The concept of cherished beliefs is an odd one, and indeed dangerous as well...

[Humanist_Activist]

Same with the concept of sacredness, especially when attached to objects or images.

I hold no cherished beliefs, and I hold nothing sacred. I think this creates a disconnect in conversations with religious people, because they do have some beliefs that they cherish or things they consider sacred. This is where the problem comes in, when debating religious people, I find it quite easy to offend them in ways that really puzzle me.

I hold many different beliefs, and accept many concepts, but I also expect and indeed welcome challenges to these beliefs and concepts because I may think they are backed up by evidence, and if not, I'll change my belief or accept a different concept. I've done this quite a few times in my lifetime so far, and I expect to do it many more times for as long as I live. As a result, I don't take offense to anything related to any idea I hold, or concept I accept.

I still defend such ideas and concepts if I think they have the evidence to back them up, but I won't take any attack on them personally. Indeed, no beliefs, ideas, or concepts I accept are wrapped in my identity. I attach a label to myself, that's true, but its more a matter of convenience than anything else.

I think this is key, because most religious people I encounter do wrap their self identity with their beliefs, and this causes problems to such an extent we may talk at rather than to each other. The mildest critiques of religious beliefs usually result in gross overreactions, like I just kicked their dog, or questioned their mother's fidelity, or even personally attacked them. Yet I did none of those things, the reaction is completely unjustified, yet all we hears are cries of persecution or disrespect from the religious.

This is also why wrapping your identity with your religion becomes dangerous for others, if the irreligious aren't careful, they can be assaulted or killed, or at the very least, receive death threats, and over the stupidest things, such as depicting a religious figures like Mohammed or Jesus in a not so flattering light, or doing the same to symbols of the religion like the cross, or communal wafers.

Here, let's give a simple example, your belief in god is idiotic.

Now, examine the sentence above and point out the personal attack, is there one? No, of course not.

Let's contrast this with a different sentence: You are stupid because you believe in god.

Now, here's a sentence to cause offense, and here is why, the first sentence attacked a belief, the second, a person. Now, the first sentence doesn't imply that you are an idiot, you may be one, but then again, you can be an intelligent, caring person, doesn't change the fact that I think you belief is idiotic. The point is that I'm sure that I hold beliefs you may think are idiotic as well, and I will disagree with you, but its not like I will take offense at this characterization.

I won't say that this problem is unique to religious arguments, politics can also be characterized the same way, with people wrapping their political ideologies up with their own identity, I'm just pointing out that its slightly more endemic in religion.

[HereSince1628]

1. I'm sad that you don't cherish anything. Cuz' anything includess democracy,

the liberty of free speech, and knowledge. In the midst of all the wordplay, cherish is simply another way to speak of feelings of fondness.

I would agree that beliefs can be dangerous, I'm open minded enough to grant that fondness under some circumstances is harmful, but I also believe that as affects go, fondness is not all bad.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Just a few points, 'no cherished beliefs' is not 'nothing cherished'

as there are many things that are not beliefs. Second, 'cherish' is not a word meaning 'fond of' it means to cultivate and nurture the object cherished, to protect it. This means 'cherish' is a dangerous thing to do with beliefs, for example, those that cultivate and nurture their bigoted beliefs against others, ignoring science, facts, reason and simply cultivating that belief.
I found your answer to be filled with language errors. The OP says 'cherish' and you just switch in 'fondness'. The OP says 'no cherished beliefs' and you substitute 'don't cherish anything' as if all things are beliefs, as if one can not cherish a child, a place, a partner, a work of art, that is, real and actual things, not beliefs. The OP did not say 'I cherish nothing' it says 'I cherish no beliefs'. Which means 'I cultivate no assumptions' far more than it means 'I am not fond of anything' which is your translation.
Words have actual 'look 'em up' meanings. Your games with the words are not the same as responding to what was said. Just saying.

[trotsky]

3. It's a good way to shift the debate, though.

Away from the tough questions that are asked. You see the same equivocation and wordplay with "faith" especially.

[HereSince1628]

5. Ok, fine...cher·ish (chrsh)

cher·ish (chrsh)
tr.v. cher·ished, cher·ish·ing, cher·ish·es
1. To treat with affection and tenderness; hold dear: cherish one's family; fine rugs that are cherished by their owners.
2. To keep fondly in mind; entertain: cherish a memory.


I suppose liberty, as in freedom of speech, can also be parsed into something that is not a belief.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Your premise begins with claiming that 'cherish no beliefs' means

'I cherish nothing'. Now you speak of family, of rugs, but your first response was 'if you do not cherish beliefs, you cherish nothing'.
Freedom of Speech is a legal right. An existing and useable thing. One has no need to 'believe in it' as it simply is. Same goes for that rug.
Liberty is a belief? Tell that to the man in a jail cell, see what he says to you.
So. A belief, an unproven assumption, is treated with tender affection, held dear, and cultivated in one's mind. It remains a belief, not a fact, and to cultivate and make precious that which one is merely assuming is sort of symptomatic of illness, more than anything.

[HereSince1628]

9. Are all beliefs really unproven assumptions?

A belief seems to be a conceptualization that is accepted without an appeal to support.
Acceptance seems to be independent of proof.

For example...

I believe that the Abrahamic god is merely a character of myth. I also believe that the absence of god must remain unproven.

I believe in evolution. Yet, because of the way science works, I accept evolution not because it is proven but because it hasn't been unproven.

[Humanist_Activist]

40. No they aren't...

I try to base my beliefs on facts and evidence. I don't accept evolution because it hasn't been unproven yet, I accept it because the facts and evidence support it. There is the fact of evolution, it happened, that's fact, and we have a fossil record to back that up stretching back over 300 million years. How it happened is where theory comes in, at the moment it seems the best explanation is through a process of natural selection, random mutations, and genetic drift.

The theories on gravity are similar, I accept Eisenstein's theory of bent space time as the current best explanation of how gravity works. But we also know that gravity exists, whether the theory itself is even valid. And frankly, gravity is a problem, the "odd man out" as it were compared to the other 3 forces in the universe, and actually has less supporting evidence than even evolution.

As far as gods are concerned, logically the Abrahamic god is impossible to exist, but as far as other concepts of gods, it depends on how internally consistent they are, but they are all merely unproven assertions, and hence I don't believe in any of them.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. A simple point: Cherish is a verb, you replace it with a noun

'fondness'. A noun can not stand in for a verb. So your basic premise, as I said, is flawed on many levels.
We could do this all day. Words have meanings, they are not improvised.

[HereSince1628]

21. I was not trying to replace it with a noun I was trying to place it

within an affective context.

I would very much agree that words have meanings. I would also suggest that some words are intended to communicate emotion.

Although affect may be primordial to vocabulary, affect is, nonetheless, an important part of communication.

Fondness is indeed a noun with affective properties which clusters with a limited number of verbs (behaviors/actions).

[Humanist_Activist]

23. I prefer to cherish things that live and breathe, friends, family, other humans....

and even the Earth itself, being the home of all of us.

[get the red out]

4. The problem I see

The biggest problem I see is when cherished beliefs become untouchable by others to the point that those beliefs translate into actions that harm others and you are shouted down if you speak up about the injustice of it. I see that happen frequently when beliefs lead to persecution of gays and inequality of women; you speak up and are told that it is their "choice" to believe this way, yet their choices doom children born into their religious groups to being taught from birth that they are not entitled to the full rights our constitution gives them. Beyond that is when cherished religious beliefs are used as a reason to pass laws that negatively impact our society as a whole, and we are still told we can't criticize "belief".

I have certain spiritual beliefs, but I don't feel the need to control others because of them, nor do I wish to illogically attack people who don't believe as I do. People who can't deal with differences are giving themselves permission to never grow up in one area of their lives and having to tip-toe around these perpetual children is irritating at best, and at worst threatening to our democracy.

[rug]

7. This entire post is idiotic.

No offense.

[dmallind]

10. As the OP mentioned, this is when evidence is required.

I have no idea if the OP is offended by your statement. I would not be if it were leveled at a post of mine. But without evidence to support your contention, I would dismiss it as pointless and ill-considered and, ironically perhaps, idiotic itself.

[rug]

25. The holder of the opinion is required to produce facts on which the opinion is based.

The entire OP is an opinion. A ludicrous one in my opinion.

I find your attempt to interject the usual evidence canard into an opinion piece is itself ludicrous.

No offense.

[Humanist_Activist]

27. Actually its an observation on the conduct and behavior of religious people...

and my opinion as to why they behave this way. If you have an objection, please be more specific than just "its all opinion".

[Humanist_Activist]

22. As the other poster said, I'm not offended, but I do come from Missouri so show me...

how the post is idiotic.

[rug]

24. Your post is opinion, not fact.

Unless you want to produve the facts on which your opinion is based. "I hold no cherished beliefs, and I hold nothing sacred". On its face, it's an idiotic opinion.

No offense.

[Humanist_Activist]

26. How is stating my own persepctive on my own beliefs idiotic?

You could have criticized as opinion my perspective of the overreaction of religious people to critiques of their beliefs, but instead you state something as opinion rather than fact about my OWN mindset. The question is, do you even understand the fallacy you fell into, or do you want me to illustrate it for you?

[rug]

30. Well, as I understand the way it goes, an opinion is subject to dismissal if it lacks

objective evidence. Since you state your opinion is based on your own perspective, it lacks objective evidence and is therefore subject to dismissal, if not ridicule, as much as an opinion on Sky Daddy or Unicorn is. Did I get it right?

No offense.

[Humanist_Activist]

32. What are you talking about here, which opinion?

You don't even seem to understand the point of the OP, try to figure that out before you post.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

49. I find it ironic that you dismiss a perspective because its based on opinion

Deliciously ironic...

[humblebum]

11. I would consider the inability to have any regard for what others consider to be sacred

or cherished to be much more dangerous than the existence of those qualities. And the intentional disregard of those qualities is sufficient reason to be heavily criticized and regarded with suspicion.

[dmallind]

13. And people who consider truth established by materialist empiricism to be sacred?

How can those who suggest "another way of knowinhg" have any regard for that?

[humblebum]

14. There is much truth established by empiricism, but that is certainly not the end of

human inquisitiveness, and other methods do exist, whether they are recognized by materialists or not.

[dmallind]

15. Simple words in the correct order. Why ???

[humblebum]

16. I decided to rephrase, as you probably noticed, because you

deserved a more complete answer.

[dmallind]

17. And the materialists who hold materialist knowledge sacred are thus abused?

[humblebum]

18. "Materialist knowledge" can be held as being "sacred", without a spiritual component

naturally. But, materialist knowledge, or whatever name we choose to give it, is NOT the only form of knowledge recognized in humanity. A strong belief in science does not negate religious belief, simply because scientific knowledge does not encompass the entirety of human curiosity. There are objective and subjective methods of obtaining knowledge.

[Humanist_Activist]

29. Question, what are these other methods, and how do we determine their accuracy? n/t

[cleanhippie]

42. Would you like to borrow a bottle of oxygen?

Because if you are holding your breath, waiting for an answer to your question, you are gonna need one.

[Goblinmonger]

19. Have you given up eating cherished cattle yet? n/t

[humblebum]

20. I only eat uncherished cattle. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

28. Now this post is a classic example of overreaction, to the point of paranoia. n/t

[humblebum]

31. Certainly no more of an "overreaction, to the point of paranoia"

than the original post itself. After all, you raised the issue.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. Again, its an observation of the overreactions of religious people to any challenge or criticism....

of their beliefs. You act as a classic example of this with every post you make.

Also, I believe you are also using projection to try to pin your own emotional reactions onto my post, the question is why?

[humblebum]

34. Um? I believe you are the one who referred to cherished beliefs as "dangerous."

That does suggest a bit of paranoia.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. Backed up by evidence, for example, blasphemy laws are a classic example...

for disrespecting religious beliefs and/or figures, others include assaulting people for holding different beliefs, or sending personal threats to people for not respecting religious beliefs, etc.

There are numerous examples, even on this very board, would you like links to them all? I'm questioning why I'm wasting time with a theocrat on this subject.

[humblebum]

36. You are accusing me of being a theocrat among several other

niceties, and you claim that I am the paranoid one?

[Humanist_Activist]

38. Perhaps theocrat is a bit too harsh, but given the posts you have made in the past...

I can only conclude that you would prefer your religion to have a, shall we say, privileged place in society and government.

Would this be a fair assessment in your view?

[humblebum]

41. "religion to have a... privileged place in society and government."

No that would not be a fair assessment. Religion should have an equal voice in society and government. No more, no less. And given the posts I have made in the past, most are in response to the huge amount of anti-religious criticism and condemnation that is common here. One look at the list of threads in the R/T forum makes that quite evident. If you have a problem with the tone of these discussions, then you may want to consider some other venue.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. How would these equal voice be used in practice?

Would it be proportional to the amount of adherents to the various religions? If that were the case then Christianity is overrepresented and every minority religion and the non-religious are underrepresented in government.

How else would it come about? Your religion already has a privileged place in society, your pastors and others are generally given a pass for misdeeds, and are given authority on moral and ethical concerns by the media. God is invoked in the halls of Congress, in many city halls, and in state legislatures. God is mentioned in the national motto, on our money, and in our pledge.

What more do you want?

[humblebum]

45. There should be no established official national religion, and the government

needs to recognize that religion can be practiced freely, without hindrance. Simple concept. There has never been absolute separation of Church and State in the US, nor was such ever intended. The term "God" is quite generic and recognized by many religions as such.

[beam me up scottie]

46. If "absolute" separation of church and state was never the intent, what was?

Having a little bit of God in government is like being a little bit pregnant.

If the term "God" is so generic, why capitalize it?

And why reference a single deity? Wouldn't "gods and/or goddesses" be more inclusive?

[humblebum]

47. If absolute separation had not been the intent, then we would not

have had a Senate chaplain since day one. There wouldn't have been various religious icons and references on national monuments since the earliest days, nor would there be a national cathedral. Hardly absolute separation.

[beam me up scottie]

48. So back in the good old days when everybody was a christian they put christian propaganda everywhere

Your examples do not prove your claim.

Judge Roy Moore and his minions cite the same ones, btw.

[humblebum]

50. Don't look now, but historical fact is what it is. That cannot be changed. If you want to debate

the obvious then have at it.

However, there are those like Roy Moore who overstep the separation intent and who do attempt to establish a national religion, clearly in violation of the intent.

[beam me up scottie]

51. WHAT intent? Where does it say that a little religion is permitted?

According to your posts, Roy Moore is well within his rights to put christian monuments in courthouses.

[humblebum]

52. You seem to have missed the "free exercise" clause.

About Roy Moore, he also claimed that the US is a Christian nation, to the exclusion of all others. And he was defending the Constitution of Alabama, not the US Constitution, which by virtue of the 14th Amendment, nullified the Alabama constitution on this matter. That was his mistake. The US is not a Christian country, it is a free country. It is a Christian majority country and that is not even debatable. But, there is no established national religion, which is what the Founders wanted so much to avoid. It was a complete break from European-style government.

[beam me up scottie]

53. I haven't missed anything.

then we would not have had a Senate chaplain since day one. There wouldn't have been various religious icons and references on national monuments since the earliest days, nor would there be a national cathedral.

The examples you provided are tributes to christianity, they do not honor or even acknowledge any other religion.

And again, where does it say that it's okay to do so?

[humblebum]

55. HINT: The very people who WROTE the Constitution established

the Senate and House chaplaincies, and OK'd the constuction of the monuments, which are not only Christian but references are made to a number of other religions.

The word 'free' doesn't specify whether it pertains to public or private only. It only says 'free.' Look up the term if you need to.

[beam me up scottie]

58. But they didn't write any of that INTO the Constitution.

For good reason.

[humblebum]

59. So. In essence, what you are implying is that they violated their own Constitution?

And indeed, during the very time it was being written and ratified? I am a more inclined to believe that they inserted the phrase "free exercise" for that intended purpose.

[beam me up scottie]

60. You can BELIEVE anything you want to.

I'm still waiting for the proof.

[humblebum]

61. I am merely stating historical facts, which cannot be changed.

You can slice, dice, and analyze all you care to, but history is locked in place.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Nothing you've posted supports your claim that partial secularism is written into the Constitution.

Or that it even exists.

[humblebum]

63. Then would you care show how you get absolute separation out of it?

That also is not written into the Constitution. And explain why that has NEVER been the case since the founding.

[beam me up scottie]

64. You're the one who made the claim, back it up.

I think you would have by now had you been able.

[humblebum]

65. I have. nt

[beam me up scottie]

66. Where? I must have missed your post citing the language in the Constitution that supported your pov.

Perhaps you can point it out.

[humblebum]

67. I believe you are the one claiming that absolute separation exists

inspite of all the evidence against your pov. And not only is "absolute" not stated, but "separation" is not stated. So I guess there is no separation, huh?

[beam me up scottie]

68. Bull. I asked for verification of your statement in post 45 about absolute separation.

humblebum (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-03-11 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. There should be no established official national religion, and the government
needs to recognize that religion can be practiced freely, without hindrance. Simple concept. There has never been absolute separation of Church and State in the US, nor was such ever intended. The term "God" is quite generic and recognized by many religions as such.

Fail.

Still waiting for proof.

[humblebum]

69. I believe that is a response to your assertion that it does exist.

And I have certainly proven that it does not, nor is it anywhere mentioned in the Constitution.

You have gotten your proof. But if you cannot accept that, then I will assert that NO separation exists, because it is not in the Constitution.

[beam me up scottie]

70. You believe a lot of things and yet you can't seem to provide evidence for any of them.

You made a claim, I asked you to back it up and you've failed repeatedly to do so.

PeeWee Herman would be proud.

[humblebum]

71. Guess separation doesn't exist then, huh? nt

[beam me up scottie]

72. Repeating your claim ad nauseum doesn't make it true.

Magical thinking is to blame.

Creationists have the same problem.

They wonder why no one takes them seriously too.

[humblebum]

73. But it sure does expose your vacuous logic and avoidance. nt

[beam me up scottie]

74. Uh huh.

:rofl:

[humblebum]

75. Glad you agree.

That league you said I was out of, was that the League of Militant Atheists? You're right I am.

[dmallind]

12. Yes and not confined to religion as you state - tribalism is the issue

I've seen reasonable mature men with no pretensions of athletic prowess turn into apoplectic berserkers because someone else suggested they would prefer another NFL team to beat the one favored by said berserker (hint - when you refer to a sports team of which you are not an active member as "we" why exactly do you think that is appropriate?).

I've seen people bristle and rant when their race, region of origin, political preference and even musical tastes are criticized. ALL of them use "we" in defense even though they almost always have no first-person role in what is being criticized.

And I've lost count of how many people upon discerning my still underlying (after 20 yrs) British accent and demanded I thank them for not speaking German despite several key facts: a)they are invariably too young to have done anything to prevent this b) The planned German invasion of Britain was abandoned fully a year before the US entered the war, after the Germans lost the battle for air supremacy c) 80% of German combat fatalities were at the hands of Russians and d) the only reason they don't have the same accent themselves is because of the French in the first place. So in summary if you are an 85+ yr old Russian combat veteran feel free to ask for my thanks for having a more elegant and versatile native language than I otherwise might - I will certainly offer them to you most heartily.

"We" is the problem. Group cohesion was a key evolutionary edge for humans, and even for the formation of civilization, but in modern society the in group/out group distinction does nothing but breed dissension, violence and hate. It's time to abandon "we" except in discussing humanity. False tribes on any basis like religion will never lead to shared universalized benefit.

[struggle4progress]

37. i don't know what you mean by "sacred," but it is, imo, simply and essentially human

to have some respect and reverence for certain miraculous fragilities that we simply cannot replace once lost or destroyed


for children lost in the smallpox epidemic

when spring arrives
flowers sprout
on every branch
but those children
who fell with the leaves last autumn
will never return

-- Ryokan

[Humanist_Activist]

39. There's a difference between protecting antiquity and rare items...

from damage, and having reverence for them, that's just foolishness, and I wasn't even talking about that anyways. I was referring mostly to what people consider sacred symbols, not necessarily relics.

People lose their lives due to disrespecting the "sacred," this cannot stand, no symbol, no belief, no religion, is worth one human life. Indeed, it illustrates one of the great evils of religion, that it cheapens human life to such an extent that if you show some offense to an imaginary deity, believers think it is appropriate that your life be taken from you.

[struggle4progress]

43. i was not referring to antiques, nor to rare items, nor to relics

[kwassa]

57. This is normal to consider certain beliefs or symbols sacred.

To you nothing is sacred, though I suspect rationalism really is very sacred to you.

I think what you are really saying is that no symbol, belief, or religion that is unimportant to you is worth one human life. You might feel differently if rationality is to be sacrificed, as Republicans seem determined to do to our political system.

Human life is cheapened by any belief system that places it's own importance above life. Religion is only one type of belief system that can do this; nationalism, throughout history, has been the greatest of tribal beliefs that brings about human death. Ethnicity is another great belief system, in the superiority of one ethnicity to another. Political belief system is another; how many have died in the name of creating the perfect communist state? Between the USSR and communist China, maybe 50 million or so.

It is about tribal belief systems, the belief creating the tribe, differentiating one group of humans from another.

[LARED]

54. If I understand your point

Having cherished beliefs can cause one to identify strongly with a belief system (like religion) which in turn can put the person not holding those beliefs is some type of danger.


Does that sum it up?

[NMMNG]

56. A belief is not an idea held by the mind, it is an idea that holds the mind"

(Elly Roselle)