If someone professed to believe in Zeus/Jupiter, Hera/Juno, Apollo and all the rest,

[raccoon]

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 10:36 AM - Edit history (1)

would their beliefs be granted unquestioned respect and deference by the media and authorities, and by most people?

Edited for clarity

[xchrom]

1. No. Should I? Nt

[raccoon]

3. Yes. OK, I am kidding, sort of. But I suspect most people would.

And I probably would as well. Or at least I'd think they had weird beliefs.

And yet, we are so accustomed to people who believe equally weird beliefs, IMO.

I don't know if someone who has never encountered a rabid, arrogant Xian can
really appreciate how obnoxious and what a turn-off they are.

Just my .02 worth. I've had unpleasant encounters with cuckoo Xians.

[sarge43]

2. No. I don't want anyone questioning my beliefs. I return the favor.

"I have no desire to open windows into men's souls." Elizabeth I

[edhopper]

7. And I wish to question

everyone's beliefs. I don't believe there is a question that should not be asked. If a belief cannot stand up to question, perhaps it is invalid and should be reconsidered. Inquiry is what leads to clarity. Investigation is what leads to resolution.

[sarge43]

14. And that accomplished what?

Behavior yes. Actions can and do affect others.

If an individual believes a super being casts lighting bolts, fine. If on the other, that person is in a class room teaching that as a fact, then yes, that demands hard questions.

Let's say through questioning and inquiry a person ceases to believe in a super being, now what? Many people, perhaps the majority, need a belief system. You can called it a crutch, but taking a crutch away from a permanently lame person accomplishes little except making life more difficult for him.

Questioning spiritual beliefs is a classic slippery slope. For starters, they are not absolutes; there's no gold standard, no way to quantify them, in short whose beliefs or lack thereof is the correct one? Having no bench mark it is much too easy for whoever has the loudest voice, most votes or biggest guns to have the final say.

[edhopper]

20. Seeking the truth,

asking the questions, and the questions after that, and after that. I do not believe we are better off allowing people to accept falsehoods unchallenged. This is not how mankind progresses.
That is not to say that beliefs must be challenged at all times in every situation. But when in a venue where they are discussed, like this forum, I do not think any belief should go unchallenged.

[deucemagnet]

35. "Belief system". That's such an odd phrase to me.

Why does one need a "system" beyond believing what evidence supports and disbelieving what it does not?

[dmallind]

4. To get both truthful and useful answers, it may be better to ask

"would they be treated as a wacko by society in general?" It may even help to aff "or would these beliefs be granted unquestioned respect and deference by the media and authorities?" to really draw out real world comparisons.

When asked personally, everyone is a paragon of permissive laissez-faire and mutual respect when it comes to beliefs.

I'm not however.

[raccoon]

6. Well said. If possible I'll edit the OP. nt

[LeftishBrit]

5. No, not just because of something like that.

Eccentric, yes; but that's not the same as wacko.

I know an elderly man, who, due to the influences of his two late wives from diverse backgrounds, is a Quaker and a Muslim at the same time. And he's not in the least wacko!

I'd be much more worried if someone was a Scientologist, for example.

[azurnoir]

8. Nope not at all

it's the Odin/Loki/Thor worshipers that worry me

seriously though no I would not think them nutz

[LASlibinSC]

9. My friend believes some

kind of Eygptian thing. I'm not sure what exactly, but no I don't think shes a wacko. It works for her..I support her rituals and practices, but dont believe them myself. We don't try to convert each other.

[Silent3]

13. That's side stepping the question

The very fact that you brought up this particular friend as a good example for this thread indicates that you consider this "Egyptian thing" a bit odd. "Wacko" doesn't have to mean she's clinically insane.

Whether her belief "works for her" or not is not the question. One fairly common understanding of "wacko" is that it means a bit disconnected from reality, in what could merely be a small, mostly harmless, maybe a ditzy or amusing way. Disconnecting from reality to one degree or another is something that "works" for many people. Finding something that "works" for you doesn't mean you're not wacko.

[cbayer]

10. I'm scratching my head wondering why you would come to the religion group and

post an OP whose intent appears only to call all believers wackos.

Don't make DU suck. Thanks.

[Silent3]

11. There's a broad spectrum of "wacko"...

...and while such beliefs would hardly indicate dangerous psychosis, I'd say that's a bit wacko, yes.

Then again, I consider many modern religious beliefs a bit wacko too. The only thing that would make belief in the old Greek/Roman gods more wacko than many modern beliefs is that a believer in those gods wouldn't have the excuse of social support for his/her beliefs -- going along to get along isn't great logic, but it's not always terrible logic either.

I suspect many believers here, although they'll strenuously avoid answering "yes" to your question, would indeed consider a modern believer in ancient gods a bit odd, weird, wacky, strange, etc. They might not admit it out loud, especially in a forum like this, but they'd laugh at jokes about believing in Zeus, they'd be concerned if their son or daughter told them that they person they were dating was such a believer.

When the liberal believers here know they're on the spot to demonstrate their "open-minded" credentials and ecumenical acceptance, many will conveniently take the colloquial word "wacko" and treat it as if it meant "clinically insane", making saying "no" to the question easy to do, and sidestepping the real question completely.

[cbayer]

12. My daughter just got engaged to a Muslim.

His religion is completely foreign to me. I do not understand his god, his book or his practices.

I don't think he's a wacko.

Your two final paragraphs are just dogma, imho, and not based on anything that actually happens here.

[Goblinmonger]

15. Look at the comments here about Mormonism and Scientology

and then tell me that stuff doesn't actually happen here.

Or, if you are really brave, take a look at what is said about the firmly held beliefs of the religious right on here.

[Silent3]

16. Islam is a mainstream religion

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Maybe not in this country, but certainly well established in the modern world. Muslims enjoy a large community of support for their beliefs. It doesn't take going on on a limb, striking out mostly on your own, to believe in Islam.

As for what I said being "dogma"... you don't seem to understand that word. What I said is certainly only my opinion, my impression based on experience, and I'll gladly admit that I don't have sociological studies to back it up. My suppositions are open to debate. The very fact that you'd use a totally mismatched word, "dogma", to put down what I said, however, only shows that you're upset by what I've said and looking for an ugly word to lash out with, with no concern about that word's actual meaning.

Here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma

Please explain how what I said matches that definition. By a big stretch you might just manage to shoehorn my words into the third definition, but it would be a big stretch that could only be made by willful disregard for the general sense of the word.

[cbayer]

17. I understand the word just fine and chose it very specifically. Thanks.

You make both broad and narrow assumptions.

Instead of asking others what they think or why they have responded in a certain way or what they meant, you choose instead to tell them those things. In this post alone you have told me that my language usage is wrong, that I have used it to put you down, that I am upset, that I have lashed out and that I don't care what the word means, and, in fact, have a willful disregard for the general sense of a word.

Wow. You've already got it all figured out and you seem to be pretty certain about it. No need to ask questions or try to get more information.

Just like you did in the first post I responded to.

What word would you use to describe that?

[Silent3]

18. Experienced

These are not areas where I expect people to be honest, even sometimes with themselves. Some might consider this dishonesty of the "white lie" variety, being diplomatic, trying not to offend, but dishonest nevertheless.

There may very well be a few people out there who really, deep down, at any level one chooses to examine, wouldn't blink twice if I said I believed in Zeus and Poseidon, but those people are going to be very rare, and probably fairly wacko themselves. The people who will politely mouth the words of total unquestioning acceptance, however, are going to be a lot more common.

I suspect some people try to make the niceties they say true about themselves by fiat, perhaps disappointed in themselves for not living up to their own ideals of inclusiveness, hoping that if they don't admit to their internal judgements they can make them go away.

The definition I linked to does not say anything about merely being opinionated or about making assumptions -- that I can readily admit is true. If you view the "authoritative" part of the definition as applicable here, you give me more credit for authority than I give myself. If you think that I've claimed anywhere that what I say is "absolutely true", point out where that occurs.

"Doctrine or a corpus of doctrines" doesn't apply to what I've said.

So yes, I stick with my claim that you are misusing the word "dogma". The more you continue to stick by your use of the word after all that has been shown and explained so far, the higher the probability of my being correct that your misuse is willful.

[cbayer]

23. I appreciate your thoughtful response here and agree with some of it.

Here's the thing. If someone told me they believed in *whatever*, I would ask them about it or do some research to find out more about it.

I recently had this experience with wiccans. While it doesn't speak to me at all, I understood a lot more about them after some investigation.

The OP here, as far as I can tell, was meant only to conflate all believers into a category called "wackos". (Side note: It fits at least 5 of the "logical fallacies" recently posted by another member, imo.) There is a school of thought here, held by a small, but vocal, number of members, that religious people will react in a very specific way to this. In fact, there is a whole set of such beliefs about religious people. Pretty much the same language is repeatedly used to proclaim these beliefs about other members. Those "truths" are maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

If you find the word "dogmatic" to not fit you, then feel free to reject it. If you find it pejorative, then I will withdraw it as insulting.

But I sure would like to see someone like yourself ask more questions and make less assumptions about large groups of people. I've been doing that with atheists and have learned a lot.

One last thing, because I know what is coming here (not from you, btw). Calling a group of legislators dumbasses for passing a bill that would make creationism a science to be taught in public schools is not the same thing as calling all fundamentalists dumbasses. Calling a group of people whose belief system includes the sacrifice of children wackos is not the same thing as calling all believers wackos.

That is, calling a specific group of individuals something because of a specific action is quite different than generalizing that to all who share something with them. There are some here who don't see the difference and are obsessed with trying to make it the same thing.

[skepticscott]

25. You've been working on a way

to spin your bigotry and denigration of creationists for a long time, haven't you? Are you saying now that calling just a small group of people "dumbasses" because of what they deeply and sincerely believe is perfectly OK, as long as you don't call ALL the people who believe exactly the same thing "dumbasses" at the same time? Or are you saying "stop pointing the finger at me for doing what I rip on other people for doing, because I could have done something even worse"?

[skepticscott]

24. And we have a winner!

You've had the "thoughtful response" award bestowed on you. Huzzahs!

Though what it more likely means is "I have no good answer to the points you raised, but I'm incapable of simply abandoning my original position, so I'm going to use this to try to seem accommodating, then babble on some more, as if you'd written nothing."

[trotsky]

19. "shows that you're upset by what I've said and looking an ugly word to lash out with"

Bingo.

[Silent3]

21. You only agree with me because you're one of those "militant" atheists!

A dirty, dogmatic militant atheist!

Um, er... whom we all love and accept and respect because dogmatic, militant atheism "works for you".

[trotsky]

22. Guilty as charged, of course.

[2ndAmForComputers]

26. Isn't it cute how "dogma" switches back and forth between being a good thing and a bad thing?

I think some British author who died in the late 1940s wrote something about that. Maybe in some book whose title is a number.

[laconicsax]

27. Umm...Islam worships the same Abrahamic god as Christianity...

[cbayer]

28. So what. The god that he speaks of is very different than the ones I have been exposed to.

Who gets to define god? They may share some similar stories and traditions, but, in practice, it is very different.

[laconicsax]

29. It seems that according to you, you alone get to define God

And because a Muslim you know has a different view of God, he must worship a different god.

That's a very closed-minded and arrogant position and I'm very disappointed to see such sentiments posted on a progressive website.

[cbayer]

30. No, I only get to define god for myself, not for anyone else.

And nobody gets to define god for me.

Your assumption that there is a singular view of god is much more close minded. Sorry to disappoint you, lol.

[laconicsax]

31. Sorry, believing that people can have different views of the same god isn't closed-minded

You categorically rejected the god he worships as being at all related to the one you do.

Sorry to disappoint you, cbayer, but people can have different views of the same god regardless of whether you share those views or not.

[cbayer]

32. I didn't categorically reject anything. I am fascinated with his beliefs.

I said this concept of god was unfamiliar to me.

And where do you get the idea that I worship any god? I was only talking about the concepts of god I was familiar with.

I'm not disappointed at all. You have made my point for me. The "Abrahamic God" to which you refer can mean many different things to many different people. You don't get to define it as a singular entity that is shared by multiple faiths. Well, you can academically, I suppose, but not in reality.

[skepticscott]

34. And underneath it all, that's the point

even if you don't realize it. Everyone invents god for themselves, or borrows someone else's invention and modifies it to suit them. If your "god" really existed outside of your mind, that wouldn't be necessary, and it WOULD be possible to define and characterize he/she/it/them objectively.

[dimbear]

33. History teaches us that the Christians ground them up to make lime for cement.

Such a believer would be scorned for backing losers.

[GliderGuider]

36. Are you talking about American media and authorities, or more generally?

If it's just the Divided States of America, I'd say that anything beyond the Christian god doesn't get no respect. Not even Allah, let alone the Lord and Lady or Apollo.

Other places on this planet, some just a short distance away, are quite different, where being a Druid or a Mithraist doesn't raise many eyebrows - especially official ones.

[Odin2005]

37. Such people do exist, Google Hellenic Neo-Paganism.

I suspect they would be treated as badly by many as Wiccans are.

[MineralMan]

38. Not really so different from Hinduism,

if you think about it, and belief in Hinduism is respected by most people. That there are few believers in the old Greek and Roman pantheon doesn't make a really good example of what you are asking.