Home Politics & Debate
Ongoing maintenance - the boards are undergoing some ongoing, intermittent maintenance. Pages might load slightly slower than usual and there may be very short periods where the boards are offline.

How do you respond to beliefs different to your own?

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    For example, take Nick Griffin. I can't stand the guy. Given half a chance I'm sure he'd try to deport my OH (even though she was born here) or whatever. I find everything about him and his views repugnant however I respect his right to have them. He's entitled.

    So you don't respect the beliefs he actually holds, rather you respect his right to hold beliefs generally. With all due respect, that's a nothingness position. I'm talking about the specific beliefs a person holds and whether or not others should be admonished to respect them.
    I'm sorry to disappoint you but no, I don't have any real view on her beliefs and I don't see why I should. I have enormous respect for how they have helped her though difficult times and if there's a Hindu festival (like the recent Diwali) I have no problem going along with her and the kids as support - hell, I love fireworks.

    Do you have "no real view" or "enormous respect" for her beliefs? I'm unclear.
    Yes but do they speak for all of Catholicism? Do they speak for my mother? No. One of the biggest misconceptions by some atheists is to assume one person speaking about their religion represents the view of ALL its followers. As the kids say these days, rookie error.

    Isn't the Pope God's conduit on Earth?

    I guess the problem I have is that one rarely, if ever, sees the special dispensation afforded to religion anywhere else. If I was a self-professed member of the BNP, how well received do you think the defence "you shouldn't judge all BNP members by the actions of the leader and some of the followers" would be? Can you imagine if I advanced that argument on TheSite boards? Things would degenerate into the comments section of The Guardian website.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I get the feeling you're desperately trying to point out friction where there is none ;)
    So you don't respect the beliefs he actually holds, rather you respect his right to hold beliefs generally. With all due respect, that's a nothingness position. I'm talking about the specific beliefs a person holds and whether or not others should be admonished to respect them.

    If his beliefs work for him then I'm happy. Job done. I wouldn't shake his hand though.
    Do you have "no real view" or "enormous respect" for her beliefs? I'm unclear.

    I have 'no real view' as to whether her beliefs are what you'd want me to describe as "right or wrong". They don't directly affect me, they make her happy, I'm happy about that and I respect them for it.

    Isn't the Pope God's conduit on Earth?

    That's what Catholics believe. Christians do not recognise his position or respond to his edicts.
    I guess the problem I have is that one rarely, if ever, sees the special dispensation afforded to religion anywhere else. If I was a self-professed member of the BNP, how well received do you think the defence "you shouldn't judge all BNP members by the actions of the leader and some of the followers" would be? Can you imagine if I advanced that argument on TheSite boards? Things would degenerate into the comments section of The Guardian website.

    In fairness unless you're a left-wing social worker any argument you put forward on TheSite will get attacked ;)

    That's not a good analogy by the way - the direct purpose of the BHP is a racist society. Some parts of Christianity have been abused but its overall message is not one of such direct animosity. If what we know about Jesus is true he seemed like a pretty decent bloke.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Annaarrr!! wrote: »
    . Also, no we never got taught how to put a condom on a cucumber but i think that's a bit vulgar and unnecessary in year 8. If you cant work out how it works you shouldn't be having sex

    Hang on what?! I lost my virginity in year 7, as did a few other people I know. Also, should children who don't know how they tie they're shoe laces not wear shoes? No. Don't be ridiculous. You need to learn to put on a condom, just like you need to learn to do lots of other things. It's not a natural skill. Yes the packet comes with instructions, but it's very unlikely you will do it correctly first time and then the whole situation will become even more embarrassing for two probably already embarrassed young people. (also, they use fake willys not cucumbers normally.)

    Sex is meant to be enjoyed, it's not just for the creation of children as many religions teach. If sex ed can take out any awkwardness and embarrassment from a persons first few sexual encounters that can only be a good thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    That's just not true.

    The bible says nothing about gays or gay relationships, only the act of gay sex itself.

    If someone choose to distort a religion's teachings to fuel their own prejudice then that's up to them, not the religion itself.

    Erm .... so the bible supports gay relationships as long as there is no sex? C'mon. Stop grabbing at straws to defend an undefendable book please. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    I get the feeling you're desperately trying to point out friction where there is none ;)

    I'm trying to get you to think about the implications of beliefs, both tacit and explicit.
    If his beliefs work for him then I'm happy. Job done. I wouldn't shake his hand though.

    OK, so if a man's beliefs, which work for him and therefore presumably make you happy, lead him to remove the head of a solider in public view in Woolwich, you respect those beliefs - perhaps going as far in your condemnation as to not agree with them - merely because he holds them?
    I have 'no real view' as to whether her beliefs are what you'd want me to describe as "right or wrong". They don't directly affect me, they make her happy, I'm happy about that and I respect them for it.

    I'm fairly sure Kim Jong-il's beliefs in his demi-god status didn't directly affect you and made him happy. Do you respect his beliefs?

    That's what Catholics believe. Christians do not recognise his position or respond to his edicts.

    Last time I check Catholics were Christians. Though your statement puts me in mind of the turn of phrase "debating the religious is like trying to fight a cloud". ;)
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Last time I check Catholics were Christians.
    They are, but Christians are not Catholics.
    You're trying to say that since pornstars are actors all actors have sex on camera.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are, but Christians are not Catholics.
    You're trying to say that since pornstars are actors all actors have sex on camera.

    I've explicitly not done that.

    I understand the rudimentary logical distinction between all Catholics being Christian yet not all Christians being Catholic.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    I've explicitly not done that.
    You implied that Christians are supposed to believe that the pope is "god's conduit on Earth". Just as illogical.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In part, the problem is I'm trying to hit a moving target. We've moved from being admonished to respect a person's beliefs to respecting their right to hold that belief.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You implied that Christians are supposed to believe that the pope is "god's conduit on Earth". Just as illogical.

    I'm not saying they're under any obligation to believe it. But it's in his job description.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    That's not my discussion. I just pointed out that one of your arguments didn't follow logically. It still doesn't, as CM wasn't speaking about Catholics. Whether the discussion changed focus is irrelevant to that point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'll re-iterate: I've not said they're under any obligation to believe anything. Patently that's not the case; outside of the literalists, religious folk are all a la carte in their religiosity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm trying to get you to think about the implications of beliefs, both tacit and explicit.

    I thought about them long before I joined this site and I'm fully aware of where I arrived with my beliefs.
    OK, so if a man's beliefs, which work for him and therefore presumably make you happy, lead him to remove the head of a solider in public view in Woolwich, you respect those beliefs - perhaps going as far in your condemnation as to not agree with them - merely because he holds them?

    Yes, I respect that such a person has a belief system that works for them. I do not have to like or agree with a person's beliefs to respect the fact they work for him/her. I'd advise against trying to twist my words in to suggesting that I'm somehow condoning terrorist activity or that the two f***wits you're describing are in anyway 'honourable' ;)
    I'm fairly sure Kim Jong-il's beliefs in his demi-god status didn't directly affect you and made him happy. Do you respect his beliefs?

    As above.
    ]Last time I check Catholics were Christians. Though your statement puts me in mind of the turn of phrase "debating the religious is like trying to fight a cloud".

    Another common atheist misconception :D I'll let the small Dawkins-esque dig slide though... ;)

    I guess it's down to semantics in part, but much of Catholic dogma goes very clearly against what is written in scripture (of course on the assumption you take scripture as a source of reference). Once again, if such dogma works for people then all well and good. But I think you'll agree it's hard to describe someone as a Christian when the cult (which is what I consider Catholicism to be) they follow specifically tells them to do things which are against the Word of God.
    I'm not saying they're under any obligation to believe it. But it's in his job description.

    It's in my job description on a daily basis that people in a certain well-known company have to follow my instruction and directions otherwise, should it need to come to this, they will eventually be dismissed.

    People doing the very same job at their level for one of our identical competitors are likely to respect my position, experience, knowledge etc but rightly under no obligation whatsoever to respect my authority or duties.

    As for my bird - she knows I call her that by the way and she calls me equally stupid things in return, it's our 'thing' - her beliefs, faith and religion do not impact on or affect my life negatively or in a way that compromises my own.

    Contrary to what some may think, I do not spend all day looking at a tin of beans and thinking "Oooooo God created this!" or walking through the dairy aisle of a supermarket and saying to the spotty kid behind the counter "Blessed are the Cheese-makers!!". I live my life in a certain way as does she and we've found a way that compliments us both. If there had been any conflicts we simply would not be who we are to each other.
  • Annaarrr!!Annaarrr!! Noob Posts: 876
    Hang on what?! I lost my virginity in year 7, as did a few other people I know. Also, should children who don't know how they tie they're shoe laces not wear shoes? No. Don't be ridiculous. You need to learn to put on a condom, just like you need to learn to do lots of other things. It's not a natural skill. Yes the packet comes with instructions, but it's very unlikely you will do it correctly first time and then the whole situation will become even more embarrassing for two probably already embarrassed young people. (also, they use fake willys not cucumbers normally.)

    Sex is meant to be enjoyed, it's not just for the creation of children as many religions teach. If sex ed can take out any awkwardness and embarrassment from a persons first few sexual encounters that can only be a good thing.

    sex is a bit different than tying shoelaces, that's a bit of a shit comparison no? At a certain age, yeah sure learn to put on condoms but, and dont take offence to this, I understand that a lot of people don't stick to the age of consent, I didn't, but there is an age that's too young. Just my opinion. Sex is meant to be however the people doing it want it to be. I've never had sex to have a baby, otherwise I'd be pregnant now. I never said sex was only for procreation, but I do think the whole age of consent thing is in place for a reason.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Learning how to put a condom on does not mean you are going to have sex, it just means IF you do you will be safe. I can't see how that is a bad thing to teach school children. My sister is 7 and she know's about condoms, she knows that the man "puts a little hat on his willy" to be safe. Nothing wrong with that.
  • Annaarrr!!Annaarrr!! Noob Posts: 876
    Its not a bad thing to teach it to school age children but not before a certain age. In year 7 most children haven't even started or dont fully understand puberty, its ridiculous to suggest they can enter into something like a sexual relationship, because a lot of them will see it that way, before they fully understand their bodies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Annaarrr!! wrote: »
    Its not a bad thing to teach it to school age children but not before a certain age. In year 7 most children haven't even started or dont fully understand puberty, its ridiculous to suggest they can enter into something like a sexual relationship, because a lot of them will see it that way, before they fully understand their bodies.

    Children are going through puberty earlier and earlier, I started my periods not long after I started year 7 and already was in the early stages while I was in my last year of primary school. Because no one understood what was happening I was teased by the boys who also would line up and wait for me to take my top off to get changed for P.E (we didn't have changing rooms). It was very intimidating. In the end I used to wear the same top all day at school and for p.e which was gross but it was better than the alternative. I think it's important to learn early so by the time it happens it doesn't come as a shock and also to avoid self esteem issues when it comes to changing bodies. Because lets face it, puberty is pretty crap.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Learning how to put a condom on does not mean you are going to have sex, it just means IF you do you will be safe. I can't see how that is a bad thing to teach school children. My sister is 7 and she know's about condoms, she knows that the man "puts a little hat on his willy" to be safe. Nothing wrong with that.

    But why at the age of 7, does someone need to know that? Sex isn't for children; so why are we teaching children this stuff? I can understand teaching about puberty around that age though.
  • Annaarrr!!Annaarrr!! Noob Posts: 876
    By all means teach about puberty, they do need to start teaching it younger, I'd had no lessons on it when my 'changes' started and I developed way before any other girls in my primary school and got teased because of it. But sex doesn't need to be included in puberty lessons, sex isn't a part of going through puberty its something different entirely. And holy shit I though that said year 7. Yeah if my little brother knew about sex and condoms at the age of 7 i would not be happy. That's way too young to know about stuff like that Imo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    er.... some people are closed-minded.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why is it too young? She's not going to have sex, she just knows a child friendly version of what happens. That's like saying children who know that alcohol is for grown up are going to drink it. No they're not. They're children.
    It also teaches children who are being abused that it is not okay, if you have a child being sexually abused who is taught about sex and told that it is for grown ups then they will know what is happening to them is not right and they will speak up about it. I was sexually abused at a very young age, and I was told by the person that it was what happened to little girls, so don't bother saying anything to anyone because it's normal. If I'd had a sex ed lesson that said actually this is something that two grown ups are supposed to do together it would have changed my childhood dramatically.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Annaarrr!! wrote: »
    Its not a bad thing to teach it to school age children but not before a certain age. In year 7 most children haven't even started or dont fully understand puberty, its ridiculous to suggest they can enter into something like a sexual relationship, because a lot of them will see it that way, before they fully understand their bodies.

    Sorry, I would just like to reiterate the fact I and several other girls I know lost our virginity in year 7. I know a few boys who did as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Yes, I respect that such a person has a belief system that works for them. I do not have to like or agree with a person's beliefs to respect the fact they work for him/her. I'd advise against trying to twist my words in to suggesting that I'm somehow condoning terrorist activity or that the two f***wits you're describing are in anyway 'honourable' ;)

    While you appear to have retreated from your original position of respecting someone's beliefs merely because they hold them, I'm not sure what you're saying now is actually coherent in any meaningful sense. At best it seems you're not really clear what you believe, and at worst, as you seem to be cognizant of, you're admitting to respecting the belief system of a person which leads them to behead innocent men in the street or subjugate millions.
    Contrary to what some may think, I do not spend all day looking at a tin of beans and thinking "Oooooo God created this!"

    That would indeed be ridiculous, the manufacturer's name would clearly be on the label. ;)
    I live my life in a certain way as does she and we've found a way that compliments us both. If there had been any conflicts we simply would not be who we are to each other.

    All I'm saying is that unless you hold the bizarre position that a person's belief are to be respected, no matter what they are, then the only way you can believe there is no conflict is to lead the the topic unexamined. Either Jesus was the son of God, as the Christians believe, or he wasn't. He was either a prophet, as Islam has it pegged, or he wasn't . Either way one - or both - of them are wrong. Set Hindu's creation story against that of the Jews, same deal: one or both are wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hi
    I also have strong beliefs, but I do not try to force(I do introduce them to the book I read, but it is a case of take it or leave it) them on all the people, I believe you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it.

    Personally I would confront the situation and explain you have your own beliefs, and what you believe doesn't correspond necessary with his or a lot of other peoples in that case, and perhaps if the person in question doesn't like it, say to him perhaps you would like to share my beliefs also.

    I think this is the fault of the intellect believing it is so good everyone else should have it, as you say you wouldn't expect the entire world to become vegan.

    Peace and light
    Peter
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    While you appear to have retreated from your original position of respecting someone's beliefs merely because they hold them, I'm not sure what you're saying now is actually coherent in any meaningful sense. At best it seems you're not really clear what you believe, and at worst, as you seem to be cognizant of, you're admitting to respecting the belief system of a person which leads them to behead innocent men in the street or subjugate millions.

    I've not retreated at all but if the idea helps you pigeon-hole me in to a particular view you have of me/believers then I've got no intentions of encroaching on that :)


    That would indeed be ridiculous, the manufacturer's name would clearly be on the label. ;)

    Not the original manufacturer but there you go ;)


    All I'm saying is that unless you hold the bizarre position that a person's belief are to be respected, no matter what they are, then the only way you can believe there is no conflict is to lead the topic unexamined.

    No.

    There is no conflict because, well there is no conflict. Some New Atheists are convinced there must be conflict where there is none and this is such a case. Here's an example, my other half does her morning prayers. I leave her alone to do them, they aren't destructive or negative, they don't damage me physically or spiritually plus she's my OH so where the hell would I get off on objecting to her doing it? Anyway part of her ritual is to waft certain joss-stick smoke over me. I think that's cute to be honest but on a spiritual level is it doing me any harm? Don't be daft. The fact that she's doing it (it's her blessing me) shows she loves and cares enough for me to want to do it. I have no problem whatsoever.
    Either Jesus was the son of God, as the Christians believe, or he wasn't. He was either a prophet, as Islam has it pegged, or he wasn't . Either way one - or both - of them are wrong. Set Hindu's creation story against that of the Jews, same deal: one or both are wrong.

    How do you suggest any of that affects me or my relationship with her? I'm genuinely curious (not to mention somewhat baffled).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    I've not retreated at all but if the idea helps you pigeon-hole me in to a particular view you have of me/believers then I've got no intentions of encroaching on that :)

    I'm not pigeon-holing you, let alone believers on the whole; you espoused a very particular position which I'm tackling. It turns out - depending on how you're choosing to phrase it at any given time - that you respect the beliefs of, for example, every heinous totalitarian psychopath that's every existed. As Genghis Khan was conducting one of, if not the, most efficient killing, raping and conquering spree in human history, you'd take the position "if it works for him, I respect his beliefs". I think that's one of the most immoral and insane positions I've ever heard expounded.
    Not the original manufacturer but there you go ;)

    Are you telling me you think God makes tins of beans?
    There is no conflict because, well there is no conflict. Some New Atheists are convinced there must be conflict where there is none and this is such a case. Here's an example, my other half does her morning prayers. I leave her alone to do them, they aren't destructive or negative, they don't damage me physically or spiritually plus she's my OH so where the hell would I get off on objecting to her doing it? Anyway part of her ritual is to waft certain joss-stick smoke over me. I think that's cute to be honest but on a spiritual level is it doing me any harm? Don't be daft. The fact that she's doing it (it's her blessing me) shows she loves and cares enough for me to want to do it. I have no problem whatsoever.

    How do you suggest any of that affects me or my relationship with her? I'm genuinely curious (not to mention somewhat baffled).

    I'm not admonishing you to challenge every innocuous belief your other half has, no matter how ill-founded. I think if you examined your beliefs and hers you'd see a lot of logical contradictions. I'm talking, as I always have, about the consequences of belief. And what starts with this supposedly benign respect for your other half's prayer time, clearly seems to extend all the way up to genocide and beyond.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To answer the thread properly, I accept that anybody can hold any belief they want. It's a free world, is it not? :yes:

    If people wish to endorse slavery, genocide, or other morally bereft stuff then I would dislike even detest that person, but I would still respect their right to an opinion. there are no "wrong" opinions, whether factually or "morally" (I use quotes since morals don't exist).

    That said, I think the OP probably grew up in a closed-minded environment, or based on that didn't develop empathy or more pertinently critical thinking to question his own beliefs. That said, I think many people tend to presume all share (or should share) the beliefs they do. It's human nature, really. I don't usually do it, but then I have a quite laissez-faire view of life. I'm also a libertarian, so perhaps this is why.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ncoa1 wrote: »
    To answer the thread properly, I accept that anybody can hold any belief they want. It's a free world, is it not? :yes:

    You respect the right for people to be in possession of opinions? That sounds a lot like you respect the right for people to continue to be in possession of their brain.
    ncoa1 wrote: »
    If people wish to endorse slavery, genocide, or other morally bereft stuff then I would dislike even detest that person, but I would still respect their right to an opinion. there are no "wrong" opinions, whether factually or "morally" (I use quotes since morals don't exist).

    Countries don't exist either, so I once heard.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not pigeon-holing you, let alone believers on the whole; you espoused a very particular position which I'm tackling. It turns out - depending on how you're choosing to phrase it at any given time - that you respect the beliefs of, for example, every heinous totalitarian psychopath that's every existed. As Genghis Khan was conducting one of, if not the, most efficient killing, raping and conquering spree in human history, you'd take the position "if it works for him, I respect his beliefs". I think that's one of the most immoral and insane positions I've ever heard expounded.

    Are you trying to compare my OH to Genghis Khan? Well played there..
    Are you telling me you think God makes tins of beans?

    OK I'll play along ;) Why wouldn't I?

    I'm not admonishing you to challenge every innocuous belief your other half has, no matter how ill-founded.

    Keep the militant atheism in check for 5 minutes? :)
    I think if you examined your beliefs and hers you'd see a lot of logical contradictions.

    And?
    I'm talking, as I always have, about the consequences of belief. And what starts with this supposedly benign respect for your other half's prayer time, clearly seems to extend all the way up to genocide and beyond.

    Some New Atheists feel the need to use extremes at any given opportunity when discussing matters with someone who holds beliefs they disagree with or hold in contempt. I'm not knocking, judging or objecting by the way. But it's a good case in point of what this thread is all about. All you can do is just smile at them wait for them to run out of steam. This is what is done at work my ferociously anti-religious colleague who even objects to people saying 'bless you' when he sneezes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You respect the right for people to be in possession of opinions? That sounds a lot like you respect the right for people to continue to be in possession of their brain.

    OK but bear in mind some religious people are treated as if their beliefs are to be held in contempt and as if it's almost an audacity that they have faith instead of something scientific.
Sign In or Register to comment.