What does "respecting other people's beliefs" actually mean?

[Hakluyt]

I am often told I should - and I have been told that I haven't. But I genuinely don't know what it means.

I am a great believer in good manners, and I would always be polite if I was attending some sort of faith based event. I never go on prayer threads. I do try never to be rude. But the threshold for "disrespect" seems extraordinarily low- sometimes mere disagreement seems unacceptable.

Also, what constitutes a "belief"? The major world religions- OK- I get that. But do I also have to respect "new" religions made up in the 1970s/80s? Kabbalah? Is homeopathy a belief? If I say, for example "homeopathy is discredited bollocks and this is why" is that a public service or disrespecting someone's beliefs? Is astrology a "belief"?

Atheism isn't a belief system, obviously, but am I entitled to be offended and report the post if someone says that atheists lead empty lives devoid of joy? Or if someone says that science is evil and devoted to hiding the evidence for the paranormal/ the cure for cancer/whatever for it's own selfish ends?

"I believe (when it is your own personal belief) Obviously.

There is no empirical proof, that I am aware of, to show...(when referring to research)"

And what about when there is empirical proof that it does not work? As in homeopathy?

Hak

Why on earth would you think that?

I did not think or think it, was just taking your words at face value. Since you are trying very hard to be respectful, choosing words carefully it shows, doesn't it that they still can be misconstrued.

And what about when there is empirical proof that it does not work? Just state that then, if you want to. Xx....showed that....in xxx cases...xxx happened / did not.

If this is something that you are having real difficulty with Hak, I recommend the Transactional Analysis (ego states & basic transactions) by Theramin Trees on YouTube.

Dione.

Do you think that it should be the believer who decides whether or not the non believer is being disrespectful?

And please could you actually answer a direct question directly.

"And what about when there is empirical proof that it does not work? Just state that then, if you want to. Xx....showed that....in xxx cases...xxx happened / did not."

Capsicum, so it is never OK just to say "this does not work"?

Even though is it OK for believers to say, without supporting evidence, "this does work"?

Dione- I think that you might benefit from taking your own advice.

As I asked Dione- is it up to the believer to decide if the non believer is being disrespectful?

Hak

*Capsicum, so it is never OK just to say "this does not work"?

Even though is it OK for believers to say, without supporting evidence, "this does work"?*

I am reminded of what I said on another thread, we were both commenting on, here:

if you absolutely believe something to be true, with every fibre of your being, before much too much time you will be talking about it in terms of fact, because you truly believe it.

I have to continually remind myself, because a lot of what I believe is by faith, that is not proven in the most absolute scientific empirical sense, other posters will not exercise their faith in the same things as myself. To be very honest I forget sometimes, to state what I take by faith is my belief because I do believe it IYSWIM.

And it is this forgetfulness that riles the more scientifically (in terms of their world view of truth) inclined....I usually do have to reiterate I talk in terms of my faith and belief at some point in the conversation.

So we all really should make known the source of what we are saying, whether it forms part of our Faith, or we are referencing some piece of research, or we are speaking from our own experiences. But it very easy to forget to do this.....the view becomes internalized and spoken as if it originates from ourselves.

I think that the person who initially switches from the Adult position is the person who is being disrespectful. It could be the believer, it could be the non believer.

What advice are you talking about?

The interesting thing is that homeopathy does make people better IF they believe in it, due to the fabby placebo effect. Religion, where it is focussed on positive attitude and respect and caring behaviours to others, also makes people better through forming positive habits underpinned by faith in the results/importance of these things. I think in many of these cases it is less important to prove that we are right.

Kindness to others is really good for your own health. It's also the fundament of most religions. So as a code to live by, any religion is good for your health.

Please apply "I believe that..." to all the above, because I cba to find links to research.

crescent In Romans, Paul is writing to the church in Rome. He talks, essentially, about the righteousness which is of God.

I do not respect the belief itself.

I usually don't respect the person for believing something so stupid or ignorant.

but i do respect their right to that belief.

It winds me right up when I hear people say " you have to respect other people's beliefs".
And you hear people say this A LOT.
No, you don't. If you think their beliefs are a loads of dangerous twaddle, then why on earth "should" you respect them? Says who?
People trot these platitudes out without thinking at all.
It annoys me almost as much as "morality IS all relative isn't it"
Aaaaarrrghh.

Rpitchfo - so to take Martin Luther King as an example, you wouldn't respect him because he believed in something "so stupid and ignorant"?

If someone believes something stupid or dangerous, I don't repsect their right to have that belief. Is it even a "right" to possess a particular belief? A person has a right to express that belief, and I will respect the codes of free speech protecting that, but not the individual's right to hold a belief I find abhorrent.
If that makes sense? (In a rush as at work)

I feel massively disrespected when someone says 'that is bollocks'.

I feel slightly less disrespected when someone says 'in my opinion, that is bollocks'. Although it still comes across as rude.

I feel respected when someone says something like: 'I can't agree with you because I see things differently from you, this is the way I see things...'

Homeopathy doesn't work. Quite right, it's merely very expensive water.

The impact of saying 'x is a load of bollocks' is to make you sound like you have no time for the person who believes it isn't a load of bollocks. So you shoot them down and quite often, might not get any further with that person. Basically giving the impression that you have no need for anyone who believes in homeopathy in your life. Or if they choose to argue, not walk away, that ends up being all the conversation is about.

But you might miss out on a really interesting conversation, on something you both value talking about, if you were a bit more respectful initially and just noted that you don't believe in homeopathy (or whatever) rather than being inflammatory. It smacks of arrogance, which is offensive whoever you are, tbh.

Homeopathy harnesses the placebo effect! So it does work! Not in the way people claim, but it does. The people who swear blind it works are actually being clever (in a way) and maximising the placebo impact on their physiology which can be substantial, which is sensible, because 'real' drugs should be a last resort. Obviously it's wrong to tell people it's the only route to wellness, but the placebo effect shouldn't be ignored. Pharmaceutical companies don't run double blind trials because it's fun to piss money up the wall, they do it because they HAVE to because belief is so powerful they have to prove their drug works over and above that!

So the person who swears homeopathy cured their cough might be right. And you can't disprove that by saying its bollocks. So why be rude? There's no need.

Where things are proven not to work, and in fact fly in the face of all scientific understanding (eg: homeopathy, faith healing etc) then I think it's fine to say "x does not work". Nobody feels the need to say "in my opinion, the earth orbits the sun" - we accept these things and woo is no different.

Now, we cannot categorically prove there is no god/gods/fairies. It's impossible to prove the existence of the negative. What it seems reasonable to say is that there is zero evidence for gods/fairies/teapots orbiting the earth and so you don't believe, and it seems very reasonable to me to question why someone would believe that.

I think it's fascinating that we have socially acceptable delusions (IMO religion, spiritualism, woo) and others which while they are essentially the same premise, woukd have you labelled mentally ill. Someone will no doubt be along to tell me that last para is disrespectful.

Pomeral, I find what you are saying is infantilising. It's suggesting that adults should be lied to about the efficacy of treatment because it's in their best interests.

And some people choose this nonsense over actual medicine and suffer and some die, and some children die because their parents are misinformed.

Lies are rarely preferable to the truth.