NationStates Jolt Archive

Faith. Its a powerful thing. Millions of people believe in religions/morals/socials systems off of it. This begs the question is faith a legitimate justification for ones beliefs. In the context of believing in a divine being I would say yes it is. But in the context of beliefs that involve others I would say its not. To try to impose ones views on others as the norm or as laws when they are not backed in fact is to me a horrible thing. I would like to hear others opinions on this.

In the context of believing in a divine being I would say yes it is.

Why?

Why?

If you use faith to justify your belief that god exists I dont mind. That does not inherently affect me. But basing your belief that say prostitution should be illegal because god says its a sin does not seem like a valid arguement to me.

Why not? I mean, how can it apply just to yourself, and not to others. It's like saying, 'Everybody has their own truth and whats right'. Coming from this angle and getting a little of topic, this is like saying it's ok to steal and murder if its your truth and right for you. Religion is under similar principles.
its like saying you cant spread the message of peace and love under Christianity and Islam, just like you cannot spread the message of satanic worship and associated practices?
I would much rather people of the former to be allowed to spread their faith, I mean the world would be a better place if they truley followed a religion based on love, peace and freedom?

Why not? I mean, how can it apply just to yourself, and not to others. It's like saying, 'Everybody has their own truth and whats right'. Coming from this angle and getting a little of topic, this is like saying it's ok to steal and murder if its your truth and right for you. Religion is under similar principles.
its like saying you cant spread the message of peace and love under Christianity and Islam, just like you cannot spread the message of satanic worship and associated practices?
I would much rather people of the former to be allowed to spread their faith, I mean the world would be a better place if they truley followed a religion based on love, peace and freedom?

I understand that they spread their message and what not but they also set forth social and moral guidelines that tend to have an influence on the people around them. How does one argue against their beliefs if they are not rooted in logic persay?

but it would spread prejudice in cause a rift like what happened with egypt and isreal. and wouldn't that make you a communist and who says that all christians are good.

Ah, good point.
Historical evidence, my friend.
You can't exactly say, god does not exist because of xyz in 300bc, but there is evidence supporting the existence of prominent people in history, namely Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Muhammad, and many others.

How about also arguing against them using other religious texts? This is difficult to do, but it is obvious to me that after reading through the Qu'ran, it is an obvious rip off of many Chritian events from the bible, simply re-written into a different style supporting the lineage of Ishmael (the illegitimate son of Abraham, although protreyed as the legitimate) and not Isaac (the legitimate son). It would make sense to me that the first text would be more historically accurate, ie the Torah was written almost 2,000 years before the Qu'ran in Circa 650 AD. Mind you this arguement is supporting Christianity and Judaism, but I find it is good against Islam.

Granted, not all Christians are good, but not all Muslims are good, not all Bhuddists are good, etc. No one is perfect. The point I am trying to make that if everybody followed one of the big five religions to the letter (Islam, Christianity, judaism, Hinduism and Bhuddism) then the world would be a better place, with everybody being nice and law abiding. In the Middle East just after the rise of Islam, circa800AD, in many cities there were Christians, Jews and Muslims worshipping and co-existing in harmony. What happened?
Prejudices, and wars made on justifications of religion is what happenend. The Crusades caused the rift between the Western and Eastern world that still exists today. i'm not blaming Christians per se, just the people who used faith to justify bloodshed. And slaughter by both sides would have not happened if they both followed their religious accordences properly (although in the Qu'ran there are some ambiguous areas that can be interpreted to kill unbelievers, then again there are 'safeguards' that say to generally be generous and kind unconditionally of race, gender or religion)

Faith can be a powerful tool, or powerful weapon. I tend to lean toward the 'Don't Pray on Me' crowd.
People shouldn't force their ways on anyone, regardless if their reasons are based on faith or fact. Only when the mental or physical safety of others is threatened should there be intervention.
I mean, murder and stealing are wrong; not because 'God said so', but because they negatively affect other people.

Ah, good point.
Historical evidence, my friend.
You can't exactly say, god does not exist because of xyz in 300bc, but there is evidence supporting the existence of prominent people in history, namely Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Muhammad, and many others.
Proof like what?

How about also arguing against them using other religious texts? This is difficult to do, but it is obvious to me that after reading through the Qu'ran, it is an obvious rip off of many Chritian events from the bible, simply re-written into a different style supporting the lineage of Ishmael (the illegitimate son of Abraham, although protreyed as the legitimate) and not Isaac (the legitimate son). It would make sense to me that the first text would be more historically accurate, ie the Torah was written almost 2,000 years before the Qu'ran in Circa 650 AD. Mind you this arguement is supporting Christianity and Judaism, but I find it is good against Islam.
And I can say that the people who put the bible together were just bunch of normal guys who pick and choose the word of god. The problem is when you do argue with different scriptures each side assumes that they are using the "Word of God". How do you begin to contest something like that? Can you measure the dreams that god appeared to people in and such? Religious books like that require a leap of faith to be taken to believe that they are true. I mean you show me a piece of historical literature today that says someone walked on water.

edit

but it would spread prejudice in cause a rift like what happened with egypt and isreal. and wouldn't that make you a communist and who says that all christians are good.
No that would just make me a republican who believes in the seperation of church and state.

i have too agree. i mean that most of the recent world super powers are or
were hiding behind relgion.

it would make more superpowers think about war instead of hiding behind religion
.