4 ms·

> Like we all believe that racism is bad, and racist comments/opinions should be discouraged, then why can't we respect each other's religion? Racism is bad, b

by tomp 12y ago

> Like we all believe that racism is bad, and racist comments/opinions should be discouraged, then why can't we respect each other's religion? Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. You can choose your religion (or, in general, what you believe in). I think adults who believe in the existence of unicorns are insane. If you don't find that wrong/offensive, I don't see why the same reasoning couldn't be applied to people who believe in the existence of a god.

TomGullen 12y ago
> You can choose your religion I don't know... can you? It's not like picking your favourite bread in the super market, from a religious persons POV they may of: - Been brought up in the environment - External pressures from relatives/society - In some cases institutionalised to their religion - Felt some strong emotional connection to the religion - Experienced some kind of religious experience that binds them to their religion I don't believe in God, but I think saying people are just picking and choosing isn't fair or accurate and shows perhaps a lack of understanding about the subject matter
- eloisant 12y ago
  People living in a secular democracy can distance themselves from the religion they were raised into. A lot of them do actually, and convert from one religion to another or become atheists. People living in a totalitarian state can not always pick their religion (as in "the official religion is mandatory") but that's not a reason to restrict freedom of speech, including freedom to criticise religions, in our democracies.
- chriswarbo 12y ago
  > I don't know... can you? Yes. You're listing reasons why people might choose to join/stick-with a religion. The fact that there are (social/psychological) arguments for or against doesn't mean it's not a choice. The fact that it may require courage to choose the unorthodox option doesn't mean it's not a choice. There's also a distinction between what someone believes and what they appear to believe. Many people go through the motions for the social acceptance, but don't believe any of it. > saying people are just picking and choosing isn't fair or accurate and shows perhaps a lack of understanding about the subject matter I agree with this, but I don't think anyone's saying that religion is a "pick and choose" affair. Most religious people were indoctrinated into their particular religion, but as independent adults they can still choose whether to continue with their religion, abandon it or switch to another one. It would be nice if religion truly were a case of "pick and choose", eg. as a child. At least that way, children would see that there are alternatives, and that their parent's religion isn't irrefutable.
- jawns 12y ago
  I agree with you that your religion is not necessarily something you can choose, but because of another bullet point: - You sincerely believe it to be true. If you don't have a doubt in your mind that something is true (e.g. that torture is never morally justifiable, or that God doesn't exist because of Epicurus' trilemma, or that an unborn baby has a right to life, or that objective truths exist) then to say that you could "choose" to believe something else is not quite accurate. And since a religion is, fundamentally, a collection of truth assertions, it's not necessarily true that you can "choose" it intellectually. Whether you are free to choose it socially or legally is another story. In many places, converting to another religion can be a very dangerous thing to do.
unclebucknasty 12y ago
Unicorns exist. I have seen one. Of course, I can't prove it to you, but then, you can't prove to me that you exist.
- tomp 12y ago
  They might as well exist, but based on my prior estimates of probabilities of different events, and Bayesian reasoning, I conclude that it's much more likely that you're insane than that you've actually seen a unicorn (I don't discard the existence of unicorns entirely, I just consider it very improbable).
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    You don't have to explain your reasoning. My point is predicated on my understanding your reasoning perfectly. And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far. It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. In truth, neither of us can prove what we know or don't know in many regards. It matters because it also smacks of the same moral/intellectual high-ground staking that serves to dismiss entire groups of people. Sure, we can claim tolerance, but is real tolerance (i.e. seeing others as equals, respecting their beliefs vs. just allowing that they have them, etc.) truly compatible with one group believing that another is actually insane? The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
    - tomp 12y ago
      > It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. It's the other way around; I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof). Discussion of things that probably don't exist (e.g. time travel) or that we don't know whether they exist or not (wormholes) can be perfectly rational and reasonable, as long as all parties fully acknowledge that their knowledge is limited, and abstain from referring to strong, but ultimately unprovable, belief. Discussions about god/religion usually are not like that; in particular, most religions are based on an implicit denial of all other religions/prophets/versions of the truth. > The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone). > And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based. No, I just ridicule other's belief when it's not evidence based (which is, essentially, the basis of science).
ptaipale 12y ago
> You can choose your religion Often you cannot. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countr...
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. No, racism is bad because it involves discrimination in many contexts on bases irrelevant to the context in which discrimination is being done; it is not bad "because you can't choose your race".

by tomp 12y ago

TomGullen 12y ago

> You can choose your religion I don't know... can you? It's not like picking your favourite bread in the super market, from a religious persons POV they may of: - Been brought up in the environment - External pressures from relatives/society - In some cases institutionalised to their religion - Felt some strong emotional connection to the religion - Experienced some kind of religious experience that binds them to their religion I don't believe in God, but I think saying people are just picking and choosing isn't fair or accurate and shows perhaps a lack of understanding about the subject matter

eloisant 12y ago
People living in a secular democracy can distance themselves from the religion they were raised into. A lot of them do actually, and convert from one religion to another or become atheists. People living in a totalitarian state can not always pick their religion (as in "the official religion is mandatory") but that's not a reason to restrict freedom of speech, including freedom to criticise religions, in our democracies.
chriswarbo 12y ago
> I don't know... can you? Yes. You're listing reasons why people might choose to join/stick-with a religion. The fact that there are (social/psychological) arguments for or against doesn't mean it's not a choice. The fact that it may require courage to choose the unorthodox option doesn't mean it's not a choice. There's also a distinction between what someone believes and what they appear to believe. Many people go through the motions for the social acceptance, but don't believe any of it. > saying people are just picking and choosing isn't fair or accurate and shows perhaps a lack of understanding about the subject matter I agree with this, but I don't think anyone's saying that religion is a "pick and choose" affair. Most religious people were indoctrinated into their particular religion, but as independent adults they can still choose whether to continue with their religion, abandon it or switch to another one. It would be nice if religion truly were a case of "pick and choose", eg. as a child. At least that way, children would see that there are alternatives, and that their parent's religion isn't irrefutable.
jawns 12y ago
I agree with you that your religion is not necessarily something you can choose, but because of another bullet point: - You sincerely believe it to be true. If you don't have a doubt in your mind that something is true (e.g. that torture is never morally justifiable, or that God doesn't exist because of Epicurus' trilemma, or that an unborn baby has a right to life, or that objective truths exist) then to say that you could "choose" to believe something else is not quite accurate. And since a religion is, fundamentally, a collection of truth assertions, it's not necessarily true that you can "choose" it intellectually. Whether you are free to choose it socially or legally is another story. In many places, converting to another religion can be a very dangerous thing to do.

unclebucknasty 12y ago

Unicorns exist. I have seen one. Of course, I can't prove it to you, but then, you can't prove to me that you exist.

tomp 12y ago
They might as well exist, but based on my prior estimates of probabilities of different events, and Bayesian reasoning, I conclude that it's much more likely that you're insane than that you've actually seen a unicorn (I don't discard the existence of unicorns entirely, I just consider it very improbable).
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  You don't have to explain your reasoning. My point is predicated on my understanding your reasoning perfectly. And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far. It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. In truth, neither of us can prove what we know or don't know in many regards. It matters because it also smacks of the same moral/intellectual high-ground staking that serves to dismiss entire groups of people. Sure, we can claim tolerance, but is real tolerance (i.e. seeing others as equals, respecting their beliefs vs. just allowing that they have them, etc.) truly compatible with one group believing that another is actually insane? The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
  - tomp 12y ago
    > It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. It's the other way around; I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof). Discussion of things that probably don't exist (e.g. time travel) or that we don't know whether they exist or not (wormholes) can be perfectly rational and reasonable, as long as all parties fully acknowledge that their knowledge is limited, and abstain from referring to strong, but ultimately unprovable, belief. Discussions about god/religion usually are not like that; in particular, most religions are based on an implicit denial of all other religions/prophets/versions of the truth. > The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone). > And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based. No, I just ridicule other's belief when it's not evidence based (which is, essentially, the basis of science).

ptaipale 12y ago

> You can choose your religion Often you cannot. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countr...

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. No, racism is bad because it involves discrimination in many contexts on bases irrelevant to the context in which discrimination is being done; it is not bad "because you can't choose your race".