Is there an obligation for a faith believer

[Five Solas]

You see, I am a strong philosophical skeptic and as such, I have only faith and so do you. The difference is that your faith holds authority over me. I don't claim that my faith holds authority over you.

I get what you say but I do not think you express yourself correctly.

My faith has no influence over anyone. My faith is is a matter between me and God.
I have no religious authority over anyone.
It will be foolish if I try to tell you how to live your life.

But I can explain what I believe and why. And if you do not believe in God you will think I am being foolish.

About authority:
Yes, we believe that God, and, as the creator of everything, He is sovereign and holds authority over everything.
But I also know that only some people believe in Him. Only believers can, and care to, do His will.
Those who do not believe cannot, and do not, want to do his will. It's logical - why do something if you do not even believe that 'being' exists? It's clear for all to see.

So, it will make no sense for me to tell you what to do. You won't do it anyway and you cannot be convinced by me either..... Except if you somehow begin to believe and then the conversation will change.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I get what you say but I do not think you express yourself correctly.

My faith has no influence over anyone. My faith is is a matter between me and God.
I have no religious authority over anyone.
It will be foolish if I try to tell you how to live your life.

But I can explain what I believe and why. And if you do not believe in God you will think I am being foolish.

About authority:
Yes, we believe that God, and, as the creator of everything, He is sovereign and holds authority over everything.
But I also know that only some people believe in Him. Only believers can, and care to, do His will.
Those who do not believe cannot, and do not, want to do his will. It's logical - why do something if you do not even believe that 'being' exists? It's clear for all to see.

So, it will make no sense for me to tell you what to do. You won't do it anyway and you cannot be convinced by me either..... Except if you somehow begin to believe and then the conversation will change.

You believe there is only one correct will. I don't.

 

[Native]

I don't consider religion special as neither a positive nor a negative. I consider it a multi-factor human behaviour that includes 3 general categories of beliefs. What objective reality is? What social life is? What individual life is? And combinations here of.

Of course this is correct in the Abrahamic religions as this heritage has become the "local" results of worshipping a religion which has lost it´s cosmological informations and in modern times, even it´s phycological and natural meaning.

Having just one "god" for everything is non sense and even more non sense to have it to be excludingly patriarchal. (Such priests must totally have forgotten that they were physically born in and from a Woman)

In "ancient times" the mythological/religious cultural Stories of Creation was just an entangled story of everything on and above the Earth far out in space.

 

[MikeF]

No, it was first spotted in philosophy by the old Greek/Roman skeptics. It is called Agrippa's five tropes, which are purported to establish the necessity of suspending judgment.

Well, in Agrippa's day, philosophy covered every knowledge pursuit. Today, we tend to silo knowledge pursuits into specialized subcategories. In todays categorization, it would be my understanding that confirmation bias would be studied under psychology as well as other behavior sciences.

 

[firedragon]

Of course this is correct in the Abrahamic religions as this heritage has become the "local" results of worshipping a religion which has lost it´s cosmological informations and in modern times, even it´s phycological and natural meaning.

Having just one "god" for everything is non sense and even more non sense to have it to be excludingly patriarchal. (Such priests must totally have forgotten that they were physically born in and from a Woman)

In "ancient times" the mythological/religious cultural Stories of Creation was just an entangled story of everything on and above the Earth far out in space.

In your worldview, why is monotheism "non-sense"? What is your logical reasoning for that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, in Agrippa's day, philosophy covered every knowledge pursuit. Today, we tend to silo knowledge pursuits into specialized subcategories. In todays categorization, it would be my understanding that confirmation bias would be studied under psychology as well as other behavior sciences.

Yes, unless you claim knowledge about reality as such. That is still in part philosophy.

And what you ought to do as having confirmation bias or not, is not science. That is religion, philosophy or if you like politics.

 

[Clara Tea]

IS THERE AN OBLIGATION FOR A FAITH BELIEVER?

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.

Proselytism - Wikipedia

In Christianity, there are obligations to learn and tell others.

If you don't learn God's laws, how can you follow them?

There are obligations to tell the truth. Yet, look at the ignorance about Global Warming, and look at all of the lies about it.

So, when theists knock on your door and try to convert you, there is no obligation for them to explain their religion.

When theists vote in huge numbers to elect their president, and that president appoints supreme court justices for life terms, there is no obligation for them to explain their religion or their politics.

The Religious Right are elected to rule the US (with approval of Congress unless there is another Iran Contra scandal), not rule the world by attacking peaceful nations not involved with terrorism.

They could expect you to believe that Jonah lived inside of a whale (though whales are not that big today, and there are no whale fossils huge enough).

They don't have to explain why they reject Global Warming (scientists insisted that it is real, but the lawyers hired by President W. Bush rewrote the nation's environmental report so that these lies would allow the love of mammon to usurp the love of God). Rich oil tycoons have to get richer, no matter what damage is done to God's environment, and no one is allowed to question.

There is no obligation for theists to explain why Religious Right candidates must be for 2nd Amendment gun rights and for the National Rifle Association, while their own God tells them "thou shalt not kill." There is no obligation for the Religious Right to explain how they can get away with lies (proven lies) about war hero, Senator John Kerry's heroic war record to make draft dodger W. Bush seem more heroic.

Basically....atheists are supposed to "LET US HURT YOU, AND SHUT UP ABOUT IT."

The Cancel Culture attempts to kick opposing ideas off of forums. Trump (a sitting president) was banned from Facebook and Twitter. Mike Lindell (the My Pillow Guy) was refused bank loans for supporting Trump and there was a movement to shun his products (not buy them).

Elections can be cheated, and no one should be able to question that. (Lies for Christ????).

Hunter Biden, the son of the president, is still in Russia while the US is at war with Russia (the US is supplying aid to the Ukraine). Could the enemy kidnap the president's son? Hunter is making a huge salary as an electrical engineer, but he is not an electrical engineer (or any kind of engineer). A Russian military official just announced that Hunter is working with bioweapons in Russia (ostensibly to prevent harm). Hunter's laptop was in a repair shop when someone noticed a video of him using hard narcotics. The laptop mysteriously disappeared. No one is allowed to ask about the weird happenings?

The Religous Right took over America, and their candidate, W. Bush refused to get off of his vacation in Texas, while diverting helpers away from the hurricane Katrina disaster. Everyone must shut up about that (Cancel Culture at work).

Governor Sarah Palin's (Republican, Alaska) daughter was made the poster girl for chastity. Yet, she had several kids by several men, out of wedlock. She said "do as I say, not as I do." We can't question that (Cancel Culture).

Theists are allowed to prostelytize. Christians are required, by their bibles to prostelytize. Yet, when they knock on our doors, we are not allowed to question them?

 

[Clara Tea]

In your worldview, why is monotheism "non-sense"? What is your logical reasoning for that?

God told him?

 

[Clara Tea]

Faith before evidence

Opinion of Clara Tea:

Faith in what? Santa? Tooth fairy? Without evidence, one could believe anything.

This makes thiests perfect patsies for the Religous Right. They will believe anything that you tell them. So, they put sedicious Canadian Rush Limbaugh on the radio to campaign every day (not just during elections). Sued for defamation, Limbaugh's court defense was that it was entertainment, and was not supposed to be true. So, he was paid to tell lies for the Religious Right.

Example: Virtually all scientists insist that Global Warming could destroy all life on earth. Theists, ignorant of the science, and refusing to learn, tell lies about it. Since when is it okay for Christians to lie?

 

[firedragon]

God told him?

).

 

[MikeF]

).

I must confess my ignorance. You have used this punctuation emoticon before, but I do not know what it means. I tried to look it up quickly but got nothing quickly. Though I better just ask you what ). means to you. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

I must confess my ignorance. You have used this punctuation emoticon before, but I do not know what it means. I tried to look it up quickly but got nothing quickly. Though I better just ask you what ). means to you. Thanks.

Oh. Around 2005 or 2006 when we didnt have WhatsApp or any app for that matter SMS was made so cheap we used to text each other a lot. Those days this meant "end of conversation".

 

[MikeF]

Oh. Around 2005 or 2006 when we didnt have WhatsApp or any app for that matter SMS was made so cheap we used to text each other a lot. Those days this meant "end of conversation".

Appreciate it. Now I know.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Correct, but you can't use science to show that it is not correct to believe in a God. It is not correct to believe in a God; is not a fact. It is an evaluation in your brain.
You are doing 2 things. How evidence works and if we ought to use evidence. Those are not the same.

You can't use science to determine that some god being definitely does not exist. However, you can use science to determine that the likelihood of some god being existing is extremely low and thus withhold belief is such a being until actual verifiable evidence is presented.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You should know what I am asking about, because that is a part of how we have methodological naturalism and evidence.

Ask the question in a comprehensible manner and I'll answer it. What you wrote makes no sense.

 

[rational experiences]

The human experience.

I get born. I have two biological human parents. Adults say adult humans keep human life safe by human choices. Mutual as life is mutual on earth.

No earth no human stories either pretty basic human advice for any human thinker. Hence theorising about when earth hadn't existed was legal and named a human a liar.

The planet dangerous naturally reactive which no human controls.
The heavens naturally reactive no human controls.

I live I know I get sick I survive. I see other humans who don't.

Pretty basic living a human truth on earth. Not using title or names for human cult group egotism.

Then I see inequality. Get told how a bunch of human men agreed about enforced human life cult control as brothers. Who took over natural family mutual life wisdom as human life on earth.

Are today nasty minded greedy rich who for a long time have flaunted their ill-gotten gains from human family's slavery. Claiming their rights lying.

I see sick dying humans having sex to produce sick dying babies. Starving yet still manage sex.

I see men theorising mother holy maths science mother abomination bible bashing themes. Yet live as men father's child molestiing acting out sick thinking themes also acting out natural human women's role play in life. As men.

Mutual equal life partner. Man to woman.

So I think because I can. Seems to me human men termed themselves as scientists lie. As maths science isn't any mother. I still live as a natural human woman mother.....I didn't turn into their machines resource whilst they get and live two human lives in one man's body.

Know now why they said human science was mans Satanism. Society had Shut the bible. Made it a legal book based on a sworn oath. Book shut. Yet here you all are recanting human satanic themes pretending it holy today.

Is what one human can see when you bother looking.

When you have to be alive and a human to gain a human life changed supernatural effect. As it isn't happening anywhere else except in a humans living life.

With mind changed human men by a large population acting out his brain changed conscious defects as no human is maths science and machines. As a human female mother woman term.

Gods themes about earth mass and it's heavens gases. By living humans only.

Hence if you aren't a human scientist you should just be living a natural human life. Not involved in satanic theories about how a human made earths mass time shift into a machine.

That he then time shifts more mass to his machines God status place himself. As the liar human he is. Man human our father.

Satanism. Theories.

What a book was written for knowing humans lose their origin conscious natural mind because of nuclear god science. Of human man's control destruction.

The warning when you support and allow human men to perform earth nuclear satanisms human life gets sacrificed and then dies early age sacrificed life. As proof. A book of pre lived humans evidence.

Testimonials for a human's law court and legal system only.

With a whole lot of brain defected humans claiming it another meaning than what it was written for. Human evidence.

 

[Truthseeker]

You add the criteria of limiting ones self to "original scriptures" and to essentially disregard every later expounder of those scriptures. The first dilemma here is that we are now distinguishing between any religious belief or teaching and saying that only some are actually correct and will provide the sought after wisdom. In other posts, the OP seems to favor the Abrahamic based religions as representative of the true word of God.

The problem you bring up is this concept of what is a "later expounder"? Certainly for Jews, Muslims, and Christians, John Smith of LDS would be considered a later expounder and therefore disregarded by your criteria. And again, using that criteria, Muhammad would certainly be considered a later expounder to the Christian community, and so if we are faithful to your concept of originalism, we must also dismiss his teachings. And at last, Jesus is certainly a later expounder when seem from the perspective of those in the Jewish faith. Sticking to originalism, that leaves us with the Tanakh as our reliable, original scripture if we are to limit ourselves to the Abrahamic tradition.

Have I gotten this correct in terms of the OP and your opinion?

Not at all. Muhammad revealed scripture, in my opinion. Jesus revealed scripture, in my opinion. You got the name a little wrong for Joseph Smith, but that's all right. I don't know what to call him. The book of Mormon was fiction, in my opinion. An expounder would be those like Martin Luther, as an example. Another one further back would be Paul the Apostle. I don't think we should disregard all of those as you seem to suggest I said. We should listen and decide who to disregard. Those who we should completely disregard are a minority.

As a Baha'i I would also consider that the Bab and Baha'u'llah revealed scripture. They were not an expounder.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can't use science to determine that some god being definitely does not exist. However, you can use science to determine that the likelihood of some god being existing is extremely low and thus withhold belief is such a being until actual verifiable evidence is presented.

No, because science rests on this:
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

For the subset of gods claimed to be beyond the observed universe there is no way the likelihood of some god being existing is extremely low. The likelihood is unknown.
There is a reason it is called evidence and not truth or proof. Learn the history of science and how we came to the concept of evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ask the question in a comprehensible manner and I'll answer it. What you wrote makes no sense.

Just read the other answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, because science rests on this:
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

For the subset of gods claimed to be beyond the observed universe there is no way the likelihood of some god being existing is extremely low. The likelihood is unknown.
There is a reason it is called evidence and not truth or proof. Learn the history of science and how we came to the concept of evidence.

There is no way to begin to calculate the existence of a God. We do not even know if a God is possible.

To know the odds of an event the first thing one must know is "Is it possible". We do not know that. Gods are a great unknown. I know that Christians like to try to claim that the odds are 100% and that gnostic atheists will say 0%. I am satisfied with "I don't have a clue". Though specific God are possible to eliminate, not all are.