Why do you say" you have to prove your personal faith and beliefs"

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sometimes I feel that the believer wants with all their heart to assume that a nonbeliever's comment is just "silly" - when in reality it is meant to (and often does) shed light on a flawed way of thinking that renders many believers' "points" about their beliefs or what they feel is some form of "profound truth" moot and meaningless. But again, the believer wishes to just hand-wave it away and assume that the nonbeliever "just doesn't understand." This is, at least, what I often see.

Yeah, some times, but only sometimes.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yeah, some times, but only sometimes.

And? Isn't that what I said? You have any other gems of profound knowledge you'd like to lay on us Mikkel? For Christ's sake...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And? Isn't that what I said? You have any other gems of profound knowledge you'd like to lay on us Mikkel? For Christ's sake...

Well, I meant it as positive. You can differentiate. That is good. So I applaud that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, I meant it as positive. You can differentiate. That is good. So I applaud that.

Sure sure. I'll continue to believe otherwise. And I will assume that you "approve" of that just as much.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The fun thing is, I dont think anyone actually answered the OP question about WHY.....all there has been is criticism of OP starter or other believes who take part

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The fun thing is, I dont think anyone actually answered the OP question about WHY.....all there has been is criticism of OP starter or other believes who take part

I did:

Ah... so you're talking about more than just you. Got it.

In places like RF, people will often present their beliefs to others for discussion. They're literally inviting questions and criticism.

As has been touched on earlier, proselytizing is a thing. If someone is asking me to abandon my belief and accept theirs instead, then they should be ready to explain why I should... and to my satisfaction.

Also, if I'm subsidizing a religion - e.g. through their tax breaks - or it imposes itself on me or people I care about, then that religion ought to justify this to me... again, to my satisfaction.

I'd also argue that any religion that tries to make membership anything less than entirely voluntary has a duty to justify itself to society. This could mean indoctrinating children into the religion before the age of reason, or keeping members from leaving with threats of Hell for apostasy, or any other method of coercion used by religions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The fun thing is, I dont think anyone actually answered the OP question about WHY.....all there has been is criticism of OP starter or other believes who take part

WHY? Short answer. Because of their subjective beliefs. They believe they are in effect the authority on what is right and wrong. At least one poster did claim so. The rest try to avoid ethics, but some of them still end up doing normative claims, which aren't scientific.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did:

Well, yes. You turned it into a question about power in the end. But that was not the question in the OP.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sometimes I feel that the believer wants with all their heart to assume that a nonbeliever's comment is just "silly" - when in reality it is meant to (and often does) shed light on a flawed way of thinking that renders many believers' "points" about their beliefs or what they feel is some form of "profound truth" moot and meaningless. But again, the believer wishes to just hand-wave it away and assume that the nonbeliever "just doesn't understand." This is, at least, what I often see.

Who are you to declare another man's thinking flawed? Wouldn't we each be better off focusing on the mote in our own eye? Isn't that the point of your username?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Who are you to declare another man's thinking flawed?

Who are you to say that I can't make such claims and see if they stick? Hahaha... oh boy. And in the end, people's views are many, many times able to be demonstrated to be in direct conflict with their other statements or views. This is the kind of "flaw" I am talking about... and that is objective once we establish that remaining consistent is the goal (unless you want to argue for the virtues of inconsistency, of course, and then - more power to you). Things like stating that "God is love", but then saying that killing is not love when asked, when clearly their God is reported to have killed a great many people. Easy peasy. Or, like my brother last night, stating in one breath that "respect must be earned" - but in another claiming that "people need to respect their elders" with ZERO other qualifiers that would indicate that that respect also needs earned. Dumb crap like that. Do you see?

Wouldn't we each be better off focusing on the mote in our own eye?

Not in my estimation, no. I am good with myself, truly, but from what I have witnessed and heard from the vast majority of the people I have come in contact with, most people are NOT good with themselves. People struggling, and seeing all manner of things in life as struggle, or worse - seeing things that are mere happenstance, or just the requirements of a life lived as being personal affronts to themselves. It's pathetic, to be honest. Just a nasty thing to witness, and sad. Not much more you can do but shake your head and walk away, unfortunately - because the kicker is that most of them will vehemently defend their right to see such things in those ways that are entirely detrimental to themselves. Like an alcoholic who can't take criticism of the drink.

Isn't that the point of your username?

Not even remotely close, no. It has everything to do with holding the understanding that I am nothing with even a shred of importance in any grand scheme. A small, small particle that itself is only a remnant of something that used to be. The smallest thing in existence that can still qualify to be claimed to exist. That's me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who are you to declare another man's thinking flawed?

So you're saying that Vestigial Mote's thinking is flawed, then?

Wouldn't we each be better off focusing on the mote in our own eye? Isn't that the point of your username?

This seems like a value judgment to me. There's room for a diversity of opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who are you to say that I can't make such claims and see if they stick? Hahaha... oh boy. And in the end, people's views are many, many times able to be demonstrated to be in direct conflict with their other statements or views. This is the kind of "flaw" I am talking about... and that is objective once we establish that remaining consistent is the goal (unless you want to argue for the virtues of inconsistency, of course, and then - more power to you). Things like stating that "God is love", but then saying that killing is not love when asked, when clearly their God is reported to have killed a great many people. Easy peasy. Or, like my brother last night, stating in one breath that "respect must be earned" - but in another claiming that "people need to respect their elders" with ZERO other qualifiers that would indicate that that respect also needs earned. Dumb crap like that. Do you see?

Not in my estimation, no. I am good with myself, truly, but from what I have witnessed and heard from the vast majority of the people I have come in contact with, most people are NOT good with themselves. People struggling, and seeing all manner of things in life as struggle, or worse - seeing things that are mere happenstance, or just the requirements of a life lived as being personal affronts to themselves. It's pathetic, to be honest. Just a nasty thing to witness, and sad. Not much more you can do but shake your head and walk away, unfortunately - because the kicker is that most of them will vehemently defend their right to see such things in those ways that are entirely detrimental to them. Like an alcoholic who can't take criticism of the drink.

Not even remotely close, no. It has everything to do with holding the understanding that I am nothing with even a shred of importance in any grand scheme. A small, small particle that itself is only a remnant of something that used to be. The smallest thing in existence that can still qualify to be claimed to exist. That's me.

Yeah, you are as subjective as me. Welcome to the human condition. But apparently we still feel differently. I hope it works out for you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So you're saying that Vestigial Mote's thinking is flawed, then?


This seems like a value judgment to me. There's room for a diversity of opinion.

I'm not questioning his thinking, I'm suggesting he question his fitness to judge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not questioning his thinking, I'm suggesting he question his fitness to judge.

Sure you aren't.

And when were you planning to question your own fitness to judge him?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you're saying that Vestigial Mote's thinking is flawed, then?


This seems like a value judgment to me. There's room for a diversity of opinion.

No, that is subjective and emotional like the rest of us.
Yes, for diversity. And, no, all religious people are not my enemy. How about you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure you aren't.

And when were you planning to question your own fitness to judge him?

That goes for us all. We all have opinions on other humans.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure you aren't.

And when were you planning to question your own fitness to judge him?

I wasn't judging him, I was questioning his line of reasoning. Which I admit seemed unreasonable to me. Just as yours seems illogical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, they hopefully negotiate a middle path, based on mutual respect.

Nope.

I respect people's rights to believe whatever they want.
That doesn't mean that I will blindly and automatically respect the beliefs themselves.

When it comes to this subject, people tend to confuse the "offended" with the "offense".

I could, for example, find it offensive to be addressed in english.
Would that stop you from addressing me in english?
Would that stop anyone from speaking english?

People can be "offended" by literally anything. That doesn't mean that we need to accomodate for whatever people can be offended about.

The real question is if you mean to be offensive.

When people get offended by my opinion about their beliefs or by my questioning of their beliefs, perhaps it is their problem and not mine.

Perhaps people just need to grow thicker skin.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fun thing is, I dont think anyone actually answered the OP question about WHY.....all there has been is criticism of OP starter or other believes who take part

I told you why.

For some reason, the responses to my response were derailed in a discussion about "offending" people.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wasn't judging him, I was questioning his line of reasoning. Which I admit seemed unreasonable to me. Just as yours seems illogical.

Hmmm.

Why is it that when I defend my right to express how someone's beliefs / reasoning is irrational / illogical, you come running to team up with my conversation partner to tell me how it's a two way street and how one should be respectful etc, while you are doing exactly the same thing here?

Can you explain?