In the following exchange, who has done something wrong?

[Htom Sirveaux]

Atheist: Your beliefs are stupid.
Religious person: your opinion about my beliefs is stupid.

[Warpy]

1. Neither.

There are just some things we need to agree to disagree on.

I do think you misstated the second one. People who don't like having core beliefs attacked will counterattack the person, not his opinion.

See: Religion Forum.

[trotsky]

3. Exactly.

The typical conversation goes more like this:

Atheist: Wow, those are some silly/crazy/dangerous/stupid religious beliefs.
Believer: OMG you religious bigot!

[Htom Sirveaux]

6. You'd feel better if the believer said:

"Your opinion is bigoted"?

[trotsky]

11. In that case I'd be laughing.

Beliefs aren't entitled to respect.

[Htom Sirveaux]

15. Trying to separate the beliefs from the believer that way

reminds me of when conservative Catholics say that they aren't bigoted because having gay attractions isn't a sin, but acting on them is. If you wouldn't accept that reasoning from them, then you are being inconsistent by using it yourself.

[Warpy]

18. You're still not getting it.

Atheists analyze the minutiae of belief systems and find them unappealing and/or dangerous.

Believers then attack atheists. They don't defend the beliefs. They just do knee jerk attacks against any person who dares question them.

See: Religion Forum.

[Htom Sirveaux]

24. As I told skepticscott, I wasn't making an accusation

about activities in this forum by anyone.

[skepticscott]

28. Call it what you like

But don't expect us to believe that it came from nowhere.

[trotsky]

31. So religious beliefs are more special than any other idea?

Therefore we cannot think they are silly or just plain wrong?

Thanks for trying to compare me to a homophobic Catholic bigot, by the way. That's cool.

[Htom Sirveaux]

42. Again, if your reasoning is that you can avoid

charges of bigotry for discussing the ideas, not the believer, that's the same "hate the sin, not the sinner" reasoning that conservative Catholics use to try to avoid charges of bigotry against gays. And since you have just called such Catholics homophobic bigots, it follows that you think their use of this defense fails. Consistency would require you to drop the use of this reasoning for yourself.

I realize I'm partially repeating myself, but that's because your response didn't address what I said. A successful address would explain why you're allowed to use "hate the sin, not the sinner" style reasoning without being charged with bigotry, but conservative Catholics aren't. Neither of your questions did that. They just avoided the issue.

Also, the comparison I used was forms of reasoning, but you took it as a comparison of you personally to a Catholic bigot. If you think believers shouldn't take commentary on their beliefs as bigoted personal attacks, then consistency would have also required you to not take my commentary as a personal comparison.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Are you saying that having homophobic religious beliefs doesn't make one a homophobe?

Or that intolerance of intolerant beliefs is intolerance?

Not answering for trotsky here, just wondering what you're getting at.

[Htom Sirveaux]

73. What I'm getting at is that Trotsky announced

a standard that one cannot be a bigot by discussing beliefs, not people. I pointed out that this parallels conservative Catholic reasoning which claims that they aren't bigoted because they don't think gay people are inherently sinful, just when they engage in gay acts. Trotsky doesn't accept their claim that they can separate persons and acts this way, so I'm asking him to address why he thinks he can separate beliefs and believers in a similar way. So far, he has chosen not to address the inconsistency, and has further revealed that his belief that "beliefs aren't entitled to respect" doesn't actually apply to his own ideas.

[skepticscott]

75. If beliefs were the same as actions

or if it were rational to separate actions that are the fulfillments of someone's being as a fully realized person from the person themselves, someone might accuse you of having made a point.

As it is, I doubt you'll have that honor.

[trotsky]

47. Are religious beliefs special?

You still haven't answered me on that. By merely stating that criticism of religious beliefs is "bigotry," aren't you silencing discussion? Your comparison is ridiculous, hurtful, and rude. By your logic, then aren't we all bigoted toward Republicans? I mean, we "hate the sin, not the sinner" with them, right?

Whatever "response" you're demanding you aren't getting because of the ridiculousness of your claims. Make some reasonable claims, defend them, and maybe you'll get some interesting responses.

Or make up some more bogus hypothetical conversations with stereotypes. Your choice.

[Htom Sirveaux]

72. Amazing how "beliefs aren't entitled to respect" turns into

"your comparison is ridiculous, hurtful, and rude" when your own belief (the belief that beliefs aren't entitled to respect) is the one being criticized. Another inconsistency.

Moreover, you still refuse to explain why "hate the sin, not the sinner" is alright for you when it comes to religious beliefs and Republicans, but again, not for conservative Catholics applying it to gays. Adding Republicans did not succeed in addressing your previous inconsistency.

[trotsky]

76. Well, your comparison was complete crap.

But you got the reaction you wanted, though. Congrats! Way to raise the tone!

I explained why your desperate attempt to portray this the same as "hate the sin, not the sinner" falls miserably short, as have others. Sorry it didn't work out for you. Nice try, though.

[rug]

77. Lol, YOU are blaiming HIM for lowering the tone?

[LTX]

48. Your point is well taken. Do not expect, however,

any acknowledgement of that from the correspondents you have addressed. Where the systemic belief is sui generis rationality, every critical appraisal must be dismissed as irrational.

[trotsky]

50. By opposing believers who think homosexuality is wrong,

I guess that makes me bigoted against homophobes. It's a tough burden, but I'll learn to live with it.

You can defend and respect their beliefs if you want, I guess. I won't.

[Act_of_Reparation]

52. I don't see that at all.

Nothing is being dismissed.

What we have is an analogy--that "criticize the belief, not the believer" is roughly the same as "hate the sin, not the sinner"--and posters disputing the analogy's strength.

I don't feel it is particularly relevant myself, because there are notable dissimilarities between believing something is "stupid" and believing something is a "sin". Plenty of people believe stupid things, and are criticized routinely, even by the very people on this forum who say criticizing religious belief is a form of bigotry. "Sin", however, is a completely different concept. It doesn't refer to the quality of a proposition, but to an individual's moral character. It is not as readily separable from the person as is stupidity. One may believe something stupid for any number of reasons, many of which may be external and environmental in nature; but "sin" is a product of deliberate action, according to the tenets of the religion in question.

The word "sinner" itself carries that connotation. So, a more appropriate analogy would be "Hate the idiocy, not the idiot".

But it is still not ideal, as, again, there may be any number of reasons why a person may not be shining example of intellect or common sense. Sin, meanwhile, is always the sinner's fault.

[rug]

19. What about "You're stupid to believe"?

Or, with the usual passive-aggressive panache, "Stupid (deluded, fearful, immature, etc.) people believe."

[beam me up scottie]

14. Yep. And mocking beliefs is done by all here.

Look at how the chronically poutraged laugh at creationists, scientologists and mormons.

[Warpy]

59. The problem is that all beliefs look equally nutty when questioned.

That's why believers resent those of us who question them so much.

Questions strike at the core of something they rely on to keep them safe when the world goes crazy.

While I do sympathize with them and wish to avoid making other people uncomfortable, trying to end a discussion by "because god did it" just doesn't work as well as it used to and is no longer a justification for any of the bigotries out there.

[cbayer]

55. This is so one-sided.

People on both sides of this argument might attack the person and not their opinion or their belief. It's this tendency to see one side as at fault and the other as without fault that causes the most problems.

see: Religion Forum

[skepticscott]

60. No, what causes the most problems

are people who claim that just because neither side of a claim or argument can prove their case to an absolute certainty that both sides are equally valid. That's codswallop.

[unblock]

2. my 8-year old would cry, "<gasp>! they both used the 's'-word!"

[Htom Sirveaux]

21. That's really cute.

[djean111]

4. Both.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Neither.

Final answer.

Did I win the $10K?

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. If blame must be placed ...

and the text represents the entirety of the exchange ... I would place more "wrong" on the atheist. Knowing that he/she believe(s) differently, why would he/she feel compelled to broach the topic? Had he/she not commented, there would have been no response.

[skepticscott]

8. In this exchange, who has done something wrong?

Alleged atheist: It's wrong and childish and bigoted to mock other people's deeply held beliefs

Same alleged atheist: I spent my vacation laughing at someone else's sacred religious text

Same alleged atheist: Creationists are a bunch of dumbasses

Hypocrisy and dishonesty are wrong. Scolding and upbraiding others for what you do yourself is wrong. Giving deference to offense and hurt feelings rather than freedom of speech and action is wrong.

Btw, do you have any specific atheists here in mind who've been saying "your beliefs are stupid" with no context or argument, or is this just a general picture of atheists that you're attempting to paint? Because you're getting very close to broad-brushing.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. Total hypothetical, not an accusation. nt

[skepticscott]

10. Nothing is totally hypothetical

Unless the notion that an atheist would say "your beliefs are stupid" is something you just pulled out of thin air.

Somehow, I doubt it.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Both are valid opinions

If religious people didn't use their influence to force the rest of us to live by their rules or persecute others I wouldn't give a shit.

[hrmjustin]

13. The first more than the second but both.

It would be better to say I don't believe what you believe and I just don't get how you do. Lets talk.

The second continues it.

Now if that was reversed I would say the same thing.

[longship]

17. I had religious door knockers last Sunday afternoon.

Two women, one with Bible in hand telling me that they wanted to talk about the Bible. Normally I am very polite with these people. I will sometimes engage them in discussion, adversarily yet always cordially. But I was busy at the time and did not want to engage. Normally I would just politely tell them that. But when I did, one of the women asked, "Do you know where the Jews came from?"

That was enough. I responded, quite incredulously, "What!?" Then told them, "Please leave now. I am an atheist. You are not welcome here." Confessing my atheism is not something I normally do with the door knocking religious. But the Jews remark pissed me off.

I later regretted not engaging them. It would have been interesting to challenge them, especially about where they thought the Jews came from. No doubt they were Christians -- Bible in hand -- yet they apparently did not know that Jesus was allegedly a Jew.

I wonder if they were Jehovah Witness. I have had more than a few Mormon door knockers -- always male pairs, dressed alike, like the Bobsey twins -- and a few miscellaneous others. But I have never had anybody malign Jews. Interesting.

[hrmjustin]

20. I rarely catch any at my door anymore.

When I was in my early 20's I corrupted two Mormons who came to the door. Fun experience.

I rarely get people coming to my door to sell me religion but if they do I saw I got Jesus and I am gay. Sometimes they go away and sometimes they tell me to repent or Iwill burn. At that point I tell them to go to hell.

[longship]

22. Corrupting Mormons has got to be good sport.

But they always come in pairs, no doubt deliberately. (One always carries a hammer to knock the other unconscious if any blasphemy is uttered.) Plus, they have their magic underwear as backup.

I have occasionally made sport with them. I start with the fact that Joseph Smith had been convicted of fraud before he conveniently found the golden plates. Oh, and the seeing stones which only he was to use. Also very convenient. Lots of conveniences with that guy. Just like L. Ron Hubbard.

Both of them invented religions out of whole cloth.

[hrmjustin]

23. They were both easily corruptable.

The eventually became a couple and live here in Brooklyn.

[longship]

25. I take it that they were both guys.

(The only way Mormons travel -- two guys.)

I presume there's a really interesting story behind what you posted. I won't pry, but there may be a novel in it.


As always.

[hrmjustin]

27. Lol it was the last thing I expected.

[Cartoonist]

16. Insufficient evidence

Lousy example.
What was said just prior to the exchange?

Religious person: I believe in a loving and just God that would wipe out everyone on Earth with a great flood.
Atheist:Your beliefs are stupid.
Religious person: Waaaaaaahhhhh. I'm rubber, you're glue . . .

[cbayer]

56. Here's another example.

Non-religious person: I think your beliefs are delusional and represent a lack of the ability to think rationally.

Religious person: You beliefs are bigoted.

Non-religious person: Waaaaaahhhhh. I'm rubber, you're glue . . .

[Gore1FL]

78. That would probably go more like this:

Non-religious person: I think your beliefs are delusional and represent a lack of the ability to think rationally.

Religious person: You beliefs are bigoted.

Non-religious person: We've already established your beliefs are delusional and represent a lack of the ability to think rationally, therefore I don't care what you think.

[cbayer]

79. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Both people being total jerks.

Not the path I want to go down, but there are certainly those that do.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Define 'wrong'?

I'd say it depends upon the goals of each individual. From the perspective of anyone attempting to create any change, both are 'doing wrong', because they're using rhetoric that simply blocks communication, rather than leaving any door open for either to alter the beliefs of the other.

[Dont call me Shirley]

29. The answer depends on the meaning of the word stupid and it's nuances.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. The person crafting the scenario.

Because you can't tell me the first line is the actual starting point of that conversation.


An observation, something I particularly enjoy.


Religious people here want space, and respect for their beliefs, at the suppression/rejection of any belief that their beliefs are nonsense or ridiculous.

And on the other hand, they are unwilling to entertain MY beliefs outright. (That their religious beliefs are nonsense or ridiculous)


Their belief gets a pass, mine does not. This does not encourage me to be polite or friendly.

[trotsky]

32. Best response. n/t

[edhopper]

33. Who is wrong in these totally hypothetical, unbiased exchanges

Religious person: "You're going to Hell you fucking non-believing blasphemer!"
Atheist: "I don't believe in Hell."

Religious person: "You are a bigoted asshole for questioning my beliefs."
Atheist: "I thought you wanted a conversation."

Isn't this fun?

[skepticscott]

34. Or how about

Alleged atheist: I hate all of you bigoted atheists!

Atheist: Show me evidence that I'm a bigot

Alleged atheist: It's obvious..you just are. Now STFU and go away so that the nice atheists can have a civil conversation.

All totally hypothetical, of course. Discuss.

[edhopper]

35. Shouldn't that be

"You can't make comments on other people's beliefs."

[trotsky]

36. Followed by...

"Well *I* can, including relating how I've laughed at the Mormon holy book."

[Htom Sirveaux]

40. Are you suggesting that the exchange I posted was biased?

If so, how was it biased?

[edhopper]

41. You started with an insulting statement

from the atheist.

It wasn't the atheist questioning the believer or challenging the beliefs. It was just an insulting remark.

I would feel the same if the believer said "Your atheism is stupid."


What was your point?

[Htom Sirveaux]

43. My point? To get people's

intuitions about a situation where both the atheist and theist judge each other's beliefs negatively to the same degree.

But what I'm hearing is that you and some of the other atheists responding to the thread seem to think that I've unfairly maligned the hypothetical atheist by making him/her insulting first to the believer.

And I find that very interesting, and in opposition to the idea Trotsky suggested above, that beliefs aren't entitled any respect, and that you can't be bigoted towards a person as long as you limit your discussion to the person's beliefs. Your response appears to be that an negative comment on the belief IS an insult to the person, and makes the atheist look bad.

[edhopper]

45. It's one thing to judge a belief negatively.

It's another to be outright insulting without instigation.
Since you offered no preliminary talk, one assumes the atheist started by saying the beliefs were stupid.

The atheist could have said:
"I find your beliefs have foundation in reality"
"I don't think there is any evidence to support you beliefs"
"Your beliefs are contrary to what we know about the Universe"
And so on.

These challenge the beliefs and are strong statements.

Yours is a childish insult.

Maybe you should rethink what you were trying to say and how you said it.

[skepticscott]

46. Um...no...that's not what you did

You concocted a scenario wherein the atheist attacks and insults the religionist out of the blue, with no context, and the religionist defends themself. If you consider those equal, then you're either deeply dishonest or hopelessly biased.

[cbayer]

57. Yeah, because that's the way the conversations always go.

Non-believer: I'm going to bring up a couple of examples of really extreme behavior and statements by believers to make the case for how you are all horrible and "we" are just reasonable and rational.

Religious person: I don't believe that this represents the behavior of most religious people. I thought you wanted a conversation?

Isn't this fun?

[edhopper]

61. My response was meant to be biased toward the atheist

I don't think a believer would really start a discussion like that.

I also don't think an atheist would open a talk with "your stupid"


I was trying to point out how poorly the OP's attempt at whatever point he was trying to make.

[cbayer]

68. I think the chance of someone opening a conversation with "your stupid"

is equally probably with an atheist or a theist. It's about the individual, not their religious position.

I think, but could be mistaken, that the OP was trying to make the point that both sides of this debate are equally culpable when it comes to being uncivil or insulting or just rude.

It is very possible to say, "I don't agree" without insulting or attacking someone.

[edhopper]

69. The OP didn't do a good job of

making any point

That is my point.

And he doesn't seem to want to explain himself either.

[cbayer]

70. That's ok.

My takeaway was that calling people or their beliefs or their opinions is a conversation killer.

I understand that some people felt it was targeted at one group in particular, so perhaps there could have been better wording.

But overall, I think it was a decent point.

IIRC, you have sometimes posed questions that were not received well by others. It's hard to get it exactly right.

[edhopper]

71. Yes

And then I try to make it clearer.

OP did not.

[skepticscott]

66. And as usual, the religionista

invents the lie that the atheist is saying "ALL religious people are this bad" instead of honestly representing their point as "religious beliefs motivate hate and violence in some people, that wouldn't happen otherwise". And then uses the lame accusation of "broad-brushing" to try to pretend that religion NEVER, EVER motivates such things.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. In the following exchange, who has done something wrong?

Theist 1: some assertion about how religion is all purple unicorn farts.
Atheist: some objection to that assertion.
Theist 2: "fuck you you fucking fuck".

Answer: the atheist, by his mere presence.

[trotsky]

38. I hereby rescind my declaration in post #32...

and apply it here instead.

Well done, sir. Well fucking done.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Hey maaaaan, I EARNED that...

[LeftishBrit]

39. Both if one's a stickler for manners, but not very seriously

People say other people's opinions are 'stupid' all the time, about everything from food to music to sports.

[Iggo]

49. Who's wrong here?

Religionist: Atheists are going to burn in hell.
Atheist: Have a nice day.

(Hint: The answer is never the Religionist.)

[cbayer]

58. Never the religionist? That's as silly as saying the answer is never the atheist.

People on both sides of this fence can be equally aggressive and ugly or they can be equally understanding and tolerant.

One is not on a higher road than the other.

[skepticscott]

74. That's only true

for people who don't care about the truth. A factor that always seems to be omitted from your consideration.

[hrmjustin]

51. Lookz like you touched a nerve with this question.

[edhopper]

62. No

looks like he posted a biased and poorly thought out "hypothetical" tin the guise of an innocent question.

If this is an unbiased post, why would it "touch a nerve? It seem you agree it is slanted against atheists.

[hrmjustin]

63. I think the point was to see what peopke thought if an atheist said that.

The real answer is it depends what was said before that. The responses were predictable.

[edhopper]

64. He did not say anything went before in other posts.

and implied that the breath of the conversation.

As i said, poorly thought out.

[hrmjustin]

65. Well we disagree but I understand where you are coming from.

[edhopper]

67. Okay

[cbayer]

54. Not necessarily wrong, but not very nice.

People like to make the distinction that saying ideas or opinions are stupid are different than saying an individual is stupid, but the line is not always that bright.

At any rate, I do see a difference between saying your beliefs/opinions are stupid and saying I disagree or don't share your beliefs/opinions.