Respect for other's beliefs

[snex]

you mean you dont respect racism because it contradicts your religious belief that all men are created equal...

but you allegedly respect other religions that contradict your other religious beliefs.

hypocrisy anybody?

and how exactly does respecting the belief that sacrificing virgins to volcanoes will appease them make you smarter? how does respecting the belief that women who are ***** deserve to be stoned to death make you smarter?

i disrespect racism by default because it is dangerous. i disrespect religion by default because it is just as dangerous, if not more so. ALL religions are built upon the premise that faith can lead to truth, and its hard to come across a more dangerous idea than that.

 

[The Executive]

you mean you dont respect racism because it contradicts your religious belief that all men are created equal...

but you allegedly respect other religions that contradict your other religious beliefs.

Humans are illogical creatures. I don't know anyone who doesn't exercise doublethink in some aspect of their life.

 

[WuTangDude]

you mean you dont respect racism because it contradicts your religious belief that all men are created equal...

but you allegedly respect other religions that contradict your other religious beliefs.

hypocrisy anybody?

and how exactly does respecting the belief that sacrificing virgins to volcanoes will appease them make you smarter? how does respecting the belief that women who are ***** deserve to be stoned to death make you smarter?

i disrespect racism by default because it is dangerous. i disrespect religion by default because it is just as dangerous, if not more so. ALL religions are built upon the premise that faith can lead to truth, and its hard to come across a more dangerous idea than that.

I believe all religions suffer from infallibility, and you must look at them on the grand scale, and overall message it brings, or else your going to get confused by all the words man has thrown in there. Not hypocrisy, just a wider point of view.

How does it NOT make you smarter? That's two pieces of information stored in your brain, like anything else. Tommorow I could meet someone who says "Has there ever been a religion where it's believed that a woman who has been ***** must be stoned?"

And I could simply say "Yes, there has!"

That's knowledge.

It's not really in the form I was saying I digest from other religions, but it's knowledge nonetheless.

 

[blazedaces]

WuTang, why are you suggesting that you can't learn from something you don't respect?

It's like if you didn't respect snex's belief than you wouldn't have read those two sentences and now be able to make the statement you made above...

-blazed

Edit: And for the comment about being a good devil's advocate, thanks, I try.

 

[WuTangDude]

WuTang, why are you suggesting that you can't learn from something you don't respect?

It's like if you didn't respect snex's belief than you wouldn't have read those two sentences and now be able to make the statement you made above...

-blazed

Edit: And for the comment about being a good devil's advocate, thanks, I try.

I know you do.

You can still gain knowledge from people/things you don't respect. I never said you couldn't.

 

[snex]

I know you do.

You can still gain knowledge from people/things you don't respect. I never said you couldn't.

then your reply to me isnt a counter-argument.

 

[WuTangDude]

then your reply to me isnt a counter-argument.

Care to elaborate on how it's not?

 

[snex]

"and how exactly does respecting the belief that sacrificing virgins to volcanoes will appease them make you smarter? how does respecting the belief that women who are ***** deserve to be stoned to death make you smarter?"

 

[WuTangDude]

"and how exactly does respecting the belief that sacrificing virgins to volcanoes will appease them make you smarter? how does respecting the belief that women who are ***** deserve to be stoned to death make you smarter?"

How does it NOT make you smarter? That's two pieces of information stored in your brain, like anything else. Tommorow I could meet someone who says "Has there ever been a religion where it's believed that a woman who has been ***** must be stoned?"

And I could simply say "Yes, there has!"

I'm failing to see where I said that you can't learn from people/things/ideas/whatever you don't respect.

I'm also failing to see how I have no counterargument.

You're going in circles now, snex.

 

[snex]

"How does it NOT make you smarter?"

are you freaking BLIND??

 

[blazedaces]

WuTang:

1. You admit that you can learn from things you don't respect correct?

2. And you already were arguing that you can also learn from things you do respect.

3. Therefore respect is not defined as the ability to learn from something, correct? Still with me?

4. Obtaining knowledge makes you smarter.

5. You can obtain knowledge from things you don't respect.

Conclusion: Therefore, respecting beliefs does not necessarily make you smarter.

Resulting truth based on this conclusion: there are certainly examples of beliefs that respecting does not make you smarter. You can still obtain knowledge of the existence of such beliefs, which might make you smarter (though this I'm a bit not so willing to admit, but for argument sake let's jut go with it), but respecting them doesn't necessarily do this.

The examples given by snex are such examples.

QED?

-blazed

 

[WuTangDude]

"How does it NOT make you smarter?"

are you freaking BLIND??

That's the question I'm asking you. How does it NOT make you smarter?

It does make you smarter.

Don't try to twist up my words.

Like I said snex, you're going in circles now. No progress is being made, and you gettin' all .

 

[snex]

im not going in circles. you are. i asked you first how respecting the beliefs i listed makes you smarter, and you had no answer.

 

[Deleted member]

the debate hall is FULL of religious topics demonstrating that theists are not interested in truth, but rather pushing silly ancient beliefs. there is not a single decent theist argument in any of the numerous threads spanning over half a decade back here. it is nothing but the SAME STUPID **** theists have been pushing for MILLENIA! what do you think im going to learn by listening to some 13 year old repeat pascal's wager for the billionth time?

I remember my first post in the debate hall being a post on Intelligent Design and Pascal's Wager.

Ohhh man. That was a while ago.


Snex: You may think the theistic arguments are repetitive, but I'm sure the agnostic arguments that I present are quite refreshing. In true Socratic Method style, they show that both atheistic arguments and theistic arguments are foolish to say the least.

Why you don't consider yourself an agnostic yet is beyond me.



It's been said by a few - respect must be earned.

Scientology is not a respected organization. Christianity IS a respected organization. Being a Christian should not demerit respect points, whatsoever.

Alt, I'm very surprised to hear you say that after we both agreed that your views are also beliefs that are unfounded. Your argument was absurd to me. Does that mean I give you negative respect points?

Of course not. I respected your point of view and carefully argued around that.

I agree that respect must be earned.

However, in the case of Snex for example, there must be initial human being respect. Many times you will see Snex post a huge flaming rant to a brand new person in the debate hall. Reading these make him seem like he's foaming at the mouth while typing. This is not polite and should not be condoned whatsoever. If someone consistently provides a reason to become flamed, I see no problem in flaming that person.

However, inherently disrespecting someone because of their initial belief is:

a) elitist

b) arrogant

c) ***-like

You can bring up the point of racist skinheads and how we must respect them, but that is just ridiculous. The people in this Hall are not skinheads, they are simply offering their point of view on SOMETHING THAT HAS LEGITIMATE GROUNDS FOR OPINIONS. Metaphysics is not a science.

I think I'm done.

 

[WuTangDude]

^I didn't know snex was a flamer, I just thought he was...ignorant.

im not going in circles. you are. i asked you first how respecting the beliefs i listed makes you smarter, and you had no answer.

You didn't see my example?

Tommorow I could meet someone who says "Has there ever been a religion where it's believed that a woman who has been ***** must be stoned?"

And I could simply say "Yes, there has!"

Sure, that's being really technical, but knowledge is knowledge.

Besides, you used a terrible example.

 

[yossarian22]

Tommorow I could meet someone who says "Has there ever been a religion where it's believed that a woman who has been ***** must be stoned?"

And I could simply say "Yes, there has!"

Sure, that's being really technical, but knowledge is knowledge.

Besides, you used a terrible example.

How does knowing the answer to that question require that I respect such a belief?

 

[WuTangDude]

How does knowing the answer to that question require that I respect such a belief?

Wait, what? Maybe you just jumped in or something, but read the last few pages.

I don't understand your question...

 

[The Executive]

the debate hall is FULL of religious topics demonstrating that theists are not interested in truth, but rather pushing silly ancient beliefs. there is not a single decent theist argument in any of the numerous threads spanning over half a decade back here. it is nothing but the SAME STUPID **** theists have been pushing for MILLENIA! what do you think im going to learn by listening to some 13 year old repeat pascal's wager for the billionth time?

I'd say something to the contrary but you have untold amounts of posts logged to support your opinion, so it's a moot point. (for instance, http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=44280)

 

[yossarian22]

Wait, what? Maybe you just jumped in or something, but read the last few pages.
I don't understand your question...

You have not shown anything with that example at all, as the amount of respect I have for the belief in no way determines my ability to answer that question.

I'd say something to the contrary but you have untold amounts of posts logged to support your opinion, so it's a moot point. (for instance, http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=44280)

I find 6 to be amusing, as snex inadvertently kills methodological and metaphysical naturalism with that jewel of an argument. I am surprised that nobody used an apagogical argument against that.

 

[WuTangDude]

You have not shown anything with that example at all, as the amount of respect I have for the belief in no way determines my ability to answer that question.

How I am I supposed to? He picked a terrible example, a one-liner with nothing beyond literal meaning.

 

[The Executive]

I find 6 to be amusing, as snex inadvertently kills methodological and metaphysical naturalism with that jewel of an argument. I am surprised that nobody used an apagogical argument against that.

As much as I disagree with the man, he is terribly efficient. It's infuriating.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

'Not respecting' something in no way inhibits someone's ability to learn about that something (beyond their own stubbornness). What's more, is that respecting something does not automatically reveal to you any knowledge about that something or somehow increase your capability to do so.

So it seems "respecting something" and "knowing about something" are for the most part independent of one another. If they were mutually dependent, then how did snex get to know so much about Christianity which he allegedly "doesn't respect?" I think you're using "respect" to mean the willingness to consider something and debate it without simply outright gainsaying or ignoring it. In this sense, snex DOES respect theists. However I don't think "respect" is the right word for that idea. That is just being a proper debater.

An opinion is as worthy of respect as the arguments behind it are valid. That's all there is to it.

 

[Taymond]

WuTang, there's a difference between respect for a belief and respect for the right a belief. You're fighting valiantly to support the latter, but we're pretty much taking that for granted. So in light of that, it seems as though you're saying that every single belief deserves respect by default.

Of course you should respect someone's right to a belief enough to... listen to it, but that's not really what the opposing posts have been referring to.

This ties back into the point AltF4 brought up. We can respect a person who holds beliefs we do not respect (racist grandmothers) because they may hold many other beliefs we do respect, and all their beliefs weigh into an overall analysis of respect for the person. One bad egg doesn't spoil the bunch, so to speak. Respect for an individual belief, however, almost boils down to agreement or disagreement--to whether or not you like it. Can you truly respect a belief you disagree with, or are you actually just respecting the right to hold an opinion, or respecting the person anyway, because they've proven to overall hold respectable beliefs?

Of course you should "respect" the right to a belief, but why should you have to respect every belief? How could you?

 

[WuTangDude]

WuTang, there's a difference between respect for a belief and respect for the right a belief. You're fighting valiantly to support the latter, but we're pretty much taking that for granted. So in light of that, it seems as though you're saying that every single belief deserves respect by default.

Of course you should respect someone's right to a belief enough to... listen to it, but that's not really what the opposing posts have been referring to.

This ties back into the point AltF4 brought up. We can respect a person who holds beliefs we do not respect (racist grandmothers) because they may hold many other beliefs we do respect, and all their beliefs weigh into an overall analysis of respect for the person. One bad egg doesn't spoil the bunch, so to speak. Respect for an individual belief, however, almost boils down to agreement or disagreement--to whether or not you like it. Can you truly respect a belief you disagree with, or are you actually just respecting the right to hold an opinion, or respecting the person anyway, because they've proven to overall hold respectable beliefs?

Of course you should "respect" the right to a belief, but why should you have to respect every belief? How could you?

I wasn't saying every belief...I was saying religious beliefs. Of course I don't respect certain beliefs, such as racism, but stuff like racism falls into different sub-catergories, such as social beliefs (already established as two VERY different things, despite attempts to prove otherwise), which I have different views on.

 

[snex]

I wasn't saying every belief...I was saying religious beliefs. Of course I don't respect certain beliefs, such as racism, but stuff like racism falls into different sub-catergories, such as social beliefs (already established as two VERY different things, despite attempts to prove otherwise), which I have different views on.

so you respect the belief that women who are ***** have dishonored their families and therefore deserve to be stoned to death?

you still havent given a valid reason why religious beliefs should get default respect and social beliefs shouldnt.

 

[Steck]

Is racism really a belief? Sure, racists may use arguments to try and justify themselves, but their racism doesn't actually come from those arguments. It's just really a gut feeling that they have, given to them by bad culture,stereotypes and experiences. I don't need to give that respect because its really just their feeling, in the same way, if someone believes in their religion (and wants to convert me), they better have arguments for the existence of their god, even if they are bad arguments at least they have something more than emotional faith to give me a reason to listen. If they have an argument I should listen to it. If I give them a reason why they are wrong and they don't listen that's is their problem.

 

[Taymond]

I wasn't saying every belief...I was saying religious beliefs. Of course I don't respect certain beliefs, such as racism, but stuff like racism falls into different sub-catergories, such as social beliefs (already established as two VERY different things, despite attempts to prove otherwise), which I have different views on.

Right, but you're only making that distinction because you think that religious beliefs are inherently harmless, because all the people you've had experience with who hold different beliefs are harmless.

What about harmful religious beliefs? What if a religion urged its followers to MURDER anyone who did not, on the first exposure, accept the faith? What if Jehova's Witnesses, for arbitrary example, after you politely turned them down at you doorstep, killed you?

Your making a destinction between religious beliefs and social beliefs that need not be true, because you don't believe that religious views can be destructive. What about the Crusades, the Inquisition?

What facet inherent to religious beliefs guarantees that they are benign? There is none.

 

[snex]

Is racism really a belief? Sure, racists may use arguments to try and justify themselves, but their racism doesn't actually come from those arguments. It's just really a gut feeling that they have, given to them by bad culture,stereotypes and experiences. I don't need to give that respect because its really just their feeling, in the same way, if someone believes in their religion (and wants to convert me), they better have arguments for the existence of their god, even if they are bad arguments at least they have something more than emotional faith to give me a reason to listen. If they have an argument I should listen to it. If I give them a reason why they are wrong and they don't listen that's is their problem.

is christianity really a belief? sure, christians may use arguments to try and justify themselves, but their christianity doesnt actually come from those arguments. its just really a gut feeling that they have, given to them by bad culture, stereotypes, and experiences. i dont need to give that respect because its really just their feeling. in the same way, if someone believes in racism (and wants to convert me), they better have arguments for the inequality of races, even if they are bad arguments at least they have something more than emotional faith to give me a reason to listen. if they have an argument i should listen to it. if i give them a reason why they are wrong and they dont listen thats their problem.

 

[Steck]

is christianity really a belief? sure, christians may use arguments to try and justify themselves, but their christianity doesnt actually come from those arguments. its just really a gut feeling that they have, given to them by bad culture, stereotypes, and experiences. i dont need to give that respect because its really just their feeling. in the same way, if someone believes in racism (and wants to convert me), they better have arguments for the inequality of races, even if they are bad arguments at least they have something more than emotional faith to give me a reason to listen. if they have an argument i should listen to it. if i give them a reason why they are wrong and they dont listen thats their problem.

Believe it or not some people are actually really persuaded to join a religion because of their arguments. They may seem flawed to you but others don't have the critical thinking skills needed to see that.
Some believe in religion because of reason, others because of emotion (usually its a bit of both)
Whereas in racism, the emotion always comes first

 

[snex]

Believe it or not some people are actually really persuaded to join a religion because of their arguments. They may seem flawed to you but others don't have the critical thinking skills needed to see that.
Some believe in religion because of reason, others because of emotion (usually its a bit of both)
Whereas in racism, the emotion always comes first

i seriously doubt you have evidence for ANY of these claims.

 

[mzink*]

I'm respectful with most things, unless I feel its a subject I am absolutely positive I'm right on I don't try and tell anyone they are wrong. I DO discuss certain subjects and give my beliefs but it is never really like a debate, just sharing what I think. Now if they want to turn it into a debate by trying to change MY mind, then yea I have no problem arguing my point. If its something that can be known from experience, I do correct the person (ie) I am a dog trainer, if someone believes their animal is feeling a certain way because of a certain action and I know the action to be nothing but simple instinct, I will correct them. People have all kinds of strange beliefs about their pets that usually aren't true, with that kind of stuff, if its a hindrance to the animals training I try my best to get them to realize otherwise.

 

[Steck]

That depends. What evidence exactly would satisfy you? A link? A scientific study? (In other words... no no I don't)
But seriously can you imagine this situation? Person A meets Neo Nazi. He explains that jews are impure and explains a theory justifying this. Even if this makes sense to A (we will assume he is a bit dull), if person A never had a problem with Jews, interacted peacefully and friendly with his whole life- just because this nazi makes sense he will not suddenly hate jews with a passion.
But however you can imagine some IDer saying "Look how complex the world is" or "is it possible this arose by chance" and someone saying "yes...I will have to think more about that"- and depending upon how competent they are in their thinking skills they will ether see the holes in these or they won't

 

[blazedaces]

That depends. What evidence exactly would satisfy you? A link? A scientific study? (In other words... no no I don't)
But seriously can you imagine this situation? Person A meets Neo Nazi. He explains that jews are impure and explains a theory justifying this. Even if this makes sense to A (we will assume he is a bit dull), if person A never had a problem with Jews, interacted peacefully and friendly with his whole life- just because this nazi makes sense he will not suddenly hate jews with a passion.
But however you can imagine some IDer saying "Look how complex the world is" or "is it possible this arose by chance" and someone saying "yes...I will have to think more about that"- and depending upon how competent they are in their thinking skills they will ether see the holes in these or they won't

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You have no knowledge of the history of Jewish oppression in Europe prior to World War 2 I assume. Prominent philosophers have actually written and published papers on the validity of the inferiority of Jews at the time...

Sad, but true.

-blazed

 

[snex]

what if the neo nazi shows you a published study demonstrating that certain races always have higher crime rates and lower IQs?

and "gee golly it looks so complex and i cant understand it!" is not a persuasive argument for ANYTHING other than your own ignorance.

 

[Steck]

what if the neo nazi shows you a published study demonstrating that certain races always have higher crime rates and lower IQs?

and "gee golly it looks so complex and i cant understand it!" is not a persuasive argument for ANYTHING other than your own ignorance.

Why would having the awareness of that suddenly make a person racist? Just because a race has a lower average IQ why should that change a person's feelings about that race?
@balzedaces- its not that I deny that such people wrote such things, just that their racism did not actually come from those arguments, the arguments came from racism.
There is a difference between trying to justify a feeling (for example a person could believe that a certain race has a lower IQ but not have any active hate for that race, they would be however likely to site such a point if they were racist) and actually making an argument

It's a persuasive argument for the ignorant

 

[pockyD]

The "intellectual" thought that a race is either superior or inferior to others is a perfectly common base for "racism", and in fact to most is the actual definition of "racism" (no "hate" involved)

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

It's a persuasive argument for the ignorant

As is Intelligent Design (I bring it up since you used it in your example), since it is in fact an argument from ignorance.

 

[Steck]

I'm regretting mentioning Christianity and Atheism in the OP

The "intellectual" thought that a race is either superior or inferior to others is a perfectly common base for "racism", and in fact to most is the actual definition of "racism" (no "hate" involved)

maybe your right...I could be wrong

after all even if you don't actually hate a race, the intellectual thought could actually lead to action against that people as well. For example a guy could simply not hire a certain group of people.

Getting back on track... I think my main point was that to respect a belief it needs to at least have an argument for it. But since at the moment its looking... completely wrong... what is left?Snex says that we should only respect that are logical and true. But i guess I wonder if that's practical? I mean there are alot of silly people in the world. I've met people who believe in Odin and Thor! Now do these people deserve respect, do we let them talk during arguments?My feeling is to say yes, but its not like your going to convince these people of anything. But then more... harmful beliefs like racism, do we let them talk too?

 

[snex]

are you claiming that belief in odin and thor ISNT harmful?

if you believe in odin and thor, then you believe you have to die in battle to get to valhalla. and if you have to die in battle, you have to engage in battle, and battle is harmful.

but its not the specific harm that beliefs cause that concerns me the most. what concerns me the most is this idea that it should be acceptable to hold beliefs on faith at all. if it is acceptable to hold beliefs on faith alone, then NO BELIEF, no matter how harmful, can ever be criticized.

 

[Steck]

Neo- paganism is really selective in what it revives. I would not be surprised if some believed in valhalla, but most likely believe in some New Age-ish stuff or reincarnation. It's not supposed to make sense (even though they claim its more rational then christianity). Some just make every myth a symbol for a metaphysical truth.

On topic: But there is a big difference between beliefs based on faith and those based on reason. We can simply say to the faith "Oh well, you just feel that (god/zeus/ reincarnation) exists so you go ahead with that but you will never convince anyone with emotion" (so it can't be criticized until the person starts hurting people) But with a belief based on argument (even flawed argument) they can be logically and easily criticized (why does ID fail- its a argument based on ignorance)
This really only gets complicated when the emotional belief doesn't exactly promote violence, just hatred