Dear david f,

I used the verb “respect” in exactly the same sense as the author of the linked to article; that was after all the point of my question. Also, “sin”, in distinction to “conviction” (that my question was about), has always an a priori negative connotation, so the question of respecting it does not arise. Hence I think that one could respect a conviction (like the one about what lends a greater moral importance to our actions on earth) even if one “feels” there is no validity in it. I do respect some (not all) convictions based on an atheist world-view, which still does not imply I can share them.

Let me repeat (also for runner and others), the questions this post was based on was not about belief or unbelief in God but about respecting other people’s convictions about what is a better incentive for moral actions.

>>I feel that belief in God has no more validity than a belief in the Ptolemaic system<<
Of course, you are entitled to your feeling, although there are certainly many more people - including scientists and philosophers - who say they believe in God (whatever they mean by that) than those who’d say they believe the earth is the centre of the universe (whatever that could mean today).

pelican,

Your post, as always, is insightful. As for my question, juxtaposed with the author’s, it is not about who is right, those who think that, with everything taken into account, it is better not to a have a belief in God and/or afterlife, or those who think otherwise. It was aimed at whether for a better functioning of an open society one should respect both positions. Perhaps because they both have a point.

As for proselytizing, my point again was to use the term in exactly the same sense as the author. Your explanations and qualifications on whether when and how to proselytize or not can be applied to both sides, theist or atheist. In particular, that in public schools one should not push a particular world-view, explicitly theist or anti-theist (you use the term “belief system”, that is OK with me, however some atheists seem to claim they do not have a belief system). Did I understand you properly?

Yuyutsu,

Thanks, I do not want to disagree only to point out again that the question was not about which world-view was better or who is right in their convictions but whether we should respect - obviously one cannot share them both - the two particular convictions.

Dear George,

Sorry I have not made it clear enough:

Given that both convictions are morally beneficial to some individuals, then it follows that both should be respected.

Hopefully people will hold onto and be proselytised into that particular conviction which personally spurs them on spiritually and not vice-versa.

Dear runner,

You have mentioned another one of your beliefs. You stated that Jesus never lied. How can you possibly know that?

runner,

You quote me with this,

>>>”Well, if you mean I look at all the evidence and not just accept the words of others who could be lying,…”<<<

And then state this.

“exactly what you have chosen to do David. Jesus Himself never lied.”

I assume you mean I accept the word of science about evolution. That is not accepting the words of others; it is accepting a checkable peer reviewed process that eventually does supply answers.

And juxtaposed to that is you accept the words from an ancient book written by people who had very little understanding of nature and who never met the alleged Jesus the Christ. The statement that, “Jesus Himself never lied.” is not testable. Jesus wrote no words, his followers did.

So, can you explain to me how you have ascertained that those followers were not deluded, mistaken, lying or telling the truth?

I'm really not sure why I'm bothering with you as it is pointless. I guess getting a better idea how a trapped mind thinks has some value. You might not understand this but I would undo the harm done to you if I could.

David

Dear David & David,

<<You stated that Jesus never lied. How can you possibly know that?>>

What's the one got to do with the other? Surely one doesn't need to know in order to believe!

<<You might not understand this but I would undo the harm done to you if I could.>>

If you manage to convince Runner that he is not accountable to a creator and as a result he starts robbing, raping and killing people, that harm will be upon your head.

His path to God involves Christianity while yours involves atheism. Both are valid for different individuals. Peace!