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?

And now I'm being accused of being spiteful. How very, very odd.

I'm agnostic as to whether there was nothing or 'something' before the existence of this universe. I'm an atheist because either way I see no necessity to invoke a supernatural entity.

I didn't say you're spiteful Hakaluyt! Don't be sensitive about it, I am pointing out the opposite to respect on this, or any other, thread.

Errol, to be fair I haven't seen much of you around and don't think you've proven yourself to be out and out rude like some people claiming to be atheists are.

So perhaps it doesn't apply to you because you manage to differ in opinion while maintaining a level of respect to your fellow-human!

BigDorrit, there is no evidence for nothing coming from nothing. It is illogical. Therefore it is not different.

Unless you can show me some research, the proof you say that you have, claiming to prove there was nothing right at the very start?

Easy mistake to make when you address a post to me by name than end it "You don't have to compromise your views just by choosing to be nice to someone that you happen to disagree with. So why be spiteful? There is just no need."

I repeat, there is no "atheist" view of the origins of life or the universe. Any more than the is an atheist view on capital punishment, taxation or global warming. All atheists have q collective vie on is th existence or non existence of God. Nothing else

What happens out of interest when we get to 1000 comments....do we all turn into pumpkins? Or will we need to think up a new thread? This one has encompassed so many issues, we could have had about 10 threads running alondside each other.It has certainly had me researching all sorts of stuff on the internet.Good to keep my brain busy whilst stuck at home with my leg elevated. Will be sad to get back to work and have to squeeze MN into a few minutes after the kids are in bed. Still, that's not anytime soon so I will enjoy it while I can!

Yes an easy mistake for me to have made too, I will try to remember to make it clear I've stopped referring to just you next time!

What you said about there being 'no atheist view' on the origins of life or the universe Is different to what comes across on threads like this. You get the staunch evangelical atheists (I've stopped talking about you specifically now) who take it upon themselves to trample all over people who disagree with them, and often their alleged supremacy is hinged on their views on the origins of life and the universe. That's why someone which a different view to theirs comes under fire of insults and sarcasm, and definitely no respect.

I think I've read some people even suggesting they don't need to respect alternative viewpoints, theirs is the superior view, in their (humble?) opinion, and they think it give them licence for everyone else to be treated as rudely as they wish.

You know the alleged 'illogicality' of something coming from nothing? Frustrated codified this as '1 + 1 = 0, illogical'.

However, it may be that the sum turns out to be:
0 = 1 + -1

The theistic equation - invoking a supreme being - could be codified as 0 = 1 and there's no way to make that logical (though of course believers don't have to, conveniently )

I've read some people even suggesting they don't need to respect alternative viewpoints

I think you may mostly mean 'alternative facts' which is what many religious people are offering. So no you don't get to have alternative facts.

If someone is claiming that 2+2=5 I'm not going to say "well.. you are just as likely to be right as me"

I've read some people even suggesting they don't need to respect alternative viewpoints

Some alternative viewpoints are not respect-worthy. It's been discussed upthread and I thought people generally agreed with that? For instance, I have no respect whatever for the viewpoint some people have (and claim their religion supports), that women should be subservient to men.

I've read some people even suggesting they don't need to respect alternative viewpoints.

It's the old cliche isn't it - you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If someone claims something like whichever world-view you begin with gives entirely different readings at the end result (in relation to C14 dating), why should that go unchallenged? The example was based on a false premise.

And no, i would not respect alternative viewpoints that justify e.g. the mutilation of children, the subjugation of women or the death penalty for apostasy (or for being an atheist). You can hold whatever view you choose, but i don't have to respect it.

The carbon dating thing is not quite as simple as you make it out to be though Velvet Green.Because Evolutionists believe dinosaurs to be millions of years old they will not Carbon date them,they claim that

"Carbon dating dinosaur bones is ludicrous, and the fact they yielded numbers is meaningless," Krishtalka said. While paleontologists use several methods in dating, part of the disparity rests in the need for researchers to make some assumptions about the gross age of bones so the appropriate test method can be used. Carbon-14 dating and mass spectroscopy dating are best for specimens up to 50,000 years or so, Long said.

So when creationists have given dinosaur bones to labs to be carbon dated, they have been dated as much younger because the labs were not told they were dinosaur bones.When told they were dinosaur bones,the labs then claimed that the carbon much have been a contaminate like dust.
That is why I said previously,I wish there were some scientists around who rather than be died in the wool creationists or evolutionists, could just pick up a bone and start from scratch without saying well we know it's millions of years old so no point carbon dating.

"I've read some people even suggesting they don't need to respect alternative viewpoints."

Do you think you have to respect all alternative viewpoints?

Of course nobody will carbon date a million-year-old fossil.

We use radioactive dating for those.

I'm trying to choose my words not to hurt your feelings but, seriously, how do you know so little about this stuff and still think you are in a position to judge the scientific methods employed in dating these ancient findings?

You can't carbon date things that don't have the relevant isotopes in them- and dinosaur fossils don't. It's not a conspiracy! You can Carbon date rocks that are in the strata on each side of the dinosaur fossils and thus make a "window" of age for the bones though.

Egyptians were building pyramids 4,600 years ago ffs.

HOW can anyone with an IQ over 50 not see that the Earth is much older than 4,000 years?

"frustrated is frustrated because whilst you all constantly rebuff his 'binary' claims,none of you can come up with an alternative to the suggestion that the universe was always there or it appeared from nothing"

That would be because we are not in the business of making unsubstantiated claims. Frustrated can humiliate himself by claiming to have unlocked the secrets of the universe by insisting on a silly binary solution, but many adults of us would rather not.

C14 dating is only good for approx 50 000 years because beyond this there is no longer enough C14 left in organic materials - not because of any bias or beliefs on the part of the scientist doing the dating. I don't know what article you are quoting from but it is right - carbon dating dinosaur bones IS ludicrous.

The carbon dating thing is quite simply explained, and definitely is dependent on a person's world view.

Why don't you google it for yourself? It's out there.

Respect ultimately boils down to being nice to each other. Some manage that better than others ;)

@vdbfamily

Why should homophobes be allowed to adopt? They could pass on their bigotry? And what if the children turn out to be gay or bisexual? Being gay or bi and growing up with homophobic parents can be horribly traumatising.