Holy texts should be respected by scholars

[(Q)]

You cannot make someone "see" something some way merely because that way appears right to you. It will be resented just as you would resent it if a theist did the same to you. Tolerance and compassion are an integral part of a mixed society; without it, there is no resolution.

Like Christians do to Muslims and vice versa?

And we all know the extent of tolerism between the two.

And what I find most disturbing is when theists "see" that which has never been shown to exist.

So, please explain, why anyone should be tolerant of that?

 

[Lawdog]

It is not necessary to "prove" God. We see with a spiritual eye, Faith.

 

[charles cure]

Of course I do not mean fundamentalists or dictators; but surely you do not mean to say that every theist fits only these two categories?

what i mean is that irrational ideas that are prone to distortion and abuse are all the same. your criteria for respecting any given idea or ethos should be that it has inherent value and applicability to reality. at one point i believe that christianity may have qualified as such but at this juncture in history it ceases to be useful other than as a framework for people who seek to impose their way of life on others. good morals are good morals whether they derive from logic or a ficticious god, and i have never seen any evidence that would lead me to believe that nonreligious morals are fundamentally any different than religious ones. there are certain basic moral tenets that society needs to value in order for civilizations to form and function, and these will be necessary as long as humans believe that societies are still necessary, regardless of where they originate, or the minor particulars of the dogmas they are associated with.

Thats like saying all white men are racists or all Germans are Nazis.

well, pay attention because i wasn't saying that. however, you did appear to be saying that beliefs deserve respect if they are accepted by many people. well, i'm asking where do you draw the line? for me, the line is drawn at rationality and reason. if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.

There are a lot of theists in the world who follow their religion only for spiritual reasons and no other; if you think attacking someone's core belief will change it why all you have to do is examine your own beliefs to know how hard it is to shed what one REALLY believes in. Attacking someone for his/her belief only makes them defensive and may precipitate the very thing you fear, a desire to fight back...so how can you conceive of this as a rational approach? You cannot make someone "see" something some way merely because that way appears right to you. It will be resented just as you would resent it if a theist did the same to you. Tolerance and compassion are an integral part of a mixed society; without it, there is no resolution.

there is a difference between attacking and denying. i don't go up to people coming out fo church on sunday and challenge their beliefs, thats ridiculous. however, when some religious conservative is out lobbying for outlawing abortion based on their insane book of rules, i take issue with it and will argue for what i believe is correct based on human reasoning, which - in the end, is all any god that may have ever existed has left us with. the way i see it, there is no possible way for me to force non-belief onto someone, and i don't wish to. i appreciate people's right to be as spiritual as they want to be a long as i don't have to be too. however, i think that there are a lot of people out there, christians especially in the US, who have taken the game to us and try to enshrine the bible in law. that is something that i will never be ok with, and i see working against it as a defense of myself and my own beliefs, because that's what's under attack. so i agree, in my view, christian political attacks on secularism and nonreligious ideals makes me want to defend myself and it is exactly their disrespect for anything but their own religion that requires me to feel that way. i think though that the issue is twisted all around here. as far as religion goes, i may not have any respect for the ideas espoused, but i do have a fundamental respect for the idea that people should be allowed to believe what they want to in private, and practice a spiritual lifestyle as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's ability to exercise their own rights.

 

[charles cure]

It is not necessary to "prove" God. We see with a spiritual eye, Faith.

yeah good luck with that. do you realize how assinine that sounds?

 

[charles cure]

Was Mein Kampf taken too seriously or not seriously enough?

Heads in sand caused World War II.

how is this relevant at all? mein kampf was popular, and hitler's leadership was taken seriously in germany and privately i'm sure europeans in other countries agreed with him as well.

who cares what caused WWII, that's not even a part of the discussion.

To the contrary, if you have not bothered to respect that which you disagree with, your disagreement is invalid.

do you respect satanism, pedophilia, witchcraft, sado-masochism, human slavery, child prostitution, suicide bombings, cannibalism, rape, torture...etc.? i have no respcet for any of those things and i disagree with them on perfectly rational grounds. i'd say thats pretty valid. so it would seem patently untrue that you can't disagree with something without respecting it. as a matter of fact i would say that disrespect for some act or set of beliefs is a primary reason for disagreement in the first place. maybe you need to reevaluate your statement here, as it fails to make any kind of sense.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.

I agree. What is preventing us from using reality to refine how we interpret reality?

 

[perplexity]

how is this relevant at all? mein kampf was popular, and hitler's leadership was taken seriously in germany and privately i'm sure europeans in other countries agreed with him as well.
who cares what caused WWII, that's not even a part of the discussion.

You put the question "do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?"

do you respect satanism, pedophilia, witchcraft, sado-masochism, human slavery, child prostitution, suicide bombings, cannibalism, rape, torture...etc.?sense.

"Respect" does not necessarily infer agreement or deference.

c.f.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1075318#post1075318

--- Ron.

 

[charles cure]

You put the question "do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?"

right, so i'm asking where the line is drawn in terms or respecting a particular belief in order to facilitate communication.

"Respect" does not necessarily infer agreement or deference.

c.f.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1075318#post1075318

--- Ron.

from merriamwebster.com

Main Entry: 2respect
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN
synonym see REGARD

it means at the very least to see something in a positive light.

 

[S.A.M.]

what i mean is that irrational ideas that are prone to distortion and abuse are all the same. your criteria for respecting any given idea or ethos should be that it has inherent value and applicability to reality. at one point i believe that christianity may have qualified as such but at this juncture in history it ceases to be useful other than as a framework for people who seek to impose their way of life on others. good morals are good morals whether they derive from logic or a ficticious god, and i have never seen any evidence that would lead me to believe that nonreligious morals are fundamentally any different than religious ones. there are certain basic moral tenets that society needs to value in order for civilizations to form and function, and these will be necessary as long as humans believe that societies are still necessary, regardless of where they originate, or the minor particulars of the dogmas they are associated with.

How does intolerance reflect secularism?

well, pay attention because i wasn't saying that. however, you did appear to be saying that beliefs deserve respect if they are accepted by many people. well, i'm asking where do you draw the line? for me, the line is drawn at rationality and reason. if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.

No I said we live in a mixed society; if the beliefs are illegal, there are laws to take care of it; if not, everyone has a right to their beliefs and the freedom to practise them.

there is a difference between attacking and denying. i don't go up to people coming out fo church on sunday and challenge their beliefs, thats ridiculous. however, when some religious conservative is out lobbying for outlawing abortion based on their insane book of rules, i take issue with it and will argue for what i believe is correct based on human reasoning, which - in the end, is all any god that may have ever existed has left us with. the way i see it, there is no possible way for me to force non-belief onto someone, and i don't wish to. i appreciate people's right to be as spiritual as they want to be a long as i don't have to be too. however, i think that there are a lot of people out there, christians especially in the US, who have taken the game to us and try to enshrine the bible in law. that is something that i will never be ok with, and i see working against it as a defense of myself and my own beliefs, because that's what's under attack. so i agree, in my view, christian political attacks on secularism and nonreligious ideals makes me want to defend myself and it is exactly their disrespect for anything but their own religion that requires me to feel that way. i think though that the issue is twisted all around here. as far as religion goes, i may not have any respect for the ideas espoused, but i do have a fundamental respect for the idea that people should be allowed to believe what they want to in private, and practice a spiritual lifestyle as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's ability to exercise their own rights.

Yes you are right; you have a right to your belief as much as anyone else and you are fully justified in your defense.

 

[perplexity]

[Respect] means at the very least to see something in a positive light.

Did you ever attend a funeral?

People respect death, and not usually in what I would call a positive light.

--- Ron.

 

[charles cure]

How does intolerance reflect secularism?

tolerance and respect are two different things. we were discussing respect and i was discussing why i think religious belief has outlived its usefullness and applicability and why it does not deserve respect. tolerance is an entirely different subject.

No I said we live in a mixed society; if the beliefs are illegal, there are laws to take care of it; if not, everyone has a right to their beliefs and the freedom to practise them.

first of all, hitler's beliefs were enshrined in law at the time that he was leader of germany, that still does not make them right or deserving of respect. slavery was also once legal here, and i think we all know that the basis for that practice - the belief that blacks were inferior - was not deserving of respect either.

secondly, the debate about religion's place in western society often revolves around whether religous beliefs and religiously based moral arguments can be used as a basis for defining law. in some cases, practices that were once legal have become illegal because a religious agenda is favored by those in power. so freedom can be eroded easily if you stand by and let others take it from you, as many religious people in the west would like to.

Yes you are right; you have a right to your belief as much as anyone else and you are fully justified in your defense.

i dont have a belief. thats the beauty of it. i want the right to not be bombarded by the beliefs of certain sects in the public square, and i would like to retain the secular nature of our laws and values as a society.

 

[charles cure]

Did you ever attend a funeral?

People respect death, and not usually in what I would call a positive light.

--- Ron.

no they don't. the respect you show at a funeral is twofold. respect for the family who has lost a loved one, because you view the family or members of it in a positive light and you wish to soothe their pain. you also go to show respect for the person who has died. people attend a funeral to show that they respected who that person was in life because they saw them as good or worthy of respect.

did you not think before you posted that?

 

[S.A.M.]

tolerance and respect are two different things. we were discussing respect and i was discussing why i think religious belief has outlived its usefullness and applicability and why it does not deserve respect. tolerance is an entirely different subject.

So intolerance is the wave of the future? what does that achieve, exactly?

first of all, hitler's beliefs were enshrined in law at the time that he was leader of germany, that still does not make them right or deserving of respect. slavery was also once legal here, and i think we all know that the basis for that practice - the belief that blacks were inferior - was not deserving of respect either.

What's the obsession with Hitler? And was he not called to account for his actions ? Intolerance by ANYONE is not to be condoned.

secondly, the debate about religion's place in western society often revolves around whether religous beliefs and religiously based moral arguments can be used as a basis for defining law. in some cases, practices that were once legal have become illegal because a religious agenda is favored by those in power. so freedom can be eroded easily if you stand by and let others take it from you, as many religious people in the west would like to.

And in how many places has it actually been implemented?

i dont have a belief. thats the beauty of it. i want the right to not be bombarded by the beliefs of certain sects in the public square, and i would like to retain the secular nature of our laws and values as a society.

Not having a belief is also a belief

belief:Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

 

[S.A.M.]

Like Christians do to Muslims and vice versa?

Some Muslims and some Christians; you might be surprised to know that a lot of it has to do with politics and not much else.

And we all know the extent of tolerism between the two.

Who's we? ( tolerism??)

And what I find most disturbing is when theists "see" that which has never been shown to exist.

And this is important because...?

So, please explain, why anyone should be tolerant of that?

Because compassion and understanding is better than intolerance and invective?

Because we (?) live in a secular society?

Because everyone has a right to his beliefs?

 

[charles cure]

So intolerance is the wave of the future? what does that achieve, exactly?

where are you getting this bullshit about intolerance? here, i try to make a distinction between respct and tolerance and it somehow escapes you. you can tolerate something that you don't have respect for. having respect for something and allowing it to be seen as valid go beyond toleration and extend into a tacit approval of the practice or belief as ok for everyone, including yourself. i am saying that the more people say "oh its ok for people to take the bible seriously because its somewhat accurate or because its story could be real" the more it becomes acceptable to assume that we can base our cultural norms and values upon it. by saying "look, lets see the bible for what it is - a ficticious story" you do not take away people's ability to believe in it, but you relegate it to a private belief instead of an insidious cultural guideline. in this way, you may tolerate without respecting.

What's the obsession with Hitler? And was he not called to account for his actions ? Intolerance by ANYONE is not to be condoned.

he was, but not by the german people who he lead, and not before he had already killed 6 million people. imagine if the germans had condemned his idiocy before he ever came to power, there would have been no holocaust.

And in how many places has it actually been implemented?

well let's see...the entire arab world for starters. in our country, for years and years religious belief has dictated laws regarding sexual norms, including a ban on gay marriage, a prohibition against gays in the military, the Texas law banning abortion that led to the Row v Wade decision by the supreme court, laws banning euthanasia/assisted suicide...etc.
so i guess all over the place.

Not having a belief is also a belief

belief:Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

listen to yourself: "not believing is the same thing as believing". is it? do you realize what a contradiction in terms that is? i don't believe in a religion, nor do i favor a particular spiritual or moral belief system that is not fact based. to believe means to accept the validity or truth of something in the absence of empirical proof or evidence. i don't do that. whether or not i agree with a doctrine espoused by a praticular religion or not is a matter of coincidence and personal morality for me and i decide issues like that based on their merits - ie: whether a particular position is logical or has any factual basis to begin with, and to what extent the effects of any act can be forseen and viewed as positive or negative based on what is known at present. that's not belief at all. that's informed decision making.

 

[perplexity]

no they don't. the respect you show at a funeral is twofold. respect for the family who has lost a loved one, because you view the family or members of it in a positive light and you wish to soothe their pain. you also go to show respect for the person who has died. people attend a funeral to show that they respected who that person was in life because they saw them as good or worthy of respect.

did you not think before you posted that?

Yes I did.

What does "respect" mean here then?

To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;

(Hamlet, Act 2, 1.)


This to my mind is the greatest respect of all.

--- Ron.

 

[charles cure]

oh you mean to respect the power of death out of fear? yeah i don't do that. so you keep on quoting shakespeare's middle english and i'll continue to use respect the way it is meant today.

 

[S.A.M.]

where are you getting this bullshit about intolerance? here, i try to make a distinction between respct and tolerance and it somehow escapes you. you can tolerate something that you don't have respect for. having respect for something and allowing it to be seen as valid go beyond toleration and extend into a tacit approval of the practice or belief as ok for everyone, including yourself. i am saying that the more people say "oh its ok for people to take the bible seriously because its somewhat accurate or because its story could be real" the more it becomes acceptable to assume that we can base our cultural norms and values upon it. by saying "look, lets see the bible for what it is - a ficticious story" you do not take away people's ability to believe in it, but you relegate it to a private belief instead of an insidious cultural guideline. in this way, you may tolerate without respecting.

And this is your idea of tolerance?

he was, but not by the german people who he lead, and not before he had already killed 6 million people. imagine if the germans had condemned his idiocy before he ever came to power, there would have been no holocaust.

You have read some strange history books.

well let's see...the entire arab world for starters. in our country, for years and years religious belief has dictated laws regarding sexual norms, including a ban on gay marriage, a prohibition against gays in the military, the Texas law banning abortion that led to the Row v Wade decision by the supreme court, laws banning euthanasia/assisted suicide...etc.
so i guess all over the place.

You might want to travel the world a bit; regardless of popular opinion the US and ME are not the extent of the world.

listen to yourself: "not believing is the same thing as believing". is it? do you realize what a contradiction in terms that is? i don't believe in a religion, nor do i favor a particular spiritual or moral belief system that is not fact based. to believe means to accept the validity or truth of something in the absence of empirical proof or evidence. i don't do that. whether or not i agree with a doctrine espoused by a praticular religion or not is a matter of coincidence and personal morality for me and i decide issues like that based on their merits - ie: whether a particular position is logical or has any factual basis to begin with, and to what extent the effects of any act can be forseen and viewed as positive or negative based on what is known at present. that's not belief at all. that's informed decision making.

Is that a direct quote? I've lived in several multicultural societies but this is the most non-secular society I have ever seen; even the atheists are fundamentalists!!

 

[charles cure]

And this is your idea of tolerance?

explain how it isn't tolerance. in fact, why don't you try refuting the things i say instead of just weaseling out of them by asking more questions.

You have read some strange history books.

oh really, its accepted history now that the german people stopped hitler before he came to power and averted the holocaust? interesting.

You might want to travel the world a bit; regardless of popular opinion the US and ME are not the extent of the world.

i've been to 10 countries and every state in the US except for 3. so i think i have been around a little, however, that seems irrelevant considering i answered the question you posed and now you don't think that those were valid examples because i didn't explain how it has happened historically everywhere else in the world. you're wasting both of our time. try arguing it instead.

Is that a direct quote? I've lived in several multicultural societies but this is the most non-secular society I have ever seen; even the atheists are fundamentalists!!

who cares where you lived? you made a stupid statment. you said non-belief is a belief. where do you get an idea like that? on top of it, i'm going to bet that you view any protest against religion in the public square here as an atheist intolerance of religion, which it's not. there are some people here that are religious but value the ideals on which our country was founded highly enough to be angered when someone tries to circumvent constitutional law and shove a religious belief into our midst as a public institution. those issues are purely legal and have nothing to do with intolerance of one idea because another is favored; they instead are based on the premise that if no one belief is accorded preferential treatment, then all beliefs will have equal opportunity to flourish.

 

[baumgarten]

I agree. What is preventing us from using reality to refine how we interpret reality?

Nothing. That's what learning is.