Meteorite falls in Russia's Chelyabinsk region

[PLATO]

Not necessarily. The former top religious official in Saudi Arabia condemned the teaching that the earth rotates or that it revolves around the sun. Flat earthers derived their views starting in the 19th century from literal biblical interpretation. Should we give those views respect or deference because they're based on religious interpretation?

I think the distinction occurs when "faith" is used to deny provable events, repeatedly demonstrable phyical processes, etc. "God did it this way" is a lot different than "there's a God and he set these things in motion" - Biblical creationists have to deny, distort, reinterpret in provably incorrect ways, ignore those disproofs if anyone is inclined to bother, then insert their own explanations without any actual testing or validation. Whether that's intellectual dishonesty, or lack of intellect, should it get any deference if it's "religious?" What about L. Ron Hubbards "Thetans" and all that made up ****? What about conspiracy theories (truthers, moon landing hoaxers, etc.)? If I cloak it in a "religion" does it somehow become less ridiculous? I don't agree with labelling all religious people or beliefs as stupid, but I don't shy away from treating as stupid or dishonest beliefs which are completely contrary to mounds of repeatedly tested evidence.

I guess I am just not making my point clear. I do not believe such views should be respected. I believe that people's right to believe such things should be respected and that they should not be disrespected simply for their religious beliefs. Nothing more...nothing less.

[N35t0r]

I guess I am just not making my point clear. I do not believe such views should be respected. I believe that people's right to believe such things should be respected and that they should not be disrespected simply for their religious beliefs. Nothing more...nothing less.

No, you aren't, because that's exactly the opposite what you posted up there.

I never have understood why some people insist on denigrating someone else's beliefs. This thread had nothing to do with religion and yet you feel the need to do this. To me this is more revealing of your own religious intolerance than it is of anything else.

It is also, as mentioned, pretty funny that you chose to jump on Dannubis, when Sloww was not only also denigrating someone else's belief (or it doesn't count if it's not religion?), but also lumping an entire country's population into the bag.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Sloww's a Texan. That's what they do.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I guess I am just not making my point clear. I do not believe such views should be respected. I believe that people's right to believe such things should be respected and that they should not be disrespected simply for their religious beliefs. Nothing more...nothing less.

Fair enough. I think the difference is we generally don't know someone's religious views until they start articulating them. So if someone starts spouting creationist stuff, they make criticism of those statements fair game, especially if they do it in the form of a lot of voodoo pseudoscience, a la young earthers. I don't really care if someone wants to believe in the tooth fairy, but when it crosses into certain areas (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses' hangup on blood transfusions to the extent they'll let one of their kids die rather than permit whole blood transfusion, because a transfusion is obviously "eating" blood ) But even people with dumb opinions (usually ) deserve some basic courtesy and basic respect as a human being.

[Berzerker]

I'm inclined to believe in both UFOs and creationism, I just dont agree with the latter's interpretation of Genesis

but the science supports creation mythology - a dark water covered world preceded creation ~4 bya followed by life and plate tectonics.

[SlowwHand]

No, you aren't, because that's exactly the opposite what you posted up there.



It is also, as mentioned, pretty funny that you chose to jump on Dannubis, when Sloww was not only also denigrating someone else's belief (or it doesn't count if it's not religion?), but also lumping an entire country's population into the bag.

All I was doing was reporting a meteorite storm striking Russia and said it was stupid to think it was a UFO attack. If you want to dispute it, you're an idiot, too.
Christ, the one guy thinking it was USA attacking is even more plausible. Get a grip.

[Kidlicious]

Oh Noes, Plato, Ben AND Kid agree... I must have said something that made sense.

I was simply pointing out that you were lying. But, yes, I am in fact, not an athiest.

[Kidlicious]

Not necessarily. The former top religious official in Saudi Arabia condemned the teaching that the earth rotates or that it revolves around the sun. Flat earthers derived their views starting in the 19th century from literal biblical interpretation. Should we give those views respect or deference because they're based on religious interpretation?

I think the distinction occurs when "faith" is used to deny provable events, repeatedly demonstrable phyical processes, etc. "God did it this way" is a lot different than "there's a God and he set these things in motion" - Biblical creationists have to deny, distort, reinterpret in provably incorrect ways, ignore those disproofs if anyone is inclined to bother, then insert their own explanations without any actual testing or validation. Whether that's intellectual dishonesty, or lack of intellect, should it get any deference if it's "religious?" What about L. Ron Hubbards "Thetans" and all that made up ****? What about conspiracy theories (truthers, moon landing hoaxers, etc.)? If I cloak it in a "religion" does it somehow become less ridiculous? I don't agree with labelling all religious people or beliefs as stupid, but I don't shy away from treating as stupid or dishonest beliefs which are completely contrary to mounds of repeatedly tested evidence.

It doesn't have anything to do with how stupid you think the belief is. It's about respecting people. You don't just respect people who you think are smart, do you?

edit: Nvm, just read your post #70

[Kidlicious]

Congratulations. You join the list of the intolerant as well. When speaking to matters of someone's faith and their belief in a divine that can cause any series of events, it is intolerant to say things like "demonstrable and wrong". From a purely scientific view, you may be correct. However, what does science have to do with faith? They are nearly opposite ideas. Certainly you are free to think and feel as you wish. Equally certain, in my mind, is the obligation for you to respect that feeling for others when it comes to matters of faith.

Now, in matters that deal with non-faith issues, I believe that good debate is stimulating (in most cases). In matters of insulting someone elses religious beliefs, I think you lessen yourself by doing so. Simply disagreeing is fine, but calling someone's religious beliefs stupid is quite another thing.

All they really have is to repeatedly call you stupid. They think it has some effect.

[Kidlicious]

Sorry but I absolutely 100% disagree with that. I have absolutely no obligation to respect someones opinions, especially when they are based on literally nothing more than convincing themselves that something they cannot know is true must be true. In real life I won't usually insult someones beliefs in front of them because I'm a big believer in civilized conduct to others (outside the internet), but I don't have any obligation to respect someone who believes something utterly idiotic.

No one said you were obligated to do anything moral, since you don't believe in any moral code. It's not against the law to disrespect people. It's just the right thing to do. It's what good people do.

[dannubis]

I was simply pointing out that you were lying. But, yes, I am in fact, not an athiest.

Not quite, since I wasn't attacking religion (this time). I was talking about stupidity and the fact that Sloww was laughing with it while more than 1000 people were wounded.

[kentonio]

No one said you were obligated to do anything moral, since you don't believe in any moral code. It's not against the law to disrespect people. It's just the right thing to do. It's what good people do.

I have a very strong moral code, but it's based on what I believe to be right, not on the ramblings of some bronze age goat herders. As has been pointed out repeatedly, it's also pretty rich that you can talk about 'respect' when Sloww was the one who started chucking insults around, and you still haven't felt any need to pick him up on that. I guess it's only rude or immoral when someone brings your religion into it, right?

[SlowwHand]

I posted as it was happening. I didn't "laugh" at 1000 wounded, I laughed at initial thought that it was a UFO. Read the ****ing thread, jackass.

[kentonio]

And we laughed at people who think the worlds less than 10k years old. With all this laughing going around, I'd have thought you'd be more cheerful.

[Ben Kenobi]

since I wasn't attacking religion

Yep, you were. And you don't even have the conviction to stand behind what you said. Now you're backtracking and trying to reparse what you said wasn't what you said.