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

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's been my experience that most non-Dharmics and non-Pagans will default to the Abrahamic God in any discussion of God, regardless of context.

Correct, but even that is problematic. How? Because some Abrahamic theists are culture theists. They believe in some vague folk version of love all humans and there is a God and that is it.
My wife is such a Christian. You wouldn't be able to tell unless you asked. Because in the everyday world she is a secular Scandinavian social democrat. But to some of the non-religious people around here she is in effect the enemy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most of my threads do say what I believe because how can I tell others what they should believe, I can only speak from my belief, and I invite people to say what they believe, I don't invite an attack on my belief but questions are always well, but how people accept it as my personal beliefs is their business. Nobody has to believe the way I do.

And again, this thread is not about me, but the answers you guys give to the OP, so let's stick to that

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.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If some one says that earth is 6000 year old that a God made it up in six days, etc. in 21st Century, then that is sure irrational. Or that a God has only one way to communicate with people (through intermediaries), then this is questionable.

It is still that persons belief, no matter what you think of it.

 

[Sirona]

The believer has the proof they need personally to hold their faithful belief in what ever religious faith they follow. They do not have to prove it to anybody.

And yes I know your attack will come...who cares anyway????

You probably live out your religion in a quiet closet, but you belong to a religion that, like all Abrahamic religions, calls for proselytizing. Now, when someone claims that God exists, it is natural for a doubter to ask for proof.

Some may have doubts about their own religion that they don't want to admit to themselves, and then may claim that it is the others and not oneself who are trying to dissuade someone from believing.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You probably live out your religion in a quiet closet, but you belong to a religion that, like all Abrahamic religions, calls for proselytizing. Now, when someone claims that God exists, it is natural for a doubter to ask for proof.

Some may have doubts about their own religion that they don't want to admit to themselves, and then may claim that it is the others and not oneself who are trying to dissuade someone from believing.

Sufism is not about prozelyting. It does not matter to me if others want or don't want to become a sufi. Sufism is inward to find answer the practitioner seeks
I say believers are allowed to believe what they do, without me trying to pull them down. A personal belief is just that, personal to each person.

 

[Clara Tea]

Why should someone have to prove to you that "their belief" is right for them. It is a personal belief in a religious faith they hold. Who are you to say they are wrong, or it is not logical to believe as they do, because YOU don't believe what they do.

Who are you to tell a faithful believer that their belief is wrong, because there is no "evidence" that YOU accept to be true?

It is not your belief/disbelief, but if the faithful believer has all the personal evidence that their belief is right for them.

Who are you to tell them it is not?
The believer has the proof they need personally to hold their faithful belief in what ever religious faith they follow. They do not have to prove it to anybody.

You can ask: why do you believe so or so, and what ever the answer you get that is why that person believe what they do. You do not have the right to say "your belief is wrong" just because you disagree. Accept that people believe and walk away.

And yes I know your attack will come...who cares anyway????

The al Qaeda terrorists who crashed into the World Trade Center didn't have to prove that their beliefs were right for them. However, they did have an "impact" (pardon the pun) on others.

It would be nice to talk to and dissuade would-be terrorists whose religious zeal has been warped into murder and torture.

For example, President W. Bush was elected President of the United States largely by efforts of the Religious Right (who also voted in Reagan and Bush Sr)., but W. Bush made an unprovoked attack on Iraq, killing 1,000,000 Iraqis. The Religious Right backs the National Rifle association, war, torture camps, lower tax for the rich at the expense of the working middle class (which outsourced factories abroad for cheap foreign labor), etc. In other words, by mixing politics and religion, God took second place.

It would be good to ask the Religious Right if guns, wars, torture camps, and greed are the right path for their religion. Where in the bible does it say that they are?

Religion isn't just a personal choice that has no impact on the world around them. Our Supreme Court judges were chosen by President W. Bush, and they serve life terms long into their 90's, making decisions that overlap many presidencies.

The way we handle Global Warming, pollution, taxation, education, etc. were decided by the Religious Right. Can't we ask if they were wrong to make some of their decisions?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How did we come by our knowledge of his needs?

Let me rephrase:

Nobody is forcing @Conscious thoughts to do that.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The al Qaeda terrorists who crashed into the World Trade Center didn't have to prove that their beliefs were right for them. However, they did have an "impact" (pardon the pun) on others.

It would be nice to talk to and dissuade would-be terrorists whose religious zeal has been warped into murder and torture.

For example, President W. Bush was elected President of the United States largely by efforts of the Religious Right (who also voted in Reagan and Bush Sr)., but W. Bush made an unprovoked attack on Iraq, killing 1,000,000 Iraqis. The Religious Right backs the National Rifle association, war, torture camps, lower tax for the rich at the expense of the working middle class (which outsourced factories abroad for cheap foreign labor), etc. In other words, by mixing politics and religion, God took second place.

It would be good to ask the Religious Right if guns, wars, torture camps, and greed are the right path for their religion. Where in the bible does it say that they are?

Religion isn't just a personal choice that has no impact on the world around them. Our Supreme Court judges were chosen by President W. Bush, and they serve life terms long into their 90's, making decisions that overlap many presidencies.

The way we handle Global Warming, pollution, taxation, education, etc. were decided by the Religious Right. Can't we ask if they were wrong to make some of their decisions?

This is not what OP is about ( it's within RF)

 

[Clara Tea]

Sufism is not about prozelyting. It does not matter to me if others want or don't want to become a sufi. Sufism is inward to find answer the practitioner seeks
I say believers are allowed to believe what they do, without me trying to pull them down. A personal belief is just that, personal to each person.

Believers craft the laws of the land when they get elected. This has an impact on us all. Shouldn't we be able to question the Religious Right for electing politicians (like President W. Bush), and ask them if the policies of war, torture camps, lowering tax for the rich, etc., are sound religiously?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is still that persons belief, no matter what you think of it.

Sure, it is a bit funny for people who put their faith in science, but that is OK. In a debate forum atheists will try to make a fun of this person.

 

[Clara Tea]

This is not what OP is about ( it's within RF)

This most certainly is a religious issue.

My point is that religion mixed with politics, and that produced wars, torture camps, hoards of homeless people, etc. Since religion messed with people outside of their religion (ruling all of us), should we have a right to question if their policies of unprovoked wars, torture camps, support of the National Rifle Association, and deprivation of the poor and homeless are consistent with the values that their religion espouses?

 

[Clara Tea]

Sure, it is a bit funny for people who put their faith in science, but that is OK. In a debate forum atheists will try to make a fun of this person.

Actually, theists use pseudo-science to make fun of atheists. They talk about quantum fields of the sun, and other things that physicists would see, in an instant, is utter nonsense. Yet, to those who don't know science, the charlatans make it seem as though science is wrong. This is because the ones who need science the most are the ones who know the least about it.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why should someone have to prove to you that "their belief" is right for them. It is a personal belief in a religious faith they hold. Who are you to say they are wrong, or it is not logical to believe as they do, because YOU don't believe what they do.

Who are you to tell a faithful believer that their belief is wrong, because there is no "evidence" that YOU accept to be true?

It is not your belief/disbelief, but if the faithful believer has all the personal evidence that their belief is right for them.

Who are you to tell them it is not?
The believer has the proof they need personally to hold their faithful belief in what ever religious faith they follow. They do not have to prove it to anybody.

You can ask: why do you believe so or so, and what ever the answer you get that is why that person believe what they do. You do not have the right to say "your belief is wrong" just because you disagree. Accept that people believe and walk away.

And yes I know your attack will come...who cares anyway????

Saying s person's belief is wrong based on the reasoning of how the other person came to their beliefs not that it's wrong for them to hold that belief. It's the personal opinion of that person and those that aren't rude about it are just sharing their opinion.

To many it would be suppressive to not voice their own opinion because it may make the other upset. However, it's more about How it's done and the action behind it not the opinion.

Having a personal belief is fine. One can believe they can fly but their logic is unsound due to gravity. However, in a conversation they need to understand people will voice their opinion that that belief is false. It's not saying it's wrong for one to believe it just the reasoning is wrong.

It only matters outside of conversation when say a person decided to push another off a building because they believe they can fly despite the others objection.

 

[Clara Tea]

Most of my threads do say what I believe because how can I tell others what they should believe, I can only speak from my belief, and I invite people to say what they believe, I don't invite an attack on my belief but questions are always well, but how people accept it as my personal beliefs is their business. Nobody has to believe the way I do.

And again, this thread is not about me, but the answers you guys give to the OP, so let's stick to that

If the al Qaeda stuck to their personal beliefs, and didn't believe that killing thousands of people would earn them 72 virgins in heaven, that would be fine. But, the fact is, they impacted the world around them with their beliefs (warped a peaceful religion into a terrorist organization, and killed many).

If the Religious right stuck to their personal beliefs, instead of mixing with politics, electing many presidents (Reagan, Bush Sr., W. Bush, and Trump), supporting the NRA (National Rifle Association), supporting war, supporting torture camps, etc., that would also be fine.

Religion is not just a personal belief. It has crafted the world around us, and that world is a mess. The homeless have been ignored, and so has God.

 

[Clara Tea]

Saying s person's belief is wrong based on the reasoning of how the other person came to their beliefs not that it's wrong for them to hold that belief. It's the personal opinion of that person and those that aren't rude about it are just sharing their opinion.

To many it would be suppressive to not voice their own opinion because it may make the other upset. However, it's more about How it's done and the action behind it not the opinion.

Having a personal belief is fine. One can believe they can fly but their logic is unsound due to gravity. However, in a conversation they need to understand people will voice their opinion that that belief is false. It's not saying it's wrong for one to believe it just the reasoning is wrong.

It only matters outside of conversation when say a person decided to push another off a building because they believe they can fly despite the others objection.

Fly? (airplane). You mean by flapping their ears they can't fly to Mars.

You support their right to believe that they can flap and fly. But, if that right impinges on others, others have a right to question them. For example, if they go door to door to convince people to join their religion, you should have a right to discuss the matter with them at your house. They will try to tell you that you are wrong, and make threats about you going to hell to burn in the fires forever. You should have a right to bring up the fact that they had great political power but did very little with it except defy God. God said they should not kill....but they made wars, torture camps, and supported the National Rifle Association.

While they could have spent their time not electing people, they could have spent their time helping the homeless (there are hoards of homeless now).

 

[Clara Tea]

That is OK. We probably have the largest pantheon of personal God and Goddesses, the number goes into thousands. We do not even know the names of Gods and Goddesses worshiped by other Hindus. One comes across a new one frequently.I go by Occam's Razor or Buddha's 'Kesamutti Sutta'. Not just heaven or hell, many other thing also have been removed.

Occam's Razor says that the simplest solution is the best. That means that other Gods and beliefs should be removed.

But that would mean removing religion entirely.

We have the choice to believe that the universe sprung into existence (atheist view), or God created it and God sprung into existence.

Either choice involves something springing into existence, and it is more complicated to believe that inserting God into the equation, it becomes more complicated. The equation is simpler if we remove God from the equation (by Occam's Razor, that is the correct solution).

 

[Clara Tea]

Correct, but even that is problematic. How? Because some Abrahamic theists are culture theists. They believe in some vague folk version of love all humans and there is a God and that is it.
My wife is such a Christian. You wouldn't be able to tell unless you asked. Because in the everyday world she is a secular Scandinavian social democrat. But to some of the non-religious people around here she is in effect the enemy.

What does "love all humans" have to do with the recent Religious Right presidents who made unprovoked wars and torture camps? It isn't the love that they object to.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, all the everyday world is objective reality and all that jazz. So now I say: No! That is too simple.
If you can reduce away this part of being a human: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." then go for it. But nobody in recorded history so far has been able to reduce subjective measure to being objective. But you might be the one, though I doubt it.

OK, then. No problem. Simply acknowledge religion and religious doctrine as subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does "love all humans" have to do with the recent Religious Right presidents who made unprovoked wars and torture camps? It isn't the love that they object to.

Nothing. It is about Scandinavia. All the world is not the USA.