Is there an obligation for a faith believer

[Nimos]

From discussion with some very few non believers of religion or spiritual practice, it seems like they see it as an obligation for the faith believers to explain in details "Why, How and in what way" the faith believers come to their personal belief.

But say its an obligation to explain to anyone who just going to refuse the answer as wishful thinking, falacy, or other negative intepretations done by the non believer.

There were just a massive discussion going on about this and might actually still be

Anyway, in my opinion, if its just a believe then you have no obligation to explain it. If you however claim that it is true, whether that is simply by announcing it or whether you are of the opinion that society ought to be shaped according to your believes. That would automatically make it a claim as well.

The way a believer become more and more firm in their belief is to practice the teaching for years.

So non believers, if you want the real answers from religious scripture, you better start practicing, because there are no short cuts to gain wisdom from scriptures, one has to practice it every day to gain wisdom and deeper understanding.

If a faith believer just give you an answer, you yourself has not gained anything at all.

This is one thing I would question, because for most things we obtain knowledge and experience the more we do them.

However when you write that the believer practicing the teaching for years and that somehow makes them more knowledgeable about the wisdom of the teaching, I would question that.

If what you mean by wisdom is simply knowledge about the material, for example a teacher which study the bible and teaches other about it, I would agree have more knowledge about it, than a person that have never read it. But if by wisdom you mean that this person, somehow better understand the "divine" or "spiritual" meaning of the text, then that I would like demonstrated.

So if that is what you mean, then the faith believer ought to be able to demonstrate set wisdom to a other people, whether they have knowledge or not about that teaching.

By wisdom do you mean the first example or the second one? (First one simply being knowledge of the material or second one, some divine or spiritual wisdom)

 

[Spirit of Light]

There were just a massive discussion going on about this and might actually still be

Anyway, in my opinion, if its just a believe then you have no obligation to explain it. If you however claim that it is true, whether that is simply by announcing it or whether you are of the opinion that society ought to be shaped according to your believes. That would automatically make it a claim as well.


This is one thing I would question, because for most things we obtain knowledge and experience the more we do them.

However when you write that the believer practicing the teaching for years and that somehow makes them more knowledgeable about the wisdom of the teaching, I would question that.

If what you mean by wisdom is simply knowledge about the material, for example a teacher which study the bible and teaches other about it, I would agree have more knowledge about it, than a person that have never read it. But if by wisdom you mean that this person, somehow better understand the "divine" or "spiritual" meaning of the text, then that I would like demonstrated.

So if that is what you mean, then the faith believer ought to be able to demonstrate set wisdom to a other people, whether they have knowledge or not about that teaching.

By wisdom do you mean the first example or the second one? (First simply knowledge of the material or second one, some divine or spiritual wisdom)

First of all, I have no need to prove my belief to others, they are free to believe whatever they do or dont.

Spiritual wisdom is not about this world in physical sense Spiritual wisdom is the understanding of the realm where God is.

 

[MikeF]

The way a believer become more and more firm in their belief is to practice the teaching for years.

So non believers, if you want the real answers from religious scripture, you better start practicing, because there are no short cuts to gain wisdom from scriptures, one has to practice it every day to gain wisdom and deeper understanding.

For clarities sake, are you saying that every religious belief is equally valid and valuable? That once believed, one simply needs to dig in and keep at it regardless of it's effect on one's self or others?

Would this have included belief in and adherence to the teachings offered by Peoples Temple led by Jim Jones, Order of the Solar Temple, or Heaven's Gate?

 

[Nimos]

First of all, I have no need to prove my belief to others, they are free to believe whatever they do or dont.

Spiritual wisdom is not about this world in physical sense Spiritual wisdom is the understanding of the realm where God is.

Lets say I started practicing the same teachings as you, right here and now.

Someone comes along and ask us which of us have the most wisdom about it?

What would your answer be to that?

 

[firedragon]

From discussion with some very few non believers of religion or spiritual practice, it seems like they see it as an obligation for the faith believers to explain in details "Why, How and in what way" the faith believers come to their personal belief.

But say its an obligation to explain to anyone who just going to refuse the answer as wishful thinking, falacy, or other negative intepretations done by the non believer.

The way a believer become more and more firm in their belief is to practice the teaching for years.

So non believers, if you want the real answers from religious scripture, you better start practicing, because there are no short cuts to gain wisdom from scriptures, one has to practice it every day to gain wisdom and deeper understanding.

If a faith believer just give you an answer, you yourself has not gained anything at all.

Most of those you refer to have huge faith, and a don't know of the gaps as a mocking strategy.

 

[F1fan]

From discussion with some very few non believers of religion or spiritual practice, it seems like they see it as an obligation for the faith believers to explain in details "Why, How and in what way" the faith believers come to their personal belief.

But say its an obligation to explain to anyone who just going to refuse the answer as wishful thinking, falacy, or other negative intepretations done by the non believer.

There seem to be two issues here. One is an obligation for a member of a debate forum to explain why they claim X is true. We non-believers often encounter believers who know WHAT they believe but then get stymied by as series of questions WHY they believe X.

This is the second issue, why does an otherwise rational person believe in the ideas they do. Hearing someone say "I don't know" suggests subconscious reasons. We all pick up language passively through social experiences. We don't decide to acquire our language, it just happens. The same goes for many social ideas, which is why religion is divided culturally. Most all people hear about religious ideas, and depending on their personality type, social needs, family, society they acquire certain cultural and social beliefs. Religion is one such category of ideas.

Some people can grow up and examine these ideas objectively and make objective choices about them. But the vast majority of citizens adopt the social values of religious ideas, and they integrate these ideas into the "operating social software". So people end up believing from passive influence and then don't know why they believe once they are confronted with direct questioning.

The way a believer become more and more firm in their belief is to practice the teaching for years.

Sure. Believers can go on with cruise control and not be religious, but still hold basic assumptions like a God exists. Or they can invest in religion for a variety of reasons, that being identity or social cohesion, or doing public service, etc. None of this means the ideas believed are true or confirmed, just that members of a society decide to carry on the patterns of social behavior they adopted.

So non believers, if you want the real answers from religious scripture, you better start practicing, because there are no short cuts to gain wisdom from scriptures, one has to practice it every day to gain wisdom and deeper understanding.

I argue that even believers don't know what motivates their religious behavior, only that it feels satisfying in various ways to them. Non-believers have actually studied, learned, and even practiced religious behaviors and have better understanding of what religion is, and that the ideas lack sufficient evidence to make an objective and rational judgment.

It sounds like you want non-believers to adopt the pattern of behavior of believers even though their intellectual approach won't allow them that, nor do they feel satisfaction with religious belief.

If a faith believer just give you an answer, you yourself has not gained anything at all.

Faith believers tend to have answers that even they don't seem satisfied with, so why would a non-believer?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From discussion with some very few non believers of religion or spiritual practice, it seems like they see it as an obligation for the faith believers to explain in details "Why, How and in what way" the faith believers come to their personal belief.

But say its an obligation to explain to anyone who just going to refuse the answer as wishful thinking, falacy, or other negative intepretations done by the non believer.

The way a believer become more and more firm in their belief is to practice the teaching for years.

So non believers, if you want the real answers from religious scripture, you better start practicing, because there are no short cuts to gain wisdom from scriptures, one has to practice it every day to gain wisdom and deeper understanding.

If a faith believer just give you an answer, you yourself has not gained anything at all.

Depends on the context.

I think anyone who is imposing their religious beliefs on others should feel obligated to explain the justification for their beliefs in as much detail as the people being imposed on deem appropriate, and in a way that those people are satisfied with.

 

[Spirit of Light]

For clarities sake, are you saying that every religious belief is equally valid and valuable? That once believed, one simply needs to dig in and keep at it regardless of it's effect on one's self or others?

Would this have included belief in and adherence to the teachings offered by Peoples Temple led by Jim Jones, Order of the Solar Temple, or Heaven's Gate?

In my current understanding all past religious teachings has truth in them, but there are certain individual preachers who may have had ill intention and seek fame and money, instead of truth

 

[Spirit of Light]

Lets say I started practicing the same teachings as you, right here and now.

Someone comes along and ask us which of us have the most wisdom about it?

What would your answer be to that?

I have not much wisdom as of now, so @Nimos may be wiser than my self

 

[Spirit of Light]

There seem to be two issues here. One is an obligation for a member of a debate forum to explain why they claim X is true. We non-believers often encounter believers who know WHAT they believe but then get stymied by as series of questions WHY they believe X.

This is the second issue, why does an otherwise rational person believe in the ideas they do. Hearing someone say "I don't know" suggests subconscious reasons. We all pick up language passively through social experiences. We don't decide to acquire our language, it just happens. The same goes for many social ideas, which is why religion is divided culturally. Most all people hear about religious ideas, and depending on their personality type, social needs, family, society they acquire certain cultural and social beliefs. Religion is one such category of ideas.

Some people can grow up and examine these ideas objectively and make objective choices about them. But the vast majority of citizens adopt the social values of religious ideas, and they integrate these ideas into the "operating social software". So people end up believing from passive influence and then don't know why they believe once they are confronted with direct questioning.


Sure. Believers can go on with cruise control and not be religious, but still hold basic assumptions like a God exists. Or they can invest in religion for a variety of reasons, that being identity or social cohesion, or doing public service, etc. None of this means the ideas believed are true or confirmed, just that members of a society decide to carry on the patterns of social behavior they adopted.


I argue that even believers don't know what motivates their religious behavior, only that it feels satisfying in various ways to them. Non-believers have actually studied, learned, and even practiced religious behaviors and have better understanding of what religion is, and that the ideas lack sufficient evidence to make an objective and rational judgment.

It sounds like you want non-believers to adopt the pattern of behavior of believers even though their intellectual approach won't allow them that, nor do they feel satisfaction with religious belief.


Faith believers tend to have answers that even they don't seem satisfied with, so why would a non-believer?

I do not wish to ask non believers to adobt anything, but seek the answers the same way believers do, from the source.

 

[Valjean]

Faith before evidence

Faith is belief. Specifically, it's unsupported belief; belief with insufficient evidence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Faith is belief. Specifically, it's unsupported belief; belief with insufficient evidence.

Faith in the teaching, and that the teaching can lead to the awakening of the practitioners true self. (Not the body or ego)

 

[MikeF]

In my current understanding all past religious teachings has truth in them, but there are certain individual preachers who may have had ill intention and seek fame and money, instead of truth

So then it is your position that not every religious belief is equally valid or has value. What mechanism do you use to evaluate and distinguish between religious beliefs with validity and value and those that do not. Your only advice to date seems to be that one should pick one and stick with it.

When you say that all past religious teachings have truth in them, do you mean that one can find small nuggets of truth amongst a bulk of fiction or that they are all completely true or represent truth (whatever that may mean to you).

If all past religious teachings are only partially true in some fashion, again how does one distinguish the nugget of truth from the dross?

 

[Spirit of Light]

So then it is your position that not every religious belief is equally valid or has value. What mechanism do you use to evaluate and distinguish between religious beliefs with validity and value and those that do not. Your only advice to date seems to be that one should pick one and stick with it.

When you say that all past religious teachings have truth in them, do you mean that one can find small nuggets of truth amongst a bulk of fiction or that they are all completely true or represent truth (whatever that may mean to you).

If all past religious teachings are only partially true in some fashion, again how does one distinguish the nugget of truth from the dross?

Looking at the abrahamic religions, in my understanding all of them comes from God, and are true.
When it comes to other religions i believe they lead to truth too.

So it is up to each person to chose the path that they feel lead to the truth.

I have no reason to tell someone that their religious belief are false or their religion is false.

The faith i have may not becorrect to others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So then it is your position that not every religious belief is equally valid or has value. What mechanism do you use to evaluate and distinguish between religious beliefs with validity and value and those that do not. Your only advice to date seems to be that one should pick one and stick with it.

When you say that all past religious teachings have truth in them, do you mean that one can find small nuggets of truth amongst a bulk of fiction or that they are all completely true or represent truth (whatever that may mean to you).

If all past religious teachings are only partially true in some fashion, again how does one distinguish the nugget of truth from the dross?

As I understand it, @Seeker of White Light believes in individually finding God in an individual sense. Thus there is no one absolute objective truth. There is an objective absolute God in his belief system, but that is faith and all our individual ways are not absolute or objective.
As a cognitive, moral and cultural relativist I believe in a similar sense about God. If there is a God, there is no single absolute objective way to God.

 

[Spirit of Light]

As I understand it, @Seeker of White Light believes in individually finding God in an individual sense. Thus there is no one absolute objective truth. There is an objective absolute God in his belief system, but that is faith and all our individual ways are not absolute or objective.
As a cognitive, moral and cultural relativist I believe in a similar sense about God. If there is a God, there is no single absolute objective way to God.

You hit the nail on the head..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Faith before evidence

This is not the attitude of someone who cares whether their beliefs are true.

 

[Link]

It's an obligation to provide proof for religion, but there is no need to provide yourself, rather, God has to prove his religion and we simply point to proofs if asked.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is not the attitude of someone who cares whether their beliefs are true.

There is no truth in the old philosophical sense. That is just another subjective belief just like God in practice. That is how we got methodological naturalism and the cognitive concept of axiomatic assumptions.
So you subjectively care about an idea older than Christianity. Well, I believe in neither.

 

[Fool]

From discussion with some very few non believers of religion or spiritual practice, it seems like they see it as an obligation for the faith believers to explain in details "Why, How and in what way" the faith believers come to their personal belief.

But say its an obligation to explain to anyone who just going to refuse the answer as wishful thinking, falacy, or other negative intepretations done by the non believer.

The way a believer become more and more firm in their belief is to practice the teaching for years.

So non believers, if you want the real answers from religious scripture, you better start practicing, because there are no short cuts to gain wisdom from scriptures, one has to practice it every day to gain wisdom and deeper understanding.

If a faith believer just give you an answer, you yourself has not gained anything at all.

a doubting thomas or doubter is always better than an absolute believer. a doubter will at least question the validity of something and if found true, will often change. a believer will just continue to fantasize about the world and behave as they think it should be.

playing dressup doesn't qualify for actual and practical experience. belief isn't unique to religion. its a part of the human experience, not everyone tries to force it upon others as an organized majority trying to control the masses.


so if you don't want everyone knowing your intimacies and critiquing them, don't pull them out and wave them around. best to keep it in your bloomers.