Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that belief in Father Christmas is not comparable to religious belief.

999 replies

Throughthelongnight · 06/12/2013 22:20

Just that really. I have noticed that the expectation is that we all go along with the pretence of FC for the sake of parent's children's sensibility, but the same is not afforded where religious belief is concerned.

OP posts:
curlew · 08/12/2013 09:47

I am fully aware of who Rudolph Hess was, thank you.

Even he, as an individual, deserved the "respect" of a proper trial, for example. "Respect" in this context does not mean agreement, sympathy or condoning.

friday16 · 08/12/2013 09:54

Rudolph Hoess, not Hess: the latter, of course, wasn't hung (have all the conspiracy theories about that died down yet?)

But OK, your definition of respect is "correct respect for human rights", and on that I agree completely.

Usually in debates about religion, the demand for "respect" for people extends rather further than restrictions on torture and a belief in due process. For example, a lot of the religious demand respect as meaning "not having my beliefs challenged, even if I enter into a debate about them".

moominleigh94 · 08/12/2013 09:56

friday - my statement was to respect individuals until they've done something to hurt or disrespect you. I think the example you suggested is null and void for many people because they can't claim to have been affected by the Holocaust - for those who were, saying they disrespect him is entirely justified. Personally I have contempt for his actions, and it does lead me to draw conclusions about his character - but I neither respect nor disrespect him. Saying you don't disrespect someone isn't immediately saying you hold them in high regard - it is perfectly reasonable to "nothing" someone.

Respect people when you speak to them, when you have contact with them, until they have disrespected you, is what I meant. Don't declare a universal disrespect of all people because they follow a religion/have a certain belief/etc. If an individual's actions make you disrespect them, that's perfectly logical and reasonable - what isn't logical or reasonable is saying "Everyone who believes in God/Santa is unworthy of my respect", because you don't know the individual circumstances, the ins and outs of those beliefs, etc.

moominleigh94 · 08/12/2013 10:00

Cross-posted Blush I agree that demanding respect for religion should never extend to not having their beliefs challenged.

And for defining purposes, my definition of respect is respecting human rights as above - and also just generally trying not to be an arse towards them until they've done it back. At least let them explain their reasons before you jump down their throat and call them stupid for believing in something - not necessarily worshipping at their feet!

(and - fuck sakes I need to read my posts before I send them - when I said I have contempt for what Hoss did, I mean that I disrespect his actions, but - in not knowing him, never going to know him and having no desire to know him - I don't think I can rightly say that I disrespect him as a person. That's just my opinion and no reflection on anyone else).

catkind · 08/12/2013 10:30

I don't think respect has to be earned. I think everyone should be treated with respect, whether they treat us with respect or not. Otherwise you're just descending to their level.

Then my idea of respect doesn't mean not questioning people's logic, it means being polite while doing so. Comparison of religion with belief in santa, fairies or the flying spaghetti monster is not mocking or disrespectful, it's putting up a logical point for consideration. To someone who doesn't believe in supernatural beings, belief in any of those is a similar concept in a sense. Of course, if you believe in one particular one then there's all the difference in the world, I'm not insulted or disrespected that you think that. But perhaps considering the other ones may give you some idea what religious belief looks like to an outsider.

And if you try to tell us you can "prove" your faith is true, it's a useful logical test to test the same proof out on other cases. If it also proves faiths you agree are silly, you probably need to examine your proof further, or agree that faith is faith and not proven truth.

friday16 · 08/12/2013 10:45

I think the example you suggested is null and void for many people because they can't claim to have been affected by the Holocaust

What? "No man is an island" and all that? Are you seriously saying that if you're born after 1945 you can't take a position of the merits of the third reich?

BackOnlyBriefly · 08/12/2013 11:11

Sashh not read them all yet, but yeah so far all ridiculous. So much for the claim that the science in it proves it's from Allah.

GoshAnneGorilla I know it seems important to you which religion you picked, but since they are all just fantasy I see no reason why I should care which one you went with in the end. It would be like having a deep philosophical objection to which fancy dress costume you chose to wear to the party.

For your other question I refer you to the history of the UK for the last few decades - in fact all of history, but I think you know full well what I was referring to.

themaltesefalcon "the ethical code that helps people to turn the other cheek" Ah you must be Christian. You don't seem to be turning the other cheek so I guess the ethical code is a bust.

curlew · 08/12/2013 11:29

It's interesting that threads like this are usually full of Christians saying "you wouldn't talk about Islam like that". This thread is full of Muslims saying "if you challenge Islam you're being racist"

I haven't got a point here- just interested. At least the Christians will realize they are not being "persecuted for their faith".........

DioneTheDiabolist · 08/12/2013 11:40

Curlew, you can ask for proof. You can query the nature of the proof and you can say "I still don't believe". That is not disrespectful, it is simply stating your point of view.

There is no need for ridicule unless your intention is to try to make the the other person look ridiculous.

DioneTheDiabolist · 08/12/2013 11:46

How about respect individuals until they have done something to hurt/disrespect you

YY MoominLeigh.Smile

redshifter · 08/12/2013 11:59

There is no need for ridicule unless your intention is to try to make the the other person look ridiculous.

To me there is a need for ridicule, and just to me personally, my intention is to to make the other person look ridiculous.

But that is just me, not the other more intelligent and patient PPs.

Sorry

DioneTheDiabolist · 08/12/2013 12:04

Why do you seek to ridicule and hurt people you don't know Redshifter?

redshifter · 08/12/2013 12:04

AnyBags - I have MH problems (bi-polar) but at no point in this thread did I feel insulted by your posts.

peacefuloptimist · 08/12/2013 12:20

There was an interesting comment made by a muslim scholar called Hamza Yusuf which really resonates with me when I read threads like this.

He said for those who believe in God everything they see around them is a proof that God exists and for those who dont believe in God everything they see around them is proof that God doesnt exist.

At the end of the day people will see what they want to see. Thats the thing about having free will. We have the freedom to decide for ourselves. Despite what some atheists on here are trying to assert there is no definite way to prove that God doesnt exist. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that. All that is left is looking at all the arguments for and deciding which one is the most convincing to you. That at the end of the day is subjective and personal.

However it is childish to assume that because someone has not come to the same decision as you they are mentally defective or whatever other insult takes your fancy. If religious belief was so obviously irrational, flawed and wrong then why would so many of the greatest human beings that ever lived, (scientists, philosophers, historians, activists) had faith in God? And you have no right to separate a persons actions from their faith or explain away their religion as if its an irrelevant part of them, only that person has the righ to do that. This sort of totalitarian argument, that you either agree with me or your irrational, stupid, gullible, dumb and are undeserving of respect is certainly what is undesirable about religious people and it doesnt look any better when its used by athiests.

redshifter · 08/12/2013 12:20

Dione, because I (just me, not speaking for anyone else on this thread) find some religious beliefs disgusting and dangerous and a bad thing for humanity. I want to ridicule these beliefs and sometimes that involves ridiculing the people that have them.
I don't want to hurt these people but sometimes it is unavoidable.

I struggle to understand how my comments can be so hurtful to people who have strong faith. Unless it hurts them because their have a lot of doubts and it challe ges their faith.

If your faith is strong you will not be hurt by what I say. Which sort of makes my point why it is a waste of time debating. But as backonly said, other people will be reading this thread, so I will persevere.

peacefuloptimist · 08/12/2013 12:24

*arguments for and against and deciding which one is the most convincing to you.

crescentmoon · 08/12/2013 12:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

crescentmoon · 08/12/2013 12:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AnyBagsofOxfordFuckers · 08/12/2013 12:31

That's an answer, crescent, but not the answer to the specific question that I posed.

Yet again, the question is: how does an adult saying they believe someone unprovable and invisible exists just because a books says so, NOT sound a bit mentally ill?

DioneTheDiabolist · 08/12/2013 12:33

What is it that you find "disgusting and dangerous and a bad thing for humanity" Red?

KittensoftPuppydog · 08/12/2013 12:34

Crescent moon. Those benefits are not peculiar to religion. And believing that a sky fairy is helping you may be nice, but does not mean that you are more sane than the rest of us.

KittensoftPuppydog · 08/12/2013 12:36

Dione- don't tell me you've missed the history of religion completely?

FreudiansSlipper · 08/12/2013 12:51

redshifter what religious beliefs do you find dangerous and disgusting?

AnyBagsofOxfordFuckers · 08/12/2013 12:52

Many studies have also linked the ability to believe in religious/supernatural matters with either neurological difference or mental health issues with neurological origins. Studies have shown that certain areas of the brain in people with religious belief either work differently, do not work, or work where it has stopped working in the minds of adults (but still in children), than in the minds of people who do not profess to having any religious or supernatural beliefs. All these areas link to rationality, suspension of disbelief, sequential (linking) processing, sophistication of perception, ability to understand nuance, gullibility and susceptability and so on.

Misconceptions about mental health make many people take offense at the term. But to have some mental health issues is far more common and normal than to not have. It also does not mean that people cannot live roch, fullm productive, happy lives, or even acheive excellence and benefit mankind. Many of the world's greatest figures have suffered mental health problems, and, in fact, much of what they achieved was because of their issues: Mozart is now considered to have been bipolar (as well as having Tourette's), and his genius was achieved in his manic phases. Shakespeare suffered from deep depressions, which is where he sourced many of his most profound insights into the human condition. Many of the great female mystics, such as Julian of Norwich, suffered from anorexia, and were in heightened/disturbed states when they had many of their 'visions'.

As for great figures of the past all being religious, this is a spurious and amateur point of debate: in the past, it was often actually illegal to not be religious, and there was no other framework for people to think or act outside of. Moral, compassionate works were done in the name of religion because there was not other way in which they could be done, or described. Artists, and others, had to produce work that fitted in with 'allowed' forms of art, or what their patrons paid them for, which was either portraits or religious depictions. Scientists were forced away from any work that might threaten the notion of God. And many people were executed,barred or shunned, their work destroyed or forgotten, who stepped outside these narrow religious frameworks.

People really need to understand wider contexts if they are going to start opening up debate into these sorts of realms.

Abrahamlincolnsghost · 08/12/2013 13:01

The lack of ability on this thread to accept that there may be things that cannot yet be proven is astounding.

Many of our ancestors believed the world was flat and that you could fall of it. Those who thought it was round were initially considered mad!! Not very long ago another planet very similar to earth was discovered who knows if there is life on it or not.

You may not be able to prove god exists but you cannot prove he doesn't either!!