Justify your belief???

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you get satisfaction from tearing things apart?

Yes, actually.


But I was talking in general.
Why would you not expect the views you express on a discussion and debate forum to be challenged by other members of the forum?
Especially religious views on a religious discussion and debate forum...

 

[Clara Tea]

Yes, actually.


But I was talking in general.
Why would you not expect the views you express on a discussion and debate forum to be challenged by other members of the forum?
Especially religious views on a religious discussion and debate forum...

Apparently opinions are welcome, as long as they agree with the dictator.

Why would someone enter into a discussion with people of other beliefs (other religions), and expect everyone to agree with them?

I agree with you. . . we should have a right to have our own opinions.

 

[Clara Tea]

That all depends upon what you consider justifiable.
Is it justified to believe based on faith and belief in the teaching, with no scientific proof?

justifiable: able to be shown to be right or reasonable; defensible.
justifiable means - Google Search

What if someone heard God talk to them. They could not prove to others. Yet, they might even question their own sanity. But who is to say that one person is wrong and another right?

 

[Clara Tea]

That is counterproductive. There really can be no meaningful conversation between two believers if that is the case. They both believe that the other is wrong but neither has a rational reason for that belief. They would both effectively stalemate themselves.

The old joke...two people staring out of a nut house window exclaiming that the world is crazy. Perhaps any belief or disbelief can't be justified?

I think that God wants us to be kind to those who disagree with us. (And He'll zap them with lightning when they aren't looking).

 

[Clara Tea]

Oh my! So rude. And I thought that it was your unicorn. I don't have any such beliefs.

RE: farting unicorns (solved energy crisis). When we look for the good, we will often find it.

Most people consider themselves to be good, but sometimes not totally good. There is often bad in people. We could ignore the bad, if it isn't too bad. Or, we could view the total person (good and bad), and average out their behavior.

My advice....hug someone (on the other hand, that might cause more gas).

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, actually.


But I was talking in general.
Why would you not expect the views you express on a discussion and debate forum to be challenged by other members of the forum?
Especially religious views on a religious discussion and debate forum...

I think what many people find difficult to accept is not having their views challenged, but the manner in which this is done; the tone of debate can quickly become toxic, and I for one have been on this forum long enough to spot the usual suspects.

It's far easier to tear things apart, than it is to create or contribute anything of value. Perhaps that's why some people enjoy doing it.

 

[HonestJoe]

The discussion isn't about what the theist should do...it is about what certain member pushing for answers they know they won't get answerd

Why don't they get answers though? If you're going to present a belief on a discussion forum, especially a forum specifically for discussions around that kind of belief, you must expect discussion of your beliefs.

Many such discussions will reach an impasse, at which the best thing to do is agree to disagree, but a lot of people struggle to do that (myself included). Sometimes those discussions can lead to some kind of revelation or deeper understanding on one or both sides, which I think is (or should be!) the point of us all being here in the first place.

After all, isn't that the reason you're asking this question? It wasn't just a passive-aggressive attack on certain unnamed posters with no expectation of any serious answers or intention to hear them out?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why don't they get answers though? If you're going to present a belief on a discussion forum, especially a forum specifically for discussions around that kind of belief, you must expect discussion of your beliefs.

Many such discussions will reach an impasse, at which the best thing to do is agree to disagree, but a lot of people struggle to do that (myself included). Sometimes those discussions can lead to some kind of revelation or deeper understanding on one or both sides, which I think is (or should be!) the point of us all being here in the first place.

After all, isn't that the reason you're asking this question? It wasn't just a passive-aggressive attack on certain unnamed posters with no expectation of any serious answers or intention to hear them out?

When a believer have gone 100 rounds with the same persons in discussion or debate and given answers time and time again by answering different threads, one get tired of people does not pay attention to what is being said to them.
And when a believer do give answer to personal belief they are mett with "wishfull thinking"

 

[HonestJoe]

When a believer have gone 100 rounds with the same persons in discussion or debate and given answers time and time again by answering different threads, one get tired of people does not pay attention to what is being said to them.
And when a believer do give answer to personal belief they are mett with "wishfull thinking"

Well that is a general function of debate, especially online. It certainly isn't unique or more common for atheists or in this topic.

In general terms, if you go round and round giving essentially the same answer to the questions and ignore follow-up questions, you're just as responsible for the situation (something I've seen on all sorts of topics). If you're met with the response that faith is just wishful thinking, the next logical step would be to give a response to that point to move the discussion on. If you can't present a response to that other people consider resolves it, that is the point you need to agree to disagree and move on (though that is also where the idea that your faith should be the basis of other people's behaviour or general social policy falls down).

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well that is a general function of debate, especially online. It certainly isn't unique or more common for atheists or in this topic.

In general terms, if you go round and round giving essentially the same answer to the questions and ignore follow-up questions, you're just as responsible for the situation (something I've seen on all sorts of topics). If you're met with the response that faith is just wishful thinking, the next logical step would be to give a response to that point to move the discussion on. If you can't present a response to that other people consider resolves it, that is the point you need to agree to disagree and move on (though that is also where the idea that your faith should be the basis of other people's behaviour or general social policy falls down).

When giving answer to personal belief they will stay mostly the same all the time, small variations can happen.

Only when a believer qoute directly from a scriptures will you find exactly the same answer given.

 

[HonestJoe]

When giving answer to personal belief they will stay mostly the same all the time, small variations can happen.

As I said, it isn't about the initial answer, it is about the follow-ups. You realise you're doing exactly the same thing here? You're just repeating essentially the same thing over and over while ignoring the follow-up questions and deeper clarification.

The key example here was why couldn't you just meaningfully respond to the posters suggesting that faith is just wishful thinking? That is how discussion or debate fundamentally works.

Only when a believer qoute directly from a scriptures will you find exactly the same answer given.

That is an example of an underlying problem. Scripture isn't good support for faith unless you can explain why you believe that scripture (and your interpretation of it) is valid and correct, over and above all the other interpretations, religious scriptures and wider philosophical ideas or principles.

The bottom line is that faith has no definitive solid basis - if it did, it wouldn't be faith any more. That isn't satisfying to anyone who doesn't share that faith but isn't a reason for those with faith not to accept and admit this is the case.

 

[Spirit of Light]

As I said, it isn't about the initial answer, it is about the follow-ups. You realise you're doing exactly the same thing here? You're just repeating essentially the same thing over and over while ignoring the follow-up questions and deeper clarification.

The key example here was why couldn't you just meaningfully respond to the posters suggesting that faith is just wishful thinking? That is how discussion or debate fundamentally works.

That is an example of an underlying problem. Scripture isn't good support for faith unless you can explain why you believe that scripture (and your interpretation of it) is valid and correct, over and above all the other interpretations, religious scriptures and wider philosophical ideas or principles.

The bottom line is that faith has no definitive solid basis - if it did, it wouldn't be faith any more. That isn't satisfying to anyone who doesn't share that faith but isn't a reason for those with faith not to accept and admit this is the case.

If it isn't satisfying to others isn't my problem

 

[HonestJoe]

If it isn't satisfying to others isn't my problem

Well that goes back to why you'd discuss the topic at all. If it's just a personal belief you feel no need to justify (and you're not using it as a basis for others actions or policies), just don't answer the questions. If other religious people choose to answer those questions, that's up to them.

I mean, you started this thread to ask a question, essentially one about belief (of what are appropriate questions and forms of discussion). You've been given answers (generally similar answers from a couple of people, myself included). It appears those answers aren't satisfying to you, but you don't seem willing or able to explain why. That pretty much ends the discussion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well that goes back to why you'd discuss the topic at all. If it's just a personal belief you feel no need to justify (and you're not using it as a basis for others actions or policies), just don't answer the questions. If other religious people choose to answer those questions, that's up to them.

I mean, you started this thread to ask a question, essentially one about belief (of what are appropriate questions and forms of discussion). You've been given answers (generally similar answers from a couple of people, myself included). It appears those answers aren't satisfying to you, but you don't seem willing or able to explain why. That pretty much ends the discussion.

I discuss religious and spiritual topics because I like it.

Again this thread is not about me as a person or believer.
I still have not gotten answer to OP

 

[stevecanuck]

With other religions or spiritual people yes

Ok. Just don't answer when one of us infidel pig-dogs chimes in. Easy peasy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do religious people have to justify their personal religious and spiritual belief?

Because of atheists on Religious Forums.

Whereas I don't go to Tolkien forums to explain Middle Earth doesn't exist!

 

[Trailblazer]

What if someone heard God talk to them. They could not prove to others. Yet, they might even question their own sanity. But who is to say that one person is wrong and another right?

Nobody can say that because they do not know the experience of another person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When a believer have gone 100 rounds with the same persons in discussion or debate and given answers time and time again by answering different threads, one get tired of people does not pay attention to what is being said to them.
And when a believer do give answer to personal belief they are mett with "wishfull thinking"

I was not involved in any of these conversations but did you stop to think that it might have been wishful thinking on your part? I used to be a Republican and would like to see them go back to what they used to be. Others have pointed out that that is probably just wishful thinking on my part and I have to admit that it probably is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am wrong many times a day, but I don't ask non believers to tell me, I read different religions scriptures to find where I am wrong.

Well there's your mistake. You appear to be assuming that those texts are reliable. How do you know if they are or if they are not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

From that website:

Atheists have some of the lowest divorce rates listed at 2 percent. However, it should be noted that the marriage rate among this group is also smaller. This was noted in a 2012 study that only about 36 percent of atheists were married compared to 54 percent of Christians.

According to research by the Pew Research Center, Catholics had one of the lowest incidences of divorce, with 19 percent having been divorced out of 4,752 interviewed.

Mormons had a divorce rate of about 1 percent. Many studies attribute the low divorce rate among this group to the strong emphasis on families and a powerful religious affiliation.

Yes, so what? I never claimed that atheists have the lowest rate, I said that ti was lower than evangelical Christians. And it is by a factor of 14! Mormonism appears to be rather cultic. It fits most of the definitions of a cult and the control of the group over its members may explain their rather low rate. Catholics are some of the "busiest" Christians out there. They believe that their "sins" are forgiven once they confess and get a very minor punishment.