Why should religion get a free pass?

Yes, religion gets a free pass. and it is ok for it to get a free pass for claims that are not falsifiable.If the claim can and has been falsified, then it shouldn't get a free pass.But for things like believing in the soul, or reincarnation, or whatever "spiritual" belief that we cannot know if are true or not, they should get a free pass as religion because, what else are we suppose to call those beliefs?They are religious by definition. But they are 'off limits' to challenges because they cannot be falsified. So how do you prove them wrong?You can't expect people to believe in nothing except that which is empirically evidenced. That's the problem... there is no "extraordinary" (read: supernatural) evidence.

Sure. Why not?I think The Dude said it best:

quote:

---

Well... that's just, like, your opinion, man.

---

Bullshit.My evidenceless assertion is this:Pie is better than cake.Now you must question my sanity!?Pah-lease

Good point. Although it doesn't add weight to bluegenes's claim that evidenceless assertions are insane.However, my main point stands that if we can't falsify either of our beliefs about god, then it should get a free pass because we cannot know which of us is right.

I would give "your" belief a free pass though.Like I said:

quote:

---

I think The Dude said it best:

​

quote:

---

Well... that's just, like, your opinion, man.

---

---

I can't falsify your belief in the little green men, I can't convince you that they don't exist, what's wrong with giving it a free pass? BFD, IMHO. From your link:

quote:

---

Russell's teapot, [snip], intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

---

I don't think that the the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.From the OP:

quote:

---

When I say 'free pass' I mean (what I think Dawkins means) letting a statement of faith [snip] go unchallenged because it is somehow 'off limits' to such challenges.

---

Why would I challenge a claim that I can't falsify? I wouldn't. I would give it a 'free pass'.I wouldn't challenge Russell's teapot either. It too gets a free pass.

Don't bother.I'd rather communicate with people who don't intend to insult me.And I'd like to remind you of Rule #10:

quote:

---

Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.

---

I wouldn't differentiate between the scenarios. I think any of the three have the potential to be rational beliefs. Yes, all three get a free pass. A position has been given a free pass when it goes unchallenged.I wouldn't challenge any of those positions because I cannot falsify them. It would be a fruitless effort.

Giving it a free pass doesn't mean thinking that there's nothing wrong with them believing it. It means not challenging it. That would be giving it a free pass. Really? Most people seem to think that there is something wrong with believing in a 6000 y/o Earth. Assuming you are right about what most people think, I'd say that at the point referenced above, the idea would maintain being an acceptable religious belief but at that point would also become an unacceptable scientific belief. Its would become wacko to the eyes of science but 'most poeple' could still respect it as a religious belief.But my position has been that a falsified belief like a 6000 y/o Earth should NOT get a free pass.

If there's no evidence one way or the other, then how are you going to challenge the belief? No, not perfectly happy Doesn't schizophrenia have testable symtoms though? People shouldn't be locked up for simply believing something. I'm certainly not going to advocate medicating people because they are religious...There's a difference between being schizophrenic and believing something that is not falsifyable. I don't have any reason to believe in the IPU though. But not all unfalsifyable beliefs are completely delusional. Yeah, a free pass, if you will. I don't have any reasons for believing in Santa or fairies like I do for believing in my soul. So they're not the same thing and I can be consistent in giving one a free pass but not the others.

Yeah, I've been using the one provided in the OP. But then, I guess I could be mistaken by what he meant by "challenging" a belief. Do you consider a belief to be nutty simply because it lacks empirical evidence?I only consider them truly nutty, when they have been falsified yet someone still actually believes them. Because people are idiots....I've already said that a falsified belief (like prayer working) should not get a free pass.Things like believing in the soul can be rational, unless you assume that lacking empirical evidence = irrational. But I think that, itself, is irrational. You can't falsify the belief, so we will never know, how can you determine that its nutty? If its because you believe that it is nutty, without empirical evidence that it is, then your own belief has become nutty, itelf.

It depends on how they came to the belief. If they really did hear the Unicorn, then their belief could very well be rational. It would prolly still be wrong, but that doesn't make it automatically irrational.If the IPU revealed herself to you in a convincing manner, you would believe in her too. Your belief wouldn't be nutty. We're getting into a different meaning for "nuttyness".Simply believing, willy-nilly, in things that cannot be falsified could be nutty. But if you have real reasons for believing in them, them being unfalsifiable doesn't make them automatically nutty.

You never replied to my reply to your OP

Honestly, I suppose: popularity and tradition.