A defining question

[TomOfSweden]

I question whether or not you are adressing truth or fact here. Something does not need to be fact for it to be true.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that in philosophy "fact" and a "true statement" are synonyms. "Fact" does have separate specific uses than "truth" in other fields.

In journalism, "fact" is generally referred to stuff that the majority of all scientists agree on. While "truth" is an elusive beast they try to reveal as best they can. But it's a pretty specific field.

Personally, I believe that if someone holds a belief then that belief is true, to them- respect doesn't come into it.
Although an athiest, I have no problem accepting that some people find truth in God, because to them, God is true- I may view these people as perhaps naive, and disagree with their truth, but I can still accept it as being true to them.

Now you're in trouble. I think you're mixing up concepts. Are you equating "belief in that something is true" with actual "truth"?

Let's for sake of argument say that we all share the same reality. If this is so, a Christian's truth of the reality of the universe cannot be true if the atheists theory of the universe is true. In the same way, when a Christian has faith, they are implying that all Buddhists are a bunch of dim witted dumb-asses that don't get it. They might fool themselves into believing that they aren't judgemental or chauvinistic. But if they have faith, there's no way of getting out of this mess without coming across as the huge chauvinist they are. .... and in the same way, since you are an atheist you by definition don't "accept it as being true to them". I'm sorry for the strong language, but I wanted to get my point across.

I understand what you're doing. You're trying to come across as a nice person who can see things from other peoples perspective and respect them. But you aren't and you don't. I think you're simply being dishonest now. But you might still be a nice person

If you have faith in one definition of truth, you reject all the other ones, by necessity. That's what faith means.

A huge problem with religion and religious discussions is that when people talk about "God", it's usually used as an abstract term that covers a wide variety of concepts and manifestations. You might have a whole room of Christians agreeing on that they all love God and feel the holy ghost, while none of them are talking about that same thing. But even here it's deeply dishonest saying that you "accept it as being true to them" because you have no idea what they're talking about. It could be like that nunnery in the third century who said they could feel God's presence when they came from masturbation. No shit, so do I.

...and to end this ramble, I'd like to mention Dewey and the Pragmatists. It's a serious philosophical school based around the idea that we can't figure out what's true anyway, so who cares. They just assume that what ever is the most useful and works is true. This is arguably the most important philosophical school in USA today, so they shouldn't be dismissed. They are dismissively referred to "the Americans" but European philosophers. But I think that's a mistake. I think their importance will only increase in the future. But it won't help you to get an answer, Tessa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey