I have the TRUTH!

[glo]

I am hoping the title is attracting a few readers! :giggling:

I would like to explore how we all perceive truth.

The members here at LI represent a fair spectrum of different 'truths' - call them faiths, beliefs, worldviews, whatever ...
Let's assume that most members here at LI have come to their 'truth' through a process of pondering, reflecting and comparing other 'truths' ...

What I come across sometimes is an attitude in us that 'if only others thought things through properly, they would have to come to the same truth as I have - the very fact that their truth is different from mine must mean that they have not thought it through well enough!' (This attitude seems to be more common in monotheists and atheists)

Other people (more commonly agnostics and those who follow eastern faiths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism) seem to have an attitude of 'all faiths and world views may contain some truth, or indeed all may lead to the truth'.

So what I am wondering is whether people can ponder the very same issues, but reach different truths/faiths/worldviews?
What do people think?

The trouble seems to be that I am as sure of my beliefs as many Muslims or atheists (as examples) are of theirs.
Because my beliefs seem so logical to me, it can be difficult to understand that other people cannot see/understand/accept 'my truth' for themselves.
This leads to frustration, which I recognise in myself and also in others in this forum.
This frustration can lead to angry exchanges, and is ultimately at odds with any tolerance for other 'truths' or a respect for the religious freedom, which we all cherish and demand for ourselves ...

Any thoughts?

Peace :)

[Keltoi]

It is a hard thing to accept sometimes that your "truth" isn't somone else's "truth". When it comes to faith it becomes sort of a no-win situation, as there isn't any material observable "evidence" to "prove" any one faith is the unvarnished and correct faith. So it boils down to each side repeating the same things over and over again, with nothing really coming out of it in the end.

[glo]

At what stage do we accept that somebody else has made an informed choice, although their truth is not the same as ours, and stop accusing those who believe differently from not thinking rationally or being misinformed or mislead?

What does it take to say (and truly mean) 'To me my truth, to you yours'?

peace

[crayon]

"So what I am wondering is whether people can ponder the very same issues, but reach different truths/faiths/worldviews?"

What I think is the most important factor for that is the environment. First off, if you're born to christian parents, for example, they'll raise you christian. Same as muslim parents, jewish parents, etc. Another factor in the environment is the people you interact with. If all the people you interact with tell you one thing, you will most likely believe it. Sure, you think about it yourself, try to find out if that's what you really believe, but subconsciously, you believe they are right.

For example glo, you're christian, right? Do you think, had you been born into a muslim family, in, say, Jordan, you would also be as convinced as you are of christianity today?

Same with me- had I not been born into a muslim family, I doubt I would have had thought enough about these kinds of matters, especially at my age, when everyone is out partying/dating/drinking, etc. I would have simply accepted what my parents and friends told me was right. By the time I got to an age where I actually started wondering and caring, I would have already had a subconscious imprint telling me that so and so was the truth, if that makes sense.

In my opinion, anyway.:)

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Keltoi]

At what stage do we accept that somebody else has made an informed choice, although their truth is not the same as ours, and stop accusing those who believe differently from not thinking rationally or being misinformed or mislead?

What does it take to say (and truly mean) 'To me my truth, to you yours'?

peace

I think everday average people feel that way most of the time. However, there is a point where one's personal faith takes a back seat to a faith entity, i.e. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Many people view their faith like their own favorite football team. Got to root for your team and boo the bad guys. It stops being about faith and becomes an identity.

[crayon]

At what stage do we accept that somebody else has made an informed choice, although their truth is not the same as ours, and stop accusing those who believe differently from not thinking rationally or being misinformed or mislead?

What does it take to say (and truly mean) 'To me my truth, to you yours'?

peace

For me, it would be when you show them all the "truths" people claim to believe (specifically religions in this case, such as describing to them all the major religions), with evidence supporting and refuting each one as being the truth, and them thinking about it, honestly and completely, forgetting all beliefs, stereotypes, prejudices, anything they had before, and simply listening to all the information and soaking it up. Then they decide. Even if they don't reach the same truth we have, they have made an informed decision, and it's up to everyone else to respect their choices and beliefs.

[glo]

For example glo, you're christian, right? Do you think, had you been born into a muslim family, in, say, Jordan, you would also be as convinced as you are of christianity today?

Same with me- had I not been born into a muslim family, I doubt I would have had thought enough about these kinds of matters, especially at my age, when everyone is out partying/dating/drinking, etc. I would have simply accepted what my parents and friends told me was right. By the time I got to an age where I actually started wondering and caring, I would have already had a subconscious imprint telling me that so and so was the truth, if that makes sense.

I agree, crayon, that the religion and the culture we are raised in have a big influence on how we perceive the world, and consequently what we believe.

I guess that's why I added this sentence to my original post:

Let's assume that most members here at LI have come to their 'truth' through a process of pondering, reflecting and comparing other 'truths' ...

There are many people here at LI who have moved from one belief to another in one way or another.
Those are clearly people who have risen above their upbringing and found a truth that wasn't necessarily the same as the truth of those around them ...

For me, it would be when you show them all the "truths" people claim to believe (specifically religions in this case, such as describing to them all the major religions), with evidence supporting and refuting each one as being the truth, and them thinking about it, honestly and completely, forgetting all beliefs, stereotypes, prejudices, anything they had before, and simply listening to all the information and soaking it up. Then they decide. Even if they don't reach the same truth we have, they have made an informed decision, and it's up to everyone else to respect their choices and beliefs.

According to what you said earlier about the influence of our upbringing, that should almost be impossible to do.

I think this thinking runs through Islam and Christianity - anybody who cannot accept the 'truth' (whatever that may be) has 'hardened his/her heart and is too proud to believe'. I certainly recognise that kind of thinking in myself, if I am honest. Do you?

[Isambard]

Id say there is no evidence for a (T)ruth(s).

But Ill play along. Atheists ask for evidence of deities that follows a logical process. It isnt a faith based position.

So its not about how much you may will something like in religion, but rather your ability to perform logic w/o resorting to a cop-out ie. "You need to have faith!"

[glo]

Id say there is no evidence for a (T)ruth(s).

But Ill play along. Atheists ask for evidence of deities that follows a logical process. It isnt a faith based position.

So its not about how much you may will something like in religion, but rather your ability to perform logic w/o resorting to a cop-out ie. "You need to have faith!"

I am glad an atheist is joining this discussion.

Isambard, I am assuming (from conversations I have had with other atheists) that you feel there is not enough evidence to support a belief on any god.
Therefore, until you should come across further evidence, this is your belief: There is no god.
(Am I right? Please correct me if I am wrong. :))

This is your 'truth', based on your own pondering and rational thought.

How then do you (personally) feel about people, who have done their own thinking, pondering and reflecting, and still come away believing that God exists?
Are they uninformed? Unintelligent? Mislead?

I would love to hear your thoughts. :)

Peace

[Isambard]

I am glad an atheist is joining this discussion.


Glad to be here:shade:

Isambard, I am assuming (from conversations I have had with other atheists) that you feel there is not enough evidence to support a belief on any god.
Therefore, until you should come across further evidence, this is your belief: There is no god.
(Am I right? Please correct me if I am wrong. :))

"There is no god how religion pictures him", but there is a possibility for a deist's god. In which case I'd say I act as if there isnt as Ill never know.

This is your 'truth', based on your own pondering and rational thought.

A truth assumes agreement. A fact of life exists and continues w/o anyone necessarily saying its true. Im with the latter.

How then do you (personally) feel about people, who have done their own thinking, pondering and reflecting, and still come away believing that God exists?
Are they uninformed? Unintelligent? Mislead?

I'd say misled. You can never test for a deist's god, but you can for one that is specified. ie. Christian God/ Muslim God/ Hindu gods etc.
You can make the statements try and follow a logical process. So far, all logical sequences point to no.

Its a bit like having 2+2=5. I can test for that and tell you its wrong. Doesnt mean the person making the mistake is stupid or misinformed (thou that does increase likelyness), it could simply be that person has a vested interest in believing the answer is 5.

[crayon]

There's an aya in the quran that says:

"[Hajj 22:53] So that He may make what the devil includes a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened; indeed the unjust are extremely quarrelsome."

So yes, I do believe that their hearts are hardened. Also, I believe that Allah only guides who he wants. You could show someone the truth, have it shine bright as day in front of them, and have them still reject it.

[Trumble]

The 'truth' can only be experiential. Anything else is 'just' belief.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Interesting thread, glo - thanks for bringing it up. The subject of truth is a deeply controversial one. Philosophers have spent whole lifetimes trying to get to grips with it.

I am glad an atheist is joining this discussion.

Here's another. :)

Isambard, I am assuming (from conversations I have had with other atheists) that you feel there is not enough evidence to support a belief on any god.
Therefore, until you should come across further evidence, this is your belief: There is no god.
(Am I right? Please correct me if I am wrong. :))

That applies to me, only I'd say there is no evidence for a god.

How then do you (personally) feel about people, who have done their own thinking, pondering and reflecting, and still come away believing that God exists?
Are they uninformed? Unintelligent? Mislead?

I'm afraid I'm one of the people who thinks that they just haven't thought about it enough. I realise that makes my position vulnerable, as a theist could just as easily say the same thing to me. However, we're talking about beliefs here, and none of us can be certain our beliefs are true, otherwise they would no longer be beliefs but facts. I do not know for certain that atheism is true, but I very much suspect that it is. In the same way, a religious person does not know their religion is true, even though they may feel very strongly that it is.

The idea that god is a concept invented by primitive humans in order to explain unexplained phenomena and to keep society under control has just seemed incredibly obvious to me from a very young age. However, I wanted to try and inform myself about the question as much as I could, so I held off from making a firm decision on it until I was between the ages of eighteen and twenty. It was only then, after reading, thinking and wondering a lot that I realised I'd actually been an atheist all along.

Peace

[wilberhum]

an attitude in us that 'if only others thought things through properly, they would have to come to the same truth as I have - the very fact that their truth is different from mine must mean that they have not thought it through well enough!' (This attitude seems to be more common in monotheists and atheists)

Well that is my opinion. But why don't you think that is common among agnostics?

Other people (more commonly agnostics and those who follow eastern faiths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism) seem to have an attitude of 'all faiths and world views may contain some truth, or indeed all may lead to the truth'.

Well this agnostic doesn't agree to that at all. IMHO if a religion contains any truth, it is just a matter of luck.

whether people can ponder the very same issues, but reach different truths/faiths/worldviews?

Because we are all individuals, it will be as common as rain.

Because my beliefs seem so logical to me, it can be difficult to understand that other people cannot see/understand/accept 'my truth' for themselves.

Now that fits me to a T.
Having sent an enormous amount of time thinking about it I don't understand how people can really think about it and come to a different conclusion.

So I conclude that they have not really spent a lot of time thinking about it.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Depends on how you define the truth.

e.g: 2 plus 2 = 4. 4 is the answer, thus in this case 4 is the truth to the question: what is the sum of 2 plus 2. So, the truth in this case is the answer to a question.

However, truth is only the truth if you don't deny it, as previous posts have stated. This leads to truth actually not being based on logic, rather it fits more into an emotion (faith/belief) ---> 2 + 2 is 4 only if you believe it is so. However, this example is rather simplistic. Truth arguments usually come into play when things are uncertain (religion and things that require faith are usually targeted in such arguments) - so using 2 + 2 or variations on the theme are crude and do not illustrate the truth argument completely - partially yes, but not completely.

Now if we go down the religious root, it fundementally requires an element of belief - logic can influence this, most certainly. However, the reason why we are not all practicing the same religion comes down to belief and not logic. The reason for this is that humans are governed more by emotion than logic - if one takes a moment to think about it, logic is learnt whereas emotion (especially fear) is innate.

[Umar001]

I think alot more people would accept the truth, meaning that which I believe is truth if they took more time. I say that not as an individual trying to inflate my ego, but just as someone who doesn't mind admitting he was wrong, as I have been in the past. I say that based on just personal experience, people use as 'evidence' selective matters, which if confronted on will agree is not evidence at all, and I think most of mankind is happy deceiving themselves.

I think people can ponder the same issue and understand different things, due to their personal views on matters, an athiest might see the fact that he has never seen God as evidence that God does not exist whilst a thiest might see that as evidence that God has a divine plan through which His existance is only revealed directly to some in the hereafter..etc

I think differences of opinions are acceptable in the right context, like that amongst scholars on issues where even the companions differed. But other differences of opinions are not due to it really being a need for it, but rather due to lazyness or stubborness or self pride and these are not acceptable.

My view.

[Muezzin]

As Ben Kenobi once told Luke Skywalker, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view'.

Course, he flat-out lied, but it's a sound principle.

[MustafaMc]

What is Truth? Is there a single absolute Truth? What simply about the "Truth" concerning God?

Atheist - there is no supreme being known by some as "God".
Christian - one God that exists in three "persons" - Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God became a man to live a perfect life and die on the cross as a redeeming sacrifice for the sins of mankind.
Muslim - there is only One God with no father, mother, son, daughter, equal, partner or anything comparable to Him. This Supreme Being is known as Allah.

(Note that I left out the agnostics because they straddle the fence and say there may or may not be a "god", they just don't know.)

Now can all three of these be true 1) there is no god, 2) there is a God in 3 persons including Jesus, 3) there is only One God without equal? Although each of the adherents to these 3 faiths (yes, atheism is a belief that there is no god) believe that they have the correct "Truth" about God, none of them can prove conclusively to the other that his "Truth" is actually false. Each of these rely upon their own reasoning based on their faith in what they have been taught, faith in a book, or reliance upon the lack of perceivable evidence.

Like a dog chasing his tail - arround and around we go trying to convince the other of "the Truth".

[snakelegs]

I am hoping the title is attracting a few readers! :giggling:

I would like to explore how we all perceive truth.

The members here at LI represent a fair spectrum of different 'truths' - call them faiths, beliefs, worldviews, whatever ...
Let's assume that most members here at LI have come to their 'truth' through a process of pondering, reflecting and comparing other 'truths' ...

What I come across sometimes is an attitude in us that 'if only others thought things through properly, they would have to come to the same truth as I have - the very fact that their truth is different from mine must mean that they have not thought it through well enough!' (This attitude seems to be more common in monotheists and atheists)

Other people (more commonly agnostics and those who follow eastern faiths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism) seem to have an attitude of 'all faiths and world views may contain some truth, or indeed all may lead to the truth'.

So what I am wondering is whether people can ponder the very same issues, but reach different truths/faiths/worldviews?
What do people think?

The trouble seems to be that I am as sure of my beliefs as many Muslims or atheists (as examples) are of theirs.
Because my beliefs seem so logical to me, it can be difficult to understand that other people cannot see/understand/accept 'my truth' for themselves.
This leads to frustration, which I recognise in myself and also in others in this forum.
This frustration can lead to angry exchanges, and is ultimately at odds with any tolerance for other 'truths' or a respect for the religious freedom, which we all cherish and demand for ourselves ...

Any thoughts?

Peace :)

i am not sure that there is an objective thing as The Truth. if there is, i think untimately it would be beyond our understanding.
as an agnostic, i believe these things are ultimately unknowable.
we ponder the same questions and reach different conclusions because we are each unique. even among 2 believers of the same faith, each one has their own individual concept and relationship with god - it can never be identical. even if 2 people are looking at the same tree, each will see it differently.
the different religions are attempts to know the Unknowable. to me it is arrogant to claim to have a monopoly on The Truth. it is as though it were a jewel, with many facets and none of us can see the entire jewel.
basically, i believe we are all born with god and as we grow and develop, we become separated. some of us spend our entire lives trying to overcome this separation, with the ultimate goal of being back in god's presence.
do you remember the tale of the blind man and the elephant?
in my opinion, an agnostic would never say a particular religion is false, because it is beyond our knowledge.
some try to approach god in one religion and some in another and some, with no religion. ultimately, do we all not yearn for the same thing? why do we get caught up in the differences?
i find the concept of The One True Religion, as in islam and christianity, to be arrogant and simplistic. how can god be so narrow as to be any one group's monopoly?
just rambling here....

[Pygoscelis]

I'm afraid I'm one of the people who thinks that they just haven't thought about it enough.

I am of a similar view. I believe that we are most vulnerable to social and belief programming in our youth and that is when religion does its work on people. Christianity and Islam attach a feeling of wrongness to even questioning their doctrines so once the child is locked into the belief it becomes incredibly difficult and painful to disengage. So much so that believers in one religion who do manage to disengage will often latch onto another religion, as they have become dependent upon the sense of direction, purpose, cosmic justice, etc that religious belief has provided them in the past.

Some christian families and communties and many muslim ones shape an entire worldview, doctrines and rules about just about everything around themselves and it can shake one's very foundation to question if the religion is true.

Those who were raised in less religoius or non religious families don't have these trappings, and have found secular sources of purpose, direction, justice, etc. They have been around religion though, they've seen the rituals and the believers and more often than not they've found them to appear irrational and potentially dangerous. It only takes a fred phelps, osama bin laden, or pedophile priest to poison the public image of an entire religion.

Those raised outside religion are also often raised to prize logic and reason and to see faith and obedience to authority not as virtues but as a vices.

The idea that god is a concept invented by primitive humans in order to explain unexplained phenomena and to keep society under control has just seemed incredibly obvious to me from a very young age.

Yes, I agree with this as well. To an outsider one assumes initially that the religion is invented as a social control tool or comfort aid and experience with believers re-inforces this view more often than not.

This thread gets at something similar that I'd been thinking about over the past few years: Do believers believe in non-belief and do non-believers believe in belief?

For many years I believed that nobody TRULY believes in these religions, and that deep down inside they all know that there were no talking snakes or resurections or Gods talking to people, and that people just went along with it and convinced themselves of these things for a sense of security and cosmic justice and acceptance into society.

I have likewise met many believers who will flat out tell me that I too believe but I am rebelling against God. They don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of me truly not believing in their God. This effects every conversation I have with them and makes some topics impossible to discuss with them at all.

It is an interesting phenomenon and it seems to come from both sides.

[adeeb]

What is Truth? Is there a single absolute Truth? What simply about the "Truth" concerning God?

Atheist - there is no supreme being known by some as "God".
Christian - one God that exists in three "persons" - Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God became a man to live a perfect life and die on the cross as a redeeming sacrifice for the sins of mankind.
Muslim - there is only One God with no father, mother, son, daughter, equal, partner or anything comparable to Him. This Supreme Being is known as Allah.

(Note that I left out the agnostics because they straddle the fence and say there may or may not be a "god", they just don't know.)

Now can all three of these be true 1) there is no god, 2) there is a God in 3 persons including Jesus, 3) there is only One God without equal? Although each of the adherents to these 3 faiths (yes, atheism is a belief that there is no god) believe that they have the correct "Truth" about God, none of them can prove conclusively to the other that his "Truth" is actually false. Each of these rely upon their own reasoning based on their faith in what they have been taught, faith in a book, or reliance upon the lack of perceivable evidence.

Like a dog chasing his tail - arround and around we go trying to convince the other of "the Truth".

the truth is only one and the other is wrong..

we all believe that, even we are muslim or jew but we need to tell people which one is really the truth, if they dont want to listen, that's their business but as long as we have told them , that's must be in God's hand who He choose to be ahl jannah... the person that life in the paradise as a reward from He the Almighty

[جوري]

'When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth' by Doyle has worked well for me..
I like to bring things down to probabilities, possibilities and statistics --if in the end, I find no 'scientific' answer and can safely concede that no scientific measure now or the near or even distant future will be satisfactory, I attribute the answer to something beyond this world--'supernatural'...


works alot in science as well.. in fact
take pain for instance.. it is a fairly subjective issue... no one can deny that pain exists, but there is no way to quantify it.. there are ancillary findings of course, that are unrelated, your blood pressure might be elevated for instance in reaction to pain, body is always heightened under what it perceives to be 'stress' you might have a high sed. rate, or papilledema.. all very nonspecific findings .. they do NOT = pain.. thus what a person does is ask you the pt. to quantifiy what you are feeling and act accordingly obviousely many other things go into that I am just making a simple analogy..

It is a clinical judgement based on many variables non of them are specific to that one chief complaint 'pain'...

It is detective work, deductive reasoning.. exhaust all options, then make up your mind about the rest..

it is a solo journey really.. everything by way of finite detail is left up to what makes sense to you.. should satisfy both the heart and the mind at this stage..

but you need to establish a base line for 'truth' first before you can get into specifics..

anyhow that is what works for me!

cheers

[Gator]

Isambard, I am assuming (from conversations I have had with other atheists) that you feel there is not enough evidence to support a belief on any god.
Therefore, until you should come across further evidence, this is your belief: There is no god.
(Am I right? Please correct me if I am wrong. :))

Just my own view, but I would not need direct evidence or even indirect evidence of God, I would need a doctrine that would reasonably fit the world I see and how my brain processes it.

How then do you (personally) feel about people, who have done their own thinking, pondering and reflecting, and still come away believing that God exists?
Are they uninformed? Unintelligent? Mislead?

They think differently and come from a different background. As I've stated in other posts, the reason I come to these boards is to explore how people see the same thing and come up with differnt ideas, so good thread.

Hey glo, just some thoughts. Since these are philosophical questions, Truth is not a thing we will find.

[جوري]

One last note just as an addendum to what I missed above

It seems unnatural to me for any one human being to go through life without wondering, why they are here, why them as an individual, what is this planet all about, how things work, why the seasons, climates, other people, other creatures, why the aestheitics why night and day, why the diversity, why these feelings.. it is a rites of passgae, anyone who denies that, has to be either mentally incapable of thinking those thoughts, or just simply lying to themselves and the world around them.

it is innate, and it is natural, like things that happen in your body at puberty that are natural... you deem them 'natural' because they are a global experience and anyone that doesn't go through that 'global' experience, has a mal-function a malady which they can either be treated or ignored!...

when you deviate from the 'norm' it doesn't necessarily mean a good thing.... And that translates to all the facets of what it means to be human-- some people will willfully deny their spirituality as extraneous, expect that others should find it extraneous as well, or illogical, then they slap labels, sweeping generalizations, make up tall tales in their mind of how they assume other people experience life as if they have run a fool proof study, or they attempt to find some other universal truth that is more outside the box and 'progrssive'.. but they fail to find the base line on which all other tenets should be established.. so they borrow a little from religion, a little from philosophy, various ideologies, I suspect they live fairly well...

You know when my friend died.. I used to sedate myself for days, because during sleep I felt no loss, I suspect one can live life by same token with completely blunted emotions if sedated, and I don't mean with meds.. just substitute anything that occupies time and it will quiet all the nagging questions.... if you do it long enough, it becomes second nature and not even an issue any longer... it might even be delightful... and then one day life is over!


cheers

[ranma1/2]

What is Truth? Is there a single absolute Truth? What simply about the "Truth" concerning God?

Atheist - there is no supreme being known by some as "God".
Christian - one God that exists in three "persons" - Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God became a man to live a perfect life and die on the cross as a redeeming sacrifice for the sins of mankind.
Muslim - there is only One God with no father, mother, son, daughter, equal, partner or anything comparable to Him. This Supreme Being is known as Allah.

(Note that I left out the agnostics because they straddle the fence and say there may or may not be a "god", they just don't know.)

Now can all three of these be true 1) there is no god, 2) there is a God in 3 persons including Jesus, 3) there is only One God without equal? Although each of the adherents to these 3 faiths (yes, atheism is a belief that there is no god) believe that they have the correct "Truth" about God, none of them can prove conclusively to the other that his "Truth" is actually false. Each of these rely upon their own reasoning based on their faith in what they have been taught, faith in a book, or reliance upon the lack of perceivable evidence.

Like a dog chasing his tail - arround and around we go trying to convince the other of "the Truth".

i think one thing that atheists and agnostic do that christians and perhaps other religoins do is that Ath and Agn never seem to claim the Truth.
Rather we just point to the evidence.

I personally get annoyed when they go off saying we have the Truth.
(then pointing to their books)

Once asked for evidence of the truth it only goes down hill.

[glo]

Hi all

After a week of spending hours in the early mornings on the computer, my head finally hit the pillow at 7 pm yesterday evening and I crashed for 12 hours! yay!
Nice to see that this thread has continued on ... :)

The 'truth' can only be experiential. Anything else is 'just' belief.

:sl:
Depends on how you define the truth.

Ath and Agn never seem to claim the Truth.
Rather we just point to the evidence.

I personally get annoyed when they go off saying we have the Truth.
(then pointing to their books)

Once asked for evidence of the truth it only goes down hill.

I can see that some people have an issue with the word 'truth'.
That in itself is quite interesting.
Believers will point to the holy book and say 'This contains the truth'.
Others (like Trumble here) will say 'There is no truth, as truth can only be experimential.'

For the sake of this thread, I chose the word 'truth' especially (hey, I even put it in capital letters :D), because it is a word often used by believers, and because it is such a strong word, which doesn't really leave much room for manouvre.

A question back those of an atheist persuasion:
If you don't think there is such as thing as 'truth', if there is, it cannot (yet) be known by us), then you cannot ever be arguing for your 'own truth'.
All you can do is argue against what other perceive to be 'their truth'.
Would that be correct?

A word of warning:
Those of you who are heavily into philosophy, please be gentle on me with your terminology ... otherwise I will loose the plot. :D

I know 'philosophers' who are very difficult to talk to, because half-way into your own sentence, they will interrupt and say 'I don't think you mean 'word X' in this context. 'Word X' means such-and-such, whereas I think you are referring to 'word Z'.
That - especially since English isn't my first language - gets hugely frustrating for me! So please spare me! :D

[glo]

One poster (who shall remain unnamed :D) has sent me a comment, saying 'No, I know the truth!!'
I know it was sent in good humour and I take it as such (Although, anonymous poster, I have to disappoint you. You are wrong, because I have the truth!! lol)

I mention it here, because it raises a good point.
It is true, we could spend hours having these kind of exchanges here at LI (Come to think about it, we do!) :X

Now, so far I am the only one who has admitted to feeling frustated, when other people seemingly cannot even begin to understand where I am coming from with 'my truth'.
Am I really the only one????
I think not, when I see how some threads are progressing!

I wonder whether (at least for us monotheists) this is tied in with the concept of 'salvation' and 'reaching paradise'.
We argue, sometimes aggressively, out of concern and fear for those, who (according to our beliefs) are doomed in the afterlife.
We care for them ... We don't want them to suffer ...
Do care, love and concern for our fellow human beings underpin our frustration???

Similarly, do atheist posters here have a concern for the 'believing posters', wishing for them to get on with life freely, rather than engaging in (what they perceive to be) meaningless or even harmful behaviours.

Are we perhaps a bunch of lovey-dovey caring people, who like each other too much to let go??? :D
(And those who can't be bothered have long since left?)

You think about it, whilst I am getting ready for church.
Could just be that are all a bunch of good friends!

Regards to you all. :)

[ranma1/2]

or as the saying goes.

"My TRUTH is better than your truth."

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you glo, thanks for starting this thread,

I feel we need to search for a greatest meaning of One God in order to find a greatest truth for ourselves and my thoughts go….

I believe in one God the creator of all that is seen and unseen and when I walk through town I see a part of God’s wonderful creation. I see people who could be Hindu, atheists, Christians, Muslims and all manor of people all created and given freedom by the same God.

We are all temporary custodians on God’s wonderful creation and we have a duty of care to look after God’s creation, and that comes down to looking after each other whoever we might be.

I strive to live my life on this truth.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[glo]

I am of a similar view. I believe that we are most vulnerable to social and belief programming in our youth and that is when religion does its work on people. Christianity and Islam attach a feeling of wrongness to even questioning their doctrines so once the child is locked into the belief it becomes incredibly difficult and painful to disengage. So much so that believers in one religion who do manage to disengage will often latch onto another religion, as they have become dependent upon the sense of direction, purpose, cosmic justice, etc that religious belief has provided them in the past.

I understand what you are saying, Pygo.

What about people who were raised in secular environments, and then affiliate themselves with a religion? There are several examples here in LI, I believe ...
What, in your opinion, would make somebody who was raised to 'think rationally' make such a life choice?

Those raised outside religion are also often raised to prize logic and reason and to see faith and obedience to authority not as virtues but as a vices.
[...]
Yes, I agree with this as well. To an outsider one assumes initially that the religion is invented as a social control tool or comfort aid and experience with believers re-inforces this view more often than not.

I would go further than this.

Monotheism seems to teach that relying on oneself is the very process of denying God. Wanting to be like God, if you like.
The stories of the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel are just two examples to illustrate this.
'Turning away from God', 'not seeking him', 'relying on yourself', 'following other idols' are the very worst traps a believer can fall into.
I can see that for an atheist that very teaching is a dangerous tool - it is the very thing that prevents a believer from turning to the 'atheist truth'.

Similarly Islam teaches that nobody should be worshipped other than God alone. That teaching alone becomes a stumbling block to any Muslim who may consider accepting Jesus as their saviour.

It is as if inside our teachings are locked specific instructions to prevent followers from leaving ...

Now, these are two examples that spring to mind.
I wonder if atheist thinking has incorporated similar 'stumbling blocks', which aim to prevent people from moving into other worldviews?
Perhaps there are ex-atheists here, who may have thoughts on this?

Peace

[snakelegs]

One poster (who shall remain unnamed :D) has sent me a comment, saying 'No, I know the truth!!'
I know it was sent in good humour and I take it as such (Although, anonymous poster, I have to disappoint you. You are wrong, because I have the truth!! lol)

I mention it here, because it raises a good point.
It is true, we could spend hours having these kind of exchanges here at LI (Come to think about it, we do!) :X

Now, so far I am the only one who has admitted to feeling frustated, when other people seemingly cannot even begin to understand where I am coming from with 'my truth'.
Am I really the only one????
I think not, when I see how some threads are progressing!

I wonder whether (at least for us monotheists) this is tied in with the concept of 'salvation' and 'reaching paradise'.
We argue, sometimes aggressively, out of concern and fear for those, who (according to our beliefs) are doomed in the afterlife.
We care for them ... We don't want them to suffer ...
Do care, love and concern for our fellow human beings underpin our frustration???

Similarly, do atheist posters here have a concern for the 'believing posters', wishing for them to get on with life freely, rather than engaging in (what they perceive to be) meaningless or even harmful behaviours.

Are we perhaps a bunch of lovey-dovey caring people, who like each other too much to let go??? :D
(And those who can't be bothered have long since left?)

You think about it, whilst I am getting ready for church.
Could just be that are all a bunch of good friends!

Regards to you all. :)

i think the problem is that of people who belong to the 2 religions which claim to have a monopoly on The Truth and believe that they are required to "spread the word".
as a monotheist, i do not believe it is inherent to monotheism
i'm not an atheist and don't understand them so i can't address the other questions.

[Trumble]

Others (like Trumble here) will say 'There is no truth, as truth can only be experimential.'

No, I didn't say that, although I could certainly have been rather less obscure! I meant that 'truth' or, more precisely, understanding of what the 'truth' is, can only be obtained by direct experience of it. In religious terms, therefore, that would usually (but not exclusively) be through the contemplative traditions most common in the East, but found in the Western religions too.

The common 'element of truth' you referred to is the same mystical experience, although that might be described and interpreted in different ways acording to existing beliefs and perceptions. For example, an experience that a Zen Buddhist would describe as satori (a flash of sudden awareness, or 'enlightenment') might be described by a Christian as some sort of direct experience of God. Totally different interpretations (it is impossible to dscribe the indescribable!), but if we could get inside the head of that Buddhist and that Christian the experience of 'truth' is the same.

'Truth', in the religious sense, cannot be transmitted in words (written, spoken, or otherwise) any more than quantum theory can be described using the vocabulary of a child's first reader... the vocabulary just isn't up to the task. All it can do is point in the right direction, an that is where faith comes in.. the belief that it (in the form of the Qur'an, Bible, Tipitaka, Guru Granth Sahib, or whatever) does point in the right direction.

[north_malaysian]

'To me my truth, to you yours'?

peace

Ok... no problem.

[crayon]

One poster (who shall remain unnamed :D) has sent me a comment, saying 'No, I know the truth!!'
I know it was sent in good humour and I take it as such (Although, anonymous poster, I have to disappoint you. You are wrong, because I have the truth!! lol)

I mention it here, because it raises a good point.
It is true, we could spend hours having these kind of exchanges here at LI (Come to think about it, we do!) :X

Now, so far I am the only one who has admitted to feeling frustated, when other people seemingly cannot even begin to understand where I am coming from with 'my truth'.
Am I really the only one????
I think not, when I see how some threads are progressing!

I wonder whether (at least for us monotheists) this is tied in with the concept of 'salvation' and 'reaching paradise'.
We argue, sometimes aggressively, out of concern and fear for those, who (according to our beliefs) are doomed in the afterlife.
We care for them ... We don't want them to suffer ...
Do care, love and concern for our fellow human beings underpin our frustration???

Similarly, do atheist posters here have a concern for the 'believing posters', wishing for them to get on with life freely, rather than engaging in (what they perceive to be) meaningless or even harmful behaviours.

Are we perhaps a bunch of lovey-dovey caring people, who like each other too much to let go??? :D
(And those who can't be bothered have long since left?)

You think about it, whilst I am getting ready for church.
Could just be that are all a bunch of good friends!

Regards to you all. :)

I'm the same way, sort of. I try to explain to people my beliefs and my truths, try to get them to see where I'm coming from, understand my thinking, etc. Over and over. And I get frustrated. But then I reach a stage, where I'm just like "You know what, I'm done. I've done my part, explained all I can. If they still don't get it, that's their problem."

As for the love for other people underpinning our frustration, the people that are really close to me are all muslim, so the people I discuss these things with are strangers/acquaintances, so I've never felt extremely frustrated. I'm sure it would be different if I were a convert for example, where my entire family, all my friends, everyone I've ever known and loved, disagreed with me. Then, my frustration would be through the roof heh.

[MustafaMc]

One poster (who shall remain unnamed :D) has sent me a comment, saying 'No, I know the truth!!'
I know it was sent in good humour and I take it as such (Although, anonymous poster, I have to disappoint you. You are wrong, because I have the truth!! lol)

Well, in that case prove that my Truth is actually false so that I can "have the Truth", too.;D

Now, so far I am the only one who has admitted to feeling frustated, when other people seemingly cannot even begin to understand where I am coming from with 'my truth'.
Am I really the only one????
I think not, when I see how some threads are progressing!

Yes, of course, it is frustrating for me. For example, I would love to stand on the street corner with a sign, "Believe there is only One God without equal and that Muhammad is His Messenger" and have everyone that read that sign to instantly believe. (many may find that comment threatening and offensive). Yet, I have spent hours conversing with Christians about religion to no obvious avail. At least, they know what Islam really is (as I understand it, that is). My responsibility is not to convert, but rather to spread the Message the best that I can. I believe that even Prophet Muhammad (saaws) felt this same frustration as indicated by some of the ayat that I have read.

I wonder whether (at least for us monotheists) this is tied in with the concept of 'salvation' and 'reaching paradise'.
We argue, sometimes aggressively, out of concern and fear for those, who (according to our beliefs) are doomed in the afterlife.
We care for them ... We don't want them to suffer ...
Do care, love and concern for our fellow human beings underpin our frustration???

Perhaps there is some Truth in that. I think that you have observed that a lot of my communications on LI have been with Christians. I do have love for the sincere Christians who try to follow God in the best way that they know and of course I want them to see that the thing they are putting there faith in (Jesus being God) is the very thing that is the unforgiveable sin (shirk), according to my understanding of what the Word of God, the Qur'an, says. That is why I am so happy when I see one that is making that transition to what I see is the Truth, like recently on this very forum.

You think about it, whilst I am getting ready for church.
Could just be that are all a bunch of good friends!

Regards to you all. :)

Perhaps you would agree that the ones we care the most about are the ones that we spend the most time communicating with. Oh, I also care for my Muslim brothers and sisters immensely, but I feel less of a need to convince them of the Truth - as they already have it (from my point of view).

[MustafaMc]

I'm sure it would be different if I were a convert for example, where my entire family, all my friends, everyone I've ever known and loved, disagreed with me. Then, my frustration would be through the roof heh.

Yes, my wife and I am the only Muslims in our respective families. There is no masjid in my city and, due to my business trips, I may go 2 or 3 weeks without even seeing another Muslim. As a former Christian, I feel the sincerity of some Christians to truly worship and follow God the best they know. However, I happen to believe that they are misguided and have gone astray (as they believe about me). Like a shepherd I try to bring the lost sheep back to the worship of One God (as they too try to bring me back to Christianity).

[Muezzin]

No, I didn't say that, although I could certainly have been rather less obscure! I meant that 'truth' or, more precisely, understanding of what the 'truth' is, can only be obtained by direct experience of it. In religious terms, therefore, that would usually (but not exclusively) be through the contemplative traditions most common in the East, but found in the Western religions too.

The common 'element of truth' you referred to is the same mystical experience, although that might be described and interpreted in different ways acording to existing beliefs and perceptions. For example, an experience that a Zen Buddhist would describe as satori (a flash of sudden awareness, or 'enlightenment') might be described by a Christian as some sort of direct experience of God. Totally different interpretations (it is impossible to dscribe the indescribable!), but if we could get inside the head of that Buddhist and that Christian the experience of 'truth' is the same.

'Truth', in the religious sense, cannot be transmitted in words (written, spoken, or otherwise) any more than quantum theory can be described using the vocabulary of a child's first reader... the vocabulary just isn't up to the task. All it can do is point in the right direction, an that is where faith comes in.. the belief that it (in the form of the Qur'an, Bible, Tipitaka, Guru Granth Sahib, or whatever) does point in the right direction.

Have you ever read Memento Mori by Jonathan Nolan? (Parental advisory, by the way, swearing and stuff) It was made into the film 'Memento' by his brother Christopher, but the story's very different.

Anyway, your post puts me in the mind of a certain passage from that fiction. Nolan discusses the limbic system, the different parts of our personalities struggling to control our actions. Here's the quote:

This is the tragedy of life. Because for a few minutes of every day, every man becomes a genius. Moments of clarity, insight, whatever you want to call them. The clouds part, the planets get in a neat little line, and everything becomes obvious. I should quit smoking, maybe, or here's how I could make a fast million, or such and such is the key to eternal happiness. That's the miserable truth. For a few moments, the secrets of the universe are opened to us. Life is a cheap parlor trick.

But then the genius, the savant, has to hand over the controls to the next guy down the pike, most likely the guy who just wants to eat potato chips, and insight and brilliance and salvation are all entrusted to a moron or a hedonist or a narcoleptic.

Great story by the way. I think both it and your post are very true.

[Uthman]

Guys...guys....it is clearly I who has the truth.

[Pygoscelis]

What about people who were raised in secular environments, and then affiliate themselves with a religion? There are several examples here in LI, I believe ...

I've actually studied this, way back in my undergrad years ago. A good bood on it is entitled "Amazing Conversions" by Bruce Hunsberger (who was my prof).

Some people find there way to religion through family and friends or emersion in a culture of it, slowly changing into it. But FAR more often it is a quick change following a major life event or emotional trauma. Though there may be exceptions, by and large people feel their way monostheism (which is all we studied) and think their way out of it. There are usually good feelings with becoming a believer and bad feelings with losing faith (initially, that changes with time).

I'm not saying that believers don't think. I'm just saying that the vast majority of believers don't become believers by thinking their way into it. It was either programming in youth or emotion brought them there. The smart ones are actually then harder to deconvert because they apply their intellect to find ways to justify their belief and hold on to it.

Monotheism seems to teach that relying on oneself is the very process of denying God. Wanting to be like God, if you like.
The stories of the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel are just two examples to illustrate this.
'Turning away from God', 'not seeking him', 'relying on yourself', 'following other idols' are the very worst traps a believer can fall into.

Yes. The monotheist religions are all very much about obedience to authority and so the non-religious or anti-religious are prone to be the opposite, rebels against authority, prizing individualism and self direction. You find this on most surveys, religious people finding things like faith, obedience, acceptance, and approval by peers to be important than non-relgious people do. While I'm talking about them, the surveys also have usually shown believers to hold more of a black and white, good and evil type of mindset whereas the non-religious more likely to see in grey.

I wonder if atheist thinking has incorporated similar 'stumbling blocks', which aim to prevent people from moving into other worldviews?

I have noticed some amongst my ahtiest friends. They can be so into requiring "evidence" for all claims that they won't even consider something that sounds unlikely to be possible. These are the ones who will tell you with absolute certainly that there is and could never be any sort of higher power in the universe. They could have God appear before them, perform any miracle they asked for, etc and they STILL would not believe.

[glo]

Greetings,

Interesting thread, glo - thanks for bringing it up. The subject of truth is a deeply controversial one. Philosophers have spent whole lifetimes trying to get to grips with it.

Perhaps we will solve it here in LI! :D

The idea that god is a concept invented by primitive humans in order to explain unexplained phenomena and to keep society under control has just seemed incredibly obvious to me from a very young age. However, I wanted to try and inform myself about the question as much as I could, so I held off from making a firm decision on it until I was between the ages of eighteen and twenty. It was only then, after reading, thinking and wondering a lot that I realised I'd actually been an atheist all along.

It's interesting to read that.
I had a religious upbringing and walked away from it, because I felt pretty much the same: religion was a man-made institution, invented to control people ...

That was my view for some 20 years or so, until I had (uninvited and unexpected) what I might call a 'Jesus experience'. It left me convinced of the following:

• God is real
• God cares about me personally, and
• Jesus is God himself

Now, I have no desire to explain this experience in greater detail - and I don't think an Islamic forum would be the right place to do so ...But it had a profound effect on me.
I probed and analysed what I had experienced: I am a mature woman of sound mind, I am emotionally reasonably stable, I have no diagnosed mental illnesses, I was under no influence of drugs or alcohol ...
I have looked at it from all angles, but five years later I am still convinced that the experience is real and that God is real.

That has changed everything!

It doesn't mean that I don't have questions.
It doesn't mean that I don't have concerns about the power and authority of some religious leaders, and about any personal motives they may have.
It doesn't mean that I don't have respect for the teachings of other faiths or worldviews, and that I cannot draw from them.
It doesn't mean that I don't read certain Bible passages with complete puzzlement.
It doesn't mean that I have switched off my mental capacities, and that I don't still have to make my own moral and ethical choices - and that sometimes those choices are not in line with what other people may interpret to be God's will. I am still responsible for my own actions!

But it does mean that if I believe God to be real, then I want to know more about him, the more the better!
I have a desire to be close to him, in every possible way. And yes, that means putting God in the centre of my life ... (Perhaps a bit like music seems to be central to your life :))

Peace

[MustafaMc]

My wife and I were reading last night and we came across this verse, Qur'an 3:95 Say: "Allah speaks the Truth. Follow the religion of Abraham, the sane of faith; he was not of the Pagans (Mushrikun, or Polytheists)"

[glo]

I've actually studied this, way back in my undergrad years ago. A good bood on it is entitled "Amazing Conversions" by Bruce Hunsberger (who was my prof).

Some people find there way to religion through family and friends or emersion in a culture of it, slowly changing into it. But FAR more often it is a quick change following a major life event or emotional trauma. Though there may be exceptions, by and large people feel their way monostheism (which is all we studied) and think their way out of it. There are usually good feelings with becoming a believer and bad feelings with losing faith (initially, that changes with time).

I'm not saying that believers don't think. I'm just saying that the vast majority of believers don't become believers by thinking their way into it. It was either programming in youth or emotion brought them there. The smart ones are actually then harder to deconvert because they apply their intellect to find ways to justify their belief and hold on to it.

I enjoyed reading your post, Pygoscelis.
I am very interested in learning more about how and why people change their beliefs.

There certainly seems to be a fluctuation in our beliefs/faith journeys. I recognise that in myself, but see it in other people too.

I was scrolling throguh the 'advice' section here in LI, and there are many threads in which which people express their fear of 'losing faith', 'committing shirk' or sinning in other ways.

It seems that those times can become thresholds: either the person draws back into his/her faith or is drawn back by other believers, or they venture out into other belief systems ...
For those who choose the latter, there seems to be a point when the 'fear of loosing one's faith' actually becomes a blessing and turns into 'seeing the light and embracing a new belief'.
Would you agree with that, given your own studies into this subject?

It certainly seems that there is little point in trying to persuade people to accept your own beliefs unless they have a willingness and an intrinsic motivation to listen in the first place.
Otherwise it is like banging your head against a brick wall, and may not only be ineffective, but also counter-productive.

Peace

[Jayda]

I am hoping the title is attracting a few readers! :giggling:

I would like to explore how we all perceive truth.

The members here at LI represent a fair spectrum of different 'truths' - call them faiths, beliefs, worldviews, whatever ...
Let's assume that most members here at LI have come to their 'truth' through a process of pondering, reflecting and comparing other 'truths' ...

What I come across sometimes is an attitude in us that 'if only others thought things through properly, they would have to come to the same truth as I have - the very fact that their truth is different from mine must mean that they have not thought it through well enough!' (This attitude seems to be more common in monotheists and atheists)

Other people (more commonly agnostics and those who follow eastern faiths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism) seem to have an attitude of 'all faiths and world views may contain some truth, or indeed all may lead to the truth'.

So what I am wondering is whether people can ponder the very same issues, but reach different truths/faiths/worldviews?
What do people think?

The trouble seems to be that I am as sure of my beliefs as many Muslims or atheists (as examples) are of theirs.
Because my beliefs seem so logical to me, it can be difficult to understand that other people cannot see/understand/accept 'my truth' for themselves.
This leads to frustration, which I recognise in myself and also in others in this forum.
This frustration can lead to angry exchanges, and is ultimately at odds with any tolerance for other 'truths' or a respect for the religious freedom, which we all cherish and demand for ourselves ...

Any thoughts?

Peace :)

hola Glo!

i think that God has a bigger plan for us and that there is a careful balance and interplay between our free will and His plan for us. it is the people who believe's job to carry the message to those who do not... it us up to the people who do not believe to choose but only God can give us the gift of faith and in some circumstances He can close our hearts to it... whatever suits His purposes, which we can trust are always good.

que Dios te bendiga

[Pygoscelis]

We studied belief vs non-belief (mostly amongst christians) and conversions to and from religion in general. I really can't tell you much about conversion from one religion to another other than I'd expect most religious to offer pretty much the same benefits. It may be easier for a Christian to become a Muslim than to become an atheist simply because Islam would offer a new sense of cosmic justice, planned purpose, authoritarian code of conduct, etc. The convert would not be left in the same troubled state than many apostates (new atheists) are.

When somebody loses their faith it can be very troubling for them, especially if they were raised in the faith (rather than converted into it and then out of it). It takes time for an apostate to develop independent senses of purpose etc. You no longer have a big cosmic father figure looking down on you and guiding you and that can be very uncomfortable to many at first. Some also feel angry for "being deceived" by their religious leaders/family members. Add to this the fact that we live in a very religious society and that former friends family members often shun those who've left the faith and also the fact that church plays a major social and community role in most believers' lives and you can have a troubling adjustment period once the faith is gone and church is left behind with it.

That said though, most apostates we studied did not revert to their relious belief, and most reported being glad that they'd lost it. These people almost always reported intellectual honesty and individuality as vitally important to their journey and their journey away from religion usually starts with intellectual pursuits, questioning, and meeting people from worldviews other than their own. There is almost never an emotional push towards becomigng an atheist. People think their way into atheism (be they right or wrong to do so).

On the flipside, people tend to feel their way into becoming religious. Their conversions usually follow a major life event or trauma or a period in their life during which they were unhappy. Happy atheists with stable lives pretty much never become religious. New converts to religion almost always report new purpose in life, being able to cope better, etc. You almost never have new converts to religion needing much of an adjustment period or feeling troubled like you see with apostates.

Of course there are exceptions to all of the above, but the trends are strong.

It certainly seems that there is little point in trying to persuade people to accept your own beliefs unless they have a willingness and an intrinsic motivation to listen in the first place.
Otherwise it is like banging your head against a brick wall, and may not only be ineffective, but also counter-productive.

Studies have been done on this as well, and yes you are correct. More often than not when a believer in one religion and a believer in another religion debate both come away more entrenched in their initial positions.

[glo]

Studies have been done on this as well, and yes you are correct. More often than not when a believer in one religion and a believer in another religion debate both come away more entrenched in their initial positions.

That might explain why discussions in religious forums such as LI become heated so quickly ...

That's a problem in my mind, because I believe it is important to understand each other's beliefs and viewpoints, just to be able to live together reasonably amicably and peacefully.
But it seems that ther very attempt to understand another faith can quickly lead to arguments and hardened views ... :-\

What's the answer, you think?

Peace

[Trumble]

That's a problem in my mind, because I believe it is important to understand each other's beliefs and viewpoints, just to be able to live together reasonably amicably and peacefully.
But it seems that ther very attempt to understand another faith can quickly lead to arguments and hardened views ... :-\

What's the answer, you think?

Depends on how you look at it. John Stuart Mill defended freedom of expression for precisely that reason (among others).. belief can be reinforced and kept alive if arguments against what is believed are in the open, freely discussed, and rationally considered. If, after such consideration, they are rejected, the original belief can be, and indeed should be strengthened. The important thing, though, as alternatives must be considered on merit and adopted if reasoned thinking suggests they should be. That's where things tend to go wrong in practice!

Regardless, the need to maintain free and open discussion does assist tolerance for the views of others as in the absence of such tolerance it can't happen. Religious views that try to suppress the expression of other religious views are on very dodgy ground; it suggests an alarming lack of confidence in the people involved that their position can stand up to scrutiny. One of the good things about this board is such free discussion can and does take place, and I think the result is very positive for posters of all faiths (and indeed those without any). Stronger faith and belief, and greater tolerance can both co-exist and help each other if people have the will to let them.