December 18th, 2007, 05:07 PM
Is it?
Should religion be exempt from questioning and critique? Is it insulting to do so?
It is a personal choice and it's based on personal convictions. People are allowed to have free will, choose what they believe or not, etc, but does that exempt it from questioning and reasoning? Should we not debate personal choice? Should we not be allowed? Is it insulting?
How much respect is religion entitled to really?
December 18th, 2007, 05:12 PM
This thread isn't by chance because of my thinking is it?Originally Posted by Obviously
.
I don't feel people should respect me superiorly, just to respect my point of view and beliefs as I do others. You can question religion all you like from your own point of view, but from mine I cannot. Religious people are stuck in a world that can be very painful, and that pain comes from not being able to compromise with non believers and that they cannot help non-believers. I am only insulted by a big title saying 'THE GOD DELUSION', because it is the same as saying 'SCIENTISTS ARE LOSERS', its not very nice and it can often convey a message wrongly to uneducated people. Dawkins came on strongly with his views and has no respect for others views, he should be careful what he says and does because he could be casuing people harm. He clearly has no respect for other peoples belief in God, and that is just as ignorant as his self proclaimed vision of religion.
I'm writing a long response, but:
* My laptops batery is pretty soon empty
* I don't have anything to recharge the battery, because the recharger thingy is broken
* I have a PC, but the screencard doesn't work anymore so I can't start it :?
In conclusion, I'll get back to you^^,
I agree Dawkins views are somewhat harsh but I do feel they have been somewhat necessary in debunking the issue & whether it is something open to debate, in fact religion now necessitates debate. I feel although people perhaps should not follow as he did, they are now in a position to argue over the viability or truth of religion where before it required a certain "inquestionability".
It should be debated, but not gotten rid of, thats not fair to the people that believe. As long as atheists don't try to get rid of religion or force their non belief I don't have a problem. I don't force my belief down their throats. Its common coutersy but atheists should try and take a more layed back position when approaching religion, the two are conflicted anway so anger towards each other won't help anything constructive be put forward, which is very evident on the religion topic.
I am aware that it is a slippery slope, really the message atheists preach (or more accurately the manner) can be quite aggressive at times and may in the long term promote more fundamentalist views,
I agree there should be debate but Christians must also realise their own preachings can be arrogant and intolerant to an atheist who has their own conclusions. Christians (or other religions would really like to rid atheism as much as atheists made wish to rid religion: personally I find either argument counterintuitive. Really the manner in which debate takes place today can be equally intolerant where either side "knows" they are right & there is no real debate, only a shouting down by either side.
Anyway, I dont think the argument over the validity of religion in any facet should be tabooed!
Not a chance. The eradication of cults should be a primary motivator for mankind if it is to survive.
The indoctrination of children into these cults is child abuse and should be dealt up immediately.
The idea's not to disrespect the person because you disagree with their viewpoint. This applies to everything, not just religion. Everything's open for questioning.
In most viewpoints you would be correct but respect is earned, it is hard to respect religion, the believer has my respect, but his beliefs or the religious cult he follows doesn't, unfortunately this can appear as a personal attack whilst debating, the religious tend to take it wrongly when their particular cult is under attack, also if you make the point of stating religion in general, the theist whomever he/she may be, will automatically think, you are referring to there particular cult, thus it goes full circle to back to an assumed personal attack.
Once the religious understand that their beliefs are dangerous, they will understand why the world needs rid of them.
Religion should have the same level of respect or critisism as any theology or movement, be that nazism, communism or even darwinism
As geezer says, repect has to be earned, which is fair enough on a personal level, but goodluck earning respect on a cult level like islam or christianity
Nothing should ever be free from critism, whether your a believer or not, any sane sensible person could look to their own religion and should be able to make critisisms let alone people from outside that cult
Think yourself lucky that you live in a society which allows you to critise the laws and religions of the land, rather than the poor suffering souls born into an islamic state who dont have that liberty
Respect is 'maintained', rather than earned. You treat a stranger with full respect and then it goes down the drain when he proves to be an asshole. I have no problem with a christian or his faith until he starts making stupid arguments, threatening people with eternal damnation and whatever other trouble he cares to make.
yeah, i concede on that one
Note though, that it's not his religion that makes him an ass. You get some lovely, peaceful and intelligent theists. It's the fact that he's an idiot. You don't need religion to be stupid. Abolishing religion won't get rid of the dim-witted. They'll just find something else to be crazy about.
yeah, strangers are strangers, irrespective of religion, one exeption of not giving the benefit of the doubt, would be jehovas witnesses going door to door,with that scenario i have rightly or wrongly made my descision about them before they knock my door
They don't count. Jehovah's witnesses aren't people. Why do think they refuse blood transfusion, blood donation..? Lest we have evidence of their vampirism.
but it will get rid of the fundamentalists, the zealots etc... and they are the main problem.
WHOHAAAAAA.......looks like someone got cause and effect mixed up. Fundamentalist views are a inherent treat of all cults. Just take the creationist nonsense. They right now are up in arms about the "tainted" evidence in favour of evolution given by the Peppered Moth. You know the example about evolution in action during the industrial revolution when more and more black phenotypes showed up due to the fact that black moths are harder to spot on polluted surfaces and do not get caught as easy by predators than white phenotypes on dark surfaces. I'm just waiting for one of these extremeists to sue some board of education due to this li'l mishap and demanding that biology books be changed. Who's agressive here??
This is the major difference: Scientists state facts (and most of the time they do so quietly), cultists scream bloody murder and have nothing to back up their claims except their....ummmm, welll, faith. Pretty thin if you ask me. I have never seen scientists demanding the killing or condoning this behaviour just because someone has another oppinion than themselves.
So now along comes Dawkins (whom I personally do not find tooo interesting) and speaks out his oppinion and stands up for it and suddenly - BAM!! - scientists are agressive monsters that do not leave faith to the believers. It is the cultists the come in guns blazing and tell everyone: you have your findings but nevertheless, everything is made by (insert you favorite deity HERE) and HE/SHE just wants you to think it is different. Or outright ignore and/or deny the facts. And scientists DO get irritated when this happens. So if someone tells me that he is entitled to his oppinion this is fine with me. If you however tune/tamper/ fraudulently turn the facts around I WILL tell him this. If he sees this as an attack on his/her beliefs: NOT MY FRIGGIN' PROBLEM.
Or to put it more concisely:
Are you entitled to your own beliefs? YES
Are you entitled to special treatment just because you are religious? NO WAY.
No, it won't. He'll just trade one book for another. Rather than crash aeroplanes on behalf of allah, he'll be preaching communism and crashing planes on behalf of marx. Or culling the 'weak' to bring about the age of the ubermensch. Or andreas baader will bomb capitalist germany out of hatred for the bourgeouise. abolition of religion will not abolish madness.
Well (Q) the motivator should be that we are driven to understand and care for each other rather than irradicate others beliefs. How would you like it if all religions suddenly wanted to eradicate atheism? Same thing, not fair.Not a chance. The eradication of cults should be a primary motivator for mankind if it is to survive.
The indoctrination of children into these cults is child abuse and should be dealt up immediately.
Tveye, caveman. People are people and it idn't religion that makes them the way they are it is society and how they are raised, remember that. The way schools and parents raise children. You lot need to be more understanding and more sympathetic with others beliefs instead of mocking them and calling people stupid etc etc. Its not constructive and its not educational, which you claim to be in your beliefs.
Atheism is just as dogmatic and religion you claim it to be.
Christainity is not a cult, at least not in my eyes. I am a good person and if you've noticed on this forum I'm understanding, leanient and sure as hell don't threaten you with hell when you disagree with me, unlike some atheists who will call me dumb (quite a lot do). I am losing respect for you all and that is because you are losing it from me, respect is a two way straight. If you want me to try and understand your opinion then try to understand mine. Treat each other fairly.
Did you actually READ my posts, or did you just pick a username and go with it? I've stated several times that a person's religion is not the problem. Please reread. Slowly, and carefully.
How much do you post on your phone?
More than the human mind could possibly comprehend.
If i want to understand someones religious beliefs, i dont need religion to do so, psychology can fit that requirement, im sorry but i believe religion is open to all the ridicule that is necessery if the statements justify it
Do you try to understand and be sympathetic to the views of athiests, fascists, spaghetti monsterists and all the other view points in the world? Or do you rubbish the idea that a flying spaghetti monster exists and is worthy of worship
The term "cult" for religion is a term that applies by many dictionary definitions(though not all), and it is a term i BELIEVE to be correct,can you not be moreunderstanding about my view point? :wink:
I dont think ive actually ever called you anything abusive, i may have rubbished your god and thought you were funny, i may have even said delusional(i cant remember if that was for thiests generally or not), but beyond that.....
As for understanding your opinion, i understand your opinion and think its delusional(by definition of you being a thiest, from an athiests point of view), what do you expect me to say? Yes i believe thatyou believe in a mythological creature which is written in a book, with no proof of its existence exept that book, even though the world around paints a different picture from that book
I have read that book, and it didn't touch me in anyway, it only embarrased me of the humans willingness to accept anything, have you done the same and read the books of dawkins and hitchens?
Twaaannnggg
My point is nothing to do with the content of what creationists/fundamentalists are teaching, I agree that's not right. My point is atheists are sending out a message in such a manner that is similar to the way they behave. We say but look what our science says, they say look what our holy book tells us. The problem is that they put more value into the holy book to which we apply none & this breeds intolerance on both sides.
I agree with what you say about Dawkins but he also says he would like to rid the world of religion so he hesitates when one claims to him that they have the right to practise their religion.
I have a special connection with God and Jesus, I never fell alone, always there for me. I'll be walking and suddenly for no reason I'll run instead of walk-what do you know there has been a car accident where I would have been walking. When I've driven I've avoided a car accident many times by going another way. I get feelings in my head of what to do and not what to do. I can't explain it but often find myself saying "Thanks God".
For instance I was a bit down the other day and past few days and as I've been walking around people have been really kind, letting me cross the road, letting me out at junctions and they NEVER do that. I've been walking and needed to avoid something and the wind has blown it out of the way. There are so many wiered things in my life and everything I pray for more or less comes true. Look at (Q) for instance how his attitude changed when I prayed for him. There is something going on and the chances that everytime something bad happens I happen to get a feeling to avoid it before it even happens is as frequent a chance as God existing in your eyes. I am looked out for and I love them and are grateful for that.
If all we said was "but look what our science says" then your assessment might be fair, but I (and I suspect many others), use it more as a synecdoche - science is whatever works reliably, something that anybody can trust: a light switch that turns things on and off; a ball-point pen that writes without ink spillage; reinforced concrete structures where the roofs do not fall in; books we can carry around in our pockets; safe drinking water etc.
Few people of religion gainsay the benefits we receive from observing these standards - what works reliably is what we tend to trust, and even require in our public lives. Yet when it comes to extending exactly these principles, whether in politics or in the further reaches of science where some of this becomes counter-intuitive, suddenly we're accused of faith-based irrational thinking. It isn't - it's the same type thinking that makes you check the weather report before deciding whether or not to take a brolly to work - it's just (thanks to millennia of accumulated information gathered by billions of people) wider, deeper, richer and, yes, frequently more sophisticated and complex than it used to be. It's not faith and it's a cheap debating sound-bite to call it that.
Again, it is entirely fair for Dawkins to suggest it would be a wonderful world if we had no more faith clubs, without taking away the right of any individual to wish to practice her/his religion: "I do not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it".
cheer
shanks
It's amazing! I've seen the light! I now wish for the complete eradication of all religions. Thanks, svwillmer, for the prayer. It works!
Religion divides and conquers, spreads hatred and bigotry, propagates racism and oppression, and condones slavery and murder.
Is that how we understand and care for each other?
What did you say when you prayed for him? 'please help bracket q bracket from the science forum dot com to see the light'? Seriously though, is that what you said?
Perhaps not, but it's a very good start. We can work on the madness part, too.
sunshinewarrio
I agree with you totally, but often when I try to have a conversation with anyone about the whole thing they produced their sort of trump card against me saying "oh well that's just because you know science", not seeing how it is as applicable to them as anyone else.
Untrue. A lot of atheists are atheist *because of* the (lack of) evidence. If the evidence pointed to God atheism would lose a lot of people in a hurry. This is the exact opposite of religion - faith without evidence. Another million years could go by with no evidence for God, no sign of Jesus's return, and the Bible re-translated another 50 times completely reshaping its meaning. You'll still probably have Christians believing it hook line and sinker.
Robbie
In this context, and that of another thread here, I'm going to copy-and-paste a long-ish post-response-post that I made sometime in 2000 regarding the whole science is just another faith notion, though more in the context of post-modernist arguments. I don't know if it will help, but it might give you another way of looking at these arguments that equate atheism or science with religion.
FWIW the material is not copyright so there are no issues with pasting it here (in any case I wrote it, so there).
--------------------------
Shanks' initial post - "Possible error in POMO argument"
Some people have spoken about the unacknowledged beliefs of avowed sceptics, equating them directly with the acknowledged beliefs of, say, Christians, Pantheists, Tarot Card readers and others. If this assertion is true, then it mocks the idea of a sceptic 'apportioning belief to the evidence', because even that apportionment will, it seems, be bedevilled by belief.
This is a very thorny problem, and has, in a sense, raised its ugly head from Descartes onwards. Hume's contribution is huge, and the modern French and other philosophers of science (Kuhn et al), have also suggested that science, or the empirical method, is getting above itself.
On the face of it, the objection seems well-formed, but I wonder if some of it may not be based upon the old fallacy of confusing two different senses of a word. I have inveighed, in the past, at length upon the distinction, not usually observed, between belief (in) and belief (that). Belief (that) is akin to the belief THAT I am currently sitting on a chair and THAT the machine in front of me is a computer. These beliefs (that) are the ones that are undermined or eroded by extreme scepticism, a la Hume, Kuhn and others. As such, then, this is a perennial problem for philosophy - a problem of epistemology - and not one invented or discovered in the late twentieth century.
In essence, the problem is not resolvable through the tools of philosophy or logic. Searle has suggested there must be 'absolute' being otherwise we couldn't all share the notion of a yellow car that, hypothetically, stands on the road before us. Another version of this notion is called Coherentism, which only makes the claim that the system of philosophy used will, as far as possible, be coherent. If incoherencies creep in, then the philosophy needs to be patched up, and modified, until it is fit again. In this case, there is no absolute knowledge, only the continual modification of the philosophical perspective to match the latest problems.
I contend, however, that the problems inherent in belief (that) have little to do with the notions of belief (in), and the far greater problems faced by believers (in). The basic issue regarding belief (in), is that it is ineffable - there is no question of there being a question about it - and that is the notion inherent in the word 'faith'. Belief (that), on the other hand, is not faith-based. It is corrigible - as I have discussed above. We, the believers (that), are comfortable with the notion that, within the last 100 years, we have had to accept that the universe appears not just unpredictable by us, but unpredictable in principle; that even simple classical mechanics does not apply at high speeds, that mathematics cannot be both consistent and complete, and that all the patterns or structures we observe may be an implicit function of the patterns of stochastics. Belief (that) can change, even though such change is often resisted. Belief (in) cannot.
The response
First, to play devil's advocate a bit, couldn't the Postmodernist reply that what you call belief that is merely derived from a belief in the existence of an objective, material real world "out there" independent of human minds and cultures. Yes, the PM might agree that what is accepted by science is provisional and subject to possible change by future experiments and observations. But similarly, the PM might assert, the claims of a particular theology (excluding fundamentalists for the moment), while based upon a different fixed foundational belief in, similarly consist of a set of beliefs that, for example, certain things will happen after you die. And that these beliefs that are likewise subject to change as scriptural interpretation progresses.
My own difficulty with the Postmodernist position is that I can't see any philosophically consistent way of rejecting the empirical method without ending up with solipsism. Claims, for example, that reject the notion of any culturally-independent objective reality (often called a "Grand Narrative") inherently beg the question of what constitutes a culture and who determines where its boundaries lie. There seems to be no way to define such boundaries beyond each person's individual mind without the PM contradicting him- or herself at some point.
Personally, I reject solipsism. But I openly admit that that rejection is faith-based.
But regarding empiricism (and I admit to being an "evil" empiricist) is that it seems that there can only be one consistently applied empirical method. Yet beyond empiricism, it seems there is no method beyond pure faith of, for example, choosing one theology over another. And so at this juncture I invoke (my concept of) parsimony to (provisionally) reject both--and, by induction, all.
Shanks' reply
An attempt to show why I think the two types are genuinely distinct and distinguishable: I have tried to discuss the differences in meaning, as I see it, between belief (that) and belief (in).
One way to summarise it would be in terms of the classic catechism.
"Do you believe in God?"
This is a belief (in) question, and an appropriate answer would be "yes" or "no".
Here's what happens when you try to confuse the two:
"Do you believe in evolution?"
This is actually a belief (that) question masquerading as belief (in), so an appropriate answer would be "only if you believe in evaporation (or 'the Bessemer smelting process' or 'urination' or any other well known activity)". Alternatively a simple "no" will do, treating the misuse of the language with the contempt it deserves.
Why do we often have such a strong feeling that these are two different types of question altogether? Without getting into formal symbolic logic or whatever, which is in any case beyond my capabilities, I think we can see a few diagnostic signs that distinguish belief (in) issues from belief (that) ones.
1. Ineffability Belief (in), which can be called faith, tends to be incapable of responding to analytical or reductionist questioning, and makes a virtue of this fact. You may believe that the Archangel Jibrail dictated Al Quran to Mohammed, bringing him with little intervention the word of Allah for humankind. If so, then questions regarding the problems, say, of an angel possessing functional wings without having two-metre deep chest flight muscles, are not just not capable of being answered, but should not be asked: because the entire structure is not supposed to depend upon 'everyday' logic or common sense. As Robert Nelson has sometimes said about the belief issue, it does not operate by the rules of logic, and it is futile to demand that it do so.
2. Incorrigibility Beliefs (in) are not supposed to be capable of change or correction. My belief (that) gravity obeys an inverse square relationship is corrigible: it might change tomorrow. My belief (in) Adam and Eve being the first human beings may not change.
3. Prescriptiveness Beliefs (in) tend to be normative, or to blur the line between the descriptive and the prescriptive. Thus, if I try to demonstrate that the universe is not capable of supporting angels with wings, then either my demonstration is false or the universe as I see it is at fault, because it should be possible for swan-winged angels to go fluttering by when necessary. (As an irrelevant digression, why when angels are represented, as in Barbarella, do their wings never fold up as compactly as those of birds?) If I claim that evolution took place, and is the result of natural selection, then I ought not do so. It is morally untenable to claim that humans were created from apes, rather than from noble clay by God. It is common in philosophy to deplore the tendency to slip from description to prescription, to converts "is" to "ought", but most beliefs (in) have the opposite tendency: to attempt to convert "ought" to "is".
4. Revelation As I said in a post a week or two ago, as far as I am aware, French contains different concepts for different types of knowledge: something that is lacking in English. Here are some ways to categorise types of knowledge.
a. Knowledge through memory: "I can recite in order the first 96 elements in the Periodic Table".
b. Knowledge through understanding: "I can see the difference between a first class lever and a second class lever".
c. Inherent knowledge: "I didn't have to be taught to make sounds - I was screaming from the moment I left the womb".
d. Knowledge through insight or revelation: "I can't explain it - I just know I'm in love with her".
The epistemology of belief (in) relies heavily upon this fourth category. I have tried so far not to be judgmental about belief (in) as opposed to belief (that), though some of my inherent prejudices may have shown through. The point I have tried to make, however, is that equating belief (in) with belief (that) is inappropriate. Certainly belief (that) has no absolute epistemological foundation, but it is nevertheless a completely different category of thought or idea from belief (in), and the mere fact that the word belief can be used in both ways should not be allowed to confuse any debate on these matters.
----------------------
Dang 'n' sick, that's long. Apologies to the admins, and other posters, for that.
Jesus told us to love one another, I do, if every other believer was like me your statement would be incorrect.Religion divides and conquers, spreads hatred and bigotry, propagates racism and oppression, and condones slavery and murder.
Is that how we understand and care for each other?
I've quickly skimmed through this thread and I'll try and make a point.
Religion is founded on faith, where faith is belief in the absense of evidence. The only goal of faith is to provide meaning in the individuals life, and also in some cases to gain control.
(Start of rambling)
The problem with debating religious belief is that you can't. No matter what logical reasons or rational arguments you make against the belief, the believer will still believe it because that person has founded his/her belief on his/her personal convictions. This is also why some atheists argue that the only thing you can do is ridicule religion, because if you try and "reason" with the belief, the people of that belief will think they have some importance, that they somehow make sense and are worth debating intelligently. With ridicule, the faith will be nothing but a joke, and hopefully the religious mind will realize how ridiculous their beliefs really are. Trying to reason with a madman who thinks he can see the "hidden world" or something is to give his unfounded belief credibility, worth being discussed intelligently.
(End of rambling)
How do we "solve" the "problem" with faith? How much respect is religion entitled to? Maybe respect is the wrong word, why should we respect a persons belief? We should respect the individual, not the faith, right? Just because you don't respect a persons belief doesn't mean you don't respect the person.
Respect is everthing. Respect a persons beliefs, think what you like of their belief.
Overtolerance doesn't solve anything. I respect you as an individual, svwillmer, but I don't respect your religion. This isn't going to affect our friendship, is it?
Noooooooo. :-DOvertolerance doesn't solve anything. I respect you as an individual, svwillmer, but I don't respect your religion. This isn't going to affect our friendship, is it?
Willmer!Respect is everthing. Respect a persons beliefs, think what you like of their belief.
Nooooooo. Don't do this - just after we agreed on the other thread that some beliefs are disreputable and not to be respected.
I can respect the fact that you have a faith, after all it seems to come naturally to many humans and I can hardly blame them for it, but that does not mean I have to respect the contents of your faith.
I do not care how strong your faith is, if part of it consists of paedophilia, say, I am under no obligation to respect it. In fact, since as they say "All that it requires for evil to triumph is for the good to do nothing", we are positively obligated to oppose it at every turn.
Respect is not 'everything', it is only a part, and not always an essential part, of what it takes to be human and to interact with humans.
cheer
shanks
December 21st, 2007, 11:28 AM
I only respect the 'truth'.
The biblical derivitives are all false religions because they use 'force' to make people accept them.
The 1st 3 commandments demand absolute obedience.
This sounds more like slavery.
Communism is a derivitive of the bibles OT.
Islam is a copy of the Jewish religions OT.
On the other hand, Christ's Gospel is, more or less, an endorsment of promoting representation of the poorer individuals amongst humanity because it, IMHO, has spawned the creation of the US Constitution that has eliminated the crucifix as punishment for 'free speech' that our CN promotes.
The papal religion of promoting the crucifix as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity is erroneous and 'self serving'.
So I would endorse Christ as a preacher/reformer rather than the papal version of sacrificing ones self.
However, I prefer to look to Nature as GOD because it is our greatest inventor, artist and subsequently, our Greatest Teacher.
Cosmo
My belief is good. I help and care for everyone. I put myself out great deal more than others. I tolerate others. I respect others. I don't do bad things. I don't do immoral things. Compared to a huge number of atheists I am a Saint. My belief is beneficial for society. However, other believers of my faith aren't actually following it correctly-so they defile it. If you want to see the truth of Christianity, look at me.
Hey, hey! Everyone's flawed, even you. And if you don't realize that you'll be going down a dark path. As Steven Weinberg once said:
Don't end up doing bad things in the name of good just because you think you're flawless!With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
I'd never do bad thingsHey, hey! Everyone's flawed, even you. And if you don't realize that you'll be going down a dark path. As Steven Weinberg once said:
Don't end up doing bad things in the name of good just because you think you're flawless!With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Would you not help and care for others, put yourself out there, tolerate and respect others if you didn't believe in God?
Yes. But some of you think because one has religion we don't-I don't.Would you not help and care for others, put yourself out there, tolerate and respect others if you didn't believe in God?
Oh - that would be a strange (and incorrect) claim to make, I agree with you. I don't think I've seen someone say that but I definitely could have missed it.Yes. But some of you think because one has religion we don't-I don't.Would you not help and care for others, put yourself out there, tolerate and respect others if you didn't believe in God?
| « Jesus whatever. | What religion? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
