Truth Is Regional

[Antlerman]

In response to the post in the News and Current Events section showing maps of religious areas in the U.S., it struck me how true that old atheist's argument that, "Muslim children come from Muslim homes, Christian children come from Christian homes" is clearly seen here. What people consider as "the truth" in their values will largely depend upon the surrounding culture they were raised in. From now on instead of countering statements of absolute truth with saying that "truth is relative", it is also clear that "truth is regional". Behold the Baptists in red below:

 

 

Apparently the truth is abundantly clear to those who live within specific state boundaries! That's a remarkably odd pattern to see for where God's univeral truth is clearly seen and made known, isn't it? (Romans 1:20)

[Amanda]

 

 

Wow, a lot of Catholics and Baptist! I wonder why a specific religion gains so much of the dominant mementum in each region?

 

Maybe the diversity adds to support the core fundamentalist beliefs, in that the question is NOT if the mythology is actually true or not, but rather which one of these perspectives is the true one.

[Antlerman]

Wow, a lot of Catholics and Baptist! I wonder why a specific religion gains so much of the dominant mementum in each region?

 

Maybe the diversity adds to support the core fundamentalist beliefs, in that the question is NOT if the mythology is actually true or not, but rather which one of these perspectives is the true one.

I'm sure socio-economic factors play a lot into why certain types of churches get a large foothold in certain areas, others would have to do with immigrant populations, etc. I'm sure others would be able to contribute tons of research done into these questions, and I would love to learn more of these reasons. Still the point remains, "truth" depends upon where you live. It is not an objective reality, but subjective and ties largely into cultural regions.

 

I suppose one could argue that the truth is Christianity in all its forms (which of course you won't be hearing out of the South much), but the map doesn't include the entire planet where Christianity is sparse in other areas regions of the world. In either case, Baptist raise Baptists, Catholics raise Catholics, Muslims raise Muslims, etc. Truth is Regional.

[All Gods Fail]

Alaska is very interesting - mostly 'other', although Catholics & Baptists are almost 50/50 in proportion to each other.

 

The only state which is not predominantly mainstream xtian.

[Amanda]

Alaska is very interesting - mostly 'other', although Catholics & Baptists are almost 50/50 in proportion to each other.

 

The only state which is not predominantly mainstream xtian.

 

Yeah... Alaska is probably soooo cold, they don't worry about 'hell'!

 

 

[Open_Minded]

Alaska is very interesting - mostly 'other', although Catholics & Baptists are almost 50/50 in proportion to each other.

 

The only state which is not predominantly mainstream xtian.

 

My brother and his partner live in Alaska, and all you can really say about it - is It's Alaska.

 

There's definitely a live and let live attitude and yet it's quite conservative in its choice of political representatives.

 

I think folks up there can take a live and let live attitude because the population density is very sparce - so one doesn't have to contend too much with what one's neighbor thinks or acts like.

 

My brother's partner grew up in Alaska, his father was a "missionary", and founded and ran a fundamentalist Baptist church during the 60s and 70s. Most of the churches in the area they live in are non-denom "missionary" churches started during this period of Alaska's history.

 

The native Alaskan's feel SO lucky - I'm sure - to have had the "truth" brought to them.

[white_raven23]

Lot of churches in the Anchorage area. Two things we have a lot of....churches and bars!

 

So if you're not into religion, and you aren't a big drinker, you've got to be a bit more creative about your hobbies!

 

It's a place of extremes no doubt. You can talk to five people in one day. One will be a crazy homophobic fundie baptist, one will be a more or less dedicated Jehovah's Witness, one will be a dedicated Mormon, one will be a flamingly gay New Age dude, and the last will be an agnostic.

 

And despite these wild differences, you can get all five people together in the same room, and more often than not, they can all manage to tolerate each other well enough to have a good time.

 

Very Ironic.....and very special.

[spamandham]

 

Apparently the truth is abundantly clear to those who live within specific state boundaries! That's a remarkably odd pattern to see for where God's univeral truth is clearly seen and made known, isn't it? (Romans 1:20)

 

The map is very deceptive. Look at California. If you were to believe the implication, almost everyone in California is Catholic. The reality is that most people in California are not religious at all, regardless of what they answer to the question "what is your religion".

 

Dallas is by far the most religious place I've ever lived, and it is indeed dominated by Baptists, but I'd say that for at least half the people here, religion is nothing more than a tradition not taken very seriously.

[Gaunilon]

Apparently the truth is abundantly clear to those who live within specific state boundaries!

 

You seem to be implying that since religion shows regional variation, it can't hold universal truths. That's an invalid conclusion.

Since people usually learn from other people, it's not surprising that some knowledge is regional. You'll also find that knowledge of differential calculus varies by region, were you to compare North Korea, for example, to South Korea. This does not mean that calculus is more obvious in South Korea, and it also does not mean that calculus is subjective, merely that calculus is more widely taught in South Korea.

 

The other point raised is also valid: lots of people who aren't religious at all will claim to be members of the religion they were raised with because they confuse religious belief with cultural traditions.

[white_raven23]

Apparently the truth is abundantly clear to those who live within specific state boundaries!

 

You seem to be implying that since religion shows regional variation, it can't hold universal truths. That's an invalid conclusion.

Since people usually learn from other people, it's not surprising that some knowledge is regional.

 

 

I don't think that was the point being made. The point is that specific state boundries should be meaningless when you are talking about the spread of people, and their particular beliefs. Basically the "state line" shouldn't have any influence at all as to the distribution of those colors, yet those colors are fitting neatly within several specific state lines anyway. I mean.....just because you leave Kentucky and cross into Indiana, sure these a 'You are now leaving Kentucky!' and a 'Welcome to Indiana' billboards one either side of the state line; It shouldn't necessarily follow that additional signa saying 'You are now Leaving Baptist-land!' and 'Welcome to Catholic-ville!' could be put up too. But according to the way things are spread on this map......you almost could do just that.

[Antlerman]

You seem to be implying that since religion shows regional variation, it can't hold universal truths. That's an invalid conclusion.

Since people usually learn from other people, it's not surprising that some knowledge is regional. You'll also find that knowledge of differential calculus varies by region, were you to compare North Korea, for example, to South Korea. This does not mean that calculus is more obvious in South Korea, and it also does not mean that calculus is subjective, merely that calculus is more widely taught in South Korea.

 

The other point raised is also valid: lots of people who aren't religious at all will claim to be members of the religion they were raised with because they confuse religious belief with cultural traditions.

What I am implying is that age old observation that "Muslim parents raise Muslim children, Christian parents raise Christian children," meaning that belief is not a gift from God who selectively chooses who to save, but rather "truth" is largely culturally programmed. If Pat Robertson were born in Saudi Arabia to Islamic parents, the odds are extremely high that he would be bowing 5 times a day towards Mecca, rather than being Christian evangelical.

 

As far as "universal truths", what that might mean to me, may not mean what you would say. If I were to use Romans 1:20 to mean that "the things of God are clearly seen and made known," to mean ubiquitous principles such as the benefits of showing love as a means of achieving cooperation and a healthy and beneficial society, then yes, I think the majority people respond favorably to the tools of survival that best serves them. But if I add the last part of the verse: "even his eternal power and Godhead", well... no. This to me sounds like a very culturally derived definition of some personification of these higher principles of society, and that's where the map above comes in.

 

I guess I should ask, do you believe there is only one definition of God, or do you feel all religions are saying the same thing?

 

BTW, Welcome to the site!

[Gaunilon]

What I am implying is that age old observation that "Muslim parents raise Muslim children, Christian parents raise Christian children," meaning that belief is not a gift from God who selectively chooses who to save, but rather "truth" is largely culturally programmed.

There are two assertions being made here:

(1) religious belief is given by parents (from which you argue that it is therefore not from God), and your other point that

(2) "truth" depends upon where you live. It is not an objective reality, but subjective and ties largely into cultural regions. as you stated in Post #3.

 

As to point #1, I fully agree that in general people believe the religious teachings of their parents. Christians raise Christians, Moslems raise Moslems, etc. Of course there are those who come to a belief system later in life, such as the ex-Christians on this site. Another example would be all the original Christians, who were raised Jewish, atheist, or pantheist. This implies that something more is at work than cultural/parental influence. People apparently can decide that the beliefs they grew up with were wrong, and they do so either by comparing the consequences of those beliefs to their personal desires, or by comparing the beliefs themselves to reality. Which brings us to your second point.

 

In point #2 you are confusing truth with the understanding of truth. I might not know anything about the world being round, or I might know about it but not believe it. Nonetheless it is true. Even if everyone in the world believed Earth was flat, she would still truly be round. Thus there is a difference between people's understanding of truth and truth itself. Understanding may vary by region and depend on culture, but truth itself is an objective reality that is universal.

 

Finally, if we return to point 1 for a second, it doesn't follow that because religious belief is regional, therefore God does not give religious belief to individuals. In making this argument ("meaning that belief is not a gift from God who selectively chooses who to save") you assume that God must give religious belief directly, whereas it is entirely possible that faith is given through parents, friends, culture, etc. If this logical possibility is admitted then one would expect that certain regions would be more receptive to God's message due to the sociopolitical dynamics at work in those cultures, in the same manner that certain individuals would be more receptive due to their unique personalities.

 

specific state boundries should be meaningless when you are talking about the spread of people, and their particular beliefs - White Raven 23

Not really. Remember that until the Civil War the states were just that: individual states. And the borders were largely determined by differences in culture or religion due to the populace that settled there. For example, Maryland (named after Queen Mary) was Catholic. While Virginia (named after Queen Elizabeth I....har!) was Protestant. The various cultures have merged and mixed since then but the original separations are still discernible.

 

I guess I should ask, do you believe there is only one definition of God, or do you feel all religions are saying the same thing?

This is a separate issue, but the short answer is that God can't be rigorously defined since there is no genus/difference that would apply. A sort of equivocal definition that most would recognize is "supreme being", but as I say it's equivocal since "being" refers to multiple genera. And no, many religions openly contradict each other even at the most fundamental levels so they can't possibly be saying the same thing, and they can't possibly all be right. They're either all wrong, or there is at most one that is true. I include atheism in this statement.

 

BTW, Welcome to the site!

Thanks!

[Ouroboros]

Since people usually learn from other people, it's not surprising that some knowledge is regional. You'll also find that knowledge of differential calculus varies by region, were you to compare North Korea, for example, to South Korea. This does not mean that calculus is more obvious in South Korea, and it also does not mean that calculus is subjective, merely that calculus is more widely taught in South Korea.

How can Diff Calc be different in different regions? Is addition and subtraction done different? I don't get it. Please explain how Diff Calc can be done different.

 

And secondly, even if that's true, isn't the underlying math the same, and hence the symbols represents the same truth? In the same context it would mean all religions express in symbols the same truth, and all religions are right and no religion can claim ownership or superiority?

[Gaunilon]

How can Diff Calc be different in different regions? ...In the same context it would mean all religions express in symbols the same truth, and all religions are right and no religion can claim ownership or superiority?

 

My point was the opposite: Diff Calc is not different in different regions, since it contains universal truths. However knowledge of it does vary by region according to whether it is generally taught. This was a counter-example to illustrate that regional variations in knowledge do not imply that the object of that knowledge (truth) is subjective.

 

If we apply this same reasoning to religion, regional variations can be explained by what is predominantly taught or ignored in that region, as opposed to saying that all religious truth is subjective.

 

As to whether all religions could be right, they obviously can't since they contradict one another. Therefore they are either all at least partly false, or one of them is wholly true and the remaining ones are false insofar as they contradict it. In the latter case, the contradictions could be due to misunderstandings, which in turn would show regional patterns.

[Antlerman]

What I am implying is that age old observation that "Muslim parents raise Muslim children, Christian parents raise Christian children," meaning that belief is not a gift from God who selectively chooses who to save, but rather "truth" is largely culturally programmed.

There are two assertions being made here:

(1) religious belief is given by parents (from which you argue that it is therefore not from God), and your other point that

(2) "truth" depends upon where you live. It is not an objective reality, but subjective and ties largely into cultural regions. as you stated in Post #3.

 

As to point #1, I fully agree that in general people believe the religious teachings of their parents. Christians raise Christians, Moslems raise Moslems, etc. Of course there are those who come to a belief system later in life, such as the ex-Christians on this site. Another example would be all the original Christians, who were raised Jewish, atheist, or pantheist. This implies that something more is at work than cultural/parental influence. People apparently can decide that the beliefs they grew up with were wrong, and they do so either by comparing the consequences of those beliefs to their personal desires, or by comparing the beliefs themselves to reality. Which brings us to your second point.

It may take a few times to clarify how each of us views things. Of course I am not suggesting that the only way someone comes to a religious belief was through a parental/cultural influences, but we are all a products of our cultures and our values are heavily influenced by them. There are many reasons that someone could list why some individuals leave the traditions and religions of their cultures for another system or culture, but I would say it is unnecessary, and unfortunate for them to conclude, as you stated yourself above, that “the beliefs they grew up with were wrong.”

 

That someone’s beliefs weren’t working for them and they felt drawn towards another worldview does not make the beliefs they had “wrong”. At best, you could say it was “wrong” for them personally, but I prefer to avoid that word for this reason: It makes the one saying that come across as judgmental. Sounding judgmental comes across as arrogance. And here’s my grievance: Arrogance is inconsistent with spirituality, and when a religious system is the one making the arrogant claim that all other systems of belief are wrong, they are doing a disserve to the heart of what they claim to stand for. IMO, the only way to avoid this sort of position is to abandon notions of “objective truth” when it comes to matters of spirituality. There is nothing objective about them. Which brings us to the next point:

 

In point #2 you are confusing truth with the understanding of truth. I might not know anything about the world being round, or I might know about it but not believe it. Nonetheless it is true. Even if everyone in the world believed Earth was flat, she would still truly be round. Thus there is a difference between people's understanding of truth and truth itself. Understanding may vary by region and depend on culture, but truth itself is an objective reality that is universal.

The earth being round is something rooted in the natural world that has all sorts of supporting evidence that can be tested dispassionately by anyone. Religions are completely subjective. God is not natural. By definition God is a supernatural being. There is nothing that can dispassionately (objectively) confirm God. It is a purely faith based enterprise. So “objective reality” is completely misapplied when it comes to the supernatural.

 

Even so, even in the natural world, where empirical evidence abounds, making the claim “the truth” is an overstatement. Anytime there is an observer present, it affects what is being observed by making the observer part of that reality. Or more close to home, three people all looking at the same thing have brought three unique perceptions to the table, and in reality there are now three “truths” about what they are looking at. When it comes to faith-based perceptions, you don’t have any means of dispassionate checks and balances you can use to gain some similitude of reliability. You have nothing to take advantage of like the scientific method in evaluating things in the natural world.

 

The Bible is its own authority for its contents, and when examined for external corroboration, it’s left far lower then being a perfect source of knowledge. Furthermore, it is all about who's doing the interpreting of the texts and how much people agree with them on a subjective level. Church authorities have little peer-review, and when they do, it usually turns into a blood bath of religious persecutions, or they splinter off into over 30,000 different denominations. Hardly, a reliable system in the pursuit of "objective truth"!

 

So “the truth” about a God is hardly an objective reality, or universally known. To clarify my position: “Truth” is more about degrees of certainty, as opposed to absolutes. God and biblical lore has a very low degree of certainty when it comes to tests of validities. However, I do not want to dismiss it as not being “true” for the individual on a purely subjective level or that it is somehow “wrong”, but I will stand by the view that it is not “objectively true.”

 

Finally, if we return to point 1 for a second, it doesn't follow that because religious belief is regional, therefore God does not give religious belief to individuals. In making this argument ("meaning that belief is not a gift from God who selectively chooses who to save") you assume that God must give religious belief directly, whereas it is entirely possible that faith is given through parents, friends, culture, etc. If this logical possibility is admitted then one would expect that certain regions would be more receptive to God's message due to the sociopolitical dynamics at work in those cultures, in the same manner that certain individuals would be more receptive due to their unique personalities.

Here’s where further discussion will clarify what I think about these things. I agree that if someone believed an actual god does directly influence individuals, that cultural programming alone would not override everything. Cleary it doesn’t even on a purely natural, human level. How many home-bred, small-town American boys adopt Islam and move to Afghanistan, or Buddhism and move to Vietnam? Clearly the programming alone doesn’t lock everything tightly into place, but it is the largest influence on what shapes our core values.

 

As far as my comment about God giving faith directly, that was off an assumption you may have had Calvinistic views of predestiantion. I am now assuming you lean more towards Arminianism, and will speak to that belief in questions about God's interactions with people going forward.

 

This is a separate issue, but the short answer is that God can't be rigorously defined since there is no genus/difference that would apply. A sort of equivocal definition that most would recognize is "supreme being", but as I say it's equivocal since "being" refers to multiple genera. And no, many religions openly contradict each other even at the most fundamental levels so they can't possibly be saying the same thing, and they can't possibly all be right. They're either all wrong, or there is at most one that is true. I include atheism in this statement.

A few last points to my long response: There are many who disagree that the fundamental messages of most religions contradict each other. My suspicion is that you may be viewing particulars, such as reconciliation to a deity by the vicarious shedding of human blood to be a fundamental difference. I wouldn’t look at it like that, but I agree that will be another discussion.

 

One point I must challenge you on is your last statement that “They're either all wrong, or there is at most one that is true. I include atheism in this statement.” For the first part of that statement, refer above to my thoughts about “objective truth”. But the point of view you seem to be suggesting that atheism is somehow a belief system, is a completely inaccurate teaching that goes around in Christian circles.

 

Briefly, atheism is a lack of belief in deities. It is a not a belief in no-deities. That is a straw man argument put forth by certain Christian apologists that is both illogical and ill-founded. Do Christians belief in Krishna and the thousands of other gods out there? Does this make them atheists too? No, they simply do not accept those mythologies as being valid. Ditto, for me with Jehovah, et al.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In my point of view, any evidences I have heard put forth by the apologists speak far more of a deep personal desire on their part to believe in something that lacks solid empirical validation. That, and that they somehow feel “proof” is necessary. (I’ve never really gotten that). Not accepting incredible claims is not a belief in “no-Bigfoot”. It is simply not accepting the claims and proofs offered as being valid enough to believe in it. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. It is not a belief of any sort.

 

Sorry for the long response. I look forward to continued discussion with you.

[RankStranger]

How can Diff Calc be different in different regions? ...In the same context it would mean all religions express in symbols the same truth, and all religions are right and no religion can claim ownership or superiority?

 

My point was the opposite: Diff Calc is not different in different regions, since it contains universal truths. However knowledge of it does vary by region according to whether it is generally taught. This was a counter-example to illustrate that regional variations in knowledge do not imply that the object of that knowledge (truth) is subjective.

 

If we apply this same reasoning to religion, regional variations can be explained by what is predominantly taught or ignored in that region, as opposed to saying that all religious truth is subjective.

 

As to whether all religions could be right, they obviously can't since they contradict one another. Therefore they are either all at least partly false, or one of them is wholly true and the remaining ones are false insofar as they contradict it. In the latter case, the contradictions could be due to misunderstandings, which in turn would show regional patterns.

 

Here's a problem with the calculus analogy. Are there competing versions of calculus being taught in north and south korea? I doubt it.

 

You might have a point if there were thousands of different versions of calculus being passed down within specific cultural groups- each as unprovable as the other.

 

You say calculus contains "universal truths"- I assume this is because it's either mathematically provable, or at least demonstrable (depending on exactly what 'truths' we're talkin' about). This certainly doesn't apply to any religion that I"m aware of.

[Gaunilon]

Antlerman:

...abandon notions of “objective truth” when it comes to matters of spirituality. There is nothing objective about them.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but your statement itself is an objective and absolute judgement concerning spirituality. Clearly the topic admits of objective statements. To say that Christ was God incarnate is quite different from saying that Christ was a prophet appointed by Allah, but not God incarnate, which in turn is different from saying that there is no God. Each of these statements contradicts the other, and each is held by a specific religious belief system. It is impossible for all three systems to be entirely true.

 

There is nothing that can dispassionately (objectively) confirm God.

You'd have to prove that to me. Note: to say 'there has never been a convincing proof of God' is a lesser claim than 'there can never be a convincing proof of God'. In other words: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

...that atheism is somehow a belief system, is a completely inaccurate teaching that goes around in Christian circles. Briefly, atheism is a lack of belief in deities. It is a not a belief in no-deities. That is a straw man argument put forth by certain Christian apologists that is both illogical and ill-founded.

Unless the Merriam-Webster dictionary is a Christian apologetics flack, this is incorrect. The definition they give (in context of beliefs) is a "a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity ". link In either case it's a belief system which holds the non-existence of deity. What you're referring to is commonly called agnosticism.

 

 

Iskerbibel:

The calculus analogy isn't perfect, but if religious disagreements are attributed to varying levels of understanding (which is logically possible) then the analogy serves its purpose.

You say calculus contains "universal truths"- I assume this is because it's either mathematically provable, or at least demonstrable (depending on exactly what 'truths' we're talkin' about). This certainly doesn't apply to any religion that I"m aware of.

Point taken, but being unaware of one doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you examined the tenets of each religion?

[RankStranger]

 

Unless the Merriam-Webster dictionary is a Christian apologetics flack, this is incorrect. The definition they give (in context of beliefs) is a "a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity ". link In either case it's a belief system which holds the non-existence of deity. What you're referring to is commonly called agnosticism.

 

You're arguing semantics and appealing to authority. Is a lack of belief in Bigfoot a "belief system"? Use whatever word you want... but for discussion purposes, most folks on this board agree that atheism is a lack of belief. Do you consider your definition of "agnosticism" to be a 'belief system'?

 

 

Iskerbibel:

The calculus analogy isn't perfect, but if religious disagreements are attributed to varying levels of understanding (which is logically possible) then the analogy serves its purpose.

You say calculus contains "universal truths"- I assume this is because it's either mathematically provable, or at least demonstrable (depending on exactly what 'truths' we're talkin' about). This certainly doesn't apply to any religion that I"m aware of.

Point taken, but being unaware of one doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you examined the tenets of each religion?

 

No, I haven't.

 

I'm gonna go off on a Tangent here.

 

Can you name an absolute truth? I'm not sure that such a thing exists. For instance, you suggested a while back that 'the world is round' would be an absolute truth. That's not absolutely true. Actually, the earth is closer to an ellipsoid than a sphere. But it's not absolutely true to say that it's an ellipsoid. The moon's gravity measurably distorts the shape of the earth as it orbits. But it's not absolutely true that the earth is an elipsoid with a periodic distortion with respect to time. 'Cause the moon's orbit is actually very gradually spiraling outward away from the earth. But it's not absolutely true to say that the earth is an ellipsoid with a periodic distortion with respect to time, decreasing with respect to time... 'cause the gravity of the other planets periodically interact with the earth and the moon, causing miniscule changes in the periodicity of the moon's orbit and such. I assume you see what I'm getting at.

 

Our brains make mental models of what we "know". As a working model, considering 'the world is round' to be an absolute truth generally works just fine for 99.99% of people. Your mental model can be made more and more precise, but will never be complete enough to be 'absolutely true'. Hence, generally speaking, absolute truth is unknowable. We can only approach it. I liken it to an asymptote.

[Gaunilon]

most folks on this board agree that atheism is a lack of belief.

Most folks can agree what they want, but as long as we're speaking english, atheism means a disbelief in deity, which is how I referred to it in my earlier statement. Surprisingly, that isn't an illogical and ill-founded Christian straw-man argument as was claimed. If you want to discuss agnosticism instead then say so.

 

Can you name an absolute truth?

Well according to you, this is an absolute truth: Your mental model can be made more and more precise, but will never be complete enough to be 'absolutely true'.

Me, I'd say that's only true sometimes. But if you want to say there are no absolute truths, keep in mind that you will be defending that statement by claiming that it is an absolute truth. Which is a tough spot to be in.

 

Here's another absolute truth: the earth is round, meaning it's not flat. Not spherical, not prolate spheroid, not 4th order oval, just round. As opposed to planar. Ok? There are people who insist the earth is flat, but I think we may be able to agree that those people are objectively wrong. I think they're regionally grouped too. Which almost brings us back on topic.

[Antlerman]

most folks on this board agree that atheism is a lack of belief.

Most folks can agree what they want, but as long as we're speaking english, atheism means a disbelief in deity, which is how I referred to it in my earlier statement. Surprisingly, that isn't an illogical and ill-founded Christian straw-man argument as was claimed. If you want to discuss agnosticism instead then say so.

You seem to treat dictionaries the same as you do the Bible? Dictionaries reflect the common usage and are not definitiely authoritarian as to the absolute meaning of words. Language evolves. It always has. It will continue to do so, gradually. The definition that pervades society is one that spawned out of Christian usage. No atheist I know accepts this definition. Language is changing. Let's look at another dictionary that ranks a few miles above Webster's. From the Oxford English Dictionary:

 

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

 

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

 

deny

 

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.

Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).

To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.

To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

(More on this topic of word use here: Use of word Atheist

 

You see where I'm going? From what I'm gathering from your perceptions, you seem to see things in black and white terms: "this is true, this is a lie; this is how things are, all else is wrong." I could provide long lists of words how they have evolved. No atheist accepts this definition.

 

BTW, "Atheism is a system"?? How? What system? What are these doctrines, rituals, common teachings, etc? In my life there is no system whatsoever, nor in any other atheists world.

 

As far as associated "beliefs" to atheism, the closest you could come is philosophical materialism, but that does not define atheism. Not all atheists are philosophical materialists. You see where I'm going? Maybe this will help: all children are born atheists. All knowledge of God comes from being taught, either by parents or their culture. Children do not believe in no-god, they are simply living in the natural world. Knowledge of the supernatural world is taught to them by people. Back full circle to the original topic.

[Gaunilon]

Antlerman,

 

You see where I'm going? From what I'm gathering from your perceptions, you seem to see things in black and white terms: "this is true, this is a lie; this is how things are, all else is wrong."

Not quite. I don't claim to know the truth about very much, but I do claim that two contradictory things can't both be true, in the same sense, at the same time. That much I know.

I think your Oxford dictionary definition is the same as the Webster one. Atheism means a disbelief in deities. Agnosticism means a lack of opinion concerning deities. I referred to atheism in my prior post, you referred to your own beliefs as something more akin to agnosticism. Nothing wrong with that, but let's call things by their names.

 

Incidentally, using the Oxford definition children are born agnostics, not atheists. You tell a child that there is a deity, and explain to them what you mean, and they'll probably believe you. Likewise if you tell them there is no deity. In short, they have no prior beliefs on the subject: neither belief nor disbelief. Which makes them agnostic.

 

I consider atheism a belief system because it is a collection of beliefs held by an individual. In denying a deity, an atheist must posit other things they believe in to explain the world around them, morality, etc. It's not as systematic as certain other religious belief systems but it is a religious belief system that contradicts religious belief systems such as Christianity. (I suppose it might be more accurate to call it several belief systems, but you get the idea)

Note that the denial of the existence of deities is an unproven belief held by faith alone. Atheists, as it were, are people of faith. One of the things I find fascinating on this site is that many of the members seem to have turned from Christian fundamentalism to atheism. Why, I wonder? Why go to the opposite extreme due to inconsistencies in Christian fundamentalism?

 

I find this discussion very interesting and worthwhile, but I think we're disastrously off topic. Being a newcomer I'm not sure what the protocol is in such cases. Do we start a new thread?

[Antlerman]

I find this discussion very interesting and worthwhile, but I think we're disastrously off topic. Being a newcomer I'm not sure what the protocol is in such cases. Do we start a new thread?

I agree this is an interesting and worthwhile discussion, and I think it's worth exploring. I find your perceptions of how you view atheists a fascinating insight in to an outsider’s perception of the reality of life behind my eyes. Of course, I am in disagreement with your assessment of atheism being a faith of any sort, and I am hopeful there will be a benefit to everyone's understanding through a discussion of this topic.

 

As far as being off topic, I think getting through this understanding of what is atheism, versus agnosticism, versus religious faith, leads itself back into the topic of the role of culture in the core values of people that highly influences people's understanding of who or what "god(s)" is/are. We could start a new topic and come back to this, or drill through it here, to come out on the other side (if we do), to draw the topic back into it.

 

I'm going to take the lead here since I started this topic and start a new topic. We can jump back to this later after we see how things pan out. Give me a little time to put together something as a good launching off point for this topic. I'll put up here in the “Coliseum". Thanks for your participating.

 

P.S. One last response while slightly off topic: your observation, "One of the things I find fascinating on this site is that many of the members seem to have turned from Christian fundamentalism to atheism. Why, I wonder? Why go to the opposite extreme due to inconsistencies in Christian fundamentalism?" For me, this does not accurately reflect why I finally became atheist. It was not one extreme to the other. Again, atheism is not a belief - unless you fall under the category of "strong atheist" which is an active, almost evangelical atheist, IMO. That does not describe me at all.

 

In either case, my move to atheism had nothing to do with "inconsistencies in Christian fundamentalism", unless that inconsistency was that it was a facade of a spiritual life that failed to speak to the real world for me. The right words, the wrong heart I suppose could be considered an inconsistency. That, and their actively denying credible knowledge through fits of illogic motivated by a refusal to re-evalutate their points of view. "God said, that settles it, that's good enough for me", or I would better restate that to mean, "I read it, I believe it, you can't be right!" In either case, it wasn't just a few inconsistences. It was much, much more than that: intellectually and spiritually. But more on that at another time.

[Ouroboros]

I find this discussion very interesting and worthwhile, but I think we're disastrously off topic. Being a newcomer I'm not sure what the protocol is in such cases. Do we start a new thread?

I think you should start a new topic. We have the policy that the Coliseum have to follow strikter rules (keep topic, no ad homs, no joking - which is my greatest sin ). In the Lion's Den the topics can stray as much as they want.

 

 

 

I consider atheism a belief system because it is a collection of beliefs held by an individual. In denying a deity, an atheist must posit other things they believe in to explain the world around them, morality, etc. It's not as systematic as certain other religious belief systems but it is a religious belief system that contradicts religious belief systems such as Christianity. (I suppose it might be more accurate to call it several belief systems, but you get the idea)

I find it funny that Christian's like to explain that Atheism is not only a belief system, but also a religion, while in the next sentence they evangelize the streets with the message that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship. By your definition Christianity must be a religion, don't you agree? (I'm sure you do.)

 

Btw, I have no problem that you call Atheism a belief system, but I have a hard time seing it as a religion.

[Gaunilon]

I think you should start a new topic.

Will do.

 

By your definition Christianity must be a religion, don't you agree? (I'm sure you do.)

Of course it is. Possibly several depending on how one defines it.

 

Btw, I have no problem that you call Atheism a belief system, but I have a hard time seing it as a religion.

I would say it is a religious belief system, in the sense that it is a series of beliefs concerning deity. I agree it's not a religion since that implies worship....which clearly isn't the case for atheists.

More on the upcoming thread.