Why should religion get a free pass?

If this were true generally then my belief that there are little green men living on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri should be given a free pass, just as much as someone else's belief that there are no such little green men.The point being, of course, that unfalsifiable assertions should not get a free pass simply because there's no evidence either way. This rebuttal to the claim that unsupported assertions cannot be challenged is better known as the Celestial Teapot argument, click the link.--Percy

But you're not giving it a free pass. You're not thinking to yourself (or at least most people would not be thinking to themselves), "Okay, he believes there are little green men on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, and there's nothing wrong with him believing that."No, of course not. What you're likely thinking is, "He's nuts, but it just isn't worth my time challenging something so ridiculous." And of course that's a very sensible position when dealing with statements from wackos.But with religion it is different, because when someone expresses a belief that, for example, the world was created by God 6000 years ago, most people think, "Well, that's a religious belief, and there's nothing wrong with that."That is, they think this up until fundamentalists try to get it added to science class curiculums. At that point the idea passes from acceptable religious belief to wacko idea.Why is this, when it was actually a wacko idea all along?--Percy

I can see there's a definitional issue here concerning what constitutes a "free pass". I don't think this is an important issue that we need to get into, and it should be sufficient to say that for me, if you think someone is nuts for believing something ridiculous but say nothing, that's not a free pass. To me a free pass is when view as normal and rational someone with nutty beliefs. Whether you actually challenge the nuttiness overtly or not is beside the point.The main point is that an inherently loony idea, like that prayer works, is loony no matter what the context. Someone prays to God for deliverance and most people thinks that's okay, but someone makes the same request to the Pink Unicorn and it's considered loony. Why is that, since it was a loony idea all along?--Percy

I think you could exhaust entire threads establishing the criteria for a belief to be considered nutty, but I don't think we have to establish those criteria to be having this conversation, so I'll just say that I think your lone criterion doesn't cover enough ground. For instance, going back to an example I used earlier today, the idea that there really are little green men living on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri is nutty but certainly not falsified.Concerning what the OP means by challenging a belief, I think that depends upon context. If someone introduces a nutty belief at a church social, I'm always going to just go with the flow of conversation and not give any voice to the challenges that go on in my own mind. It would be a different matter if someone tried to introduce the nutty belief at a school board meeting, in which case I'd probably be outspoken. But in both cases I believe I am challenging the belief.Even Dawkins is very restrained with his criticism in the presence of expressions of sincere religious beliefs in many contexts. As militant an atheist as he is, he still isn't the type of person to disrupt dinner parties or church socials, and neither are most people. There are many situations where challenging someone's religious beliefs overtly is inappropriate and probably counterproductive, too, and saying nothing in such circumstances doesn't seem equivalent to a free pass.--Percy