Religion: Truth or Make Believe?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Is religion true? Or is it merely superstitious make believe? Can all religions be true, and is that even statistically possible? And if contradictory religious beliefs cannot ALL be true, doesn't that mean that the majority of them are and always were superstitious make believe? A religious belief is either true, or it is and always was make believe. Does anyone disagree that this recognition is the very essence of the difference of opinion between, not only those of conflicting beliefs, but between believers and non believers?

Debate Forum Intro and Rules:
Welcome to DebatingChristianity.com. This forum aims to be the most civil and engaging debate forum on Christianity and religion for people of all persuasions.

Subject for debate:
Is it uncivil for a non believer to refer to religion as "make believe," and is that not the very foundation of the debate between believers and non believers which is after all the reason for the existence of this subforum?

[ttruscott]

...

I agree we shouldn't have double standards.

So shall I start reporting all unsubstantiated claims about my "self-made demonic nature" or "addiction to sin" as uncivil remarks? I certainly don't like being characterized that way.

I will not make an unsubstantiated claim about your "self-made demonic nature" or "addiction to sin" but I will make substantiated claims that the Christian pov is that people in general have a "self-made demonic nature" and have an "addiction to sin."

I personally like ZZ's method of asking if I can show my belief is more than make believe for which I have to decline. Once TotN says it IS make believe I think he puts himself in the position of having to substantiate his claim that it IS make believe.

Peace, Ted

[Bust Nak]

Is it uncivil for a non believer to refer to religion as "make believe," and is that not the very foundation of the debate between believers and non believers which is after all the reason for the existence of this subforum?

The problem with "make believe" imply childishness on the part of your opponents, and "superstitious " implies antiquated thinking. What's wrong with just saying "unproven beliefs" without the negative connotation?

Even if you think avoiding such terms is more political correctness than being civil, it should still be avoided because it gives your opponents an opportunity to object to your tone instead of your points. Don't give them an easy way out of a debate.

[FarWanderer]

...

I agree we shouldn't have double standards.

So shall I start reporting all unsubstantiated claims about my "self-made demonic nature" or "addiction to sin" as uncivil remarks? I certainly don't like being characterized that way.

I will not make an unsubstantiated claim about your "self-made demonic nature" or "addiction to sin" but I will make substantiated claims that the Christian pov is that people in general have a "self-made demonic nature" and have an "addiction to sin."

I personally like ZZ's method of asking if I can show my belief is more than make believe for which I have to decline. Once TotN says it IS make believe I think he puts himself in the position of having to substantiate his claim that it IS make believe.

I agree Z is a good example to follow in this case. Does Z call the mods when he sees an unsubstantiated claim he doesn't like? Well I don't know if he does or not in every instance, but I do know that more often than not, he simply points out the claim is unsubstantiated.

And how often do we see that happen? A LOT. That just shows how many "uncivil" (unsubstantiated) claims theists make!

So emulate him and challenge TotN to substantiate the claim. Let's see if he can.

[FarWanderer]

Is it uncivil for a non believer to refer to religion as "make believe," and is that not the very foundation of the debate between believers and non believers which is after all the reason for the existence of this subforum?

The problem with "make believe" imply childishness on the part of your opponents, and "superstitious " implies antiquated thinking. What's wrong with just saying "unproven beliefs" without the negative connotation?

Even if you think avoiding such terms is more political correctness than being civil, it should still be avoided because it gives your opponents an opportunity to object to your tone instead of your points. Don't give them an easy way out of a debate.

I don't necessarily agree. Sometimes a flat tell-it-like-it-is demeanor can be the most effective way to get a person rethinking.

Personally I think childishness is a very accurate way to characterize authoritarian religion. It's all about the rules of an authoritarian "father" figure who loves us and takes care of us and punishes us, and whose approval is of our utmost concern. It's almost like believers are proud of thinking of themselves as really good, obedient children.

Furthermore, any belief founded on unsubstantiated faith (which many a religionist acknowledges of their religious beliefs) is pretty much the definition of "make-believe". The biggest difference I can think of is that "make believe" usually implies that the make-believer knows their imaginings aren't really real; they're just playing.

Actually, it may be this implication- that the theists are just playing a game with themselves, and that they are aware on some level that it is just that- may be the central problem theists have with the "make-believe" characterization. I'm pretty sure it would be for me, if I were a theist.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 12 by Bust Nak]

The problem with "make believe" imply childishness on the part of your opponents, and "superstitious " implies antiquated thinking. What's wrong with just saying "unproven beliefs" without the negative connotation?

What exactly is it that the followers of every religion BUT "the one true religion" have been believing in all this time, if not make believe? If their beliefs are false, then those beliefs must have been imagined into existence. In other words MADE UP! Does that imply that in reality the over whelming majority of people in this world are being childish for subscribing to make believe? Is it not true therefore, that the very act of subscribing to a particular belief as the "one true belief" necessarily implies that everyone who does not subscribe to that particular belief is subscribing to make believe? The same applies to the term superstition. Superstitious beliefs are the beliefs subscribed to by those other people who believe in false beliefs. Is this a dirty little secret which would be uncivil to openly acknowledge? Is it "politically incorrect" to point out to adherents of "false" beliefs that they are subscribing to superstition and make believe, and not the "one TRUE belief?" Because if that is so, then there are millions of missionaries currently out doing "God's work" who need to be recalled immediately. Mussent be offensive, after all! Or would that be considered unfairly restrictive when it comes to getting out the message?

Even if you think avoiding such terms is more political correctness than being civil, it should still be avoided because it gives your opponents an opportunity to object to your tone instead of your points. Don't give them an easy way out of a debate.

In what way is this NOT an attempt by believers to tip the playing field in their favor, in a manner that they have thus far been unable to do through recourse to reason, logic and the facts? My tone is to be blunt. I have a case to make, and I attempt to make it as clearly and logically as I can. Is it against the rules to clearly state one's opinion? I have been blunt for the entire six years I have been a member of the forum. If the bar is now suddenly being raised I need to know exactly where the bar is.

Everything I say completely contradicts the world view of believing folk. By the very nature of contradiction, everything I say is offensive to believers. This has ALWAYS been the nature of religious debate. Can a meaningful debate be truly conducted through cautionary layers of diplomatic jargon? Are we being reduced though an excess of etiquette anxiety to a position where meaningful debate is a myth? Have I really been outside of the rules during my entire six years as a member of the forum? Because my "tone" has been consistent this entire time. Or is it really the case that my arguments are have proven to be too uncomfortably effective and that has caused certain believers to complain about my "tone" as being offensive to them? Because the easiest way to counteract what I have to say has always been to offer up an effective counter argument.

[ttruscott]

...


And how often do we see that happen? A LOT. That just shows how many "uncivil" (unsubstantiated) claims theists make!

...

The incivility is not in making an unsubstantiated claim at all but in allowing one group to do so but not another...

[Tired of the Nonsense]

In an attempt at appeasement to all hurt feelings, I will attempt to remember to couch my statements in the future with the more politically correct phrase "in my opinion."

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 16 by ttruscott]

The incivility is not in making an unsubstantiated claim at all but in allowing one group to do so but not another...

Give an example of what you are referring to Ted. I might actually agree with you.

Threatening a non believer with Hell can be considered a form of a threat on this forum. I understand that. Pointing out the possibility of Hell on the other hand, could actually be considered an attempt at being helpful. I wouldn't personally consider either example to be uncivil when directed at me by a believer however. Because I understood the nature of the difference of opinion when I entered into the discussion.

You can refer to me as evil, or of being in cahoots with evil, all you wish. I am not offended. Because I deny the validity of your concept of evil. Whether you find that offensive is between you and you. I have no control over that. I can say this in all honesty; I have never EVER cried foul to the mods for anything that has ever been directed at me.

[FarWanderer]

...


And how often do we see that happen? A LOT. That just shows how many "uncivil" (unsubstantiated) claims theists make!

...

The incivility is not in making an unsubstantiated claim at all but in allowing one group to do so but not another...

I agree. This is the double standard I'm seeing:

Theist makes unsubstantiated claim ---> has the fact that it's unsubstantiated pointed out by non-theists.

Non-theist makes unsubstantiated claim ---> gets a moderator warning.

What double standard are you seeing?

[Bust Nak]

Is this a dirty little secret which would be uncivil to openly acknowledge? Is it "politically incorrect" to point out to adherents of "false" beliefs that they are subscribing to superstition and make believe, and not the "one TRUE belief?"

Yes and yes. So don't.

Because if that is so, then there are millions of missionaries currently out doing "God's work" who need to be recalled immediately. Mussent be offensive, after all! Or would that be considered unfairly restrictive when it comes to getting out the message?

Is being uncivil and politically incorrect, grounds for missionaries being recalled? Surely that's up to the their leadership.

In what way is this NOT an attempt by believers to tip the playing field in their favor, in a manner that they have thus far been unable to do through recourse to reason, logic and the facts?

Right, it's a red herring fallacy because the tone of the message does not invalidate the content of the message.

My tone is to be blunt. I have a case to make, and I attempt to make it as clearly and logically as I can. Is it against the rules to clearly state one's opinion? I have been blunt for the entire six years I have been a member of the forum. If the bar is now suddenly being raised I need to know exactly where the bar is.

I don't think the bar has changed. It's always been about respect and civil debate.

Everything I say completely contradicts the world view of believing folk. By the very nature of contradiction, everything I say is offensive to believers. This has ALWAYS been the nature of religious debate. Can a meaningful debate be truly conducted through cautionary layers of diplomatic jargon?

I think so. I would go as far as to say it's not hard.

Are we being reduced though an excess of etiquette anxiety to a position where meaningful debate is a myth? Have I really been outside of the rules during my entire six years as a member of the forum? Because my "tone" has been consistent this entire time.

Hopefully where you been spotted straying outside of the rules, the moderators have acted appropriately.

Or is it really the case that my arguments are have proven to be too uncomfortably effective and that has caused certain believers to complain about my "tone" as being offensive to them? Because the easiest way to counteract what I have to say has always been to offer up an effective counter argument.

That's for the audience to judge.