# Arguing against/attacking religious/spiritual beliefs: when is it right/wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 10, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572 "2003-07-10T22:44:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/1 "2003-07-10T22:44:34Z")
My question is inspired my a recent LiveJournal post by an old friend. She has some fairly nonstandard spiritual beliefs; the best context I can give is that they are pagan/Native American in origin. It would take too long to explain, and I’m afraid doing so would be a red herring, especially since I cannot pretend to speak for her. Suffice it to say that they don’t require her to sacrifice puppies or anything, and they certainly don’t require her to prosletyze or convert; they’re too intensely personal (from individual to individual) for that. Well, apparently someone she didn’t know, out of the blue, wrote to her about them telling her, among other things, that the very idea of faith is a self-delusion and that her beliefs were “New Age fluff.” (I assume this writer is [self-proclaimed] atheist due to the comments on faith.) As you would guess from my thread title, this isn’t about this specific incident. My friend is very open about her spirituality, so I’m sure she knows that trollers will swing by occasionally, and I’m sure the atheists on this board would know that if you want to persuade someone out of their beliefs, this wouldn’t be the way to go about it. My question is, how do you determine whether and when to actively try to break down another person’s spiritual beliefs? Obviously, there are times when it’s generally agreed to be completely proper (cult), and some times that are more grey (fundamentalism and Scientology, though the latter may be closer to the cult situation in many eyes). So how do you, especially the atheists/agnostics, figure this out? Where are your boundaries? Where should those boundaries be? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/2 "2003-07-10T23:05:27Z")
For a Discordian, it is always proper, so long as it is funny. Witness [The Primer for Erisian Evangelists](http://www.geocities.com/erislover/principia/principia.html#00065): > [@](#): > > \_ \_ THE SOCRATIC APPROACH is most successful when confronting the ignorant. The “socratic approach” is what you call starting an argument by asking questions. You approach the innocent and simply ask “Did you know that God’s name is ERIS, and that He is a girl?” If he should answer “Yes.” then he probably is a fellow Erisian and so you can forget it. If he says “No.” then quickly proceed to: > > \_ \_ THE BLIND ASSERTION and say “Well, He Is a girl, and His name is ERIS!” Shrewedly observe if the subject is convinced. If he is, swear him into the Legion of Dynamic Discord before he changes his mind. If he does not appear convinced, then proceed to: > > \_ \_ THE FAITH BIT: “But you must have Faith! All is lost without Faith! I sure feel sorry for you if you don’t have Faith.” And then add: > > \_ \_ THE ARGUMENT BY FEAR and in an ominous voice ask “Do you know what happens to those who deny Goddess?” If he hesitates, don’t tell him that he will surely be reincarnated as a precious Mao Button and distributed to the poor in the Region of Thud (which would be a mean thing to say), just shake your head sadly and, while wiping a tear from your eye, go to: > > \_ \_ THE FIRST CLAUSE PLOY wherein you point to all of the discord and confusion in the world and exclaim “Well who the hell do you think did all of this, wise guy?” If he says, “Nobody, just impersonal forces.” then quickly respond with: > > \_ \_ THE ARGUMENT BY SEMANTICAL GYMNASTICS and say that he is absolutely right, and that those impersonal forces are female and that Her name is ERIS. If he, wonder of wonders, still remains obstinate, then finally resort to: > > \_ \_ THE FIGURATIVE SYMBOLISM DODGE and confide that sophisticated people like himself recognize that Eris is a Figurative Symbol for an Ineffable Metaphysical Reality and that The Erisian Movement is really more like a poem than like a science and that he is liable to be turned into a Precious Mao Button and Distributed to The Poor in The Region of Thud if he does not get hip. Then put him on your mailing list. To be serious, though. Usually I approach the subject with anyone who indicates a strong religious preference and is willing to use it in some manner in the conversation, or as a method for judgment, et cetera. I consider it open game when anyone brings the subject up, but as a matter of course I never bring it up myself. If someone just offhandedly indicates their beliefs then I just let it go. I figure that is decent enough, I know I don’t like my beliefs being challenged randomly, but if I make decisions or judgments based on those beliefs then I figure it is fair play to challenge those appropriately. ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/3 "2003-07-10T23:09:12Z")
I don’t bash the beliefs of others so long as they do not bash me or mine. This would include indirect degradation (i.e. persistent proselytising once they know I’m not interested), but very little else within the grey area. If you want to believe God is a small duck sitting on your head, hey you go for it. I try to not even bash those you say are okay (cults, Scientology…) until they cross my line. Sometimes I fail, but I try to remain as consistent as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/4 "2003-07-10T23:13:22Z")
Outside of debate forums like this, IMHO, it’s rarely appropriate unless: a) these beliefs seem to be causing actions that are harming other people (in which case I’m still more likely to focus on the actions rather than the beliefs) I’m very loathe to judge when beliefs are harming the believer: again, it seems much more appropriate to question the hurtful things directly before concluding that the beliefs are absolutely the things to blame b) someone is trying to make claims in a pretty assertive way to make a point or argue for something, different from simply explaining themselves in the spirit of mutual understanding or in the course of their lives. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/5 "2003-07-10T23:22:41Z")
> [@](#): > > My question is, how do you determine whether and when to actively try to break down another person’s spiritual beliefs? Never. It is the summum of arrogance and barbarism to try to break down an other person’s belief. > [@](#): > > Obviously, there are times when it’s generally agreed to be completely proper (cult) Those who are member of a cultsect don’t “believe”. They are brainwashed in a way that prevents normal perspective and reasoning. You can’t compare that with the belief of your friend as you describe it. > [@](#): > > and some times that are more grey (fundamentalism and Scientology, though the latter may be closer to the cult situation in many eyes). It depends how you percieve “fundamentalism”. Because when you compare their “belief” with what the religion they follow really means, you shall discover that they are brainwashed with interpretations who are in opposition with the foundations of the religion itself. I’m not familiar with what you describe as “scientology”, so I can’t give an opinion about that. > [@](#): > > So how do you, especially the atheists/agnostics, figure this out? Where are your boundaries? Where should those boundaries be? The limit is what is meant by the word respect. Salaam. A. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/6 "2003-07-11T00:05:12Z")
I personally have never found attack or deliberate breakdown attempts to be good for anything much in the way of changing anyone’s mind. I usually just stick with a)assuming the other person is reasonably intelligent, and treating them that way, and b) having friendly (or at least civil) conversations about our different ideas. From there, I would progress to recommending or giving reading material, or inviting the person to accompany me to something. Civility and discussion that aims to expand knowledge on both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/7 "2003-07-11T01:20:04Z")
I think the simplistic distinction you are drawing between “brainwashing” and “belief” is convienient bullplop. Belief is belief is belief. ---
**Author:** ![nisosbar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@nisosbar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nisosbar)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/8 "2003-07-11T01:42:56Z")
If religion is based on faith, i.e., just believing, then how can someone who “believes” that religion say truly that they have come to that belief based upon sound reasoning, and how can you expect to reason with someone that their beliefs are wrong if their religion is based on faith? You can’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/9 "2003-07-11T02:16:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nisosbar \* > \*\*If religion is based on faith, i.e., just believing, … \*\* Good grief. Not this again! That’s NOT what fiath is, friend. Faith isn’t “just believing.” Faith means belief without proof, but that’s not at all the same as “just believing.” In fact, Christianity cautions strongly against such blind faith. St. Peter urged everyone to [be prepared to offered reasoned arguments for their beliefs](http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=1+Peter+3%3A15&version=NIV). The Apostle Paul [reasoned with Jews and Gentiles on a daily basis](http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Acts+17%3A17&version=NIV), and Matthew [repeatedly appealed to messianic prophecies and the Old Testament law](http://www.olive-tree.net/comingglory/Bible%20Structures/jewsfirst%201.htm) in his writings. Now, one might disagree with the arguments used by Peter, Paul, Matthew and company, but the point remains: They did not ask people to “just believe,” and their actions clearly indicated that they expected more than mere blind faith. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/10 "2003-07-11T02:17:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priam \* > \*\*I don’t bash the beliefs of others so long as they do not bash me or mine. \*\* What about someone who believes that it’s sometimes necessary to bash other beliefs? Are you suggesting that they’re wrong to do so? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/11 "2003-07-11T02:19:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\* It is the summum of arrogance and barbarism to try to break down an other person’s belief. \*\* Hmm. Sounds to me like you’re bashing people who believe that it’s appropriate to criticize other beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/12 "2003-07-11T17:19:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > **Never. It is the summum of arrogance and barbarism to try to break down an other person’s belief.** What’s your opinion on religious missionaries? Surely they are trying to break down another person’s belief – and replace it with their own. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/13 "2003-07-11T18:19:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Leaper \* > (I assume this writer is [self-proclaimed] atheist due to the comments on faith.) Not sure why you deemed it necessary to point this out; it’s not really relevant. Prosyletizers come in all shapes and sizes. > [@](#): > > My question is, how do you determine whether and when to actively try to break down another person’s spiritual beliefs? Never. Unless they bring up the subject and insist on discussing it, then I don’t have a problem with explaining _my_ beliefs and, if the conversation goes that way, explaining why I think their beliefs are mistaken. And of course, I consider starting a debate on religion in a forum like this to be an invitation to discuss it as well. But I would never bring it up out of the blue (or at least I _try_ not to). > [@](#): > > Obviously, there are times when it’s generally agreed to be completely proper (cult), and some times that are more grey (fundamentalism and Scientology, though the latter may be closer to the cult situation in many eyes). So how do you, especially the atheists/agnostics, figure this out? Where are your boundaries? Where should those boundaries be? Well, since you’re asking, I personally don’t consider “mainstream” religions to have any more truth to them than what you are calling “cults”. From my point of view, it’s all unfounded belief. So I don’t see how offering my unsolicited opinion to a Scientologist is any better or worse than doing the same to a Jew or a Christian. In short, the boundary is “don’t _ever_ do it”. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/14 "2003-07-11T19:52:01Z")
Personally, I tend towards a belief that proselytising is morally wrong, period. I don’t care what the belief being pushed is; I don’t accept proselytisation from Christians _or_ atheists (adjectives associated with individuals from whom I’ve seen it most often), nor do I accept the sort of inverse proselytisation that seems most common in pagan circles (generally variants on “only brainwashed, blinkered people would believe that”). (I also don’t care if it’s a political belief that I’m being expected to convert to, or some other ideology that gets its equivalent of door-to-door godbotherers.) The entire attempt-to-convert attitude strikes me as being founded in a fundamental lack of respect for other people, lack of respect for their experiences and the conclusions they draw from them. I believe that those people who have a faith will have it informing their actions; so long as they’re clear that this is just their decision-tree, I don’t have any problems with it. When someone brings up their faith, though, as a reason that other people should do a thing, I expect them to have a much sounder basis than “My book says so”, because I do not acknowledge their book as a relevant authority. Likewise, I expect them to have a sounder basis than “My gut reaction is that it’s good/bad”, because I don’t accept their intestines as an authority either. (If I’m going to be taking moral advice from an appendix, it’s going to be _my_ appendix.) Someone who presents their private beliefs as evidence in a debate is placing them on a public level, and introducing them as facts. As such, those beliefs are now legitimately exposed to opposing evidence. Someone who just happens to have beliefs has not introduced them to a debate. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/15 "2003-07-11T21:00:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lilairen \* > \*\*Personally, I tend towards a belief that proselytising is morally wrong, period. I don’t care what the belief being pushed is; I don’t accept proselytisation from Christians _or_ atheists … \*\* Wait a minute. So you’re saying that it’s morally wrong to attempt to change someone’s moral beliefs? Is that your moral belief in this matter? Are you attempting to change the beliefs of those who say otherwise? Your statement does, after all, emphatically declare their actions to be “morally wrong, period.” ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/16 "2003-07-11T21:07:49Z")
Because, of course, holding a belief is equivalent to saying that other people should hold it too! Jehosephat. Where did I leave my :rolleyes:. Put the straw man away, **JThunder**. Getting hay in your clothes will just make you itchy and irritable. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/17 "2003-07-12T01:14:39Z")
**Liliaren** , you’re saying that it’s _morally wrong_ to attempt to change someone’s beliefs. Are you now saying that this law only applies to yourself, and not to other people? Look, if you’re going to claim that the action is _morally wrong_, then it transcends mere personal preference. That should be obvious. Let me ask you this directly. Are you saying that it’s wrong for people to change other people’s moral beliefs? Or are you saying that it’s only wrong for _you_ to do so, and that there’s no obligation for others to abide by that principle? If the latter is true, then you really can’t criticize other peopel for proselytizing now, can you? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/18 "2003-07-12T03:30:18Z")
I believe it’s right for people to change other people’s beliefs whenever they like. **Liliaren** must therefore not attempt to persuade me otherwise. 🙂 Oh, **JThunder** : Faith still requires that people put the conclusion before the logical proof that should result in it. Being able to offer a “justification” for the belief doesn’t mean that belief is valid. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/19 "2003-07-12T04:00:54Z")
I am saying that I believe that proselytisation is morally wrong. I am also saying that other people have no obligation to abide by my morals. They are, in fact, entirely free to do things that will cause me to think less of them; I am not going to attempt to persuade them otherwise. Someone who proselytises at me is certainly not interested in _my_ beliefs in the first place; why should I waste everyone’s time? The OP asked for opinions. I gave mine. ---
**Author:** ![Panzerfaust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecc23a/32.png) [@Panzerfaust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Panzerfaust)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572/20 "2003-07-12T04:30:01Z")
Totally outside of any moral judgements, I find it’s purely in bad taste to “convert”. And since there’s no accounting for taste, as the saying goes, all may feel free, and I’ll sneer and make terrible jokes until I’m left alone. This goes double for me – whenever I find myself getting caught up in trying to convert someone to my own philosophical leanings (model agnosticism), I do enough sneering at myself for everyone involved. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-attacking-religious-spiritual-beliefs-when-is-it-right-wrong/187572.md?page=2)