I agree that one can criticize an idea without passing judgement on those that subscribe to it. But I thought this thread was based on people passing judgement on people for subscribing to that idea.
I have no problem with anyone discussing an idea. My problem is with people that think it is all right to chastise, debase, or denigrate people for having that idea when that person is not there to defend themselves.
You know. …it makes me wonder if i could. …
I’m sure it isn’t good.
Either you or I have mis-read the OP, then. As I read it, two of the OPs acquaintances fell out over the exact question of whether you can ridicule an idea held by a person without simultaneously ridiculing the person in question.
Essentially as I see it, the question the OP addresses boils down to whether ascribing stupidity, naivete, etc to an idea is ascribing the same property to those that hold the idea. I come down firmly on the “no” side of this, and believe it is entirely proper and not reasonably interpretable as personally offensive to say “I think this belief that person X has is nonsense.” Circumstances may well dictate that the belief is nonetheless entirely understandable, such as in the case of a deceased child - but this does not change the fundamental quality (or lack of such) inherent to the belief itself.
That’s a good analysis. But I believe adding the “that person X has” makes it more gossiping than discussing. A bad idea or belief can be discussed without bringing in a person that subscribes to that idea or belief.
It depends on the variety. The ones who say, “Yes, the muscle fibers would be visible under a microscope” are idiots, and I would make gleeful fun of their lack of intelligence.
The ones who say, “It’s physical flesh, but you’ll never know it by scientific tests” are merely stating a faith-based opinion, and I don’t much get bothered.
If you say, “Prayer makes me feel better,” I’m cool. I’m happy for you. If you say, “Prayer cured my Aunt Clara’s cancer,” I think and say really harsh and condemnatory things.
Fair enough, but would you have the courage to say it to their faces, or would you wait until you were with other like minded individuals and then swap stories about the “dumb idiots” that you were aware of?
Meh. Depends on context, environment, etc. Some cocktail parties are hosted by genteel souls, who perform the same role as SDMB mods, and so I wouldn’t. Other places are more vigorous with the give-and-take, and if a Catholic started claiming that the Host displays muscle fibers under a microscope, I’d call him out on that as utter bullshit. (To begin with, does he imagine no one has ever actually looked?)
The first and obvious answer to the OP is that I don’t feel the need to raise objections to everyone’s beliefs.
There’s no more need for me to tell someone their beliefs are nonsense than there is to say their house looks like crap (OTOH, analogously, if I knew someone well enough and thought the criticism had a chance of being useful maybe I would delicately tell them).
If I’m provoked into it I will, but otherwise best not to raise something that will only cause conflict.
But additionally on this point:
I think ruling out particular kinds of claim is unnecessary, and only gives fuel to the idea of “atheism is a belief too!” or whatever.
It’s simpler just to say that I don’t believe claims without good grounds. And that the more extraordinary a claim is, the more evidence needs to be presented (because essentially “extraordinary” in this context means contrary to current evidence).
(replying to myself)
Actually the “extraordinary evidence” thing can also be used by believers as proof that skeptics set an impossibly high bar for belief. So I should avoid that terminology.
All I mean is, “a friend of a friend reckons he saw” is insufficient to overturn centuries of empirical data, especially where there are simpler explanations.
This is very well put. Thank you. It was interesting (and volatile) how differently ostensibly like-minded people could parse that proposition.
My sibs and I were all raised Catholic. I’m the only one who firmly rejected it, tho all 3 sibs seem to practice a “cafeteria” version that would have been deemed heresy way back when. The other day my oldest sib and I were discussing movies including Spotlight. Her hub is a fervent believer. She said something like, “If we truly believed that the host became the body of Christ, then oughtn’t we prostrate ourselves? A simple sign of the cross seems inadequate.” I just found that interesting.
Yet you made the effort to talk some ugly shit on her here when you don’t even know her. What, exactly, was our take away point supposed to be?
FTR, I am an atheist and a rationalist. I avoid discussing the failings of the religious and other magical thinkers with my fellow atheists and rationalists. “We’re so much smarter than they are” circle jerks are still circle jerks.
I’m a mellowed formerly-militant atheist. I give all religious thinking a break. If you have to believe in something greater than yourself to get you through the day, then by all means have at it.
I generally only criticize religion when it intersects with government policy. I wish politicians would shut up about it and stop trying to legislate it.
One more thing, re: references to slagging on religion as “circle jerk.”
Yeah, a lot of that goes on, but this atheist also feels there is a need for occasional discussion of how a nonbeliever ought best conduct themselves in a society that is often hostile - or at least insensitive - to our philosophy. I often feel I am more concerned with how I politely interact with believers, than they are concerned about interacting with me. Or it might be valid to question whether we perceive any trends occurring relative to rationalism/secular thinking or religious belief/practice/expression.
In such instances, it is generally useful to identify specific statements or actions that caused the nonbeliever concern. However, after several decades of firm disbelief, I generally feel such comments are unnecessary, or if expressed, merit little response/elaboration. As with the board, progress is taking longer than hoped. 
They get to feel superior about themselves.
There has been, it seems to me, a troubling trend these days. That trend is to judge people on their beliefs (and at times, assigned beliefs*) and not their actions.
You say the believers weren’t pushy. Are they doing anything concrete that affects your life? Do their beliefs hurt anyone? For the woman who believes that a rainbow was a sign from her daughter, did that belief cause any sort of problem?
Now, if the person who believes that you can pray a steel rosary into gold spent all day, every day praying over the rosary and abdicated all their responsibilities in the belief that the rosary would turn to gold, yeah, that is worthy of criticism. However, if the belief doesn’t negatively affect anyone, who cares?
All too often these days we are quick to judge the beliefs of other people and not the actual actions of the people. Mother Teresa didn’t suck because she believed in god. Mother Teresa sucked because she glorified suffering instead of relieving it when she had ample opportunity to help the poor.
Look at what people do, not what they say. That way you don’t have to worry about it.
Slee
*Assigned beliefs happen a lot, particularly in politics. “<Insert political party here> is against x because they believe <insert group here> are evil/stupid/whatever”.
That only a really stupid person believes that rosary beads transmute from base metals to gold. Really dumb shits. Morons. Clamhangers. Unable to walk and chew gum. People who need to have “hilt” and “blade” labels on their kitchen knives. Dummies. Dolts.
I don’t know Ted Cruz, either, but I’m perfectly comfortable saying rude things about his beliefs.
What, exactly, is your point here?
Don’t overlook the possibility (I’ll put it down as a fact) that we actually are superior.
Isn’t that special?
Just skimming, I don’t see how Ted Cruz or Holocaust denial has fuckall to do with magical or woo thinking. Can’t you people help yourself arguing that shit?
Personally, it’s only very occasionally that someone’s religious/woo beliefs insult my intelligence enough to make me annoyed. “My pastor said not to explore hypotheticals” gets under my skin a lot more than “jesus came back to save us”. Most of the time it’s a big “who cares?” since the religious beliefs are just background noise/bullshit justification for real world beliefs.