The following things about your religion aren't special...

[dianaiad]

So upon studying and exploring quite a number of religions on a personal level I have come to the conclusion that religion is nothing more than a mindset that exists when people put complete faith in a concept. That is, none of what you are experiencing is unique to your religion, it exists within all religions, it can be said, it is simply an aspect of human beings.

so far, so good....and I think I agree with you, at least somewhat.

After all, if there IS a God, AND religion is 'the way' to learn and communicate with Him, and He with us, then it stands to reason that there would be one main unifying concept that would not be unique to one specific religion. Indeed, this would be evidence FOR the existence of deity, not evidence against, seems to me, but let's go on:

Lets examine what I mean by this by going through several points I hear the most when someone argues that their religion must be right.

1: I can feel God! - Mmmhmm, I believe you believe that, I also believe every other religion I have come across in the last 15 years also believes that. When I speak to people who claim to have seen Gods, Aliens, hell, even fairies, they come across as very sincere. I wouldn't doubt their sincerity, however it is not unique to your belief, nor does it make it true. It means nothing at all given these facts. At least, nothing when it comes to any "reason" why your belief is true.

Are you arguing that if people of different faiths 'feel God' that this is proof that there is no God to feel? I would argue the opposite, myself.

2: God speaks to me! - Again, I believe you believe that. So does everyone else. It is not special nor does it actually mean anything.

Means something to the person involved.

3: My Gods story is Unique, Jesus died for me! - Of course the story is unique, well not really, there have usually been similar stories previously that your story was likely based on, however, among current beliefs, it is unique. Of course it being unique also means every other religions story is unique as well. Spiderman is fairly unique, but unfortunately, this means nothing at all. Nor is it a reason to believe.

Well, I'm with you on that one. "uniqueness' in and of itself is NOT a 'reason to believe." In fact, I would call it a reason to be rather chary, myself, but then I'm a bit strange.

4: I like how it makes me feel - Sure, this is true of most religions. It means nothing for the truth of it, however it can be a good reason to believe, just be aware you could be living a lie to ease your pain.

Well, that's not your problem, is it?

5: I have faith! You just don't understand faith...

You are about to show that you don't understand faith, either...

- Terrorists have faith. Not only is there absolutely nothing virtuous about the concept of accepting things without evidence,

Is THAT your definition of faith? The belief in something without evidence?

I'm sorry, but that's not even possible. NOBODY believes anything 'without evidence.' They can believe in evidence that YOU can't see or don't approve of, but it's there, nonetheless. Besides, 'faith' isn't belief. Faith is based upon belief, but it is not belief itself. Faith is what one does about ones beliefs. Faith is what you have when you give the car keys to your sixteen year old the afternoon of her driving test and send her to the store. Faith is what you show when you get on an airplane. Faith is how you don't think twice about your spouse having a business lunch with a handsome (or pretty) colleague. Faith is how you give your kid a tylenol and wait to take her to the doctor in the morning. Faith is how you don't take your umbrella out on a sunny day that MIGHT turn nasty in the afternoon. Faith is how, when you pray, you expect an answer. Faith is trust enough to act.

Do you remember that old Indiana Jones movie and that bit about 'blind faith,' where Jones literally closed his eyes and stepped off what he thought was a cliff, only to find himself on a very cleverly painted bridge? That's supposed to be a very good example of 'blind faith,' isn't it?

But why does he step off that cliff? He does so because a: he had the book that got him through other traps. b; he trusted the one who wrote it, his father. c: he may not have known precisely HOW taking the action he did would be the right one, but he trusted his dad, and so stepped out. He didn't believe 'without evidence.' He believed because of evidence that might, to OTHERS, look dicey.

To him, however, it was compelling enough to prompt action, and THAT, sir, is 'faith.'

it can be very dangerous (although not always). At the very least you are being willfully delusional for some form of benefit. This cannot be a healthy way to live. Either way, it is not a good reason to believe, the act of which would, and can only, be evidence for anything and everything....including every other religion....or say.....fairies...

And this, please pardon me, is a very dismissive and condescending attitude to take, since it dismisses everybody ELSE'S faith except, of course, yours.

I have found, for instance, that most 'people of science,' indeed, most people, accept all sorts of odd things simply because someone they trust told them so. You know, thinks like black holes, landings on the moon, the sun is shining right this minute, it's going to rain tomorrow, the color green is made by this wavelength while the color yellow is made by another one, John Hancock really DID sign the Declaration of Independence...all sorts of things.

But these same people look down upon theists who believe in God FOR THE VERY SAME REASONS.

Someone they trust told them so.

So what is my point in all this? Did I come here just to make you feel bad about your beliefs? Or at least, attempt too? No, I didn't. I did this to show we are all spiraling around the same concepts, the same emotions, to prove that which is unprovable, and yet, no reason we have come up with is inherently unique to our religion.

I would hope not. God is not unique, after all, should He actually exist.

So why do people make special exceptions for only their religion, while demonstrably, denying that very same "evidence" as good reasons to believe in other religions? Further more, how is it not obvious that you are looking in the mirror playing a game that everyone else is playing, a game which is obviously full of holes, fallacies and errors. A game, deep down, you know has no conclusion?

EDIT: I should also add these were major points for why I believed, as well as major points as to why everyone I have spoken too for the last few years, has given for why they believe. It is not intended to encompass the abstract or every line of thought, nor was it meant to be. If your reasons for belief fall outside of these points, feel free to list them. I would love to get new insights

Not quite certain what you mean by 'unique,' here, but if you mean that people claim that God only answers the prayers from people of that specific religion, you might have a point. But then, as I said, I'm strange.

 

[Blackdog22]

While the things you mention are said by some, they are not typical. Also, you are looking in the wrong place. Look at what Jesus say, not at what His followers say.

Do you find any of man's wisdom in "love your enemy?" Do you find that doctrine in any other religion?

Listen to the teacher, not His pupils.

I suppose it depends on where you come from. The concept of Jesus being the way to the father (debatable I know), and the idea that one cannot be absolved from sin without the need for Jesus definitely makes it an exclusive religion. You then list an assumed unique aspect to the Christian religion, "Love your enemy" which kind of backs up one of my points. Many religions have many unique aspects that you won't find in other religious doctrines, it simply doesn't mean anything for the truthfulness of it and if it isn't true, what is its purpose?

 

[Blackdog22]

What does "must be right" have to do with the uniqueness of personal religious experiences? I'm not understanding your train of thought here. Only some types of people exhibit the "need to be right" syndrome, and this variable seems quite independent of the inherent uniqueness of each person's individual experiences within a religious tradition. What is it you are really wanting to discuss here? I don't get the impression is t is really the subject of the uniqueness of personal experiences.

My study entailed simply the reading of source material. If you want to know if I looked into ancient text to know the true meaning behind every word then no, it always leads to an endless spiral that gives no real answers, but leaves you questioning what the scripture meant at all. I am trying to steer clear of such things and stick to my admittedly narrow points, but points that I find keep popping up in my own personal life when speaking to others about why they believe in their personal faith.

To the answer the text directly in green, I am coming from a position that the person believing assumes they are right. I have yet to meet a person of faith who thinks they are wrong. I believe that would just be an atheist in denial or perhaps someone who just likes to pretend? It seems to be so uncommon I felt like the assumptions someone believes something is because they believe it is right, not wrong, was a fine place to start. If I am in error, please show me.

The primary idea I am trying to discuss is why, the generally abundant/popular religions, seem to hold onto ideas for why their beliefs are true, when said ideas would back up every other belief. Its kind of a roundabout way of asking why someone is special pleading (I think this is the proper phrase). What I mean by that is, well I talk to to God, I have Jesus, I feel God when I pray, God loves me, thus I believe he exists! However, when explained that Muslims feel the same way about their personal belief you will suddenly realize those reasons for believing don't hold up very well. I just can't figure out how someone can logically go about believing in things this way, which again, is just what ive seen. If there are better reasons or other reasons why you think people believe in such things feel free to explain. I am very interested in what drives this mentality.

 

[Blackdog22]

How about religions that do not make exclusivity claims? I would recommend a two-pronged approach:-
1) Oppose the exclusivistic claims of religions. Its patently absurd as you have rightly pointed out.
2) Actually investigate the phenomena and experience that religions seeks to explain without presuming its a delusion or an illusion (but not ruling out the possibility that it could be).

I really like this post! I was worrying my points were being looked at as more of an attack than what I was really getting at. Which, I cannot blame the people for, I have a problem filtering, people irl often get aggravated with me because of it.

1) As you pointed out exclusivistic claims of religions do "seem" to cancel each other out when looking at the bigger picture beyond the scope of ones personal religion. The part of this that bothers me if I throw this out, I have thrown out most of the worlds population :/

2) This second part I enjoy thinking about. I have come to 3 conclusions, all of which could be wrong, but would like to present them to see if anyone can relate.

First conclusion: People from all religions are truly hearing from God. God doesn't care about religions and only sees the person. The reason this all seems confusing is because I am working from a place where religion has taken over and claimed exclusivity, but God has no such stance. This of course would mean many religious texts are wrong (right?) and would excitingly mean perhaps there is something to the concept of a higher being. It would also mean God is working in a way that causes division considering that religion does exists.

Second conclusion: People from all religions are hearing God, but its because many gods exist. It all seems confusing because they are all right. Perhaps the gods are all battling each other for control of peoples mental will, yet all refuse to show themselves in any meaningful way. In this way, all we can be is confused when looking around at the worlds beliefs.

Third conclusion: The reason people hear from God/Gods isnt because they exist, its an inherent part of being human. When anyone gives themselves fully over to any concept, be it aliens, fairies, scientology, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Big Foot, etc they tend to be more willing to see and hear things that may not actually be there. We know this aspect of humanity exists considering how the mind works(especially when dealing with mental illness). We also know many interactions with these tend to happen early morning or late at night, which is when the brain is most succeptible to hallucinations. Everyone is wrong and most people simply dont understand how complex their mind truly is and how capable of delusion we all are.

Add: I am writing in line one "Hear from God", but you can feel free to imagine all my initial points in that part. I left it at just "hearing" so that this wasn't an overly long post.

 

[Blackdog22]

My religion argues none of these things.

Isn't that why people gravitate towards religion (and other things?), because it helps to reduce their perception of suffering (or increase their perception of pleasure)?

Yes, I know Buddhism is in quite a different place. It is probably the religion I can most relate too as it seems to be a concept made to improve ones self, while leaving out most of the unbelievable.

I also agree, that of my points, that it making you feel better, or improving your life, would definitely be a good reason to believe, but, from my pov anyways, it would also be a bad reason to think it is true. I am not sure believing a lie to feel good is the best idea, then again, maybe we are in the matrix and a lie is the only reason I am capable of accepting this reality. I dunno, maybe that is too far out there, but hopefully you get my point.

 

[Blackdog22]

so far, so good....and I think I agree with you, at least somewhat.

After all, if there IS a God, AND religion is 'the way' to learn and communicate with Him, and He with us, then it stands to reason that there would be one main unifying concept that would not be unique to one specific religion. Indeed, this would be evidence FOR the existence of deity, not evidence against, seems to me, but let's go on:

Mmmhmm. I agree, this is a possibility, its just one I don't often hear. Perhaps my life experiences have gone negative regarding this, but I have met a handful of people who will actually accept the idea of Islam and Christianity as equally true. I can't imagine this perspective is very popular, I mean, surely more Bahai? churches would be popping up yeah? I do like the concept however, just uncertain of its truthfulness.

Are you arguing that if people of different faiths 'feel God' that this is proof that there is no God to feel? I would argue the opposite, myself.

Well, it could be proof that they are feeling something or it could be proof that the mind of humans is very capable of self delusion. I don't mean that in a negative sense, I mean it in a factual sense. Consider this, in WW1 when the medics had run out of morphine to give the soldiers they panicked. One Dr, being aware of how the mind worked, suggested sugar pills, but told the soldiers they were taking morphine. The mind of the soldiers was convinced they were on morphine and thus their pain was relieved, and they got back out on the field to fight. I don't think we can disregard this unique ability amongst us as humans when discussing these things. In fact, I think its fundamental to understanding why.

Is THAT your definition of faith? The belief in something without evidence?

I'm sorry, but that's not even possible. NOBODY believes anything 'without evidence.' They can believe in evidence that YOU can't see or don't approve of, but it's there, nonetheless. Besides, 'faith' isn't belief. Faith is based upon belief, but it is not belief itself. Faith is what one does about ones beliefs. Faith is what you have when you give the car keys to your sixteen year old the afternoon of her driving test and send her to the store. Faith is what you show when you get on an airplane. Faith is how you don't think twice about your spouse having a business lunch with a handsome (or pretty) colleague. Faith is how you give your kid a tylenol and wait to take her to the doctor in the morning. Faith is how you don't take your umbrella out on a sunny day that MIGHT turn nasty in the afternoon. Faith is how, when you pray, you expect an answer. Faith is trust enough to act.

Do you remember that old Indiana Jones movie and that bit about 'blind faith,' where Jones literally closed his eyes and stepped off what he thought was a cliff, only to find himself on a very cleverly painted bridge? That's supposed to be a very good example of 'blind faith,' isn't it?

But why does he step off that cliff? He does so because a: he had the book that got him through other traps. b; he trusted the one who wrote it, his father. c: he may not have known precisely HOW taking the action he did would be the right one, but he trusted his dad, and so stepped out. He didn't believe 'without evidence.' He believed because of evidence that might, to OTHERS, look dicey.

To him, however, it was compelling enough to prompt action, and THAT, sir, is 'faith.'

I think your concept of faith is grounded in the physical. We have good reasons to have faith and bad reasons. I would not put my faith into the concept of the sun dying out tomorrow, but believe it or not, there were some people that did not too long back. I would not put my faith in Harold Camping. Terrorist indeed also have faith, on bad evidence. You are correct, it isnt necessarily always blind faith, and spirital faith is drastically different than having faith my cat will be there when you get home, considering he has been there every day for the last 5 years. Spiritual faith is more like believing a cat will appear in your room at some point and will be capable of flying. Its based off of things you have no basis to build from, other than heresay, or, the things I listed in my OP. There is bad reasons for faith and good reasons for faith, I can't say that I find spiritual faith to have any solid reasoning, thus, why I am here.

And this, please pardon me, is a very dismissive and condescending attitude to take, since it dismisses everybody ELSE'S faith except, of course, yours.

I have found, for instance, that most 'people of science,' indeed, most people, accept all sorts of odd things simply because someone they trust told them so. You know, thinks like black holes, landings on the moon, the sun is shining right this minute, it's going to rain tomorrow, the color green is made by this wavelength while the color yellow is made by another one, John Hancock really DID sign the Declaration of Independence...all sorts of things.

But these same people look down upon theists who believe in God FOR THE VERY SAME REASONS.

Someone they trust told them so.

Well, not so much. I mean sure, I generally trust those with more experience than me in certain fields, even if those fields include religion. If a Rabbi tells me what a word means in greek, im going to believe him generally and will verify it for myself. If that same Rabbi tells me Scientology is true, im going to laugh at him. Same with Science, if the guy who designed the Sony TV comes to me and tells me about things I can do to make the picture better, ill probably believe him, if he tells me it also turns into a transformer, I likely wont. It isn't the aspect of faith vs science, its the aspect of reasonable vs unreasonable. Is the sun shining somewhere else? I can probably verify it through a google satellite if I want, or I could book a plane ticket, or I could call my friend in Europe. The main thing is, it doesn't really matter if it is or isnt, however, tell me that the sun is crashing down on the endside of the planet, but I can't see it, and we have a situation where I need to verify this.

Also, there are no "people of science", we all are. The way you bake a cake is a science. Almost everything you do daily or rely on daily is a science. The way you go about your work is a science. It isn't a belief system, its just experimentation and observation. You likely do it on a daily basis without realizing it. If you sip your coffee first to determine if its too hot you are conducting science. The concepts used to explain God are completely different.

 

[sayak83]

I really like this post! I was worrying my points were being looked at as more of an attack than what I was really getting at. Which, I cannot blame the people for, I have a problem filtering, people irl often get aggravated with me because of it.

1) As you pointed out exclusivistic claims of religions do "seem" to cancel each other out when looking at the bigger picture beyond the scope of ones personal religion. The part of this that bothers me if I throw this out, I have thrown out most of the worlds population :/

2) This second part I enjoy thinking about. I have come to 3 conclusions, all of which could be wrong, but would like to present them to see if anyone can relate.

First conclusion: People from all religions are truly hearing from God. God doesn't care about religions and only sees the person. The reason this all seems confusing is because I am working from a place where religion has taken over and claimed exclusivity, but God has no such stance. This of course would mean many religious texts are wrong (right?) and would excitingly mean perhaps there is something to the concept of a higher being. It would also mean God is working in a way that causes division considering that religion does exists.

Second conclusion: People from all religions are hearing God, but its because many gods exist. It all seems confusing because they are all right. Perhaps the gods are all battling each other for control of peoples mental will, yet all refuse to show themselves in any meaningful way. In this way, all we can be is confused when looking around at the worlds beliefs.

Third conclusion: The reason people hear from God/Gods isnt because they exist, its an inherent part of being human. When anyone gives themselves fully over to any concept, be it aliens, fairies, scientology, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Big Foot, etc they tend to be more willing to see and hear things that may not actually be there. We know this aspect of humanity exists considering how the mind works(especially when dealing with mental illness). We also know many interactions with these tend to happen early morning or late at night, which is when the brain is most succeptible to hallucinations. Everyone is wrong and most people simply dont understand how complex their mind truly is and how capable of delusion we all are.

Add: I am writing in line one "Hear from God", but you can feel free to imagine all my initial points in that part. I left it at just "hearing" so that this wasn't an overly long post.

There is a third possibility. There is a genuine experience of a phenomena that is real but lies somewhat outside human being's cognitive ability to process. Therefore the brain, in its attempt to understand it, puts it in the terms of what it dies know, i.e. the cultural matrix it has absorbed. I would find it unlikely that human brains would be able to grasp all aspects of reality it experiences. Spirituality or God could point to those aspects of experience which lies just over the edge of our brain's comprehension. Like the human wold is to the goldfish looking out from its tank ?


Much of it is make believe as well. Lots of smoke , but maybe there is a genuine fire somewhere within. Astronomy began from astrology, mathematics from geomancy, chemistry from alchemy. Maybe a time may come when religion will become a precursor to something truly revolutionary. So I encourage careful criticism and discernment.

 

[Blackdog22]

There is a third possibility. There is a genuine experience of a phenomena that is real but lies somewhat outside human being's cognitive ability to process. Therefore the brain, in its attempt to understand it, puts it in the terms of what it dies know, i.e. the cultural matrix it has absorbed. I would find it unlikely that human brains would be able to grasp all aspects of reality it experiences. Spirituality or God could point to those aspects of experience which lies just over the edge of our brain's comprehension. Like the human wold is to the goldfish looking out from its tank ?


Much of it is make believe as well. Lots of smoke , but maybe there is a genuine fire somewhere within. Astronomy began from astrology, mathematics from geomancy, chemistry from alchemy. Maybe a time may come when religion will become a precursor to something truly revolutionary. So I encourage careful criticism and discernment.

Very interesting post. I have thought about this as another possibility and who can say this isn't the case? If we are indeed discovering aspects of our minds that we have yet to fully grasp, then it would be very, very interesting. I do not close my mind to the possibility, in fact, I find it very intriguing. People often talk about theism/atheism and gnostic/agnotic, but what about what someone hopes for? I hope you are correct, I do not want to die out as my body does. I want to think something more exists, but im very realistic about my expectations, as well as I can be anyways.

If you are right, I hope we find something within my lifetime. If this is all just people with delusions it would be a very boring conclusion.

 

[arthra]

So why do people make special exceptions for only their religion, while demonstrably, denying that very same "evidence" as good reasons to believe in other religions? Further more, how is it not obvious that you are looking in the mirror playing a game that everyone else is playing, a game which is obviously full of holes, fallacies and errors. A game, deep down, you know has no conclusion?

I think you may have something in the opening sentence above..."So why do people make special exceptions for only their religion, while demonstrably, denying that very same "evidence" as good reasons to believe in other religions?"

I've been associated with inter-faith activities for some years and strongly believe that all the major religions have a similar spiritual Source that has been revealed over the course of human history from the most remote times up to the present age and beyond.

The various churches, temples, mosques and synagogues in my community meet regularly and offer services as a united interfaith body to the community... assisting homeless people , providing counseling and assisting other agencies that are regularly providing services in our community. I feel the interfaith community in my town is exemplary and hardly a "game" as you conclude above...

"...a game which is obviously full of holes, fallacies and errors. A game, deep down, you know has no conclusion?"

We're not just playing games..We have tangible services and positive attitudes among us.

 

[Blackdog22]

I think you may have something in the opening sentence above..."So why do people make special exceptions for only their religion, while demonstrably, denying that very same "evidence" as good reasons to believe in other religions?"

I've been associated with inter-faith activities for some years and strongly believe that all the major religions have a similar spiritual Source that has been revealed over the course of human history from the most remote times up to the present age and beyond.

The various churches, temples, mosques and synagogues in my community meet regularly and offer services as a united interfaith body to the community... assisting homeless people , providing counseling and assisting other agencies that are regularly providing services in our community. I feel the interfaith community in my town is exemplary and hardly a "game" as you conclude above...

"...a game which is obviously full of holes, fallacies and errors. A game, deep down, you know has no conclusion?"

We're not just playing games..We have tangible services and positive attitudes among us.

Mmm, I agree. People of faith and without faith do many good things for their communities. I would not deny this. When I say it is a game, I mean people are being active in a line of logic that denies many beliefs for many of the same reasons they believe their personal faith is correct. Among this board I have seen that many people think belief as a whole is pointing to something greater, which, I find very interesting. This would make the most sense. However, taking an exclusive approach never has or ever will make sense to me. I did not mean it in the sense that what you are doing in the name of your faith is a game.

Apologies for any miscommunication or offense I caused.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Some religious notions are very subjective and some not...

an empty tomb is not subjective, for example

 

[Blackdog22]

Some religious notions are very subjective and some not...

an empty tomb is not subjective, for example

I agree if that can indeed be proven. Otherwise its as objective as saying Muhammad flew on a winged horse into heaven like Elisha. Its just another drop in the bucket of things one religion will point to as being of significance while denying that point to people of other faiths. It isn't exactly being consistent in how you determine the truthfulness of something.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do you find any of man's wisdom in "love your enemy?"

So Jesus loves Satan? I'll give Jesus props for his empathy when he puts his money where his mouth is.

As an agnostic I can't argue for or against whether there is a God, but that if there is, I very much doubt that he or she is a genocidal maniac, the kind who would launch an unprovoked attack on a country's capital slaughtering tens of thousands civilians while they slept and later continuing the unjustified war and killing countless more thousands, mainly for the sake of gaining control over that country's oil supplies.
Hence I meet with deep skepticism anyone's claim that God has spoken to them and they are acting on God's behalf.

Maybe they just don't know they're worshipping Yahweh and Baal's sister or whatever, Anat. She slew thousands regularly, drenched in the blood of humans just to argue with her family.

At any rate, I've been reading on the Epic of Baal, and what's funny is that in that story, it's Yahweh/Yah/Yam who is the chaotic monster god who revels in destruction, not Baal. Funny how a god's personality depends on who's writing the story, huh?

Most religions know that religions is a human trait given many say "humans are more intelligent than animals."

That's arguable.

an empty tomb is not subjective, for example

But why it's empty can be.

 

[savagewind]

5: I have faith! You just don't understand faith... - Terrorists have faith. Not only is there absolutely nothing virtuous about the concept of accepting things without evidence, it can be very dangerous (although not always). At the very least you are being willfully delusional for some form of benefit. This cannot be a healthy way to live. Either way, it is not a good reason to believe, the act of which would, and can only, be evidence for anything and everything....including every other religion....or say.....fairies...

I think this definition of faith is wrong. It seems to me that you are defining it as only one dimensional. I am sure it is more than that.

The Bible links faith to hope and acts. It isn't about what a person thinks. It is about what a person does. Faith is strengthened as the person acts on his beliefs and is recompensed for his work.
I think it means belief with evidence.

The terrorists have not gotten what they want, unless it was just blood that they wanted. They don't act according to faith, but according to apparent belief.

Faith is learned. Belief isn't.

 

[Blackdog22]

I think this definition of faith is wrong. It seems to me that you are defining it as only one dimensional. I am sure it is more than that.

The Bible links faith to hope and acts. It isn't about what a person thinks. It is about what a person does. Faith is strengthened as the person acts on his beliefs and is recompensed for his work.
I think it means belief with evidence.

The terrorists have not gotten what they want, unless it was just blood that they wanted. They don't act according to faith, but according to apparent belief.

Faith is learned. Belief isn't.

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

That is directly from the dictionary in regards to religion. There are different concepts that can be applied to faith. They are not all equal however and the religious faith plays out very much like that definition implies. It isnt different than terrorism, its just a different system where faith is applied. They have faith, or a strong, imo blind belief, in what they will receive on the other side because of their actions. How else would you describe it? Better yet, how isn't faith the belief in something at the very least? The concept demands it.

 

[omega2xx]

I suppose it depends on where you come from. The concept of Jesus being the way to the father (debatable I know), and the idea that one cannot be absolved from sin without the need for Jesus definitely makes it an exclusive religion. You then list an assumed unique aspect to the Christian religion, "Love your enemy" which kind of backs up one of my points. Many religions have many unique aspects that you won't find in other religious doctrines, it simply doesn't mean anything for the truthfulness of it and if it isn't true, what is its purpose?

I insist Christianity is a unique religion. Many of it teachings are beyond the intellect of men. IMO, that indicates they came from God. l That indicates there is a God.

 

[omega2xx]

So Jesus loves Satan? I'll give Jesus props for his empathy when he puts his money where his mouth is.

If you have any indication Jesus does not love Satan, now would be a good time to present it.

Maybe they just don't know they're worshipping Yahweh and Baal's sister or whatever, Anat. She slew thousands regularly, drenched in the blood of humans just to argue with her family.

So what's your point?

At any rate, I've been reading on the Epic of Baal, and what's funny is that in that story, it's Yahweh/Yah/Yam who is the chaotic monster god who revels in destruction, not Baal. Funny how a god's personality depends on who's writing the story, huh?

Not funny at all, it is expected.

 

[savagewind]

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

That is directly from the dictionary in regards to religion. There are different concepts that can be applied to faith. They are not all equal however and the religious faith plays out very much like that definition implies. It isnt different than terrorism, its just a different system where faith is applied. They have faith, or a strong, imo blind belief, in what they will receive on the other side because of their actions. How else would you describe it? Better yet, how isn't faith the belief in something at the very least? The concept demands it.

Faith: strong belief that what you think, do, and say is what you are supposed to be doing.

I got my definition from the Bible. Hebrews 11:1 I think what was written about God and faith trumps the dictionary. Don't you?

 

[allfoak]

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I would say that faith is it's own proof.
It is the substance of what is hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Quintessence]

To the answer the text directly in green, I am coming from a position that the person believing assumes they are right. I have yet to meet a person of faith who thinks they are wrong. I believe that would just be an atheist in denial or perhaps someone who just likes to pretend? It seems to be so uncommon I felt like the assumptions someone believes something is because they believe it is right, not wrong, was a fine place to start. If I am in error, please show me.

Hmm. I would not make such an assumption, at least not from the angle you are likely approaching it from, as it does not hold to be accurate for many religions. I understand that in Western culture, the dominance of Protestant-style thought has led many to think that things like "belief" and "faith" are the central defining aspect of religions. As a result, we tend to be almost blind to the other components of religions that have little to do with either of those.

Even amongst those religious paths that are faith-based, there are different levels of believing oneself to be "right." There are: (1) exclusivists, who basically hold that they are right and everyone else is absolutely wrong, (2) inclusivists, who still believe they are the most righteous but see rightness in other traditions as well, and (3) pluralists, who deny this righteousness entirely and see rightness in all traditions. Pluralism and inclusivism is not uncommon in today's world, near as I've experienced (and studies done by groups like PEW seem to back this up). Pluralism is pretty much the default amongst my own religious demographic.

So I think it's really important to distinguish between the "I am right" and the "I am right and everyone else is wrong" and the "I am right and other people are sort of right" and the "I am right and so is everyone else." I'm not clear on whether or not you've been doing that or not.

I just can't figure out how someone can logically go about believing in things this way, which again, is just what ive seen. If there are better reasons or other reasons why you think people believe in such things feel free to explain. I am very interested in what drives this mentality.

Well, tradition and past life experiences are a powerful force. All people are shaped by their past legacies. If you are born in a community dominated by Protestant Christianity, odds are that will be your path. If you are born in a community dominated by Dharmic paths, odds are that will be yours too. Doesn't seem more complicated than that to me.