How should we determine the difference between a religious opinion and a non-religious opinion?

[ZombieHorde]

If we want to respect someone's religious opinions, but argue against their non-religious opinions, then we need to know how to separate the two. What method should we use to determine the category of each opinion?

[SheilaT]

1. That can be tricky because a lot of religious people do not themselves distinguish

between religious and non-religious opinion. For example the whole anti-evolution thing on the part of religious folk. They honestly do not get it that wanting to teach creationism is a religious thing. They are so abysmally ignorant of what science really is, that they think there's some kind of "debate" over the validity of evolution.

Essentially, I think, you need to call others out on any attempt to pass religious opinion off as non-religious.

[Ian David]

2. When someone with a religious title says it's a religious opinion.

And since I'm an ordained minister in The Universal Life Church, I hereby certify that as a religious opinion.

Also, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was a better show than 30 Rock.

-- Rev. Ian

[edhopper]

17. It was an interesting show

but too "inside". It insisted upon itself.
30 Rock is consistently hysterical. One of the few shows I laugh out loud while watching.

[Ian David]

36. Don't contradict my religious opinion, you anti-Ianaist. n/t

[edhopper]

37. You should Google

"Ianist"
apropos to this forum.

[eqfan592]

39. LOL!!! Awesome. (nt)

[rexcat]

3. I don't think you can in most instances...

but I take exception with the premise that there is a need to respect someone's religious opinions. I am not going to do that. On the other hand, I may or may not respect the person based on the past and current circumstances.

[snagglepuss]

4. Nail meets hammer. Furthermore not having respect for a belief, doesn't mean that one is

disrespecting the believer. If believers don't want their beliefs questioned than they should stay away from discussions.

[ZombieHorde]

13. "I take exception with the premise that there is a need to respect someone's religious opinions"

I wasn't trying to ask for respect, I was using the context of this board as a starting point for my OP.

I am wondering if the adjective "religious" can really be objectively added to an opinion. Can an opinion be religious?

[rexcat]

43. In that case...

I believe that anything that deals with religion is an opinion since, IMO, there are no "facts" when it comes to religious thinking, just opinions.

Please don't think that I was attacking your position in any way. There are a few on this board who think that if you question their beliefs you are being disrespectful. I also see this issue with my in-laws and in the community where I live. As far as my in-laws go I have a new descriptor for them, they are Santorum Catholics!

On edit: I am also not thinking as clearly as I could. I had a bad bicycle accident a couple of weeks ago and the painkillers are influencing my thinking. I just hope I don't have to have surgery on the damn shoulder since it is the same should I had replaced 2.5 years ago.

[cbayer]

5. This is how I see the difference (though I am likely to alter this after hearing others

speak to it).

A religious opinion is one that speaks to that which can neither be proven or disproven, like the existence of a god. I think there is a case to be made for respecting the opinions of others who see things differently or have different beliefs when one can not offer up either proof or disproof of them. Calling someone's beliefs or lack of beliefs stupid, delusional or false assumes that you have the truth, when you don't. If not disrespectful, it is at the very least rude and arrogant.

A non-religious opinion is one that speaks to that which can be proven or disproven. To claim that man was created as-is and evolution had no part in it may be based on religious teachings, but it is patently false and has been proven to be so. To call such beliefs stupid, delusional or false may be accurate statements.

Perhaps the terms religious and non-religious beliefs do not properly describe what we may be trying to differentiate here.

Does that make sense?

[dmallind]

6. Beliefs not subject to proof can easily be called delusional or stupid with perfect validity.

Nobody knows the results of the next election, but if I forecast a 500+ EV win for Romney, would that not be easily judged stupid, even without waiting for the results to prove me wrong? If I based my opinion on nothing more valid than a subjective premonition and wild guesswork about Mormon infiltration into the Illuminati switching the bluest of blue states, would that not be clearly delusional without getting an Illuminati internal directory?

[cbayer]

8. But I can offer proof that you are wrong (or very likely wrong) based on polling

data. While the evidence would not be definitive (and it rarely is), your forecast flies in the face of available data to the contrary.

So I would put your example squarely in the second category.

[ZombieHorde]

9. Creationism is usually considered a religious belief, but it opposses the evidence for evolution,

so it is OK to disrespect creationism?

[cbayer]

10. IMHO, yes.

I think if people continue to hold on to certain beliefs despite profound evidence to the contrary, then I don't think those beliefs merit any respect.

But the beliefs that can not or have not been disproven are different.

[cleanhippie]

38. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that beliefs that can or have not been PROVEN are different?

[edhopper]

18. Except

not being able to offer any proof, while not disproof, is good evidence against.
I find this "there is no evidence" argument very weak. And if the discussion is about religion itself, a valid point of dessent.

[cbayer]

21. I disagree, but the argument is circular and probably not worth pursuing.

If I can't prove something and you can't disprove it, we are at a stalemate.

You may disagree with my POV, but you can't say definitively that it is not true.

Rashomon. Given the same experience, individuals will report wildly different *facts*. Who really experienced the truth?

[darkstar3]

23. If you can't prove something, why claim it?

[cbayer]

24. Claim what? Can not someone claim that they have a religious belief without

having to prove it?

Does everything have to be proven to be real. Can you prove to me that you love your spouse or your children? Can you prove to me that you don't have murderous thoughts?

You claim to be an atheist. Can you prove it?

[darkstar3]

28. I was speaking in general.

"Does everything have to be proven to be real?" No, and I never said that. What I said is that if you can't prove something, then you shouldn't claim it as truth or fact.

[cbayer]

31. What have I claimed as truth or fact?

If you are speaking of fundamentalists who make those claims, then we share the same feeling. If you are speaking generally of people of faith, you are throwing too big a net because you include those that wouldn't claim fact or truth, just belief.

And if you are speaking of me, I will point out again that you don't know what I think is truth or fact. As I haven't claimed that anything in particular is truth or fact regarding my religious beliefs or lack of beliefs, I will assume you are not talking about me.

[darkstar3]

34. This started as a hypothetical and generalized discussion, from #18 on at least,

so drop the "personal" shit.

I said exactly what I mean. I was neither inexact nor unclear.

[edhopper]

32. Your belief is real

what you believe in might be false.

[cbayer]

35. Or not. who knows?

[edhopper]

40. I for one would not leave it at that

"who knows" is not an answer. There is a next question to ask, and one after that. The default of no evidence and nobody knows is that it isn't true unless some evidence or support is presented.
Since people have faith in things that are demonstrably not true, faith alone seems to be a very poor criteria for assuming something is true.

Your response "Or not, who knows?" is fine for an agnostic. But since you have stated that you believe in a supernatural force in the Universe, then in fact you are saying you know. For believers I do not see much difference in practice between them saying "I know something" and "I believe something". Except they don't have to defend what they believe.

[cbayer]

41. Where have I ever stated that I believe in a supernatural force in the Universe?

You won't find it because I have never said it.

So, I will reiterate - "Who knows?"

[edhopper]

42. Misremembered

your past posts or confused you with someone else, (hard to keep everyone straight at times)
My apologies.

But to answer your question: The Shadow knows.

[longship]

7. Isn't this another example of the demarcation problem?

What is the difference between science and pseudo-science? It is the same thing, IMHO.

E. G., Like others have said here, if a pastor says something in explicitly religious framing, that's religious. But if a person talks about the calculus, it clearly isn't.

The problem is in the grey areas. I imagine that philosophers could get into a real chair throwing debate on this. I would prefer to let it go and be happy with the likely fact that there is no clear line of demarcation.

Now, have I obfuscated enough?

[Jim__]

11. You believe that respecting someone's opinion means not arguing against it?

That's not at all what I mean by respect. I generally respect people's religious opinions but I've often argued against them. Arguing against them meaning telling people why I thought their opinion was not correct. But I didn't mock them for holding a particular opinion. It's really very easy. If you are discussing an issue with someone that you consider reasonably intelligent and they hold an opinion, the assumption should be that this reasonably intelligent person has some legitimate reason for holding the opinion. You are far more likely to change their mind about an opinion you disagree with if you discuss it with them rationally then if you try to ridicule something they believe.

Simply put, respect for someone's opinion should be the default position. Especially if you believe the person is reasonably intelligent. Under some conditions that respect may break down. My experience is that even when a reasonable person states an opinion that I find ridiculous, discussing it with them at least allows me to understand why they hold that opinion.

[ZombieHorde]

12. "You believe that respecting someone's opinion means not arguing against it?"

No, but the wording in my OP does suggest that opinion.

[cbayer]

14. Well said. Disagreeing with someone's opinion can be done with the utmost respect.

Or it can be done in a very rude, dismissive or ridiculing way.

There are those that want to definitively separate not respecting an idea from not respecting a person. Could this be because they want inexcusably rude behavior to be ok in one circumstance but not another?

[darkstar3]

15. And there are those that don't understand that their religious ideas are no more immune

from anything than any other type of ideas.

[cbayer]

16. Could you clarify. Not sure what you are saying.

[darkstar3]

19. Yes you are. Everyone on this forum has been down this road at least once.

It's a tone argument. If I find your ideas objectionable, and I disagree with them, it is attacking the messenger to tell me that I'm being disrespectful. Furthermore, the entire concept of respect and disrespect is applied by believers to religious ideas in an entirely different manner than it is applied to political or other ideas. It is even applied differently to different religions, or have you missed out on the Scientology bash-fests around the religion forums of DU2 and DU3?

Fallacy and hypocrisy provide no place in which to root your position.

[cbayer]

20. I don't agree with you and I am tired of people telling me that my

questions are disingenuous when they are asked in good faith.

[darkstar3]

22. I'm sorry, are you saying I'm being rude?

LOL

[cbayer]

25. You are more often presumptuous than rude, darkstar.

[darkstar3]

26. Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.

However you choose to say it, it's still a great way to illustrate my point above.

[cbayer]

27. You may retain your right to be disrespectful towards ideas while maintaining

that you are not being disrespectful towards the individual.

In the meantime, I will retain my right to tell you if I feel personally disrespected.

Then you can take it or leave it, and I can stay or walk away.

[darkstar3]

29. While you're retaining that "right",

just remember that shooting the messenger is neither discussion nor debate.

[cbayer]

30. You can say that again.

[darkstar3]

33. Believe me, I will. With what frequency I cannot be certain, but

as sure as water is wet I will be saying it again.

And again, and again...