Religion & Theology (& should we respect beliefs)

[EM]

to the believer no proof is necessary.

That is true.

 

- to the skeptic no proof is enough;

Not quite. A sceptic will accept valid evidence which supports the proof of a hypothesis. There is currently no evidence based proof of any of the supernatural aspects claimed by religions. It is not a matter of no proof being enough, but rather that there is no proof available to be accepted or rejected. Same for (so called) intelligent design.

[scoots]

What about the believer that is provided with historical accredited proof that what they have been raised/indoctrinated/programmed to believe is fraudulent, and, in fact, a thinly veiled tissue of lies and borrowed "pagan" religious claptrap, plus all the mistranslations and deliberate lies?

 

Where do we fit in to this scale of "believer vs sceptic"?

 

And what is the difference between those who believe blindly and unquestioningly in Christianity, and those who do likewise in, say, Islam? Which of you is going to Heaven, and who decides? The Christian, because they believe "the truth"? The Muslim, because Allah is great? Or both, if they only live a decent life andvtreat others with fairness and kindness. (Although, it has to be said while on this subject, that Islam, on the whole - like Judaism - encourages a far greater depth of knowledge of holy writings among the faithful than does Christianity!)

[shetlandpeat]

Once you have removed someones faith, what becomes of the MT vessel? How do you fill it?

Do folk who do not have faith put as much into the community as those who do? Many do their community work to be saved themselves. If that were all to stop, who would do it?

[Njugle]

There is currently no evidence based proof of any of the supernatural aspects claimed by religions. It is not a matter of no proof being enough, but rather that there is no proof available to be accepted or rejected.

 

Oooh sweeping statement. Akhenaten was onto a safe bet:

Wikipedia[/url]"]Representations of the Aten were always accompanied with a sort of "hieroglyphic footnote", stating that the representation of the sun as All-encompassing Creator was to be taken as just that: a representation of something that, by its very nature as some time transcending creation, cannot be fully or adequately represented by any one part of that creation.

You can't go wrong, scientifically of theistically, with a bit of sun worship as a creationist ideology.

[scoots]

The Yezidi Kurds believe that, having created the Earth, God gave it over to the Peacock Angel, Tawuz Ma'lek (or thereabouts). That's Lucifer to you and me. The first Archangel, the "Light" created of God, when He/She said "Let there be...". He and the next six archangels created (the Heptad) were assigned stewardship after he refused to give obeisance to Adam. God was so impressed at his passing this task of choice and free will, He let him run things.

 

This, they believe, is why it is worthless to pray to God to make things better. He's not listening. Only through living a worthy and worthwhile life will we grow, over the course of our many lives (yup, they believe in the reincarnation of the soul - they also believe that Tawuz Ma'lek and the Heptad are also born into human form on a fairly regular basis) towards a state where, eventually we will attain spiritual harmony and perfection, when the Heptad can petition God to take back what was His, and welcome us all to Him.

 

Who's to say THEY haven't got it right?

[scoots]

Once you have removed someones faith, what becomes of the MT vessel? How do you fill it?

Do folk who do not have faith put as much into the community as those who do? Many do their community work to be saved themselves. If that were all to stop, who would do it?

 

Is this a serious post? You are saying people only do good works to be saved themselves, or because they have faith in your God?? Or have I seriously misread this?

 

If I haven't, it looks like every good person who ever lived, from Mother Teresa to Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King to Jesus himself are doomed to eternal damnation. Performing a selfless task for a selfish motive is simply not possible. Therefore, all these people were always acting selfishly, by extension of this "logic". So every act was worthless and will have benefited

them not one bit, as it will have been based in sin.

 

If I have misread you, please advise and I'll retract, but the notion that only faithful people can do good works, and those of us without your faith are "empty" is exactly the kind of casual arrogance and blindly dogmatic religious superiority that has damaged Christianity so badly over the years and provided the excuse for all the evils carried out "in God's name", because

those who did not believe were automatically lesser to those who did. And - unless I read you wrong - it looks like some still feel this way.

 

PS I put my faith in my fellow man and woman, not in the lies of those long dead autocratic and oligarchic mass murderers...

[EM]

... every good person who ever lived, from Mother Teresa to ...

Mother Teresa a good person? Wow. Check up on her track record, she was really bad news. Hitchens is particularly good at summing up what a con she ran.

[Guest posiedon]

shetlandpeat,

Do folk who do not have faith put as much into the community as those who do? Many do their community work to be saved themselves. If that were all to stop, who would do it?

Are you having a laugh or what?

I don't need the [false] promise of a reward for being a good person, nor the fear of hell to make me a good person, I just evolved this way.

 

What is this "community" work of which you speak? Anything the "religious" do always involves an element of proselytizing, they don't do owt for nowt. Ever.

[scoots]

... every good person who ever lived, from Mother Teresa to ...

Mother Teresa a good person? Wow. Check up on her track record, she was really bad news. Hitchens is particularly good at summing up what a con she ran.

 

I was talking about MY mother, Teresa. You saying she's not a good woman??!!!

[scoots]

... every good person who ever lived, from Mother Teresa to ...

Mother Teresa a good person? Wow. Check up on her track record, she was really bad news. Hitchens is particularly good at summing up what a con she ran.

 

EM, this may come as some small consolation to you then.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655720,00.html

 

It appears she lived in a spiritual vacuum of the soul for 50 years, likening it, in private, to Hell. Whatever Hitchens says, she didn't exactly live the life of a Borgia, did she? And, while she didn't set up the teaching facilities she petitioned money for, ask the poor of Calcutta, and other places, whether they felt better or worse off for having someone feed and minister to them, in a country which literally did not care if they died at your feet, other than the inconvenience of having to step over the corpse...

[Ghostrider]

.....Do folk who do not have faith put as much into the community as those who do?.....

 

You might want to define and quantify ".....put.....into the community.....", before I'm tempted to shoot it down as the most subjective red herring statement I've come across since the last election manifestos came out.

[scoots]

He means "me and my friends", I think...

[EM]

EM, this may come as some small consolation to you then.

... It appears she lived in a spiritual vacuum of the soul for 50 years,

I was indeed aware of those revelations, but took no consolation. The particularly amazing aspect lay in the advice which the Catholic establishment apparently gave her when she turned to them.

 

Whatever Hitchens says, she didn't exactly live the life of a Borgia, did she?

There are many kinds of devil. Her evil was just as heinous.

 

There is no point in me attempting to reiterate Hitch's thesis here, he does it so well himself in this documentary:

 

Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0UpVoSPIZI

Part3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pei8lSiv6s

[scoots]

I've seen them, EM, and I have "The Missionary Position" amongst others on one of my shelves, somewhere. I've always liked Christopher Hitchens' style.

 

I'm not apologising for or eulogising her. And, okay, you got me, me mam's not REALLY called Teresa. The events after her death demonstrate EXACTLY what Hitchens spoke of. Quite extraordinary in such a "traditional" religion as Roman Catholicism.

 

Anyway, MLK wasn't perfect either. In truth, none of us are. But the repellent nature of the preceding post was more what I am concerned with, as you shall have no argument from me on your point re devils...

[KOYAANISQATSI]

I would humbly respect anyone's decision not to believe as I would hope they would respect the decision I have made to believe.

 

Absolutely! Free will is important; I read that somewhere.

The power to make your own mind up about stuff and things, is intrinsically linked to what we are and even where we are, on our bit of infinite variety through evolution, in an ever unfolding universe.

 

Of course you should have your right to decide respected but the question of the thread is "Religious Beliefs - should we respect them?"

 

Well...no!

 

I can tolerate what others have come to believe in but not very gladly if they can't back it up with anything other than that bloody book and the feelings they have inside about it.

When someone has come to accept Unrestrained fantastical tales of unimaginably impossible events, as the gospel truth; then it is harder to trust their soundness of mind in every other decision making process.

Psychiatric disorders or just clown shoes, tend to spring to mind.

The best I can do in respecting them for having the actual belief itself; is to just hope that it is because they haven't found the time yet, to just sit down and think carefully, about what it is they have been told.

 

Respect and tolerance are not synonyms; tolerance is a very minimalist attitude whereas respect involves something more active and positive. You can think very negatively about something you tolerate, but there is something contradictory about thinking very negatively about the exact same thing you are also respecting. Thus, at the very least, respect requires that one have have positive thoughts, impressions, or emotions when it comes to the religion in question. This isn’t always reasonable.

 

Beliefs may be able to earn a person’s respect, but it’s an abdication of moral and intellectual responsibility to automatically accord the same respect to all beliefs.

 

a person’s right to believe things and to hold their religious beliefs must be respected. Having a right to a belief, however, is not the same as having a right to not hear criticism of that belief. The right to criticize has the same basis as the right to believe.

 

The most significant problem with believers’ demands for respect for their religions and/or religious beliefs is that “respect†too often amounts to “deference.†Deferring to religion or religious beliefs means according them a privileged status — something understandable for believers, but not something which can be demanded from nonbelievers. Religious beliefs merit no more deference than any other claims and religions do not merit deference from nonbelievers.

 

In many instances, we’ll find that religious believers are not asking for something appropriate — they are asking for deference, positive thoughts, and privileges for themselves, their beliefs, and their religions. Rarely, if ever, are such things justified. In other instances, we may find that they aren’t being accorded the basic tolerance and respect which they deserve as human beings, and they are justified in speaking out.

 

Respecting religion, religious beliefs, and religious believers does not and cannot include treating them with kid gloves. If believers want respect, then they must be treated as adults who are responsible and culpable for what they assert — for better and for worse. This means that their claims should be treated seriously with substantive responses and critiques, if criticism is warranted. If believers are willing to present their position in a rational, coherent manner, then they deserve a rational and coherent response — including critical responses. If they are unwilling or unable to present their views in a rational and coherent manner, then they should anticipate being dismissed with little afterthought.

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutreligion/p/RespectReligion.htm