• 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!

Why is it so important for you to claim your belief is the only true belief?

firedragon

Veteran Member
Sitting here early morning pondering about posts in RF i been reading lately, where people claim that their religious belief is the only correct, and everyone else is fake or falls or even evil :confused:

I am not going to sitt here telling you that my own sufi faith is better or more correct that any of what you belive, because the belief i hold in Sufism is a personal path and belief that arise from within. And even i did in the past (before becoming a sufi) as many others, claimed i had the truth, i proven to my self time and time again i did not hold the truth.....

But why is it so dang important to "prove" to others your belief is the "exact truth" and anyone who claim different belief is a liar, fake, falls or even i heard someone call others evil for believeing differently than them self......

What has happend to spiritual/religious people? Isnt religion supposed to take away our ego and selfishness?

My pondering is still going on :oops:

Maybe it is important because the religious scripture whoever believes is Gods word or Gods inspiration says so.

If God says so, you cannot say "no no". Thus more than it being an epistemological matter, it is more importantly because God said so.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Do you believe in right, and wrong?

It's not a trick question, I assure you.
I do not believe in right and wrong in any objective sense, no. I believe in them as referential constructs thought into "existence" by whatever being has the perspective to assess benefit or detriment to itself or other things it may care about. Humans, for example, are such a being. "Right" or "good" end up being related to things, actions or motivations that lead to help or benefit to humans. And "Wrong" or "bad" end up being those things related to things, actions or motivations that lead to hurt or are detriment to humans.

As an example - a primitive mind may view mosquitos as "evil," or say something goofy like, "bad people get reincarnated as bad things - like mosquitos" (this being an actual, real-life example of something I have literally had someone say to me). From the perspective of humans, specifically, mosquitos are a nuisance, and can spread disease - potentially even life-threatening disease, and so they are "bad" from our perspective - which may be interpreted as "evil" by someone prone to readily accepting symbolism and stereotyping as "reality." But taking a step back, what do you think the mosquito thinks of itself (if it does so at all)? What do you think bats or frogs think of mosquitos? Are they "evil" from the perspective of those other animals that may rely on them for food? Probably not. If mosquitos were objectively "bad," then all things, regardless of their dispositions or perspective, would need to recognize them as such. It is only a very sophomoric, immature mind that can label mosquitos as "bad" all around, or, as a believer, ask questions like "Why did God create mosquitos?" as a reference to God creating something "evil." (also something I have heard from a real-life person).

However, while I do not recognize anything as universally "evil" or "good", "right" or "wrong," I do, easily understand what is beneficial or detrimental to myself or my fellow human beings, and I do tend to use the colloquially accepted terms of "right" or "wrong" to convey when I feel something is on one side of the benefit/detriment line or the other, and to simultaneously convey my stance on that subject (whether I, as a human, do or do not find various action/motivation acceptable from my fellow sentient beings).

But no... nothing is objectively "evil." Even something like "murder" can be seen as a benefit from another being's perspective. For example, a house-fly. Let's say a person is doing dishes, and a housefly is intent on getting at the food stuck to the plates, but that human doing the dishes just keeps swatting at the fly. If someone were to walk up and murder that human being, that would then allow the fly to either go after the food on the plates, or instead dine on and lay eggs in the dead human body that was also just provided to it by happenstance. The murder was of benefit to the fly, in other words, because a fly would likely always rather see a dead human being than a live one. This is not the fault of the fly, nor does it make the fly "evil" by any stretch of the imagination. His goals are just completely different from ours, and therefore what is "good" or "evil" from the fly's perspective will be entirely different from our own.
 
I do not believe in right and wrong in any objective sense, no. I believe in them as referential constructs thought into "existence" by whatever being has the perspective to assess benefit or detriment to itself or other things it may care about. Humans, for example, are such a being. "Right" or "good" end up being related to things, actions or motivations that lead to help or benefit to humans. And "Wrong" or "bad" end up being those things related to things, actions or motivations that lead to hurt or are detriment to humans.

As an example - a primitive mind may view mosquitos as "evil," or say something goofy like, "bad people get reincarnated as bad things - like mosquitos" (this being an actual, real-life example of something I have literally had someone say to me). From the perspective of humans, specifically, mosquitos are a nuisance, and can spread disease - potentially even life-threatening disease, and so they are "bad" from our perspective - which may be interpreted as "evil" by someone prone to readily accepting symbolism and stereotyping as "reality." But taking a step back, what do you think the mosquito thinks of itself (if it does so at all)? What do you think bats or frogs think of mosquitos? Are they "evil" from the perspective of those other animals that may rely on them for food? Probably not. If mosquitos were objectively "bad," then all things, regardless of their dispositions or perspective, would need to recognize them as such. It is only a very sophomoric, immature mind that can label mosquitos as "bad" all around, or, as a believer, ask questions like "Why did God create mosquitos?" as a reference to God creating something "evil." (also something I have heard from a real-life person).

However, while I do not recognize anything as universally "evil" or "good", "right" or "wrong," I do, easily understand what is beneficial or detrimental to myself or my fellow human beings, and I do tend to use the colloquially accepted terms of "right" or "wrong" to convey when I feel something is on one side of the benefit/detriment line or the other, and to simultaneously convey my stance on that subject (whether I, as a human, do or do not find various action/motivation acceptable from my fellow sentient beings).

But no... nothing is objectively "evil." Even something like "murder" can be seen as a benefit from another being's perspective. For example, a house-fly. Let's say a person is doing dishes, and a housefly is intent on getting at the food stuck to the plates, but that human doing the dishes just keeps swatting at the fly. If someone were to walk up and murder that human being, that would then allow the fly to either go after the food on the plates, or instead dine on and lay eggs in the dead human body that was also just provided to it by happenstance. The murder was of benefit to the fly, in other words, because a fly would likely always rather see a dead human being than a live one. This is not the fault of the fly, nor does it make the fly "evil" by any stretch of the imagination. His goals are just completely different from ours, and therefore what is "good" or "evil" from the fly's perspective will be entirely different from our own.

First of all, bugs and animals cannot be "evil," because they act only on pure instinct. They don't have sinister, ulterior motives.

Second, flies don't "prefer" anything. Their "thinking" is not that advanced.

Third...At least you're honest. If there's no God, there is NO right, and no wrong...Only that which is convenient, at the time. That's fairly sociopathic, but honest, nonethless.

So, in your mind, the Holocaust was not wrong, correct? Because you said you don't believe in objective right or wrong...Correct?

(FACT: You're being dishonest. You most certainly DO believe in objective right or wrong. If I stole your car, you'd call the police...And you know it.)
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
First of all, bugs and animals cannot be "evil," because they act only on pure instinct. They don't have sinister, ulterior motives.

Second, flies don't "prefer" anything. Their "thinking" is not that advanced.

Third...At least you're honest. If there's no God, there is NO right, and no wrong...Only that which is convenient, at the time. That's fairly sociopathic, but honest, nonethless.

So, in your mind, the Holocaust was not wrong, correct? Because you said you don't believe in objective right or wrong...Correct?

(FACT: You're being dishonest. You most certainly DO believe in objective right or wrong. If I stole your car, you'd call the police...And you know it.)
You barely read what I wrote, and it shows.

Basically, my entire post boils down to the idea that making ANY assessment of "right" and "wrong" requires that a goal be established first. So, if the goal is to foster human health and well-being, then things like murder and thievery can then be objectively assessed to run against that goal. And I told you, between humans I completely understand that there are things that are and are not acceptable from myself or others. Did you ignore that part so that you could call me "dishonest" in your pitiful little parenthetical at the end of your post? Ridiculous. You also tried to pin on me the idea that "Only that which is convenient at the time" is all that matters. You CANNOT get that from my post unless YOU are being dishonest - which I very much believe that you are. You're completely willing to twist things to fit your foolish narrative. Good for you Jackie.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
And if Baha'u'llah was really a Manifestation of God, then that true fact necessarily excludes contrary claims, including the claim that Jesus was God Incarnate. In that case Jesus would be a Manifestation of God rather than an incarnation of God. Jesus is who he is whether we like it or not.
That would be true. But I have no trust in the claims of an offshoot sect of an offshoot sect of Shia Islam.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That would be true. But I have no trust in the claims of an offshoot sect of an offshoot sect of Shia Islam.
The Bahai Faith is not an offshoot sect of an offshoot sect of Shia Islam. That only shows that you do not know what it is.
The Baha'i Faith is no more an offshoot sect of Islam than Christianity is an offshoot sect of Judaism.
The Baha'i Faith is based upon a new Revelation from God through Baha'u'llah just as Christianity is based upon a new Revelation from God through Jesus.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I have thought about it... and any and all religious/spiritual/supernatural ideas of "faith" always come up entirely lacking. I don't see the utility in them, and others have failed time and time again to explain it to me sufficiently, therefore I have made the choice to discard and ignore it all. There is no detriment to be had to my life for making this choice that I have found, and all promises that there are such detriments have absolutely zero backing or evidential support. Also entirely lacking in evidence are anyone's claims that there is another world after this one within which it is going to matter what I believed in this life. There are no consequences to not believing. None. Nada. Anyone who claims that there are is just saying some words. Words that may as well be random gibberish for how compelling they are.

Yes believers also go on and on and on.
It can be a choice to remain in non belief and a choice to remain in belief.
Words can be like a ball bouncing off a brick wall when a person is set in their opposition.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Is it selfish to say it is true that Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun?
Not sure i understand your question from a religious point of view in this OP.
But to answer, if we know b looking at the different planets that Mars is the fourth planet from the sun, it is not a selfish way to give an answer no. (this belong more within science, and that is not my field of understanding)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Not sure i understand your question from a religious point of view in this OP.
But to answer, if we know b looking at the different planets that Mars is the fourth planet from the sun, it is not a selfish way to give an answer no. (this belong more within science, and that is not my field of understanding)
It looks like he is leading up to the topic of science denial. It appears that you have no problem with correcting those that deny reality. Such as that the Earth is not Flat. A literal reading of the Bible and other religious books can lead to that belief. Or that there was a global flood within human history. Or other demonstrably correct ideas.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Christianity at its core isn't a religious philosophy wherein other ways of approaching the divine may also carry as much merit. At the very core Christianity is a historical claim about something God did in real human history among real human people. If God really did reveal himself as the incarnated Christ then that true fact about history necessarily excludes contrary claims. God is who he is whether we like it or not.
My path also has 'a historical claim' that God did something in real human history among real human people. He revealed Himself in the form of Lord Shiva just over 7000 years ago and much later as Lord Krishna just over 3500 years ago and again in a third personality quite recently. So Christianity is not unique in that way.
What is unique about Christianity is that it has from the beginning been intolerant of so-called "heresies" and has promoted dogmatically declared "truths". This has become the main stumbling block for understanding other paths or religions.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
It looks like he is leading up to the topic of science denial. It appears that you have no problem with correcting those that deny reality. Such as that the Earth is not Flat. A literal reading of the Bible and other religious books can lead to that belief. Or that there was a global flood within human history. Or other demonstrably correct ideas.
I do not try to correct those who belive in science, they are free to believe what they wish to. And i have stopped correcting those from other religious beliefs then what i believe in my self. I do sometimes ask a question toward those of other religions. But i have more than enough to correct my own understanding of what i believe in than to keep correcting others
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I do not try to correct those who belive in science, they are free to believe what they wish to. And i have stopped correcting those from other religious beliefs then what i believe in my self. I do sometimes ask a question toward those of other religions. But i have more than enough to correct my own understanding of what i believe in than to keep correcting others
People do not "believe in science". There is a difference between knowledge and belief. Evidence allows people to know that things. When something can be demonstrated to be true countless times it is quite different from mere belief.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
People do not "believe in science". There is a difference between knowledge and belief. Evidence allows people to know that things. When something can be demonstrated to be true countless times it is quite different from mere belief.
I have to little understanding of any science to go in to a discussion with you, and yes i do see the world through religious/spiritual practice and not through science.
 
Top