Why do we respect religious beliefs?

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.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

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.

I'm pretty sure we all got the point Zillah was making.
Regardless of his reckless use of the symbol "=>".

Zombrex

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 does see religious faith as being a potentially harmful thing and naturally since he doesn't think God exists anyone who claims they speak to God is deluding themselves into believe that.

So far you haven't mentioned anything that you don't do in the reverse.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

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.

Only if one believes that child abuse is only those "most disgusting" things, which would be rather naive.

Would you consider raising your children to believe black men are an inferior form of life, or raising your children to believe that the holocaust never happened, to be a form of mental abuse?

Dawkins believes that religion being taught to children can be a form of abuse because religion works primarily on the process of scaring the sh*t out of a person. This might seem fine for an adult who is capable of filtering what they do or do not believe, but children are not so lucky.

Even a lot of theists believe that teaching religious doctrine to children is a bad idea, partly because they are too young to understand and partly because it takes away any form of choice on the part of the child.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Only if one believes that child abuse is only those "most disgusting" things, which would be rather naive.

Would you consider raising your children to believe black men are an inferior form of life, or raising your children to believe that the holocaust never happened, to be a form of mental abuse?

Given that one is abusing the child's innocence, and one's own position of authority, I would certainly accept the term 'child abuse'. Still, I would never underestimate some people's willingness to prize pedantry over understanding.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

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?

I would think it's perfectly legal to say that there is no God and that religions are not conducive to a progressive, equal state - that's assuming you live in Ireland. You don't live in Saudi Arabia perchance?

Why should a theist's belief in hell qualify as hate speech? I believe in hell, but hate doesn't come into it. In fact, if I hated unbelievers then I would keep very quiet about my beliefs and just let them go to hell.

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Given that one is abusing the child's innocence, and one's own position of authority, I would certainly accept the term 'child abuse'. Still, I would never underestimate some people's willingness to prize pedantry over understanding.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ditto, would be my definition also.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Given that one is abusing the child's innocence, and one's own position of authority

i think that is ultimately what Dawkins means when he says it is a form of child abuse. He isn't linking it (as far as I understand from his writings) to anything like sexual abuse, which in this tabloid age of ours that is what we instantly think of when someone says "child" and "abuse". He is linking it to the abuse of the authority of a parent, an abuse of the process of a parent teaching their child and ultimately an abuse of a parents responsibility to prepare a child for later life.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I would think it's perfectly legal to say that there is no God and that religions are not conducive to a progressive, equal state - that's assuming you live in Ireland. You don't live in Saudi Arabia perchance?

Why should a theist's belief in hell qualify as hate speech? I believe in hell, but hate doesn't come into it. In fact, if I hated unbelievers then I would keep very quiet about my beliefs and just let them go to hell.

Essentially, it's because if I were to say on public occasions "gay people are condemned, and will all die by burning", it would be classed as hate speech, particularly if I exhorted them to "give up their gayness or face awful penalties" etc etc.

Saying "if you don't believe you will go to Hell and burn for Eternity" can be almost identical - or not. In some cases, it definitely is hate speech - in most cases it certainly isn't. As a result, I wouldn't be in favour of classifying it automatically as such, but I think it ought not to be respected where it palpably is hate speech, simply because it happens to be "religious" in tone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote:

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.

*bangs head off desk*

Ah, yea old "ignore the argument and make some tangental jab" method.

I occasionally get confused between the symbols for "therefore" and "implies", but I'd have thought that maybe if you tried really really hard (:rolleyes: ) you might have been able to work out my meaning.


Would you like to try again now that we've sorted that out?

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Dawkins believes that religion being taught to children can be a form of abuse because religion works primarily on the process of scaring the sh*t out of a person. This might seem fine for an adult who is capable of filtering what they do or do not believe, but children are not so lucky.

I think that's what one calls a generalisation.