# Is It Ethical To 'Correct' Religious Folks?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 22, 2021, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483 "2021-12-22T16:41:17Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@lum\_s\_husband](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lum_s_husband)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2021, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/61 "2021-12-24T14:29:35Z")
A coin has an opposite side, but is not a sphere. So opposite side and flat are not in opposition.
---
### Author:  [@damarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damarp)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2021, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/62 "2021-12-24T14:30:56Z")
> [@Mijin](#):
>
> book of obvious myths f
More accurately, a book of ancient Hebrew folklore.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2021, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/63 "2021-12-24T14:39:14Z")
> [@lum\_s\_husband](#):
>
> A coin has an opposite side, but is not a sphere. So opposite side and flat are not in opposition.
Flat earthers don’t think there is an opposite side, and Dante and Virgil went through the center of the earth to get to Purgatory.
IIRC Gould had an article saying that a couple of monks at the time of Columbus claimed the earth was flat, but they were no more mainstream then than ferfers are today.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2021, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/64 "2021-12-24T14:40:27Z")
> [@damarp](#):
>
> More accurately, a book of ancient Hebrew folklore.
Myths are folklore, but regular folklore does not involve deities.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2021, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/65 "2021-12-24T16:14:16Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> Myths are folklore, but regular folklore does not involve deities.
What is “regular” folklore? My understanding is that folklore is an incredibly broad term which can absolutely encompass religious tradition.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2021, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/66 "2021-12-24T19:33:11Z")
Non myth-folklore. Folklore as whole definitely includes religious stories, but no one built a temple to Pecos Bill.
---
### Author:  [@damarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damarp)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2021, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/67 "2021-12-25T09:45:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> no one built a temple to Pecos Bill.
Your argument is fallacious. Re: The No True Scotsman” fallacy i.e
Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say “Ah, yes, but no **true** Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Obviously, the original assertion about Scotsmen has been challenged quite well. In attempting to shore it up, the speaker uses an _ad hoc_ change combined with a shifted meaning of the words from the original.
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2021, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/68 "2021-12-25T11:55:09Z")
This tangent came up because someone corrected me that the stories in the bible are _folklore_ not _myth_.
My personal position is that both words actually have loose enough definition to fit (also we could say the book contains a _mix_ of myth, folklore, poetry etc)
But regardless _it doesn’t matter_.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2021, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/69 "2021-12-27T18:27:47Z")
My position is that it is myth and folklore, and myth is a subset of folklore.
How No True Scotsman has anything to do with this is beyond me. It’s purely a matter of definition.
---
### Author:  [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2021, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/70 "2021-12-27T19:37:53Z")
> [@DavidNRockies](#):
>
> homophobia and other forms of bigotry _attributed to_ (but not generally _rooted in_ ) religious doctrine can do profound harm to decent people who are just trying to live their lives.
To any religion with anti-LGBTQ dogma, I have just one argument, the only argument I need:
**Respect my existence or expect my resistance.**
---
### Author:  [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2021, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/71 "2021-12-27T22:36:59Z")
I like it, but I would like it more if it were “Respect my existence or expect my voltage divided by current.”
Back To The OP
Your unlikely to convince a firm believer that there is no G-d, or that their positions on Great Debates style issues are wrong. You might have some success on factual questions. I once successfully convinced a fundie (the wife of a friend) that the ancient letter supposedly exposing the Jesuit’s plan to kill all protestants was a known fraud.
I often bring up that there are folk tales of Sodom and Gamorrah thousands of years old that are basically ‘They were so greedy and selfish that . . .’ and ‘They were so cruel and hard-hearted that . . .’ But, you don’t get any stories ‘they were so gay that . . .’ until Paul shows up. Further, all the great sages of Judaism agree that the sin for which the cities were destroyed was not sexual. The Talmud is very clear that they were destroyed for being ‘without loving kindness’ for basically being the opposite of Mr Rogers.
---
### Author:  [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2021, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/72 "2021-12-27T23:24:04Z")
> [@Johanna](#):
>
> I have just one argument, the only argument I need:
> **Respect my existence or expect my resistance.**
I like to imagine that your head shakes, and that you might snap your fingers, when you say this. ✊🏼
(And if I’m standing next to you, I’ll add a “mmmm, hmmmm” and give a stare while you walk away with your bad self)
---
### Author:  [@Wallaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallaby)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2021, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/73 "2021-12-27T23:27:32Z")
I don’t really care what interpretations or meanings people place on Biblical or other ‘holy’ works. They can say ‘The bible says so-and-so’ and that’s fine. It’s all made up, so they can say what they want. It’s like Star Wars fans pointing out meanings and subtleties in the films (and then having endless arguments about it).
But when they bring that into the real world (‘Hyperspace jumping means we can actually travel between stars!’ or ‘The earth was created 6000 years ago’) then I will debate. Ask them ‘What do you think and why’? If their answer is ‘Because bible (or George Lucas)…’ I would just point out that I have other evidence that may be in conflict with theirs.
---
### Author:  [@damarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damarp)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2021, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/74 "2021-12-28T12:15:26Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#):
>
> you aren’t going to combat it with a deluge of FACTS
Only if the party in question is somehow not conscious. Conscious human have shared experience. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience
> **[Fact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)**
>
> A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
> For example, "This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and "The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" b...
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2022, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/75 "2022-01-06T03:31:45Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#):
>
> For the homophobia, just point them to that clip from The West Wing where the President gives chapter and verse to a bible bigot, and dare them to watch it and then come back and comment.
This won’t have any impact on almost any believer.
Have you ever watched one of those The Atheist Experience videos on Youtube? The capability of the religious to believe contradictory things, or justify anything, is without limit.
---
### Author:  [@damarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damarp)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2022, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/76 "2022-01-06T11:25:54Z")
> [@Velocity](#):
>
> **Pride and “face” are enormous human motivators.**
Fair enough but, no amount of ‘Pride and Face’ can change reality. Facts MUST be paramount in order for a shared reality to exist.
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2022, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/77 "2022-01-06T14:04:44Z")
> [@damarp](#):
>
> Fair enough but, no amount of ‘Pride and Face’ can change reality. Facts MUST be paramount in order for a shared reality to exist.
Of course that’s true, but the point is that to convince someone of the facts, some approaches work and some do not.
---
### Author:  [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/78 "2022-01-07T02:46:26Z")
Hmm, I have successfully persuaded religious people that the Bible doesn’t equate abortion with murder, and that there’s no good Christian argument to condemn homosexuals, and various less emotional points of fact. I mean, I don’t bother trying if I am talking to someone who isn’t interested in what I might say. And I don’t say, “your religion is stupid”, or “you are stupid”, I only have that sort of discussions with people I respect, too.
But yeah, I’ve corrected religious people. And we remained friends, and I don’t think I did anything unethical.
---
### Author:  [@Jim\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_B)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/79 "2022-01-07T16:54:28Z")
I might as well add,
> **off-topic start**
>
> I have also made the argument of the anachronism. People in Biblical times believed that a man’s semen contained his ‘seed’, i.e., literally a fully formed baby. So any sex outside of heterosexual sex was tantamount to murder.
>
> But this still gets me in trouble with Biblical literalists. ‘The Bible doesn’t say that!’ they retort.
>
> BTW, if you want to see where the Bible clear _does_ say this, read about Onan in Genesis 38:9. (Yeah, the RC church still uses the term _Onanism_ to put the fear of G-d into people about masturbation 😉 🙂 .)
---
### Author:  [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2022, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483/80 "2022-01-07T17:09:10Z")
I might be misunderstanding you here. Onan’s sin wasn’t murder. It was trying to cheat the Lord in a real estate deal. G-d said to Onan 'Your brother has died without an heir. You’re gonna have sex with your brother’s wife. She will have a son. But that kid will be your brother’s heir, not yours." Now, it’s my considered opinion that if Onan had just said “No way, Lord!”, he would have lived. the standard response to “I am the Lord and you will be my prophet!” is in fact “No!”. Moses says “Pick somebody else!”. Jonah goes to great lengths to avoid going to Nineveh. But, Onan thinks he can cheat G-d. He tries to get the pleasure of sex with his sister in law, without fathering the child the Lord has commanded. This pisses the Lord off.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-correct-religious-folks/956483.md?page=5)