Why is there so much confusion between respecting the RIGHT to believe and respecting beliefs?

[rd_kent]

We should all respect each others RIGHT to believe whatever we want. But since when did anyone have respect the actual belief itself?


For the record, I am an atheist that has seen no evidence to support believing in anything other than myself. I am open to seeing any evidence of something supernatural, but until that evidence is provided, I will not respect unfounded beliefs. I will respect your RIGHT to believe, as I would hope you respect my right not to believe.

[Warpy]

1. Belief seems to require consensus

and a certain amount of conformity. Our existence outside that belief is deeply threatening to many believers, especially the secret doubters.

[Jim__]

2. Why is it so difficult to understand that mocking people's deeply held beliefs is tantamount to ...

mocking them.

Supernatural beliefs have been around, probably since the dawn of humanity. If you have beliefs in the supernatural, they are a large part of the world that you live in. People cannot just turn those beliefs off. If you take a serious look at history, one of the things you have to understand is that we are all probably wrong in our beliefs (and our knowledge). Knowing that you're wrong, should lead to a little humility about what other people believe. It should certainly prevent you from mocking others beliefs.

[rd_kent]

5. Its difficult because many of those same people

seem to be smart, rational humans until religion comes into the conversation. I cannot grasp how on just about any other subject, you can have a rational and logical debate but when religion comes up, all of that rational thinking goes right out the window.

[Jim__]

6. Religious people can be both smart and rational.

I've had discussion with many religious people. I've told them I disagree with their beliefs, but, I've told them that respectfully; and they've done the same for me. I realize that my worldview is probably not correct - and if it were, I couldn't prove it. What gives me the right to mock someone else's beliefs when mine are not demonstrably better?

[rd_kent]

7. Thats the point, there isn't anything rational about religion.

In order to believe, one has to SUSPEND reality and logic. That is willful ignorance in my book.

[Jim__]

8. Maybe you're wrong.

And, maybe logic is not such a powerful tool. As to "suspending reality", I wasn't aware anyone could do that.

The religious people I speak to tend to be just as logical and realistic as I am.

But, there are other views. Soren Kierkegaard was a brilliant man, a philosopher. He believed the Christian faith was completely irrational. Yet he believed. So, he obviously saw value in belief. You don't see the value. But, I'm not sure you can rationally deny his view.

[rd_kent]

9. Maybe I'm right.

And the example you provided is contradictory of itself and is not rational at all. If one is aware of the irrationality of religion and still chooses to believe it, that is willful ignorance.

[Jim__]

13. The odds that you're right are infinitesimal.

Look at history.

Have you ever read Kierkegaard? He was not being willfully ignorant. He chose faith over rationality. He knew that we are all ignorant as to the right choice. But, we all have to make that choice in ignorance.

[rd_kent]

14. Really?

The odds there is no god is infinitesimal? I don't know how you assume that. I would think that it is the other way around.

[Jim__]

15. I'm taking a broader perspective.

The odds that your worldview is correct are infinitesimal. Like I said above, I believe we are all wrong. Those who believe in god and those who don't. I doubt we even know how to pose the question correctly.

[rd_kent]

16. If you believe we are all wrong, then what is right? What other alternative is there?

I mean, we are talking about religion here, and the belief in a Deity. There can only be one right answer: There either is or there is not a Deity. Since in all of human recorded history and the archaeological record there is no evidence at all to support the existence of a Deity, I would say that odds are that there is NOT a Deity.

[Jim__]

18. Obviously, if my perspective is too limited to know what's right - I can't present all the ...

alternatives to you.

Here's a thought that comes from Loren Eiseley, a naturalist, and I believe an atheist (I'm not sure). The thought comes from his The Unexpected Universe. I don't have a citation for this little blurb:

In The Unexpected Universe, the naturalist Loren Eiseley tells of coming upon a spider in a forest, spinning the sticky spokes of the web that extend her senses out into the world. Just so, humans with their scientific senses have spun a web that reaches far beyond our ears and eyes. And, like the spider, we lie "at the heart of it, listening." Yet Eiseley is even more impressed with what the spider cannot perceive. "Spider thoughts, in a spider universe -- sensitive to raindrops and moth flutter, nothing beyond. ... What is it we are part of that we do not see?"

I believe our ignorance is profound. It calls for a little humility.

[trotsky]

48. You'll notice that he hasn't addressed my flat earth example.

It's one of the areas where the woo-woo "all beliefs are equal" nonsense really breaks down.

[uberllama42]

50. No doubt there is some frame of reference on the universe that is beyond our comprehension

Indeed today we understand the universe (albeit imperfectly) in numerous frames of reference that were once alien to human civilization. Neolithic humanity did not understand the microscopic, nor the quantum, nor did they have any concept of global systems nor of the extraterrestrial universe. Today we have meaningful knowledge about all those areas, and though that knowledge might be negligible in the scope of all possible knowledge, that doesn't mean that we don't have reliable ways of knowing those facts.

It is also very likely that there are frames of reference that may never be known to us. Consider ants, which interact with each other and the world around them in complex and fascinating ways. Ants will never be capable of comprehending the world in any of the frames of reference I listed above. It may be that there are facts about the universe and phenomena within the universe that will always be outside of our frame of reference, just as, say, combustion or gravity will never be within the comprehension of ants. It is important to remember this in discussions of epistemology.

None of this gives any quarter to absurd beliefs that have been consistently debunked by science. As far as I can tell, there is no good reason to believe that the laws of nature--which we have discerned through science, a highly reliable way of learning about the world--were suspended during such purported events as the Noachian Flood or the Virgin Birth. Nor is it any more justified in light of the above to believe in things that are demonstrably false--the efficacy of dowsing rods, remote viewing, astrology, and the like.

Just because there is more to learn about the universe doesn't mean that skeptics have no grounds to declare certain beliefs absurd.

[Jim__]

58. No doubt.

A part of what we have to learn about the universe is our own evolutionary history. What role has religion played in the survival of man? What role does it continue to play? Would a reasonable person want to have some understanding of that role before mocking religion?

[trotsky]

60. Fer sure.

I mean, we wouldn't want to mock someone's religious beliefs that slavery is A-OK until we appreciate those beliefs and by golly we're wrong too so maybe slavery is peachy keen, huh? We're wrong, he's wrong, better let things be. Wouldn't want to assert our beliefs over his, would we?

[roguevalley]

57. there is evidence that death doesn't exist and that the soul or whatever

goes on to something. Huffingtonpost had a link to the story. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.html

maybe the content of religious belief is odd, but the idea is showing up to physicists and others as something that has a valid point.

[TZ]

62. Don't label that crap science.

Its being pushed also by Deepak Chopra who is WIDELY regarded as a pseudoscientific con artist in the respectable science community.

[rd_kent]

63. While it is an interesting idea, it is NOT evidence.

Yet. The idea is certainly interesting and as time goes on, it will be tested and found to be true or false, that is the scientific method. But this idea is still in the hypothesis stage, hardly evidence of anything more than an idea.

[roguevalley]

84. I hope it is tested. There is no evidence that nothing happens when

we die and that we turn to dust and vanish as well. Neither point of view has evidence because unless we can return from the dead, there is none.

[TZ]

88. Its untestable IMO.

And therefore NOT the province of science. Just because someone with a degree posits something doesn't make it correct. I'd through a fit if any valuable money for legitimate research was thrown that way.
By the way, I'm a biologist and I can say his theory is bunk in my opinion, and I have just as much scientific evidence to back me up as he does.

[rrneck]

67. It is a sort of willful ignorance.

But a ubiquitous and helpful one. The suspension of disbelief is what makes literature, theater and all of the rest of the arts work. It could well be argued that this thing people call faith is what bonds groups of individuals together and makes successful societies. To my knowledge there has never been a successful culture without some sort of faith coupled with religious practice. It comprises half of the human experience and without it we would not be who we are.

It is also a rich source of revenue for religious hucksters and emotional leeches who would use half of what makes us human for personal gain. Efforts to control resources are not confined to the theft of physical objects. The theft of credibility is as old as civilization itself.

[roguevalley]

56. you need to talk to me more. :0)

[rd_kent]

64. Im listening......

Do you have some kind of evidence of the existence of god?

[damntexdem]

10. Hear, hear! There is not right to have one's belief respected, but ...

it is not politic to mock the beliefs of those who might otherwise be one's political allies.

On the other hand, there are so many stupid beliefs not only held but pushed on the rest of us as the correct thing to believe, sometimes with the intent to legally force behavior and seeming belief, that such beliefs not only must be politically opposed but also deserve public mocking. Such beliefs arise around the globe and from many religious perspectives: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and atheist.

[Sal316]

11. That hits the nail on the head...

Disrespecting other people's beliefs is the flip side of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" coin. It works great as a platitude, but it's too easy to connect the two.

What's often forgotten, or not mentioned, is that a person's beliefs are an integral part of their identity. So, when people say things like "Its difficult because many of those same people seem to be smart, rational humans until religion comes into the conversation." you're insulting them by saying they're not rational and dismissing what they hold as part of their self-identity.

Admittedly, it's a thin line, one that's easy to cross.

My question is.... if people who believe (or don't believe) aren't trying to "switch", or "convert", you to their side... what do you care?

[ZombieHorde]

19. "if people who believe (or don't believe) aren't trying to "switch", or "convert", you to..."

Proposition 8.

[Sal316]

76. Prop 8 was, is, and always will be crap... agreed.

But its not conversion...so I'm not sure how that applies here.

[darkstar3]

37. Because belief in the unprovable,

irrational, or illogical leads to gullibility, and I can't say it any nicer than that.

I have seen people that I would regard as paragons of humanity, including their faith, vote against their own best interests because of their faith. I have seen "good, decent believers" turn their back on gay members of their own family. I have seen Christian families give up on a loved one in times of ill health because "she'll go to a better place."

To paraphrase an old quote, only religion can force good and moral people to do wholly immoral things.

To quote Chris Rock as The 13th Apostle: "I just think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changin' a belief is trickier. People die for it. People kill for it."

If the mind were a computer, "belief" would be the ultimate trojan horse. In itself, not dangerous, but serving as a back door for all manner of ugly things.

[Sal316]

78. So, belief in the origin of life....

....or segments of quantum mechanics/physics, string theory, etc. leads to gullibility?

How about the existence of intelligent life on other planets? It'd be pretty sad that humanity was it in an infinite space.

Could they be proven someday? Sure. Odds are pretty unlikely, tho, yet scientists still pursue them. Does that mean they're irrational or illogical?

Honestly, I don't understand how anyone can turn their back on family because they're gay. It's beyond me.

As far as ill health.... speaking as someone who has buried two family members (one from congestive heart failure, the other from a very aggressive liver cancer) within 10 days of each other at the end of October, I can honestly say I'm sad, I grieve, I miss them, but there is peace knowing they're not suffering anymore. If medicine and science can extend your life, but your quality of life is crap....then what kind of life is that?

...only religion can force good and moral people to do wholly immoral things.

Bull...

I do like what Chris Rock said...and "believe" that there's a lot of truth to that.

[darkstar3]

80. "Belief" of any kind

leads to gullibility. It doesn't matter what the "belief" is in.

But what you're guilty of here, like so many other people, is confusing scientific inquiry with belief. Just because someone is testing the hypothesis of String Theory doesn't mean they believe in it. Just because a man hypothesizes that there may be life on other planets and it couldn't hurt to check doesn't mean he actually BELIEVES IN life on other planets.

Gettin' the picture?

On ill health: I'm not talking about "knowing they're not suffering anymore." That's not my point. The people that were given up on in my example had a whole lot of living left to do, if only they could have received adequate medical care. One of them was 48 when he died. But that medical care doesn't come cheap, and when Uncle "Marty" is gonna be in a better place anyway, why spend the money?

(This, BTW, was the most sickening display of the failings of our health care system AND of our family culture in the USA I've ever witnessed, but that's beside the point right now.)

Bull, you say? What do you think we've been talking about? These are good and moral people who do wholly immoral things, and they do them only because their religion tells them to do so.

[Sal316]

81. You seem to think I'm science stupid.

That's funny, considering I'm a scientist.

I understand the difference between religious belief and scientific inquiry...so please, spare me the lecture.

So, what you're saying here is people, non-scientists, who believe in the origin of life or believe in evolution without undertaking scientific inquiry are gullible? Does that make them irrational? Belief isn't limited to religion... defining it in such a small box is being dishonest.

Speaking as a scientist...those that are pursuing things such as the origin of life, big bang theory...the great mysteries of life... the vast majority are pursuing those things because they believe in those things. Scientific hypotheses are statements of faith... they could just as easily start "I believe..."

...especially those working in research. I can't tell you how many times I've heard research scientists answer the question "Do you know _______?" with "No, but I believe ________".

It's a statement of faith. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, and sometimes they're never proven definitively either way.

These are good and moral people who do wholly immoral things, and they do them only because their religion tells them to do so.

Your original premise was only religion can force good and moral people to do wholly immoral things.. That assumes either:

1) Only the faithful are good and moral people
-or-
2) Religion is the only cause for immoral acts

Both statements are utter nonsense, you know that.

Do people do bad things and justify it thru religion? Absolutely. But people don't need religion to justify doing horrible things. Witness the Chinese government, which recently sent the army to close a church with 50k believers, imprisoned and beat the pastors and some parishioners, and justified it using a land dispute. In fact, the Chinese government is quite content to crack down on Christian churches they view as a "threat" to their power and control.

[darkstar3]

82. Wow, what utter bullshit.

You are generalizing all of the world's active scientists, and purposely abusing the word "believe." Having worked in academia for years, I'm not buying a thing you're selling about scientists and researchers.

As for you saying my premise assumes 1 of 2 things, you're purposely pigeonholing because you don't want to admit the following:
It is not necessary for people to be "faithful" in order to be good and moral.
It is not necessary for people to have religion in order to perform wholly immoral acts.
But in order for good and moral people to perform wholly immoral acts, they need SERIOUS motivation, and religion is where they find it.

[uberllama42]

51. Clearly you have no problem mocking the self-identity of others

or you'd never make that "immature intellect" comment I've seen so many times. I have no problem being mocked, because I have no problem mocking others. I'm just pointing out that you have no grounds to wag your finger at anyone else.

Is it okay to mock White Nationalists for their beliefs? What about William Donohue of the Catholic League or Sarah Palin? All those people have deeply held beliefs that are integral to their self-identities. Would you hesitate to mock any of the beliefs held by those people?

I don't see any discernible difference between a person's religious identity and his/her cultural or political identity.

[Sal316]

79. There's a difference between mock and not respect....

...and the thread is about respect, and not mocking.

To mock is to "...to treat with contempt or ridicule".

How can someone honestly attempt a conversation if they come from a position of contempt?

Oh, and I made that comment once....and it was made in the context of how anti-theists talk about believers. It's the mirror image of statements like "Magical thinking inhibits logical and critical thinking", "The faster people quit believing in fairy tales the better", "It's high time to rid society of the blood-sucking perpetuators of hate and ignorance". Things DUers have said. What I find funny is that if treated with the same contempt they show others, their skins get real thin, real fast. Hell, it took only one statement, one time for you to create a 5lb. chip from it to carry on your shoulder.

Is it okay to mock White Nationalists for their beliefs? What about William Donohue of the Catholic League or Sarah Palin? All those people have deeply held beliefs that are integral to their self-identities. Would you hesitate to mock any of the beliefs held by those people?

Mock? Yes. Do I find their beliefs misguided, abhorrent, and in some cases downright repulsive? Absolutely.

But the quickest way to end any meaningful conversation, squashing progress before it even starts, is to treat that person with contempt.

[uberllama42]

83. I apologize for attributing the quote to you more than once

That was a mistake on my part. Your comment was batted around a lot, but as far as I can tell you only made it once.

The reason I and others are bothered by that comment is because it is a glaring example of your inconsistency. You complain that mockery and ridicule do not promote fruitful discussion, but all you seem to contribute is mockery and ridicule. You're certainly right that that crap is not productive, but once I figured that out, I stopped contributing to it.

You seem happy to alternate between bemoaning the petty mudslinging here and participating in it. If you decry the meanness of the discourse here, you can either try to elevate it or extract yourself from it. But it doesn't do anyone any good to complain about the snark in here and then drop a bunch of snarky comments.

[ZombieHorde]

17. How do you feel about mocking deeply held political beliefs?

Birthers, segregationists, Dittoheads, etc.

[Jim__]

22. Two things.

First, I don't believe political beliefs are as deeply held as beliefs about the nature of reality. People can change their political beliefs without entirely losing the world thay live in. If you believe in the supernatural (or not) and change your beliefs, your whole worls is different.

Second, I've said before, that here on DU, I have no problem mocking the political beliefs of the right. There are few right-wingers here, and those that are here, expect to be ridiculed. However, I do know some right-wing people (I don't believe I know any of the types you mentioned) and when I discuss politics with them, I try to do it a polite way. If we can't discuss it politely, there is no point in discussing it. Shouting matches accomplish very little. Rational discussion with right-wingers can help you to understand where they're coming from. They do not see themselves as evil. You may even find that there are some things you can work on together, e.g. raising funds for charity - the right-wingers I know are not averse to that.

[ZombieHorde]

25. "I don't believe political beliefs are as deeply held as beliefs about the nature of reality."

Many political beliefs stem from religious beliefs; gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc. So sometimes, mocking political beliefs is mocking religious beliefs. The two are often intertwined.

There is a difference between a political/religious debate forum and other social situations. People who post their religious and political beliefs on a debate board should expect others to challenge those posted beliefs.

[trotsky]

27. Nail on the head.

Like it or not, MANY people's political beliefs are inseparable and even flow directly from their religious beliefs. When liberal believers want to stake out protection for their religious beliefs, they are extending cover to their conservative, fundamentalist brethren.

[NutmegYankee]

29. Some of those beliefs are not connected to faith.

For instance, Greek versions of the New Testament attack the promiscuous man who sleeps with other men, but does the same to men who sleep with many women as well. Only recently has it been translated as "homosexual". Abortion on the other hand, is not mentioned at all in the Bible, and the Only passage getting near it establishes that the unborn child was considered property lost and the women (victim of a beating and made to miscarry) was to be compensated with eye for an eye, tooth, etc.


I immediately swipe that crap out from under a fundamentalist to ensure they can't use their fake "belief" to hide their hate.

[ZombieHorde]

43. I think a better thesis for your post would be, faith is not always connected to the source material

If person A says, "I am a Christian and God is against abortion;" and person B says, "I am a Christian and God is not against abortion," neither person can use the Holy Bible to prove nor disprove either claim.

Both of these beliefs are based on faith and are outside of the realm of the given source material.

[Jim__]

36. I disagree on both counts.

While political beliefs and religious beliefs can be intertwined, changing a political belief (e.g. gay marriage), does not have the same effect as changing the deeper belief that, for a believer, that there are supernatural beings "controlling" the world. When you change that belief, you change the very nature of the world that the person lives in - the person becomes totally alienated from the world.

As to posting your beliefs on a political board, my previous answer was specific to a right-winger posting or reading DU. Similarly, if a believer reads an atheist message board, they should expect their beliefs to be ridiculed. If I am posting on a political board that is open to all opinions, I generally will not mock, say, right wing beliefs. I would treat it similar to how I treat a conversation with a right-winger. I try to avoid open political boards because there is very little of substance that is discussed. It's all mocking, name-calling, attacking. Such "conversations" are boring and pointless.

[ZombieHorde]

42. "It's all mocking, name-calling, attacking."

You just described GD and GD: P! :P

"you change the very nature of the world that the person lives in"

Changing the very nature of the world one lives in is not an inherently good or bad situation.

Two atheists can live in two very different worlds.

For example: Atheist A lives in a terrifying world full of evil Islamic terrorists lurking and plotting everywhere. Preemptive wars are our best chance for survival.

Atheist B lives in a world where most people are peace loving and terrorism is only preformed by an extreme, marginalized minority. Investigations, bridge building, and humanitarian aid are our best chance for survival.

These two atheists have the same opinion regarding the supernatural, but still live in very different worlds.

"If I am posting on a political board that is open to all opinions, I generally will not mock, say, right wing beliefs."

Conservatives and liberals unintentionally mock each other often.

For example: We are mocking conservatives when we say trickle down economics is silly and does not work. Compare this to: Prayers for President Obama's safety are silly and do not work.

"Global warming is a myth" versus "Islam is a myth."

"Rush Limbaugh lies to his audience." versus "The Holy Bible is based on lies."

Simple declarations of atheism are taken as attacks by many people. God is imaginary. Heaven and Hell are hoaxes. The Holy Bible is illogical. Prayers can not heal diseases.

Just as liberalism is offensive to some people, atheism is offensive to some people.

[Jim__]

44. "Two atheists can live in two very different worlds."

You're describing 2 different situations, not 2 different worlds. In this case, both people are aware that the current situation can change to the other situation. It's a very different thing.

[ZombieHorde]

73. I don't see the difference, but I guess that really does not matter to our discussion.

If people have free will, and choose their religion (or lack thereof) and politics, then I don't see the difference between the two.

If someone chooses to believe in the supernatural, or chooses to not believe in the supernatural, I don't see why this would be any different than someone choosing any other deeply held belief. Since religion is a choice, I don't think it should be treated the same way sexual orientation or ethnicity should be treated.

Some people choose to believe GWB was a great President and is a great man. Some people choose to believe God is real and is a great being. These are both just intellectual choices some people make.

[Jim__]

75. I think it does matter.

To a large extent, my point is that people's religious belief or non-belief largely determine their world. I don't think any other belief or opinion is as central to a person's life. If we disagree on that, then we just disagree.

I'm not sure that for most people belief is a choice. It probably is for some because they are actually uncertain and they might force themselves to believe one way or the other.

I believe GWB was one of the worst presidents in US history. But, if some information were to be made public that proved he had really acted heroically and, say, saved the US from disaster, I could adjust my beliefs to that. I would be extremely surprised, but my world would not collapse.

However, if something happened to convince me that there was a god that created the world and that there is another life after this; my whole world would change. I would not be living in the same universe that I am living in now. I don't think that not believing in god is really a choice for me; I'm not sure all the reasons I can give for my belief are the true basis for it. I just believe what I do. I think (most) religious people's belief is largely along the same lines. It's not really a conscious choice they reached at some point in time (in some cases, I'm sure it is - e.g. sudden religious experience). But I think most people believe what they've "always" believed; with some people changing - usually due to an identifiable circumstance or event.

[trotsky]

35. Ah, the dead-end journey of post-modernism.

Knowing that you're wrong, should lead to a little humility about what other people believe.

Some people say the earth is a sphere. Some people think the earth is flat. Although technically they are both wrong (the earth is an oblate spheroid with a finely uneven surface), the first group is far closer to being right than the flat-earthers are. FAR, far closer. And this is something we can definitely know, unless you want to retreat to brain-in-a-jar solipsism.

[uberllama42]

53. Yeah Isaac Asimov!

I read some of that essay the other day, and it's phenomenal. I have to go find it again.

[trotsky]

61. He really slaughtered po-mo with that little essay.

One of the brightest minds of the last century.

[NMMNG]

39. I find it interesting

That many of the same people who point and laugh while Cletus describes his encounter with ghosts or UFOs then turn and scream at anybody who even questions their "deeply held belief" in gods, angels, and the like. The same people who ask "How could anybody take the Greek Myths seriously?" get pretty bent out of shape when atheists ask the same of Judeo-Christian mythology.

[trotsky]

45. Scientology.

Ain't no limit to the amount of mocking and condescension that religion receives on DU - ironically, it often comes from some of the Christians who whine the loudest when their beliefs aren't properly respected.

[charlie]

46. Oh yeah

Like the Pope's turd polisher who was recently banned. She used to crack wise about JWs a lot, snickering about brainwashed idiots who needed intervention. Criticize reactionary Bill Donohue though, and you could hear her bawling from 2 forums over.

[trotsky]

47. Hey, Dem's fighting words!

You'll feel it in your Bones, I tell ya! ;-)

[charlie]

49. *turns up Queensryche*

You Obviously Do Not Have the Intellectual Capacity to Intellectually Discuss Intellectual Topics and I ROFL meerp LOLOLOL zonk OMFG poot ZIPADEEDOODAH!

It's been a banner week for troll whacking :D

[uberllama42]

54. Thanks for that.

I wouldn't have known whom you were talking about otherwise.

[salvorhardin]

52. Was it wrong when Monty Python did it?

Or is it wrong when atheists do it but not comedians?

[dmallind]

68. Science being wrong has never - not once - led to religion being right.

It's totally irrelevant to equate the two. Plenty of theories in science and constructs in logic have been shown to be wrong. In every case it is science and logic that have shown them to be, and there has never been any reason to credit any religion or mythology for either the correction or for being closer to the truth.

By all means accept that science is contingent and that logic can only advance knowledge inductively. By all means let that drive your humility. By no means should the final truth be assumed to be known. But it is disingenuous at best to think that says anything about the respect or validity owed to religion, which has never been shown to advance knowledge or to provide an even a contingently valid theory.

We can value religion on many fronts. As fascinating cultural anthropology. As enriching allegory and shared narratives. As sources for communication short cuts and socail cohesion. But as valid beliefs about actual phenomena, or valid theories about actual processes? Not one shred of evidence for that being reasonable or appropriate.

[Jim__]

69. Yes there is a shred of evidence as to religion being "right".

Namely its universality across human groups. Just because we do not know why that is, does not mean that there is no reason.

[darkstar3]

70. Perceived "universality" is the ultimate confirmation bias. n/t

[Jim__]

87. "... no known culture lacks some version of ... religion ..." - Richard Dawkins - n/t

[darkstar3]

89. Your point? n/t

[dmallind]

90. What?

All kinds of attitudes are universal across human groups but possess no objective truth.

Ignorance is universal across human groups. The desire for certainty is universal across human groups. The confluence of those is superstition, which evolves into religions. Religions that come and go, that are mutually contradictory and widely divergent. It is impossible even for a handful of random religions to be "right", as they will inevitably conflict. There have been thousands of religions in human history. Which one gets the credit for being true or close to it and why?

Simply because human psychology has evolved in a way that makes most of us value comforting myth over incomplete facts does not lend any credibility to those myths. It explains why religions are there - because people have a tough time facing an end to their existence, or the lack of "justice" in human society where the good often fare worse than the bad, and most importantly because few people accept "I don't have a clue and probably never will" as a valid answer to any question. It does not however make religions any more likely to contain the slightest nugget of truth, as all are frankly based on widely evolved and distorted original analogies. Ugg can make a small bit of rock into a shape. All around Ugg are massive rocks that shape his entire world. Therefore a man like Ugg but far far more powerful made all those rocks that make up the world. Ogg used to move and grunt and hunt like Ugg. Ogg is now still and will not move any more, like animal Ugg hit with rock. But nobody hit Ogg with rock. He just stopped. Therefore a man like Ugg but invisible and powerful enough to kill Ogg without a rock took him away from Ugg, Everything else is window dressing and wearing fancy dress.

[Jim__]

91. "All kinds of attitudes are universal across human groups but possess no objective truth."

Objective truth? Who is going to define "objective truth" in such a way that it is attainable by humans?

I'm talking about pragmatic "truth", or being right in a pragmatic sense. The fact, at least something that is acknowledged by everyone I've read on the subject, is that religion being universal across all human groups strongly implies that religion has a survival value. I'm not sure what greater "truth" we can know than actual survival.

Sure, some people claim that religion itself doesn't provide a survival value, but that is speculation - I don't know of anyone who claims to know - either way. The very strong implication of its universality is that religion does indeed provide that value. To me, anything that significantly contributes to the survival of the species is "right."

[darkstar3]

95. There you go again with that "survival value" crap.

And what's funny about it is that you're spewing pure speculation, and then accusing people who disagree with you of that speculation in an attempt to dismiss their argument.

Here's a news flash for you: Correlation does not equal causation. Just because religion appears to have some sort of universality in no way implies that it is a survival trait. That's why I called it confirmation bias earlier, and I stand by that assertion.

Actually, using the word correlation goes too far into accepting your premise, because you can't even show true correlation between religiosity and survival, let alone actual causation. All you have is an idea that universality = survival trait. This inference of yours, and the "truth" that you have gained from it, is specious.

[Jim__]

97. "There you go again" - you sound like Reagan on the cusp of senility.

The sad thing is that you seem to have about as much understanding of the issue as he did.

I'm not "accusing" anyone of speculation. I'm simply stating that people speculate about how religion evolved - primary trait or secondary trait. But, the implication is clear - the implication is that religion is evolutionary. And, I clearly stated that reaching either conclusion is speculative: I don't know of anyone who claims to know - either way.

Your bringing "correlation" and "causation" into this is just a demonstration the you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I haven't said or implied anything about "correlation" or "causation". when people speak of "correlation" and "causation" together, they are usually talking about "correlation" as a statistical measure - i.e. the measured outcome of variables in a test.

All you have is an idea that universality = survival trait. This inference of yours, and the "truth" that you have gained from it, is specious.

Wow. I never said that universality = survival trait. I did indicate that a universal trait "strongly implies" survival value. Note, "implies" is a logical connective when used in certain contexts and is not the same as equivalence, "strongly implies" is English and not a logical connective; and as an English word its connation is different.

[darkstar3]

98. Dance all you want,

but know three things:

1. Insults do not make arguments, so your usage of Reagan is pointless.
2. "Implication", "implies", and "strongly implies" are all English words that attempt equivalence, or if you prefer, equality. Therefore, I have not put any words into your mouth or changed your meaning.
3. Most importantly, you are talking about evolution, which is a scientific field. Trying to strip the science from it by ignoring the concepts of correlation and causation and then claiming that it "logically" implies something doesn't make any sense.

[dmallind]

96. So survival value is your metric?

The violence is "right", and far more right than religion. I concede, or rather always accepted, that shared religion in primitive societies conferred survival value, simply by promoting cohesion and reducing INTRA (as opposed to inter) group strife as individual members or groups fought over their various guesses about what made Ugg's big rocks. A group that makes the same idle speculations is less likely to fight over idle speculations. That does not stop them being idle speculations.

When it comes to survival value though the capability, and willingness, to crush skulls and hack off limbs however is far more meaningful. Does that make it right, or valuable in modern society? Remember while humans are one species we are many societies. Violnce is also universal among human groups, and does far more to determine which genes are passed on than the uniformity of religious thought.

And "right" in the sense of "useful to the initial survival of the human species" has no connection to "true". Objective truth certainly can be attained by human beings. Outside internally contradictory postmodernist twaddle about the inability of language to reflect objective constructs (which is self-refuting as they use language to establish this same inability AS an objective construct) the logical laws of bivalence, the excluded middle and contradiction all indicate that declarative statements are either true or not. Simply applying a correspondence view tells us which. the only way you can argue that is to descend into the insanity of metaphysical idealism.

So in summary:

1) Religion's putative initial and causative (and IMO very likely) survival value is not relevant to even vaguely modern society, as religion is useful only to the survival of subgroups due to its increase of cohesion not at the species level, where the differences among religions DECREASES cohesion (surely this is inarguable given today's and history's wide-ranging religious conflicts). This can be determined by the vastly different religions developed across groups.
2)Utility is not truth.
3)Truth can be evaluated and this can be applied to religious statements
4) No central religious claim has been demonstrated to be true

[Jim__]

99. There doesn't seem to be any question that "violence" has a survival value.

I put "violence" in quotes because we're really talking about the ability to defend yourself and your territory (also, the ability to acquire new territory). It is probably one of the key facts modern humans need to know. So, the knowledge that humans are intrinsically violent is indeed valuable for modern humans. Do you believe that this is not valuable knowledge? If humans are inherently violent, what implications does that have for international diplomacy? Nuclear weapons? If humans are inherently violent, what future do you see for a group that renounces all violence?

I notice that you didn't define "objective truth" but assured me that it is attainable by humans: Objective truth certainly can be attained by human beings. Then went on to talk about "postmodernist twaddle" without bothering to define that (except for this): Outside internally contradictory postmodernist twaddle about the inability of language to reflect objective constructs (which is self-refuting as they use language to establish this same inability AS an objective construct) the logical laws of bivalence, the excluded middle and contradiction all indicate that declarative statements are either true or not. Simply applying a correspondence view tells us which. I don't believe postmodernism is relevant to this discussion, but if you actually want to discuss it, you should cite the authors and ideas you're using. For instance, you might start by citing the source for the above claim.

As to your summary points:

1) Religion's putative initial and causative (and IMO very likely) survival value is not relevant to even vaguely modern society, as religion is useful only to the survival of subgroups due to its increase of cohesion not at the species level, where the differences among religions DECREASES cohesion (surely this is inarguable given today's and history's wide-ranging religious conflicts). This can be determined by the vastly different religions developed across groups.

There are a number of ideas people have proposed about what would make religion an asset to survival. All of those ideas are speculative at the moment. For you to declare that the things that made religion advantageous no longer apply, is premature at best.

2)Utility is not truth.

Well, if you look at my post #2, I was speaking of beliefs being wrong or right. And, my post #69 also referred to beliefs being right. I do indeed believe that any belief that leads to an increased probability of survival is right. And, in post 91, I put truth in quotes ("truth").

3)Truth can be evaluated and this can be applied to religious statements
4) No central religious claim has been demonstrated to be true

I'm not sure what value those statements have. If religion, as a social construct, has value for survival, I'm not particularly concerned about the truth of individual religious statements. The survival value seems far more important to me.

[darkstar3]

100. I'm not usually one to fixate on one sentence from someone's post,

but this one made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up:
I do indeed believe that any belief that leads to an increased probability of survival is right.

You can't possibly believe this. In the context of group survival, that statement is monstrous. It could justify just about anything, including genocide.

[dmallind]

101. I didn;t know I needed to define simple ideas

Objective truth is a declarative statement that matches empirical data from reality. It is objective truth that there is a desk in my office at this moment.

I defined postmodernist twaddle quite well - since I explained that the postmodernist philosophical approach is that language, itself embedded in culture and hence relative, cannot exceed itself and directly describe objective reality. It is on the face self-refuting as it attempts to use language to describe the claimed objective reality of language's inability to describe objective reality. I'm not citing anything. The words are mine. If you don't know enough about postmodernist philosophy to realize that this is an accurate depiction of its approach to objective truth, or alternatively to somehow argue that it is NOT, then how would a cite help? Do I need a cite to use algebra? Mental arithmetic? Cites are needed for quotes or appeals to references or authorities. I made none. Would you call for a cite if I said that the Republican approach to government sees low capital gains tax as a good thing? It's a description of a philosophical approach after all.

If you only wanted to discuss what is useful, why did you contradict my initial claim that there is no evidence for the truth of religious claims? Evidence of utility (which is actually evidence of origin in this case) is not evidence of truth.

What value for survival in modern society does religion have by the way? You are claiming its universal nature as evidence of utility, but that is a non-sequitur. All universality supports is that at various times individual societies found it useful. Does the growing preponderance of religious apathy and outright nonbelief, especially concentrated in the most advanced, wealthiest and just societies mean that it is becoming useless and hence "wrong"?

[Jim__]

102. Defining things clarifies the conversation.

For instance, let's look at your definition of "objective truth": Objective truth is a declarative statement that matches empirical data from reality. Your example is fine, but it is somewhat simpler than the things we are talking about here. So, to look at something a little more complex, for instance, do you consider the existence of gravity to be an objective truth? I'm asking because my understanding is that we know of gravity as an effect; but I don't believe we have a full explanation about the cause of reality.

As to a citation from a reputable postmodernist that verifies your statement about postmodern theories, the postmodernists I have read are fairly rigorous in their arguments. I'd like to see which postmodernist, or group of postmodernists, made this type of self-refuting statement about language and truth. The citation would convince me of the accuracy of your assertion; but I do want a citation to a post-modernist making this, or a very similar, statement, not a critic of postmodernism claiming some postmodernist said this. As to your question about algebra: Do I need a cite to use algebra?. No, you don't need a citation to use algebra, nor do you need a citation to refer to postmodernism. However, if you tell me that there is a theorem in algebra that proves 0 = 1 (1 and 0 be the usual elements of the one-dimensional reals), then, yes, you need a citation. Your statement about post-modernism making self-refuting claims is along the same lines.

If you only wanted to discuss what is useful, why did you contradict my initial claim that there is no evidence for the truth of religious claims? Evidence of utility (which is actually evidence of origin in this case) is not evidence of truth.

Well, your original response was in reply to my post #2 which talked about being wrong, as in "right" and "wrong." And the title to your reply was: Science being wrong has never - not once - led to religion being right. Then the body of your reply went on to speak of "wrong" and "truth." So, we have been using "right" and "truth" somewhat interchangeably in this discussion, and I just wanted to be clear that where you said "utility is not truth", my statement that "survival is right" is not avoiding the issue.

What value for survival in modern society does religion have by the way?

Well first, we don't know what value for survival religion had in primitive societies. We only have speculation. I can specualte as to a possible value of religion in modern society, namely making people more willing to die defending their country - many religions teach that death is not permanent. This is not to say that atheist won't die defending their country, it's just that if you're not really dying, the apparent price can be less for religious people.

You are claiming its universal nature as evidence of utility, but that is a non-sequitur. All universality supports is that at various times individual societies found it useful.

Is the bolding a sufficient response?

Does the growing preponderance of religious apathy and outright nonbelief, especially concentrated in the most advanced, wealthiest and just societies mean that it is becoming useless and hence "wrong"?

Hardly. I'll assume you are talking about Western Europe - we can talk about the defunct Soviet Union and the current China if you like. First, there are people who argue that Western Europe is retaining Christian values in its humanist movements (e.g. John N Gray). But, more importantly, the decline of formal religion in Western Europe is a relatively new phenomenon, and so its survival value has not been seriously tested by time. The lower birth rates and the increasing instability from immigrant workers raises many questions about the future of Western Europe (of course, the current state of affairs raises many questions for all human societies).

[dmallind]

103. You are confusing the meanings of right and wrong

Surely the meanings in something being right if something else is proven wrong imply a if not A then B scenario that applies only to truth, not utility.

No your boldings are not a response, as they completely miss the difference between present and past tense. Societies once found the concept of feudalism useful. Few if any do now.

I'm not going to glean through every postmodernist text to find a cite close enough to my parallel, as you will doubtless pretend it is not close enough. Why don't you instead cite your favorite and most rigorous postmodernist argument about objective truth that is NOT based on an inability to describe it? Anybody who gets all airy about "what is truth" and pretends it is unavailable to humans eventually comes down to two basic ideas. One assumes metaphysical idealism and one assumes the inability of humans to communicate objective truth. If you have found a third way in postmodernism I'm happy to hear it. Buggered if I could.

Coming from Western Europe your idea of recent strikes me as valid only in a rather broad view of history. Religiosity has been declining there for over two hundred years since the Enlightenment, and public and widespread apathy about and rejection of religion by the masses for about a century. In my forties now, I grew up with grandparents who never saw a church except for weddings and funerals, and a generation of greybeards around in my youth who never once mentioned anything to do with religion as an important matter. Despite the ever so valid and not at all disingenuous inclusion of state-imposed godlessness rather than popularly-derived atheism, are you questioning the idea that say, Scandinavia has done better in almost all measures this last century than any region or country where religion is a powerful social force? Furthermore where do we see the utility of religion in today's world? At all? Charity? Nope - plenty of that without religion, including 3 if not 4 of the top 5 givers, the largest single fundraising event, and many of the worlds biggest charitable organizations, so no necessary contingency there. Peace? Quite the opposite - the most consistent enemies of peace are engaged in religious fights. Social cohesion? In limited ways I guess - some Middle Eastern states based on tribal populations might well fracture without a unifying faith - except those are the same cultures where peace is most at risk for the most part. Definitely no example I can think of in developed industrialized nation where religion is a unifying force for society. Again the opposite applies - it tends to be a source of societal fractiousness wherever pluralism exists - which is in all free countries.

[Jim__]

104. Hardly. But your assertion supports my point - definitions are required.

Language is ambiguous. One of the difficulties of discussing any issue is that even the simplest terms, e.g. "right" and "wrong", do not have an agreed upon meaning. I have been using the term "right" as something that is correct in a pragmatic sense; and "wrong" as something that is similarly not correct, e.g. from my post 91: I'm talking about pragmatic "truth", or being right in a pragmatic sense. I should have asked for a clarification after your post 68 when you started out with "right" and "wrong" and then switched to "wrong" and "truth". But, when I do ask for definitions, I usually get a response like I didn;t know I needed to define simple ideas. I often find "simple ideas" to be full of ambiguity.

Surely the meanings in something being right if something else is proven wrong imply a if not A then B scenario that applies only to truth, not utility.

That's a somewhat confusing sentence.

First, I never made an argument like: if not A then B. My statement in post #2 was: if you take a serious look at history, one of the things you have to understand is that we are all probably wrong in our beliefs (and our knowledge). If that were a propositional statement, it would be of the form: NOT A AND NOT B. But it's not a propositional statement, I'm talking about right and wrong - again in a pragmatic sense -, not truth and falsity. Many people consider truth to be something that applies to propositional statements. Your definition of objective truth comes into play here: Objective truth is a declarative statement that matches empirical data from reality which seems to agree with the gist of the above common definition, truth applies to statements. So, as stated in my previous post, definitions clarify the conversation.

Given that you do not have any evidence of postmodernists making self-refuting statements about truth and language, I'm satisfied that reputable postmodernists certainly haven't based their philosophy on any such statement.

I find your last paragraph the most baffling of all. You asked: What value for survival in modern society does religion have by the way? . I responded:

Well first, we don't know what value for survival religion had in primitive societies. We only have speculation. I can specualte as to a possible value of religion in modern society, namely making people more willing to die defending their country - many religions teach that death is not permanent. This is not to say that atheist won't die defending their country, it's just that if you're not really dying, the apparent price can be less for religious people.

Your response completely ignores what I said and lists things you don't see as advantageous.

Right now, I see the issue as mainly concerning the ambiguity of the terms, "right" and "wrong". Ambiguity is often the main point of contention in discussions. Hmmmmm, I wonder if the postmodernists might be onto something. :)

[rd_kent]

94. The simple fact that there are so many different religions that all think the ther is wrong

is evidence that religion is not "right".

[NutmegYankee]

3. Few here respect the right to believe.

You don't have to share my views, and neither I yours, but that doesn't stop hordes here from constantly heaping on me for my faith (Presbyterian USA), which is actually quite liberal. I use my faith to support and justify the good things I believe in, such as fighting for the poor or equal rights for Gays. I have argued with conservative Christians and have managed to force them to admit that the Bible does not condemn Gays or oppose a woman's right to choose based on the actual Greek or Hebrew text. They rarely change their position, but they can no longer hide their hate behind the faith.

But hey, I'm just another f*cking Christian to be pounded and spat on here at DU, so what do I know...

[brooklynite]

12. However well-meaning your personal beliefs...

...if you call yourself a Presybterian or Cathlolic, or Conservative Jew or Muslim, you claim adherence to an set of agreed-on religious beliefs which presuppose other religious beliefs are, in some way, wrong. In my opinion, that is just as disrespectful to the beliefs of others, if perhaps not as blunt....

Personally, my beliefs in a number of areas (atheist, child-free, moderate Democrat), while being outside the mainstream of the people I mix week, are solid enough to me that I could care less how others react to them.

[NutmegYankee]

28. As do you.

Is it not the view of an Atheist that those with theist beliefs are misguided or incorrect? That is natural to people no matter what they believe. I think Conservatives are wrong as do you. It really comes down to the Person. My best friend is Jewish, my next good friend is atheist. We just respect that each other has come to their views through one process or another and leave it at that. My atheist friend is the most liberal guy I know, and would gladly give up his shirt to help a woman on the street who was cold.

I don't care if another person doesn't have my religious views, because I don't try to convert people. The only thing that hurt me was to mention my faith on GD, and get reamed by those who just saw "Christian" and thought "fundamentalist Republican".


I'm just pissed that I'm automatically seen as an enemy.

[gaspee]

30. I'm an atheist and I don't think belief is misguided

I think it's silly. It's a basic feeling I've had since I was a child. I don't "get" belief and I never have. If people didn't try to legislate my life based on their beliefs, I would never care what someone chose to believe (or not believe) in.

BUt because our supposedly secular country is dominated politically by christians, we all end up living by their beliefs.

And while I may think it's silly, I'm sure I have hobbies that I like that other people think are silly. I don't care - just keep it our of government (not talking about you, here) and everything's good.

Oh - and if those fundies who like to tell other people they're going to hell because they get off on people who don't agree with them suffering for all eternity - well, if we could get rid of them, I'd be pretty durn happy.

[NutmegYankee]

33. I agree on faith out of government.

Even Christians, technically the majority, do not agree on their views. I have very different views on abortion and stem cell research and marriage equality than do Southern Baptists or Catholics. I'm a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU because I don't want those views in government either. Unfortunately there are others who are determined to enforce their views on you and me, freedom of conscience be damned.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NutmegYankee]

26. Being called out because of the Maine vote is why i'm pissed off.

I don't live in Maine and I'm not Catholic. Like I said above, I frankly don't care if you don't believe. I'm a member of the ACLU and American United. I do not expect nor require someone to "kowtow" to my beliefs, but it would be nice to show a little respect to me as a person. I don't immediately attack you as an atheist and begin making negative assumptions on your character. On General Discussion, that happens right at the start.

[stray cat]

4. Mocking is a progressive value as long as you don't kill someone for their belief

at least that appears to be the case based on DU. As long as a DUer doesn't kill you he/she is respecting your right to your beliefs.

[ZombieHorde]

20. All ideas are fair game on discussion/debate boards.

I don't debate or mock religion or politics at funerals or family gatherings, but discussion/debate boards are different.

[gaspee]

24. Funny

how hard that is to grasp for some people. This is a discussion board - if you can't handle that there's going to be discussion that disagrees with your "sacred" beliefs... well... maybe those people should only post on christian boards.

I find religious belief to be absurd. I have since I was a child. I usually keep it to myself. But on a discussion board for discussion I discuss the topic.

I, personally, find the idea of a personal god to be absolutely silly. Ridiculous, even. It's a deeply felt belief I have - now why is it not OK for me to say that, yet it's OK for a believer to say that they believe unbelievers are going to hell.

What's worse? Me thinking it's silly or them wishing me to suffer in everlasting damnation?

Kind of funny, eh?

[NutmegYankee]

31. Attacking elements of belief is one thing. Attacking the person is another.

I can easily deal with disagreement of theology in general. It's the immediate attack that I'm not a true liberal or that I'm not a supporter of Gay equality that has upset me. No where did my "silly" beliefs imply that I didn't support equality and justice. Can we agree that beliefs alone do not identify the character of a person?

[gaspee]

32. I like your character

I've never attacked your character. I can't help it that I believe that belief in a deity is silly. It's just what I believe, LOL!

[NutmegYankee]

34. You're fine. I just had a few bad days in GD.

But in retrospect, my emotions get out of hand at times as well. I can understand the rage, especially after the efforts of the Catholic church in Maine.

[darkstar3]

38. Wow, you're just hitting all the right notes tonight.

:applause:
I have nothing else to add.

[ZombieHorde]

40. Thank you, this is what happens when you sell your soul to Satan. nt

[rd_kent]

41. Now THATS funny!

[Meshuga]

21. That's why some people avoid religion and politics conversation

Because it is hard to show respect to a belief/position you don't respect. So conflict is expected. If you hold your opinion (out of respect) this place becomes a boring forum where you don't really get anything out of it because there would be no debate and different positions to read and consider.

[DeSwiss]

55. Why is there confusion?

Actually there's not any confusion. What there is, is an attitude that has been fostered and developed by The Church that DEMANDS respect and acceptance. Period.

The reason for this is partly due to the fact that when one has no evidence or proof that what one says it true, then demanding belief is the only option left. But the way this came about is only to be found by going back to their beginnings, in ancient history. Because that was when the little kid on the block: The Christians, became the "chosen" by Constantine. And ever since that decision was made The Church has set about getting rid of its competition, its detractors and its "heretics." It took them centuries of wars, inquisitions, purges and pogroms, but they eventually achieved a semblance of control and order. And then the schisms came and they had to start the process anew.

Now after 2,000 years, the believers they have are still little more than the same "sheep" that they began with (their term not mine, but apt). But what is different from those early days is that The Church no longer has the authority (legal or otherwise) to DEMAND the respect that they once had without question. This is an organization that started wars in the name of their loving god. This is an organization that committed atrocities in the name of their loving god. This is an organization that played the kingmakers and power-brokers for Europe and other parts of the world and who still have great influence. But it is influence that is slipping away.

And it is the "slipping away" part that now is at the center of The Church's primary concern. Now blasphemers (as they call us) openly challenge them and disrespect them and call them out for the murderers, rapists and manipulating con artists that they are. People from all walks of life now openly accuse them to their faces of what they are, instead of accepting what they say they are and what they pretend to be. The scales are falling away from people's eyes and The Church can not stop it and they have no answer for it, but to double-down on their ridiculous rhetoric from the past. From the dusty days of the Bronze Age from whence their supposed authority comes. They see the possibility of it all slipping away, and in response to this they have increased their level of rhetoric and demanding. And they are being exposed even as they try to cover themselves in the very earthly laws that they despise.

As a favorite author of mine wrote in one of her novels: "It is one thing to challenge authority and be seen to have won a battle against it, it is entirely another to make that authority look totally ridiculous."

That's the reason for the confusion. People are seeing The Church for what it truly is. And it is confusion among the believers and the authority figures of The Church who cannot figure out how to respond because no one has ever prepared them for this. And they are so detached from reality, that the ridiculousness of their positions has become an embarrassment for religionists to have to defend. This is why fewer people take them seriously anymore. And worse, they are now being openly made fun of. They are an object of ridicule. A relic of the past and the label of superstition that they once so easily slapped onto other beliefs and religions, they never thought would also apply to them.

They are becoming known for what they once made of every other belief: a false promise and a lie. A farce. With a moronic, psychopathic and malevolent deity who is apparently too stupid to make a universe, or even a world to his own liking -- and who must periodically kill-off his creations. Or he sends his Hit-Angels to earth to kill his enemies, including little innocent children in their sleep. And he has allowed his adherents as a form of reward for their obedience, to kill the enemies of his "Chosen Ones" which includes killing all women who have had sex, all boys, and old men. But he allows them to keep the little girls for raping and "marriage" later. This is their god. Who would RESPECT THIS?

And not only is this religion now being seen for what it is, but there is a constant drumbeat of rejection that will. not. stop. -- that would be "us." We won't let it go. Even our agnostic friends and liberal Christians cringe at our demanding nature -- our demands for the TRUTH and for NO MORE LIES from their lips. Because they are doing REAL HARM to people, and it MUST STOP because they have shown time and time again that they will not and cannot stop themselves. So its being spoken of out loud and constantly now. That is what's different. And what's also different is us. They've run up against a group of people (atheists) who won't take their shit anymore and who will challenge them lie for lie. And by exposing their insidious nature for all to see, even some of their "sheep" can no longer look away.

In the past when they were challenged in any way, they could act for themselves to "take care of us." And if need be, through their close relationship with the state who has protected them from the beginning, they could have us imprisoned or burned to a crisp. And even now they are seeking the implementation of civil laws all around the world to try and protect their fantasies and their power bases and their wealth and privilege in the form of blasphemy laws. But they are too late. Those laws will never come. And even if they did, it wouldn't stop what has already begun -- their demise.

In the end a lie must fail, or its not a lie -- it become a kind of truth. But religion is now failing to convince and failing to persuade because their lies are being exposed. Who believes a liar? So back to your initial question, why is there confusion between a right to one's beliefs as opposed to a right to respect for one's beliefs? It is because while religionists may indeed have a right to believe any fantasy they wish, they do not possess a right to lie and manipulate and to destroy.

- Not a chance.....

K&R

[rd_kent]

65. Now THAT is a response. Very well written and thought out. Thanks.

[Dorian Gray]

59. Of course

I completely respect your right to not believe.

[rd_kent]

66. Ok, thanks.

But that does not answer my question.

[Dorian Gray]

85. Well, what else should I say....

do I respect your belief that there is no God? Sure. I respect the process of arriving at such a conclusion and the life experience that would lead to that. I suspect that the feeling isn't mutual on your part toward my belief that there is a God, but I don't know for sure. It doesn't really make a difference to me, to be honest. I can't really control how you think about the religious or our beliefs, so it's not really worth the time to get worked up about that. So, I would say you (meaning Humanity, not YOU, personally) don't have to respect those beliefs that differ from yours, though I do. I wouldn't want to live any other way.

[Laura902]

71. I agree with ya!

[rd_kent]

72. Well, thank you for that well written and thought out response.

:sarcasm:

[Laura902]

74. What more is left to say?

or must we all behave with contempt for one another at the slightest declaration of ones opinion, no matter how straight foreword?

[Jim__]

86. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Don't pay too much attention to the occasional short answer.

[rd_kent]

92. Sorry, I was cranky.

and welcome to DU.

[darkstar3]

77. Really, you should check your aim.

After all, she was voicing simple support. No need to throw fire at somebody's version of a "+1".

[rd_kent]

93. ok, ok. I'm was a bit cranky yesterday!

The complete nonsense that was going on around here had me uptight.