You don't have a monopoly on truth.

[soulsurvivor]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth?

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong?

In Christian church, I was taught that "lack of faith" aka a healthy dose of skepticism, was absolutely terrible and you needed to fix it. You were to have unshakable faith, and know that you have a monopoly on truth, as a Bible wielding Christian.

Most Christians I know in my life believe they have a monopoly on truth. I wonder if it is the same for the folk on this site, regardless of religion.

Only agnostics acknowledge the fact that they don't have the facts. Am I wrong?

Of course, I accept that no one, including me. has a monopoly on truth.

I also believe that ALL major religions have a lot of truth in them, but each one has some mistakes.

I am afraid I must admit that I believe my own religion (Hinduism) has most of the truth in it (but it still has some mistakes).

 

[Little Dragon]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth?

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong?

Yes and yes. Agnostic here.

For me the fun is in not knowing and then finding out. Discovery.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

We hardly know any facts about God so how can we claim it is the truth?

This poll makes no sense

 

[Unfettered]

I found this interesting. Can you please explain to me the difference between 'belief' and 'faith' as you see it?

Sure. Thanks for asking.

I understand a belief to be an idea that one accepts as true, or as pointing to (or attached to, or centered on, etc.) something real; a belief is the result of one's choice.

I understand faith to be a promise of something real but not yet realized (or possessed, or obtained, etc), given by someone who is fully able to grant to the possessor of the faith the object of the promise, and who can be fully trusted to do so.

I understand knowledge to be the certainty of understanding that attends the realization of (or coming into possession of, or obtaining of, etc.) the object of the faith.

I could offer an example or two if that would help.

 

[syo]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth?

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong?

In Christian church, I was taught that "lack of faith" aka a healthy dose of skepticism, was absolutely terrible and you needed to fix it. You were to have unshakable faith, and know that you have a monopoly on truth, as a Bible wielding Christian.

Most Christians I know in my life believe they have a monopoly on truth. I wonder if it is the same for the folk on this site, regardless of religion.

Only agnostics acknowledge the fact that they don't have the facts. Am I wrong?

Why did you mention Christians?

 

[Jimmy]

I know I’m right

 

[an anarchist]

Why did you mention Christians?

My environment. If I was in India instead, for example, I'm sure I'd bring up Hindus instead.

 

[The Hammer]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth?

Yup

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong?

Yup


Thanks for asking.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since I do not yet know everything, and to be honest I don't expect to know everything in the immediate future, I've no choice but to admit that I don't have a monopoly on truth.

Yet, I can make a sincere effort to learn, through careful examination of such facts and observations as I have. I'm afraid that will have to do, as it's all I've really got.

 

[blü 2]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth?

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong?

In Christian church, I was taught that "lack of faith" aka a healthy dose of skepticism, was absolutely terrible and you needed to fix it. You were to have unshakable faith, and know that you have a monopoly on truth, as a Bible wielding Christian.

Most Christians I know in my life believe they have a monopoly on truth. I wonder if it is the same for the folk on this site, regardless of religion.

Only agnostics acknowledge the fact that they don't have the facts. Am I wrong?

In my book, truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reports the world external to the self.

How do you define truth? What test tells you whether any particular statement is true or not? Clearly some other concept of truth is used by believers, and without prejudging anyone's answer, I'd guess it avoids having to define truth in such a way as would bind them to an objective test.

I arrived at my views regarding religion just by being alive and thinking about it from time to time (and perhaps by being skeptical and enquiring by nature, like many people). The supernatural makes no sense to me, and attempts to get others to clarify the issues that concern me have failed. Simple as that.

But (outside the RF debate boards) it doesn't worry me that other people have religious beliefs, if they're people who treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense.

 

[Altfish]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth?

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong?

In Christian church, I was taught that "lack of faith" aka a healthy dose of skepticism, was absolutely terrible and you needed to fix it. You were to have unshakable faith, and know that you have a monopoly on truth, as a Bible wielding Christian.

Most Christians I know in my life believe they have a monopoly on truth. I wonder if it is the same for the folk on this site, regardless of religion.

Only agnostics acknowledge the fact that they don't have the facts. Am I wrong?

It is a funny one, I believe that my knowledge is based on facts; thus if I come across more facts my belief will change.
I'm not even happy with the word belief.
So, yes, I could be wrong.

 

[Zoz]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth?

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong?

In Christian church, I was taught that "lack of faith" aka a healthy dose of skepticism, was absolutely terrible and you needed to fix it. You were to have unshakable faith, and know that you have a monopoly on truth, as a Bible wielding Christian.

Most Christians I know in my life believe they have a monopoly on truth. I wonder if it is the same for the folk on this site, regardless of religion.

Only agnostics acknowledge the fact that they don't have the facts. Am I wrong?

1- No, I believe that the doctrine I believe in is true, I might be wrong on other religious matters, but I am sure of the doctrine, and whoever believes anything else is wrong (in doctrine), and I have evidence for what I am saying
2- No, and I also have evidence for it

 

[sew.excited73]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth?

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong?

In Christian church, I was taught that "lack of faith" aka a healthy dose of skepticism, was absolutely terrible and you needed to fix it. You were to have unshakable faith, and know that you have a monopoly on truth, as a Bible wielding Christian.

Most Christians I know in my life believe they have a monopoly on truth. I wonder if it is the same for the folk on this site, regardless of religion.

Only agnostics acknowledge the fact that they don't have the facts. Am I wrong?

I am an ietsist, so, once you know what that is, then the answer is obvious!

 

[jimb]

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life". John 14:6a

That's good enough for me!

 

[Kathryn]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth? Yes.

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong? Yes.

In Christian church, I was taught that "lack of faith" aka a healthy dose of skepticism, was absolutely terrible and you needed to fix it. You were to have unshakable faith, and know that you have a monopoly on truth, as a Bible wielding Christian. Sorry you had that experience. I did not, growing up in a Christian home.

Most Christians I know in my life believe they have a monopoly on truth. I wonder if it is the same for the folk on this site, regardless of religion. I don't know. I didn't have that experience growing up in a Christian home and I am very sorry that you did.

Only agnostics acknowledge the fact that they don't have the facts. Am I wrong? Yes, you are wrong. I am a Christian but I think we are ALL in for some big surprises some day. I am a Christian because it works FOR ME.

 

[Whateverist]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth?

Of course. The truth is not contained in any set of words. Every expression of the truth is only a finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself.

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong?

Since none of my beliefs involve empirical claims there are no facts that will overturn what I believe.

In Christian church, I was taught that "lack of faith" aka a healthy dose of skepticism, was absolutely terrible and you needed to fix it. You were to have unshakable faith, and know that you have a monopoly on truth, as a Bible wielding Christian.

Exclusivism is the most obnoxious feature of Christianity.

Most Christians I know in my life believe they have a monopoly on truth. I wonder if it is the same for the folk on this site, regardless of religion.

Generally true in my experience too, though thankfully I've never been part of a church and I have met exceptions online.

Only agnostics acknowledge the fact that they don't have the facts. Am I wrong?

This agnostic at least doesn't feel the facts are the problem. It is mistaking the finger for the moon that is their mistake IMO.

I do hold some beliefs which are beyond the remit of science to confirm or deny but that is because life confronts me with awe inspiring wonders only appreciable by beings like us.

 

[an anarchist]

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life". John 14:6a

That's good enough for me!

That was just his opinion though, if he really said it.

 

[sew.excited73]

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life". John 14:6a

That's good enough for me!

I like that.
I wish I felt the same, but I think that a lot of what Jesus really taught got 'lost in translation' or edited out by the various 'wise men' and councils, unfortunately. So, basically, had I lived in Israel during 0-33AD I would probably have followed him, without any doubt, but as I don't trust the 'words that men wrote and edited in their holy books', not one of the current religions accurately represents what Jesus really taught, I feel.

 

[Eddi]

If I didn't think they were factually correct then I wouldn't have them as my beliefs

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you accept the fact that you do not have a monopoly on truth?

I'm not sure what that means. Many others also consider most of the things I consider correct are correct as well.

Incidentally, I've moved away from the word truth in favor of ideas like demonstrably correct or knowledge simply because of all of the confusion phrases like absolute truth, objective truth, and ultimate truth creates. People end up losing their foundation for thought and often end up epistemic nihilists meaning that they say that if we don't know everything, we don't know anything.

You don't want to spend too much time on that merry-go-round if you're not prepared to get off of it quickly. Unfortunately, many never get off and continue going in circles indefinitely.

But I have defined the word (see below) even though I try to avoid using it.

Also, too many people use the word truth to mean anything they believe including belief by faith and intuitions.

Do you accept the truth that your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, could be wrong?

Agnostic atheism can't be wrong, even if gods exist, because it's not a claim that they don't - just that I have neither enough evidence to say that they do exist nor enough to say that they don't. How can that be incorrect? It's actually the only rational position possible given that lack of confirming and disconfirming evidence.

One might argue that I'm wrong that the evidence doesn't support saying that gods do or don't exist, but they couldn't convince of that without presenting compelling evidence either way, and it seems like a foregone conclusion that if nobody has done either of those yet, nobody can to the satisfaction of a critically thinking empiricist.

Most Christians I know in my life believe they have a monopoly on truth. I wonder if it is the same for the folk on this site, regardless of religion.

Those people are using the word truth to mean any sincerely held belief however is was arrived at.

Only agnostics acknowledge the fact that they don't have the facts. Am I wrong?

I'm agnostic and have factual knowledge, just not about gods.

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life". John 14:6a

That's a very god example of the religious use of the word truth. Jesus' unfalsifiable claims aren't truth, fact, or knowledge as I define those terms: Truth - the quality that facts possess, facts being demonstrably correct claim, and Knowledge - the collection of demonstrably correct claims

Here's a scripture calling faith substance and evidence. It's neither to me, and another example of the misuse of language: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."