HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Tell me why I should resp...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 09:35 PM

Tell me why I should respect people's "deeply held" religious beliefs?

What makes religious beliefs so special and immune from criticism compared to any other belief? Why can Truthers and Birthers, and UFOologists be made fun of but not people who belief in a sky daddy who answers their prayers?

136 replies, 15623 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 136 replies Author Time Post
Reply Tell me why I should respect people's "deeply held" religious beliefs? (Original post)
Odin2005 Apr 2012 OP
darkstar3 Apr 2012 #1
Dawson Leery Apr 2012 #2
Odin2005 Apr 2012 #3
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #20
edhopper Apr 2012 #33
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #48
ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2012 #4
Ron Obvious Apr 2012 #5
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2012 #6
stopbush Apr 2012 #22
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2012 #35
Joseph8th Apr 2012 #74
cbayer Apr 2012 #79
Joseph8th Apr 2012 #84
cbayer Apr 2012 #89
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #49
arcane1 Apr 2012 #7
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #50
rrneck Apr 2012 #8
tibbiit Apr 2012 #9
darkstar3 Apr 2012 #10
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #16
Odin2005 Apr 2012 #28
demosincebirth Apr 2012 #11
Kalidurga Apr 2012 #13
demosincebirth Apr 2012 #17
darkstar3 Apr 2012 #18
TreasonousBastard Apr 2012 #12
trotsky Apr 2012 #25
GliderGuider Apr 2012 #26
trotsky Apr 2012 #27
GliderGuider Apr 2012 #43
trotsky Apr 2012 #44
GliderGuider Apr 2012 #56
trotsky Apr 2012 #57
GliderGuider Apr 2012 #59
trotsky Apr 2012 #60
GliderGuider Apr 2012 #63
trotsky Apr 2012 #64
GliderGuider Apr 2012 #65
trotsky Apr 2012 #102
GliderGuider Apr 2012 #103
Joseph8th Apr 2012 #81
PassingFair Apr 2012 #135
TreasonousBastard Apr 2012 #36
trotsky Apr 2012 #37
TreasonousBastard Apr 2012 #38
trotsky Apr 2012 #46
Joseph8th Apr 2012 #82
trotsky Apr 2012 #101
SATIRical Apr 2012 #97
trotsky Apr 2012 #104
SATIRical Apr 2012 #105
trotsky Apr 2012 #106
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #51
trotsky Apr 2012 #55
Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #110
trotsky Apr 2012 #111
Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #118
trotsky Apr 2012 #120
Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #122
trotsky Apr 2012 #127
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #131
skepticscott Apr 2012 #132
trotsky Apr 2012 #134
thucythucy Apr 2012 #14
longship Apr 2012 #15
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #19
mr blur Apr 2012 #24
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #112
mr blur Apr 2012 #116
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #119
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #121
Odin2005 Apr 2012 #30
cbayer Apr 2012 #39
cleanhippie Apr 2012 #45
Odin2005 Apr 2012 #53
cbayer Apr 2012 #58
trotsky Apr 2012 #108
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #113
cleanhippie Apr 2012 #41
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #66
cleanhippie Apr 2012 #70
skepticscott Apr 2012 #133
Gurgen4 Apr 2012 #21
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #52
cleanhippie Apr 2012 #71
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #75
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #114
mr blur Apr 2012 #117
Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #123
mr blur Apr 2012 #125
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #126
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #128
trotsky Apr 2012 #129
PassingFair Apr 2012 #136
Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #77
Rob H. Apr 2012 #83
Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #115
skepticscott Apr 2012 #130
undergroundpanther Apr 2012 #23
rug Apr 2012 #29
WolverineDG Apr 2012 #31
rug Apr 2012 #32
Odin2005 Apr 2012 #54
rug Apr 2012 #62
cleanhippie Apr 2012 #73
rug Apr 2012 #92
backscatter712 Apr 2012 #34
cbayer Apr 2012 #40
Joseph8th Apr 2012 #85
cbayer Apr 2012 #86
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #87
cbayer Apr 2012 #88
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #90
cbayer Apr 2012 #91
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #94
cbayer Apr 2012 #95
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #98
Odin2005 Apr 2012 #96
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #99
tama Apr 2012 #124
trotsky Apr 2012 #107
Jim__ Apr 2012 #42
trotsky Apr 2012 #109
humblebum Apr 2012 #47
Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #78
Prophet 451 Apr 2012 #61
GliderGuider Apr 2012 #69
MineralMan Apr 2012 #67
provis99 Apr 2012 #68
eqfan592 Apr 2012 #72
Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #80
GliderGuider Apr 2012 #93
Humanist_Activist Apr 2012 #100
GliderGuider Apr 2012 #76

Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 09:36 PM

1. Because there is safety in numbers.

As bullshit as that is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 09:37 PM

2. At least in America, this "respect" is a one way street applied only to Christians.

On the other hand non-Christians are open to disrespect, i.e: Muslims, Jews, Secularists, Atheists, Eastern Religions, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawson Leery (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 09:38 PM

3. Good point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawson Leery (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:22 AM

20. You have no understanding, nor do you read, hear nor sense

what progressive Christians are all about. We just had an interfaith Seder because we respect one another. Our local Methodist Seminary is now an inter-faith University. Before you pop off about what Christians are about, maybe you ought to have some knowledge about what is going on before you pontificate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 09:11 AM

33. But you must admit that many Christians (though not all by any means)

show no respect and even derogation towards other religions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #33)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:30 PM

48. Far toooooooo many! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 09:42 PM

4. Because if you do it publicly it will cause riots in some countries and people might die?

Seen that happen a few times...and all the sympathy seems to be for those who are offended by the free speech of others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 09:44 PM

5. I just asked the same question in GD

Dunno. I just asked the same question in GD: [link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=513922| I've asked similar questions with variations here and elsewhere. Never got an answer yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 09:46 PM

6. I respect everyone's *right* to hold any religious belief they want.

However, I reserve the right to not necessarily respect the beliefs themselves, especially those that are hateful and destructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:38 AM

22. Bingo! Religious beliefs are like any other belief, like a political belief.

Respecting the person's right to hold a political belief doesn't enjoin one from calling the beliefs themselves bullshit. Same goes for religious belief - you have the right to believe what you will and everyone else has the right to call your beliefs bullshit/make believe/childish etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 09:32 AM

35. That said, I don't make a habit of mocking other people's beliefs.

Upon learning someone is Mormon, for example, I'm not going to say, "Hey, is it true you guys wear special secret magic underwear? Really? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!" Even if that's what I think. My response to someone's description of their beliefs is usually just a polite, noncommital "Oh, that's interesting." I don't see any point in insulting people or their sincerely-held (if silly, from my perspective) beliefs for no reason.

If, on the other hand, a debate over such beliefs comes up, I will feel free to discuss and challenge them in a rational and non-insulting manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #35)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:41 PM

74. Agreed on all points...

 

... that's exactly how I go about it. I have a good friend who's a true-blue UFOlogist, and even though he doesn't wax theological at me, for some reason he thinks it's OK to try to convince me that, more or less, X-Files was nonfiction.

He wants to have the debate, so I accept -- of course I know him and we're civil, so that makes a big difference.

It's much much harder when it IS a theological belief, and the other person isn't a friend, to remain civil. So when I get on the Interwebs it's even harder not to ... y'know... "Flame On!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph8th (Reply #74)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:00 PM

79. Why is it harder if it is a theological belief?

I understand that not really knowing the person makes it harder to engage in the debate, but if they are civil, why could you not be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #79)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:41 PM

84. "... if they are civil..." then I am, too...

 

... but once in the debate itself, individual beliefs are fair game for discourse, and the same standard applied to the individual being civil that wins them respect, when applied to individual beliefs, doesn't always win the beliefs respect.

If those beliefs are closely held, then disrespect of the belief is often taken as disrespect of the individual... especially when there's no mutual understanding of various subtle cues (sense of humor, etc.), and even more so when they don't even have a face. I'm saying things can go from civil to "Flame On!" a lot easier on the webs in debates about beliefs because someone takes it personally, and returns with a personal attack, which triggers anti-bullies to bring the Hammer of Doom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph8th (Reply #84)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 05:19 PM

89. Agree. It is harder to maintain a civil discourse in this venue and

much easier to slip into a slamfest.

My position is that once it degrades into a slamfest, I am out. If if every conversation I have with someone goes that way, I am really done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:36 PM

49. Rspect implies hearing someone else. It has nothing to do with acceptance of the witness.

It does, however, eliminate trashing without even trying to hear.

In this forum I think it is perfectly proper to offer alternatives to what someone says, or even to dispute what has been said. But I doubt if trashing is helpful to anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 09:51 PM

7. ALL beliefs are fair game, if you ask me

I respect someone's right to believe what they want, but the belief itself should not be immune from criticism, disagreement, or even disdain and ridicule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:38 PM

50. Maybe criticism and disagreement, but here probably not distain and ridicule. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 09:54 PM

8. Respect, or voice disprespect? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 10:01 PM

9. All Peoples beliefs are like assholes, you know the saying:)

You don't have to respect peoples beliefs but... if you are a person who also wants/likes to argue or push buttons on purpose, then you have to be willing to pay the consequences. In my younger years I liked to jump into open public disrespect with both feet, full speed ahead. It's tiresome over time to do this, and imo it's just not being a nice person. That is why I no longer openly disrespect. I just shine the religion and even politics on. You just don't win with extremists, its a time wasting thing to me.


so why? besides being not nice, it is a waste of time because no one changes their minds and I always end up pissed. lol
tib

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tibbiit (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 10:10 PM

10. People DO change their minds. I've seen it many times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkstar3 (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 11:21 PM

16. As have I.

I've seen it in myself, for instance (former confirmed lutheran here) and in my wife (former catholic).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tibbiit (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 08:52 AM

28. You are confusing beliefs with the people holding them.

I never disrespect people as people and their inherent qualities as human beings, I disrespect the beliefs they hold, there is a HUGE difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 10:28 PM

11. You don't have to. But if don't can you look at yourself in the mirror and consider yourself

open minded?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 10:40 PM

13. So, if you think Flat Earthers are a bit loony toons then are you being open minded? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:08 AM

17. Dumb analogy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:09 AM

18. In response to a dumb generalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 10:37 PM

12. The same reason you should respect a vegetarian when planning a meal, or...

someone who likes the color blue. If they're not trying to force you to believe and do as they do, just shut up and deal with it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:10 AM

25. Does that work both ways?

Should we expect a vegetarian to respect an omnivore and plan to serve meat for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:47 AM

26. Well, I'd certainly expect a vegetarian not to object if I do eat meat.

My position is that people are who they are, and a little live and let live goes a long way. If others don't follow that principle, I either smile indulgently it it's not too egregious, or withdraw if it is.

We can't change others. The only person we can change is ourselves. I've found that if I get upset over idiocy doesn't help the idiot, it just hurts me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #26)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 08:03 AM

27. That's fine and dandy, but it's not the issue.

The other poster said a meat-eater should respect a vegetarian's beliefs when planning a meal. I want to know if that goes both ways - should a vegetarian respect an omnivore's beliefs and be expected to plan to serve a meat dish for them?

I find it very telling that when it gets down to brass tacks, folks like yourself don't like to address specific instances but instead always back off into the vague banalities like "the only person we can change is ourselves." (Which isn't even true, by the way.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 11:36 AM

43. I don't really much care if things aren't absolutely fair and balanced.

My position is that nothing in the universe is fair and balanced, so I'd rather deal with the situation as it is in such a way that I'm as comfortable as possible with the outcome. Your insistence on absolute reciprocity sounds dogmatic and ideological to me, and I don't deal with the world that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #43)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:24 PM

44. So some people deserve more respect than others.

Some are more equal than others.

Very 1984. And very interesting, especially when you throw on accusations of ME being "dogmatic and ideological." LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:51 PM

56. Why does that matter?

I find that if I treat people as though they deserve respect, I find out that they generally do.

To me, respect, like forgiveness, is more about the giver than the recipient.

On edit - I don't know if you are dogmatic and ideological or not. I expect that you don't think of yourself that way - people usually think of their positions as incontrovertibly correct rather than dogmatic. That's why I said that's how the particular expectation of absolute reciprocity appears to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #56)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:54 PM

57. Because you're saying one group of people should expect to be respected in a way...

that another group should not.

If you're OK with that, fine. Just calling it like it is - you believe some people deserve more respect and behavior alterations from others than everyone else does.

It's an interesting position, for sure. I can certainly understand why you are avoiding addressing the conundrum and again falling back on banalities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #57)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 02:01 PM

59. No I'm not. I'm saying I can't change peoples expectations.

I generally think its silly to have expectations about how to be treated by others - for me as much as anyone else.

What's with the "you believe" stuff? "I think you believe..." is appropriate, your phrasing is an attempt to create a straw man and stuff it into my mouth. It might make you feel good, but it doesn't work. Check my edit on the previous post to see my approach to this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #59)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 02:06 PM

60. Ah, so you...

"generally think its silly to have expectations about how to be treated by others."

So you think it's silly for a vegan to visit an omnivore's house for a meal and expect to have a food option acceptable to their dietary preferences?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #60)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 02:40 PM

63. Yes, I think that expectation is silly.

If I'm on someone else's turf I generally adapt to their preferences.

If I were a vegan at an omnivore's house and was served meat dishes only, I would politely decline, but I wouldn't say much beyond that. I am in fact an omnivore, so when I'm invited to a vegan household I eat whatever is put in front of me.

If I invite a vegan for dinner I cook a variety of dishes, some of which are sure to be vegan. If I were a vegan inviting an omnivore I would try to cook dishes that would be acceptable to someone with any taste in food - I might include seitan as a meat substitute, for example, so that they feel acknowledged and welcome in my home.

I don't see what is so difficult about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #63)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 02:42 PM

64. OK then, you are on the same side I am - in opposition to the person I initially responded to.

No problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #64)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:03 PM

65. There go the assumptions again.

I have no idea if we're "on the same side" or not. You may feel free to agree with my position on food issues, but extensions beyond that do not have my consent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #65)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 07:01 AM

102. And what you've assumed about me could fill a library.

Thanks for agreeing with me anyway!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #102)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 07:08 AM

103. ;-) Cheers

Enjoy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:13 PM

81. It's a good analogy...

 

... consider a more explicitly religious dietary restriction, though (kosher, ital, etc.) for full effect of how 'respect' might play a role in such a situation. First, though, we need to define respect well. I'll take it to mean 'tolerance plus diplomacy' as a relation in, i.e., "I respect your belief..." (ambiguous implication: the next clause could start with "and" OR "but"). It's more than mere tolerance, but less than an endorsement.

Then with this definition of 'respect,' if you had a kosher Jewish relative pop by at suppertime, and all you have to serve are frozen pizza, or leftover pork-loin and sauerkraut (mmm)... what're you gonna do?

Probably offer them whatever they want, right? But if you were planning dinner for them, most folk's would probably take their dietary restrictions into account. ("Oops, Uncle Fred is allergic to strawberries. Let's make pumpkin pie, instead.") So it's the individual who has a dietary restriction, because they fall (voluntarily or not) into a category of folks with restricted diets.

Then we've reduced the whole problem of respect to one of tolerance and diplomacy.

In which case we can look at when respect ISN'T warranted. Namely, whenever tolerance isn't warranted (i.e., when accommodating the belief would be tolerating intolerance), or diplomacy isn't warranted (there is no realistic chance of reducing intolerance by diplomatic means).

I think the tolerance issue is usually pretty clear, but it's a lot harder to know when it's OK not to be diplomatic (i.e., rude or dismissive), because from a strategic point of view, it could be argued that rude and dismissive reactions to intolerable religious demands serve a diplomatic purpose in the larger scheme of things (the Kid Glove and the Gauntlet approach to diplomacy). Also, in the case of a bully forcing a belief, disrespect and confrontation is often the only way to win 'bully respect'... that is, a modicum of grudging tolerance and clumsy diplomacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:49 AM

135. Here's your answer:





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 10:15 AM

36. That's getting just a bit persnickety...

I've been to dinner parties with observant Jews, someone with a gluten allergy, diabetics, vegans and others with some reason, occasionally silly, to avoid certain foods. You just do your best to make sure everyone has something to eat and no one gets sick or insulted.

More to the point is that no one has the right to inflict personal beliefs on someone else. It does get a little tricky with moral or ethical issues. For instance, I am a Quaker and adamantly against the death penalty. If arguing this, though, I never bring up Quaker belief, but have other, secular, arguments to make my point. Many Quakers, btw, are queasy about abortion, but they would never argue that God told them it was wrong or speculate about when a soul enters a zygote.

So no, if I am invited to a vegan's home I would never expect them to cook meat for me. That would be inflicting my beliefs on them. I'm sure I would have a delicious meatless meal-- or at least tell them I did.

(FWIW one of my favorite restaurants of all time was orthodox kosher dairy-- no meat but marvelous veggies, noodles, and blintzes.)







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #36)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 10:25 AM

37. So you are indeed saying there is a double standard.

So no, if I am invited to a vegan's home I would never expect them to cook meat for me. That would be inflicting my beliefs on them.

But a vegan has every right, when they come to your home, to expect you to cook them a vegan meal.

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 10:47 AM

38. Did I say that? Where? I have had vegans for dinner...

and, no, they don't taste better than meat-eaters.

(Let's see how many alerts that generates)

I'll be cooking food, and that includes meatless dishes. The vegan will be cooking all meatless dishes. Everyone's happy.

Whatever is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #38)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:30 PM

46. The meat-eater at a vegan's house is not happy.

Maybe they don't tolerate vegan options well. Perhaps due to anemia or other conditions they need to have red meat available to them. I don't know, but what I do know is that you are indeed admitting that the vegan should have his or her beliefs respected, and others alter their behavior to accommodate them, but not vice-versa.

Or in other words, a double standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #46)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:28 PM

82. It is NOT a double standard...

 

... because if you're omnivore, you don't have a dietary restriction. You can eat anything in set X of all foods. But this person who you like only eats foods in the set A \subset X. Since you eat everything in X, only people who really like you even care what your favorite food is, and unless it's your birthday (even then around here), you shouldn't expect your favorite food every time to visit someone, anyway. Since you've said you're an omnivore, the only possible reason you could have for feeling insulted that your buddy served you foods from set A rather than A complement in X, is that you're a big baby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph8th (Reply #82)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 07:00 AM

101. What if you're on the Atkins diet?

It IS a double standard.

And thanks for the personal insult! Please note that at no time have I actually said I feel a vegan SHOULD provide me with a meat dish. I am merely pointing out the double standard, and boy has it hit home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #46)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 09:57 PM

97. I'm somewhat of an ass

 

And even I'd respect a vegan's beliefs.

Even meat-eaters can go a meal or two without meat. I'm a picky eater who rarely eats fruits or vegetables yet I could live with a pasta meal with corn or potatoes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SATIRical (Reply #97)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 07:09 AM

104. Well sure, and so would I.

But I just find it quite interesting - not so much that a omnivore should be expected to provide a dietary option for a vegan (which is not even a religion), but that in the opposite situation no omnivore should reasonably expect a vegan to provide him with meat.

In other words, one group of people is expected to alter their behavior and make accommodations for another group - and it is generally accepted as ridiculous that the reverse happen.

Seems to have parallels elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #104)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:11 AM

105. If there were a person who ate ONLY meat

 

because of strong personal beliefs (as opposed to just personal taste), then I would expect the vegan to respect that as well.

Granted, I've never heard of such a person...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SATIRical (Reply #105)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 09:59 AM

106. So the issue is how strongly one holds the beliefs?

It's the strength of beliefs that determines how much respect they should get?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:42 PM

51. As an omnivor, I respect a veggie who serves me a veggie meal. I can eat it.

I would not expect an orthodox Jew to serve me a pork chop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #51)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:51 PM

55. That's fine - but why not?

Why is the "respectful" altered behavior only expected to be one-way?

What makes some beliefs more worthy than others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #55)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:04 AM

110. If you don't value the relationship, be as snarky as you please

but don't be surprised at how people react to your snark.

If you value the relationship, let things pass that don't affect you personally.

I have a brother who has been brainwashed by AM radio. I could spend all of family gatherings ragging on him, but aside from his brainwashing, he has a lot of good qualities, so we avoid political topics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #110)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 07:04 AM

111. Thanks for the condescension, but you didn't answer my question.

Why are some beliefs worthy of more respect than others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #111)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 03:32 PM

118. You don't have to respect the belief, just the person who holds them,

unless that belief if explicitly harming people other than the holder of the belief or unless you are deliberately trying to alienate them or are trying to prove your superiority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #118)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 09:02 AM

120. I could choose to have a fit now, I suppose...

Since you chose to use the hypothetical "you" here. I got lambasted for doing so once. I wonder where those folks are now who tore into me for an imagined offense?

Regardless, you're still not answering the question. So I'll shift it to the terms you are using to try and escape the problem. Why do the holders of some beliefs deserve more respect than others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #120)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:10 PM

122. If they're not directly affecting you or harming anyone else, live and let live

You don't have to respect their beliefs, but unless you are deliberately trying to alienate them or "prove" your superiority, the attack mode is unnecessary. For one thing, you cannot argue people out of deeply held beliefs.

Example: If a friend of mine wants to get her astrological chart done, I may think she's wasting money, but since she's not forcing me to get one or proposing that astrology be the national belief system, no big deal.

Example: If a friend of mine joins the Jehovah's Witnesses, the friendship may end because she's no longer allowed to go to birthday parties or out for a drink, but again, she's limiting only herself. The JWs avoid involvement in politics and may be annoying (If such a friend were to try to convert me, I'd tell her politely but firmly that I wasn't interested), but aren't trying to impose their beliefs on society. I actually faced this kind of situation with a Japanese friend who became an ardent Nichiren Buddhist (extremely evangelical Buddhists--yes, they exist). I just deflected her attempts to convert me, and eventually she turned back into a normal person.

Example: If a friend of mine were to join some fundamentalist or Pentecostal group that wants to impose its practices on the whole country, then I would have problems. I have in fact argued about things like homosexuality and religion in the schools with fundamentalists. Have I changed any minds? No, but I hope that by giving "try being in their shoes" examples ("Would you want religion in the public schools if you lived in Hawaii, where you could easily end up in a Buddhist neighborhood, or in Dearborn, Michigan, where the majority is Muslim?" or "If you really chose between being gay or straight, perhaps you are bisexual") I have planted seeds that lead to doubts. That's all any of us can do. Telling them that they or their beliefs are stupid is what they expect and are trained to ignore. In the end, it's up to them to evolve. Badgering and ridicule are counter-productive, even if they make the badgerer and ridiculer feel superior.

I think it boils down to the First Amendment. We are allowed to hold beliefs that seem crazy to others. We are allowed not to have religious beliefs. But the First Amendment also says that the government may not mandate that the populace hold any particular views. That's where I draw the line.

OK, I've given you a thoughtful answer, but you probably will reject it. So be it. That's my final answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #122)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 01:39 PM

127. Yeah, I'll reject it, because you still didn't provide an answer.

Why are some people (and/or their beliefs) worthy of MORE respect than others?

You have made a grand argument about why you think we should never tell anyone their beliefs are ridiculous - but that isn't what I asked for. Thanks anyway, I suppose. At least you got a chance to lecture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #55)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:36 PM

131. It is just a matter of common courtesy.

Respecting one another is important in our ethical system. Just because it might be one way, doesn't change the ethical perspective. I gather that may not be part of your ethical system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #131)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:37 PM

132. So when you say that creationism is silly

where is the respect in that?

You really and truly don't grasp the blatant hypocrisy and double standard in all this, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #131)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:23 AM

134. Your attack against my ethics is duly noted.

And oh so lovely. This "new" Christianity you keep talking about sure looks like the same old hateful one to me.

I have been asking all along why SOME beliefs are worthy of more respect than others. I have not said that no one's beliefs are worthy of respect.

I completely understand why you would rather not answer that question, because it's a tough one. Far easier to attack me instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 10:50 PM

14. To me it depends on the people, depends on the beliefs,

depends on how those people demonstrate or manifest those beliefs.

Are you talking about Pat Robertson, or Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.? Jerry Falwell, or Mahatma Gandhi? Rick Perry, or Sophie Scholl? Sarah Palin, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

People like Robertson, Falwell, Perry, and Palin believe in a comic strip version of their tradition, and use it for crass commercial and political gain while attempting to shove their narrow minded self-righteousness down our throats. So mock away--you'll find me laughing in the aisles.

People like Rev. King, Mahatma Gandhi, Sophie Scholl and Dietrich Bonhoeffer seem to have put a great deal of thought into what they believed, finding in their respective traditions the strength to put their lives on the line fighting racism, imperialism, fascism and militarism. Indeed, they all died for their convictions, after devoting their lives to opposing tyranny and defending human rights. Personally, not having that kind of courage or devotion myself, I feel rather humbled by their example, and don't feel at all any particular urge to mock or make fun of them.

So like I say, it depends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 11:12 PM

15. Like Hitchens has said

They wouldn't have the power now if they hadn't had the power before, when a religion had the power of government behind them and if you didn't accept it, they would kill you. It might take them a while to do that, but they'll get the job done.

As Daniel Dennett puts it, we have to break this spell that religion has over people. Not to make this world one of chromium and steel with no echo of religiosity, but to merely put distance between people's beliefs and government, politics, and science.

Atheists were not the ones who blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas. That was done by religious fanatics who were so intolerant of other beliefs that they felt they had to rid the world of one of its more splendid cultural landmarks. I know of no atheist that professes anything so vile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:11 AM

19. You are free to ridicule anyone you want.

But I doubt if you would go on any of those other forums for no other purpose than to ridicule. If so, it says more about you than about the sites. You may disagree with others, but there is something called respect. If you define religion as "as sky daddy who answers their prayers," your ignorance of the depth of faith is astounding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 05:36 AM

24. Perhaps we don't care about the "depth of faith"

This seems to be something you just can't grasp.

Likewise, "progressive" Christianity - this is important only to you; you seem to think that "modern" Christianity is much more enlightened than traditional Christianity, but it's all just irrational belief in the ridiculous to some of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:09 PM

112. "to some of us" is one of the most honest things you have ever said here. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #112)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:46 PM

116. Well, thank you for the patronising insult - you finally said something that wasn't just either

self-righteous waffle or tedious "theological" navel-gazing.

No doubt one of your magical Other Ways of Knowing enables you to judge when people are being honest and when they aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #116)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:18 AM

119. I think hat's #19

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #119)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 11:15 AM

121. Which was in response to an attack of your own.

Don't think those should count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 08:56 AM

30. 99% of believers view "God" as a sky daddy. The navel-gazing of theologians...

...is irrelevant and mystics often get burned at the stake by the sky-daddy-ists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #30)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 11:01 AM

39. You just totally made up this statistic, didn't you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #39)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:26 PM

45. 80% of most statistics are made up.

I read that in a statistical report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #39)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:47 PM

53. Thanks for missing the point.

The exact % is not important, but it IS obvious to me that the vast majority of believers believe in nothing more sophisticated than a sky-daddy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #53)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:57 PM

58. I may be *obvious to you*, but not to everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #58)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 10:43 AM

108. It's obvious to everyone who doesn't choose to ignore the facts about belief.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Faith-Tools/Meditation/2004/12/U-S-News-Beliefnet-Prayer-Survey-Results.aspx

(Pay particular attention to the table marked "In the last six months, my prayers have related to:")

Large majorities in each of the major faiths are praying to a kindly figure who might grant them their wishes for health, fortune, or other personal enrichment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:19 PM

113. I have never heard that term used by any serious theist--just by snarky others.

If I am going to use a descriptive term about someone, courtesy compels me to use a term about which they can say, "yes, that defines what I believe." If an atheist suggests a term for him/herself other than 'atheist", I would be happy to use it.


Don't know where you got your statistics. I though scientific believers were more careful about their "facts" than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 11:09 AM

41. Have you considered that many may find your "depth of faith" to be ignorance personified?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #41)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:14 PM

66. I think you just made an excellent point right here. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #66)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:34 PM

70. Perhaps, but to TMO and others here, that is a "gotcha" question.

Apparently, to ask such things is rude, uncivil, and does not lead to meaningful conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:41 PM

133. Hundreds of Millions of Christians have great "depth of faith"

in the existence of "god" as a heavenly father and a creator. And yet you constantly dismiss and disrespect that "deep faith", by calling it outdated and silly...and wrong. Then you have the nerve to pontificate about "respect" to others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:16 AM

21. You shouldn't

 

In fact it should be the other way around. People who believe in invisible sky fairies and invisible old guys in the sky should respect OUR rights. Our right to be free from religion, our right to do, say, act, believe, and live as we wish.

Fortunately we are moving away from religion every day and soon these people will be in the minority. We are progressing towards a more tolerant world despite what religionists, fascists, and racists would like and soon they will be a part of history. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gurgen4 (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:47 PM

52. Of course your right is respected.

You just don't find atheist trashed here.--all the trashing is the other way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #52)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:37 PM

71. 100% pure, unadulterated bullshit.

You, my friend, are in deep denial of the reality of the situation, both here and IRL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #52)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:45 PM

75. If you're wondering what post it was that made so many of us here...

...think you are completely disassociated with reality, it was this post. This post right here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #75)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:26 PM

114. Fair enough---I'll make you a deal

Every time theist is trashed I'll file a reminded.

Every time an atheist is trashed You( any of you) file a reminder. Let's do this for the next few days.

OK. If that is not OK maybe I'll do it anyhow.

Let's start with this thread

bashing believers--not just belief
OP.24,77,15,30,53,75,96

bashing atheists
83 (quote from somewhere else) and 47

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #114)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:49 PM

117. Ooo, persecution! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #117)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:14 PM

123. Did he claim persecution?

No, just that most of the bashing was done by atheists, not by believers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #123)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:39 PM

125. Most of what he says claims persecution,

in one way or another. TMO is the most misunderstood, persecuted Christian in this Group. Or haven't you been reading?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #123)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:40 PM

126. LOL! You just did the worst possible thing you could do to your credibility.

Agree with that guy. He does, in effect, claim persecution. Just making any statement at all about religion that doesn't fit with his positive view of it constitutes an "attack."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #126)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 02:19 PM

128. Take another look.

I have no problem with people who attack religion with solid rational arguments and questions. I respect them and their opinions. I'm just listing attacks on religious persons--which goes far beyond me. I don't feel persecuted. That accusation is just another way of not dealing with the evidence.I feel that when you hold that there are in "Religion" as many attacks on atheists as there are on believers, you had better be prepared to look at the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #128)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 05:33 PM

129. No, you take another look.

Because you're the one who was already forced to back away from using absolutes - saying that "all the trashing" is against the religious.

Glad someone called you on that bullshit. Your credibility is nil when it comes to telling others to "look at the evidence." You sure didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #114)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 10:04 AM

136. Every time an atheist makes an unverifiable claim, like :"He is risen"

Feel free to dispute.

We bash the supernatural claims, not the claimants, unless
they happen to claim "special knowledge" of their claims.

And why the offense at "Sky Daddy"?

Most Christians I know personify their deity as either a grandfatherly figure
or a Matthew McConaughey-type hottie Jesus.

If you DON'T why should "Sky Daddy" seem like an insult to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #52)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:55 PM

77. In the words of your daughter-"You just totally made up this statistic, didn't you?"

"all the trashing is the other way around" (emphasis mine)

And you really want us to take you seriously about anything on here? I mean, I knew your understanding of what the real theists on the street believed in contrast to the handful of theologians you keep referring to as all of theists, but this statement right here shows that you are in no way in touch with reality and only see things through a very specific lens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #52)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:30 PM

83. What horseshit.

There was a recent post in which a believer claimed that some of the atheists on DU were some of the worst people he's ever met and are so dumb they wouldn't be able to figure out how to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. It was even alerted on but wasn't hidden.

Edited for clarity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rob H. (Reply #83)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:34 PM

115. I should have not used the word "all."

I should have said, "almost all."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #115)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 05:41 PM

130. But when you took all the time you needed

to consider which words to use, you chose "all". Clearly, unambiguously and unapologetically. If you didn't honestly and sincerely believe that was correct, after all of the threads you've followed here, why did you say "all" in the first place? And what do you know now that you didn't know a few days ago that is making you appear to backpedal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:49 AM

23. I dunno why

But there needs to be more critics. christianity itself needs tons of faith cracking critics,and the bible has to be honestly,fearlessly be examined by christians the laypeople and clergy both,some things written in that book is wrong,bad,unjustifiable,horrible dare I say EVIL..yes it is.With people taking it literally,maybe it's time to re-edit the book again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 08:54 AM

29. As my mother told me, with mixed results, "Don't be an asshole."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #29)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 08:58 AM

31. and if you are an asshole, don't whine & cry "bigotry" when people respond in kind

easy peasy. Only the obtuse refuse to understand that very simple concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WolverineDG (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 09:05 AM

32. Seems there's a lot of whining and cries of bigotry in this thread.

However, I will heed my mother's advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #29)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 01:50 PM

54. That applies to you Theists, too.

There seems to be a double standard, Theists praise their own "strongly held beliefs", and yet bash us as angry "Fundamentalist Atheists".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #54)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 02:34 PM

62. It applies to every human who breathes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #62)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:40 PM

73. So we can expect a change from you then?

If there is a noticable change in how you post and interact, you will see the same from me.

Deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #73)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 06:55 PM

92. Deal. See you at Panmunjom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 09:25 AM

34. There's a fine distinction...

between respecting people and respecting their religious beliefs.

I respect people (unless they're bigoted Republicans :evilgrin but I don't respect any religious beliefs - I think they're all nonsense.

I can respect the Catholic priest who happens to be kind and generous to the poor and supporting progressive causes, without respecting the Roman Catholic Church or its deity.

See how that works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 11:08 AM

40. Are you talking in general or on this site?

The terms of service are pretty clear:

Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic.

The owners of the site have chosen to include religion and lack thereof with several other major categories. To lump them in with truthers, birthers and UFOlogists is your choice, but not consistent with the goals or TOS of this site.

What is your point in using insulting language in your OP? What do you hope to gain?

If what you are aiming for is more respect for atheists, you are really going down the wrong track.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #40)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:52 PM

85. Oh wow. Gonna bash the OP with the TOS, huh?

 

The OP was about closely-held religious beliefs, not truthers, birthers, UFOlogists. Those were used as counter-examples of when it WAS OK to disrespect the belief.

The OP asked when is it OK to disrespect religious beliefs. I think that qualifies as a Religion topic, if I'm not mistaken. Moreover, it's an excellent question that goes straight to the heart of religious freedom in a democratic republic: for instance is it OK to draw cartoons of Mohammed?

In short, it would be reactionary and repressive to lock this thread. It's exactly where it needs to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph8th (Reply #85)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 05:00 PM

86. Bashing with the TOS?

He calls the god that many in this group believe in a sky daddy, and you think I am bashing him?

He didn't ask when it is ok to disrespect religious beliefs. He asks why he should ever respect anyone's deeply held religious beliefs. And frankly, I don't think he is looking for an honest answer, but I will give one anyway.

The simple answer is because that is the decent thing to do, unless it is impinging on your rights. The same as I would respect his deeply held beliefs about certain subjects with which I might disagree.

And where in the world did you get the idea that I was suggesting that this was inappropriate for this group or was advocating that it be locked? I may no such suggestion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #86)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 05:09 PM

87. So do you not think it is possible to disrespect a specific belief that a person may hold...

...without disrespecting the person directly?

You find the OP's use of the phrase "sky daddy" to be bashing. Do you feel the same about the flying spaghetti monster?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #87)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 05:16 PM

88. I do feel the same about FSM.

It's used as a tool to essentially call believers delusional, irrational, infantile, uneducated, etc.

And I do think it is possible to disrespect a specific belief without disrespecting the individual. For example, I have no respect for the belief that all religion needs to be eliminated from the face of the earth, but I know people that hold this view that I still respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #88)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 05:41 PM

90. Actually, I think FSM is used...

...to underscore "that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them."

It's also one of the pre-loaded DU avatars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #90)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 05:48 PM

91. Most believers feel no need to prove anything.

And I know that it is an avatar. There are a number of avatars I think are offensive, or at least insensitive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #91)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:49 PM

94. Some of the most vocal believers do seem to feel a need to prove something.

Or at the very least a need to try and get NON believers to somehow prove something (that god doesn't exist for example). Some of them also enjoy finding "proofs" of gods existence to show us in order to "show us the way."

But honestly, I think the fact that you find the FSM to be offensive to be very interesting. I show the FSM because I'm making a statement that claims made that any specific god exists have as much veracity to them as the FSM, and it is for the reason that I do not put any faith in any religion or deity. Someone comfortable with their faith, and believing that their faith alone is enough to warrant their belief in their god shouldn't really have a problem with such a statement, and I would have no issues with such a person so long as they did not try to convert me.

You said yourself that most believers feel no need to prove anything. If this is true, then why be offended by somebody highlighting this lack of proof as to why they themselves are not a believer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eqfan592 (Reply #94)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 08:00 PM

95. As I said previously, but you might have missed it, I find it offensive because it is used as

a tool to belittle or insult believers. It doesn't highlight anything. It mocks.

And I don't think you will find many around here who feel any need to try and get atheists to prove anything. Your beliefs of lack thereof are your business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #95)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 10:08 PM

98. You may think it is insulting, but saying it doesn't highlight anything is simply incorrect.

You may not AGREE with what it is highlighting, or like it, but it doesn't change the fact that it IS highlighting something, and it's something that people of faith would rather not have highlighted (understandably so, from their point of view).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #91)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 09:37 PM

96. "Most believers feel no need to prove anything." That's exactly the problem.

Believing in things without empirical evidence is NOT A GOOD THING. Blind Faith is NOT A GOOD THING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #96)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 10:10 PM

99. Exactly. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #96)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:36 PM

124. Excellent point

 

For example much or most of the theories that are "rationally" believed in are based on hearsay belief (e.g. I read somewhere that it's been tested somewhere), not personal experience. You can hardly build your own LHC, but there is also much that you can test and experience yourself in terms of classical material world.

So called "altered states of mind" and "spiritual experiences" can be also hearsay believes and/or various personal experiences aka "anecdotal evidence" - which can be as difficult and problematic to interprete as quantum mechanics. And also many reasonable and sensible sounding advisors often advice not to get attached to any interpretation (...which is how organized religions tend to start).

And most importantly, active disbelief of believing that something is impossible - in blind faith! - is not a good thing.

You can't prove negatives - positively, and claims of impossibility based on lack of positive evidence are hearsay, at best. And beliefs based on such hearsay can limit what can be personally experienced for the believer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #86)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 10:36 AM

107. The "crime" of insulting a god has a name.

It's called blasphemy.

Do you think blasphemy should be tolerated?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 11:23 AM

42. Because community is very important.

This country is already polarized to the point of paralysis along political lines. We do not need further polarization. You can disagree with someone's ideas without disrespecting them. Disrespecting people's "deeply held" religious beliefs will only lead to further polarization and such disrespect should only be shown in dire circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #42)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 11:01 AM

109. You're missing a key point.

The right wing has (and to a certain extent, so has the left) integrated their religious beliefs and their political beliefs.

By disagreeing with the religious wingnut politically, you ARE disrespecting their religious beliefs. That's how they sincerely feel.

So now what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:52 PM

47. I would ask why anyone should even pay attention to organized atheism or

 

even care about their antics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #47)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:56 PM

78. Yeah, why do you? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 02:29 PM

61. Depends whether they're bothering you with it

My rule of thumb is that if someone's just minding their own business with their religious beliefs, you should let them carry on minding their own business (and I try to mind my own business with mine). But if someone brings their personal beliefs into the public sphere by, for example, proselytizing to you then have at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #61)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:29 PM

69. Now that's more like it.

Thanks for a reasonable view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:14 PM

67. In an ideal world, you wouldn't even know about them.

So, there would be no difficulty. We don't inhabit such a world, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:16 PM

68. I respect them if they have a bad-ass god...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to provis99 (Reply #68)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:39 PM

72. Haha! Now we're talkin!



Odin rocks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to provis99 (Reply #68)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:00 PM

80. Or my favorite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #80)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:26 PM

93. That's killer funny! Thanks! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to provis99 (Reply #68)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 05:43 AM

100. Sorry, my God is better...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:53 PM

76. If they just "hold" them, and don't try to make me share them I'm usually fine with that.

Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2012, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)

I may disagree with someone's beliefs, but I tend keep my disagreement to myself out of common courtesy. Same as I do with Truthers and UFologists - or students of "Ascended Masters" or believers in secret alien reptilian overlords. I will even discuss those beliefs with their holders. It's a great way to find out what informs the various worldviews, and what sorts of human needs underpin the beliefs. Often I can find beliefs of my own that are driven by similar psychological needs, but are manifested differently because of my particular situation. It's a wonderful way to study human psychology

Now if someone tries to make me share their beliefs, whether it's in holographic airliners or Jehovah, and insists I'm wrong for not doing so, it's a whole other ball game. Then I will either drop the conversation and withdraw, or if they are in a position to influence public policy with their beliefs I'll fight back.

Beliefs are just beliefs, and I tend not to respect or disresprect any of them, or have any particular expectation that mine will be respected. I do disrespect how some people behave as a result of their beliefs, and I think I'm on pretty firm ground in openly expressing my disrespect for obnoxious behaviour.

Edited to add - In fact I see virtually no difference between beliefs in objectified gods - like Allah or Jehovah (or Ganesh?) - and secret reptilian overlords or ascended masters. They are all expressions of the same psychological needs that spring from our older mammalian limbic brains - our need for conformance and leadership, our desires to be part of a community of the like-minded, and our limbic wish to be protected and directed by strong pack leaders. The problem happens when our rational neocortex gets mixed up in the fray and starts asking for evidence...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread