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

[TransmutingSoul]

Your last two comments suggest you are trying to withhold love and virtue from anyone who isn't a theist. Is that what you meant?

No it was not, I was only offering a view to which you put your thoughts to.

All the best, Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Right. A number of people have responded with some tenets or doctrines from their religion, but my point is they don't mean squat to a person of another religion.

Faith is a gift from God so we can get to know and Love God of our own choice.

Thus if a person's heart wants to know and Love God, they will earnestly search for that Love and if found in turn will likewise show that Love to all humanity.

Those that love themselves place their opinion over what is from God and carry out acts that are not of God or the Faith they may or may not hold on to.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Perhaps you have an explanation as to why the books fail to adequately teach.

The Holy Books stand on their own. They teach even if not read, as the Word contained within, is the cause of Life in the age they were revealed.

So an Atheist that has never read them, but has chosen to live a life of virtue and morality is service to all humanity, is living the life contained within those scriptures.

Those that do read those books also have to follow what is contained within them, if they deviate and choose not to practice what is contained within those scriptures, the blame is not not because the Scriptures do not show us the right way of life, it is because we chose not to listen and put into practice the lesson's.

All the best, Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not think we fully can, or should dispute others belief, because it is their personal belief, just as the personal belief we hold our self.
(I have fallen in this trap my self to many time)

Lots of folks continue to do so, directly or indirectly. Some don't even know they're doing it, and when challenged, come up with the lame 'I didn't mean it that way'. Respect for diversity has a long way to go on this planet.

 

[F1fan]

The Holy Books stand on their own. They teach even if not read, as the Word contained within, is the cause of Life in the age they were revealed.

Not only does this not answer my question (Perhaps you have an explanation as to why the books fail to adequately teach.) but you insist the texts can teach without reading them. How does that happen, after you answer my previous question?

So an Atheist that has never read them, but has chosen to live a life of virtue and morality is service to all humanity, is living the life contained within those scriptures.

So what you are saying the texts that theists rely on for guidance aren't necessary for atheists. So are atheists naturally wise, in your view?

Those that do read those books also have to follow what is contained within them, if they deviate and choose not to practice what is contained within those scriptures, the blame is not not because the Scriptures do not show us the right way of life, it is because we chose not to listen and put into practice the lesson's.

The huge problem here is so many different texts that different religions insist are authoritative. So how does that get resolved, outside of violence and war?

 

[F1fan]

Faith is a gift from God so we can get to know and Love God of our own choice.

It's a pretty bad gift given reason and logic is so much more reliable and faith can lead a person to very bad decisions. Why would God give such a bad gift? Why didn't God give logic instead of the Greeks?

Thus if a person's heart wants to know and Love God, they will earnestly search for that Love and if found in turn will likewise show that Love to all humanity.

This explains why so many are lost. A loving God would be more readily available.

Those that love themselves place their opinion over what is from God and carry out acts that are not of God or the Faith they may or may not hold on to.

So those who loathe themselves will please God? What?

I don't get what is bad about loving the self.

 

[1213]

...Ouch, man. That hurt Jesus' feelings.

Well they say so. Can you or me say they are wrong? If you're a theist you already believe a God exists, so you have that possibility open to you. Another dilemma. I'm not convinced a God exists so I have another reason to reject what they claim.

You are an atheist and still claim to know how Jesus feels?

God’s existence is not required in knowing has someone been loyal to the God. Only thing required is to know what has God asked for and as the person done it loyally. It is possible that person has wrong information and acts loyally/faithfully on that wrong information. He may be wrong, but still loyal. So, to know is someone loyal, it must be known what was his reasons. At the moment I don’t know them, so I can’t know who have been really loyal.

...Do you think the Bible text has any authority over free gay citizens? Should Christians, like Westboro Baptist Church, assume they have an authority to actively harass and condemn gay people if those folks are no part of their beliefs?

Bible doesn’t give anyone right to harass anyone, especially not for Christians that according to the Bible are disciples of Jesus and should be loyal to Jesus and his teachings.

But, I think, if there is a group of people, who don’t like to be with homosexual people, they should be free to be without them in their own group.

 

[Magical Wand]

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 think your question is interesting because in the case of reason the non-theist can appeal to a common ground (the rules of thought) which will probably make the theist think (since the theist also accepts the rules of thought; the common ground). In the case of faith, however, there is nothing to appeal to in order to convince the other believer or non-theist.

 

[F1fan]

You are an atheist and still claim to know how Jesus feels?

No, an atheist claiming to have a sense of humor.

God’s existence is not required in knowing has someone been loyal to the God. Only thing required is to know what has God asked for and as the person done it loyally.

Well we mere mortals don't know if any Gods exist, let alone any specific God. So at best believers are guessing the God exists, and then further guessing what it wants. No wonder there are so many different takes on God and beliefs of what these Gods want.

It is possible that person has wrong information and acts loyally/faithfully on that wrong information. He may be wrong, but still loyal.

Right, there's your case for the 9-11 hijackers. Faith offers the believer no test in reality. There is no moral test. God is, and demands, whatever the fallible mortal wants.

So, to know is someone loyal, it must be known what was his reasons. At the moment I don’t know them, so I can’t know who have been really loyal.

We can look at the fruits of the believer. Are they loyal to humanity, or to their particular dogma which is presumed to be important than those outside the ideological framework?

Bible doesn’t give anyone right to harass anyone, especially not for Christians that according to the Bible are disciples of Jesus and should be loyal to Jesus and his teachings.

This is why more extreme forms of religion justify their aggression and attack on outsiders. They assume an authority they can't demonstrate in any practical or empirical way.

But, I think, if there is a group of people, who don’t like to be with homosexual people, they should be free to be without them in their own group.

No liking a category of people is a personal issue. Taking that dislike and presuming it is authorized by God and/or the Bible is the dilemma I'm talking about. Why do theists presume they have an authority over those who are outside their particular dogma? Where do they learn this? Why are they incapable or unwilling to stop and ponder their attitudes and actions?

 

[1213]

...Faith offers the believer no test in reality. There is no moral test...

I think that also depends on the religion and to what it is supposed to be loyal for. Bible for example has this saying:

Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good, but keep away from every kind of evil.
First Epistle to the Thessalonians 5:21

If one is faithful to that, he does as said in that.

 

[paarsurrey]

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, though I agree that some may treat it as such.

I see it as kind of like a scale, much like I sometimes see politics like a scale. For example, it's one thing to be Right politically. It's another to be fascist, which is much further on the scale and such.

" Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, though I agree that some may treat it as such."

I agree with one on the above point.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, though I agree that some may treat it as such.

I see it as kind of like a scale, much like I sometimes see politics like a scale. For example, it's one thing to be Right politically. It's another to be fascist, which is much further on the scale and such.

" Faith and reason "

Here it becomes important as to :

1. what are the sources of "faith",
2. what are the sources of reason
3. and what are the sources of knowledge?

Right?

Regards