Yes that’s the one. :mad:
Let me break that example into two parts, since I think it’s the combination that makes it deceptive.
“The world was made in 7 days” is a scientific claim, and as such should not be respected as a religious belief. However in my experience when someone does advance it they often abandon the literal meaning of “day”, stretching it to mean some long, ambiguous time. Once they do this they’re acknowledging that the claim isn’t scientific–they would rather leave the question elusive and open to interpretation. IMO interpretive thinking isn’t always a dodge–I acknowledge some value in pondering imponderables–so I’ll give it some respect.
“The world was made by god.” is a religious belief–one that is even more subject to intepretation (does “create” mean the physical earth directly? The processes of evolution that brought about the earth? The big bang?). I’ll give this one a pass.
Really, the question for me comes down to what do I hope to gain from disrespecting someone’s beliefs? Attacking someone’s beliefs carries the risk that I cause another person to be humiliated or (if there are people watching) that I end up looking like a dick. It’s often worthwhile to risk that when the claim is offensive or dangerous–i.e. when it means something in the real world. Personally (at least when I’ve been sober), purely religious claims don’t meet that bar, so I have no problem respecting them by leaving them alone.
Nice example. Let’s examine who might say something like this.
First might be the person who only has read summaries and childrens bibles. When you show them that Genesis actually says “the evening and the morning, the nth day” which clearly implies actual days, they may thank you for fighting their ignorance. Surely respecting beliefs does not include respecting demonstrably incorrect ones.
Now, some people who say this might actually know better, and have an ulterior motive for saying it, such as the conviction that saving souls is more important than the truth. They may also be deliberately deluding themselves. That person will be more likely to bring up respect as a way of avoiding the facts. I don’t respect deliberate lies either.
Then there are people who can’t intellectually grasp the content. Those people are definitely not worth arguing with, but their beliefs don’t need to be respected either, just as you wouldn’t respect a Santa Claus belief of a 20 year old.
This one is unfalsifiable. Or could be. I don’t think asking for further details would be disrespectful. If they say God started the Big Bang, then definitely the only response is “I can’t argue with that” since you can’t.
A matter of diplomacy. I would not say, “Your gods are false.” I’d merely say something like, “I hold different beliefs than you do,” or “Our beliefs are incompatible.” And add, “So…what sports teams do you follow?” or “How about the weather, eh?”
Yes…and in mine that I am an atheist. It can be stated politely, and it leads to a conversational impasse.
I meet proselytizers all the time… Some will stop when I ask them to stop. That’s a form of respect. Some won’t stop when I ask them to stop. That’s a form of disrespect.
Rejecting a faith, especially in a passive fashion, simply by celebrating a different one (or none at all) isn’t really “disrespectful.”
It’s like the difference between an “I Love Jesus” bumper sticker and one that says, “Know Jesus, Know Peace; No Jesus, No Peace.” The former may be an intrinsic rejection of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc., but it isn’t disrespectful. The latter, by denying other religions’ role in peacemaking, is disrespectful.
If an open debate is welcome, then, certainly, engage in it. If it isn’t (or if you aren’t sure) then…avoid it.
Trinopus (sex, religion, and politics…)
Religion should only be respected by it followers, as a fellow person, respect that persons right to believe in that religion.
Religious leaders an groups take things to far and are full of crap as far as i’m concerned.
Exactly. I completely agree and I can’t see why many of the atheists here can go for common civility.
Because, apparently, the “atheisty” thing to do is something like this.
“Hi”
“Hi, whatcha doing?”
“I just finished praying the rosary”
“Ha ha ha, stupid praying beads for the whore mother of a crazy dead carpenter!!! You believe that shit?!?!?!?! What a fucking moron!!! Why aren’t you converting me Jesus-boy? Don’t you have kids to molest today?”
All in the name of rationality.
Yes, it would be. But I have never done that.
It is not inherent in my statement that I am a Christian.
In order to convince me of that, he would have to ask me about it. In which case, telling him about my faith would be somewhat less than disrespectful.
Perhaps that is the problem. My faith requires to to respect people, and to live an example of love, which would, in my opinion, make being mean and rude to them a bad idea.
Tris
That’s just nonsense. It would more likely go like this:
Catholic: Hi.
Atheist: Hey, whatcha doing?
Catholic: I just finished praying the rosary.
Atheist: Is something wrong?
Catholic: I just found out my dad has cancer. Will you pray with me?
Atheist: I hope he gets better, but I don’t pray, I’m an atheist.
Catholic: ::Fuming silence::
But in any case, I’m sure more theists would go off the rails than atheists.
I think it’s quite pertinent to this thread. Der Trihs challenged, even mocked, Ibn Warraq’s beliefs, and he seemed just fine with it. That kind of goes against the whole premise of your OP, doesn’t it?
Oh man, I must be doing something terribly wrong, because a similar exchange with me would more likely go:
“Hi”
“Hi, whatcha doing?”
“I just finished praying the rosary”
“Oh, cool. Would it be OK if I asked you about it? What sort is it? I mean, how many decades and that sort of thing…”
Does this mean I have to turn in my atheist card?!
Yeah, no kidding. I think the limit of my unpleasantness as an atheist in such a situation would probably be asking that kind of technical question without realising that they might well have good reason to be praying, thus mouth-footing.
Also i’ve never spoken in a red font.
It kind of stings.
it may well b true, but in this thread, apparently, it isn’t for some.
Dunno about the fuming silence, though
No, you can keep it.
You dialogue is what happens in my experience. Decent people wondering abput stuff without insults.
Good faith (no pun intended) question are always welcomed.
No red-font speaking? No wonder the economy is tanking.
ahem. You accused Der Trihs of extreme ignorance and used Akbar as an example of a ‘good muslim’ who was also a good person. I merely implied that you shouldn’t be so quick to fling around that particular accusation. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not in agreement with DT’s original point, but your example in support of your rebuttal is way off base, and doesn’t become correct just by your repeating it, and now you’ve gone and accused me of ‘extreme ignorance’ as well!
Here are cites from an islamic website
Even if you contend Din-i-illahi was only an ethical system, Islam has an ethical system of its own. Why did he feel the need to make up another one, especially one that ritualises symbol worship and incantations? If you still think he was a ‘good Muslim’, in my view your definition of that term is too loose to bother with.
p.s: I apologise for the thread hijacking. I’m new to these forums, and don’t quite know how/where to respond to this, and I don’t want to just let it pass. If someone will tell me a better way to do this, I’ll be happy to.
wonderful reply. Thank you.
Has this actually ever happened to you? Or anything close to it?
Otherwise this is quite simply an excluded middle, it’s entirely possible to disagree with someone’s religious beliefs, even deny them, whilst being civil. You’re not separating out the atheist aspect of this exchange from the douche exchange. It could equally have gone:
“Hi, watcha doing?”
“I just finishing prayin the rosay?”
“Ha ha ha, stupid praying beads and for what? Mary ain’t nothing special. I know so because my pastor said so, and it’s right there in the KJV thou shalt not worship graven images, you fucking popish heretic. Don’t you have kids to molest today?”
See?
Get down off the damn cross, Aji.
The Quran expressly forbids it: Surah Al-Ma'idah - 90-91 - Quran.com
By default if someone doesn’t follow the ‘rule’ then they are not a ‘good’ Muslim because a good muslim is one who follows what their prophet said rather than their interpretation.
But the issue here is not what the Quran actually says because what it actually says is, apparently, not what it actually means, or because I’ve used Wikipedia or some other similar ‘lesser’ source, my argument is invalid. And because I’ve used google to find this information rather than having spent my life researching and living within Islamic countries (and apparently only certain countries actually count - thus Illuminatiprimus links will be declared invalid for any number of reasons and ignore what the Quran and the Hadiths state) anything I might say is tainted and no proof at all.
That seems to be the contention of people like Ibn Warraq when you attempt to make any claim about the religion of ‘peace’ (actually the religion is about submission to god, not peace at all as another poster alluded to in this thread. But then most people’s ideas about religion are based upon what they want it to be rather than what it is.)
So, show respect for people’s religion? I don’t call stupid people stupid because it is rude, but sometimes in a discussion when they are being stupid, evasive, or not willing to debate in good faith, it is hard not to show a little or a lot of contempt.
Actually, why should the beliefs of the catholic religion be a valid basis to determine who may be a priest in the catholic church and who may not? Why are they different from any other employer who discriminates against women?
p.s: Glad to be posting something on topic in this thread 
Well, wait a minute, because you could also be excluding the middle in your OP. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen people get shirty and defensive on topics other than their religion (mistaking their freedom of speech as freedom not to be disagreed with, for example).