To whom it may concern, then.

[avevale_intelligencer]

(to more than one person, in fact, not all of whom do this all the time, but each of you has done it at least once in my experience)

I respect and like you as a person and I respect your beliefs, even if I don't agree with them.

I also respect your right to voice your beliefs.

I do not feel it particularly worthy of respect when you obscure the distinction between "voicing your beliefs" and "voicing your negative opinion of others' beliefs" in order to gain the moral high ground. They are not the same thing at all. The one is a basic and essential right. The other, while also a right, is a right rather like grabbing two seats on the bus; nobody has any authority to stop you doing it, but it's kinder and more courteous to refrain.

It does not offend me when you say "I do not believe in God, for this and that and the other reason." For all I know, you may be right.

It does not offend me when you say "This thing done in the name of religion is evil and makes me angry." You're usually right about that, and it makes me angry too.

It does offend me when you say, either directly or by implication, "People who believe in a god are stupid, or deluded, or lying to self and/or others." That is an entirely different thing, has no bearing on your personal beliefs, and for my money, you are almost always entirely wrong.

It also offends me when Christians talk of non-believers as evil, or deluded, or liars, but that doesn't happen on my flist nearly as often as the opposite. Not at all, in fact, despite the presence of significant numbers of Christians there. Funny, that.

Okay, done with that now. Off to bed. Night, all.

Comments

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Indeed. A belief, in and of itself, cannot be either logical or illogical; It can only be either true, false, or not provably one or the other. The argument that *supports* the belief may be either logical or illogical, and in the case that it is illogical one can promptly demonstrate this by offering one's own logical argument against it.

Far more commonly, the argument turns out to be not so much illogical as *incomplete*, or based on an axiom/predicate which is open to challenge. The challenge is then on to establish whether the gap can or cannot be filled with valid logical steps, either bridging the gap in the middle of the argument or providing a foundation built opun a mutially acceptable zet of axioms.

Statements that X is "illogical", without any logic presented to back them up, are empty and pointlessly confrontational. "That doesn't make sense to me - Can you explain the basis of it?" is fine. "That seems illogical to me, and here's why: [LOGICAL ARGUMENT REFUTING THE POINT BEING CHALLENGED]" is also fine.

"I can't see how you get from [X] to [Z]. Is it something like [q]? 'Cos if so, then I have to point out Zeebroglespurt's excellent logical refuation of [q] over at [URL]" would be fantastic. Especially if it gives me the chance to say "No, actually, the bit in the middle is [Y]" and have you go "[FOREHEAD SLAP] Of course! Now I see the light." =:o}