Well, I would suspect that "country" folk would be far more likely to survive a crisis based on an already higher degree of cultural and traditional values.
Should We Respect Religion?
- Thread starter SkinWalker
- Start date
This of course presupposes the conclusion, as do the entire realms of study known as "theology" and "religion".
Liked the joke. I disagree or question just about everything else you posted.
Jesus says he was. He told us. So you don't have to prove it. It's a matter of faith.
Last edited:
Respect is not the same as offering no criticism. Ridicule is about debasement. It's about causing intellectual or emotional harm to a person. Healthy criticism does not involve ridicule of a person, or his/her beliefs, but merely an examination of those beliefs and usually a disagreement with them, possibly accompanied by an argument for or against.
Ridicule is about mockery and belittlement. Mockery and belittlement offer no progress in a conversation, only hostility.
Ridicule is about mockery and belittlement. Mockery and belittlement offer no progress in a conversation, only hostility.
I'm all for it, if we can discuss civilly.
but how do you do it if a person, is telling you santa claus is real, and you should bow down and worship him.
what would you do, I assume you would humour them, well thats just plain dishonest, and condescending, and quite frankly extremely disrespectful, more so than ridicule, at least with that your thoughts on the person beliefs are out in the open.
on a science forum like this, if someone states santa is real, he would be drawn over the coals for it, would he not.
Well you have to look at what is the appropriate forum for the presentation of questioning - like for instance suppose I was questioning something in science and I introduced my premise by saying "before I start, let me tell you that you and your ideas are a joke and your beliefs are laughable" - it hardly sets the scene for a civil discussion because the real issue is obviously ego ( ..... and then a person wonders why they were reciprocated with in an inapropriate fashion)
If you think you can discuss anything without the medium of respect you are not looking for a discussion - you are looking for a fight.
Respect the person, don't respect their irrational beliefs. I frequently tell my mother she is full of shit because of her supernaturalist beliefs - doesn't mean I disrespect my own mother
I do however strongly disrespect her beliefs. To clarify, this is the same way I disrespect my fathers heavy smoking.Irrational beliefs don't deserve any special treatment in terms of how we give respect to other things, such as behavior, achievements, judgement etc... Respect comes with a quality to these such things, and with irrational beliefs, there is no quality.
Last edited:
Based on your deference, I can only assume what is being suggested.
Think about that statement for a while, okay? Think real hard, real deep.
Then ask yourself; How can I respect a person when I can't respect their thoughts and beliefs? Isn't a person's thoughts and beliefs one of the many things that makes that person different to yourself? Isn't that a little like say, "I respect that person ...even though they're so fuckin' ugly and stupid!" Is that what we call "respect"?
"Irrational beliefs"? Isn't that a subjective determination? Who are you to say, to know, what's an irrational belief? Are you really that egocentric? And for that, you expect respect in return?
Baron Max
why does'nt it, I would then say, present your proof, but more likely I word it thus, "put your money where your mouth is".
or "put up or shut up" if you cant then you would be open to some sarcasm, would'nt you.
no, it's whats right, I think you've posited to many irrational premises, on these forums, this is probably why you believe it's ego.
I like everbody else, have a respect for people on this and other forums, but I dont have to respect their beliefs, it seems you have a bit of a chip on you shoulder.
Last edited:
so do you agree with everything your friends say, no of course not.
if my mate said he saw a ghost, I'd smile and say "yeh of course you did"(sarcasm) but he'd still be my mate, and I respect him.
you should think hard and deep too.
I would have to agree with SkinWalker, religion is far far less openly criticize in mainstream society as well as media. Few people find it acceptable to outright criticize any belief nowadays, of course there are still people who do but they are regarded as extremists or ignorant or rash, rarely is anyone who criticizes religion taken seriously or accepted widely. Political criticism on the other hand is rampant and accept on a massive scale for people see the separation between people and state but not necessarily between people and their religion. For obvious reasons. In fact I think that many people and media sources have almost a phobia of discussing them for fear of greatly offending their audience.
Religion being a social construction I personally dont think they should automatically be excempt from critizem simply because they're touchy. In fact thats probably why many religious people are so proactive in defending their faith because they know if it goes far enough their gonna find something. Religion is after all a social construct and therefore likely flawed in some ways, but those who wish to point out or solve this issues should do so with due sensitivity to the believers.
Religion being a social construction I personally dont think they should automatically be excempt from critizem simply because they're touchy. In fact thats probably why many religious people are so proactive in defending their faith because they know if it goes far enough their gonna find something. Religion is after all a social construct and therefore likely flawed in some ways, but those who wish to point out or solve this issues should do so with due sensitivity to the believers.
Hate the sin, but love the sinner?
The point is that you never actually leave the platform of disrespect when it comes to discussion - hence its all ego
In effect you are still saying what I originally indicated - "Before we begin let me tell you that you and your ideas are a joke and you are a deluded moron"
In other words you presuppose you understand the other person's understanding. (which is why you feel you can transgress the normal rules of ettiquette for discussion - there's no need to discuss anything because " I already (apparently) know"
This is why your posts, particularly in regard to religion, are not about discussion becasue you are not looking for discussion - you are looking for a fight and an exchange of ad homs
Last edited:
Perhaps you're the one with the ego, that prevents you from accepting that your beliefs are a joke?
you certainly have a thing about ego. he's right you do have a chip on your shoulder.
this is how people debate, take a look at any political debate program, they always have an nautral adjudicator to keep the peace.
unfortunately religion seems to be the most irrational standpoint, so is left open to a little more ridicule.
the respect is there, it just get overshadowed by the rationale, which to the religious, always seem to be a direct dig at them personally, whereas it's the belief thats at fault.
It seems that the most contentious point in this thread centers upon ridicule as a legitimate form of criticism. My assertion is that, while it isn't necessarily favorable in many situations, it is legitimate as criticism. I admit that it isn't always done well and frequently can be very tasteless, but there are also many instances in which the ridicule is warranted and appropriate. Political cartoons are a form of ridicule, yet I see not a single objection. Comedy skits on Saturday Night Live and late night television are forms of ridicule, yet most people accept these for what they are: satirical and comedic perspective of people who probably take themselves far too seriously.
LightG. has said that ridicule informs the opposing side of an argument that you find them a "joke" and a "deluded moron." Clearly, the "moron" part is inferred from the ridicule and not necessarily said implicitly. My response to this is simply to ask, "so?" Some positions are a joke and, if my opinion of them allows you to infer that I find you a moron, so be it.
Ridicule is a device of criticism that seems to get the most objections from the credulous, with the apparent exception of Jaster Mareel. I think this is likely because there is a fear that the ridicule is well-placed. The credulous have a hard enough time defending their credulity against reason without having to deal with being laughed at. As someone once said, "who can refute a sneer?" But ridicule is a powerful form of criticism, and one that many societies throughout history have used with success in maintaining societal order. The !Kung San of the Kalahari still use it (assuming any of the !Kung remain) as do several Polynesian societies that I can think of.
If the position of the credulous was worth what they insist it to be, then goofy notions like goblins, ESP, dowsing, witchcraft, reiki, alien abductions, gods, 'intelligent' design, talking to the dead, fortune telling, magnetic insoles, tinfoil hats, and so on would all be able to withstand the test of ridicule. Religious nutters like Kent Hovind and Pat Robertson ridicule science and scientists all the time -nearly every time they speak in public. Very few scientists pay them a bit of attention, because in the grand scheme of things, the ridicule of a few religious nutters doesn't threaten the validity of science.
Regardless of your personal opinion about ridicule, I'm curious if you would advocate legislation that restricts any public remarks that are considered to be "rude" to religious feelings? Earlier this year, the British Parliament nearly passed a Racial and Religious Hatred bill that included provisos that would have made it illegal to be rude toward a religion or religious person. This would have included insulting words or jokes about religion. The bill lost by a single vote, ironically the bill's chief proponent was Tony Blair, who had gone home early and didn't vote. But in Britain, the BBC isn't even allowed to use the term "Islamic Terrorist," even though the subway bombings were conducted by terrorists who were Islamic.
In the spirit of ridicule in the form of criticism, I offer the following cartoon;
LightG. has said that ridicule informs the opposing side of an argument that you find them a "joke" and a "deluded moron." Clearly, the "moron" part is inferred from the ridicule and not necessarily said implicitly. My response to this is simply to ask, "so?" Some positions are a joke and, if my opinion of them allows you to infer that I find you a moron, so be it.
Ridicule is a device of criticism that seems to get the most objections from the credulous, with the apparent exception of Jaster Mareel. I think this is likely because there is a fear that the ridicule is well-placed. The credulous have a hard enough time defending their credulity against reason without having to deal with being laughed at. As someone once said, "who can refute a sneer?" But ridicule is a powerful form of criticism, and one that many societies throughout history have used with success in maintaining societal order. The !Kung San of the Kalahari still use it (assuming any of the !Kung remain) as do several Polynesian societies that I can think of.
If the position of the credulous was worth what they insist it to be, then goofy notions like goblins, ESP, dowsing, witchcraft, reiki, alien abductions, gods, 'intelligent' design, talking to the dead, fortune telling, magnetic insoles, tinfoil hats, and so on would all be able to withstand the test of ridicule. Religious nutters like Kent Hovind and Pat Robertson ridicule science and scientists all the time -nearly every time they speak in public. Very few scientists pay them a bit of attention, because in the grand scheme of things, the ridicule of a few religious nutters doesn't threaten the validity of science.
Regardless of your personal opinion about ridicule, I'm curious if you would advocate legislation that restricts any public remarks that are considered to be "rude" to religious feelings? Earlier this year, the British Parliament nearly passed a Racial and Religious Hatred bill that included provisos that would have made it illegal to be rude toward a religion or religious person. This would have included insulting words or jokes about religion. The bill lost by a single vote, ironically the bill's chief proponent was Tony Blair, who had gone home early and didn't vote. But in Britain, the BBC isn't even allowed to use the term "Islamic Terrorist," even though the subway bombings were conducted by terrorists who were Islamic.
In the spirit of ridicule in the form of criticism, I offer the following cartoon;