Are We To Respect A Person's Beliefs, Or Only Their Right To Believe?

[stopbush]

Maybe it's the close proximity this year of Palm Sunday and April Fool's Day, but I'm seeing a bit of carping from the religious DUers that we atheists "don't respect my religious beliefs."

That begs a question: who says we are supposed to respect that which you actually believe?

If you believe that supply-side economics or Reagonomics is a sound economic policy, do I need to respect that belief? How about creationism/ID? Do I have to respect that belief? And by that, I mean do I have to respect that there's truth to your belief?

I don't think so.

I think (believe?) that what I must respect is your right to believe whatever you want to believe, be it supply-side economics, Mike Huckabee-conservatism, Obama-can-do-no-wrong (Obama-can-do-no-right) or religious belief of any stripe.

What that DOESN'T mean is that my acknowledging your right to your opinion also entails my feigning respect for your religious beliefs as if they themselves were true. Were I to be questioning whether or not the sun would rise in the east tomorrow, that would be a different story. I would be questioning your belief in something that is a proven fact. But if you're in effect asking me to hold out the possibility that the sun may rise in the north tomorrow, well, I just don't see where my "respecting" such a belief as a possibility is what "respecting one's belief" is all about.

Comments?

[rd_kent]

1. Last time I check in this country, we can 'Believe' anything we want.

But nowhere have I found where i have to respect someone else beliefs. You want to base your life on myths and fairy tales, go right ahead. But dont even think about trying to get me to go along with it.

[CBGLuthier]

6. But, could you be more of a DICK about it?

That is the point. So many atheists are dicks about it.

I can be an atheist and not worry about believers. But some of you just have to fucking ridicule people.

[MercutioATC]

13. Stop legislating your morality and they'll probably stop "being dicks about it".

Not you...organized religion.

[roguevalley]

136. I don't legislate dick. since the election, it will be even less possible.

I don't care what people believe but the incivility between camps is so boring. So. Damned. Boring.

[timtom]

203. Haven't atheists legislated their morality?

[stopbush]

206. Yes. It's called The Constitution.

:)

[Deep13]

20. Explain what you mean.

It is not my intention to ridicule people, but when someone says something outlandish as fact or at least as something deserving of consideration, I think I have a right to call him or her on it. If respect means pretending that I think religious notions are plausible or even possible, then I'm not going to do it. Whatever right believers have to talk about god or whatever, I have the exact same right to talk about why god is impossible. And since religious beliefs affect how people act including who they vote for, I don't think I have a duty to shut up while I wait for someone else to bring it up. Frankly, getting the truth and preserving public policy from irrationality are more important than mere conventional manners. My perception is that believers resent the fact that many of us will not accept religious views as the social default position anymore.

Usually when I am arguing with believers it is in the religion forum or here. These boards are specifically for that purpose. I stay out of the believers-only boards and rarely mention it in ordinary conversation. So I may not be as much of a dick about it as some may think

[HelenWheels]

37. Ever have you son lose his best friend because dad was dick

It was an adult only conversation and it came up that we were atheists and that was the last day my son saw his best friend. My son was crushed.

Ever have your kid get beat up or bullied for being Christian - my son's endured it for years. The adults responsible for school safety could only say he shouldn't tell people he's an atheist. He wasn't but once the truth is out and it's obvious the topic won't be dealt with other than to blame the victim the kids use it over and over.

How about when someone starts their statement with "I'm a Christian so..." Which means what I say is the ultimate truth.

So don't tell me about Atheists being dicks - it's usually in response to some ones over the top religious statement or demand.

[Deep13]

42. Yes.

:hug: :cry:

People can be so fucking stupid and cruel.

[krabigirl]

55. omg..that is horrible. what ignorance!

[stopbush]

45. Yes, we atheists are supposed to act nice and understanding

when the JWs or Mormons and the evangelicals show up at the door with their woo-woo and reports of what threats their version of Jesus wishes to lay upon us. If we don't, we're "dicks."

But if an atheist was to knock on a door, ask the person if they believed in Jesus, and then gave them a bunch of reasons to disbelieve that Jesus ever existed, you'd applaud the homeowner for turning the water hose on the atheist because he was acting like "a dick."

Do I have that straight?

[Deep13]

60. That's my understanding of it.

If I did what religious activists do, I would probably have been murdered by now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. No, but there's a difference between telling Mormons and JW's who

come to your door not to bother you and going up to random Mormons and JW's and taunting them. The first is your right not to have people intruding on you. The second is harassment.

[stopbush]

97. I'd say there's no difference between telling them not to bother you

and telling them they're full of shit when they come uninvited to your door.

BTW - why do you imagine an atheist would ever go up to a JW or Mormon on the street and taunt them?

You have a biased way of framing your arguments. Saying the religious people "come to your door" has a kindly, neighborly ring to it, whereas the atheist "going up...and taunting them" has aggression writ large on it. One is the mild annoyance of being intruded upon ("sorry...I didn't realize you were fucking your wife. We'll come back later and tell you why you're going to hell.") the other is harassment ("hey, religious dickweed. Yeah, you over there eating the hot dog. You're a fucking moron. Even my wife wouldn't fuck you.")

[Lydia Leftcoast]

175. I've never seen it happen in real life, but the equivalent action

happens on message boards all the time.

I was just trying to distinguish arguments from insults.

[stopbush]

176. In debate, I like to distinguish argument from intuition.

One is a reasoned position, the other is a whole-cloth explanation.

[Marr]

76. You really believe that?

I lost a job because I'm an atheist. I'm not a vocal convert or anything, either. I mean-- I was never taught any religion as a child, and so I haven't got one. Simple as that.

When I was younger (early 20's), and didn't know how much religious bigotry is out there, I made the mistake of responding honestly when asked by a few co-workers what religion I practiced. They were very rude, and told me very bluntly that I was a fool, a bad person, etc., etc. Word apparently got around to my supervisor, and he set about getting me fired. I had the highest marks in my department up to that point, but once these religious devotees (including the supervisor) started submitting false complaints about me to HR, it didn't take long before the supervisor had enough of an excuse to get me canned. Just a few weeks, in fact.

But really-- I'm so sorry to hear that you're so put upon by atheists. What did they do to you? Did they insult you on an internet message board, you poor thing?

[demwing]

81. I call bullshit on your story

A bunch of theists ganged up on you and got you fired, even though you were the star performer?

And you did nothing at all to warrant the termination, right? All the complaints against you were false?

Man, I've been in management for years, in Utah, and that story just doesn't pass my sniff test. It's conveniently black and white, removes all responsibility from you, and demonizes the people you claim are bigoted against you

I've sat on many a conference call with Unemployment Judges and heard your story all too often, just without the religious angle. No one ever deserves to get fired, its always the other guy's fault...

[PassingFair]

105. I call bullshit on your bullshit.

Saying "You're a liar." is not civil discourse.

I am really sick of people being called a liar
in this room because there is no justification
for the treatment some atheists and agnostics
received IRL...

Why do you even bother to post?

Every atheist here has experienced negative
reactions for our beliefs.

I got a call from a latch-key mother one day,
informing me that some of my daughter's FRIENDS
had formed a "Christian Club" and she was NOT
ALLOWED to play with them.

The latch-key mom put the kibosh on it FAST.

They have pretty much learned that there is a
price to pay for going public.

I don't know ANY religious people who keep their
mouths shut about their beliefs here, even the
feared "muslins".

[demwing]

119. Wow. Go figure. It's a Religion/Theology forum

And people are here discussing their beliefs?

Fucking people, I cannot BELIEVE the nerve. Why can't they leave the atheists alone, even in this safe haven?

[PassingFair]

155. I am into discussion.

I am not into the "this smells funny"
bullshit.

That's not a discussion, that's an accusation.

[struggle4progress]

213. Perhaps you should ask the Mormons: I think there have been a number here who

feel DUers made fun of them and insulted them without any reason

[rd_kent]

211. Would being a "dick" about it include knocking on your door

uninvited and telling you how youre going to burn in hell?

[Deja Q]

16. So much for basic courtessy; "agree to disagree"?

Oh well.

You're wrong, but what would it take to convince you that your current attitude only adds TO stereotypes about the non-religious?

[stopbush]

47. Can you name one POSITIVE sterotype that the religious hold

about the non-religious?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. I know better than to stereotype the non-religious

:shrug:

I spent 19 years in a state (Oregon) where being non-religious is the default position.

[Dorian Gray]

129. Agree with Lydia....

I don't like to stereotype anybody. I know enough assholes AND nice people of most major religions and non-religions that I find the best way to proceed is to make judgments about a person after I get to know him or her.

[JerseygirlCT]

91. Are there any stereotypes that are worth holding?

Even positive ones limit people to a person's preconceived ideas.

For me, I try to simply judge each person on an individual basis. My default is to think well of someone, until or unless they demonstrate a reason to think less well about them.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. If respect means "Don't get in their face about it" then maybe it's okay.

But too many religious groups think that you're only showing them the proper respect if you declare them to be right.

If I respond to someone's comments about God by saying that I don't think there is a God, too many call that disrespect.

So only agreeing with them counts as respect.

Okay then, I don't think there is a God -- now I'm saying it first -- and anyone who says that there is a God is not showing the proper respect for my 'beliefs'.

Bet none of them want to play by those rules!

[arbusto_baboso]

8. This probably stems from the proselytizing stance of so many religions.

After all, most of them think they're "the one and only true faith", so they feel compelled to convert everyone to their ways. And if you try to block them in those fforts, or deny them THEIR right to be in YOUR face, that's when the cries of "oh, we're so persecuted" start.

[ihavenobias]

12. I completely agree

And the OP is right, I respect the *right to believe*, which is not the same as respecting each and every belief by itself.

An easy example many Christians should be able to understand is not respecting the belief that someone will get 72 virgins in heaven if they blow themselves up. I also don't respect the belief that people will burn in hell for eternity because they don't accept a particular religious dogma.

As a wise man once said, isn't it about a million times more offensive to tell someone they're going to burn for eternity (if that's what you believe) than it is to say you don't believe in God?

[JerseygirlCT]

85. There's nothing at all disrespectful about saying you don't think

there's a God. Nothing.

Saying you think religious people are idiots, or delusional - the usual namecalling: THAT'S what's called disrespectful. And it is.

[PassingFair]

106. I would never call a religious person (and I'm related to some) and idiot...

but what if I DO believe they are delusional?

I think the lady that lives down the street
and covers her windows in tinfoil (really)
so the aliens won't see her is delusional.

Who is more delusional? The people who
talk to god, or the people who god talks
to? I don't want to be around anyone who
hears voices TELLING them what to do.

I don't flat out call my friends and family
delusional unless they get up in my face or
tell me that they think my children belong
in church on Sundays...

[JerseygirlCT]

107. I think either is rude, to be honest

Them getting in your face about your choices, and you calling them delusional.

The bottom line is that it's not for you to make their choices, and not for them to make yours. And there ought to be at least enough respect for both of your deeply held positions not to belittle them with name-calling, you know?

[PassingFair]

112. I have a friend who believes in tarot readings and crystal ball fortunes.

Is she delusional?

I think so. Is that "name calling"?

I can't help but roll my eyes
when she makes life decisions
(for good or bad) based on these
"readings".

[JerseygirlCT]

123. The point is that your opinion about what she believes is

inconsequential, and calling her names based on it is just rude.

Is she doing something harmful to herself or anyone else? If not, then you're perfectly free to think she's nutty, but there's little point, beyond perhaps making yourself feel saner than the next person, in sharing your thoughts - especially when they're voiced with derision.

I'm sure atheists would be quite upset if a believer of some sort felt compelled by a similar notion to straighten them out about their lack of belief. And rightfully so - there's no need, and no one asked for their opinion. Offering to someone that you think they're delusional really falls into the same territory.

[stopbush]

128. Why do you say that there's no point in sharing your thoughts

that a person's beliefs are nutty?

Most of the atheists I know grew up with a religious background. Like me, they were led to believe that Jesus was an actual person who lived, that the Bible was real history, that the Earth was created in seven days, that the Jews were held captive in Egypt and that the Exodus eventually took place. We were told that there were non-Christian accounts of the birth and death of Jesus that confirmed the Bible story. We were taught that our morals came from god, and that to not believe in god was somehow amoral. All of that was and is a lie at worst and an a-historic myth at best.

At some point, some enlightened person "shared their thoughts" with me that what I had been told was bullshit. I, for one, am glad they did, for there's no knowing what harm I might have caused others had I continued with those beliefs. Who's to say I wouldn't have ended up bombing an abortion clinic, or disturbing the funerals of our fallen soldiers with hateful rhetoric, as do any number of "good Christians" on a daily basis?

Truth be told, sometimes a bit more than cordial dialogue is needed to combat some ideas. Christian ideas and lies are so embedded in our nation's psyche that derision is often one of the few tools available to break through the received opinion of religious indoctrination. I see no reason whatsoever to regard the idea of creationism/ID with anything but derision, do you? What is to be gained by treating such a stupid, bullshit idea with anything short of derision? Do you really think one can have a reasonable and factual discussion of evolution without deriding creationism?

I don't think so.

[JerseygirlCT]

135. Do you realize what you sound like?

"break through the received opinion of religious indoctrination" "combat some ideas".

Do you hear how that sounds? Turn it around, and see a proselytizing religious person speaking like that about the need to "save" you - I think you'd find that highly offensive at the least. And I'd agree with you. So it is with you.

Your beliefs - albeit negative ones - about religion are every bit your right to hold. And every bit someone else's right not to be troubled with. You really sound like someone out to save people from religion and get them on the one true path: atheism. It's wrong either way around.

Now, *sharing* thoughts is a different thing altogether. That implies two things: a willingness to discuss on both sides, and an actual give and take - meaning both people are listening as well as talking. There's nothing forceful or violent in that. It's a very good thing. But it means coming to the discussion with an assumed equal standing of respect. Calling someone names (delusional, for instance) negates that.

[stopbush]

137. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

I'm sharing my thoughts as I wish to share them - forcefully and unambiguously. I have no problem whatsoever having that conversation with a religious person who is trying to convert me, but they better come armed to debate, including having something better than a surface knowledge of their holy book, because I will hoist them on that petard in due course.

And I'm not trying to convert anyone to atheism. Atheism is not a path to anything, at least in the religious sense. "Atheist" is simply a definition applied by theists to those of us who aren't theists. It's no more descriptive of that "path" taken by a non-believer in gods than the term "a-philaletic" is descriptive of the "path" taken by one who doesn't collect stamps.

People generally don't appreciate being defined by what they aren't.

As far as coming to a discussion with an assumed equal standing of respect - I agree. I hold that equal respect for the PERSON I'm having the discussion with. I see no reason to extend that equality of respect to fanciful ideas, be they the violent morals of the OT, the demands of Shiria Law, the political beliefs of Ann Coulter or the religious beliefs of any particular person or faith. Those beliefs demand not respect, but examination.

Now, if a person isn't up to cogently defending those beliefs? Well, that's another thing again.

[JerseygirlCT]

138. What if the person isn't interested in having that conversation with you?

Do you still feel quite free to have it with them anyway? What I'm getting at is a level of pushing ideas at someone vs. sharing ideas with someone. The first is rarely useful and often obnoxious. The second is usually useful.

[stopbush]

139. No, I wouldn't have the conversation with them.

I'd prefer to talk about the Yankees chances this season. But if they initiate it, I am no wallflower.

That said, we are currently having a discussion in the religion topic forum of a Democratic public message board. If you've tired of the conversation, I can understand your bidding adieu. However, I see no reason to stop posting my thoughts in this public religious forum, even if you consider me to be pushy.

BTW - about atheists being "pushy" - don't you think that maybe that's a matter of perception, rather than reality? Christians aren't used to having people push back hard against their ideas. They're used to agreement, tacit agreement or annoyed indifference. I don't feel that I'm pushing back any harder against religion than I do against Republicanism. In fact, I'm pulling my punches in this forum if compared to the shots I take at Rs.

Can you give me a good reason that I shouldn't treat religious beliefs with the same level of disdain that I treat conservative beliefs?

Thanx.

BTW - used to live in NJ. Oceanport, to be exact.

[Dorian Gray]

147. I grew up in Little Silver...

we were neighbors at one point!

[JerseygirlCT]

151. Right around my neck of the woods, too!

I miss the beach.

[stopbush]

162. Well, I now live in OC, CA, 6 miles from the ocean. I missed the Jersey beach but the ones in SoCal

are so much nicer. And the weather is great year round.

[JerseygirlCT]

177. They really don't know from beaches here in CT

Mostly private anyway, and all rocky!

Which is why I like to vacation on the Jersey shore. Best beaches.

I think I'd probably do fine in CA, though, too!

[Meshuga]

156. I grew up in Eatontown

And if went to one side of the street it was Ocean Township and the other West Long Branch. :-)

[JerseygirlCT]

157. This is too funny!

Who knew?

Hazlet for me. Nothing exciting. Except the proximity to the beach.

And of course, my two paths of 2 degrees of separation from the Boss...

[Meshuga]

158. Funny indeed

Monmouth County is very well represented in R/T! :-)

[stopbush]

161. I worked in Oakhurst right on Rt 35.

My home in Oceanport was on Burnt Mill Circle, just off Rt 71 north of where it intersects Rt 36.

BTW - we lived there from 1998-2003.

[Meshuga]

171. 35 and 36 are the main veins for us there

I left the area in 1996 although in the last few years I would only spend the summers in the area (when home from college). But I know exactly where you live. That Atilios by the Shop Rite is a mandatory spot for us when visiting the area since the same kind of pizza is hard to find in the DC metro area.

The two major jobs I had there when I was in High School and in College were the movie theater (that does not exist anymore) right accross from the Pathmark on Rt.36 (where there was a Cluck U) and selling Italian Ices in an Ice Truck around Oakhurst, Ocean, Deal, and Elberon. That was a fun job.

[stopbush]

174. Atilos! Man, I loved that place. Best pizza one could find outside of NYC.

BTW - my wife worked at the hair salon around the corner from Atilo's and my son took Tae Kwon Do next to the hair salon.

Hey, is Strollo's still in biz over by the state beach?

[Meshuga]

184. "Hey, is Strollo's still in biz over by the state beach?"

Hey, I used to drive the Weezer Italian Ices truck. Stollo's was competition!

[JerseygirlCT]

178. Cluck U!

I remember that place! I used to do a bit of theater at Monmouth College (yes, now University, but it wasn't then!) and my drive would take me through the circle. That name made me laugh daily!

[Meshuga]

186. I was surprised to find a franchise down here in MD

At college park. I thought it was a Jersey thing but it I think Cluck U is has spread around the country. :-)

[JerseygirlCT]

187. Like Jersey Mike's?

Although the one we found here in CT has now been turned into a privately owned place, not a franchise.

And when I'm home visiting, it still seems all the eating choices are now big chains. Even the diners aren't what I remembered...

[Meshuga]

189. That's a shame

There is nothing like a good diner very late at night. Down here we only have the diner chains and they are not the same. I don't even think they are open 24 hours a day! Now, that's heresy!

[JerseygirlCT]

191. I know - what are you supposed to do at 3 am? nt

[Dorian Gray]

169. Wow...

three of us on one board all from the same area of Monmouth County! How many times do you think we were all in the Mall at the same time???

[Meshuga]

170. Good old Monmouth Mall!

I am sure we were there at the same time plenty of times. :-)

[FiveGoodMen]

143. Many of us feel that religion does much harm in society.

Further, we think that something has to be done to counteract the cradle-to-grave indoctrination that permeates all of US culture.

If you hold to that notion, then there's no way to avoid saying it without abandoning one's duty to society.

And there's no way to say it that which won't insult believers.

I don't feel the need to get in any one person's face and insist that they talk it over with me. But a lot of people bring the subject up and there's no way I'm just going to tell them what they want to hear.

There really is a war going on in America right now over the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. Sorry, but I've got a side in that fight.

[JerseygirlCT]

153. I would imagine we all have the same side in that fight.

Please don't mistake "believer" with wild-eyed religious nut. There is a difference, and we believers here at DU ought to be some proof for you, if you listen to what's being said.

If someone wants to engage on the topic, by all means, you should state your way of thinking. Just remember that while you think that religion is harmful, you may just run into people (not so much here) who think that atheism is likewise harmful. (I wouldn't be among them, just so you know). So when you feel put out by some believers confronting your way of seeing things as harmful, just remember that it likely works the other way around, too.

And, again, if your purpose in bringing it up is to persuade people to look at things differently - well, anger and name-calling isn't likely to achieve the ends you seek, you know?

[stopbush]

140. BTW, JerseyGirl, where do you stand on

creationism/ID v evolutionary science? Do you believe that ID should be given an equal standing in our public school science classes? Creationism is an idea that comes straight out of religious belief. Is that an idea that you think should be treated "equally" alongside evolution?

[Dorian Gray]

148. I can answer for myself (in lieu of Jersey Girl)

ID should not be taught in schools. If a private Christian school wants to go ahead and teach it as science, that's their beef. I will agree with you and most posters here that those students will be ignorant and it's a shame. But it is in no way scientific and should not be taught as anything.

I have less of a problem with religious texts being used in a literature class (the Hindu Vedas, sections of the Bible, Buddhist tracts, OT Job/psalms may have a place in a comparative lit class). Comparing the Epic of Gilgamesh to the Noah story is very helpful in talking about archetypes in literature. But, I did teach that course... at a private high school in Hong Kong years ago.... so perhaps I am jaded. (I in no way pushed Christianity on my students. Most of them were non-religious themselves.)

[JerseygirlCT]

152. Oh good grief, no!

The school is (or should be) the realm of science, not the place for anyone's religious belief.

I'm definitely not a creationist. I don't want religion taught in public schools, period. That works both ways - I don't think it has any place whatsoever there, and I want to handle religious education for my children in the way I see fit.

(And most Christian denominations do not adhere to a creationist belief. That's the ground of the fundamentalists. Mainstream Protestants, Catholics, etc. don't teach that stuff at all.)

[stopbush]

163. I can't resist, so here goes:

Do you realize what you sound like to a Christian who believes in creationism and who wants religion taught in public schools?

[Meshuga]

172. And the liberal Christians who hang here take crap from all sides

In the real world, the creationists give them shit on one side and sometimes here there are some atheists who want to debate them as if they were creationists and as if believers here wanted to prove that their truths should be prescribed to others. Certainly there are people who come here and feel that their beliefs should be prescribed to everyone but I don't think that is the majority of believers in DU. In my perception they are a handful.

The "all religion/believers this" and "all religion/believers that" make it hard to for believers to discuss and to be agreeable. You know, it is hard not to be defensive when you are being lumped with the ones who should be the focus of criticism for wanting to mix religious belief with science and force that in the secular world.

[stopbush]

173. Let me be clear - I believe moderate Christians hold beliefs that are just as fantasy-based

as those held by the most extreme fundamentalist.

I'm talking core beliefs: the belief in a supernatural parent/babysitter who - like Santa - knows when you are sleeping, knows when you're awake, knows when you've been bad or good; the belief that Adam & Eve "fell from grace," thereby giving man his "sinful nature" that needs to be redeemed by a god-sent savior (let's face it, if you don't believe the Adam & Eve story, why believe that man has a sinful nature in need of redemption?); the belief that morals came from god; the belief that there is an afterlife, etc. These are all fantastic ideas that haven't a shred of evidence to support them. They are pure conjecture, at best. At worst, religious beliefs require the suspension of disbelief and the willful ignorance of acquired knowledge, knowledge that puts the lie to many of the supposed "truths" of the holy books (the flood, the Exodus, Jesus' various ignorant pronouncements on the way the natural world operates).

Whether one is a fundamentalist, a moderate or a lukewarm religionist, one is still a religionist. Sorry if you take offense at being lumped together with extremists, but what do you expect? As a believer in the supernatural, you make the first cut into the irrational side of the ledger when the determining factor is limited to "believes in the supernatural/doesn't believe in the supernatural." I don't think there are degrees of believing in the supernatural. It's like pregnant - you are or you aren't.

On the other hand, every religionist from lukewarm to fundamentalist is actually an atheist 99.9999% of the time, for you reject all of the other gods created in the mind of man while holding that your particular god - who was also created in the mind of men - is the one TRUE god. How about that?

Embrace the horror, ye moderate religionists! You actually have a shorter philosophical distance to travel to find common ground with the non-believers than you do to with the fundamentalists, but for some reason - most likely fear of eternal damnation - you can't seem to let go of that irrational belief in the supernatural. Ergo, the lumping together with the extremists - extremists you enable with your embrace of the core beliefs that underpin your religion and their religion.

[JerseygirlCT]

181. Ok, one at a time:

I'm talking core beliefs: the belief in a supernatural parent/babysitter who - like Santa - knows when you are sleeping, knows when you're awake, knows when you've been bad or good My take on God has nothing to do with a babysitter; the belief that Adam & Eve "fell from grace," thereby giving man his "sinful nature" that needs to be redeemed by a god-sent savior (let's face it, if you don't believe the Adam & Eve story, why believe that man has a sinful nature in need of redemption?)absolutely do not believe this - and you'd be surprised how few do; the belief that morals came from godnope; the belief that there is an afterlife, etc.yes, of some sort.

Again, you're deciding what you think are core beliefs, and then making broad assumptions. Not at all so. In fact, there is a huge variety in Christian thought.

And, I don't believe there are any other gods - or to put it another way, there is God. Other peoples at other times have perceived God differently, but that doesn't change God. It's our human perceptions that have changed, not the number or nature of God.

And why in the world would common ground with atheists be a problem? Again, you're making some big and not at all nice assumptions.

I take no responsibility for the perverse interpretation of Christianity exhibited by many fundamentalists. I believe what I believe, and will be judged on that. I don't own them, any more than you do.

[stopbush]

192. So basically, you have an interpretation of Christianity that suits you,

while others have a version that suits them.

There is absolutely no way to establish a baseline on what constitutes the core beliefs of Christianity because - as your post amply proves - Christians feel entitled to cherry pick the Bible to suit their own purposes/upbringing/social standing/etc.

As to how I'm deciding what constitutes core beliefs for the Christian, my reference is the Bible. What you and all of the other liberal Christians on this board are telling me is that one may reject up to - let me take a guess here - 95% of what the Bible avers are truths and tenets of the faith and still consider oneself to be a Christian. How can that be? How can one be so cavalier as to embrace Jesus being a godman and a savior while not embracing the core belief that one needs to be saved from the sinful nature created by the fall (are you sure that few Xians believe that Adam fell? If so, why bother with the religion at all?)?

As far as making assumptions: please tell me why it is wrong to assume that Christians embrace the whole of their holy book, warts, inaccuracies and all? How about 75%? 50%? Why should you cherry picking your religious document be considered SOP?

Sorry, but I just don't get it. It's like saying you're a liberal D but you always vote for Rs because you don't believe in universal health care.

[JerseygirlCT]

195. Let me try this again

Biblical literalism is not part of most major Christian groups. That doesn't negate the value of the bible at all. But it does offer the mainstream alternative to the biblical literalism of fundamentalists.

Again, your phrase: "cherry pick the Bible to suit their own purposes/upbringing/social standing/etc." implies that the default position is reading scripture like a rule book or a text book. Most Christian traditions do not do this. Nor do many, including the RCC I was raised in and the Episcopal church I'm now a member of, depend solely on scripture. Again, that's a position usually held by an offshoot, a later branch, if you will, of Christianity as seen in today's fundamentalist churches.

There is huge value in scripture - more, in fact, for those of us who approach it as a complex work - history, literature, parable, and overall a continuing depiction of human striving for relationship with God. There are lessons to be found throughout, and for Christians, most importantly in the teachings of Jesus. To me, reading the bible literally flattens it out; reduces its meaning. Rather like reading a Shakespearean play simply for the story line. There are riches, but one has to be willing to dig for them, to think on them.

Ask Meshuga or someone else from a Jewish tradition about "cherry picking" and not taking the bible as literal fact. They'd likely look at you as if you were nuts. Theirs is a long tradition of commentary, insight, debate. And that tradition is rightly what most Christianity bases its approach on.

My own church has a way of putting this: the metaphor is a three-legged stool - reason (discernment), scripture, and tradition. Remove one and the stool is unsteady and won't work.

[Meshuga]

197. The cherry picking began with the Pharisees,

who took the power away from the written Torah to give power to their own oral law. The Judaism based only on the pentateuch died out with the fall of the second Temple of Jerusalem. So Judaism today is a Judaism based on the Pharisees, the surviving sect who looked into the oral law for answers.

The shulchan aruch (composed in the 16th century) is what is consulted to answer religious question for the orthodox jews today. The Conservative Jew use the Talmud. The Reform is not a halakhic group so they base their religion on ethics and social justice. The Torah is the glue that holds us together and the tanakh (aka Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament) is part of our heritage, it's our story, it is our mythology.

[stopbush]

198. Thanks for the response. Let me try again.

I'm quite familiar with the Jewish tradition of Midrash, and I understand the way a Christian sect chooses to interpret scripture is up to them.

As to Biblical literalism - I do find it to be true that most Xian sects can easily slough off Biblical literalism that was once considered fact but is now considered metaphor. "Facts" like the Earth being created in 6 days, Adam & Eve, etc. In fact, a "metaphor" is the definition of a former Biblical fact. There's nothing like actual evidence disproving a Biblical fact to move it over to the metaphor category.

What I find eerily convenient is that no Christian I know treats the life of Jesus or the existence of god as a metaphor or a fiction. Somehow, in a book teeming with metaphors on every page, certain things in the metaphor-ridden book are considered to be facts. Why is that? I really don't understand how Christians compartmentalize these things. I would assume that if one was reading a book that was clearly a history, one would assume that most of the book was historic. I would also assume that any person reading a book of metaphors - like Aesop's fables, for example - would assume the the whole thing was a metaphor, and that the people mentioned were fictional archetypes included to support the metaphor, perhaps by adding an air of artistic verisimilitude to the reading by mentioning a few real places and a few documented historical personages. But real people who happen to be god, and godmen who strangely resemble earlier deistic archetypes that were rampant in the Mediterranean at the time the various books of the Bible were written? Sounds like somebody's using a template. Sounds like wishful thinking. Sounds like something somebody made up, and the someone was probably some guy with a political ax to grind.

As far as the role "tradition" plays in religion: you put me in mind of the famous conductor Arturo Toscanini, who remarked that "tradition" in the performance of orchestral music amounted to "nothing more than the last bad performance." I find that analysis works quite well in considering religious tradition...with the emphasis on "bad."

BTW - just for the record, I find no value in most scripture. It's a reflection of the Bronze-Aged mindset, a mindset of blood lust, revenge, women treated as property, self-centered morals and megalomaniacal characters like Jesus. It's all rather distasteful and primitive. I believe we've moved on as a species since the Bronze Age. I disagree with those who aver that human nature doesn't change. I believe that we're better men than the men of the Bronze Age, and that includes the man Jesus who - at least as reported in the Bible - has a fairly demented view of the world and who champions a loathsome view of humanity. Jesus approved of slavery, as did most of the world until the recent past. We've gone beyond what Jesus envisioned, and for the better (that is, if we allow that he may have existed).

Today's philosophies offer more than does the creaking edifice called the Bible, just as we've moved on from the societal practices of the ancient Greeks.

Gotta go.

[JerseygirlCT]

199. Part of where we might be missing one another here

is the idea that the bible is one, whole, book. Again, it's more like a collection of short stories than a novel. Written by different people, in different times and cultures, but connected by a theme. Some history, some allegory, some parable, some of many of the ways that human beings communicate.

To me, frankly, the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the bible continue to have worth, whether one believes in Jesus' existence or not.

And yes, absolutely, understanding of things like creation have changed over the years as science has provided us with new information. That's just exactly my point in dealing with scripture. In the middle ages, absent another way of seeing things, people took at face value the creation stories in the bible. Today, with far more information about how we likely evolved, we are able to see the stories as compelling allegory - with, perhaps, differing meaning to different people. Open to interpretation, which to me is just people interacting with scripture, instead of sitting it on a pedestal somewhere and worshipping it (which I fear many biblical literalists do).

[stopbush]

200. Yes. I view Mark's Gospel as an allegorical fiction, not as a history.

Matthew and Luke's piss-poor attempts to graft history onto Mark's fiction are a bit of an embarrassment. John's attempt to retrofit OT prophecy into his Gospel to portray Jesus as a fulfillment of prophecy is an interesting angle, but it would have been better served had he not based his story on the original fiction (Mark) and then further botched the job by misquoting the OT and -worse - citing as prophetic verses OT verses that never were and still aren't prophecies. It would have also been more consistent had they not all availed themselves of the Septuagint as their OT source - among other risible boners, they might have avoided the bad translation that set up the whole erroneous dogma of the virgin birth. Had they followed Mark's lead and omitted the birth story of Jesus, they may have avoided offering birth years for Jesus that were 10 years apart. No big deal for their contemporary readers who most likely knew only one gospel or another, but a bit of a sticky wicket once their books were gathered into the Bible.

But that's to be expected of writers who were writing independently of each other and for different audiences. I certainly don't hold it against Matthew that he believed the world was created in 6 days, that it was flat and that disease was the physical manifestation of god's displeasure, because everybody believed those things were true at the time. What's harder to countenance is the fact that large swaths of people still believe such horse shit in an age when natural, rational, tested and proven explanations are now available to explain what was once believed to be the work of the supernatural and/or beyond explanation.

Bronze-aged man had an excuse for believing such fantasies. We know better today. What's our excuse?

[Meshuga]

183. Of course one is still a "religionist"

Whether a fundamentalist, a moderate or a lukewarm religionist the person is still a religionist. I don't take offense to that at all since that is a fact. But the problem is using the term "religionist" to make assumptions on the default position of an individual religionist. And also in the attempt to blur the differences in order to equate liberal believers to extremists. No matter how much one tries to justify doing this, I think it is just as dumb as calling an atheist a "Fundamentalist Atheist" in an attempt to link atheists to the same.

I say this not to accuse some atheists of doing this (but because of a perception I have and I may be wrong) but it seems almost as if there is a need to attribute fundamentalist attitude to a moderate/lukewarm religionist in order to have an argument with them about religion. And if this is the case then perhaps it is not intentional, maybe it happens based on the generalized words that are used consequently causing misunderstanding. But the bottom line is that one would have to know the position of the believer on specific topics such as real science, creationism/ID, human nature, salvation, afterlife, morality, god, gods, etc. before having a meaningful exchange and definitely before attributing characteristics to the other person. Otherwise it may appear that the challenger of beliefs can only think of religion as being the one variation of the religion that is dominant in the society. Or the one religion the person had a previous experience with.

So before assuming that a believer has a fear of eternal damnation you could ask the question and discover that the believer may follow a religion for other reasons and not because fear of damnation at all.

Belief is not the only component of religion and having individual beliefs depend on how and where the individual was raised and other factors. It is all a matter of background and a matter of the person finding usefulness in holding certain beliefs. The problem arrives when someone thinks his/her beliefs and his/her own world model are universal.

And I don't know what you mean by me as a religionist embracing the core beliefs of an extremist. Especially when you don't even know what my beliefs (or lack of beliefs) are.

[JerseygirlCT]

188. Well said

I think there's also a sort of assumption that religious people hold their beliefs out of some sort of fear or as a bargaining chip. (Do this and you'll go to heaven).

There's no "or else" in my view. I'll worry about the next world then. Right now, there's simply a belief in God, and a process (always evolving) of discovering what that means and how to be in a relationship with God. Mostly that means through relationships with people. There's no fear of eternal damnation - I don't believe in it, actually. And it's not about "shoulds". I just do. That simple. At bottom, beyond all arguments and reason, I just believe there's a God.

Beyond that simple fact, and my belief that God expects us to love one another, most every other item that could be classified as theology or belief is up for grabs, really. I'm open to new ideas, and my own are changing all the time as I give it more thought. So I certainly couldn't say I have the right of it, so the rest of you must be wrong. Except where a person's beliefs require the harming of another. I'm pretty comfortable that there are those wrongs.

(Which of course, might make me a moving target, and hard to hit, on an individual basis!)

[Meshuga]

190. And there is also the fact that your religion

has a formula that works for you that you use as a guidance toward becoming a better person and staying on track. Some use religion for this and some don't. It is a matter of personal choice that what works for the individual.

[stopbush]

193. I don't know what a "fundamentalist atheist" is,

but I do know that atheists hold as fundamental the belief that there are no such things as gods.

My proposal is that religionists all hold as fundamental that god(s) does (do) exist. I am proposing that this belief is a core belief of religious extremist and moderate alike. I assume that is a default position for all religionists (Buddists and other god-bereft religions excluded, of course). Am I wrong in this? Are you saying that you do not believe in god?

[Meshuga]

196. I don't know what a "fundamentalist atheist" is either

But this expression and "militant atheist" have been used a lot in this board to connect the dots between the attitudes of atheists with the attitude of religious extremists. The need to link the religious with the same intentions is dumb no matter the justification used. The intent is usually to create drama and to insult no matter how it is masked.

Do I believe in God? For the most part I do not believe in a personal God. At least in any way like the traditional notion of God. My religious tradition has a set of mitzvot (commandments or folkways) that we follow and my approach to belief goes with my tradition which attributes God with saying that he does not mind if his children abandon him as long as they follow his mitzvot because through good deeds they will eventually find him.

With that said, I use my religious tradition as a guide (not the best universal guide by any means, but one that works for me) to becoming a better person and finding my spirituality in this process. That simple. It serves my need.

It may not sound theistic enough to some but that is my approach to religion as someone who considers himself a religionist.

[JerseygirlCT]

180. Thanks, Meshuga. That's about the size of it. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

179. Sure I do

It's my job, however to represent something outside those fringe Christian groups who read the bible literally!

[heidler1]

145. If I feel so disrespectful of a viewpoint that I say nothing this means I feel sorry for them.

It sort of fits into the "You shouldn't pick on the handicapped" category, if you do it is cruel IMO. However, if this person acts like their position is Superior, as is often done in religious arguments, the tipping point of my retort is soon reached.

[nichomachus]

3. I really don't care what a person believes

until they try to turn that belief into law or public policy.

They can believe that the moon is made of green cheese or that the world was created by a god masturbating or that they should give 50 percent of their money to their cult leader.

However, once they try to make laws or public policy based on those beliefs, they'd better have some damned good reasons that don't rely on thousand year old nomad myths, sacred tablets that only one person has ever seen, wishes and hopes, or simple prejudice.

So, it's not a question of respecting their beliefs. I'll respect their right to live their life the way they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with that same right for me.

[timtom]

204. Let me ask you a question, Nichomachus.

Let's take an atheist who has come down hard on the Mormon polygamist cult and decried its very wrongness.

We would all agree that it's wrong, because in the U.S. polygamy is illegal.

But, where or what is the moral authority whereby it IS illegal. In other words, what generated the legislation? Why is it wrong?

What is the atheist's moral authority? "It's wrong because ________"

[stopbush]

207. You ask, "What is the atheist's moral authority?"

Here ya go:

It's wrong because over the roughly 100,000 to 250,000 years that homo sapiens have existed on this planet, we have developed moral codes. These codes began as simple survival devices within small family units, expanded to family clans, then to small societal groups like villages, eventually encompassing entire cities, states and nations.

Our moral codes are STILL evolving: the rights of minorities and women, for example, are relatively new phenomena in our societies. Slavery - which is sanctioned in the Bible and other holy books - is now frowned upon by civilized societies. One can no longer make a moral argument for slavery as did slave holders in the South, who based their embrace of slavery on what Jesus and others said in the Bible.

There is no god involved in what we consider to be moral. In fact, the "morals" given to us by the various gods we've invented for ourselves always reflect the stage of moral development we had attained as a species when the idea of a particular god was formulated by the men who did the formulating. That's why religionists - Christians, in particular - ignore the immoralities professed by their god, failing to admit that these former moral positions are now considered to be immoral not because their god has provided them with a new commandment undoing the original commandment, but because our secular development has put paid to their religion-based immoralities.

How'd I do?

[WCGreen]

4. Well stated....

I don't respect Scientology but hey, if that's what floats their boat, have at it...

Taking the Bible literally isn't my idea of sound thought and presence of mind, but hey, have at it...

The reason, the constitition. That I believe in, that is concrete.

[B o d i]

5. The Flying Spaghetti Monster guided your hands while you were typing that

http://www.kudzufiles.com/?p=328

[DavidDvorkin]

7. Good post.

[TexasObserver]

9. No one should think anyone has a duty to respect their beliefs.

Am I to respect the beliefs of the rabid Jew haters?

Am I to respect the beliefs of the pro war, pro death penalty, anti abortion right?

Am I to respect the hate filled anti female beliefs of the Limbaughs?

I have no duty to respect anyone's beliefs, and I won't. I respect the right others have to embrace bigotry, and to speak on its behalf, but that's all I owe them.

[annabanana]

44. yup yup

I'm with you.

[Matariki]

10. "your make believe friend"

why is it necessary to say that to other people about their beliefs? Why can't a person just say, "I don't believe in god (goddess, jesus, allah, whatever)"?

It's as if some people just can't resist being rude or try to belittle others.

[ihavenobias]

15. Point taken, except that many religious folks mock those of other religions

Sure, they all band together around a generic God concept, but how many theists mock (for example) Scientology? Or Mormons?

I'm a non-theist, so I don't argue that a virgin birth or coming back from the dead is any more or less realistic than alien inhabited humans or Joseph Smith finding a tablet and reading it with magic seer stones, etc.

But amazingly many people do!

[rd_kent]

212. Because without proof, it's make-beleive.

[bread_and_roses]

11. I have said for years, I respect the right, not the belief

sorry, I have no respect at all for a belief in any god/goddess/higher power/the greys/nostradamos/astrology/satan...etc. Believe whatever you want, but don't ask me to respect it. And if your "beliefs" include abuse of animals or children I do not "respect" any claim to a "right" to practice them.

I highly recommend Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" to all.

[msongs]

14. your "beliefs" fine, your implentation of those "beliefs", maybe NOT nt

[timtom]

205. I agree with you.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer should be reviled in retrospect for risking his life to help Jews escape the Nazi holocaust, which he did because of his beliefs. And him a man of the cloth, too.

[stopbush]

208. Are you saying that the man Bonhoeffer absent his religous beliefs

would not have had it within him to save Jews? Do you really believe that? If so, you certainly take a huge swipe at the personal integrity of Bonhoeffer.

[slackmaster]

17. Only the right to believe

Beliefs themselves have no standing.

[yewberry]

18. You're missing a component.

Yes, we should respect the right of others to believe whatever they will. It is not necessary to respect those beliefs, but we should keep in mind that those beliefs, however bizarre you might find them, are deeply held and meaningful to the individual in question.

Example: You respect that Mormons have a right to their beliefs, but you don't share that faith, so you needn't respect the beliefs themselves. However, you would not be behaving respectfully if you went on about 'magic underwear' or quoted South Park on the subject or asked questions about the Osmonds. The respect that you're missing in the OP is this last part: being aware that someone else's beliefs are meaningful to and part of them, and not not open to debate or ridicule.

[Lex]

22. Someone else's beliefs are not open to debate?

Ummm, no.

[yewberry]

26. Ummm, yes.

We're not talking about fact or history, as in "My belief is that the current economic crisis was caused by..." We're talking about religious or personal faith.

No, that's not up for debate, if you're shooting for the "respect" thing.

[ihavenobias]

27. Not buying it.

There is evidence that the earth is not 4,000 years old. That's one of any number of examples where you can and *should* debate and support beliefs/arguments.

[yewberry]

36. I think I've not explained myself clearly.

You're talking about the beliefs that come about as part of having that faith; I'm talking about the having itself.

Part of respectful discussion about faith or religion is the understanding that someone else's faith is meaningful and real to them, regardless of whether it seems strange or wrong, and taking that into consideration.

[ihavenobias]

40. Beliefs on abortion and freedom are meaningful and real to people as well.

And we debate and discuss (and sometimes ridicule) these things constantly. As I and others have asked, what separates religious beliefs from other beliefs that are *also* meaningful, real and deeply held?

That's the core question, and I think if you're honest about it you'll realize the answer is there is no difference.

[yewberry]

51. Beliefs re: abortion or freedom do not play the role of faith.

We can and should debate those things--they are opinions, arguments, and often deeply held, but they are not faith. An opinion can arise from a perspective of faith, but they are not the same thing.

I don't think there's anything inherently disrespectful about debating abortion with a fundie, but if you are disrespectful of that person's faith (as in the role it plays in their life or conception of self) as part of the discussion, that's something else altogether. That's what I'm talking about being aware of.

[stopbush]

80. Why is religious faith not an opinion?

The dictionary defines opinion as: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Sounds like faith to me.

[yewberry]

101. Because "faith" in this context is fundamental

to an individual's understanding of self. It's not an opinion. To a person of faith, it's a part of who they are.

We're not just talking about strongly held opinions or positions arrived at through papal bull or something like that; this is about how people define and understand themselves. While the comparison is deeply flawed, it's a little like trying to argue against the reality that GLBT people are really GLBT. No, I'm not suggesting that religious people are born religious, but I am acknowledging that these are fundamental understandings of self that shape people's relationships with others and the world as a whole. I would no more challenge a person of faith about who they are than I would challenge my lesbian mom about who she is. A fundamental understanding of self defines who we are, and faith, for some, is the well from which that kind of understanding is drawn.

While I do not presume to speak for people of faith, my position is that questioning opinions arising from a perspective of faith is fine, but questioning the having of faith is disrespectful.

[stopbush]

102. Then I'm being disrespectful, because I strenuously question the having of faith -

especially religious faith - and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I believe it is NECESSARY to question religious faith if humankind is to reach our full potential.

Which is why I call myself an anti-theist. I wish to see - in the words of Sam Harris - The End of Faith.

And, sorry, you may slather on the frosting of an emotional overlay on religious faith, but faith is pure opinion...and unfounded opinion at that. Seems that you do want a special carve out for religious opinion, er, faith, whether you admit it or not.

[ironbark]

103. If I read you correctly

You are drawing the distinction between what someone says or does (broadly- their actions) and >who they are< or who they perceive themselves to be. (?)
The former (actions) may be subject to debate, challenge and criticism…but the individual identity and identification ought be sacrosanct.

In parenting terms- “Admonish the behaviour not the child”.

This leaves it open for all the ills of religion to be confronted and challenged without demeaning the individual for maintaining their faith… even in the face of those ills.

[stopbush]

166. Yes, faith is so fundamental to a person's understanding of self

that people desert their religion and its fundamental meaning to their self on a daily basis.

Some believers become non-believers. Some Christians convert to Islam and vice-versa. Some Episcopalians become Southern Baptists. Some Lutherans switch synods. And on and on the Chinese menu of Christian belief fundamentals go.

And what does the newly converted person think of their once-cherished fundamental-to-self beliefs that they've now discarded like so much dirty dishwater? Why, they often aver that they believed in a fantasy, or a corrupt version of their religion, but now, NOW - they have found the TRUE religion.

I'd say that was their opinion, no matter how fundamental any belief is in their self-identifying themselves as a religionist.

[ihavenobias]

23. "...Not open to debate..."

Why wouldn't these beliefs be open to debate? Aren't beliefs about abortion or maybe even freedom and the Constitution "meaningful...and a part of" many people?

Why should religious beliefs have an Immunity Idol from criticism and debate in the context of other deeply held beliefs NOT being off limits? The answer is they shouldn't, it's an arbitrary and damaging concept.

[yewberry]

29. Those are opinions, not religious belief.

I'm talking about faith, not opinions.

Agreed, debating ideas is a good thing, but questioning the tenets of someone else's faith is not respectful.

[ihavenobias]

31. Telling people they can't question is not respectful IMO.

The world would be a hell of a lot better off if more people questioned, and I'm not just focusing that on religion. I'm also not suggesting that there are no pros to religious belief.

[stopbush]

30. I disagree. I believe that all beliefs - especially if they are unproven - are

open to at least debate if not ridicule.

At one point, the Earth was considered the center of the universe. When scientists pointed out that the Earth was not only NOT the center of the universe, but that it wasn't even the center of our solar system, those with deeply held religious beliefs that were considered to be not only meaningful but absolutely true went ape shit.

My proposal is that even today, I would respect a person's right to believe that the Earth was the center of our solar system, but I'll be damned if I'm going to stand there and say, "you might be right, even though the science says you're wrong." I'm going to say, 'you're full of shit," because a person who would aver such a thing IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE is full of shit on many more levels than simple religious belief can accommodate.

Here's where I see you coming from: for some reason, you believe that religious beliefs get a special carve out that other meaningful and deeply held NON-religious beliefs don't deserve. I ask you: why? Why should religious beliefs be held in higher regard than any other dis-proven or non-provable belief? I'd appreciate a response.

Thanks.

[yewberry]

46. Basic miscommunication

I think it's the word belief that's causing me grief.

You're talking about the beliefs/arguments that arise as a part of having faith, while I'm talking about respecting the depth of faith someone has in them, that those beliefs feel like a cornerstone to them. Your example is about the manifestation of faith (the argument that the Earth is the center of our solar system), not the faith itself.

I guess what I'm arguing for is the acknowledgment of the role of faith in people's lives and respect for that, not respect for any particular interpretation or manifestation of that faith.

I actually don't think that religious beliefs should have a special place carved out for them. What caused me to answer this post at all wasn't religious belief at all.

[ihavenobias]

56. Except for the fact that a lot of people accept falsehoods and resist facts because of that faith

Unfortunately you can't separate the two things as cleanly as you're suggesting. Personal faith doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it often shapes or creates views that directly contradict logic, rationality and evidence.

Sometimes that can be a good thing, like when it comes to getting over a loved one. Other times it's a horrible thing, like when banning stem cell research or contraception, or repressing women, etc.

[yewberry]

That's true,

but in the context of the "What do I have to respect" question of the OP, it's the only way I could think of to express my meaning.

Absolutely agree that faith is a double-edged sword and that it's good and bad. At the same time, what faith means in terms of individuals' lives...eh, I have to err on the side of respect on that one.

[stopbush]

98. I think maybe you're overestimating the value of faith.

Faith is the cheapest commodity in the world. It requires no knowledge, no commitment, no facts, no expense. All it requires is the egoism to believe that something imagined is as concrete as reality, and the self-centered belief that the universe was created with you in mind.

Having faith is actually quite meaningless. There are no degrees of or depths of faith. If one exits an airplane at 35,000 feet without a parachute, they are most certainly heading to their death. Having a bit of faith or a deep faith that one will land unharmed on the ground below changes nothing about the reality of the situation. Some Christians hold as a cornerstone of their faith that they will be able to handle deadly snakes and that no harm will befall them. Such faith may be deeply rooted, but that doesn't stop many of these faithful ending up rooted in their local graveyard when the snake takes up the challenge of their faith.

I have no respect for the role of faith in people's lives because I don't believe the myths about gods are true. Ergo, it follows that I believe the role faith plays in these lives is the role that any lie plays in one's life. A life based on a lie is pure folly, even if there are occasional bright spots to go with the rest of it. A broken clock is correct twice a day, but it's still broken. I wouldn't respect the depth of faith one had that illnesses are caused by demons or by god's displeasure (as averred in the Bible by none other than Jesus), so why should I have respect for a deep-rooted faith that Jesus was god incarnate who died to redeem mankind?

[JerseygirlCT]

92. If they were proven (or able to be so), they'd cease to be "beliefs" nt

[stopbush]

167. Yes. They would then be called science.

[ColbertWatcher]

34. I don't think that was missed in the OP.

What you're asking about is a major component of the word "respect," which is in the OP quite prominently.

[WeDidIt]

70. Nobody has a guaranteed right to politeness

and that's what it comes down to.

Frankly, some myth believers are so fucking rude they deserve all the ridicule they get, like the Mormons who knock on my door.

[Igel]

88. Until they are intentionally rude, they have a right to civility.

Just as you do.

If somebody doesn't like your tie, which you intended to be either quaint, cool, or in some other way inoffensive, and yet the person comes up to insult you, it's a lack of respect, a lack of civility. Of courtesy.

I can see a difference of opinion: You have on an antique handpainted tie that might be seen as offensive and the insulter can't bring himself to not be judgmental and open minded. The proper thing is for him to address the issue civilly, instead of being rude. Once he finds out that you intend it to be offensive, *then* he can insult you; if he finds that you didn't mean it to be offensive and can't bear the idea that you didn't intend offense, then he's either an idiot or calling you a liar. Be rude in return, if you can't bring yourself to be otherwise.

And note that I used the word "intentionally".

[JerseygirlCT]

86. I agree until the debate part

That's part of why we're here. And it can certainly be done with courtesy and respect.

[Lex]

19. Exactly. I also respect people's right to say things, even if I disagree

with what they are saying. I do not have to agree with their words to respect their right to say those words.

[AndyA]

21. Basically, people need to mind their own business.

What I believe isn't "right" for everyone. And what you believe may not be a good fit for me, either. As long as neither of us are hurting anyone else with our beliefs, so be it. But when someone tells me that I don't have the same rights that they do, or passes judgement on me because they don't agree with my lifestyle or whatever, that's where it ends.

People CHOOSE to be religious. People make a conscious decision to support religious groups that promote hatred toward others.

People don't choose to be gay, or black, or whatever, but they do make a choice when it comes to religious beliefs, and just because that's a good for for one person, doesn't make it so for anyone else. And if people choose to not believe, that's their choice as well, and it's nobody else's business. People need to mind their own business.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. Not at all. The only time I go for atheists is when they force their opinions

on the Christians and agnostics here. To express respect for a belief you are personally hostile to would be madness. It's a matter of sovereign indifference to me what you believe, unless and until the very unlikely eventuality that you show any interest in what I believe. Why should it not be reciprocal? But the odd thing is that most of the atheists on here, instead of sounding very contented, always sound deeply bitter and unhappy, to the extent they have to vent their spleen on anyone, for instance, who presumes to say anything positive, however informally religious, about Christ, as Nance Gregg did. Even though it was hedged about with disclaimers regarding his Church, etc. The unbelievably infantile, hectoring responses had to be seen to be believed.

There's a world of difference between not personally respecting someone's opinion, and adopting an aggressively insulting tone in an unsolicited response to someone who clearly would not be interested in your opinion, even if it were intelligently and politely expressed - and they mostly aren't on here. I think they're mostly school-kids, who are notoriously prone to be bitterness and self-pity.

[Deep13]

39. Religion is expressed and imposed upon us everywhere.

Your example assumes that saying nice things about Jesus as though he were real is innocuous and noncontroversial. While it may be the cultural default position to say that JC's teaching are advanced and ethical and moral, they really weren't if you give them a few moments of thought. Plus it is pretty doubtful he even existed at all. If he did, then then those teachings have dubious authenticity written decades after the fact and exhibiting contradictions with known fact and among the gospels themselves.

This months National Geographic contains a letter from a reader who was outraged that NG archeologists and histories could write about actual evidence that contradicts the book of Matthew. You see, the big examples are well known--the crusades, 9/11 etc.--but religion creeps in everywhere and is usually an enemy of of actual discovery.

Silence equals acquiessence. If someone says JC is the bees knees on a political discussion forum which is open to the public, I have a right and to some extent a duty to express my disagreement and the basis for it. This is a serious and controversial subject even if some would like to treat it like fluff.

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. Too far apart for us to meaningfully discuss.

[Deep13]

57. sorry

:shrug:

It's been my experience that people who are my opposites on some important matters also share a lot of common ground on others.

[enlightenment]

64. It's pretty clear that you haven't a clue who 'most' of the

atheists/non-believers are on DU. You're entitled to 'think they're mostly school-kids' and I won't bother attempting to disabuse you of that belief, but please note that by lumping most (that being less than all, but more than half) non-believers under your rubric of bitter/self-pitying/infantile/hectoring/aggressive/unhappy, you've just rendered your opinion of them 'mostly' worthless.

[Lerkfish]

25. I liked your headline

and the headline makes a very good point...and one I agree with.

the rest of your post is not worth commenting on.

but the headline: yes, exactly: respecting the right to a belief is a very good common ground to work from.

[Deep13]

28. I can't choose what to respect or what not to.

The idea that we can make our emotions bend to our will comes from religion. Where one MUST believe X, Y, Z, that person will suppress the doubts and believe that his or her mental desire for belief is the real think. I decline to engage in that kind of self-deception.

If the requirement is to respect religious beliefs, then I lose. I don't respect them. I am convinced they are false so how could I respect them? The best I can do is PRETEND to respect them and I decline to engage in that kind of dishonesty.

As for respecting religious people and their right to believe, that is a much easier thing to do. Most of the people I know are religious at least nominally. Most of them have taken the Cartesian view that religious thinking is somehow seperate from day to day thinking about worldly things. Consequently, most religious people I know are rational most of the time. As far as the right to believe, well that protects nonbelievers too and protects people from being punished simply because they hold a certain opinion. Freedom of religion is an absolutely necessary part of a free society.

[Dorian Gray]

58. Is respect an emotion

or a composite of actions toward a person. I respect my mother though there are times where I really feel infuriated by her. But, yet, I always show her respect as my mother and don't act upon my thoughts or feelings.

I admit I fail at that often in the real world, and I've shown disrespect to people for things, but I do also think that's a moral failing of mine... not what should be.

[Deep13]

72. I think subjectively it is a mix of emotion and thought.

I respect so-and-so because of all she has accomplished. What I know about a person ends up being the cause of that respect. On the other hand, if I really have no use for someone, I don't think it is any kind of moral failure to refuse to be duplicitous and pretend I do. Most people are basically good. I respect them for it. While I cannot respect the opinions my mother forms while watching Bill O'Reilly, I still respect her because she is much more than that. It is the same for religious beliefs. I am convinced they are factually false and lead to non-reality-based-behavior. Unless, I discover I am wrong about it, I don't see how I can say I respect those beliefs.

Frankly I got to a point with my mother that I could not simply ignore things she did to infuriate me. It was increasingly hypocritical of me to be nice to her and hate her behind her back. It was not fair for me to carry the emotional burden of what she was doing to me. I let her know and was frankly pretty blunt about it. In fact a psychiatrist directed me to do it. We didn't talk for about a year, but eventually we patched things up. Now she talks to me as if I were a man rather than the abused little kid she was used to treating me as. Now, with the emotional baggage dropped, I can have a more balanced view of her. So I don't think it is any kind of a sin to say what is on your mind. And, of course, I don't think there is any kind of virtue or ultimate reward for suffering injustice in the name of being "good." I'm speaking for myself and hypothetically. I have no way of know how your situation is, of course.

[Dorian Gray]

130. I'm glad you rebuilt your relationship with your mother...

so many of those relationships are loaded with good and bad, and it can be hard to come back once you've hit that breaking point. So kudos to you.

I also think that conversation is fine. I have no problem with someone telling me they don't understand my faith and they think it's wrong. Where I do draw the line, however, is if someone belittles me for my faith. Once someone does, I really don't have any desire to have them in my life. You can handle those discussions and even debates or arguments in a respectful way.

I argue with my husband, but I really try to keep it respectful and keep on point when I do. (Rather than throw in years of things that have made me angry!) It's about being open and honest with my feelings while showing my partner respect in my honesty. Even when I get pissed off. I am not always successful, but it's something I aim for.

[Meshuga]

83. Beautifully said

And I think there is a difference between not respecting an opinion (or belief) and not respecting a person who might have an opinion you don't respect or a world view that you might find silly. Nobody has to respect a belief but we shouldn't always be blunt especially when there is the potential of hurting the other person. Sometimes bluntness is necessary when some type of intervention is necessary to keep a friend from harm but many times I find that it is better to keep my thoughts to myself. Honesty is not always a virtue, IMO.

[Mike 03]

32. Complicated question. I used to believe that I had no obligation to respect anyone else's

beliefs about anything (which is not a license to be rude to them). But the older I get, I start meeting people who are dying for one reason or another and are facing the great abyss. My main goal is to comfort them. And of course at that moment I must respect their beliefs, if only to make it possible for me to communicate with them on some meaningful level. As a Buddhist, I'm not going to attempt to convice a Catholic that he will be reincarnated, or a Christian that she ought to prepare for transcending the six bardos. And my mother, an avowed athiest--when her times comes (shudder to think)--I know will derive no comfort from my attempts to speak to her of life after death. It might comfort me, but it will just confuse and upset her at one of life's most important moments.

But if you mean when I'm sitting alone at a picnic table and two rabid Jehova's Witnesses pester me with an argument against evolution, I will not tolerate that at all without an argument.

So I think it depends on the circumstances.

My general philosophy is "comfort the suffering in the way they are comforted; then argue with the assholes."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. Very good approach!

:thumbsup:

[JerseygirlCT]

109. That works

(One quibble: Catholics ARE Christians. Do you mean Protestants, perhaps?)

The JWs in your example are behaving rudely. No need to welcome them and sit and listen if you don't want to. And just like with pushy telemarketers, I see no need to be overly polite. One nice "no thank you" ought to do the job. If it doesn't, then what choice do you have but to be more firm?

And your other example is exactly right: you are respecting the person, and how deeply held his or her beliefs are. Doesn't mean you are in agreement with those beliefs, or even that you like them. But you are treating *the person* with respect and dignity, and that speaks well of you.

[Dorian Gray]

131. I think that it's important to point out here

that I'd probably be just as annoyed by being intruded upon by JWs (or any other door to door religionist) as any atheist would. I don't want them knocking on my door or bothering me. I don't share their beliefs, and I don't like the intrusion. So I understand the feeling of being intruded upon. I get that it's unpleasant and off putting.

Luckily, it's only happened to me twice, so it's not something that I really have to deal with in the world.

[JerseygirlCT]

133. Oh absolutely!

I even had to push the door closed on one woman's face once - she was walking into the house, uninvited, pushing her tracts at me! Sheesh!

I have to say, the LDS boys are almost cute, they're so scared. And always, polite. No thank you does the job just fine with them, and on their way they go. The two times I've been visited by JWs, though - different, entirely different.

[Seeking Serenity]

33. One can disagree without being disagreeable.

[JerseygirlCT]

111. Absolutely. I didn't think that was such a difficult concept

but I guess sometimes it is!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Love the believer, mock the beliefs.

[JerseygirlCT]

110. Oh yes

I often feel greatly loved when someone belittles and mocks my deeply held beliefs.

[Evoman]

115. You know I love you! But I mock christianity all the freakin time.

:P

Especially anglicans/episco-whatevers. In fact, the other day I was bugging my anglican gf that I had to be careful not to divorce her once we got married, or she might go start another stupid religion.

She threw a piece of granola bar at me. It was okay, because it tasted good.

[JerseygirlCT]

124. You are just in a category all by yourself.

You granola-loving atheist, you.

[Evoman]

38. The only thing that people seem to find ruder than questioning religion is questioning the cuteness

of their kids.

Of course, no one votes on the basis of kid cuteness, or uses their kids cuteness to take away civil rights.

I, being neither religious nor a parent, don't understand either. I simply can't understand how or why religious beliefs are so personal and off limits. And I'm sure I'd probably have a grudging admiration for somebody who could tell me to my face that my baby is ugly.

[enlightenment]

74. It is the rare newborn that is cute - but you too, Evo, would

find your own spawn beautiful. It's nature's way of keeping you from tossing it off a cliff. Nature also provided humans with the ability to recognise when the 'new parent' switch has been thrown and in doing so, avoid telling a new parent that their newborn looks like a squashed toad - another necessary method of preserving the species.

*in full disclosure: my kid was so outrageously ugly at birth that my 'new parent' switch jammed halfway, allowing me to voice 'good GRIEF! What HAPPENED to him?!' before it completed the circuit and allowed me to only see my 'perfect' spawn . . .*

[immoderate]

41. There's always that gray area where parity breaks down.

If a person is, say, Cristian, and another is, say, Jewish, they have professed beliefs that are mutually exclusive. In some instances this is enough to provide conflict, though I wouldn't expect that at DU, where everybody is entitled to his or her own beliefs.

The problem is where it gets asymmetrical, where someone who takes something on faith goes against reason, logic, and facts. Then it's not a fair fight, like hitting a girl, or bopping a guy with glasses. Saying someone's belief is ridiculous, no matter how ridiculous, is considered bad form. Fortunately, I am excepted from this.:hippie:

--imm

[liberalsince1968]

43. The latter -unless they shove it down my throat and/or act persecuted

Which I've noticed most "religious" people do. Then I donn't respect their right to believe, either.

[Echo In Light]

48. "'Conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth." - Gore Vidal

[Arugula Latte]

50. Only their right to believe.

I will never "respect" stupid made-up fantasies. Just because something has the label of "religion" doesn't mean it's any more deserving of respect than any other belief. Give me facts, not delusional fairy tales and mythologies, if you want respect.

[Dorian Gray]

52. You don't need to respect anything you don't want to

There is plenty out there in the world that I don't respect as well. But when I'm met with disrespect, I respond in kind.

[MorningGlow]

53. "An (if) it harm none, do as thou wilt."

That is the basic tenet of my chosen faith. Whatever you want to do, whatever you want to believe, knock yaself out--as long as you're not hurting someone else. Believe in god, goddess, spaghetti monster, or nothing--I don't give a rip.

And, like millions of others on this planet, I also follow the basic tenet of EVERY faith--phrased a thousand different ways, it all boils down to two words: "Be nice." Most of us would say that of course we follow that, no matter what our belief system (or lack of a belief system)--we're civilized, we pride ourselves on being kind. Right?

...Really?

Then why do so many DUers feel it's their god-given/dog-given/non-entity given right to viciously attack someone who holds beliefs different from themselves, which far too often includes calling the person names and questioning their sanity, intelligence, and ability to function in society? It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with someone's belief system. It's about common decency.

[ihavenobias]

61. One bone to pick

You wrote the following: "I also follow the basic tenet of EVERY faith--phrased a thousand different ways, it all boils down to two words: "Be nice."'

That seems to suggest that the idea of "be nice" was created by faith/religion, and that it can't exist outside of it. You may not have meant to make that point, but some may take it that way. And often times religious folks DO make that argument, that morals only come from faith and religion, etc.

[MorningGlow]

63. You're right--that was an accidental omission on my part

I meant to also add something to the effect that it's also a basic tenet for the sensible functioning of society, regardless (and outside) of any particular faith. I apologize for that. I would never imply that only religious people are moral and ethical and I hate it when people do imply that. I'm a pagan, and I'm often on the receiving end of the implication that I'm immoral and unethical because I don't follow one of the "major" religions, so I should have been more sensitive to that.

Thanks for the catch! :hi:

[ihavenobias]

65. Oh, ok

Fair enough.

:)

[AndrewP]

54. They have a right to believe in what they want. I have a right to mock it.

If someone wants to mumble to the sky, that's their right.

It's also my right to ask them if they are nuts.

Looks like they'll have to deal with it.

[Echo In Light]

59. What if name-calling leads to real violence?

[Scout]

67. then whoever started the violence is/should be in some deep shit n/t

[Echo In Light]

77. It gets tricky tho. Internet forum "reality" doesn't have the same potential for violent consequence

As does in real, face to face time should one choose to go around mocking and name-calling others over their views/beliefs ... and people tend to forget this online, where, frankly, I've read many interactions w/posters where had it been occurring in real, face to face time, someone would be getting their jaw busted. Or worse.

Whether you agree or not with another's views is one thing ... but to make it about your "right" to ridicule their views, while not expecting that doing so may serve as a form of provocation that may lead to a violent conclusion, simply isn't very conscientious or bright.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. There are some control freaks on this board who

feel compelled to ridicule religious beliefs, as if they can't stand it that someone thinks differently from them, even if those beliefs have no effect on society (Oh no! She observes Lent!) or a benevolent effect on society (Oh no! That church provides food and clothing with no spiritual requirements or other strings attached!).

I'm thinking not only of Christianity-bashing (and no, I don't feel personally persecuted) but of the people who used to go into the old Astrology Group for the sole purpose of telling the members what idiots they were.

In real life and on this board, I have no problem with most atheists, but there are those who feel free to say the most sweeping, ignorant things about religion ("Religion is the source of all the evil in the world") and yet get highly offended if a theist uses the wrong words to describe them. I had a go-around with such a person (no longer with us), trying to find words that the person would accept as a description of atheism, but that person felt free to say anything about me.

People who want respect should show respect.

I don't care what other people believe, and while my own personal belief is theistic, I'm a big girl and know that God is too big and complex to be encompassed by any one religion. I also know that what happens to another person in life or death is not up to me, so it's presumptuous to say that such and such a person will "be punished" or "is going to hell."

The ONLY thing that should matter to me is what a person DOES and what effect that has on individuals and society. If they do good things because they follow the Sermon on the Mount or the later Hebrew prophets or the Koran or the words of the Buddha or because the stars told them to or because they simply know that society works better when everyone is kind and benevolent, all that matters is that they do good things.

[MorningGlow]

66. Well put, LL

:thumbsup:

[Echo In Light]

79. Well reasoned post. Kudos

[JerseygirlCT]

87. Excellent. Well said. nt

[stopbush]

125. Funny how you term vocal atheists "control freaks"

when religions have a whole cottage industry in ordaining priests whose entire job is to spend every waking moment prosyletising for their particular belief.

As far as atheists "not being able to stand" that someone observes Lent or that a church does good in society - do you always argue through the prism of such straw men? No atheist cares if a Christian observes Lent, but we do care when you Christians try to get ID into our kids science classes in the public schools. No one disputes or argues with the fact that churches do good works for the less fortunate, but it pisses us off when the Pope rails against the use of condoms when AIDS is rampant in Africa, or worse, as that Holy Idiot said this week, using condoms makes the AIDS epidemic in Africa worse.

These are legitimate examples of Christian bashing, because were it not for the Christian beliefs in ID/creationism and condoms, these issues would not arise. Atheists tend to speak in sweeping terms about Christians because 1) the Christians just can't seem to keep their Bronze-Aged ideas to themselves, probably because they are following Jesus' Great Commission to make disciples of the entire world, and 2) the vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians and believe the idiocies (like creationism) advanced by their sects/clergy and have no problem with their unfounded beliefs being imposed on the rest of society, just as long as it's not their particular religious ox being gored in the process.

Currently, Christian beliefs are behind the apparently successful effort to deny basic human rights to gay Americans living in CA. This is hardly the work of a benign religion. It is the work of basic religious belief that extends throughout the Christian community - moderates and radicals alike - that gay people are somehow an abomination and that allowing them to marry threatens the Christian ideal of marriage.

You Christians want it both ways: you want the freedom to enter the political arena and to actively promote tenets of your faith, imposing the tenets of your faith on the rest of us. You then retreat behind your benign-at-worst screen of, "Christianity does so much good in the world...most Christians aren't activists...let's agree to disagree...etc," while the very real results of your "good works" have the effect of a cyclone moving through a china shop. You want the right to effect the lives of others while holding "off limits" our right to fight back against your onslaught. Well, I call bullshit on you and your "benign" beliefs.

I find it awfully convenient that there are over 30,000 sects of Christianity in the world today, and that having so many sects allows every Christian the easy out of, "well, my sect doesn't hate gays, etc." No, you don't get off that easy, because your fucking holy book is very much against gays (OT) and very much in favor of ALL non-believers going to hell (cite: Jesus) because they are immoral in the eyes of your god, his son and his doppleganger. These are BASELINE beliefs of Christianity, and hiding behind the tenets of a particular sect that is more-secularly informed than the next one doesn't cut it, at least in my book.

BTW - you say: "The ONLY thing that should matter to me is what a person DOES and what effect that has on individuals and society." I agree. You do realize, don't you, that that is NOT a tenet of Christianity? Good works count for nothing in Christianity if a person doesn't accept and confess Jesus as his savior.

Seems that you're a bit more liberal in your beliefs than is Jesus. What would Jesus think?

[Dorian Gray]

132. You are speaking in extraordinarily

sweeping generalizations when I'd say that the majority of Christians at DU are doing NOTHING of which you seem to be saying is the "default" Christian position.

[stopbush]

134. My post first addresses specifics from LL's post

and then moves into general observations about Xians.

As far as the "default Xian position" - what would that be? That's one of the problems I mention - there are 30,000 Xian sects. It's impossible to find a default position they'll all agree on. At least with atheists you have A default position, ie: gods don't exist.

What's the default position with Xians? That Jesus was god? That Jesus died to redeem sins? That Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead? That Jesus said good works alone won't get you into heaven? That Jesus said he was consigning most people to eternity in hell? The various Xian sects can't seem to agree on such BASIC tenets of Christianity 101. They take some sayings of Jesus to heart and ignore the ones that aren't so nice. "I don't believe in the virgin birth" says your typical Roman Catholic living in America, but that virgin birth is a firm tenet of RCC dogma. "I don't believe gay people are immoral or that gay marriage is wrong" says the enlightened Mormon, even as their church pours millions of dollars into efforts to decimate the rights of gays in CA. Three out of five Lutherans believe good works alone will get you into heaven. Jesus says otherwise.

Who are you to speak to what the typical Xian on Du believes or disbelieves? Ask 30 Xians and you'll get 30 different answers as to what tenets of Xianity they hold dear and what they discard.

My posts in this thread are my crude attempt to address what I would think are the rules of Xian belief, not the exceptions. Sure, that's an impossible issue to rationally address, but then, this is the religious forum after all. Difficulty with exercises in rationality is stock-in-trade here. :)

[Dorian Gray]

146. Why should there be a

default Christian position uniformly held by all who profess to be Christian? Life is complicated. Nobody behaves or believes as the next person does. I think it makes life more interesting, personally.

[JerseygirlCT]

154. I agree

I might go so far as to say that I wonder whether you could find any two Christians whose beliefs are exactly the same. There is a huge amount of variety. Better not to make assumptions and to deal with people individually.

[stopbush]

165. I find it amusing that you or any other Christian would feel the least bit of

offense at any so-called anti-Christian posts in this thread. As there are - apparently - no hard-and-fast beliefs that all Christians hold in common, then there really can't be any excuse for feeling offended outside of the range of personal privilege.

And, as you yourself have stated that you don't believe in creationism - which is pretty much a black-and-white concept in the Bible...Jesus himself believed the story of Adam & Eve and the creation story were true - it would appear that Christians must take care not to give offense even when discussing their religion among themselves.

Taken to its logical conclusion, I would say that the possibility of offending a Christian of one stripe or another is so high that any discussion of the Christian religion (even the most innocuous) should be off limits to discussions not only among believers and non-believers, but between believers as well.

[JerseygirlCT]

182. I'm interested in just where you think

Jesus said he thought a literal interpretation of Adam & Eve is true. Might be difficult, as there are actually two creation stories in Genesis...

Creationism is not a core belief, by any means. It's one held by a far newer branch of Christianity, and not at all mainstream. I know it makes an easier target for you, but there it is.

And you keep circling back to the idea that those of us taking offense are doing so because you disagree with our belief. Not in the least. I don't like the language that is used, and the sarcasm and derision. Name-calling is so unnecessary. But you're right; that reflects far more on you than on me.

[stopbush]

210. Here ya go:

Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Apparently, Jesus only knew the story in Genesis 1:27, where man and woman were created at the same time, not the story in Genesis 2:18 where man was created first, the animals second, and then woman from Adam's rib.

That said, Jesus did:
1. believe in the creation story
2. believed that "from the beginning of creation god made them male & female'

Hmm. Doesn't sound like Jesus knew anything about the actual age of the universe or the Earth, does it? I'd think that "the beginning of the creation" was the Big Bang. According to the fossil record, man didn't make an appearance on Earth until roughly 13.5 billion years after the Big Bang. Yet, Jesus says god created man and woman "from the beginning of creation." Did god keep man and woman in a bottle for 13.5 billion years after he created them before releasing them on Earth? The Earth was formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago, ie: 9 billion years AFTER "the beginning of creation."

Jesus' beliefs don't jibe with science, but they do jibe with a literal interpretation of either Genesis story.

So much for the knowledge set of the Son who supposedly created it all. That's right. According to the Gospels, Jesus was present "from the beginning of creation":

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jesus is there with god "in the beginning." Jesus is "the Word," and the Word "was god."

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
Jesus "the Word" is incarnated in the flesh and dwelt among men.

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
Jesus himself says he and god ("I am") are one.

John 10:30
"I and my Father are one."
Jesus says it again, this time, directly.

Care to comment? Perhaps we are not to take Jesus' plain-as-day words literally?

[skepticscott]

142. This seems to be the main mantra

of most, if not all, of the self-professed "liberal" believers here. All of the things roundly criticized and mocked by anti-theists are done or believed by those "other" Christians. That teeny, tiny minority of extremists. The bad Christians. That's not us. We are loving and tolerant and accepting, which is how God wants "real" Christians to be. We understand what the Bible means and what God wants far better than those "other" Christians.

Except that they don't. They have no special wisdom when it comes to Christianity or religion of any kind. They have no more justification for thinking that their interpretation of the Bible is any more enlightened than Fred Phelps' or Pat Robertson's. For all they know, their interpretation of the Bible may be a complete perversion of God's real intent.

[Dorian Gray]

149. Perhaps....

but that doesn't change the fact that the prior complaints don't really pertain to most of the posters here.

I also never said that there were "bad" Christians or "good" Christians. I certainly don't think I'm "good." This week I've been a total bitch and a half (in real life). It's been a tough week.

[WeDidIt]

68. It's pretty fucking hard to respect some beliefs

I mean, fucking seriously.

Respecting somebody's beliefs is polite, but there's no guaranteed right to politeness.

So I'll ridicule anybody's beliefs any chance I get. Some of 'em are a hoot, like the whole ritual cannabalism thing.

[HarveyDarkey]

69. Sam Harris on conversational intolerance of religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXg-yy-riEg

Which is my opinion exactly

[cosmik debris]

78. I don't respect ANY religious belief

Or any other superstition.

If you start down that road you may end up respecting all manner of shit.

[Sal316]

82. Respect the person....and their beliefs.

To them, their beliefs form the core of who they are. By disparaging their beliefs, you're essentially telling them they're worthless and wrong and stupid and ridiculous.

You're invalidating them as a person, and that's wrong, no matter your belief system.

[Silent3]

89. What if showing respect is self-defeating for you?

If I, as an atheist and a skeptic, treat religious and spiritual beliefs as separate and special among all other types of viewpoints, deserving of automatic respect that other philosophical and political positions don't get, I put myself in a weaker position in the marketplace of ideas. Acting as if I respect religious beliefs would make me complicit in my own marginalization, it would put me in the position of helping to keep religion up on a special pedestal, dressed in an aura of respectability that atheism doesn't enjoy.

By disparaging their beliefs, you're essentially telling them they're worthless and wrong and stupid and ridiculous.

What is this? Emotional blackmail? Please don't criticism my special off-limits religious beliefs or I'm gonna cry? It's not my fault that some people can't separate these things and don't know how to deal with criticism without taking it way too personally.

[Sal316]

100. I didn't say you had to agree with them....

...I could give a crap whether you agree or not.

Do you validate the feelings of friends, family, your significant other, your spouse, even if you don't agree with them?

Or do you just tell them they're stupid for thinking what they do?

[Silent3]

104. I don't go out of my way to either validate or invalidate...

...anyone's religious feelings. And unless similar rudeness is thrown in my face first, I'm not going to say anything like "I think you're stupid!" In fact, even then, I usually only criticize ideas, not people. It's not my problem if the person hearing what I say doesn't care about that distinction and wants to infer personal insult where it was not intended.

If the subject matter is on the table, however (and it's always on the table in the R/T forum) I'm not holding back on expressing myself clearly. I've had frank discussions with friends and family about religious and spiritual topics where we disagree, and the only ones who've ever had much problem with it is my born-again sister and an ex-girlfriend who was upset when she told me she'd "fire walked" and I made the faux pas of talking about the rational reason why your feet don't get burned rather than acting as if I thought it had to be magic, which is apparently the validation she was seeking.

I'm not sure what you expect. Context matters, and I regulate what I say accordingly. I'm not going to walk up to a newly widowed woman at a funeral and say, "You know, I don't think there really is a God or an afterlife." When I'm posting on R/T, however, I'm not going to hold back on expressing myself just in case that widow might decide to drop into this forum and read what I've written.

I'm curious about your use of the word "validation" as well. To me that word suggests not merely avoiding causing bruised feelings, but active affirmation. I hope you don't think it's my duty or social obligation to dishonestly pretend I believe things that I don't believe, or to encourage or facilitate things I disagree with. I'll go as far as going through some of the ritualistic motions at, say, a Catholic funeral, and rise, sit, kneel, and bow my head in unison with everyone else, but I don't think I should have to pray. If someone at such a mass asks me what church I go to, I'm not going to lie and make up a church on the off chance that simply knowing I don't go to a church might offend that person's sensibilities.

[JerseygirlCT]

84. I think you, and everyone, ought to respect others. You do not

have to respect different beliefs - or beliefs at all. But it would be terrific if everyone could start by treating other people here respectfully.

That means pointless name-calling and broad-brush stereotypes don't work. Questions, debate - that's what I thought the purpose of this forum was, and that's good.

[varkam]

90. I think we should respect a person's right to believe, but I also think a part of that...

means respecting the underlying principle of human autonomy. IMO, calling people who believe differently than you when it comes to topics for which there is little evidence idiots or mentally ill does not respect the underlying principle of autonomy. I think that it's a pretty fine line.

[kwassa]

93. Are We To Respect Atheists Lack of Belief, Or Only The Right Of Some To Behave Like Assholes?

I really don't know what to do, as I have little respect for many atheists, or at least as they are represented on DU.

There are some very loud and arrogant and obnoxious ones around.

On the other hand, I don't care if they respect my beliefs or not. I only care about the opinion of people I do have respect for.

So, atheists, those who are arrogant and obnoxious, disrespect to your heart's content.

[Goblinmonger]

113. Well that added a lot to the conversation.

Do you feel better after your venting?

[Evoman]

114. Is there a difference for you between disrespecting ideas and disrespecting people?

I mean, what you are doing isn't disrespecting atheism. You aren't making an argument against it. You aren't even telling us that atheism is stupid or counterproductive. What your doing is essentially pointing at PEOPLE and calling them obnoxious assholes.

I don't know...I have a lot of problems understanding the religious mindset. When someone attacks my philosophy or politics in a discussion forum, it doesn't particularly bother me, and that's the only thing I can really compare religion to. Similarly, I don't ever mean disrespect to the people I argue with. I know I have argued with you many time, but I can't ever say I meant to attack you as a person, saying you are dumber than I am or less worthy of dignity.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

141. I've said many times: Faith is experiential, not intellectual

Trying to argue someone out of religious faith is like arguing with them about why they fell in love with a certain person, as opposed to with some other superficially similar person, or why they like swimming and not tennis or vice versa or why your music irritates them and their music irritates you.

The only way a person will give up their lover or favorite activity or music is for them to have a seriously bad experience. You can't argue them out of it.

The intellectual part of religion is a meagre human guess. The experiential part of it is as genuine as love.

On another board (where I post under a different name), I mentioned that one of the things I liked about being part of religious community was forming deep connections with people I wouldn't ever encounter otherwise.

This really upset one of the participants and he replied, "All that bullshit about 'Christian fellowship.' That's really lame. You could get the same thing from joining a sports team." It was as if as if it were really important to him that there not be anything special about my experiences. I informed him that I did have a group of friends that I swim with, but that the relationship was qualitatively different, not better, not worse, just on a different level.

He seemed heavily invested in the idea that friends were friends and it didn't matter where they were from.

[skepticscott]

159. So if faith has no intellectual component

have all the efforts of hundreds of theologians over hundreds of years to discuss, explain and justify faith by intellectual means been nothing but a misguided waste of time?

And have all the efforts by Christian proselytizers to argue people into religious faith been as silly and pointless as trying to argue people out of it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

160. No, you can still try to describe the indescribable

and in general, proselytizers who try to argue people into conversion don't get very far, not unless their target is vulnerable somehow. Badgering works mostly in cult situations, where the target is kept isolated, sleep-deprived, and malnourished.

The adult converts that I know all had a predisposition toward religious experience and went in search of a spiritual home. Eventually they found one that fit.

[rrneck]

168. "...describe the indescribable..."

That's close to an artist's job description. This thing we have a hard time naming isn't necessarily confined to religion.

I think yours is the first post I've seen that refers to the experiential nature of faith.

[skepticscott]

194. If that really were the case

wouldn’t you think that over the course of a millennium or so theologians would realize that the whole effort was hopeless?

In fact, a good deal of theology consists of people trying to foster agreement on the tenets of faith and to make them seem reasonable and logical (even when they aren’t). This would be an entirely pointless exercise if theologians thought that everyone’s faith was a completely subjective and experiential matter, with no connection to anything shared or with any objective existence outside of the minds of individual believers.

In addition, it is all too common for believers to adopt the tools of intellectual inquiry (reason and evidence) when it suits them, for example in the use of scientific studies to try to show the effectiveness of intercessory prayer, or to show that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of the crucified Christ, or that the James Ossuary demonstrates the true historical existence of the holy family. Many, many Christians are quick to trumpet this scientific evidence as “proof” that the tenets of their faith are objectively true, not only for them, but for anyone else. Of course, if the evidence turns out to be bogus (as it essentially always does), their fallback always is “Well, this is matter of faith, so evidence doesn’t matter..the lack of evidence doesn’t change what I believe.”

And let’s not forget the endless attempts to “prove” the existence of god through reason or to argue for it by the evidence of design. This is clearly an intellectual aspect to the faith phenomenon and an extremely widespread (though somewhat cognitively dissonant) one. Believers who desperately want their faith to seem logical, rational and even intellectually inevitable simply can’t be dismissed as a tiny minority on the fringes.

With regard to the other point, I was actually taking "argue" in the sense of making an argument, as opposed to being argumentative. Do you really believe that someone could only adopt or convert to a religion on the urging of another person if they were “vulnerable”? How about receptive?

[Evoman]

164. I've gone on record as saying that one of the few advantages of religion is the fellowship.

If there was ANY reason for me to go to church, it would be to meet people. In fact, one of the disadvantages I have is my lack of networking capabilities. Of course, that would be sort of cynical and a bit hypocritical for me to do since I'm not religous nor ever will be, but still.

Of course, that same fellowship and community can occasionally have horrifying effects on people, especially if they are isolating or exclusionary....

[skepticscott]

201. I'm sure the Branch Davidians

had great fellowship. Ditto the Heaven's Gaters and the folks in Jonestown.

[Evoman]

209. I'm all up for fellowship until somebody asks me to cut off my balls,.

Or drink suspicious Kool-aid. Or have sex with children.

[Beregond2]

94. Obviously, no one is "required" to respect another's beliefs.

Back in my agnostic days, the word "belief" was one of my main objections to religion. It doesn't even mean anything. You either know something or you don't. What people really mean when they say they "believe" something is: "I fervently hope this is true." But what non-believers here them saying is: "I give intellectual assent to this proposition, without benefit of evidence or proof." And that, understandably, infuriates them. And on that basis, they are, in fact, saying: "No, you do NOT have a right to believe that, because it is irrational."

However, there is a very great difference between faith and belief. As Alan Watts said: "Belief is clinging to a rock in the middle of a raging river. Faith is learning to swim." In other words, faith is trust; trust that, whatever the ultimate truth about things may be, it is all as it should be. It is a fundamental attitude toward life; that it makes sense, that justice will prevail in the end, and all will be well. Not that we should be complacent, but that our efforts will not be in vain.

It is that conviction that life must make sense that leads people to religion. They need a morally coherent vision of life in order to function. And the "fairy tales and myths" that make-up the story content of religion serve as lenses through which that underlying order may be glimpsed.

Fundamentalists are people who are too insecure to accept a world-view that is anything less than rigidly structured. They yearn for laws, unquestionable rules and principles. And so they twist their inherited religio/philosophical materials into a cage, within which they feel safe. And there are atheist fundamentalists, just as there are religious ones. Anything that threatens their bearings infuriates them, so they attack. So much of what passes for discussion on these issues here is just that kind of interaction.

As for me, the existence of God is self-evident, and I use religion as a means of connecting to that numinous reality underlying everything, and engaging in a dialogue with my culture. To quote a brilliant man: "All we can do is shoot metaphors in the direction of the ineffable." For me, at this point in my development, that is adequate. But I understand that for others, it is not. So...I am saddened when they use religion - or atheism - to buttress their prejudices and attack what they fear. But I do my best to listen with sympathy, I try to understand, and I move on.

[muriel_volestrangler]

202. Much of what you call faith sounds just like "clinging to a rock in the middle of a raging river"

Specifically, the following:

"trust that, whatever the ultimate truth about things may be, it is all as it should be"

"that it makes sense, that justice will prevail in the end, and all will be well"

"that conviction that life must make sense"

"They need a morally coherent vision of life in order to function."

That all sounds like requiring a point of solidity, when your current situation is not going well. And there seems little difference between "they need a morally coherent vision of life in order to function" and "people who are too insecure to accept a world-view that is anything less than rigidly structured". I can't see the "very great difference" you say is there.

[Rob H.]

95. I'll respect people's right to believe whatever they like

but respect the beliefs themselves? Not necessarily.

[laconicsax]

96. Respect the right to believe and leave it there.

[rrneck]

99. It depends

on who the believer is, what they believe, and how germaine those beliefs are to the subject being discussed.

There are all kinds of people out there who believe all kinds of different things and use those beliefs (or lack of them) for all kinds of different reasons. You just have to interact with them for a bit to find out what kind of person you are dealing with.

If somebody believes passionately in anything I will respect their beliefs until I have evidence to do otherwise.

If they seem ok, fine, I might learn something. If they seem confused, wrong or delusional, I might try to give them some information they could use if they seem amenable to it. If they come off as an asshole, then I can go from nice guy to dick in about two seconds.

It's all about human relations. The default position should always be respect. My rights stop at the other guys nose, as do his.

damn typos

[Marrah_G]

108. I respect people's right to believe until the time that those beliefs harm others.

[Silent3]

116. It's that kind of piss poor, narrow-minded attitude...

...that interferes with my right to feed unwilling sacrificial victims to the Volcano God! :evilgrin:

[Marrah_G]

121. The Volcano GodESS will just have to get over it then !

:evilgrin:

[Silent3]

122. Considering how volcanos love to erupt and spew all over the face...

...of the planet, I'd say it's fair bet we're dealing with a masculine deity here. :P

[Marrah_G]

126. ...............

:rofl:

Good thing I am far away from any volcanos!

[stopbush]

117. At what point does one decide harm has been committed?

Let's talk about the Boy Scouts of America.

Here's a group that openly discriminates against gays and atheists. Here's a group that went to court to have themselves declared a private club so they could continue to discriminate against gays and atheists. Why did they do so? Because their infamous oath states the following:

"On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight."

Scouts must aver a belief in god - no atheists need apply.

Scouts consider homosexuality and atheism to be "morally un-straight." No gays or atheists need apply.

At the same time. the BSA is allowed to recruit and hold meetings in public schools, schools paid for with my tax dollars. My son has often been approached by his school buds to join the BSA. He declines because he is non-religious. His friends tell him to just lie about it, that it's no big deal. So, my son's choices are to speak the truth and be denied admission to the club, or to lie to be accepted. Good for him, he opts to tell the truth.

Every few months the Scouts set up a table outside the local grocery store. There's always a few parents around. A scout will approach me asking for a donation. My response is, "have the Scouts stopped discriminating against gays and atheists?" The scout usually looks a bit shocked. The parents usually reproach me - "how DARE you talk to him like that?" My response, "hey, you're the group discriminating. You went to court to earn that discrimination right. Stand up and be proud that you and your son discriminate against gays and atheists. The day you stop discriminating is the day I'll give you a donation."

Now, it's clear that the parents have never bothered to tell sonny about this little "right" the Scouts enjoy. And the kids look shocked because kids today do not embrace discrimination of any sort, and to find that they are in a group that promotes it doesn't sit well with them. I'm sure many parents don't know about this policy, or have shoved it into the back of their minds. I'm sure that some people on this board think I'm out of line for bringing this up with kids. Au contraire, I feel that I owe it to them to tell them what their organization stands for.

Perhaps I'm too harsh on the BSA. Perhaps my son being ostracized or asked to lie about his non-belief is a small price to pay so thousands of boys can learn to tie a square knot and how to douse a campfire. Me? I don't think so. I believe that harm has been done by religious belief in even these "small" incidents, and I for one am not going to simply turn the other cheek to such loathsome practices as those engaged in by the BSA in a go-along-to-get-along, agree-to-disagree lie.

When harm has been done is in the eye of the beholder. Typically, the religious seldom if ever see any of their beliefs or actions being harmful. Christians especially have always bought into the "we had to burn the village to save the village" philosophy, and I don't see that mindset ending any time soon. Belief that your actions are being directed by a higher power justifies all manner of harm being done, from The Inquisition to denying condoms to AIDS-ravaged Africa to telling my son he's immoral.

The scourge that is religion plagues us on every level of our society. We'll be better off when faith is viewed as a dirty word and religion is consigned to the scrap heap of mankind's childish inhumanities.

[Marrah_G]

120. And that is why I have no respect for the BSA

[Neo Atheist]

118. I see absolutely no reason to respect anyone's faith

period.

[ZombieHorde]

127. Respect both at a funeral, respect neither on a religious debate board. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

144. Well said!

[Dorian Gray]

150. Well... that is a good point....

I'm sure that our behavior online might be very different than our behavior offline. Lord knows I rarely talk about religion when I'm not on DU! LOL!

[Warpy]

185. There are quite a few beliefs out there I have zero respect for

but I'd be vehemently opposed to having any of their adherents forcibly removed and deprogrammed and their facilities shut down.

That's where the line is.

Face it, nothing in the whole world is sillier than somebody else's religion. Being able to disagree without being disagreeable is how we manage to share the planet.