Sacred beliefs?

[keodi]

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......

Wow Bagnshoo!! great post and very well said at that.

 

[Neeya]

Agreed, great post Bagnshoo! I was considering responding, but you put into words what I was thinking but couldn't formulate cohesively in my own head

 

[Aslan]

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).

The ones that cause potential harm are the only ones that generally come up in debate, the serious issues. I thought I made this clear. Of course I won't sit and argue with a woman who believes her husband is faithful when I believe in fact , that he is not. That's a waste of time. When I say debate, I mean serious religious-social issues, that obviously affect the greater society.

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.

I do not accept this reduction; it's a terrible mistake. There are some d****** that have nothing to do with good and evil, and do have an objective answer. Ref. my example about the flat earth.

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.

I strongly disagree. History has shown that many ideas that were nearly universally believed can be discarded. Modern social movements show that. It is far from unreasonable challenge someone if they challenge you with their opinion/belief. This is the basis of all change, the push that has historically changed the status quo.

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. .

Pay attention to the subtletly of my argument. This is not about persecuting one for their beliefs, or even necessarily challenging them. It's about rejecting the notion that certain sets of beliefs are immune to question. I think it's beyond ridiculous to claim that open discourse leads to persecution. Like I said, societies have evolved as a result of open discourse. This is how we grow as individuals and as a society.

 

[Aslan]

To further explain, it's not about "I'm right and you're wrong" (this is I feel people are getting judging from their responses). It's about the notion that some sets of beliefs are immune to challenge or question. Does anybody realize how dangerous that notion has been in the past and how much damage it's caused?

 

[bagnshoofetish]

I guess it sounds now like you want to be the only one to challenge others points of view and you only seek to discredit anyone who does not agree with yours? thats a little contradicting isn't it?

 

[Aslan]

No, I'm not discrediting you, we are having an open discussion. I don't see what's contradictory. This is how our brains grow. :nods: I want people to challenge me, that's why I posted...and I want to challenge them back.

i know I can be a bit abrasive and I acknowledged that; please bear with me. I really appreciate everyone's participation.

 

[bagnshoofetish]

There are some d****** that have nothing to do with good and evil, and do have an objective answer. Ref. my example about the flat earth. .

yes and I believed I addressed those people too - the aluminum hat wearing people.

This is not about persecuting one for their beliefs, or even necessarily challenging them. It's about rejecting the notion that certain sets of beliefs are immune to question. .

I wish you would make up your mind. First you say this is not about challenging but about ??? then later say everything is challenge worthy....and sure everything is open to challenge - nothing in life is immune. We can all question whatever we want to. But people are not going to see what you want them to see and you have to accept that.

 

[Aslan]

yes and I believed I addressed those people too - the aluminum hat wearing people.

You see, bagnshoo, once it wasn't obvious they were wearing an aluminum hat. The question is, will you be seen as the foil wearer 100 years from now? That's why your beliefs need to be open to challenge, not off limits.

I wish you would make up your mind. First you say this is not about challenging but about ??? then later say everything is challenge worthy....and sure everything is open to challenge - nothing in life is immune. We can all question whatever we want to. But you have to accept that people are not going to see what you want them to see and you have to accept that.

Sorry I should be more clear. Designating something as being open to challenge is not the same thing actually challenging it. As to your last sentence, if we accepted that notion, there would be no civil rights movement. Hearts and minds can change.

 

[merika]

To further explain, it's not about "I'm right and you're wrong" (this is I feel people are getting judging from their responses). It's about the notion that some sets of beliefs are immune to challenge or question. Does anybody realize how dangerous that notion has been in the past and how much damage it's caused?

Immune to challenge and question how?

There are two ways to challenge and question - either in an open debate in front of society, or within oneself. And if a person is challenged to debate their position in an open arena, if he is to change his mind he does have to debate with himself as well.

I think the way people believe and how they chose to carry on with their beliefs, and how one should interact with them is summed up quite neatly in this Persian proverb:

"He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; avoid him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a student; teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep; wake him.
He who knows and knows that he knows is a wise man; follow him."

 

[Liz_x3]

I haven't read any of the other responses and I'm rather late to this discussion but here's what I think. Feel free to object to it LOL.

1. You asked, "Why should I respect other people's beliefs?" The reason why it's considered common courtesy to respect another individual's religion/beliefs is because it's a very touchy subject and frankly most people are going to stick to what they believe and not going to change what they think for anybody. But the reason I think that we should respect other's belief is because it's just that - their's! We don't have to believe it and we don't even have to like it. But whatever religion (or non-religion if you're an athiest) they choose is their business and it's their life and we should respect their decision. I know that I wouldn't like it if someone started arguing with me over my religious decision. I'm a Christian and I'm not going to force someone else to be one but I would want them to respect my choice. I don't necessarily agree with other religions such as Islam and Buddhism but I'm not going to criticize someone who has chosen that religion for their own. I think this way with sexual preference as well. I'm a straight female and I probably always will be but I'm not going to look down on someone who is a homosexual. That's their decision, their life, and who am I to judge their choices? The only beliefs that I will not respect are the ones that harm others, mentally and physically.

2. I believe that there is a flat-out right and wrong but I also believe that there isn't. As our world as a whole, no, I don't believe there is a plain straight Right and a plain straight Wrong. Why? Because everyone thinks differently and I'm fairly certain that there isn't a single issue in the world that everyone fully agrees on. But as individuals, then yes there is an objective right and wrong. I, for instance, believe that rape is wrong. But you have others out there who don't. Our society and culture have deemed what is "right" and what is "wrong" and that is what most considered the norm but you will always have people who disagree and it's alright to disagree. But once again, I don't think it's okay to harm others. I would never think that rape is right.

3. I do think that everything has an objective answer but most people never want to discover it since it would take much too time and effort and in some cases, research and experimentation.

4. You say that you're tired of people disagreeing with you and saying "that's my opinion?" So what do you want? To convince everyone to agree with you and take up your opinion? For everyone to agree with every little thing you say? Opinions are what make this world go around. It would be a pretty boring world if everyone thought the same. Everyone would be like robots. You know what's funny though, is that you say you think it's lame when people use "It's my opinion" as their defense but I honestly believe that even if they did have reasonable evidence to support their side, you still wouldn't agree with them. It's human nature - we're defensive people. We have our opinion and we stick to it, sometimes even when we know we're wrong!

Anyways, I'm sorry about whatever provoked this! I've felt like this before so I'm sorry if at any point in my post I come across as harsh or condescending!

 

[bagnshoofetish]

As to your last sentence, if we accepted that notion, there would be no civil rights movement. Hearts and minds can change.

on the contrary this actually backs up what I said about breaking everything down to good vs. evil. Now you are talking about the heart. And I agree, hearts have to change but hearts don't change over rational argument, hearts change because of whats right.

 

[Aslan]

3. I do think that everything has an objective answer but most people never want to discover it since it would take much too time and effort and in some cases, researchYou say that you're tired of people disagreeing with you and saying "that's my opinion?" So what do you want? To convince everyone to agree with you and take up your opinion? For everyone to agree with every little thing you say? Opinions are what make this world go around. It would be a pretty boring world if everyone thought the same. Everyone would be like robots. You know what's funny though, is that you say you think it's lame when people use "It's my opinion" as their defense but I honestly believe that even if they did have reasonable evidence to support their side, you still wouldn't agree with them. It's human nature - we're defensive people. We have our opinion and we stick to it, sometimes even when we know we're wrong!!

I feel like I'm repeating myself. I don't want everyone to agree with me, as it's not about right and wrong. It's about society allowing people to believe that "it's my opinion" is an adequate defense to potentially dangerous beleifs.

It's not about everyone agreeing, either, which shows that you are not keeping up with the thread. Merika correctly pointed out that my position could actually lead to conflict, not agreement. Open discourse is not about everyone agreeing, it's about people being allowed to challenge every idea instead of flatly accepting it.

It's how society progresses.

 

[Aslan]

Immune to challenge and question how?

There are two ways to challenge and question - either in an open debate in front of society, or within oneself. And if a person is challenged to debate their position in an open arena, if he is to change his mind he does have to debate with himself as well.

I think that people are focusing on individuals arguing amongst themselves, but what I'm really talking about this issue carried out on a macro level. It wouldn't be about a single person, but groups of people that hold sets of beliefs not being allowed to have "sanctum" if their beliefs affects the greater society.

 

[bagnshoofetish]

it's about people being allowed to challenge every idea instead of flatly accepting it.

It's how society progresses.

no one here has ever said, "no you cannot challenge anyone". its that you don't want to stop there. you sound like you won't be happy until everyone you challenge changes their way of thinking to yours. and yeah, I wish all the Nazis in this world would change but it probably isn't going to happen. So how far do I go on challenging pigheaded people like that? I would rather use my energy to helping people who want to help people. You can make statements but then you have to leave things up to people and carry on doing good to those around you.

 

[Aslan]

on the contrary this actually backs up what I said about breaking everything down to good vs. evil. Now you are talking about the heart. And I agree, hearts have to change but hearts don't change over rational argument, hearts change because of whats right.

That's a social movement example. There is also the flat earth example. There are a multitude of issues of both kinds, and I think it's a mistake to ignore one.

Rational argument determines "right." You would think that people know innately what is right, but if that were true, they wouldn't go about doing the "wrong" in the first place. It was rational argument in the form of sermons, novels, etc, that eventually changed minds.