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]

...

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?

Since neither lack of evidence nor lack of proof PROVES the falsity of the premise, yes it is uncivil because 1. to say it is "make believe" is to make a positive but unproven statement about the premise as if the premise was proven false and 2. Religion is constantly being ordered to prove their belief because they are contending it is true so the onus of proof is theirs...

this double standard is uncivil.

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

A religious belief is either true, or it is and always was make believe.

I disagree with this blanket statement concerning all possible "religions".

I hold that it is possible to have a "religion" based upon sound observations, knowledge, and logical rational thinking.

Why should such a religion be referred to as "make believe"?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Since neither lack of evidence nor lack of proof PROVES the falsity of the premise, yes it is uncivil because 1. to say it is "make believe" is to make a positive but unproven statement about the premise as if the premise was proven false and 2. Religion is constantly being ordered to prove their belief because they are contending it is true so the onus of proof is theirs...

this double standard is uncivil.

I disagree with this blanket statement concerning all possible "religions"

I hold that it is possible to have a "religion" based upon sound observations, knowledge, and logical rational thinking.

Why should such a religion be referred to as "make believe"?

If a religion, or a belief, is true then it is not make believe. If the religion is true, then a case should be made by the believer to demonstrate that fact. Every believer of every belief, believes with all their heart that their belief is the one true belief. That's why such things are referred to as "beliefs," and those who subscribe to them are called "believers." Non believers obviously disagree. Non believers very openly consider such beliefs to be false. False beliefs are obviously derived entirely from make believe, since if they are not true, they must have been derived entirely from the human imagination. As, for example, most Christians would readily acknowledge that the religious beliefs of the ancient Romans, or the religious beliefs of the Vikings, were derived purely from make believe. To be a Christian expressly requires one to suppose that these ancient beliefs, and all others as well, were or are nothing more than make believe. Those gods never existed, and those tales never occurred. For a non believer to refer to religion in general as make believe, is simply to state the very obvious foundation of what it is to be a non believer. For any believer who is attempting to engage a non believer in a debate, the understanding, from the beginning, is that the the non believer considers the believer's beliefs to be false, and therefore derived from make believe. In the same way that any believer automatically declares that all other beliefs are false beliefs. If they are false, then they are make believe.

Another way to put this, is to point out that "The Wizard of Oz" is widely considered to be make believe, despite the fact that it has yet to be proven that the land of Oz does not exist. On this basis, literally everything the non believer has to say will be considered blasphemous and offensive by the believer. If causing offence by stating a contrary point of view it to be considered uncivil, then there can be no starting point to ANY religious debate. Based on potential to offend, virtually everything a non believer has to say to a believer is subject to being considered offensive. This should be considered obvious going in to such a debate.

I consider religion to be make believe Ted. I don't need to prove that I consider religion to be make believe. I just said so openly. Beyond this difference of opinion let's reason it out.

[Stonez]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

It's a little like political correctness, Always trying not to offend people when it is usually people who willingly take offence. People are forced to use other words that do not describe the word they should be using, in the name of political correctness, so as not to offend anyone. IMO, political correctness is nonsense...

Non believers don't believe and believers make believe...I say this through experience. I've lived on both sides of the fence...

Is offending someone wrong? Is it them who take offence or me who gives offence? I think people take things to personally...I can do that too, from an atheist point of view...The way believers speak concerning non believers is extremely offensive, which is why a lot of atheists go out of their way to oppose religion...

It's a little like common sense and nonsense. The word Nonsense can offend but really all it means is that something doesn't make sense. It's similar to make believe. It just means that the believer is believing in things that logically don't make sense, so they are forced to make believe in any way possible, to justify other beliefs they have, when really, it does not even make sense...so not only is it make believe, it is believing in nonsense and that's what forces someone to make believe...

It's the same as a child who believes in Santa. That would be make believe...

I can't see any getting around it. What someone says can be sugar coated but it shouldn't be hidden in the name of political correctness...

[Divine Insight]

Every believer of every belief, believes with all their heart that their belief is the one true belief.

Don't you think you should leave extremist claims up to the "believers"?

Don't scientist who "believe" in science openly admit that if they find new data they will change their current "beliefs"?

I'm pretty sure that most of them take this position.

I don't see why this can't also be true of some religious people. The Dalai Lama has certainly expressed this view as well.

[acapiz]

Hello Tired of the Nonsense:


I believe this is about 'political correctness' and nuance.
If you use the word make-believe it might be construed to suggest deception with will full and knowing intent. It might also suggest intellectual malfunction.

If you use the word 'unproven', 'unsubstantiated' you will be fine, and on a good day you might get away with bogus/fake. It is the intent that is the thing, probably bogus/fake is as far as you can go and even here there is a smidge of willful intent at deception suggested. Tip toe through the tulips, comes to mind, its a song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcSlcNfThUA

a personal construct, a wishful notion, a fictitious creation, but definitely not 'make-believe'. I had it and then I just lost it

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

Ah. I would not feel myself to be 'civil' if I personally used those words. Although 'make believe' in part describes how I regard most religious belief, I personally feel there are other, less provocative and more respectful words that are more appropriate to use under most circumstances (how waz that for diplomacy ?).

"Make believe" is too typically used to describe child's play or to diminish the credibility of an adult with beliefs felt to be untrue. It also ascribes a negative intent to the 'make believer'. This is unnecessarily provocative in my opinion. A person's belief system, however steeped in superstition, ought first to be considered within the context of that person's life, not my own (and my general conclusions about religion being superstitious)

That said . . . I completely understand the frustration when a religious person over values their subjective religious beliefs and either expects or attempts to force another person to abide by them. That's when I am tempted to point out the 'make believe' basis of their religious behaviors, mainly because they've crossed a line and done ticked me off.

Otherwise, I personally feel it is important to maintain a mutual, sensitive respect, no matter how absurd and ridiculous I regard the other person's religious beliefs. As this is a debate forum, and we may engage in open conflict, I believe we ought to maintain mutual respect at the level of personal value, ie, refrain from making value statements about the other person's personhood as much as possible, including the use of certain 'negative' descriptions of this person's religious beliefs.

It's often simply a matter of careful writing. Or 'sitting' on something I've written, not hitting 'submit' until some time has passed and I go back and review it in a less heated or intense frame of mind. Sometimes what I write 'sounds' entirely appropriate in the heat of the moment, but a half hour later, yeah, it's a bit much.

[FarWanderer]

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?

Agreed. If no one were allowed to make a claim the other side doesn't like, we could have no debate.

Personally, I think it says a lot that rather than attempting to refute your characterization of their position, they just cry foul.

I guess that's all they got, eh?

[FarWanderer]

...

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?

Since neither lack of evidence nor lack of proof PROVES the falsity of the premise, yes it is uncivil because 1. to say it is "make believe" is to make a positive but unproven statement about the premise as if the premise was proven false and 2. Religion is constantly being ordered to prove their belief because they are contending it is true so the onus of proof is theirs...

this double standard is uncivil.

Peace, Ted

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.