SHOULD we respect each other's beliefs? What makes a belief worthy of respect?

[BlackSheep]

Do you allow a child to believe in Santa Claus? If you do than you are contradicting yourself. You should be teaching the child the truth.

How is allowing a child to believe in Santa Claus even in the same category as telling someone they will burn in hell?

Not according to most philosophical views of epistemology on how do we know what we know. You have a belief system based on only things you can proof beyond a shadow of doubt. You belief in facts. The two do work together. There is gravity that is a fact, I believe it to be true. There is a particle called a graviton that is not a fact, yet I can believe it to be true, until proven otherwise. I think there is a high possibility of a God, that is not a fact, yet I can believe it to be true, until proven otherwise. But if I stick to only proven facts as most atheists propose we would never question and experiment to discover new things. Because we first make an educated guess then proceed to do research to see if it is fact.

The evidence of any religion is so far removed from a shadow of a doubt that is basically does not exist. Upon what you base this high probability of your god existing? Atheists are people who are united by a lack of belief in gods. Most atheists I know don't expect anything to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and are more than willing to explore things if the evidence suggests more. Most atheists are strong supporters of science. It tends to be religious folks who hold their belief is true and others are wrong based on very little if any evidence.

But according to atheists I cannot do research through philosophy and logical premises in order to justify my belief in a God. Why? Because to atheists the premise of a god existing is just illogical. But that is not the only premise, research, and experience a theist may have.

Of course you can, but realize logic if based on false premises has no value.

Personally I'm starting to get the impression Atheists have the same prejudices they accuse religious people have.

Well it all boils down to your logic argument and what it is based on. Bring it forth and we can explore it if you wish. You ave made a number of claims here support them.

[Senor Hoint]

Not according to most philosophical views of epistemology on how do we know what we know. You have a belief system based on only things you can proof beyond a shadow of doubt. You belief in facts. The two do work together. There is gravity that is a fact, I believe it to be true. There is a particle called a graviton that is not a fact, yet I can believe it to be true, until proven otherwise. I think there is a high possibility of a God, that is not a fact, yet I can believe it to be true, until proven otherwise. But if I stick to only proven facts as most atheists propose we would never question and experiment to discover new things. Because we first make an educated guess then proceed to do research to see if it is fact.

This represents a highly flawed view of how scientific knowledge is gained. You don't believe things to be true until proven otherwise, particularly in science. When constructing an experiment we try to disprove what we already think we know, and if we succeed, then we must build a new theoretical model to account for that.
In the case of the graviton, it arises from the fact that Einstein's general relativity breaks down at extremely small scales. The theoretical model as such is "disproved" (though it still works for the vast majority of the universe). The graviton is not something like God, whose existence is taken on faith. There are no mathematical equations or possible scientific models which require the existence of god. Quantum gravity, and, I believe, string theory, which are the two current most likely candidates for unifying gravity with the other forces, both posit the existence of the graviton for reasons of mathematical consistency.
The loony part of it is, if we applied the logic of theists to the existence of God we can say that all sorts of stupid things are true--Bertrand Russel's teapot, for example. There could be a teapot orbiting the Sun at half the distance of the Earth, but since there's no evidence to suggest it and no theoretical model that would require it, why believe it? The principle that one should believe in something until it is proven false is ridiculous, and even most theists will only apply it to God while being skeptics where other things are concerned.

[GiveMeABreak]

Again, if "respecting someone's beliefs" means standing by while they murder millions of people then I'll pass.

I don't think anyone has proposed that when someone takes their beliefs to the point of harming others that it should not be stood against. I would submit that one can treat someone with respect and at the same time bring justice when it is needed.

I deplore Nazism. I find all its prepositions to be lacking of logic and simply perpetuating prejudices.
Yet if I believe a person has a right to freedom of speech and the right to belief whatever they choose. I can't just hold them with disrespect if I want them to treat me with respect.

So as much as I don't like it I allow Nazi beliefs to be held in America. Will I allow Nazi beliefs to dictate public policy. NO and because of their past record and the threats they make I would be willing to go to war to stop them.

But that doesn't mean I can't treat them with respect at any other time.

[GiveMeABreak]

I'm glad you mentioned that, actually.

I wrote a thread on this website several years ago about the potential psychological affects of teaching our children to believe in magical elves, generous gift giving rabbits and fairies that fly in through our windows to exchange currency for our disused teeth. How do we teach our children that there are no monsters hiding under bed, no bogeymen in the closet, in the face of all this? To say the messages were mixed is an understatement.

Though, you're correct. I succumbed to the pressure of not being a stick in the mud and letting my kids have the experience of believing in supernatural beings.



Guilty! I know, crazy, right?



I'm not an Atheist. However you're correct. They do.

I don't think letting a child express their imagination and play should be interfered with. So I don't see you as being guilty.

[GiveMeABreak]

How is allowing a child to believe in Santa Claus even in the same category as telling someone they will burn in hell?



The evidence of any religion is so far removed from a shadow of a doubt that is basically does not exist. Upon what you base this high probability of your god existing? Atheists are people who are united by a lack of belief in gods. Most atheists I know don't expect anything to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and are more than willing to explore things if the evidence suggests more. Most atheists are strong supporters of science. It tends to be religious folks who hold their belief is true and others are wrong based on very little if any evidence.



Of course you can, but realize logic if based on false premises has no value.



Well it all boils down to your logic argument and what it is based on. Bring it forth and we can explore it if you wish. You ave made a number of claims here support them.

No it all boil down to that you belief there is no shadow of a doubt that religion is false. Religious people do not agree with you they do see there is reason to belief in a god. That is what it all boils down to two differing beliefs. Plain and simple.

[minorwork]

I don't think letting a child express their imagination and play should be interfered with. So I don't see you as being guilty.

Is it harder to alter already set behavior schemas than it is to initially learn them as a child? Yes!

Schema - What Is a Schema

A schema is a cognitive framework or concept that helps organize and interpret information. Schemas can be useful, because they allow us to take shortcuts in interpreting a vast amount of information. However, these mental frameworks also cause us to exclude pertinent information in favor of information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and ideas. Schemas can contribute to stereotypes and make it difficult to retain new information that does not conform to our established schemas.

[GiveMeABreak]

Is it harder to alter already set behavior schemas than it is to initially learn them as a child? Yes!

Schema - What Is a Schema

A schema is a cognitive framework or concept that helps organize and interpret information. Schemas can be useful, because they allow us to take shortcuts in interpreting a vast amount of information. However, these mental frameworks also cause us to exclude pertinent information in favor of information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and ideas. Schemas can contribute to stereotypes and make it difficult to retain new information that does not conform to our established schemas.

Are you saying we should interfere with a child's play and use of their imagination?

[BlackSheep]

No it all boil down to that you belief there is no shadow of a doubt that religion is false. Religious people do not agree with you they do see there is reason to belief in a god. That is what it all boils down to two differing beliefs. Plain and simple.

I have not seen any evidence that was both able to stand up to scrutiny and be significant enough to support the extraordinary claims it makes. You have a belief I do not share. It is not a matter of me doubting it to any degree, there has just not bee enough evidence to convince of it. I am sure you doubt the existence of other gods.

Provide me with evidence and I shall believe.

[minorwork]

Are you saying we should interfere with a child's play and use of their imagination?

What play? Which use of imagination? Hell yes interfere. Geez. A boy wants to sleep with his mother and does thru age 10. Interfere? Hell yes interfere, the mom's crazy and will condition him to some screwed up behaviors regarding women as an adult. The child imaginatively comes up with new ways to play at setting cats on fire and decapitating them. Hell yes interfere. Plays at choking other kids with new and imaginative utensils. What? Are you saying we should NOT interfere? Global absolute statements show no forethought.

Don't interfere by conditioning actions based on false premises that an adult would not find advantageous in his/her life. Santa, Easter Wabbit, Zombie Jesus, racism, sexism, spendthriftism, social hedonism, borrowing unnecessarily, community ownership of toothbrushes, public nudity, burning buildings, etc..

[BHownsall]

I have not seen any evidence that was both able to stand up to scrutiny and be significant enough to support the extraordinary claims it makes. You have a belief I do not share. It is not a matter of me doubting it to any degree, there has just not bee enough evidence to convince of it. I am sure you doubt the existence of other gods.

Provide me with evidence and I shall believe.

Humorous little side note. When Bertrand Russell was asked what he would do if after dying he was confronted by God, demanding to know why he had not believed in him, Russell's response was that he would say "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence..."

[sulh-i-kul]

As some have already stated, ye shall know them by their fruits.

[BlackSheep]

As some have already stated, ye shall know them by their fruits.

What is that a response to?