• 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!

Difference between

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Well - at least in terms of religion and belief - neither side can prove anything.

That's why it makes no sense to claim that someone is wrong. Neither side has an proof.

In light of one's personal reality, we can. If we both see a red car and I say it's blue and you orange, it would make sense to tell the other they are wrong. Whether they are it not is irrelevant here, but by default if something contradicts our view of reality, we wouldn't agree that it can exist simultaneously with out views.

So, if my view god doesn't exist and yours he does, I can say you're wrong cause it doesn't line up with my reality.

Of course one can say the other is right for himself. Though that's true, unless god exists and God does not exist at the same time, it's not wrong to view the other as wrong said or not.

As for proof, etc, that's irrelevant.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="Unveiled Artist, post: 7148970, member: 55631"a religious cannot say the other person is wrong about his or her faith.....up to the therapist (Anna) to address (client's) John's symptoms as a cause of delusions.

Anna does not tell John he is wrong. Of course from his perspective he is right. That is fine.

1. My question is, why can't Anna believe John is wrong despite knowing John's delusions is what is true to him?

A religious person can tell someone else they are wrong about their theology AND still maintain that that theology is right for them.

It's not being rude in a discussion or debate. It's just saying that the religious person's criteria of how he sees reality is in conflict with the other (you can't have god and no god at the same time; you can't have heaven and reincarnation at the same time).

2. Why can't all religious and non-religious say "you are wrong about your theology" without using that statement to discredit what's right for that other person?

I don't believe god exist. John does. I can tell John he is wrong about his theology (in this example), but that doesn't mean it is wrong for him. I'm just being honest our two beliefs contradict each other and that's not my view of reality. Saying you're wrong isn't a bad thing as long as you don't discredit another person's conviction by saying it.

3. Why do many treat it as such?

A parent and teacher tells their child or student they are wrong, but in a way of constructive criticism. A friend may tell another friend they are wrong to show them where they are in error without discrediting the person with whom made the error (whether it was an actual error or mistake).

Whether one uses the words/phrase "you are wrong" is personal preference, but in context is the same; why do people get so offended by it and likewise why can't they say it?[/QUOTE]

God said that we shouldn't judge others. So, we can't call them insane. Our job is to be as kind as possible to one another. Imagine heaven with mean and judgemental spirits in it? That wouldn't be heaven at all...it would be hell.

My delusion and your delusion should do lunch. "Can't we all just get along" (Rodney King).

In temple I was telling Rabbi Benjamin "Oy, gevalt, my son went to Jerusalem and came back a Christian." So, I came to you because you know more about religion. Rabbi Benjamin said "this is a matter for God." A deep booming voice shook the temple..."Oy, gevalt, my son went to Jerusalem and came back a Christian," God said, "now what was it that you wanted to talk about?"

Insanity....fighting over a solitaire game.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wrong for themselves? How would we know that? Wouldn't we only know it's wrong when comparing it to our criteria of truth and how we see reality?
The wording was weird. What I meant to say was that person A could say that person B's view is wrong for themselves as person A. I other words, "It doesn't work for me, but it apparently works for you." Once upon a time, belief X may have worked for them, but later in life it no longer does, but for person B it does. The truth is relative to that person and the stages and situations they are in at the time. That's what I meant to say.

But why can't people say the other is wrong when (in the OP) it's talking about their theology?

Even saying "you are wrong about your interpretation" isn't challenging the person's conviction. Maybe the other has the wrong interpretation and the only way he can recognize it is if someone pointed it out. (As a therapist would with cognitive distortions). Of course, it depends on the relationship both parties have, possibility and their patience level.
You brought up the Trinity doctrine later as an example. If someone says that the Trinity teaches there are three gods, that in fact would be a wrong statement. It does not teach that. But, if they were to say that you were wrong for believing God is a Trinity, because that's not how they believe, that is not an objective statement. That is a matter of perception and belief, not objective fact. The best you can say is I don't believe that way myself. That view of God is wrong to me.

It makes me think of what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 14:5. "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." That pretty much captures the whole thing right there. In other words, who are you to say it's wrong for them?

Its by our own standards. For example, a abrahamic god believer may tell a non-believer he or she is wrong about god's non-existence.

That is fine because it's just telling the NB his opinion about the other person's conclusion of god's existence. His parameters or criteria would be his religious god-supporting theology. It would make sense that he would see the other is wrong.

Likewise, if someone believed in reincarnation and the other heaven, setting aside personal preference in language, saying the other is wrong isn't rude but saying it just doesn't jive with their personal view and criteria of reality. Which is perfectly fine in a civilized conversation.
But saying you are wrong to that person, is a voice of authority speaking on behalf of God, if you are talking about things of a religious nature. It's like the young upstart Christian who tells someone they are going to hell because they haven't been baptized properly according to their theology.

That is not perfectly fine. They are presuming they speak for God, and they often come right out and say just that, "It's not my words, but God's!" That's when I cite Jesus telling them to judge not, lest they be judged. That is the context of when saying the other is wrong, is wrong itself. "Who are you to judge another man's servant?"

I can see why you say it presumes you are god (or in general, it presumes we know everything). Wouldn't depend on the context though?

Saying you're wrong doesn't mean we know everything. It's just voicing our opinion based on our criteria that conflicts with another.
You can say they are wrong, if you know they are, such as if they claim America was discovered by Neil Armstrong for instance. That's just wrong. Saying the election was stolen, is wrong, because it can be proven it was not quite easily. When it comes to the nature of God however, that's a lot less concrete and verifiable.

I assume you've heard the story of the blind men and the elephant? All of them were proclaiming the truth about the elephant, that none of them could see. Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

But the idea is that if you believe god exists and the other person does not, for you (I think?) if god is a fact/like math, by default if someone else says opposite, they would be wrong.

Saying that depends on the person, but wrong nonetheless.
Not necessarily. Both can be right. Sometimes in life there is more than one right answer, even when they are contradictory answers. Light can in fact be both a particle and a wave for instance.

When it comes to God, God can both exist and not exist at the same time. Such is the nature of nonduality. So the theist and the atheist are both right, and both wrong for insisting it's one versus or other. Instead of an 'either/or' reality, it can be a 'both/and' reality.

I related right and wrong with moralities (how we see reality in respect to others) rather than fact and fiction or being correct or incorrect as in math.
But morality is not a matter of absolutes. It's a matter of situations and degrees. Is it wrong to steal medicine to save someone who is dying, for instance?

That's actually a question on the stages of moral development test that developmental psychologists ask. That falls under the postconventional stages of morality, where black and white, wrong vs. right answers are thrown into doubt. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development | Education, Society, & the K-12 Learner.
 
Last edited:

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
In light of one's personal reality, we can. If we both see a red car and I say it's blue and you orange, it would make sense to tell the other they are wrong. Whether they are it not is irrelevant here, but by default if something contradicts our view of reality, we wouldn't agree that it can exist simultaneously with out views.

So, if my view god doesn't exist and yours he does, I can say you're wrong cause it doesn't line up with my reality.

Of course one can say the other is right for himself. Though that's true, unless god exists and God does not exist at the same time, it's not wrong to view the other as wrong said or not.

As for proof, etc, that's irrelevant.
I just cannot agree.

There is such a thing as objective reality.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I just cannot agree.

There is such a thing as objective reality.

There is. However, I think those who just stick to objective reality is in the same boat as those whose reality involves beliefs and the supernatural. Both parties have their own concept of reality, so whomever has contradicting views of that reality would be, by default, wrong.

And both parties feel they are "right" in their reality. So, wouldn't it make sense those who contradict their viewpoint are, well, wrong?
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
There is. However, I think those who just stick to objective reality is in the same boat as those whose reality involves beliefs and the supernatural. Both parties have their own concept of reality, so whomever has contradicting views of that reality would be, by default, wrong.

And both parties feel they are "right" in their reality. So, wouldn't it make sense those who contradict their viewpoint are, well, wrong?
They can believe that the other is wrong - but only those things that can be substantiated are proven to be true or not.

Since we cannot prove our beliefs - no one can be proven wrong or right.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
They can believe that the other is wrong - but only those things that can be substantiated are proven to be true or not.

Since we cannot prove our beliefs - no one can be proven wrong or right.

That would mean if you did not believe god exist (that's your worldview) and the other does (that's his worldview), that person isn't wrong to you despite what you know is true yourself?

Wouldn't that also mean you (as an example) don't know what's real yourself if anything that contradicts what you know is real could be true as well?
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
That would mean if you did not believe god exist (that's your worldview) and the other does (that's his worldview), that person isn't wrong to you despite what you know is true yourself?

Wouldn't that also mean you (as an example) don't know what's real yourself if anything that contradicts what you know is real could be true as well?
There are things that are real and those that you believe are real.

I believe that God is real - but I cannot prove it. Therefore - if someone claims that there is no God - I believe that they are wrong - but I cannot prove it.

My belief can be true. Their claim can be true. Neither of us are right or wrong - because neither of our opinions can be proven.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
There are things that are real and those that you believe are real.

I believe that God is real - but I cannot prove it. Therefore - if someone claims that there is no God - I believe that they are wrong - but I cannot prove it.

My belief can be true. Their claim can be true. Neither of us are right or wrong - because neither of our opinions can be proven.

Tell me, though. When you say you believe god is real, is it more agnostic or does this belief shape your worldview?

For example, many cultures don't separate religion from material world. Their religious beliefs, practices, and morals are all objective reality. They "know" their ancestors watch over them. They "know" they communicate with god via, say, certain community rituals. It's so blended into to reality, that to say there is a minute of separation would be actually incorrect perspective.

So, anything that they speak of especially when it comes to morals, lifestyle, work, and so forth will be reflected on their worldview.

That worldview is what they believe is right. Anything that contradicts it is wrong.

If your worldview means god "does" exist-you don't just believe it, you know-than you'd ideally interpret anything that correlates with your worldview of god is right or moral. Anything that contradicts that worldview would be wrong or immoral.

In my point of view, when someone says "I believe" and "What I believe is not right just what I believe in" it sits on agnosticism. If there isn't a full conviction in what one believes in, it (to me) is a weak foundation. If it's ingrained in how you see life, then there is morality (right and wrong). If you (people) can't express your conviction if it opposes others, than is it really a strong conviction.

So, if your worldview is that of god and I don't believe god exist, to you (ideally) I would be wrong.
How you say it is personal preference, but the idea is the same.

-

My overall thing, though, is I don't see a problem or it being disrespectful to state your conviction in opposition to the other person's objective reality. If it were my preference to say "you are wrong" about god's existence, that would be just saying what I know (my conviction) is in opposition of yours.

It's basically saying my conviction or reality is in conflict with yours that's why you are wrong.

As for actually saying the words, I don't prefer saying them. But the point isn't to say the phrase you are wrong, but to uphold your conviction not belittling other people's worldview.

--In other words, they are wrong because their conviction is opposite of yours, not they are wrong as in they don't know what they're talking about.--

Sorry. Long. Kinda get it though?
(Hoping others read-best I can explain it)
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Here's a good read about some people don't separate their worldview by belief, religion, and objective reality.

The spirituality of Africa “African spirituality simply acknowledges that beliefs and practices touch on and inform every facet of human life, and therefore African religion cannot be separated from the everyday or mundane.”... For starters, the word “religion” is problematic for many Africans, because it suggests that religion is separate from the other aspects of one’s culture, society, or environment.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Tell me, though. When you say you believe god is real, is it more agnostic or does this belief shape your worldview?

For example, many cultures that don't separate religion from material world. Their religious beliefs, practices, and morals are all objective reality. They "know" their ancestors watch over them. They "know" they communicate with god via, say, certain community rituals. It's so blended into to reality, that to say there is a minute of separation would be actually incorrect perspective.

So, anything that they speak of especially when it comes to morals, lifestyle, work, and so forth will be reflected on their worldview.

That worldview is what they believe is right. Anything that contradicts it is wrong.

If your worldview means god "does" exist-you don't just believe it, you know-than you'd ideally interpret anything that correlates with your worldview of god is right or moral. Anything that contradicts that worldview would be wrong or immoral.

In my point of view, when someone says "I believe" and "What I believe is not right just what I believe in" it sits on agnosticism. If there isn't a full conviction in what one believes in, it (to me) is a weak foundation. If it's ingrained in how you see life, then there is morality (right and wrong). If you (people) can't express your conviction if it opposes others, than is it really a strong conviction.

So, if your worldview is that of god and I don't believe god exist, to you (ideally) I would be wrong.
How you say it is personal preference, but the idea is the same.

-

My overall thing, though, is I don't see a problem or it being disrespectful to state your conviction in opposition to the other person's objective reality. If it were my preference to say "you are wrong" about god's existence, that would be just saying what I know (my conviction) is in opposition of yours.

It's basically saying my conviction or reality is in conflict with yours that's why you are wrong.

As for actually saying the words, I don't prefer saying them. But the point isn't to say the phrase you are wrong, but to uphold your conviction not belittling other people's worldview.

--In other words, they are wrong because their conviction is opposite of yours, not they are wrong as in they don't know what they're talking about.--

Sorry. Long. Kinda get it though?
(Hoping others read-best I can explain it)
I understand where you are coming from and - Yes - my belief in God does shape my worldview - every aspect of it.

I just want to stress the importance of respecting other people's worldviews.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I understand where you are coming from and - Yes - my belief in God does shape my worldview - every aspect of it.

I just want to stress the importance of respecting other people's worldviews.

Do you kinda see why I'm curious as to why one can't see the other is wrong in relation to what we know is right ourselves?

So saying you're wrong about god's existence wouldn't be saying you are mistaken in belief you so have you; that depends on the person. It's saying you're wrong cause your belief opposes my worldview.

Why do people stick to relative when their worldview ideally wouldn't be (unless they believe it can change-say believe in god one day and not another).
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Do you kinda see why I'm curious as to why one can't see the other is wrong in relation to what we know is right ourselves?

So saying you're wrong about god's existence wouldn't be saying you are mistaken in belief you so have you; that depends on the person. It's saying you're wrong cause your belief opposes my worldview.

Why do people stick to relative when their worldview ideally wouldn't be (unless they believe it can change-say believe in god one day and not another).
Most likely to avoid unnecessary conflict.
 
Top