Re: How do you know "your" religion is the "correct" one?

[AwakeFromOctavarium]

Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity. They only know basic ideas, like how Islam has Muhammed as prophet and they do not believe that Jesus is God and stuff, but they do not know the details, like the scriptures, practices, etc., as much as they know about Christianity. and I think it's the same for most of the believers of other religions, except in the context of theirs.

Well this excludes, of course, those people who study about many religions.

The amount of depth and detail one knows about any religion has nothing to do with if the religion is in fact "correct".

What I'm trying to point out is that people claim their religion is correct without even knowing about other religions first. Because that way, it's a premature conclusion.

[eric42434224]

Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity. They only know basic ideas, like how Islam has Muhammed as prophet and they do not believe that Jesus is God and stuff, but they do not know the details, like the scriptures, practices, etc., as much as they know about Christianity. and I think it's the same for most of the believers of other religions, except in the context of theirs.

Well this excludes, of course, those people who study about many religions.

The amount of depth and detail one knows about any religion has nothing to do with if the religion is in fact "correct".

What I'm trying to point out is that people claim their religion is correct without even knowing about other religions first. Because that way, it's a premature conclusion.

Oh I understand the some of the circumstances why someone might think their religion is correct.  I was just differentiating the "thinking" it is "correct", and it actually being correct. 

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

If you're an atheist.

Loljk

[hefdaddy42]

Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity.

Most Christians don't know much about Christianity, either.

In fact, most people just don't know much about anything. 

[Dublagent66]

Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity.

Most Christians don't know much about Christianity, either.

In fact, most people just don't know much about anything. 

Agreed.

[ainamotore]

If you're an atheist.

Loljk

This. Atheism is the only religion that forbids faith, so it's got that going for it.

[El JoNNo]

If you're an atheist.

Loljk

This. Atheism is the only religion that forbids faith, so it's got that going for it.

Atheism is not a religion, it is the rejection of a claim. Stop saying it is a religion.

[ainamotore]

Atheism is not a religion, it is the rejection of a claim. Stop saying it is a religion.

Nonsense. The definition of religion:

1. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
2. "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

Besides, I like treating it as a religion conversationally, as it lends nicely to "compare and contrast".

[El JoNNo]

Atheism is not a religion, it is the rejection of a claim. Stop saying it is a religion.

Nonsense. The definition of religion:

1. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
2. "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

Besides, I like treating it as a religion conversationally, as it lends nicely to "compare and contrast".

1. Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is a rejection of a claim. Theist claim there is a God, we don't buy it. Atheism has nothing to do with "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", the rejection of the claim of god does not hinge on any of these and easily done without any of these.

Do you believe in fairies? No, well you must be an a-fairiest and therefore are a religion. Makes about as much sense.

2. What fundamental beliefs and practices? No believing in something is a fundamental belief? Practices? I know of no Atheist rituals or holy books. An Atheist is someone who does not believe in god, that is it. All for there own reasons.

You can lump Buddhist in with Atheists, as they do not believe in god. However they have there core beliefs, you know what it is called? ... Buddhism..   

[ainamotore]

No good. You cannot invent your own definition of atheism, then critique it. Atheism is defined in the dictionary, and it is the definition I supplied, which I got from the dictionary.

Buddhism meets the definition of a religion. And Buddhism is in fact a religion.

[Seventh Son]

No good. You cannot invent your own definition of atheism, then critique it. Atheism is defined in the dictionary, and it is the definition I supplied, which I got from the dictionary.

Buddhism meets the definition of a religion. And Buddhism is in fact a religion.

And Atheism does not. All Atheists believe is that there is no god. That's it. Atheism doesn't attempt to explain the nature or origin of the universe. There is only one defining characteristic of Atheism, and that clearly is not sufficient to count as "A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects". Try again.

[El JoNNo]

No good. You cannot invent your own definition of atheism, then critique it.

Ummm this is the definition of Atheism.

A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods; A person who believes that no gods or deities exist

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

An individual who rejects the notion of a supreme being that exists outside of the abilities of modern science to either prove or disprove.

jewishscientist.wordpress.com/definitions/

I did not critique any thing, allow me to re-iterate. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, nothing more nothing less. 

Atheism is defined in the dictionary, and it is the definition I supplied, which I got from the dictionary.

Wrong you supplied the definition for religion. Atheism is the definition(s) I supplied.
 

Buddhism meets the definition of a religion. And Buddhism is in fact a religion.

Most Buddhist don't believe in god(s), therefore those that don't are Atheists.

[ainamotore]

I will continue to discuss atheism as a religion, as it meets the criteria contained in the dictionary definition.

I also just like it for purposes of comparison. We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.

So don't try again.

[El JoNNo]

LULWAT?!?

I'm going to quote what you stated before

Atheism is not a religion, it is the rejection of a claim. Stop saying it is a religion.

Nonsense. The definition of religion:

1. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
2. "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

Besides, I like treating it as a religion conversationally, as it lends nicely to "compare and contrast".

Do you agree or disagree that this is the definition of Religion which you supplied?

You've got yourself in a pickle I'm afraid. You've now made the same mistake twice. You offered YOUR definition of religion. Then explained it.

Ummm I offered 3 definitions from 3 different sources.. 

If you make the mistake a third time, I am going to have some serious questions and doubts.

I didn't make the mistake the first time.

We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them.

I agree

Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.

No you didn't and your explanation is false.

So don't try again.

Are you even reading my posts?

[In The Name Of Rudess]

We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.

There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity  b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.

BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.

[ainamotore]

By the way, an atheist who does not offer or subscribe to an alternative view on the cause and purpose of the universe, the nature of Man, and a solid set of philosophical premises, is rather vacuous.

I would have to say that a theist with an irrational view is superior to an atheist whose sole belief is: "There is no God".
If you are going to be a proper atheist, you better have proper alternative responses to all the questions that religions purport to answer.

[ainamotore]

We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.

There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity  b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.

BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.

Please reread the posts. We are defining religion, not atheism. God...

[In The Name Of Rudess]

We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.

There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity  b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.

BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.

Please reread the posts. We are defining religion, not atheism. God...

Please reread the posts. The discussion started with atheism.

BTW: Again, I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.

[Seventh Son]

We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.

There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity  b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.

BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.

Please reread the posts. We are defining religion, not atheism. God...

The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.

[El JoNNo]

Are you or are you not going to address the fact that you were completely wrong. No only were you wrong in your statements about Atheism but you were wrong about what you yourself stated and would not acknowledge the fact that I did provide you with contradictory definitions to a definition in which you did not supply.

By the way, an atheist who does not offer or subscribe to an alternative view on the cause and purpose of the universe, the nature of Man, and a solid set of philosophical premises, is rather vacuous.

This is a false statement. Just because someone does not ponder the nature of existance does not mean they are not intelligent. Now if you are trying to imply that an Atheist is closed minded because he/she does not believe in a god, that in and of it self it closed minded. However the Atheist could be closed minded about god or the exact opposite. The Atheist could be looking for god in everything but is not convinced.

I would have to say that a theist with an irrational view is superior to an atheist whose sole belief is: "There is no God".

This is also a very moot point of view. Are you saying believing in a god somehow make you more moral? What do you mean be sole belief? So an Atheist reject the notion of god, big whoop. This does not necessarily dictate said persons actions.  

If you are going to be a proper atheist, you better have proper alternative responses to all the questions that religions purport to answer.

I'm sorry the burden of proof is not on my shoulders. Theists are the ones trying to push there religion, Atheists are rejecting it. Religion has not met the burden of proof in the eyes of the Atheist, for there own reasons. If you wish you are more than welcome to challenge me on this subject, but I do not speak for the Atheist community as we are all different without our sect of beliefs and doctrines.

The only thing I need to be a proper Atheist is to look at the contradictory evidence and poorly written holy books.

[El JoNNo]

We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.

There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity  b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.

BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.

Please reread the posts. We are defining religion, not atheism. God...

The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.

You know Seventh Son that almost sounds like an argument based on logic. lol

[Seventh Son]

We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.

There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity  b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.

BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.

Please reread the posts. We are defining religion, not atheism. God...

The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.

You know Seventh Son that almost sounds like an argument based on logic. lol

[ainamotore]

The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.

I know of no atheists who define their religious non-belief in such narrow terms. Most offer a world view and alternatives to the irrationalities and postulates of the theists. It is those atheists that interest me. It is those atheists that should speak for the cause of atheism.

I'm actually tired of atheists who have nothing to offer as a philosophical alternative. Atheism is the only rational view out there, yet its spokesmen tend to be annoying little nebishes who offer nothing with respect to the Big Questions of life. They just want to negate others beliefs, rather than offering a good positive alternative view of Life and how to live it.

In short, we desperately need better atheists.

[Seventh Son]

The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.

I know of no atheists who define their religious non-belief in such narrow terms. Most offer a world view and alternatives to the irrationalities and postulates of the theists. It is those atheists that interest me. It is those atheists that should speak for the cause of atheism.

I'm actually tired of atheists who have nothing to offer as a philosophical alternative. Atheism is the only rational view out there, yet its spokesmen tend to be annoying little nebishes who offer nothing with respect to the Big Questions of life. They just want to negate others beliefs, rather than offering a good positive alternative view of Life and how to live it.

In short, we desperately need better atheists.

I'm growing more and more convinced that you're just trolling, but I'll keep humoring you.

I'm using the definition of religion that you provided us all with. Using that definition, it becomes clear that Atheism does not qualify as a religion. That is because there is no set moral code that atheists must follow, for each individual atheist must create that for him/herself. If an atheist comes up with an alternative for the origins of mankind and our world, great! But that's not a prerequisite to becoming an atheist. And this is precisely why Atheism is not a religion, because it is not organized by a set of fundamental rules, unlike Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. All atheists are free to do as they please because they are bound only by themselves.

[El JoNNo]

The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.

I know of no atheists who define their religious non-belief in such narrow terms. Most offer a world view and alternatives to the irrationalities and postulates of the theists. It is those atheists that interest me. It is those atheists that should speak for the cause of atheism.

Well than look know further. What would you like to talk about?

I'm actually tired of atheists who have nothing to offer as a philosophical alternative. Atheism is the only rational view out there, yet its spokesmen tend to be annoying little nebishes who offer nothing with respect to the Big Questions of life.

In reality Atheism offers nothing. The whole point of speaking out against religion (I am talking about the so called "New Atheism" movement) is that religion is unproven claims of truth and on a grand scale is detremental. 

Who are these spokesmen you speak of? I am aware of those you maybe refering to, I'm just curious as to who you are refering to. Why would anyone have to offer an answer to any "Big questions" when the argument is (again "New Atheism" thinger) religion is false and has no evidence to support almost all of it's claims.

They just want to negate others beliefs, rather than offering a good positive alternative view of Life and how to live it.

In short, we desperately need better atheists.

I'm sorry you have only meant irrational religion bashers. I do not share you opinion. Who specific are you refering to? As I have never heard a lecture debate or read of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dilahunty, Dennette, Harris etc Take that route at all.

[ainamotore]

In reality Atheism offers nothing. The whole point of speaking out against religion (I am talking about the so called "New Atheism" movement) is that religion is unproven claims of truth and on a grand scale is detremental.  

Exactly. Atheism offers nothing. It needs to start offering something. Else it will never be anything more than a fringe group of philosophical anarchists.

And religion will continue offering the masses the psychological opium of giving life purpose, even if that purpose is ultimately an illusion.

So we need atheists to step up to the plate with something more than "there is no God". They need to offer an alternative philosophy based on reason, with an objective code of morality, ethics, etc. Something to motivate those who look for an "answer" and find it in the destructive and irrational codes of religious doctrine.

In other words, it's time for atheists to become relevant.

Who are these spokesmen you speak of? I am aware of those you maybe refering to, I'm just curious as to who you are refering to. Why would anyone have to offer an answer to any "Big questions" when the argument is (again "New Atheism" thinger) religion is false and has no evidence to support almost all of it's claims.

There are no spokesmen. You are the spokesman. I am the spokesman. It starts with presenting atheism as a rational and complete alternative to the misery and barbaric savagery of religion. It starts with showing people that morality and ethics has NOTHING to do with religion. That they can achieve a proper life by dedicating themselves to living a rational life.

We should all strive to elevate ourselves and the people around us to a higher plane. A good way to do that would be to eliminate all religions. The ONLY way to do that is to present a viable alternative. The BEST way to fail is to continue limiting our position to the gainsaying of the existence of God and leaving it at that.

[Adami]

What the hell is going on in this thread?

Aniamotore, atheism isnt' a set of beliefs, it's one belief, that there is no god. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. The word Atheism means just that, A lack of theism. Nothing else. It's not a group, no other set of beliefs, nothing. Just that there is no god or gods. THAT IS IT.

This thread seriously makes me wonder why certain trolls haven't been warned.

[El JoNNo]

Exactly. Atheism offers nothing. It needs to start offering something. Else it will never be anything more than a fringe group of philosophical anarchists.

Atheism needs to offer nothing, there is no need to contort the meaning of it; it is what it is. If you think that those who are speaking out about religion (which is anti-theism not atheism) are a  "ringe group of philosophical anarchists"; you 1. clearly have not been paying attention to those whom are writing the books and travelling the world giving lectures. 2. have only meant the bottom of the barrel atheist who bash religion because they and know not rationally why.

And religion will continue offering the masses the psychological opium of giving life purpose, even if that purpose is ultimately an illusion.

And it will probably never go away.

So we need atheists to step up to the plate with something more than "there is no God". They need to offer an alternative philosophy based on reason, with an objective code of morality, ethics, etc. Something to motivate those who look for an "answer" and find it in the destructive and irrational codes of religious doctrine.

In other words, it's time for atheists to become relevant.

No we must not. What needs to happen is better education, teach our children to use reason and seek for evidence. As much as I would like religion to disappear, claiming objective morality makes one no better than those claiming to no the mind of god. If education, reason and skeptism brings them closer to their god belief I am fine with that as long as they acknowledge the evidence and not try spread falsities.  

There are no spokesmen. You are the spokesman. I am the spokesman. It starts with presenting atheism as a rational and complete alternative to the misery and barbaric savagery of religion. It starts with showing people that morality and ethics has NOTHING to do with religion. That they can achieve a proper life by dedicating themselves to living a rational life.

I agree that religion and modern morals do not belong in the same sentence. Argue there beliefs but do not shove your own down their throat.

We should all strive to elevate ourselves and the people around us to a higher plane. A good way to do that would be to eliminate all religions. The ONLY way to do that is to present a viable alternative. The BEST way to fail is to continue limiting our position to the gainsaying of the existence of God and leaving it at that.

Everyone should attempt to be better. The natural world is a beautiful place and there is alternatives thinking. I don't know if an offering of alternative is the best wording but logical conversational discorse is usually the bst way.

[hefdaddy42]

In reality Atheism offers nothing. The whole point of speaking out against religion (I am talking about the so called "New Atheism" movement) is that religion is unproven claims of truth and on a grand scale is detremental.  

Exactly. Atheism offers nothing. It needs to start offering something. Else it will never be anything more than a fringe group of philosophical anarchists.

And religion will continue offering the masses the psychological opium of giving life purpose, even if that purpose is ultimately an illusion.

So we need atheists to step up to the plate with something more than "there is no God".

There is nothing else for them to offer.

[Sigz]

If you present atheism as some 'all encompassing alternative to religion', it ceases to be atheism.

[ainamotore]

If you present atheism as some 'all encompassing alternative to religion', it ceases to be atheism.

If you do not, it will remain a marginalized irrelevancy.

[hefdaddy42]

No it won't.  It will continue to be what it always has been - a non-religion.

[Adami]

If you present atheism as some 'all encompassing alternative to religion', it ceases to be atheism.

If you do not, it will remain a marginalized irrelevancy.

It's a lack of belief in god. What else do you expect it to be?

[ehra]

Furthermore, what does this have to do with its definition or whether it's a religion or not?

[El JoNNo]

I like to say morals should never tied to atheism nor religion, they should be tied to humans; that is where they come from