• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Justify your belief???

Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Are you sure about that? To me it sounds like you are saying that people should be irrational. I would say that it is fine if one believes in a god, but one should always leave some room for doubt. When it comes to the religious and doing evil, and the two have gone hand in hand for a huge part of history, being sure in one's belief is what made the evil possible. I would say that doubt is a healthy thing for everyone to have.
Click to expand...
I said: There might be doubts about certain things but there should be no doubt about what is central to the belief.

What I meant is, for example, for a believer there should be no doubt that God exists, or if one is a Christian there should be no doubt of who Jesus claimed to be, or if you are a Baha'i there should be no doubt that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. However, we might have some doubts about the teachings such as whether God is all-loving.

On the other hand, not all believers are certain that God exists, some say they are not sure.
I understand their that position, but that seems more like an agnostic to me than a believer.

As a believer I am certain that God exists, but I cannot say I am certain that God has all the attributes that believers pin on Him.
 
ADigitalArtist

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Hermit Philosopher said:
Dear @ADigitalArtist,

I agree that religions should not be meddling in the politics of a nation, but below is an odd thing to say if you are a non-religious member in a religious forum like this one.




Humbly
Hermit
Click to expand...
You're right, that was poorly worded. I meant kept beliefs about requirements of their religious practice to themselves. As a personal creed not one that I must also follow.

Although frankly I joined this website when I was younger and more interested in debating. Right now my block list is dozens long and I'm frankly tired of the fundamentalist position and don't much give it the time of day anymore.
 
Last edited:
ADigitalArtist

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Seeker of White Light said:
What does that has to do with a personal belief in a God, and why do they have to justify that they hold a personal belief??
Click to expand...
Like said, the only time I would require justification is if they tried to compel others or myself to live according to their personal belief. Or if they told me I need to adopt or agree with their personal belief in some way.

We're living in a time where major civic change is underway by fundamentalist religious types in our country, and it has people very much on edge. If you're the type who would stand against those trying to enact religiously based civil law than you and I have no problem.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
If you can show that a particular sexual morality is bad then I would change my morality. But if you claim something is bad just because a prophet or other holy man said so, that is not good enough. I have seen plenty of damage done by that sort of "morality"..

By the way, where have atheists ever tried to impose their sexual morality upon others? I have never seen that happen.
Click to expand...
What is good and what is bad?
What is good or bad is highly subjective, and people have opinions that are all over the board, unless one has a set of standards revealed by God. We normally refer to those as God's Laws.

Having sex only within marriage has many obvious and quantifiable social and personal benefits. I could not even begin to list them all. Sex out of wedlock can lead to adultery, broken families, and divorces. Although that is not always the case, the fact that it is sometimes the case is very problematic for individuals and for society. Many social problems could be prevented if sex was restricted to marriage.

86% of women who have abortions are unmarried women and that tells us the abortion rate would be much lower if nobody had sex out of wedlock.

TABLE 1. Percentage distribution of U.S. women obtaining abortions

Relationship status
Married 14.3
Cohabiting, not married 31.0
Never-married, not cohabiting 45.9
Previously married, not cohabiting 8.8

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_downloads/us-abortion-patients-table1.pdf

So what are the benefits of having sex out of wedlock?
 
osgart

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Trailblazer said:
What is good and what is bad?
What is good or bad is highly subjective, and people have opinions that are all over the board, unless one has a set of standards revealed by God. We normally refer to those as God's Laws.

Having sex only within marriage has many obvious and quantifiable social and personal benefits. I could not even begin to list them all. Sex out of wedlock can lead to adultery, broken families, and divorces. Although that is not always the case, the fact that it is sometimes the case is very problematic for individuals and for society. Many social problems could be prevented if sex was restricted to marriage.

86% of women who have abortions are unmarried women and that tells us the abortion rate would be much lower if nobody had sex out of wedlock.

TABLE 1. Percentage distribution of U.S. women obtaining abortions

Relationship status
Married 14.3
Cohabiting, not married 31.0
Never-married, not cohabiting 45.9
Previously married, not cohabiting 8.8

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_downloads/us-abortion-patients-table1.pdf

So what are the benefits of having sex out of wedlock?
Click to expand...

While I'm against telling people how to live their lives personally, I do think it's morally best to have one committed partner based on true love for that partner. I do think it's reckless and dangerous to have sex promiscuously. Unfortunately people's hormones get the best of them, and they develope unhealthy pleasure addictions. I think self esteem suffers mightily when people are promiscuous.

I could never enforce a marriage requirement though. If people insist on behaviours like that I think it's best to let them have the autonomy to do so. However they should be well informed about the benefits of waiting for the right person. People should be morally informed about all the moral choices out there, and the information and statistics that support or don't support certain ways of life.
 
Q

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Seeker of White Light said:
Aren't atheists trying to stop Religion from spreading, by putting up laws in different countries?
Shouldn't that be justified too to the religious people?

Where is the difference?
Click to expand...

What laws are you referring to where atheists in other countries are trying to stop the spread of religion? I am aware that there are nations where you can be put to death if you're an atheists and there are several states in the US where you can't run for public office if you're an atheist.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said:
What is good and what is bad?
What is good or bad is highly subjective, and people have opinions that are all over the board, unless one has a set of standards revealed by God. We normally refer to those as God's Laws.

Having sex only within marriage has many obvious and quantifiable social and personal benefits. I could not even begin to list them all. Sex out of wedlock can lead to adultery, broken families, and divorces. Although that is not always the case, the fact that it is sometimes the case is very problematic for individuals and for society. Many social problems could be prevented if sex was restricted to marriage.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is demonstrably wrong. Those that do not have sex before marriage are much more likely to get a divorce than those that do. Sex is an extremely important part of a marriage and if people are incompatible sexually it can and often does end up in a divorce. Or it could be just a life of cheating and abuse to get the sex that one needs outside of marriage. Divorce rates of Evangelical Christians is quite a bit higher than that of atheits.

86% of women who have abortions are unmarried women and that tells us the abortion rate would be much lower if nobody had sex out of wedlock.
Click to expand...

People are gong to have sex outside of marriage no matter what. And the reason that unmarried women have a high divorce rate here is because we do not have the social safety net that we should have. Look at Europe. State funded abortions, those don't exist here, even loser laws than the US. And plenty of premarital sex. Why do they have abortion rates lower than we do? They have a proper social safety net so that a pregnancy out of wedlock is not a disaster.

TABLE 1. Percentage distribution of U.S. women obtaining abortions

Relationship status
Married 14.3
Cohabiting, not married 31.0
Never-married, not cohabiting 45.9
Previously married, not cohabiting 8.8

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_downloads/us-abortion-patients-table1.pdf

So what are the benefits of having sex out of wedlock?
Click to expand...


As I said, they cause a much more stable marriage once someone does marry.. Which is better for everyone, not just the husband and wife, but also any children they have. Your statistics support the fact that we should have more support for women than anything else. You are misanalyzing the data. Free and easily available birth control alone would drop our abortion rates. Proper sex ed classes. The states with the highest teen pregnancies also tend to be the ones with the worst sex ed classes.

Do you have anything of substance?
 
Spirit of Light

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Subduction Zone said:
The "pushy people" tend to be the theists. Once again, it is when theists try to put their God where he does not belong that theists take on a burden of proof.

If you want to believe in a magical farting unicorn have at it. I don't care. If you want it taught in school then you have to support your claims. How is trying to keep some people from harming others "pushy"?

And atheists are here is because a lack of belief still says something about religions.
Click to expand...
I don't care about your farting unicorns either..
 
Spirit of Light

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
QuestioningMind said:
There's a huge difference between being asked to justify a claim and having to justify a claim. If someone on RF asks you to clarify a claim, you don't have to. People on RF refuse to do so every day.
Click to expand...
To clerify is not a problem.
I don't have to justify my belief other than to my self.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said:
I said: There might be doubts about certain things but there should be no doubt about what is central to the belief.

What I meant is, for example, for a believer there should be no doubt that God exists, or if one is a Christian there should be no doubt of who Jesus claimed to be, or if you are a Baha'i there should be no doubt that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. However, we might have some doubts about the teachings such as whether God is all-loving.

On the other hand, not all believers are certain that God exists, some say they are not sure.
I understand their that position, but that seems more like an agnostic to me than a believer.

As a believer I am certain that God exists, but I cannot say I am certain that God has all the attributes that believers pin on Him.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Spirit of Light

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Subduction Zone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why? When I discuss with other religious people i learn a lot, and have no need to tell them, their beliefs are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top