Which One do you think is more faithful and loyal ?

[m.ramdeen]

There are two kind of persons.

1st: The one who believe in the existence of God
2nd: Who Doesn't believe in the existence of God.

Which One do you think is more faithful and loyal towards others and why ?

Its gonna be one of those questions that depends
.....Depends on who are these "others" that person X is supposed to be loyal towards.....

Let's take an employer for example, provided we have a morally upstanding employer who goes "by the book" then in that case the religious person that believes in god would be the choice pick. No one expects the religious guy to go behind the employer's back and do some shady deal, conscience would go off the rails. And then again, the religious guy is gonna keep the employer in line if operations start deviating from "the book"

Just my $0.02 :run:

 

[raw_thought]

That is like asking who are more moral, those that know how to change a car tire or those that do not. The categories are unrelated.
The threat of punishment has nothing to do with if one is moral or spiritual. For example, it would be absurd to say, " I love my wife because if I don't she will beat me up." That would not be love.

 

[Sabour]

By reminding everyone that religions are about peace and love and concluding things from that, you're assuming that there actually is agreement that religions

You're assuming that all people view religions positively, but that some are non-religious anyway. Then conclude from it that under any circumstances, being religious and , which are not quite so universally accepted as a positive thing, and you already know that. There are teachings like making a distinction between people who believe and people who don't believe, deeming one group to go paradise while the other to go to an infinite hell, teachings about how the believing group should approach and treat that unbelieving group, teachings proposing endless types of restrictions of various kinds that some believers should inflict on others, teachings about various punishments for various kinds of acts that should be carried out by people on each other, teachings granting different groups or classes of people a different set of rights and privileges, teachings about animal sacrifices, teachings about self-inflicted pain, teachings about self-imposed restrictions, etc.

Well since the other part of your reply is "you are wrong" and "who are you to say that", I will only address this part of your reply.

The idea behind some of these punishments deterring people and if someone did, we are not the ones to judge what should we do. For example, go to jails and ask the people if they prefer to have their hand cut for stealing or rotten in jail away from their kids and families. I know that this isn't your biggest concern at what you are hinting at, but I can't address what the rest on this thread

 

[Badran]

Well since the other part of your reply is "you are wrong" and "who are you to say that", I will only address this part of your reply.

There are ways out of debates which are much more graceful.

You said:

Those who don't see think their religion is not peaceful, than they didn't have the correct understanding of it. It is not because it is ambiguous, it is because they don't want to understand.

And i replied with two points. One, stating that i'd be happy to hear what makes you think you have the authority, the basis, and most importantly, nearly the sufficient knowledge to make such a statement. Two, stating that regardless of point one, or i'll make it easier, even granting what i was arguing against in point one, it still doesn't actually negate the existence of religious theists who do come out of religions with negative influences and mindsets, contrary to your original claim.

For point one, do you feel that you're qualified (or that anyone is qualified) to state carelessly that those who do not come out with a specific message out of all of the world's religions, have not come out with it because of lack of understanding or desire for understanding? Did you actually study, or better yet, merely check out the variety of religions that exist just today?

Put differently, and to make it impersonal, on what basis could you possibly make such a statement?

The idea behind some of these punishments deterring people and if someone did,

I'm not addressing any of these teachings. I'm not discussing them, or trying to determine whether or not they're positive teachings, so this attempt at explaining just an aspect of them is not actually addressing what i said. I'm mentioning them as a contrast to the obvious things you mentioned like "love your neighbor", as other examples of fundamental teachings in some of the most popular religions around the world today, pointing out there is a wild amount of opinions on these teachings and whether or not they're a positive force in society, like you already know.

we are not the ones to judge what should we do.

I know this conversation isn't worth the time, and i know you're not even trying now, but there's just a basic level of respect that should be present here. A respect for my and your intellectual integrity.

We're talking about how religions are perceived by people, and how religions and belief in god affects them. To state the above at this point in the conversation is just disrespectful.

If we're not the ones to judge, then why did you post in this thread to begin with? Why did you say that religions are about peace and love, and that they bring out the best in people? How did you judge that we shouldn't be the ones to judge?

Seriously, just a basic level of respect wouldn't hurt.

For example, go to jails and ask the people if they prefer to have their hand cut for stealing or rotten in jail away from their kids and families.

Again, disregarding that this is an experiment doomed to failure since you're hoping that all most would choose to get their hands cut off, i wasn't addressing those things and trying to judge them.

They are examples of things people disagree about, and i had to be reduced to such redundancy because you somehow managed to pretend these things didn't exist.

I know that this isn't your biggest concern at what you are hinting at, but I can't address what the rest on this thread

I'll be happy if you address just anything from what i said, rather than things i have not said.

 

[Sabour]

There are ways out of debates which are much more graceful.

You said:

Those who don't see think their religion is not peaceful, than they didn't have the correct understanding of it. It is not because it is ambiguous, it is because they don't want to understand.

And i replied with two points. One, stating that i'd be happy to hear what makes you think you have the authority, the basis, and most importantly, nearly the sufficient knowledge to make such a statement. Two, stating that regardless of point one, or i'll make it easier, even granting what i was arguing against in point one, it still doesn't actually negate the existence of religious theists who do come out of religions with negative influences and mindsets, contrary to your original claim.

I think I can say that there is a lack of understanding based on two things. The first is my own experience before I came a practicing Muslim. I was just a muslim because I am born a muslim. I didn't use to even pray. At that time I did see the world of "us" vs "them. I did see divisions. I always had a very different look towards non muslims. After I became a practicing muslim and understood my religion every thing changed. I was unconsciously taking an out of context part of Islam and forming opinions. Later I realized that this was only a way to make myself feel that I am on the safe side, even though I was not a practicing muslim.
The second thing is that I see how some muslims talk and we often held discussion of what they thing their religion says. I was always amazed by how people take part of Islam, isolate it from the rest, and have a "mini Islam" which has nothing to do with Islam.

What is common between these people, and me previously, is that we don't take the time to understand our religion. We just take a part of it, sit there, light a cigarette and start talking about Islam as if we are scholars.

For point one, do you feel that you're qualified (or that anyone is qualified) to state carelessly that those who do not come out with a specific message out of all of the world's religions, have not come out with it because of lack of understanding or desire for understanding? Did you actually study, or better yet, merely check out the variety of religions that exist just today?

Put differently, and to make it impersonal, on what basis could you possibly make such a statement?

I think what I said about Islam can be applied to most of the religions.

I'm not addressing any of these teachings. I'm not discussing them, or trying to determine whether or not they're positive teachings, so this attempt at explaining just an aspect of them is not actually addressing what i said. I'm mentioning them as a contrast to the obvious things you mentioned like "love your neighbor", as other examples of fundamental teachings in some of the most popular religions around the world today, pointing out there is a wild amount of opinions on these teachings and whether or not they're a positive force in society, like you already know.

Aha I see.

Well religion does have to touch on everything. But those things are not contradicting to peace because they refer to certain events when someone does something. So I don't think we can say it is contradicting to peace.

I know this conversation isn't worth the time, and i know you're not even trying now, but there's just a basic level of respect that should be present here. A respect for my and your intellectual integrity.

We're talking about how religions are perceived by people, and how religions and belief in god affects them. To state the above at this point in the conversation is just disrespectful.

Just a question. What did you understand of my phrase " we are not the ones to judge"

Again, disregarding that this is an experiment doomed to failure since you're hoping that all most would choose to get their hands cut off, i wasn't addressing those things and trying to judge them.

Okay than I won't discuss it.

They are examples of things people disagree about, and i had to be reduced to such redundancy because you somehow managed to pretend these things didn't exist.

I didn't pretend that these don't exist.

I'll be happy if you address just anything from what i said, rather than things i have not said.

Well you are unique in your approach to things. So if I am not addressing what you are aiming at just let me know.

 

[Badran]

I think I can say that there is a lack of understanding based on two things. The first is my own experience before I came a practicing Muslim. I was just a muslim because I am born a muslim. I didn't use to even pray. At that time I did see the world of "us" vs "them. I did see divisions. I always had a very different look towards non muslims. After I became a practicing muslim and understood my religion every thing changed. I was unconsciously taking an out of context part of Islam and forming opinions. Later I realized that this was only a way to make myself feel that I am on the safe side, even though I was not a practicing muslim.
The second thing is that I see how some muslims talk and we often held discussion of what they thing their religion says. I was always amazed by how people take part of Islam, isolate it from the rest, and have a "mini Islam" which has nothing to do with Islam.

What is common between these people, and me previously, is that we don't take the time to understand our religion. We just take a part of it, sit there, light a cigarette and start talking about Islam as if we are scholars.

I think what I said about Islam can be applied to most of the religions.

Thanks for sharing personal experience.

This doesn't answer my question though. Two things:

1) How do you determine the result of an examination you haven't conducted yourself? You only examined Islam, how can you determine what results you or others might have after examining other religions? The answer is that you can't. You have no knowledge from which you can make such a judgment.

2) What you shared is subjective perspective. After you examined your religion, you came out with certain conclusions. Other people come out with different ones. You're assuming that anyone who would examine it would come out with the same impression you came out with, and that's both baseless and demonstrably false.

Aha I see.

Well religion does have to touch on everything. But those things are not contradicting to peace because they refer to certain events when someone does something. So I don't think we can say it is contradicting to peace.

Again, that's subjective judgment on the teachings. People can and already do say, as you surely already know, that some/most of these teachings are not peaceful. And this is what i was referring to when i said you were pretending for something to not exist. The fact that people look at religions and view them differently.

Just a question. What did you understand of my phrase " we are not the ones to judge"

That either a scholar/judge or god should make the judgment call regarding what to do, not 'us'.

Well you are unique in your approach to things. So if I am not addressing what you are aiming at just let me know.

I'm not sure what's unique about it but this post at least attempted to address what i said, so thanks for that.

 

[Nadia Faiazova]

No one has been born with the desire to be faithful.As bgrow, we cultivate it.Of course to be faithfful to someone, you should have great affection to that person. It comes with the love you cvultivate.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I would say it is the one who believes in God because in my opinion, if they believe in God and are faithful and orthodox Catholics then they are going to obey the teachings of the Catholic Church. I believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are 100% true. We have many teachings concerning how to love and treat our neighbors, how to serve justice, and teachings on social justice as well. We also have many teachings on faith and morals of course. So I believe that faithful and orthodox Catholics are thereby following God and doing what God wants them to do. Therefore, in my opinion, they are the most faithful and loyal to other people.

As for other people who believe in God but who are non-Catholic, I believe that they are more faithful and loyal to other people than those who don't believe in God in general because most people who believe in God believe that God requires a set of morals and rules to follow. I know that not all theists believe in a set of morals and rules to follow but I would say that the majority of them do since the majority of theists are Christians, Jews, and Muslims. There are also other theistic religions besides Christianity, Judaism, and Islam which require a set of moral beliefs and rules to be followed. Most of these moral beliefs and rules are good and true and require one to be loyal and faithful and loving to everyone else. Most theistic religions require their followers to treat other people in a just and fair manner.

As for non-theists, I believe that they are also faithful and loyal to other people for the most part. However, I believe that they are sometimes less faithful and loyal to other people but not always. The reason for this is that some non-theists don't really care about moral values and rules for the most part. I would say the vast majority of them do have some moral values and rules but some of them have very few moral values and rules and therefore have fewer standards to go by when it comes to being faithful, loyal, and loving to other people. There is also the fact that non-theists do not believe that they have an obligation to be pleasing to God or else face the consequences and so they have no fear of consequences from God. This in turn leads to people not caring as much. But for the most part I would say that most non-theists are pretty much the same as others when it comes to faithfulness, loyalty, and charitableness towards others.

Last but not least, I believe that all human beings are created inherently good but flawed because of Original Sin. I believe that we are all basically good. We all generally desire good for others and for ourselves. I believe that's a part of our human nature. However, I also believe that we are flawed because of Original Sin and although we generally desire good for ourselves and others, Original Sin results in concupiscence when in turn leads to temptation to sin which harms ourselves and others and our relationship with God. This affects our loyalty, faithfulness, and love towards others.

 

[Ingledsva]

Its gonna be one of those questions that depends
.....Depends on who are these "others" that person X is supposed to be loyal towards.....

Let's take an employer for example, provided we have a morally upstanding employer who goes "by the book" then in that case the religious person that believes in god would be the choice pick. No one expects the religious guy to go behind the employer's back and do some shady deal, conscience would go off the rails. And then again, the religious guy is gonna keep the employer in line if operations start deviating from "the book"

Just my $0.02 :run:

Why?


You are using outdated prejudice that has been proven wrong.

The believer can be as holy as all get out - and that WILL NOT make the non-theist any less "moral," or likely to do the right thing.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

I would say it is the one who believes in God because in my opinion, if they believe in God and are faithful and orthodox Catholics then they are going to obey the teachings of the Catholic Church. I believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are 100% true. We have many teachings concerning how to love and treat our neighbors, how to serve justice, and teachings on social justice as well. We also have many teachings on faith and morals of course. So I believe that faithful and orthodox Catholics are thereby following God and doing what God wants them to do. Therefore, in my opinion, they are the most faithful and loyal to other people.

As for other people who believe in God but who are non-Catholic, I believe that they are more faithful and loyal to other people than those who don't believe in God in general because most people who believe in God believe that God requires a set of morals and rules to follow. I know that not all theists believe in a set of morals and rules to follow but I would say that the majority of them do since the majority of theists are Christians, Jews, and Muslims. There are also other theistic religions besides Christianity, Judaism, and Islam which require a set of moral beliefs and rules to be followed. Most of these moral beliefs and rules are good and true and require one to be loyal and faithful and loving to everyone else. Most theistic religions require their followers to treat other people in a just and fair manner.

As for non-theists, I believe that they are also faithful and loyal to other people for the most part. However, I believe that they are sometimes less faithful and loyal to other people but not always. The reason for this is that some non-theists don't really care about moral values and rules for the most part. I would say the vast majority of them do have some moral values and rules but some of them have very few moral values and rules and therefore have fewer standards to go by when it comes to being faithful, loyal, and loving to other people. There is also the fact that non-theists do not believe that they have an obligation to be pleasing to God or else face the consequences and so they have no fear of consequences from God. This in turn leads to people not caring as much. But for the most part I would say that most non-theists are pretty much the same as others when it comes to faithfulness, loyalty, and charitableness towards others.

Last but not least, I believe that all human beings are created inherently good but flawed because of Original Sin. I believe that we are all basically good. We all generally desire good for others and for ourselves. I believe that's a part of our human nature. However, I also believe that we are flawed because of Original Sin and although we generally desire good for ourselves and others, Original Sin results in concupiscence when in turn leads to temptation to sin which harms ourselves and others and our relationship with God. This affects our loyalty, faithfulness, and love towards others.

I highlighted areas to discuss.


Again - outdated prejudice - that has been proven wrong by study after study.


Both theists and non-theists have good and bad people.


The only difference is that when theists do wrong, their fellow theists say things like - they weren't really a Christian.


What a cop-out to skew the numbers.


I guess in like manner, non-theists should say he really wasn't a non-theist. LOL.


Did you read my post a few pages back with studies that show states, and even whole countries, that are LESS religious, have less rape, less teen pregnancy, less abortion, less violence, less murder, etc?



*

 

[m.ramdeen]

Why?


You are using outdated prejudice that has been proven wrong.

The believer can be as holy as all get out - and that WILL NOT make the non-theist any less "moral," or likely to do the right thing.



*

Outdated :yes:
Prejudiced :yes:
Wrong..... Hold on a sec.
The way how I understand it, the OP is gonna be all about what gives Person X the advantage over Person Y given that they could be similarly qualified on paper.

Let's drop this in another context. A job interview. Both Person X and Person Y have equal qualifications and both performed well in their interview. Based on that alone, there's nothing saying one party is more moral / trustworthy than the other... its a tie. So on that count you are right.

But throw Employer A in the mix, who just so happens to believe in some sort of God. If Person X was the interviewee that believes in the existence of God then they are gonna automatically be more trustworthy than Person Y who does not.

Why?
Because when comparing the decision-making process for both persons, Person X who believes in God's existence has an external higher power to answer to for their actions. Even if Person X made a conscious effort to do something and was prepared to accept the risks of being caught. There's still one more level of accountability and that's all about where you end up in the afterlife

By comparison, once Person Y makes a conscious effort to do something, accepts the risks and that's it. No external forces to answer to because they simply don't believe such an entity exists.

Conversely, replay this scene with Employer B at the helm, who just so happens to not have a care in the world about the existence of God. Both Person X and Person Y are on a level playing field and equally trustworthy. For all they care, Person X's God is as credible as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and has no bearing on trustworthiness.

So to answer your question again OP, the only way to determine which of the 2 is more trustworthy would be to ascertain the pre-dispositions of the person asking the questions. It's all a matter of opinion in the end.

 

[Ingledsva]

Outdated :yes:
Prejudiced :yes:
Wrong..... Hold on a sec.
The way how I understand it, the OP is gonna be all about what gives Person X the advantage over Person Y given that they could be similarly qualified on paper.

Let's drop this in another context. A job interview. Both Person X and Person Y have equal qualifications and both performed well in their interview. Based on that alone, there's nothing saying one party is more moral / trustworthy than the other... its a tie. So on that count you are right.

But throw Employer A in the mix, who just so happens to believe in some sort of God. If Person X was the interviewee that believes in the existence of God then they are gonna automatically be more trustworthy than Person Y who does not.

Why?
Because when comparing the decision-making process for both persons, Person X who believes in God's existence has an external higher power to answer to for their actions. Even if Person X made a conscious effort to do something and was prepared to accept the risks of being caught. There's still one more level of accountability and that's all about where you end up in the afterlife

By comparison, once Person Y makes a conscious effort to do something, accepts the risks and that's it. No external forces to answer to because they simply don't believe such an entity exists.

Conversely, replay this scene with Employer B at the helm, who just so happens to not have a care in the world about the existence of God. Both Person X and Person Y are on a level playing field and equally trustworthy. For all they care, Person X's God is as credible as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and has no bearing on trustworthiness.

So to answer your question again OP, the only way to determine which of the 2 is more trustworthy would be to ascertain the pre-dispositions of the person asking the questions. It's all a matter of opinion in the end.

There is no "other" context.


This is what the OP actually said -

Which One do you think is more faithful and loyal ?

There are two kind of persons.

1st: The one who believe in the existence of God
2nd: Who Doesn't believe in the existence of God.

Which One do you think is more faithful and loyal towards others and why ?

What if, suppose you are an employer and you have to choose from two such kind of your employees to tell some of your company secrets, than which one will you prefer more, Jane?

There is no Theist employer.

It is sheer prejudice, and ignorance.

Theists are NOT more faithful and loyal, as has been shown by study after study.

And again - your ideas up there are BULL!


Studies show both are the same for practical purposes.


However NON-THEIST states, and countries, consistently have better living conditions, less rape, less abuse, less crime, less unwed pregnancies, less abortion, more equity, higher standards of living, and so on.


It is outdated and ridiculous to believe Theists are more trustworthy.


*

 

[9Westy9]

There are two kind of persons.

1st: The one who believe in the existence of God
2nd: Who Doesn't believe in the existence of God.

Which One do you think is more faithful and loyal towards others and why ?

It depends on the individuals not what a group of people believe about god(s)

 

[viole]

If the person has no intention to do good, believing that God exists would prevent him from doing bad things towards people for his knowledge that God exists and he will be accountable for all his actions.

So, the believer does not do evil because of the punishement.

If the person has the intention to do good, believing that God exists would take this intention to a much higher level because he knows that he would be rewarded for every single good deed he goes.

So, the believer is motivated to do good because of a reward.

If I were god, i would send to hell all people who did good for a reward or fear of a punishment, and send to heaven all people who did good just for the sake of it.

Let's not forget that all religions are about peace and loving each other.

That is why priests bless soldiers and guns.

Ciao

- viole

 

[The Conservative Atheist]

To be honest belief or lack of a belief in God doesn't say much about a persons character, for example Hitler was christian and Einstein was an atheist yet Obama is Christian and Stalin was an atheist so it can go either way.

 

[MomenaMinhas]

those who don't belive on God, belives that this universe is created via Big Bang theory

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

those who don't belive on God, belives that this universe is created via Big Bang theory

Not necessarily. I believe in both a deity and the big bang.

 

[jtartar]

There are two kind of persons.

1st: The one who believe in the existence of God
2nd: Who Doesn't believe in the existence of God.

Which One do you think is more faithful and loyal towards others and why ?

chinu,
In the first place it makes no difference whether we believe in God or not, God is real, He created all things in heaven and on earth, and He had the Bible written for our instruction, for our salvation.
A person who believes in God will study His word, and when he learns something, he will then tell others about Christianity, so they too can live.
Who could be more faithful and loyal than a person who spends many hours in helping learn about the Almighty God, Jehovah, a person who spends his own money and time in the teaching of Christianity, so that everyone who listens can live eternally??? This is what Christianity is about, learning first and then teaching others. This was Jesus' orders to his followers, Matt 28:19,20. Paul an APOSTLE of both God and Jesus said the same, 2Tim 4:1,2. Notice how Paul wrote about the ministry he was given, 1Cor 9:16-18, in fact all of the 9th chapter is worth reading.
The person who believes in God will obey His commandments, Matt 22:36-40, notice that a follower of God must LOVE his neighbor. This and other scriptures show that a person who loves his neighbor will not do anything to hurt his neighbor, but will DO to him as he would want that one to DO to him; The Golden Rule, Matt 7:12, Rom 13:8-10. Only a person who fulfills these scriptures can be faithful and loyal.
Then consider what a person who does not believe in God. Exactly what can he teach that means life, maybe his own reasonings. In my mind, man is so ignorant and limited in his knowledge, what can he tell that he really knows about???

 

[Ingledsva]

chinu,
In the first place it makes no difference whether we believe in God or not, God is real, He created all things in heaven and on earth, and He had the Bible written for our instruction, for our salvation.
A person who believes in God will study His word, and when he learns something, he will then tell others about Christianity, so they too can live.
Who could be more faithful and loyal than a person who spends many hours in helping learn about the Almighty God, Jehovah, a person who spends his own money and time in the teaching of Christianity, so that everyone who listens can live eternally??? This is what Christianity is about, learning first and then teaching others. This was Jesus' orders to his followers, Matt 28:19,20. Paul an APOSTLE of both God and Jesus said the same, 2Tim 4:1,2. Notice how Paul wrote about the ministry he was given, 1Cor 9:16-18, in fact all of the 9th chapter is worth reading.

The person who believes in God will obey His commandments, Matt 22:36-40, notice that a follower of God must LOVE his neighbor. This and other scriptures show that a person who loves his neighbor will not do anything to hurt his neighbor, but will DO to him as he would want that one to DO to him; The Golden Rule, Matt 7:12, Rom 13:8-10. Only a person who fulfills these scriptures can be faithful and loyal.
Then consider what a person who does not believe in God. Exactly what can he teach that means life, maybe his own reasonings. In my mind, man is so ignorant and limited in his knowledge, what can he tell that he really knows about???

And to what do we owe today's sermon/proselytizing?


Perhaps you should look at the rules.


As to the pertinent paragraph, at the bottom, (which I highlighted); - more ignorant, religious, prejudice.


*

 

[LuisDantas]

those who don't belive on God, belives that this universe is created via Big Bang theory

Big Bang Theory is a TV program - and a fine one at that!

We atheists may believe that the universe was created by a Big Bang, or we may not. It is not necessarily something we consider important.