You mean if no evidence or argument for the truth of the belief is given? — Janus

One can't honestly claim that something is for sure that can't be shown, no matter the argument, even with indirect evidence noted, too.

For example: There was a Big Bang for sure. This isn't honest because we can't yet see through the darkness that there was up to 380,000 years, although we are trying to detect gravity waves and. have noted the expansion of the universe and the CMB radiation, etc.

Right so the problem is not just with religious claims then? Personally I do think there is a general problem with religious claims, insofar as they are claims and not merely personal beliefs that are acknowledged to be matters of faith; and that is that religious claims, unlike simple empirical claims about what has been observed, cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated. Of course even simple observations are theory-laden, but that is another can of worms.

a general problem with religious claims — Janus

The problem is, that although faith and mere belief often get mention in the church bulletin, in practice the belief and all its extensions and layers are taught as true.

They even couldn't help themselves later in the church bulletin, as it went on to proclaim that "We were created to worship God."

So, when the whole realm is not visible, the problem would seem to get worse.

To avoid dishonesty, both theists and atheists would have to admit "I don't know for sure," which is agnostic, or else lose credibility.

To avoid dishonesty, both theists and atheists would have to admit "I don't know for sure," which is agnostic, or else lose credibility. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, none of us knows anything for sure. And if any belief is presented as being certainly true in any absolute sense that is intellectually dishonesty. Yet we all cannot avoid having beliefs. Was the proposition in that last sentence merely one of my beliefs, or is it certainly true?

Personally, I can't see why religious people or atheists bother to discuss their views on philosophy forums, since they open themselves to the kinds of criticism they do not seem to want.

To avoid dishonesty, both theists and atheists would have to admit "I don't know for sure," which is agnostic, or else lose credibility. — PoeticUniverse

That's not true for the pointed out reason.
You don't know if they don't know for sure.

This thread is about threads being derailed. It is also a good example of how this derailing can and does occur, if there is no will among us to do otherwise. :chin:

Ye've found th' pattern, have ye?

Perhaps so. :chin:

I had some answers I can't re-reach - apologies. I live in a society that is not desperately religious, I don't feel very strongly about all this 'God' stuff - the concept seems pretty unlikely, but all things are possible - and I don't think it is useful to define oneself as 'anti-' anything. I have enough of a job to find anything about which I feel strongly enough to go beyond bemused boredom. Hope this answers the points made.

Simply put, it's tribalism.

A member of a different tribe gets integrated fully if and only if s/he not only accepts the societal and personal institutions and morals, but also accepts the religion of the tribe adopting him or her. — god must be atheist

Tribalism is this catch-all that we are served at the present. As if our society would truly be so rigid and not as permissive as it really is. Naturally it doesn't have to be like this. Where did we lose our individuality or is individuality only allowed when we think about our hedonistic and narcissistic me-myself-and-I lifestyles?

This is a primal and indelible instinct in humans.

I am an atheist, and as such, try to destroy religionism and recruit more members to my ideology.

The religious do the same thing. Recruit members for their ideology, and destroy other ideologies.

This is so much human nature. Nobody can override this. Not the MODs, nobody. This is the bread and butter of humanity. — god must be atheist

You can tell yourself this as much as you want, but it won't make it more real.

The vast majority of people aren't out there to destroy the people who don't think like them. They just leave them alone, avoid the unnecessary confrontation and live their own lives.

I think that religious beliefs are a combo of absurd, ignorant, and incoherent.

And I think that racist beliefs are a combo of absurd, ignorant and incoherent.

Would you have a problem with someone being treated with disrespect, treated in a condescending way, etc. if they were to post in support of racist views on a philosophy board? — Terrapin Station

I suspect that this might be what @T Clark might be referencing in his annoyance about the anti-religious comments. Racist beliefs might be absurd, they are very likely ignorant, but they're rarely incoherent. Whether they share these same attributes with religion (and I think they don't), what they don't have in common is that the former are patently offensive and degrading, whereas the latter are not (most certainly not in the same manner under typical conditions).

That is to say that this analogy is not at all logical, but seems to just be a way to offer insult, by claiming that the religious and the racist share much in common. In short, it's a comment that will do nothing but derail anyone supportive of religion down the rabbit hole of defending against nonsense objections instead of responding to whatever the OP might have been about.

I obviously do not agree with you on the coherence issue.

And anyone can find anything offensive, degrading, etc. There are plenty of people who see religion as both.

The comment was MY opinion of some features of both religion and racism, by the way. Hence "I think . . ."

And by the way, surely you're overestimating my opinion of the intellectual value of religious belief. Put it this way: it would be difficult to underestimate it.

But the point was one you're proving in your criticism: folks make subjective judgments about stuff, and based on those subjective judgments, they deem that some things are okay to be insulting, nasty, condescending about.

Well, some people make that judgment about religion.

If one is going to make that judgment about some things, one can't be surprised that others make that judgment about stuff that one thinks should be treated with respect instead.

For the Christian religious folks, this is the "judge not, that ye be not judged" idea. You shouldn't have to be very old or wise before you realize that not everyone is going to feel the same way you do about various things. If you're going to start attacking others for stuff that you don't agree with, don't be surprised when they turn around and do the same for stuff you cherish that they don't feel the same way about.

If you want respect, treat people with respect. And not just the people you agree with.

If you are speaking about the US, which is what matters most to me, I don't think that's true. What intrusions did you have in mind? — T Clark

The religious right holds a great deal of power in the U.S.

the authority of law stands over that of religion.
— Fooloso4

That's true in the US, but not everywhere. — T Clark

Our conversation has been about the U.S., starting with my response to your claim about:

The US, in particular — T Clark

It's a choice people have to make. — T Clark

In just the last few months abortion is no longer a choice in many U.S. states. The anti-abortionists frame their arguments in terms of morals and rights, but it comes down to the religious beliefs of a powerful few who determine what is permissible.

Yeah, religion has a huge influence on laws . . . and there's no way around that, because we're surrounded with religious folks and they're voting (and lobbying and so on)

Does a belief system that (for arguments sake) insist that every individual life is inherently valuable, deserve recognition over a belief system which says that some types of persons ought to be eliminated or imprisoned for the greater good? — Wayfarer

I assume you mean every individual human life. Your question leaves open the problem of
the developmental continuum that that define a person as well as the question of the relative value of an individual life and whether what a person does is a determining factor regarding the value of that particular life.

A few years back, there was discussion about Jurgen Habermas, one of the most highly esteemed social philosophers on the Continent. — Wayfarer

I think a distinction should be made between the Enlightenment conception of reason and reason as practiced by the ancients. It is not clear to many, including Habermas, that modern reason cannot accomplish all that it promised. In response some of turned again to some form of religious belief, but others have turned to a more reasonable practice of reason informed by its limits without seeking refuge in unreason or some imagined transcendence of reason.

And if any belief is presented as being certainly true in any absolute sense that is intellectually dishonesty. — Janus

We were created to worship God.

More honestly stated:
If there is a God, which we can't show outright to anyone with no possible contesting, then perhaps this maybe God created us, and so it might be that His maybe purpose was so that we could worship this maybe God because perhaps this maybe God wants or needs to be worshiped, and so that is perhaps why we were put on Earth. We are for this notion out of our hopes and wishes that we call 'faith', and if we meant 'truth' we would have said that instead.

It appears, then, that honesty might not be the best policy for attracting believers and worshippers because the claim no longer has the impact that it did by its declaration supposing, but at least it isn't stated as truth for all any longer, and avoids the immediate indoctrination of children and unsuspecting adults, etc. to the ungrounded dogma.

Similar dishonesty: There is no God. This fails, too, since it cannot be shown.

but it comes down to the religious beliefs of a powerful few who determine what is permissible. — Fooloso4

While you're likely right, I don't think religion holds the weight that you think it does, regarding the matter.

As these beliefs are based on morals that may be upheld by anyone, religious and non-religious alike.
Favouring the fetus' right to live over the mother's complacency isn't necessarily religious.

Yeah, religion has a huge influence on laws . . . and there's no way around that, because we're surrounded with religious folks and they're voting (and lobbying and so on) — Terrapin Station

It is not simply the influence of religion. There are plenty of religious people who are opposed to the power of the religious right, but it does make for some strange bed-fellows, such as Trump hitching his wagon to the Evangelicals. The Evangelicals interest in Israel is based solely on their belief in Armageddon. This is exclusionary politics on the grand scale, orchestrated by God, with a little help from them.

As these beliefs are based on morals that may be upheld by anyone, religious and non-religious alike. — Shamshir

That's true, but if why is it that laws are so in line with Christian morality in the U.S.--and are such a struggle to change from that? I don't think it's just a coincidence.

While you're likely right, I don't think religion holds the weight that you think it does, regarding the matter. — Shamshir

It is not religion but the religious right. They are enormously influential in matters of reproductive rights, education, limited government, and geo-politics.

As these beliefs are based on morals that may be upheld by anyone, religious and non-religious alike.
Favouring the fetus' right to live over the mother's complacency isn't necessarily religious. — Shamshir

That is true, but one's own views on the morality of abortion and a powerful, well-organized religious movement capable of influencing state and national law are two very different things. One need not be religious to be opposed to or non-religious to be in favor of reproductive rights.

I live in a society that is not desperately religious, I don't feel very strongly about all this 'God' stuff - the concept seems pretty unlikely, but all things are possible - and I don't think it is useful to define oneself as 'anti-' anything. — iolo

I disagree. I'm okay with describing myself as anti-religious in some important respects. I do feel strongly about some of the claims which are made. There are some claims which I don't treat with mere indifference. It actually offends me when someone doesn't think something through intelligently enough or tries to muddy the waters when I think that they can and should do better than that. A good example would be the false equivalence between religious texts and historical accounts that was recently made by a member of this forum in a separate discussion. Don't try to justify religion by dragging credible academic fields through the mud.

That's true, but if why is it that laws are so in line with Christian morality in the U.S.--and are such a struggle to change from that? I don't think it's just a coincidence. — Terrapin Station

Maybe it's because Christian morality is just right?
There's plenty of people who uphold Christian morals without calling themselves Christians or taking part in any 'religious' activity.

It is not religion but the religious right. They are enormously influential in matters of reproductive rights, education, limited government, and geo-politics. — Fooloso4

Okay, maybe they are.
But I don't see them as more influental than common sense.

Either way, that has more to do with politics than religion, so again it's the same as how the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion.

That is true, but one's own views on the morality of abortion and a powerful, well-organized religious movement capable of influencing state and national law are two very different things. One need not be religious to be opposed to or non-religious to be in favor of reproductive rights. — Fooloso4

The movement could be non-religious, and accomplish the same results - because it's powerful and well organized.

To summarise:
The problem, if there is one, isn't with religion, but that plenty of money and power hungry people flock to it.
The issues raised are in due to a pseudo or pretend religious mafia.

Maybe it's because Christian morality is just right? — Shamshir

It isn't. And a few examples here and there which I might agree with won't be enough to make it just right, so don't bother going down that road.

Either way, that has more to do with politics than religion, so again it's the same as how the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion. — Shamshir

Don't be absurd, of course it has something to with religion. And that's an understatement. Papal primary is an ecclesiastical doctrine.

And this isn't the first time that you've said something false and absurd, either. The Crusades and the Inquisition were very much religious, and very much Christian.

It isn't. And a few examples here and there which I might agree with won't be enough to make it just right, so don't bother going down that road. — S

Point out the examples that are wrong.

Don't be absurd, of course it has something to with religion. Even that's an understatement. Papal primary is an ecclesiastical doctrine. — S

Read the fine print, kiddo.
It has more to do with politics.

You're mouthing off gibberish before the statement's even sunk in.

Point out the examples that are wrong. — Shamshir

No.

Read the fine print, kiddo.
It has more to do with politics.

You're mouthing off gibberish before the statement's even sunk in. — Shamshir

I wasn't addressing that part, genius. I was addressing your false and absurd claim that the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion. You're also wrong to say that the Crusades and the Inquisition weren't religious or Christian. They obviously were. And you're also wrong that physics and chemistry and music are in essence religions. You're the one talking gibberish. You're attention seeking through outlandish claims, it seems.

No — S

You've got nothing to show, and your statement is invalidated.
No backtalk.

I wasn't addressing that part, genius. I was addressing your false and absurd claim that the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion. You're also wrong to say that the Crusades and the Inquisition weren't religious or Christian. They obviously were. You're the one talking gibberish. — S

Blah, blah, blah.

They weren't Christian since Christianity doesn't solicit war - it calls to love your enemies.

Save your sermons for your cult of ants, I'm not interested.

They weren't Christian since Christianity doesn't solicit war - it calls to love your enemies. — Shamshir

They were Christian, whether you like it or not. There have been many wars of religion over Christianity. Christianity has blood on it's hands. In fact, it's positively drenched in the stuff.

Yeah, and those atheistic cavemen were having an anti-religious war with the mammoths.

What's next, Sparky?

They weren't Christian since Christianity doesn't solicit war - it calls to love your enemies. — Shamshir

Have you read the Bible? It calls for both, why is your interpretation the one true Christian view?

Matthew 5:38-48 New International Version (NIV)
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

From the New Testament AKA Christian Bible.