The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by mostlyharmless I know more than a few of these people, all raised as atheists. And then there's publications like the Skeptic. Still, doubting that there are accurate numbers, I tend to agree with you.

Vocal minorities are often very vocal.

Originally Posted by garryg68 Didn't he just mean no religious beliefs?

Careful, you're about to get sucked into an argument over what "religious" means

Originally Posted by ntubski I suspect there is no actual disagreement apart from the definitions (though claiming to have no beliefs does imply a rather odd definition of "belief", IMO).

The original claim by enorbet (that he has no 'beliefs') is here:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5522632

That is what prompted the whole discussion.

We are all born atheists.

This maybe an old testament thing but if animals don't get in to "heaven," why would 1 or 2 year old humans?

Originally Posted by OregonJim I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic (somewhat) or not. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make. But, "majority" is hardly synonymous with "truth". In fact, frequently, they are at odds. Perhaps this is what you were trying to say? (I'm ... implying that "religious minds" are wrong, and using majority as an argument for truth, is.)

Leap Frog is more fun than Follow the Leader!

Originally Posted by ntubski Careful, you're about to get sucked into an argument over what "religious" means

I'm really not!

Originally Posted by OregonJim The original claim by enorbet (that he has no 'beliefs') is here: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5522632 That is what prompted the whole discussion. Originally Posted by enorbet I don't have beliefs. There's what I know and what I don't know on a sliding scale of confidence....and i don't know a LOT.

Are you really saying you don't believe injustice is right or wrong, you don't believe subjugation is right or wrong, you don't believe poverty is right or wrong, you don't believe prejudges is right or wrong, you don't have an Pavlovian political response, you don't have an innate moral stance?
But all this is determined solely from your understanding of facts?
A lot of people would say, "I know what is right, facts be dammed!" and if they didn't the world would be a very different place. A place with much less science and technology for a start, and probably much less freedoms as well!

These things aren't usually governed by a sliding scaly of confidence (gained by a grater or lesser understanding of the premise), its a belief, a stance that people take (a gut reaction), ether consciously or subconsciously. At a basic level 'belief' isn't a religious thing at all, it's a human thing.

Surely we don't know, or learn, these things as much as feel them...
It's just how we are - whether through nature or nurture, it's irrelevant to the outcome!



As far as religion is concerned, surely if you truly believe your religion is real, then to you it is real, and vice versa. Ether way the view doesn't become a problem until it is forced upon someone else, or otherwise causes harm to someone else.

I think that the word, "belief," as used in a [Christian] religious context, does have a specific restricted meaning. I think that it means that you accept something to be true, either without evidence that it is true and/or in disregard of evidence that might suggest that it is not. It is, "a leap of faith." As one pastor put it, "belief is what makes Peter step out of the boat and onto the water."

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I think that the word, "belief," as used in a [Christian] religious context, does have a specific restricted meaning. I think that it means that you accept something to be true, either without evidence that it is true and/or in disregard of evidence that might suggest that it is not. It is, "a leap of faith." As one pastor put it, "belief is what makes Peter step out of the boat and onto the water."

Then perhaps everyone is arguing about the wrong word!

Originally Posted by Oxford Dictionary Belief: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion: A religious conviction:

Originally Posted by Oxford Dictionary Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something: Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof: A particular religion: A strongly held belief:

So that's all clear as mud then
I suppose you could take from this that:
Belief is a firmly held opinion without proof.
Faith is complete trust based on spiritual conviction.

There are key-word differences in there.

I thought I thoroughly covered why I profess to have no beliefs, only things I know and things I don't know *the latter group being huge) and that this body of knowledge is on a sliding scale of confidence based on importance. Anything of importance like those mentioned with incredulity get lots of attention and deep scrutiny. My body of knowledge is fluid, not static, since I don't have opinions on things for which I have no evidence, which includes both primary and secondary. I covered how secondary experience earns trust and that it is NOT that it "feels right to me" but that it holds up under scrutiny.

Thank yous to garryg68 and sundialsvcs for being precise on the definitions of "beliefs" and "faith".

Hello, enorbet,

I read through this thread from your comet, and it appears that at a base level people are arguing about the same thing based on semantics and their own understanding and interpretation of the word 'belief.'

Personally I would still call the deliberations of your thought-process your 'belief' as that word has no particular religious connotation to me, and to my mind describes the same thing as you have described in a different way.
But if, to you, that word has associations that you don't like then I think in that context it's perfectly fine for you to say you don't have 'belief.'
Everyone is different, and should be allowed to be...

I do have one question though.
Would you say that, in a very non-religious way, you have 'faith' in your conclusions, after your scrutiny of the facts?

Or has that word also been too 'christianised' for you?
I don't mean this question in a negative way at all, I'm just curious as to peoples understanding of these terms.
If I hear the word 'belief' or (to a lesser extent) 'faith' I don't immediately think it has religious overtures, unless the speaker makes them

Originally Posted by OregonJim The original claim by enorbet (that he has no 'beliefs') is here: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5522632 That is what prompted the whole discussion.

Yeah, looks like you skipped the step where everyone makes sure they're using compatible definitions, that always leads to a lot of pointless arguing and people talking pasting each other.

Originally Posted by garryg68 So that's all clear as mud then

Surprise, surprise! Words have more than one meaning!

Belief: something one accepts as true. For example, the jury believed the defendant was guilty of the murder: they didn't know, because they weren't there to see him do it. Most of the things we know, we actually believe. Anyone who only acted on knowledge would do very little — decide to get a degree, decide to get married? How can they know that they're doing the right thing?. Anyone who is unwilling to believe is probably one of the conspiracy theorists found in the General Forum...

http://www.etymonline.com/

Originally Posted by jamison20000e http://www.etymonline.com/

Knowing the etymology doesn't really make it any cleared though

True.

It can let us change words to be as clear or not as we wan't... dictionaries, ideas even bibles did not sell themselves.

"Faith" is a circler argument until logic and truth step in. "We" may not know diddly about gravity but "we" know enough for it to be real like wood from trees. If my friend goes to collect some for the fire I can have "faith"\assume they will be back but a bear could get them.