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?

Oh, don't say that, BigDorrit- have you never been sent The Document?. I've got it somewhere- I'll try and find it.

Hakluyt, If you hate to cut and paste (again!) then don't! Rather than run and hide behind your online atheism teacher why don't you actually discuss one of the alleged failures with me, one that you've researched and honestly believe for yourself that it was wrong and can say why, then let's talk.

Well, Quran predicted genetic engineering. If you care to take that passage in that way, if course.

That is the problem with these "prophesies". None of them very clear, all rather ambiguous and/or about stuff they might have known at the time. They can be taken as meaning different things.

If any book said "We put the same double string entwined together into every little bit of you" or "Our light always goes at the same speed in every direction", then you would have much less trouble trying to convince people that this stuff is written by a divine intelligence.

Prophecies, obviously.

"Hakluyt, If you hate to cut and paste (again!) then don't! Rather than run and hide behind your online atheism teacher why don't you actually discuss one of the alleged failures with me, one that you've researched and honestly believe for yourself that it was wrong and can say why, then let's talk."

How about you choose one that you know to have come true. I am sure you have done much more research in this area than I have. Your own personal research, remember.

If a scientists believes in God they approach it from the angle of changes with decay over the years that we use to measure something we can't observe or test because we weren't there (radiocarbon dating for example).

But if a scientist doesn't believe in God they approach it from the angle of there being no changes with decay rates, and this gives a much older reading.

What do you mean by changes with decay rates?

Google "radiometric dating - Christian perspective". Enjoy.

With regards to prophecies, that's the problem, it means nothing to me that a book says x will happen and that the same book says later on x did happen. I've got a book here that my god made me write 40 years ago that says Obama would be president of the US. See. Now god was happy to do miracles to prove his deity like resurrecting all those people at the crucifixion. Why can't he do that very generation. Or do it when we all had cameras?

If I was god i'd materialise in the office of the Bishop of Canterbury and say 'get a pen and paper, this is exactly how xyz is gonna pan out'. And then get him to pay to have it published on the front of all the major newspapers. That's how I'd do if I cared about people having proof through prophecy.

And I'm sorry if me wanting proof sounds like me just being argumentative as an earlier poster stated but come on! what evidence would a Christian want before decoding that Allah was the true god. That's probably getting close to what I need. (Now)

There are hundreds of accurate prophesies within the bible and not one single one that was wrong.

That is simply not true. If it were true that even one could be shown to be a true prophecy that would be huge news. It would be the end of science and the end of all other religions. It would mean your religion was the true one so all the others would close down.

The ones that are supposedly true come in several flavours.
There's the kind where someone wrote about a seven headed serpent eating another serpent and someone says "hey there are 7 countries in the EU so it must refer to that".

There is actually a prophecy like that. I don't recall the details, but it's as silly as that.

Recently someone mentioned the prophecy that the city of Tyre would be utterly destroyed and would never rise again.

Believers say "See! that one came true". But if you call up EasyJet you can get a package flight to Tyre. It's still there really.

Of course the believers say "ah but it was sort of destroyed - this isn't the same city really...." because they really want it to be true.

Then there's the ones where someone reads an old prophecy and acts it out. There is a wonderful quote in the NT with Jesus saying "ok I'll wait here and you go into town and fetch me a donkey to ride. That way it will fulfil the prophecy"

It's right there! Jesus admitting he is faking it.

I'll have another go. The idea behind this thread is to question why we should respect religious belief.

There are people who scorn religious belief because of the damage it does in the world. That's not my argument. Others scorn it because of stances that conflict with empirical evidence, for example Creationism. That's not my argument.

My argument is with those who scorn religious belief because their own stance is informed by reason, logic and reality rather than what they see as irrationality and fantasy. This is my argument.

Stuff always existed or it didn't always exist. This is an absolute truth. It doesn't make me a god to say it, but if you can prove it wrong, then you probably are a God.

There is no half way house. Everyone, not just atheists, believes that
A. stuff always existed
B. Stuff didn't always exist

or C. They don't know which.

There is nothing else. There is no third way.

If you believe A. you believe in something eternal. This is where various theories come in. Religious people believe it's God. Atheists believe it could be anything except God - energy, consciousness, intelligence, matter, time, space, aliens, other dimensions, anything at all. Or they might just believe in something eternal but don't know what it is. They offer no theories, just say they don't know.

If you believe B. you believe stuff came out of nothing, which is impossible (even the Royal Astronomical Society calls it crazy). That is as logically flawed as believing in an impossible God.

If you don't know which it is, you simply believe there is no God, without any logical reason for it. I have assumed that atheists who don't know which one they believe, do themselves assume that the explanation will eventually emerge and that it will conform to the physical laws of this universe as they've been since its creation with the big bang 13 gojillion trillion years ago or whenever it was. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. There's no evidence for this assumption, because we don't know what went before the big bang. So that would be a faith. A belief.

So there are three options. You believe in something eternal (like religious people). You believe in a logical impossibility. Or you have faith that the physical laws of this universe applied before the creation of this universe and possibly before the creation of space and time, for which there is no evidence for this.

Thus those atheists who scorn religious belief on the grounds that their own stance is informed by a more profound logic and rationality have no basis for doing so. Thus, it would be helpful if this could be acknowledged - and therefore a greater equilibrium of respect would obtain between religious people and atheists.

"There is no half way house. Everyone, not just atheists, believes that
A. stuff always existed
B. Stuff didn't always exist

or C. They don't know which.

There is nothing else. There is no third way. "

This assumption is flawed so makes a nonsense of your analysis.

Stuff always existed or it didn't always exist

Well I have a car that didn't always exist, but I'll assume you mean the basic building blocks always existed.

If you don't know which it is, you simply believe there is no God, without any logical reason for it.

You've had that mistake explained to you so many times. Do you really not get it yet?

We can simply not know.

If I show you a sealed box you don't know what's in it. Does that mean you must believe god is in it or believe god is not in it?

Btw you can reject scorning religious belief because of the damage it does in the world or because it conflicts with empirical evidence if you like, but those are perfectly good reasons which others are ok with.

BigBlue stars - are you joking? how is it flawed?

BigDorrit: you may hope you will find out eventually, but what is that hope based on?

I am not afraid of not knowing - it's ok to say you don't know anything about the origin of matter, of energy, of life. What's NOT ok is to then pretend you do know - that you know, for example, that God doesn't exist.

Badkonlybriefly: seriously, I'm not talking about your car

Yes, you can not know. I said that. But it's one or the other. You don't know which it is. Do you understand that part? There cannot be anything else other that something always existing, or something not always existing. Your choice is eternality, logical impossibility, or belief in an explanation that we don't yet understand and may never understand.

That's, like, understandable by anybody I would have thought.

Don't be daft. No one knows that there isn't some kind of god. After all someone might believe that 'god' is a natural occurrence that caused a big bang. There is no agreed upon definition of god so in that sense it's a meaningless question.

All we can do is say that there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that there's a personak god of the kind worshipped by Christians/Muslims etc

We can also say in some cases that a specific belief can be disproved.

You keep saying that if you don't know then you have to believe something. That's where you are going wrong.

Frustrated- but that is a huge assumption.

You talk of "stuff" although I am not sure what you mean by that.

There could be many other possibilities rather than the two you give, and you are being quite arrogant in assuming that you have the two answers- one of which is correct.

I am no quantum physicist, but the complexities and relationships between space, time, matter and energy are only beginning to be understood. Do you understand E=mc2?

In the instant before the big bang there was very little, and probably no space either. 99% of the seat you are sitting on is empty space.

Why can't you accept that there may be other options?