• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Difference between

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I couldn't figure what to title this.

As I was reading another thread, and threads throughout the centuries I've been here, one theme comes up among less hardcore religious themselves and non-believers.

It's the idea that a religious cannot say the other person is wrong about his or her faith just what's right for them.

I've always found this a bit odd.

For example, take the scenario of a client and therapist:

The client (say John) has delusions.
It is up to the therapist (Anna) to address John's symptoms as a cause of her client's delusions.

Anna does not tell John he is wrong. Of course from his perspective he is right. That is fine.

1. My question is, why can't Anna believe John is wrong despite knowing John's delusions is what is true to him?

A religious person can tell someone else they are wrong about their theology AND still maintain that that theology is right for them.

It's not being rude in a discussion or debate. It's just saying that the religious person's criteria of how he sees reality is in conflict with the other (you can't have god and no god at the same time; you can't have heaven and reincarnation at the same time).

2. Why can't all religious and non-religious say "you are wrong about your theology" without using that statement to discredit what's right for that other person?

I don't believe god exist. John does. I can tell John he is wrong about his theology (in this example), but that doesn't mean it is wrong for him. I'm just being honest our two beliefs contradict each other and that's not my view of reality. Saying you're wrong isn't a bad thing as long as you don't discredit another person's conviction by saying it.

3. Why do many treat it as such?

EDIT

A parent and teacher tells their child or student they are wrong, but in a way of constructive criticism. A friend may tell another friend they are wrong to show them where they are in error without discrediting the person with whom made the error (whether it was an actual error or mistake).

Whether one uses the words/phrase "you are wrong" is personal preference, but in context is the same; why do people get so offended by it and likewise why can't they say it?
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Good example.

i.e. I believe in the trinity and you don't. (I believe) you are wrong in your interpretation.

Between strangers, either party can take that as an offense. If it's someone you know, even less so. A friend maybe not. But the point is the same.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
When discussing respect and beliefs you’re better off to say I respect your belief and if you want to share what you believe that’s fine if not that’s fine too

Yes. The phrasing and words can be cruel, but the point isn't the preference in wording, it's saying the other is incorrect and you are correct based on your worldview in conflict with the others.

How you say it depends on the person, culture, context, and relationship (as described above) not on whether you say "you are wrong" or "you are," I don't know, "incorrect."

Take another phrase: you know, you're wrong about "that."

These are referring to what the person says not the person herself. Hopefully, it is received that way.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
Yes. The phrasing and words can be cruel, but the point isn't the preference in wording, it's saying the other is incorrect and you are correct based on your worldview in conflict with the others.

How you say it depends on the person, culture, context, and relationship (as described above) not on whether you say "you are wrong" or "you are," I don't know, "incorrect."

Take another phrase: you know, you're wrong about "that."

These are referring to what the person says not the person herself. Hopefully, it is received that way.
If you think that way I guess you could even say “what you believe is wrong for you, I suggest you find the right way.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If you think that way I guess you could even say “what you believe is wrong for you, I suggest you find the right way.

Kinda. "I believe you are wrong and I am right; and, we each follow the path that's right for us."

So, I can say "You are wrong about god, and, I respect that each person has the right to their own belief."

It sounds cruel, but I hope you get the point behind it.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hello Unveiled Artist:

Have you ever heard about Religious Freedom?

Your Right to Religious Freedom.

Not sure about anywhere else but in American; there is a thing called Religious Freedom. That comes from the Highest Law in our land: The High Law in our Land is known as the Constitution.

WHAT IS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM EXACTLY?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all.

Our country's founders -- who were of different religious backgrounds themselves -- knew the best way to protect religious liberty was to keep the government out of religion. So they created the First Amendment -- to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States. This means that the government may not give financial support to any religion. That's why many school voucher programs violate the Establishment Clause -- because they give taxpayers' money to schools that promote religion.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs.

You lost me I'm afraid. Could you sum up what you're saying?
 

MatthewA

Active Member
First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sure I will try, Unveiled Artist,

~ People can have religious claims about whatever religion it is they choose to believe in. You can tell that person you believe they are wrong if you desire to. But that doesn't mean the person has to changed their established foundation in order to please another human being. If love is not possible even through differences what use is love in the first place?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sure I will try, Unveiled Artist,

~ People can have religious claims about whatever religion it is they choose to believe in. You can tell that person you believe they are wrong if you desire to. But that doesn't mean the person has to changed their established foundation in order to please another human being. If love is not possible even through differences what use is love in the first place?

It's not about changing their beliefs, just saying they are wrong in light of conflicting views of reality. The preference in words may sound insulting, but underneath it doesn't need to be so.

If I say you're wrong about god's existence, I'm talking about your belief that contradicts how I see things (the argument) not you personally. Unless everything is true, I don't see a problem saying it.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
If there are self evident truthes then we are all responsible to those truthes. Thus correcting someone is justified.

If no truth is necessarily self evident then we must painfully struggle in the dark. And we have no right to correct others.

I consider all moral values to be self evident. All moral values are objectively true and are predicated on discretion and deserve. Having the right moral values produces healthy relationships and the end result is love. For instance the quality of honesty is about telling people what they deserve to hear, and not telling people what they don't deserve to hear. If we practice honesty this way we will all live in a better world. So it would be right to correct people on self evident truthes if need be.

Not all truthes are self evident. To understand AND accept evolution as truth you would have to study it in depth and have first hand experiences of it's evidence. Otherwise you are not reasonably responsible to it, or for it. So really it's up to scientists and educators to objectively introduce everyone to this subject, and rationally answer all questions people have about it, if they all want to correct everyone.
Being objective is not being swayed by emotions or appeals. Being objective is to attempt to answer objections.

Objectivity is a moral value.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If there are self evident truthes then we are all responsible to those truthes. Thus correcting someone is justified.

If no truth is necessarily self evident then we must painfully struggle in the dark. And we have no right to correct others.

I consider all moral values to be self evident. All moral values are objectively true and are predicated on discretion and deserve. Having the right moral values produces healthy relationships and the end result is love. For instance the quality of honesty is about telling people what they deserve to hear, and not telling people what they don't deserve to hear. If we practice honesty this way we will all live in a better world. So it would be right to correct people on self evident truthes if need be.

Not all truthes are self evident. To understand AND accept evolution as truth you would have to study it in depth and have first hand experiences of it's evidence. Otherwise you are not reasonably responsible to it, or for it. So really it's up to scientists and educators to objectively introduce everyone to this subject, and rationally answer all questions people have about it, if they all want to correct everyone.
Being objective is not being swayed by emotions or appeals. Being objective is to attempt to answer objections.

Objectivity is a moral value.

I can't find the connection between saying you're wrong (the argument) and morality, truth, and objectivity.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
A parent and teacher tells their child or student they are wrong, but in a way of constructive criticism. A friend may tell another friend they are wrong to show them where they are in error without discrediting the person with whom made the error (whether it was an actual error or mistake).

Whether one uses the words/phrase "you are wrong" is personal preference, but in context is the same; why do people get so offended by it and likewise why can't they say it?
It depends how you say it to people, if you are all smug about it, there is a good chance of people getting annoyed. Alternatively it can be completely meaningless. Based on the way you phrased it.

Lets take the example of the Holy trinity and that you believe in it. I come along and say "Your wrong about it, see you later." and walk away. At this point its completely meaningless.

So there is nothing wrong with telling someone they are wrong, but for it to have any meaning, you need an argument or present a reason, like "I think you are wrong about the Holy trinity, because this, this and that."
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I can't find the connection between saying you're wrong (the argument) and morality, truth, and objectivity.

Every argument makes its case for being true. And without morality, and objectivity no one will ever get at the truth of the argument. And without the truth no one can claim another person is wrong.

If I'm not honest about the argument, and I am not objectively seeking the truth of it. Then I will never be qualified to tell someone they are wrong.

And if the other side isn't seeing the truth of the argument then there is no point in getting in a right or wrong conversation.

But we all are responsible to know things that are self evident.

And some things that are true can take extensive study and reflection. In this case you have to demonstrate someone is wrong.

Merely telling someone they are wrong is only productive when everyone is moral, objective, and honestly desiring the truth.

If I tell a religious person they are wrong then I must be able to back that up. Otherwise it's just a statement of disagreement. Which is no big deal.
 

darkskies

Active Member
So there is nothing wrong with telling someone they are wrong, but for it to have any meaning, you need an argument or present a reason, like "I think you are wrong about the Holy trinity, because this, this and that."
This exactly.

People can say what they want, but most of the time it's useless saying things like "you're wrong".

It's also implied. Disagreement in views being the entire reason for debate/discussion.

Providing your understanding is more effective if you care about another's view.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
1. My question is, why can't Anna believe John is wrong
Of course its fine that you believe the other is wrong. To tell them, esp. unasked, is usually the issue, to believe is usually no problem. Acting on your belief might cause problems
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
2. Why can't all religious and non-religious say "you are wrong about your theology"
They can, but its not smart
Because its an arrogant statement

Being humble (adding IMO) won't hurt you

Does not apply to you though:cool:, you do this already;)
 

PureX

Veteran Member
When one's conception of reality causes them to act in conflict with reality, itself, they become dysfunctional. This is bad for them, and bad for those they interact with.

When one's conception of reality differs from ours, but does not significantly cause them to act in conflict with reality, itself, I see no reason for us to concern ourselves about it.

None of us have a clear or perfect conception of reality. All we can do is keep altering our concept of reality as necessary to try and reflect our interactions with reality, itself, as we are experiencing it. Presuming our concept of reality is 'right and true' and that any opposing view must then be 'wrong and false' is just ego-centric nonsense. And should be avoided.
 
Top