• 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!

Can the faith of one religion discredit the faith of another?

F1fan

Veteran Member
If your target is the GOP, al Qaeda and 9/11 are terrible examples of this "people acting terribly in the name of their god." A more apt example, if you're looking at 9/11, is the inordinate and heavily religious response that the GOP gave back to that attack. Al Qaeda attacked America for political actions, the GOP made it a "new Crusade" to hunt them down (and never mind the oil) in God's name.
It illustrates my previous point that fundamentalist religion and conservative politics are synonymous.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
It illustrates my previous point that fundamentalist religion and conservative politics are synonymous.
Family first.

History looking back planet and heavens first.
Nature second everything supplied.

Family living everywhere not a landholder owner. Supported.

What life meant. Natural laws. Natural balances. Mutual relationships in group natural that worked

Everyone owned their place.
Everyone had purpose
Everyone was needed.

Science to governing elite took purpose away. Stated fact of life the abuse itself to over lord.

Factually the name lord and sacrifice inferred the over lord was the reason.

Science governing elite.

Takes jewel out of gods earth and put it on your head the review.....took jewel power in substance of God burnt converted it.

Head prickles irradiated crown on head received for lying to self.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Is there some confusion about this? I offer the 9-11 hijackers as an example of what faith can justify. What theism via faith shows itself to be factually correct and reliable as a form of describing reality? If you're going to challenge the precision and accuracy of logic and science then I want to see examples of faith working to an equal measure.

Can you do that for all to see? Or are you bluffing?

Okay, I will start slow.
Is the referent to "show" the same in these 2 cases:
Show me a cat?
Show me that 2+2 can be 11?
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
I think you could argue that the crusades were one element in the toxic cocktail that inspired the 9/11 atrocities. 1000 years may be a long time in America's collective consciousness, but significant historical events from further back than that still have resonance in many cultures.

But the crusades weren't really about religion anyway, they were about land and power, as all conflicts are; so you're point still holds. Religion was a powerful propaganda tool, but not the root cause.

I guess religion is a useful hook for such conflicts, thinking for example of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I guess religion is a useful hook for such conflicts, thinking for example of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.


That's an excellent example. The roots of that conflict can reasonably be traced back to the 12th Century Norman invasion of Ireland. Centuries before the reformation, so clearly nothing to do with Protestant and Catholic.

The recent, euphemitically labelled "Troubles" of 1970 - 1998, had more to do with access to jobs and housing than they ever did with religion.
 

syo

Well-Known Member
So how can one faith-based believer dispute the beliefs of some other faith-based believer if BOTH insist faith is reliable, yet offer no standards to determine the reliability of faith?
Faith is a hoax. So anything faithbased is a hoax that can be broken.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The dilemma for you is the many atheists who have these attributes, yet no religious faith. And the many theist who feel full of faith yet lack many of these virtues. So when does the standard kick in wen so many theists ignore them? It appears to be arbitrary.
It's not a dilemma for me, nor is it arbitrary. Scripture says "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their doctrines or their religious beliefs. But by their actions. "A good tree cannot be bad fruit, nor a bad tree bear good fruit". If an atheist, while not believing traditional religious doctrines and beliefs, does by nature the things required it in, then they are in fact bearing good fruit.

I do not believe the nonsense that without religion you can't be moral. Even Paul recognized that! :)

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law."

~Romans 2:14​

But the actual standard is not these virtues. The standard we are referring to that faith lacks is one that ensures the faith is factual and true.
Let's make a quick clarification. I make a distinction between faith and beliefs. Faith is more heart-sensed. It's an impulse, an intuition. It is not head-centered, but heart-centered. Beliefs on the other hand are head-centered. They are cognitive in nature. They are mental constructs. Beliefs support faith, by giving something tangible and more solid appearing to the abstraction of an intuition of the heart. They are like branches that we find to hang the ornaments of spirit upon, so to speak.

That distinction made, faith is true, when it is sincere. Being "right" only has to do with beliefs. But I have come to see that beliefs are not central to faith, but complementary to it. They can be modified, added to, or outright discarded in pursuit of more functional and coherent beliefs. But all of that, that search for better beliefs and ideas, is driven by faith. It is the heart seeking for connection and meaning that drives that.

And if that means rejecting ideas of God that are incompatible with modern understandings, such as accepting evolution for instance, then doing so is in fact motivated by that impulse, or intuition of Truth, or Faith. Therefore, a fundamentalist Christian becoming an atheist to find out the truth, is actually an action of faith leading to fix broken beliefs in order to find a higher or deeper meaning. Faith is the engine, beliefs are the caboose.

It's the standard that reason and logic has, its set of rules, that faith lacks. Faith in religious ideas can be justified by mere interest to believe them true, and there's no standard for evidence or fact.
That's really not true, in that faith isn't based upon logic. It's heart-based, like love. Is love based upon logic? What you mean to say is 'beliefs need to be logical". I agree. Otherwise they are irrational. They violate reason. Faith does not ask the mind to be irrational. But it does say, there is more to Truth than just what logic and reason can penetrate. And that is logical and rational and reasonable to say.

If it helps, realize there is a difference between the nonrational, such as love, desire, hope, faith, etc, and the irrational, which is cognitively centered and violates the rules of logic and reason. Humans are both rational, and nonrational creatures. But irrationality is a failure to be true to the mind as a rational agent. Irrationality does not support faith, it violates it. Hence an active evolution-denier, has neither good reason nor good faith. It's all just fear and ignorance.

Well if you are not a Muslim extremist then what right do you have as some other kind of theist to insist they were not following God's commands?
"Love works no ill." I agree with that statement. Don't you? Doesn't anyone?

This is what I am asking, do you have any authority as a religious person to insist the 9-11 hijackers were wrong if THEY insist they were following God's will?
Yes. I have as much authority as you who knows the difference between violence and hatred, and love and peace. Faith does not lead to violence. Fear and hatred does. Those who murder others in the name of God, do not have Love inspiring them. They have hate.

They followed their faith.
No, they followed their hearts, which were full of fear and hatred of others. That is not a religious faith at all. That is malice calling itself good by hiding behind the name of faith. And it was their beliefs, twisted and distorted because of embracing hatred in their own hearts, that tries to justify itself by the name of God.

That's why it's very simple to me. "By their fruits you shall know them", Not by their claims to be following God. Their actions speak the real truth. Death is their fruit.

What standard applies to them within faith that deems them in error?
Love. They did the opposite of that.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
On the discussion "Do atheists have faith" someone argued that faith is a reliable means to truth, to moral guidance, to know God's mind, etc.. I pointed out that there are examples of faithful people who do criminal things and justify it through their faith. My best example was the 9-11 hijackers who were following God's will to plan and attack numerous targets in the USA nearly 20 years ago. The person said their motivation wasn't real faith. I pointed out that faith as being argued has no real standards like reason and logic does. Faith is justified through the eye of the beholder, and anything goes.

I asked what authority does this person have as a mortal, just like any atheist, that can discount the faith of another theist or religion. Since faith has no standards the person could offer nothing except his/her own belief, just as the 9-11 hijackers did.

So how can one faith-based believer dispute the beliefs of some other faith-based believer if BOTH insist faith is reliable, yet offer no standards to determine the reliability of faith?

Some follow their own egos and call it Faith. The Holy Books teach to be humble and non violent. If a person acts opposite and commits violence then it is their own ego not from God.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
LOL, alright. How does faith compliment reason?
Think of this in terms of being a human being. Do you let logic and reason dictate who you should love, and teach you the meaning of love? "You love me? Well, thank you. Let me check my logic banks and see if I compute that I love you as well". I bet you'd become a lonely soul in your life. :)

What I mean by complementary (not the same thing as complimentary), means that humans are both rational and nonrational creatures. We need to balance between function and freedom. Beliefs, or reason and logic, are like the rudder on a sailing ship, but faith is like the wind against the sails. They are complementary to each other, and together you are able to be transported by them together to new destinations. That's a rough analogy of what I mean.

The heart and the mind are not opposites, but like the left hand and the right hand, the left brain and the right brain. Trying to place one in a position of supremacy over the other, is misguided, irrational, and unhealthy. It is unbalanced. Complementary means, they balance out and enhance each other, informing each other, inspiring each other. "All parts move together," is a fundamental rule of Tai Chi practice. It's that same thing. Mind, and body, and spirit all move together and complete each other.

What function does faith serve? And let's note we are referring to religious faith only, not other definitions which can be applied in secular ways.
I like this quote from Einstein. I see this "emotion" he is referring to as what religious faith actually means, as opposed to conflating faith with beliefs, which I explain the difference between in my other post from today.

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

"This knowledge, this feeling", is what I mean by faith. It is that 'wrapped in awe" leaving the rational mind speechless that I mean by faith. It is transrational, not anti-rational. It complements rationality, by allowing it to see beyond itself with the wings of the heart of inspiration. That's what faith is, which is the "center of true religiousness", and out of which "all true science and art" originate. I agree completely him on all these points.

It's ironic you bring up indoctrination because we see examples of people growing up in homes/communities that are extremist, whether Taliban, or white supremacist, or creationist, etc. Since faith is the basis of these beliefs what tools does a young adult have to question the ideology they are indoctrinated into? You're advocating for them to resist doubt. This is the dilemma and danger of dogma: it is assumed true and authoritative just because it is believed by others. This is the flaw in faith, it offers no test in fact or reality or morality.
Faith is absolutely not the basis for those beliefs. Fear and ignorance are. And I absolutely do not advocate any resist doubt! I say embrace it! Seek it out. Doubt is the arm of faith to get you to grow beyond being stuck in your beliefs and ideas as ultimate truth. Doubting creationism for instance, is good! It serves faith by not demanding it live with irrationality and fear and ignorance. Same thing with these "hate others" groups. Those are not based on faith. They are based on fear. And doubting those teachings that promote that, is in fact an act of faith, ironically.

You are pointing out the severe weakness in faith as it offers no standards to discern truth from falsity.
I offered you those clear standards. "By their fruits you shall know them." "Love works no ill". If you are serving Love, or following faith from the heart drawn to Love, or "God", you will not act in ways that deliberate seek to harm others. If you are following that path, you are not following faith. You are embracing and following fear, and you will bear bad or 'evil' fruit, such as murdering others, hating others, attacking others, etc.

How are those not standards?

If believers want truth and knowledge they defer to a more reliable process like reason. But faith is used precisely because it offers no standard and no challenge to any concept that is desired, even if immoral or criminal. The ends always justify the means.
You, like many others, Christians included, conflate faith and beliefs as essentially one and the same thing, interchangeable terms. They are not. I hope my insights here, which are not mine alone mind you, help untangle some of this. I have presented a rational understanding and giving examples of how they differ, yet interact and complement each other in the past two posts today. Let me know if this helps clarify my thoughts better.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
On the discussion "Do atheists have faith" someone argued that faith is a reliable means to truth, to moral guidance, to know God's mind, etc.. I pointed out that there are examples of faithful people who do criminal things and justify it through their faith. My best example was the 9-11 hijackers who were following God's will to plan and attack numerous targets in the USA nearly 20 years ago. The person said their motivation wasn't real faith. I pointed out that faith as being argued has no real standards like reason and logic does. Faith is justified through the eye of the beholder, and anything goes.

I asked what authority does this person have as a mortal, just like any atheist, that can discount the faith of another theist or religion. Since faith has no standards the person could offer nothing except his/her own belief, just as the 9-11 hijackers did.

So how can one faith-based believer dispute the beliefs of some other faith-based believer if BOTH insist faith is reliable, yet offer no standards to determine the reliability of faith?

I believe it is a matter of in whom you place your faith.

I believe I place my faith in God through the Holy Spirit. I believe there is no better place to place ones faith.

I believe the 911 culprits may have claimed God but they were so far from Him that they in fact mocked God.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Yes, I think so.
There can be certain standards of evidence in place for faith, and therefore such a thing as evidence based faith.
It follows that if a faith/ belief based on reasonable evidence contradicts a faith based on inferior evidence in my eyes it would invalidate the second.

I believe this kind of faith is worthless:
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
"Show" means to demonstrate.

Okay, no, I can't do that according to your standard. In fact all other belief systems than yours doesn't actually work in the everyday world. As an example of that I didn't even write this. Nobody can believe differently than you! Feel better, now?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
What is right belief?

That is simple. Right belief is mine to me. All other are wrong. Now that means that my beliefs and all other beliefs than a given individual's are wrong according to a given individual's right belief. Off course that belief is wrong according to any body else.

Now personally I don't believe in that kind of right and wrong and IFF there is a God, I leave it to God.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
That is simple. Right belief is mine to me. All other are wrong. Now that means that my beliefs and all other beliefs than a given individual's are wrong according to a given individual's right belief. Off course that belief is wrong according to any body else.

Now personally I don't believe in that kind of right and wrong and IFF there is a God, I leave it to God.
Hehe i could be a bad boy and say.. you are wrong my belief is right :p I ain`t gonna do that. Your belief or others belief is maybe different than mine, but it is your personal belief. So how can i discredit you? :)
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
On the discussion "Do atheists have faith" someone argued that faith is a reliable means to truth, to moral guidance, to know God's mind, etc.

Faith tells us that to know and Love God is the Purpose of Life.

So in reality the purpose of all God given Faith is in complete harmony.

Where it all breaks down is when man changes what is given by God to suit their own agenda.

Love is of God, all forms of hate are the lack of that Love.

Truthfulness and Trustworthiness are of God, all what is not Truthfulness and Trustworthiness is lack of that God given virtue.

All the best, regards Tony
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Logically they can't. But then sectarianism isn't a rational thing.
Sectarianism is entirely rational, as it narrows down your belief and practices to a view you can handle, that has no contradictions. What isn't rational is to criticize others who've done the same thing, but arrived at a different conclusion. Many people within sects get along incredibly well with other sects, as they understand, and accept diversity. Just because a person is an atheist or a Christian by no means means he/she is my enemy.
 
Last edited:
Top