Is arguing against religious belief intolerant?

Standman

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

robindch

Standman wrote: »

is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

Well, when I'm told (as I have been on a few occasions here) that I'm going to spend the rest of eternity paddling about in a bath of molten sulfur for the unforgivable, if bizarre, crime of not believing such an obviously fake threat in the first place, it's difficult to respond with anything other than a good hearty laugh.

That said, common decency is that you don't take the piss out of people either, so picking the right thing to do really depends on the situation.

I'd say respect people's right to hold whatever view they want to, but don't be under any pressure to respect the view itself. It can be quite interesting to try to figure out what kind of mental acrobatics have to be performed to make these views seem reasonable, even obvious, but that's off-topic for this thread.

Dades

Standman wrote: »

is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

Yes, unless it's clear the gloves are off in a debate.

iUseVi

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

HA HA HA HA HA. Honestly, to the full on faith-heads that are declaring fire and brimstone, what other discourse is there? You can give them the facts till you are blue in the face, but they will find twisted ways of fitting them into their beliefs; else they will just ignore them.

Of course I will try and be calm and collected at first, but there comes a point...

Standman

Well, do ye think there is legitimate cause to openly criticise religious belief in Ireland?

Doctor DooM

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

No.

Is it intolerant to ridicule someone's beliefs if that belief is the sky is green, and that women are inferior, or that a teapot is in orbit of earth, etc?

Religions say things far more mentalist than that, in most cases.

In alot of cases the "respect my belief" thing comes out if in a religious debate you start to point out the errors of the building blocks of a persons belief in my experience, and thats uncomfortable for anyone.

Standman

I definitely don't think it's intolerant if it is the context of a debate, but sometimes it gets on my nerves when I hear people give credit to god, or jesus, or whoever when something good happens. If someone were to say ,"Thank Sinn Féin the operation was successful." I'm pretty sure I would call them out on that, why is it different with religion?

Overheal

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

I dont think so. Its just kicking the Tyres. If theyre firm in their beliefs then they should be able to handle it.

Doctor DooM

Dades wrote: »

Yes, unless it's clear the gloves are off in a debate.

Actually, I read the word "ridicule" wrong...

If someone is engaging you in debate, then why not? If they say theirs is the correct way and yours is incorrect, does that not open their beliefs to inspection?

Obviously, it's nasty to attack people's beliefs for no reason: People are entitled to believe whatever they want.

Dades

The words 'ridicule' and 'criticize' seem to be used interchangeably above.

They are obviously completely different.

Standman

Dades wrote: »

The words 'ridicule' and 'criticize' seem to be used interchangeably above.

They are obviously completely different.

What I meant was, is it intolerant to say that a persons belief is absurd?

Given the facts I'd have to say that it is absurd.

Is this just perceived as intolerant because most people believe it? I can't imagine anyone saying it's intolerant to label an educated and intelligent adult's belief in santa ridiculous.

Doctor DooM

Standman wrote: »

What I meant was, is it intolerant to say that a persons belief is absurd?

Given the facts I'd have to say that it is absurd.

Is this just perceived as intolerant because most people believe it? I can't imagine anyone saying it's intolerant to label an educated and intelligent adult's belief in santa ridiculous.

It's not intolerant to believe it's absurd.

It might be intolerant to treat these people differently/ abuse them because it's absurd. Some people would say my political beliefs are absurd.

Zillah

Define intolerance.

I know that sounds like I'm trying to be smart, but really, you're asking the question, explain exactly what you mean, don't rely on wishy washy pseudo-liberal crap.



There's all sorts of things society doesn't tolerate, most people reading this are intolerant of murder, rape, molestation, all sorts of other things. In these circumstances they will not tolerate it. Meaning that they will do everything reasonably within their power to prevent it. So no, by that definition, I'm not intolerant of religion, but I'm certainly extremely critical of it, I deride it, I attack its benefits, belittle its stubborn adherents. By some pseudo-liberal defintions, I'd be intolerant.

Intolerance is not, in principle, a bad thing. We just need to discuss what we're being intolerant of.

Standman

I'm afraid was slightly confused when I started this thread, apologies, I think I drank too much coffee!

I've come to the conclusion that its not intolerant to say someone's personal beliefs are absurd. I can and do tolerate peoples religious beliefs but it won't in any way stop me from saying they are ridiculous/absurd if the topic is brought up in discussion. Of course, I would be fully prepared to back up that claim with my reasons for believing so.

Doctor DooM

Standman wrote: »

I'm afraid was slightly confused when I started this thread, apologies, I think I drank too much coffee!

I've come to the conclusion that its not intolerant to say someone's personal beliefs are absurd. I can and do tolerate peoples religious beliefs but it won't in any way stop me from saying they are ridiculous/absurd if the topic is brought up in discussion. Of course, I would be fully prepared to back up that claim with my reasons for believing so.

Well youd want to try to be, if you're going to be dissing other people's beliefs.

An Fear Aniar

No, it's not intolerant, it's freedom of conscience. In contrast to examples such as the Teddy Bear incident in Sudan....


.

Fanny Cradock

Arguing against someone's religious belief isn't a form of intolerance - it's simply a difference of opinion. I don't see any problem with being forceful in how you articulate your beliefs or opinions. One would like to think that resorting to insults or ridicule is never an option. Sadly that is all too often not the case.

Húrin

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

No. Religious beliefs should be challenged, as long as both sides are up for a mature, reasonable discussion. It encourages religious people think about and grow in their faith. Back in the day when Catholic religion was beyond question, Ireland was not a very spiritual place because there wasn't much thinking going on.

nozzferrahhtoo

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

I would say yes and no to this one. The question as it is asked is unanswerable.

What I mean by this is that if someone says to you "I did .... because my religion tells me so", it would be intolerant and rude to start ridiculing them and telling them they are wrong. I do beleive in leaving personal beleifs alone.

Alas this is not what most of the religious do. The times to ridicule someones beleifs are either A) when they ask you about them and so you can answer them any way you like or the very second "I did.... because me religion tells me so" changes to "You should.... because my religion tells me so".

If I tried to tell you to do something, or install a new law, based on a set of statistics... but on requesting to see those stats I said I couldnt find the study but I beleive the stats to be true.... you would ridicule me to the highest degree. The same should happen with religion. As soon as someone tells you how we should live or act based on a god that they cant show a scrap of evidence for... its open season.

But personal faith, when kept personal, I would hesitate (and always do) before confronting. Especially those theists who say things like "without a god I dont know why raping children would be wrong". There are some people who, for the sake of the children around them, I hope they never lose their faith.

iUseVi

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But personal faith, when kept personal, I would hesitate (and always do) before confronting. Especially those theists who say things like "without a god I dont know why raping children would be wrong". There are some people who, for the sake of the children around them, I hope they never lose their faith.

Why not? Do you not think they could handle it? Most of the atheists I know used to be some form of Christian (geographic location and all that), and they don't suddenly now think that raping children is a good thing.

Do you really think that if you deprived them of their God that they would be any different?

the_syco

robindch wrote: »

Well, when I'm told (as I have been on a few occasions here) that I'm going to spend the rest of eternity paddling about in a bath of molten sulfur for the unforgivable, if bizarre, crime of not believing such an obviously fake threat in the first place, it's difficult to respond with anything other than a good hearty laugh.

You're gonna burn in hell for not following my imaginery friend!:p

[Judas Priest]burrrnnn in helllll.... I can hear you whisper.... burnnnnn in hellll.... I cna hear you BLISTER! [/Judas Priest]

bus77

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If I tried to tell you to do something, or install a new law, based on a set of statistics... but on requesting to see those stats I said I couldnt find the study but I beleive the stats to be true.... you would ridicule me to the highest degree. The same should happen with religion. As soon as someone tells you how we should live or act based on a god that they cant show a scrap of evidence for... its open season.

Well, somone introducing a state law for religious reasons is a big thing but in general I have no problem people's proclomations on law.

'Law' or rules in themselves are a personal thing. In the sence that they depend on the persons own 'path to progres' for themselves and ultimatly those around them. Such is the nature of rules, in the game of life, or monopaly.

Now, giving out about moving your piece around the board in monopaly because you dont reconize the presence of Parker Brothers just would not go down well.

seamus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't see any problem with being forceful in how you articulate your beliefs or opinions.

People shouldn't need to articulate their beliefs in the first place.

My standpoint on it is to believe what you want to believe, I don't care. But don't try and tell me what to believe.

As such, I see no problem with someone criticising a religion as a whole and pointing out the errors - such as in a book or a preacher at the pulpit. Religions are large organisations, and as such their inner workings and public acts are as open to criticism as any corporation or government.

I do however have problems when someone spontaneously questions/ridicules a follower personally and expects them to defend their entire ethos. You can claim that it's just "tyre kicking", but many people simply haven't any debating skills and are likely to just become offended and upset, even if they have answers to all of your questions.

Of course, as said, if both people are happy that there's an established debate between them, then the gloves are off. You can't bow out halfway through because you're offended.

calahans

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

Its a hard one, in that religion is a belief which is fundamental to a person's existance. When someone believes in God/Budda/Allah they base their concepts of life & death on it. Its not like criticizing their political view.

eoin5

To ridicule someones personal beliefs is a form of intolerance. I'm certaintly intolerant of anyone who would try to convert me to scientology, and why should I tolerate that person? The same would go for someone who would try to convert me to nazism.

robindch

seamus wrote: »

People shouldn't need to articulate their beliefs in the first place.

Perhaps, but most religions have evolved the belief that it's an important religious duty for believers to propagate the religion.

In the end, I wonder if reciprocity is the best approach -- if somebody's religious beliefs are their own, and they have no interest in applying them, or their implications, to other people, then discussing or arguing about the beliefs isn't much more than a parlor game.

But if the religious believer sees it as their holy duty to make lots of other people acquire the same religious beliefs that they have, and is prepared to do whatever it takes make this happen, then at the very least, they invite solid criticism.

Standman

eoin5 wrote: »

To ridicule someones personal beliefs is a form of intolerance. I'm certaintly intolerant of anyone who would try to convert me to scientology, and why should I tolerate that person? The same would go for someone who would try to convert me to nazism.

Read my original post. I specifically said it is not in the context of trying to "convert" someone. Simply ridiculing someones belief is not the same as trying to convert them.

The reason I started this thread is because I was having a debate with another atheist about religion. The thing is that even though he doesn't believe himself, he seems to think there is a good, legitimate reason for religion and is very reluctant to criticise it in any way. He was aking me annoying questions like "Why do you care so much?" and ended up stating that I was being intolerant for saying that the bible, religious dogma and belief is ridiculous.

eoin5

Standman wrote: »

Read my original post. I specifically said it is not in the context of trying to "convert" someone. Simply ridiculing someones belief is not the same as trying to convert them.

The reason I started this thread is because I was having a debate with another atheist about religion. The thing is that even though he doesn't believe himself, he seems to think there is a good, legitimate reason for religion and is very reluctant to criticise it in any way. He was aking me annoying questions like "Why do you care so much?" and ended up stating that I was being intolerant for saying that the bible, religious dogma and belief is ridiculous.

Sorry, my post was aimed more at other posts in the thread. Anyway would your friend be accurate in saying that you believe the bible and religious dogma and belief are rediculous?

Standman

Yes he would be accurate in saying that, but it is not intolerant to state an opinion.

EamonnKeane

Ridiculing someone's philosophical beliefs would be acceptable, so why not religious beliefs, given that they are much more likely to be riven with tautology, pseudohistory and blind acceptance?

iUseVi

Standman wrote: »

Read my original post. I specifically said it is not in the context of trying to "convert" someone. Simply ridiculing someones belief is not the same as trying to convert them.

The reason I started this thread is because I was having a debate with another atheist about religion. The thing is that even though he doesn't believe himself, he seems to think there is a good, legitimate reason for religion and is very reluctant to criticise it in any way. He was aking me annoying questions like "Why do you care so much?" and ended up stating that I was being intolerant for saying that the bible, religious dogma and belief is ridiculous.

So would your friend be of the view that "Well those religious beliefs are entirely wrong, but what does that matter?" That seems a silly to me. If you think someone is wrong, you think they are wrong, no need to dress it up in niceties.