What's your religion?

[Haak]

Originally Posted by monstert

Respecting other people and their ability to make their own opinions is one thing. That doesn't mean you have to respect their opinions. And it certainly doesn't mean you can't say whether they are right or wrong.

Personally I think it's neccessary to respect opinions since not doing so assumes you can't possibly be wrong and since we can all be possibly wrong on just about anything, that would be irrational belief.

So instead of saying, "You're wrong and you're an asshole", I'd rather say "In my opinion, you're wrong and you're an asshole".

[monster]

Originally Posted by Haak

Personally I think it's neccessary to respect opinions since not doing so assumes you can't possibly be wrong and since we can all be possibly wrong on just about anything, that would be irrational belief.

Then again, there are people who say you should respect other people's opinions simply because they believe opinions can neither be right nor wrong.

So instead of saying, "You're wrong and you're an asshole", I'd rather say "In my opinion, you're wrong and you're an asshole".

Well I'd rather leave out the name calling altogether and just say, "You're wrong [and here's why...]." That would do more towards showing respect than adding a qualifying phrase like, "in my opinion."

[Throne Invader]

Originally Posted by Haak

Personally I think it's neccessary to respect opinions since not doing so assumes you can't possibly be wrong and since we can all be possibly wrong on just about anything, that would be irrational belief.

Putting faith into something that you think can possibly be wrong seems quite irrational as well doesn't it?

If people choose to decide to go on and believe their own opinions are true, then that's fine with me. Just as you guys mentioned, respect is an important key factor when handling differing views.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by monstert

Then again, there are people who say you should respect other people's opinions simply because they believe opinions can neither be right nor wrong.

Well they probably mean we can't be sure whether opinions are right or wrong or something. I dunno.

Originally Posted by FragrantFlora

Putting faith into something that you think can possibly be wrong seems quite irrational as well doesn't it?

Faith in itself is irrational but I don't neccessarily think there's anything wrong with irrational unless it harms people. Then again, what people think qualifies as 'harming' something can also differ...

[Alchemist007]

Agnostic, because the best answer is the correct one, and that is something I think we all share in this reality, and that is: "I don't know."

[Heiwatsuki]

If you believe in something, it means that you accept it as being true and real regardless of whether it has been proven. That alone is enough reason for someone to say their religion is real.

they may say their religion is real, but in reality its no more than faith. religion, since cannot be proven will never be considered true. saying something you believe in is true is no different than a color blind person saying the sky is green is a fact just because he believes it.you cant justify something is real based on opinions alone, only fools think that way. and you can always doubt while believing...

Respecting other people and their ability to make their own opinions is one thing. That doesn't mean you have to respect their opinions. And it certainly doesn't mean you can't say whether they are right or wrong.

yes you dont have to, but its best you should and keep to yourself what you yourself believe in. i respect any religious persons opinions because of my view in life. but other peope have their own reasons. im not telling you that you must respect others. im saying you should, coming from my worldview. and since religion is only a belief and nothing more in this world. you can never truly say a certain belief is right or wrong unless it can be properly tested or if you can find out the answer.and the things i say only refer to religion. of course you can argue about other things to your hearts content. but the things that cant be proven is usually because your point of view comes from your own thoughts. and you may not respect ones opinions, but like other people said in earlier posts, respect is neccesary in maintaining peace, regardless of whether you believe they are right or wrong. my opinion is that god doesnt exist, but i respect the opinions of people who do, for 3 reasons. 1. god may truly exists but since its cant be proved to be true or false i cant really say they are false, 2. whether i may disagree with people or not, i respect others because its their belief, im not a type of guy who would blantantly go up to them and say your religion is fake.3. if i want peace, respect comes first. also i never said you couldnt say whether someone else is right or wrong. i myself believe religion is fake but of course, thats my opinion

Faith in itself is irrational but I don't neccessarily think there's anything wrong with irrational unless it harms people. Then again, what people think qualifies as 'harming' something can also differ...

yeah, i have no problem with religion or beliefs unless it negativly affects others who dont want part in it or ect. and its really sad that there are so many fools out there that believe in their own opinions so immensly that they block out everything else and act upon those feelings and beliefs...aka they are insane when compared to normal sensible people.(extreme religious terrorists would be an example of fools who act upon their own beliefs so deeply)

Gay people aren't gay because that's how they were raised.

Do you CHOSE to watch anime? Do you force yourself to watch it? Or is it something you just stumbled across and found that you really liked it?

Same goes for gay people. They don't chose to like boys instead of girls, that's just how they are.

please think about the cause/origin. people being gay DOES have to do with personality and how we grow up. as we gain more experiences and start to think on our OWN, we begin to have different preferences and opinions based on not only on how we are raised but also in how we think and handle the experiences we go through. do you truly think a normal boy who grew up with nice a nice caring family, great nice friends, and a friendly enviroment where everything is normal would become gay? the only time that dude will be gay is when his personality becomes more... ''accepting'' and carefree and/or has a certain experience that causes positive feelings toward a male, and those feelings start to develop the wrong way. so it IS based on how we grow. so to sum it all up. the reason they dont ''chose'' to like the same sex is because their personality, that has been created through growing up, likes the same sex due to reasons that will go unnamed since you can probably thinnk it out if you dwelve on the topic more.and it IS because of how you grow up. please think about the cause. the reason many people are ignorant is because they never even think about the beginning and just see whats in front of them... humans who dont heed and past are doomed to repeat it again(this line is from nico robin from one piece .) All morals, preferences, rules, and ect all started from Emotions and personality. as i said before. how did rules get created? where do they come from? its from emotions and feelings. people felt that they didnt want to die, so they made a law stating that people must not murder. the reason why each country has different laws is because the people FELT that they should add that their. their choices were based on their own personal beliefs. just like in japan, people are allowed to marry their cousins. do you think that ALL people like anime? no. think, people who grew up in rough enviroments usually have tough personalities. do you belief a gansta would like anime? i mean seriously... its based on personality aka the way we grew up. thats the sad way of this messed up world. thats why there needs to be sensible people to stand up and lead others in helping the world stay on course towards peace and freedom.

Then again, there are people who say you should respect other people's opinions simply because they believe opinions can neither be right nor wrong.

thats me . though that mostly applies to religion and to anything else that cannot be proven since after all... opinions will ALWAYS be opinions.
but i also respect opinions for peace and understanding

Opinions have nothing to do about religion, but religion has quite alot to do with opinion. Monstert, opinions are neither right nor wrong so long as you maintain respect and civility. Which you have done, and so in my opinion you are a decent person despite our greatly differing views.

Hell yeah . thats exactly what i believe, but too bad theres hardly any hope for the fools who are in so deep into their own beliefs they block out other things...

Originally by Vexx
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion - no one else is obliged to defer to it. Opinions that are unsubstantiated assertions are as worthless as they come .The recent media debacle of fringe idiot zealot versus other idiot zealots should have resulted in severe garbage pelting at the preacher, his flock, the protesters, and their "mob instigators".

This holds true for any sort of belief. Now pardon me while I go placate the air conditioning faeries and pixies...

LOL, nice vocab, im only 14 so i didnt understand anything beyond the second sentence. but yeah, your right, opinions are worthless and everyone can have an opinion.
Note: im constantly revising and fixing spelling errors and ect, so refresh if your reading this about the time ive revised this long long long long long article...

[monster]

Originally Posted by xKou

they may say their religion is real, but in reality its no more than faith. religion, since cannot be proven will never be considered true. saying something you believe in is true is no different than a color blind person saying the sky is green is a fact just because he believes it.you cant justify something is real based on opinions alone, only fools think that way. and you can always doubt while believing...

To quote the Bible:

Originally Posted by Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

I don't think anyone is saying religion is not based on faith. But since it is based on faith, it is enough for the believers to consider it to be true.

As for your color blind analogy, I think it falls short of describing the faith involved in a religion. It's more about accepting someone's testimony without actually being there yourself.

And lastly, I think there will always be some doubt regarding certain (if not all) parts of a religion along the way. That's why religion is more than just going to church every Sunday (to take an example from Christianity). It's about living your everyday life while dealing with doubt and faith.

[Heiwatsuki]

if your belieiving in something that may be a lie(refering to bible),it is no different than someone belieiving a lier saying i do not lie. when i told my friend i was an athiest, he showed me a verse in the bible that said only fools do not believe in god,or something like that, in order words he was trying to prove to me god existed by showing me a verse from the very thing in which i was trying to prove wrong, which is immensly stupid, believers may consider it true. but in reality, its not ''true'' if its faith. Faith is the belief in something thats doubtable only because their personality thinks that it maybe be true. the bible is merely stating the full potential of a believer. faith can and cannot be completly certain and theres a extent to faith.. just believing doesnt prove anything. and the point behind my color blind anology is that believing doesnt make it real. from what you said, your saying that just because you accept it to be true, then its real. if you were looking at the view of everyone as a whole, then religion wouldnt be considered true because its based on faith aka a belief. but if you were looking at the view of a single person then its possible for that belief to be true only to yourself. and also, dont be using the subject itself as something to support your opinion. supporting your opinion through the use of the thing that the other person is arguing about doesnt make sense. ex: if i was trying to prove why a religion is false and the other person is supporting this reasons by saying god is almighty and holy, who do you think created the universe? baseless opinions like that fail in a logical arguement... anyway, basic summary...

Pure belief isnt enough for it to be deemed a fact/true. the only place where its considered true is in your own mind where the laws of the world are your own. the bible only tells the full potential of faith based on the view on christianity. in other words sending believers a message. please dont use bias information. but i do understand you rpoint. but using something like that doesnt prove that just believing makes it true. when you are in a sensible and logical arguement, you should never base anything you say on a opinion and you should instead understand the other sides view. and just believing the opinion is true doesnt make it true...

[monster]

Originally Posted by xKou

and the point behind my color blind anology is that believing doesnt make it real.

Your analogy presumes that only that person is color bind, and thus, other people would know the correct color of the sky. That is not the case when dealing with religious faith.

Now, you're free to reject a particular or any religion as being true. But if your only reason for doing so is simply because you do not accept that faith can be a valid reason to consider something as being true, then that's really irrelevant to those who do believe.

and also, dont be using the subject itself as something to support your opinion. supporting your opinion through the use of the thing that the other person is arguing about doesnt make sense.

No, no, no. That was to show you what faith is in terms of a religion (in this case, Christianity).

You kept saying how religion cannot be considered true because it is based on faith. And all I was trying to show by that verse is that people can consider religion to be true precisely because of faith.

As you say yourself:

you should instead understand the other sides view.

And that is exactly why I quoted that verse. So that you, xKou, would understand the role of faith in a religion.

To say that a religious person should not act like their religion is real simply because it's based on faith would be to completely miss the point of faith in the first place.

On the other hand, if you don't believe, then you don't believe. That's all there is to it as far as faith is concerned.

[ChainLegacy]

There's a difference between having faith, and blindly accepting something as true. Faith is a calculated risk, where you say "I might not be right, but I'm throwing in with (x party) because I have faith in it". You can't go on claiming it is 'true to a person' just because you adhere to that faith.

[monster]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

There's a difference between having faith, and blindly accepting something as true. Faith is a calculated risk, where you say "I might not be right, but I'm throwing in with (x party) because I have faith in it". You can't go on claiming it is 'true to a person' just because you adhere to that faith.

For all practical purposes, the end result is the same.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by monstert

Your analogy presumes ... .

Basically, the instant you use "faith" as a prerequisite or axiom - you've tossed out the scientific method, principles of logic, and critical analysis. You're relying on either your own intuitive revelation or blindly following someone who claims to have gotten that special information. Such a tack may be good for you or bad, depending on the content of that revelation or of the motivations of the leader who is presenting it.

Folk religion tends to be organic and consensus religion - representing the best guess of the community on their place in the universe around them. The more hierarchical a religion gets... the more likely it will tend toward "corporate" or "statist" policies that aren't necessarily in the community or individual favor.

Over the years, I've evolved away from structured/doctrinal religion and towards a mix of animist/naturalist view with a splash of practical buddhism. The universe is a very interesting place with lots of forces that may or may not have anthropomorphic tendencies. A casual modicum of respect for those forces isn't a bad idea (even if it just means acknowledging them when events warrant; e.g. changing of the seasons, etc). The practical aspects of buddhism (examination/meditation, compassion, etc) are useful tools for daily living.

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Basically, the instant you use "faith" as a prerequisite or axiom - you've tossed out the scientific method, principles of logic, and critical analysis. You're relying on either your own intuitive revelation or blindly following someone who claims to have gotten that special information. Such a tack may be good for you or bad, depending on the content of that revelation or of the motivations of the leader who is presenting it.

So your saying, once you even say the word "faith" or anything close to that, you are throwing away all your Atheist beliefs of science, and etc? That means I jumped off my Atheist ways a bit o.o...

[monster]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Basically, the instant you use "faith" as a prerequisite or axiom - you've tossed out the scientific method, principles of logic, and critical analysis. You're relying on either your own intuitive revelation or blindly following someone who claims to have gotten that special information. Such a tack may be good for you or bad, depending on the content of that revelation or of the motivations of the leader who is presenting it.

It seems to me that we've gone over this matter before in this thread.

But anyway, I'll say it again:

Yes, religion doesn't rely solely on the scientific method, etc.

Although that is not to say, you can't use principles of logic, etc. to analyze certain parts of the religion. It's just that faith is also counted. And indeed, certain things in a religion require faith.

[wingdarkness]

I'm a baptist, and as a good baptist man I gotta tell my old buddy monstert, bro, ya gotta get a new avatar^^...Ya gotta baptize that little magic marvin the martian dude in a pond of holy pixel-rates...C'mon buddy, it's been 5 years...

[Throne Invader]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

There's a difference between having faith, and blindly accepting something as true. Faith is a calculated risk, where you say "I might not be right, but I'm throwing in with (x party) because I have faith in it". You can't go on claiming it is 'true to a person' just because you adhere to that faith.

Having 100% faith into something also exists so that means the person may not even take into account he or she may be wrong or may be believing something that's wrong.

*Sigh* faith is all just a different definition to everyone I guess.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Hooves

So your saying, once you even say the word "faith" or anything close to that, you are throwing away all your Atheist beliefs of science, and etc? That means I jumped off my Atheist ways a bit o.o...

Not precisely. Just that a model of "reality" is built up on multiple chains of logic. If some number of the earlier statements are "faith" (not based on observation, etc), it puts the entire model on tenuous ground.

If I assert in the beginning that pixies make the world work, the rest of my model may be tenuous.

I'm not saying faith is a bad thing - just that one has to recognize which pieces of your reality are faith and which aren't. I have more confidence in a model where the pixies are an explanation rather than a given. This is how I approach things... ymmv.

[The Knife]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Not precisely. Just that a model of "reality" is built up on multiple chains of logic. If some number of the earlier statements are "faith" (not based on observation, etc), it puts the entire model on tenuous ground.

If I assert in the beginning that pixies make the world work, the rest of my model may be tenuous.

I'm not saying faith is a bad thing - just that one has to recognize which pieces of your reality are faith and which aren't. I have more confidence in a model where the pixies are an explanation rather than a given. This is how I approach things... ymmv.

But faith isn't necessary something that left out any principles of logic or scientific method. A prove of that is the philosophy with religion related, there are philosophers who proved the existence of god through logic reasoning, like Descartes. In some way, your faith can be rationalized.
But if you think of religion as the most people does, yes, you can say that because there are a few people who thinks about their beliefs.
About the question, I believe in Maradona.

[Haak]

To me what you're describing is 'trust' rather than 'faith'.

[edit]

I'm trying to look up Philosophers views on faith such as one model Alvin Plantinga suggested (If I recall it was basically Foundationalism with a religious over-coat) but IE 8.0 is spazing out. -____-'

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by The Knife

But faith isn't necessary something that left out any principles of logic or scientific method. A prove of that is the philosophy with religion related, there are philosophers who proved the existence of god through logic reasoning, like Descartes. In some way, your faith can be rationalized.
But if you think of religion as the most people does, yes, you can say that because there are a few people who thinks about their beliefs.
About the question, I believe in Maradona.

Faith can be rationalized but in ways it cannot be proven. The "proof" of the existence of God was as much a mental exercise of using logical inquiry to "prove" He exists as a theoretical construct: as such, it sounds logical on paper, but mental logical analysis does not always equate to proof in a physical reality. From that POV God has to be segregated to a metaphysical existence barring irrefutable evidence.

Call it one of the limitations of Philosophy. Every major Christian Theologists from Anselm to Aquinas to Lewis admitted in some form that these were at most logical deductions under the assumption that if the Necessary Existence was rationally and logically sound, then it must therefore exist. While Anselm used ontology and Aquinas used teleology, the end assumption is the same.