Does anybody else have trouble with...

[AlexMagd]

... the whole issue of respect for personal religious belief?

The way I categorise it, the main issue is (of course) those who want to push their beliefs on others. Religion in politics, public services, media etc are all things I want to expunge as quickly and painlessly (for society at least) as possible. The real problem I run into is that, while in theory I subscribe to "I respect your right to believe what you want", I kind of don't. I'm not going to stop people believing in whatever god they like but it bugs the hell out of me, and I can never let it go. It niggles me in a really irritating way and I've found over the last few years that I literally can't *not* poke and prod people on their beliefs.

So basically (tl;dr), it's hard not to appear hypocritical when your approach is basically "I respect your right to your faith, but I'm going to continually mock, challenge and deride it until you get uncomfortable and never bring it up again". How far should you go in trying to convert (in want of a better word) religious people?

[AlexMagd]

Oh well in later Internet browsings I came across this:

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/07/evangelical-atheism.html

Which pretty much neatly sums up what I'm thinking and reassures me. Still love to hear what you people think though! :)

[norman]

I'm of the firm opinion that the respect the believer, not the belief is a good starting point. If people want to be idots that's fine with me, but I don't have to stop telling them they're idiots - whether that be their choice of football team, their favourite ice cream flavour or their brand of religion.

There is a certain amount of politicking in what we all do, we have to get along with people who don't agree with us and sometimes we have to be a little hypocritical. However, when push comes to shove and gloves come off - which in my experience they inevitably do - it's fine to tell people that they are wrong if you think they are!

'Evangelicsal Atheism' is a whole other thing. I do not think that it is an atheist's role to 'convert' people. If, after you have explained until you are blue in the face, why their beliefs are ridiculous, why thereisn't any evidence for what they believe and that their beliefs actually contradict what they do and vice versa they still want to believe in it then so be it.

[AlexMagd]

'Evangelicsal Atheism' is a whole other thing. I do not think that it is an atheist's role to 'convert' people. If, after you have explained until you are blue in the face, why their beliefs are ridiculous, why thereisn't any evidence for what they believe and that their beliefs actually contradict what they do and vice versa they still want to believe in it then so be it.

I agree on the whole, but the problem is that the process of explaining to people why their beliefs are ridiculous is often seen as an attempt at conversion. Strictly speaking that's quite an odd suggestion - we're not trying to 'convert' any more than you can 'convert' people to not believing in Santa - but it's understandable. I will earnestly try and change people's minds if the subjects of gods or religions come up; for many that counts as conversion (although I prefer to think of it as assertive arguing).

[grammar king mike]

Alex, you know the preacher who's recently started standing by WHSmith in town? If we did that, that would be trying to convert, but just explaining your beliefs and arguing with someone when it comes up, that's not. That's conversation, not conversion.

Now of course the believers can't do without pushing their beliefs onto other people because if everyone worshipped privately and didn't discuss it at all, religion would be wiped out in a couple of generations.

[Chris Worfolk]

It's a question I asked myself but then, when it comes to a persona belief, it's clearly not entirely personal to if I am able to know about it.


'Evangelicsal Atheism' is a whole other thing. I do not think that it is an atheist's role to 'convert' people. If, after you have explained until you are blue in the face, why their beliefs are ridiculous, why thereisn't any evidence for what they believe and that their beliefs actually contradict what they do and vice versa they still want to believe in it then so be it.

That is evangelistic atheism. What else is there?

[grammar king mike]

That is evangelistic atheism. What else is there?

I think the distinction was going out in the attempt to convert people, or just talking about it should the subject come up.

[Chris Worfolk]

I think the distinction was going out in the attempt to convert people, or just talking about it should the subject come up.

Just as having a society about it ;).

[Moogle]

So its ok for atheists (or whoever) to tell religious types that their wrong for believeing whatever, but when they say to you that your beliefs are a pile of shite, then their in the wrong .. Yes, we're all hypocrites! :)

[grammar king mike]

So its ok for atheists (or whoever) to tell religious types that their wrong for believeing whatever, but when they say to you that your beliefs are a pile of shite, then their in the wrong .. Yes, we're all hypocrites! :)

"In the wrong" implies that they shouldn't have done it, which isn't what I think. I'm perfectly willing to have a religious person argue that God exists (should the subject come up. I wouldn't want them arguing with me over my lunch like they have done in our union in the past), but I'll more than likely disagree. In the same way if I was having a conversation with a religious person about it I wouldn't tiptoe around the issue for fear of offending them, but I wouldn't go out of my way looking for religious people to convert.

So they're wrong, but I don't have a moral objection to them saying it.

[Chris Worfolk]

So its ok for atheists (or whoever) to tell religious types that their wrong for believeing whatever, but when they say to you that your beliefs are a pile of shite, then their in the wrong .. Yes, we're all hypocrites! :)

Yeah, I think along the same lines as Mike, I don't have a problem with people talking about their beliefs. It's just that the beliefs themselves are wrong.

[Moogle]

Yeah, I think along the same lines as Mike, I don't have a problem with people talking about their beliefs. It's just that the beliefs themselves are wrong.

Who are you to say their beliefs are wrong?
I could believe in sky diving monkeys from mars, and I'd expect people to judge me and think my beliefs are crazy, but in no way can you tell me that what I (or anyone else) believes is wrong.

[AlexMagd]

If it's OK for people to judge you on your sky-diving Martian monkey views and think you're crazy, why is it not OK for them to express that opinion? It's not particularly polite of course, but imagine a situation where people who didn't belief in sky-diving Martian monkeys were being persecuted. Where in some countries, belief that the sky-diving monkeys might hail from Venus would result in public execution, beatings or other punishment. Where people who believe in sky-diving Martian monkeys are not only holders of significant power in the country as a whole, but also in the government. Where, indeed, sky-diving Martian monkeyists are considered rational and sensible enough to dictate what people should and shouldn't do in their private lives, and offer relationship advice based purely on the fact that they really really really believe in sky-diving monkeys. In that case, I think it's totally justified to speak up when people tell you their ridiculous beliefs.

Sorry, that was about as subtle as a sledgehammer. In a perfect world where people kept their spiritual views to themselves, it would be OK, but we don't live in that world. As long as religion has this special aura of authority around it, I'll have no compunction in telling people that their views are wrong because, if you live in the real world, they patently are.

[norman]

In a perfect world where people kept their spiritual views to themselves, it would be OK, but we don't live in that world. As long as religion has this special aura of authority around it, I'll have no compunction in telling people that their views are wrong because, if you live in the real world, they patently are.

I would go further. In an ideal world no one would have idiotic beliefs! Whether that be religion, or even atheism! In an ideal world there would be no faith, as everything would be signed, sealed, delivered!

There is nothing wrong with questioning and citicising people's views the moment they become public knowledge, whether by open displays of worship, private conversations, etc. Without critique and debate there is no defence or opportuntiy to persuade. If someone is not secure enough in their faith to defend it publicly then they shouldn't be holding that faith!

My general rule of thumb is that I don't start out to change anyone's mind about anything I speak to them about, but if they cannot defend their point of view or persuade me that their point of view is better than mine then I would suggest to them that my view is better and they should adopt it over their own until they find something better.

This is the basis of rational thought. To constantly question your thoughts by comapring them against other peoples and slwly building a more complete picture of universe/meaning of life/etc etc.