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?

[Bust Nak]

As per the op, a religious belief is either true, or it has been imagined into existence. There really is not a lot of middle ground. If a religious belief has been imagined into existence, it has been made up, and then transformed into a firm belief. Make believe. I made no reference to "pretend."

Then why use a term that implies pretend?

Believers are called believers because they genuinely believe in whatever make believe they have chosen to subscribe to. Pointing out to them just how and why their belief is make believe is the whole point of the discussion. Why undertake such a discussion in the first place if one is afraid to say what they mean?

I offered you two reasons, because a) it might drive your opponent away and b) give them the opportunity to complain about your tone and not your point.

I said exactly what I meant to say. I am not responsible for someone else bending what I said in to something I did not say. I DO find religion, the act of believing in things which are derived from the imagination, to be irrational, contradicting all reason and logic.

I am sure you meant what you meant, what you are saying is a different matter. If you do not find religion childish then don't use words such as make believe.

All religions tend to make up their own supporting facts and then declare them to be true. And that is make believe. It is my personal opinion that religion is just plain silly. I am prevented by the rules of the forum from referring to those who subscribe to religious beliefs as silly, however. Although one might well read that into the very act of being a non believer if they choose to, and in doing so become offended. Again, that is simply the nature of holding contradictory opinions. You are the one who interjected the term childish into the mix. Since the majority of adults in this world hold some form of religious belief, I am not even sure that particular term is technically accurate.

That's what makes it insulting. It wouldn't be an insult to call a child childish.

It might be more politically correct to avoid such an emotionally charged subject altogether. But that is not the purpose for which this forum was created, is it?

It says so right under the title "Respectful Religious Debates" (amongst other sub-titles.)

The purpose of the forum is to allow all sides to explain and express their beliefs, while at the same time seeking to avoid degenerating into pointless name calling. Non believers consider all religion to be superstitious make believe. Under the rules of the forum we have every right to openly express our core belief.

Only as long as it is respectful.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Then why use a term that implies pretend?

You are the one who has decided that make believe implies pretend. Why use your position to impose your judgments about what you personally have decided that something might be taken to imply, or attempt to suppress opinions that someone else MIGHT find disagreeable and upsetting? That's not moderating. That is censorship pure and simple. Make believe means to make something up and then contrive to believe that it is true. First one makes it up, and then one decides that it must be true. That's religion in a nutshell. And of course that is exactly what I am attempting to point out to believer as a non believer myself. It's all been made up! It's all make believe. You have arbitrarily decided on your own that my use of the term implies "pretending" on the part of believers. But not only is that NOT what I said, that is NOT what I meant. I made no implication that believers are pretending to believe in whatever it is that they have chosen to believe, or that they do not actually fully believe in their chosen form of make believe. I AM pointing out that their beliefs were the result of make believe from the get-go though, and exactly why those beliefs conform to something which was entirely made up and then assumed to be true in the first place.

Staying within the rules of the forum often requires that one choose their words carefully. Having those word redefined into what someone might imply that they mean casts a pall on any possibility of an open dialog. I am not implying that believers are pretended to believe whatever it is that they have chosen to believe. I AM attempting to illustrate just why said beliefs are nonsense. As a non believer myself that is hardly some kind of a hidden agenda. And of course a believer might well become offended at being shown why their entire world view on reality is nothing more than make believe and nonsense. But that is the nature of this debate, and cannot be helped.

This particular sub forum was designed and intended to be a place where believers and non believers can have an open dialog. Hurling insults at each other is non productive. Making strong points and then backing them up with facts, reason and logic IS perfectly productive however, and is a necessary process in an open dialog. Finding oneself hurt and insulted at being confronted with strong evidence that one's basic beliefs are invalid is a natural result of the process of having an open dialog over contradictory conclusions, and is to be expected.

It may well be that your chosen process in a dialog with a believer is to gently beat around the bush, so as not to be too upsetting. My chosen process is to attempt to say exactly what I mean. It is never my intention to be needlessly insulting. If I am perceived as being insulting it is because I am in the process of overturning someone else's fondly held basic belief. That is what necessarily occurs in a debate over contradictory conclusions.

[Bust Nak]

You are the one who has decided that make believe implies pretend. Why use your position to impose your judgments about what you personally have decided that something might be taken to imply, or attempt to suppress opinions that someone else MIGHT find disagreeable and upsetting? That's not moderating. That is censorship pure and simple.

I thought I made it clear I was posting with my poster hat on? It is not moderating. I would also say that censorship is in the job description of moderator. What is moderating, if not the suppression of speech or posting privilege for what are considered objectionable a forum?

Make believe means to make something up and then contrive to believe that it is true. First one makes it up, and then one decides that it must be true. That's religion in a nutshell. And of course that is exactly what I am attempting to point out to believer as a non believer myself. It's all been made up! It's all make believe. You have arbitrarily decided on your own that my use of the term implies "pretending" on the part of believers. But not only is that NOT what I said, that is NOT what I meant. I made no implication that believers are pretending to believe in whatever it is that they have chosen to believe, or that they do not actually fully believe in their chosen form of make believe. I AM pointing out that their beliefs were the result of make believe from the get-go though, and exactly why those beliefs conform to something which was entirely made up and then assumed to be true in the first place.

Arbitrarily decided on my own, you say? MAKE-BELIEVE:
a pretending that what is not real is real. (Merriam-Webster)
pretend; imagine. (Oxford dictionaries)
pretense, especially of an innocent or playful kind; feigning; sham (reference.com)
to pretend or imagine that something is true or real when it is not (Cambridge.org)

Indeed, make believe and pretend is listed as synonyms.

Staying within the rules of the forum often requires that one choose their words carefully. Having those word redefined into what someone might imply that they mean casts a pall on any possibility of an open dialog. I am not implying that believers are pretended to believe whatever it is that they have chosen to believe. I AM attempting to illustrate just why said beliefs are nonsense. As a non believer myself that is hardly some kind of a hidden agenda. And of course a believer might well become offended at being shown why their entire world view on reality is nothing more than make believe and nonsense. But that is the nature of this debate, and cannot be helped.

I agree, there is no hidden agenda, how we feel is hardly secret; which is why we can afford to "gently beat around the bush" without being mistaken for being soft.

This particular sub forum was designed and intended to be a place where believers and non believers can have an open dialog. Hurling insults at each other is non productive. Making strong points and then backing them up with facts, reason and logic IS perfectly productive however, and is a necessary process in an open dialog. Finding oneself hurt and insulted at being confronted with strong evidence that one's basic beliefs are invalid is a natural result of the process of having an open dialog over contradictory conclusions, and is to be expected.

Right you are, and those kind of offence caused by an argument are perfectly acceptable. As such I have rephrased your statements minus the words in question, without diluting the content of your argument.

It may well be that your chosen process in a dialog with a believer is to gently beat around the bush, so as not to be too upsetting. My chosen process is to attempt to say exactly what I mean. It is never my intention to be needlessly insulting. If I am perceived as being insulting it is because I am in the process of overturning someone else's fondly held basic belief. That is what necessarily occurs in a debate over contradictory conclusions.

The question is whether the perceived insult, is the result of your argument or your choice of words.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 43 by Bust Nak]

I thought I made it clear I was posting with my poster hat on? It is not moderating. I would also say that censorship is in the job description of moderator. What is moderating, if not the suppression of speech or posting privilege for what are considered objectionable a forum?

My apologies. But your comment to me that the term "Make believe" was uncivil because it inferred childishness was made as a moderator. And you specifically admitted that your intention was to muzzle my freedom of expression, even though what I said was not outside the rules of the forum.

Arbitrarily decided on my own, you say? MAKE-BELIEVE:
a pretending that what is not real is real. (Merriam-Webster)
pretend; imagine. (Oxford dictionaries)
pretense, especially of an innocent or playful kind; feigning; sham (reference.com)
to pretend or imagine that something is true or real when it is not (Cambridge.org)

Indeed, make believe and pretend is listed as synonyms.

If you look at my current posts you will see that I am going out of my way to justify the use of the term "make believe," and to use it in a way that specifically excludes any inference of "childishness" or "pretend." This evolution in my approach can be credited entirely to you.

[Bust Nak]

My apologies. But your comment to me that the term "Make believe" was uncivil because it inferred childishness was made as a moderator. And you specifically admitted that your intention was to muzzle my freedom of expression, even though what I said was not outside the rules of the forum.

Whether it is outside the rules or not, is being debated here. And I am debating that as a poster, moderators don't debate their decision in public, instead we issue warnings for responding to moderator actions in public, muzzling your freedom of expression.

If you look at my current posts you will see that I am going out of my way to justify the use of the term "make believe," and to use it in a way that specifically excludes any inference of "childishness" or "pretend." This evolution in my approach can be credited entirely to you.

First of all do you concede that the term "make believe" can easily be interpreted as childish without twisting the English language arbitrarily? If so why not use another term so you don't have to explicitly exclude inference?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

First of all do you concede that the term "make believe" can easily be interpreted as childish without twisting the English language arbitrarily? If so why not use another term so you don't have to explicitly exclude inference?

It's true that children often simply make things up. To a youngster anything seems possible and therefore could be true. As we grow into adulthood some of us make an effort to discover how the world actually works. Others however maintain a childlike view of the world into adulthood. It's a view based on decisions concerning the workings of the world which they have first imagined to be true, and then contrived to believe. Adults are perfectly capable of making things up too. Let me put it this way. Children love going to Disneyland. Just because children love it, doesn't necessarily imply that adults are being childish by enjoying going to Disneyland as well. If it does, then I freely admit to being a huge child.

I had a discussion with a woman once who insisted she had absolute proof of the existence of God. After the great flood of Noah, God took the water away and promised never to flood the world again. The great flood was thousands of years ago, she pointed out, and every year for those thousands of years the rains have come. But the oceans have not over topped the mountains again, just as God had promised. Because in her mind God made the rain to fall from heaven new and fresh each time it rained. And each year God took the excess water away again, keeping His promise. Clearly, God must exist. If there is no God to regulate the water, she insisted, then the build up from thousands of years of rainfall would have certainly covered the entire earth all over again. Let's face it, this is a pretty childlike view of the world. A view which I don't doubt most ancient peoples also held over the centuries. But a view which is childlike today. How does one go about contradicting such a belief, without appearing to be talking down to them, and possibly offending them?

I explained the principle of evaporation and precipitation to her. She had experience with water turning into steam and seemed to understand when I explained that humidity was simply molecules of water that is mixed in with the molecules of the air. The possibility that the water that falls every year is really the same water over and over intrigued her, even though she was still skeptical. When I got to the part about explaining that the same water is simply recycled over and over, and that virtually every drop of water she drank had been though the urinary systems of countless humans and animals before, that horrified her. The very suggestion that she might be drinking what had once been pee water deeply offended her. It offended her personal sensibilities. It offended her religious beliefs. God did not make pee water for humans to drink! End of discussion!

And so she left with her make believe view of the world intact, although perhaps slightly ruffled. My point here is, that a childlike view of reality is a childlike view of reality. Every day teachers challenge this childlike view of reality by attempting to explain the factual operation of the world we live in. Explaining to an adult that something represents make believe is no different from explaining to a child that something represents make believe. If the adult chooses to be offended by the possibility that what they have made themselves to believe is actually false, that is the price that must be paid for choosing knowledge over make believe. Attempting to sugarcoat things is pointless.

Catholics put great stock in the power of "holy water." Holy water is simply tap water that a priest has prayed over. Certain evangelists are well known for sending out "prayer cloth" which is a piece of material that they have prayed over, and then charging their followers for the privilege of having such a powerful weapon in the fight against evil. I could easily refer to this as foolish mumbo-jumbo. Instead, in an attempt t be civil, I refer to it as make believe. If a believer chooses to read mumbo-jumbo into that, who am I to argue! I made my attempt at civility.

I did not use the terms "childish." "childlike," or "pretend." To "make believe" something is true means to first make something up, and then to contrive to believe that it is true. Believing that God makes the rain water fresh and new each time it rains, and that God necessarily controls the amount of water the earth is allowed to have is make believe. If a teacher is pointing out that made up solutions are not necessarily always valid solutions and this causes an individual to consider the possibility that they have been subscribing to childlike beliefs all along, then the teacher is doing EXACTLY the job that the teacher intended to do. The teacher might be wrong to tell the person that they were being childish. They are not wrong, or in our case uncivil, in seeking to lead the individual to that conclusion however. If doing that is uncivil then these discussions are pointless. And sugar coating things gets no one anywhere. It seems entirely possible that many believers are of the opinion that I am talking down to them, and that I consider their beliefs to be childish. Even though I have made no such statement. My only solution to that perception, would be to not talk at all. Which I am sure most believers would vote for.

I believe that this forum was intended for all sides to make their particular points in a cordial manner. I don't believe that it was ever intended to be a contest to see who can be the most congenial in the process of making those points, however. Especially those cases where excessive congeniality frankly only serves to confuse or limit what is attempting to be examined.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 46 by Tired of the Nonsense]
For much of your post, you are still talking about what your intention was when you used the phrase "make believe" instead a typical interpretation of said phrase. Even if you could fully justify that you didn't imply childishness when you used "make believe," that still doesn't change a thing. The term still typically mean pretence even if you aren't using it that way.

Besides, if one actually believes that God makes the rain water fresh and new each time it rains, then it is not make believe. Make believe means she believe it's not true but go through the motion as if it was true.

How does one go about contradicting such a belief, without appearing to be talking down to them, and possibly offending them?

By being very selective about the words you use.

[Danmark]

I guess the essence of this thread is about the meaning of "make believe," and whether it is a pejorative or not. But I'd like to take a look at the process itself.

I grew up with parents, evangelicals, who really believed God was the center of the universe and that a relationship with God, thru Jesus was the most important thing in life. I remember being in church as a five year old and seeing an altar call and wanting to 'go forward' even tho' I didn't understand.

At six or seven I recall meeting with the pastor. He wanted me to close my eyes, search for, and accept the Holy Spirit, which appeared so real to him and to my parents. I suppose my recollections are hazy now, 60 years later, but I remember trying to believe, trying to actually go inside my head to find God's spirit there. This is where the 'make believe' comes in. I told myself and the pastor I experienced this spirit, but did I really? I don't think so. My recollection is that I wanted to, I said I did, but I didn't really experience anything except the wanting to, the trying and nothingness, yet the 'almost' of finding "it." Perhaps others can recall such an experience at a young age and describe it.

I have no problem with calling it quite literally an effort to make believe, to pretend even to myself that I experienced something that wasn't there. My older self sees this as nothing less than unintentional abuse. My parents were doing their best to help me, to 'get me into heaven.'

But I see it as loving coercion to believe what just ain't so. I KNEW it just wasn't so, but went along anyway, hoping what I heard as silence was actually this indefinable 'spirit' that was supposed to be there. Today it seems like nothing more than trying to get someone to develop a fantasy, an accepted delusion or hallucination, an artificial mental illness.

The fact that this was a loving, sincere effort by people who seemed otherwise healthy and happy, and successful does not change the fact I was expected to 'make believe.'

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Besides, if one actually believes that God makes the rain water fresh and new each time it rains, then it is not make believe. Make believe means she believe it's not true but go through the motion as if it was true.

This is simply how you have chosen to interpret my use of "make believe." CONTEXT MATTERS! As I have explained to you excessively, and as I am attempting to make perfectly clear in my other posts, my usage of the term "make believe" applies to those things believers have imagined to be true, and then have chosen to believe in. They have made themselves to believe in something, as if the belief itself represented undeniable proof. A prime example of this is the Christian who quotes a particular chapter and verse as undeniable proof of his assertions. Because in the minds of very many Christians, the Bible represent unchangeable fact. That the Bible represents unchangeable fact however is a BELIEF, and often this must be pointed out. Believers have declared the Bible to be unchangeable truth because that is what they have chosen to believe. They have MADE THEMSELVES TO BELIEVE IT. Make believe! You are the one who has introduced the idea of childishness into the discussion, not me. I certainly am not questioning the sincerity of true believers in whatever it is that they have made themselves to believe in. And I am most certainly not charging believers with pretending. I grew up around some very devout believers in my family. I know for a certainty that they are not, or were not at this point, pretending. Again, this is an element that you have interjected into the discussion.

By being very selective about the words you use.

I have BEEN very carefully choosing my words these last six years, which is why I am so distressed that you are attempting to turn what I actually said into what you have determined that I might well have actually meant. If words are now to arbitrarily mean whatever you have decided that they mean, then there is no firm footing to stand on. Your next step may well be to decide to read between the lines of my posts and conclude that I am inferring that religion is nothing more than hopeless BS, and that believers are simply unaware of exactly how much shyte they are actually full of. And you might even be correct. But I have made every effort to be civil and remain within the rules of the forum by choosing my words more diplomatically than that by NOT using those terms. What does the term BS mean after all, but the purest and utmost level of nonsense. The potential to be considered offensive is right there in my forum name. And if a particular believer cannot tolerate the possibility of being offended by information which contradicts their most fervent beliefs, they probably should not be using this forum.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I guess the essence of this thread is about the meaning of "make believe," and whether it is a pejorative or not. But I'd like to take a look at the process itself.

I grew up with parents, evangelicals, who really believed God was the center of the universe and that a relationship with God, thru Jesus was the most important thing in life. I remember being in church as a five year old and seeing an altar call and wanting to 'go forward' even tho' I didn't understand.

At six or seven I recall meeting with the pastor. He wanted me to close my eyes, search for, and accept the Holy Spirit, which appeared so real to him and to my parents. I suppose my recollections are hazy now, 60 years later, but I remember trying to believe, trying to actually go inside my head to find God's spirit there. This is where the 'make believe' comes in. I told myself and the pastor I experienced this spirit, but did I really? I don't think so. My recollection is that I wanted to, I said I did, but I didn't really experience anything except the wanting to, the trying and nothingness, yet the 'almost' of finding "it." Perhaps others can recall such an experience at a young age and describe it.

I have no problem with calling it quite literally an effort to make believe, to pretend even to myself that I experienced something that wasn't there. My older self sees this as nothing less than unintentional abuse. My parents were doing their best to help me, to 'get me into heaven.'

But I see it as loving coercion to believe what just ain't so. I KNEW it just wasn't so, but went along anyway, hoping what I heard as silence was actually this indefinable 'spirit' that was supposed to be there. Today it seems like nothing more than trying to get someone to develop a fantasy, an accepted delusion or hallucination, an artificial mental illness.

The fact that this was a loving, sincere effort by people who seemed otherwise healthy and happy, and successful does not change the fact I was expected to 'make believe.'

Yes, how many people attend church regularly and go through the motions of belief, even though they may have grave suspicions themselves that none of it is true, simply in an attempt to remain socially accepted? I often wonder this specifically about Mormons. Can they possibly all REALLY buy the whole story of Jesus and Satan as the son's of Elohim, the ruler Being of a far away planet, who have come to earth to have a contest to see who will rule the Earth? Or the extraordinarily amusing Joseph Smith face-in-the-top-hat translating golden plates tale? Exactly how many I wonder simply go though the motions, because their families, their social lives and standing, and often their occupations, revolve around fealty to the Mormon church?

This is not what I would generally refer to as make believe however. This is what I WOULD refer to as play acting and pretending. But since it is impossible to know what is going on inside the head of a person that I have never physically met, and frankly do not know, I would never charge a member of this forum with play acting or pretending. Even though I might suspect it.