A Question

starn

Why does Christianity claim to be superior to all other faiths?

The Hummer

I didn't know it did?

3greenrizla's

i would imagine that Millions of Muslims, Jews, Budists and others would say the same thing.

Superior in what way?

BrianCalgary

starn wrote:

Why does Christianity claim to be superior to all other faiths?

I would say that all people of all faiths would consider their faiths superior otherwise they wouldn't be observant to that faiths practice.

robindch

> I would say that all people of all faiths would consider their faiths
> superior otherwise they wouldn't be observant to that faiths practice.

Wouldn't that suggest to you that perhaps there might be something to the some people's claims that religion is derived from simple and universal psychological needs, rather than any particular attraction to accuracy upon the part of the religion concerned?

starn

The Hummer wrote:

I didn't know it did?

It's the second commandment

You shall have no other gods besides Me

starn

robindch wrote:

> I would say that all people of all faiths would consider their faiths
> superior otherwise they wouldn't be observant to that faiths practice.

Wouldn't that suggest to you that perhaps there might be something to the some people's claims that religion is derived from simple and universal psychological needs, rather than any particular attraction to accuracy upon the part of the religion concerned?

I think you might have a goodpoint there

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

I would say that all people of all faiths would consider their faiths superior otherwise they wouldn't be observant to that faiths practice.

I would ammend that slightly. I believe my faith is the best one for me. I doubt it would suit everyone.

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

Wouldn't that suggest to you that perhaps there might be something to the some people's claims that religion is derived from simple and universal psychological needs, rather than any particular attraction to accuracy upon the part of the religion concerned?

Does this include your belief system Robin?

Starn, Christians believe they have the truth. They don't believe that they have assembled and cobbled together some practices and ritual to imbue life with meaning but that God is the foundation of all existence and purpose and that he has actually revealed himself to us through creation, the Scriptures, the prophets and most potently through himself as Jesus.

As such, they don't think they are "better" than others. They just believe they have found the truth. There is either one truth or no truth.

Dades

Hence, assuming you believe, it is 'superior' to know the truth.

Even as a heathen the OP strikes me as a non-question.
What self-respecting religion would claim to be inferior or on a par with another faith anyway?

robindch

> Does this include your belief system Robin?

Before saying anything, out of interest, what do you believe my "belief system" is?

chiller

is man gods greatest creation or is god mans greatest creation?

Dades

robindch wrote:

Before saying anything, out of interest, what do you believe my "belief system" is?

It's similar to your ethos, of course.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

It's similar to your ethos, of course.

Hahaha, them lemsips again. You are asking for trouble. Come robindch, you are not going to take that one lying down:eek: He can't ban you here

Excelsior

Your belief sytems seems to be based on the demand for empirical evidence to justify belief and doubt in the absence of such provision.

But my interpretation of your beliefs doesn't in anyway affect my enquiry about whether your belief system (surely you accept you too have one) is subject to the same explanation from psychological need as all other systems?

Morbert

Excelsior wrote:

Your belief sytems seems to be based on the demand for empirical evidence to justify belief and doubt in the absence of such provision.

But my interpretation of your beliefs doesn't in anyway affect my enquiry about whether your belief system (surely you accept you too have one) is subject to the same explanation from psychological need as all other systems?

Do you see atheism as simply a belief system?

Morbert

Morbert wrote:

Do you see atheism as simply a belief system?

It's more of a lack of belief system isn't it o.O

Excelsior

Of course it is a belief system Morbert. It is a worldview. It is a framework through which you evaluate your existence. And foundationally, it is a faith investment.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> I would say that all people of all faiths would consider their faiths
> superior otherwise they wouldn't be observant to that faiths practice.

Wouldn't that suggest to you that perhaps there might be something to the some people's claims that religion is derived from simple and universal psychological needs, rather than any particular attraction to accuracy upon the part of the religion concerned?

I would suggest that God in creating us in His image would have put in us a need and desire to have Him fill a hole in our lives. Therefore all humans look for a god to fill the hole.

Morbert

Excelsior wrote:

Of course it is a belief system Morbert. It is a worldview. It is a framework through which you evaluate your existence. And foundationally, it is a faith investment.

Well then what is the structure of this worldview? What tenets do we (atheists) use to evaluate our existence? What assertions/claims must we have faith in?

I'm not being a smartass. I just want a clear picture of what you believe atheism is.

Son Goku

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Excelsior, but I wouldn't be sure that that can be said of atheism.

In a literal sense, it is true. You have to believe there is no God, since there is no convincing evidence (objectively) either way. You also have to put your faith in this being correct.

You also have no external objective proof that the physical world exists, a lá Descartes, but you believe it exists. (Sorry for dragging the dead horse of nihilism into this)

I would call my faith in atheism (even though that isn't the word I'd use to describe myself, but I'll go with it for now) as similar to this level of belief in strength.

I think the fact that we can call it a belief system is an artefact of how the English language categorises thought. It isn't a belief system on par with any religion.

In sense, I believe you are correct, but only literally.

Excelsior

I know you're not being a smartass. No need to make such disclaimers.

I don't think I need to paint a picture of what atheism is, although as a former atheist I have a lot more sympathy with it than any other worldview. Most atheism is defined by a materialist viewpoint that seeks empirical backing prior to belief.

The faith assertion there is that matter is all there is.

Excelsior

But your empahsis on certain types of knowledge (empirical, for example) over others (experiential, for example) is faith based. Son Goku, I guess you could generalise my claim wider than the case of atheism and include agnosticism and everything else on the spectrum by saying that we all deploy "unsupported" metaphysical explanations for life and its purpose.

Son Goku

But your empahsis on certain types of knowledge (empirical, for example) over others (experiential, for example) is faith based.

I don't emphasis empirical evidence over experiential. They both have their domains, which intermingle quite a bit.
I only used empirical facts as they more easily show how impassionate I am about my atheism.
My faith in atheism is comparable to my faith that the Sun will rise or that my mother cares about me. I wouldn't describe any of these things with the word faith, its far too strong, even though ontologically it is justified in all three cases.

EDIT:Removed the very weak line, as it reads like I doubt the Sun will rise.

Morbert

Excelsior wrote:

I know you're not being a smartass. No need to make such disclaimers.

I don't think I need to paint a picture of what atheism is, although as a former atheist I have a lot more sympathy with it than any other worldview. Most atheism is defined by a materialist viewpoint that seeks empirical backing prior to belief.

The faith assertion there is that matter is all there is.

Then my disagreement would lie with the phrase "belief system", which implies a rigid set of tenets that are responsible for 'processing' our everyday experiences into a structure which is consistent with atheism, rendering it 'equivalent' to other belief structures such as Islam.

I have no faith in my atheism. I accept that it is completely tentative, and I am open to any form of spiritual revelation. My atheism does not rely on empiricism, it does not rely on revelation, it does not rely on a mindset. It is simply an accurate description of my personal experiences to date with the world we live in.

But your empahsis on certain types of knowledge (empirical, for example) over others (experiential, for example) is faith based.

Science has empiricism at its core, and science is very good at what it does, but atheism isn't a science.

[edit]-To clarify this last line: I'm saying that reliance on empirical evidence is justified in the realm of science. But that Atheism does not rely on empirical evidence.

Dades

For me, atheism is the rejection of prescribed belief systems, but isn't one itself.

An atheist may or may not develop a belief system, but this would be specific to the atheist in question as it is personal to them. We may share other belief systems, for example humanism, but again this only shows that atheism itself has none.

I would not say a belief is necessarily a "faith". For me a faith requires that there is some element of that belief that directly affects an individual's actions. If I have faith in God, I will live my life by his rules. If I have faith in my wife's driving I will let her drive. If I have faith that my dog will come home again I will let it out on the street.

There is no action associated with atheism. You are simply left with a situation where you can choose to develop or follow a secular belief system, or, as mentioned, live as a nihilist.