Does a believe system require a defense. Atheism, Christianity, Budhism. Are follower

Are followers of a world view obligated to defend their world view if they are to be true to their world view?

Say I believe I am king of the world, and i have 90 concubines, am I obligated to defend my doctoral retarded fantasy, or am I to be silenced for this nonsense?

Who is to say what is permissible to be defended and what is not? How many followers must a religion or atheism have in order for it to be allowed to exist as a legitimate position? At what point do we say this man is OK for spreading Christianity, but this other man is just a crazy nut for his self proclamation as king of the world, with 90 crazy concubines?

Christians are required to defend the faith if they are to be true to the commands given in the Bible.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that Asquith you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:


2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, (25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; (26) And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Hmm, I think that *thinking* and *saying* are what should be defended, as in freedom of speech. *Inflicting* is another story all together.

Christianity doesn't necessarily require a defense in the sense that, "hey, that guy over there said Jesus doesn't exist so let's go beat him up."

But Christians are to "evangelize" - to tell people the "good news" about Christianity - so in that sense yes, we have to "defend" it.

I think, though, that your broader question implies that everyone should be able to say whatever they want to (IE-the guy with 90 concubines). To me, that person can technically claim whatever they want to , but there should be some evidence of truth in what the person claims before the rest of us have to take him/her seriously.

Like it or not, our lives are a defense of what we believe whether we know how to articulate it or not. Our choices reflect our beliefs.

The ability or inability of a person or group of people to defend their beliefs is not proof of the validity of the belief. It simply speaks to their competence (or lack of it) as communicators.

Should we be able to know and defend what we believe? Sure.

Is our ability the proof of the veracity of the belief? No.

Hinduism doesn't teach that the religion needs to be defended. It's ancient teachings say that its message is universal and often there is nothing that says that Hinduism is a religion, at least not in a western sense of religion. The beliefs and philosophy are usually just integrated into ones life, but one does not need to convert to Hinduism to do this. Simply practicing the things that Hinduism teaches are all that are necessary, regardless of what religion someone is. Atleast that is the message of Hinduism. Many Hindu teachers have always made it clear that a person of any religion can find the universal truths that Hinduism has discovered and that all religions have a way in which a person can reach these truths (whether they realize it or not).

As for what constitutes a legitimate position with religion, I will stick with my own religion's view of that as well. It says that if a person experiences the divine in a certain way and if that person finds a path that helps them to reach spiritual goals (and not worldly ones), then they are on a legitimate path. One often has to look at the many gurus to find out if they are legitimate or not. It is said that you will know the legitimate ones. To study for yourself the sacred texts, not be afraid to question everything, and that if the guru is legitimate they will have no concern for worldly ambitions because they have already found the higher rewards of the spiritual.

Followers are not obligated to defend it (mainly because there is no "rational" defense), but then again, they cannot impose it on people, without a good reason.

Yes. All believers must defend their beliefs through the use of silly arguments. They must then work themselves up into a frenzy and make themselves look like idiots.