The concept of cherished beliefs is an odd one, and indeed dangerous as well...

[Humanist_Activist]

Same with the concept of sacredness, especially when attached to objects or images.

I hold no cherished beliefs, and I hold nothing sacred. I think this creates a disconnect in conversations with religious people, because they do have some beliefs that they cherish or things they consider sacred. This is where the problem comes in, when debating religious people, I find it quite easy to offend them in ways that really puzzle me.

I hold many different beliefs, and accept many concepts, but I also expect and indeed welcome challenges to these beliefs and concepts because I may think they are backed up by evidence, and if not, I'll change my belief or accept a different concept. I've done this quite a few times in my lifetime so far, and I expect to do it many more times for as long as I live. As a result, I don't take offense to anything related to any idea I hold, or concept I accept.

I still defend such ideas and concepts if I think they have the evidence to back them up, but I won't take any attack on them personally. Indeed, no beliefs, ideas, or concepts I accept are wrapped in my identity. I attach a label to myself, that's true, but its more a matter of convenience than anything else.

I think this is key, because most religious people I encounter do wrap their self identity with their beliefs, and this causes problems to such an extent we may talk at rather than to each other. The mildest critiques of religious beliefs usually result in gross overreactions, like I just kicked their dog, or questioned their mother's fidelity, or even personally attacked them. Yet I did none of those things, the reaction is completely unjustified, yet all we hears are cries of persecution or disrespect from the religious.

This is also why wrapping your identity with your religion becomes dangerous for others, if the irreligious aren't careful, they can be assaulted or killed, or at the very least, receive death threats, and over the stupidest things, such as depicting a religious figures like Mohammed or Jesus in a not so flattering light, or doing the same to symbols of the religion like the cross, or communal wafers.

Here, let's give a simple example, your belief in god is idiotic.

Now, examine the sentence above and point out the personal attack, is there one? No, of course not.

Let's contrast this with a different sentence: You are stupid because you believe in god.

Now, here's a sentence to cause offense, and here is why, the first sentence attacked a belief, the second, a person. Now, the first sentence doesn't imply that you are an idiot, you may be one, but then again, you can be an intelligent, caring person, doesn't change the fact that I think you belief is idiotic. The point is that I'm sure that I hold beliefs you may think are idiotic as well, and I will disagree with you, but its not like I will take offense at this characterization.

I won't say that this problem is unique to religious arguments, politics can also be characterized the same way, with people wrapping their political ideologies up with their own identity, I'm just pointing out that its slightly more endemic in religion.