Respecting Christians

[AvalonXQ]

That's not the perspective I'm describing at all. It has nothing to do with how much of a stubborn jackass you choose to be,

That's true in real life. On the internet this is most of what matters.
Who ever keeps posting longest, declares himself the winner.

and everything to do with how important understanding the other party is. Getting what you think is a good grasp of their thought process is not where the conversation should end. It's where it should start.

So you can certainly understand that when it becomes clear that others are absolutely refusing to do so -- that their interest is primarily in finding ways to mischaracterize you and deny you have a thought process at all -- it makes sense to disengage.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

If you feel that way, maybe you should be an atheist.

I'll consider it....right after I've talked to this guy at my door with some magic beans.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'll consider it....right after I've talked to this guy at my door with some magic beans.

Don't give him the whole cow; offer him a 50% interest in it.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Don't give him the whole cow; offer him a 50% interest in it.

Too late, I bought his beans. Turns out they are invisible but if I plant them they will grow into trees that grow money. Invisible money that I cant pick or spend but hey its still $$$$ right?

Not that I'll need that money when the Nigerian Prince sends his funds through.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Too late, I bought his beans. Turns out they are invisible but if I plant them they will grow into trees that grow money. Invisible money that I cant pick or spend but hey its still $$$$ right?

Might be useful if your garage dragon hits you up for cash.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Might be useful if your garage dragon hits you up for cash.

The garage dragon still owes me for the invisible pink unicorn it ate! I'm just glad it doesn't have a taste for spaghetti.

 

[GeeMack]

Argument from incredulity is a non-starter.

That's a rather smarmy evasion of a legitimate question. Especially coming from someone whose entire position is an argument from credulity. As I mentioned earlier, it's not a matter of disrespecting someone for the simple ridiculousness of their belief in invisible magical beings. But it's damned difficult to respect those who support their position with such flagrant dishonesty.

It's not really disrespecting people for simply believing in magic or living as if under the constant threat of suffering at the hands of an invisible magical being. It's more to do with their projection of those irrational beliefs onto other people as if the Christian fantasy should be other people's reality. Maybe it has more to do with rationalizing their belief in invisible magical beings with hypocrisy and dishonesty, and their judging other people as sinful based on those rationalizations. That is a pretty deplorable way for Christians to be and doesn't merit any respect.

It's a very rare Christian who has the ability to recognize that their delusion is their very own and wholly unrelated to other people's reality. It's a very rare Christian indeed who has the honesty to admit that. And that dishonesty simply does not merit respect.

 

[Dinwar]

It's a very rare Christian who has the ability to recognize that their delusion is their very own and wholly unrelated to other people's reality.

I have to admit 1) I haven't really read the posts, and 2) I'm drinking off two weeks of field work and on-call status (something they NEVER mention in paleo training!!), but I have to say, for the most part most Christians I've met aren't worthy of respect for another reason entirely, namely: They don't actually believe what they say they believe.

I was a server in an Roman Catholic church for years (what can I say, it was marginally less boring--though I hasten to state that nothing inappropriate happened). The church I went to had a tendency to talk after mass--and by "the church" I mean pretty much everyone at mass. I noticed pretty quickly that the conversation was "Did he ring the bells long enough?" and "How many hosts did the priest drop today?" This is regardless of the homely, gospel, etc.--NO ONE thought about religion during mass. They were, to the last person, hypocrites, in that they believed in belief but did not hold that belief themselves. And hypocrisy is not worthy of respect.

 

[Legend]

And, interestingly enough, the OP position is using pretty much this same attitude -- being offended by what he assumes we must be thinking about him, rather than by anything we say or do to him.

You have serious comprehension issues.

I'm not applying the label to everyone by default or stubbornness. I'm applying it to those to whom it applies. See? Flawless method. If you've explained it through some sinuous biblical interpretation or otherwise don't actually think my eternal suffering is "appropriate", then you're a far more respectable person than is someone like you, Avalon.

 

[Minarvia]

This isn't specific to atheism; generally an outspoken opponent of a widely held opinion will be seen as rude.

And, interestingly enough, the OP position is using pretty much this same attitude -- being offended by what he assumes we must be thinking about him, rather than by anything we say or do to him.

ETA: Fortunately, not everyone is this way. For every 20 people, only about 15 would be this way, 4 would reasonably want to engage or at least associate, and 1 would quietly or secretly agree.

Again, from my personal experience, using my late father as an example, do you think it is wrong of me to have not respected or honoured him when he made no pretense of his feelings about women? About how he would ogle young girls with his snide remarks of "if they are old enough to bleed they are old enough to butcher," and countless other awful "beliefs" he had?

Yes, he was nice enough most of the time to me. He fed me and provided for me, but I could never shake what I knew he believed. Goodness knows I tried for many years.

So, was I supposed to just respect him for his behaviour alone and ignore his beliefs regarding myself, my mother, and all women?

I don't see this as being much different than knowing that somebody would, gladly or not, agree that I should go to 'hell' or wherever their chosen deity says.

So, seriously, was I wrong to NOT respect and honour my father?

 

[Mycroft]

So, seriously, was I wrong to NOT respect and honour my father?

Learning to show respect to the idiot is a life skill that will serve you forever, not just at family gatherings. Just because you "respect" someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them or give your stamp of approval to their disgusting ideas.

 

[BStrong]

I have no problem treating people with respect, as long as they treat me likewise.

 

[Mycroft]

That's not the perspective I'm describing at all. It has nothing to do with how much of a stubborn jackass you choose to be, and everything to do with how important understanding the other party is. Getting what you think is a good grasp of their thought process is not where the conversation should end. It's where it should start.

Why?

You take two people with very different views. If they can communicate well enough that each comes away with a good understanding of the other point of view, that's pretty good. To say that's where the conversation needs to start assumes they need to argue it out and one of them needs to change their mind.

But why? If they're both comfortable in their belief systems, why can't they leave it at that?

 

[Minarvia]

Learning to show respect to the idiot is a life skill that will serve you forever, not just at family gatherings. Just because you "respect" someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them or give your stamp of approval to their disgusting ideas.

Heh...yeah. I'll definitely keep the word "show" in mind! But yes, it is an invaluable skill in life.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Beyond the belief system that their deity values what you believe or not over what your actions and intentions and values are being a source of disrespect for me, the large number of theists I directly encounter who literally tell me that any evidence their faith is wrong is automatically to be disregarded or ignored is something that also makes me lose a great amount of respect for someone.

But I respect people on many levels. I may disrespect them on one level and respect them on another level. Sometimes that respect is so strong I generally feel I respect them on a whole as an individual while having no respect for certain things they feel are true.

Faith seems to me to be the worst kind of lie there is. When it openly has you dismiss any evidence you see to the contrary more so, but some of the more reasonable theists I know will not go down that road, and insist so far there is no evidence they see capable of doing so. Faith systems are only seen outside of religion within people who lie and manipulate, confidence men and politicians and similar folk.

Then you get Christians who will portray faith as one thing, and then when pressed will portray faith as something else, as if faith is simply confidence or hope and that it is not accepting something as accurate without any reason to accept it. The idea that accepting something as truth for no reason is held as a virtue bothered me even when I was a God fearing Christian being baptized. It ended up being a major inspiration for my path to deism, which I suppose ultimately makes it an early precursor to my atheism.

Why would a deity care if I believe in it based on vague and indistinct means, let alone value my belief in it at all? Nothing else that is real in this world has to worry about not being believed. It's laughable to imagine anything else valuing such a thing. The trick to being a Christian is to somehow find a way to accept such a thing is important. It's really a breathtaking example of the way religions have evolved culturally these last 100,000 years or so.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

So you can certainly understand that when it becomes clear that others are absolutely refusing to do so -- that their interest is primarily in finding ways to mischaracterize you and deny you have a thought process at all -- it makes sense to disengage.

If you think they're primarily interested in finding ways to mischaracterize you, you're probably mischaracterizing them. Intentional straw men happen much less often than accusations thereof. When they do happen, I find it's best to draw them out and expose their actions as being an ass. More likely you haven't been clear enough and they haven't gotten exactly what your argument is, but they think they have and are responding to the wrong one honestly. In which case, storming off makes you look like an ass.

Why?

You take two people with very different views. If they can communicate well enough that each comes away with a good understanding of the other point of view, that's pretty good. To say that's where the conversation needs to start assumes they need to argue it out and one of them needs to change their mind.

But why? If they're both comfortable in their belief systems, why can't they leave it at that?

Because different belief systems are often at odds with each other. Often over different approaches to policy, but occasionally one belief system thinks another is going to be tortured forever in the fiery cantos of perdition. Puts a damper on genteel debate, that bit does.

Until both parties understand how the other thinks, they'll never be able to drill down to the heart of the matter nor find a suitable compromise. They won't even be able to begin to do so, because they'll at best be knocking down unintentional strawmen while talking past each other, each perfectly convinced of their own correctness.

Plus, claiming to end the conversation when you understand someone makes a conveniently perfect excuse for ending a conversation long before you understand someone, but when it's just not going they way you'd like it to.

Then you get Christians who will portray faith as one thing, and then when pressed will portray faith as something else, as if faith is simply confidence or hope and that it is not accepting something as accurate without any reason to accept it.

There's probably an actual name for it, but I call that the "just us chickens" argument. Same thing happens when YHVH, Creator, omniscient, omnipotent when only the faithful are in the room, becomes the ineffable, inscrutable, undetectable Intelligent Designer as soon as someone has the bad manners to bring up science.

 

[tsig]

Learning to show respect to the idiot is a life skill that will serve you forever, not just at family gatherings. Just because you "respect" someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them or give your stamp of approval to their disgusting ideas.

Kissing ass forever.

 

[tsig]

If you think they're primarily interested in finding ways to mischaracterize you, you're probably mischaracterizing them. Intentional straw men happen much less often than accusations thereof. When they do happen, I find it's best to draw them out and expose their actions as being an ass. More likely you haven't been clear enough and they haven't gotten exactly what your argument is, but they think they have and are responding to the wrong one honestly. In which case, storming off makes you look like an ass.


Because different belief systems are often at odds with each other. Often over different approaches to policy, but occasionally one belief system thinks another is going to be tortured forever in the fiery cantos of perdition. Puts a damper on genteel debate, that bit does.

Until both parties understand how the other thinks, they'll never be able to drill down to the heart of the matter nor find a suitable compromise. They won't even be able to begin to do so, because they'll at best be knocking down unintentional strawmen while talking past each other, each perfectly convinced of their own correctness.

Plus, claiming to end the conversation when you understand someone makes a conveniently perfect excuse for ending a conversation long before you understand someone, but when it's just not going they way you'd like it to.


There's probably an actual name for it, but I call that the "just us chickens" argument. Same thing happens when YHVH, Creator, omniscient, omnipotent when only the faithful are in the room, becomes the ineffable, inscrutable, undetectable Intelligent Designer as soon as someone has the bad manners to bring up science.

First whe have the O³ god maker of the universe and everything in it now we have a god too shy to be seen.

O³=omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent

 

[Soapy Sam]

Seems to me the important question about any systematic belief is not "Is it sincere?", but "Is it right?"

Does anyone here have any testable data to support the factual correctness of any religious belief system?

And if not, then why do they go on believing it?

I don't feel respect is earned by simply believing nonsense.
I'm unsure whether having a detailed knowledge of theology and still believing it would merit more respect, or less, than someone who merely accepted a smidgin of nonsense in infancy and still believes it. Not much in either case, methinks.

But someone who merits no repect whatever for his religious belief may deserve respect for any of a myriad other reasons.
I don't respect Dietrich Bonhoeffer because he was a Lutheran theologian. I respect him because he was a brave man.

 

[Mehdimentio]

I PERSONALLY find it very hard to respect the intellect of anyone who devote themselves to a doctrine as absurd as Christianity. That does by no means justify personal insults from my part, though. I am aware.