How Respectful Is It?

[_sock puppet]

In the comedy Harvey, lead character Elwood P Dowd is a nice man that has an invisible friend, Harvey the 6 foot rabbit (a Pooka--in Celtic mythology, a mischievous spirit that takes animal form and appears sometimes to some people for the purpose of doing this and that). Elwood's sister, Veta, tries to have him committed rather than being respectful, and humoring Elwood by playing along. Veta is, of course, painted with villainy, and briefly is committed herself at the mental hospital. As noted, it is a comedy, and what follows this set up is very funny (at least the two times I've seen it performed live, both by local, amateur stage groups).

Was Elwood's belief in Harvey harmful to Elwood or anyone else? Not really.

Should Veta have allowed Elwood to continue his delusion without taking steps?

Harvey is a comedy, all's well that end's well. To a point, the sillier the better. A 6 foot invisible rabbit, after all. But what about real life and religious beliefs that have no foundation or basis in any observable facts? Is it really respectful to others, those that sincerely hold that religious belief just as Elwood sincerely believed in the Pooka he called Harvey, for a non-believer to passively indulge that person as though such unfounded beliefs (albeit religious in nature, about a supreme being and an afterlife) are as legitimate as, say, gravity?

This sort of runs in the same vein as whether 'little, white lies' are okay because they spare someone else's feelings? But with religious beliefs, there usually come adjustments to the way one lives his or her life. It is more than sparing the feelings of the believer. Believers are foregoing fuller enjoyment of what life has to offer (except some like Jason Bourne who would live pretty much the same, regardless of those beliefs), doing so because of their unfounded religious delusions.

Is it disrespectful to try to shake them hard enough that they begin to see reality, to look at facts, to make rationale conclusions from those facts and see just how concocted religions are?

As realists, are we doing religious believers a favor by acting as though their belief in a 6-foot rabbit is as valid as a witnesses testimony to an intersection accident and who had the green light?

[_Jason Bourne]

Hey you are quoting me along with all my typos. I really need to work on that. I type quickly and often do not proof. I just cleaned it up.

You know I made that quote when I was raging a bit. Not my one of my better comments here.

[_sock puppet]

Hey you are quoting me along with all my typos. I really need to work on that. I type quickly and often do not proof. I just cleaned it up.

You know I made that quote when I was raging a bit. Not my one of my better comments here.

Poof! it's gone. (I just thought it was so dead-on accurate; that's why I put it in my signature line. But, now it has been deleted.)

[_Hoops]

This sort of runs in the same vein as whether 'little, white lies' are okay because they spare someone else's feelings?

Of course they are.

Believers are foregoing fuller enjoyment of what life has to offer

Balogna. Just because they live a life that you wouldn't, doesn't mean their life is any less meaningful. And, therefor, fuller than what they would have. I suspect your idea of a "full" life is shallow.

(except some like Jason Bourne who would live pretty much the same, regardless of those beliefs),

that doesn't say much for those beliefs then does it.

Is it disrespectful to try to shake them hard enough that they begin to see reality, to look at facts, to make rationale conclusions from those facts and see just how concocted religions are?

What an arrogant pile of crap. Perhaps, they should do the same to you? Shake you hard enough so you can see reality?

As realists, are we doing religious believers a favor by acting as though their belief in a 6-foot rabbit is as valid as a witnesses testimony to an intersection accident and who had the green light?

How pompous. "As realists". Puh-lease. Your ignorance of a creator when the creation is right in front of you is hardly "realism". We would say, anyway.

[_Hoops]

Is it disrespectful to try to shake them hard enough that they begin to see reality, to look at facts, to make rationale conclusions from those facts and see just how concocted religions are?

Yes, it is. In fact, your dogmatism is equally vomitous as LDS dogmatism.

But, it's okay. I know you spew out this bile in a safe place. I can't say I blame you.

[_sock puppet]

This sort of runs in the same vein as whether 'little, white lies' are okay because they spare someone else's feelings?

Of course they are.

Believers are foregoing fuller enjoyment of what life has to offer

Balogna. Just because they live a life that you wouldn't, doesn't mean their life is any less meaningful. And, therefor, fuller than what they would have. I suspect your idea of a "full" life is shallow.

(except some like Jason Bourne who would live pretty much the same, regardless of those beliefs),

that doesn't say much for those beliefs then does it.

Is it disrespectful to try to shake them hard enough that they begin to see reality, to look at facts, to make rationale conclusions from those facts and see just how concocted religions are?

What an arrogant pile of crap. Perhaps, they should do the same to you? Shake you hard enough so you can see reality?

As realists, are we doing religious believers a favor by acting as though their belief in a 6-foot rabbit is as valid as a witnesses testimony to an intersection accident and who had the green light?

How pompous. "As realists". Puh-lease. Your ignorance of a creator when the creation is right in front of you is hardly "realism". We would say, anyway.

But Hoops, you prove my point. The point is about "respectful". I'm glad you were not respectful of my atheism, not walking on egg-shells, but called it like it you see it. It is believers, not non-believers who decry those on the other side of the chasm as being disrespectful.

I believe it is respectful to call something BS when that's what you think it is. My position on Mormonism is not simply disbelief. I feel as strongly that it is in fact not what it claims, as believers feel that it is what it claims.

[_Hoops]

But Hoops, you prove my point. The point is about "respectful". I'm glad you were not respectful of my atheism, not walking on egg-shells, but called it like it you see it. It is believers, not non-believers who decry those on the other side of the chasm as being disrespectful.

I believe it is respectful to call something BS when that's what you think it is. My position on Mormonism is not simply disbelief. I feel as strongly that it is in fact not what it claims, as believers feel that it is what it claims.

Sorry. If I had understood that that was your point, I would have simply written: "I agree".

As for me, please do call my beliefs as you see them. And I'll do the same for you. In short: I think your atheism is ridiculous, and I wonder why you can't see what is so plain to me. What I find disheartening is that, since you think the same of mine, why we can't just talk about them. A give and take. That's a respectful way to explore these issues, and I'm more than willing. Sadly, it hardly occurs.

[_sock puppet]

But Hoops, you prove my point. The point is about "respectful". I'm glad you were not respectful of my atheism, not walking on egg-shells, but called it like it you see it. It is believers, not non-believers who decry those on the other side of the chasm as being disrespectful.

I believe it is respectful to call something BS when that's what you think it is. My position on Mormonism is not simply disbelief. I feel as strongly that it is in fact not what it claims, as believers feel that it is what it claims.

Sorry. If I had understood that that was your point, I would have simply written: "I agree".

As for me, please do call my beliefs as you see them. And I'll do the same for you. In short: I think your atheism is ridiculous, and I wonder why you can't see what is so plain to me. What I find disheartening is that, since you think the same of mine, why we can't just talk about them. A give and take. That's a respectful way to explore these issues, and I'm more than willing. Sadly, it hardly occurs.

I believe that you sincerely think that my atheism is ridiculous, so if you were to sugar-coat it I would think you were then being disrespectful. "I wonder why you can't see what is so plain to me"--well, when it comes to Mormonism, we're not too far apart. When it comes to the existence or not of a extraterrestrial god with superhuman powers, or what Jesus was or was not, our respective (not respectful) positions are both that we can't understand why the other cannot see what seems so plain to us.

Candor, directness, clarity--that is much more respectful than sugar-coated, dancing around the issue.

[_Hoops]

When it comes to the existence or not of a extraterrestrial god

Yes.

with superhuman powers,

No.

Candor, directness, clarity--that is much more respectful than sugar-coated, dancing around the issue.

Agreed. And the key word is "issue". I am not the issue. Nor are you. God's existense and/or how He has expressed himself is the issue.