this tendency of theists to believe that they have the "real truth."

You don't really see this tendency among atheists. They don't break apart and form different sects over minutia.

 

[Estro Felino]

My experience is that atheists tend to be more open-minded free thinkers, whereas the theists tend to express certainty that they are correct - even when they presume to correct and argue with other theists. Whole religious schisms have been caused by this tendency of theists to believe that they have the "real truth."

You don't really see this tendency among atheists. They don't break apart and form different sects over minutia.

Unfortunately I have been misread.
I didn't mean this thread to be about atheism vs theism.
I really endorse atheism.
I admire atheism.

I do have atheist friends who search for the Truth as much as I do. Or even more, I'd say.

 

[Estro Felino]

For example...so many people still demand the Truth about JFK. This video shows that they won't tells us the Truth.
They won't do that. Deliberately.

 

[Stevicus]

For example...so many people still demand the Truth about JFK. This video shows that they won't tells us the Truth.
They won't do that. Deliberately.

Yes, the government and their deep, dark secrets. It's been a common theme for longer than I've been alive.

Some people get upset about conspiracy theories involving JFK or similar events, but if people see that as some kind of problem, then it would be in society's best interest to advocate for greater openness and transparency in government.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, the government and their deep, dark secrets. It's been a common theme for longer than I've been alive.

Some people get upset about conspiracy theories involving JFK or similar events, but if people see that as some kind of problem, then it would be in society's best interest to advocate for greater openness and transparency in government.

What terrifies me is the level of secrecy, even 60 years later.
So...they have something to hide. So much to hide.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What terrifies me is the level of secrecy, even 60 years later.
So...they have something to hide. So much to hide.

Like simple incompetence - as to allowing someone to get close enough to shoot Oswald?

 

[Stevicus]

What terrifies me is the level of secrecy, even 60 years later.
So...they have something to hide. So much to hide.

I wonder what it is they're trying to protect, if there was some possibly legitimate national security purpose in continuing to withhold these documents. As the video mentioned, the CIA agent they referred to died 30 years ago, so they're not likely protecting any living people.

It seems more likely that they're trying to protect a "clean image," to make it look like the US government is a bunch of good guys who would never do anything wrong or dishonorable. That's also the reason why some people get so upset about conspiracy theories, since the tarnish the image of the government.

The underlying belief in all of this is American exceptionalism, that we are the world's only exception when it comes to the ways and means of power politics. The desired perception is that America is honorable, free, devoted to liberty and human rights, the shining city on the hill - and the defender of democracy and freedom around the world. Even the slightest suggestion that this might not be entirely true is treated like some kind of blasphemy or some kind of wild conspiracy talk.

 

[Estro Felino]

I wonder what it is they're trying to protect, if there was some possibly legitimate national security purpose in continuing to withhold these documents. As the video mentioned, the CIA agent they referred to died 30 years ago, so they're not likely protecting any living people.

It seems more likely that they're trying to protect a "clean image," to make it look like the US government is a bunch of good guys who would never do anything wrong or dishonorable. That's also the reason why some people get so upset about conspiracy theories, since they tarnish the image of the government.

The underlying belief in all of this is American exceptionalism, that we are the world's only exception when it comes to the ways and means of power politics. The desired perception is that America is honorable, free, devoted to liberty and human rights, the shining city on the hill - and the defender of democracy and freedom around the world. Even the slightest suggestion that this might not be entirely true is treated like some kind of blasphemy or some kind of wild conspiracy talk.

I understand. But two or three people don't ruin the image of US public institutions.
I rely on what I see. JFK being murdered while being president, and his brother being murdered before he even had the chance to be elected president. I don't believe in coincidences.

 

[Valjean]

It is interesting to me, generally speaking, that the theists say they don't know the whole truth now, but will know it eventually, while the atheists think they already know the whole truth because there is no whole truth to be known. One is ignorant, but hopeful, while the other is arrogant, and hopeless.

Just sayin'!

Atheists don't claim to know the truth, we don't claim to know anything. We just find that the God claim does not yet have sufficient evidence to be convincing.
This discomfits theists for some reason. Perhaps they realize, deep down, that their claims don't stand up to scrutiny, and feel threatened by anyone pointing this out.

So atheists are constantly criticized by theists., who project their own insecurity onto the atheists and imagine the atheists are attacking them. They actually claim they're being persecuted by the atheists, who claim nothing, but when pressed, will point out the logical or factual errors in the theists' arguments.

 

[PureX]

My experience is that atheists tend to be more open-minded free thinkers, whereas the theists tend to express certainty that they are correct - even when they presume to correct and argue with other theists.

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.

Whole religious schisms have been caused by this tendency of theists to believe that they have the "real truth."

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.

You don't really see this tendency among atheists. They don't break apart and form different sects over minutia.

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?

 

[Estro Felino]

You think that reality is something other than fact. Wow.

I give you an example. Whenever I hear RFK Jr speak, it's like I sense that that's the Truth.
But many people, whenever I speak of him, tell me: but he has that voice, which is blah blah blah.
Because many people focus on appearance. His voice is like that. That is a fact.
But it's what he says that it's truthful.

 

[Valjean]

I think we can agree that theism is based on belief, but would you agree that atheism is based in belief as well?

No. What belief does atheism have?

And yes, I'm aware of the catch phrase, "lack of belief," but at the end of the day, it's still rooted in belief that no gods exist since the non-existence of gods cannot be supported by evidence.

But atheism doesn't claim that no gods exist. Atheists claim they don't find the case for gods convincing.

"...since the non-existence of gods cannot be supported by evidence."

Argument from ignorance.
You're claiming belief in something is justified until evidence for its non-existence surfaces. This is backwards.
Non-belief is the epistemic default. In the absence of evidence non-existence is logically assumed.

The atheists have no burden. Their position's assumed. The burden of proof is on the side making the claim: the theists.

An argument from ignorance is an assertion that a claim is either true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. The speaker assumes that their position is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or that their opponent’s position is false because it has not been or cannot be proven true.

Academy 4SC