Religion
Related: About this forumThe faithful must learn to respect those who question their beliefs
Issues of personal faith can be a source of respectful debate and discussion. Since faith is often not based on evidence, however, it is hard to imagine how various deep philosophical or religious disagreements can be objectively laid to rest. As a result, skeptics like myself struggle to understand or anticipate the vehement anger that can be generated by the mere suggestion that perhaps there may be no God, or even that such a suggestion is not meant to offend.
...
It is fascinating that lack of belief, or even mere skepticism, is met among the faithful with less respect and more distrust even than a fervent belief in a rival God. This, more than anything, leads to an inevitable and deep tension between science and religion. When such distrust enters the realm of public policy, everyone suffers.
As a scientist, one is trained to be skeptical, which is perhaps why many scientists find it difficult to accept blindly the existence of a deity. What is unfortunate is that this skepticism is taken by many among the faithful to be an attack not only on their beliefs, but also on their values, and therefore leads to the conclusion that science itself is suspect.
One can see this in many domains appropriate to public policy from the local scale (school boards and the teaching of evolution) to the global scale (climate change and what international codes of behaviour may need to be changed to address it). But what may be surprising is that even on rather esoteric questions, the suspicion that science is akin to atheism, and that therefore science cannot be trusted, easily surfaces.
...
Lawrence M Krauss is director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. His most recent book, A Universe from Nothing, was recently published.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/feb/07/faithful-learn-respect-question-beliefs
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)I'm not threatened by people who question my beliefs. It doesn't hurt me or my faith if others don't feel or believe the same way and I have NEVER believed there was a fundamental conflict between spiritual beliefs and science. I have ALWAYS believed in scientific creationism.
How is what I believe affected by the nonbelief of anybody? The people the Author speaks about regarding disrespect, (the so-called "faithful"
, are wrong if what they are displaying toward other people who may not agree with their worldview, is nastiness and denigration. That goes against the fundamental command of Christianity and most faiths, if I'm not mistaken. I suspect that alot of what is called faithful are, in actuality, a type of LUDDITES, evidenced by the way they disparage anything resembling science.
Frankly, I don't know any Christians, Muslims or Sikhs, (the majority of people of faith in my area), that hold the suspicion of science the write refers to, thank God. Stupid makes me itch, lol!
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)At least that's what you said in another post. How is one supposed to determine if you re really a Christian or not?
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)hopefully, will never know who I am. I have NO RESPONSIBILITY to prove to anything to you. WHO ARE YOU and WHY DO I HAVE TO ANSWER TO YOU? Don't you have anything better to do that to follow me around and ask INANE questions? REALLY?? I know hippies here in northern California and I grew up with them. You don't show any of the live and let live qualities my godparents and family they have. By the way, The correct way of spelling the word you were so valiantly trying to spell is "YOU'RE", a contraction of you & are,NOT YOUR, with means to possess to own something.
You make stupid judgements and show your ignorance EVERY TIME YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH, so to speak. I HAVE a right to say what I want to say and when I was making my point in the earlier statement, I wasn't talking to you, so why are you trying to attack me? You REALLY don't want to continue what you're doing. Leave me alone and I will IGNORE you. How bout that?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Shouting isn't needed.
And why do I get the feeling that you gave all those hearts to yourself?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I don't know you, I have to take your word for what you say. You DO have the responsibility to do exactly the same fucking thing, just like you do when the girl who killed someone then went to church. If she says she is a christian, then you have to take her at her word, right? If not, then you are the world biggest hypocrite. So which is it?
This IS a discussion board, you know. You came here into a group where I am a regular, and accuse ME of following you around? What nonsense. You post, I read and respond. Thats how this works.
And you cede the argument when you delve into personal attacks and critique grammar and spelling that have nothing to do with anything at all. That shows you have nothing of substance to add anymore and are just grasping at straws. It's desperation. It's pure FAIL.
Then you make a sophomoric insult to round out your ill-thought out post. The final nail in your coffin of fail. You have nothing left but insults. Congrats. Jesus is proud, I'm sure.
And I really do want to continue what I'm doing, which is responding to posts that I find here. That's the whole POINT of DU, to post and respond. Stop doing that? I think not.
Start supporting your posts with reason and rational arguments, and our conversation will improve, not just with me, but with everyone you seem to having the same problem with. How bout that?
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)Everybody seems to be you and one other nut. So, bray on because, again, I have no obligation to argue any points with you. I don't want to argue with you. I have been here since 2005 and I've been just fine with the way I enjoy DU. So, go argue with whomever you want you want to. You're welcome to it and put on permanent ignore. Don't care what you think...REALLY.. I don't have a responsiblity to do a FUCKING thing for you or anyone else, as it applies to this site. Welcome to the land of Ignore.
Response to Ecumenist (Reply #19)
Post removed
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)because stupid makes me itch...So bray on!! LOL!
Response to Ecumenist (Reply #10)
Post removed
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)as a member of a group. It may not encompass all variables, but it does encompass those ther person can control (who they idientify with.)
In other words, look at it this way, do you want someone who, after you declare yourself to be a atheist/agnostic/whatever you say to turn around and go "no you are not!"
And I do not say this to support religion, I say this because I do not want non theists to start picking up the lousy, self-righteous vices of the theist, where they think they can say what someone is, regardless of what that person chooses to be.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't think there is an inherent conflict between science and religion. Respectful debate and discussion are welcome. Questioning a person's philosophy or religious beliefs is one thing. Calling people stupid or crazy for holding them is quite another.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Calling people stupid or crazy, when they continue to hold fast to an irrational belief, even when presented with strong evidence to the contrary is entirely justified, no?
tama
(9,137 posts)regardless of the amount of evidence to back the claims that you continue to hold fast to an irrational belief, wouldn't do much good, would it?
So no, IMHO that would not be entirely justified.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)I wanted to tell you that I'm a girl,LOL!
I don't feel the need to argue or debate with people who attempt to make bullying, stupid and idiotic statements. I am trying to hold my temper and my tongue. Being black, I can really get street and I'd really rather not go there.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)if you want to participate here (which I hope you do). They are no-win and, as you saw, result in completely exasperating exercises in futility.
Says this pretty streetwise white girl to one who can clearly hold her own!
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)I've been here since 2005 and intend to be here for years to come. I don't understand people who feel the need to play that game. I discuss subjects and debates things dependent on whether I DECIDE I want to, not based on whether some decides I should. Slavery ended over 150 years ago. wouldn't have made a good slave even during that time. Hell, My ggrandfather held off the KKK with 6 sons and plenty of ammunition and rock salt... AND HE WAS IRISH!!
Nope, I'm not getting into that game.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)calling a whole group of people "dumbasses" for believing in and supporting creationism fall in all of that?
Hypocrisy, thy name is bayer..
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)
pinto
(106,886 posts)Dogma aside...especially as science pushes the boundaries of purely empirical concepts. The various roads between the known and the unknown may lead to similar big picture points-of-view.
One thing I think gets overlooked in the most simplistic of science vs religion debates is the role that skepticism, questioning, plays within both.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)latest excitement Quantum physics which talks about the nexus of the spiritual and science.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)I suspect you've been reading quacks like Deepak Chopra, who uses 'quantum' as a buzzword to mean "things I don't understand, and that I hope my readers don't either". Ask your brother what quantum physics says about "the spiritual". He'll tell you "nothing".
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)MY brother is PHYSICIST WITH AN EMPHASIS ON THEORETICAL MATHEMATICS AND . oh you know what? Just talk about what you know about Muriel._volestrangler....You don't know him and you don't know me. God, I am constanntly amazed at people who claim to know everything about people who they have no personal knowledge of. You know shit about me or mine and based on what comment, not much else on the subject.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)if you think bluster and bullying will cow anyone here, think again. If you post nonsense, it will be torn down, no matter how "street" you get, and no matter what you got away with in other forums. Whether you choose to debate the claims you make or let the refutations of them stand as the last word is your business, but don't think that putting people on ignore will get you a free pass.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)That's the only reason I can see that you'd get so angry at me suggesting you talk to your brother to set you right. I was pointing out that your brother, as a physicist, would know that quantum physics has nothing to do with 'spirituality'. Whoever does claim the 'nexus' stuff is abusing quantum physics. And saying just the kind of thing Chopra does. You can't avoid that, no matter how much you can't stand him.
tama
(9,137 posts)does raise deep philosophical questions that are also relevant to philosophy of consciousness and cognitive science. "Spiritual" can be a "street" for those.
"Chopra" is just a name that is thrown when there seems not much interest to discuss the issue but just to toss a name that is supposed to make the whole discussion go away. And that's not very skeptical, in the best sense of the word.
"Chopra" is not just a name. He's a real person promoting real ideas, some of which are merely silly and others of which are downright dangerous. He's a real world example of a really bad way to think about quantum mechanics. The best tradition of skepticism requires that nonsensical ideas be held up to scrutiny and exposed...wouldn't you say?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)be held up to scrutiny and exposed." We finally agree on something. However, as the term "nonsensical" is used in the definition of Logical Empiricism, which is the basis of scientific thought, implies that which cannot be detected by use of the five senses - not ideas that are to be discarded or subjected to ridicule. Science has its own defined limitations that may or may not be overcome in time. Regardless of whether or not scientific thought exists does not eliminate other forms of inquiry, and no matter what your opinion is of them, they do exist and have definite relevance to those who use them.
tama
(9,137 posts)long long ago, don't remember much, so not able to bring up his particular ideas, but if you have a better memory, you should tell which ideas you consider silly and which dangerous and why. Instead of just tossing and cussing a name.
I've read and thought much else. Lately I've been reading many books from top scientists meant for general public, about contemporary views on GUT and TOE, etc. and the philosophical questions involved. They, like all I've read, have helped to deepen and open my non-professional understanding of quantum physics and its relation to other fields. I don't want to sound uppity or condescending, but I've been following and studying this field for decades. And I've seen all the debate tricks, too.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)SOLELY using logical positivism, which thankfully has been largely discarded. In order to even conceive of quantum physics, scientific thinking had to move beyond those confines, while retaining some of its distinctive features. This opened up entirely new possibilities and new realities, which are not able to be proven empirically.
tama
(9,137 posts)I can only agree that the main implication of quantum is opening new possibilities and new realities that go beyond classical limitations. To be experienced "empirically" and actually, of course. What can be quantitatively measured has it's limitation, but also those limitations can be pushed and opened.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that the quantum model of physics was a much closer match to reality than the classical one? Gee...by empirical evidence.
But I'm sure you can tell us all sorts of things about quantum physics that have been confirmed by those wondrous "other ways of knowing"... Right? Or will you fail miserably at providing even one example, just as you've failed miserably every other time?
tama
(9,137 posts)Quantum level offers possibilities to approach and discuss "other ways of knowing" also scientifically. If you start thinking from the more fundamental quantum level, then follows the question, what and how is this level of classical reality? Are there limits and what are they?
As for "other ways of knowing" than what, also my rational inquiry leads - surprise, surprise - to cartesian skepticism of 'cogito ergo sum' or even more strongly 'doubting happens', as what can be known rationally and skeptically. That is the acceptance of "I am", but rational inquiry does not exclude the possibilities of much else besides this rational and skeptical version of logical solipsism. So by other ways of knowing I understand other ways besides what can be known as cartesian skepticism and logical solipsism.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)from a perspective other than his: http://www.skepdic.com/chopra.html
And don't you think that peddling snake oil cures based on "quantum healing" to people who might benefit from proven treatment, but not seek it because of Chopra, is dangerous?
that healers job is not to peddle anything, but to make the role of the healer unnecessary, by helping the system in need of healing to find confidence in the potential of self-healing.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but try telling that to a Christian Scientist with appendicitis...
tama
(9,137 posts)I don't see reason to be limited to your line of questioning. But please don't take that as an exclusion of anything. My line of questioning goes now like this: when we are talking pass each other, where do the waves of information go? And how do the waves mingle, when they meet. And where is that and what are the limits of the geometric/mathematical forms? How many dimensions are in body sense, is that a sensible question? Feels not so. So the body knows. This body knows. Other bodies may and do have other ways of knowing, and I do not know their limits. This body has, I would say, purely material sense of knowing, assuming that "matter" does not exclude sensual spaces from the concept, nor deny the freedom of sensing. And questioning, as is ones way. Quest.
Part of my quest is to quest the other ways of knowing of those who who do theoretical physics, which is mostly gibberish to me. So I quest my limitations and find out that those limitations are the border zones where I also happen, as interactions. Between various other ways of knowing. And this way of knowing has preference to seach for other ways of knowing, e.g. scientific imaginations, that are not outright exclusive of the possibility and potential of this way of knowing.
onager
(9,356 posts)Member of the teams that discovered the quark, gluon and other subatomic particles. Retired Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at the U. of Hawaii. PhD in Philosophy and professor of that subject at the U. of Colorado.
Author of 10 books for general audiences on quantum physics, cosmology and other topics, including The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do The Laws Of Physics Come From? (2006) and The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning (2011).
So at some point, I'd expect you must have read Stenger's article "Quantum Quackery:"
Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.
Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales - especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.
Complete article:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)I don't know what the most abused word in the English language is, but a list of the top ten has to include "quantum".
Stenger states his "completely materialistic and reductionistic" belief system quite eloquently, and csicop.org spreads the word faithfully.
So, what kind of matter/math is this common sense? How do you sense it?
I must also say that I would be positively surprised if the so called skeptics would show equal skepticism towards the standard claim that "there is no evidence of paranormal", and apply the same strict scientific criteria to their own debunking stunts that they - rightly so - ask from others. That is, if they want to be respected as open minded rational thinkers instead of pseudoskeptical believers in materialism and reductionism.
onager
(9,356 posts)...study in quantum physics. And since Stenger has been working in that field since 1963, I assumed you would have heard of him.
I must also say that I would be positively surprised if the so called skeptics would show equal skepticism towards the standard claim that "there is no evidence of paranormal", and apply the same strict scientific criteria to their own debunking stunts that they - rightly so - ask from others.
They do show exactly that kind of skepticism. It just hasn't produced the results the believers want to see.
And if the mean old skeptical scientists won't help out - shouldn't the believers be doing their own research anyway?
Oh, that's right, they have. The UK's Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882. Here in the U.S., the J.B. Rhine Institute at Duke University opened in 1935. Since the 1970's, Puthoff and Targ have been falling for con men like Uri Geller and Ingo Swann.
That's a lot of years to study any subject.
I can certainly point to "materialistic" scientific progress since 1882 - one great example being this thing on which you and I are currently communicating. From wiping out killer diseases to walking on the Moon, that grumpy old materialistic science has one hell of a track record.
I can find no similar progress in paranormal research. If I could, by now many police functions would not exist, since psychics would be tracking criminals. The CIA would be using remote viewers to find Al Queda. No state would dare hold a lottery, since folks with Other Ways Of Knowing would be winning all the time.
Susan Blackmore was mentioned in this thread. She spent many years working in paranormal research. Here's Blackmore explaining why she left the field:
It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end.
Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud...
Yes, I have read Michael Faraday's 1853 report on table tipping, and the first 1930s studies in parapsychology, and the latest arguments over meta-analysis of computer-controlled ESP experiments, not to mention the infamous Scole report (Feedback, New Scientist, 22 January).
Should I feel obliged to keep using this knowledge if I can? No. Enough is enough. None of it ever gets anywhere. That's a good enough reason for leaving.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)of the paranormal to provide reliable, repeatable evidence. For phenomenon and abilities that are real, it's not that hard to do. Is there what some people call "evidence" for the paranormal floating out there? Sure. But it is, virtually without exception, crappy and unreliable evidence, that withers under close scrutiny. Every claimant of paranormal abilities that has been tested under controlled conditions, by people who are familiar with delusion and deception, has failed. Miserably. The fact that skeptics still bother to test them puts the lie to your claim that skeptics are not open minded.
And please, give us some examples of debunking "stunts", and why they need to have scientific criteria applied to them.
tama
(9,137 posts)Sheldrake's criticism of the debunking stunts as well as I do, or you can stick to your skeptic sources and look no further. I don't find joy in quote wars.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)you have no examples that will withstand scrutiny, and apparently no understanding of the requirements of evidence.
And just so you know, "Sheldrake blah blah blah blah blah" is not an answer to anything.
Thanks for playing.
no positive surprise there. And no, I'm not interested in playing your game.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)As they usually would be done.
Consciousness and congnitive science are not involved.
tama
(9,137 posts)is inherently involved in the planning and building of the classical measurement device. And contemporary physics describes the whole measurement event by a single quantum state. Days of the Copenhagen interpretation are well behind.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)"For describing the universe, a more general interpretation of quantum mechanics is clearly necessary, since no external experimenter or apparatus exists and there is no opportunity for repitition, for observing many copies of the universe. (In any case the universe presumably couldn't care less whether human beings have evolved on some obscure planet to study its history; it goes on obeying the quantum-mechanical laws of physics irrespective of observation by physicists.) That is one reaons why what I call the modern interpretation of quantum mechanics has been developed over the last few decades. The other principal reason is the need for a clearer understanding of the relationship between quantum mechanics and the approximate classical description of the world around us."
From Chapter 11, "A Contemporary View of Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics and the Classical Approximation", in THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR, by Murray Gell-Mann
tama
(9,137 posts)is a strange projection. I'm currently reading Paul Davies' 'Goldilocks enigma', in Finnish translation, about anthropic principle mostly, it seems. Perhaps we can agree that universe "cares" at least to exist and in a way that allows us to have this conversation?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that it's helping people win or lose money, or than the Powerball machine "cares" about the one individual out of millions that it made very wealthy.
tama
(9,137 posts)roulette wheels care, about money and winning and losing etc.
But if you believe that universe is like a roulette wheel and cares as little as powerball machine, then that is your belief and your metaphor. And that's OK.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)a conscious being who built the universe (instead of the universe itself), and what they care about, then your response might make sense. But we're not. So it doesn't.
tama
(9,137 posts)is the theoretical imaginations of the collective consciousness of scientists etc. Who care about theorizing models of universe, possibilities of forms.
Universe itself? I cannot define self, an sich. But self-evidently, here is sensing, sentience.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The universe we're talking about is the one that existed long before there were "scientists" to perceive it, and still does.
You never seem to tire of irrelevant babble, do you?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)theistic POV's. Sorry to disappoint you, but true.
does the notion of time, that your view is based on, exist?
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Consider that physicists have been making quantum measurements only the last 1.3*10^2 years or so, while the univers has been around for about 1.3*10^10 years. Even Homo sapiens have been around only about 1.3*10^5 years. Quantum mechanics has worked the same all during the 99.999% of the time that humans were not around. This is shown by astrophysics which can observe things in the very distant past.
Quantum mechanics also behaves the same in the percentage of the universe where there are no humans, and places where no human could observe things, such as inside of stars.
So human observers are totally irrelevant to the universe.
tama
(9,137 posts)is not universal among known human cultures and individuals, and modern science is also quite funny about time. But I don't call it irrelevant, cause it's related, and that's how it is.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)so that the claim of religion to be a guide to morals looks a failure. We have a few unifying concepts like "do as you would be done by", but when that comes to specifics such as "should we have the death penalty?", religion still can't answer the question consistently. Religion is also hopelessly conflicted over other claims, such as "do people have a continued existence as themselves after death, and if so, is it in the physical world?"
Science may be growing closer to this realm, with attempts to work out 'objective' morals, but mostly, science has just picked off the religious claims, one by one.
I do agree that religious traditions that have long embraced skepticism are also those which tend to be able to live with and adapt to scientific discovery. It's the sects that claim certainty of their dogma that are denying basic realities like evolution or a multi-billion year old earth.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)and religious opinions, certainly it is wrong to show respect for such an opinion. Sorry, those who advocate ridicule as standard practice should never be encouraged by the appeasement of respect.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)I would, however, enjoy it if you stopped lying about me and my fellow heathens.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)You hold it like a lover when someone says something you don't like, and push it away almost violently when you read something that conforms to your worldview.
Fair-weather friend...
humblebum
(5,881 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)atheists MUST learn to respect those who question the reasoning and logic behind atheism. More than happy to accommodate you.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts) 
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)for that matter behind anything.
However, I hate people who consider atheists to be lesser citizens, or worse, politically dangerous. Philosophical debates are great, and I have no problem with having my non-religious views questioned. People can even try to convert me if they wish; it's unlikely to work, but it won't arouse my hatred; but if they describe my country as 'the epicentre of the culture of death', try to restrict women's rights in the name of religion, or use religion to justify having a right-wing govennment, then that is another matter.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)who openly calls those who believe in Biblical creation "a bunch of dumbasses"?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)There's a wide gulf between what you consider disrespectful and what is actually disrespectful. Many of us question religious belief, and that's offensive to you.
Attacking an idea is FAR different from attacking a person. If someone is attacking you on DU, alert on the post because those types of things are allowed. However, there's no DU standard that leaves your religious belief off limits to criticism.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)And you say that "Many of us question religious belief, and that's offensive to you." Sorry, I've never said that religion should not be questioned, I do myself often. What I am talking about is something quite different, such as purposely and openly ridiculing or advocating ridicule for any group or their beliefs.
And your statement,"If someone is attacking you on DU, alert on the post because those types of things are allowed." You are right, those things are allowed on DU3 now. In DU2, they were not.
tama
(9,137 posts)Erm, isn't and perceived and considered disrespect *actually* disrespectfull, the idea and emotion of disrespect actualizing in a state of mind?
Perhaps instead of actual you were thinking *objectively* disrespectful, assuming a theory of objective criteria of disrespect - which would and will become a matter of debate. And in this state of mind there is now actual disrespect for the idea of objective criteria of disrespect. It just happens, actualizes. As does the feeling of not wanting to show disrespect for other states of mind and what ideas actualize them. Is there a conflict?
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Nah, don't bother to answer. I won't read it and it wouldn't make much sense if I did.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)crying when it happens.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)I knew I only needed to wait a little while to get a recent example.
tama
(9,137 posts)Revenge is such a pavlovian method of learning/teaching. You can't break the learning/teaching circle before the pain treshold has been truly met. But once you break it, you have learned something new.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)and what that means when it involves ascribing respect to groups who openly preach the use of ridicule for other groups and their ideas.
tama
(9,137 posts)for the respect or lack of it that you are feeling and showing.
If you want to teach others to show respect by showing disrespect to them, or if you want someone to stop hitting you by hitting him back, how is that different from a cycle of revenge? Note that I'm not morally condemning or discarding revenge as a teaching method, just reminding that a guy dear to you preached also other methods.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)and does nothing to stop it, then that party is as guilty as the one committing the evil. Should respect be shown to people who commonly spout racial slurs or groups that advocate racial inequalities. Disrespect for religion and the religious was tolerated and officially encouraged in 1930's Germany, and during the same period in the USSR. Should that have been respected and tolerated?
In principle, I agree with you, but if by your actions you fail to confront such behavior then maybe you are accommodating it
Dorian Gray
(13,496 posts)that behavior is very different than showing the disrespect in return for disrespect.
Call the behavior out or alert and send to a jury. Or be boorish and show disrespect in response to boorish disrespect. It's no skin off my back, really. It's the nature of the internet.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts) LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)and worse, use religion to attempt to restrict others' freedoms (e.g. Santorum), then it is wrong to show respect for such an opinion.
Most atheists do NOT call for ridicule of religion; and most religious people - at least in the UK - do not use religion to restrict others' rights. But when they do, one should criticize the actions; not imply that atheism is bad because a few atheists have called for ridicule of religion, or that all religion is bad because a few religious people in England, and a larger number in America, use it for right-wing purposes.
James I. Nienhuis
(24 posts)Of course the flip side of this, for the sake of fairness, those who question others' belief in darwinism should be respected as well, particularly considering that Darwin's term species is meaningless as a classification tool, the term syngameons actually having classification value. For one to imagine that swamp goo morphed into humans stretches credulity to the limit most perhaps would agree, yet for the sake of intellectual honesty, we should debate these issues, fairly and without censorship.
