Live and let live. As long as you aren’t fucking with my shit via the political process, then I don’t give a damn what crazy stuff you believe. Just keep it out of the ballot box.
That’s kind of a broad reading of “political weapons.”
Thinking futher, we get plenty of BBQ Bit threads along the lines of “O’Reilly said xyz, therefore he’s a twat”. Surely in this case we are disrespecting him based upon his beliefs?
Taken to a certain extreme, the light of pure reason can be applied to many activities:
Do you like any sports, TV shows, movies? Why? You do understand that there’s no real benefit to society if team “X” wins a game, or a season championship. All of the energy directed towards team sports is, at its heart, irrational. Similarly, TV shows and movies are simply fictional depictions of human activity. There is no logical value to watching them.
Etc, etc.
Nonetheless, we as a society seem to treat sports fans and moviegoers – not to mention sports figures and movie stars – with respect and even admiration. This practice should stop immediately.
But there is solid evidentiary basis. If the suggestion is that love is a set of emotions I feel for someone, or the extent to which i’m willing to help someone - these things I can know. Love is something that I may experience; like with religion, it is possible that i’m wrong, but I am certainly correct within my own definition of love.
Look at it this way; I may feel that God exists. I may feel that I love my partner. I could be wrong about God - my feeling that he exists could be wrong. But when it comes to love, *that very feeling itself * is love. I don’t need *objective * evidence because love isn’t about objectivity, it’s about what I feel.
I disagree. There’s logical value to watching them; I enjoy TV shows and movies. Now, you could argue that the reasons behind my enjoying them are irrational - empathy for nonexistant persons, and such - nevertheless, I do enjoy them. So for me at least, it’s not an irrational situation. I’m putting in effort by supporting a team or watching a film, and in return I enjoy myself. Perfectly rational.
That’s why I was asking, could you define it better for me?
I agree with the points made about respecting people - until people, by their actions, give a reason not to respect them.
Religious beliefs are fine as long as they stay beliefs. In some cases, people will do things based on their beliefs that hurt others - for instance a move to ban or limit contraception. They may argue, rightly, that this is logical based on their beliefs. That’s the point where you need to attack the beliefs. Is that disrespectful? It might be. I’m not sure how respectful an attack can be, especially when you get down to core beliefs.
I’m not sure that’s a relevant example. Personal enjoyment of this stuff probably has a genetic basis. You can have fun arguing about teams. But if a legislature or governor required attendance at a game because they were fans of a team, or banned rooting for another team in their territory, you might start attacking their belief in the team (I’m assuming they’re in some place without constitutional safeguards.)
All true - but if you started to clobber someone who said their love was as nice as yours, (even verbally) I think we can point out the irrationality, even if disrespectful.
Exactly. Same goes for religion. 
If someone says “Jesus is love” (or whatever, just picking that as an example), is is foolish as well as insulting to insist that they are irrational and wrong, as suggested by the OP - because such an assertion is about what they experience, just like “love” itself.
Thus, “love” is a perfect example of something that acts as an exact analogy to the way some experience religion, but which may also be experienced by the most convinced athiest.
Of course, subjective emotions can get out of control and be harmful rather than good - religion may lead to bloody-minded hatred for others rather than “love”; and love itself may become creepy stalker-ism when the person holding that emotion rejects evidence that the object of love is not reciprocating. A person needs both emotion and intellect.
If you think it’s OK for them to voice disrespect for your beliefs in other circumstances, fine. But if your beliefs form the basis for your publicly stated position on a policy issue, don’t go crying “intolerance” if someone criticizes or satirizes those beliefs.
And who’s to say that religion isn’t only about belief, which is just a feeling too?
When you publicly voice an opinion on an issue, you are trying to influence the political equation.
Well actually I missed out a few qualifying statements
- if I thought someone a complete f/cking moron then I would feel free to kick them from here to where ever.
I would be rather interested in hearing the views of a KKK or Neo-Nazi
- if they were well articulated then I would be impressed.
If someone shouts ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theatre, then who is to blame for the chaos
The jerk that shouts it, or the encephelates that panic ?
I would draw a line, but it would be flexible.
I would put it this way: a religious person who feels that (for example) not providing sufficient charity and health care to those less well off is against concience and morality is faced with exactly the same dilemma when faced with a rational, reason-based argument that charity is harmful to the incentives required to provide initiative, and that having an underclass living in perpetual squalour, illness and poverty is necessary for a vibrant economy.
Those arguments may well be deeply felt and based on sound logic, economic and social facts. A religious person may say “that is true, but it is offensive to have such misery when the wealth exists to alleviate it - a vibrant economy is not worth such a cost”. Is that sense of offence and outrage disrespectful, in that it attacks core beliefs?
I agree that someone saying “I feel that Jesus loves me” is not irrational. The only evidence required is that someone feels it, and that can happen regardless of whether Jesus exists or not.
However; I would suggest that believing Jesus exists is irrational. That requires evidence beyond feelings, objective evidence, and we don’t have that (IMHO, we actually have evidence to suggest otherwise).
So sure - feel free to say that feeling love for a partner is as rational as feeling love for Jesus. I agree completely. But suggesting that Jesus exists is not as rational as suggesting your partner exists, and that’s the difference.
Couldn’t agree more. Irrationality can often build on rationality.
Because there’s a difference between saying “I believe God exists” and “God exists”. I make no denial that people feel God exists. For believers, to say “I believe this” is perfectly rational; after all, they do. But saying “What I believe is objective truth” goes into irrationality territory; that’s just my opinion, of course, but I think we can say it is fact that the two things are different.
It might well be, which is fine with me. Now the libertarian might attack the religious person’s beliefs if they were solely based on what God said by asking how come God didn’t cure poverty? I think you can make a non-God-based moral argument myself, but that’s getting away from the topic.
Is your underlying question whether non-religious beliefs should be treated the same way. If so, I say yes.
I understand the difference you are making between feelings and assertions. But Jesus has to exist in order to love somebody. There’s not much point in arguing about “Jesus loves me,” but it does require other things to be true.
It’s asking a lot to keep a straight face when someone shows up for work with a smudge of dirt on their forehead (oh yeah, Ash Wednesday, you did that on purpose, I guess it’s OK then). If my co-worker wore a tinfoil hat on his head to protect himself from alien mind control I’d think he was nuts. I may be very polite as I back away slowly, but I’ll still think he’s crazy. I do give people with more conventional beliefs a little slack, but it really is objectively odd when you think that “God” cares if you do or don’t wear a hat; have a beard, stubble, or are clean shaven; have a long curl at your temple; a dagger at your side; or use zippers.