Do we really respect each other's beliefs?

[Nossa]

I stopped checking this part of the forum, for a while now. For many reasons that I don't think I should list. I also noticed that this is probably the part of the forum with the most 'locked' threads. And with the words "respect the beliefs of others' in bold, I had to wonder. Do we really respect each other's beliefs?! And when we 'claim' that we do, is that out of tolerance or because we 'have' to, cuz of the rules and all that?

Sometimes, actually many times, I feel that people do not tolerate each other's beliefs. Believers think they're right and everyone else is wrong, the same goes for non-believers. People from different religions want everyone to convert to their own religions, to the point that I feel we're in the middle of a war or something. It's furstrating to see how far we've come in religious intolerance.

We doubt and question each other's beliefs and engage in debates and harsh conversations, and then say that we're only 'discussing' and that everyone, eventually, is entitled to his/her opinion. Maybe if everyone took a moment and thought what are the effects of some words and discussions on the other we will come to a certain aagreement. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ask and learn about each other, but we don't have to judge, and always try to shove our opinion down eveyone else's throats.

I'm not directing this towards anyone on the forum, I'm more of sending this thought out there, for anyone and everyong. I might be a dreamer or a utopian, or whatever you wanna call it, but I hope that someday people will finally learn, really learn, what it is like to respect those around you, and not set yourself higer than them and condemn them to being wrong, misled or whatever.

[PeterL]

I only came her for a short time, but it looks like a good section to avoid for the reasons that you enumerated.

[papayahed]

If I wasn't a mod I would hardly ever be in this part of the forum. It wasn't a whim that this section was restricted to discussing only Religious Text (since repealed) for a short time a few months ago.

[Morten]

I dislike the phrase. I see no reason why people's religious beliefs should in any way earn my respect. I tolerate them, of course, provided they remain tolerant of non-religious beliefs, but that is not the same as giving them my valuable respect.

[sprinks]

Personally I do respect each person and their beliefs. I do not believe in any religion myself, infact I don't like the idea of religion as a result of my own experiences with it, but I do believe in the possibility of a god type existence. I believe what I want to believe and think everyone should have the opportunity to do the same.

I think everyone should believe what they want, so long as it does not harm them or anyone else. If someone wants to seriously believe that a giant monkey created the universe and filled it with bananas and we have evolved from those ancient bananas, I'm cool with that, I respect their beliefs. If someone follows a religion like Christianity or Buddhism or Islam or Scientology or ANY religion then I respect their beliefs and their decision to believe that.

I think a lot of what I think about the topic is similar to what I've read on Buddhist teachings, but correct me if I'm completely wrong about it, I think I read once that they believe religion can be good if it helps someone through life, but the Buddhists themselves do not believe in God. Some people need to have that belief to get them through daily life, and it's like the situations where people get better from ilness when they think they're on a miracle drug, but in reality they're not, but its that thought that heals them; so sometimes people overcome obstacles by believing in their God or Gods etc, and I think that is great! If it helps them so what if they believe in a giant monkey that they think created the universe?!?!

[curlyqlink]

I don't post in this thread because I have no idea what is meant by "respecting" other people's beliefs. Seriously, I don't. Tolerating other people's beliefs-- that I can understand.


As you say:

Believers think they're right and everyone else is wrong, the same goes for non-believers.

...and how can it be otherwise? If I post here that I'm an atheist, and make my best argument for that conviction, I'll likely offend people who believe in God. They'll think I'm wrong, and I think they're wrong, and if we're honest and sincere we'll do our best to point out the flaws in each other's arguments and defend the strengths of our own.

Is that being disrespectful? I don't know. I suspect some might find that disrespectful. My own thought is that as long as there's no name-calling or flaming, everything is fair. Attacking each other's logic, reductio ad absurdum, etc., etc... all fair. Honest argument can be bruising.

How can I argue my side fully without running the risk of hurting someone else's feelings?

Some people believe living a certain way or not believing a certain thing means eternal damnation. Some people think their highest calling in life is to praise their God. How am I, or they, going to reach a compromise?

I think there is value in a debate like this. If only to air our differences, to let people know there are many sides to the issue of religion. Unfortunately, it has to be done in an unrestricted forum. It's pointless to attempt such a discussion while walking on eggshells.

[Nossa]

I'm not sure why you see it as an impossible matter to discuss but still remain respectful. All I'm proposing here is the idea of everyone understanding that people differ in thinking, beliefs and life. We have so many cults, so many beliefs and so many religions these days. Hurting and being disrespectful shouldn't be a part of the process, IF you keep in mind that this is how how the other thinks.

'Attack' is exactly the word I'm commenting on. Why do you have to attack. I mean I'm a believer, and I strongly believe in God and my religion, if I'm arguing with you, and you're an atheist, should I just call everything you believe in crap and attack it harshly just cuz you happen to disagree with me? I know religions and beliefs are a sensitive matter, and once you believe in something, it's not really debatable for you whether it's right or wrong, but that won't mean that I don't respect the fact that you have your own belief. This is what I respect and that's why I'll not attempt to either attack you or shove my opinion down your throat.

Talking about religion is like talking to someone about something you wish they can quit. It's even like talking someone into not smoking, you make your argument, but you don't need to fight the person. I've come to a conclusion now that none of the people involved in any religious argument will come to a result they want. Neither will be convinced, and both will be pissed off and hurt. What will you gain by attacking?! The other person will attack, and then what? none of you will be persuaded with the other's opinion, and you're most probably bound to hate each other afterwards.

When you respect, and I mean 'respect', the idea that a person is entitled to his/her beliefs, you'll consequently respect all the outcomes of it. You don't have to agree, you have to respect. Cuz if you only tolerated (which isn't bad, giving to all the discussions I see) you'll snap at the very first sign of an argument.

I'll give you a word, it's from Qura'an but I don't want you to take it in a religious way, just think of it as a saying, it says "To you be your way, and to me mine". This is what I'm saying, you have your belief and I have mine, why can't we just treat each other on this basis?!

[Virgil]

I can't stand the religious forum. I thought they were to be about discussing religious texts, not trying to convert people or debate religions. I usually don't even bother with the discussions here. Yes I agree, respect is lacking at times by all sides.

[aabbcc]

Nossa, this is an interesting question you are posing here - let me disagree with one of your points, however.

I know religions and beliefs are a sensitive matter, and once you believe in something, it's not really debatable for you whether it's right or wrong, but that won't mean that I don't respect the fact that you have your own belief.

Herein lies the secret. Some believers, as well as some non-believers, are very attached to their beliefs to a point where, as you say, things cease to be debatable for them. Which is, after all, understandable - however, when one is so emotionally connected to something, one does not purposely come to the place where things that are not even debatable for him are debated, and then feels hurt as a result of his inability to emotionally 'detach' oneself from his beliefs to be able to view things from other perspectives in broader context. In that case, if one cannot make that 'leap' of making a distance, it is really pointless to come to religious forum at all, because one is going against themselves.

It does not affect only religion, but also other things that tend to be very important to people. I lived in former Yugoslavia, and I know a lot of people who would get very upset about the war even years after it had ended, and who were very emotionally attached to the religious and national issues brought up by the war. Which is alright, and understandable, but, as somebody once said when I was in a group of such people, if you cannot step back and focus only on rational side of the argument, without too much emotions involved, don't get into the debate in the first place. Speaking from emotions is for some other things and circumstances, not for debates.

Because, that's what debates are for. I agree with curlyqlink on this:

(...) if we're honest and sincere we'll do our best to point out the flaws in each other's arguments and defend the strengths of our own.
Is that being disrespectful? I don't know. I suspect some might find that disrespectful. My own thought is that as long as there's no name-calling or flaming, everything is fair. Attacking each other's logic, reductio ad absurdum, etc., etc... all fair. Honest argument can be bruising.
(...)
I think there is value in a debate like this. If only to air our differences, to let people know there are many sides to the issue of religion. Unfortunately, it has to be done in an unrestricted forum. It's pointless to attempt such a discussion while walking on eggshells.

Read once more carefully what he said. He did not advocate name-calling, violent discussions which are purpose for themselves, talking to others in disrespectful manner, nothing of the kind. He simply pointed that, as long as general rules of politeness when discussing are applied, he does not find religion to deserve any kind of 'special treatment' simply because it is a religion and, if put into debate, it can be debated as any other subject. Simply because we debate something, it does not mean that ipso facto we are being disrespectful - why should religion be that special to be given priviledge of not being debatable and why should I accept other people's inargumentated beliefs simply because they are of religious nature? Certainly, I will tolerate them, and that person, but I honestly cannot 'respect' somebody's belief in all-powerful G-d who watches us from the above any more than I can 'respect' somebody's sincere belief into solipsism, or somebody's equally sincere superstitiousness. Because, in the end, we are speaking of the same thing - a belief which cannot be proved right or wrong. However, if somebody willingly comes to debate, stating differences is not enough (if I want to know differences between judaism and islam, I can as well google it and don't need your help to learn about it), those beliefs need to be somehow 'argumentated', because that is how debate works. And, according to the rules of debate, everybody is free to point out your logical flaws or give you counter-arguments or justify their position. If you cannot accept that, then you spare yourself emotional trouble and don't debate - that's how it goes. You don't automatically conclude that everybody who debates is disrespectful ipso facto, and that debates per se are 'bad'. That is not 'attacking' nor pushing anything down your throat - you came by your own free will to discuss things, well face with different opinions. Of course, all of the above goes under the assumption that nobody will go against the basic politeness rules.

Of course, I do think that provocations of the kind "You Christ-murderers Jews with your belief in genocidic G-d who is all but good, don't know what you're talking about, omg convert to our religion or else you'll rot in hell" are disrespectful. However, I do not think that "You know, in Torah there are quite some places where G-d explicity commands you to attack certain peoples [follows the citation], how do you explain that from Jewish perspective if G-d is good and right?" is in any manner disrespectful and if I came to a religious forum with purpose to debate religion, I would not mind that kind of question. And if I minded, I would simply not come to religious forum ("G-d is ours and G-d is one, I don't want to debate it, end of story for me").

The problem is that too many things have become 'indebatable' and a priori tabu. Nowadays you can hardly debate anything normally because the moment you state you don't agree with somebody's argumentation for the existence of G-d, you're "intolerant", or the moment you speaking against Israel you are "antisemitic", if you are against positive discrimination then soon you are "racist", and so on in various topics. Forums are among rare places where you can still freely discuss even those emotionally tricky things, and I think that's great. Of course, I repeat, assuming there is politeness in discussion.
There doesn't have to be dawa or proselitising included, things can be debated without that. People are just too sensitive, that's what's the problem.

I will respect your religious beliefs and will not ask of you to 'justify' to me why you believe in what you believe.
However, if you by your own free will come to the place where those are discussed, I see no reason why I should not pose you questions and give you counter arguments.

That being said, on LitNet I avoid religion simply because it seems to me there is too much sensitivity involved; but if it weren't that way, I would participate in Religion forum too, because I find the topic very interesting for well-mannered discussions.

[El Viejo]

Sometimes, actually many times, I feel that people do not tolerate each other's beliefs. Believers think they're right and everyone else is wrong, the same goes for non-believers. People from different religions want everyone to convert to their own religions, to the point that I feel we're in the middle of a war or something.

I'm reading an interesting book right now: "A Guinea Pig's History of Biology." In it are described wars of the sort we see in this forum, wars of the sort that always occur on the frontiers of learning.

The battles are eventually settled as information is collected and verified. Religious conflict differs because it often stems from matters where no information may be collected, and so there is no prospect of solution.

The science/religion battle is old and familiar, but even in the area of literary discussion religion is different. This is not because people don't focus on the text, because other forums diverge from their texts as well. When we examine, for example, lesbian and feminist themes in the works of Virginia Woolf, we usually recognize two critical things: first, that on some points we are in agreement, and second, that on some level it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because we know that an author's work becomes something different in the mind of each reader. Each perception adds something.

But when it comes to religion we are often in fundamental disagreement, and we believe it does matter. The texts are not mere literary works. They, and what we've derived from them, are immutable. For the irreligious, some of those points of disagreement matter because they are sticking points in the progress of civilization. For some of the religious the points matter because on them hinge eternal life or death.

Respect, in this forum, can't be the same as the polite gentility of a Victorian parlour discussion. But heated discussion is not a problem in itself. Irreconcilable differences on one another's eternal well-being are almost necessarily going to lead to heated discussions. In this forum respect can consist of not actually calling people names, of recognizing that minds change slowly, and people are largely, in this sense, respectful.

[curlyqlink]

I'm not sure why you see it as an impossible matter to discuss but still remain respectful.

We doubt and question each other's beliefs and engage in debates and harsh conversations, and then say that we're only 'discussing'

It seems impossible to me because there is no clear line between "discussion", which seems to be okay and not hurtful, and "debate" and "harsh conversation", which you seem to regard as disrespectful. Where does discussion end and debate begin? When does it become argument? I can't be absolutely sure where to draw the line between these things from even my own point of view; so how on earth am I supposed to know where you or some other poster might draw the line?

'Attack' is exactly the word I'm commenting on. Why do you have to attack.

Because that is how debate is carried on. Attacking the other person's argument (not attacking the other person... that's rude. More important, it's ineffectual.)

I'm arguing with you, and you're an atheist, should I just call everything you believe in crap and attack it harshly

If you like. Won't hurt my feelings in the least--I'd just figure you don't have much with which to back up your position. But of course that's just me. There are undoubtedly folks out there with much thinner skin. Which states the problem nicely: if respecting each other's opinions is defined as avoiding hurting each other's feelings, how are we supposed to know how delicate each other's feelings are? The only way to be sure of not hurting each other's feelings is to not talk about religion.

[Nossa]

I understand all what you said. What I'm saying here, and call me passive, is live and let live. You'll probably gain nothing from arguing about religions, at least you, in most cases, won't get the ultimate goal of the debate which is to convince the other that you're right and they're wrong. I understand that you all agree on a 'polite' discussion, and I also agree that only those who don't have evidence on their points of view are those who seek harsh replies and even insulting discussions. But the thing is, sometimes it seems to me that either parites (believers and non-believers that is) both are waiting for any chance whatsoever to jump on each other's backs and start a debate based wholly on the idea that they both still wanna convince the other they're right. That is basically what I'm against. Maybe it's cuz I've seen it way too much in my life, personally and through media, that I've become quite irritated by it, but yeah I think all I'm proposing here is a simple 'live and let live' idea. That is all. Hope you all get my point of view now.

[Wintermute]

As I said in another thread a while back: Sometimes it seems like we're trying to convince ourselves rather than others. That is why, as an agnostic, I come here once in a while. Reading all the different views reinforces my belief that no one really knows whats going on in the universe!

[Morten]

I don't believe anything can come from a discussion in which no one is offended. If we all dance around each other's beliefs politely and respectfully then nothing will come of it. I'm not saying be offensive and rude, but there's got to be some bite to a good discussion.

[dzebra]

I think much can come from discussions where no one is offended. I don't think that "dancing around" things is related to being respectful. Being direct, but without insults or any derogatory tone, is the best way to communicate.

You say one must be offended for the conversation to be good, yet you say to not be offensive. This would require someone to get offended about something that's not offensive, which generally comes from a miscommunication. A discussion with miscommunications seems like a bad discussion to me.