Justify your belief???

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Fair enough I suppose; if that's how faith looks to you, then it appears there is a gulf between us which cannot be bridged. That doesn't mean we can't respect each other's positions though.

Well, I wonder.

As you saw recently, now that Mitch McConnell has stacked the Supreme Court, conservatives are coming after many rights that people now take for granted -- and the late ruling overturning Wade actually references some of those -- the right of same sex couples not only to marry, but to be intimate with one another according to their natures, for example. Because nature cannot trump "faith," and the Christian right is going to see to that. The right to birth control will come under attack.

Do I still have to "respect" those positions -- which will directly affect very real people (including me, if I lived in the US), based on nothing but "faith?" When they attack same-sex marriage, for example, once they discover that they cannot demonstrate the least harm that it has caused in the years that it has been a right, they will have nothing to fall back on but their religion -- and fall back on it they will.

Should LGBTQ people not insist that they should "justify" that somehow? Wouldn't that seem fair to you?

 

[KWED]

The freedom to practice the religious teaching as it is in the scriptures. Often one can see certain aspects are tried to be stopped.

You mean like amputating the hands of thieves, stoning adulterers, burning arsonists, excluding women from certain jobs, homophobia, etc?
Yeah, how outrageously intolerant and oppressive.

The "right" to practice a religion stops where others' basic human rights start. Not really a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[KWED]

Norway being one ( I am born here and live here)
They want to end religious teaching everywhere

Schools should not be indoctrinating children into primitive superstitions. Ending preaching in schools is not stopping anyone from practicing their religion.
Religions panic when their access to susceptible children is restricted because they know that once they get to adulthood without indoctrination, they see religion for the superstitious nonsense that it is.

 

[KWED]

Actually it started here in RF where an atheist time and time again ask religious believers to justify why they holding a certain belief from their own religion.

You still misrepresenting my position?

I understand why people usually hold the beliefs they do. What I am asking is for apologists to support the claims they make.

If a religionist insists that there is evidence to support their belief, it is not unreasonable for me to ask they present that evidence, especially given that this is a religious debate forum.
If the "evidence" there provide is less than convincing, it is also reasonable for me to challenge it and explain why it doesn't support their claim as they say it does.

I really struggle to see what your problem with all this is.

 

[KWED]

Here we go again

Religion are taken out of school.
Ban of hijab in certain Jobs.
Ban of wearing religious symbols publically are talked about politically

How does any of that prevent people from practicing their religion?
It might prevent people from promoting their religion, but that is a different issue.

 

[KWED]

This is a perfect example of the reason for the OP.

You: Religious people should be allowed to practice as prescribed in their scripture.
Sceptic: What, all of it, even the violent intolerance?
You: I don't have to explain myself to you!!

 

[KWED]

I'm an atheist, and I've never asked you to justify your beliefs. Stop generalizing.

That's the trouble with religious people - they always generalise.

 

[KWED]

Well they put restrictions on how religion ate practiced (political leaders want to deside what religion can or can not do.

Wrong. They have proposed preventing religious preaching in schools.

Politic and religion are two different things, they should not be mixed

So you don't think governments should be allowed to make any laws relating to religious practices?

 

[KWED]

IMHO, it is God that sends Messengers to give direction to mankind. As such the Message has to be delivered. The Messenger fulfills that given trust.

When one embraces that Message, I do not see it as a justification of Faith to pass that Message on.

I see it as an inherited trust, a given obligation. It is an obligation that comes with instructions and warnings about the misuse of that obligation.

This is the quote that my thoughts come from.

Teaching Enjoined on Believers in Aqdas
No. 85, p. 8, July 1934)

"In the Aqdas Bahá’u’lláh considers teaching as a spiritual obligation imposed upon every devoted believer and servant of His Faith. Should the friends become fully conscious of this duty and arise to do their share, this Cause will soon permeate every home throughout the world and the Kingdom of God will be established." (From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer: Bahá’í News)

The key here to arise and do their share, it appears that teaching is by mainly actions and not words.

Regards Tony

This seems like a good example of where an apologist might be asked to justify their position.
You claim not only that a god exists and that Bahaullah was his messenger, you also claim that we should be actively taught the message until we all accept it and the world is run under a global Bahai government.
So, before we go any further -
1. what evidence do you have that your version of god exists, and
2. what evidence do you have that Bahaullah really was transmitting that god's message?

Seems a reasonable request, given what you are expecting from me - ie. that I accept that message.

 

[KWED]

Yes I agree with you.
But the OP is about when a religious person in example RF discussion has been asked to justify his/her/they personal faith belief, because the other person disagree or can not see the rational cause of a fath based belief

Seems reasonable in a religious debate context.
I agree that one shouldn't just walk into a church or stop someone on the street wearing a hijab and demand they justify their beliefs - but, if they come onto a religious debate forum and make claims, then yes, they are obliged to support those claims if they want to be taken seriously.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, I wonder.

As you saw recently, now that Mitch McConnell has stacked the Supreme Court, conservatives are coming after many rights that people now take for granted -- and the late ruling overturning Wade actually references some of those -- the right of same sex couples not only to marry, but to be intimate with one another according to their natures, for example. Because nature cannot trump "faith," and the Christian right is going to see to that. The right to birth control will come under attack.

Do I still have to "respect" those positions -- which will directly affect very real people (including me, if I lived in the US), based on nothing but "faith?" When they attack same-sex marriage, for example, once they discover that they cannot demonstrate the least harm that it has caused in the years that it has been a right, they will have nothing to fall back on but their religion -- and fall back on it they will.

Should LGBTQ people not insist that they should "justify" that somehow? Wouldn't that seem fair to you?

I'm not suggesting you should tolerate injustice. If hard won rights and liberties in your country, or your neighbour's country, are under attack from religious fundamentalists, then it's reasonable for you to resist. But if you are concerned with winning hearts and minds - and I would suggest doing that is the only way to make sustainable, long term social and political progress - then you might want to consider whether your obvious contempt for all people of faith, is a help or a hindrance in that endeavour.

 

[KWED]

I imagine few believers are like that, but they exist yes.

If their scripture says that their god hates disbelievers and will direct violent punishment at them simply for disbelieving, it is hardly surprising if they feel the same way themselves.

 

[KWED]

You mean like... if you are a follower of the Inca religion, you aren't allowed to sacrifice young girls to the sungod?

ikr.
Unacceptable government interference in the right to practice religion as laid down in scripture!

 

[KWED]

Why do you ALWAYS go to the extreme? I speak about normal healthy religious belief

Ah, so not all religions should be allowed. Just the ones you approve of. Ban the rest of them, with their primitive superstitions!
Seems reasonable.

 

[KWED]

Law against practicing of religious beliefs

But you just implied that there should be laws against religious practices.
You need to make your mind up.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not suggesting you should tolerate injustice. If hard won rights and liberties in your country, or your neighbour's country, are under attack from religious fundamentalists, then it's reasonable for you to resist. But if you are concerned with winning hearts and minds - and I would suggest doing that is the only way to make sustainable, long term social and political progress - then you might want to consider whether your obvious contempt for all people of faith, is a help or a hindrance in that endeavour.

Excuse me, my "obvious contempt?"

I have argued in these forums FOR the right of everyone to have their religious festivals in public spaces. I argue for creches, and for menorahs. I have visited every sort of rellgious establishment on my travels, and have treated every one of them with utmost respect -- removing my shoes, where that is the norm, or my hat, where that is the norm, or donning a white yarmulka where that is the norm.

Even protesting, years ago here in Toronto, a Baptist pastor calling for the death penalty for gay people in his large "People's Church," we 5 did not interrupt nor disrespect the service -- we were simply there in protest, and behaved as everyone else in the church would. I might point out, however, that the pastor, Rev. Paul D. Smith, did not deliver his promised "final solution" sermon. For some reason, our presence made him re-think that.

 

[KWED]

nor do you have to defend them when they come under attack from angry people who have no intention of giving you a fair hearing anyway.

Sounds like you have no intention of giving their questions a fair hearing.

You are not responsible for their anger, though they may tell you that you are, by association.

How do you know they are not responsible for their anger? I am happy to admit that I get a bit angry when apologists attempt to defend things like slavery, homophobia and barbaric punishments - and justifiably so. Those apologists are certainly responsible for my righteous anger. And I will gladly explain it to them.

 

[KWED]

First of all the OP isn't about me at all, that I mention two members comes from being in discussion with them, they claim believers Must prove and justify their beliefs,

Only when they make claims about those beliefs on religious debate forums.
Which seem sent entirely reasonable to me.
You seem to be suggesting that, in the context of religious debate, apologists should be able to just lob in a load of unsupported assertions and then refuse to support them. Not sure you have grasped how debate works.

 

[KWED]

Faith is not based upon scientific proof, it is based on faith and belief in the teaching

And why do you (religionists in general) have faith in the source material for the belief?
What is it about a religion that makes you comfortable with accepting claims with no supporting evidence or rational argument? Is there any other situation where people not only accept extraordinary, often impossible claims without any question, but actually base their whole life on them?

And why is it so outrageous and unreasonable for me to ask that question on a religious debate forum?
Or that one?

 

[Madmogwai]

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

They don’t have to, they may choose to buy what makes you think they have to.