is detroying someones religious beleifs unethical?

no, because i realized not everyone can handle thinking about not existing after death like i can.

I see no innate reason why Man need be perfect; as long as the myth has the requisite wisdom as you claim, and is followed accordingly by believers as they claim.

Let's bring back the Salem Witchcraft Trials.

I don't want to get hung up on Christianity, as it is a dying myth and has rarely been living with-in men during my lifetime, but are you willing to allow that living by the truth of myth might be a valid way to have a relationship with truth?

Only in as much as the distillation of myth contains truth, and that this truth fits the requites of my existence.

I completely agree.

Cool.

Time for lunch now (there's truth in that).

Oh, you were patronizing him....that is so much better.

well, before my reasoning was, the bible is written by man so the whole religion is the word of man, not god.

i just said it was possible it was corrupted by man, and god let i and could possibly be testing everyones faith.

it is a possibility, right?

Any translation is 100% subject to the person DOING the translation.

As many THOUSANDS of times the bible has been translated, in the many languages, I truly doubt there is any "original" text left.

Possibility? Absolutely.

Take that one step up and bring some facts to the table.

get 2 different versions of the bible and place them side by side and read the differences in the stories. Sometimes it is something as simple as wording, but most times it is as complex as story meanings

thats what sucks about science, it only deals with physical properties.

what was before physical?

theres an explanation, can it be found with science? i don't know. it seems i was the one who lost the debate after all.

i've read enough...maybe there are those that agree with the following:

no, it is not unethical to make a non-believer out of a believer. the only way humanity will ever reach the stars and beyond, i.e. get off this rock, is to have a huge (99.9%) majority of such non-believers. for those who disagree, ponder: with all of the uncertainties dealing with earth's (or specifically, man's) demise, there is one definite...eventually the sun will make life on this planet unbearable, and yes...impossible. you cannot deny this period
ignorance may be bliss, but it is no excuse with common sense in-hand. i think it's fitting that ancient egyptian sun worship was the catalyst for the original debate...i have often used the many, many, many, many, many religions in my debates, as no one, simply no one, can say with a sliver of belief, that everything before christianity, or islam, etc. was "wrong" or somehow inferior, or misleading...come on people; modern christianity has been revamped time and time again, it is no longer related to the bible writers' religion (or play). the bible has been re-worded over and over to fit whatever the vatican prescribes AND IT WILL BE the reason my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great (etc) grand kids perish into nothingness, with no one, ever, to read of their accomplishments, hopes, desires, wants, and needs.............and yours too, unless we can unite as a people of this planet, stop the bickering over religion, land, oil, and money, come together and come up with a plan to relocate when the time comes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm responding now to Francis and others on page seven, by way of marking, that I am somehow substantially against manipulation from any side. Not that Francis is for manipulation, I've no idea - just where I feel like needing to post. (I get near wild about it, and try not to do that [in my conniving way])

OGIONIK,

You have not "lost" anything. You raise a very important issue.

I take Sam Harris's view in this age of "religious terrorism" that atheists now have a duty to stand up and be counted. In that sense, as a general principle, it is not "unethical" to attack someone's palliative belief system, even in dealings with a close relative, any more than we might criticise their use of drugs. However, I am also of the opinion that most people seem to have a psychological need for such palliatives as an as aspect of a cognitive search for security in an uncertain world. The general principle should therefore be tempered with such an understanding. and perhaps controversially, an attempt to educate children in schools about the arbitrariness and sociopathic aspects of religious beliefs, before they become addicted or indoctrinated.

Ultimately, the qustion boils down to the interpretation of the word "ethical" which like "moral" has both psychological and sociological aspects. What may be "ethical" as a sociological principle may still be painful in terms of interpersonal relationships.

Why are you lumping these three things together? Insulting or belittling somebody's beliefs is surely always rude, by definition. But changing somebody's beliefs needn't be rude. Imagine this scenario: My great grandfather plans to go out to get some milk. I approach him to inform him that I have already bought him some milk. He then decides not to go out and buy milk, because he comes to believe that he already has some milk. I have changed his beliefs. Was this rude? Of course not. It is not necessarily rude to approach an elder family member with the intent of changing his/her beliefs.

Presumably what you meant to say was that it is rude to approach an elder family member with the intent of changing his/her religious beliefs. My first response to this is to ask what age has got to do with it. Are you implying that it wouldn't be rude for your elder family member to approach you with the intent of changing your beliefs? Are you appealing to the (religious) principle of respecting your elders? What if your elders are completely wrong about the world? What if your Dad believes that Jesus wants him to torture defenceless children; should you respect him for this religious belief just because he is older than you?



That's a terrible attitude to have. Again, what if one of these quirks was a tendency to torture defenceless children? I can understand that you might love your family unconditionally, and I can't see anything wrong with that. But surely you should only "accept them as they are" if what they are is acceptable?



The existence of God is not a personal issue. It's a matter of fact: either there is one or there isn't one. If there isn't one, then your mum's belief that there is one is false.

Sorry to take this quote out of context, but I think people are too concerned with "arrogance" in this thread. You've just said that it is arrogant to believe that your assumptions are right. An assumption is something which you assume to be true. If I assume that X, then I assume that it is true that X. This must surely involve believing that X. The following sentences seem to mean basically the same thing:

I assume that X.
I think that X.
I believe that X.

I think "assumption" could also mean something like "hypothesis"; i.e. something which you are imagining to be true for the sake of argument, or to test whether it really is true. But in the context of what you are saying, it seems to just mean belief.

So you seem to be saying that it is arrogant to believe that your beliefs are right. By "right", I think you mean "true". I have already said that an assumption is something that you assume to be true. It seems also that a belief is something which you believe to be true. If you didn't think that your beliefs were true, then you wouldn't believe them, and so they wouldn't be beliefs. It is impossible not to believe that your beliefs (assumptions) are true (right).

And yet your are calling this "arrogance". You're actually saying that it is arrogant to hold beliefs. If you believe that X, then you assume that X, and you belive that you are right to assume that X. That is, you believe that your assumption must be right. All of this follows trivially from just holding beliefs in the ordinary way, which all of us do. Here is your quote again:



Do you really think it's arrogant to hold beliefs?

Maybe this will help......every myth, be it Islam or Science or whatever, must be validated by our personal experience. You have a right to know and decyfer your personal experience, nobodies else's. It is arrogant for you to assume that your personal experience is a better tester of reality than somebody else's. When some punk kid walks up to his dad and tries to tell him how he knows Christianity is a crock because of science, he is saying that his myth is better. He is also saying that he is a better tester and knower of what is real. All he can rightfully say is that FOR HIM the science myth is more true. That is what his instrument that is his self (his brain and one would hope his heart as well) shows him is true. To make the general statement that science is more real when it is not for the one who believes in a different myth, is invalidating the other persons experience, and in a way their existence as well.

You have it that the down side of attacking a person's myth is that it might make them uncomfortable. No, the downside is that when you do that you are potentially invalidating a person's existence, making them worthless.. And you do this all because you think that you are right and they are wrong and you feel the need to prove it. That is arrogance. It is also not very nice.

hawkeye10-Before I comment on your statements, I think that you need to know where I stand on this subject. I am an agnostic, a believer in science, who believes that people have the right to accept what they find true, in terms of religion. I also do not believe in tearing down another person's beliefs in a malevolent way. I think that is it appropriate to question another's beliefs when one believes that those beliefs are detrimental to the other person. I do think that it is fine to debate beliefs.

Now, your statements. When you refer to a son coming to his dad to discuss beliefs, you automatically refer to him as a "punk kid". I don't think that that shows much respect for the younger person. Are you not attempting to "invalidate" the beliefs of that young person by your remark?

Second, if a person believes something, having his beliefs questioned does not invalidate him as a person, and certainly not his existence. I would suggest that anyone who thinks this has a fragile belief system, at best. Any adult who would be invalidated by someone with a dissenting opinion, IMO, needs to look into his belief system and figure out why he needs a claque of yeasayers in order to feel "validated".

In case you are quick to judge me a "punk kid", I am 68 years old, and have gone through many years of searching, before I have codified my beliefs.I respect a person's right to his own beliefs, although in some cases I do not respect those beliefs.

Ageism is valid. All things being equal the older person has acquired more wisdom then the younger, though of course we often feel like we get dumber as we go. We don't respect age anymore, we can't talk about the varying degrees of wisdom because of the PC laws, but that does not change that the elders as a group are more wise then then punk kids who think that they know everything. Wisdom is an individual thing, but there are patterns by age, and if you tell me that we are all wise to the same degree I will tell you that you are not paying attention.

Sure, most adults are not going to crumble under the attack of somebody who lives under a different myth and feels the need to show that they are right. Not everybody is well put together all of the time though, and one never knows who is and who is not. In any case they should not be subject to attack. I have witnessed adults being out of sorts for hours and days after an attack, and they have not always been the ones that I would have expected to be traumatized by an attack on their myth.

why should I have specified -religious- beliefs in a thread that is all about religious beliefs? That is what we are talking about. Of course that was what I was saying.




No. I am not -implying-. That is exactly what I said....
-[/b]

It is a parents JOB to give a child direction that they see fit, and important to their lives (their lives meaning the childs life). This involves religious beliefs as well. My mother is allowed to try to tell me about her religion and how I should be a part of it because to HER it is important and part of her entire existance.

I am allowed as her daughter, not her peer, to tell her that I don't want to follow that religion and tell her where I am going with my life. But to sit down and try to manipulate her in to thinking like I do just to satisfy my own personal need to 'win that argument' is wrong. If she does that to me.. well so be it. I can not control her nor am I going to try to. She is my mother and is going to try to give me religious direction because she lives with religious direction that teaches her it is wrong to do with out it.
Do I approve of that behavior? No way. But it is not my behavior to change.






Um.. THAT .. is entirely different and not at all what I was talking about so I hope you did not miss my point.




And this is where you and I might differ to the point of never really coming to any conclusions , agreements or ends with this.

I do think that a persons religion, God, Goddess, animal, place.. or what ever they hold in a religious esteem SHOULD be personal.
I do not agree with christians who go around trying to " spread the word of god" .

I also do not agree with other forms of christianity knocking on peoples doors prostituting their religion.

I do not agree with the " new age" people making attempts to belittle and disprove others religion as well, but that is an age old argument and a constant happening. Nothing I can control. I can only control myself in this situation.

I think a religious belief should be kept almost 'confidential' if you will, by the person who owns it. It is a personal choice the things you describe yourself as and govern yourself with. ( This is not limited to religion, but that is what we are taking about)
To speak about it to someone else who ISN'T part of your religion I see as arrogant and only self serving. (And I have always questioned that aspect in the christian religion. But.. again.. another rant indeed)
Mostly because the only person who would do just that ( preach to someone who doesn't follow their religion) is to attempt to convert them even if they can only plant a simple seed of question.

I see that as an example of Sheeple mentality( Sheeple mentality meaning -Dont think about how rude it is to jump into someones life and try to tell them they have been wrong forever because their religion is not the same as yours, just push on and convert them. ). a power play if you will that only leads to self judgment and judgment of the people around you. These are not always good traits to have. Especially with something as personal as religion. But again, I consider religion extremely personal and almost confidential .

I do not agree with that action. I dont care the scenario.

I dont care if it is a preacher talking to a child molester. I dont care if it is a Wiccan Priestess talking to an abandoned child.

Unless that person is ASKING for that information, it is not ok according to 'me and me alone' to impose your beliefs on someone else.

If everyone would treat their religion as a personal item that is sacred only to them we wouldnt have such fuzzy lines in places like the Government for a small example.

( division of church and state anyone? )

And no. I still do not think it is ok to approach my older family members with the simple intent of changing their beliefs. A persons religion is something they can use to define their entire lives with.

They can marry because of it . They can marry in its presence.
They choose their recreation around it. They can choose their friends because of it. Entertainment can be limited or expanded by it. Language patterns and even select words can be effected by it. Clothing style is effected by religion.. Their conversational patterns .Their FOODs sometimes..

To certain people, their religious beliefs can be the entire web of their existence. Who is anyone to attempt to remove that from someone else? If they truly are not using their religion to harm anyone, why is it ok to attempt to make such a fundamental change in someone? Because you think you know better for them? Why would anyone feel as though they should attempt to change someone in such a personal way? That borders on control if you ask me. And controlling someones beliefs is not ethical in my opinion.
Freedom of speach. Freedom of religion and freedom of choice.

It is ok to speak to someone to explain your stance, but not to sway. I consider it a basic form of respect. Everyone is allowed to believe what they want so long as they are not harming anyone.

If they ARE harming people ( Catholic child molesters ) then it becomes a broken law not a broken religion , and that is two separate things.