Do you expect people to defend their beliefs?

Bannasidhe

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Any chance of a link? (Not doubting you, I'd just like to read it myself)

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pope-benedict-blesses-top-lawmaker-pushing-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill/politics/2012/12/13/56277

Daftendirekt

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pope-benedict-blesses-top-lawmaker-pushing-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill/politics/2012/12/13/56277

Wow. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but...

PopePalpatine

I'd love to see the hardcore Catholics on "t'udder forum" try to defend that.

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd love to see the hardcore Catholics on "t'udder forum" try to defend that.

I suspect some of them would applaud him.

nozzferrahhtoo

George79 wrote: »

I do think that those who practice religion should be respected as well (so long as the practicing of their religion does not impact upon others freedoms/choices etc).

Can you see the problem here??

No I see no problem because everything I said is entirely in agreement with everything you said. I am all for respecting people. I just do not respect beliefs. I am well capable of separating the two things in my mind. I can for example marvel at the genius and wonder that was Isaac Newton while deriding and tearing apart some of the really nonsense and baseless notions he subscribed to.

Respect people, not ideas.

RDM_83 again

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For me it is entirely dependant on how and where they espouse those beliefs. I have literally no problem at all with people who think there is a god. None. When those beliefs are rolled out in our halls of power, education or science however... or brought up as a platform on which to admonish us on subjects of sexuality, morality and ethics then I very much do expect people to defend them.

The analogy I often use is to imagine during a conversation someone produces a page chock full of statistics that support their position. You are where these statistics came from, who compiled them and how, and what the study group/sample was. They refuse to answer in any way and of those questions however but insist you acknowledge the figures and their relevance to the conversation.

Ok as an al a carte Catholic (or an Agnostic Catholic or cultural) i'm not the usual poster here, but don't you see the difference between the two sets of issues you have highlighted, I'm completely fine with the idea of the that religious argument has no place in terms of education and science, however in relation to ethics and morality these are intrinsically subjective anyway and are often based on a simple communal opinion rather than a consistent framework e.g. one should give a extremely deep and consistent reason to why one course of action is superior if one is to criticise others for their lack of intellectual rigor by relying on religious doctrine (I'm sure there will be posts challenging my viewpoint using examples such as empathy etc or alternatively be considered a evolutionary determinist).

In relation to Bannasidhe's articles thats pretty nasty but as far as i understand it one can disagree with the Pope and remain a Catholic within the Church as long as the statement is not covered by papal infallibility. I'm always curious would Catholicism be viewed as harshly if Liberation Theology had caught on ( I understand that atheist disagreement would still be valid obviously)

Lapin

OP - Read The Crito.

RDM_83 again

Lapin wrote: »

OP - Read The Crito.

I do need to read more (any!) philosophy. But in all honesty how much non religious based opinion and dialogue on everyday society and life is based on a sound and rational and internally consistent philosophical basis. And after a brief skim of the wiki summary (sorry) I'm unsure if this text approaches the core of my problem which is the inherent subjectiveness of every value system (though obviously if its consistent at least thats superior)

As an aside I find it ironic that after doing a bit of searching and posting on this forum I'm now getting Christian dating site ads

sbsquarepants

I couldn't relly care less whether people defend their beliefs or not, but if they expect me to have a shred of respect for said belief they better be damn well able to defend it it, and defend it rationaly, not just i believe it cos i it's what i believe. That's not a defence, it's just lazy thinking. It's basically saying, i can't be bothered to look at things myself and draw a conclusion based on something that makes sense to me - so i'll just have whatever the nice man in the dress is having instead.
If that's all the respect you've shown your own "beliefs" why the hell should i show them any more?

Liamario

If someone brings up their belief in conversation, I expect them to be open to questions and be able to defend it.
If someone uses their belief to apply their moral attitude on to other people- I expect them to defend it.

If someone chooses to believe something without and supporting facts; I'm more than happy to leave them at it- as long as they keep it to themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

however in relation to ethics and morality these are intrinsically subjective anyway and are often based on a simple communal opinion rather than a consistent framework

Moral and Ethical discourse is extremely important to our species and I feel religion hampers it. To have a useful conversation in that area we need to be discussing a shared reality with facts and arguments that are amenable to everyone in the discussion.

Bringing data into the conversation which one actually does not have but has either made up or was told once and believes it for no reason certainly does not help such discourse.

As such the answer to your question is no... though I have to admit I am not 100% sure I have understood the point you are trying to make.

I do not see any clear difference between the application of religion to science and education... and it's application to ethics and morality. In both I feel that if the data you are bringing to the table is entirely unsubstantiated then it should simply be left out of the conversation.

RDM_83 again

The current thread with the "poll on morality" is covering similar ground to the idea (that I rather poorly tried) to put across. Which is that there just isn't any objective morality, you can be objective if once you have a core subjective base for your ethical/moral system e.g something like suffering is bad, people should be allowed to do what they want, every person is created equal and deserves equal opportunity.
So my view is that at the very core there is little difference in terms of "truth" between an atheist and a theist moral system as both are subjective, though an atheist moral system drawing on its subjective core values will most likely be more coherent and logical than a theistic system.

Edit: thats why I feel that there's a difference between applying religious belief to science where one is meant to strive for objectivity proving a hypothesis/developing a theory doesn't make any subjective value judgments, in my view every discussion on morals/ethics involves some level of subjective value judgements

nozzferrahhtoo

Saying there is little difference between things because one sole attribute is similar is a bit general. "There is little difference between my black shoes and night time because they are both black" is clearly ridiculous. No less so, to me at least, is saying "there is little difference in terms of "truth" between an atheist and a theist moral system as both are subjective".

Yes both are subjective. That does not mean there is little difference between them. There is massive differences and the most important one I pointed out is that the discourse on one is based on a common shared reality and facts available and ameneable to everyone. While the other is based on, apparently, just making stuff up.

Another clear difference is that one involves putting the responsibility (and blame and credit) at our feet while the other moves it up to a (again seemingly made up) deity in the sky.

The list goes on but suffice to say I see many differences and pointing at one similarity and using that to declare there is little difference obfuscates some massive issues one would do well to unpack and explore.