From one of my new favorite authors, Peter Boghossian. (I rate him with Dawkins and Hitchens and Stenger and . . . all our favs.)
From "A Manual for Creating Atheists".   

But I'm a little torn. Sure, I dream of a day when religion is classified as a mental illness.  I would love to see 95% of my 9-year-old
cousin's HS graduating class claim to be atheist. I would love to see a day, before I die, when nobody kills each other over who has
the RIGHT imaginary friend.  BUT . . . 

I have told many Xtians who were trying to change MY mind that it was disrespectful. That they were treating me as if I was not an
intelligent adult, quite capable of choosing my own beliefs, and that those beliefs were none of their business.

If I try to "debate" a religious person away from their religion, am I not committing the same act of disrespect?       

Not if its agreed upon beforehand to discuss the topic. That goes both ways. I wouldn't agree to debate a JW on a stage and yell "Get off my porch!"

Well, if the religionist brings up religion (and many of them do with great frequency), you will just be discussing a subject they chose to bring up.  How is that rude?  If they don't want to talk about religion, they should not bring it up.  And obviously they have no right to expect you to agree with whatever their opinion is on the subject.

It would be different if you start the subject.


As for your principle that it is disrespectful to try to change someone's mind, if you follow that idea, you will never want to say much of anything to anyone about anything.  Otherwise, you might change their mind about something.  You also won't want to listen to what others say, or they might change your mind about something.

What's wrong with changing people's minds?  I only see it as a problem if one uses improper methods or if someone's mind changes from being correct to being in error.

I really like the way that Anthony Magnabosco approaches street apistomology on his YT channel.

https://www.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210

He has some really good vids.

(July 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: ...I dream of a day when religion is classified as a mental illness.

The following passages from Swedenborg is relevant:

"...all intelligence and wisdom, are from the Lord; and that all shade, consequently all insanity and folly, are from that which is their own in man, spirit, and angel..." Arcana Coelesta 3341

"When man becomes a spirit this hostility is turned into hatred; and then he not only cannot endure to hear these truths and goods mentioned, he even burns with hatred against all who acknowledge and worship the Divine." Heaven and Hell 562

My comment on the above is that the insanity is all yours.

(July 10, 2015 at 5:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(July 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: ...I dream of a day when religion is classified as a mental illness.

The following passages from Swedenborg is relevant:

"...all intelligence and wisdom, are from the Lord; and that all shade, consequently all insanity and folly, are from that which is their own in man, spirit, and angel..." Arcana Coelesta 3341

"When man becomes a spirit this hostility is turned into hatred; and then he not only cannot endure to hear these truths and goods mentioned, he even burns with hatred against all who acknowledge and worship the Divine." Heaven and Hell 562

My comment on the above is that the insanity is all yours.

How nice that Swedenborg made some unsupported assertions in the 1750's.

I like Pyhrro's answer. Although, I have rarely met a Xtian who would engage in any sort of discussion. The moment you question anything, they're furious.

Perhaps we should drop to our knees, and exclaim "Praise Ju-HEE-zus! I've been waiting for this all my life!" . . . wait for his joyous expression, and THEN let yourself laugh.

Mr. Boghossian would be a little displeased with me. I had not read far enough before posting my question. He is brilliant, only inquiring about cognitive dissonances and "knowing what you don't know".

There is a time and a place for everything. Religious people seem to often forget that.

(July 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: If I try to "debate" a religious person away from their religion, am I not committing the same act of disrespect?       

I didn't see Boghossian's book as necessarily being a book about how to debate people out of their religion, but more of a book about how to get them to think more deeply about the propositions that they claim to believe. I saw it as more as a way to engage people in conversations about potentially sensitive or inflammatory topics in such a way that they wouldn't immediate shut down or put their defenses up, while at the same time they (and you) end up thinking more deeply about what you are discussing.

If a Christian happened to become an atheist as a result of such a conversation... So be it...

Changing someone's mind is certainly not always a bad thing. Sometimes completely ignoring their opinion for their own benefit can be a good thing.

A person believes they are safely crossing the road, whereas I can clearly see a car is going to hit them in about 5 seconds. Do I respect their belief, or shout out to them to try and change it?

Debate is all about changing people's minds essentially. There can be no progress without it. The important part is the reasons given, which then change someone's mind because they are good reasons.

Of course, forcing someone to change their mind needs justification; and may actually be impossible. The best you may get is them pretending to believe what you believe so that you stop hitting them. Someone can hit me with a stick all day and I'm not going to suddenly believe the world is flat because they say so. But I'll pretend I believe it to get them to stop.