Respecting religious beliefs

[atheist buddy]

Why is it that in every field of human knowledge, a belief is only respected when it has been established that it's true, but when it comes to religion, we have to respect it even when it's not true?


In the field of history, the belief that the Holocaust never happened is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

In the field of astronomy, the belief that the moon is made of cheese is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

So why do the beliefs that Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus came back from the dead, or that Mohammed rode a flying horse, or that Balaal had a talking donkey have to be respected even if they are false?


If I said "Believing the Halocaust didn't happen is as absurd as believing in Peter Pan", nobody would chide me for being disrespectful of a holocaust denier's beliefs.

If I said "Believing the moon is made out of cheese is as absurd as believing in the Tooth Fairy" nobody would chide me for being disresepctful to a moon-made-out-of cheese person's beliefs.

So why do I get scolded for making comparisons between the Talking Donkey and the Gingerbread Man, or the Virgin Birth and the Three Little Piggies?



Is it because people are very emotionally attached to beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births, and I should be mindful of not hurting their feelings? If that's the case, then what if a holocaust denier is very emotionally attached to his beliefs? Should I refrain from expressing my sincere opinion that his beliefs are absurd, to safeguard his feelings?

Is it because beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births are held by millions whereas holocaust deniers and people who believe the moon is made of cheese are thankfully very rare? By that token, should I have been respectful of the typical white american's belief about race relations in the 19th century, because those unjustified and inexcusable beliefs were the beliefs of the majority?


Why is there a double standard? Why is belief that Elvis is still alive cause for imediate social ostratization, but belief in the virgin birth respected even by those who don't share that belief?


It seems to me that in all aspects of human discourse, this parameter is used: If a belief is justified, it's respected. If it isn't justified, it is not respected. Why aren't religious claims subject to that same standard?


If I compare the Bible to the Three Little Piggies, the only valid rebuke is that the Bible is a more literarily interesting work of fiction than the Three Little Piggies. Of course, if I compared the Bible to, say, Shakespeare, the inverse would be true, and if anything, I could be accused of insulting Shakespeare.

IF the talking donkey and the virgin birth actually happened, then comparing them to fictional events that didn't happen, is indeed disrespectful. But if the talking donkey and the virgin birth are fictional, how is it disrespectful to compare them to other fictional stories? How is comparing fiction to fiction disrespectful?



Can we agree that there is no universal requirement for respecting somebody's mathematical, scientific, historical, geographical, beliefs if they are unjustified?

Can we agree that while I do have to be respectful to a person who believes 2+2=5, it is perfectly socially acceptable to be disrespectful of the belief itself?

So why can't the same apply to religion? Why is it not ok to say to a Muslim "I respect you as a person, but in my opinion your belief in Mohammed's flying horse is as absurd as a child's belief in Santa's flying reindeer".

[OnceConvinced]

I say "disrespect the belief, not the believer"

I think it's time to stop pussy footing around ridiculous beliefs. Scientific studies show that the human brain has a habit of fooling itself into believing unrealistic and even crazy things. We need to be aware of that and question the beliefs that we do have to ensure they're rational. We need to challenge each other.

If you believe in big foots, then your belief should be ridiculed. If you believe that aliens are continually targetting red necks in certain parts of the USA for abduction and ignoring the majority of the rest of the world, then your belief should be ridiculed. If you believe that voodoo curses work, your belief should be ridiculed. If you believe in Angels and demons your beliefs should be ridiculed. We're in the 21st century now, not the dark ages. We need to get real.

Enough of the double standards, I say. If your belief defies reality, then you should expect that it's gonna be ridiculed.

[Danmark]

As well, please acquit me and the other posters on this forum of

That sort of thing is a bit off putting, y'know?

A. No one accused you or anyone on this forum of "wishing to murder wholesale, of wanting to promote the death penalty for all sorts, and for generally being extremist jihadists in a religion we don't actually believe in." So your reaction is way over the top. In fact it is a false allegation.

I documented evidence that strongly indicates large percentages of people who belong to some religions advocate the death penalty for believing the 'wrong' thing. I repeat, I do not see any reason why I should respect either them or their religion. I also feel no need to respect either them or their religion when it teaches them to hate others who are different or a religion that promotes ignorance.

Rather than accuse me of something I did not say, I suggest you analyze what I actually wrote.

[dianaiad]

So, please do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder.

Wow. WOW. "Do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder".

It's remarkable how your statement perfectly describes the exact opposite of reality.

Believers are MOST DEFINITELY getting away with murder.

It's estimated by human rights groups that 5000 honor killings happen each year.

Believers are literally getting away with murder. Not figuratively. Literally.

And that's right now.

If you look back at history it's even worse. Inquisition, Stalinism, North Korea, Ireland, Crusades, you name it.

Wow. That's interesting. You are including Stalin in with religious folks, are you? North Korea, too?

This is a thought experiment I like to propose:
Imagine there is a time/space machine which automatically teleports you to a major city at a random time in the past. Once you get there, you have to go to the center of the city square and yell out "I used to agree with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority, but not anymore. Now I find those beliefs laughable. Going forward, I will discuss by newfound skepticism with your children".

Here is the game: If you survive saying that, you win. If you get incarcerated, beaten, burned at the stake, tortured, beheaded, hanged or disemboweled, you lose.

Would you be ok with your children getting into that time machine and playing that game?

Uhmn....

er......

I was a Mormon missionary. I pretty much did that. Have a scar to prove it.

Well, actually, what I SAID was "I have something special for you. It's different from your beliefs. Come and listen."

Y'see, I have found a really odd truth. People really don't leave their religion because someone else has insulted it enough. They leave it because they find a different truth that is 'better.' Whether that is a different religious belief, or some atheistic approach to logical thought, it doesn't matter much. People go TO things, not run FROM them.

Perhaps you could try that approach? You might be a wee bit less likely to be beheaded.

Or not.....

but you WILL get more 'converts.'

What's my point? Throughout most of the world and most of history, disagreeing with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority (Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Kim Jung Un veneration, Holiness of Japanese Emperor, holines of Pharaoh, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, ecc) was and still is the most dangerous social behavior a human being could engage in.

Yes. So....why deliberately make it harder on yourself? it seems to me that if your goal is to get from one side of the enemy camp to another, rescuing a captive or two on the way, the least effective way to do it is to march in all by yourself, beating on your bodhran and shouting insults at the guards.

Of course, again, it's all about what you want out of the exchange, I suppose.

If you are a mass murderer who killed people at least once a month for the last 10 years, it's not very reassuring if you tell me "What? I didn't kill anybody in this neighborhood in the last 7 days. I'm a changed man. There's nothing to fear".

....and the folks in the typical debate forum are all serial murderers, if they happen to be theists, are they?

perhaps you might get an inkling as to why not being quite so melodramatically critical might get you farther?

Similarly, dogmatic people throughout the world and throughout history have systematically murderered, tortured and persecuted those who didn't believe in their dogma (either because they were skeptics or because they believed a different dogma). Now, very recently and for the first time, in very isolated pockets of civilization such as America and Europe, there is an exception to the rule that has been applied for the last 6000 years throughout the globe. And you expect me relax, and enjoy the fact that I'm not being persecuted right this minute?

Yep.

Or rather, I personally would appreciate it if, not being persecuted right this minute, you didn't think 'wow, I guess it's my turn!"

The thing is, m'friend, you really don't have a clue, personally, what 'persecution' is.

I, on the other hand, do. Not to the extent that some Christians in Muslim controlled governments do, certainly, but I do know what it's like to carry real, physical scars, have been refused employment, stuff like that.

You are in absolutely no danger of being jailed, harrassed, killed, shot at, stoned (with real rocks) refused jobs or anything else because you want to rant against some belief you disagree with in this forum.

So how is it brave, or idealistic, or 'candid' for you (or anybody else) to use the language I have seen here to describe beliefs you don't agree with? Would you speak your mind in such a manner if someone WERE about to injure you?

I can ask, because I have already proven that I will speak of my beliefs in the face of just such opposition. If I choose to use language that is 'softer' than you seem called on to employ, it's not because I'm afraid, or because my feelings are 'less.' It's because I actually want people to listen and to engage in conversation.

Now as far as you saying,

that's not how human biology works

I absolutely agree with you on that statement, without a doubt. But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe?

Sure. IF an entity that could bend the natural laws existed, then the natural laws could be bent.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Think about it. You're saying "That which is impossible could be possible if we assume that that which isn't true, is true".

You know that an argument is bunk when it can be used to justify laughable propositions just as well as it can be used to justify your religious belief.

You can say "Virgin births are impossible, but they could happen if an entity (Yahweh) that can make the impossible possible existed".

Except, of course, that virgin births are entirely possible and well within modern medical scientific capability. In fact, 'they' have had to set up rules for possible surrogate mothers to ensure that they DON'T get virgins pregnant...by requiring, in most cases, that a surrogate mother have had at least one previous, successful, birth.

So why are you so insistent that God could not have done what WE can do?

I don't know about you, but there is no way that position is logical.

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Allah) that can make the impossible possible existed"

In the exact same way you could say "Delivering gifts to millions of children in a single night on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Santa) that can make the impossible possible existed".

I do NOT mean to compare your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa.

You just, er, did.

I just wish to point out within the narrow scope of my argument, that your position regarding the virgin birth is untenable, in that the very same argument you use to justify it, can also be used to justify equally succesfully the existence of Mohammed's flying horse or Santa's flying reindeer.

Except of course that you picked the one miracle that we can repeat ourselves, and thus you can't say that God could not have done it. You should have picked something we haven't been able to duplicate. yet.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am in no way comparing your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I believe that I have the right to if I want to, but I am nonetheless not doing it. I am just making a very narrow point about how your argument is not valid because it can be used to justify patently false things just as well as it can be used to justify your belief.

Point of logic:

the fact of the thing is entirely independent of logical argument concerning that thing.

If a rock fell out of the sky and made a hole in my back yard, it fell out of the sky and made a hole in my back yard. It doesn't matter how unlikely it was. I doesn't matter who argues with me about it, or whether you manage to change my mind and figure that the hole was 'really' made by the dog who crawled under the hedge.

Doesn't matter what we believe, one way or the other, to the facts of the matter. Schrodinger's cat notwithstanding, what we believe does not affect what is, only what we think is.

And you could be wrong about it.

Given that, it might be a good idea to...not pretend that you respect and admire beliefs with which you do not agree, but rather to treat the believers in those things kindly, so that they, in return, will treat you kindly.

Whichever one of you turns out to be right, if either one of you is.

[Unhand Me Sir]

That is morally indefensible. Either we ALL get to ignore the "no headgear" rule, or none of us do. You don't get to be treated better than me because of your religion. Period.

There's actually no inequality here. You have the same right to wear one of a limited number of items on your head for religious reasons, should you choose to exercise it. Nobody, of whatever religion, has the right to wear a beanie.

Just because you don't exercise your right it doesn't follow that you're being discriminated against.

What you're saying is that some secular rules, no matter how important, must give precedence to religious beliefs. If that were true, the secular rule that murder is wrong, should give precedence to the muslim tradition of "honor killings" whereby a rape victim is killed by her father.

Bad logic. Some rules doesn't imply all rules. Also, you're starting to sound a bit hysterical. The regulations on passport photos really aren't the only thing standing between us and the introduction of Sharia.

Seriously, if the fact that you can't wear a hat in your passport photo is even in the top ten things you have to worry about then you have a very easy life.

[Danmark]

There's actually no inequality here. You have the same right to wear something on your head for religious reasons should you choose to exercise it. Nobody, of whatever religion, has the right to wear a beanie.

[emphasis applied]
Is this a typo? It must be. Certainly we all have the right to wear a 'beanie.'

Mine has a propellor.



I'm saving up to buy this one:

[Unhand Me Sir]

[Replying to post 25 by Danmark]

t'would be a heartless bureaucrat indeed who objected to your passport photo featuring such an awesome beanie.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Respect religious beliefs?

I can't respect the claims, and so, well if it hairlips the governor, it'll be that I can't respect the beliefs borne of the claims.

And then, well, if we's honest, can we really respect 'em that hold to such goofy beliefs? I mean, it's nice to respect folks, but can I really respect those who think some "skydaddy" (my term, for effect not just insult) cares about whether it is, I go about doin' me any respectin'? Really there, I use that term for effect, but hope y'all see it, that I hafta say it that way, so it is, folks can tell maybe I don't either know enough about it, but find it merely a "goofy", "absurd", or - as I've tried to say in the past, merely a conclusion with which I disagree.

Conclusions?


To those whose religious texts declare me a "fool", among other slanders - I spit on your holy text, and if it is, it's you think the bible got it right, I spit, if only metaphorically, on you.

I will offer no respectalizationings for any belief, person, god, or gingerbread man, or any holocaust denier, promoter, or just a holocaust oficianado that can't do any respecting of me or mine.


Respect should be earned, not granted just for how proud you are for thinking something.

When one's religious doctrine / holy texts sets to respecting me, only then should I bother to think about if it is, maybe I ain't doin' me enough of it back.

[dianaiad]

From the OP:

Respect religious beliefs?

I can't respect the claims, and so, well if it hairlips the governor, it'll be that I can't respect the beliefs borne of the claims.

And then, well, if we's honest, can we really respect 'em that hold to such goofy beliefs? I mean, it's nice to respect folks, but can I really respect those who think some "skydaddy" (my term, for effect not just insult) cares about whether it is, I go about doin' me any respectin'? Really there, I use that term for effect, but hope y'all see it, that I hafta say it that way, so it is, folks can tell maybe I don't either know enough about it, but find it merely a "goofy", "absurd", or - as I've tried to say in the past, merely a conclusion with which I disagree.

Conclusions?


To those whose religious texts declare me a "fool", among other slanders - I spit on your holy text, and if it is, it's you think the bible got it right, I spit, if only metaphorically, on you.

I will offer no respectalizationings for any belief, person, god, or gingerbread man, or any holocaust denier, promoter, or just a holocaust oficianado that can't do any respecting of me or mine.


Respect should be earned, not granted just for how proud you are for thinking something.

When one's religious doctrine / holy texts sets to respecting me, only then should I bother to think about if it is, maybe I ain't doin' me enough of it back.

It is certainly your right to spit (metaphorically only) on beliefs and people, m'friend.

Far be it from me to deny your right to do so.

Most of the time, anyway.

I just figure (from the POV of a believer in things that you--metaphorically, of course--spit on) that if you don't refrain from the spitting, you aren't interested in discussing things rationally, trying to get me to see reason or even speak together without drawing weapons with sharp edges.


So I guess it's about what the goal is, for the (metaphorical, of course) spitter upon things. If all you want to do is express your opinion and make enemies, ensure that believers would rather chew on a Chihuly than talk to you, and pretty much cement their beliefs, fine.

It is a bit of a truism that nothing cements a position like opposition to it, and the nastier the form of the opposition, the more stubborn the holder of it is.

Shoot, without the Roman persecution of the Christians, the whole thing might have fizzled out. People just automatically figure that if everybody hates something THAT much, and if the opposition is THAT nasty, there must be something to it. Conspiracy theories are bred in the genetic code of Homo sapiens sapiens. We think too much.

But if you treat the ideas with some, at least surface, respect, you can draw the believer into discussions and he may change his mind in spite of himself, given that he isn't on guard quite as strictly.

All that flies out the window, of course, if the spitting is more than metaphorical. I've been on the receiving end of that, too.

[Zzyzx]

.

Respect should be earned,

Agree.

I give every person a limited amount of trust and respect just for being a fellow human being -- and allow them to EARN more or less. Many earn less.

Those who attempt to assume a superior position earn less, as do those who obsessively or fanatically promote ANY ideology or theology. Those who refuse to debate honorably and civilly earn strong disrespect.

Several Theist / Deist members who post here have earned my respect by SHOWING respect for Non-Theists. This does not mean that I accept or endorse their belief system and certainly do not approve of proselytization / preaching / prognosticating / pontificating by anyone.

[dianaiad]

As well, please acquit me and the other posters on this forum of

That sort of thing is a bit off putting, y'know?

A. No one accused you or anyone on this forum of "wishing to murder wholesale, of wanting to promote the death penalty for all sorts, and for generally being extremist jihadists in a religion we don't actually believe in." So your reaction is way over the top. In fact it is a false allegation.

I documented evidence that strongly indicates large percentages of people who belong to some religions advocate the death penalty for believing the 'wrong' thing. I repeat, I do not see any reason why I should respect either them or their religion. I also feel no need to respect either them or their religion when it teaches them to hate others who are different or a religion that promotes ignorance.

Rather than accuse me of something I did not say, I suggest you analyze what I actually wrote.

The problem is that the OP was written by someone who is calling foul because he wants to be able to be disrespectful and vilify the beliefs held BY PEOPLE IN HERE.

On this forum. In other debate forums.

It is not logical to use extremist jihadist Muslim actions to excuse using vile and insulting epithets to refer to, say...the virgin birth or that God the Father just might love us.

Since you...and at least one other here...have used examples from extremist jihadist Muslim beliefs (beheadings, honor killings, and so forth) to excuse the sort of language used in here against people who are NOT extremist, jihadist Muslims, I thought it a good idea to remind you that we are not.

After all, even I, who have brought up the fact that there hasn't been a single officially atheist nation that has not ended up being tyranical and murderous, do not figure that this applies, in any way, to the atheists (mostly humanists who would never be a part of such a murderous system) who post in here.


What you are doing is claiming that because the apple is rotten, you need to trash the orange.