Do you have to disprove other people's belief or non-belief?

[Spirit of Light]

A long time ago it was a mission and a duty, now it is more of a compulsion and a habit. I only wish I could abandon everything I don't like, in which case I would abandon all 3 houses and move to a cabin in the woods up in the mountains, but of course there are the cats who I love more than anything in the entire world so I have to be closer to town and have room for the cats.

i would like to travel if I did not have the cats. My husband could take care of them but I would have to travel alone and I would worry about them. I love the cats more than any religion. Looks can be deceiving so just because you see me talking about religion that does not mean I like it. I do a lot of things I don't like out of a sense of duty. I hardly like anything I do except the cats.

That's right, religions have God/Gods/Goddesses in them so if I talk about God, I cannot escape religion. That is the sad fact.

Question asked in the most respectful manner.
If you doing the religious/spiritual things out of a sense of duty, but does not like it or mostly not beliving in what you do. Isn't that spreading false belief

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why does it seems like some people must defend their belief no matter what? Are they that unsure about their own belief?

Why does it seems like some people must do everything in their power to discredit or disprove other people's faith or belief? Are they so desperate to prove God can not exist because they themselves does not see any proof of God?

Are both groups wasting their time on proving to others that they are the one who are right?

Short version for at least some aspects of the everyday world:
Someone to someone else: I am right and you are wrong.
Someone else back to some: No, I am right and you are wrong.
Me: That is okay. I don't believe as either of you do.
Both to me: You are wrong.

That is the game and the joke is that I have been wrong in some sense according to some other people's belief system most of my life and yet I am still here. So I don't believe in that kind of right and wrong anymore.

 

[Firelight]

Do you have to win the bike race if you register for it? Yes. Competition is enjoyable. Winning is awesome.

Debate is competitive. Fun. Sometimes too easy.

Being rude and condescending to others isn’t debate or winning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you have to win the bike race if you register for it? Yes. Competition is enjoyable. Winning is awesome.

Debate is competitive. Fun. Sometimes too easy.

Well, yes. But the joke is this:

For all the different versions of winning that ends like this:
Someone as winning: You will go to Hell/you are not in reality/you don't have a real good life/or any other versions to the effect of I decide what is the correct versions of everyday life is.
Me: Okay, you have proof/evidence/truth/rationality and what not. I don't and I do it differently.

There are no winners in such debates, because it ends in draw. I just go reductio ad absurdum. You don't win and neither do I. It is a draw.
So don't fight me, because you can't win nor loose. Neither can I. I just do for a draw.

 

[Firelight]

If person after person attack your answer, then you must check your answer. It may be false and ridiculous, that is perhaps why people attack your answer. But you believe only what a horse says.IMHO, science.

Attacking someone else by telling them their comment is “false and ridiculous” is just being a jerk, which is against the rules of the forum.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Attacking someone else by telling them their comment is “false and ridiculous” is just being a jerk, which is against the rules of the forum.

Yeah, as far as I can tell for some claims, there are no true or false ones. Only different ones.

 

[Firelight]

However, this doesn't mean, in my opinion, that this must go on forever, which can happen here. However, a problem I find here is several people attack my answer and they don't look at the answer I gave to other attackers. I don't know how to handle that. Recently this happened and I ended up depressed as I answered person after person, then I had had enough.

So true! This kind of thing happens everyday on the forums. Just remember you have the right to choose which questions you want to answer or not answer. Some members don’t even read responses, they just keep firing the same questions over and over no matter what response they get. Some of these people need to be placed on ignore.

In case you don’t know how, you can “ignore” someone by tapping on their member name, then tapping on “ignore” which is located to the middle right in the pop-up box. Then, you never have to see their rude questions and comments again!

 

[Firelight]

On a religious forum that question is often "is my belief justified?".

Is this question actually asked in a person’s post, or is it a question you have come up with for yourself?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Even though it may seem so sometimes, I don't debate to win, I debate to gain knowledge. And I assume (at least at first) that my interlocutor does the same. The goal is to answer a question after seriously scrutinising it.
On a religious forum that question is often "is my belief justified?". If you really want to know, you want it critically analysed and I can help with that. From my point of view it isn't an attack, it is helping you to get rid of the unjustified parts and strengthen your certainty in the justified parts.
If you just want confirmation, don't ask me.

As long as you include the problem of justification: Agrippa's trilemma.

 

[F1fan]

Is religious practice made for competing who is best?

For more conservative theists, it is apparent that they do see their approach as superior to others. That is the comparative and competitive mind at work.

Evangelical Christians will insist that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior that you are doomed. That's pretty arrogant, aggressive, and a group that thinks they are best, don't you think?

These folks don't even want to debate, they assert they are correct.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For more conservative theists, it is apparent that they do see their approach as superior to others. That is the comparative and competitive mind at work.

Evangelical Christians will insist that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior that you are doomed. That's pretty arrogant, aggressive, and a group that thinks they are best, don't you think?

These folks don't even want to debate, they assert they are correct.

And for those who believe that can decide who is really in reality;
"...To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."
—Ayn Rand Lexicon

 

[F1fan]

My faith needs defending when it is slandered. From the horses mouth:

WARN, O Salmán, the beloved of the one true God, not to view with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men. Let them rather approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and loving sympathy. Those men, however, who, in this Day, have been led to assail, in their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of God, are to be treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the All-Powerful, the Almighty.

Assuming any god exists, of course.

However, this doesn't mean, in my opinion, that this must go on forever, which can happen here.

Right. Believers can stop referring to their gods as if they are real, or show us that they gods are real, and then we skeptics will accept that fact or likelihood.

Until then, when a theist makes a claim, the door is open for debate.

This was revealed in a context where this happened in print, not in a forum. I must be as thoughtful as I can, without taking a long time answering which is not as possible as in a book. Then if clarification is needed I stop. However, a problem I find here is several people attack my answer and they don't look at the answer I gave to other attackers. I don't know how to handle that. Recently this happened and I ended up depressed as I answered person after person, then I had had enough.

Theists are often more confident in their positions than is warranted. They come to realize how dubious their beliefs and claims are when they engage with critical thinkers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Assuming any god exists, of course.


Right. Believers can stop referring to their gods as if they are real, or show us that they gods are real, and then we skeptics will accept that fact or likelihood.

Until then, when a theist makes a claim, the door is open for debate.


Theists are often more confident in their positions than is warranted. They come to realize how dubious their beliefs and claims are when they engage with critical thinkers.

Yeah, but even that has a limit, because that is not an uniform group of people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Attacking someone else by telling them their comment is “false and ridiculous” is just being a jerk, which is against the rules of the forum.

I made the comment on the basis of what Truthseeker9 wrote. I neither know the answers nor the questions.

 

[F1fan]

Very rarely does anyone win a debate anyway, at least not conclusively. What usually happens is that one or both sides claim victory, or rather their ego does. And nothing is resolved.

Theists are historically at a disadvantage in debate. First they are typically the affirmative/claimants. They represent the claim that some sort of God exists. Second, not only is there is no sufficient evidence of gods, there's no reason to think they are even plausible. Third, in logic and debate claims are by default considered untrue UNTIL there is evidence presented that is compelling to a reasonable and objective standard, much like court.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Theists are historically at a disadvantage in debate. First they are typically the affirmative/claimants. They represent the claim that some sort of God exists. Second, not only is there is no sufficient evidence of gods, there's no reason to think they are even plausible. Third, in logic and debate claims are by default considered untrue UNTIL there is evidence presented that is compelling to a reasonable and objective standard, much like court.

Most Theists "claim" is in a belief God exist

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, but even that has a limit, because that is not an uniform group of people.

Right, which makes the cases and claims of theists that more arbitrary and diverse. This is why we debate individuals and what their minds have judged true. If these individuals represent some ideology then they have that burden as well.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Right, which makes the cases and claims of theists that more arbitrary and diverse. This is why we debate individuals and what their minds have judged true. If these individuals represent some ideology then they have that burden as well.

So if you have no positive world view, how do you do that? Or is your in effect True?

 

[F1fan]

Most Theists "claim" is in a belief God exist

Right, and do so correctly. But many of them treat their belief as if they are certain and it is knowledge, so we ask questions that the theist hasn't asked themselves. Debate, discussion? The more outrageous the claim the more a discussion will become a debate.

 

[F1fan]

So if you have no positive world view, how do you do that? Or is your in effect True?

Positive world view? What do you mean?