Respecting religious beliefs

[atheist buddy]

Why is it that in every field of human knowledge, a belief is only respected when it has been established that it's true, but when it comes to religion, we have to respect it even when it's not true?


In the field of history, the belief that the Holocaust never happened is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

In the field of astronomy, the belief that the moon is made of cheese is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

So why do the beliefs that Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus came back from the dead, or that Mohammed rode a flying horse, or that Balaal had a talking donkey have to be respected even if they are false?


If I said "Believing the Halocaust didn't happen is as absurd as believing in Peter Pan", nobody would chide me for being disrespectful of a holocaust denier's beliefs.

If I said "Believing the moon is made out of cheese is as absurd as believing in the Tooth Fairy" nobody would chide me for being disresepctful to a moon-made-out-of cheese person's beliefs.

So why do I get scolded for making comparisons between the Talking Donkey and the Gingerbread Man, or the Virgin Birth and the Three Little Piggies?



Is it because people are very emotionally attached to beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births, and I should be mindful of not hurting their feelings? If that's the case, then what if a holocaust denier is very emotionally attached to his beliefs? Should I refrain from expressing my sincere opinion that his beliefs are absurd, to safeguard his feelings?

Is it because beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births are held by millions whereas holocaust deniers and people who believe the moon is made of cheese are thankfully very rare? By that token, should I have been respectful of the typical white american's belief about race relations in the 19th century, because those unjustified and inexcusable beliefs were the beliefs of the majority?


Why is there a double standard? Why is belief that Elvis is still alive cause for imediate social ostratization, but belief in the virgin birth respected even by those who don't share that belief?


It seems to me that in all aspects of human discourse, this parameter is used: If a belief is justified, it's respected. If it isn't justified, it is not respected. Why aren't religious claims subject to that same standard?


If I compare the Bible to the Three Little Piggies, the only valid rebuke is that the Bible is a more literarily interesting work of fiction than the Three Little Piggies. Of course, if I compared the Bible to, say, Shakespeare, the inverse would be true, and if anything, I could be accused of insulting Shakespeare.

IF the talking donkey and the virgin birth actually happened, then comparing them to fictional events that didn't happen, is indeed disrespectful. But if the talking donkey and the virgin birth are fictional, how is it disrespectful to compare them to other fictional stories? How is comparing fiction to fiction disrespectful?



Can we agree that there is no universal requirement for respecting somebody's mathematical, scientific, historical, geographical, beliefs if they are unjustified?

Can we agree that while I do have to be respectful to a person who believes 2+2=5, it is perfectly socially acceptable to be disrespectful of the belief itself?

So why can't the same apply to religion? Why is it not ok to say to a Muslim "I respect you as a person, but in my opinion your belief in Mohammed's flying horse is as absurd as a child's belief in Santa's flying reindeer".

[dianaiad]

From the OP:

Respect religious beliefs?

I can't respect the claims, and so, well if it hairlips the governor, it'll be that I can't respect the beliefs borne of the claims.

And then, well, if we's honest, can we really respect 'em that hold to such goofy beliefs? I mean, it's nice to respect folks, but can I really respect those who think some "skydaddy" (my term, for effect not just insult) cares about whether it is, I go about doin' me any respectin'? Really there, I use that term for effect, but hope y'all see it, that I hafta say it that way, so it is, folks can tell maybe I don't either know enough about it, but find it merely a "goofy", "absurd", or - as I've tried to say in the past, merely a conclusion with which I disagree.

Conclusions?


To those whose religious texts declare me a "fool", among other slanders - I spit on your holy text, and if it is, it's you think the bible got it right, I spit, if only metaphorically, on you.

I will offer no respectalizationings for any belief, person, god, or gingerbread man, or any holocaust denier, promoter, or just a holocaust oficianado that can't do any respecting of me or mine.


Respect should be earned, not granted just for how proud you are for thinking something.

When one's religious doctrine / holy texts sets to respecting me, only then should I bother to think about if it is, maybe I ain't doin' me enough of it back.

It is certainly your right to spit (metaphorically only) on beliefs and people, m'friend.

Far be it from me to deny your right to do so.

Most of the time, anyway.

I just figure (from the POV of a believer in things that you--metaphorically, of course--spit on) that if you don't refrain from the spitting, you aren't interested in discussing things rationally, trying to get me to see reason or even speak together without drawing weapons with sharp edges.


So I guess it's about what the goal is, for the (metaphorical, of course) spitter upon things. If all you want to do is express your opinion and make enemies, ensure that believers would rather chew on a Chihuly than talk to you, and pretty much cement their beliefs, fine.

It is a bit of a truism that nothing cements a position like opposition to it, and the nastier the form of the opposition, the more stubborn the holder of it is.

Shoot, without the Roman persecution of the Christians, the whole thing might have fizzled out. People just automatically figure that if everybody hates something THAT much, and if the opposition is THAT nasty, there must be something to it. Conspiracy theories are bred in the genetic code of Homo sapiens sapiens. We think too much.

But if you treat the ideas with some, at least surface, respect, you can draw the believer into discussions and he may change his mind in spite of himself, given that he isn't on guard quite as strictly.

All that flies out the window, of course, if the spitting is more than metaphorical. I've been on the receiving end of that, too.

[Zzyzx]

.

Respect should be earned,

Agree.

I give every person a limited amount of trust and respect just for being a fellow human being -- and allow them to EARN more or less. Many earn less.

Those who attempt to assume a superior position earn less, as do those who obsessively or fanatically promote ANY ideology or theology. Those who refuse to debate honorably and civilly earn strong disrespect.

Several Theist / Deist members who post here have earned my respect by SHOWING respect for Non-Theists. This does not mean that I accept or endorse their belief system and certainly do not approve of proselytization / preaching / prognosticating / pontificating by anyone.

[dianaiad]

As well, please acquit me and the other posters on this forum of

That sort of thing is a bit off putting, y'know?

A. No one accused you or anyone on this forum of "wishing to murder wholesale, of wanting to promote the death penalty for all sorts, and for generally being extremist jihadists in a religion we don't actually believe in." So your reaction is way over the top. In fact it is a false allegation.

I documented evidence that strongly indicates large percentages of people who belong to some religions advocate the death penalty for believing the 'wrong' thing. I repeat, I do not see any reason why I should respect either them or their religion. I also feel no need to respect either them or their religion when it teaches them to hate others who are different or a religion that promotes ignorance.

Rather than accuse me of something I did not say, I suggest you analyze what I actually wrote.

The problem is that the OP was written by someone who is calling foul because he wants to be able to be disrespectful and vilify the beliefs held BY PEOPLE IN HERE.

On this forum. In other debate forums.

It is not logical to use extremist jihadist Muslim actions to excuse using vile and insulting epithets to refer to, say...the virgin birth or that God the Father just might love us.

Since you...and at least one other here...have used examples from extremist jihadist Muslim beliefs (beheadings, honor killings, and so forth) to excuse the sort of language used in here against people who are NOT extremist, jihadist Muslims, I thought it a good idea to remind you that we are not.

After all, even I, who have brought up the fact that there hasn't been a single officially atheist nation that has not ended up being tyranical and murderous, do not figure that this applies, in any way, to the atheists (mostly humanists who would never be a part of such a murderous system) who post in here.


What you are doing is claiming that because the apple is rotten, you need to trash the orange.

[Danmark]

I feel caught exactly in the middle of much of this discussion. I don't like references to "Sky Daddy" or suggestions of 'spitting on holy texts.' Yet I also believe that religious belief that results in flying airplanes into buildings, or cursing people because of their 'race,' or demanding punishments that are worse than the offense punished are abominable.

The rationale that these beliefs are 'heart felt' and sincere do not sway me in the least. Should I be a murderer, a racist or homophobe and justify it because of the sincerity of my belief? No. The idea is not just preposterous, it is monstrous.

All the same, isn't it more effective, let alone more civil to speak out against such heinous beliefs without resorting to flippancies like 'Sky Daddy?' Divine Insight has been under some fire here for calling the God of the Bible immoral. Perhaps he has violated a rule in some way. But does anyone challenge the idea that the image of a Jealous, Angry, vengeful, tribal and genocidal God cannot be drawn from the Bible itself?

If so, state your case. I do not know exactly where the line should be drawn. For example, I fully believe that many Muslims are peace loving, generous, warm hearted people. I also believe that many of them claim to believe hands should be amputated for theft, and a death sentence is appropriate for those who convert from Islam to Christianity or non theism. Who here defends such monstrous beliefs? Anyone? Bueller?

Am I supposed to look at the absurdity of claim that the Book of Abraham is authentic despite the obvious fraud involved in its 'translation?'
[See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham ] or to pretend that this fraud does not destroy completely the credibility of Joseph Smith's other claims?

Yet, I like the Mormons I have met. I understand that citing facts and references that fully that expose some of their cherished beliefs as having fraudulent foundations injures their feelings, and may provoke them to anger. But should I refrain from expressing my views and backing them up with facts at my disposal because I don't want to cause distress?

Nonetheless, I don't think it necessary to constantly refer "Sky Daddy" or substitute expletives for analysis.

[atheist buddy]

As a general comment to the OP:

It is not necessary to respect beliefs you do not share.

It IS, however, wise to realize that people actually do have those beliefs, and those beliefs are a vital, even central, part of their lives, and there is a big difference between disagreement, disbelief....and determined and deliberate insult for the purpose of inflaming and upsetting the believers.

For instance, your comparison of religion to holocaust denial wasn't really intended to promote civil conversation, was it?

If your aim is to have a reasonable and civil conversation with a mother about the behavior of her children, for instance, one does not begin it by telling her that they are imps from hell, spoiled rotten, liars, thieves and small animal torturers, even if they are.

One could imagine the reaction of the mother (and other relatives) to having those children described that way.

Now the position I THINK you are taking here is...why can't I say anything I want to about a belief system, and describe those beliefs in any way I wish, using the very worst adjectives I can come up with? After all, I'm not talking about the believers, am I? Just their beliefs."

Try that with the mother. See just how willing she is to listen to you after you describe her children in such a manner...even if you honestly think you are correct ABOUT those kids.

Now consider this: vilifying beliefs with the sort of language I've seen in here lately is not going to get a conversation going with the believers. They will figure...and quite rightly...that you think that people who believe things that you describe in this way are just as bad as the beliefs are. After all, how COULD good people believe such horrific things as you describe?

If they are all that horrific.

They, quite understandably, figure that vilification of the belief is actually vilification of the believers. It's hard not to figure this, when those beliefs are so much a part of the moral and life fabric of the believers.

Because of this, the worst thing I ever say about a belief is 'it's not logical.'

Even when I privately think that it is beyond ridiculous. After all, my own beliefs are considered ludicrous by others. Many others. Oh, most others, come to think of it. I don't care.

But I will not be willing to discuss, with any sort of civility , my beliefs with people who hold them in the contempt that you and others have shown by the language you use to describe them. Why should I? Why should anybody?

Ultimately, then, I guess the choice is yours. you need to figure out what your goal is.

If it is to have a reasonable and civil discussion with believers about their beliefs, dial it back. Disagree with those beliefs by all means. Let them know, in language that isn't QUITE so off-putting, that those beliefs seem silly to you.

But remember that they are precious to others, and vilifying them is attacking the believer. Really, it is. They are human, WILL take offense, and all hope of reasonable discourse is gone.

If, however, your goal is to inflame, get approval for your wit from those who already agree with you and be remembered as a jerk, a troublemaker and a troll by those who don't, be as nasty as you want. I suppose, if this is how you wish to be remembered, then the way to get there is to be as disrespectful of beliefs as you want to, using any sort of language you wish.

Dear Dianaiad, with all due respect, what you're saying is completely backwards.

Let me explain.

I offered to play this game to you once, and you refused/ignored. I'll try it again:

You get to enter a time/space machine that teleports you to a major city in a random country, at a random time in history. It could be North Korea today, it could be Northern Ireland in the 80s, it could be Afghanistan in the 90s, it could be Iran today, anywhere in europe anytime between 100AD and 1500AD, anywhere in Russia during Stalinism or during the Tzar's rule, in ancient Japan during the rule of the Emperor prior ot WWII, in Salem in 1692, in the Middle East anytime between 4000BC and 1AD, you name it.

Once you get to that place and time, you have to go in the middle of the Town Square and yell "I no longer believe in the central dogmatic tenets of the majority. I think these beliefs are false. Going forward I will be sure to tell your children of my unfavorable opinion of your beliefs".

Now here is the fun part of the game: If you survive for a whole day, you win the game. If after they heard you say this, the people incarcerate, beat, rape, torture, disembowel and burn you alive, you lose the game.

Here is the question: If such a game existed, would you let your children play it? Of course you wouldn't, because you realize that this game would result in your children's death almost every single time, because nothing is more guaranteed to result in bloody violence than speaking out against the dogmatic beliefs of the majority.

Do you know the only context in which you would be completely safe if you say those words, no matter what town, no matter what era? If you were teleported inside a Skeptics' Society meeting. That's the only context in which you can be sure that you will not be harmed because of what you believe. We would just disagree with you and possibly call you beliefs laughable.

What is the absolute worse thing a skeptic will do to a person with dogmatic beliefs? Verbalize his disagreement using forceful words such as "absurd" and "laughable".

What is the absolute worse a dogmatic person will do to someone who is skeptical of his beliefs?



We live in a world where dogmatic people pour battery acid in the eyes of women who "dare" to learn how to read, where people refuse blood transfusion to their children and cause their death, where people burn their children alive because they were raped.

You, and probably many on this board, are as different from those kinds of extremists as I am, BUT you share several of the beliefs held by these kinds of people, and (overwhelmingly more important) you share with them that which makes it possible for them to carry out such atrocities: Your beliefs are not based on reason and evidence. You believe things despite the fact that you logically shouldn't.

With an alarming plurality of Americans looking forward to war in the middle east becuase they interpret it as a sign of Judgement Day, with Islamicists and their death cult inching closer and closer to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, with a history of violence, horror and torture entirely predicated on the undue influence of dogmatic thought, I am not the problem. After millennia of having to keep our mouths shut under penalty of torture and death, now that with tremendous sacrifice and strife we've gotten to a place where we can express our opinions without fear for our life, you have no right to ask us to bite our tongue. Now that dogmatic people no longer get to murder us for disagreeing with them, we get to show our contempt for them freely. I get to call your belief in the virgin birth "laughable". I've earned that right.

You know why I get to call your belief laughable? You know why it's laughable to believe that Mary was a virgin?

Because Mary wasn't a virgin! She just wasn't.

[atheist buddy]

I feel caught exactly in the middle of much of this discussion. I don't like references to "Sky Daddy" or suggestions of 'spitting on holy texts.' Yet I also believe that religious belief that results in flying airplanes into buildings, or cursing people because of their 'race,' or demanding punishments that are worse than the offense punished are abominable.

The rationale that these beliefs are 'heart felt' and sincere do not sway me in the least. Should I be a murderer, a racist or homophobe and justify it because of the sincerity of my belief? No. The idea is not just preposterous, it is monstrous.

All the same, isn't it more effective, let alone more civil to speak out against such heinous beliefs without resorting to flippancies like 'Sky Daddy?' Divine Insight has been under some fire here for calling the God of the Bible immoral. Perhaps he has violated a rule in some way. But does anyone challenge the idea that the image of a Jealous, Angry, vengeful, tribal and genocidal God cannot be drawn from the Bible itself?

If so, state your case. I do not know exactly where the line should be drawn. For example, I fully believe that many Muslims are peace loving, generous, warm hearted people. I also believe that many of them claim to believe hands should be amputated for theft, and a death sentence is appropriate for those who convert from Islam to Christianity or non theism. Who here defends such monstrous beliefs? Anyone? Bueller?

Am I supposed to look at the absurdity of claim that the Book of Abraham is authentic despite the obvious fraud involved in its 'translation?'
[See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham ] or to pretend that this fraud does not destroy completely the credibility of Joseph Smith's other claims?

Yet, I like the Mormons I have met. I understand that citing facts and references that fully that expose some of their cherished beliefs as having fraudulent foundations injures their feelings, and may provoke them to anger. But should I refrain from expressing my views and backing them up with facts at my disposal because I don't want to cause distress?

Nonetheless, I don't think it necessary to constantly refer "Sky Daddy" or substitute expletives for analysis.

Hi Danmark, I absolutely respect what you're saying.

My response is simple.

If, in the field of politics somebody makes a patently false statement such as "Obama was born in Kenya", it's absolutely socially acceptable to call his beliefs laughable.

If, in the field of georgraphy somebody makes a patently false statement such as "Chicago is West of Los Angeles", it's absolutely socially acceptable to call his belief laughable.

If, in the field of History somebody makes a patently false statement such as "The holocaust never happened", it's absolutely socially acceptable to call his belief laughable.

No matter how hurt or offended the person making those statements is, no external observer in their right mind would say that I have to be respectful of those beliefs.



In every field of human endevor, respectable beliefs are respected, and laughable beliefs are laughed at.



Why should I treat religion any different than any other human endevor?



Statements about talking donkeys and virgin births are objectively just as laughable as beliefs that Obama was born in Kenya, Chicaco is west of LA and the holocaust never happened. All these beliefs are just NOT TRUE. I reserve the right to treat all false beliefs equally.

[Danmark]

I feel caught exactly in the middle of much of this discussion. I don't like references to "Sky Daddy" or suggestions of 'spitting on holy texts.' Yet I also believe that religious belief that results in flying airplanes into buildings, or cursing people because of their 'race,' or demanding punishments that are worse than the offense punished are abominable.

The rationale that these beliefs are 'heart felt' and sincere do not sway me in the least. Should I be a murderer, a racist or homophobe and justify it because of the sincerity of my belief? No. The idea is not just preposterous, it is monstrous.

All the same, isn't it more effective, let alone more civil to speak out against such heinous beliefs without resorting to flippancies like 'Sky Daddy?' Divine Insight has been under some fire here for calling the God of the Bible immoral. Perhaps he has violated a rule in some way. But does anyone challenge the idea that the image of a Jealous, Angry, vengeful, tribal and genocidal God cannot be drawn from the Bible itself?

If so, state your case. I do not know exactly where the line should be drawn. For example, I fully believe that many Muslims are peace loving, generous, warm hearted people. I also believe that many of them claim to believe hands should be amputated for theft, and a death sentence is appropriate for those who convert from Islam to Christianity or non theism. Who here defends such monstrous beliefs? Anyone? Bueller?

Am I supposed to look at the absurdity of claim that the Book of Abraham is authentic despite the obvious fraud involved in its 'translation?'
[See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham ] or to pretend that this fraud does not destroy completely the credibility of Joseph Smith's other claims?

Yet, I like the Mormons I have met. I understand that citing facts and references that fully that expose some of their cherished beliefs as having fraudulent foundations injures their feelings, and may provoke them to anger. But should I refrain from expressing my views and backing them up with facts at my disposal because I don't want to cause distress?

Nonetheless, I don't think it necessary to constantly refer "Sky Daddy" or substitute expletives for analysis.

Hi Danmark, I absolutely respect what you're saying.

My response is simple.

If, in the field of politics somebody makes a patently false statement such as "Obama was born in Kenya", it's absolutely socially acceptable to call his beliefs laughable.

If, in the field of georgraphy somebody makes a patently false statement such as "Chicago is West of Los Angeles", it's absolutely socially acceptable to call his belief laughable.

If, in the field of History somebody makes a patently false statement such as "The holocaust never happened", it's absolutely socially acceptable to call his belief laughable.

No matter how hurt or offended the person making those statements is, no external observer in their right mind would say that I have to be respectful of those beliefs.



In every field of human endevor, respectable beliefs are respected, and laughable beliefs are laughed at.



Why should I treat religion any different than any other human endevor?



Statements about talking donkeys and virgin births are objectively just as laughable as beliefs that Obama was born in Kenya, Chicaco is west of LA and the holocaust never happened. All these beliefs are just NOT TRUE. I reserve the right to treat all false beliefs equally.

I agree. It is only the manner in which one points out the absurdity of such positions that I am addressing. Wouldn't you agree that it is preferable to point out WHY such ridiculous positions are 'laughable' rather than just label them as such?

[atheist buddy]

I feel caught exactly in the middle of much of this discussion. I don't like references to "Sky Daddy" or suggestions of 'spitting on holy texts.' Yet I also believe that religious belief that results in flying airplanes into buildings, or cursing people because of their 'race,' or demanding punishments that are worse than the offense punished are abominable.

The rationale that these beliefs are 'heart felt' and sincere do not sway me in the least. Should I be a murderer, a racist or homophobe and justify it because of the sincerity of my belief? No. The idea is not just preposterous, it is monstrous.

All the same, isn't it more effective, let alone more civil to speak out against such heinous beliefs without resorting to flippancies like 'Sky Daddy?' Divine Insight has been under some fire here for calling the God of the Bible immoral. Perhaps he has violated a rule in some way. But does anyone challenge the idea that the image of a Jealous, Angry, vengeful, tribal and genocidal God cannot be drawn from the Bible itself?

If so, state your case. I do not know exactly where the line should be drawn. For example, I fully believe that many Muslims are peace loving, generous, warm hearted people. I also believe that many of them claim to believe hands should be amputated for theft, and a death sentence is appropriate for those who convert from Islam to Christianity or non theism. Who here defends such monstrous beliefs? Anyone? Bueller?

Am I supposed to look at the absurdity of claim that the Book of Abraham is authentic despite the obvious fraud involved in its 'translation?'
[See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham ] or to pretend that this fraud does not destroy completely the credibility of Joseph Smith's other claims?

Yet, I like the Mormons I have met. I understand that citing facts and references that fully that expose some of their cherished beliefs as having fraudulent foundations injures their feelings, and may provoke them to anger. But should I refrain from expressing my views and backing them up with facts at my disposal because I don't want to cause distress?

Nonetheless, I don't think it necessary to constantly refer "Sky Daddy" or substitute expletives for analysis.

Hi Danmark, I absolutely respect what you're saying.

My response is simple.

If, in the field of politics somebody makes a patently false statement such as "Obama was born in Kenya", it's absolutely socially acceptable to call his beliefs laughable.

If, in the field of georgraphy somebody makes a patently false statement such as "Chicago is West of Los Angeles", it's absolutely socially acceptable to call his belief laughable.

If, in the field of History somebody makes a patently false statement such as "The holocaust never happened", it's absolutely socially acceptable to call his belief laughable.

No matter how hurt or offended the person making those statements is, no external observer in their right mind would say that I have to be respectful of those beliefs.



In every field of human endevor, respectable beliefs are respected, and laughable beliefs are laughed at.



Why should I treat religion any different than any other human endevor?



Statements about talking donkeys and virgin births are objectively just as laughable as beliefs that Obama was born in Kenya, Chicaco is west of LA and the holocaust never happened. All these beliefs are just NOT TRUE. I reserve the right to treat all false beliefs equally.

I agree. It is only the manner in which one points out the absurdity of such positions that I am addressing. Wouldn't you agree that it is preferable to point out WHY such ridiculous positions are 'laughable' rather than just label them as such?

Absolutely.

These beliefs are laughable because they are not true, but treated as though they were true. That is a laughable state of affairs, or at least it would be, if so much blood hadn't been spilled because of them.

Why do I get to say they are not true? Because they are, for the most part, empirical claims about the physical world, and as such subject to evidentiary scrutiny.

We know that they are not true because the empirical evidence that they are not true is conclusive, or at least as close to conclusive as the evidence for anything can be.

Beliefs in talking donkeys, raining frogs, resurrected corpses and virgin births are NOT the same as beliefs in a flat earth, in Santa or in Bigfoot in every way, but they do all share the attribute that makes them all laughable: They are not true but held to be true by some.

Therefore insofar as I am referring to the laughable nature of belief in untrue claims, not only do I get to call them what they are - laughable - but I get to freely compare them with other laughable beliefs.

The fact that some Christian will get offended at being compared to a flat-earther, is no more to the point than the fact that some atheist flat earther may get offended at being compared to a Christian.



And in terms of employing a succesful debate tactic, I still hold to the opinion that ridicule - if founded on solid logic and solid facts - can be a very effective tool to snap dogmatists out of their laughable beliefs.

I remember that it wasn't my parents sitting me down as a kid and talking to me, but my schoolmates making fun of me, that got me thinking and awoke me to the fact that belief in Santa is laughable.

I daresay that George Carlin has done at least as much as Dan Dennett to help dogmatists escape the yoke of their own brainwashing.

[atheist buddy]

Danmark, our exchange reminds me of the commandment to "honor thy father and thy mother", and of something Carlin said about that:

"Respect should not be automatic, but earned. Some parents deserve to be respected, most of them don't." (I'm quoting from memory... might not be verbatim)

Similarly, respect for truth claims and beliefs should not be automatic, but earned.

And religion has NOT earned respect for its truth claims and beliefs, neither on the basis of the substance of the claims, nor for the way it violently suppressed dissent throughout history.

I'm sorry, but I will respect respectable claims, and laugh at laughable claims, and an adult in the 21st century believing that donkeys can talk is laughable. It just is! Either laughable, or tragic. Definitely nothing inbetween.

[Danmark]

These beliefs are laughable because they are not true, but treated as though they were true. That is a laughable state of affairs, or at least it would be, if so much blood hadn't been spilled because of them.

Why do I get to say they are not true? Because they are, for the most part, empirical claims about the physical world, and as such subject to evidentiary scrutiny.

We know that they are not true because the empirical evidence that they are not true is conclusive, or at least as close to conclusive as the evidence for anything can be..

This is where I disagree. If the non theist simply says "their beliefs are not true and we have empirical evidence showing they are not true" this is not much different from the theist who claims the Bible is the word of God and the statements in the scriptures are true. Both claims are made without evidence. While all sides can rightfully claim the burden of proof is on he who alleges, when the non theist asserts a claim, he has no less burden than the theist to back up that claim with actual evidence, rather than just stating it exists.

For example, when I claim the Book of Abraham is a fraud, I point to the fact that even Mormon apologists agree the Egyptian texts it was supposedly translated from do not correspond to the English 'translation' Joseph Smith claimed to have made. The Mormon response to this is that Smith meant "inspired by" when he claimed to have "translated" the text. This 'he meant "inspired by" argument' is obviously weak and borne of desperation, but that is a conclusion for the audience to make. I suggest that rather than simply make a claim, we should back it up with specific citations to evidence, rather than just claim it is so. This applies to non theists as well as theists. Whether or not the debater has marshalled evidence for his argument is a conclusion that is not determined by a mere claim the conclusion is right. Facts, not claims should determine the outcome of the argument.

Simply claiming "Fraud!" is objectionable. Providing, not just claiming, evidence to back up the assertion is what is convincing. Ridicule is more effective when it is backed up by the presentation of evidence instead of merely 'poking fun' and assuming we have made some definitive argument.