Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

1000 replies

Hakluyt · 03/10/2014 15:17

.....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?

OP posts:
FrustratedBaker · 21/10/2014 22:38

In that case this question of yours

Why do you assume that atheists ( which are not a cohesive groups) think that the "explanation will eventually emerge"?

is answered simply by

I don't. As I explained before your post.

bigbluestars · 21/10/2014 22:38

"So if someone tells you 'I'm a Christian' how do you perceive them?"

From a distance ideally.

FrustratedBaker · 21/10/2014 22:40

BigBlueStars: your posts indication you have joined the crew who need to insult because they can't follow an argument.

Are you able to explain the flaw you pointed out earlier? To say what the flaw is with the sentence

'Something always existed, or something didn't always exist.'

FrustratedBaker · 21/10/2014 22:41

BigDorrit: Is that response based on scorn? What is that scorn based on?

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 21/10/2014 22:42

Well, for me the obvious flaw would be that it's not true.... But supposing it was, why would the answer be 'and I know why it always existed: godz'?

BackOnlyBriefly · 21/10/2014 22:55

That is why I put prophets in inverted commas. There is evidence for stories in the Bible, and people written about in the Bible.

You were presenting it as evidence when you said this.

Build on that, with empirical evidence of the existence of 'prophets' and of stories in the Bible and the Quran, and you have plenty of reasons to believe in God.

Because there is no empirical evidence of the existence of 'prophets' at all you do not have "plenty of reasons to believe in God". You have none at all.

FrustratedBaker · 21/10/2014 23:12

TheOriginalSteamingNit: How is it not true?

BoB: there is evidence that characters in the Bible existed, though not evidence that a deity was involved. There is certainly evidence of the existence of 'prophets' - i.e. people who are claimed to have been prophets who actually existed but who may or may not have been prophets.

FrustratedBaker · 21/10/2014 23:16

BigBlueStars: I mistook you for BigDorrit. What is your response 'from a distance ideally' based on? Is it based on scorn? What is the scorn based on?

GarlicOctopus · 21/10/2014 23:32

There's no evidence that Jesus existed.

But if you think there is no explanation for life, the universe and everything, even if we don't ever find out what it is, that's rather bizarre.

Depends on your definition of 'explanation', doesn't it. If you think the explanation is god(s) - and still insist no explanation is needed for their existence - that's even more bizarre, surely? As a thought experiment, there's no difference between "God needs no explanation" and "The universe needs no explanation."

Personally, I'd like the universe to be described before I start thinking about explanations for it.

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2014 01:32

FrustratedBaker yes we've both agreed that you only have evidence at best that some people claimed to be prophets. Therefore that doesn't give you a reason to believe in God as you claimed it did.

FrustratedBaker · 22/10/2014 06:47

There is evidence that characters in the Bible existed, it's plain that even if you aren't a Christian, real accounts of real people give traction to everything else. I'm really not arguing that evidence that characters in the Bible existed is proof of God. If you don't see how a religion can grow or want to continue to deny evidence that characters in the Bible exist I really don't care.

By explanation I mean - the truth about what happened, how and why.

'As a thought experiment, there's no difference between "God needs no explanation" and "The universe needs no explanation." This is nonsense. 'Personally, I'd like the universe to be described before I start thinking about explanations for it.' What does this even mean?

Bob: I have never claimed anything more. Hmm I've assumed you know the difference between reason, proof and evidence, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Original poster
Hakluyt · 22/10/2014 06:53

Well, obviously some people mentioned in the bible existed. I'm not sure what we can extrapolate from that. But I'm not sure what we're talking about now.....

OP posts:
bigbluestars · 22/10/2014 06:54

"real accounts of real people give traction to everything else" -no they don't.

FrustratedBaker · 22/10/2014 06:59

I gave it as a reason for how religions grow, not for proof of God. Do you not understand even that? Someone said : there is no reason whatsoever to believe in God. I said: there's the evidence that we are here, that life is amazing and so on, and there's no explanation for it, and couple that with accounts of 'prophets' and deities mixed in with accounts of real people - it's very easy to see how religion grows, and that people find evidence and reason for religion faith everywhere. It was just somebody saying: there's no reason whatsoever.

Now I think perhaps they meant proof? Perhaps there is a very basic failure here to understand the difference between evidence, proof and reason.

FrustratedBaker · 22/10/2014 07:03

BigBlueStar- yes they do. If somebody tells you something about a real person that is true, you are more likely to believe them if they tell you something about a real person which is false, or about a person who didn't exist at all.

Now that is really not hard to understand.

BigBlueStar: would you mind telling me what your scorn for religious people is based on? Was scorn the basis for your response -' from a distance ideally'?

I wonder if anyone is ready to tell me why this is not true:
Something always existed, or something didn't always exit.

If it helps, I can paraphrase:
Once there was nothing at all, or there was never nothing at all.

Because this is all about the origin of life, and believing impossible things, and people who think they have a monopoly on logic and reason, discovering that they don't.

Original poster
Hakluyt · 22/10/2014 07:04

Ah. I think we all understand how religions grow.

The the things you list as evidence for the existence of God are to me evidence of how wonderful the natural world is. The same things mean different things to different people. It does not for a moment suggest the presence of God to me, although I can see how it does to other people.

OP posts:
Original poster
Hakluyt · 22/10/2014 07:07

We don't know the origins of life. Maybe we will one day find out. But we don't, currently, know.

Now, if everything else suggests to you that there is a God, then it's natural to assume that he was involved in the origins of life. If everything suggests to you that there isn't a a God, then it's natural to assume that he wasn't.

OP posts:
FrustratedBaker · 22/10/2014 07:09

That's great. Well, it's a small point. There's also revelation: people who suddenly had 'the call'. It doesn't mean anything to you, but it's a reason why people believe in God.

At the moment I must admit have much more respect for the understanding of Archbishop of Canterbury than of many atheists, and that gap has widened over the past few days.

Original poster
Hakluyt · 22/10/2014 07:11

"BigBlueStar- yes they do. If somebody tells you something about a real person that is true, you are more likely to believe them if they tell you something about a real person which is false, or about a person who didn't exist at all. "

Really? So if somebody tells me they saw the Pope when they went to Italy, I am more likely to believe them when they go on to tell me that they also saw Mermaids in the Bay of Naples? Because the people in the Bible we know existed are Pope type people........

OP posts:
Original poster
Hakluyt · 22/10/2014 07:12

"There's also revelation: people who suddenly had 'the call'. It doesn't mean anything to you, but it's a reason why people believe in God."

Yes, I know. What is your point?

OP posts:
FrustratedBaker · 22/10/2014 07:13

'We don't know the origins of life.' Obviously.

Why don't you respect people with religious belief?

Original poster
Hakluyt · 22/10/2014 07:15

"'We don't know the origins of life.' Obviously.

Why don't you respect people with religious belief?"

Sorry?

OP posts:
FrustratedBaker · 22/10/2014 07:17

I suppose this thread could end before I get a change to come back. I'd like to say it's been nice, but I've been insulted by so many people it all feels very unpleasant. My view of atheists was neutral, but has really bombed.

FrustratedBaker · 22/10/2014 07:18

You are asking why you should respect people with religious belief. Why don't you already respect them? This is your thread isn't it?

Original poster
Hakluyt · 22/10/2014 07:19

"I suppose this thread could end before I get a change to come back. I'd like to say it's been nice, but I've been insulted by so many people it all feels very unpleasant. My view of atheists was neutral, but has really bombed."

Before you go, could you say why you feel you have been insulted? Do you think disagreeing with you is the same as insulting you?

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.