respect my views ? (birth control, disciples, mythology, protestants)

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

All this in 20 years? Quite the tale you spin there...

If you mean to discredit what I've said...then I feel sorry for you and your ignorance. 24 years to be exact. BTW, based on your informed position, what about my life experience is not accurate? I would be glad to describe it for you in more detail.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by ainulinale

If you mean to discredit what I've said...then I feel sorry for you and your ignorance. 24 years to be exact. BTW, based on your informed position, what about my life experience is not accurate? I would be glad to describe it for you in more detail.

Where did I say I didn't believe you?...Why so defensive, that you call me ignorant and insult me, friend?

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Where did I say I didn't believe you?...Why so defensive, that you call me ignorant and insult me, friend?

I'm very sorry...just in the belligerent mood I guess. I thought you were saying that I made it all up.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by ahteist2

We are told often that we are to respect the views and opinions of others, even when they are crazy and especially when it comes to faith. Which is amazing to me, that faith is even held a value at all.

1. Christians want us to respect their views, or do they want us to ADOPT their views? For example christians are doing all they can to STOP any form of gay marriage, but why?

Or perhaps no beer on sunday, or what ever other law you can mustard up that restricts, limits or prohibits any behavior based on religious values.

Now, if they say "respect" out beliefs, let us believe what we want, do not try to change us, and all that stuff. Then why cant the afford the curtiousy and keep their morals and values out of our faces and off our law books ?

Let the gays get married if they want to, after all I am sure no gays are trying to make christians be in gay marriages.

2. If I am to respect their beliefs, then should I also be able to walk down the street, answer my door or turn on my TV with out some nut job trying to convert me to the newest fade church down the block. Or being screamed at that I am going to hell ?

3. Or, being told what I believe. Christians are always saying not to generalize them. Not to tell them what they believe, yet that is what they do with atheist all the time. And are NEVER correct in their assumptions.

So, if we are to respect them and their beliefs, why dont they do likewise.

This is one of the reasons I see religious people as hypocrites and no I do not respect their beliefs, only their right to have them.

Hi ahteist2,
What do you mean by "respect"? Do you mean something like "accept" or "tolerate" without trying to change? It sounds like you just want to be left alone. Or am I misreading you?

By the way, your complaint is a bit inflammatory, partly because it is such a general attack on some nebulous group you call "Christians." Such talk speaks not to the toleration of the one asking for "respect."

In any case, what you're asking for doesn't seem likely, and may not even be possible, in a pluralistic society (maybe you don't live in one, but I assume you do). Now, a pluralistic, democratic society, is one in which people have the right, and even the duty, to try to change society according to what appears to them to be for the better. And so, people follow their own moral compass, and try to keep gay marriage out, or bring intelligent design into schools, or defend a woman's right to have an abortion, or to fight for gay marriage.....the list goes on and on. This is both a great thing and a source of tension. Why? Because we all don't agree on what is good and right. The nature of morality is that, if we believe X is a right or a duty, we think X applies to everyone. And so we try to change minds or make laws (or defend current laws or practices), since we think it really is important, and really should be upheld, and we have a duty to do this.

At least, that's a charitable reading of why people act in ways that you find "disrespectful," or even "hateful" or "bigoted" (though I don't think you meant to imply these last two). It's easy, far too easy, to attribute bad motives to people, and think they are immoral, when in fact they often believe they are acting morally.

And thats the heart of the tension. if X is good, then preventing X is, well, evil, or bad, or hateful. The hardest thing is to try seeing the "other" as NOT being the enemy. This is a challenge we all face.

In the end, we still have a duty to do what we think is right. Even if this means that others will think we lack compassion. But we should always strive for compassion.

[FredNotBob]

Originally Posted by Nikk

Christian have every right to tell you about their religion, just as much as you tell yours. Any sales man can sell their product to anyone they want. This society allows for freedom of speech. It is part of America, just learn to love it.

The problem with 'freedom of speech' is that it only ever seems to apply to the person giving the speech.

Yes, the Christians have every right to tell me of their religion. I have no problem with that -- none whatsoever.

But...

When you claim 'freedom of speech', and then turn right around and say 'Except for this group, because they're Evil and Bad'...well...

...Where do you draw the line?

Because a line must be drawn.

Your freedom of speech does not trump my right to stop listening.

I don't have to buy the vaccuum or the encyclopedia from that pushy salesperson. I can walk away, anytime I choose.

So....why am I not *allowed*, in their eyes, to walk away? Why must I stand here, listening to them slander my religion, insult my deities, and insist that I'm out to molest and sacrifice their children, and simply *take* it?

Freedom of speech -- has done a great deal of damage over the years.

Luckily, I don't have to listen if I don't want to.

[Nikk]

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

The problem with 'freedom of speech' is that it only ever seems to apply to the person giving the speech.

Yes, the Christians have every right to tell me of their religion. I have no problem with that -- none whatsoever.

But...

When you claim 'freedom of speech', and then turn right around and say 'Except for this group, because they're Evil and Bad'...well...

...Where do you draw the line?

Because a line must be drawn.

Your freedom of speech does not trump my right to stop listening.

I don't have to buy the vaccuum or the encyclopedia from that pushy salesperson. I can walk away, anytime I choose.

So....why am I not *allowed*, in their eyes, to walk away? Why must I stand here, listening to them slander my religion, insult my deities, and insist that I'm out to molest and sacrifice their children, and simply *take* it?

Freedom of speech -- has done a great deal of damage over the years.

Luckily, I don't have to listen if I don't want to.

I agree. We have freedom of speach and freedom to not listen.

[cncracer]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Hi ahteist2,
What do you mean by "respect"? Do you mean something like "accept" or "tolerate" without trying to change? It sounds like you just want to be left alone. Or am I misreading you?

By the way, your complaint is a bit inflammatory, partly because it is such a general attack on some nebulous group you call "Christians." Such talk speaks not to the toleration of the one asking for "respect."

In any case, what you're asking for doesn't seem likely, and may not even be possible, in a pluralistic society (maybe you don't live in one, but I assume you do). Now, a pluralistic, democratic society, is one in which people have the right, and even the duty, to try to change society according to what appears to them to be for the better. And so, people follow their own moral compass, and try to keep gay marriage out, or bring intelligent design into schools, or defend a woman's right to have an abortion, or to fight for gay marriage.....the list goes on and on. This is both a great thing and a source of tension. Why? Because we all don't agree on what is good and right. The nature of morality is that, if we believe X is a right or a duty, we think X applies to everyone. And so we try to change minds or make laws (or defend current laws or practices), since we think it really is important, and really should be upheld, and we have a duty to do this.

At least, that's a charitable reading of why people act in ways that you find "disrespectful," or even "hateful" or "bigoted" (though I don't think you meant to imply these last two). It's easy, far too easy, to attribute bad motives to people, and think they are immoral, when in fact they often believe they are acting morally.

And thats the heart of the tension. if X is good, then preventing X is, well, evil, or bad, or hateful. The hardest thing is to try seeing the "other" as NOT being the enemy. This is a challenge we all face.

In the end, we still have a duty to do what we think is right. Even if this means that others will think we lack compassion. But we should always strive for compassion.

Matrix I hope you don’t mind if I join in on this post. Ten years ago I might have been OK with just acceptance or toleration of my beliefs, but as I have aged and looked on history as my guide, I think that will not suffice anymore. Too many people have died due to religions being intolerant of each other, and the world is no longer a place where we can turn our backs on the little infringements from extreme or non-extreme religious views. With the age of religious terrorism raising it head, and the availability of atomic weapons to street corner terrorist groups, I see no option but to remove the blinder from the mass population on the errors man has made with acceptance of religion. Expose religion for what it is and hope humanity is smart enough to see the error of their ways. The other option is to continue on this path and watch while the religious world destroys and prevents man’s future. We have reached a point in our intellectual advancement where the security blankets are no longer needed. We understand enough to see where we came from, and can look and see where we have the ability to go. The question we have to answer is if we will let primitive belief systems keep us from reaching those goals. Your post points out how your “faith” is not able to see past your own religious dogma. You want to justify your religion at the cost of other freedoms, a lack of respect in general to anyone that dose not follow your path. In every corner of the world there is another person looking to a different primitive religion with the same feelings. Humanity’s problem is that now these primitive religious groups have access to modern weapons and have a value system which is based on hate of anything different. It just won’t work any more. My goal, in what life I have remaining, is to expose the underbelly of that beast and chip away at the false foundation they are based on. I think it is being seen world wide now as I just read over 80% of Great Britain and greater than 50% of Europe are now non believers. The best point in those polls is the higher % in the youth in the non belivers group. Education is our weapon, and knowledge our sword, these will be hard to stop in the world of the internet.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by ainulinale

Perhaps it is hasty...but seeing as they are identical twins, they probably had very similar development and environment. Also, what is an environmental factor that a person assumes that would make it so that they don't have free will?

I'm not sure what you mean by free will, but there are lots of environmental factors that effect development that are out of the individual's control. Disease, exposure to certain chemicals during development, nutrition, and just dumb luck are possibilities you'd have to conclusively discount before you assume that the non-genetic cause was specifically chosen freely.

To use an extreme example, if one twin got hit by a car and lost a limb, your argument would say that they chose of their own free will to have it removed. By any normal standard, this is obviously wrong so I think you might want to reconsider your conclusion.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by cncracer

Matrix I hope you don’t mind if I join in on this post. Ten years ago I might have been OK with just acceptance or toleration of my beliefs, but as I have aged and looked on history as my guide, I think that will not suffice anymore. Too many people have died due to religions being intolerant of each other, and the world is no longer a place where we can turn our backs on the little infringements from extreme or non-extreme religious views. With the age of religious terrorism raising it head, and the availability of atomic weapons to street corner terrorist groups, I see no option but to remove the blinder from the mass population on the errors man has made with acceptance of religion. Expose religion for what it is and hope humanity is smart enough to see the error of their ways. The other option is to continue on this path and watch while the religious world destroys and prevents man’s future. We have reached a point in our intellectual advancement where the security blankets are no longer needed. We understand enough to see where we came from, and can look and see where we have the ability to go. The question we have to answer is if we will let primitive belief systems keep us from reaching those goals. Your post points out how your “faith” is not able to see past your own religious dogma. You want to justify your religion at the cost of other freedoms, a lack of respect in general to anyone that dose not follow your path. In every corner of the world there is another person looking to a different primitive religion with the same feelings. Humanity’s problem is that now these primitive religious groups have access to modern weapons and have a value system which is based on hate of anything different. It just won’t work any more. My goal, in what life I have remaining, is to expose the underbelly of that beast and chip away at the false foundation they are based on. I think it is being seen world wide now as I just read over 80% of Great Britain and greater than 50% of Europe are now non believers. The best point in those polls is the higher % in the youth in the non belivers group. Education is our weapon, and knowledge our sword, these will be hard to stop in the world of the internet.

I don't mind at all; I'm glad to have you weigh in. For much of what you say, I am in agreement. There is certainly a great danger in the world today from terroristic, religious groups, hell-bent on violent political goals. But you go on to lump "extreme and non-extreme religious views" into one bag, as if there were no fundamental difference between the mini-uzi carrying jihadist, and the peaceful Muslim in Kansas, or the Mormon knocking on your door to tell you about Christ. Seeing the dangers in the world, you want to lay your axe to what you think is the root of the problem: religion itself. But there is a difference. Religion is a source of good as well as bad. And we'll never get rid of it, since the religious impulse grows from an existential experience, from our being limited, finite creatures striving for meaning in a world of suffering. This is common to all humanity.

In any case, the comments in my post were directed to those who live in a pluralistic society, like the U.S. or the U.K. Do you think I'm wrong to say that a difference in what we see as right and wrong, good and evil, is the real issue? And if you and I truly, profoundly, disagree over a substantive moral issue, what are we to do? We can try to destroy one another, or we can give in and compromise. The former seems the height of intolerance, and the latter is impossible if we truly believe we stand on something morally good (so it would be wrong to compromise). Where does that leave us? It leaves us both in the uncomfortable position of trying to stand and fight for what we each think is right (even though we can't possibly both be right). But we need not see the other person, the other group, as simply a position to be overcome. We need to continue seeing each other as people, as individuals, seeing the "other" in as charitable a light as possible--only then can we ameliorate the situation. And all I could ask of you, besides trying to see me, and others, charitably, is that you do what you truly think is for the best. What else could I ask of you? This amounts to nothing more than to say: embrace the principle of charity, and avoid hypocrisy, as much as you can.

I don't see why you find this unpalatable. I don't see why you attribute this to my inability to not see past my own "religious dogma." I don't see how this amounts to justifying my religion "at the cost of other freedoms," and "a lack of respect in general to anyone that dose not follow your path." Indeed, if anything, are you not on the verge of advocating a move closer to intolerance and a loss of freedom? What do you mean by saying you no longer simply want acceptance and toleration for your beliefs? Does that amount to....what? To fighting back? To putting the axe at the root of the problem? To no longer accepting and tolerating religious people and their beliefs? What exactly are you advocating?

But, whatever you do, all I can ask of you are the two things I mentioned (and these apply to me just as much): avoid hypocrisy; embrace charity. I would say, don't act from fear: fear of religion, fear of terrorism, fear of not being accepted. Fear alone is not a motive for acting morally. Neither is hatred. But if you really are doing what you think is right, then in the end I can ask little more. For my part, I will be doing what I think is right. And we will both, God willing, struggle to see each other charitably.

And if you don't agree with the two moral principles I highlight here, then the gulf between us is very large indeed.

[Cirbryn]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

But, whatever you do, all I can ask of you are the two things I mentioned (and these apply to me just as much): avoid hypocrisy; embrace charity.

If you don't mind my butting in as well; I thought that was well-written, but I also note that Thomas de Torquemada must have considered himself to embrace the two principles you're advocating. What about the Golden Rule? What about upholding the Constitution (particularly if you live in America)? I think those are the precepts on which we might all find enough agreement to generate tolerance and frame the issues. Charity and avoiding hypocrisy alone aren't going to get us there.

Regarding the Golden Rule, there is no provision in it as generally written to allow for punishment or defense. Possibly we could all agree to a caveat: "Don't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you in the same position, except as necessary to protect an innocent from equal or greater harm."

The rest should flow fairly well. For example: Should the government teach creationism in public schools? Applying the Golden Rule we ask whether you'd want the government to teach your kids someone else's religious tenets claiming they were science. Presumably not. But perhaps you consider creationism to be science rather than religion. Then that can be examined, but at least we've framed the issue: show that creationism is supported by science or else don't teach it in public school science classes. I think other religiously devisive issues can be broken down similarly.

As another example, try abortion: We can all acknowledge that restricting a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy is a harm to that woman - something that under the Golden Rule we should not do unless we can show it is to protect another from equal or greater harm. So immediately the question of abortion breaks down to whether the harm done the fetus by aborting it is equal to or greater than that done the woman by denying her control over her own body. At first blush the answer might seem to be obviously yes, since the fetus is killed, but we apply the Golden Rule by asking whether we'd want that done to us if we were in the same position. If we were in a fetus' or zygote's or blastula's position, would we care whether we lived or died? If so, how much? That's what the debate should focus on - both sides need to acknowledge and balance potential harms against both the woman and the fetus. Questions about whether a fetus constitutes "life", or whether it has a heartbeat - those are just red herrings. Of course a fetus is alive. It was alive when "it" was a sperm and egg.