I respect his beliefs far more after talking to Mark.
I see you two are engaged in a convo, and I don't mean to interrupt. Just one question on the above phrase.
What exactly entitles theist's "beliefs" to respect
You are absolutely correct, I wasn't completely clear in expressing what I meant by this statement. In my head, I was thinking of something much more specific, but on paper I refered to generalized "beliefs". I would have to modify the above quote to say:
bugsoup (in his head) wrote:I respect Elman more (as a person) after talking to Mark.
I should be more careful about distinguishing between respect for beliefs (and which ones) and respect for the person holding those beliefs.
dromedaryhump1 wrote:-Is it based on which flavor of unsupportable culturally induced sky daddy they worship; what supernatural or inventive "illogic" they use to support that belief; what dogma they pick and choose from the menu of belief?
I certainly don't respect the lack of logic used by either and I think it is harmful to anyone who uses dogmatic principles to dictate choices in life.
dromedaryhump1 wrote:-Is it whether or not they are a threat to Free Thinkers, or our freedoms, the education ofthe young, advancement of science, or civilization as a whole?
I have mixed feelings about this. I think they both pose a threat to the developing minds of youth (Mark as a full-time pastor and Elman, if I remember correctly, as a part-time bible study teacher). Up to this point, Mark won't share his views on science (ie the evolution vs creation "debate") so I don't know where he stands, but maybe that indicates that he doesn't want the confrontation he know would hit him if he shared this with us.
As far as being a threat to Free Thinkers or our freedoms, Mark definately is. He runs a blog which spits out alot of hateful feeling towards those who support "an atheist agenda" of separation of church and state. He continuously insists (without a logical argument at all) that this atheist agenda harms "society" and he views this country as a Christian nation. Of course he supports Mike Fuckabee and his outwardly Christian message. He thinks that atheism == secularism, but he won't pose an alternative that doesn't infringe on our rights.
Mark also continues to make assumptions about Atheists and tell us what the reprecussions are of our views of the existence of god. He loves telling
us what we must logically believe and why (again, without a logical argument) instead of asking
us what we believe and why.
Elman, on the other hand, has been fairly consistent by staying on the defensive side of the debate. That is one of the reasons I respect him over Mark. Elman may not have logically supportable beliefs, but he isn't insisting that we should share his or even that we don't have a logical leg to stand on. My opinions about Elman may have softened over time, but my frustrations over his use of logic aren't a reason to believe he directly threatens my freedoms.
dromedaryhump1 wrote:-Should we respect a belief just because it is benign, less confrontational, doesnt require witch burning, hatred of gays, or killing of apostates?
Hmmm. I certainly respect a person who refuses to let the dogma interfere with their actual feelings on these matters. I've pointed out a few times that I think Elman actually holds to the Humanist philosophy quite well, but hasn't realized it yet. I think he has more or less thrown out everything in the Bible that he doesn't believe in because ultimately, that isn't where he gets his morals from. For some reason, he is afraid to go that one step further and reject what he views as the source for his morals.
I don't respect either Mark or his beliefs because he is openly anti-gay, pro-capital punishment, and probably would be buring witches if it wasn't against the law.
dromedaryhump1 wrote:- Is their belief due the same, less, or more respect as people who believe in unicorns and fairys; the miracle of images of holy figures on their sandwiches; or who believe the world is 6,000 years old and men rode dinosaurs?
dromedaryhump1 wrote:I once had some New Age guy tell me he respected all beliefs. When challenged, he agreed he'd even respect a resurgence of Aztec belief including human sacrifice.
That is rather scary, and precisely why we have secular laws against that sort of thing. Mark nearly understood our fears of repsecting religious beliefs at the federal level when the prospect of Mitt Romney as president became a possibilty. He's been reading alot about Mormon history since then.
dromedaryhump1 wrote:Frankly, I have zero respect for any blind belief born of cultural indoctrination of the prevailing religion, or self delusion. Whether it's a hybrid or the basic model, belief with no evidence is unworthy of my respect.
So, what logic should i be using to have "respect" for belief that is steeped in superstition, ignorance and the rejection of reality?
As stated, I would also have a hard time justifying respect for beliefs with that basis.