We're always being told we should respect other people's beliefs, but....

[Hakluyt]

.....what exactly does "respect" mean in this context? I am an atheist, and I am always happy to be challenged on my lack of belief, and am frequently told that I must have no moral compass and that I have to put up and shut up when Christianity imposes itself on me. I have also been told that I must have no sense of wonder- and, on on particularly memorable occasion, that I couldn't possibly have any charitable impulses!

But if I say anything even remotely "challenging" about faith or people of faith,bi am accused of disrespect. So, what exactly does respecting other people's beliefs mean?

"'It is just as possible that an advanced race of extraterrestrials created our universe as an experiment"

Well, it's just as likely as "god did it so he had something to play with"!

You didn't have to use the word "idiots". Your meaning is clear. Anyway.

I am not in the business of dreaming up baseless theories. I don't know what happened before Big Bang. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else.

Your obsession with what-came-from-what is just that - an obsession. It doesn't bring you closer to the truth. So what if you claim that God is eternal or that it came from something? We all know that you are making it up because there is no way that you can actually know such a thing.

The theory of "Maybe an alien race created our universe" is no more laughable than "Maybe an all-knowing all-powerful eternal being created us and will one day judge if we've been good girls and boys". There is no proof either way.

I don't believe either, because I just don't believe stuff without proof.

You, on the other hand, laugh at one theory because there is no proof but believe the other despite the lack of proof, and actually claim that "not only do we not need evidence, it's actively undesirable"

Cote: I don't have an obsession any more than you have an obsession that religion is a fantasy. Whether something came from nothing is central to the core of atheism. It seems clear that many people think they are atheists, and that that is based on reason, when actually they may be agnostics, or confused, or simply have no clue, or have various beliefs, or faith that it will all one day explained, and that far from being based on reason or fact its based on the usual great muddle of human curiosity and wonder and not knowing. An attempt to impose some kind of certainty where there is no certainty.

That's fine, but at least religious people have the advantage of knowing that that is what informs their philosophy and life, while atheists are sometimes deluded into thinking it's all based on fact. Or at least, they given that impression, that they think they're all superior and rational, when they aren't really at all.

That's also, Hakluyt, I think an answer to your question. in your op. We seek to respect the beliefs of others, so long as they don't confound any of our core moral principles, simply because we're most of us in the same boat. None of us know, but we all have faith of one kind or another. So we shouldn't call people idiots, especially when we're on pretty thin ice ourselves.

To be fair, I think there are also unpleasant religious people who are deluded into thinking they are superior and rational, when they aren't that way at all.

"Whether something came from nothing is central to the core of atheism"

No it isn't!

"None of us know, but we all have faith of one kind or another. "

No we all don't. Some of us do. Some of us don't.

OMG you just don't get it.

People who believe in God (Abrahamic) generally believe God created everything.

You scorn this. Therefore you believe that something (which was the start of 'everything') always existed

OR that something (which was the start of everything) once started itself - i.e. came out of nothing. That there once was nothing, and that something then began.

It's a binary possibility. One or the other. You don't know which. But you can't say that you don't know if there's another possibility. There is no other possibility. One side has eternality, the other is mathematically IMpossible.

You don't get to say 'maybe it's something else' without revealing that your 'atheism' is based on the flimsiest of guesswork, supposition and fantasy - which is no basis at all for being scornful of other people. Because it's no 'better' than religious faith.

FrustratedBaker you do know that the general (dictionary) of an atheist is simply "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods" don't you? Creation myths may be core to many religions, but opinions as to how (or if) the universe started aren't actually very important to most atheists, so hardly the stuff of 'belief' in any meaningful way. Personally I find it interesting to read about scientific theory and discovery in this area, but honestly not any more than any other developments or theories. It certainly is not definitional in any way. But then my atheist position isn't really definitional in any case.

I do understand that if you hold your faith at the heart of your life it is difficult to understand that other people just don't have a 'god shaped hole' to fill.

Every now and then I look at the philosophical schools within atheist scholarship and ponder which branch I truly fit. Mostly I am quite apatheist (in that religion/faith isn't something I care about very much), but I also am quite antitheist too (my personal experience with religion was OK, but I've observed some very unethical behaviour in both individuals and organised religions which makes me think on balance the world would be better without religion, plus most organised religion is pretty misogynist which I am obviously against too). I'm not 100% sure gods are impossible so I suppose I could be said to be agnostic, although I think that if there are gods then they have very little relevance to people's lives, so that's back to apatheism/antitheism really. The thing is that no one would have a clue if I talked about those terms, whereas generally speaking no one wodul be surprised to hear me describe myself and my opinions as atheist.

Like I said earlier you think god didn't have a start and always existed but couldn't the universe be the same in that respect. Although I'm not sure how you feel sure it was a god that caused the universe rather than said universe always being there,

I don't feel sure the universe was always there, I don't have any reason to think much else at this point, to add in things unseen as it were.

How does one go from thinking that god started a universe to 'and it's THIS god'. There's as much proof for all the god's that man has ever worshipped. How did you decide it was 'god A' and not 'god B'.

I suppose if i followed it as far as 'yeah I think a god started it off ' but left it at that due to lack of information that would make me a deist would it? But I can't even see a reason to think that because I have no reason to see a god at work anywhere else.

An attempt to impose some kind of certainty where there is no certainty.

I felt I was embracing the fullness of uncertainty when I left religion.

Back when I was a Catholic I always wondered and who created god then (in a bigger fleas have little fleas type way). I don't really see why it's such a good answer to the whole how did it all start question.

I guess the point being made is that it is hardly fair to mock Christians for believing that a creator God designed and made an awesome universe and put everything in the right place and had the sun at precisely the right distance from the earth to sustain life and made earth to rotate slightly so we get day and night etc etc, when the only viable alternative is really that it happened accidentally via big bang and everything just remarkably fell into place in perfect position and life amazingly started and evolved into the absolutely amazing complex array of creatures that we now find. Both take an astonishing leap of faith and one leap is no more laughable than the other.
I respect the Atheists who consistently say they will believe nothing until it is proven,which is at least consistent, but assume that means an atheist does not accept big bang or evolution as they are just the currently deemed to be the most plausible 'theories' and as theories, regular get adapted to fit in with latest scientific discovery.

Okay...I know I will now get lambasted for 'only viable alternative' and not mentioned little green men, so will have to quickly clarify that there are 2 alternatives(I think previously mentioned about 2 million times)

1. the universe has always been 2)it came into being via big bang/God/little green men etc

I hate doing this, vdb- but do you know what a "theory" is in a scientific context- and how it differs from a "hypothesis"?

when the only viable alternative

How do you know there are not 72 other alternatives? There are several theories concerning the origin of the universe that I know of, but religious people talk as though it was Religion versus Science. And not just any religion, but their religion. No Christian creationist seriously considers that it might turn out to be Shiva who created the universe or some entity who has not got around to visiting yet.

I didn't see your correction in time, but in any case what I said stands about the way generally religious people argue that it's science versus their god.

I respect the Atheists who consistently say they will believe nothing until it is proven,which is at least consistent, but assume that means an atheist does not accept big bang or evolution as they are just the currently deemed to be the most plausible 'theories' and as theories, regular get adapted to fit in with latest scientific discovery.

Most people accept evolution because of the sheer weight of the evidence, such as the fossil record. And that the scientific world is open to adapting is it's strength. If a new scientific discovery means that a previous one needs adapting then that's exactly what happens, because it's about a constant progress towards understanding the nature of our universe. The fact that a theory could be discarded, as unlikely as that is, is what makes it science. The scientific model would happily go back to the drawing board because it knew it was one step closer to understanding.

If evolution was thrown out tomorrow it still wouldn't constitute a yes for god, it doesn't work like that.

What headinhands said: "If evolution was thrown out tomorrow it still wouldn't constitute a yes for god, it doesn't work like that." I agree with.

If evolution was admitted by scientists to be completely wrong, most atheists still wouldn't believe in God. It's nothing new. People witnessing Jesus' miracles in real time didn't constitute a yes for God. That's why atheists saying "give me proof" still wouldn't believe.

But heandinghands, I have a question about something you wrote earlier. You said "There's as much proof for all the god's that man has ever worshipped. How did you decide it was 'god A' and not 'god B'."

People have pointed out the bible is accurate from an archeological perspective as well as from a prophetic perspective, and that it existed long before the other "false" gods came along.

So what proof is there that any other gods are real in the same way?

Frustrated - What you have are prejudices that don't reflect my views. Others have said similar. You don't listen but continue to bang on about stuff you think we "believe".

"Whether something came from nothing is central to the core of atheism."

No. It. Is. Not.

As I have said several times before, I call myself an atheist because I don't believe your creation story. There is no proof for it and it sounds made up. That is all. I don't have an alternative story of my own.

Stop for a second and digest the above.

"An attempt to impose some kind of certainty where there is no certainty."

Wrong again. That is what religious people do, with their stories about their deity and the deity's "son" and the "spirit" that impregnated a woman that remained a virgin etc.

I realise that this is an alien perspective for you, but try to understand it: All I know is the collective body of knowledge that is accumulated over the years with scientific observations and experiments. And I know all that, because they have been verified by independent observations & experiments. That is all. There is no "belief without proof" in there whatsoever.

Is that clear? If not, I can repeat it (4th time? 5th?) as many times as it takes for you to understand.

That there are historical accuracies in the bible say nothing for its supernatural claims. There are other religions that claim to have fulfilled prophecies, Psychics now claim to be able to predict events. I thought Hinduism was the oldest religion although age of belief is a moot point because how long something is believed says absolutely nothing about the truth of that belief.

"Cotedazur, I don't know if you are posting links to avoid basic facts"

I posted one link, to a book on quantum physics that I thought you might want to read to address your palpable ignorance on the subject.

I'm sorry if that one link overwhelmed you. Amazon can do that to people if you are not used to reading books, I suppose