Are religious beliefs that are opposed to yours wrong?

[ZombieHorde]

For example: If you are a Christian, are atheists beliefs about god wrong?
If you are a Muslim, are Buddhist beliefs about reincarnation wrong?
If you are an atheist, are Jews beliefs about prayers to god wrong?


Are religious beliefs that are opposed to yours wrong?

[panader0]

1. Yer goddamned right!

Seriously, we are all one.

[ZombieHorde]

7. So, if someone believes that we are all two (maybe saved and not saved)

Are they right or wrong?

[bowens43]

2. All religious beliefs are wrong.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. And that automatically excludes atheists' beliefs, because we

have none.

Atheistic beliefs, in that they don't exist, are the only right ones.

(Let em chew on that for a while.)

[ZombieHorde]

6. Don't atheists believe that there is no god?

[guyanakoolaid]

9. Do you believe there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[ZombieHorde]

11. Yes, I believe that their is no FSM (though I love the pictures of him/her that I have seen)

[guyanakoolaid]

13. Point being, belief is not the state a mind starts in.

That is a cultural bias. There is not belief something doesn't exist, rather no belief at all in the first place. Theists have a hard time grasping this sometimes because belief seems to them to be naturally hard-wired into a person's brain.

[ZombieHorde]

16. Why does it matter to my query what state of mind people begin with?

People have beliefs about religion.

Those beliefs seem to differ.

Are some beliefs about religion wrong?

[guyanakoolaid]

21. Actually most religious beliefs are wrong

at least as far as they relate to mystical powers.

My point is that it's not an existent belief that there are no mystical powers, I remain in the nothingness of not having the belief in the first place.

It's not "I have a belief that Uri Geller can't bend spoons with his mind," But rather for someone else to believe that he can. Belief in this case never enters my mind.

You can't believe in a negative.

[ZombieHorde]

22. believe in a negative

Why can't someone believe in a negative?

I can believe that my wife will not kill me in my sleep tonight.

I can believe that there is no Santa Claus.

I can believe that there is no DVD in the DVD case.

[guyanakoolaid]

23. What I'm trying to do is point out that theists have the idea that belief is normal

That it is the starting place. We actually start from no belief, no thoughts. The thought that your wife could kill you didn't exist in the past. Now, after having considered the idea and the fact that it has no basis in reality, you have rightly dismissed it. But is it something you believe she won't do, or is it more likely that it's something you have no reason to believe in the first place?

[ZombieHorde]

24. I am missing the difference on this one...

But is it something you believe she won't do, or is it more likely that it's something you have no reason to believe in the first place?

so...

1. Believe she won't kill me
or
2. No reason to believe she will kill me

Is this strictly a semantical argument?

Just so that we are on the same page, I am using definitions one and two.

be·lief
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

[edhopper]

28. And then you open the DVD case and

know there is no DVD. You are talking about whether you accept the fact of something. The Santa hypothesis is so ludicrous, you don't see how it's plausible, you don't believe it is not true, you have no reason to accept the fact of it. Your wife has given you no reason to suspect she will kill you, you have no reason to think this is an event that will happen.
This things are not based on belief, but on evidence.
There is a huge difference between these thing and the belief in God that most religious people tell me about.

[ZombieHorde]

30. Beliefs can be based on evidence.

You go home, see that your front door is broken in, and you believe that your house was broken into.

Beliefs are opinions.

[edhopper]

31. And then you go inside

and find out if, in fact it had been. Then you know whether it had or not. If there is no evidence what so ever that your house had been broken into, but you still believe it, you might just be paranoid. But don't try to convince me or tell me I should just accept your belief with all evidence to the contrary.
And actually you had a hypothesis about being not broken into, not a belief.

[ZombieHorde]

32. What is your definition of the word "belief"?

[Warpy]

10. Do you believe there isn't a Unicorn sleeping in your bed right now?

[ZombieHorde]

12. Yes, I believe that there is no unicorn sleeping in my bed right now.

I can clearly see that he is awake and watching Invader Zim.

[Warpy]

15. Do you BELIEVE it or do you just have no evidence of it?

[ZombieHorde]

17. I BELIEVE that there is no unicorn sleeping in my bed.

[Warpy]

25. Well, there you have the basic difference

I have seen my bed and know there is no Unicorn sleeping in it. I have never seen a Unicorn in my life that hasn't been the product of an artist and not photographed. I don't have any reason to believe Unicorns exist.

Therefore, I lack belief that there could ever be a Unicorn in my bed. I siimply lack faith, any variant of it, that suggests such a thing could ever occur.

You, on the other hand, merely believe a Unicorn is not sleeping in your bed. That means you entertain the possibility that it could happen, even though you've never seen anything to make you think such a beast exists and if it did, that it would ever be interested in your bed.

Get it yet? No? Well, join all the other people who are so mired in faith that they are incapable of comprehending a life without it.

[ZombieHorde]

26. I believe that the difference is our definitions of the word "belief".

be·lief
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

I am using definitions one and two here. Which are you using?

[dmallind]

27. How many times has this been asked and answered

NO.

Not all, not many, in fact a very very few atheists are "strong atheists" (a philosophical term in loaded language for which I wish there were a better alternative) who deny the possibility of any divine existence.

The vast majority of us are weak atheists (see above paranthetical aside) who merely withhold belief in gods because we are not convinced.

I know dozens of atheists well enough to have had that coversation. I've been in rooms with hundreds of them when the latter definition has been given and assumed, including when I have been doing the defining, and with abosultely zero onjections. I know of TWO strong atheists. That's know OF.

To me strong atheism is equally irrational to faith without evidence, because it assumes universal knowledge. The only things where a positive belief in their absence (as opposed to a lack of belief in their presence) is logically sound are concepts that are internally inconsistent. I am a "strong atheist" of married bachelors for example.

The difference is very easy to imagine.

Let's say I claim to be a mulitimillionaire. Such peope certainly exist. It's not even that unusual any more - there are many thousands of such people. However it's still not common, and it's a rather self-aggrandizing claim. You I can assume have littel to no knowledge of me and even less of my finances.

Do you believe me?

Chances are your response would be "I doubt it, but show me some 1040's and some financial statemenmts and sure I'll buy it"

THAT's an analogy for weak atheism - and is a rational position I myself would have if you made the same claim.


Would you say "No I am absolutely sure it's impossible for you to be a multimillionaire!"

THAT's an analogy for strong atheism (sort of - more later on the subtle difference). Why would you say so? I'm certainly not poor. I have a mid six figure income. All it would take for me to be a multimillionaire is the good fortune to have been left a really rather unspectacular home in San Diego, or London if you by chance recall me metioning my UK birth, by my parents, and the good sense to have sold it a couple years back. Or perhaps a small stake in an internet startup ten years ago. It would be irrational and very arrogant to assume you could KNOW I'm not a multimillionaire.

The subtle difference is that we know there ARE multimillionaires. Strong atheists are in one way more "sensible" to deny the possibility of a being which is both much much greater than a multimillionaire and also for which there is no evidence. They still however go way too far IMO in assuming that there CAN be no god. Just because the god of the Bible presents insurmountable problems doesn't mean that the god of the European Deists does. A disinterested Creator God who set off the big bang and said "hey let's see what happens" is far from likely, and there's bugger all evidence to say one exists. there is however no rational way to say it's impossible that one does.

That's why most of us are weak atheists, and most of us therefore do not have a positive belief in the ABSENCE of gods, merely an ABSENCE of belief in the gods that people so far have tried to prove or defend.



BTW I'm not a multimillionaire. Not all that far off though.

[Warpy]

8. I would say that we can be proven neither wrong not right

Since proving a negative is logically impossible.

However, nothing looks sillier than somebody else's religion, no matter how silly one's own looks to somebody else.

That's why we have always had such a strict separation of church and state in this country. It avoids all sorts of silly arguments and unwinnable rows over dogma by lawmakers whose minds should be on running the country.

When the wall breaks down, as in the attempt to put prayer and bible reading into the public schools in Philadelphia in the mid 1800's, riots break out as people fight over which version, from whose bible, is going to be taught to their children.

http://www.aoh61.com/history/bible/rob_boston.htm

[ZombieHorde]

19. Since proving a negative is logically impossible.

Can't someone prove that there is no DVD in the DVD case? Is that not a negative?

and...

What does proof have to with belief. I have no proof that my computer will not turn in a badger and kick my ass when I hit "Post Message", but I believe that it won't so strongly, that I will hit "Post Message" with confidence.

[dmallind]

29. Not really

It's easy to prove there is no DVD in the DVD case if you have access to accurate enough weights of empty and full DVD cases and a scale discriminating enough to show the difference.

That's not proving a universal negative. It's certainly not proving a universal metaphysical negative. It's proving the absence of one empirical phenomenon.

The badger analogy is much closer. You are certainly logically sound in assuming your post message key will not cause badger attacks, because you have done so thousands of times without that happening. there are millions upon millions of examples of others doing the same thing and not a single example of badger conversion on record. There is no known or understood process by which post message clicks could cause badger conversions. However that's not the same meaning of "faith". You don't have a deep and abiding belief in the absence of post message-created badgers. You just I'm sure think it's a silly idea that makes no sense. You are a weak theist analogy in terms of badger conversions, as am I.

Do you however have a firm conviction that it's impossible, anywhere in any conceivable universe with any conceivable form of life, that clicking post message could NEVER, at any point in time, cause a badger conversion? Then you'd be a strong atheist analogy in this question.

Consider the technology that such a function would need. We'd have to be able to deconstruct the very atoms of a computer and reconstruct them into a pissed off small mammal. It's way way beyond current human possibilities, and has certainly never occurred. However I would not be so bold as to say that there is no chance that this could ever, for any species at any time, be possible. There is some pretty startling work going on at the subatomic level that could perhaps be the equivalent of the first stone age wheel to a Lexus LS600h when considered in the progress toward badger conversions.

[Ian David]

4. There is only One True Church. That is IanDB1's Church of HotChickOlogy.

Only "Hot Chicks" are allowed to join, and they all have to belong to ME!

Who wants to be first to join?

Hurry, before my wife finds out.

[ZombieHorde]

14. If you flip me over I am a "Hot Chick".

[htuttle]

5. Mu.

All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

[hyphenate]

18. You left out

I don't give a crap what other people think--everyone has a right to their opinion.

With just a couple of exceptions:

When they try to shove their opinion down my throat
When they are scientifically challenged (creationists)
When they continually are nasty to others with their religious arrogance

[cosmik debris]

20. You are welcome to your own beliefs, not your own facts.

If you are wrong on the facts, belief is irrelevant.

[Marrah_G]

33. Other: That depends on what you mean by wrong

Do you mean wrong as in morally wrong or wrong as in incorrect.

I believe that my beliefs are my own and are between my deities and myself. I believe others are wrong in imposing their beliefs on others. As far as who has the real deities.... well now, I don't know. Maybe me, maybe them, maybe neither, maybe both.

I believe it is arrogant to claim you have all the answers.

[ZombieHorde]

34. Good question. I mean incorrect. nt

[John Gauger]

35. Yes.

I hold hold my beliefs to be correct (that's why I believe them.) Anyone who disagrees is therefore wrong.

[Nihil]

36. Other: They have the same chance of being right (or wrong) as my own.

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective. Beliefs are also subjective.

To me, this implies that a person can only judge his/her own beliefs
(or lack thereof) as they are the only people completely within their
own frame of reference. Making judgement calls on the subjective beliefs
of others is invalid as not all of the frame of reference for that
belief is available to the person making the decision.

i.e., you can always have an opinion about beliefs (yours or others)
but you are not in a position to ascertain "right" or "wrong" for
anyone other than yourself.

(It is a form of "No" answer that wasn't provided as an option.)
:hi: