Sacred beliefs?

[Charles]

Exactly. I think one of the issues is the simple fact that some people believe what they want and don't want to change, and as long as they're beliefs aren't infringing on others, then we have no right to challenge them.
Now, once they start spouting off, then it's open season. Still, there is a debate protocol to be respected. On top of that, some people just can't handle the fact that their core beliefs are challenged and quite possibly, broken by someone else. From there the defense mode goes into effect. But ultimately, this is how progress is made...which leads me to certain forums I mean, if you participate, take the time to think out a post, type it out, then click respond, you should be ready for dissenting view points. I think a lot of people feel they can just post something, have mostly everyone agree, and have a right to be mad at people who dissent. Doesn't work like that.

Anyhow...excellent discourse!

 

[merika]

I mean, if you participate, take the time to think out a post, type it out, then click respond, you should be ready for dissenting view points. I think a lot of people feel they can just post something, have mostly everyone agree, and have a right to be mad at people who dissent. Doesn't work like that.

Is there a point to the oft repeated "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" statement, then? How and when is that applicable?

 

[amanda]

Is there a point to the oft repeated "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" statement, then? How and when is that applicable?

i think there's a huge distinction between being mean and questioning someone's opinions

 

[gr8heart]

My aim is not to supress other's speech, but to force them to adequately defend it...
Of course, although I'm primarily focusing on how these beliefs are formed by asking people who express them to defend them. It's not about being right, but claiming to be above adequate justification.

Why?

Why try to force people to defend or justify their beliefs?

How do you determine 'adequate justification'?

And if people do not defend their beliefs and claim their belief is above adequate justification...

 

[Aslan]

Basically, I believe, that we as people, are to respect others (regardless), but that does not mean we are obliged to respect their actions or opinions themselves.

Fine, then we agree.

 

[Aslan]

Why?

Why try to force people to defend or justify their beliefs?

If they offer them to me in an discussion/argument, and except me to accept them prima facie, then I'm going to force the person to defend them. If you have read my other posts in this thread, you would know it's not about harassing people in the street. When someone offers their opinion as fact to you in an argument/discussion, they should be prepared to defend it, otherwise they should keep it shut.

How do you determine 'adequate justification'?

Anything that is not, "it's just my belief."

 

[Aslan]

Anyone who keeps saying that"we all have the right to believe however we want" doesn't get the point of this thread.

You can believe that Jupiter is made of cheese, I don't give a flip.

Just don't offer your belief to others and defend it by claiming there is a "belief sanctum."

 

[Aslan]

It is in the sense that the belief is part of that person. I respect the person, as a human being, beliefs and all.
And to keep it short, I will refer you to my reply to vanojr9.

Okay, I've read your post and get your point, but I still disagree. I don't believe that notions like the earth is flat are part of the core of anyone. I think there are only a few core beliefs that you can say make the sum of a person; the majority of them are not. I think the best evidence that many beliefs are not the sum of an individual is in the fact that individuals will adopt and discard many over their lifetime.

EDIT: I know that my posting manner may be a bit abrasive to some, it is not my intention to be that way. I really appreciate all of the responses to this thread and all of you have made me think!

 

[merika]

i think there's a huge distinction between being mean and questioning someone's opinions

I am asking it in all honesty because I've had that statement said to me in this context: an iffy bag in someone's bag showcase. So I PM the person and say "Look, you've got X bag in your showcase and from it's appearance I don't believe it's real. I think it's a fake, for the following reasons:..." and I give the reasons. Then person replies to me saying "This was a bag that was given to me as a gift. I believe it's real because why would anyone so important to me give me a fake. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all!"

What am I supposed to do in such a case where a person is being defensive using that statement... Jupiter is made of green cheese in a bag context, then?

 

[gr8heart]

If they offer them to me in an discussion/argument, and except me to accept them prima facie, then I'm going to force the person to defend them. If you have read my other posts in this thread, you would know it's not about harassing people in the street.

When someone offers their opinion as fact to you in an argument/discussion, they should be prepared to defend it, otherwise they should keep it shut.

Anything that is not, "it's just my belief."

Ok!

Yes, ma'am!

(Perhaps people may be more willing to defend or give you adequate justification of their beliefs is you change your approach.)

I understand that it's not about harrassing people on the street.

 

[Aslan]

(Perhaps people may be more willing to defend or give you adequate justification of their beliefs is you change your approach.)

I may be referring to a specific situation, but I'm talking about the general idea in society that there are some beliefs that are off-limits, some beliefs that don't need to be justified. I have tried to explain to the best of my ability that that notion is a cancer.

 

[merika]

I'm talking about the general idea in society that there are some beliefs that are off-limits, some beliefs that don't need to be justified. I have tried to explain to the best of my ability that that notion is a cancer.

I thin the reason why some people think that some beliefs are off limits is based on human behavior.

There are some communities where wrong theories/beliefs are not off-limits, can be argued against and are disproved, and society becomes more developed as an end result. My example was the scientific community, and that's because the community has strict behavioral and ethical controls attached to it. You can defend your theories or your arguments only in a certain and acceptable fashion.

This is not true for other parts of human society, which is why people think that beliefs are off-limits. Who knows if the person who blindly believes and has some idea in his mind and refuses to give it up even though there is evidence to the contrary is a fanatic or the local lunatic? There is no controlled environment for discussion, which makes some expression dangerous, which is the reason most people don't do it.

You'll probably give me the counterargument that fear should not keep people from disabusing others of their (provenly) wrong ideas, and to a certain extent that is correct. Are we frightened and therefore keep the peace?

 

[Aslan]

I thin the reason why some people think that some beliefs are off limits is based on human behavior...Are we frightened and therefore keep the peace?

Good points, Merika, and you know that I believe that it's unfortunate. This does me back to an earlier post of yours, a comment on the adage "if you have nothing good to say..." I think that we are so taught to value getting along that we limit open discourse. There is value to promoting unity and cohesion within a society, but I hope that I've shown that the effects of limiting open discourse can be more harmful. We don't need to be at war. We just need to be open to questioning.

 

[bagnshoofetish]

I think it would help to break down the concept of what a "belief" is. Simply in and of itself can be too vague a definition. Like others have illustrated, there are benign beliefs (ones that don't affect anyone but the believer) and there are toxic beliefs (ones that can potentially harm others ie; White Supremists). Then there is that "in-between" reserved for people in society we tend to ignore and label as just a tad off balance (the ones that wear aluminum foil on their heads waiting for the mother ship to contact them) they too have a strong belief system no matter how strange it seems to us "rational" people. To further simplify for arguments sake, one can claim there are only 2 types of belief systems that are worth debating about, good vs. evil. The line seems to blur more and more over what "good" is and what "evil" is and it is subjective to the individual.
That said, when one almost demands that people justify their beliefs so that it is satisfactory to the listener - is a little unreasonable. Especially if the listener has no intention of really taking into consideration what the justification is - I mean lets face it - a Nazi is never going to justify their belief system to me or make it sound rational so what would be the point in even wanting to grant them an audience? It would be like pouring pond scum into my ears and why would I want that. The ego in all of us would love to have the power to change someone like that. We don't have that power unfortunately. It is not my job to change anyone nor my right (and thats what it boils down to here) to condemn anyone for what they believe no matter how obviously wrong their view is to me or to society in general. It rains on the just and on the unjust. To ask for someone to justify is just another way of saying "go ahead and make your argument so I can tear it apart." There are good people in this world and there are bad people and there are crazy people. To desire for people to make everything they believe crystal clear to you is only going to tie your stomach in knots for the rest of your life because in essence it is a form of control that you really desire over someone. You have to let some things go because we do not have control over people and I'm glad we don't. I've said it before - things like facism begin in seemingly innocent ways like this. You cannot or will not justify your existence/beliefs/whatever? Then you should be eliminated until we all think and do the same things that make everyone in agreement and happy. Human beings will never be in complete harmony because we are all different - no 2 are completely alike - and the best we can do is be accountable and responsible for our own actions and beliefs and be a good example for our neighbor. Love covers a multitude of sins and we should concentrate on the love we put out instead of what our brothers/sisters are doing/thinking because they ultimately are in charge of their own behavior - not me.
All this of course is just MHO - now where is my foil helmet......

 

[keodi]

Well, just because I respect someone's beliefs in the sense that I respect them as a human being, and therefore respect their right to their beliefs, that does not mean that I am going to live my life according to their beliefs.

exactly.