crisaor, akhenaten did in fact revere one god above all: ra, the sun god.
Printable View
crisaor, akhenaten did in fact revere one god above all: ra, the sun god.
Crisaor,
You say:
<If everybody sticked to a single religion (any) there would be no need for any government whatsoever.>
And yet you have said that politics and religion aren't even close. If they are not close, how could one possibly make the other redundant? How could religion provide for the needs of people who depended on politics? If everybody stuck to a single religion, and this took away the need for government, then the single religion would become a theocratic political system wouldn't it? There would still be a hierarchy that would govern.
<Why should a stupid belief be respected? Because what you consider to be silly might be wrong. That's why.>
So, Crisaor, you respect every single stupid belief in the world (just in case they are not wrong). Can't you see that this makes your respect completely worthless? It might be better to say that, with regard to stupid and silly beliefs, it would be better not to respect them until they are shown to be correct. Really Crisaor, you should respect yourself more, by valuing your respect, not dragging it through the mud of stupid beliefs. I mean, as it now stands, I wouldn't care a jot whether you respected my beliefs or not right now. I wouldn't know what value to give your respect.
I don't think we have to respect anyones religious beliefs because I think it is impossible to do so, for the simple fact that there will always be a difference of opinion. However, there are times when courtesy must be acknowledged, such as on forums like this, and it goes two ways.
There are many people who find comfort in their religion, however,
people should not preach their religion to others and should not use their religion to do cruel things to others.
If everybody behaves in the same way religion dictates, there wouldn't be any need to pass rules for people to follow. That way, religion fills that role, but doesn't assume the government's part (i.e. the head of the church wouldn't be the president). They'd still be different things. Anyway, it's a pretty rare situation.Quote:
Originally posted by atiguhya padma
And yet you have said that politics and religion aren't even close. If they are not close, how could one possibly make the other redundant? How could religion provide for the needs of people who depended on politics? If everybody stuck to a single religion, and this took away the need for government, then the single religion would become a theocratic political system wouldn't it? There would still be a hierarchy that would govern.
Well, I don't come across people who worship unicorns, if that's what you're implying this time. Most of the religious people I know either practice catholicism, judaism, or islamism. All three of them respectable religions in my opinion. When I do come across a guy who worships his rat, maybe I'll think it over. But that doesn't qualify as religion anyway.Quote:
Originally posted by atiguhya padma
So, Crisaor, you respect every single stupid belief in the world (just in case they are not wrong). Can't you see that this makes your respect completely worthless? It might be better to say that, with regard to stupid and silly beliefs, it would be better not to respect them until they are shown to be correct. Really Crisaor, you should respect yourself more, by valuing your respect, not dragging it through the mud of stupid beliefs. I mean, as it now stands, I wouldn't care a jot whether you respected my beliefs or not right now. I wouldn't know what value to give your respect.
I respect myself quite a lot, thank you. You should care about you. And who says that I respect your opinion? If I don't, it's of no importance. If I do, I don't care what you think of that.
In the future, try to debate the topic instead of bashing people.
the difference between us and the islamic radicals is that they request seventy virgins in the afterlife everytime they blow themselves up . . . whereas, most of us would settle for eight hot, buttered cheerleaders.
all you can eat. ;)
Crisaor,
My post was a response to this statement by you:
<Why should a stupid belief be respected? Because what you consider to be silly might be wrong. That's why>
Now what am I to make of this statement, other than to assume that you believe that there is merit in respecting stupid beliefs. If that is the case, then I think my previous comments are valid.
although i am fascinated by the reasons on why we think the way we do, religion(s) always seem to create turbulent and emotional debates. everyone belonging to a religion or belief is sure that their higher power is the one to believe. there is great passion and pride in what people believe, and that is why their has been great wars and battles through out history. my idea of god is quite simple at this point in my life, God to me is everything the human being can not explain. through out history, whether the old testament or the new, i obsereve people calling events acts of God or God himself. a horrible flood, a thunderous sound, ect.. because back then their was no explination or reason to why these things were happening, God was the reason. now that we have and are proving how and why things work, all of a sudden God becomes a little less real. we understand how thunder storms work, how our solar system works, what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside at times. but in favor of those who believe in the new testament, it is one of the greatest love stories i have ever read.
Suppose I'm not lucky to live long enough to find out whether those followers of the 'silly' beliefs' are worthy enough to be respected, then I guess I'd spent my whole life spreading hostility towards them :rolleyes: .Quote:
Originally posted by atiguhya padma
So, Crisaor, you respect every single stupid belief in the world (just in case they are not wrong). Can't you see that this makes your respect completely worthless? It might be better to say that, with regard to stupid and silly beliefs, it would be better not to respect them until they are shown to be correct.
I don't see what sort of basis can be really used to claim that some beliefs are too stupid to believe. I come from a country where there are many tradional beliefs exist (which I have to admit some of them are very stupid), yet I choose to respect them for the sake of humanity...
oh, you men.
time teaches all things to he who lives forever but we have not the luxury of enternity. i must side with sub-t on this one. to respect ones wishes or beliefs does not mean to accept it. just as we share our ideas, thoughts and opinions here and we debate, and side with one another we can still show respect to those who think differently. i cannot imagine how boreing it would be if we all thought the same things. having different views and beliefs has advanced us in the way that we are today. if people did not philosophize or theorize on what could be or might be we would have nothing to work for. i may not believe in everything i hear or read, but i can respect in other peoples views and try to understand why they think the way they do... even if they are wrong. just kidding!!
Some comments I would like to make regarding people and their beliefs:
I think there is a clear distinction between a person and that person's belief. I feel that I can respect a person, whilst considering one or more of their beliefs to be silly.
Some people cannot distinguish between themselves and their beliefs: it is as if their belief is their life. One without the other is too terrible for them to contemplate. I would say this is a rather immature and unhealthy position to hold.
I know a monotheist who says that there are no circumstances under which they would abandon their belief in God. I think this is extremely silly. It doesn't stop me respecting her though.
In being able to step outside your belief and take the perspective of 'the view from nowhere', as Nagel put it, you maintain a healthy position for yourself and your belief. It helps you to grow.
As I have said before, it does no good to respect the belief held by the mentally delusional that God is speaking to them. I consider this to be a religious belief.
All beliefs should be critically addressed. There should be no monopoly of courtesy towards religious belief.
Finally, I am glad to see that the UK is waking up at last, to the benefits of teaching atheism in schools. Hopefully, if this does occur, it will bring some reasoned argument into religious education.
I agree with the last point though..followers of (specially) established beliefs/religions somehow afraid with atheism or stuffs like that. But surely, it would really help them out to see the world and life more clearly.
AP, do you happened to know some good literatures about Agnosticism/Atheism/Nihilism?
I think it is kinda funny the way on this message board political discussion is banned from being discussed. However at the other message board I frequent I am the moderator of a debate forum where religious debate has been banned.
There are many political texts that I personally wouldn't mind discussing. It is not like these books don't exsist (the communist manifesto, das kapital, the prince). They often contain important philosophical truths about societies just as religous texts do.
I believe that religous debates cause more problems in general. The instant you get an athesist in the room with a classical sect christian. Debating religion, especially christianity is nearly impossible to do with any logic because the idea of faith can be used to refute anything.
The main problem is not debating one or the other. The problems arise when people of religious backgrounds try to argue a political point on the basis of religon. When this happens it is always implied that ones beliefs of religion are somewhat more correct then anothers. Which causes debates upon the validity of ones religion. Most religions now are based a lot on degree's of faith meaning any debate on validity can be refuted with ones faith. This means that if two people debate a religion they can cancel out eachothers arguements with the same idea. Which is "I believe it to be so" etc etc.
As for respecting all religious beliefs, I think not. I do not need to respect a religious belief that states "All who do not believe in my god shall burn in the fires of hell". That is nearly every religious belief other then my own personal ideas. I am not going to bash religions here, but I do not need to respect something that is either disrespectful to me or just plain stupid. I don't think I should respect those cults that think Jesus is coming on a UFO, it doesn't even make sence to religious texts.
However the entire idea of a religion is based upon texts written by mortal men. With failings and biases of their own. So any actual religious written text also has to be taken with a grain of salt acknowledging that the only way of proving such documents validity is to assert faith in it. Which brings me back to the point of why religious debates always cause more trouble because there can be no middle ground.
Person A believes the bible to be a literal text and history. No matter what person B says using evidence directly against the the bible as a literal text Person A can deny on the ground of faith. This type of debate leads no where and is the main stand off in the creationism debates.
(it is entirely too late I probably made no sence with this post so... w/e)
Subterranean,
Unfortunately, there aren't that many books around on these subjects. A good starting point might be Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not a Christian and Other Essays and Richard Dawkins' A Devil's Chaplain (Dawkins' book has some articles concerning atheism but is about many other things too).
Ludovic Kennedy's All in the Mind: A Farewell to God is very readable, but less rigorous in its arguments.
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H Smith is good, and Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification is less easy to read, but worthwhile.
Julian Baggini has published a book entitled Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. I haven't read this yet, but Baggini is a populariser of philosophy and writes for and edits The Philosopher's Magazine and is easy to understand and read.
Anthony Freeman appears to me to be an atheist and his book God In Us argues for a humanist interpretation of God as the sum of our opinions and beliefs, rather than as a real existence.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/portal_article.php?id=583 this is a good artcle short article on atheism by Michael Martin.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm this is a game that helps you to understand how your beliefs about God measure up to your other beliefs.
Regarding agnosticism: T H Huxley coined the phrase, if I recall correctly, and wrote an essay called Agnosticism.
Regarding Nihilism: I guess John Gray's Straw Dogs is fairly nihilistic and I found it very inspiring and revealing. Nietzsche is probably the ultimate nihilist. Schopenhauer is also worth looking at. Sartre, Camus, Heidegger all have things to say regarding nihilism.
Other writers you might look into are: Don Cupitt (although I find some of his ideas a little bit pointless) and Richard Holloway (regarding the separation between ethics and religion).
Subterranean,
I forgot to mention this website which you might find quite useful:
www.secularism.org.uk