As a long-time atheist, I'm often asked if I "respect" religion.

[MineralMan]

My answer to people who ask that question is "No, but I can respect people who have religious beliefs." This sometimes confuses the person I'm talking to. In one conversation along these lines, my questioner asked how I could respect a person who had religious beliefs without respecting religion. My answer to that question was to name a mutual friend. "Do you respect Melissa?" The answer was, "Of course. She's a very good friend of mine."

I then asked if the questioner respected Wicca, which is Melissa's religious belief.

After a moment of confusion, my questioner understood my original statement.

Religions are ideas, not people. People sometimes hold ideas with which we do not agree. That does not mean we do not respect such people, as people. We can think the ideas are silly, fantastic, and completely untrue, but hold the person in high regard for that person's demeanor, behavior, and friendship.

I am an atheist. I think that all religions that are based on a belief that any supernatural forces or entities exist are little more than superstitious nonsense. However, if people who believe such things treat others well, show respect for individuals, and otherwise behave as good, responsible people, it matters not a thing to me what religious beliefs they may hold.

I can respect people who hold religious beliefs. It's not the belief I respect; it is the person.

[Warpy]

1. The subtlety might be too much for them to get

meaning we respect their right to believe nonsense, but we don't respect the nonsense, itself. They just don't understand that respect belongs to people, not things.

It's like trying to get them to understand what a lack of belief is. They always want to assign the word "belief" to people who don't have any and are continually questioning everything.

[rug]

7. Those who call believers deluded may find the subtlety too much for them.

[MineralMan]

19. Deluded, eh? Who used that word?

Certainly I did not. I do not consider religious beliefs to be delusions. I consider them to be beliefs people are taught and believe. Delusions generally come from within, rather than from without. For example, if a person believes that a deity tells him to kill people, that is a delusion. If a person believes that there is some deity directing all things, then that is a learned belief. Learned beliefs can be unlearned. Delusions generally respond well to medications.

So, I do not consider people who hold religious beliefs to be deluded. Misinformed, perhaps, but not deluded.

[rug]

24. You can read post #3 in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121821869#post3

Although in that instance he used the word "delusional" instead.

No, I didn't say or imply you used that word (or the meaning behind it). If you need more examples throw a dart in here. Chances are you'll find it or a synoym somwhere in the thread.

[MineralMan]

25. Then, I suggest that you post your reply to that post.

Why reply to the one you replied to? That poster did not use the word, either. I did not find the word in post #3, either. In fact, I believe you were the one who introduced that word to the thread.

On edit: Oh, I see that your reference was to a post in some other thread. Never mind. This thread is its own thing. You could discuss what was said by another poster in another thread over in that thread, I'd think. It has nothing to do with this thread.

[rug]

29. As a matter of fact I wasn't replying to you at all.

The poster I was in fact replying to suggested the inability to make the distinction was a one-way street. Not only is it not but the traffic is heavier in the other lane.

Now please step out of the way. Thank you.

[MineralMan]

33. The nature of DU discussions is that anyone

can reply to any post in a thread. I replied to yours, which started a subthread. It's DU. But, I'll take your suggestion under advisement, for sure.

[rug]

35. In that case, keep your suggestions as to whom I reply to to yourself.

Alternatively, read a post before replying.

[MineralMan]

42. Sir, Yes Sir!

[NAO]

32. Off the shelf delusions vs. Individually created delusions

As an atheist, I recognize that most people have a need or a tendency or whatever, to have religious ideas (which are delusional).

For conformists, that means believing an off-the-shelf, shrink wrapped, highly processed delusion (a major organized religion). For non-conformist, creative types - they seem to create their own beliefs to fill this need.

[cbayer]

37. A delusion is fixed, false belief that is maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

To maintain that the earth is flat is a delusion.

To maintain that there is a god or gods is not, as no one can submit evidence to the contrary.

You may not share that belief, but when beliefs are held by a significant part of a population and there is no evidence to prove it wrong, it is not technically a delusion.

It's just an insult to say so.

[cleanhippie]

66. Some might say that the definition of self-delusion...

is creating meanings and definitions that meet what the individual need it to mean so as to convince themselves (delude) that something is true.

[AlbertCat]

67. To maintain that there is a god or gods is not, as no one can submit evidence to the contrary.

Religion is more than a belief in god. A virgin birth is delusional.


And gods are clearly superfluous. The "evidence" is not 100% conclusive but....Y'know, Russell's Teapot.


To give such a dodgy, weak hypothesis great credence and power over one's life is delusional.

[cbayer]

72. Again, I object to the incorrect use of a technical term.

This is only used as an insult or put down. It is used, in effect, to label religious people as mentally ill.

That's just a smear and nothing more.

[rug]

48. How does being an atheist enable you to recognize people's needs or tendencies?

Does declaring yourself an atheist confer upon you psychological or sociological skills you lacked before that self-declaration?

If atheism is simply nonbelief in god(s), stop making sweeping pronouncements based on that nonbelief. It may lead one to consider you grandiose if not delusional.

[AlbertCat]

68. If atheism is simply nonbelief in god(s)

If theism is simply the belief in gods, stop making sweeping pronouncements about who's moral and who's gonna be punished for all eternity and how things began and who's supernatural delusions are real and who's are not, and.... and.... and....

[NAO]

38. Abraham, Moses, others were delusional by your criteria

MineralMan said, " if a person believes that a deity tells him to kill people, that is a delusion."

consider Genesis 22:1-2: "Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

And there are all kinds of instances in the Pentateuch of God telling Moses to kill masses of people - whole towns, including women and children. Makes Charles Manson seem pretty tame.

[MineralMan]

47. Indeed.

That particular issue is one of my reasons for rejecting religion in the first place. The dichotomy between the "God of Love" and the "Angry, Vengeful God" was one of my first clues that there was a problem with Judeo-Christian beliefs.

That same deity wiped out all the life on Earth, according to the same scriptures, save one family and the animals they collected. What would induce a person to worship such an entity? The more I learned, the more I realized the mythological nature of the whole thing, and the more I was able to put it aside.

Indeed, if those stories are true, then Moses and Abraham were delusional, and believed in a deity that would destroy them in an instant, if it pleased the deity. I cannot conceive of such an entity being real.

A thorough knowledge of the scriptures of a religion is often a guide to its reality or mythology.

[rug]

50. Do you therefore call someone who believes that to be delusional?

[MineralMan]

52. No, I do not.

As I said above, delusions are something different from belief in a religion that has been learned.

I said that, as depicted in the Old Testament, Moses was delusional. I do not believe, of course, that the events actually occured as written. However, I recognize that many people do believe that they were real. Again, it is not what they believe that is the source of my opinion of those persons. It is their actions that are the source, as far as I know them.

If someone tells me that a deity speaks directly to him or her, then I will question that person's mental stability and wonder if he or she is delusional. If, on the other hand, the person tells me that they are a Christian and believe the teachings of Christianity, I will consider them to be religious only. Delusion and religion are not equivalent, in my opinion.

There is a Hmong grandmother who lives two doors from my house. She holds the naturalistic belief that things in nature have spirits that inhabit them. She was disturbed by a set of eyes, nose, and mouth I had attached to the Maple tree in my front yard. I was told this by her son. I removed the face from the tree, so as not to worry her. Now, I do not believe that spirits inhabit trees, but she does. She is a kindly woman with no English, but appears to be an excellent person and a loving grandmother. Out of respect, I removed the thing that offended her. Do I think she is delusional? Of course not. She has the religious beliefs she was taught. That's immaterial to me, even though I think they're silly beliefs. But, I do not wish to cause her any discomfort.

[Warpy]

28. The only one who did that so far in this thread is you.

You might want to reread the posts above yours and reconsider your accusation.

[rug]

30. The only post above mine is yours.

The point stands.

[Warpy]

43. Congratulations.

Your continued inability to read a post and understand it has finally earned you a place in a very select group.

[rug]

45. Frankly, there is little to misunderstand about your post.

"The subtlety might be too much for them to get" is a pretty straightforward statement, as most incomplete statements are. Your framing of "them" omits those who cannot separate religious persons from religious beliefs. An understandable omission if you are in that very select group.

[Thats my opinion]

2. "Oh, I hate Judaism, but some of my best freinds are Jews."

It's an old tired line.

As for me personally, I respect agnosticism and atheism, while i also respect agnostics and
atheists.

[MineralMan]

5. The beliefs of my friends and people I respect

are irrelevant to my respect. It is not a tired old line. If you ask me if I respect Jews, I will tell you that I respect all people by default, and only disrespect those who earn that disrespect through their actions. Respect is the default.

Further, I don't "hate" any religious beliefs. They are simply irrelevant to me, and I consider them to be superstition. There are many people who have superstitious beliefs. I take them one at a time as people, if I encounter them. They have my respect unless they do something to cause me to lose it.

[immoderate]

3. Everybody believes something...

It's inconceivable that anyone has it all right. If so, then there would be that one! And respect is not telepathic. It requires some action, however small.

It does not make sense to respect a belief you don't share. In the case of monotheism, they define disbelief as disrespect. And in the case of nonsense, you can't make them happy.

--imm

[DCKit]

4. As an agnostic, I find that I respect the teachings more than most "religious" people.

I let loose on a family member last week with "Hate wasn't one of Jesus' favorite values. Call yourself something other than Christian if you refuse to follow Christ."

[MineralMan]

9. Every religion has two types of "teachings."

The first type has to do with deities and other such things. The second type has to do with how to behave with your fellow humans. The second type is generally similar in most religions. The first type is not.

So, if a religion teaches that one should not harm others, I certainly respect that, since it's a basic tenet of almost all religions and societies. If the same religion has teachings that say this idea comes from a supernatural entity, I can't respect that concept, since I have evidence that ethical teachings are common to most religions, and are therefore societal teachings.

[stopbush]

12. And yet, Jesus said that unless one hated their immediate family, they could not truly love him.

Interesting that there's no equivocation about whether the word "hate" means hate in that verse. It does. The Greek word used is "miseo," which has "hate" as its root. Jesus was definitely not saying you had to love him MORE than your immediate family. He was using the word "hate" as we understand it in the modern sense.

Go figure.

[MineralMan]

16. The problem with that is that you're talking about a record

of what Jesus was supposed to have said. As with all scriptural references to Jesus' words, its accuracy can be questioned. In any case, I do not believe that Greek was Jesus' first language, although he may have had some use of it. So, the "original Greek" does not represent the original speech, assuming there was such speech in the first place.

[AlbertCat]

69. The problem with that is that you're talking about a record

of what Jesus was supposed to have said.


***********


Uh... THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO GO BY!. Since there is no historical evidence Jesus ever existed.

If he did, he spoke Aramaic, most likely. But if the accuracy can be questioned of one statement, so can they all. The accuracy can be questioned of the Sermon on the Mount.

You can't pic and choose.... even though religions do it all the time and have from day 1.

[DCKit]

22. "I have come to set you against your mothers and fathers"

Yeah, the non-practicing Catholic S.O. trots that one out every now and again. But I don't believe it was about hate, or even families - it was about a new way of believing and treating others, a break from traditional religious teachings.

Apparently, Catholics in other countries get a better education in their religion than here in the good ol' USA, but everything is up for interpretation.

[xtraxritical]

57. Jesus said what other, later, people said he said.

I don't respect Romney at all, a large part of it is his magic underpants religion. Jesus said not to put your religion in the street but rather go in the back room and talk to the Father in private.

[intaglio]

6. Problem is too many who ask that question mean only the Abrahamic faiths

Those from other faith groups tend to be less likely to ask.

[physioex]

10. And I think the reason is "active recruitment"....

Christians and Muslims have a long and violent history of forcing their beliefs through the sword. The other religions like Budhism and Hinduism not soo much.

[MineralMan]

13. Ah, but Judaism is not an evangelical religion, and it

is also an Abrahamic religion. So, the general statement in the post you're replying to doesn't really work. In fact, I do not believe I have ever had a Jewish person question me about my atheism at all. So, it may be that only the evangelical religions are concerned with such things. And by "evangelical" I mean religions that recruit new followers.

[physioex]

17. Point taken.....

I did not mention Judaism as one of the "active recruiters"....

[MineralMan]

11. That is true, more or less, I think.

I don't have enough experience with people of non-Abrahamic faiths to judge, though. I do not find Jewish people to be that argumentative about atheism, though, so your characterization may have a flaw in it.

[stopbush]

8. Well put. I usually substitute political affiliation for religious belief to make the point.

"Do you respect John?" "Yes." "Do you realize that he's a rabid Tea Partier?"

The point is that one can respect a person without respecting their beliefs, whether those beliefs are religious or political. No one would expect a Republican to say, "I disagree politically with my D friend, but I have to admit that there's truth to what they're saying, even though it directly counters my political beliefs," so why should one be expected to say, "I disagree with my friend, but I have to admit that there's truth to their religious beliefs, even though it directly counters my non-belief?"

[ellenfl]

14. i don't much respect organized religions. i'm coming to not respect many

adherents to organized religion who loudly proclaim their religion. i don't want to even know that you are 'religious' because that has become a negative for me. i wish that weren't so, but religion in this country has become really scary to me.

that said, if asked, i would say that i do not respect people who loudly proclaim their moral superiority through religion while not following the teachings of their god.

ellen fl, lifelong atheist

[AldebTX]

15. I Just Ask

Do you respect my lack of belief.....when I am told No....I say....there you go.

[rug]

21. What do you do when you're told Yes?

[cbayer]

18. I would only argue that once you start using ridicule, disparagement, pejoratives

or any language that essentially indicates that these beliefs are stupid, delusional or can be completely dismissed by "reason", you have crossed the line into disrespect for the individual.

There is a grey area here that needs to be recognized. If you call what someone deeply believes in "superstitious nonsense... silly, fantastic and completely untrue [as if you had any right to assert that]", you certainly are not treating them with respect.

I maintain that there is a way to disagree about this without being disagreeable.

[MineralMan]

20. And I would argue that you are incorrect.

That I think religious beliefs that include belief in supernatural entities are superstitious in no way means that the people who hold those beliefs are deluded. I'm not ridiculing those people, and do not even attempt to sway people from them. I simply do not believe such things. I respect or disrespect people based on behavior.

[rug]

31. Do you respect or disrespect people who mock people based on their beliefs?

[MineralMan]

49. Mock? That is not something I particularly respect in a person.

I will discuss religious beliefs with someone, if they wish to discuss them, but I will not mock them for their beliefs. I will explain why I cannot share them, but I will not ridicule the person for holding them. Mockery is not a praiseworthy thing, I think, although most people can slip into mockery at times. I try not to judge people on individual actions, but on a composite of their actions, if I have time to assess a person's actions to that depth.

[rug]

51. Does "not something I particularly respect" mean you disrespect someone who does that?

[MineralMan]

55. That depends. I try very hard not to judge people or determine

a level of respect from a small sample of behavior. I do not assume that a particular behavior, observed briefly or without sufficient context, represents that person as a whole.

In most cases, where casual observance of behavior is isolated, I won't actually need to decide whether or not to respect someone, since the chances are I will not interact much with that person.

So, if I observe mockery, say, on DU, I probably won't form an opinion of that person at all. In fact, I rarely pay much attention to the screen names of people who post here. Only if I encounter the same person frequently will I even try to determine whether that person is someone I respect or not.

Often, a first impression does not give a clear picture of a person.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but that's the best I can offer at this point.

[patrice]

23. You're saying that on balance you respect them more than you

Last edited Sat Apr 21, 2012, 04:35 PM - Edit history (3)

disrespect? or do not respect? their believing. There's a difference between not respecting and disrespecting.

Whether it is disrespect or lack of respect, is it about belief or what is believed?

If it's about believing, how do you feel about your own beliefs? Do you claim to have none?

If it's about WHAT they believe, other than what is said about that conventionally, how do you know precisely what that is? It is their own mind, not yours after-all. Yes, there are millions, perhaps most people, whose beliefs are completely limited to conventions, so there is something objectifiable there that you CAN not believe. I also do not believe in what many people are talking about when they use the word "God".

But it is possible that there are others whose beliefs are the product of phenomena other than convention theology, ergo not religious. e.g. Rationalism is a forming process that produces some probability of the validity of empirical knowledge of whatever micro-to-macro-to meta-generative-to-emergent property is being extrapolated from existence for an authentic epistemology.

To say that it is not a probability is a violation of the nature of proof, not a clearly rational act, more religious.

Rationalism is not a perspective that religion conventionally relates to, but spirituality and, hence, some "theology" is also not exclusively non-rational either, as some anecdotes in the history, and any lover, of Science can show you.

Let's not confuse these labels with the phenomenology.

[rrneck]

26. The guy that figured this out

has my respect:

http://www.segway.com/


No way I'm smart enough to figure that out. Anybody that smart gets my respect because I respect his intelligence.

This guy has my respect as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Romero


He cared so much for his faith he was willing to die for it. I have to respect him because I respect his feelings about what he believed.

I have no use whatsoever for a Segway, and I have no idea if that technology will be of any use to the human race in any meaningful way in the future. I have no use for Christianity either, and I have no idea if it will be of use to the human race in the future.

Ride all the Segways you want, just don't run over me with the goddamn thing.

[MineralMan]

34. Exactly. Thanks.

You made an excellent point.

[Grown2Hate]

27. It's amazing how few people actually get that (including some fellow atheists). Well said. NT

[Tikki]

36. UR Correct..The fact that anybody could fear me because I'm an Atheist is because..

they haven't met me.
Get to know me...I bet I'll never bring up the word Atheist unless you ask.

Tikki

[MineralMan]

39. In normal conversations with people, I don't bring it up either.

If it comes up, I will tell someone that I am an atheist. In a discussion forum on DU, I'll do that, too. Mostly, it doesn't ever come up.

[DesertDiamond]

40. MineralMan! Those are my thoughts exactly!

[MineralMan]

41. Thanks!

It's good to hear that.

[JFN1]

44. Very well said.

People who fear atheists out of ignorance, and those who practice religious bigotry because they dislike and/or fear all non-believers, will likely remain incapable of the courageous honesty you exercise in living your own beliefs, which would allow them to participate in the sort of mutual respect you are practicing...

[cbayer]

46. Could not the same, but opposite, argument be made here?

People who fear (disdain, reject, ridicule) believers out of ignorance and practice religious bigotry will likely remain incapable of the courageous honesty it takes to practice mutual respect?

[MineralMan]

53. Indeed it could be made.

That's the point. It is not the beliefs. It is the behavior.

[marshall gaines]

54. religion

religion, can't live with it, can't die without it

[MineralMan]

56. Oh, it is quite possible to die without religious belief.

Quite possible.

[marshall gaines]

58. of course

of course. it was a very small attempt at humor. lots die that way, but I found in Viet Nam that if they had a little time to think about, there were no atheists. You know the old saying, "there are no atheists in a foxhole.

[MineralMan]

59. I doubt very seriously that you interviewed many atheists

as they were dying in a foxhole or an equivalent situation. That old saying is patently incorrect, and has zero evidence to support it. Many atheists have occupied foxholes and many have died in those foxholes, or their equivalent.

That old saying is just a way to dismiss atheism, and it is simply incorrect. I find no humor in it at all.

[marshall gaines]

61. ok

OK,I don't care what you think and I stand by what I say from personal experience.

[MineralMan]

62. Instead of getting angry, how about describing the personal experiences

that gives you insight into whether or not there are "atheists in foxholes?" That would be an interesting side discussion to this thread, I think.

[marshall gaines]

63. not angry

not angry. not at all. just don't understand people who assume that they know everyone's experiences. as far as my personal experiences, would take up a whole page. Just know when the 122's started dropping like rain, I heard as well as contributed to the chorus of....Jesus!!!! Otherwise have a good life. over and out.

[awoke_in_2003]

60. I give religion the same respect...

I give Aesop's Fables.

[rug]

65. The Four Oxen and the Lion

A Lion used to prowl about a field in which Four Oxen used to dwell. Many a time he tried to attack them; but whenever he came near they turned their tails to one another, so that whichever way he approached them he was met by the horns of one of them.

At last, however, they fell a-quarrelling among themselves, and each went off to pasture alone in a separate corner of the field. Then the Lion attacked them one by one and soon made an end of all four.

United we stand, divided we fall.

[cachukis]

64. While late to this discussion, I must say that you give credulity to

the concept of deference. You defer with respect to those who don't get it and likewise give respect to those who do or almost do. Neato.

[LTX]

70. If I didn't know better, I would say this is parody.

An o/p that presents as some kind of profound insight an atheist variation on the standard Christian trope - love the sinner, hate the sin. And the very first respondent promptly demonstrates just how disingenuous this treacle really is by proudly announcing that "the subtlety may be too much for them to get." Smug atheist, meet smug Christian. Smug Christian, meet smug atheist.

Then again, the irony may be too blunt, and the lack of self-awareness too theatrical, to even work as parody.

[Humanist_Activist]

71. I don't see the equivalency, to respect an idea is to give it some measure of merit...

this is something I refuse to do when it comes to silly, superstitious, racist, and many outrageous political beliefs, why should religious beliefs be treated any differently?