Can you answer this?

[Aupmanyav]

If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

It is not very difficult. Check what they are saying. And what does common-sense say about it. Then check with science. It will be your opinion of them whether they are right or wrong. Other people will have their own opinions.

 

[sayak83]

If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know

If I do not actually say what I believe about a religion X or a subject Y, how can I be corrected (or corroborated) by further discussions or debates generated by what I said?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are you stating unequivocally that any religious belief is true and should never be questioned or evaluated in any way?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to reply with my thoughts.

I think religious belief should be questioned and evaluated by the believer/follower of said religion constantly. Unless said belief impacts others directly, I see nothing productive in questioning another's religious belief. Can you?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is to me a true way of seeing it

Maybe its just we all have different personalities and it's "kinda" rare that someone would say the other one is wrong about their religious belief without some context behind it?

I mean when I ask a question of someone else's belief or say that doesn't make sense "to me" it translates as it doesn't make sense at all-which makes it sound like an insult when it wasn't. So, best thing one can do is really ask the intentions behind why one would say the other is wrong rather than any-person assuming it has a negative connotation. A lot of times I just stop and say "that sounds negative..." and I can tell if it is if the person doesn't say "that's not what I meant ... or I didn't mean to say it that way...."

There's ways to tell the other person the are wrong about their belief "as an opinion" without discrediting the person's belief in the process. Perspective.

I assume when you're spiritually awakened negativity sticks out like a sore thumb... but it could be hidden pride. I'm just throwing things out.

 

[Spirit of Light]

How are we convinced who is right and who is wrong in any argument or debate? It all comes down to the strength of the arguments used.

Are you stating unequivocally that any religious belief is true and should never be questioned or evaluated in any way?

No, i only ask the one can respect each others even we have different religious belief

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Conscious thoughts.

I feel there's a difference if a christian said to a Hindu "that doesn't sound right" compared to "that's wrong."

The first is saying it's wrong from his or her own perspective-it's not how he or she sees reality. The second is assuming the other person doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

The christian is saying "you are wrong" in both cases.... the first is focusing on the christian (which is a good thing) and the latter is focusing on the Hindu (which, to me, is a negative thing).

How can we know the difference online if/when both parties mix the two intentions "and" discontinue the conversation because of it?

 

[firedragon]

If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know

Study it. Ask and verify historicity when claimed. If there is text, analyse it. Never make random arbitrary comments about the other persons theology or text. Make the distinction.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Study it. Ask and verify historicity when claimed. If there is text, analyse it. Never make random arbitrary comments about the other persons theology or text. Make the distinction.

If there is one thing you've taught me on this forum, what constitutes "random" and "arbitrary" is in the eye of the beholder.

Cheers.

 

[sayak83]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to reply with my thoughts.

I think religious belief should be questioned and evaluated by the believer/follower of said religion constantly. Unless said belief impacts others directly, I see nothing productive in questioning another's religious belief. Can you?

But is this right Salix? Classical Indian scholars had energetic debates between different religious worldviews and much of great philosophical and theological and rational works of the different schools arose out of these debates. In other realms too it is true. Much productive work on the foundations of physics stem from the debates between Bohr and Einstein regarding the completeness of Quantum Mechanics. The works of Socrates are also in the form of debates between various philosophers of his day. So from my POV, questioning and debating seem to have been very productive the the development of religion, philosophy and science.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But is this right Salix? Classical Indian scholars had energetic debates between different religious worldviews and much of great philosophical and theological and rational works of the different schools arose out of these debates. In other realms too it is true. Much productive work on the foundations of physics stem from the debates between Bohr and Einstein regarding the completeness of Quantum Mechanics. The works of Socrates are also in the form of debates between various philosophers of his day. So from my POV, questioning and debating seem to have been very productive the the development of religion, philosophy and science.

You make an excellent point. I suppose intent of the questioning and subsequent debate is a major factor. Of course, debate between religious scholars and scientists can lead to very productive outcomes.

I was thinking more along the lines of the sort of debates we frequently see here when I wrote my response.

There is a difference between debating for the purpose of finding truth and debate for the purpose of invalidating someone's personal beliefs.

 

[firedragon]

If there is one thing you've taught me on this forum, what constitutes "random" and "arbitrary" is in the eye of the beholder.

Cheers.

If you enjoy this keep going.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't view religious belief as being right or wrong. If one kid likes bananas and another kid likes apples, who's right, and who's wrong?

If you treat religion as nothing more than an aesthetic preference, then it seems to me that you are implying that much of thr substance of many religions is wrong.

 

[Vinayaka]

If you treat religion as nothing more than an aesthetic preference, then it seems to me that you are implying that much of thr substance of many religions is wrong.

Not what I meant. I meant that when it comes to belief, I feel it's more accurate to say. "Your belief is different than mine' or 'it's not a belief we share' than to say 'I'm right and you're wrong.' Who am I to say someone's belief is wrong? But it's fine to say I don't believe that.

 

[Link]

When a soul decides not to blindly follow and let goes of all it doesn't know, at first, it will be lost, but if seeks signs and proofs, it will find the insights and from the right sources, in my perspective. That is because God will be there for the seekers of truth and knows how to guide back his creation.

It's easier if there was a community on the truth, but reality, there isn't. There are communities that centralize on right creeds, but, at the end, guidance of God is to live and be lead to his light and ascend to God through the proper means.

The reality is every community and sect emphasize on truth but mix with it falsehood, and emphasize on both truth and falsehood and mix it up.

When you seek to only follow what you know and have proof for nor speak without knowledge nor attribute God without proof and evidence, everything becomes easier religion wise and understanding wise.

Easier in some sense, but, the utter blindness of humanity might frustrate you as well. There is a dark sorcery upon both the Quran and ahadith, yet, they cure to it and unbind the spells. The Quran has a curse, but if you act on some of it it's commands, it will cure the blindness and defeat the sorcery upon it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It is not very difficult. Check what they are saying. And what does common-sense say about it. Then check with science. It will be your opinion of them whether they are right or wrong. Other people will have their own opinions.

I leave people have their faith and belief, it does not bother me that others believe differently than i do

 

[osgart]

Well it's going to eventually fall to either right or wrong in actuality. Beliefs go back and forth and nothing is achieved in such arguments but more understandings of other beliefs.

Some people make claims of knowledge with regards to beliefs, and they will go so far as to say it applies to everybody.

Two ways of knowing are physical evidence or philosophical proof. A justified true belief is one that works in application, and adds value to our lives and doesn't harm anyone.

Whatever reality is it's going to be one way or another. And perhaps there are many ways of one reality.

I know I don't fall under the jurisdiction of Yahweh, or Allah. There may be wise sayings in each scripture, but they only are going to be taken in the context of what one considers to be relevant and beneficial.

I'm thankful that many people can live out their science and religion without imposing every bit of information on others as if it's the only truth in town. Because with new considerations, and new information a lot of so called knowledge turns into useless rubbish. That's why debate is all sport, and little substance.

I don't think anyone is above demonstration if claiming truth. No scientist, and no religion is above that.

I think everybody has faith in things they do not know to some degree because no one can know everything.

So yes there are things that are right for one but not the other. If we need physical answers science is best. If we need spiritual answers, then that is something that imo is in short supply with a high demand. And not all spiritual answers apply to everybody.

Of course there are many failures before success, and we all have to make the best life choices possible. Disagreement is good.

 

[Spirit of Light]

@Conscious thoughts.

I feel there's a difference if a christian said to a Hindu "that doesn't sound right" compared to "that's wrong."

The first is saying it's wrong from his or her own perspective-it's not how he or she sees reality. The second is assuming the other person doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

The christian is saying "you are wrong" in both cases.... the first is focusing on the christian (which is a good thing) and the latter is focusing on the Hindu (which, to me, is a negative thing).

How can we know the difference online both parties mix the two intentions "and" discontinue the conversation because of it?

The only way to know, is when a person tell directly, you are wrong, your belief do not say what you claim, the truth about your belief say this..... than the person who do not hold the belief in discussion tell that he know better than the actually believer do.
WUT

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know

We cannot objectively know if a persons belief system is wrong.

We can only accept or reject claims made in the context of that belief.

If you believe Bigfoot is real, I cannot absolutely say that he/she is not. But if you assert that Bigfoot is responsible for 35% of charitable donations, you better have some evidence.

I think listening is one of the most important skills a person can have. I definitely need to improve my skill and keep a watch on it.

 

[Link]

When it comes to Quran, if you decide to only follow what is clear to you from it and leave what is unclear to you to be later clarified by it, everything in it eventually becomes clear. All God asks us regarding that is to reflect over clear signs from it so as not to be attribute our desires to it and so as to not let the sorcery of Iblis misguide us with respect to it.

I believe Quran is a clear book, but only to few, is it clear.

 

[MikeF]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to reply with my thoughts.

I think religious belief should be questioned and evaluated by the believer/follower of said religion constantly. Unless said belief impacts others directly, I see nothing productive in questioning another's religious belief. Can you?

Are we all not affected by religious beliefs that are not our own, in some way or another?

How about when religious beliefs get codified into secular laws? If the justification for the law is based on religious belief, cannot those beliefs be evaluated and challenged?

How many conflicts around the world are based or strengthened on religious beliefs? Catholic vs Protestant, Shia vs Suni, Hindu vs Islam, Judaism vs Islam, Christianity vs many others. These conflicts affect everyone.

I understand what you are saying, and I am not unsympathetic. If someone finds peace and personal happiness in their religious belief system and religious practice, whether what they believe is about something real or not, then they should be left to be happy in that belief.

But what to do when it goes beyond the individual; when a religious belief system gets aggregated and amplified by millions of people? How is the non-religious person (or religious person with different views, for that matter) supposed to push back against the institutionalizing of religious beliefs into secular society? How is one to reconcile the opposing desires of multiple religious groups trying to influence the secular in conflicting ways, all being justified by their religious beliefs?

How is one to address and resolve all these challenges without addressing the religious beliefs used to justify conflicting positions?