Why do you say" you have to prove your personal faith and beliefs"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By some not by all. There are many interfaith groups where people recognize that there are many paths - understanding the "blind men and the elephant" really is true and applies to all religions.

They're exclsionary themselves, though.

Implicit in the idea that there are many valid paths is the idea that every religion proclaiming only one valid path is wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They're exclsionary themselves, though.

Implicit in the idea that there are many valid paths is the idea that every religion proclaiming only one valid path is wrong.

Yeah, they can't win. Now we the secular humanists and non-believers in woo-woo and CTs are the true humans. If just we could get everybody else to become like us.

 

[sun rise]

They're exclsionary themselves, though.

Implicit in the idea that there are many valid paths is the idea that every religion proclaiming only one valid path is wrong.

They are not exclusionary. Or at least I know for a fact that my local one is not. Congregational Members List shows the members who are from every religion: Christian, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, pagan, Baha'i.

They don't actively preach but at events there can be tables where they invite people to learn more about their faith (and hopefully join).

But what they are really about is working together. For example:

ICAREis a spiritually pragmatic, interfaith program of the Interfaith Council of Contra Costa County (I4C) that creates opportunities for people of diverse religions, spiritual expressions and indigenous traditions to work together to improve the lives of people in our county who are in need. By linking volunteers with projects across the county, we work together to provide resources such as food, shelter, supplies and other forms of support for people in our community. ICARE

 

[sun rise]

You conceptualise Maya as "Ignorance"?

maya, (Sanskrit: “magic” or “illusion”) a fundamental concept in Hindu philosophy, notably in the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta. Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion. By extension, it later came to mean the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real. For the Nondualists, maya is thus that cosmic force that presents the infinite brahman (the supreme being) as the finite phenomenal world. Maya is reflected on the individual level by human ignorance (ajnana) of the real nature of the self, which is mistaken for the empirical ego but which is in reality identical with brahman.
maya | Indian philosophy

 

[firedragon]

maya, (Sanskrit: “magic” or “illusion”) a fundamental concept in Hindu philosophy, notably in the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta. Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion. By extension, it later came to mean the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real. For the Nondualists, maya is thus that cosmic force that presents the infinite brahman (the supreme being) as the finite phenomenal world. Maya is reflected on the individual level by human ignorance (ajnana) of the real nature of the self, which is mistaken for the empirical ego but which is in reality identical with brahman.
maya | Indian philosophy

Thanks.

So are you saying Maya is ignorance?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Why should someone have to prove to you that "their belief" is right for them. It is a personal belief in a religious faith they hold. Who are you to say they are wrong, or it is not logical to believe as they do, because YOU don't believe what they do.

Who are you to tell a faithful believer that their belief is wrong, because there is no "evidence" that YOU accept to be true?

It is not your belief/disbelief, but if the faithful believer has all the personal evidence that their belief is right for them.

Who are you to tell them it is not?
The believer has the proof they need personally to hold their faithful belief in what ever religious faith they follow. They do not have to prove it to anybody.

You can ask: why do you believe so or so, and what ever the answer you get that is why that person believe what they do. You do not have the right to say "your belief is wrong" just because you disagree. Accept that people believe and walk away.

And yes I know your attack will come...who cares anyway????

Sometimes people will not tolerate beleif that is not in accordance with their own morals and values in life . For example I do not beleive for one minute that God would ever suggest hurting people , so if any religions books or scriptures suggests God said any of these type things , then I'd suggest that would never be what God wants or said .
Why would God create to destroy or hurt ? Objectively God wouldn't .

Whom am I to tell them ? Nobody but I am somebody whom is allowed opinion and critisism .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why should someone have to prove to you that "their belief" is right for them.

Nobody has to do that.

And in my 15+-year experience on discussion boards, nobody has ever requested that another believer prove that their belief is right for them. How would that even look? Let's try it: I want you to prove to me that Sufism is right for you. Who ever posts that?

Just yesterday - and this may be what prompted you to start this thread - I suggested to you that one can become lost in the trappings of the spiritualism culture and actually be diverted from discovering spiritual truths that are there to discover through mindful living. That's about as close as I come to telling somebody anything resembling "prove your belief," and I didn't do that. I would hope that you would consider what I suggested and decide for yourself if your beliefs were working for you.

Incidentally, you usually respond promptly to my posts to you, but not that one. Did my words disturb you? They were intended to provide you with a perspective that you might find helpful. If they upset you, I apologize.

But it is natural to push something like that away, and to view it as dangerous or threatening thinking. Adopting a different idea of what spirituality is and how to pursue it would be an upending of your current mindset that the answers come from certain practices that you believe lead to a higher understanding. You have a huge stake in that being the case. You have invested much time and energy searching for the right method to pursue a spiritual path. I know from experience when I converted from Christianity to secular humanism that it's very disorienting and anxiety-provoking to reorient your thinking that much. It's not like moving a piece of furniture, but more like knocking down walls and jack-hammering the foundation. Old habits, even habits of thought, die hard.

Who are you to tell a faithful believer that their belief is wrong, because there is no "evidence" that YOU accept to be true?

Perhaps you are hearing something other than what is being said. The closest I see to that is that the theist's faith-based belief is wrong for them, because, as skeptics and critical thinkers, they require compelling evidence to believe.

You also should probably read, "show me your evidence" or "where is your evidence?" as meaning the same thing. The atheist already knows that the theist cannot present compelling evidence. It's an implicit statement that the theist believes by faith, and that is not the skeptic's standard for belief.

And yes I know your attack will come...who cares anyway????

I haven't seen you attacked in this thread or the other threads you participate in. I've seen you challenged. You seem to equate that with attack. You challenge others as you have in this thread. You obviously don't like something that you want changed. Has anybody framed that as you attacking them?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Perhaps you are hearing something other than what is being said. The closest I see to that is that the theist's faith-based belief is wrong for them, because, as skeptics and critical thinkers, they require compelling evidence to believe.

...

Okay, there are different versions of skepticism and for a global skeptic like my evidence is in effect a from of non-religious faith in some cases. Notice I said some. In other cases evidence connects to methodological naturalism or even scientific anti-realism.

 

[JustGeorge]

And yes I know your attack will come...who cares anyway????

I know this isn't about you specifically, but in light of your recent posts, I can't help but notice this is a reoccurring theme for you, and you seem a bit unhappy. I also find some of the behaviors you mention irritating, but it doesn't dwell in my mind. Why does this seem to be eating at you lately?

Well, the question"prove it" does come up every day in RF, a bit tired of it

You've really got to put a lot of effort into picking which section a post goes into, how its worded, and who may participate. If you don't want the 'prove it' commentary, putting something in an area for theists to participate in may be a better call. If you put it in an area where everyone can participate, everyone will, and you're going to get a whole plethora of commentary.

I don't recall the last time someone asked me to prove my views to them. I

Prove that you don't recall this.

 

[Yazata]

Why should someone have to prove to you that "their belief" is right for them.

I would never demand that somebody do that.

But... if they want me to share their belief, or if they want me to believe that some part of their belief system is objectively true, then they would need to convince me. ('Convince' is different than 'prove'.)

 

[osgart]

The nature of debate is conflicting viewpoints. You are getting what people really think in a critical format.

Perhaps you merely want an avenue of expression, and perhaps a community of like minded people.

 

[Yazata]

It's time certain people start answering for their constant "prove your belief, or you just imagine it to be real" a believer do not have to prove to others.

I've never really understood why so many outspoken and militant atheists frequent religion discussion boards. They certainly don't seem to have any serious interest in or openness towards the subject of religion. Their attitude towards religious people on the boards is too often open hostility.

Sometimes it seems to me like some of them look at RF and similar boards as if they are video-games, where their goal is to shoot down as many "religious idiots" as possible and run up the score. The payoff for them seems to be a (perhaps illusory) feeling of their own intellectual superiority.

As for me, I'm an agnostic which I take to be something very different than an atheist (despite the recent attempts on the part of atheists to collapse the distinction). I'm not motivated by hostility towards religion and by contempt for religious people. I've always felt a strong sense of the transcendent and been something of a "seeker" I guess. I sense deep and fundamental mysteries wherever I turn. That's what's motivated my lifelong interest in philosophy I guess, even though I have little expectation that I will ever arrive at the answers.

I don't perceive religion or religious people as paper targets for me to cut down with arrogant gunfire. I see them as fellow travelers on their own paths, intelligent and perceptive people who may or may not have something valuable to offer me on mine. So I'm inclined to take them and their beliefs seriously, even when I'm not motivated to share them.

 

[PureX]

Brahman isn’t God. It’s just a convention used to relate to the common conception of God as the source of everything. God, e.g. Vishnu, Shiva, is Brahman reflected by the mirror of māyā, our ignorance.

The label is not the thing being labeled. That's true. But that fact does not negate the existence of the thing being labeled. The conception of a 'source of everything' remains extant irrespective of the labels we apply to it.

 

[PureX]

I've never really understood why so many outspoken and militant atheists frequent religion discussion boards. They certainly don't seem to have any open-minded interest in or openness towards the subject of religion. Their attitude towards religious people on the boards is too often open hostility.

I think there may be a number of reasons for this. Some of these people have been hurt, or are being hurt by actual religious zealots, and they need to confront this damage to help them get past it. Others of these people are genuinely curious about how what otherwise appear to be intelligent reasonable people would adopt such an absurd premise as "God". They cannot understand what they have never experienced. And so it bothers (consternates) them. And of course some are clearly just here to puff up their own egos by putting other people down as silly and foolish and irrational and all that. But that last kind I think is relatively small in number.

I have noticed that when I get deep into a conversation about theism with an atheist that they really and truly just can't grasp it. The materialist paradigm they hold about 'true reality' excludes them from recognizing the necessary conceptual prerequisites for theism to become viable. So it remains outside their conceptual wheelhouse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They are not exclusionary. Or at least I know for a fact that my local one is not. Congregational Members List shows the members who are from every religion: Christian, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, pagan, Baha'i.

None of those religions are monolithic. Some of the people in most - if not all - of those religions consider their religion to be the only valid path. An organization that proclaims that all paths are valid is fundamentally opposed to those people's viewpoints.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I have noticed that when I get deep into a conversation about theism with an atheist that they really and truly just can't grasp it. The materialist paradigm they hold about 'true reality' excludes them from recognizing the necessary conceptual prerequisites for theism to become viable. So it remains outside their conceptual wheelhouse.

Well, as an atheist of sorts I am not a materialist, so I kind of get theism. But then I am more of an agnostic and global skeptic, than I am an atheist.

 

[lukethethird]

Why do you say" you have to prove your personal faith and beliefs"
It would be moronic to demand a faith belief be proven. Faith beliefs by their very definition can't be proven. Some will say I don't believe you and as difficult as that is you will just have to live with that now that it is against the law to burn non believers at the stake.

 

[PureX]

Well, as an atheist of sorts I am not a materialist, so I kind of get theism. But then I am more of an agnostic and global skeptic, than I am an atheist.

As am I, even as a theist, 'of sorts'.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Sufism is not about prozelyting. It does not matter to me if others want or don't want to become a sufi. Sufism is inward to find answer the practitioner seeks
I say believers are allowed to believe what they do, without me trying to pull them down. A personal belief is just that, personal to each person.

Why do you post in the debate section?

Your actions contradict your statements. If you strictly want to be left alone and do not want to be questioned/challenged, you would stay out of debate sections.

But you are very active here, asking the same questions over and over.

 

[sun rise]

Some of the people in most - if not all - of those religions consider their religion to be the only valid path.

Some people? Of course. Some people have all sorts of ideas. That does not prove anything.