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 PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Bashfluff:

Xan Krieger:

Bashfluff:

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.

And what is the rest of the problem?

We must remember if we show the religious bigots the same treatment as they show us we will only invite them to justification for themselves, yes you can say we are justified, but come on if we are both justified with what we do then what does it accomplish. the best we can do is treat them as we treat ourselves, assuming we like ourselves that is.

Shadowstar38:

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.

how so, I made fun of my "group" and athiest equally. As an agnostic christian, athiesm is a pretty acceptable belief/mindset in my eyes. Also, it is some of the athiests ACTIONS (or more precisely their attitude) that is irritating me in this thread, not their core of beliefs. If i had a blind hatred for athiests only, I would not put them on the same pedestal as the group I "belong" to, nor would I specify that my beef is with a few individuals of a certain group.

Just as it is unacceptable for people to cram their religion and mindset down people's throats, so it is unacceptable when athiests do it. Unfortunately, there are way too many athiest posters in this very thread who act literally in the same way as the people they say they despise.

Just as it is unacceptable for me t make fun of Islam in a malicious fashion, so it is unacceptable for athiests to do so.

Sorry, there is no double standards to condemn religion for doing something immoral, but it is totally okay for athiests to do the exact same thing.

People have a right to their religion so long as they dont harm others, just like athiests have a right to their mindset. Athiests are not above reproach, those that do believe this are no different from the various religious people who thought they were above reproach simply because of their faith.

I do not intend on insulting people of various religious faiths, it is just that they find what I say oh-so offensive.

Then again, I find anyone who adheres to scripture or any form of written document as a means to live their life or conduct governance as willfully ignorant - religious backing or no.

Ryotknife:
Just as it is unacceptable for me t make fun of Islam in a malicious fashion, so it is unacceptable for athiests to do so.

Sorry, there is no double standards to condemn religion for doing something immoral, but it is totally okay for athiests to do the exact same thing.

Depends on what you would be making fun of about them.

Such is the advantage of not having a core set of beliefs the individual is supposed to adhere to, you get to throw stones for you do not live in a glass house.

Abomination:

Ryotknife:
Just as it is unacceptable for me t make fun of Islam in a malicious fashion, so it is unacceptable for athiests to do so.

Sorry, there is no double standards to condemn religion for doing something immoral, but it is totally okay for athiests to do the exact same thing.

Depends on what you would be making fun of about them.

Such is the advantage of not having a core set of beliefs the individual is supposed to adhere to, you get to throw stones for you do not live in a glass house.

Okay..there are certain specific aspects that are fair game. Like specific stories. But not the entire existence of the religion or religions in general.

Like if an athiest wanted to make fun of the Red Sea parting. I personally dont interpret most of the Bible literally, they are just stories to teach lessons in my eyes. I feel the same way about other religions, it is just their method/flavor of teaching lessons through stories. The actual story itself has no value in my eyes, it is what you take away from the story.

All in all though, just be careful. Insulting someone's religion directly is like insulting their family. Know your audience and where the line is.

Ryotknife:
Okay..there are certain specific aspects that are fair game. Like specific stories. But not the entire existence of the religion or religions in general.

Like if an athiest wanted to make fun of the Red Sea parting. I personally dont interpret most of the Bible literally, they are just stories to teach lessons in my eyes. I feel the same way about other religions, it is just their method/flavor of teaching lessons through stories. The actual story itself has no value in my eyes, it is what you take away from the story.

What one Christian believes to be a 'story' another views as fact.

Genesis - story or fact?
The Great Flood - story or fact?
12 plagues of Egypt - story or fact?
Parting the Red Sea - story or fact?
Jesus coming back alive after 3 days - story or fact?
Jesus walking on water - story or fact?
Jesus abusing the inventory bug with fish - story or fact?
Jesus curing every manner of ancient disease/ailment - story or fact?
Jesus being born in Bethleham - story or fact?
Jesus being killed by the Romans at the behest of the Jews - story or fact?
Jesus - story or fact?

It turns more and more into a deck of cards.

Abomination:

Ryotknife:
Okay..there are certain specific aspects that are fair game. Like specific stories. But not the entire existence of the religion or religions in general.

Like if an athiest wanted to make fun of the Red Sea parting. I personally dont interpret most of the Bible literally, they are just stories to teach lessons in my eyes. I feel the same way about other religions, it is just their method/flavor of teaching lessons through stories. The actual story itself has no value in my eyes, it is what you take away from the story.

What one Christian believes to be a 'story' another views as fact.

Genesis - story or fact?
The Great Flood - story or fact?
12 plagues of Egypt - story or fact?
Parting the Red Sea - story or fact?
Jesus coming back alive after 3 days - story or fact?
Jesus walking on water - story or fact?
Jesus abusing the inventory bug with fish - story or fact?
Jesus curing every manner of ancient disease/ailment - story or fact?
Jesus being born in Bethleham - story or fact?
Jesus being killed by the Romans at the behest of the Jews - story or fact?
Jesus - story or fact?

It turns more and more into a deck of cards.

Yes, but you are attacking a specific story/face, not the religion as a whole. Even the stories are but a fraction of the religion. If a collection of stories/facts was all of what a religion is, there wouldnt be so many different christian denominations.

also jesus abusing the inventory bug got a chuckle out of me.

If we are talking about creationists, they are a dying breed. Well, at least when the baby boomers die.

Hell, I havent cracked open a Bible in decades (and the stories are a bit fuzzy now), does that mean im not a Christian?

Ryotknife:
Yes, but you are attacking a specific story/face, not the religion as a whole. Even the stories are but a fraction of the religion. If a collection of stories/facts was all of what a religion is, there wouldnt be so many different christian denominations.

also jesus abusing the inventory bug got a chuckle out of me.

If we are talking about creationists, they are a dying breed. Well, at least when the baby boomers die.

Hell, I havent cracked open a Bible in decades (and the stories are a bit fuzzy now), does that mean im not a Christian?

The issue is that SOMETHING eventually gives. If none of the outlandish stories are believed then WHAT is the basis for the worship at all? If some of the stories are believed why is there cherrypicking, where is the justification for it? If ALL of the stories are believed as fact the individual is insane.

What makes the religions any more valid than the other religions that all served the same function - controlling the masses? The only thing that makes it more "valid" is that people still cling to them. It all turns into minorities telling other minorities that they're wrong because the minority the first minority follows has more members in its minority.

The only thing we can know for certain is that PEOPLE make religions, nothing else.

Ryotknife:

All in all though, just be careful. Insulting someone's religion directly is like insulting their family. Know your audience and where the line is.

Why is that?

Abomination:

Ryotknife:
Yes, but you are attacking a specific story/face, not the religion as a whole. Even the stories are but a fraction of the religion. If a collection of stories/facts was all of what a religion is, there wouldnt be so many different christian denominations.

also jesus abusing the inventory bug got a chuckle out of me.

If we are talking about creationists, they are a dying breed. Well, at least when the baby boomers die.

Hell, I havent cracked open a Bible in decades (and the stories are a bit fuzzy now), does that mean im not a Christian?

The issue is that SOMETHING eventually gives. If none of the outlandish stories are believed then WHAT is the basis for the worship at all? If some of the stories are believed why is there cherrypicking, where is the justification for it? If ALL of the stories are believed as fact the individual is insane.

What makes the religions any more valid than the other religions that all served the same function - controlling the masses? The only thing that makes it more "valid" is that people still cling to them. It all turns into minorities telling other minorities that they're wrong because the minority the first minority follows has more members in its minority.

The only thing we can know for certain is that PEOPLE make religions, nothing else.

There is a lot of opinion in that post being passed off as fact.

In my opinion, whether those stories are true or not is irrelevant. All that matters to me is what I learned from them. Those lessons form a mindset/lifestyle/path that I find attractive

Ryotknife:

Abomination:
The issue is that SOMETHING eventually gives. If none of the outlandish stories are believed then WHAT is the basis for the worship at all? If some of the stories are believed why is there cherrypicking, where is the justification for it? If ALL of the stories are believed as fact the individual is insane.

What makes the religions any more valid than the other religions that all served the same function - controlling the masses? The only thing that makes it more "valid" is that people still cling to them. It all turns into minorities telling other minorities that they're wrong because the minority the first minority follows has more members in its minority.

The only thing we can know for certain is that PEOPLE make religions, nothing else.

There is a lot of opinion in that post being passed off as fact.

In my opinion, whether those stories are true or not is irrelevant. All that matters to me is what I learned from them. Those lessons form a mindset/lifestyle/path that I find attractive

What part of the post was opinion?

As for the path and adhereing to the teachings of Jesus I could clearly hold no issue with that philosophy. The problem is that many religions like to include parts of the Old Testament also.

Abomination:

Ryotknife:

Abomination:
The issue is that SOMETHING eventually gives. If none of the outlandish stories are believed then WHAT is the basis for the worship at all? If some of the stories are believed why is there cherrypicking, where is the justification for it? If ALL of the stories are believed as fact the individual is insane.

What makes the religions any more valid than the other religions that all served the same function - controlling the masses? The only thing that makes it more "valid" is that people still cling to them. It all turns into minorities telling other minorities that they're wrong because the minority the first minority follows has more members in its minority.

The only thing we can know for certain is that PEOPLE make religions, nothing else.

There is a lot of opinion in that post being passed off as fact.

In my opinion, whether those stories are true or not is irrelevant. All that matters to me is what I learned from them. Those lessons form a mindset/lifestyle/path that I find attractive

What part of the post was opinion?

As for the path and adhereing to the teachings of Jesus I could clearly hold no issue with that philosophy. The problem is that many religions like to include parts of the Old Testament also.

Truth be told, other than a few stories like Genesis and Abraham, my church skimmed over the old testment when i was a kid. Most of what I know about the Old testament came from outside the Bible/church through wildly different tangents, mostly history. So if you want to bash parts of the Old Testament, I dont have a dog in that fight.

as for the opinion thing. People make religions. Well, i guess that does depend on how you define religion. The institution is made by people, the books are (probably) written by people, where the inspiration in the book came from is a matter of debate. Or put it another way, I generally dont have very many positive things to say about the people who control my nation (US), but they are not my nation.

Outlandish stories, just because it is outlandish to you doesnt make it a fact.

Ryotknife:
Hell, I havent cracked open a Bible in decades (and the stories are a bit fuzzy now), does that mean im not a Christian?

Most would say you're not, no. More like a sort of pretender, a wannabe, if you describe yourself as a Christian that is. If you've not visited a church lately the 'fake-o-meter' would definately be full for many folks.

Especially not for groups where catechisation is very important. If you can't do that you're not a good Christian if you ask them.

The only groups that really accept that are the extremely liberal eucomenic sects that welcome everyone and for whom a song and a dance on sunday are all it takes. Weren't those also translated as 'pentecostal'? I'm not sure about their English names. Then again, those people pretty much left religion behind, they just don't know it yet, so they recreated the social component of getting together and call it religion.

Blablahb:

Ryotknife:
Hell, I havent cracked open a Bible in decades (and the stories are a bit fuzzy now), does that mean im not a Christian?

Most would say you're not, no. More like a sort of pretender, a wannabe, if you describe yourself as a Christian that is. If you've not visited a church lately the 'fake-o-meter' would definately be full for many folks.

Especially not for groups where catechisation is very important. If you can't do that you're not a good Christian if you ask them.

The only groups that really accept that are the extremely liberal eucomenic sects that welcome everyone and for whom a song and a dance on sunday are all it takes. Weren't those also translated as 'pentecostal'? I'm not sure about their English names. Then again, those people pretty much left religion behind, they just don't know it yet, so they recreated the social component of getting together and call it religion.

I still believe in the divine, I would imagine that automatically qualifies me as religious. Definitely wouldnt say i was a devote christian. Pretty sure I would qualify as a moderate Christian here in America. Religion is a part of me, but that is all it is, a part.

granted, these days being a moderate anything is asking for trouble in the US...

As for the most who say part. Well half of my family and friends think im a liberal, the other half think im a conservative. Cant say I would be surprised if the group that I belong to doesnt think i belong, as I do not support any group 100%. Ill side with whatever group I feel is in the right on a particular subject.

I like the comparison to political ideologies. Frankly, it's not a question with just one answer. Like with political ideologies, it depends on the actual content, I'd say. I don't think clearly anti-scientific YEC-kinds of ideas deserve much respect, for instance. Doesn't mean YECs don't deserve a basic modicum of respect, by the way, so they're above Neo-Nazis at the very least. But there are plenty of aspects to religion and different religious views that warrant actual, respectful discussion.

Who is tiptoeing on eggshells? Can no one have a debate anymore without feeling persecuted? On the one hand you have a religious minority crying that there is a war on religion, and that religious bigotry is the only kind which is tolerated today. On the other hand you have the poor anti-theists crying that they can't make condescending and unconstructive remarks about people's deeply held beliefs without someone asking them why they feel the need to be so belligerent.

To answer the question, religion needs to be treated with more sensitivity than politics because it often has strong cultural significance. For example, a person who lives in the West going on an anti-Islamic rant is going to seem racist. It doesn't really matter whether you hate all religions equally. When you insult the religion of countries your country has devastated, you are spitting in the faces of the oppressed. So the next time someone cries that Muslims are too easily offended/ too violent/ too whatever, try to recall the death toll in our respective geographical regions within the last several decades, then try to remember who's responsible for that. Stick to insulting your own culture's religion if that's what you have to do.

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.

LOL, Hitchens believed something he couldn't support with evidence. What a moron!

(Perhaps you see the problem with that position now?)

There is a difference between having different beliefs and being a complete douche to people who don't believe the same as you. There are super evangelistic Christians who attack atheists constantly and "know-it-all" atheist who attack Christians constantly. They are no different from each other. Both are extremely narrow minded and think that they are superior to the other (and, from what I've seen, most are pretty insecure in their beliefs, which is why they attack the other). "Respect" is being tolerate of what they believe, or if you can't do that, just ignore it.

Arakasi:
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.

So what you are basically saying is don't respect anyone and ridicule everyone because a belief is something you think is true but have no evidence of it, or as dictionary.com puts it:

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

So then, can I make fun of you and attack you if you believe in aliens or global warming? Or even do the same because you believe there isn't a god and hold that believe with zero evidence of it? Is that respectful? No.

Katatori-kun:

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.

LOL, Hitchens believed something he couldn't support with evidence. What a moron!

(Perhaps you see the problem with that position now?)

It might be problematic if Hitchens couldn't support it with evidence, but he wrote books and made speeches brimming with examples for his position. His definition of 'religion' probably doesn't match yours, but that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful or relevant.

Katatori-kun:

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.

LOL, Hitchens believed something he couldn't support with evidence. What a moron!

(Perhaps you see the problem with that position now?)

OMG, Katatori-kun is a flat Earther/birther/creationist/racist/sexist/homophobe. What an idiot!

(Perhaps you see the problem with that position now?)

The problem is that people are making comparisons that are not accurate because the two types of people are at odds with each other. We don't say, "THESE ANTI-(sexists/creationists/birhters/racists/homophobes) ARE JUST LIKE THOSE INTOLERANT (sexists/creationists/birthers/racists/homophobes)! THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND (sexists/creationists/birthers/racists/homophobes)."

That's not how it works.

Ryotknife:
snip

Not you. The first guy I quoted.

Bashfluff:
Statements like this show your own ignorance.

Right...how exactly is being able to listen to people's veiwpoints and inform them on your own without outright insulting them ignorance. Sounds more like the mark of an enlightened person to me.

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.

Hey, thats a great idea! Yeah ridicule all religion and show the religious people just how much you hate their beleifs! You know who you should target first? Why us Jews of course! If there is one thing we have learned to love from gentiles, its their outright hatred for us, our religion and our identity as a people! Yeah I only see good things happening if you approach my community as a gentile that has complete contempt and hate for our religion! We will certainly take that so well! ;D

....not. That is horrible idea and you will win over nobody if that is your approach towards reaching out to religious communities.

Shadowstar38:

Ryotknife:
snip

Not you. The first guy I quoted.

Bashfluff:
Statements like this show your own ignorance.

Right...how exactly is being able to listen to people's veiwpoints and inform them on your own without outright insulting them ignorance. Sounds more like the mark of an enlightened person to me.

Well considering all you did was pretty much say "This makes you look like a fanatic!" instead of actually addressing what was said and not even demonstrating much of a parallel, the last thing I'd do was call you enlightened. I didn't see much evidence of you listening to Bash's view point, and you informing him of your own wasn't very educational. It seemed on the level of him informing you that he found it ignorant as far as being informative went.

Helmholtz Watson:

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.

Hey, thats a great idea! Yeah ridicule all religion and show the religious people just how much you hate their beleifs! You know who you should target first? Why us Jews of course! If there is one thing we have learned to love from gentiles, its their outright hatred for us, our religion and our identity as a people! Yeah I only see good things happening if you approach my community as a gentile that has complete contempt and hate for our religion! We will certainly take that so well! ;D

....not. That is horrible idea and you will win over nobody if that is your approach towards reaching out to religious communities.

Why should someone else's past actions be Bash's burden? And what is with you pulling the "I'm a Jew" card?

Dijkstra:

Shadowstar38:

Ryotknife:
snip

Not you. The first guy I quoted.

Bashfluff:
Statements like this show your own ignorance.

Right...how exactly is being able to listen to people's veiwpoints and inform them on your own without outright insulting them ignorance. Sounds more like the mark of an enlightened person to me.

Well considering all you did was pretty much say "This makes you look like a fanatic!" instead of actually addressing what was said and not even demonstrating much of a parallel, the last thing I'd do was call you enlightened. I didn't see much evidence of you listening to Bash's view point, and you informing him of your own wasn't very educational. It seemed on the level of him informing you that he found it ignorant as far as being informative went.

This. Thank you.

Dijkstra:

Helmholtz Watson:

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.

Hey, thats a great idea! Yeah ridicule all religion and show the religious people just how much you hate their beleifs! You know who you should target first? Why us Jews of course! If there is one thing we have learned to love from gentiles, its their outright hatred for us, our religion and our identity as a people! Yeah I only see good things happening if you approach my community as a gentile that has complete contempt and hate for our religion! We will certainly take that so well! ;D

....not. That is horrible idea and you will win over nobody if that is your approach towards reaching out to religious communities.

Why should someone else's past actions be Bash's burden?

And thank you! =)

Dijkstra:

Why should someone else's past actions be Bash's burden? And what is with you pulling the "I'm a Jew" card?

Because gentiles say how much they hate Judaism opens up old wounds, and as for "my card" to demonstrate that I'm speaking as someone who belongs to the community I'm describing.

Bashfluff:

And thank you! =)

No really, go up to a bunch of old Jews and tell them how much you hate Judaism. I'm sure they will accept what you have to say with open arms.

Bashfluff:

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.

And pray tell how a bunch of monks living on a remote mountain in Greece is holding back society, or how the presence of Amish communities is holding back American society.

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

Well said.

Assassin Xaero:

Arakasi:
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.

So what you are basically saying is don't respect anyone and ridicule everyone because a belief is something you think is true but have no evidence of it

No, I don't respect their beliefs, there is a difference. A very large difference that if you had have read my post properly you would have understood.

Assassin Xaero:
or as dictionary.com puts it:

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

So then, can I make fun of you and attack you if you believe in aliens or global warming? Or even do the same because you believe there isn't a god and hold that believe with zero evidence of it? Is that respectful? No.

A belief is simply something you hold to be true, it may or may not have evidence for it. I do not believe in aliens, I think there is quite a liklihood of them, but I don't believe in them because I haven't seen any, I can honestly say that I have no idea about global warming due to so many conflicting factors.

As for lack of belief in god, I believe there is no god because there is no evidence. If there were evidence, then I would believe. Some people say lack of evidence does not constitue evidence. They are wrong.

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

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.

And pray tell how a bunch of monks living on a remote mountain in Greece is holding back society, or how the presence of Amish communities is holding back American society.

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

Well said.

*snorts* Your bias is showing. I suggest you not let it show when you attempt to be biting. I've labeled quite CLEARY AND CONCISELY the dangers of religion in society. If you'd like to continue instead of spouting insults and falsehoods, address them.

Bashfluff:

*snorts* Your bias is showing.

I imagine so, I don't care much for antitheist nonsense about how all religion is a danger to society.

Bashfluff:
I suggest you not let it show when you attempt to be biting. I've labeled quite CLEARY AND CONCISELY the dangers of religion in society. If you'd like to continue instead of spouting insults and falsehoods, address them.

I'm not spouting anything, I'm asking you to back up what you said. While I would agree with you that religion can get in the way of society when it plays an active role[1], you have failed to demonstrate how religious organizations/societies/communities pose a real danger to you or I when they isolate themselves and don't want anything to do with the society that you and I live in.

So again I ask, what danger do Greek monks living on a secluded mountain or a society of Amish people pose to you or I? Better yet, what have said groups done to prevent society from becoming more advance? Seeing as how they don't want to interact with anybody outside their community, I find it hard to believe that they pose a real threat or that they are a danger to society.

[1] like stopping the research of stem cells and how we can properly utilize them

Helmholtz Watson:

Bashfluff:

*snorts* Your bias is showing.

I imagine so, I don't care much for antitheist nonsense about how all religion is a danger to society.

If your bias is so great that you can't deal with it reasonably and think it's anything other than nonsense and you can't look at it objectively, leave.

Bashfluff:
I suggest you not let it show when you attempt to be biting. I've labeled quite CLEARY AND CONCISELY the dangers of religion in society. If you'd like to continue instead of spouting insults and falsehoods, address them.

I'm not spouting anything, I'm asking you to back up what you said. While I would agree with you that religion can get in the way of society when it plays an active role[1], you have failed to demonstrate how religious organizations/societies/communities pose a real danger to you or I when they isolate themselves and don't want anything to do with the society that you and I live in.

So again I ask, what danger do Greek monks living on a secluded mountain or a society of Amish people pose to you or I? Better yet, what have said groups done to prevent society from becoming more advance? Seeing as how they don't want to interact with anybody outside their community, I find it hard to believe that they pose a real threat or that they are a danger to society.

Yes, you just asked how the AMISH are keeping society from becoming more advanced. I'm sure their lifestyle has nothing but positive effects for people in their community, no one ever wants to leave, etcetera.

I'm not about religion dying because it personally inconveniences me. I'm not that selfish. I'm saying it's hurtful to more than just me, and if you think that's nonsense, you haven't paid attention or done any research at ALL, and pulling out the Amish and saying, "How do THEY hold back society?" should never have been an option here.

[1] like stopping the research of stem cells and how we can properly utilize them

Dijkstra:

Shadowstar38:

Ryotknife:
snip

Not you. The first guy I quoted.

Bashfluff:
Statements like this show your own ignorance.

Right...how exactly is being able to listen to people's veiwpoints and inform them on your own without outright insulting them ignorance. Sounds more like the mark of an enlightened person to me.

Well considering all you did was pretty much say "This makes you look like a fanatic!" instead of actually addressing what was said and not even demonstrating much of a parallel, the last thing I'd do was call you enlightened. I didn't see much evidence of you listening to Bash's view point, and you informing him of your own wasn't very educational. It seemed on the level of him informing you that he found it ignorant as far as being informative went.

The parallel here is pretty simple.

When it comes to rational religious people, their view of other religions is live and let live. Bluff actively wants their idiologies to die out. I'd say his line of thought is far more dangerous than any of the people he claims to be endangering society or holding us back.

Bashfluff:

Yes, you just asked how the AMISH are keeping society from becoming more advanced. I'm sure their lifestyle has nothing but positive effects for people in their community, no one ever wants to leave, etcetera.

I never said that their lifestyle was nothing but positive, I said that contrary to your claim, them being religious doesn't inhibit society from becoming more advance.

Bashfluff:

I'm not about religion dying because it personally inconveniences me. I'm not that selfish. I'm saying it's hurtful to more than just me, and if you think that's nonsense, you haven't paid attention or done any research at ALL, and pulling out the Amish and saying, "How do THEY hold back society?" should never have been an option here.

You're speaking in general terms, I'm asking you specifically what have they done to inhibit society from advancing. What have they done specifically to harm you or I?

As for you comment about me bringing up the Amish, I only do so because you proceed to declare that all religion poses a harm to people and that it stops the advancement of society. In doing so, you include groups like the Amish and the Greek monks of Mt. Athos.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked