I still hold that if someone is preaching something that they claim to be true, and expect others to believe or follow them, then they should be prepared to give an account of the truthfulness of what they say. If someone asks them "why?" or "how?" it is not an answer to simply say "why not?".

There can be no burden of proof upon someone who asks questions, can there? A question is a request for information. If the person is not prepared to give information as to why they believe certain "truisms", then why should others have to suffer their unsubstantiated rantings? As an agnostic, I don't know whether or not god exists. I suspect that it is more probable that god does not exist, but quite simply I don't know. Now, you have used the term "truism" a number of times and I would like to clarify exactly what you mean by it. The Oxford dictionary defines it as
Quote:
truism /truz()m/ n. E18. [f. TRUE a. + -ISM.] 1 A self-evident or indisputable truth, esp. a trivial or hackneyed one. Also, a proposition that states nothing beyond what is implied in any of its terms. E18. 2 Truistic statement. rare. E19.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1998 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Now, by that definition, "fath" cannot, IMO, be a truism. Whilst I am not arguing against the fact that many "faiths" are hackneyed and trivial, I dispute that they are self-evident or indisputable, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

Quote:
My own question is … Do you accept your gospel, because it is your gospel, or the gospel accepted by most others? I ask because it would shed light on your ability to believe for yourself, as opposed to the studies of others that would support your own truisms.

I accept things which have been proved as fact. I accept that everyone believes things that they personally have not proved and rely on the studies of others. I accept that "faith" is a belief in things that have not been proved. I accept that what is true in one situation may not be true in another, therefore, truth is relevant. However, I do not believe that faith and truth are synonymous. Faith is something which is personal to an individual and it is that individual's responsibility to decide whether or not to believe something and whether or not to encourage, cajole, or otherwise persuade others to share their "faith". Now, when that "faith" becomes an overwhelming influence on a person's life and affects most aspects of a person's thinking, then in my opinion, it may be time for that individual to examine their "faith" and confirm that it has not become an obsession. It may even require independent help or assessment.

An extreme example of this was a good friend of mine (now deceased) who felt so strongly that everyone who did not believe in Jesus was damned to hell and that if he did not do everything within his power to preach to everyone he met then he would have their blood on his hands. It came to the point where he would run accross the street through heavy traffic (jaywalking, as you call it in the States) and put his own life at risk just to hand a "gospel" tract to a stranger. Now then, that man was, in my opinion obsesses with the concept of eternal punishment and became disfunctional. That was a direct result of becoming over entrenched in a "faith" and he was encouraged by members of the church to continue in his obsession. That is not healthy, I think.

As far as my personal "gospel" (your words, not mine) - I do not expect anyone to believe something simply because I say it is so, and I do not believe things just because someone else says it is so. I evaluate each individual new idea and attempt to ascertain the merits, or otherwise, therein. I have been through a stage in my life when I was lead by blind faith, but now am sceptical and analytical of new concepts and ideas.

Whilst I cannot say that I will never again have the wool pulled over my eyes, or be conned into something, I do try, at least, to make considered decisions based upon my own life experiences, rather than following other people.

Quote:
I believe that the burden of proof falls on the accusers shoulders, and not the people that believe already the truths they have accepted, as truisms.
Especially when those profess truisms that are made on faith issues.
If a person states that it is their "faith" to believe ABC and does not attempt to pass it off as incontrovertible truth or as factual, then they are being honest and deserve to be treated as such. If, however, as is the case more times than not, they go on to threaten, cajole or coerce others into believing that theirs is the only "true" faith and that everyone else is "wrong", then it's open season for anyone who wants to question them as to why and how they came to that conclusion.

Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~((o]:^O)&<
Sorry, I don't understand ASCII web codes and tend to skip the ASCII "emoticons".

Right! Where's that coffee??? Strong and white with sugar please - I need sweetening up :lol

John