I think I get what you’re saying, but i’m referring to the feeling that one is loved. You need Jesus in order to be loved by him, true, but you don’t need him in order to *feel * loved by him. It would be a feeling you’ve developed from being wrong or misled, but you still feel it.
One should respect religious beliefs, or at least feign the apperance of such, because otherwise you may find yourself subject to violence, derision, or social difficulty. Of course, there is a tipping point to this in the population. It’s OK to belittle Scientologists and Latter Day Saints for the most part, as long as there aren’t too many around. Astrologists are difficult because there are so many of them yet, on the otherhand, their belifs aren’t as sacred as the others. It’s a very fine line with that one (and other kooky lefty New Age BS).
Is Astrology a religion now? I thought it was a Pseudo-Science with no hard science behind it. I recognize that Herbal Healing can be either a practice or part of a Religious practice. I did not think the same was true of Astrology.
Is it still OK to belittle Latter Day Saints most places? I see plenty of Scientology belittling but very little LDS belittling anywhere.
South Park doesn’t count as they belittle everything and were by their standards nice to the Latter Day Saints. They of coursed ripped Scientology as well as anything except maybe the RCC.
Jim
Is it a religion? I don’t know, I don’t like semantic games. It’s certainly a wide spread kooky belief system. I don’t see too big a difference between them, really. But there are plenty of opportunities to make fun of astrology, more so than other examples IMO because people talk about their signs and reading their horoscope more than Jesus, at least in my experience. An important difference is most people don’t care too much if you make fun of astrology but if you say something approaching negativity or simple skepticism about Jesus, or the Bible…watch out.
Sure it’s OK, given the right atmosphere. It’s still not a good idea though – maybe someone in the room has a relative who’s a LDS, or some such.
The best reason for an atheist (which I presume describes the OP) to show respect for religious beliefs is the fact that 95% of the people on this planet are religious. Atheists benefit from religious tolerance more than any other group out there. It is in our self interest to foster an atmosphere of respect for differing beliefs, because absent such an atmosphere, we will be the very first people up against the wall.
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
- H. L. MENCKEN
Can you cite the 95% that you posted? This appears to either be very high or a very lose interpretation of religious. How many in China are actually religious? Are you counting anyone not Atheist as religious? I would not consider myself religious just because I am not sure if God(s) exist or not.
I do not even agree Atheist benefit the most, I suspect fringe religions vary more. Wiccans come to mind quickly. The religious can tolerate a few Atheists as an annoyance; competing religions are well competing religions.
Jim
I don’t know what you personally believe, but here’s some things that many nonreligious people (myself included) believe without evidence:
-
Most people believe in some form of deductive logic. (I.e., that there are certain rules that will consistently lead you from correct assumptions to a correct conclusion.) You can construct lots of arguments for believing in logic, but how would you prove them without using logical reasoning (which is begging the question)?
-
Most people believe in inductive reasoning. E.g., we can see a bunch of examples of a statement being true, and conclude that the statement is probably true. Again, you could provide lots of examples of inductive reasoning leading to correct conclusions, but to conclude from that that inductive reasoning usually works would require you to use inductive reasoning.
-
Most people believe that their senses correspond in some way to physical reality. Even if you acknowledge for philosophical reasons that the things you see might not be “real”, I suspect that in your daily life you act on this sensory input as if it’s real. But how could you prove it, since the only evidence for it comes from your senses?
-
Most people believe that certain physical laws hold consistently in all times and places. E.g., even if I’ve never been in a particular building, I’m not going to expect that gravity won’t work there. Nor am I going to expect gravity to stop working next Tuesday. Arguably this is just inductive reasoning, but I think that it’s extended a bit to say that it’s legitimate to talk about laws which predict future occurences, rather than merely facts that describe the world as it exists right now.
-
Most people believe that some choices are better than others. (E.g., most people believe that choosing to murder someone is intrinsically worse than choosing not to murder them.) But how can you prove one choice is better than another, without assuming that there are some rules for determining which choices are better than others?
I’d argue that there’s no “solid evidence” for any of these – at least, nothing that would be considered solid evidence if you didn’t already believe them to be true. That said, it would be almost impossible to make any decisions without making these assumptions (unless you were just going to act entirely randomly), and moreover people seem to be pre-programmed to believe these things. (Even before there was a theory of gravity, no one acted as if they thought gravity might one day stop working. And even if “I shouldn’t kill” is a learned belief, I think most people – except maybe psychopaths – have some intrinsic understanding of the notions of right and wrong.) So I’d say it’s “reasonable” to believe these things. But that’s making an assumption as well:
- Some beliefs are more reasonable than others.
Of course, there’s no way to claim that assumption is reasonable without assuming it to be true.
Incidentally, I think it’s worth noting that 1 through 4 above are essentially the assumptions on which science is based. (Plus some kind of skepticism – i.e., the belief that you shouldn’t make further assumptions unless they’re justified by the evidence. Although personally, I think you can justify that based on the previous assumptions – because assuming things without evidence frequently leads to conclusions that are falsified by your senses, and this is inductive evidence that unjustified beliefs are probably wrong.)
If by “respect” you mean “don’t argue about in polite company”, avoiding discussion of certain topics at certain times is all part of manners and politeness. You don’t discuss what the dog threw up at the dinner table and you don’t ridicule a person’s religious beliefs at a cocktail party. Keeps things a little more civil.
Well, whether Jesus exists or not matters very little to me (though I suppose it may for a religious Christian!). To my mind, it is a bit of an irrelevant issue - I am far more interested in Jesus as a mythological figure and the impact of belief in Jesus (or of any other mythology) on his adherants, and what it signifies in their actual actions.
In other words, if a religious person says “I will do unto others like I would have them do unto me, because that is what Jesus taught and I believe his teachings are correct because he existed”, I am far more interested in the first part than the second - why should I care that Jesus never existed, or if he existed, never rose from the dead? I’m far more concerned about how they act, than what they believe about mythology.
On the other hand, if someone says “I read in the Bible that I ought to throw stones at gays, and beacuse I believe in God, I have to do it” - once again, I have no interest in whether or not God actually exists – what concerns me is that someone is throwing stones at people.
Seems to me that many athiests have the wrong priorities. To some, if this Board is any example, the very fact that people they meet may believe in some religious mythology or other is somehow offensive or absurd; but myths are just a way people have, and have had for thousands of years, of making sense of the world - and in many cases, mythology (whether in a religious sense or not) works well.
Where it runs into trouble of course is where people begin to rigidly believe mythology to the exclusion of other ways of understanding the world - for example, Creationism. But I think it a mistake to discard all of the positive things some people get out of mythology as just a bunch of nonsense on the basis that the myths are not literally true. To a large extent, that misses the point.
When I was younger, I tended to do the same - namely, look down on religious people as basically silly and deluded. It took some actual aquantance with real-live religious folk for me to realize that in terms of loving-kindness to others, they often were better off than me and my more sophisticated friends.
This is a good argument - focus on the practical matters, rather than the theoretical. Problem is, if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, then the universe is not as we non-theists think it to be be. So while you could make a case that really it’s how believers act and how they affect others that matters, the actual truth of their religion is also worth looking into. Just as an example, if a believer campaigns to ban abortion, I may make a judgement of them. But if, in fact, Jesus did raise from the dead and him upstairs does look down on abortion, that changes things pretty considerably. What is theoretical also may have a practical aspect. So both are important, in my eyes.
Has anyone suggested that they find religious people’s beliefs offensive? I’m sure you’d be able to find some people on the board saying so, but it would be far from a majority. I’d point out that the idea that most atheists are somehow “offended” by religious beliefs seems to be a very pervasive piece of propaganda, for lack of a better term; by painting the grievances that atheists have with theists as one of “offense” makes us seem petty, and so our problems unimportant. Again, i’m not saying no one would claim this, but I think the amount of “offended” atheists is very low.
Works well in what sense? Helps people understand the world? Only if they’re right. Helps them feel like they understand the world? Definetly, it works well in that regard. But then so does not having a mythology. In the sense of getting a feeling of understanding, pretty much everything is equally good.
You seem to be arguing against something i’m not saying. I don’t deny that religion has many good qualities. I don’t deny that people of religion can be good people.
I don’t, however, see your point about calling things nonsense. Surely the definition of something being nonsense is that it, well, makes no sense? Again, I don’t deny that religion makes some sense. I would personally say that there are significant contradiction, to the extent that religion can seem nonsensical at times. And even then - i’m not dismissing religion as useless.
I mean no offense in this, but you seem to have moved on from looking down on religious people into looking down on nonreligious people who aren’t as thoughtful as yourself. You’ve argued against me using generic “don’t treat believers as idiots!” points when I haven’t said anything on that subject.
I seriously don’t think it matters - for the simple reason that, even assuming there is someone upstairs, there is no clear and obvious way to determine exactly what he or she thinks about an issue such as abortion.
I have no way of knowing what athiests believe as a group; I’m merely responding in a thread, the OP of which, in its comparison of religious beliefs to mental illness, I think supports my characterization.
While the OP has admittedly not said “I find the holding of such beliefs offensive”, it surely is not a stretch to find such offence implied. Normally, when someone compares a belief to mental illness and asks why such things should be given any respect, implications of a sense of dislike or grievance towards that point of view are not unwarranted.
I really doubt I’m a purveyor of pro-theistic propaganda (though I suppose anything is possible), not actually being a theist myself. And surely the very fact that you discuss the existance of "the grievances that atheists have with theists " is in itself somewhat telling.
“Works” in the sense of helping people to behave well towards others.
I never said that you did. I was making a general point aimed at the OP.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. The OP’s point was as follows:
My point is that there are good reasons for respecting religious beliefs, a major one being that they can actively help some people to behave well - so it is better not to dismiss such beliefs in some disparaging way, such as simply painting it all as a bunch of irrational, mental-illness-like nonsense. If you do not disagree with my point, we aren’t arguing.
I don’t really think I’m specifically arguing with you at all, in everything I’ve said; I was more discussing the themes raised by this thread, which is (I thought) exactly about whether or not believers are to be treated as idiots. Again, if you don’t hold with the thesis presented in the OP, we aren’t really disagreeing at all.
You’re right, “religious” is not a perfect opposite of “atheist.” According to this poll by Encylopedia Britannica, about 15% of the world describes itself as “non-religious,” while less than 4% describe themselves as “atheist.” However, non-religious can still encompass a wide range of spiritual/supernatural beliefs.
As for the tolerance of atheists, at least in America, we’re on the bottom of the heap. Muslims are more trusted than atheists. I don’t think they explicitly included Wicca in the poll, but even if there is some minor religion that’s actually more disliked than atheists in this country, it doesn’t really detract from my over all point: religious tolerance best serves religious minorities.
You misunderstood my post. I did not claim that all atheists hold the same beliefs “without evidence”
I am speaking of several specific atheists on this board that tend to be very outspoken and dismissive of any religious or spiritual beliefs. The general tenor of their criticism is that those with any religious beliefs are irrational because the belief is held without any evidence. In general it’s “Why would any rational human being accept something as true without one shred of evidence?” with the implication that it’s foolish and/or ridiculous.
What has happened in an ongoing discussion is that these rational folks have consistently presented some position as fact {the specific position varies from person to person} which is something they have no real supporting evidence for. When challenged they will use all sorts of semantic justification for why their unsubstantiated belief is an obvious fact {as believers do}
This has happened consistently and I’ve yet to encounter such a poster who simply admits “Yeah, I guess I do believe that without evidence”
IMHO what we believe is based in part on objective evidence and in part on subjective experiences and emotion. I think this holds true for all people. It’s part of our nature. Part of how our intellect and emotion works together to form our belief system.
My experiences with these particular atheists has only reinforced this opinion. If in fact we all hold some beliefs on a more emotional subjective level without any solid evidence then the argument of these atheists about the foolishness of holding beliefs without evidence is without merit.
That doesn’t prevent them from objecting to and discussing details of specifics concerning religious beliefs.
All of the examples you list do have evidence to support them, not in the least the evidence that they work. If prayer worked nearly as well as deductive reasoning there would be few nonbelievers left. Most of the cases you gave are things that make predictions which pretty much come true. When most religions make predictions, they pretty much don’t - except that after thousands of years of failing predictions, they have gotten good at explaining what they really meant.
You’re right that science is based on these, and science works in the sense that it makes progress. Perhaps we will die and find out that some religion is correct, but I’d be hard pressed to figure out which one based on the evidence.
In one of the meltdown threads an atheist was challenged about belief in the Big Bang, and he answered how his belief was provisional - and quite a good answer. Some believers state that their beliefs are provisional, and those beliefs I do respect. It is the ones who are sure, and for whom evidence against just reenforces belief, that I can possibly lose respect for.
I agree. We’re really discussing the nature of respect and how we define it. I think you may not have respect for certain details of belief but hopefully we can respect the persons basic right to hold that belief.
When those beliefs translate into actions that hurt others we certainly have every right to challenge those beliefs. Can we challenge beliefs and still be respectful? I think so. Is it disrespectful to be direct and honest? If someone makes a comment about gays corrupting America and I object and tell them so and ask them to defend the comment am I being disrespectful? I don’t think so.
Now if someone acknowledges that it is their opinion and they have a right to it I will agree. They do, and I can respect that. When they act upon their beliefs there will inevitably be some confrontation. I don’t think confrontation has to be disrespectful.
Our friend **Voyager ** helped me to understand the distinction of believing provisionally. I respect peoples right to choose their own path realizing that each persons path is uniquely there own. So, “What I believe” is a person rightfully claiming their right to choose their own path. When it becomes “what everybody should believe” it crosses a boundary. Believing provisionally leaves one open to new experiences and input. Sometimes being to sure of what we “know” closes our minds.
I agree.
So people who use their religious beliefs to influence their political descisions are somehow not a good thing?
I’m not trying to bait you, I honestly don’t get your position.
I don’t think that the point is that it’s political.
I think the problem is that people are trying to influence what is law in this country by imposing their own religious beliefs on others. Their opinions on certain issues are guided by their religious beliefs on what is right or wrong in the lives of others not according to facts, but according to their vision of what their God likes or dislikes.
People believe what they believe for various reasons and in most cases it’s no harm no foul, but in some cases they specifically want to reach into the lives of others with their religious beliefs and deny them their rights based solely on those beliefs.
IMO thats offensive and those beliefs deserved to be challenged.
Let’s imagine that a denomination near you felt it was offensive to God for people to be outside after dark. If they pushed for a town ordinance denying you the right to walk outside on a warn summer night would you respect their beliefs and not try to stop them? Substitute anything you like but I hope you see the point.
tried to add this but my edit time ran out
OTOH people might also push for a program that helps the poor or something positive because of their beliefs. I don’t think people can avoid having their religious beliefs influence what they support or don’t support and I respect their right to vote accordingly. In a society you share with other cultures a wide variety of beliefs then the merit of any law should be judged by realistic judgments of it’s impact on society as a whole, with all it’s various citizens, rather than to please a certain group and their vision of a god others don’t believe in.
Let’s look at real statistics and studies rather than passages in a 2000 year old book to make those judgments.