Do you think we should tiptoe around religious issues for fear of offense?
Hell no, we should try offend them, maybe then they will rexamine their beliefs.
4.5% (6)
4.5% (6)
Absolutely not, religious people should hear how insane their views are to an outsider.
18.7% (25)
18.7% (25)
Not really, it is just another viewpoint open to discussion, respect should only factor in to the same extent as one would give an opposing political view.
64.9% (87)
64.9% (87)
Yes, to an extent, but some things must be examined and possibly changed.
7.5% (10)
7.5% (10)
Yes, it is important not to hurt peoples feelings at all.
0.7% (1)
0.7% (1)
You missed my viewpoint you bastard! (Other, explain)
3.7% (5)
3.7% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Respect, Religion and Offense

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

When I mentioned the potential creation of this thread it to a poster I happened to be arguing with, I didn't expect to end up creating it, but I've decided I see enough of the arugment to warrant its own thread. Even if it has been done before.
I'll put a couple of views on here that are similar to mine for a start:

As for me, I am making this thread as, at least partially, a reuslt from arguing with religious people. It seems to me that whenever I either make a joke about religion such as in the second post of this thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.398228-Stupid-things-you-believed-as-a-kid, or when I outright dispute a factual claim they are making, such as the Jews being slaves in Egypt, I recieve undue amounts of protest, saying that I am insulting people by making these jokes and disputing these facts. This is absolutely ridiculous. What I am insulting is the belief, not the people, if they choose to take offense and see themselves as the embodiment of their religion, that is their burden, not mine.

In short, I am sick of walking on eggshells. If you are going to hold beliefs that have no evidence, expect them to be ridiculed, expect no respect towards the belief, most importantly, expect them to be questioned.

Uhh, so yeah. This should be fun, discuss.

(For the record, I picked this poll option: Not really, it is just another viewpoint open to discussion, respect should only factor in to the same extent as one would give an opposing political view.)

Yes and no.

On the one hand, we should be able to say what we want, and be able to critically and sensibly discuss everything.

On the other hand, if saying something is going to do nothing other than piss lots of people off and cause a fight, it's probably not a good idea.

The trick is knowing whether saying something that will piss off lots of people and cause a fight will also cause something else worthwhile to happen.

What should be done when disputing a religion is go about it how you would a serious political debate. Use actual facts. ridiculing the other side is a pointless dick move for a person to do in any discussion. Exspealially religion, were some feel so strongly about it.

Wait, are you using that thread as an example of undue protest? One dude having a beef with what you said?

LetalisK:
Wait, are you using that thread as an example of undue protest? One dude having a beef with what you said?

I have no problem with someone having a beef with what I say, but I do find it odd when they find it offensive.

Shadowstar38:
What should be done when disputing a religion is go about it how you would a serious political debate. Use actual facts. ridiculing the other side is a pointless dick move for a person to do in any discussion. Exspealially religion, were some feel so strongly about it.

.
You have no idea how strongly some users here feel about communism/socialism.
.
You address the base of their belief, not the belief itself. You don't say "Ohh, you're stupid for believing X". You say - "The facts on X don't hold up. I find it hard to believe in X. Look at the facts and see what I mean".

When Hitchens said that the number one source of hatred in the world is religion, organized religion, I agree. It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

Bashfluff:
When Hitchens said that the number one source of hatred in the world is religion, organized religion, I agree. It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

...however, the only acceptable way for religion to die is for people to leave it and seek out other ways to get answers of their own accord. Whether or not religion is ever going to die, I have no idea, but this is the only way it should happen if it does.

Vegosiux:

Bashfluff:
When Hitchens said that the number one source of hatred in the world is religion, organized religion, I agree. It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

...however, the only acceptable way for religion to die is for people to leave it and seek out other ways to get answers of their own accord. Whether or not religion is ever going to die, I have no idea, but this is the only way it should happen if it does.

No it is not. If you were to visit a place under religious oppression not only in leadership, but in the morals of the people, you would realize that people will not come to realize this on the whole and the harm that comes from allowing the barbaric to be barbarians. As with most ideas, we must learn as a culture. We have to say, "HEY! That alchemy stuff is a bunch of garbage!" and "The Earth is round!" if we are to get anywhere.

We do the same thing with racism and sexism, with homophobia. We treat it with scorn, contempt, and ridicule, and we do it because it deserves it and it deserves to die.

Bashfluff:

No it is not. If you were to visit a place under religious oppression not only in leadership, but in the morals of the people, you would realize that people will not come to realize this on the whole and the harm that comes from allowing the barbaric to be barbarians. As with most ideas, we must learn as a culture. We have to say, "HEY! That alchemy stuff is a bunch of garbage!" and "The Earth is round!" if we are to get anywhere.

I never said we shouldn't educate people. But our reason to educate them should be, well, educating them, regardless of the effects on their religion.

We do the same thing with racism and sexism, with homophobia. We treat it with scorn, contempt, and ridicule, and we do it because it deserves it and it deserves to die.

Imagine if your math teacher, on the first day of school, started to ridicule you because you can't do math? How would that help your desires to learn math?

Now replace "math" with "understand racism and homophobia are a bad idea".

Education is what does the work, not ridicule.

Vegosiux:

Bashfluff:

No it is not. If you were to visit a place under religious oppression not only in leadership, but in the morals of the people, you would realize that people will not come to realize this on the whole and the harm that comes from allowing the barbaric to be barbarians. As with most ideas, we must learn as a culture. We have to say, "HEY! That alchemy stuff is a bunch of garbage!" and "The Earth is round!" if we are to get anywhere.

I never said we shouldn't educate people. But our reason to educate them should be, well, educating them, regardless of the effects on their religion.

We do the same thing with racism and sexism, with homophobia. We treat it with scorn, contempt, and ridicule, and we do it because it deserves it and it deserves to die.

Imagine if your math teacher, on the first day of school, started to ridicule you because you can't do math? How would that help your desires to learn math?

Now replace "math" with "understand racism and homophobia are a bad idea".

Education is what does the work, not ridicule.

People should be educated. Religion should be treated with "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" is a separate point, and you fail to see that I was making an analogy. We do not live in a classroom. It is not my job to slowly, gradually teach you the principles of tolerance or constantly explain why saying sexist, homophobic, or racist comments are hurtful/offensive and worthy of ridicule, and you would be hard-pressed to find a majority of people who would be willing to have that job. The real world does not work that way.

Bashfluff:

It is not my job to slowly, gradually teach you the principles of tolerance or constantly explain why saying sexist, homophobic, or racist comments are hurtful/offensive and worthy of ridicule, and you would be hard-pressed to find a majority of people who would be willing to have that job. The real world does not work that way.

Actually, the real world works very much that way, that's why these changes are usually so slow, understanding of paradigm shifts needs to get ingrained in the society in order to get past all that stuff and that takes time.

I'm an atheist, but I don't agree religion should be suppressed and persecuted, or even ridiculed. Yes, I will laugh at a person believing something I consider outrageously stupid. I will get quite pissy with a person who'd do another harm in the name of any religion.

But religion as a concept? If it is to be abandoned, it needs to be abandoned voluntarily.

Vegosiux:

Bashfluff:

It is not my job to slowly, gradually teach you the principles of tolerance or constantly explain why saying sexist, homophobic, or racist comments are hurtful/offensive and worthy of ridicule, and you would be hard-pressed to find a majority of people who would be willing to have that job. The real world does not work that way.

Actually, the real world works very much that way, that's why these changes are usually so slow, understanding of paradigm shifts needs to get ingrained in the society in order to get past all that stuff and that takes time.

I'm an atheist, but I don't agree religion should be suppressed and persecuted, or even ridiculed. Yes, I will laugh at a person believing something I consider outrageously stupid. I will get quite pissy with a person who'd do another harm in the name of any religion.

But religion as a concept? If it is to be abandoned, it needs to be abandoned voluntarily.

In the world, people sit you down and gradually teach you, step by step, from the basics to the advanced, about every idea ever, or even religion in particular? No. The reason why changes are so slow is because it is drug forward by a few and everyone else has to catch up or be left behind. Religion should not be suppressed or persecuted legally. Ridiculed, certainly. I would ridicule a Flat Earth Society member, same as a religious person.

Concepts do need to be abandoned voluntarily. I have never advocated changing the beliefs of people by force in that way. I argue for peer pressure. To laugh at ridiculous beliefs and to create a culture that is not welcoming to them--The one we have now, except religion would be included. Religion can be poisonous to many people physically and psychologically, and to a society, morally. I claim the right to do my part to remove that poison by way of intellectual debate and of ridicule, and I think it's a damn good idea.

Bashfluff:
People should be educated. Religion should be treated with "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" is a separate point, and you fail to see that I was making an analogy. We do not live in a classroom. It is not my job to slowly, gradually teach you the principles of tolerance or constantly explain why saying sexist, homophobic, or racist comments are hurtful/offensive and worthy of ridicule, and you would be hard-pressed to find a majority of people who would be willing to have that job. The real world does not work that way.

If so, then the real world is kind of an idiot :)
Becoming an atheist, especially in a religious environment, is a long and gradual process. New ideas that completely contradict not only everything you've been taught but everything that everyone around you has been taught, takes time.
Going around and calling people who don't agree with you idiots, without taking the time to explain it properly, is just bullying.

To me, offending people is only really acceptable when there was a point to what was said. If you are really trying to make a good argument about something, I couldn't care less if it offended people. However, being a dick for dick's sake is just annoying.

I see no reason to afford religions additional respect. Respect has to be earned, it's not automatically give. Perhaps even less so as many religious groups use "But you have to show respect!" as a way to avoid their beliefs and their actions being questioned.

A good example is the claim that creationism and biology are somehow comparable equals. Ussually a creationist 'wants both taught in classrooms, because, show respect' to summarize it very shortly. That's a trick to get around the fact that creationism is utter nonsense, and biology defined as the collective knowledge gathered in the school subject given is unshakeable unassailable fact. Stuff like how plants grow quite simple isn't going to get u-turned anymore, there is no more uncertainty, we know how it works.

But that's what frightens some religious denominations. If we know how it is, we have no more need for myths to provide us false hope and incorrect guessed answers to big questions.


Do we teach myths about thunder gods right next to modern physics about how electricity works? Then why should it work any different for other religious myths?

I picked the 'other' option, because although the 'Not really' option came quite close to how I feel, it didn't quite capture it.

The point is, I don't care what your viewpoint is, as long as you are respectful when sharing it. Respectful dialogue is the only way co-operative progress can be made. Sharing of viewpoints is useful - looking at things from a different angle can expose different facets of an idea. But that co-operation is nigh impossible if the two parties are at each others throats.

So basically, be respectful, try to understand why someone holds a particular viewpoint, even if you don't necessarily share it. Never try to offend someone purely because they believe different things to you.

Arakasi:

LetalisK:
Wait, are you using that thread as an example of undue protest? One dude having a beef with what you said?

I have no problem with someone having a beef with what I say, but I do find it odd when they find it offensive.

Odd? I would think it would be the expected response. You're calling into question the foundations of their life and how they view the world. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized, but I would think it's a completely predictable response.

Bashfluff:

Vegosiux:

Bashfluff:
When Hitchens said that the number one source of hatred in the world is religion, organized religion, I agree. It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

...however, the only acceptable way for religion to die is for people to leave it and seek out other ways to get answers of their own accord. Whether or not religion is ever going to die, I have no idea, but this is the only way it should happen if it does.

No it is not. If you were to visit a place under religious oppression not only in leadership, but in the morals of the people, you would realize that people will not come to realize this on the whole and the harm that comes from allowing the barbaric to be barbarians. As with most ideas, we must learn as a culture. We have to say, "HEY! That alchemy stuff is a bunch of garbage!" and "The Earth is round!" if we are to get anywhere.

We do the same thing with racism and sexism, with homophobia. We treat it with scorn, contempt, and ridicule, and we do it because it deserves it and it deserves to die.

And why does it deserve to die? What about churches that don't hurt anyone or teach any "intolerant" teachings? What about those of us who are religious but treat everyone equally? Some parts of organized religion are bad (the pope protecting pedophiles for example) but for the most part religion is a good thing. It gives us hope and comfort in a depressing world. Even if you call it false-hope it's still better than no hope at all.

What was that quote, about being obliged to respect religion to the same degree you'd respect a man's opinion that his wife is beautiful and his children are clever. To the degree that it's a personally-held belief we should probably respect religious views and even be tolerant of them being aired out loud now and again.

On the other hand, as soon as religion tries entering politics or science, it actively opens itself up to scrutiny, and at that point deserves no punches pulled. I'd particularly like to eradicate the two-faced hypocrisy wherein the religious majority throw their weight about as a matter of course, and when challenged about it cry foul and pretend to be an oppressed minority.

HardkorSB:

Bashfluff:
People should be educated. Religion should be treated with "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" is a separate point, and you fail to see that I was making an analogy. We do not live in a classroom. It is not my job to slowly, gradually teach you the principles of tolerance or constantly explain why saying sexist, homophobic, or racist comments are hurtful/offensive and worthy of ridicule, and you would be hard-pressed to find a majority of people who would be willing to have that job. The real world does not work that way.

If so, then the real world is kind of an idiot :)
Becoming an atheist, especially in a religious environment, is a long and gradual process. New ideas that completely contradict not only everything you've been taught but everything that everyone around you has been taught, takes time.
Going around and calling people who don't agree with you idiots, without taking the time to explain it properly, is just bullying.

That is true. But I never said that I would call people idiots, although I just might, and I never said I would never offer an explanation. Although I would say if I met a creationist or Flat Earth Society member or Westboro Baptist Church member, I would call them an idiot and feel that society would seem to protect me without me having to explain anything at all and without it being bullying.

Xan Krieger:

Bashfluff:

Vegosiux:

...however, the only acceptable way for religion to die is for people to leave it and seek out other ways to get answers of their own accord. Whether or not religion is ever going to die, I have no idea, but this is the only way it should happen if it does.

No it is not. If you were to visit a place under religious oppression not only in leadership, but in the morals of the people, you would realize that people will not come to realize this on the whole and the harm that comes from allowing the barbaric to be barbarians. As with most ideas, we must learn as a culture. We have to say, "HEY! That alchemy stuff is a bunch of garbage!" and "The Earth is round!" if we are to get anywhere.

We do the same thing with racism and sexism, with homophobia. We treat it with scorn, contempt, and ridicule, and we do it because it deserves it and it deserves to die.

And why does it deserve to die? What about churches that don't hurt anyone or teach any "intolerant" teachings? What about those of us who are religious but treat everyone equally? Some parts of organized religion are bad (the pope protecting pedophiles for example) but for the most part religion is a good thing. It gives us hope and comfort in a depressing world. Even if you call it false-hope it's still better than no hope at all.

I just said why it deserves to die. Even "harmless" churches do harm people through their teachings and their delusions, and how they view the world. Morally, I see many religions as contemptible, and the environment that many have about being able to question and critical thought is deplorable. The attitude of the religions and the religious towards proof is similar. It only teaches that which protects its dogma. If we want to talk of Christianity, we can talk of coercion by fear, how it is exclusive and can split apart friendships and families, or other relationships. Christianity uses morality that is, mostly, innate or bad. It doesn't matter if we have evolved as a society to ignore it and move past it, it's just what that religion does and is. There are many moral Christians who are moral in spite of their holy books, and immoral Christians because of them. It depends on your level of subservience and your pre-existing morality.

I do not care if something is comforting. There are a great many things in this world that are comforting but false, like Santa Claus, that I would look down on someone for believing because it's just sad. We live in a world where the only way we can advance is to leave behind untruth. Morally, scientifically, and socially. We can continue to ignore religious texts every time we want that change, or we could realize that it's not true and throw it out.

Bashfluff:

HardkorSB:

Bashfluff:
People should be educated. Religion should be treated with "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" is a separate point, and you fail to see that I was making an analogy. We do not live in a classroom. It is not my job to slowly, gradually teach you the principles of tolerance or constantly explain why saying sexist, homophobic, or racist comments are hurtful/offensive and worthy of ridicule, and you would be hard-pressed to find a majority of people who would be willing to have that job. The real world does not work that way.

If so, then the real world is kind of an idiot :)
Becoming an atheist, especially in a religious environment, is a long and gradual process. New ideas that completely contradict not only everything you've been taught but everything that everyone around you has been taught, takes time.
Going around and calling people who don't agree with you idiots, without taking the time to explain it properly, is just bullying.

That is true. But I never said that I would call people idiots, although I just might, and I never said I would never offer an explanation. Although I would say if I met a creationist or Flat Earth Society member or Westboro Baptist Church member, I would call them an idiot and feel that society would seem to protect me without me having to explain anything at all and without it being bullying.

Xan Krieger:

Bashfluff:

No it is not. If you were to visit a place under religious oppression not only in leadership, but in the morals of the people, you would realize that people will not come to realize this on the whole and the harm that comes from allowing the barbaric to be barbarians. As with most ideas, we must learn as a culture. We have to say, "HEY! That alchemy stuff is a bunch of garbage!" and "The Earth is round!" if we are to get anywhere.

We do the same thing with racism and sexism, with homophobia. We treat it with scorn, contempt, and ridicule, and we do it because it deserves it and it deserves to die.

And why does it deserve to die? What about churches that don't hurt anyone or teach any "intolerant" teachings? What about those of us who are religious but treat everyone equally? Some parts of organized religion are bad (the pope protecting pedophiles for example) but for the most part religion is a good thing. It gives us hope and comfort in a depressing world. Even if you call it false-hope it's still better than no hope at all.

I just said why it deserves to die. Even "harmless" churches do harm people through their teachings and their delusions, and how they view the world. Morally, I see many religions as contemptible, and the environment that many have about being able to question and critical thought is deplorable. The attitude of the religions and the religious towards proof is similar. It only teaches that which protects its dogma. If we want to talk of Christianity, we can talk of coercion by fear, how it is exclusive and can split apart friendships and families, or other relationships. Christianity uses morality that is, mostly, innate or bad. It doesn't matter if we have evolved as a society to ignore it and move past it, it's just what that religion does and is. There are many moral Christians who are moral in spite of their holy books, and immoral Christians because of them. It depends on your level of subservience and your pre-existing morality.

I do not care if something is comforting. There are a great many things in this world that are comforting but false, like Santa Claus, that I would look down on someone for believing because it's just sad. We live in a world where the only way we can advance is to leave behind untruth. Morally, scientifically, and socially. We can continue to ignore religious texts every time we want that change, or we could realize that it's not true and throw it out.

So your answer to the religion, which you consider to be the greatest cause of hatred and bigotry and bad stuff...

is brutal tyranny, thought policing, hatred, and bigotry.

OT: Extra respect for any belief is not necessary. What is necessary is keeping in mind you are chipping away at someones fundamental beliefs in the structure of the universe. It's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of actually doing good rather then just causing someone to reflexively curl in and then lash out, which is what happens when you attack someones basic beliefs.

If you want to treat it like a war, why are you treating it like something out of the era where the tactic was "Attack the strongest point and add up the bodies, whoever lost less wins.". It's a stupid way to fight a war.

Bentusi16:

Bashfluff:

HardkorSB:

If so, then the real world is kind of an idiot :)
Becoming an atheist, especially in a religious environment, is a long and gradual process. New ideas that completely contradict not only everything you've been taught but everything that everyone around you has been taught, takes time.
Going around and calling people who don't agree with you idiots, without taking the time to explain it properly, is just bullying.

That is true. But I never said that I would call people idiots, although I just might, and I never said I would never offer an explanation. Although I would say if I met a creationist or Flat Earth Society member or Westboro Baptist Church member, I would call them an idiot and feel that society would seem to protect me without me having to explain anything at all and without it being bullying.

Xan Krieger:
And why does it deserve to die? What about churches that don't hurt anyone or teach any "intolerant" teachings? What about those of us who are religious but treat everyone equally? Some parts of organized religion are bad (the pope protecting pedophiles for example) but for the most part religion is a good thing. It gives us hope and comfort in a depressing world. Even if you call it false-hope it's still better than no hope at all.

I just said why it deserves to die. Even "harmless" churches do harm people through their teachings and their delusions, and how they view the world. Morally, I see many religions as contemptible, and the environment that many have about being able to question and critical thought is deplorable. The attitude of the religions and the religious towards proof is similar. It only teaches that which protects its dogma. If we want to talk of Christianity, we can talk of coercion by fear, how it is exclusive and can split apart friendships and families, or other relationships. Christianity uses morality that is, mostly, innate or bad. It doesn't matter if we have evolved as a society to ignore it and move past it, it's just what that religion does and is. There are many moral Christians who are moral in spite of their holy books, and immoral Christians because of them. It depends on your level of subservience and your pre-existing morality.

I do not care if something is comforting. There are a great many things in this world that are comforting but false, like Santa Claus, that I would look down on someone for believing because it's just sad. We live in a world where the only way we can advance is to leave behind untruth. Morally, scientifically, and socially. We can continue to ignore religious texts every time we want that change, or we could realize that it's not true and throw it out.

So your answer to the religion, which you consider to be the greatest cause of hatred and bigotry and bad stuff...

is brutal tyranny, thought policing, hatred, and bigotry.

OT: Extra respect for any belief is not necessary. What is necessary is keeping in mind you are chipping away at someones fundamental beliefs in the structure of the universe. It's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of actually doing good rather then just causing someone to reflexively curl in and then lash out, which is what happens when you attack someones basic beliefs.

If you want to treat it like a war, why are you treating it like something out of the era where the tactic was "Attack the strongest point and add up the bodies, whoever lost less wins.". It's a stupid way to fight a war.

Ummm, no. I never said that. You can try and twist my words, or we can have a meaningful discussion. You choose.

Bashfluff:

Bentusi16:

Bashfluff:

That is true. But I never said that I would call people idiots, although I just might, and I never said I would never offer an explanation. Although I would say if I met a creationist or Flat Earth Society member or Westboro Baptist Church member, I would call them an idiot and feel that society would seem to protect me without me having to explain anything at all and without it being bullying.

I just said why it deserves to die. Even "harmless" churches do harm people through their teachings and their delusions, and how they view the world. Morally, I see many religions as contemptible, and the environment that many have about being able to question and critical thought is deplorable. The attitude of the religions and the religious towards proof is similar. It only teaches that which protects its dogma. If we want to talk of Christianity, we can talk of coercion by fear, how it is exclusive and can split apart friendships and families, or other relationships. Christianity uses morality that is, mostly, innate or bad. It doesn't matter if we have evolved as a society to ignore it and move past it, it's just what that religion does and is. There are many moral Christians who are moral in spite of their holy books, and immoral Christians because of them. It depends on your level of subservience and your pre-existing morality.

I do not care if something is comforting. There are a great many things in this world that are comforting but false, like Santa Claus, that I would look down on someone for believing because it's just sad. We live in a world where the only way we can advance is to leave behind untruth. Morally, scientifically, and socially. We can continue to ignore religious texts every time we want that change, or we could realize that it's not true and throw it out.

So your answer to the religion, which you consider to be the greatest cause of hatred and bigotry and bad stuff...

is brutal tyranny, thought policing, hatred, and bigotry.

OT: Extra respect for any belief is not necessary. What is necessary is keeping in mind you are chipping away at someones fundamental beliefs in the structure of the universe. It's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of actually doing good rather then just causing someone to reflexively curl in and then lash out, which is what happens when you attack someones basic beliefs.

If you want to treat it like a war, why are you treating it like something out of the era where the tactic was "Attack the strongest point and add up the bodies, whoever lost less wins.". It's a stupid way to fight a war.

Ummm, no. I never said that. You can try and twist my words, or we can have a meaningful discussion. You choose.

It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

Oh sorry, that's just the attitude vibe I was getting from you what with the frothing at the mouth preaching about the religion of evil..sorry, evils of religion. You're right, you never said those things, sorry, my bad. See when you start throwing out phrases like 'it needs to die', I have this belief when it comes to...ideas. Ideas take people to propagate so if you say 'Christianity needs to die', what I infer that as meaning is that you want to wipe out Christianity, and to do that you have to wipe out the people propagating the idea.

Although I'm curious, if education is the key to 'destroying religion', why is it that educated people still have religion? Quite intelligent people at that.

Bentusi16:

Bashfluff:

Bentusi16:

So your answer to the religion, which you consider to be the greatest cause of hatred and bigotry and bad stuff...

is brutal tyranny, thought policing, hatred, and bigotry.

OT: Extra respect for any belief is not necessary. What is necessary is keeping in mind you are chipping away at someones fundamental beliefs in the structure of the universe. It's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of actually doing good rather then just causing someone to reflexively curl in and then lash out, which is what happens when you attack someones basic beliefs.

If you want to treat it like a war, why are you treating it like something out of the era where the tactic was "Attack the strongest point and add up the bodies, whoever lost less wins.". It's a stupid way to fight a war.

Ummm, no. I never said that. You can try and twist my words, or we can have a meaningful discussion. You choose.

It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

Oh sorry, that's just the attitude vibe I was getting from you what with the frothing at the mouth preaching about the religion of evil..sorry, evils of religion. You're right, you never said those things, sorry, my bad. See when you start throwing out phrases like 'it needs to die', I have this belief when it comes to...ideas. Ideas take people to propagate so if you say 'Christianity needs to die', what I infer that as meaning is that you want to wipe out Christianity, and to do that you have to wipe out the people propagating the idea.

Although I'm curious, if education is the key to 'destroying religion', why is it that educated people still have religion? Quite intelligent people at that.

I wonder those things as well. I consider myself fairly well educated and I'm still religious. I also love that bit about wiping out ideas, those ideas shall remain in my head till my death and I will happily discuss them with people in a civil manner. I feel that this topic shall get very interesting.

Bentusi16:

Bashfluff:

Bentusi16:

So your answer to the religion, which you consider to be the greatest cause of hatred and bigotry and bad stuff...

is brutal tyranny, thought policing, hatred, and bigotry.

OT: Extra respect for any belief is not necessary. What is necessary is keeping in mind you are chipping away at someones fundamental beliefs in the structure of the universe. It's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of actually doing good rather then just causing someone to reflexively curl in and then lash out, which is what happens when you attack someones basic beliefs.

If you want to treat it like a war, why are you treating it like something out of the era where the tactic was "Attack the strongest point and add up the bodies, whoever lost less wins.". It's a stupid way to fight a war.

Ummm, no. I never said that. You can try and twist my words, or we can have a meaningful discussion. You choose.

It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

Oh sorry, that's just the attitude vibe I was getting from you what with the frothing at the mouth preaching about the religion of evil..sorry, evils of religion. You're right, you never said those things, sorry, my bad. See when you start throwing out phrases like 'it needs to die', I have this belief when it comes to...ideas. Ideas take people to propagate so if you say 'Christianity needs to die', what I infer that as meaning is that you want to wipe out Christianity, and to do that you have to wipe out the people propagating the idea.

Although I'm curious, if education is the key to 'destroying religion', why is it that educated people still have religion? Quite intelligent people at that.

As long as you realize you were fallaciously jumping to conclusions, all is forgiven. I rationalize the last statement by saying that smart people can still think really dumb things.

Bashfluff:

Bentusi16:

Bashfluff:

Ummm, no. I never said that. You can try and twist my words, or we can have a meaningful discussion. You choose.

It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

Oh sorry, that's just the attitude vibe I was getting from you what with the frothing at the mouth preaching about the religion of evil..sorry, evils of religion. You're right, you never said those things, sorry, my bad. See when you start throwing out phrases like 'it needs to die', I have this belief when it comes to...ideas. Ideas take people to propagate so if you say 'Christianity needs to die', what I infer that as meaning is that you want to wipe out Christianity, and to do that you have to wipe out the people propagating the idea.

Although I'm curious, if education is the key to 'destroying religion', why is it that educated people still have religion? Quite intelligent people at that.

As long as you realize you were fallaciously jumping to conclusions, all is forgiven. I rationalize the last statement by saying that smart people can still think really dumb things.

Dumb things according to you. Here's what I don't get though. You're saying you want ideas you disagree with to die off. What makes your ideas better than anyone else's, especially if they're not hurting you? It would be like me saying atheism should die, you see how that sounds?

Xan Krieger:
Dumb things according to you. Here's what I don't get though. You're saying you want ideas you disagree with to die off. What makes your ideas better than anyone else's, especially if they're not hurting you? It would be like me saying atheism should die, you see how that sounds?

That doesn't fly however, as religion is extremely harmfull, on many levels.

To name just a few which affect me even though I go out of my way to avoid having to do anything religious: Stores have to be closed on sunday because of a religious dictate turned into law.

For contraceptives I need additional healthcare insurance if I'm over 21 or it's all self-paid. Used to be a major expense for me back in the day. In some weeks most of the little money I had went to it. Thank you Christianity. I'd rather have spent that money saving up for university rather than ensuring there's not a hundred little blablahb's out there by the time I graduated, and I didn't have herpes or HIV. Certainly could've saved me living three years in a shithole of a house because it was cheap, struggling to get all my subjects passing marks because you have to work to days a week.

That IUD we use now still costs us a good € 40 and the yearly checkup € 15. That's still one night of partying hard for two that you're having to throw away because religion has dictated that we must breed like rabbits, let our kids live like rats, and if you disagree with that you have to afford the contraceptives to avoid that yourself.

And what about that idiot who keeps pestering me at the university entrance every other week or so? That failed missionary loser doesn't take no for an answer, and is so horribly holier-than-thou. No religion would mean he'd have done something with his life instead.

And why is € 16.800 (2010 numbers) going to maintaining religious buildings and funded them ringing the bells? Heck, I pay local taxes. I'd like them not to be totally wasted on funding religion. There's people in this city who can't even afford all the food they need. You could help them from that money if it hadn't been wasted on religion instead.


Seems like wanting religion gone or powerless is still more 'only a dumb thing according to you', don't you think?


Captcha is the master of irony: pester power

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
Dumb things according to you. Here's what I don't get though. You're saying you want ideas you disagree with to die off. What makes your ideas better than anyone else's, especially if they're not hurting you? It would be like me saying atheism should die, you see how that sounds?

That doesn't fly however, as religion is extremely harmfull, on many levels.

To name just a few which affect me even though I go out of my way to avoid having to do anything religious: Stores have to be closed on sunday because of a religious dictate turned into law.

For contraceptives I need additional healthcare insurance if I'm over 21 or it's all self-paid. Used to be a major expense for me back in the day. In some weeks most of the little money I had went to it. Thank you Christianity. I'd rather have spent that money saving up for university rather than ensuring there's not a hundred little blablahb's out there by the time I graduated, and I didn't have herpes or HIV. Certainly could've saved me living three years in a shithole of a house because it was cheap, struggling to get all my subjects passing marks because you have to work to days a week.

That IUD we use now still costs us a good € 40 and the yearly checkup € 15. That's still one night of partying hard for two that you're having to throw away because religion has dictated that we must breed like rabbits, let our kids live like rats, and if you disagree with that you have to afford the contraceptives to avoid that yourself.

And what about that idiot who keeps pestering me at the university entrance every other week or so? That failed missionary loser doesn't take no for an answer, and is so horribly holier-than-thou. No religion would mean he'd have done something with his life instead.

And why is € 16.800 (2010 numbers) going to maintaining religious buildings and funded them ringing the bells? Heck, I pay local taxes. I'd like them not to be totally wasted on funding religion. There's people in this city who can't even afford all the food they need. You could help them from that money if it hadn't been wasted on religion instead.


Seems like wanting religion gone or powerless is still more 'only a dumb thing according to you', don't you think?


Captcha is the master of irony: pester power

He didn't say he wanted it out of government, he said he wanted it gone, as in nobody being religious. Stores do not have to be closed on Sunday, that is up to the owner, not a law. Contraceptives? While I agree that those should be covered and I am pro-abortion you can always simply choose to not have sex. I'm 22 and haven't kissed a girl, not having sex is not hard. As for the person pestering you, it reminds me of anti-theists (of which there are some on the forum). Just ignore him if you don't want to listen. As for money paying for religious buildings, that shouldn't come from the government unless they're historical buildings (some of those cathedrals in Europe come to mind).

Xan Krieger:

Bashfluff:

Bentusi16:

It should be treated with ridicule and hatred whenever it's found. It needs to die if we are to move forward as a society.

Oh sorry, that's just the attitude vibe I was getting from you what with the frothing at the mouth preaching about the religion of evil..sorry, evils of religion. You're right, you never said those things, sorry, my bad. See when you start throwing out phrases like 'it needs to die', I have this belief when it comes to...ideas. Ideas take people to propagate so if you say 'Christianity needs to die', what I infer that as meaning is that you want to wipe out Christianity, and to do that you have to wipe out the people propagating the idea.

Although I'm curious, if education is the key to 'destroying religion', why is it that educated people still have religion? Quite intelligent people at that.

As long as you realize you were fallaciously jumping to conclusions, all is forgiven. I rationalize the last statement by saying that smart people can still think really dumb things.

Dumb things according to you. Here's what I don't get though. You're saying you want ideas you disagree with to die off. What makes your ideas better than anyone else's, especially if they're not hurting you? It would be like me saying atheism should die, you see how that sounds?

I've already explained this. I've explained the harm. I've explained the hurt. I've explained the detriment to society. I'm not saying I want ideas I disagree with to die off. Thank you for assuming AGAIN, by the way. I'm saying that idea. That particular idea needs to die. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion. It's not a ideology. It's not a moral system. Atheism cannot be harmful on the same level of religion for those reasons. You don't commit murder because you believe that the Earth is round or that you do not believe in Santa Claus. Nothing about atheism--the simple rejection of a claim--advocates it or inspires it.

Bashfluff:

Xan Krieger:

Bashfluff:

As long as you realize you were fallaciously jumping to conclusions, all is forgiven. I rationalize the last statement by saying that smart people can still think really dumb things.

Dumb things according to you. Here's what I don't get though. You're saying you want ideas you disagree with to die off. What makes your ideas better than anyone else's, especially if they're not hurting you? It would be like me saying atheism should die, you see how that sounds?

I've already explained this. I've explained the harm. I've explained the hurt. I've explained the detriment to society. I'm not saying I want ideas I disagree with to die off. Thank you for assuming AGAIN, by the way. I'm saying that idea. That particular idea needs to die. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion. It's not a ideology. It's not a moral system. Atheism cannot be harmful on the same level of religion for those reasons. You don't commit murder because you believe that the Earth is round or that you do not believe in Santa Claus. Nothing about atheism--the simple rejection of a claim--advocates it or inspires it.

Me and Blahb just discussed the harmful bits. I get that governments haven't totally separated government from religion. If we did achieve complete separation of church and state then would you be more tolerant of religion?

Xan Krieger:

Bashfluff:

Xan Krieger:
Dumb things according to you. Here's what I don't get though. You're saying you want ideas you disagree with to die off. What makes your ideas better than anyone else's, especially if they're not hurting you? It would be like me saying atheism should die, you see how that sounds?

I've already explained this. I've explained the harm. I've explained the hurt. I've explained the detriment to society. I'm not saying I want ideas I disagree with to die off. Thank you for assuming AGAIN, by the way. I'm saying that idea. That particular idea needs to die. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion. It's not a ideology. It's not a moral system. Atheism cannot be harmful on the same level of religion for those reasons. You don't commit murder because you believe that the Earth is round or that you do not believe in Santa Claus. Nothing about atheism--the simple rejection of a claim--advocates it or inspires it.

Me and Blahb just discussed the harmful bits. I get that governments haven't totally separated government from religion. If we did achieve complete separation of church and state then would you be more tolerant of religion?

More tolerant? Sure, although I doubt that would ever happened because of how religions and religious institutes are structured. But not much. Why would I? That's only part of the problem.

Ridiculing a person's belief, while completely justifiable in the case of some of the more delusional elements of various religions, is not always wise if your goal is to persuade. While it's true that it could cause some to think harder about what they believe, we are predisposed to go on the defensive when we perceive an attack, and ridicule of belief is often perceived as an attack. Once a person goes on the defensive, persuasion becomes much more difficult. This is especially true for groups that identify themselves with a belief.

So, while we should be able to call religion out on its bullshit, human nature makes this counterproductive.

The sad part is that im seeing very little difference between religious fanatics and some of the athiests posters in this thread.

Bashfluff:

That is true. But I never said that I would call people idiots, although I just might, and I never said I would never offer an explanation. Although I would say if I met a creationist or Flat Earth Society member or Westboro Baptist Church member, I would call them an idiot and feel that society would seem to protect me without me having to explain anything at all and without it being bullying.

it deserves to die

This kind of mindset...well, this guy said it best.

Ryotknife:
The sad part is that im seeing very little difference between religious fanatics and some of the athiests posters in this thread.

Statements like this make you seem just as fanatical as any Christian group that hates X group because of what their scriptures allegedly say. Your hatred ends up being totally pointless.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here