I'd like to get some different opinions on a highly controversial topic. Just for the sake of argument, let it be noted here that I am playing devil's advocate, so please refrain from searching out my IP/house and murdering me in the night.

So, I was just reading the 'atheists are soul eaters' thread and got to thinking.....

Why should atheists respect all religious beliefs? To me, even a conspiracy theory holds more weight, and I certainly don't respect the pseudo-science and conniving nature of conspiracies...

Respect is earned. Not given. A child shouldn't respect their parents automatically, regardless of how awful the parents treat the child. An atheist shouldn't respect other religious beliefs automatically, regardless of how ridiculous they are. I think that if you can't defend your beliefs rationally, then you need to revise them immediately, until you can......or....suffer the atheist onslaught, without complaint.

Discuss.

I see no reason to respect beliefs just because they are dearly held, however one should respect people to the extent they deserve it. Just because someone holds silly beliefs doesn't mean you need to tell them about it. And many respect-worthy people have some...unusual...ideas about the way things work.

Now if they implicitly sign up for such a discussion, say for example by posting on an internet forum set up to talk about such things, that's different and of course it's appropriate to discuss them.

I think everyone deserves respect as a default position - in my view it's disrespect which is earned.

We're all irrational, in my view so I only have a problem with people who are dishonest about their irrationality (usually by claiming there's some objective way of demonstrating their axiomatic preferences superior to another's).

The fact that I value rationality above spiritual comfort (or any other reason one may have for being cheerfully irrational) is not something I can really justify - I think it's obviously better to be rational than irrational but can hardly prove it with anything other than a circular argument.

The fact that rational thought is highly functional isn't reason enough? The fact that rational thought minimizes the tendency for the brain to be intellectually dishonest or lazy, and the fact that it minimizes all types of bias? These reasons don't lead to a circular argument. The superiority of rational thought spans almost all criteria one would associate with belief systems.

Err. You've just listed lots of reasons you value rationality. ("minimises all kinds of bias" is actually rather amusing, given the context).

The point is you can't argue for them, unless we've already determined that rational argument should persuade us.

A question for you: Do you think it is possible to defend religious beliefs rationally?

Oh? Like:

"Consistent with what my preacher tells me the bible means"
"Comforting to me when I confront tragedy in my life"
"Familiar, quick and easy"

Some people value those criteria quite highly.

Yes. Theists do a good job of this. Particular sects however, such as Christians or Jews, not so much. Basically the more specific one's religious belief, the harder it is to defend rationally, because there's less room for semantic contortion or appeal to philosophy.

I respect the rights of people to hold any or no belief, and I generally don't get into mocking or hurting other people's feelings unless it's necessary (IE unless there is a religious aspect that is harmful and must be questioned). I've found this approach to be best tbh.

OK

as to your specific question: it seems to me people's beliefs deserve respect because people deserve respect.... pretty simple. The reason I don't think your conspiracy theory reference is apt is because conspiracy theories almost as a rule challenge well established facts. If you are going to do this, you better have evidence, or you will just end up looking foolish

You phrase this as if the criteria listed here is equally as important as something like functionality. To individuals it may be, but to the collective long-term societal impact - functionality positively outweighs any such criteria.

Yes, exactly. And those individuals will not find your previously expressed reasons for preferring rational empiricism (or whatever it is you would subscribe to) to be terribly persuasive. I dare say "collective long-term societal impact" would be equally uninspiring to them.

This whole attitude of "onslaught" is alien to me. People are irrational in lots of ways but they don't get onslaughted by disinterested bystanders. I think it's dumb to support the ice hockey team that plays in red over the team in blue or even any team at all but I don't onslaught the fans for it because I'm not an ice hockey fan. If atheists don't believe in a God then that's one less thing for them to spend their time over.

I really like this.

Some days ago, a local politician chided a school for being below the average national exam scores.

When stupidity reaches that level, respect dissipates. Though generally speaking, people can make up for it if the stupidity has no practical implications.

What about when the supporters of the red team get into politics and demand that all the teachings their team's founding father wrote down in a handbook a loooong time ago (a lot of which you find extremely old fassioned and utterly ridiculous to apply in our society), must be made national law? Are you concerned then? Or when the supporters start killing people who refuse to support their team?

As an atheist I think anyone is allowed to believe whatever they want and I respect them regardless of their believes, as long as they also allow other people this freedom. Unfortunately the verse "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" has led to quite a few unfortunate incidents where people haven't been allowed to believe what they want.

You will find bad examples of religious people who practise their religion badly but generally religious people make an effort to behave well towards others (righteously). I respect these people even if I don't believe the stories in their holy scriptures. I used to live in Cardiff and once a year the Jehovah's witnesses held a convention there. They were welcomed and respected even though they bored the local taxi drivers by trying to convert them.

Yes, absolutely. I find that generally people, religious or not, make an effort to behave well towards others. Just like I see some both religious and non religious people who have problems respecting the other. Problem is that religion is such a strong concept that it can be used to justify more drastic measures. I don't recall any atheist nation justifying a war by the fact that their neighbors believe in some god. But I can recall quite a few wars justified by the fact that the neighbors don't believe in the correct god.

He's got a point, everyone should at least be slightly above average.

This is useless unless you clarify what you mean by "respect." I support pretty full freedom of religion and a strong protection of religious speech. However, I don't respect many religious traditions, if by respect we mean hold in high regard. I think for most purposes it is wise to be polite when talking to strangers on the internet, but this is not specific to religion.

Whatever the answer, we should use the same standards as we use for everything else. Religion is not a privaleged topic so we don't apply different standards. So for example different people gave different political beliefs (the closest analogy IMO) many of which are just blatantly ridiculous or bigoted or idiotic. People might like reading horoscopes and think Kate Middleton is interesting to follow. In fact, almost everyone does or thinks something that I think is pretty stupid. So I don't much know whether I am supposed to "respect" these things or not, but my point here is that I don't "respect" religion more or less than many of these other things.

Incidentally, I don't think most political or religious beliefs are formed through careful objective analysis. They are often more about cultural identifications and the like. Seems hard to really disrespect somebody who is the product - as humans are want to do - of their own culture, even if that culture is more than a bit iffy.

Either way, I certainly don't feel any emotional animosity to people of differing political or religious views than me. Except the folks that think that small tits are acceptable, those are just wrong, I could never respect them.

I wonder why people focus on words and explanations so much when there are so many liars and manipulators in the world.

Focus more on action and less on words because people always try to look intelligent or strong when they're most stupid or weak and some people think the image is more important than the reality.

First, respecting a belief is different than respecting the person that holds the belief. Perfectly respectable people can believe some quite ridiculous things, for any number of reasons.

Second, I am having a hard time finding a dictionary definition of "respect" that doesn't sound very difficult to do with many beliefs ("expressions of high or special regard or deference," "an act of giving particular attention," ect). It seems to me a better demonstration of respect for the person holding the belief, if I assume them capable of engaging in an honest examination of those beliefs, rather than treat them as a delicate child whose whims should be indulged.

"Examination" contains a presumption of correctness on your part that is inconsistent with respect. Perhaps an honest consideration of those beliefs by both parties is more consistent with respect.

I think its a legit definition of respect to give someone the courtesy of their beliefs. Of course, its OK to have limits on that as well - say if the person is doing harm.

Though I don't think religion should necessarily be off limits to discussion, it people want to participate in it; however, I would also point out that the place should be appropriate - like you probably shouldn't start challenging people's religious views in a workplace (unless you don't value your job).