Can you answer this?

[SalixIncendium]

Are we all not affected by religious beliefs that are not our own, in some way or another?

How about when religious beliefs get codified into secular laws? If the justification for the law is based on religious belief, cannot those beliefs be evaluated and challenged?

How many conflicts around the world are based or strengthened on religious beliefs? Catholic vs Protestant, Shia vs Suni, Hindu vs Islam, Judaism vs Islam, Christianity vs many others. These conflicts affect everyone.

I understand what you are saying, and I am not unsympathetic. If someone finds peace and personal happiness in their religious belief system and religious practice, whether what they believe is about something real or not, then they should be left to be happy in that belief.

But what to do when it goes beyond the individual; when a religious belief system gets aggregated and amplified by millions of people? How is the non-religious person (or religious person with different views, for that matter) supposed to push back against the institutionalizing of religious beliefs into secular society? How is one to reconcile the opposing desires of multiple religious groups trying to influence the secular in conflicting ways, all being justified by their religious beliefs?

How is one to address and resolve all these challenges without addressing the religious beliefs used to justify conflicting positions?

Most of what you wrote here has to do with personal beliefs affecting others. I made that qualification in my response to you.

Once a religious belief impacts my reality, then it's fair game for me to question or challenge it. If it doesn't, what another believes is not my business (save scholarly debates, as @sayak83 offers in post #29).

 

[Link]

Are we all not affected by religious beliefs that are not our own, in some way or another?

How about when religious beliefs get codified into secular laws? If the justification for the law is based on religious belief, cannot those beliefs be evaluated and challenged?

How many conflicts around the world are based or strengthened on religious beliefs? Catholic vs Protestant, Shia vs Suni, Hindu vs Islam, Judaism vs Islam, Christianity vs many others. These conflicts affect everyone.

I understand what you are saying, and I am not unsympathetic. If someone finds peace and personal happiness in their religious belief system and religious practice, whether what they believe is about something real or not, then they should be left to be happy in that belief.

But what to do when it goes beyond the individual; when a religious belief system gets aggregated and amplified by millions of people? How is the non-religious person (or religious person with different views, for that matter) supposed to push back against the institutionalizing of religious beliefs into secular society? How is one to reconcile the opposing desires of multiple religious groups trying to influence the secular in conflicting ways, all being justified by their religious beliefs?

How is one to address and resolve all these challenges without addressing the religious beliefs used to justify conflicting positions?

You make a case and try to gain majority and also try to speak for your rights and that of minorities. That's all you can do.

You can't say religion has no room to influence any government, that's insanity of the west - decide that for yourself but can't decide that for whole world.

You can convince whole world there is no need of religion, welcome to try, but they have right for religion and for mixing it with the government.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The only way to know, is when a person tell directly, you are wrong, your belief do not say what you claim, the truth about your belief say this..... than the person who do not hold the belief in discussion tell that he know better than the actually believer do.
WUT

Maybe it could be said more: I believe you're wrong about your belief (i.e. I believe you're wrong that the trinity is in the bible as a non-christian), the truth of your belief says something different.

Compared to saying something like: In my personal experience as a former christian (hindu, whatever), your belief about the trinity (the theology) is incorrect. From what I experienced, the trinity is not in the bible.

It's still saying the other person is wrong but in the light of one's own personal views and experiences. Usually people don't tell the other person is wrong if they don't have knowledge (experiential or not) in the other person's faith. Barely any person who doesn't know about the Hindu faith will tell a Hindu they are wrong about their beliefs... so they do have a right to say the other is wrong but the "way" its said should be from their understanding.

Unless it's correcting theology... i.e. the trinity is not in the bible is just stating what the person knows is fact. "your belief about the trinity is wrong" is an opinion but could be broached in a nicer way while still telling the other they are wrong.

People tell me I'm wrong all the time since I was young so I try not to tell others they are wrong. But I do understand in some cases its fine to tell another they are wrong but it just depends on how you do it. People respect honesty and hopefully can say "how am I wrong?" rather than saying "No I'm not!" (humbleness vs pride?)

 

[MikeF]

Most of what you wrote here has to do with personal beliefs affecting others. I made that qualification in my response to you.

Once a religious belief impacts my reality, then it's fair game for me to question or challenge it. If it doesn't, what another believes is not my business (save scholarly debates, as @sayak83 offers in post #29).

I recognized the distinction you made and I am questioning whether such a distinction can be made. Does having a religious belief, de facto, affect everyone else? Do not personal religious beliefs affect how one interacts and makes decisions socially and politically?

 

[MikeF]

No, i only ask the one can respect each others even we have different religious belief

Do you think the religious beliefs held by an individual only affect that individual, or do their beliefs also affect how they interact socially and politically?
If religious beliefs affect more than just the individual, how are those impacts on the greater society to be addressed?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I recognized the distinction you made and I am questioning whether such a distinction can be made. Does having a religious belief, de facto, affect everyone else? Do not personal religious beliefs affect how one interacts and makes decisions socially and politically?

I would think any belief, religious, political, or otherwise, affects how one interacts with the world around them. That doesn't make every belief a person has subject to scrutiny, does it?

 

[MikeF]

You make a case and try to gain majority and also try to speak for your rights and that of minorities. That's all you can do.

You can't say religion has no room to influence any government, that's insanity of the west - decide that for yourself but can't decide that for whole world.

You can convince whole world there is no need of religion, welcome to try, but they have right for religion and for mixing it with the government.

So you would advocate a Theocratic Government, based on one specific religion in which all citizens must join and adhere to the tenets of the Government Religion, and no one may question or speak out against the Government Religion for fear of prosecution and imprisonment (or worse)?

 

[Link]

So you would advocate a Theocratic Government, based on one specific religion in which all citizens must join and adhere to the tenets of the Government Religion, and no one may question or speak out against the Government Religion for fear of prosecution and imprisonment (or worse)?

No I wouldn't.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Research, study, and experience.

I’d add prayer and meditation to that list.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But is this right Salix? Classical Indian scholars had energetic debates between different religious worldviews and much of great philosophical and theological and rational works of the different schools arose out of these debates. In other realms too it is true. Much productive work on the foundations of physics stem from the debates between Bohr and Einstein regarding the completeness of Quantum Mechanics. The works of Socrates are also in the form of debates between various philosophers of his day. So from my POV, questioning and debating seem to have been very productive the the development of religion, philosophy and science.

And Jesus argued with learned men in the Temple. As you would expect of a Jew with an enquiring mind

 

[syo]

If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

They have their opinion, I have mine.

 

[MikeF]

I would think any belief, religious, political, or otherwise, affects how one interacts with the world around them. That doesn't make every belief a person has subject to scrutiny, does it?

And hence the dilemma. When and how vigorously should one present an opposing point of view? What beliefs rise to the level as to require scrutiny? With social moray and norms intertwined with religious belief in many societies, religious beliefs can quickly affect the body politic.

I get that religious beliefs can be heavily integrated into psychology, self-identity, and mental well-being of an individual. I understand all the benefits that many gain from a religious or spiritual life practice. But if an expressed religious belief in a public forum has consequences beyond the individual, surely it is appropriate to question and fully explore the ramifications of those religious beliefs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know

I had a Christian home schooling cirriculum and was being taught by the Church and brought up for Church leadership. This gives me a very high degree of confidence when I debate Christians.

 

[Trailblazer]

As a Christian, I was convinced from birth that my parents religion was 100% correct. This is how most people are introduced to religious ideas and its why the vast majority of religious people have the same religion as their family. With competing religious claims, I don't think you are actually interested in listening to why other people think their religious views are correct, since you can conclude before they share anything that they are wrong! You can see this all over these message boards. Its totally understandable. It's even implied in the OP statement "maybe listening is better than claiming to know". That is totally true, if you actually don't know and you are asking questions to find out. But when both sides claim to know the truth and our biases come into play, what you are really saying is the other side needs to listen to me, since I know what is true.

I know this is not a Christian belief, but I believe that all the major religions are true. I could never believe any other way because it would not make sense for God to favor only one religion and leave everyone else out in the cold.

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought I was wrong once, but then I realized that I was mistaken.

Me too.

 

[Moonjuice]

I know this is not a Christian belief, but I believe that all the major religions are true. I could never believe any other way because it would not make sense for God to favor only one religion and leave everyone else out in the cold.

This is a very obvious logical mistake. They specifically contradict each other. If one theology thinks Jesus is god (Christianity) and the other thinks Jesus was not god (Islam), it is demonstrably evident that they are not both true. Either one is true, or both are false, but its not possible that both are true. You understand that right?

 

[firedragon]

Are we all not affected by religious beliefs that are not our own, in some way or another?

How about when religious beliefs get codified into secular laws? If the justification for the law is based on religious belief, cannot those beliefs be evaluated and challenged?

How many conflicts around the world are based or strengthened on religious beliefs? Catholic vs Protestant, Shia vs Suni, Hindu vs Islam, Judaism vs Islam, Christianity vs many others. These conflicts affect everyone.

I understand what you are saying, and I am not unsympathetic. If someone finds peace and personal happiness in their religious belief system and religious practice, whether what they believe is about something real or not, then they should be left to be happy in that belief.

But what to do when it goes beyond the individual; when a religious belief system gets aggregated and amplified by millions of people? How is the non-religious person (or religious person with different views, for that matter) supposed to push back against the institutionalizing of religious beliefs into secular society? How is one to reconcile the opposing desires of multiple religious groups trying to influence the secular in conflicting ways, all being justified by their religious beliefs?

How is one to address and resolve all these challenges without addressing the religious beliefs used to justify conflicting positions?

Mike. I can't present any statistics on how much influence religions have on a secular society, secular laws, etc, or the flip side on how much influence secular philosophy has on religious societies, but it is only most probable that both influence each other.

Think of the scientific method. A lot of people have this idea that religion and religious thought is against science and scientific thought. But that's wrong. The scientific method was developed by a person called Ibn Haitham and he was motivated by his religious background. And his scientific method influenced science as a whole. Martin Luther was motivated by his religious rebellion or "protest" and the church was against him with one reason being his influence on the organisation of society which influenced secular societies.

This will go on forever.

Anyway, I have a doubt I understood you properly. Can you please clarify your final question?

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a very obvious logical mistake. They specifically contradict each other. If one theology thinks Jesus is god (Christianity) and the other thinks Jesus was not god (Islam), it is demonstrably evident that they are not both true. Either one is true, or both are false, but its not possible that both are true. You understand that right?

I was not implying that what all the religions teach is true, I was only saying that what was revealed in their scriptures is true. All the older religions have gone so far off track that much of what was revealed by their Messengers/Prophets has been lost. That is 'one reason' that religion has to be renewed in every age.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

 

[firedragon]

So you would advocate a Theocratic Government, based on one specific religion in which all citizens must join and adhere to the tenets of the Government Religion, and no one may question or speak out against the Government Religion for fear of prosecution and imprisonment (or worse)?

Wow. I didnt expect that honestly. Did you ask a question or impose your perception or bias upon someone else's disposition?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know

there is no religious belief that I would have a problem with, unless it leads to the harm of someone

listening is always better than talking, since you can never get wiser by talking