Like I said, “semantics”.
Only, this is really worse, because you’re just making up a word to avoid having to self-apply a word you find distasteful.
I think Eureka and WhyNot gave pretty good answers to the OP’s first question. I’ll just add a couple things:
You can’t question my beliefs without knowing what they are. If you start with false assumptions about what I believe or why, you’re not going to get anywhere with me. If I tell you I’m a Christian, don’t assume I’m a mental clone of Jerry Falwell or Ned Flanders or the Sunday School teacher you had when you were nine.
It’s not fair for you to question my beliefs if you’re going to be completely and stubbornly closed-minded about your own beliefs and about whether mine are reasonable.
I generally leave other people’s religious beliefs alone, when they diverge markedly from my own. If I were to do otherwise, I’d probably be pursuing some sort of internal agenda, and not doing anyone any good. I’ll ask questions about what people believe, but I won’t try to raise any argument against it.
If someone has more or less the same beliefs as me, I may be more pushy, not because I have any interest in correcting them, but because I think I might learn something.
Occasionally, I’m a little more aggressive on boards than I would be face-to-face, but not very often.
Buddhist.
You’re making the unreasonable assumption that the existence of God should be experimentally provable. If you’re going to name-call on the strength of that, you should be aware that believers are going to take it as a sign of disrespect, and you should at least try to deal with that - rather than go right ahead and then protest innocence when offence is taken.
For me, first you’d have to find out what exactly it is that I do believe. I love having that conversation, so as long as you’re interested and engaged, I’ll be in a good enough mood that when you get around to questioning those beliefs, I’ll tolerate anything short of outright rudeness. The whole thing does need to be a conversation, though, not just two people stating things at each other.
I’m a fervent agnostic, a solitary eclectic wiccan, and a cultural Jew.
Again, who is name calling?
If you’re not going to call it illogical or irrational, don’t take it as name calling when someone says it is those things. WhyNot already dropped in the “arational”.
I’m not willing to entertain the distinction.
Your OP implies that religious beliefs are open to questioning. Believers are only willing to discuss beliefs so long as they exercise complete control over their comfort level. As soon as a Big Question arises, the discourse is ended by a Standard Cryptic Response. (SCR) A non-believer can certainly be polite when questioning religious belief, but the exercise is futile. No matter how gentle the initial probing, it will end badly.
Do you believe that a horoscope is an adequate predictor of your future?
“No.”
Do you believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth?
“Science has proven otherwise.”
Do you believe that wet hair causes colds?
“Of course not.”
Do you believe that there is an invisible, unquantifiable entity who is equally responsible for your suffering and for your good fortune?
“Well… that’s different.”
Why?
“It is Beyond Explanation.”
End of conversation.
Then don't be surprised when people shrug off your argument. Deliberately using a loaded word when there are plenty of alternative ways to make your point is nothing short of being acerbic. You may not see the need to treat believers with "kid gloves", but it is there nonetheless.Thanks for the replies so far, everyone.
If I can comment on Trunk’s argument, I think he’s missing the point. I do believe that some religious beliefs can be irrational or illogical. And it may be that that’s because those beliefs are irrational or illogical. But if i’m trying to be respectful, that can mean at times not pointing out these things, if that’s possible. When your goal is not to offend someone, it’s not your opinion of what’s insulting and what isn’t that matters, it’s theirs.
Second everything Acid Lamp and WhyNot have contributed.
Also, mentioning unicorns, sky pixies, spaghetti monster, etc. is a surefire way to get me, for one, to tune you out. Those are not arguments. They are taunts. There’s a big difference. If you can’t articulate your argument without resorting to name-calling, then I’m not wasting my time listening.
I’m Catholic.
This is just an intractable problem.
The problem is, there is no argument from the atheistic side. We’re not the one making fantastical claims. The burden of proof is on you, and any argument that you come up with must also address the potential existence of any fantastical being I came dream up. Essentially, it IS articulating an argument, by pointing out a crucial flaw in yours. A person really doesn’t have to articulate that. You kow what they’re getting at.
But, yes, like Revenant pointed out, I suppose there are nice ways to say it. But, if you’re going to rule out the ability to use words like “illogical”, then like I said. . .it’s just intractrable. We’re not coming at the issue from reconcilable points of view.
As long as you accept that some true statements cannot be proven, then I suspect we are fine.
I had biscotti for breakfast. Can I prove that? No, I had breakfast alone, and I cleaned up the crumbs. Nobody counted the biscotti last night, or noticed that any of them are missing. There is no way that I can prove that I ate the biscotti.
Is it true nonetheless that I ate one? Yes, it is. But it can’t be proven, even in principle.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, see, that’s all you really need to say to get the same point across. There’s no need to resort to “Nah nah nah nah nah, look at the dummy who believes in unicorns!”
Wrong. If YOU ask ME about my beliefs and then YOU take it upon yourself to argue that they are incorrect, then the burden is on YOU, not me.
Existence of a higher power is no more amenable to disproof than it is to proof. So it is no more defenisble (or indefensible) for atheists to say “God does not exist” then it is for believers to say “God exists.” So if you’re going to be so completely rigorous about the circumstances under which you will allow believers to express their belief in the existence of God in factual terms, I hope you will at least be intellectually honest enough to be equally rigorous about how and when you allow yourself to express your belief in the nonexistence of God in factual terms.
Again, the OP is specifically asking how a non-believer can question a believer about his/her religious beliefs and do so respectfully. It is not respectful to ask someone what they believe and then announce that what they believe is illogical or irrational, unless they’ve asked for your opinion.
I think astrology is a crock. But if I ask someone if they believe in it and they say yes, I’m not going to tell them they’re full of shit, because that would be rude.
See, I do not understand how a Christian can say something like “I think astrology is a crock”. Forget flying spaghetti monster. What criteria for existence does God meet that astrology doesn’t?
Relative to belief in God, astrology is practically Euclid’s 6th Axiom.
Actually, this only becomes an issue if one moves beyond the actual question posed by the OP.
If the OP desires to understand the beliefs of another, simply asking questions is the correct beginning. The answers to those questions will very likely lead to further questions to seek clarification that run the risk of sounding insulting. However, if the conversation has begun as a serious effort to draw forth responses, the notion of “burden of proof” has no validity in the discussion. There is no legitimate reason to ask why I believe in the FSM, only to respond “prove it” when I reply. If you want to know why I believe in the FSM, it is perfectly legitimate to ask what signs I have seen, texts I have read, emotions I have felt, or what other support I believe justifies my belief. It is not appropriate or legitimate to then exclaim “But that is wrong!” or to challenge me to “prove” the accuracy of my observations. I have not (in the scenario of the OP) sought you out to proselytize you, therefore I am under no obligation to establish the veracity of my claims. I am only compelled to explain my beliefs in the best way I am able for you to try to understand my position. There is no reason to insist that anyone is “right” or “wrong” if the initial raising of the issue was merely one of seeking information or understanding.
It is legitimate (in the proposed scenario) for you to say, “I do not understand how the FSM can be the creator when we know that semolina wheat was only developed in a particular century after earlier crops had led to cultivation.” It is not approporiate (in the proposed scenario) to say “You’re nuts! There was no coarse milled flour for millions of years and there is no evidence that any other planet even has the wheat that could be turned into spaghetti!”
In a different scenario, where I walk up to you wearing my best FSM T-shirt and begin to harangue you for not showing the proper devotion to the FSM, you are free to use any particular logical, rhetorical, or factual rebuttal that suits your fancy. However, that was not the proposal of the OP.
My religion: I have my own. It’s a form of pantheism, it includes an acknowledgement of the (viability of the) process of prayer, and of “revelation experiences”, and it carries with it its own epistemology and metaphysics. It does not revolve around an authoritative writing or spiritual central figure.
If you’re going to question my beliefs?
As others have already said, you have to listen. After I’ve written 3 posts of 5 paragraphs each explaining what I understand to be “prayer” and why I have chosen to affix that name to that process, I don’t wish to see the next post be “there’s no rational reason to believe that prayer works, they stayed just as sick when no one was praying for them”, or “gee I could do what you’re describing without leaving a single offering for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, what makes you think it has to be caused by prayer?”, etc
And if you’re asking me about my religion, I get to define or describe my terms and how I’m using them. I’ll try to explain each term before using it (whether it be a conventionally theistic term or not), after which point it would be nice not to have to expend two posts per page re-explaining that I don’t mean some other thing instead when I use those words or phrases.
Finally, you’ve got to be willing to reexamine some of your own concepts. You don’t get to walk into the thread using axioms that I don’t regard as axiomatic. If you tend to perceive the real world in terms of “objectivity”, “empirical evidence”, “proof”, “intrinsic meaning”, and “ockham’s razor”, expect to be asked to re-examine your perspective on all of that, not merely as it applies to “religion” but as it applies to meaning, existence, reality, and understanding in general. If you don’t feel so inclined, you aren’t really ready to ask the question.
Actually, it’s more “what criteria for existence does astrology assert it meets that God doesn’t assert”? Astrology purports to identify people’s personality types and to predict the future; those are testable and falsifiable assertions and IMO they have been proven not to be true. Same with psychic “phenomena”.
As a rational and logical person, I have no problem with the testable being put to the test. If you tell me you can levitate, let’s see you float, baby. But there’s no test for the existence of God, and believers (at least most Christians) believe the lack of proof is intentional. Y’know, the whole faith thing.
But, that’s not even so.
There have been countless theologians who have tried – and some think they’ve succeeded – to PROVE the existence of God, very notably St. Thomas Aquinas.
It’s certainly not a side-bar in the annals of Christianity.
I don’t know what current thinking is. Has the Pope said, “fuck it, we’re not even going to try to convince people anymore.”
Don’t ask questions based on all the stereotypes and rumors you hear, unless you preface it that way.
I’m Roman Catholic.