Difference between

[Unveiled Artist]

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, you do this already

In this case, it wouldn't be. For example, if I said "you're wrong about that," that would be fine. Or "you're wrong. Two and three doesn't equal four."

The idea is telling another they are wrong without discrediting the other person's belief in doing so. Unless the other takes it as an offense, I wouldn't see a problem with it.

 

[Windwalker]

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?

John's delusion is such that he requires a therapist. That means it causes a dysfunction in his life. When looking at a religion, just because you don't see things through the same set of eyes, interpret things in that language or symbol set, that means that they are "wrong" in the sense that it causes them to be dysfunctional.

"By their fruits you shall know them", really is the gauge as to the "truth" of how they believe things. Not "By their beliefs or ideas, you shall know them". No legitimate therapist would call someone who merely thought differently than themselves as dysfunctional.

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

What would be better would be to say that other persons views are wrong for themselves. If how the other person is seeing things is beneficial to them, then it's not really wrong, but just different. If it is causing themselves and others pain and sickness, then yes, you can and should call it wrong. The Phelps family with their message of hate, for instance, are in fact very wrong. "By their fruits you shall know 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).

When talking about religious views, there is no 'right or wrong' in any absolute sense, but rather good or bad in a beneficial sense. Within that religious system and its beliefs and doctrines, one can be right or wrong according to that standard set by the group. For instance, the group says God is a golden monkey, and you say he is a yellow cat. That is a wrong answer to that particular doctrine. But is that doctrine or belief absolute? Does someone have proof God is a golden monkey?

In other words, right and wrong, are relative to the system defining the parameters. But by what standard is the system itself considered right or wrong? The only one I can come up with is this. "By their fruits you shall know them". Does it benefit those who follow it? Does it lead to life and goodness, or does it lead to death and dysfunction?

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?

Because it presumes you are God, or have ownership of the Divine stuffed into your particular box of theologies. I think it is safe to say that those who do presume that to be the case, are in fact wrong. They presume as a finite limited creature, to be absolute and infinite. And that, truly, is a dysfunction. It leads to illness, not health and wellbeing.

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.

You can say it's wrong for you. But for him it may be right. Truth for the individual is relative to who they are at that time in their lives. They may have been a believer, and it was truth then, but now they are not and that is truth now.

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?

We can't look at religion the same way we look at getting correct answers on a math quiz, though I know a great many people do view God as the Cosmic Quizmaster. There are right and wrong answers to concrete things like math problems.

But there are not concrete answers to things like meaning and value, or moralities, and such. The world of lived reality is not a physics problem. And God is more Light, which can be seen from multiple perspectives, through a spectrum of beliefs, where they can in fact be more than one "right answer".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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?

I believe the analogy presented in this paragraph holds the answer when put into a particular context that matches the ultimate validity one can expect from any common religion's aggregate make-up.

When speaking about this in terms of religion, it isn't like a subject such as "math" where there are objective "right" and "wrong" answers. Instead, it is more like the topic is a work of art that the student produced. And one believer telling someone they are "wrong" about their religious belief, is like the teacher telling the student that they are "wrong" in producing whatever artwork they produced.

The understanding in that situation is that the artwork's appreciation is a completely subjective idea, and so there is no "right" and there is no "wrong." To speak of it as such is therefore taken as an affront or an insult. The artwork was more about being a part of the artist, and if you diminish the value of the artwork and call it "wrong" (instead of just saying: "it simply isn't the kind of art that appeals to me") then many people will feel that an attack against the part of them that "felt" this work of art (if they are serious about it in the first place, that is).

And yes, this is most certainly me claiming that religion is no more objective than the relative appreciation of any piece of artwork.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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."

True. Not a lot of people support the "you are wrong." It's assumed (from observation) that saying the other is wrong and supporting it is akin to debating/argument.

Here's another example in a reply to anther person.

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

Even if one said the other is wrong in a conversation (depending on relationship), I'd assume the other would perceive that what he said was wrong not the person's conviction. Maybe that's another reason people think its rude (case in point) because they feel it's threatening their conviction to their theology and not challenging the theology itself.

 

[stvdv]

In this case, it wouldn't be. For example, if I said "you're wrong about that," that would be fine. Or "you're wrong. Two and three doesn't equal four."

The idea is telling another they are wrong without discrediting the other person's belief in doing so. Unless the other takes it as an offense, I wouldn't see a problem with it.

IF you just tell the other "Your belief is wrong" is useless, unless you can prove it, otherwise its just your belief against his belief.

Making a claim without being able to prove it, is quite useless. The best way is to first be able to prove your claim, next tell the other.

 

[Shakeel]

They're hypocrites.

I suspect most of them are simply lying to your face. I believe most people saying you're beliefs are fine (to someone who has different religious beliefs from theirs) are lying, plain and simple.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

John's delusion is such that he requires a therapist. That means it causes a dysfunction in his life. When looking at a religion, just because you don't see things through the same set of eyes, interpret things in that language or symbol set, that means that they are "wrong" in the sense that it causes them to be dysfunctional.

I was more saying that a therapist is not discrediting his or her client's reality for thinking that her client is wrong. She acknowledging what is right for him "and" she knows he is wrong about what he says. That's the context of the comparison.

"By their fruits you shall know them", really is the gauge as to the "truth" of how they believe things. Not "By their beliefs or ideas, you shall know them". No legitimate therapist would call someone who merely thought differently than themselves as dysfunctional.

Its less about the therapist and client relationship and more about one person not discrediting another but still acknowledge the other person is wrong.

What would be better would be to say that other persons views are wrong for themselves. If how the other person is seeing things is beneficial to them, then it's not really wrong, but just different. If it is causing themselves and others pain and sickness, then yes, you can and should call it wrong. The Phelps family with their message of hate, for instance, are in fact very wrong. "By their fruits you shall know them."

Wrong for themselves? How would we know that? Wouldn't we only know it's wrong when comparing it to our criteria of truth and how we see reality?

In the OP case, I wouldn't say pain and suffering is involved. But yeah, it would be wrong (to the person who holds those ethics) if one person causes another person pain and their justification for doing so. Actually, this brings up a good point on pain and suffering. Some pain and suffering, the justification of such, is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to morality.

When talking about religious views, there is no 'right or wrong' in any absolute sense, but rather good or bad in a beneficial sense. Within that religious system and its beliefs and doctrines, one can be right or wrong according to that standard set by the group.

For instance, the group says God is a golden monkey, and you say he is a yellow cat. That is a wrong answer to that particular doctrine. But is that doctrine or belief absolute? Does someone have proof God is a golden monkey?

Yes. But many people won't say "you are wrong because god is not an golden monkey." I find it alright to say this, but maybe it's challenging that person's conviction that he or she believes so. It would be wise to say "you are wrong 'because...'" but either way, if its not done to discredit the other, its just respecting each person's opinion about each other.

But why can't people say the other is wrong when (in the OP) it's talking about their theology?

Even saying "you are wrong about your interpretation" isn't challenging the person's conviction. Maybe the other has the wrong interpretation and the only way he can recognize it is if someone pointed it out. (As a therapist would with cognitive distortions). Of course, it depends on the relationship both parties have, possibility and their patience level.

In other words, right and wrong, are relative to the system defining the parameters. But by what standard is the system itself considered right or wrong? The only one I can come up with is this. "By their fruits you shall know them". Does it benefit those who follow it? Does it lead to life and goodness, or does it lead to death and dysfunction?

Its by our own standards. For example, a abrahamic god believer may tell a non-believer he or she is wrong about god's non-existence.

That is fine because it's just telling the NB his opinion about the other person's conclusion of god's existence. His parameters or criteria would be his religious god-supporting theology. It would make sense that he would see the other is wrong.

Likewise, if someone believed in reincarnation and the other heaven, setting aside personal preference in language, saying the other is wrong isn't rude but saying it just doesn't jive with their personal view and criteria of reality. Which is perfectly fine in a civilized conversation.

Because it presumes you are God, or have ownership of the Divine stuffed into your particular box of theologies. I think it is safe to say that those who do presume that to be the case, are in fact wrong. They presume as a finite limited creature, to be absolute and infinite. And that, truly, is a dysfunction. It leads to illness, not health and wellbeing.

I can see why you say it presumes you are god (or in general, it presumes we know everything). Wouldn't depend on the context though?

Saying you're wrong doesn't mean we know everything. It's just voicing our opinion based on our criteria that conflicts with another.

You can say it's wrong for you. But for him it may be right. Truth for the individual is relative to who they are at that time in their lives. They may have been a believer, and it was truth then, but now they are not and that is truth now.

True. But when you say "you are wrong" the message depends on how the other takes it. If they take it objectively, of course the other could be wrong too. If they take it as an opinion based on the other person's criteria of reality, then I'd say your statement doesn't quite relate.

We can't look at religion the same way we look at getting correct answers on a math quiz, though I know a great many people do view God as the Cosmic Quizmaster. There are right and wrong answers to concrete things like math problems.

But the idea is that if you believe god exists and the other person does not, for you (I think?) if god is a fact/like math, by default if someone else says opposite, they would be wrong.

Saying that depends on the person, but wrong nonetheless.

But there are not concrete answers to things like meaning and value, or moralities, and such. The world of lived reality is not a physics problem. And God is more Light, which can be seen from multiple perspectives, through a spectrum of beliefs, where they can in fact be more than one "right answer".

I related right and wrong with moralities (how we see reality in respect to others) rather than fact and fiction or being correct or incorrect as in math.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They're hypocrites.

I suspect most of them are simply lying to your face. I believe most people saying you're beliefs are fine (to someone who has different religious beliefs from theirs) are lying, plain and simple.

Can you explain?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

IF you just tell the other "Your belief is wrong" is useless, unless you can prove it, otherwise its just your belief against his belief.

Making a claim without being able to prove it, is quite useless. The best way is to first be able to prove your claim, next tell the other.

The context is saying you are wrong based on one's criteria of right or wrong. You can say "you're wrong about the trinity" and still be respectful. Though many people would not say that because they feel each person's interpretation is right for them "therefore" to say the other is wrong would be imposing on that. My point is that I don't see it that way. One can take it that way, of course, but it shouldn't need to be depending on the context of the statement.

And yes, supporting why the other is wrong would help a lot. Not many people would do that either unless its has to do with facts. I it alright to do it with beliefs (unless or own beliefs are relative and not facts) but I notice others think its disrespectful.

 

[Nimos]

Here's another example in a reply to anther person.

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

As Stvdv also pointed out.

There is a huge difference between saying, "I think you are wrong, because of this and this." and plainly stating "You are wrong, but I respect your views".

The first way of saying someone is wrong, is because you believe that your arguments for your case is sufficient to, or good enough to show that the other person's view is flawed.

Whereas the second way of saying it, is simply to make a claim about something without providing a reason or better explanation for your point of view compared to the one you are telling is wrong.

To put it very simple.

"God exist" is exactly the same as to say "God doesn't exist"

Both of these are claims, which are meaningless, unless you provide some sort of argument for why one is more likely to be true than the other.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As Stvdv also pointed out.

There is a huge difference between saying, "I think you are wrong, because of this and this." and plainly stating "You are wrong, but I respect your views".

The first way of saying someone is wrong, is because you believe that your arguments for your case is sufficient to, or good enough to show that the other person's view is flawed.

Whereas the second way of saying it, is simply to make a claim about something without providing a reason or better explanation for your point of view compared to the one you are telling is wrong.

To put it very simple.

"God exist" is exactly the same as to say "God doesn't exist"

Both of these are claims, which are meaningless, unless you provide some sort of argument for why one is more likely to be true than the other.

Yes. Though the point wasn't really providing reasoning behind the claim. It's just saying you can say the other person is wrong without discrediting their views in doing so. I don't see it wrong in itself to tell another they are wrong if their criteria doesn't jive with my own. As for supporting why, I get that but that wasn't what I was getting at.

 

[Bird123]

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?

When one is dealing with Beliefs, one can only say I disagree. When one has the facts and the other does not then the other is wrong.

If one tells another their Beliefs are wrong when all one has are Beliefs as well, then one is wrong by saying the other is wrong. How can the other be wrong if they are doing the very same thing only in a different way? Perhaps, at this point it might come across as a personal attack. When people are attacked so often they attack back. What is accomplished in the end?

Now, if one has a basis in Fact, then placing the facts out there might seem like an attack but in reality is a gift. On the other hand, Unconditional Love must be included along with giving up the condemning and/or controlling that so often comes along.

Beliefs vrs Facts......If I step off a High Rise Building, I will fall regardless of any Beliefs I might have. So many are taught to value Beliefs over all else. Clearly the facts should be what everyone strives for.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Fool]

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?

what one believes isn't so much a problem, it only becomes a problem when the believer, not knowing, practices the belief on others; especially negative beliefs.

so there are those who live in their own beliefs and often is a very small insular bubble but when that bubble bursts they might not want to live in a bigger world because it's scary.

love isn't like that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When one is dealing with Beliefs, one can only say I disagree. When one has the facts and the other does not then the other is wrong.

If one tells another their Beliefs are wrong when all one has are Beliefs as well, then one is wrong by saying the other is wrong. How can the other be wrong if they are doing the very same thing only in a different way? Perhaps, at this point it might come across as a personal attack. When people are attacked so often they attack back. What is accomplished in the end?

Now, if one has a basis in Fact, then placing the facts out there might seem like an attack but in reality is a gift. On the other hand, Unconditional Love must be included along with giving up the condemning and/or controlling that so often comes along.

Beliefs vrs Facts......If I step off a High Rise Building, I will fall regardless of any Beliefs I might have. So many are taught to value Beliefs over all else. Clearly the facts should be what everyone strives for.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I see wrong a morality thing in this case. If I say your belief about god-existence is wrong, I'm saying my opinion based on what I know is right or wrong in how I see things.

Now, if I don't consider my belief that god does not exist a fact, than it's a weak foundation to tell others they are wrong. It's relative because my criteria is relative. If I have a strong conviction that god does 'not' exist, by saying the other is wrong is just reflecting what I see is true not assuming the other is wrong about what he or she knows is true about god existing.

So, I can say your belief Bird is wrong because the criteria of how I view reality is in conflict with yours. This is fine to say (regardless how its said). If it's a contradiction and we are convicted in our beliefs, then it the other would be wrong by default.

Of course it needs context rather than an isolated statement. In this case wrong would be moral based. Beliefs are relative and they help us judge what's right and wrong.

But I get what you're saying.

 

[Irate State]

I got hanged on the word "client" didn't know in the english language people who goes the see a therapist were called clients. Makes you think, huh?

About the post itself all I can add is that a teacher can objectively show a student why and where they're wrong. Beliefs are not an incorrect historic date or an incorrect addition, so under whose authority are people entitled to color others wrong? It's smug, imo.

 

[Nimos]

Yes. Though the point wasn't really providing reasoning behind the claim. It's just saying you can say the other person is wrong without discrediting their views in doing so. I don't see it wrong in itself to tell another they are wrong if their criteria doesn't jive with my own. As for supporting why, I get that but that wasn't what I was getting at.

That is fair enough, in that case you just disagree with their view and make no claim whether their position is true or false. But it quickly becomes a sort of phrase war

Because let's say that I told you that "I believe that God exist", and you then tell me that im wrong, without any explanation for why that is the case. Then I probably would see you as being arrogant, maybe slightly unintelligent and rude, simply knowing that you can't offer any prove for why my position is wrong, you simply claim to know better.

So its probably more about how you phrase it and making a distinction between knowing or believing someone else is wrong, and you simply disagreeing with their position.

Because its perfectly fine to think that a person is wrong about the existences of God, I myself is an atheist, so I do not actually believe that God exists, but I would never tell anyone that did, that they were wrong, simply because I can't prove that they ain't right. I can however argue that, I find it to be more likely that God doesn't exists, because this, this and that.

And obviously it also depends on what topic is being discussed, some are more sensitive than others, for instance lets say we were arguing about the color of a car. And you say its red, and I say you are wrong and that it was in fact green. The principle from above still applies, that its in theory rude or arrogant of me claiming to have better memory than you, but given that it's probably not a life changing event whether the car were one color or the other, its slightly more forgiven to just state that you were wrong.

But I think most people have been in such situations where they have argued with someone about a similar unimportant thing, where both parties are arguing based on memory rather than actually being able to provide a reasonable case. And some times, if neither party want to give for whatever reason, it turns into some childish discussion Which your statement above also is, when you just say that someone is wrong without presenting a case, and if someone gets annoyed with it, it would most likely also turn into a childish discussion.

(Just for the record, im not calling you childish or rude or anything, simply given some examples. )

 

[stvdv]

they feel each person's interpretation is right for them "therefore" to say the other is wrong would be imposing on that.

I agree

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I agree

You kinda cut it. I know the majority feel this way though I don't agree it's always the case. You can say you're wrong without imposing on others beliefs. I guess it's how you say it not particular to calling them out.

 

[stvdv]

You kinda cut it.

I know the majority feel this way though I don't agree it's always the case.

I love "Freedom of Belief (Religion)"

You can say you're wrong without imposing on others beliefs.

The question that remains: "To Be or Not to Be"
Is there "right and wrong" when talking about belief?

I guess it's how you say it not particular to calling them out.

Exactly

Why call someone out on "what (s)he believes"?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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?

Well - at least in terms of religion and belief - neither side can prove anything.

That's why it makes no sense to claim that someone is wrong. Neither side has an proof.