We all have our own set of beliefs. It seems people these days are really skeptical, which is fine. But why do they have to tell other people not to believe in anything at all?
For example, I am a Buddhist. Instead of trying to convert you to believe in Buddhism, I simply share my ideas and put them on the table for you. It is your choice to take a look or turn away. Forcing someone to believe in something is not the way to go about things, yes, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't talk to other people about your religion calmly and academically. In exchange, you also have to listen to their beliefs as well. I support it when people are trying to cheer each other to believe in something because ultimately all religions are true, even if you have no religion.
What I cannot tolerant is when a person destroys someone else's belief with skepticism. If the two of you are having a conversation regarding two clashing ideas, and one of you says, "I don't believe it that", "There's no proof", "That's ridiculous" or "You shouldn't believe in that" is like a slap in the face. You don't know what kind of hardship the other person went through. Maybe their religion literally saved their lives before. Or perhaps their beliefs are the only things they have left in the world. It's called Faith. You shouldn't disrespect it as if it's just a piece of garbage.
If someone believes in a lucky penny, let them. This person might be in a deep crisis. By believing that the penny is lucky, this boosts the person's confidence. Thus, the result is much more satisfying compared to someone who has nothing to believe in at all. If the person gains something, he or she will think, "This is my lucky penny. I got it because of this penny." If the person loses, he or she will think, "It's okay. I still have my lucky penny. Something good will happen." Isn't it better to support them than to bring them down even more?
If perrson is explaining Atheism, those beliefs include why they believe that religions are not rational. It's part of the belief. Although that's not likely going to convert anyone.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Not necessarily. I mean, yes, part of the belief is the nonbelief in religion; but not every atheist explains his views by picking apart religions and "proving" them wrong.
The only ones I know who do that are former Christians. They're the only one's I've met that seem to feel it's their responsibility to prove to the world how Christianity is so wrong and how their decision was right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
I do my fair share of picking apart, although only as a way to further explain my beliefs after repeating the same stuff a lot, and I'm not a former Christian. I'm a former Jew, so ha ha ha. :-)
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
LOL, well okay - so I'll correct myself and say "the only ones I know minus Jsaj..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
Thank you. Huff!!! Well, now we have things set straight.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
"What I cannot tolerant is when a person destroys someone else's belief with skepticism."
What, you mean like when somebody belives that Black people are inferior to White people and amount to little more than a primitive race which should be exploited by White people, based on survival of the fittest principals? Do you find it hard to tolerate it when a person destroys that persons belief? Or is this intolerance only reserved for people who destroy beliefs that are declared religious?
The whole point of skepticism is to debunk and destroy irrational beliefs, be it that the Earth is flat or that God wrote a book and hates gays.
"If the two of you are having a conversation regarding two clashing ideas, and one of you says, "I don't believe it that", "There's no proof", "That's ridiculous" or "You shouldn't believe in that" is like a slap in the face."
A slap in the face is far more appropriate than a pat on the back when you think a belief is ridiculous, it's honest. What are you suggesting, that we don't question the validity of anybody's beliefs and just walk around 'agreeing to disagree' politely? What kind of world would we live in if that was the course of action favoured by everybody. Christians would never have stopped burning heretics and witches for one, I'm sure many lament the day that people destroyed that preciously quaint little religious belief. What they really needed in your book was somebody to respectfully say, "I don't agree with your burning of people for nonsensical crimes, but I respect your beliefs and far be it from me to destroy them. Let's just agree to disagree,"
"You don't know what kind of hardship the other person went through. Maybe their religion literally saved their lives before. Or perhaps their beliefs are the only things they have left in the world.."
You are confusing the comfort afforded by socially acceptable delusion with a concern for truth. Outside of accepted religious delusion, people who hold similiar beliefs are merely considered mad, dangerous or simply unfortunate. If I told you that I believe in Smurfs, and invent a whole list of rituals and events that need to be treated as holy, I think it's safe to say that many people would be more concerned for my sanity, than they would be delighted that I'd found something that offered me comfort. Especially if my beliefs caught on and produced Smurfist Extremists who were convincing children to follow the way of the Smurfite.
"You shouldn't disrespect it as if it's just a piece of garbage."
Why not? I mean I can understand this sentiment from the angle of not hurting people's feelings, but surely if a belief is a piece of garbage, it should be treated accordingly, like any ill-founded notion? I'm not talking about a belief in a higher-power here, that's a reasonable enough belief in the form of Deism, Panenthiesm etc., I'm talking more along the lines that this higherpower is known to men and has issued sets of rules and associated beliefs for all to follow. If a belief can be evidenced as garbage, then why should we tip toe around it when we should really just put it in the bin.
"If someone believes in a lucky penny, let them."
Even if it leads them to make a decision that could result in unnecessary hardship or death for them or others, all based off the back of the notion that they've got their lucky penny on them so they've got an increased chance of cheating probability? To be fair, i do get what you are saying, but you are selecting a fairly innocuous example. If people were merely content to believe that there is a higher power and it brings them luck or watches over them, then your analogy would ring true, but most religious people take it far beyond this.
All it takes is for somebody with a mild religious disposition passing on their delusion to another. Let's take the belief that the Bible is the word of God for example. This other who recieves this belief may go on to cause very real harm to others around them based upon principles handed to them as the alleged word of the divine through the Bible, principles which the person who passed on the belief chose to ignore, but none the less principles which are reinforced by the belief they innoucuously passed on.
"By believing that the penny is lucky, this boosts the person's confidence. Thus, the result is much more satisfying compared to someone who has nothing to believe in at all."
What about believing in themselves or in hard work as a means of bettering themselves or their situation? Surely these would be more satisfying things to encourage people to believe in than a magical trinket? Surely it would be most beneficial to encourage people to focus on bettering themselves rather than falling back on superstitious self-dellusion?
"If the person gains something, he or she will think, "This is my lucky penny. I got it because of this penny."
As opposed to thinking, "I did this, I got it because of my hard work and dedication" or "That was such a fluke, I was really lucky to have got it, I don't think I'll make a habit of this as clearly my own skill or expertise had nothing to do with my success"?
"If the person loses, he or she will think, "It's okay. I still have my lucky penny. Something good will happen."
As opposed to thinking, "I lost that because I was unprepared or unlucky, but just to be sure I'm goin to prepare better if I'm gonna try this again. As long as I prepare and work at it, I will increase my chances of succeeding next time" ?
"Isn't it better to support them than to bring them down even more?"
Not really in a lot of cases. If you have a friend who only exerted a moderate amount of effort and hard work into preparing for something and then they repeatedly failed at it, only to blame 'bad luck' everytime, surely it would be better to give them a reality check, no? I can see far more value in 'bringing them down' and introducing them to personal accountability than i can in giving them a lucky charm and convincing them that it has the power to help them shortcut around the necessary preparations. I can see the psychological benefit of making someone believe that they are lucky, but I see more value in letting somebody know that they are unprepared so they don't walk into a situation with false hope only to fail repeatedly.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
Well said. Well said.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
And what makes you think anybody is actually telling people that?
And exactly how can anyone be forced to believe something ... especially on a blogsite like this?
OK.
That is a ridiculous thing to say. on many levels:
(1) All religions make statements that one can investigate. Many of those statements are contradictory. Not all religions can possibly be true. For instance, I don't believe there is any God or gods. Others believe that a man we have no first-hand information on, was God incarnate. We cannot both be right.
(2) If one were to take your statement at face value then one would think that you strongly support the radical Imams who preach the virtues of becoming a suicide bomber for their cause. Perhaps you do think that is a good idea worth supporting, I happen to think it is not.
Strange, ... I think that is the time that real progress is made. A person realizes he has been holding a false belief. Now he can go and correct it.
It may be rude, and I agree that rudeness should be held to a minimum. But I also think there is a time when rudeness is appropriate. As an example, I have had several theist tell me that they believe the biblical story of Noah is literally true. They believe that God actually did kill every living thing except for 8 people and a breeding pair of every "kind" of animal. Furthermore, they claim that God did that out of love for mankind.
I find that claim to be so STUPID as to be an offense to reason itself. Genocide is not done out of love. If someone is going to blatantly claim that in this case it is, then I am going to express my indignation upon that claim in a manner that will get my message across.
Anyone who can rationalize genocide into an act of love is capable of rationalizing anything. This belief is not one that should be "respected". Especially since this person who claims that often claims the very book that promotes this morally disgusting story, should be the very foundation of morality.
In some cases ... YES, YOU SHOULD. A person acts according to what they believe. Beliefs that lead to people bombing abortion clinics to "save" lives SHOULD be disrespected. Beliefs that lead people to remove their children from medical care that has been shown to be effective in favor of "faith-based" healing, SHOULD be disrespected. Beliefs that promote faith over reason should be disrespected in my view.
Alternatively, if a person is having such a "deep crisis" that the only thing preventing them from going over the edge is a belief in lucky penny, then perhaps professional psychiatric treatment may be more appropriate. Disrespecting their belief in a "lucky penny" would be a first step towards getting them the help they truly need.
Explain to me how it is possible for a person to actually have "nothing to believe in at all?
Not if prevents them from getting more fruitful help.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Yes, I get what you guys are saying. lol I'm so glad to see people taking time writing such long comments. I understand it can be a bad thing trying to let them believe what they think is true. But I'm focusing more on those people with low education who may be in poverty. They need support from somewhere in order to have courage to weak up in the morning and do something right? Of course I'm not going to tell them, "Here's your lucky penny, you no longer have to work hard." If they believe they have those skills because of it, I'll encourage them to improve their skills and results would be great. It's like an experiment with sugar pills where the experimenters give sugar pills to people and give them tests saying these pills are smart pills or something.
In Thailand, most people only finish 4th grade then they have to go look for jobs to take care of their family. I doubt they will understand that there are more than one set of beliefs. Once we try to prove them wrong, they would immediately dismiss it. They don't want to hear it. Do they really think they would easily admit to people that they have problems? I really don't have the heart to tell them what they've been believing in their whole life is false, even in religious conversations. If they're happy with it and not hurting anyone, why should we take it away from them?
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
"But I'm focusing more on those people with low education who may be in poverty."
Who represent some of the most vulnerable people in our society, making them soft targets for persuasive manipulation. This area of society is highly vulnerable to extremist beliefs, largely due to a lack of education and the desperation poverty nurtures. It is all the more reason why we should focus on allevieating their ignorance and ill-education, rather than sustaining it. Knowledge is power, the truth shall set you free. Are you really suggesting that make-believe and ignorance are better roots to betterment than knowledge and truth? Because I would have to offer up my opinion that encouragement of willful suspension of disbelief and discouragement of critical analysis are better described as the agents of control, not liberation.
"In Thailand....... If they're happy with it and not hurting anyone, why should we take it away from them?"
Who says they're not hurting anybody? I know Thai guys who would lose it completely if you touched the top of their head and will kick seven shades of shit out of you for doing so. To be honest, what restrains me from arguing with Thais about their beliefs would be the fact that I know too many Thais who'll happily slap you with a machete if you piss them off too heavily on religious grounds.
That aside, Thai religious beliefs also facilitated what are known as The Divine Rights:
States come into existence by God's will.
God chooses the rulers of the states.
The rulers are responsible only to God.
Which I think you'll agree smells a little fishy regarding my concerns over the abuse of religion as a means of exacting control over the poor, ignorant and ill-educated.
I think it's important to drive home the reality that, if poor people's beliefs held water, then God has forsaken them, because the meek haven't inherited shit right throughout history. That pious line of horseshit comes in several flavours and has only served to leave them in the gutter while the people feeding them such bullshit sit in palaces, and conditions them to actually be thankful for it.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
...I will ask if you have ever heard the koan of Hyakujo's Fox? Or even better, have you ever heard this story...
A certain distinguished monk named Ting came to the Master [Linchi] for an interview and asked, “What is the basic meaning of Buddhism?”
The Master got down from his chair, grabbed hold of him and gave him a slap.
Then he let him go.
Ting stood in a daze.
A monk standing nearby said, “Mr. Ting, why don’t you make a bow?”
As Ting was making a formal bow, he suddenly had a great enlightenment.
Sometimes, a slap to the face can be a compassionate act, especially if it leads the recipient to a realization of truth. Personally, I believe that ignorance is one of the primary causes of the illusion of suffering, and if it takes a little "zen slap" to help someone wake up from the illusion, then it is not a wrong thing to do.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.