| Author |
Message |
    
daddysgirl
Member
Username: daddysgirl
Post Number: 57
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 71.49.199.225
| | Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 11:35 am: | 
|
I read on here that many ex-TT are exploring their beliefs in other areas and wish for others to be understanding of their search. Those who are pro-TT wish to not be criticized and wish for us to be tolerant of their search. Why then the hatred for those of us who are Christians and yet there is little tolerance for us or our beliefs even though you do not know what our definition of Christianity might be. the one area you seem to agree on is to bash Christians. Isn't that hypocritical. I do not agree with some of the things happening in the Churches, but does that mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater? How can those who criticize Christianity condemn without finding out what the term means to the ones who maintain the beliefs.
To me, being a Christian is to follow the teachings of Christ. period. |
nabashalam
Senior Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 1793
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.241.231.105
| | Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Yikes! Thats one of the TTs favorite terms when looking at their own faults...Baby and bathwater... But normally they dont look at their faults or admit their mistakes or wake of damage.
You cant be tolerant with beliefs that hurt others. But you also cant put individuals into "boxes". You can have many different "personal" beliefs within a "group".
What does it mean to 'respect' someone's religion or religious beliefs? Many religious theists insist that their religion deserves to be respected, even by non-believers, but what exactly are they asking for? If they are simply asking to be let alone in their beliefs, that's not unreasonable. If they are asking that their right to believe be honored, then I agree. The problem is, these basic minimums are rarely, if ever, what people are asking for; instead, they are asking for much more.
The first clue that people are asking for more is demonstrated by the fact that no one who asks to be let alone is denied this and few Christians in the West have any trouble with their right to believe being infringed upon. The second clue that people are asking for more is how they accuse atheists of "intolerance" not because atheists are infringing on anyone's right to believe, or because they are going around badgering others, but rather because atheists are being very critical of the content of those beliefs.
It can be argued, then, that what religious believers are really asking for is deference, reverence, high regard, admiration, esteem, and other things which their beliefs (or any beliefs, opinions, ideas, etc.) are not automatically entitled to.
Simon Blackburn describes this as "respect creep." Few if any irreligious atheists have a problem with "respecting" religion if we simply mean letting believers go about their rituals, worship, religious practices, etc., at least so long as those practices don't negatively impact others. At the same time, though, few irreligious atheists will agree to "respect" religion if we mean admiring it, having high regard for it as a superior way to live, or deferring to the demands believers make on behalf of their beliefs and practices.
According to Blackburn:
People may start out by insisting on respect in the minimal sense, and in a generally liberal world they may not find it too difficult to obtain it. But then what we might call respect creep sets in, where the request for minimal toleration turns into a demand for more substantial respect, such as fellow-feeling, or esteem, and finally deference and reverence. In the limit, unless you let me take over your mind and your life, you are not showing proper respect for my religious or ideological convictions.
Respect is thus a complex concept that involves a spectrum of possible attitudes rather than a simple yes or no. People can and do respect ideas, things, and other people in one or two ways but not in others. This is normal and expected. So what sort of "respect" is due to religions and religious beliefs, even from irreligious atheists? Simon Blackburn's answer to this is, I believe, the correct one:
"We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it--not on account of their holding it." (cont.) |
nabashalam
Senior Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 1794
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.241.231.105
| | Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 1:06 pm: |
|
(cont.) "We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one. We would prefer them to change their minds. Or, if it is to our advantage that they have false beliefs, as in a game of poker, and we are poised to profit from them, we may be wickedly pleased that they are taken in. But that is not a symptom of special substantial respect, but quite the reverse. It is one up to us, and one down to them."
Respecting religion in the sense of tolerating it is usually a fair request; but such minimal respect isn't what religious believers usually want. After all, there is little danger in America of most religious beliefs not being tolerated on a basic level. Some religious minorities may have legitimate concerns in this regard, but they aren't the ones making the most noise about getting respect. Religious believers also don't appear to be interested in simply being "let alone" to go about their religious business.
Instead, they seem to want the rest of us to somehow admit or acknowledge just how important, serious, admirable, valuable, and wonderful their religion is. That's how they regard their religion, after all, and sometimes they seem unable to understand why others don't feel the same way. They are asking for and demanding much more than they are entitled to. No matter how important their religion is to them personally, they cannot expect others to treat it in the same way. Religious believers cannot demand that nonbelievers regard their religion with admiration or treat it as a superior way of living.
There's something about religion, religious beliefs, and theism in particular which seems to increase a person's sense of entitlement and the demands they make on behalf of it. People can act brutally in the pursuit of political causes, for example, but they seem to act even more brutally when they believe that they have religious or even divine sanction for that cause. God becomes an "amplifier" for whatever happens to be going on; in this context, even more respect, deference, and reverence is expected for religious beliefs and claims than other sorts of beliefs and claims which a person might have.
It's not enough that people in the religious community want something; God also wants it and wants it for them. If others don't "respect" this, then they are attacking not just the religious community, but also God — the moral center of their universe. Here, "respect" can't possibly be thought of in the minimalist sense. It can't simply be "tolerance" and instead must be thought of as deference and reverence. Believers want to be treated as special, but irreligious atheists should treat like them like everyone else and, perhaps more importantly, treat their religious claims and opinions like any other claim or opinion.
For most religious theists, their religion and their belief in god are very important to them — even constituting the very center and focus of their lives. Given just how important religion and theism are to people, it's not surprising that people will react to criticism negatively and become defensive. That, however, doesn't justify labeling disagreement and criticism as "intolerant."
The reasons people have for being agnostics/atheists may be as numerous as agnostics/atheists themselves, but in the West at least the irreligious agnostics/atheists who are critical of religion tend to share a number of perspectives and attitudes — including with regards to religion. It would be fair to say that a significant majority regard religion and theism as wrong, irrational, unfounded, and at times silly or even dangerous (though to varying degrees). (cont.) |
nabashalam
Senior Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 1795
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.241.231.105
| | Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 1:08 pm: |
|
(cont.)They believe that religion and theism have been forces for violence, bigotry, and many other harms in society throughout human history. Their criticisms of religion are designed to explain what the problems are, why they are problems, and convince people to change by giving up religion and theism in exchange for secular, godless, atheistic philosophies.
Agnostic and atheistic disagreement with religion and theism can range from mild to vociferous — even the same atheist may disagree with some religions much more strongly than others. None of this, however, is the same as "intolerance." Saying that someone is wrong is not intolerance. Telling a person that they have adopted a belief which is irrational, ill-founded, or even dangerous is not intolerance — even if the criticisms happen to be mistaken or stated too strongly.
Even mocking, ridiculing, and making fun of beliefs isn't intolerance. Some beliefs, claims, ideas, and opinions really are quite silly and deserve mockery. Sometimes, the absurdity of and idea is better demonstrated through mockery than through a reasoned, logical analysis. Sometimes, beliefs shouldn't be treated with the seriousness of a logical analysis because that imparts to them a respectability they don't deserve. Political humor and political cartoons are an entire genre of criticism that is founded upon just these principles and which, to my knowledge, no one has argued should be eliminated.
In fact, politics is an excellent example of how disagreement and criticism are not normally treated as forms of intolerance. If it's legitimate to use ridicule and mockery to point out problems in a political leader, institution, or ideology, why should it suddenly be illegitimate to do the same in the context of religion, religious leaders, religious institutions, and religious beliefs? Liberals aren't told that they shouldn't say conservatives are wrong. Conservatives aren't told that they shouldn't say liberals have adopted irrational beliefs. Democrats aren't told that they shouldn't say a Republican policy is ill-founded. Republicans aren't told that they are intolerant for making strong criticisms of Democrats.
It's true that politics and political attacks can get out of control, but if you look closely you'll find that "out of control" is a label applied most often when people engage in personal attacks, advocate violence, demonize opponents, or behave in other very extreme ways. Strong disagreements, harsh critiques, pointed criticism, and even irreverent mockery of political beliefs, ideas, principles, positions, and opinions are accepted as completely justified. Why? Because once a person places their political beliefs in the public arena, they have to expect all manner of criticism and cannot demand that others treat those beliefs as if they were special. There's no good reason to think that the standards and rules for dealing with religious beliefs should be any different.
Irreligious agnostics and atheists should be fair in whatever criticisms they level against religion and theism. If ever they are shown to have made an error, they should accept this and retract any criticisms based on that error. Irreligious atheists should also strive to treat religious believers themselves with basic respect, dignity, and consideration — no matter how wrong they may be, being wrong doesn't mean that someone should be treated badly as a person. It's possible for "hating the sin" to become "hating the sinner" if a person is not careful, so while being critical of religion and religious beliefs is entirely justified, it's something that can go wrong if one isn't careful.(cont.) |
nabashalam
Senior Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 1796
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.241.231.105
| | Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 1:10 pm: |
|
(conclusion)Contemporary authors such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel C. Dennett have all written about the potential social hazards of allowing religious beliefs to go unchallenged. In his book "The End of Faith", Sam Harris notes that we are unwilling, as a society, to tolerate unjustified beliefs in, for example, architecture. He asserts that we should be similarly unwilling to tolerate unjustified beliefs about morality, spirituality, politics, and the origin of humanity.
As far as my own beliefs? I now consider myself a "Militant Agnostic", better said...
"I don't know and you don't either!!! " |
sabbathkeeper
Member
Username: sabbathkeeper
Post Number: 83
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 64.24.147.219
| | Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 6:32 pm: |
|
 PHEW!! Shalom!! |
nabashalam
Senior Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 1797
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.241.231.105
| | Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 6:39 pm: |
|
Please be "tolerant" with my long windedness... |
nabashalam
Senior Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 1798
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.241.231.105
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Daddysgirl,
Please don't think my diatribe was aimed at you. It wasnt. You are one of the most diplomatic and tolerant folks here.
I just wanted to point out there are the disrespectful, proud and intolerant in any group and visa versa.
Also that when it comes to diplomacy, Im afraid I skipped that class...
but Im taking a correspondence course right now!  |
fatherofaking
Senior Member
Username: fatherofaking
Post Number: 2532
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 71.255.153.140
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 6:36 pm: |
|
thanks naba, |
anon_e_mus
Advanced Member
Username: anon_e_mus
Post Number: 749
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 71.188.13.94
| | Posted on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Nab, I love you, but you dominate...after all? Why say something using 50 words when you can use 10000? ;) |
nabashalam
Senior Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 1799
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.241.231.105
| | Posted on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 8:27 pm: |
|
Annie, I believe I made an apology for that already... Do you want another?
So after what I wrote, you address the length and not the content?
I dont intend to dominate, just to voice my opinion. If that leaves you speechless, I can only assume my point is valid...
btw it was only 2500 words or less... |
daddysgirl
Member
Username: daddysgirl
Post Number: 58
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 71.49.199.225
| | Posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 11:19 am: |
|
Again, it comes down to "I will not denounce that which has not been defined. I am a Christian, but that does not necessarily mean I should be put in a pot of profiling that makes me the same as what others who are distained for their "Christianity". It would be blasphemous for me to denounce my beliefs.
It is intolerance for others to put down that which they do not understand. I would rather not be around intolerant people and would rather not have that influence infiltrate my family with their lack of love. |
anon_e_mus
Advanced Member
Username: anon_e_mus
Post Number: 752
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 70.106.105.66
| | Posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Honestly, Dave? I didn't even read it, I scanned it. I didn't have the time to look it over in depth. Therefore, I didn't see your apology. So, I apologize for not seeing your apology, apology accepted. ;) Yeah, next time, shorter is better, at least for me! ;) |
jodymcgrody
Junior Member
Username: jodymcgrody
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 69.19.14.28
| | Posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 6:14 pm: |
|
I liked it, Nabashalam's post, although it was a little long for these kinds of forums. I too prefer the "condensed milk" version rather than the whole gallon.
A bit like using a cement truck at high speed to drive a finish nail in though.
But I understand the request. After my religious experience while serving in the Marines I had the religion on my dog tags changed to "Jesus Christ". I did it because I felt there was a difference between religion and a sincere belief in the Christ. It seemed easy for people to hide behind a denomination or even a particular dogma but never actually believe/have faith in, the new testament Christ.
So my response is, don't seek tolerance but rely on the admonition that you will be given what you need to say when it needs to be said. It's one of those crazy things that Jesus said that is either totally off-the-wall nuts..., or it isn't.
Either way, it's a choice God leaves up to you.
JRL
(Message edited by jodymcgrody on November 16, 2007) |
nabashalam
Senior Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 1800
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.241.231.105
| | Posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Yup Jody! Nothing like a polished arrow when you need one.... |
|