Why do we respect religious beliefs?

Hivemind187

I honestly don't get it.

If theists can't respect each others beliefs and certainly have no respect for those that accept reason, logic, science and evidence as their yard-stick ... why in the name of the flying spaghetti-monster should we give a smeg about showing the "proper" respect to their belief structures?

When religion and faith based practices and views of the world are utterly illogical, irrational and based on no solid evidence other than "this book sez it" why can't we say so to people faces without being told to "be respectful to their beliefs".

Asiaprod

Hivemind187 wrote:

When religion and faith based practices and views of the world are utterly illogical, irrational and based on no solid evidence other than "this book sez it" why can't we say so to people faces without being told to "be respectful to their beliefs".

For myself, by showing respect for another person's belief, I am in fact indicating the quality of the person I am by respecting that person's right to follow what they believe as long as they do not impose on my right to follow what I believe. (he says smugly:)) That does not in any way mean I agree with them.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

I honestly don't get it.

If theists can't respect each others beliefs and certainly have no respect for those that accept reason, logic, science and evidence as their yard-stick ... why in the name of the flying spaghetti-monster should we give a smeg about showing the "proper" respect to their belief structures?

When religion and faith based practices and views of the world are utterly illogical, irrational and based on no solid evidence other than "this book sez it" why can't we say so to people faces without being told to "be respectful to their beliefs".

One approach is to do find someone who is more intelligent than you who has a different opinion to the supernatural to you. You should then find it quite easy to respect an alternative viewpoint, even if you don't agree with it.

If you can't do that, you are either living in small world or else are one seriously intelligent person.

There are of course other reasons.

Schuhart

Asiaprod wrote:

For myself, by showing respect for another person's belief, I am in fact indicating the quality of the person I am by respecting that person's right to follow what they believe as long as they do not impose on my right to follow what I believe. (he says smugly:))

In other words 'I agree they're complete assholes, but I'm much too nice to actually up and say it to them'.

Does this not mean that you allow theists to trap you into dishonesty? (Sits back with mild feeling of 'Now get out of that, Houdini.)

I'd suggest the main reason for respect is practical. If you go around saying 'that's all my arse' on every conceiveable occassion, people will just see you as a loon.

Fallen Seraph

Well I find myself forced to conceed the philosophical idea that "I think therefore I am" is the only thing that is truely knowable; and therefore, no matter how much it rails against my common sense, I must conclude that I cannot say that their idea of reality is any less valid than mine. I sincerely believe that mine is more accurate than theirs; but then again, they probably feel exactly the same about mine. However, this doesn't mean I go respecting left, right and centre; intelligent design/creation science is unmitigated bunk and lies; if someone tells me that science supports such an idea I'll tell them what I think of their understanding of science. If, however, someone says "I reject the principles of science and I believe in creationism"; then I respect that. I strongly disagree; but find myself unable to justify the idea that logic is a better approach to the world than anything else. Save for using my intuition; which I'm not entirely sure counts...

And also, no one is stopping you from saying these things to people, you're just likely to come across as arrogant and over aggressive if you do so.

And as Tim pointed out; you'd probably be surprised to learn that there are a great deal of religious people who are actually quite intelligent and can put forward genuinely formidible arguments; if you're willing to listen to them...

Hivemind187

Uh-huh ...

... both of those answers are abouot respecting an individual (which is fine provided they do the same) and respecting another persons intellect (which is more difficult to do when they tell you they believe the world is less than 10,000 years old).

Neither one of them actually answers the question, why should we respect the inane and irrational beliefs of others when those beliefs are retarding the progress of human beings throughout the world?

When someone tells you they believe ardently that they are Napoleon you bung him in a straight-jacket and let him think about it a little more in a padded room. But when someone tells you that their imaginary friend, who just happens to be the deity controlling his destiny and yours to, we "respect" their right to do so.

To be frank, the so-called "message" of the great majority of religions (primarily the Abrahamic religions I am referring to here since there is a valid argument for much of eastern mysticism being more philosophy than theosophy), is little more than memetic poison (in my opinion) that confuses the masses. If an atheist demands that they justify what they are claiming then we are told that we are being intolerant of other peoples beliefs - the fact that these beliefs are comoplete nonsesne doesnt seem to be a factor.

Its a double standard no?

(edit: This was intended for the first two response posts)

5uspect

Hivemind187 wrote:

When religion and faith based practices and views of the world are utterly illogical, irrational and based on no solid evidence other than "this book sez it" why can't we say so to people faces without being told to "be respectful to their beliefs".

Okay, I think there's a few issues here.
1. Respecting people's right to believe whatever they choose to believe themselves.
2. Respecting such ideas and associated institutions in a way that elevates them beyond criticism or rational discourse.
3. Respecting ideas regarding questions that we have not, or potentially cannot, answer.

The first one I totally agree with. Everyone should be free to think what they want. However they must be prepared to engage in debate when they want others to accept or respect it, which brings me onto no. 2.

I do not respect the beliefs of people that they refuse to accept are simply that, beliefs, and consider such beliefs infallible "higher" truths.

I think No. 3 covers most general philosophising and sh!t talking
There's nothing wrong with people holding beliefs that they feel answer such questions for them as long as they don't stray into No. 2.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Neither one of them actually answers the question, why should we respect the inane and irrational beliefs of others when those beliefs are retarding the progress of human beings throughout the world?

How does my Mother going to mass and saying the Rosary retard the progress of human beings throughout the world?
I think your analysis is quite cursory and poor.

If you look at your own life you should see some irrational behaviour at times otherwise you are not human.

When someone tells you they believe ardently that they are Napoleon you bung him in a straight-jacket and let him think about it a little more in a padded room. But when someone tells you that their imaginary friend, who just happens to be the deity controlling his destiny and yours to, we "respect" their right to do so.

An argument from analogy, a good example of irrational thinking.Now please tell me why I should respect you?

Ultimately we are not all the same, you can try to be a liberal and accept that or else go down the totalitarian route, in which case you will get about as much respect as you are prepared to give.

Hivemind187

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Well I find myself forced to conceed the philosophical idea that "I think therefore I am" is the only thing that is truely knowable; and therefore, no matter how much it rails against my common sense, I must conclude that I cannot say that their idea of reality is any less valid than mine. I sincerely believe that mine is more accurate than theirs; but then again, they probably feel exactly the same about mine. However, this doesn't mean I go respecting left, right and centre; intelligent design/creation science is unmitigated bunk and lies; if someone tells me that science supports such an idea I'll tell them what I think of their understanding of science. If, however, someone says "I reject the principles of science and I believe in creationism"; then I respect that. I strongly disagree; but find myself unable to justify the idea that logic is a better approach to the world than anything else. Save for using my intuition; which I'm not entirely sure counts...

And also, no one is stopping you from saying these things to people, you're just likely to come across as arrogant and over aggressive if you do so.

And as Tim pointed out; you'd probably be surprised to learn that there are a great deal of religious people who are actually quite intelligent and can put forward genuinely formidible arguments; if you're willing to listen to them...

Thats fair enough in terms of "getting along with others" but it still doesnt justify the whole respect aspect. You can respect another individual but it is a lot more difficult to respect some completely daft system of living that is based on fairytales, especially one that is foisted onto others and demands to be respected while having a "get out of being called an ignorant jerk" free-card (i.e. "but its my beliefs!!").

Admitedly, I am quite aggressive in my tone on most matters but arrogance implies a belief that you are utterly right regardless of being wrong. I would argue that tackling the so-called "right" of religions to social protection from ridicule, questioning and debunking is progressive and good for humanity whereas saying that "we are right because the sky fairy says so" is the really arrogant bit.

The same goes for "I reject science because I believe this" ... Its utterly arrogant to suggest that gravity will bend to your will if you "believe" it will.

Finally I have never come accorss a single relgious or theosophical argument that didnt rely on a simply fallousy to begin with and is incredibly simple to make a iron-clad argument against it.

Asiaprod

Schuhart wrote:

In other words 'I agree they're complete assholes, but I'm much too nice to actually up and say it to them'.

Does this not mean that you allow theists to trap you into dishonesty? (Sits back with mild feeling of 'Now get out of that, Houdini.)

Good one. I don't think so. I may well think they are complete assholes, but that is an opinion. I firmly believe that every one has the right to believe in what they believe, as long as its legal, and I respect that right to be able to believe. (Sits back with mild hope of 'I think I got out of that, Asia.)

Zombrex

I think it need to be slightly clarified as what we are talking about when we say "respect religious beliefs"

Do we mean we shouldn't think it is stupid, or do we mean we shouldn't say publically that we think it is stupid? Which is respecting or is not respecting the belief itself?

I find an easy way of thinking about what we mean by respect is to think about what we would do to not respect a religious belief.

Personally I think everyone has the right to believe what they want. Having said that, I also have the right to believe that such a religious belief is ridiculous and stupid, and I have the right to say so.

Often the debate on respect for religion seems to boil down to basically "You should not make other people feel bad/silly/stupid for what they believe in" I don't agree with that. Having said that I do think that the basics of interpersonal communicate apply to religion as much as anything, and that it is rude to go out of ones way to make someone feel bad without any purpose other than to make them feel bad.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

Neither one of them actually answers the question, why should we respect the inane and irrational beliefs of others when those beliefs are retarding the progress of human beings throughout the world?

I guess it depends on being able to show a direct causation, which is far from trivial.

Personal belief is generally not what causes the retardation of progress. The religious structures built around belief, and what is done with those religious structures has been and can be a factor (to a lesser or greater extent).

However, it is also true that these self-same religious structures are not without merit and purpose.

When someone tells you they believe ardently that they are Napoleon you bung him in a straight-jacket and let him think about it a little more in a padded room.

Incorrect. When someone tells you they believe ardently that they are Napolean and demonstrate clearly that they personally pose a threat to themselves or others, then you consider doing smoething about it.

If someone believes fervently in something ludicrous, but poses no threat to themselves or others, then you most certainly do not lock them up on the grounds that others who share this belief have posed a threat.

But when someone tells you that their imaginary friend, who just happens to be the deity controlling his destiny and yours to, we "respect" their right to do so.

Personally, I respect their right to do so without even needing to put respect in quotes. I respect people's right to believe they are Napolean too.

To be frank, the so-called "message" of the great majority of religions

You seamlessly transfer the target of your ire from personal belief to religion here. Do you not see that they are not one and the same thing?

It would be not dissimilar to arguing that democratic nations have done some terrible things, so anyone who believes in democracy should be held accountable.

If an atheist demands that they justify what they are claiming then we are told that we are being intolerant of other peoples beliefs - the fact that these beliefs are comoplete nonsesne doesnt seem to be a factor.

You would be intolerant, making such demands.

Should these self-same people try to impose their choice of structure on society, you would not be intolerant to demand justification for said imposition.

If you look, for example, at the Intelligent Design farce in the US, you'll see that this is exactly what has happened. People are allowed freely subscribe to this belief, but the moment they go beyond spouting rhetoric and actually trying to make changes to the education system they are dragged into court and asked to justify their demands by proving their case.

Its a double standard no?

No. No more than me having no issue with you saying such beliefs are a memetic poision is. You should be allowed hold your position of intolerance - crazy though I find it - just as they should be allowed hold their position of believing in something you find crazy. Neither of you should be allowed shape society to your desires unopposed.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

How does my Mother going to mass and saying the Rosary retard the progress of human beings throughout the world?
I think your analysis is quite cursory and poor.

If you look at your own life you should see some irrational behaviour at times otherwise you are not human.


An argument from analogy, a good example of irrational thinking.Now please tell me why I should respect you?

Ultimately we are not all the same, you can try to be a liberal and accept that or else go down the totalitarian route, in which case you will get about as much respect as you are prepared to give.

Now now Tim, no need to get so defensive.

Your mother going to church and saying the rosary on her own dosent do much. 20 million mothers going to church to say the roasry while listening to backwards magickal thinking does retard the human race because it slows the evolution of independant and rational thought. Its the same reason that contraception is still mostly unnaceptable in certain South American regions and that many Africans are refusing to take AZT for HIV and AIDS infection.

Of course I see irrational behaviour in my life, I am a human being after all. The thing is that I am able to see irrational behaviour for what it is. I wonder if the same can be said of people who talk to "angels" can say the same thing?

And it IS an analogy, no attempt to claim otherwise was made. It doesnt change the central theme of it though does it? That some behaviour and beliefs that are irrational are sanctified while others are viewed as a health issue. Go figure?

As for liberalism and totalitarianism ... thats a little close to calling me a Nazi isnt it? Will we be seeing the invocation of godwins rule? - I'm kidding - but the truth is that beiong liberal does not require you to accept nonsense like relgion. Liberalism has always been about providing the greatest freedom to the greatest number of people which, in a sense, atheism is all about, freeing yourself from the shackles of muddy magical thinking.

sturgo

if everybody disrespects everybody elses beliefs, it'll all work itself out.

Fallen Seraph

Hivemind187 wrote:

Thats fair enough in terms of "getting along with others" but it still doesnt justify the whole respect aspect. You can respect another individual but it is a lot more difficult to respect some completely daft system of living that is based on fairytales, especially one that is foisted onto others and demands to be respected while having a "get out of being called an ignorant jerk" free-card (i.e. "but its my beliefs!!").

But the thing is, I cannot assert that my beliefs are any more valid than someone else's fairy-tales. Logic and empiricism do have a tendancy to fail when used in defence of religions, but my point is that I cannot justify logic or empiricism as more valid paths to truth than belief, faith or intuition. I would have thought that respect follows logically from this...

In fact, I think that I could go part of the way towards showing that it is impossible to say that one path to truth is more valid than another. (of course I can only tackle this from a logical perspective, and I've no idea what the implications of this are, but here I go anyway:)

(I'm also going to take the definition of "proof" to be: anything that affirms the truth of the statement)

Take logic for example. The proposition: "Logic is the only valid path to truth" cannot be true, for the following reason:
Suppose there did exist a proof of the affirmative of this proposition; it must either be:

1) a logical proof
or
2) a proof using belief, intuition, empiricism etc.

If our proof is a logical proof then it's automaticaly invalid, because it must be a circular argument.

If it's any other sort of proof then I've used an invalid method to prove the statement; because the nature of the statement is such that it renders all other methods incorrect. So such a proof cannot exist.


Feel free to nitpick; I've no doubt it's not rigorous; but my intuition tells me with work that it could.

In summary; that is why I think it's necessary to consider any other belief system just as valid as my own (i.e. I respect them).

Acid_Violet

Hivemind187 wrote:

I honestly don't get it.

If theists can't respect each others beliefs and certainly have no respect for those that accept reason, logic, science and evidence as their yard-stick ... why in the name of the flying spaghetti-monster should we give a smeg about showing the "proper" respect to their belief structures?

When religion and faith based practices and views of the world are utterly illogical, irrational and based on no solid evidence other than "this book sez it" why can't we say so to people faces without being told to "be respectful to their beliefs".

Stop being so Richard Dawkins! Yes it's so frustrating and frankly idiotic when people take likely fictions as the word of god literally but it's a tradition, it's ingrained upon us in different forms for centuries and you will not by any means ease people off religion simply by ranting about how stupid it is. The thing is, most open-minded religious people (not fundamentalist bible-belt yahoos or suicide bombers and the likes) kind of know religion is stupid. But it's comforting, it's a very strong 'belief' that people like to live with for comfort, even if they know deep down it's bull****. If you rant on to them about how stupid etc. it is then they'll try to block your hurtful words out and cling closer to their bibles.

And that's the problem I have with Dawkins! The mans a genius and has done great work for science, but I'm reading the God Delusion at the moment and almost need a sick bucket! He takes such a superior tone, always mentions 'intellectual this and that', he's so bloody uppity and condescending! Most of the stuff he says I agree with but convincing people is the way to go, respecting them that they have the intelligence to accept obvious facts and discernment. Ask people questions like 'but don't you agree that it's obvious that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth?' instead of bullying people into believing that you're right. That'd be as bad as religion itself! Dawkins almost blatantly says in his book 'you have achieved nothing in life unless you have the same viewpoint as me'. That's not the way to go about talking sense to overtly religious people. Let the fundamentalist tools rot in a hell of their own ignorance.

JC 2K3

Why do we respect religious beliefs?

I don't....

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

I guess it depends on being able to show a direct causation, which is far from trivial.

Personal belief is generally not what causes the retardation of progress. The religious structures built around belief, and what is done with those religious structures has been and can be a factor (to a lesser or greater extent).

However, it is also true that these self-same religious structures are not without merit and purpose.


Incorrect. When someone tells you they believe ardently that they are Napolean and demonstrate clearly that they personally pose a threat to themselves or others, then you consider doing smoething about it.

If someone believes fervently in something ludicrous, but poses no threat to themselves or others, then you most certainly do not lock them up on the grounds that others who share this belief have posed a threat.



Personally, I respect their right to do so without even needing to put respect in quotes. I respect people's right to believe they are Napolean too.


You seamlessly transfer the target of your ire from personal belief to religion here. Do you not see that they are not one and the same thing?

It would be not dissimilar to arguing that democratic nations have done some terrible things, so anyone who believes in democracy should be held accountable.


You would be intolerant, making such demands.

Should these self-same people try to impose their choice of structure on society, you would not be intolerant to demand justification for said imposition.

If you look, for example, at the Intelligent Design farce in the US, you'll see that this is exactly what has happened. People are allowed freely subscribe to this belief, but the moment they go beyond spouting rhetoric and actually trying to make changes to the education system they are dragged into court and asked to justify their demands by proving their case.


No. No more than me having no issue with you saying such beliefs are a memetic poision is. You should be allowed hold your position of intolerance - crazy though I find it - just as they should be allowed hold their position of believing in something you find crazy. Neither of you should be allowed shape society to your desires unopposed.

What I am talking about is the percieved "right" for theists to impose their beliefs on the world - which they do, regardless of wishful thinking - and to spout their rhetoric without any challenge.

Granted that when they start trying to impose ID on classrooms in Kansas they get dragged through the courts kicking and screaming and (usually) lose the battle. But what about the theist influence over the use of contraception, over abortion issues, over age-of-consent, over what can and cannot be said on the airwaves and what constitutes free speech? Can you really argue that these things have not and are not influenced by religious beliefs?

Admitedly the Napoleon complex analogy is a little vague (but thats the price you pay for using an analogy) it doesnt change the basic point that we consider one kind of nutty reasoning sacred and another is considered madness.

Zombrex

Acid_Violet wrote:

If you rant on to them about how stupid etc. it is then they'll try to block your hurtful words out and cling closer to their bibles.

I think you are kinda missing the point.

It isn't about converting anyone (Dawkins says that in the first chapter), it is about tolerating the nonsense that is religion, it is about people saying "Wait a minute, this is utter nonsense"

The real question is why can I, or Hivemind, or Dawkins cannot say "This is utter nonsense"

The very fact that in doing so this would invoke the term "hurtful words" in your response demonstrates the issue at hand.

Crucifix

Like many people have asserted, I respect peoples right to their beliefs, but not the beliefs themselves.
I'm generally not very confrontational about it though, as I don't enjoy tilting at windmills.

Hivemind187

Fallen Seraph wrote:

But the thing is, I cannot assert that my beliefs are any more valid than someone else's fairy-tales. Logic and empiricism do have a tendancy to fail when used in defence of religions, but my point is that I cannot justify logic or empiricism as more valid paths to truth than belief, faith or intuition. I would have thought that respect follows logically from this...

In fact, I think that I could go part of the way towards showing that it is impossible to say that one path to truth is more valid than another. (of course I can only tackle this from a logical perspective, and I've no idea what the implications of this are, but here I go anyway:)

(I'm also going to take the definition of "proof" to be: anything that affirms the truth of the statement)

Take logic for example. The proposition: "Logic is the only valid path to truth" cannot be true, for the following reason:
Suppose there did exist a proof of the affirmative of this proposition; it must either be:

1) a logical proof
or
2) a proof using belief, intuition, empiricism etc.

If our proof is a logical proof then it's automaticaly invalid, because it must be a circular argument.

If it's any other sort of proof then I've used an invalid method to prove the statement; because the nature of the statement is such that it renders all other methods incorrect. So such a proof cannot exist.


Feel free to nitpick; I've no doubt it's not rigorous; but my intuition tells me with work that it could.

In summary; that is why I think it's necessary to consider any other belief system just as valid as my own (i.e. I respect them).

Nice but it ignores a simple component.

Evidence. We have evidence for why the universe functions in the manner that it does and all the philosophy and magickal thinking will do nothing to undermine that because the evidence is concrete. Its real. It pysically exists.

Arguments for "truth" based on "belief" are meaningless because they preclude evidence. When you have evidence you dont need belief because you "know" and "understand".

Hivemind187

Acid_Violet wrote:

Stop being so Richard Dawkins! Yes it's so frustrating and frankly idiotic when people take likely fictions as the word of god literally but it's a tradition, it's ingrained upon us in different forms for centuries and you will not by any means ease people off religion simply by ranting about how stupid it is. The thing is, most open-minded religious people (not fundamentalist bible-belt yahoos or suicide bombers and the likes) kind of know religion is stupid. But it's comforting, it's a very strong 'belief' that people like to live with for comfort, even if they know deep down it's bull****. If you rant on to them about how stupid etc. it is then they'll try to block your hurtful words out and cling closer to their bibles.

And that's the problem I have with Dawkins! The mans a genius and has done great work for science, but I'm reading the God Delusion at the moment and almost need a sick bucket! He takes such a superior tone, always mentions 'intellectual this and that', he's so bloody uppity and condescending! Most of the stuff he says I agree with but convincing people is the way to go, respecting them that they have the intelligence to accept obvious facts and discernment. Ask people questions like 'but don't you agree that it's obvious that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth?' instead of bullying people into believing that you're right. That'd be as bad as religion itself! Dawkins almost blatantly says in his book 'you have achieved nothing in life unless you have the same viewpoint as me'. That's not the way to go about talking sense to overtly religious people. Let the fundamentalist tools rot in a hell of their own ignorance.

First, finish the book and try to understand that Dawkins actually has a viewpoint that he is trying to get across. Villifying him for puttiing it into words and concisely making his argument is unfair. But this isnt a row about Dawkins ...

... although I take the comparrison, however it was intended, as a compliment.

Secondly, regarding the "its a tradition that provides comfort" argument. Tish and piffle! It also used to be tradition to tie rocks to maidens and chuck them into ponds and that provided comfort to people because they believed it would ensure a good harvest or some such nonsense - we dont do it anymore and we have even less excuse to adhere to such things today. With everything that we know of science, the nature of the universe and reality its pretty arrogant to sit there and say "I don't care. I believe in my god and thats all that matters."

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Now now Tim, no need to get so defensive.

Your mother going to church and saying the rosary on her own dosent do much. 20 million mothers going to church to say the roasry while listening to backwards magickal thinking does retard the human race because it slows the evolution of independant and rational thought.

eh how does it slow independent and rational thought? You are trying to argue cause and effect, but have seem to have no sense of the logical fallacies associated with some of these arguments. Have a read of this:
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic5.html

You by not allowing them to believe what they wish progress totalitarianism.
Many international class scientists belief in God, Robert Pollack and John Houghton two good examples. How have they slowed rational thought?

Its the same reason that contraception is still mostly unnaceptable in certain South American regions and that many Africans are refusing to take AZT for HIV and AIDS infection.

Of course I see irrational behaviour in my life, I am a human being after all. The thing is that I am able to see irrational behaviour for what it is. I wonder if the same can be said of people who talk to "angels" can say the same thing?

You are just generalising. Not all religious people support certain polices in Africa, not all religious people support talking to angles.

And it IS an analogy, no attempt to claim otherwise was made. It doesnt change the central theme of it though does it? That some behaviour and beliefs that are irrational are sanctified while others are viewed as a health issue. Go figure?

You obviously don't know as much about rationalism and logic as you think.
Have a read of this:
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html

As for liberalism and totalitarianism ... thats a little close to calling me a Nazi isnt it? Will we be seeing the invocation of godwins rule? - I'm kidding - but the truth is that beiong liberal does not require you to accept nonsense like relgion. Liberalism has always been about providing the greatest freedom to the greatest number of people which, in a sense, atheism is all about, freeing yourself from the shackles of muddy magical thinking.

No it ain't , I am calling you totalitarian. I am not accusing you of killing six million Jews or doing experiments on handicapped people. You straw man because you appear incapable of logical discourse.

Liberalism has always been about letting people make their own choices and in some sense respecting them. You may think athesim gives more freedom, a Christian may think Christianity does, it's an individuals choice unless of course you have a totalitarian agenda.

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote:

Arguments for "truth" based on "belief" are meaningless because they preclude evidence.

Have to agree with you there.

I'm so sick of this idea, often spoken by theists and theologians, that there are more than one way to find out the truth of the universe.

It is a quite appealing setup, but still I'm surprised that so many people are sucked in by it.

All they are doing is defining their "exploration" as having the ability to discover truth, with no actual reason for this assertion. They then proclaim that, like science, they too are discovering various truths about reality and nature and the universe.

What they are really doing is searching for results that provide comfort to them. And confusing comfort with truth. How true these results are is totally irrelevant, it is their comfort level that is important. The problem is when people don't recognize the difference. So you have someone saying that they have discovered the truth of the universe by accepting Jesus as their savior. They haven't actually discovered the truth about anything, what they have done is discover a concept that they are happy with, and they are confusing this happiness with some form of enlightenment.

We confuse comfort with truth, because for some concept to be comforting we must believe it to be true.

Hivemind187

I thought I would clarify my point a little.

Why is it ok for theists to operate and spout their jumbled mumbo-jumbo but if anyone says "you are talking out of your arse" or "I'm sorry, but I take issue with a,b and c and I want you to justify that assertion" they are immediatly called intolerant or reacted to in an aggressive and irrational manner.

Its ok for theists to say that people are going to hell for not believing (why doesnt that qualify as hate speech?) but it is damn near illegal to say that there is no God and that religions are not conducive to a progressive, equal state?

Fallen Seraph

Hivemind187 wrote:

Nice but it ignores a simple component.

Evidence. We have evidence for why the universe functions in the manner that it does and all the philosophy and magickal thinking will do nothing to undermine that because the evidence is concrete. Its real. It pysically exists.

Arguments for "truth" based on "belief" are meaningless because they preclude evidence. When you have evidence you dont need belief because you "know" and "understand".

Indeed, good point. That was certainly a hole that I hadn't considered. Thanks for pointing it out.

I don't feel that it negates the argument completely, but I shall certainly have to consider it further.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

eh how does it slow independent and rational thought? You are trying to argue cause and effect, but have seem to have no sense of the logical fallacies associated with some of these arguments. Have a read of this:
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic5.html

You by not allowing them to believe what they wish progress totalitarianism.
Many international class scientists belief in God, Robert Pollack and John Houghton two good examples. How have they slowed rational thought?


You are just generalising. Not all religious people support certain polices in Africa, not all religious people support talking to angles.


You obviously don't know as much about rationalism and logic as you think.
Have a read of this:
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html



No it ain't , I am calling you totalitarian. I am not accusing you of killing six million Jews or doing experiments on handicapped people. You straw man because you appear incapable of logical discourse.

Liberalism has always been about letting people make their own choices and in some sense respecting them. You may think athesim gives more freedom, a Christian may think Christianity does, it's an individuals choice unless of course you have a totalitarian agenda.

You have lost this argument Tim because, to be honest, you have taken it far to personally.

You call me a totalitarian but I am actually asking for the freedom for people to NOT believe in this garbage. And yes, I am making broad generalisations but can you say that no instances of any of these have happened? No, you can't, because that is an even worse generalisation.

Also ... you overlooked the words "I'm kidding".

Christianity, and all relgions, require a structured world view that cannot be questioned because answers preclude "faith" which is the acceptance of a fact without supporting evidence. That retards the evolution of rational thought and useful thinking by muddying the waters with garbled magickal thinking.

Examples: Gallileo, Copernicus, Darwin.

As for your "scientists" I have no idea how they cope with their cognitive dissonense but it must be a very strong dose.

(ps I like the ducks on that web page but it isnt exactly relevant to what I was talking about)

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote:

Its ok for theists to say that people are going to hell for not believing (why doesnt that qualify as hate speech?) but it is damn near illegal to say that there is no God and that religions are not conducive to a progressive, equal state?

Yes it does get a little tiring that any time an atheist opens his or her mouth to comment on religion they are branded a "militant atheist" or some such.

Hivemind187

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Indeed, good point. That was certainly a hole that I hadn't considered. Thanks for pointing it out.

I don't feel that it negates the argument completely, but I shall certainly have to consider it further.

No no ... patch up the hole and try again. I want to see where you take it.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

I thought I would clarify my point a little.

Why is it ok for theists to operate and spout their jumbled mumbo-jumbo but if anyone says "you are talking out of your arse" or "I'm sorry, but I take issue with a,b and c and I want you to justify that assertion" they are immediatly called intolerant or reacted to in an aggressive and irrational manner.

Again you are being totalitarian you are treating the entire spectrum of theology as if they all do the exact same thing.

Your points are just poorly put. There's a huge difference between:
"you are talking out of your arse" or "I'm sorry, but I take issue with a,b and c and I want you to justify that assertion".
These are two different ways of tackling a theological argument. One has no respect and one has some.

With the greatest of respect you sound like some teenager who is angry because his parents made him go to mass an dhave decided to rebel. I think if you research your views and read more than Richard Dawkins you would have a broader view of things.

Its ok for theists to say that people are going to hell for not believing (why doesnt that qualify as hate speech?) but it is damn near illegal to say that there is no God and that religions are not conducive to a progressive, equal state?

Again, I think if you did some research you would see that many theologies have changed their position on this. Catholism for example, no longer holds that you can go to hell not believing.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

What I am talking about is the percieved "right" for theists to impose their beliefs on the world - which they do, regardless of wishful thinking - and to spout their rhetoric without any challenge.

I disagree.

Theists have as much and as little right as anyone else to shape the destinies of others.

People have no problems with it when they're in general agreement with it, but when they're not, they complain. If the complaints are loud enough, the carry the day.

What you seem to be doing is rephrasing your complaint to say that you find it wrong that theists are in a position to shape the world, but you don't seem to address the question of who would do a better job nor how it would be done.

If we believe in the concept of democracy, then we accept the weight of the majority, regardless of whether they be theist or not. If we abandon the concept of democracy, then we adopt some alternate which is no less open to abuse and all we've done is replaced one fallible, flawed perspective (that of theists) with another.

But what about the theist influence over the use of contraception, over abortion issues, over age-of-consent, over what can and cannot be said on the airwaves and what constitutes free speech? Can you really argue that these things have not and are not influenced by religious beliefs?

I can't argue that they're not influenced by it, but I don't see the issue, to be honest. By what right can we limit the basis for making decisions?

"Oh, I'm sorry sir, but you aren't allowed have a say on this issue because your method of reasoning isn't on the approved list."

On what basis do you lay claim to having a better system? You argue that positions based on evidence are what we want, but can you supply evidence that says a society can function without religious beliefs, and that if it does so it will be preferable? Or is this an argument you're willing to accept your own belief on, enough to argue that its what should be done?

it doesnt change the basic point that we consider one kind of nutty reasoning sacred and another is considered madness.

Its not a basic point. Its a complete misrepresentation. Neither you nor I nor anyone has a right to determine on what basis one must make a decision.

I do not find religious belief "sacred" in the slightest. The religious are free to make their case as to how they believe the rules should be formed, and you're free to make your case as to why those proposals are "nutty".

I really think you're confusing two issues here - respect for belief and whether or not you can meaningfully criticise the structure some would impose on society as a result of their religion.

If you stand up and say something to the effect "your belief in God is just stupid and you shouldn't be allowed have an influence on the shaping of society" then you're intolerant.

If you stand up and say something like "Your proposal for the shaping of society is wrong because its religious in nature and therefore wrong", then you're intolerant.

If, however, you stand up and say "Your proposal for the shaping of society is based on ignoring evidence which says you are flat-out wrong and should therefore be rejected", then you're not intolerant of beliefs at all.

To be honest, I've rarely (if ever) seen anyone taking this third position accused of intolerance.

philologos

Acid_Violet wrote:

1 - Stop being so Richard Dawkins! Yes it's so frustrating and frankly idiotic when people take likely fictions as the word of god literally but it's a tradition, it's ingrained upon us in different forms for centuries and you will not by any means ease people off religion simply by ranting about how stupid it is.

2 - The thing is, most open-minded religious people (not fundamentalist bible-belt yahoos or suicide bombers and the likes) kind of know religion is stupid. But it's comforting, it's a very strong 'belief' that people like to live with for comfort, even if they know deep down it's bull****.

3 If you rant on to them about how stupid etc. it is then they'll try to block your hurtful words out and cling closer to their bibles.

1 - The Bible, isn't merely the book of God's glory. But it is also a book of guidelines to how we as Christians should live our lives. Also the thing is, it may be frustrating to you, because you think it's a likely fiction. The reasoning behind why we honour the Bible as the word of God, is difficult to understand for non-theists as it involves a relationship with God, and a spiritual and deep faith in Him.

2 - I fail to see your reasoning behind "open-minded religious people" seeing religion as "stupid". If anything this shows the lack of respect that non-theists can show towards religion. I'd see myself personally as having a deep faith in God, but to try to understand where other faith groups are coming from I have the Holy Qu'ran, and a book from the Hare Krishna group. I'm also looking to get the Bhagavad Gita, and the Book of Mormon in the next while. Just to analyse them. But, while doing this, I have no doubt that God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the means of true salvation and that He is my creator. If people know deep down that a faith is bull****, that won't lead them to believe in it. Why would anyone cling to a religion when they thought it was wrong? I also fail to see your reasoning in this regard.

3 - Maybe, just maybe. They don't want to reject their beliefs because they feel they have found sufficent answers through their faith as opposed to other means which could not find out similar answers. e.g why does evil exist - book of Job. I don't know about any other theists here, but I find that anything a non-theist says in regard to my Christian belief, doesn't sway me at all. "Clinging to bibles" - Surely if you regard the Bible and what God has passed down to his people as the ultimate truth, you are going to give reference to the Bible in answer to questions about Christianity. Makes sense surely?

I respect people turning to atheism and agnosticism, so I fail to see why non-theists can't respect my beliefs in return.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

Again you are being totalitarian you are treating the entire spectrum of theology as if they all do the exact same thing.

Your points are just poorly put. There's a huge difference between:
"you are talking out of your arse" or "I'm sorry, but I take issue with a,b and c and I want you to justify that assertion".
These are two different ways of tackling a theological argument. One has no respect and one has some.

With the greatest of respect you sound like some teenager who is angry because his parents made him go to mass an dhave decided to rebel. I think if you research your views and read more than Richard Dawkins you would have a broader view of things.


Again, I think if you did some research you would see that many theologies have changed their position on this. Catholism for example, no longer holds that you can go to hell not believing.

All the major religions are about the same thing - organised magical thinking and providing a method to influence and control the masses. whatever good intentions they may have started out with are irrelevant at this point since, as with any man-made institution they are eventually corrupted by those controlling them.

The points I made in my comment are deliberately disparate because in both cases they are treated with the same irrational responses and bilious attacks. Not by everyone, but by a significant enough portion to make it a problem.

And there is no respect in claiming that "you sound like a teenager" or by asserting that I should read something other than Dawkins. That is outright personal attack and assumption - I could respond in kind by saying "you sound like a pseudo-liberal-apologist-for-religions", but I dont throw it in your face. I wont waste time justifying my education, my reading or my knowledge when it is plain that an agenda is being pushed.

As for theologies that "change their position", well honestly, doesnt that undermine the central tennant of Godly infallibility? Religions change their position as a marketing tactic in order to be more appealing to the masses they need in order to survive as an organisation. It doesnt make them right and it doesnt justify the positions they take now and it doesnt imbue them with the right to operate without being questioned.

humanji

Hivemind187 wrote:

Why do we respect religious belief?

Well apart from the fact that you obviously don't , but think about the other side of the argument. Respect is earned, not demanded, yet you complain that theists don't respect your athiest views, even though you have no respect for theirs. It takes two to tango.

Personally, my answer to your question is because it's the right thing to do. If you're going to show religious intollerence, you're no better than the thiests who show non-religious intollerence. Be the bigger man and accept people for people and let them believe what they want.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

You have lost this argument Tim because, to be honest, you have taken it far to personally.

what type of hair brained argument is this:
Premise: I think Tim has taken this too personally
Conclusion: Tim has lost the argument.

You call me a totalitarian but I am actually asking for the freedom for people to NOT believe in this garbage. And yes, I am making broad generalisations but can you say that no instances of any of these have happened? No, you can't, because that is an even worse generalisation.

?? Makes no sense.

Christianity, and all relgions, require a structured world view that cannot be questioned because answers preclude "faith" which is the acceptance of a fact without supporting evidence. That retards the evolution of rational thought and useful thinking by muddying the waters with garbled magickal thinking.

Another sweeping statement. What type of claptrap is that?
Of course within Christianity or other faiths, world views can be questioned.

Examples: Gallileo, Copernicus, Darwin.

Eh Copernicus was a priest. There are many other examples of contributions to Science from theologians.

As for your "scientists" I have no idea how they cope with their cognitive dissonense but it must be a very strong dose.
(ps I like the ducks on that web page but it isnt exactly relevant to what I was talking about)

It was quite specifically explaining the mistakes in your reasoning. If you are too blind to see mistakes or investigate mistakes in your own reasoning well who are you to give out any dogma?

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

You have lost this argument Tim because, to be honest, you have taken it far to personally.

So much for conclusions based on evidence.

You call me a totalitarian but I am actually asking for the freedom for people to NOT believe in this garbage.

People have that freedom. YOu're here posting about it.Dawkins got to teh top of the best-seller list and has toured the world speaking about it.
What more freedom do you want?

And yes, I am making broad generalisations but ...

There's no but. You're making generalisations you know are not entirely accurate. Its hardly a ringing endorsement for how better off we'd be if we adopted your world-view.

Christianity, and all relgions, require a structured world view that cannot be questioned because answers preclude "faith" which is the acceptance of a fact without supporting evidence.

Rubbish. Many forms of Christianity actively encourage people to question their beliefs because until they do so, they cannot have true faith.

Examples: Gallileo, Copernicus, Darwin.

Your beef seems to be with the religions up to the 19th century. COuld you show 20th or 21st century examples of religions requiring this structured world view where we don't question things?

As for your "scientists" I have no idea how they cope with their cognitive dissonense but it must be a very strong dose.

Must it be? Your evidence being...what, exactly? Or is this just something you believe?

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

The points I made in my comment are deliberately disparate because in both cases they are treated with the same irrational responses and bilious attacks. Not by everyone, but by a significant enough portion to make it a problem.

Well maybe you've an unusal life.

And there is no respect in claiming that "you sound like a teenager" or by asserting that I should read something other than Dawkins. That is outright personal attack and assumption - I could respond in kind by saying "you sound like a pseudo-liberal-apologist-for-religions", but I dont throw it in your face. I wont waste time justifying my education, my reading or my knowledge when it is plain that an agenda is being pushed.

Well as matter of interest what have you read besides Dawkins then?
I would suspect if you were better read your opinions would change.

As for theologies that "change their position", well honestly, doesnt that undermine the central tennant of Godly infallibility? Religions change their position as a marketing tactic in order to be more appealing to the masses they need in order to survive as an organisation. It doesnt make them right and it doesnt justify the positions they take now and it doesnt imbue them with the right to operate without being questioned.

Well you initially stated that theologies were saying that people went to hell for not believing so if anything you've at least learned something even by spouting what is essentially claptrap.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I respect people turning to atheism and agnosticism, so I fail to see why non-theists can't respect my beliefs in return.

Again I think we need a bit of clarification as to what we are actually talking about here.

You may respect people turning to atheism, but that isn't the same as respecting the idea that there is no God. You would not doubt say that at best such an idea is nonsense, and at worst a product of Satan. On the other hand you respect that a person has the right to be an atheist, which is a good thing.

raido9

Hivemind187 wrote:

No no ... patch up the hole and try again. I want to see where you take it.

I second this post, was enjoying that.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Again I think we need a bit of clarification as to what we are actually talking about here.

You may respect people turning to atheism, but that isn't the same as respecting the idea that there is no God. You would not doubt say that at best such an idea is nonsense, and at worst a product of Satan. On the other hand you respect that a person has the right to be an atheist, which is a good thing.

Of course I can't go back on what I believe in. I think that God has to exist, I'm convinced. I don't regard atheism as the path of salvation or spiritual fulfilment, but I recognise that people should be free to decide what they want to believe in (regardless of whether others consider it to be right or wrong).

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Of course I can't go back on what I believe in. I think that God has to exist, I'm convinced. I don't regard atheism as the path of salvation or spiritual fulfilment, but I recognise that people should be free to decide what they want to believe in (regardless of whether others consider it to be right or wrong).

It is the difference between respecting the idea and respecting the persons right to hold the idea.

You will find most atheists on this forum hold to the later, but not the forum. As does yourself.

Often the two are confused, and people take offense at one when reality it is the other that is being discussed or challenged. Theist reaction to Prof. Dawkins (who has alway maintained that a person has a right to believe what they wish, while stating that what they believe is nonsense) is a classic example.

raido9

Jakkass wrote:

Of course I can't go back on what I believe in. I think that God has to exist, I'm convinced. I don't regard atheism as the path of salvation or spiritual fulfilment, but I recognise that people should be free to decide what they want to believe in (regardless of whether others consider it to be right or wrong).

You can always go back on what you believe in, beliefs can change.

Interesting that you phrased it "I think that God has to exist" rather than "I think that God exists".

I don't regard atheism as the path of salvation, but then again I don't think we need salvation so its alright. As for spiritual fulfilment, in my opinion, doesn't matter whether you have a belief in God or not. But i suppose that depends on how you define spiritual fulfilment.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Theist reaction to Prof. Dawkins (who has alway maintained that a person has a right to believe what they wish, while stating that what they believe is nonsense) is a classic example.

Well that's not entirely true. I don't mind that he regards it as nonsense. It's that he goes as far as calling theists deluded for believing what they believe in, and that he sees faith as a harmful thing.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

The real question is why can I, or Hivemind, or Dawkins cannot say "This is utter nonsense"

At a guess, I'd say that all of you have at one stage or another.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

Well that's not entirely true. I don't mind that he regards it as nonsense. It's that he goes as far as calling theists deluded for believing what they believe in, and that he sees faith as a harmful thing.

He considers people who brings the kids up with a certain religion are labelling their children a form a child abuse.
Now it may not be the most liberal upbringing and I don't go out of my way to support religious indoctrination but to call it child abuse it is associating it with some of the most disguisting things in society and quite plainly ridiculous.

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote:

He considers people who brings the kids up with a certain religion are labelling their children a form a child abuse.

He is very specific that labelling them is his only concern in relation to the notion of child abuse. By calling a child a "catholic child" you are forcing a label on them that they couldn't possibly understand or agree to, which is abusing their rights as an independent person. Its related to sexual child abuse in that they both involve abusing a child's innocence, but Dawkins does not equate them in the manner you're suggesting.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

It is the difference between respecting the idea and respecting the persons right to hold the idea.

You will find most atheists on this forum hold to the later, but not the forum. As does yourself.

Often the two are confused, and people take offense at one when reality it is the other that is being discussed or challenged. Theist reaction to Prof. Dawkins (who has alway maintained that a person has a right to believe what they wish, while stating that what they believe is nonsense) is a classic example.

It's the heart of ecumenicalism, which in turn forms part of the basis for secularism.

Not only does one respect the person's right to hold frankly laughable beliefs, but one tries as much as possible to respect the person as well. There are limits, obviously (regularly reached on a certain other thread).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote:

He is very specific that labelling them is his only concern in relation to the notion of child abuse. By calling a child a "catholic child" you are forcing a label on them that they couldn't possibly understand or agree to, which is abusing their rights as an independent person. Its related to sexual child abuse in that they both involve abusing a child's innocence, but Dawkins does not equate them in the manner you're suggesting.

You could say the same about sending your kid to Rugby school or a GAA school.
Labelling them as a Rugby player or a Belvo Boy or a GAA player and a GAA man.

Child abuse is a bit strong a word because of the connotation sassociated with it. Usually the terms child abuse denote something entirely different.

He could have said it's just unfair but that wouldn't grab headlines and book him his primetime media space or sell another couple of thousands of copies of the God Delusion.

Fallen Seraph

Hivemind187 wrote:

No no ... patch up the hole and try again. I want to see where you take it.

Upon further reflection, I am quite confident that the statement "X is the only valid path to truth" where x is logic, empiricism, faith, etc. is completely true. I think that your statement regarding empirical evidence is slightly missing the point, though not by much.


It depends entirely on how well thought out a person's position is. If someone makes a statement about physical reality such as "I believe that the universe is 6000 years old", then you are indeed correct and their position is not well thought through, because they are making a "belief" statement within the realm of science, where it, by definition, doesn't belong. If the person then revises their statement to "I believe that the universe is 6000 years old and was created by a Flying Spagetti monster to appear as if it were much much older", then their assertion is no longer scientific, and so I can no longer fault them.

Your response to this is simply: "But look! Their belief must be wrong because evidence shows that the universe is much older!" But it seems to me that to make this counter argument, one must first accept the axiom that "Everything is as it appears to be". Which, as far as I can tell, cannot be justified, and so must be taken as an axiom. While it is, of course, just plain common sense, from a rigorous point of view I can't see any reason to consider it "more axiomatic" or somehow "better" than an axiom which says "Everything is as the bible says it is". So if I say to a young earth creationist "Look, from what we have observed about the decay rate of uranium the earth must be at least millions of years old" and he replies to me "Ah yes, but you're assuming that what you see is true." then I gotta admit, I'm stumped.


Ultimately though, I think that my statement that "X is the only valid path to truth" is always false is nothing more than a logical curio. Because why must the only path to truth only involve one method of proving things? (I'm becoming a little lax in my definitions, when I say "method of proving things" I mean logic, empiricism etc). I *think* though, that it *might* preclude many (not necessarily all) religious claims to truth, while not precluding science; interestingly enough.

Why, then, should I consider the beliefs of others equally valid? I suppose on further reflection: I simply don't. But as I argued above I believe that there do exist some internally consistent viewpoints which I do not hold. On the basis of the existence of these viewpoints I think, in practical situations, it is best to with-hold judgement about someone's views until I'm absolutely sure what they are not one of these internally consistent viewpoints. I mean, these beliefs are someone else's not mine: they've had a lot more time to mull them over and so I shouldn't presume to be able to think through ten years of their thoughts in twenty minutes.

edit: also apologies for the delay in replying; I was thinking.

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote:

You could say the same about sending your kid to Rugby school or a GAA school.
Labelling them as a Rugby player or a Belvo Boy or a GAA player and a GAA man.

You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of Dawkins' position.

Rugby player: One who plays rugby => My child is a rugby player.
GAA player: One who plays GAA=> My child is a GAA player.
Catholic: One who understands and believes the Catholic teachings => My child is not a Catholic. He is fundamentally unable to understand such teachings.

And I would very much disaprove of a father saying something like "My two year old son is a Manchester United supporter!", because clearly a two year old does not have the capacity to understand what that means.

I would agree that in terms of gaining sympathy for your position using the term "child abuse" is not wise, but I think it is technically accurate.

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote:

You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of Dawkins' position.

Rugby player: One who plays rugby => My child is a rugby player.
GAA player: One who plays GAA=> My child is a GAA player.
Catholic: One who understands and believes the Catholic teachings => My child is not a Catholic. He is fundamentally unable to understand such teachings.

And I would very much disaprove of a father saying something like "My two year old son is a Manchester United supporter!", because clearly a two year old does not have the capacity to understand what that means.

I would agree that in terms of gaining sympathy for your position using the term "child abuse" is not wise, but I think it is technically accurate.

You demonstrate a misunderstanding of the symbol => which means implies.
One who plays Rugby implies my child is a rugby player does not make any sense.

If you are going to argue my points (by all means do) please use logic.
If you are going to make claims such as I "demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of Dawkins' position" please substantiate your claim using logic.