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?

merrymouse yep we would be in a pickle without our phones. Although imagine a medieval flat earther encountering a phone, or better still encountering the idea that one could exist.

Hakluyt, good point but as others have pointed out, opinion and consensus is central to science. Wakefield is a good example,(not that I think he was correct, for the record and dangerous too) I agree that a scientist will go back to the drawing board, but he must have the funding, the support of his peers and his work is subject to vested interests at every stage. People are social creatures, we make choices, use preference, have opinion, have special interests, biases and we have a political/ideological structure in which all this happens. Of course "real" medicine trumps everything, because its claim to validity isn't something that occurs just in relation to all other claims, but because of the structure in which everything happens.

GotAnotherQuestion you said "Backonlybriefly - what FACT of proof is there that God doesn't exist in your opinion?"

Do you have difficulty reading English. Take a look at what I actually said again and if necessary get someone to read it to you.

Hak is this thread helping your understanding of respecting other people's beliefs?

It shocks me how in this day and age people still believe in God.

And even worse those who people in prophets, especially jesus christ.

And that's coming from someone in a practicing Sikh family.

No-one should have to respect anyones beliefs.

I could believe in unicorns, no-one is going to respect that are they?

And my view of atheism is:

Woman 1: I believe oranges are purple.
Woman 2: They're orange.

Woman 2 is the atheist :)

And I love how people try and discredit science, yet have absolutely no proof, no hypothesis, no actual data on how god could possibly be real.

Ohhh Backonlybriefly - did that question hit a nerve?

Ohhh Backonlybriefly - did that question hit a nerve?

Ohhh Backonlybriefly - did that question hit a nerve?

Ohhh Backonlybriefly - did that question hit a nerve?

Ohhh Backonlybriefly - bit of a knee jerk reaction there - did that question hit a nerve?

Cote. The layman is not bright enough to read research papers imo.

Research papers can most definitely be biased. Not sure if anyone is disputing that?

Ohhh Backonlybriefly - bit of a knee jerk reaction there - did that question hit a nerve?

You said:
BackOnlyBriefly 11/06/14 14:55: "You misunderstand. It is a FACT that no evidence has been found for a God."

And so I asked:

"What FACT or proof [evidence] is there that God doesn't exist".

I then went on to ask along the lines that tell me if I'd missed a vital piece of scientific study you're referring to.

No need to ask me to have it read out to me. It's beautifully fully understood and a question that what, you can't answer? No need to try and make out I can't read though, just because you don't like the question. That's a bit school playground don't you think?

Oh dear, when Mumsnet says it's "unable to connect", I see it's busy posting an unfinished message repeatedly!!!!

Dione very good question.

I have to say, I like science and am a scientist. I also have beliefs, some of which are very strong. And most of which aren't mainstream at all.
Ive looked at those beliefs and made the choice to believe them 'despite the lack if scientific evidence' because I think these are areas where we actually have no scientific proof because 1- we can't get one or 2- we aren't advanced enough/have done the research in that area/just haven't a clue. So I've made a judgement call on that.

What I have major problem with are people who say that because there is no scientific proof then it's wrong. And the ones who are so attached to what they think us right (their beliefs?) refuse to listen to people giving them other explanation or information.
Unfortunately there are plenty of people in that last group, some of which are 'science based' and others who are 'belief based'.
And the ones attached to science are sometimes the hardest because they keep going on about the one study that showed that xxxx when we should always take a more global view of the research done (they can contradict each other) as well as the reliability of said research (something we've already talked about).

This is on these grounds that I think respect should always come in. Respect if other people beliefs doesn't stop you from having your own thoughts. But it should stop you from trying to impose them, regardless if you think the others are bonkers to think like this.

Virgolia - my version is:

Woman 1: "I believe oranges are orange."

Woman 2 (atheist) "no they're not, they're purple".

Woman 1: "you believe they're not purple but I believe they're orange"

Woman 2 (atheist) "how dare you say I believe oranges are purple just because I don't believe they're orange!"

Ppplease - of course research papers can be biased! Everyone knows that.

pp actually even if Cote can read some research in one area, I doubt she can do it on all research. By that I mean reading the proper original articles and do a thorough search if all stories done to get an unbiased pov (or as much as one can be done).
So even for people who can read some science there are entry of areas where you have to rely on the simplified version and what other people are telling us IS. Which us basically what a belief is.

DaVinci - your post is so refreshingly balanced.

I second it, especially the last paragraph about where respect comes in, despite differing viewpoints or beliefs.

Hakykut - you mention in one of your last posts that science will "go back to the drawing board" if new evidence is flagged up, but while that should be the case, it isn't always.

Did you read any of the links about peer review research papers? There are loads of hits when you google search problems with peer review. It's clear that 'new' evidence papers can get no further than the publishers desk and conversely fake evidence papers have made it through.

It's perhaps sometimes done correctly but not always. And it's that 'not always' that makes me open to sconce but with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Look at the current statins argument!

It's by no means perfect. But it's like democracy- the worst system, except for all the others. At least the statins thing is being talked about.

Ok so, based on your exact wording, where is the evidence that there is no evidence?

BigDorrit, not desperate, just calling it how it is

Desperate is getting agitated and needing to get personal and sarcastic about a person's grasp of English, just because you disagree with what they say.