DiscussMormonism.com

I can respect someone's right to believe whatever they want, but I'm under no obligation to respect their actual beliefs. So while I don't go out of my way to discuss other's beliefs in my personal relationships, I don't pull any punches when the topics are breached.

cognitiveharmony wrote:I can respect someone's right to believe whatever they want, but I'm under no obligation to respect their actual beliefs. So while I don't go out of my way to discuss other's beliefs in my personal relationships, I don't pull any punches when the topics are breached.

I concur!

If anyone asks about Mormonism, I will tell em the meat version of the truth.

Sadly, it has been years since any member attempted to talk me back to church. I miss doing that, as it never ends well for them. The last time this happened it was the local missionaries assigned to our ward. I have yet to see another set of foolishly brave and unwitting elders after these two limped away with what was left of their nearly dead testimony. My 800 lbs gorilla named Truth was brutal to their cute fuzzy testimonkies perched on their shoulders.

I am sure I was black listed as my neighbor has asked why the missionaries will skip my house while door knocking all others on my street. I showed him the secret(handshakes) and phrases to give to them next time.

Polygamy-Porter wrote:

cognitiveharmony wrote:I can respect someone's right to believe whatever they want, but I'm under no obligation to respect their actual beliefs. So while I don't go out of my way to discuss other's beliefs in my personal relationships, I don't pull any punches when the topics are breached.

I concur!

If anyone asks about Mormonism, I will tell em the meat version of the truth.

Sadly, it has been years since any member attempted to talk me back to church. I miss doing that, as it never ends well for them. The last time this happened it was the local missionaries assigned to our ward. I have yet to see another set of foolishly brave and unwitting elders after these two limped away with what was left of their nearly dead testimony. My 800 lbs gorilla named truth was brutal to their cute fuzzy testimonkies perched on their shoulders.

I am sure I was black listed as my neighbors have asked why the missionaries will skip my house while door knocking all others on my street. I showed him the secret(handshakes) and phrases to give to them next time.

It's been well over a year since the missionaries paid me a visit. I spoke with them for about 30 minutes detailing the plethora of issues I had with the church and it's history. It ended with one of these 18 year olds telling me that my whole problem was that I don't have a good relationship with my father. It was sort of a parting salvo of which I had to laugh incredulously. Whata ya gonna do, they're just 18-19 year old kids that don't know any better.

sock puppet wrote:

EAllusion wrote:One of the ways in which people reasonably come to their beliefs is through networks of trust in credible knowledge networks. That there aren't basically any adults advocating that Santa Clause really exists while their are massive social institutions filled with seemingly learned people who assert there is good reason to think God exists put these in very different areas. I say this as a person who thinks the existence of God is more dubious than the existence of Santa Claus, but you have to appreciate how people develop confidence in knowledge.

Yep. Religion is a confidence game.

I wasn't saying religion is a con-game with my post.

Look at it this way. When you read a high school chemistry book, you are likely to trust the material as generally correct even though you haven't performed and analyzed the experiments and observations that led to it. And, if you think about it, you know the textbook authors haven't recapitulated the history of chemistry themselves either, as that is physically impossible. Instead, what has happened is a network of knowledge has developed among a body of people you have reason to think are credible. It's be very odd if what was taught was wrong, as that would require a systematic failure on a variety of fronts. As a result, you accept that most of what they say must be generally correct.

We use heuristics like this all the time in determining what is acceptable to think. That huge %'s of people believe in God and there are extensive social institutions around this belief led by seemingly credible people is not an insignificant thing. It doesn't justify belief in God, but it does change the character of people's belief even if you understand it to be unreasonable. It is not like Santa Claus in this regard. PP's post is the sort of juvenile reasoning that apologists love to single out and respond to as a straw man for atheists. It's naïve and childishly petulant, which is precisely how they like to stereotype atheists.

EAllusion wrote:One of the ways in which people reasonably come to their beliefs is through networks of trust in credible knowledge networks. That there aren't basically any adults advocating that Santa Clause really exists while their are massive social institutions filled with seemingly learned people who assert there is good reason to think God exists put these in very different areas. I say this as a person who thinks the existence of God is more dubious than the existence of Santa Claus, but you have to appreciate how people develop confidence in knowledge.

Tarski wrote:This.


Besides, usually people deserve basic respect anyway.

Porter wrote:Even when they believe in ideas that are easily demonstrably false?

And defend them in public forums?

Yes. The PERSON deserves respect. His/her IDEAS ON THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT may or may not deserve respect, but the PERSON does.

Ceeboo wrote:Hey PP!

Not only is it "possible" to have such respect - but if this respect is present, it says a whole lot more about the person extending it than it does about the belief holder.

Peace,
Ceeboo

EXACTLY!!!

I kind of agree with both ea and porter. Part of the "network" is sustaining a healthy subconscious fear that protects anything too close to the core of the individual's identity. So a respectable and smart person could be educated and have a good career and even have thoughtful spiritual beliefs. But whether it's out of curiosity or such a competitive ego that gets a person deviating from the network and ultimately taking up a career of what is little more than self justification, then the content of the beliefs also drifts, and as the apologist awakens, his god is one like Santa; a Santa whose Christmas route hits the apologist's house first.

-

Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:Is it possible to respect an adult who thinks everyone who disagrees with them is possessed by Satanic spirits? How about an adult who actively tries to take away others' rights? Or an adult who disowns family members for not believing in Santa?

I guess my problem isn't so much with believing in something ridiculous like Santa, it's the attitude and actions that result from people believing they have special access to Santa and that they alone know what is truly "naughty or nice", because they've been told by their leaders.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

It's sort of like Ben Affleck v Bill Maher and Sam Harris. Affleck maintained that it was bigoted and intolerant for any Americans to point out and call out mainstream Islamic beliefs that are, for example, misogynist. Maher and Harris countered that it is duplicitous for Affleck to cut Islamic beliefs slack that he condemns and does not tolerate among Christian groups--sexist is sexist in any context.

Religionists that are exclusive and judgmental against nonbelievers like to insist the nonbelievers should respect their beliefs, however unfounded. How very Affleck-like of them to want it both ways.

The religionists will attend church meetings where it will be mentioned from the pulpit (and go unchallenged) that nonbelievers and those of other sects are going to hell for their nonbelief, but by damned, if nonbelievers should say anything disparaging about the 'beliefs' for which there is no evidence, the nonbelievers are the ones being 'disrespectful.'

Maybe believers need to get a bit of perspective and do a bit of introspection before they call out Porter or the OP as being insensitive or disrespectful. This is a pluck the mote from one's own eye first situation in my view.

Jesse Pinkman wrote:Yes. The PERSON deserves respect. His/her IDEAS ON THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT may or may not deserve respect, but the PERSON does.

Really.

Do you respect Joseph Smith?

Do you respect Warren Jeffs?

The leader of north Korea?

Hitler?

Stalin?