Humility vs. Preaching
Offline Some statements and concepts keep popping up in various discussions that take place on these boards and others that I find puzzling.
Please let me know if any of these statements are incorrect. They mostly pertain to Christianity.
- Every mainstream theist will tell you their religion is all about piece, love thy neighbor, being pious, humble, etc..
- Every mainstream theist believes that only their god(s) exist.
- Every mainstream theist also believes that they are compelled to spread the word of there god one way or another.
Is it not a conflict of interest to spread the belief that your god is the one and only true god (and thus irrevocably believe anyone else is wrong) and be humble at the same time?
Maybe this would have to presuppose that their respective religious claims are unsubstantiated to an outside observer (Which I do, and maybe that's the reason). I guess one would think you'd have the right to tell everyone else they're wrong if you truely believed you were correct but to me almost every religion's claims look the same. They all tell me something is wrong with me and that I don't know or just can't see the truth yet and that only they have the fix for it. This is where the conundrum of humility comes in for me. Maybe this is just quibbling over definitions...
Anyway, let the apologetics fly.
Also, my apologies if something similar has already been argued to death.
- Login to post comments
piece.
A piece of what Ciarin? Or do you mean peace?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Some religions want peace. Some religions want a piece of the action.
Sure.
Yes. Piece?
Yes.
Yes.
I don't think so. Certainly, most Christians aren't very humble when talking with non-theists. But, you can be correct and humble, right?
They're very good at presupposing.
Yep.
Probably.
Undoubtedly.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Heh, sorry for the typo. *peace*
I like the Aurelius quote butterbattle. I just wish theists thought the same thing.
I just find it confounding how every religion can claim to have the absolute truth and at the same time preach humility when obviously many of them are wrong in more ways than one.
They're humbly self-righteous.
Assuming we are defining humble as "not convinced that your shit isn't stinky"
A person can be correct and be humble at the same time.
It is very unlikely that a person can argue their side, pick apart the arguments or your side, and be humble at the same time (regardless of how correct they are).
Probably true. I can think of multiple times when I've been arguing with people---not just about theism---and they have said, "I think you're being a little arrogant."
When I asked them how so, their responses were along the lines of: "I don't know. You just give me the impression that you think your opinion is superior to mine."
In which case my response----and what I think is the appropriate response---is always:
I KNOW. THAT'S THE POINT OF ARGUMENT.
If I didn't think my opinion was superior to the person I was arguing with, then I wouldn't be arguing, now would I?
So if thinking you're correct precludes humility, then humility is virtually impossible.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Yeah the whole line of questioning was kind of a waste of time, I sort of answered my own question. Just another incoherent terms to add to the theist pile.
Religion is just too easy to throw out apologetics and think you've automatically won an argument. Can't really argue with someone who insists the supernatural is real and refuses to consider any other stance on the matter. Ah well, just venting a little.
It's cool. Get it all out. When I first came to this site, I was posting like a mad man in order to vent the years and years of keeping my opinion to myself. In that time, I probably posted hundreds of things people had heard before and were sick of listening to, but were new to me. Now I feel I've pretty much heard all of the common arguments from both sides, plus a fair share of the more uncommon ones, and it's rare that I hear an argument from theist or atheist that I haven't heard before.
Now my participation on this forum is 50% about atheism and 50% about immature, childish humor. =D
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
All arguments aside..... there is still just one bottom line.
When scholars argued whether the world was flat or round ---- only one truth
When scholars argued whether the Earth orbited the Sun or the Earth was the center ---- still only one truth
There is but one truth
Even so with the arguments of this forum. There is still only one truth.
Faith has its role in religion and science. Even the great minds of the past and of our time do not agree on every theory. Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. A theory is an unproved assumption. So, even science at time requires faith.
Now what we choose to believe is irrelevant. I can choose to believe that when I die I am reincarnated. There is no scientific proof, yet I can believe this - as many cultures and people do.
We, as humans on Earth, still have very little understanding of the universe, relative to the amount of knowledge to be gained. We have obviously gained more understanding than our ancestors yet we know very little still. Science is ever changing and ever corrected.
In light of our lack of knowledge, we utilize faith. We all believe in something. Even believing in nothing is believing in something.
And whatever we choose to believe, the bottom line is there is still only one truth.
As a believer and follower of Jesus of Nazareth the Christ, I ask you a simple question.
If my belief of eternal life through the faith in Jesus the Christ is wrong then what did I lose while living on this Earth and what will be my fate after death?
And likewise, if your disbelief in eternal life through the faith in Jesus the Christ is wrong then what did you lose while living on this Earth and what will be your fate after death?
You see, there is no need to argue because there is only one truth.
"There are no absolute truths To say there are no absolute truths is an attempt to state an absolute truth. If your statement is true, then it is self contradictory, and not true and you are wrong."Questions for the superfans:
Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic, and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?
2. If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.
3. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?
How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?
Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can't that be God?
If atheism is true: The universe has laws. These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life.
Human constructs?
If the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily? If they are produced from human minds, and human minds are mutually contradictory, then how can the constructs be absolute? Therefore, the laws of logic are not human constructs.
The Universe exists
The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.
What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
Uncaused Cause
Objection: If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence. Answer: Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
"I Lack of belief in a God"
If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not...or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief."
If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don't you go around attacking that idea?
"I believe there is no God."
On what basis do you believe there is no God?
"There is no God"
You cannot logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is no God.
"There is no proof that God exists"
To say "there is no proof for God's existence," is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn't yet seen.
"All of Science has never found any evidence for God"
That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.
Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
What is God? or Define God.
God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.
Prove your God is real.
I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it.
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
{FIXED}
Humility is a bridle, not a gag. It prevents people from exalting themselves, not from exalting God. The Bible is filled from cover to cover with commands to praise Him in front of the whole world.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
Like you kind of stated, these are just your generalizations abotu Christianity. You can't really write "mainstream theists," because you are really just writing about Christians.
That said, I think maybe you need to understand religions other than Christianity to make these general statements. For example, it's debateable whether mainstream theists believe that they are compelled to spread the word of their god. Buddhists, Hindus or Zoroastrians (yes they still exist) don't focus on converting people the same way Christians do. Hell, Zoroastrians are trying to get people out of their religion for some eschatological plan. Furthermore, Jews definitely don't focus on spreading the word of their God. Evangelism really isn't significant in Judaism other than trying to make ethnic Jews more religious.
Furthermore, your first statement is way too general. I think theists may tell you that the moral common denominator of their religion is peace, loving neighbors, humility, etc. However, I don't think thats what Christians would tell you thats what their religion is about. They might tell you that it's about the trinity, resurrection of Jesus, and the cross.
Additionally, religions are more pluralistic today than the past (to contradict your second statement). Buddhists like Nhat Hahn come to mind. Most Orthodox Christians hold to a theory that they don't have a monopoly on "communion with God." Although you're probably right that most theists only accept their God, I think religious pluralism is going to only grow over the next few decades in the US.
Just some thoughts
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
You reference religious beliefs and generalizations. My question is this: "Are all theists religious?"
When you reference religion, I am assuming you are defining religion in similar terms as any system of beliefs or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevance in relation to something greater than oneself.
As a theist, I choose not to engage or associate with a "religion". I believe there is but one truth and we lack knowledge to give that truth a label or to claim ownership of it. It is eternal.
I believe your "question" is founded on a premise which is not entirely true. I think you are stereotyping all theists. How a theist views the virtue of humility and its role in the life of a human could be very different one to another. I personally believe humility has its time and place as does courage, fearlessness, discipline, and other characteristics that any human can impart or possess. I believe I can be humble (meek) before God yet also be fearless and courageous before an enemy. I am not limited in possessing or being of one virtue.
Again, as a theist, I do not believe it is my responsibility to prove people wrong or to convince a person that I am right. Stating that I believe that there is one true God, is not stating you are wrong. It is a statement of my faith.
Stating one's beliefs does not contradict humility. Beliefs are not statements that someone is incorrect. None of us are all knowing. I can't know what you believe and I can't know if you are wrong. Since we are not all knowing, we could be ever learning. Thus, a belief is a snapshot in time of personal thought, knowledge, and faith. I have a set of beliefs. I can't believe in everything. By believing in something I am deciding not to believe in something else. To say I do not believe in anything is in itself a belief. To believe is to have faith in a truth. Truth is singular and to say there is no absolute truth is in itself stating and absolute truth and is contradictory
Spreading, talking, preaching, teaching are all actions and all verbs. Humbly is an adverb. I can perform any of these actions in a particular manner. I can humbly preach or I can arrogantly preach. The action is not defined by the adverb. The adverb merely describes the nature of the action. It qualifies the action.
So I do not see how performing an action of stating one’s beliefs is contradictory to the virtue of humility. You state that by stating my belief I am implicitly stating that someone else’s belief is not true. However that is your assumption. You are building a bridge from my statement of my faith to a statement of judgment of another’s faith (belief). It is not directly expressed through my statement yet assumed by you. So my humility cannot be “lost” from your assumption.
You reference religious beliefs and generalizations. My question is this: "Are all theists religious?"
When you reference religion, I am assuming you are defining religion in similar terms as any system of beliefs or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevance in relation to something greater than oneself.
As a theist, I choose not to engage or associate with a "religion". I believe there is but one truth and we lack knowledge to give that truth a label or to claim ownership of it. It is eternal.
I believe your "question" is founded on a premise which is not entirely true. I think you are stereotyping all theists. How a theist views the virtue of humility and its role in the life of a human could be very different one to another. I personally believe humility has its time and place as does courage, fearlessness, discipline, and other characteristics that any human can impart or possess. I believe I can be humble (meek) before God yet also be fearless and courageous before an enemy. I am not limited in possessing or being of one virtue.
Again, as a theist, I do not believe it is my responsibility to prove people wrong or to convince a person that I am right. Stating that I believe that there is one true God, is not stating you are wrong. It is a statement of my faith.
Stating one's beliefs does not contradict humility. Beliefs are not statements that someone is incorrect. None of us are all knowing. I can't know what you believe and I can't know if you are wrong. Since we are not all knowing, we could be ever learning. Thus, a belief is a snapshot in time of personal thought, knowledge, and faith. I have a set of beliefs. I can't believe in everything. By believing in something I am deciding not to believe in something else. To say I do not believe in anything is in itself a belief. To believe is to have faith in a truth. Truth is singular and to say there is no absolute truth is in itself stating and absolute truth and is contradictory
Spreading, talking, preaching, teaching are all actions and all verbs. Humbly is an adverb. I can perform any of these actions in a particular manner. I can humbly preach or I can arrogantly preach. The action is not defined by the adverb. The adverb merely describes the nature of the action. It qualifies the action.
So I do not see how performing an action of stating one’s beliefs is contradictory to the virtue of humility. You state that by stating my belief I am implicitly stating that someone else’s belief is not true. However that is your assumption. You are building a bridge from my statement of my faith to a statement of judgment of another’s faith (belief). It is not directly expressed through my statement yet assumed by you. So my humility cannot be “lost” from your assumption.
Humility is in the eye of the beholder.
You may interpret my actions, statements, etc. as not humble
While another person interprets the same as being humble
How can you KNOW if I am not humble. It is merely your belief one way or another.
I could "act" like I am humble but internally be narcissistic.
Now we can discuss displaying humility and being humble.
I can act happy but be angry.
Am I humble? - depends on who you ask.
You get the picture.