What evidence would you accept?

[muhammad_isa]

Exclusivity.

Don't tribes and nations tend to be exclusive?
It's part of our reality .. I see that religion is able to break through that tribal barrier.
..as are political ideologies.

You seem to see religion as the main culprit .. and do not consider the political
differences between parties as being the main reason for conflict.
Of course, our beliefs are often connected with our political views.

One example would be the dislike of communist regimes who oppressed Abrahamic religion
in the past.
Political ideologies often clash .. some people like G-d .. and some people like Karl Marx etc.

 

[Stephen Andrew]

Peace to all,

The logical function of the God from The Faith of Abraham is to hypo-statically unite from the spirit through the life.

A jealous God wants fulfilled love in a body unfailing, forever, timelessly, pulsing, dynamically through Family Passion.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[Aupmanyav]

Political ideologies often clash .. some people like G-d .. and some people like Karl Marx etc.

Advaita (non0duality) does away with all exclusivity.

 

[TheLightWithin]

It varies from person to person, as I have said above.

Even if you've said it before, can you given an example? (referring to evidence)
There's no universally accepted standard for evidence then - naturally then you run into disputes there and no way to resolve them.

Clearly, whole civilisations are based on the Bible and/or Qur'an .. and are the most populous
beliefs worldwide.

Does the population size matter in the context of evidence for beliefs?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are at the root of all wars. Hinduism did not cause any war.

Haven't there been wars or persecutions between Buddhists and Hindus?

 

[muhammad_isa]

There's no universally accepted standard for evidence then..

I think there is .. legal systems employ them.

- naturally then you run into disputes there and no way to resolve them..

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Does the population size matter in the context of evidence for beliefs?

What do you mean matter?
Is it significant? I would say yes.
Does it translate to being the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Not necessarily.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Haven't there been wars or persecutions between Buddhists and Hindus?

No. Some Buddhist histories mention that. It was 'persecution complex' when they were loosing adherents. Hindus and Hindu kings never mistreated Buddhist or Jains.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Why is it no evidence required? What causes the belief? What evidence is accepted?

You replied

Evidence is required .. but not "seeing God" or miracles directly.

Ok what does the evidence look like? There are things people point to sometimes... what do you point to?

It varies from person to person, as I have said above.

okay, so then I said

There's no universally accepted standard for evidence then .

You replied

I think there is ..

If it varies from person to person, as you said above, I'm surprised to see you say there is a universal standard.
When you said it varies from person to person, I took that to mean the polar opposite of there being a universal standard.

legal systems employ them.

Ok ... are we using the standards of legal systems? Journalists? Scholars? Historians? Scientists? Mystics? Do they use the same criteria?
Back to legal systems, do all legal systems use the same standards of evidence? How does any of that compare to the standards being different from person to person?

I'm getting lost as to what you are saying...

 

[TheLightWithin]

You claim that religion is the problem .. I see that it is about wealth and power.

What is it specifically about organised religion, that you blame?

I know you directed the question at @Aupmanyav but I think your own statements provide an answer - If I had to answer a question about what might be wrong with organized religion, wealth and power of at least some religious institutions (the Catholic Church being a large example) is one thing to point to. The insistence of some religions on being "Right" and insisting they are "right" and that their doctrines are truth and the only truth and apply to everybody, that would be another. Infringement upon, or discrimination against, outsiders would be another.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ok ... are we using the standards of legal systems? Journalists? Scholars? Historians? Scientists? Mystics? Do they use the same criteria?

People are complex creatures, with their own opinions.

Back to legal systems, do all legal systems use the same standards of evidence?

..roughly..
Why don't you just read the wiki page on evidence?
>>Evidence<<

How does any of that compare to the standards being different from person to person?

Is it standards, or different world views?
eg. materialism

Materialists will seek to reduce all phenomena to the physical .. and demand evidence
of a physical nature.
..whilst others will say that physicalism cannot explain everything satisfactorily.

Legal systems highly value evidence of a scientific nature, but is not confined to it.
Experts of all stripes can be employed to offer their opinons, but they are not infallible.
eg. psychology is not an exact science

 

[muhammad_isa]

The insistence of some religions on being "Right" and insisting they are "right" and that their doctrines are truth and the only truth and apply to everybody, that would be another..

That is more of a political nature than anything else..
It occurs in all sorts of institutions .. whether govt., large companies, church hierarchies etc.

It can also apply to people's beliefs across the board, including religion.
Mankind is also tribal by nature (culture), but we all have a conscience.
Some are curious about religion, while some people are not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

..roughly..
Why don't you just read the wiki page on evidence?

Of course not Islam. The value of evidence by a Muslim man is double that of a Muslim woman. The value of a person of the book (Jew, Christian) is half that of a Muslim woman. The value of evidence by a non-believer is half that of a person of the book.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How does any of that compare to the standards being different from person to person?

In democratic countries, the law of land is the same for all people. Some countries may give a lee-way to laws of religions, India being one of them at present, but might change soon to complete sameness (Uniform Civil Code - UCC, some of the states have already adopted them). In Muslim and Christian countries, it may be what is written in Quran (Sharia) or Bible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course not Islam...

What you imply, happens all across the world.
i.e. injustice

Is a policeman's word greater than a common man?
Is a doctor's word greater than a common man?

Often, it is .. it reflects their status in society, and level of responsibility.
Naturally, if there is evidence of corruption, then it shouldn't be covered up.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In democratic countries, the law of land is the same for all people..

I think you mean secular..
..and it's not always true.

No secular nation is exempt from corruption and abuse of power.