• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Belief and Displacement

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Why would anyone wish to practice "their" beliefs on another? Why displace ones belief and practice it on a non-believer? Doesn't everyone have the right to choose what is best for self and allow the same for other as self?
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
Why would anyone wish to practice "their" beliefs on another? Why displace ones belief and practice it on a non-believer? Doesn't everyone have the right to choose what is best for self and allow the same for other as self?

Read my signature.
 

Notthedarkweb

Indian phil, German idealism, Rawls
Why would anyone wish to practice "their" beliefs on another? Why displace ones belief and practice it on a non-believer? Doesn't everyone have the right to choose what is best for self and allow the same for other as self?
I don't know, I think everyone has some obligations that practical reason binds them to. Like the proposition , "You should not rape others". Religion is a different proposition and held to a different ethical standards, but it's entirely possible that someone considers only particular beliefs about faith to warrant the epistemic status of truth.

Once again, I am not saying that we ought to bind others to particular religious obligations outside a faith, but there's perfectly rational reasons for why one could want to do so, even if these reasons did not obtain.
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I don't know, I think everyone has some obligations that practical reason binds them to. Like the proposition , "You should not rape others". Religion is a different proposition and held to a different ethical standards, but it's entirely possible that someone considers only particular beliefs about faith to warrant the epistemic status of truth.

Once again, I am not saying that we ought to bind others to particular religious obligations outside a faith, but there's perfectly rational reasons for why one could want to do so, even if these reasons did not obtain.
Rape is again about control and control(power) is part of the dark triad.

So you have an instance which is about control and not saving, empathizing, compassion. Rape usually is about the displacement of a fantasy. The person being raped is dehumanized and used like an object to fulfill the fantasy.

The perpetrator is about a power struggle. It is never about equality.
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Read my signature.

But most beliefs systems allow for love, even if it's immature and unhealthy narcissism.

I believe some try to control others because of lack of self-esteem, lack of healthier experiences, and can't recognize other as self coming from different experiences. Also, the right of others to test their beliefs but not directly upon another without consent.

The freedom to have a religion, a belief system should be sacred but shouldn't be practiced upon another as if they were objects, guinea pigs
 
Last edited:

Notthedarkweb

Indian phil, German idealism, Rawls
Rape is again about control and control(power) is part of the dark triad.

So you have an instance which is about control and not saving, empathizing, compassion. Rape usually is about the displacement of a fantasy. The person being raped is dehumanized and used like an object to fulfill the fantasy.

The perpetrator is about a power struggle. It is never about equality.

Neither here nor there about what I'm trying to say but ok
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The more we need our truth to be 'the truth' (religious or otherwise) the more we seem to need others to agree with us. And there aren't that many of us that can allow that for we humans, truth is relative and subjective.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Neither here nor there about what I'm trying to say but ok
People base their behavior off of their beliefs. Whether they are organized and identified with a religion isn't really necessary. Everyone has a belief system. Christian Atheists go to church for socializing and agree with some of the morals promoted by the church they attend. They don't necessarily believe in a God.

Everyone wants to be loved but not everyone is loving to other as self.

Double standards are what the hypocrite prefers
 
Last edited:

Notthedarkweb

Indian phil, German idealism, Rawls
People base their behavior off of their beliefs. Whether they are organized and identified with a religion isn't really necessary. Everyone has a belief system. Christian Atheists go to church for socializing and agree with some of the morals promoted by the church they attend. They don't necessarily believe in a God.

Everyone wants to be loved but not everyone is loving to other as self.

Double standards are what the hypocrite prefers
My point was that its completely possible for someone who gives privileged epistemic status to their beliefs (in the form "this really true and I know it") and believe that it is a question of morally binding commitments to have the position you criticize, not whether such beliefs are in fact epistemically warranted or not.
 
Top