Treating religious people with kid gloves?

strobe

So, this is something I have noticed people arguing for. Seen it in lots of religiousy threads on AH and seen it in real life(c) a good bit. What someone said to me was "Insulting a religion is like calling someones mother an ugly slut" or words to that effect.

I'd argue that the difference is between calling someones mother an ugly slut and calling the things she said ugly sluttish things to say.

There is a difference there right?

I was going to start this in the Christianity forum cause I mainly want to hear religious sorts views but Christianity doesn't speak for all religion and most of the smartest ones read this forum in anyways.

So yeah... There is a question in all that above somewhere. Whatjathink?

liamw

I think you're drunk again

Oh_Noes

I find that I have to do it with atheists or else they get really angry.

Kind of like picking up a stray cat.

Turtwig

Oh_Noes wrote: »

I find that I have to do it with atheists or else they get really angry.

Kind of like picking up a stray cat.

Clearly you need to improve your social skills and perhaps change the circle?

Oh_Noes

Malty_T wrote: »

Clearly you need to improve your social skills and perhaps change the circle?

Not clearly at all, I've no idea what your post means.

Maybe make a point instead of just a personal attack based on two sentances?

I think it's like being outspoken and abrasive when telling someone their favourite film is crap. Sure it might be crap but you wouldn't go around insulting them for it!

kylith

mariebeth

I'm religious, and while I don't expect my beliefs to be treated with kid gloves, I do expect them to be treated with respect, just the same way as I respect anyone elses religious beliefs, whether they believe in God, Muhammed, Buddha etc or if they don't believe in anything.

For me, religion, whether you believe or don't believe, is a very personal thing, and it's not something that I go around talking about with friends or others. If I'm asked, I'll say I go to mass, but I'm not going to go on and on about things, and it's not something that comes up in conversation with my friends. Because it's so personal to me, I do get frustrated when I see some of the threads on here basically implying that people who believe in religion stupid and mindless. A lot of the time, while I want to reply, I have to close the window because I'll just get mad. I've actually never come across it in real life, and I know that people have a right to speak their minds, but because I see religious beliefs as being a very personal choice for anyone, some of the comments do make me feel angry, hurt and upset at times.

CiaranC

mariebeth wrote: »

I'm religious, and while I don't expect my beliefs to be treated with kid gloves, I do expect them to be treated with respect, just the same way as I respect anyone elses religious beliefs, whether they believe in God, Muhammed, Buddha etc or if they don't believe in anything.

Its easier for the religious to respect people with beliefs in other religions, they have lots in common. Asking an atheist to "respect" someone's religious beliefs is akin to asking an astronomer to respect the beliefs of someone who believes the moon is made of cheese.

I dont "respect" religious beliefs, frankly I think they are silly. I do tolerate peoples beliefs and recognise their fundamental right to hold them, which is something different.

Ghost Buster

mariebeth wrote: »

I'm religious, and while I don't expect my beliefs to be treated with kid gloves, I do expect them to be treated with respect, just the same way as I respect anyone elses religious beliefs, whether they believe in God, Muhammed, Buddha etc or if they don't believe in anything.

For me, religion, whether you believe or don't believe, is a very personal thing, and it's not something that I go around talking about with friends or others. If I'm asked, I'll say I go to mass, but I'm not going to go on and on about things, and it's not something that comes up in conversation with my friends. Because it's so personal to me, I do get frustrated when I see some of the threads on here basically implying that people who believe in religion stupid and mindless. A lot of the time, while I want to reply, I have to close the window because I'll just get mad. I've actually never come across it in real life, and I know that people have a right to speak their minds, but because I see religious beliefs as being a very personal choice for anyone, some of the comments do make me feel angry, hurt and upset at times.

If only that were true.

mariebeth

Ghost Buster wrote: »

If only that were true.

For me, it is personal. People who go around trying to push their religious beliefs on others, whatever they are, frustrate and anger me, because I feel that those beliefs, whatever they are, are a very personal choice for anyone, and it's not something that I want shoved down my throat by any person, whether they're Catholic, Mormon, Westboro Baptist, Atheist or anything else.

ShooterSF

mariebeth wrote: »

For me, it is personal. People who go around trying to push their religious beliefs on others, whatever they are, frustrate and anger me, because I feel that those beliefs, whatever they are, are a very personal choice for anyone, and it's not something that I want shoved down my throat by any person, whether they're Catholic, Mormon, Westboro Baptist, Atheist or anything else.

Open to correction here as I can't remember specific passages but don't the Bible and the Qu'ran(sp?) tell their followers to preach (is it bear witness?) to non-believers?

gigawatt

mariebeth wrote: »

For me, it is personal. People who go around trying to push their religious beliefs on others, whatever they are, frustrate and anger me, because I feel that those beliefs, whatever they are, are a very personal choice for anyone, and it's not something that I want shoved down my throat by any person, whether they're Catholic, Mormon, Westboro Baptist, Atheist or anything else.

I wish more people were like you!! I'm not a religious person, but I do respect the right of others to have religious or spiritual beliefs. I just can't stand it when they try to force their beliefs down my throat. I find that it comes across to me that they don't respect my beliefs!
and tbh once people have strong beliefs in anything they all tend to do it. I've had vegetarians do the same thing!

twinQuins

I think there's a conflation of two very different concepts: treating beliefs with respect and treating the people who hold them, with respect.

Everyone should be afforded common courtesy but if you hold certain beliefs, you do so knowing they may be ridiculed.
Now where you draw the line between the belief and the person - where criticising or ridiculing a belief becomes ridicule of the person - is an issue that needs to be hammered out but certainly I'm of the opinion that no belief is above reproach.

aidan24326

mariebeth wrote: »

I'm religious, and while I don't expect my beliefs to be treated with kid gloves, I do expect them to be treated with respect

I would respect your right to believe whatever you like, and to be free to practise your religion without persecution.

However, the content of what you actually believe is likely to be a very different story (assuming you're not a member of some new enlightened religious group that I haven't heard of!) If you're a christian/muslim/jew/other mainstream religion, then I can't have repsect for what you believe because I consider most of it to be ridiculous.

strobe

bluewolf wrote: »

I think it's like being outspoken and abrasive when telling someone their favourite film is crap. Sure it might be crap but you wouldn't go around insulting them for it!

That's the thing though isn't it? Saying to someone that you didn't care for The Godfather because it insists on itself is different from saying "the Godfather insists on itself, you fukk head". But people seem to not want you to say anything about The Godfather at all unless it is to say how great it is.

Now The Godfather is probably my favourite film but I wouldn't feel insulted if somebody was to say they thought Robert Duval gave an uneven performance at parts. They'd be very wrong of course, Duval fukking nailed that character, but I would feel like an infant if I was to insist people didn't criticize the movie in my presence. And I actually would be insulted if someone else was to try and dissuade others from speaking bad about it, or making fun of it, around me.

mariebeth

aidan24326 wrote: »

I would respect your right to believe whatever you like, and to be free to practise your religion without persecution.

However, the content of what you actually believe is likely to be a very different story (assuming you're not a member of some new enlightened religious group that I haven't heard of!) If you're a christian/muslim/jew/other mainstream religion, then I can't have repsect for what you believe because I consider most of it to be ridiculous.

I guess that's up to everyone's own opinion on what they do or not, but I don't go around saying or thinking that peoples beliefs are ridiculous whether they believe in a God or don't. The way I see it is that I've thought a lot about what I believe and don't believe, I have made a conscious decision that I do believe in a God and that there is more than just nothing after we die. For me that's comforting to me to believe that there is something after I die, that I'll be able to meet the people I've loved again in some way, shape or form. I don't think that there's anything ridiculous in those beliefs, just as much as I don't see that there's anything ridiculous in not believing that. Every one is different, and some people need the comfort of beliefs, while others don't.

I will admit that it is upsetting & frustrating to me when people put religious beliefs down as being ridiculous. In some cases maybe that's justified, particularly if people just follow along without thinking and questioning things. I've honestly thought a lot about it by myself. I haven't consulted the bible or anyone or anything else. I've sat down and thought out for myself what I believe, and what comforts me. It's because I've thought it out for myself and made a truly personal decision to believe what I believe, that I find it upsetting to know my beliefs are considered ridiculous by people, because ridiculous comes across to me as though I haven't spent ages thinking about it, that I've just followed my parents mindlessly in believing what I do believe in.

Is it too much then to ask that my beliefs not be dismissed as ridiculous or stupid or whatever? Maybe I'm just too sensitive but I feel that when my beliefs are put down as ridiculous that I feel as thought it's an attack on myself and my intelligence. Because of feeling like this, I respect other peoples opinions and beliefs, I listen to them if they want to discuss it rationally without shoving their beliefs down my throat, and I value their beliefs because I like to think that they've come by their own beliefs by thinking about them and coming to their own personal choices, whether they're completely different or the same as my own.

oldrnwisr

mariebeth wrote: »

I guess that's up to everyone's own opinion on what they do or not, but I don't go around saying or thinking that peoples beliefs are ridiculous whether they believe in a God or don't. The way I see it is that I've thought a lot about what I believe and don't believe, I have made a conscious decision that I do believe in a God and that there is more than just nothing after we die. For me that's comforting to me to believe that there is something after I die, that I'll be able to meet the people I've loved again in some way, shape or form. I don't think that there's anything ridiculous in those beliefs, just as much as I don't see that there's anything ridiculous in not believing that. Every one is different, and some people need the comfort of beliefs, while others don't.

I will admit that it is upsetting & frustrating to me when people put religious beliefs down as being ridiculous. In some cases maybe that's justified, particularly if people just follow along without thinking and questioning things. I've honestly thought a lot about it by myself. I haven't consulted the bible or anyone or anything else. I've sat down and thought out for myself what I believe, and what comforts me. It's because I've thought it out for myself and made a truly personal decision to believe what I believe, that I find it upsetting to know my beliefs are considered ridiculous by people, because ridiculous comes across to me as though I haven't spent ages thinking about it, that I've just followed my parents mindlessly in believing what I do believe in.

Is it too much then to ask that my beliefs not be dismissed as ridiculous or stupid or whatever? Maybe I'm just too sensitive but I feel that when my beliefs are put down as ridiculous that I feel as thought it's an attack on myself and my intelligence. Because of feeling like this, I respect other peoples opinions and beliefs, I listen to them if they want to discuss it rationally without shoving their beliefs down my throat, and I value their beliefs because I like to think that they've come by their own beliefs by thinking about them and coming to their own personal choices, whether they're completely different or the same as my own.

Thank you mariebeth for elaborating on your beliefs and your reasoning. I would just like to ask you one question. Do you believe the things that you do purely on faith or do you believe them because you think that they are true?
I think that this question is crucial to understanding the attitude of people who you consider to treat your beliefs as ridiculous. If you believe what you do based on faith then you should be perfectly content to just say that to people. Faith is essentially the acceptance of a proposition in the absence of sufficient evidence to justify its veracity.
If, on the other hand, you believe the things you do because you think that they are true then it is a reasonable expectation that other people should be able to ask what the reasons are for such a conclusion. If at this point, you want to end the discussion then that's fine. But if we're going to have a meaningful, reasonable and intelligent discussion, then you should at least be prepared to defend the reasons for your conclusion.
As other posters have mentioned, your right to have beliefs is sacrosanct and no-one here is going to touch that but the beliefs themselves are fair game. The really ridiculous thing here is this idea that there are any beliefs which should not be treated as ridiculous if they fail to meet their burden of proof. It is from this notion of respect for beliefs that we get the absurd concept of blasphemy which, as Johnathan Swift said, is just a law created to defend beliefs which can't defend themselves.

mariebeth

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Thank you mariebeth for elaborating on your beliefs and your reasoning. I would just like to ask you one question. Do you believe the things that you do purely on faith or do you believe them because you think that they are true?

To answer that, my beliefs are on faith and faith alone. I can't prove that they are right, just as anyone else can't prove that theirs are right either. For me, my faith is a comfort to me that there is more to lving than just life and death, but I won't be proved right or wrong until I die, and that hopefully won't happen for a long, long time. It's also a comfort to me to believe that people like my grandmother who passed away years ago, who I was very close to, are still around me and looking out for me, but that again is based on my faith alone.

I think that this question is crucial to understanding the attitude of people who you consider to treat your beliefs as ridiculous. If you believe what you do based on faith then you should be perfectly content to just say that to people. Faith is essentially the acceptance of a proposition in the absence of sufficient evidence to justify its veracity.
If, on the other hand, you believe the things you do because you think that they are true then it is a reasonable expectation that other people should be able to ask what the reasons are for such a conclusion. If at this point, you want to end the discussion then that's fine. But if we're going to have a meaningful, reasonable and intelligent discussion, then you should at least be prepared to defend the reasons for your conclusion.

It is reasonable for people to ask my reasons for what I've chosen to believe, and to have a meaninful, reasonable and intelligent discussion with others about their beliefs and my own. However, 'defend' kind of gives off the impression that it would be an argument rather than a discussion, and an argument over religious beliefs isn't somthing that I want to get in to with anyone. There's been too much trouble caused over the centuries by people who have used their religious beliefs as the basis for war, so there's been enough arguments over religion without adding my own to it.

The really ridiculous thing here is this idea that there are any beliefs which should not be treated as ridiculous if they fail to meet their burden of proof.

I think that on this issue, I'm just going to have to differ with people, I just feel that for me, it feels as though putting down anyones religious beliefs whatever they are, is wrong and it just doesn't sit right with me.

Chuck Stone

I'd defend people's right to believe in whatever magic dust sprinkle fairy they like but in return they must respect people's right not to have their love of magic dust sprinkle fairies shoved down others' throats.

oldrnwisr

mariebeth wrote: »

It is reasonable for people to ask my reasons for what I've chosen to believe, and to have a meaninful, reasonable and intelligent discussion with others about their beliefs and my own. However, 'defend' kind of gives off the impression that it would be an argument rather than a discussion, and an argument over religious beliefs isn't somthing that I want to get in to with anyone. There's been too much trouble caused over the centuries by people who have used their religious beliefs as the basis for war, so there's been enough arguments over religion without adding my own to it.

You have answered the question with the faith response which is fine as I said earlier, but I used the word defend in relation to the other category of believer. If someone asserts, that there is an afterlife, for example then the burden of proof is one the person making the assertion. It is therefore encumbent on them to present evidence for that assertion or otherwise defend it. The word defend is not the prelude for an attack but merely the consequence of making an assertion in the first place.

mariebeth wrote: »

I think that on this issue, I'm just going to have to differ with people, I just feel that for me, it feels as though putting down anyones religious beliefs whatever they are, is wrong and it just doesn't sit right with me.

Is this a special pleading for religious beliefs or do you hold this position for beliefs in general? If I said that I believed that leprechauns were responsible for global warming do you think that those beliefs should be respected? What is it about beliefs, religious or otherwise that deserves some kind of protection?

eoin5

mariebeth wrote: »

It is reasonable for people to ask my reasons for what I've chosen to believe, and to have a meaninful, reasonable and intelligent discussion with others about their beliefs and my own. However, 'defend' kind of gives off the impression that it would be an argument rather than a discussion, and an argument over religious beliefs isn't somthing that I want to get in to with anyone. There's been too much trouble caused over the centuries by people who have used their religious beliefs as the basis for war, so there's been enough arguments over religion without adding my own to it.

That seems more like a chat about it, which is fine but personally in a discussion I think there's nothing wrong with people disagreeing and pushing each other over religion like people do in politics. Taboo really didn't help when all the abuse was happening.

strobe

Thanks for taking the time to give your view Mariebeth. I know some religious people find it a bit 'daunting'(?) posting in what must seem like a hostile platform from the outside.

mariebeth wrote: »

I think that on this issue, I'm just going to have to differ with people, I just feel that for me, it feels as though putting down anyones religious beliefs whatever they are, is wrong and it just doesn't sit right with me.

Can I ask do you apply that to everything or only to religion?

If I was to give three beliefs;

"I think women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are hysterically emotional"

"I believe the moon landings were faked to distract people from John F Kennedy's sex life"

"Dogs control the weather with their mind powers"

Would you feel that those beliefs should be beyond criticism or ridicule were I to express them as well?

JimiTime

Religion should Not be treated with Kid Gloves, nor should people have to respect something that they, well, don't respect. I personally, have no respect for Islam, Hinduism, Atheism or Voodoo etc. However, this does not mean picking fights or looking to insult such people. I think people who look to do such things are usually insecure or bitter. Equally though, I hate the idea of fence sitters. The kind of people who think that we should respect all opinions, and overtly seek to not offend. Taking the easy way out of having no courage of conviction.

There are some people who are honest in their vociferousness, and there are others who's motive is to seek to offend and insult. I think the former are fine, but i think the latter may as well be just shouting abuse about anything. The fact that its religion doesn't really matter. Someone who just wishes to hurl abuse is an idiot whether the abuse is related to religion or gardening. So it becomes IMO, about deciding if you are dealing with an honest objector, or a ranter who just wants to get some stuff of their chest.

So, in summary, definately no kid gloves, but try have a bit of class, and one should always be honest. Though I've seen 'honesty' being ironically abused by people wishing to convey their 'true' feelings. Being honest is NOT an excuse to forego decency or tact.

Goduznt Xzst

mariebeth wrote: »

comforting to me... some people need the comfort of beliefs... comforts me.

mariebeth wrote: »

comfort... It's also a comfort

You're not alone. Many religious people, quite a few of the ones I know also, wrap their minds in cotton wool to anesthetize their perception of reality.

We are not taught about death as children which stunts our ability to conceptualize it when we get into adulthood and need to start dealing with the deaths of loved ones and our looming expiration.

It is the path of least resistance to imagine death just doesn't exist. This is akin to a person, moments before realizing a car is about to hit them, shutting or covering their eyes. They no longer see the danger, but reality has not changed.

You say your belief is personal. I beg to differ. Your belief informs who you are. Every time you say to a child their pet/neighbour/grandparent/parent... etc has "gone to a better place" you are doing them a disservice and spreading your brand of mental anesthetization onto the next generation.

Improbable

I may not be able to prove that god doesn't exist. Nobody can prove a negative. Nobody thus far has been able to prove a positive with regards to god either. But what I can prove is that there is no logical reason to have a belief in the supernatural. It is in that statement that the clash between theists and atheists occur as some theists believe that there is a logical reason to have a belief in the supernatural. I can't speak for anyone else but I take issue more so with theists who claim to have a logical basis for their belief and then fail to back it up with valid evidence as opposed to those theists who freely admit that their belief is based on personal belief and nothing else.

Shenshen

mariebeth wrote: »

I guess that's up to everyone's own opinion on what they do or not, but I don't go around saying or thinking that peoples beliefs are ridiculous whether they believe in a God or don't. The way I see it is that I've thought a lot about what I believe and don't believe, I have made a conscious decision that I do believe in a God and that there is more than just nothing after we die. For me that's comforting to me to believe that there is something after I die, that I'll be able to meet the people I've loved again in some way, shape or form. I don't think that there's anything ridiculous in those beliefs, just as much as I don't see that there's anything ridiculous in not believing that. Every one is different, and some people need the comfort of beliefs, while others don't.

I will admit that it is upsetting & frustrating to me when people put religious beliefs down as being ridiculous. In some cases maybe that's justified, particularly if people just follow along without thinking and questioning things. I've honestly thought a lot about it by myself. I haven't consulted the bible or anyone or anything else. I've sat down and thought out for myself what I believe, and what comforts me. It's because I've thought it out for myself and made a truly personal decision to believe what I believe, that I find it upsetting to know my beliefs are considered ridiculous by people, because ridiculous comes across to me as though I haven't spent ages thinking about it, that I've just followed my parents mindlessly in believing what I do believe in.

Is it too much then to ask that my beliefs not be dismissed as ridiculous or stupid or whatever? Maybe I'm just too sensitive but I feel that when my beliefs are put down as ridiculous that I feel as thought it's an attack on myself and my intelligence. Because of feeling like this, I respect other peoples opinions and beliefs, I listen to them if they want to discuss it rationally without shoving their beliefs down my throat, and I value their beliefs because I like to think that they've come by their own beliefs by thinking about them and coming to their own personal choices, whether they're completely different or the same as my own.

Think of it this way :

A lot of people hold a lot of different beliefs about a lot of things in life. Some that might affect others, some that are private in as much as they will only ever affect the believer him- or herself.
Some have thought long and hard about their beliefs, others have more or less inherited them uninspected.
Do you really think that all those things people believe in on this little planet are deserving of respect? Beliefs, mind you, not people.
Do you respect the belief of some Russian fellow living in Germany that everybody living in Germany today should only be allowed to stay if they can prove to have German ancestry?
Do you respect the beliefs of the small sect of Mormons that a man is entitled to marry as many women as he pleases, and that those women should get assigned to him according to his status in the community?
Do you respect the belief of people that ultimately, their bodies are theirs to decide over, and if they do not want to be pregnant they have the right to end it?
Do you respect the beliefs of business men in the developing world who try and make money by cutting down the rain forest? Keep in mind that their actions are keeping people who work for them in employment and allow them to feed their families.
Do you respect the belief that it's ok for humans to kill and eat animals when there is no neccessity?
Do you respect the beliefs of people in Papua-New Guinea who will eat their dead relatives out of respect?
Do you respect all political beliefs equally? Do you respect all beliefs about the traditional roles of women equally? Do you respect the beliefs of people like Mugabe, Gadaffi, Kim Jong-Il, Hugo Chavez? Or do you have more respect for the beliefs of Ai Wei-Wei, Gandhi and Vaclav Havel? If you respect the beliefs of one group more than those of the other, why?

pH

Improbable wrote: »

I may not be able to prove that god doesn't exist. Nobody can prove a negative.

Interesting, but absolutely not true.

A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative.

Dr. Nelson L. Price, a Georgia minister, writes on his website that ‘one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.’ Julian Noble, a physicist at the University of Virginia, agrees, writing in his ‘Electric Blanket of Doom’ talk that ‘we can’t prove a negative proposition.’ University of California at
Berkeley Professor of Epidemiology Patricia Buffler asserts that ‘The reality is that we can never prove the negative, we can never prove the lack of effect, we can never prove that something is safe.’ A quick search on Google or Lexis-Nexis will give a mountain of similar examples.

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Shenshen

pH wrote: »

Interesting, but absolutely not true.

A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative.

Dr. Nelson L. Price, a Georgia minister, writes on his website that ‘one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.’ Julian Noble, a physicist at the University of Virginia, agrees, writing in his ‘Electric Blanket of Doom’ talk that ‘we can’t prove a negative proposition.’ University of California at
Berkeley Professor of Epidemiology Patricia Buffler asserts that ‘The reality is that we can never prove the negative, we can never prove the lack of effect, we can never prove that something is safe.’ A quick search on Google or Lexis-Nexis will give a mountain of similar examples.

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

I could be wrong, but I always considered "you can't prove a negative" to be one of the laws of physical science, not one of logic.

After all, it's quite impossible to prove conclusively that no man ever walked on Mars.
Or that there never was a purple singing dinosaur. All we can say is that we haven't found any traces or evidence towards either, yet.

mikhail

Pah. That's just playing with words. The mantra "you can't prove a negative" is wrong, sure, but you can't prove something doesn't exist without a clear statement of its causal relationship with something measureable.

oldrnwisr

Shenshen wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I always considered "you can't prove a negative" to be one of the laws of physical science, not one of logic.

I wouldn't say that it is in any way a law of science. In some cases, it can be difficult but that's not to say it's impossible. Take the example from John W. Caroll's famous thought experiment. Caroll talks about the assertion: "There are no uranium spheres larger than 1 mile in diameter." It is relatively simple to prove this negative statement since our knowledge of nuclear physics tells us that any uranium sphere larger than about six inches or so would collapse in on itself.

pH

Shenshen wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I always considered "you can't prove a negative" to be one of the laws of physical science, not one of logic.

After all, it's quite impossible to prove conclusively that no man ever walked on Mars.
Or that there never was a purple singing dinosaur. All we can say is that we haven't found any traces or evidence towards either, yet.

Yes, but if you read the article I linked to, this has nothing to do with it being a negative. You give an example of "prove conclusively that no man ever walked on Mars", the implication being that the positive of that statement is somehow provable, whilst the negative form of it is not.

So how can you prove conclusively that "A man has walked on the moon"?. Sure I'm very confident that many have, and I'm equally confident than no man has walked on Mars, but being able to conclusively prove either?

In fact in science, it could be argued that just the opposite is true. No matter how many experiments you do that confirm a theory you can never 'prove' the theory true, however just one repeatable experiment that contradicts the theory proves it wrong, and the theory goes the way of Luminiferous Aether. A theory, that most people would be happy to agree has been proven wrong.

Galvasean

Oh_Noes wrote: »

I find that I have to do it with atheists or else they get really angry.

Kind of like picking up a stray cat.

Malty_T wrote: »

Clearly you need to improve your social skills and perhaps change the circle?

Oh_Noes wrote: »

Not clearly at all, I've no idea what your post means.

Maybe make a point instead of just a personal attack based on two sentances?

Well if that's your idea of a personal attack it's no wonder you think atheists are angry...

sponsoredwalk

Shenshen wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I always considered "you can't prove a negative" to be one of the laws of physical science, not one of logic..

This is in the domain of logic. What they are talking about is really easy
too, if P is a symbolic representation of some statement, i.e.

P := "The pen is blue"

(Where := means "is defined as") then

¬P := "The pen is not blue".

P can either be true or false, if we draw up a truth table

P
--
T |
F |

This is just showing that P can either be True (T) or False (F), this
way of drawing it is really helpful when you've got 20 or so propositions
& implications that you are trying to relate to each other :P

P | ¬P

---

T | F
F | T

Here we see that if P is true then ¬P is false & if ¬P is true then P is false.

The double negation they are talking about can be written as follows:

P | ¬P |¬(¬P)

---

T | F _| _ T
F | T _| _ F

Here you look at the values ¬P has & just "negate" them & you see that
P = ¬(¬P), by it's truth table.

Improbable

pH wrote: »

Interesting, but absolutely not true.

A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative.

Dr. Nelson L. Price, a Georgia minister, writes on his website that ‘one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.’ Julian Noble, a physicist at the University of Virginia, agrees, writing in his ‘Electric Blanket of Doom’ talk that ‘we can’t prove a negative proposition.’ University of California at
Berkeley Professor of Epidemiology Patricia Buffler asserts that ‘The reality is that we can never prove the negative, we can never prove the lack of effect, we can never prove that something is safe.’ A quick search on Google or Lexis-Nexis will give a mountain of similar examples.

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

I read the pdf file and I'll admit to being a little confused by it. How does it apply to say the proof of a negative with regards to god?

mariebeth

I’m half afraid that I’m going to end up digging a great big hole for myself in this thread if I haven’t done so already.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Is this a special pleading for religious beliefs or do you hold this position for beliefs in general? If I said that I believed that leprechauns were responsible for global warming do you think that those beliefs should be respected? What is it about beliefs, religious or otherwise that deserves some kind of protection?

Oldrnwisr, I guess that the special pleading is for religious beliefs more than beliefs in general. Religious beliefs can’t be proven right (or wrong), they are just based on faith. I know there are people who believe them to be true, and I suppose yes, if someone does believe something to be completely true then they should be able to come up with reasons for believing that way.



What is it about religious beliefs that deserve protection? Well I guess it is just a matter of opinion on this. I just know how it feels to know that someone else thinks that what I believe in is stupid/silly/ridiculous/mental etc. It hurts, because I’m an intelligent person, I didn’t just mindlessly follow my parents or family members in believing what I believe in. So because I know it hurts me, I’m sure it hurts other people to read or hear the same things, which is why I do think that the beliefs that people have, whether they believe in something or don’t believe, shouldn’t be dismissed as silly/ridiculous/mental etc by anyone, either atheist or theist.

strobe wrote: »

Can I ask do you apply that to everything or only to religion?

If I was to give three beliefs;

"I think women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are hysterically emotional"

"I believe the moon landings were faked to distract people from John F Kennedy's sex life"

"Dogs control the weather with their mind powers"

Hi strobe. I hope this isn’t coming across as hypocritical, but I would apply it to religion. There are a lot of beliefs in the world that have been disproven by science, and there are a lot of beliefs that are based on homophobia, sexism, racism etc which I don’t think should be protected, because they are hurtful to people.


Now this is where I’m going to be digging a hole for myself. There are religious beliefs & practices which physically hurt people, such as female genital mutilation, which is carried out as a cultural and religious practice, mostly in Africa. Now, I know I’ve said that I think peoples religious beliefs should be respected and don’t deserved to be dismissed, however I’m going to clarify a point on this, I’m going to say that unless they are physically injuring people, then they do deserve some respect/protection, however practices such as FGM, in my eyes should not be allowed to continue.

strobe wrote: »

Would you feel that those beliefs should be beyond criticism or ridicule were I to express them as well?

Strobe, you actually got me thinking a bit more, by asking should those hypothetical beliefs be beyond criticism or ridicule. There is a big difference between criticism and ridicule. Criticism and debate is healthy, it gets people thinking and discussing. It’s the ‘ridicule’ part that gets to me, I don’t think that any religious belief should be ridiculed, because for me, my beliefs are important to me, and while they’re not everything that I am, they are special to me and when I think that they are being ridiculed, and thought of as silly, I feel that the person thinking that feels that I’m ridiculous and stupid also, which I’m definitely not. I don’t know if it’s the same for everyone, but my religious beliefs are part of who I am, other things that I believe in have changed over time, but I don’t think that my religious beliefs will because they are a part of me.

pH

Improbable wrote: »

I read the pdf file and I'll admit to being a little confused by it. How does it apply to say the proof of a negative with regards to god?

Well you read the article, and it covers it. Simply put you can make an argument about 'unprovable' things, but there's nothing special about 'negative' ones.

What you probably should have said is that person A can make statements that person B can't disprove.

ShooterSF

mariebeth wrote: »

Hi strobe. I hope this isn’t coming across as hypocritical, but I would apply it to religion. There are a lot of beliefs in the world that have been disproven by science, and there are a lot of beliefs that are based on homophobia, sexism, racism etc which I don’t think should be protected, because they are hurtful to people.

What if they are part of a religion? They don't physically hurt people so I'm just trying to clear up any gray areas...

It’s the ‘ridicule’ part that gets to me, I don’t think that any religious belief should be ridiculed

Do you mean a religious belief as part of one of the major religions or can it be any belief if it's part of my religion? Surely anyone can claim a belief is a religious one then.
What of say Scientology should I not ridicule their beliefs?

Before I say anymore, I respect you for being open about your beliefs but I don't respect your beliefs. I don't consider what you have shared to be a danger to society but the minute you build a belief on an important issue and express it (eg. abortion) based on that religious belief you would have to understand that the underlying religious belief would then be fair game.

The big problem is you ask for faith based beliefs to be respected because unlike claiming the moon is made of cheese there is no scientific evidence against your belief. Unfortunately that's just not how the world should work. Your claim has as much evidence FOR it as a nice cheddar moon and therefore has to be put in the same category. You can't just fill gaps in knowledge with what feels good.
Again I have no issue with you practicing your belief in privacy or amongst similar peers.

But you will also find that most of the issues on this forum that creep up repeatedly are about people with faith based beliefs pushing them on others. See indoctrination in schools, Westboro baptist church and homosexuals (and more indoctrination) and just today Catholic parents trying to force their religion on Atheist (or non-catholic belief holding) children. Unfortunately not all the faithful are as understanding as yourself when it comes to the lack of beliefs of others. So you can't ask me to respect THEIR beliefs when they don't mine.

aidan24326

@Mariebeth

Thank you for articulating your position in a much clearer way than most. Your posts have been good and you certainly do come across as intelligent and as someone who has thought this through. That isn't always the case as you can imagine.

If my description of your beliefs as 'ridiculous' caused offence I apologise on a personal level, but at the same time I cannot apologise on an intellectual level for the simple reason that I do consider it ridiculous, whether that offends you or not.

Thing is, if you apply any kind of rigorous thought, and kind of rational analysis to religious beliefs the whole thing comes crashing down like a house of cards very quickly. I urge you to use that intelligent mind you have to really analyse and scrutinise what you claim to believe in. After that, if you still feel happy with what you believe, then so be it. I wish you well either way.

Goduznt Xzst

mariebeth wrote: »

Now, I know I’ve said that I think peoples religious beliefs should be respected and don’t deserved to be dismissed, however I’m going to clarify a point on this, I’m going to say that unless they are physically injuring people, then they do deserve some respect/protection, however practices such as FGM, in my eyes should not be allowed to continue.

So you'd be ok with me, say, yelling at my child all day and telling them they are a disgusting piece of filth because I believed it would make the invisible dragon in my attic happy.

But you wouldn't be ok with me, say, using a pin to prick their finger tip once a year to appease the invisible dragon in my attic.

Am I understanding you right? The former you'd respect, but the latter should be stopped.

Apologies for the reductio ad absurdum, it's just that mental, and emotional injury do as much, if not more, damage than physical injury. I need to know if you agree with this and omitted it mistakenly from your previous post.

Galvasean

As for the criticism versus ridicule idea, I actually enjoy ridiculing ideas that I respect. Since I don't respect religious ideas you can only imagine....

antiskeptic

aidan24326 wrote: »

Thing is, if you apply any kind of rigorous thought, and kind of rational analysis to religious beliefs the whole thing comes crashing down like a house of cards very quickly.

Yet many people who are demonstrably rational and rigorous in their thinking happen to be religious. The usual atheist bolthole at this point is to wave the magic wand of childhood indoctrination / cognitive dissonance / comfort blanket.

How have you managed to square this particuar circle. Rationally and rigorously that is..

ShooterSF

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet many people who are demonstrably rational and rigorous in their thinking happen to be religious. The usual atheist bolthole at this point is to wave the magic wand of childhood indoctrination / cognitive dissonance / comfort blanket.

How have you managed to square this particuar circle. Rationally and rigorously that is..

I'd go with option 3. The poster has been quite honest that their beliefs comfort them. Seems plausible no?

antiskeptic

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd go with option 3. The poster has been quite honest that their beliefs comfort them. Seems plausible no?

That something brings comfort doesn't make it irrational.

oldrnwisr

mariebeth wrote: »

I’m half afraid that I’m going to end up digging a great big hole for myself in this thread if I haven’t done so already.

Oldrnwisr, I guess that the special pleading is for religious beliefs more than beliefs in general. Religious beliefs can’t be proven right (or wrong), they are just based on faith. I know there are people who believe them to be true, and I suppose yes, if someone does believe something to be completely true then they should be able to come up with reasons for believing that way.

What is it about religious beliefs that deserve protection? Well I guess it is just a matter of opinion on this. I just know how it feels to know that someone else thinks that what I believe in is stupid/silly/ridiculous/mental etc. It hurts, because I’m an intelligent person, I didn’t just mindlessly follow my parents or family members in believing what I believe in. So because I know it hurts me, I’m sure it hurts other people to read or hear the same things, which is why I do think that the beliefs that people have, whether they believe in something or don’t believe, shouldn’t be dismissed as silly/ridiculous/mental etc by anyone, either atheist or theist.

Hi strobe. I hope this isn’t coming across as hypocritical, but I would apply it to religion. There are a lot of beliefs in the world that have been disproven by science, and there are a lot of beliefs that are based on homophobia, sexism, racism etc which I don’t think should be protected, because they are hurtful to people.

Now this is where I’m going to be digging a hole for myself. There are religious beliefs & practices which physically hurt people, such as female genital mutilation, which is carried out as a cultural and religious practice, mostly in Africa. Now, I know I’ve said that I think peoples religious beliefs should be respected and don’t deserved to be dismissed, however I’m going to clarify a point on this, I’m going to say that unless they are physically injuring people, then they do deserve some respect/protection, however practices such as FGM, in my eyes should not be allowed to continue.

Strobe, you actually got me thinking a bit more, by asking should those hypothetical beliefs be beyond criticism or ridicule. There is a big difference between criticism and ridicule. Criticism and debate is healthy, it gets people thinking and discussing. It’s the ‘ridicule’ part that gets to me, I don’t think that any religious belief should be ridiculed, because for me, my beliefs are important to me, and while they’re not everything that I am, they are special to me and when I think that they are being ridiculed, and thought of as silly, I feel that the person thinking that feels that I’m ridiculous and stupid also, which I’m definitely not. I don’t know if it’s the same for everyone, but my religious beliefs are part of who I am, other things that I believe in have changed over time, but I don’t think that my religious beliefs will because they are a part of me.

Thank you for your response mariebeth. The question I am left with, though, is why do you consider religious beliefs to be exempt from the considerations of other beliefs. Is it, as you have stated, because religious beliefs form part of your character or is there another reason?

As for respecting beliefs just because they do no harm, I don't agree. Firstly, there is quite a long list of harmful practices and incidents which trace their origin to a religious teaching or the interpretation of said teaching by some misguided followers. Paedophilia, circumcision, FGM, suicide bombing etc., it's hard to find a major religion without some harmful aspect. Secondly, I think that religion is inherently divisive and does come with a real cost. Rather than expand more on that here I would like to present this video instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y

I don't think that you have dug a deep hole for yourself just yet, but you look ready to pick up the shovel labelled Pascal's wager and so I think you're hovering over it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet many people who are demonstrably rational and rigorous in their thinking happen to be religious. The usual atheist bolthole at this point is to wave the magic wand of childhood indoctrination / cognitive dissonance / comfort blanket.

How have you managed to square this particuar circle. Rationally and rigorously that is..

People who are rational and rigorous in their views and yet religious are usually religious due to an argument from special pleading. As mariebeth has acknowledged above, she considers religious beliefs to be exempt from the scrutiny directed towards other beliefs. A lot of people seem to argue this fallacy when it comes to religion.

antiskeptic

oldrnwisr wrote: »

People who are rational and rigorous in their views and yet religious are usually religious due to an argument from special pleading. As mariebeth has acknowledged above, she considers religious beliefs to be exempt from the scrutiny directed towards other beliefs. A lot of people seem to argue this fallacy when it comes to religion.

I haven't read mariebeth to know.

You might be conflating scrutiny (which the Christian faith welcomes - indeed, enjoys) and conforming to the demands of empiricial enquiry. That has been my experience in the main - you've only got to scan this forum to see that objection raised time and again.

ShooterSF

antiskeptic wrote: »

That something brings comfort doesn't make it irrational.

So we're doing this in baby steps eh?

Believing in something that brings comfort is fine.
Believing in something because it brings comfort is illogical if not irrational.

Anyway you offered common picked answers and i picked the one that most likely applied. Like you asked. Unless you had a hidden agenda in your question?

antiskeptic

ShooterSF wrote: »

So we're doing this in baby steps eh?

If it helps prevent leaps of imagination then I'm afraid so

Believing in something that brings comfort is fine.

Okay

Believing in something because it brings comfort is illogical if not irrational.

I don't see that it's an issue of logic tbh. But it would strike me as irrational.

However, it's one thing claiming this is why otherwise rational and rigorous people believe as they do - quite another to back it up.

Anyway you offered common picked answers and i picked the one that most likely applied.

How do you arrive at "Most likely". Rationally and rigorously mind..

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet many people who are demonstrably rational and rigorous in their thinking happen to be religious. The usual atheist bolthole at this point is to wave the magic wand of childhood indoctrination / cognitive dissonance / comfort blanket.

How have you managed to square this particuar circle. Rationally and rigorously that is..

You gave the answer - cognitive dissonance. Religious people are not rational and rigorous when it comes to religion, otherwise they wouldn't be rational and rigorous. This is clearly true because normally rational and rigorous people have contradictory religious beliefs to each other (unless you are claiming that christians and no other theists are rational and rigorous). They cant all be right, so at the very minimum, all of them less one group is not being rational and rigorous in their examination of their beliefs.

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

I haven't read mariebeth to know.

You might be conflating scrutiny (which the Christian faith welcomes - indeed, enjoys) and conforming to the demands of empiricial enquiry. That has been my experience in the main - you've only got to scan this forum to see that objection raised time and again.

Ok, if, as ShooterSF has already commented, you want to do this in baby steps, fine by me. By scrutiny I mean a critical examination of beliefs. If a person believes something to be true then they must present evidence and reasoned argument to back it up. Any belief that doesn't meet its burden of proof doesn't deserve anything other than ridicule.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see that it's an issue of logic tbh. But it would strike me as irrational.

It is absolutely an issue of logic. Believing in something because it gives comfort is an appeal to emotion.

antiskeptic

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Ok, if, as ShooterSF has already commented, you want to do this in baby steps, fine by me. By scrutiny I mean a critical examination of beliefs. If a person believes something to be true then they must present evidence and reasoned argument to back it up. Any belief that doesn't meet its burden of proof doesn't deserve anything other than ridicule.

The devil, as ever, lies in the detail. Words such a critical, evidence, proof, reasoned are slippery things and the tendency, I find, is for atheists to demand that folk conform to their particular take on these words.

Lord Chief Justice Darling is widely quoted along the lines of suggesting that: based on the evidence available, no intelligent jury could find other than that the resurrection story is true. This doesn't mean it is true in fact - it just means that according to the rules of evidence as they pertain to a court of law - and supposing a jury operating intelligently according to the rules which constrain them (which would naturally involve leaving their personal belief systems outside the jury room) - such would be the verdict.

Would the burden of proof in this case satisfy a scientific equiry? Obviously not.

So which court do you suppose we sit in?

It is absolutely an issue of logic. Believing in something because it gives comfort is an appeal to emotion.

Some would see it as logical to live a happy life.