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?

Ops, typo, I would respect them
Not repeat them!

I'll tell you what respecting other's beliefs isn't.

Attending Messy Church (clue's in the name and location). Availing yourself of an hour's free craft and play sessions. Stuffing your face with a lovely tea. All completely free. And spending the 20 mins of low-key children's church service chatting to your friend, while your 7 and 8 yos rampage around the church like overgrown toddlers (and other people's 2 & 3 yos are sitting nicely on the carpet joining in).

Tallulah - would messy play also mean that it doesn't require sitting still? An honest question as I've never been to such events but I'd sort of expect it to be slightly chaotic, and it probably wouldn't offend me if other people treated it that way.

Having said that, if they made it clear they requested 20 min quiet sitting at the end, is either make sure if we stayed we complied - out of respect- or is made a quick exit.

For some reason I'd is coming out as is!

I agree. That is extremely disrespectful.

As is the way Beach Missions and similar attract children with interesting looking games and stuff without mentioning the evangelical element up front.

There is a time and a place to respect somebody's beliefs.

Fine to discuss the existence/non-existence of god on a thread or if somebody wants to discuss god. Not fine to stand outside a church on a Sunday and ridicule the existence of god.

Fine to say homeopathy is a load of rubbish. Not fine to tell somebody you have just met at a party that they are a con artist if you find out they are a homeopath. (Maybe here you would politely probe their understanding of how it works rather than launch into a tirade).

Fine to say you don't believe in heaven. Not fine if you are talking to a recently bereaved person who does.

Etc. etc. etc.

Atheism isn't a belief system, obviously ah but it is based on blind faith in much the same way that another has faith in the existence of something unproven to exist. Both positions are that of blind faith. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, or are they. Opinion is free, getting to the truth of the matter should be the aim. It isn't disrespectful to question things.

Everyone must walk their own path for sure.

Just kindly towards one another with consideration and respect.

The trouble is that religion stirs up strong emotional responses and so
often people don't know why.

But yes, of course we're all entitled to our own (different) opinions and beliefs.

Also asking questions is expected, surely?

Asking nicely that is

"Atheism isn't a belief system, obviously ah but it is based on blind faith in much the same way that another has faith in the existence of something unproven to exist."

Atheism is not based on blind faith. Atheism is based on the fact that there is no evidence at all for the existence of god.

GotAnotherQuestion you go from table to table, so although it's noisy it is relatively controlled. No mad dashing about. There is an hour of that, then everyone files into church for 20 mins to hear a story/watch a short film (usually there is a theme, like Esther, or Joshua), sing a couple of songs with actions and say a grace. It's very child-focussed and they normally ask them which of the activities they've done and chat to a few of them. Then back out for tea.

There is no evangelising and no preaching and no prayers. They just expect that adults behave as if they are in a church. They get that little tiny children will run about and that's fine. And babies will make noises. But primary school aged children should understand that when all the other kids are sitting and listening, you do too. It's not as if there are long silences for them to get bored by. My own 7 yo has ADHD and can't sit still but she knows we don't run about. She was horrified by their behaviour. Clearly inspired by their incredibly rude mothers.

"Atheism isn't a belief system, obviously ah but it is based on blind faith in much the same way that another has faith in the existence of something unproven to exist."

So my unbelief in fairies is actually a belief?

We all be in the matrix of course.

Could all be in the matrix.

Must have been a glitch in the system when I typed that.

Tallulah - would I be right in thinking that the organisers would accept all sorts of people, the selfish and the unselfish alike? Kind of displaying the Christian values of embracing all types, those that we naturally warm to as well as those that we feel aren't acting 'properly'. Perhaps they hope that by being welcomed they will view it as a different type of love they're accustomed to and may thaw out or learn to fit in with the services better.

It makes me cross when people babble in the cinema too but where you get people you get all sorts of values and behaviours and if I can't hear I would be inclined to say a parental shush which usually works when other people do it!

Deepblue - yes I would say you believe fairies exist or that they don't. I believe they don't but I know some
people believe they do.

Gotanother- so evidence counts for nothing then?

Yes its based on blind faith. There is no proof of gods existence but equally it can not be proven not to exists. Its unfalsifiable.

deepbluetr, yes it is your belief that they do not exist. I could say,

"I have mowed every lawn, ploughed up every field and then I have to the best of my knowledge looked under every tree and thus far, I have not found fairies" then someone else comes along and says "hey look, I lifted up a plant pot and look what I have here" Again its unfalsifiable. I don't believe in fairies, I can't prove that they do not exist.

But the onus of proof is with those that make the claim.

Evidence counts little when you talk about belief because belief isn't rooted in science. That's just what you deeply think is the truth regardless on common sense/science/wield around you.

But the onus of proof is with those that make the claim.

I don't really agree with this. This is because when someone disputes a claim they are really making a counter claim. In my opinion both have an onus to prove their claims, if they want to demonstrate the claims as factual.

But the onus of proof is with those that make the claim

Claims

1. fairies exist
2. Fairies don't exist

Both beliefs here are based upon a claim, so the onus is on both equally to prove the truth of their claim.

You're right mini, no one can truly be athiest by definition. But that doesn't mean the chances of a god are therefore 50/50 and each has a valid claim. You can only conclusively prove something in mathematics. In science things are defined by certain levels of credibility based on the evidence.

I'm as sure as I can be that no gods exists so I refer to myself as athiest to avoid confusion.

Evidence counts little when you talk about belief because belief isn't rooted in science

But science is to some degree rooted in belief. Every fact is a theory, every theory a hypothesis.

Actually I am not keen on Poppers hypothesis, I'm just playing with the idea of falsification.

I'm actually more of an empiricist and feel that even if you apply poppers falsification theory to science, the process by which you derive a question(s) tends to be bound up with other known "facts" so I could pose a question, but that would always be based upon something/some phenomena that I have already observed. But even then, when I observe something, test it to see that it happens all the time, can be repeated by the same process, I assume that on 100th attempt to replicate this finding the result will be the same, it might not be!!

Do I think we should always respect people's opinions, no, all opinion should be put to the test, but I do respect other peoples right to hold an opinion, question mine and think they should be open to having their's interrogated too.