Reality TV1 min ago
Isn't it time to stop "respecting" religious beliefs?
47 Answers
There are 1000s of religions in the world, (every one of them the only true one) and no matter what nonsense they spout we are always being told how we should respect the views of their devotees and tiptoe politely around them
Perhaps they should get the same level of respect as people that beleive in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, in fact perhaps a little less, as no one to my knowledge has ever killed anyone in the name of the tooth fairy.
Perhaps they should get the same level of respect as people that beleive in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, in fact perhaps a little less, as no one to my knowledge has ever killed anyone in the name of the tooth fairy.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mariner2. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, I don't think we should.
There is a fine line to be drawn in respecting others beliefs and letting them impinge on other members of society.
We all have rights, but the state imposes certain limits.
The "nonsense" they spout, which I assume comes from your atheist viewpoint, is a creed to a great many others and dismissing it out of hand, would seem to confirm your own intolerance.
alijangra, I have an idea as to where you once lived.
It being a "wee" place, you have done well to escape with your sanity intact.
There is a fine line to be drawn in respecting others beliefs and letting them impinge on other members of society.
We all have rights, but the state imposes certain limits.
The "nonsense" they spout, which I assume comes from your atheist viewpoint, is a creed to a great many others and dismissing it out of hand, would seem to confirm your own intolerance.
alijangra, I have an idea as to where you once lived.
It being a "wee" place, you have done well to escape with your sanity intact.
It's probably not a good time to interject, but there's never a good time if you attempt to defend Christianity. It's been said and I totally agree that one should never judge any human endeavor by only its worst examples. Undoubtedly, Christians can be their own worst enemy... but I have to ask; didn't you (there in Britain) just experience a bank failure? Yet how many of you are still using banks. If you're statistics are similar to ours here in the U.S. roughly 3% of the patients admitted to a hospital will die of an illness contracted in the hospital... yet how many of you would willingly go to the hospital if critically ill? So should those institutions be condemned because of such failures and bad examples?
You know, of course, England's own Wilber Wiberforce led the protracted fight against the evil of slavery. His was a battle forged by his Christianity. I'm sure the response will be "...yes, but anyone, even an atheist could have done the same thing..." but the point is it wasn't... it was a Christian exhibiting the ideals instilled by a relationship with Jesus.
Contd.
You know, of course, England's own Wilber Wiberforce led the protracted fight against the evil of slavery. His was a battle forged by his Christianity. I'm sure the response will be "...yes, but anyone, even an atheist could have done the same thing..." but the point is it wasn't... it was a Christian exhibiting the ideals instilled by a relationship with Jesus.
Contd.
Contd.
The exact same thing can be stated here in the U.S. All of the efforts to do away with slavery, including in many respects our Civil War itself, were based on Christian principals. The Underground Railway used to move liberated slaves from the south to north and on into Canada, the preaching from pulpits and the giving of millions of dollars to help fiancially succeeded.
Most of the large hospitals here in the U.S. (and around the world) are or were started by Christian foundations and continue to be supported, often at a great loss financially.
I notice that a poll taken in about 1928 or so asked how many scientists were believers. The answer was around 40%. A similar poll was taken more recently and the answer was still about 40%. Can all of these learned men and women with years of study and inquiry be deluded on such a rather profound area of their lives? I think not.
Someone on this thread stated that respect has to be earned and not just demanded... I agree wholeheartedly. but I also believe, taken as a large picture, Christianity has vindicated itself over and over, regardless of the failures of many of its adherents.
It'd be nice if both side could tone down the rhetoric, but alas, in this ages old difference that's not likely...
The exact same thing can be stated here in the U.S. All of the efforts to do away with slavery, including in many respects our Civil War itself, were based on Christian principals. The Underground Railway used to move liberated slaves from the south to north and on into Canada, the preaching from pulpits and the giving of millions of dollars to help fiancially succeeded.
Most of the large hospitals here in the U.S. (and around the world) are or were started by Christian foundations and continue to be supported, often at a great loss financially.
I notice that a poll taken in about 1928 or so asked how many scientists were believers. The answer was around 40%. A similar poll was taken more recently and the answer was still about 40%. Can all of these learned men and women with years of study and inquiry be deluded on such a rather profound area of their lives? I think not.
Someone on this thread stated that respect has to be earned and not just demanded... I agree wholeheartedly. but I also believe, taken as a large picture, Christianity has vindicated itself over and over, regardless of the failures of many of its adherents.
It'd be nice if both side could tone down the rhetoric, but alas, in this ages old difference that's not likely...
-- answer removed --
Clanad i fail to see how bad investment decisions on a banks behalf has anything to do with respect for religion. Also how dirty hospitals and people with weakened immune sytems has anything to di with religion and if there is only a 3% chance of dying and 97% chance that i will get healed then i'll definately pick hospital everytime!
the fact still stands that christians have to advocate all the evil done by other christians because to do otherwise would be to go against their own religion!
and im not even gonna count the amount of attrocities that good religeous people have done over the years
the fact still stands that christians have to advocate all the evil done by other christians because to do otherwise would be to go against their own religion!
and im not even gonna count the amount of attrocities that good religeous people have done over the years
cambus - I'll give a ouple of examples of some of the nonsense that comes from religious beliefs that DO deserve to be dismissed out of hand and the fact that it is a creed for many people only makes it MORE nonsensical.
Catholics believe that you can commit any sin, but as long as you confess, the slate is wiped clean and you'll still go to heaven, whereas I will go to hell as an unbeliever even though I lead a good life.
Fundamentalists muslims think if they die while engaged in jihad they will sit at god's right hand in paradise with 40 virgins to play with.
That's great isn't it? How wonderful those convictions are!
What if we all led our lives thinking like this??
These views don't deserve respect or tolerance, they should be laughed at.
How about thinking for yourselves and just being good to other people instead?
Catholics believe that you can commit any sin, but as long as you confess, the slate is wiped clean and you'll still go to heaven, whereas I will go to hell as an unbeliever even though I lead a good life.
Fundamentalists muslims think if they die while engaged in jihad they will sit at god's right hand in paradise with 40 virgins to play with.
That's great isn't it? How wonderful those convictions are!
What if we all led our lives thinking like this??
These views don't deserve respect or tolerance, they should be laughed at.
How about thinking for yourselves and just being good to other people instead?
-- answer removed --
clanad - 40% of scientist may have SAID they believe in god, but this may have something to do with the fact that in your country you can't get anywhere if you say you are an atheist.
How can there be 5000 religions and only the one YOU believe in is the true one? That makes you an atheist as far as Thor and Zeus and Neptune and Ra and the other 4999 religions go, so there's only ONE god difference between me and the most devout believer.
Gods were made up by primitive peoples to explain things like the aurora borealis and solar eclipses and all manner of natural disasters, but hey, you can stop now, because intelligent people didn't just just put it down to one of the gods, they worked it out with science. A bit like Darwin did, although a lot of religious people incredibly choose to dismiss him and stick to what it says in the bible.
Can't you see that before Darwin's theory of evolution the ONLY way to explain the wonders of the world was to attribute it all to a higher power? It is all so diverse and amazing that it was the ONLY explanation, but now science has explained it, there's really no need to slavishly follow hearsay and stories in old books written millenia ago by people of very limited knowledge. It's exactly like the flat earth thing - of course they used to think the earth was flat, otherwise you'd fall off. But now we know it's not flat and there is gravity, and we don't think about a flat earth anymore, it's about time religious dogma went the same way.
How can there be 5000 religions and only the one YOU believe in is the true one? That makes you an atheist as far as Thor and Zeus and Neptune and Ra and the other 4999 religions go, so there's only ONE god difference between me and the most devout believer.
Gods were made up by primitive peoples to explain things like the aurora borealis and solar eclipses and all manner of natural disasters, but hey, you can stop now, because intelligent people didn't just just put it down to one of the gods, they worked it out with science. A bit like Darwin did, although a lot of religious people incredibly choose to dismiss him and stick to what it says in the bible.
Can't you see that before Darwin's theory of evolution the ONLY way to explain the wonders of the world was to attribute it all to a higher power? It is all so diverse and amazing that it was the ONLY explanation, but now science has explained it, there's really no need to slavishly follow hearsay and stories in old books written millenia ago by people of very limited knowledge. It's exactly like the flat earth thing - of course they used to think the earth was flat, otherwise you'd fall off. But now we know it's not flat and there is gravity, and we don't think about a flat earth anymore, it's about time religious dogma went the same way.
For wizard66, here's some links:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199704/0 029.html
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnu m=4651
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20 071103150959AABvk1I
Whether intentional or not, it appears the point has been entirely missed. That being, in other aspects of life one continues to participate in a given endeavor even when the worst example of that endeavor indicates its unworthiness. That doesn't, apparently, apply to belief.
"The fact still stands that christians have to advocate all the evil done by other christians because to do otherwise would go against their own religion" ...Would you care to translate that for me? The usual attack centers on the fact that Christianity cannot be true because all the denominations disagree, no?
May I ask, mariner2 how "good" of a life have you lived and who gets to determine how "good"? We could put it up for a vote, I suppose.
Contd.
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199704/0 029.html
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnu m=4651
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20 071103150959AABvk1I
Whether intentional or not, it appears the point has been entirely missed. That being, in other aspects of life one continues to participate in a given endeavor even when the worst example of that endeavor indicates its unworthiness. That doesn't, apparently, apply to belief.
"The fact still stands that christians have to advocate all the evil done by other christians because to do otherwise would go against their own religion" ...Would you care to translate that for me? The usual attack centers on the fact that Christianity cannot be true because all the denominations disagree, no?
May I ask, mariner2 how "good" of a life have you lived and who gets to determine how "good"? We could put it up for a vote, I suppose.
Contd.
Contd.
May I also ask to which Edition of Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life you refer? There are six and I personally rather like the Second Edition with its inclusion of Darwin's closing statement that reads ""There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (Emphasis added). Additionally, if you'd like, I'd be happy to discuss, with footnotes, the current state of disarray of the vaunted Origin of Life experiments or even transitional forms, but it wouldn't have a whole lot of bearing on this disagreement, I think.
Finally, cleversod, you must be refering to the brouhaha surrounding the young Jehovah's Witness mother who, on religious grounds refused a blood transfusion, no? What then do we make of a person who is tagged at their own wishes, on entering the proverbial hospital with the notation "DNR" (do not rescusitate)... should that person's wishes be disregarded because we think it stupid or only those that have a basis in religious conviction? Thanks for your participation in the discussion!
May I also ask to which Edition of Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life you refer? There are six and I personally rather like the Second Edition with its inclusion of Darwin's closing statement that reads ""There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (Emphasis added). Additionally, if you'd like, I'd be happy to discuss, with footnotes, the current state of disarray of the vaunted Origin of Life experiments or even transitional forms, but it wouldn't have a whole lot of bearing on this disagreement, I think.
Finally, cleversod, you must be refering to the brouhaha surrounding the young Jehovah's Witness mother who, on religious grounds refused a blood transfusion, no? What then do we make of a person who is tagged at their own wishes, on entering the proverbial hospital with the notation "DNR" (do not rescusitate)... should that person's wishes be disregarded because we think it stupid or only those that have a basis in religious conviction? Thanks for your participation in the discussion!
If it is time to stop respecting peoples religious beliefs, then it is also time to to stop respecting anybodys' and everybodys' beliefs, whatever they are, and that would include sexuality / orientation, differing moral beliefs / standards, the list goes on and on. Why single out religious beliefs?
As for tarring all christians with the same brush, that is dismissing what christians are supposed to believe, and emphasising what all who call themselves christian believe. Wearing the label does not make a person a christian, anymore than wearing a football shirt does not make a football hooligan a true supporter and member of the supporters club, that is committed to a particular team.
As for tarring all christians with the same brush, that is dismissing what christians are supposed to believe, and emphasising what all who call themselves christian believe. Wearing the label does not make a person a christian, anymore than wearing a football shirt does not make a football hooligan a true supporter and member of the supporters club, that is committed to a particular team.
Silly beliefs shouldn't command any EXTRA respect just because they are religious ones, but they do, that is my point.
It is OK to dismiss flat-earthers out of hand with a bit of sympathetic amusement, but if their belief is based on religion, all of a sudden it's not OK to do that, we are supposed to respect it.
The followers of virtually every religion there has ever been is 100% certain that the infidels in every OTHER religion will go to hell, no matter what kind of life they've led.
Sorry, I just have a bit of a problem giving any respect whatsoever to views like that.
It is OK to dismiss flat-earthers out of hand with a bit of sympathetic amusement, but if their belief is based on religion, all of a sudden it's not OK to do that, we are supposed to respect it.
The followers of virtually every religion there has ever been is 100% certain that the infidels in every OTHER religion will go to hell, no matter what kind of life they've led.
Sorry, I just have a bit of a problem giving any respect whatsoever to views like that.
Good morning Theland, I trust you are well?
'Wearing a label does not make a person a Christian'? Why wear one then? It seems to me that many who call themselves Christian often despise others, harbour contempt for other denominations, and sometimes sheer hatred for other religions - or even for whole nations - and they are completely missing the simple point of Christ's message which was to love one another. How many actually love others - or even try to do that? In my opinion, very few who call themselves Christian, are truly Christian as I would define the word. In fact I've met Buddhists who are more 'Christian' than any so-called Christian I've ever known. If people want to follow Christ, they don't need churches and all the dogma, confusion and conflict the various churches bring with them, and they don't need to wear a label of any description. All you need is love. (Oooo ..... I feel a song coming on. Where's Luna?).
'Wearing a label does not make a person a Christian'? Why wear one then? It seems to me that many who call themselves Christian often despise others, harbour contempt for other denominations, and sometimes sheer hatred for other religions - or even for whole nations - and they are completely missing the simple point of Christ's message which was to love one another. How many actually love others - or even try to do that? In my opinion, very few who call themselves Christian, are truly Christian as I would define the word. In fact I've met Buddhists who are more 'Christian' than any so-called Christian I've ever known. If people want to follow Christ, they don't need churches and all the dogma, confusion and conflict the various churches bring with them, and they don't need to wear a label of any description. All you need is love. (Oooo ..... I feel a song coming on. Where's Luna?).
Theland - you can start a decent discussion from there I agree, but not with people who maintain the earth is 5000 years old and have a closed mind on all other possibilities.
We cannot at present know what sparked the creation of the universe and as I haven't got a closed mind on the subject despite what many will think, I would say a creator is a possibility, I just have a problem with the other stuff outlined above.
We cannot at present know what sparked the creation of the universe and as I haven't got a closed mind on the subject despite what many will think, I would say a creator is a possibility, I just have a problem with the other stuff outlined above.
Good morning Naomi. Well? Thank you for asking. Not really, off work at the moment, three days holiday for R & R.
What you say is true of course. There are atheists who are more 'christian' than christians I know of. What is worse than going into a church, nervously trying to follow the order of service, and find yourself not part of the in crowd, and, you sat in somebody else's pew! Unforgivable!
Yes there is often a clique mentality. It's shame.
Village Vicar appears to be fine example of what a christian ought to be, getting on with his life, helped by his faith, and his ministry is by example, using words only when necessary.
What you say is true of course. There are atheists who are more 'christian' than christians I know of. What is worse than going into a church, nervously trying to follow the order of service, and find yourself not part of the in crowd, and, you sat in somebody else's pew! Unforgivable!
Yes there is often a clique mentality. It's shame.
Village Vicar appears to be fine example of what a christian ought to be, getting on with his life, helped by his faith, and his ministry is by example, using words only when necessary.
No,Theland, as has been explained before, the unknown origin of the universe is not a good argument for a creator. I know that logic is not your strong suit but this argument is surely not too difficult to follow:
Your Rule seems to be "Nothing comes from nothing, therefore the universe must have had a creator".
So we arrive at The Creator (TC) - which you can call God if you like.
But applying your Rule again, TC must have had a creator, The Creator Of The Creator, TCOTC. Applying the Rule a third time we get TCOTCOTC - and so ad infinitum.
So all you have done is multiply the original problem by infinity.
To get out of this hole, you make Rule 2 which says "Rule 1 must be used only once, to arrive at The Creator, after which it must be abandoned".
This is, of course, intellectual skulduggery of the most derisory sort. If any evolutionist were to form a rule to further his argument and then abandon that rule as soon as it began to count against him, the shouts of derision from the creationists would be audible for miles.
There, Theland. If you don't understand that, I give up.
Your Rule seems to be "Nothing comes from nothing, therefore the universe must have had a creator".
So we arrive at The Creator (TC) - which you can call God if you like.
But applying your Rule again, TC must have had a creator, The Creator Of The Creator, TCOTC. Applying the Rule a third time we get TCOTCOTC - and so ad infinitum.
So all you have done is multiply the original problem by infinity.
To get out of this hole, you make Rule 2 which says "Rule 1 must be used only once, to arrive at The Creator, after which it must be abandoned".
This is, of course, intellectual skulduggery of the most derisory sort. If any evolutionist were to form a rule to further his argument and then abandon that rule as soon as it began to count against him, the shouts of derision from the creationists would be audible for miles.
There, Theland. If you don't understand that, I give up.
Please don't give up chakka.
The thing is, in our world and experience, of cause and effect, there can be no room for God or so it seems, because, ad infinitum as you say, TC becomes TCTC and so on.
But, the belief in God is simply a belief in an eternal being who is His own cause and effect, complete perfection, and totally self sustaining. What we know about him cannot be by discovery via the scientific method, but only what He chooses to reveal about Himself.
To be otherwise, He would not be God.
It has been said, (J.I.Packer I think), that, "God," is the most loaded word in the English language, and I agree with this. Simply because without His revelation, He is unknowable.
God, as creator, has not made little upstart creations imbued with the power to go delving where He does not want them. Hence, revelation.
In that respect, TCTCTCTC etc etc does not come into it.
The thing is, in our world and experience, of cause and effect, there can be no room for God or so it seems, because, ad infinitum as you say, TC becomes TCTC and so on.
But, the belief in God is simply a belief in an eternal being who is His own cause and effect, complete perfection, and totally self sustaining. What we know about him cannot be by discovery via the scientific method, but only what He chooses to reveal about Himself.
To be otherwise, He would not be God.
It has been said, (J.I.Packer I think), that, "God," is the most loaded word in the English language, and I agree with this. Simply because without His revelation, He is unknowable.
God, as creator, has not made little upstart creations imbued with the power to go delving where He does not want them. Hence, revelation.
In that respect, TCTCTCTC etc etc does not come into it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.