Respect of other beliefs

Richard W

Anyone ever find that notion that you should respect other people's religious beliefs is a bit... wacky? Personally, I think not many people would respect the beliefs of a person who believed in magic gnomes which came and took your undies at night. However, when it comes to the more popular forms of belief, you're expected to respect that, yet it's got just as much foundation as the underpants gnomes.



I completely respect someone's right to believe all this stuff, as I'm all for free thought and all that jazz. If someone wants to believe things that seem crazy to me, of course I'm gonna think that persons crazy, but I'm not gonna go around telling him/her to believe whatever I believe. I in no way think there's anything morally wrong with believing in a god, just like I think there's nothing wrong with being crazy.

Oh and surely if someone says, I can't say they're crazy cause that's not respecting their belief, surely by that same logic they have to respect my belief that they're nuts?

Any thoughts?

faceman

I was thought to tolerate as opposed to respect. and whats wrong with the high and mighty gnome gods??

Dave!

Respect their right to believe, but you don't have to respect their beliefs. I certainly don't.

5uspect

True, everyone has the right to believe what he wants. I get annoyed when people try to pass these beliefs off in science classes or deliberately lie to "prove" their beliefs are unsisputable facts. I only go as far as to respect the freedom of others to believe what they want.

For me to respect someone's beliefs would require them to prove that they are true, then the person must acknowledge their beliefs are just that blind beliefs and nothing more, no more deserving of respect than anything else a human imagination can conjour up.

Dades

All good points.

I'd just add that the right for someone to believe in what they want, is forgone as soon that that belief impinges on your own rights as a non-believer in whatever that may be.

Zombrex

DaveMcG wrote:

Respect their right to believe, but you don't have to respect their beliefs. I certainly don't.

Agreed

There is a big difference between respecting someone and respecting someones beliefs.

Everyone has the right to believe what they wish, even if it is nuts, be that their religion that says Gods son died on a cross 2000 years ago, or that they look good in speedos.

Zillah

I think people have the right to believe in whatever ridiculous crap they want.

I think that summarises my view on the matter. Respect the right to belief, not the Belief itself. Of course that doesn't mean that I won't feel the need to educate them vociferously to ensure they can make an informed decision

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

I think people have the right to believe in whatever ridiculous crap they want.

I think that summarises my view on the matter. Respect the right to belief, not the Belief itself. Of course that doesn't mean that I won't feel the need to educate them vociferously to ensure they can make an informed decision

lol .. sure lets just assume that religious people arent educated and that need help from us so intelligent atheists in order to make an informed decision :rolleyes: I think u might be slightly delusional dude .. there are plenty of religious people out there that are a hell of a lot better educated than you. Just because they believe in something extraordinary doesnt mean they arent well informed or educated.

Sangre

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

robindch

> I think u might be slightly delusional dude .. there are plenty of religious
> people out there that are a hell of a lot better educated than you. Just
> because they believe in something extraordinary doesnt mean they arent
> well informed or educated.

Quite right. But Zillah's point wasn't that one person is any more or less educated than any another, but that religious people may have trouble making well-informed decisions!

> 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

I'd have a look at the creationism thread before hauling that line too far up any flagpole

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> I think u might be slightly delusional dude .. there are plenty of religious
> people out there that are a hell of a lot better educated than you. Just
> because they believe in something extraordinary doesnt mean they arent
> well informed or educated.

Quite right. But Zillah's point wasn't that one person is any more or less educated than any another, but that religious people may have trouble making well-informed decisions!

> 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

I'd have a look at the creationism thread before hauling that line too far up any flagpole

Hmm. Actually, I'd be quite keen to get Captain Capslock to repeat some of his madder posts in front of a GP and two Gardai.

Seriously though, I do respect people's right to hold the faith of their choice, no matter how loony it is, right up to the point at which it does harm of any kind, at which point I become utterly intolerant.

If someone were to put our Creationist friends in charge of, say, science funding, the issue would immediately become political. Were I a dictator, I would call them in and explain that any attempt whatsoever to carry their beliefs into practice would result in death by firing squad the following morning. Possibly they would welcome this as martyrdom, which would make it win-win.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

> 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

I'd have a look at the creationism thread before hauling that line too far up any flagpole

Indeed yes:)
I also I think people have the right to believe in whatever they want. What they do not have is the right to force their belief on me, or make laws based on their belief that I am expected to follow. I reserve the right to try to put them on the strait and narrow?:)

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

lol .. sure lets just assume that religious people arent educated and that need help from us so intelligent atheists in order to make an informed decision :rolleyes: I think u might be slightly delusional dude .. there are plenty of religious people out there that are a hell of a lot better educated than you.

People who are religious lack one of the following things:

1 - Understanding and consistent application of logic.
2 - Education.
3 - Capacity for a certain degree of independent thought.

If it is the case of 1, I will attempt to explain logical thought to them, and how they often apply it in their daily lives and that it can be easy carried across to philosophy.

If it is the case of 2 then I will attempt to explain the scientific paradigm to them and point out the inherent flaws in following mystical texts such as the Bible.

If it is the case of 3 then I can do little for them except either try to encourage some independent thought or to mourn their sheepish ways.

Just because they believe in something extraordinary doesnt mean they arent well informed or educated.

Exactly, thats just one third of the equation. And education can take many forms. Some guy that has studied engineering for two decades is no more likely to be informed on the ridiculous origins of something like the bible or the Koran.

And we're not talking "extraordinary" here, we're talking magic. Supernatural. Fairies, pixies, Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster riding an invisible pink unicorn.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

People who are religious lack one of the following things:

1 - Understanding and consistent application of logic.
2 - Education.
3 - Capacity for a certain degree of independent thought.

I'm afraid I would have to disagree. Some very logical, educated, and independent people have been believers (Einstein would be a good example). Unless you're prepared to use point 3 as a catch-all by claiming that anyone who is religious necessarily shows an incapacity for independent thought, I don't think this hypothesis holds.

I will certainly grant you that most people who possess all three of the attributes you mention are often Deists with no specific conception of God, but this is not always the case. Here, I would cite Ian Paisley as an example. He is a bigot, but he is also logical (by several personal reports), educated, and undeniably independent. The Dalai Lama again has all these characteristics, as does Pope Benedict.

Again, I personally would consider myself as having all those characteristics, and while I'm an alatrist/atheist, I can understand the temptation of religion - it's a different way of looking at the world, and it has its own internally consistent logic, so the intellectual suffering would not be too great. Frankly, it's only the submission angle I can't get my pride around!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm afraid I would have to disagree. Some very logical, educated, and independent people have been believers (Einstein would be a good example). Unless you're prepared to use point 3 as a catch-all by claiming that anyone who is religious necessarily shows an incapacity for independent thought, I don't think this hypothesis holds.

Eistein clearly didn't apply his capacity for logic to his religious beliefs. He was a brilliant physicist, but I doubt he could support his belief in God in as thorough and valid a manner as he did e=MC2. Now if you could direct me to his peer-reviewed God Proof I'll agree with you but otherwise, no

He fails point 1 in the consistency aspect. I very deliberately put the word "consistent" in there.

Here, I would cite Ian Paisley as an example. He is a bigot, but he is also logical (by several personal reports), educated, and undeniably independent. The Dalai Lama again has all these characteristics, as does Pope Benedict.

Same as above. If any of them can make a complete logical proof for the existence of God with supporting evidence then I'll agree. Otherwise they're using very fallible personal notions.

Its not enough to be logical, one must apply that logic to the God issue.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Eistein clearly didn't apply his capacity for logic to his religious beliefs. He was a brilliant physicist, but I doubt he could support his belief in God in as thorough and valid a manner as he did e=MC2. Now if you could direct me to his peer-reviewed God Proof I'll agree with you but otherwise, no

He fails point 1 in the consistency aspect. I very deliberately put the word "consistent" in there.



Same as above. If any of them can make a complete logical proof for the existence of God with supporting evidence then I'll agree. Otherwise they're using very fallible personal notions.

Its not enough to be logical, one must apply that logic to the God issue.

Hmm...no. You're assuming that you can logically disprove God once someone has chosen to believe, or that it is illogical to believe - one of which you need to prove to support your hypothesis. You have no proof that Einstein failed to apply logic to his belief, you are assuming it. Peer-reviewed? Nice try, but God isn't physics, and I don't think you'd accept the kind of peer-review usual in religion.

I won't ask you to disprove Deism, but you could perhaps prove why it is illogical to disbelieve when you cannot disprove God? If you can prove that, rather than assuming it as you've done so far, you're well on your way to proving that these men did not apply logic to their beliefs. Otherwise, no - you'd be assuming what you're trying to prove.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

...or that it is illogical to believe - one of which you need to prove to support your hypothesis. [snip] but you could perhaps prove why it is illogical to disbelieve when you cannot disprove God?

You begin at zero and count up.

I do not accept the existence of: Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, God or a teacup circling the sun at ten million miles (and following). The reason I do not accept the existence of these things is because there is not a shred of evidence for their existence.

I do accept the existence of: Gravity, air, people, buildings and trees (and following). The reason I accept the existence of these things is because there is comprehensive evidence for their existence.

It does not matter that I cannot prove does God does not exist: The burden of proof lies on the claiment. If someone claims that God exists, or Pink Unicorns exist, I say "prove it". If they cannot offer evidence of the existence of these things then their existence is rejected until a point where the claiment can offer evidence.

Hence why it is illogical for Einstein to say "God exists" because Einstein can offer no evidence for the existence of God.

Note: The atheist "Agnosticism isn't more correct" group will savage you soon

Scofflaw wrote:

Peer-reviewed? Nice try, but God isn't physics, and I don't think you'd accept the kind of peer-review usual in religion.

Why do certain claims get special treatment? To carry your position to its conclusion, the more ridiculous the claim the more likely you are to say "Yes, that could be true" rather than "No, you're wrong." And you would say "No, you're wrong" to all sorts of perfectly reasonable, or at least feasible claims.

For example, if I say there is a tiger in Stephen's Green you can seal it off and do a thorough search and conclude that there is no tiger in Stephen's Green, and then say to me "Zillah, you are wrong."

However, if I say there is a Pink Unicorn that can go invisible and intangible in Stephen's Green your position amounts to "Yeah, you might be right."

Which is a ridiculous policy really.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

People who are religious lack one of the following things:

1 - Understanding and consistent application of logic.
2 - Education.
3 - Capacity for a certain degree of independent thought.

Before you continue to consume that can of worms you just opened , I just like to voice my dissent at this list. I don't think you can pigeonhole over 3/4's of the worlds population into one of these because they disagree with your understanding.

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

Before you continue to consume that can of worms you just opened , I just like to voice my dissent at this list. I don't think you can pigeonhole over 3/4's of the worlds population into one of these because they disagree with your understanding.

Well I think I can!

The real question is whether you're wearing the hat or not...

Motley Crue

Zillah wrote:

Well I think I can!

The real question is whether you're wearing the hat or not...

I believe with that last one you just removed the hat:D

Dades

Zillah wrote:

Well I think I can!

Allow me to rephrase - I respect your right to make the list - not the list itself.

Zillah wrote:

The real question is whether you're wearing the hat or not...

The hat is locked away with the key safely... well lets just say safe.

Zillah

Yay! Libertarianism for all! (What an exercise in redundancy. "Libertarianism for some, miniature communist flags for others.")

Let the thought provoking debate continue!

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

I do not accept the existence of: Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, God or a teacup circling the sun at ten million miles (and following). The reason I do not accept the existence of these things is because there is not a shred of evidence for their existence.

I do accept the existence of: Gravity, air, people, buildings and trees (and following). The reason I accept the existence of these things is because there is comprehensive evidence for their existence.

It does not matter that I cannot prove does God does not exist: The burden of proof lies on the claiment. If someone claims that God exists, or Pink Unicorns exist, I say "prove it". If they cannot offer evidence of the existence of these things then their existence is rejected until a point where the claiment can offer evidence.

Oh. The invisible dragon/unicorn/gnome Bertrand Russell's teapot argument again. Right.

As long as a believer can prove the existence of God to their own satisfaction, it is logically consistent for them to believe. It is not necessary for a believer to prove the existence of God to your satisfaction, or anyone else's - only to their own.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Its really a question of weighting really. You can claim their is a pink unicorn in Stephens Green and I cannot disprove it. However none of us would apply any weight to that claim as we know unicorns are a load of old nonsense (I hope I didn't unset the unicornatarians, apologies). God however gets more weighting by most people for some very basic reasons.

God is seen as an all powerful unknowable force - everyone can appreciete this somewhat deist approach to some extent I suppose. Pink unicorns are just pink unicorns they don't explain anything like the vague notion of all all powerful god can. Thats why christians like BrainCalgary can simply say that God exists outside time and nature. A single all powerful God superceeds any other supernatural notion.

Secondly
People are brought up with the God idea as a huge part of their lives - for Jebus' sake its part of our language! God is unaviodable in our society.

So I guess our weighting of unprovable ideas is always biased towards the deistic god. Most go further with the big three as a consequence.

pH

I think part of the problem with 'respecting' religious beliefs is the word respect itself and its two different meanings.

Respect is an attitude of acknowledging the feelings and interests of another party in a relationship, and of treating as consequential for the self the helping or harming of the other. Though most commonly referring to interpersonal relationships, it can be used between animals, groups and institutions including countries. Respect does not necessarily imply deference, but a respectful attitude rules out unconsidered selfish behaviour. The concept of respect predates, and does not rely on, the existence of the concept of rights.

and

Respect is the esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgement.
(Both definitions from wikipedia)

So can an atheist respect Christianity or Islam? For me certainly not in sense 2, I don't hold either in esteem. Sense 1 is trickier, I wouldn't go out of my way to insult or belittle them, and I certainly would not want to curtail their rights to worship and practice their religion (In ways that do not affect me). However, certain beliefs are plain wrong (racism and apartheid for instance) and I certainly don't respect those beliefs.

I'm NOT equating religious beliefs to racism (before anyone starts) just using an example of what seem to be genuinely held beliefs that I disagree with and would give believers of no respect.

So it seems to me that there are some beliefs that are not worthy of respect by us, and probably some beliefs (that we do not share) that are. So my question is given a belief/practice/lifestyle what criteria should you use to determine if that belief is worthy of your respect (tolerance?)?

Richard W

Scofflaw wrote:

Oh. The invisible dragon/unicorn/gnome Bertrand Russell's teapot argument again. Right.

As long as a believer can prove the existence of God to their own satisfaction, it is logically consistent for them to believe. It is not necessary for a believer to prove the existence of God to your satisfaction, or anyone else's - only to their own.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This sort of thinking sickens me. Proofs don't work that way. You can't decide whether a proof is suitable or not. It's either a proof or it isn't. It's not an art, it's logic. You cannot prove something to a certain degree of satisfaction.

Logic is not flexible, it's fairly rigid. If you cannot prove it, it is most definately NOT logically consistent for them to believe, in fact, it is fairly illogical for them to believe.

And the teapot arguement is totally awesome, so don't just dismiss it without answering, as though it's not even worth your time cause it's so trivial.

Scofflaw

Richard W wrote:

This sort of thinking sickens me.

Well, I'm sorry about that, particularly in the morning!

Richard W wrote:

Proofs don't work that way. You can't decide whether a proof is suitable or not. It's either a proof or it isn't. It's not an art, it's logic. You cannot prove something to a certain degree of satisfaction.

Of course you can. Different standards of proof are applied all the time - there are, for example, journalistic standards of proof, legal standards of proof, scientific standards of proof, mathematical standards of proof, philosophical standards of proof, everyday standards of proof, and so on.

Which particular set did you wish to be universally applicable, why, and how do you justify your claim for it?

Richard W wrote:

Logic is not flexible, it's fairly rigid. If you cannot prove it, it is most definately NOT logically consistent for them to believe, in fact, it is fairly illogical for them to believe.

See standards of proof, above.

Richard W wrote:

And the teapot arguement is totally awesome, so don't just dismiss it without answering, as though it's not even worth your time cause it's so trivial.

Sorry - I've been over it repeatedly on these fora, at length, and didn't feel like going over it again. I don't think of it as a trivial argument, but it's an argument that only makes sense if you are already a non-believer, which makes it self-serving and effectively useless in any discussion with believers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Richard W

Scofflaw wrote:

Different standards of proof are applied all the time - there are, for example, journalistic standards of proof, legal standards of proof, scientific standards of proof, mathematical standards of proof, philosophical standards of proof, everyday standards of proof, and so on.

Which particular set did you wish to be universally applicable, why, and how do you justify your claim for it?

From dictionary.com
proof
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.
9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.
10. Distilling.
a. the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor.
b. strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol.
11. Photography. a trial print from a negative.
12. Printing.
a. a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations.
b. one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue: to pull a proof.
13. (in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc.
14. Numismatics. one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface.
15. the state of having been tested and approved.
16. proved strength, as of armor.
17. Scots Law. the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.


Now, that definition becomes a bit pointelss after point number 9. As we're not really talking about distilling alcohol, or armour. So take your pick there. They all pretty much involve, evidence, or logic. The term "Standard of Proof" is a law term really, based on how much evidence one has, and how convincing it is. When it comes to something such as whether there's a God or not, "standard of proof" doesn't apply, as there isn't any evidence either way, so it becomes a question of logic. As it turns out, it's as logical as thor, or unicorns or the teapot, which is why that arguement is so totally awesome to the max!

Scofflaw wrote:

Sorry - I've been over it repeatedly on these fora, at length, and didn't feel like going over it again. I don't think of it as a trivial argument, but it's an argument that only makes sense if you are already a non-believer, which makes it self-serving and effectively useless in any discussion with believers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You see, this is kind of crazy as well. It makes perfect sense, and should do to anyone, believer or non-believer. It's totally useful in a discussion with believers. It either makes sense, or you're ignoring it.

EDIT: I'm kind of annoyed I've gone so off topic in my own thread. Basically what I meant to say here was: This kind of thinking is hard for me to respect, as it is void of logic, and I really like my logic.

I've been reading this forum for a while without posting anything, and I'm beginning to notice a pattern with these threads. They all seem to degenerate into this. This one being kind of my fault there. oopsies!

Tim Robbins

Back to the OP.
I respect certain beliefs but not all of them.
* I respect the God of Gaps idea.
* I respect the fact that believers generally think there is something more important in life than money or the rat race.
* I respect believers who do good volunteer or community work and their belief / church or whatever facilitates that.
* I respect that atheism is not for everyone and some people just can't deal with it.
* I respect that faith makes some people happy.

* I don't respect extremists, people who believe they will go to heaven if they become a suicide bomber or try to convince you that you are going to hell.
* I don't respect people who are ignorant to science and say things like: 'There's no proof to evolution'.
* I don't respect adults who think the world was made in seven days or that the world is 11,000 years old or use biblical references to understand the universe.
* I don't respect people who think the Gospels / NT/ OT are 100% accurate and try and tell you are wrong.
* I don't respect the idea who think faith is logical.
* I don't respect religious people who try and covert you or just don't respect your views.
I also give more leeway to people depending on their circumstances.
* Their religion / faith / belief may help them to deal with the loss of loved one, or the their insecurity.

Furthermore,
I don't respect hardcore atheists, that laugh at all religion / beliefs and usually can't tell you anything about the universe or philosophy or any theology. They are just biggots and give atheism a bad name.

Beruthiel

I do not respect what people believe, but I do respect their right to believe in what they wish, even if it is hocus pocus.

bonkey

Zillah wrote:

Eistein clearly didn't apply his capacity for logic to his religious beliefs. He was a brilliant physicist, but I doubt he could support his belief in God in as thorough and valid a manner as he did e=MC2. Now if you could direct me to his peer-reviewed God Proof I'll agree with you but otherwise, no

Maybe you should review how Einstein clarified his position regarding religious belief.

He made it abundantly clear that he did not support the notion of a "personal God", but did believe in a God. The distinction would be that he rejected - on numerous grounds such as logic - the idea the personalised God of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other such religion, but believed in the existence of a creator (so to speak).

I believe the theist/deist distinction thats been made around here is possibly applicable.

He fails point 1 in the consistency aspect.

No, he didn't. Nothing about the God that Einstein believed in was inconsistent with his own scientific beliefs. He rejected all notions of an interfering, miracle-working, omnipotent etc. God.

Getting back to the original question - yes, all you should respect other people's right to hold a belief. As to whether or not you respect the belief...well, thats up to you. Personally, I see no benefit in not being respectful. You can challenge, knock or otherwise form a rational argument against a belief without having to resort to any non-respectful methods.....so why not?

If you want an example of the difference, go read one of these threads where someone is using the icon-overload, CAPITAL EMPHASIS and plenty! of! exclamations!!! to try and show!?!?!? how COOLY!!!???!?!? they can ridicule the oter side's points :eek: :eek: !!! :eek: (and so on and so forth)

Compare such posts to those being made by people who make their arguments calmly, rationally, and (for lack of a better term) properly.

(The creationism thread on the Christianity forum is a good case in point)

Ask yourself one simple question - if you weren't already on one side of the fence or the other...which one of these two styles would you find more convincing?

If nothing else, you should treat other people's beliefs with respect so that they will be encouraged to do likewise and treat your beliefs (and those of everyone else who disagrees with them) respectfully.

After all, they're probably just as convinced as you that their position is the obvious/rational/human/intelligent/whatever-justification-you-like one. You're convince they're wrong, and they're convinced you're wrong. Its not like either of you can prove your correctness.

Scofflaw

Richard W wrote:

EDIT: I'm kind of annoyed I've gone so off topic in my own thread. Basically what I meant to say here was: This kind of thinking is hard for me to respect, as it is void of logic, and I really like my logic.

I've been reading this forum for a while without posting anything, and I'm beginning to notice a pattern with these threads. They all seem to degenerate into this. This one being kind of my fault there. oopsies!

Well, it's relevant, isn't it? If you can't respect someone else's logic, you can't respect the beliefs they hold by that logic - you're merely tolerating their idiocy/insanity.

Richard W wrote:

You see, this is kind of crazy as well. It makes perfect sense, and should do to anyone, believer or non-believer. It's totally useful in a discussion with believers. It either makes sense, or you're ignoring it.

I think you are massively underestimating the gap between yourself and a believer.

Richard W wrote:

Now, that definition becomes a bit pointelss after point number 9. As we're not really talking about distilling alcohol, or armour. So take your pick there. They all pretty much involve, evidence, or logic. The term "Standard of Proof" is a law term really, based on how much evidence one has, and how convincing it is. When it comes to something such as whether there's a God or not, "standard of proof" doesn't apply, as there isn't any evidence either way, so it becomes a question of logic. As it turns out, it's as logical as thor, or unicorns or the teapot, which is why that arguement is so totally awesome to the max!

Let us assume that someone has put forward the claim that there is a God, and we ask them to prove it.

All proofs are either empirical or rationalist - either from the evidence, or through logical steps from accepted assumptions. Rational proofs are perfect, in the sense that they are necessarily true if the assumptions and steps are correct. Empirical proofs are imperfect, in the sense that they are never quite complete, and the existence of one undisclosed piece of evidence can overturn them.

There need not be a rationalist proof of anything outside mathematics and philosophy - empirical proofs are perfectly acceptable for all other purposes. The believer need no more provide us with a rational proof for God than they would have to for pizza.

Empirical proofs require evidence. If all the evidence supports a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can be elevated to the status of a theory, particularly if the hypothesis has predictive power. If evidence apparently contradicts the hypothesis, and the hypothesis cannot explain the contradiction, the hypothesis fails.

What shall we accept as evidence in this trial of God? Is there any evidence that can be taken to disprove God? No, because we cannot prove a negative. We must proceed to the evidence in favour of the claim that god exists.

Let us take, for example, the observation that the state of the Universe, and this planet, is such as to allow life. The believer claims that this is evidence for God, because it shows His special favour or dispensation to us.

Now, I'm afraid that I don't think you can disprove this claim. You can offer an alternative explanation (the Anthropic Principle), which is logically more tenable, in that it proceeds only from observation (we are here) and deduces a trivial result (that therefore conditions must be such that we are here) - unfortunately this is actually a complicated non-answer, with no predictive force whatsoever.

What you don't have, as far as I can see, is a way of disproving the believer's claim that this is evidence of God. His hypothesis therefore has evidence in favour of it.

I suspect your move will be to dismiss the believer's claim as ridiculous or illogical, which you are entitled to do (or at least I respect your right to do it...). What I would be interested to see is someone disproving it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Binomate

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Probably the quote of Einstien most frequently taken out of context by people trying to show that even the most educated can be religious. How ever Einstien also said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Einstein's God was the physical laws that define our universe, not the God that everyone else imagines.

Should we respect people's right to believe in what ever they like? Absolutly. Does this mean we should refrain from criticising their beliefs? Absolutly not. I hate the taboo associated with critisizing people's beliefs. It's not fair that someone can use faith as an excuse for providing immunity from reason or even discussion.

robindch

> [Tim Robbins] I don't respect hardcore atheists, that laugh at all religion / beliefs and
> usually can't tell you anything about the universe or philosophy or any
> theology. They are just biggots and give atheism a bad name.

All the ones I've met are extremely well informed about the universe, about many different philosophies and about the nature of religious belief. In fact, except that they don't bother to produce long religious quotations from memory, I have found them uniformly better informed about religion than religious believers themselves. And have a far more open mind too

Which hardcore atheists have you met?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

All the ones I've met are extremely well informed about the universe, about many different philosophies and about the nature of religious belief. In fact, except that they don't bother to produce long religious quotations from memory, I have found them uniformly better informed about religion than religious believers themselves. And have a far more open mind too

Which hardcore atheists have you met?

One example: I was talking to an atheist friend the other day and he laughing and getting annoyed at the way people bless themselves when they pass Churches. He said it was irrational.
I said, maybe so, but him getting annoyed is more irrational as their habbit clearly has nothing to do with him, or has no consequence to him.
Furthemore, I pointed out humans are irrational creatures, it is programmed in oour brain to achieve emotional states and we all do it not just the Churchy people. For example,
I support Leinster Rugby team, I react emotionally to how they play even though it has nothing to do with me - the connection is simply in my head.
I pointed out in fact it was good fun being irrational sometimes.
He tried to rebutt my arguments saying it was all relative, in that
blessing yourself was highly irrational whereas supporting a Football team was mildly irrational.
I asked how does he deduce this scale? Is it simply a case of inventing his own scale which would achieve conclusions that he wanted. What sort of relativity is that? It's just simply biased.
He couldn't answer me why he wanted to laugh at other's people irrationality and ignore his own. I just put the brakes on then, as I was in his house and didn't want to get kicked out.
Want anymore examples?

Binomate

Oh right, because this one guy is what all hard core athiests are like.

lostexpectation

Tim Robbins wrote:

One example: I was talking to an atheist friend the other day and he laughing and getting annoyed at the way people bless themselves when they pass Churches. He said it was irrational.
I asked how does he deduce this scale? Is it simply a case of inventing his own scale which would achieve conclusions that he wanted. What sort of relativity is that? It's just simply biased.
He couldn't answer me why he wanted to laugh at other's people irrationality and ignore his own. I just put the brakes on then, as I was in his house and didn't want to get kicked out.
Want anymore examples?

yeah but that just you having a discsussion with your friend, its not what I'd called hardcore...

I often notice that mostly old women do it.

Tim Robbins

Binomate wrote:

Oh right, because this one guy is what all hard core athiests are like.

Incorrect, that is an example of that particular hardcore atheist.
Anyway you and lostexpectation have a raised a good point.
Hardcore atheist is a poor choice of words on my part.
What I'm talking about is anti-thesism i.e. athesists that are not just atheists but are quite anti-theism, even mild forms of it such as people blessing themselves.

I don't really respect that philosophy.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

As long as a believer can prove the existence of God to their own satisfaction, it is logically consistent for them to believe. It is not necessary for a believer to prove the existence of God to your satisfaction, or anyone else's - only to their own.

Wow, what a god-awful display of disingenuous logic. If a believer can prove the existence of God to their own satisfaction then it is logical for them to believe. HOWEVER, the means by which they "proved" it were not logical but were in fact based on dellusion and presumption. So while your above statement may be technically correct, it has nothing to do with the argument.

Bonkey wrote:

No, he didn't. Nothing about the God that Einstein believed in was inconsistent with his own scientific beliefs.

Binomate's revelation above aside, your point is moot. The fact that "God" is not inconsistent with science is not evidence for his existence. I could list a billion non-existant things that meet your criteria, but we don't believe in them.

Scofflaw wrote:

What you don't have, as far as I can see, is a way of disproving the believer's claim that this is evidence of God. His hypothesis therefore has evidence in favour of it.

I suspect your move will be to dismiss the believer's claim as ridiculous or illogical, which you are entitled to do (or at least I respect your right to do it...). What I would be interested to see is someone disproving it.

One of the hypotheses requires the inclusion of the supernatural. Once again, we don't need to disprove every ridiculous notion that someone pulls out of a hat. The burden of proof lies on the claiment. You want to include the existence of an entire realm of supernatural elements in your argument, fine, provide some evidence for its existence, otherwise is just nonesense, thrown on an ever growing pile of nonesense.

And its not a valid theory in a scientific sense; as soon as you include undefined supernatural elements then it loses falisifiability so its completely worthless.

Tin Robbins wrote:

One example: I was talking to an atheist friend the other day....

The great thing about Atheists is that we're not a church with doctrines. If every other Atheist in the world suddenly turned around and started worshipping Kali it doesn't reflect on me in the slightest.

adam_ccfc

I respect only my own belief, that of atheism, and that of agnosticism.

I do, however, respect the right of a person to believe what they want, unlike most religious people.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Wow, what a god-awful display of disingenuous logic. If a believer can prove the existence of God to their own satisfaction then it is logical for them to believe. HOWEVER, the means by which they "proved" it were not logical but were in fact based on dellusion and presumption. So while your above statement may be technically correct, it has nothing to do with the argument.

Once someone believes (say, from having been inducted in early childhood) it remains logical for them to believe unless someone disproves God.

Zillah wrote:

One of the hypotheses requires the inclusion of the supernatural. Once again, we don't need to disprove every ridiculous notion that someone pulls out of a hat. The burden of proof lies on the claiment. You want to include the existence of an entire realm of supernatural elements in your argument, fine, provide some evidence for its existence, otherwise is just nonesense, thrown on an ever growing pile of nonesense.

And its not a valid theory in a scientific sense; as soon as you include undefined supernatural elements then it loses falisifiability so its completely worthless.

Well, that answers one of my questions. You wish to apply the standards of scientific proof and scientific evidence to the question. How do you justify that?

RANT/Why does every second atheist feel the need to use science to justify their position? Science does not justify atheism, does not examine questions of God's existence , does not deal with the supernatural, etc etc. And yet the atheists and the Creationists alike seem to think they can use it to bolster their world-views while denigrating those of the "opposition"./END RANT

cordially,
Scofflaw

Playboy

Zillah have a look at this article by Mike Poole in reply to the the arguments made by Richard Dawkins as to the irrationality of religious belief. It might help give you a perspective on why a christian believes it is perfectly logical to believe in a God.

Michael Poole wrote:

Christian faith is grounded on a combination of evidence, including that drawn from history, personal experience and the world around. The justification for such belief is, as Mitchell has argued, "in the nature of a cumulative case. Like the clues in a detective story, no individual items of evidence may be totally compelling on their own, but together they may build up a convincing case, sufficient for action."

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Once someone believes (say, from having been inducted in early childhood) it remains logical for them to believe unless someone disproves God.

Your argument amounts to "Once someone believes something, it is logical for them to believe it", which is an exercise in redundancy. And no, it is not logical for them to continue believing it, because their reason for believing it was childhood indoctrination, so they lack part 3 and arguably part 2 of my above criteria.

Well, that answers one of my questions. You wish to apply the standards of scientific proof and scientific evidence to the question. How do you justify that?

I wouldn't have thought that required explaining, but I'll hazard an attempt at a justification: Science is the only means by which we can be certain to gain as accurate an answer to a question as we are capable off.

RANT/Why does every second atheist feel the need to use science to justify their position? Science does not justify atheism

Yes, science does justify Atheism. Science requires a sceptical approach based on evidence, logic and falsifiability. As soon as you put an intangible God in the equation the entire thing loses falsifiability and it is absolutely useless.

does not examine questions of God's existence

Thats the very point; there is nothing to examine. Nothing. Until the person asking the question takes a bit more responsibility and gives me something to analyse then the entire issue is absolutely irrelevant.

And yet the atheists and the Creationists alike seem to think they can use it to bolster their world-views while denigrating those of the "opposition"./END RANT

Creationists think a lot of things and also warp a lot of things to suit their agenda. Of course they'll misrepresent science, they've got God on their side. Atheism however fits perfectly with Science. Reject what you cannot prove.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Zillah have a look at this article by Mike Poole in reply to the the arguments made by Richard Dawkins as to the irrationality of religious belief. It might help give you a perspective on why a christian believes it is perfectly logical to believe in a God.

Its pretty clear Poole doesn't understand Dawkins points

For example


Dawkins' constant assumption, echoing the popular demand, 'who made God?', is that since our common experience indicates that material objects have beginnings,

That isn't Dawkins assumption, that God must have had a creator, that is the assumption of theists, that the universe must have had a creator. Dawkins is simply applying that assumption to God, showing the paradox in believing in an infinite God while at the same time believing that something must have created the universe.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Its pretty clear Poole doesn't understand Dawkins points

I think Dawkins might disagree with you on that one

Richard Dawkins wrote:

I am grateful to the Editor for inviting me to reply to Michael Poole's interesting article. Authors' replies to criticism predictably rely upon the 'I have been misquoted ... misunderstood ... misinterpreted - - .' formula. Poole's collation of my ideas is so thorough, and his representation of them so fair, that I have almost no complaints along these lines. On the contrary, when I see my own views so comprehensively expounded by so fairminded a critic, I find myself agreeing with them as strongly as ever!

Taken from here

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

Zillah have a look at this article by Mike Poole in reply to the the arguments made by Richard Dawkins as to the irrationality of religious belief. It might help give you a perspective on why a christian believes it is perfectly logical to believe in a God.

That was absolutely awful. Rambling, disjointed and completely lacking an overall argument. His main agenda seems to be something akin to "And so Dawkins hates religion..." I'm currently reading The Selfish Gene and the comparison in writing styles is striking. Poole seems to be flailing and falling compared to Dawkins' concise and direct approach. Poole tip toes as if he's afraid to say what he's thinking out loud.

Playboy, would you like to actually respond to my earlier post responding to you?

I find it hilariously ironic that instead of responding directly and debating the issue, the religious believer simply quoted a higher authority from his faith...

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

That was absolutely awful. Rambling, disjointed and completely lacking an overall argument. His main agenda seems to be something akin to "And so Dawkins hates religion..." I'm currently reading The Selfish Gene and the comparison in writing styles is striking. Poole seems to be flailing and falling compared to Dawkins' concise and direct approach. Poole tip toes as if he's afraid to say what he's thinking out loud.

Playboy, would you like to actually respond to my earlier post responding to you?

I find it hilariously ironic that instead of responding directly and debating the issue, the religious believer simply quoted a higher authority from his faith...

I find it quite hilarious that you have assumed that I am religious when I'm not. The reason that I didnt respond to you personally Zillah is Scoflaw had already done more than an adequate job.

Re your comments on Poole ... do you actually have trouble understanding the points he is making or do you just not like his writing style? Can you point out to me where you think Poole is actually having trouble dealing with any of Dawkins arguments and maybe we can discuss them.

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

I find it quite hilarious that you have assumed that I am religious when I'm not. The reason that I didnt respond to you personally Zillah is Scoflaw had already done more than an adequate job.

Sorry, religious advocate then

Re your comments on Poole ... do you actually have trouble understanding the points he is making or do you just not like his writing style? Can you point out to me where you think Poole is actually having trouble dealing with any of Dawkins arguments and maybe we can discuss them.

Its mostly just a personal opinion. His arguments seem to be directed at a few isolated bits and pieces of Dawkin's position, overall I had trouble grasping any sense of cohesion.

If you'd like to take the bits you agree with (or play devil's advocate), paraphrase them and present them here that'd be cool.

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

Sorry, religious advocate then



Its mostly just a personal opinion. His arguments seem to be directed at a few isolated bits and pieces of Dawkin's position, overall I had trouble grasping any sense of cohesion.

If you'd like to take the bits you agree with (or play devil's advocate), paraphrase them and present them here that'd be cool.

Maybe tomorrow, too late for that much posting now

Zillah

Thats fair Its too late for trawling through the article to extract the arguments too.

Richard W

Wicknight wrote:

Religious Person - I can prove to you God exists

Atheist/Humanist/Sceptic - I seriously doubt you can

RP - Yes I can

A/H/S - No, seriously, you can't

RP - I assure you I can.

A/H/S - Lots of cleverer people than you have tried and failed. You can't

RP - I can and will.

A/H/S - Groan. Ok then, what is your proof

RP - Ok, welll everything has to be created, so the universe must have been created. The only thing that could create the universe is a god. Therefore, since the universe was created, there must be a god. Praise God/Allah!

A/H/S - Groan (again). That is baseless assumption. That is not proof

RP - Yes it is.

A/H/S - No, it isn't

RP - Yes it is

A/H/S - No, seriously, it isn't

RP - Yes it is

A/H/S - Are you even listening to me

RP - Yes it is

A/H/S - Oh ffs, I'm out of here

RP - Yes it is

I just saw this post. Funny stuff. Really sums up what's going on here. Fair play cha!