Respect my beliefs?

How about we just respect people,or at least the last vestiges of humanity in them, despite their crazy beliefs?

Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.  

I believe many confuse the two these days. 

when i was 15 i got sent to a fundamentalist christian boarding school run by HARDCORE seventh day adventists. it was some serious cult shit, they taught us all kinds of crazy revelations conspiracies, bigotry and creationism.

while i was there, i ended up reading the da vinci code, right at the height of its popularity. being 15, and in a fundamentalist christian boarding school, i was naturally enthralled with the whole jesus/mary magdelene thing. i got a couple nonfiction books on the subject, and while ultimatley the jesus/mary magdelene/holy grail stuff is absurd, one of the books contained TONS of information on the paralells between christ, and many other gods/savior figures that came thousands of years before the story of christ. here is a bunch of info on the subject; http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm

i confronted one of the very religious staff members about this info, and he told me that it was just satan, making those things happen thousands of years before christ, so that people thousands of years later would see it and think christ is fake.

after i got out of the school, i had all this info ready...to me it seemed obvious...you read all these historical facts about other gods/saviors and its instantly clear that the jesus in the bible is a conglomeration of older myths. there is no room for debate once you know this info, its just obvious.

so i went around and found christians and tried to show them this info and get them to stop beleiving in jesus.

it never worked, not once. it was either satan's doing, "thats just what i beleive", or "i have faith".

no matter how on point you think your facts or points are, people hate to be wrong, and some strongly worded diatribe is never, ever, going to sway someone who is truly religious. it will ALWAYS be a waste of breath.

So Javs, did you go around Dead shows yanking Spinners off the floor by their nappy dreads while they knelt between songs to explain to them that Jerry was just a dude playing guitar, they were just tripping and the Grateful Dead were not some cosmic missionary band?

religion is or wankers.

seems there is a rise in "out there" thinking...

a surf photographer i follow on insta is babbling on about flat earth and that the planet is nothing more than a giant strip mine. it's nuts.

>>>>>a surf photographer

Anyone whose name I would recognize?

Hard to believe a surf photog would believe in a flat earth, since the surf forecasts he/she uses are based on, obviously, a round earth.

Why? Why do we have to respect peoples' beliefs? It's a concept I've been struggling with recently. Why do we have to respect peoples' random ideas that are based on no fact whatsoever, and therefore no point of commonality with people who do not share that belief?<<<

I think there's a difference between respect vs. acceptance.   If another's belief neither breaks your leg or picks your pocket, then all is good; however, not all instances we encounter fit neatly into a binary compartments.

Do you have respect for  "Newtonian physics"?

If yes; and all facts can be reduced to beliefs; and all beliefs are ultimately driven by the brain (subject to Newtonian physics); then why wouldn't you have "respect" for the way in which a belief system / construct has been developed?   Again, not suggesting it's the same as acquiescence. 

Most of these "crazy" belief systems are not constructed logically but are just accepted whole.

woody woodworth surf.

he's a terrific photog.

>>>Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.  

Who was more influential on American music and arts -

Madonna / Michael Jackson or the Grateful Dead?

Lets try this again....

Yeah, I really liked his aerial shots from the 70s.

Too bad he's gone loony toons.

>>>>Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.  

Yep.  If people want to follow some bat shit crazy religion, that's their business.   I am personally fond of Isis, Loki, and Bast and have what some might consider odd views on the ability to manipulate the physical world with the force of will channeled through certain rituals and Jungian archetypes, but its no weirder than some of the stuff the Catholics and Mormons are into (like symbolic cannibalism and baptizing dead people).  You don't have to respect the fact that some Muslims or other religious cultists treat women as second class citizens and feel free to speak your mind, but in a free society, we need to put up with it so long as nobody is being physically harmed.  I am no fan of monotheism and personally don't like to see the way women are treated in certain religious communities, but think the French have gone too far in their rules and regulations concerning burkas and other overt forms of religious expression.  We can draw the line, however, at shit like female genital mutilations, child marriages, and withholding medical care to children in the name of faith healing.  

It's kinda staggering how much steam the flat earth thing has gained

Dunno about influence - that's hard to gauge - but there's a lot more music in the GD than there is in Madonna or MJ.

...

“Live and Let Live”

”Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”

pretty simple when it comes down to it 

I don't think I have to agree with or respect anyone's religious beliefs, but I do feel I have to treat the person with respect. I don't have any religious beliefs of my own, and the only spiritual belief I have is that we are all somehow connected. (The idea of treating this POTOS with respect is pretty far from easy, but if we ever meet I'll be gentle.)

Peace and love.
 

"Love them all, trust a few, and always paddle your own canoe"

>>>>>”Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”

That's the easy part. The next step is realizing everyone isn't like you, and what you would have be done unto you may not be what the other would want to be done unto him/her.

Jav, you generalize so much in this thread it is difficult to take seriously. this thread got me to sign back in so get ready :

>>>" I was in London in September and saw SO MANY women in burkas and other such garbs, walking a good distance between their husbands and I kept thinking: Why do I have to respect this? I live in a society that values the equality of all humans? Why do I have to respect a belief (ie: based on no fact) that women are inferior and should walk behind their husbands?"

Did you interview them on the purpose of their dress and walking style or did you make a value judgement based on appearances ? There are many reasons to dress in traditional garb. Are you just as pissed at the Orthodox Jews and the way they dress ? What is the acceptable dress code for every culture ? Are you sure that the covering of women is a Muslim thing or is it a culture thing of a country that is mostly Muslim ?

>>>"Every year for X-Mas I'm bombarded by whatsapps with stupid memes about the light of Jesus and the birth of the saviour and all this other nonsense, and honestly, it drives me nuts."

what is Whatsapp and why don't you delete it ? I mean you really can change the channel.

>>>"We could all be celebrating a solstice, something that nothing can deny, fully supported by evidence, but instead everyone gets together to spend money in the name of Christ."

Converseley, I could just go on celebrating something you obviously don't even want to understand and you could very easily ignore me. in fact, I'd prefer that you did.

>>>"I haven't popped yet, but I came pretty close to giving some people a piece of mind regarding their wonderful little saviour this holiday season. So someone, please: give me a reason why I should respect your beliefs?"

OK - only one time - I am not celebrating a magic man born of a fairy tale but the a re-birth of hope that the True King of Kings was a Prince Of Peace. not from a long line of well born rich people, but from a poor, persecuted immigrant family, born in a stable amongst the animals who was killed because his reputation as a rabbi was one of love. read the Beattitudes and see for yourself the incredible beauty. Yes, many of those who proclaim themselves Christian do not even try and act like it.But in the end, I am sufficiently happy to look like a fool going to church on a Sunday because the lessons I hear and have learned throughout my lifetime have are all about how God's love falls upon us all as a gentle rain. I keep this to myself, by and large, just as I was taught to do in church and by my family, my Uncle being the Minister that married my wife and I and my family the charter members of our church. So, maybe don't judge so much on all of us for what a few of us have done. The vast majority of us are nice and some are truly angels.Dig deeper, you'd be surprised what you find.

You comments make it appear you are down on people finding happiness in something that doesn't involve you.

OUT

>>>"But yeah, in the case of withholding medicine due to religious beliefs. Can you really respect or tolerate for a family to not treat their childrens' illnesses because of religious belief? Don't we have a responsibility to protect the life of the minor who is being affected and can't make decisions for themselves? Hell, I'll say the same about vegans who raise their babies vegan. Does your belief that we shouldn't eat animal products mean that you can malnourish your child as a result? Do I have to respect that? Or tolerate it? To what point can you just say 'those are my beliefs' and get away with it?"

Man, I'm with you on that one. I don't know who those people are and what Bible they read, but it isn't the one I have.

>>>" The problem isn't me, the problem is Christianity in general which has as one of its central tenets that you should spread the word of Jesus to bring it to all the poor heathens who haven't been saved"

My church doesn't do that. I don't remember seeing that in the New Testament. I have no idea why they do that. I bypass them every chance I get.

>>>"And even BEYOND the scope of how much the church meddles in government affairs here and in the US (think Evangelists over the last 30 years), christmas is literally shoved down your throat around every single corner all over the place non-stop for an entire month or more before it even happens. And yeah, you can celebrate it and not be Christian as Ken stated, but it's also true that if you're celebrating Christ-Mass, then you are indeed celebrating a Christian holiday. Hell, it's even a national holiday in the states, isn't it? Why? Isn't that just pushing a religion on the populace?"

I can't say anything about how the Church operates in Chile, man. I don't know since I am not there. I can only take your word for it. Christmas in the States is purely Economic. There are very few places with crosses up or anything like that in stores or on TV that I see. Political influence is more back room and also revolves around economics. Reputable clergy don't make much money. I believe it is a holiday because the Unions demanded it. People deserve a winter break and this country was 90% Christian in those days so it stuck, I guess.

Respect my authori-TIE!

Church of Cartman

I went to the Xmas eve United Methodist early service with my Mom. Every one agreed the Reverend 's story was too long, the Methodists sing a lot, the candles and silent night hymns was enjoyable. I wore a custie steely hoodie and sat next to Mom.

As wierd or different as it was I didn't feel uncomfortable. 

2.5/5 shoe.

No encore.

Incredible thread everyone!  Well thought out and thought provoking (mostly).

No harm no foul?   How about when millions are encouraged by their churches to vote republican, because they(the republicans) are the christians? This adversely effects almost everyone and the good of the country. 
 

Mark - define Christians &. beware, since the same stereotypes can be thrown at Muslims, Jews, Caucasians, etc

Jimmy Carter was a Christian who wasn't Republican..

Define the so-called Christians you have conflict with and find Christians who are willing to stand with you. "Christians" is too wide a word to be more than a generalization that proves false under scrutiny when tied to another generalization, just like Muslim or Buddhist. There is no uber generalization that withstands scrutiny. get away from the TV when evaluating Christians or any other major religion as tey are tied to culture and that makes it difficult to differentiate between the 2.

Granted not all christians vote red, Redneck.  But I grew up in Fresno. My brothers clan(and most of Fresno) are all red voting christians. A mixture of baptist and evangelist. All vote against  not only their best interests but the teachings of Jesus. Blows me away.

And churches through-out the south and midwest(and fresno) preach to vote red.

And furthurmore, , the repubs would win very few elections, if any, without the christian right.

>>> the poor heathens who haven't been saved<<<

Hey!

Why? Because Newtonian Physics is not (in the strict sense of the word) a belief. It is science. You can do the math for yourself, and all the experiments yourself, and you will come to the same conclusions as Newton. You don't need to believe anything, just do the science. Facts cannot be reduced to belief. Your search for a fact may start from a belief, but for it to become a fact you have to renounce the beliefs and subject it to scientific rigour. Here is the definition of belief:

"noun

something believed; an opinion or conviction:a belief that the earth is flat.

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:a statement unworthy of belief.

confidence; faith; trust:a child's belief in his parents."

The key words there are 'not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.<<<

What is rigorous proof?

I would suggest said "proof"  - from the perspective of the scientific method - is always reduced to a form of internal validity and reliability of our sensory and cognitive apparatus that ultimately fuels our belief systems.   What else is there?

IMO, it's a bit of a cunundrum that all boils down to a "within you and without you sort of proposition".   Yes, I believe there are constants and universal truths that comprise our reality; however, are we not limited to simply interpreting them as function of our ability to perceive and process thoughts / ideas?   If a tree falls in the forest ... 

People necessarily believe what they believe based upon their journey through "time" and "space".  Their world views are necessarily products of said journeys.  Some constructs adhere more closely to scientifically verifiable "truths" than others.  Likewise, I believe most people have an overarching worldview; yet, how many people have you ever met that possess a functional holistic construct that encapsulates a "grand unifying theory of everything" as the prime core of their belief system?

In this sense, I really don't "know" what this "place" is ... yet at the same time, I know that I have better understanding than most who lived during the 1700's - who were just beginning to allow science and reason to shape their belief systems instead of relying upon superstition or religious dogma.

Maybe look at it like one of many Star Trek episodes where a primitive society is visited by the crew:  the Prime Directive (not to interfere) was a form of "respect" of the current state of affairs & belief systems of cultures that had evolved; powered by the same underlying "Newtonian reality" as that which has allowed the crew to arrive at their "more advanced state" (of beliefs); yet, is the crew not STILL exploring?

On a related note:  epistemological topics bring out more quotes :-)

So Redneck, while you think your church may not participate in this kind of activity, if you're seriously interested in the matter, I would ask your Minister what kind of missionary work your church is involved in. I would be surprised if the answer is 'none'. 

I would like to read Ping Pong's debate.

It can be argued that Paul Feyerabend did not fully understand the scientific method that he made a name for himself arguing against.  When it comes to science anarchism or the total lack of “rules” in scientific thought does not lead to progress, it leads to chaos, or nothing.  Can you float a boat or put a man on the moon without regards to the rules of science which are themselves manifestations of nature? Science cannot not be a belief system simply because its principles and conclusions are not rigid.  They are (per the scientific method that Feyerabend opposed on grounds that it is inflexible) subject to change.  

Regarding what you saw in London, and I saw worse examples in Senegal, I think it is more cultural than anything else. Philosophies like The Middle Way, or Aristotle’s “golden mean”, seem to work for me.  Then live and let live emerges and all is well :-)

I was a non Catholic at a Catholic school from 3rd to 8th grade.  My favorite moments were always in the dark and quiet expanse of the church, listening to homilies read by the priest.  The words made sense to me and always touched me. There was never a time I left a service feeling worse than before I walked in.  Quiet contemplation and ritual are a lost art in our current fast paced world devoid of connection. 

Jav, I agree with you as well; in particular, about there being a sort of "internal validity" to the belief system of science that appears to correspond closely to how "reality" - independent of our sensory apparatus - unfolds.  Likewise, I also have a difficult time digesting "narratives" that are supposed to explain the nature of the Universe; however, not all religious narratives are created equally in so far as how well they might encapsulate the state of affairs of an "independent reality"; some are more literal and some are more abstract.  While it's easy to target the religious stories, what about the more generalized abstractions?

For example:  "God is One".  I'm sure there are many other instances contained within religious doctrine along similar lines that eloquently suggest a sort of "grand unifying theory" that is dependent upon faith, yet also reflects what might appear to be a "self evident truth"; that also has an embedded implicit logical argument contained therein.   On the other hand, a theoretical physicist might offer up a scientifically derived "grand unifying theory" that is similar, but based upon experimental evidence.  Is it possible both grand unifying theories are "correct", yet one pathway was derived anecdotally while the other via scientific method?

Again, I agree with your original post in so far as my frustration in everyday life with how the world seems to be at war with itself as a result of "misguided" belief systems that aren't really in sync with how reality unfolds.  I agree that "superstition" invariably leads to a false economy; in terms of how one's beliefs don't reliably affect reality for a desired outcome. 

You're living in you private Idaho...

Respect my caffeine habit?

All religions develop from human's attempt to develop a cosmology to explain natural phenomena.  If you haven't read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With 1000 Faces", I'd suggest it as a good place to start.  Campbell posits that at their core, all myths, and therefore all religions are reflecting the same universal truths.  

Fundamentalists in all religions warp this universal principle by insisting that only their version of the story is the correct one.  Their hatred and intolerance is based on the fear their story is somehow wrong.  They don't grasp the concept of parables and insist their version of the story is the only correct one.  

Those who preach intolerance and hate are missing the central message of all religions, to walk in love and light.

Don't forget to shoot anyone that gets close to the wall. 

They ALL want to go over the wall and kill. 

^Are there plans for gun turrets?

what it boils down to is people dislike or fear those that are different than themselves...

I don't get no respect!

"I'm so ugly - My father carries around a picture of the kid who came with his wallet"

~ Rodney Dangerfield

"Is it possible both grand unifying theories are "correct", yet one pathway was derived anecdotally while the other via scientific method?"

I don't think so.

"Fundamentalists in all religions warp this universal principle by insisting that only their version of the story is the correct one.  Their hatred and intolerance is based on the fear their story is somehow wrong."

BINGO!!!!!!

I don't actually care about anyone's Stupid belief systems,  unless they yell them at me.

Think whatever set of Lies you're happy with,  and do not bother me.

So many of the poster-bots here are Silver-Spoon-Socialists that are religious fanatics over the Soap-Opera of Television politics.

Fine,  be a Burger King and/or Dairy Queen.

Fast "food" is your religion,  I'm not involved.

>Fine,  be a Burger King and/or Dairy Queen.

Fast "food" is your religion,  I'm not involved<

Where does a TGI Friday's or an Applebees fit in this belief system?

>Who was more influential on American music and arts -

Madonna / Michael Jackson or the Grateful Dead?

Lets try this again<

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/entertainment/music/100-most-popular-rock-band...

Michael Jackson's Unparalleled Influence

Michael Jackson was the most influential artist of the 20th century. That might sound shocking to sophisticated ears. Jackson, after all, was only a pop star. What about the century's great writers like Fitzgerald and Faulkner? What about visual artists, like Picasso and Dali, or the masters of cinema from Chaplin to Kubrick? Even among influential musicians, did Michael really matter more than the Beatles? What about Louis Armstrong, who invented jazz, or Frank Sinatra, who reinvented it for white people? Or Elvis Presley, who did the same with blues and gospel, founding rock in the process? Michael Jackson is bigger than Elvis? By a country mile

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2010/06/michael-jackso...

60 Times Madonna Changed Our Culture

Power. Innovation. Identity. Madonna has blended all of these and much more into a singular career in music, fashion, movies and beyond that’s crossed boundaries and obliterated the status quo. For her 60th birthday, our writers assessed her broad and deep influence

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/16/arts/music/madonna-birthd...

Eight ways Madonna changed the world, from exploring female sexuality to inventing reality TV

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artists/eight-ways-madonna-changed-wor...

Yeah, but in 100 years, if we survive, people will still be playing and listening to GD music, both original and cover. MJ and Madonna - not so much.

IMO.

^Can't say i agree with you, Surf. Might be a chance, as long as Mayer keeps bringing the music to the masses. 

It's not just music,  it's their overall influence on American culture. 

And the fact that the GD scene was a marginal subculture,  i feel fortunate to have found my way there

I would bet on any given day more folks are wearing steadies than Michael Jackson memorabilia. 

I meant stealies.

.

Are you wearing a stealie? Bob is wearing a Madonna. 

Thriller shirts are probably third behind Purple Rain shirts and Mickey Mouse shirts.

>>>I would bet on any given day more folks are wearing steadies than Michael Jackson memorabilia. 

Maybe in America.  GD is a force that has been going strong for 50+ years and shows no sign of going away anytime soon and the SYF is an icon you see all over this great land.

That being said, the GD is also largely a white, middle class, and American phenomena with little reach outside the USA.  On any given night, anywhere in the world, from Rome to Rio and from Stockholm to Shanghai, you are far more likely to hear Billy Jean in the bars, clubs, and house parties than you are a tasty China>Rider.   That's just a fact.   Aside from possibly Bob Marley, Michael Jackson is arguably the most important and globally appreciated musical artist of the 20th Century - right up there with Rodgers and Hammerstein, Duke Ellington, Frank Sinatra, Elvis, and the Beatles.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0u0jh2MmHXY

Why don't you like me?

Thanks for correcting me, Ken.  I agree.

>On any given night, anywhere in the world, from Rome to Rio and from Stockholm to Shanghai, you are far more likely to hear Billy Jean in the bars, clubs, and house parties than you are a tasty China>Rider.   That's just a fact.<

Throw in New York to Los Angels, Miami to Minneapolis, Dallas to Dayton, and I'd agree. 

*New York to Los Angeles

Dallas got a soft machine.

but it's still too technical to make sense to the masses. But I do feel it is really important that we, as a global planetary society, move towards a semantic framework that provides greater commonality and less cultural attachment. In other words, religion and spirituality throughout time has always described similar underlying phenomena in culturally appropriate and semantically bound frameworks that make sense within that culture, but that create tension when faced with other cultural paradigms. Therefore, it's time to move towards a semantic framework that can be shared and validated by all humanity, and ultimately the scientific method does give us that, and quantum physics in particular provides a good roadmap of how to move towards a better understanding of the deep unknown. I think....<<<<

"We will sell no wine before its time"

"Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! You can't just go ''off' Focusyn.   But we can ease Bart onto one of its sister drugs like chlorhexinol, and augment that with some phenolbutamine"

While I generally support the notion of nudging the world in this direction, I'm not sure it'd be all that easy.   For better or for worse, cultural attachment provides a relatively stable construct / belief system for societies to maintain the peace to various extents.  While you and I might see the possibilities for betterment that go along with wholesale paradigm shift, do you really believe fundamentalists would overcome their fear to allow "the old ways" to simply be replaced without a fight?    It's difficult enough to find the "right time" to make strides on the political front in terms of any given populace being "ripe" for change; it's more often than not necessary for people to have experienced / internalized some form of strife in order to stand up for change. 

A bit long winded aren't we.

If you're cool you get respected.

If not you don't.

Beliefs ? Who fucking cares ? 

What do you do when meeting people  hand out a questionnaire ?

Javs:  I'm ultimately with you in so far as being able to visualize and know there's got to be a better way for a number of issues or with respect to larger constructs; if only enough people were to get on board with a new and improved paradigm.     But therein lies the rub.   We typically don't see too much in the way of significant and overt oppressive situations that demand immediate action by a majority.   Or, maybe we've become akin to frogs boiling in water to simply accept the incremental decline for the many; with the benefits for the few steadily increasing?

For example:  I know it's not a critical or necessary enterprise, but there are a couple regulars of the zone who (aside from just getting a rise out of me) appear to genuinely support a national ski area model that allows private entities to exploit public resources for their own benefit; at the expense of reasonable access for the masses.  Not going to get into debating this here, but simply state that it's likely these "two" are financially able to work within and benefit from the existing system.  They're likely not going to rock the boat, even if they secretly agree with me since: 

1.)  They're able to leverage the existing model to their benefit,

2.)  They're likely aware (at least sub-consciously) of the enormity of any effort required to completely overhaul the system to be more egalitarian in nature

I'm sure there are other reasons, but the point being is that cognitive dissonance and the way in which our minds function as we stake out positions are highly dependent upon one's "place" in the pecking order of the larger paradigm.    So, as long as a sufficient number of people are "content" with the status quo; and/or there aren't enough people to vociferously oppose, then the status quo will remain in place.   It's almost as if institutions learn how to throw just enough "bones" as necessary to keep the train on the tracks.

 It's almost as if institutions learn how to throw just enough "bones" as necessary to keep the train on the tracks.

No almost , and they already know how.

My whole life I’ve been told of religions who try to define God for everyone. Lately I’ve been doing my best to live by spiritual guidelines, trying not to define god or search for all answers in the universe but just have an understanding that there is a higher power greater than my self. I can’t speak for anyone else, nor do I know what helps or works for the next person. Im not afraid to admit that I can’t do this whole life thing by myself. I’m here in this life and I still don’t know what the fuck I’m doing but I can remain teachable and keep my side of the street clean. I do know that I have been happier in my recent experience with trying to be more spiritual. In no way is anything perfect but today I can appreciate adequacy in life and I love you all more because it.

Love and Respect 

I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong  -- John Lennon

Respect My Gangster

Check this out
 

Graham Nash Night at the Bluelight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEoXuBjC7VY