Why do we respect religious beliefs?

PDN

bonkey wrote:

No doubt that there will be some who argue that being baptised makes you a Catholic, but the point is that this argument basically implies you do not need to believe in the God your religion is based around in order to be a member.

Such reasoning is badly flawed.

Unless, of course, your baptised unbeliever commits some atrocity. Then they become a Christian and fair game to use in an argument against people who actually do believe in God. Then, anyone who sees this argument as being badly flawed is accused of "the one true Scotsman argument."

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Or just maybe there are 5 users active online who think you've made an incorrect assertion.

The only point I made any comment about it here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53449813&postcount=64
And you seemed to me to get a bit lost on it.

I meant it would be interesting to hear your reasons why you don't like Dawkins, I have heard and read why you don't like the reasons why I don't like Dawkins so it would be interesting to hear your's now.

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have read three of them, yourself?

yes, I've read all of them. But I don't find them sensationalist.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Unless, of course, your baptised unbeliever commits some atrocity. Then they become a Christian and fair game to use in an argument against people who actually do believe in God. Then, anyone who sees this argument as being badly flawed is accused of "the one true Scotsman argument."

Don't be confused! We try to limit ourselves to those who commit atrocities either in the name of God, or at least in "defence" of their religion. The argument that every single one of these persons is actually "not really a Christian" is what brings on the "no true Scotsman" argument.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

yes, I've read all of them. But I don't find them sensationalist.

Do you think any atheist writer is sensationalist or antagonistic?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

5 against 1 sounds quite favourable compared to what I usually get around here.

You get more response in this forum if you slag of Richard Dawkins than if you slag Jesus in Christianity, me thinks.

Acid_Violet

Jakkass wrote:

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.

I'm born and raised catholic and have recently got back into the religion in November but now I would be sitting on the fence of religious or lack there-of of religious belief. Any belief I would have would be based on the notion that some things may transcend science and physical laws and what we know etc.

I think a lot of atheists and agnostics, let alone theists, would have problems with the conflicting narratives and guidelines in the bible. I have always said to christians preaching against homosexuality that if anything the most important commandment is 'love one another as I have loved you'. Also, the bible is imo a bit dated as a guidebook to humanity. Any arguments I've heard against this is that the bible is open to interpretation, which imo equates it to nothing more than horoscopes.

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.

A lot of theists I know who probably would not have as deep a faith as yours would accept that in theory at least, belief that a priest can turn crackers into someone's body, wine into someone's blood and that by eating this you will get salvation is a little far-fetched. I know I'm simplifying things and that obviously that's not the extent of gaining salvation, but if you look at things, dare I say 'logically', it seems a little silly. Sure if you brush your teeth really well the tooth fairy will leave plenty of money under your pillow. Get my drift? Yet they still, often staunchly believe in God.

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.

Ok, the first problem with the book of Job example is defining evil. Is it evil to kill someone who killed your son? Eye for an eye in Jewish tradition. Yet Jesus says 'turn the other cheek'.
Evil often depends on who's writing the history books. If Hitler had won the WWII we'd probably be learning that he was a great man with a great vision and that the third reich is better than any other civilisation yet because he exterminated all the jews, homosexuals, gypsies and people with mental and physical disabilities.
Also, mass-murderers and rapists often, if not always, have psychiatric illnesses resulting in psychotic tendencies. They themselves are victims or an illness and of their own nature as there is no drugs or remedy to cure or help them cope with this often neurological disorder. Needless to say, the people they harm are moreso victims. Elizabeth Bathory, for example, known as 'the Blood Countess' and a relative of Vlad the Impaler. There was a history of violence and mental illness in her family due to a long history of inbreeding.
You can't ignore the science behind the nature of 'evil' instincts in people, nor ignore the empirical argument that evil depends on opinion and definition just as much, if not more, than the evil acts themselves. I'm sure you agree with me that evil is not so simple as black and white and probably not so simple as purely 'created'.

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?

So are you going to ignore any agrument I make because you think it's daft or because it's convenient? What I said in reference to 'clinging to bibles' is that when people are offered logical explainations as opposed to answers previously dictated by celibate (or often not so celibate...) men in robes they cover their ears and relentlessly believe in the bible, even though any reasonably discerning individual can clearly see what makes sense and what doesn't. My opinion is that people are not stupid but selective in what they hear, let alone believe.

Also, what happens when what God has passed down to his people as the ultimate truth is contradicted by new scientific findings? Would one just ignore them point blank and claim whatever creed as right beyond contradiction? Of course you're entitled to quote and argue with passages from the bible, but does it make more sense to believe the simple explainations of tales thousand of years old. About the world being created in seven days or a goddess being born out of Ouranos' penis being thrown into the ocean? Or from scientific solid evidence?

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

I respect your beliefs to the extent that I understand why you have them. I don't respect them if you staunchly believe in a God even when confronted with other evidence against him or in favour of another god.

Zombrex

An important point to remember when viewing Dawkins' views on this is that he doesn't think hell exists.

If you see a parent pushing their child to play a particular sport, or to be a child star, or do particular subjects in school, we would generally say that that is bad parenting. They should be listening to what the child wants, and letting the child make up their own mind about what they want to do. To ignore the child's views, and to force them to continue on with something so the parents can some how live through the child is in this day and age quite disturbing to observe.

On the other hand we do expect parents to teach their children to wear a seat belt, or to be careful crossing the road, to go to school or to learn to swim etc etc

We are disgusted at the former, yet would be equally disgusted if the latter was not done.

Which makes Dawkins point really only applicable to non-theists, because to a theist hell is a real threat and danger, and not teaching your children about it is a irresponsible.

So it is important not to view this idea in a vacuum.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

Or just maybe there are 5 users active online who think you've made an incorrect assertion.

Six, I am just lost for words.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Dawkins use of the word "abuse" isn't to insult every parent who raises their child in a religion.

The purpose is to highlight the dangers that mental abuse of a child can do, abuse that is often excused in society because it is done under the banner of religious teaching

Well that is where we disagree. I think it is there to insult, to be more sensationalist and to sell more books. Dito Myres. Myres was more technically correct in use of the word B*stard as it was completly compatable with the dictionary. If the Christians or the Muslims are correct and we are all wrong, they have hardly being abusing them then have they?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

You get more response in this forum if you slag of Richard Dawkins than if you slag Jesus in Christianity, me thinks.

Slag Dawkins all you like.

Just do it based on what he is actually saying, not what WorldNetDaily think he is saying.

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

Six, I am just lost for word.

All for attempting to rebut a child abuse argument. If you all feel so strongly about that this is child abuse, why not get the government to legislate against it? Or admit some forms of child abuse are acceptable.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Slag Dawkins all you like.

Just do it based on what he is actually saying, not what WorldNetDaily think he is saying.

Well point out where I have misquoted him or else point out that we intrepet his opinion and argument differently.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think it is there to insult, to be more sensationalist and to sell more books.

Well considering he has been saying it for at least 11 years, long before he started writing and selling books on religion, I think that would be rather naive position to take.

Acid_Violet

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well point out where I have misquoted him or else point out that we intrepet his opinion and argument differently.

Hmmm...be careful with Dawkins quotes, they are so very often taken out of context. I'm not saying that your quotes are incorrect or misleading though, but he argues so vehemently that things he says are often used to mislead people.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well point out where I have misquoted him or else point out that we intrepet his opinion and argument differently.

I thought I already was, but ok then

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

That is a misrepresentation of Dawkins is actually saying -

[T]he mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is.

Do you actually disagree with that? Do you think that scaring children with concepts of Satan, sin and God's punishment and teaching them that this is all real and out there, is actually fine?

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Well considering he has been saying it for at least 11 years, long before he started writing and selling books on religion, I think that would be rather naive position to take.

Considering most of his books are preaching to the converted, bought by the converted and read by the converted and the occasionaly theist hardliner whi will never change their view - they are really only commericial enterprises I think your position is naive actually.
Compare the amount of people who Bertrand Russell influenced with his "Why I am not Christian?" for example? In fact the Dawkins plagiarises most of it!

bonkey

Tim Robbins wrote:

Flipping heck, I questions Dawkins sensationalism and I get Bonkey, The Atheist, Wicknight, Zillah and Scofflaw all up in arms.

I can't speak for the others, but I was showing (rather than blandly and blindly asserting as seems to be the penchant of some) that your argument was incorrect.

I was also pointing out - in one of the bits you didn't get - that while you question Dawkin's sensationalism, you have apparently no qualms of referring to "Dawkin's worship" which is exactly the same type of behaviour.

If you don't approve of sensationalism, don't use it. If you wish to use it, then don't criticise other's for doing so.

The issue isn't the Deity hypotheisis the issue that many parents pick a religion for the kids and many other parents pick a sport for their kids.
Personallu, I don't agree with either, but I don't call either child abuse it's more like conservatism not child abuse.

If you choose your child's sport to the point of "you will play this whether you want to or not, and woe betide you if you ever so much as suggest otherwise", and remind them a ttimes of the terrible things that will happen to them if they're not a good sport's player, then sure....I agree that its entirely comparable with what Dawkin's is suggesting is child abuse.

Neither, in that case, is conservatism and I don't think that abuse is that excessive a term for it, but admit it is sensationalist due to the more common connotation of the term

On the other hand, if a parent believes it is in a child's best interest to be brought up with some religious belief, with the full intention that as the child grows and matures they will fully encourage them to choose their own path in life including their choice of belief, then thats more akin to the parent who believes sport is good for a child and who will allow their child to change (within reason) as they discover their own wants and desires in life.

Again, in that case, neither is conservatism, and I'm pretty certain that Dawkin's wasn't suggesting that such a stance on religion would amount to child abuse.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

I thought I already was, but ok then

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

That is a misrepresentation of Dawkins is actually saying -

[T]he mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is.

Do you actually disagree with that? Do you think that scaring children with concepts of Satan, sin and God's punishment and teaching them that this is all real and out there, is actually fine?

What you are doing now is picking one particular quote on child abuse Dawkins abuse, he has argued that several times not just with the words you have used in your quote.
Go to the Late Late show and he doesn't even mention hell when he argues it. Now, your particular quote, no I wouldn't agree with. I would prefer someone telling me about hell than actually sexually abusing me.
furthermore, you are slightly straw man'ing. Many Christians Churches don't go on about hell as much as your argument infers that they do - the Unitarian church has wiped it from it's doctrine completly. Other Churches, some of Christian friends may like to jump in here, don't make as much as deal as they are accused of making about it.

In fact I quite liked the idea of hell, the idea that there was a universal justice and bad people would get punished when I was younger and believed in it all.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Any chance of your view on Dawkins' "child abuse" argument?

Actually, I think Dawkin's use of the child-abuse argument cuts to the core of the subject matter of the OP. Why should atheists respect religious beliefs?

Firstly, when you ridicule other people's beliefs, you need to understand that you may be criticising something that is very closely entwined with who they are, not just what they believe. If you ridicule the faith of a nominal Christian then you are unlikely to provoke such a strong response as if you ridicule the faith of someone for whom Christianity is a major part of their life and worldview. The same would go for atheists. I am aware that those who post on this board probably feel pretty deeply about their faith (or lack of it?) and so will react more aggressively to criticism than would the average guy on the street who can't be bothered with religion, reckons that God probably doesn't exist anyway, yet hardly feels exercised enough to come onto boards.ie and argue the case against God.

So, if you ridicule someone's deeply held beliefs then it becomes very easy to actually mock the person. That is something I would want to avoid. Part of this is good manners, but also some of it goes to the root of why we engage in debate at all.

I actually believe in the power of debate to change minds. Now, I don't appear to be making much headway on this board in that you all still seem to be confirmed atheists despite all my posting , but hopefully I have managed to encourage some of you to reconsider some stereotypical preconceptions of what Christians believe and why they believe it. Ridiculing someone's beliefs, or indeed ridiculing themselves, never encourages a change of mind, it simply puts the target of your ridicule on the defensive, thereby confirming them in their beliefs. This is similar to why Christianity grows under persecution, or why Catholicism became entrenched in Ireland under the penal laws.

So, for example, there are some posters here who are able to argue against my beliefs with clarity, but also in a way that is respectful (or even cordial). I frequently am provoked to go and study something more or think something through because of their posts. If I was less confirmed in my beliefs they might almost succeed in converting me! Other posters are simply abusive, and so, even though there may be a good point hidden among the vitriol somewhere, it never really gets serious consideration.

Now, back to Dawkins. His use of the child abuse argument is entirely consistent with his purposes. He is not likely to convert theists to atheism, nor do I believe that is his intention. He wants to act as a cheerleader for atheists, 'preach to the choir', and make a lot of money in the process by selling zillions of books. He is the atheist counterpoint to TV evangelists who actually evangelise nobody but rather make a name for themselves among those who are already believers. In other words, Dawkins is more Jerry Falwell than Billy Graham.

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

Do you think any atheist writer is sensationalist or antagonistic?

There are lots of antagonistic and sensationalist Atheists out there. I won't deny that. I find Ian O'Doherty in the Indo particularity annoying and vicious for example. Most of those that I've read (or watched) are generally dismissive of religion but not deliberately offensive or sensationalist. Granted its a thin line to dance since any attempt to show that religion is anything but virtuous may be received as offensive.

Dawkins doesn't go out to plainly offend believers on purpose or to make himself more famous. I think he genuinely wants to show the dangers of an unquestioned religious influence in our lives. He uses language that is not terribly friendly or accommodating to religious attitudes but I think he justifies this approach in his arguments rather than relying on sensationalism as you seem to think.

Would you consider Salman Rushdie to be sensationalist or antagonistic? I haven't read the Satanic Verses yet so I can't pass judgment. (Its on my list tho with Dennett and your hero Colin McGinn ) Rushdie does seem to deliberately try to confront Islam in a very aggressive way and bask in the anger of the reaction.

Tim Robbins

bonkey wrote:

I was also pointing out - in one of the bits you didn't get - that while you question Dawkin's sensationalism, you have apparently no qualms of referring to "Dawkin's worship" which is exactly the same type of behaviour.

If you don't approve of sensationalism, don't use it. If you wish to use it, then don't criticise other's for doing so.

Well that's a good point. I withdraw the word worship so.

If you choose your child's sport to the point of "you will play this whether you want to or not, and woe betide you if you ever so much as suggest otherwise", and remind them a ttimes of the terrible things that will happen to them if they're not a good sport's player, then sure....I agree that its entirely comparable with what Dawkin's is suggesting is child abuse.

Neither, in that case, is conservatism and I don't think that abuse is that excessive a term for it, but admit it is sensationalist due to the more common connotation of the term

On the other hand, if a parent believes it is in a child's best interest to be brought up with some religious belief, with the full intention that as the child grows and matures they will fully encourage them to choose their own path in life including their choice of belief, then thats more akin to the parent who believes sport is good for a child and who will allow their child to change (within reason) as they discover their own wants and desires in life.

Again, in that case, neither is conservatism, and I'm pretty certain that Dawkin's wasn't suggesting that such a stance on religion would amount to child abuse.

I think you think that a consequence of bringing a child up with a religion is that they will be scared about hell or "terrible things that will happen to them". I dispute this.
1. Many Religion don't really mention hell at all for kids.
2. I sort of liked the idea of hell, it was not a scary place, I was happy thinking bad people would get punished. It didn't scare me.

So the inference:
Bring your child up a religion => A consequence of scaring the child with the concept of hell isn't a part of my analysis.

Furthermore, what if hell really exists. If parents really believe it exists surely it is rational for them to tell their kids about it.

I look at bringing up a child up with a religion is parents making a choice for their kids when the kids don't know all the alternatives to that choice.

The same happens with parents who force their kids to play Rugby or GAA and not really allow / encourage their kids to play other sports. Many Dads are shocked if little Timmy likes the wrong sport.

Is that abuse? No. Is it just conservatism? Yes.

Scofflaw

Many Christians Churches don't go on about hell as much as your argument infers that they do

"Implies" would be better than "infers" there.

The same happens with parents who force their kids to play Rugby or GAA and not really allow / encourage their kids to play other sports. Many Dads are shocked if little Timmy likes the wrong sport.

Is that abuse? No. Is it just conservatism? Yes.

This argument is slightly off its point. The sport is used as a badge of identity - it is not the identity itself. With religion, the religion is the identity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

"Implies" would be better than "infers" there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We're down to arguing semantics and typos. Brilliant.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

What you are doing now is picking one particular quote on child abuse Dawkins abuse, he has argued that several times not just with the words you have used in your quote.

True, but he always makes pretty much the same point.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Now, your particular quote, no I wouldn't agree with. I would prefer someone telling me about hell than actually sexually abusing me.

Fair enough. I would rather the sexual abuse TBH

Tim Robbins wrote:

furthermore, you are slightly straw man'ing. Many Christians Churches don't go on about hell as much as your argument infers that they do - the Unitarian church has wiped it from it's doctrine completly.

I'm not straw man'ing you, you are thinking the argument is something that it is not.

If Dawkins or myself were actually saying anyone who raises their children in a religion is abusing them with threats of hell, then you would have a point when you say that that is nonsense some religions don't even mention hell

But, as I keep trying to point out, that wasn't the actual argument in the first place.

You keep trying to drag this out into sweeping generalisations, something Dawkins tends not to do in his writing. I don't know about his debates, I think Dawkins is a particularly bad debater, particularly failing to understand the concept of the "sound-bite" (which can get him into trouble, as your views seem to demonstrate).

Tim Robbins wrote:

In fact I quite liked the idea of hell, the idea that there was a universal justice and bad people would get punished when I was younger and believed in it all.

Well that could explain why you would prefer the sexual abuse, but I should probably point out that isn't Christian hell you are describing.

Christian hell isn't about good or bad people, it is about believers and non-believers. Good non-believers end up in hell along with the bad non-believers. And if that isn't a mind-f**k for a child I don't now what is.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

There are lots of antagonistic and sensationalist Atheists out there. I won't deny that. I find Ian O'Doherty in the Indo particularity annoying and vicious for example. Most of those that I've read (or watched) are generally dismissive of religion but not deliberately offensive or sensationalist. Granted its a thin line to dance since any attempt to show that religion is anything but virtuous may be received as offensive.

Dawkins doesn't go out to plainly offend believers on purpose or to make himself more famous. I think he genuinely wants to show the dangers of an unquestioned religious influence in our lives. He uses language that is not terribly friendly or accommodating to religious attitudes but I think he justifies this approach in his arguments rather than relying on sensationalism as you seem to think.

Would you consider Salman Rushdie to be sensationalist or antagonistic? I haven't read the Satanic Verses yet so I can't pass judgment. (Its on my list tho with Dennett and your hero Colin McGinn ) Rushdie does seem to deliberately try to confront Islam in a very aggressive way and bask in the anger of the reaction.

I think you are better at arguing, discussing atheism than Dawkins.

You'll get Mcginn on google video. He's never written a mass produced book on atheism, the evil of religion or anything like that. You'll get him wondering into it in his books here and there though.

I don't know enough about Rushdie to comment.
McGinn is a class act though.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Fair enough. I would rather the sexual abuse TBH

Fine, this perhaps explains our disagreement.

If Dawkins or myself were actually saying anyone who raises their children in a religion is abusing them with threats of hell, then you would have a point when you say that that is nonsense some religions don't even mention hell

Like I said I have read his books, watched his media interviews. He usually says labelling a child with a particular religion is an abuse, he usually doesn't even mention hell.
He then elaborates slightly differently each time. You have elaborated bringing hell into it.

You keep trying to drag this out into sweeping generalisations, something Dawkins tends not to do in his writing.

No I am trying to get to core of the issue here, is it child abuse or not?I say it's not.

Well that could explain why you would prefer the sexual abuse, but I should probably point out that isn't Christian hell you are describing.

Ahhh - Christianity is very much in the subjective paradigm.
Unitarians consider themselves Christians and don't believe in hell, another sect probably still think satan has horns.

Christian hell isn't about good or bad people, it is about believers and non-believers. Good non-believers end up in hell along with the bad non-believers. And if that isn't a mind-f**k for a child I don't now what is.

Incorrect. Catholism , the major sect in Christianity now more and more preaches that it is about being a good person <B>not</B> not blieving and non believing.
I seriously question your research.

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think you are better at arguing, discussing atheism than Dawkins.

I doubt my track record here shows that. While I find Dawkins to be a very good writer he is a poor debater. Perhaps he should confine himself to online message boards.

Tim Robbins wrote:

McGinn is a class act though.

Yes, I've seen him on a Short History of Disbelief. I found that both McGinn and Dawkins came across very well there.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ahhh - Christianity is very much in the subjective paradigm.
Unitarians consider themselves Christians and don't believe in hell, another sect probably still think satan has horns.

But that is ridiculous. Are you saying that because Unitarians don't believe in hell therefore no one has every suffered mental anguish in their childhood over the idea taught to them by their parents that hell exists, its horrible and ever lasting, and that they might end up there?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Incorrect. Catholism , the major sect in Christianity now more and more preaches that it is about being a good person <B>not</B> not blieving and non believing.

Again ridiculous. The Catholic church could remove hell and everything else completely from their teaching tomorrow, problem solved, but it doesn't change what has already taken place and what has already been taught.

At this stage you seem more interested in winning an argument that debating

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

Yes, I've seen him on a Short History of Disbelief. I found that both McGinn and Dawkins came across very well there.

A completly different style though?