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?

My so called "sarcastic" comment was in response to this "Hakluyt - Christians also have another built in accommodation of the illogicality of our God. According to the Bible, if you have proof, then you don't need faith - and what you need is faith to be a proper Christian. (see Doubting Thomas parable). So not only do we not need evidence, it's actively undesirable."

It wasn't sarcastic- it was what I actually thought.

The "straw man" comment was in response to somebody saying that I wanted to get rid of all churches.

And I can't find the "some beliefs are bollocks" comment. I hope I didn't say it about somebody's beliefs on the thread, but I do stand by it. Some beliefs are bollocks.

ok catching up and replying as I go.

There is evidence that characters in the Bible existed, it's plain that even if you aren't a Christian Yes I keep agreeing with you on that.

real accounts of real people give traction to everything else No they don't or you'd believe that Mormons had the one true religion as Joseph Smith certainly existed.

I'm really not arguing that evidence that characters in the Bible existed is proof of God Yes you are and each time I quote you doing so you deny it and then say it again.

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.

Clearly I'm not denying that characters in the Bible exist so you must be repeating that in hopes no one will notice that you are trying to slip in the 'bible characters exist therefore god exists' line.

Once again I will say it. Some of the people in the bible may have existed, but that doesn't prove anything else.

You have no evidence at all for god. You may be able to build a small house with just a few bricks, but you can't build a house with zero bricks.

Evidence for god:
*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"

That's not evidence for god, but evidence for Flobble the giant rabbit.

You have only got to look around you and see that Flobble created the world. How else could it exist?

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.

Absolutely, though I don't think you meant to say what you said there.

They just come to argue and try to disrupt as best they can, because if there is no God then they'd just plonk him in the Santa category and carry on with their lives.

That deserves a thread of it's own and has had several in the past.

There may be no god, but there are certainly religious people and it can be shown that religion is damaging to society and affects atheists too. We are not allowed to carry on with our lives without interference from religion. It's less now than it used to be. At one time you could have us put to death for being unbelievers and if we keep this up there'll come a time when you won't be able to sack people for it, deny them the right to marry or make other major decisions.

And I wonder what "they come to disrupt" etc means re this thread which Hakluyt started

Hakluyt: if that is directed at me, I have a job. If you don't want people to feel upset and bullied, why don't you encourage your fellow atheists to stop using words like stupid and idiots, and accusing them of being on drugs.

It's a shame - but rather revealing - that you find it insulting to have it pointed out that there are two options for 'belief' and that everyone, atheists included, must choose between them or say they don't know which they choose.

There is the option that there is something eternal, or the option that there isn't something eternal. If you don't know, then you don't know which you believe. You cannot say you might believe something else. It is not enough to say you do not have to offer your own story. There are two options only: there is something that is eternal, or not something that is eternal. Existence is absolute, and eternality is absolute.

'Why can't you accept that there may be other options?' one poster asked.

Because there are none.

Of course if you believe in something eternal, you can choose what it is, like God, or aliens, or energy and so on. Or not posit a story at all - just accept there is something eternal.

If you believe there is not something eternal, you believe in a logical and mathematical impossibility. You can do it, if you want. Lots do.

If you don't know, you don't know. But you can't say you might believe in something else, or there might be another option, or something might turn up, because it won't. There are two options. There is something eternal, or there is not something eternal.

This is not an insult. It is a fact.

I think you should know also that I am not here to evangelise. If you read my post about disproving the existence of the Christian God, you would know this. I am here to show that atheists do not have a monopoly on logic and rational thought.

I gave reasons why people believe in God, not why you should believe in God. They are easily understandable reasons. I could give you reasons why people don't believe in God too. I am even-handed.

I've just read back while waiting for a reply. BigDorrit's posts really were very insulting. 'Stupid, you really are an arrogant bell end, repetitive idiocy, are you pretending to be stupid, 13-year-old keyboard warrior', and that's not even counting the sarcasm and superiority.

Baker, I shall regret this, but here goes. In your post about believing in something eternal you make the error, often made by those of faith, of supposing that everyone must have beliefs (as meant in this context.) The fact that I'm an atheist is an outright statement that I do not have any such beliefs.

I don't believe there is 'something eternal', neither that there is nothing. I'm not undecided about what to believe on this matter, or about whether I have a belief. I have no such belief. This is pretty much a definition of atheism.

I do understand why it's hard for people of faith to grasp that atheism isn't an "alternative belief system" or a different kind of faith. But here it is - the complete absence of 'belief' or metaphysical attachment, and complete absence of any need or desire for one.

..........................

To answer your earlier question rather briefly: When I say I'd prefer the universe to be described before worrying about an explanation for it, I mean I think it's more important to know what the universe is made of, whether it has a size and whether that size changes, if so; if it has no size, what does that mean; is there anything beyond 'the universe'; is it in fact an entity; is it the only thing of its kind? Physics offers an assortment of fascinating answers to these questions, none claiming to be definitive. What's the point in seeking explanation for something we cannot even describe?

:) See? I have the capacity for metaphysical thought, without needing attachment to its ideas!

I will add, while I'm here, that all the atheists I know do respect other people's need or desire for metaphysical attachment. However, we get understandably annoyed when they try to insist we must be wrong.

'Frustratedbqker took exception to her views on science bing challenged- but they are provably wrong. '

I've really only expressed a fact, which can't be proved wrong. I've expressed it over and over again, and asked repeatedly for the flaws, or the proof that it's wrong. If you can prove it wrong, then do go ahead Hakluyt.

But as we are talking about proof, I'm am not just 'accusing people of being mean to me' who weren't. They were very insulting, as you can see above. It's definitely possible to challenge an argument without being insulting: what I've seen is the inability to challenge an argument leading to people falling back on insults.

If you can challenge my argument, please do. I would really like that.

Big Dorrit: you may not like it but you obviously cannot challenge it.

Garlic: I don't assume you have beliefs: I say in my post right out that you may not believe either option. Do not twist what I wrote please.

'I don't believe there is 'something eternal', neither that there is nothing.'

Then you don't have a view on which one it is. It doesn't make any difference to the fact that if you did choose to have a belief, it would have to be one or the other.

'I'm not undecided about what to believe on this matter, or about whether I have a belief. I have no such belief. This is pretty much a definition of atheism.'

I assume then that you have no opinion on the origin of life, the universe and everything? Except the opinion that it was not created by God. This is your only opinion on the subject?

'However, we get understandably annoyed when they try to insist we must be wrong.'

Garlic, I am not going to try to insist you are wrong. I can respect your lack of belief, and I would assume from this comment 'all the atheists I know do respect other people's need or desire for metaphysical attachment'
that the respect is reciprocated. This is all I would hope for, and all I would argue for.

I'm sure however that you get that religious people are 'understandably annoyed when they try to insist we must be wrong.' Not all atheists are like you: and quite a few I've come across in the last few days are definitely not.

Having quite a clear head, I must admit I'm not so much annoyed as incredulous at the extent of that lack of respect.

Thanks for your response :)

"I assume then that you have no opinion on the origin of life, the universe and everything? Except the opinion that it was not created by God. This is your only opinion on the subject?"

All the evidence that has ever been put to me suggests that there is no God. That is why I am an atheist.

So God cannot be involved in anything- the origin of life, which child with leukaemia dies and which lives, the opening of a rose bud. The origin of life is not a special case. There are lots of things we don't yet understand- but the one thing we do know is that God is not the explanation.

Hakluyt: I don't assume you have no opinion on the origin of life, I assume Garlic has no opinion on that.

Did you prove my argument wrong yet? It is 'provably wrong' you say. Can you give me the proof.

I assume then that you have no opinion on the origin of life, the universe and everything? Except the opinion that it was not created by God. This is your only opinion on the subject?

Well, no I don't think it was created by my cat, by aliens, by any other religion's gods, or in any deliberate fashion at all! More seriously, having an opinion on the Origin of Everything implies belief - our ignorance is so profound that no genuine opinion can be formed, except through faith.

The opinions held by the scientist do not- or certainly should not- affect the results of the investigation. That is simply a fact of science.

Wow BigDorrit. Chillax. was in response to you being aggressive and insulting. Its not rude to tell someone to take a chill-pill when they're getting bent out of shape.

Guess who I'm quoting. Is a good question.

Oooh! handbags at dawn, is bringing humour to lighten the crossfire from your direction

Cotedazur, I don't know if you are posting links to avoid basic facts, but really, you have to address them in the end. Is not rude, simply stating facts, rather nicely I thought.

I'm surprised at you not understanding. Is a compliment because it suggests the person was considered higher than that.

If you don't understand that knowledge is true belief then I'm a bit meh about our conversation. That's a pretty ordinary thing to need to understand if you are going to start critiquing belief systems, is simply an opinion different to your own, nothing rude about that, Dorrit!

Gosh I do apologise. For little green men insert 'advanced race of humanoid extra-terrestrials' hmm. I think this one kinda matches the spaghetti monster thing you like to whip out periodically.

Obviously the correct response according to you is to cave and cower instead, and it's aggressive to dare to actually post some cogent argument. again, what's rude about calling a bully a bully?

And I do rather think your posts have tried the I'm-so-smart-and-nobody knows-anything-BS yourself and come such a cropper that you had to post links and insults instead of arguments. sounds like someone defending themselves to me, the clue is in the "insults instead of arguments" part

it's a commonly understood philosophical principle. Google it. why is that rude? I know you don't like to google things yourself, but prefer people to cut and paste links so you don't have to do the leg work, but not everyone is like you that way Dorrit

I think you are projecting Cote. Nor do I look down on you - I assumed you would understand to be fair. another compliment, oh and reassurance that there is no dark agenda

OMG you just don't get it. I can see the wide eyes in this line. It's simply expressing a response, again, not a rude one

BigBlue stars - are you joking? always worth clarifying that one, better than assuming people must be kidding

That's, like, understandable by anybody I would have thought. another way to say I can't think of another way to put it any simpler, that's not rude at all

Your posts don't have any logic, BigDorrit, to be fair. was in response to your gunfire, and by the way happens to be very true. But it's been put so nicely, there's no aggression there at all

Do you actually understand this?

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. again, it's saying I had you down as being much bigger than that, aka a compliment, not an insult

Now that is really not hard to understand.underlining the point isn't rude

I wonder if anyone is ready to tell me why this is not true: I am scratching my head in wonder as to how this could be interpreted as insulting

My view of atheists was neutral, but has really bombed what a lovely way to say how awful you've all been, again. Such a gracious person!

Thankyou Pickled :) !

Hakluyt: I have not made a scientific argument, I have made a logical argument. It is absolutely unaffected by opinion:

But you say it's provably wrong. So prove it wrong.

Did you look at the posts Dione made that I was responding to in most of the quotations you posted, Pickled in a Jar?
Yes

And does anyone apart from YECs think they are anything but loons?
Of course, normal people, normal atheists, normal semi-religious people, they all shrug and accept no one was there. Some follow evolution like a religion though, and so seek to ridicule and insult alternative viewpoints.

And I can't find the "some beliefs are bollocks" comment. I hope I didn't say it about somebody's beliefs on the thread, but I do stand by it. Some beliefs are bollocks.
Ironically that's pretty much what you posted then too. That you can't recall saying it, but if you did it must be true. You'd have thought 3rd time round you'd recall it but never mind. Here's a cut and paste to refresh your memory...
^DioneTheDiabolist Sat 04-Oct-14 14:14:41
I thunk calling their beliefs "Bollocks" is disrespectful. However you just suggested that people "forget" that you said that. Maybe starting by not calling people's beliefs "bollocks" would be good.^

^Add message | Report | Message poster Hakluyt Sat 04-Oct-14 14:41:55
Did I say I thought people had forgotten? I can't actually remember calling anyone's beliefs bollocks, but I'm sure I did if you say so. But some beliefs are bollocks. Believing that menstruating women are unclean is bollocks. Men insisting that women are completely covered is bollocks. Cutting bits off newborn babies because god says so is bollocks. Believing that water has memory is bollocks. Believing that people are reincarnated as slugs is bollocks.

I genuinely was surprised at Cotedazur not understanding. And the 'I'm-so'smart' was a direct quote, directed back at the person who first made it. And I was really astounded that people didn't 'get it'. I genuinely couldn't think of ways to put it any simpler. It's true that my opinion of atheists has gone down, mainly because of the problems with understanding a logical argument when the claim generally made is that they are in possession of greater logic and reason.

'having an opinion on the Origin of Everything implies belief'

Exactly! This is absolutely right.

'Our ignorance is so profound that no genuine opinion can be formed, except through faith.'

I disagree a little here: people do form opinions, for example based on the argument that we must assume the physical laws of this universe obtained before the creation of this universe, because physical laws are immutable. So they could then assume that an explanation will eventually be found which will conform to the physical laws of this universe.

Myself: I choose to believe in God, in the face of Christianity almost disproving itself. It's an active choice for me to have faith where there is no proof. It doesn't mean I'm irrational: I know very well what I'm doing. I figure that the option that there is nothing eternal is equally impossible - according to the same logical argument which could disprove God. So I choose to believe in something eternal and I choose to believe that the eternal something is God.

'It's true that my opinion of atheists has gone down, mainly because of the problems with understanding a logical argument when the claim generally made is that they are in possession of greater logic and reason.'

Sorry garlic this isn't aimed at you in any way.

Haha, we agreed on something

To me, your choice to believe in a deity is irrational. But that's not always bad. Everyone makes technically irrational choices every day (I smoke; how irrational is that?!) Some level of irrationality is essential for mental health. If we considered the raw facts of everything we are, and everything we do, every minute of every day - we'd all be even madder than we are.

Actually, this is close to what buddhists aim for. No wonder they have to learn how to switch themselves off regularly