• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lets talk about beliefs

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
If John Doe comes on and post god is real, god is caring, god is the creator of life, etc. Isn't that John's beliefs?
So if anyone comes on and says god isn't real, god isn't caring, god didn't create life,,,, isn't that their belief?
Of course.

In reality 99.9% of arguments/debates here are based on opposing beliefs. You can claim you lack belief or have no belief yet you have to have belief in the evidence you accept. If you didn't have belief in it you wouldn't accept it.

Convince me I'm wrong.
You're not wrong. Except in one small phrase.

"To accept as true" is what it means to believe. So to say that "If you didn't have belief in it you wouldn't accept it," is grammatically challenged. It should read, "To believe in it is to accept it (as true)."
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A be it as it may if you have a belief you don’t need knowledge.
But beliefs may be incorrect, and acting on an incorrect belief can cause problems. Sometimes you do need knowledge, ie: true beliefs.
MonkeyFire said:
knowledge is my fallen angel of light. Hindus make an association between light and knowledge.
Knowledge is Lucifer to you?
Why do you condemn knowledge?
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm also willing to acknowledge that I'm in error, faced with fact and new information and change accordingly. Something people with beliefs are typically loathe to do and will dismiss any facts that can change one's beliefs.
Yes. But it's science that's typically willing to change a hypothesis based on new evidence, plus it actively seeks new facts to test its beliefs. That's a part of the scientific process. That's why it's been so successful.
Religion, on the other hand, is usually loathe to seek new evidence or test its beliefs. It actively discourages questioning doctrine..
That's why religion is primarily based on beliefs and science with guesswork isn't.
But it's part of the scientific process to attempt to disprove one's hypothesis; to test it and modify one's belief accordingly. The process attempts to eliminate belief based on guesswork.That's decidedly not typical of religious belief.
Scientists rarely get burned at the stake.

Knowledge isn't a thing separate from belief. Knowledge is a subdivision of belief.
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
But beliefs may be incorrect, and acting on an incorrect belief can cause problems. Sometimes you do need knowledge, ie: true beliefs.

Knowledge is Lucifer to you?
Why do you condemn knowledge?

the next light is ethics and morality, I hardly condemn them, in fact I am the one who saved the sheep’ who strayed, I am much happier now that they have returned. “Behold he has became like one of us to know of good and evil (the forbidden fruit).” Genesis 3:22
 
Top