[Closed] Catholic Church and other religions!

damned to an eternal hell

Hell is where all the cool people are.

[edit]Even though the idea of such a polarised afterlife is daft anyway; if there is in fact a life after death[/edit]

Most non religionsists I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid

Not using lame "Clarksonisms" such as "Religionists" would be a good starting point 😉

Bloody atheists being intolerant again, I see.

Meanwhile, [url= http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2921/taking-on-the-miracle-mongers ]in India, a man faces 3 years in jail for pointing out that a miracle wasn't a miracle[/url].

if there is in fact a life after death

I mentioned the other day that there wasn't life after death, in any form: brain function ceases and we become meat. My (Christian) wife was surprised that I thought this, which made me wonder which bit of "it's all bollocks" she didn't get 🙂

So if I cause you offense by describing your religion as a load of old gormless twaddle, you'd be offended?

Well, so be offended then. Nothing's going to happen.

Personally, I find religion to be extremely offensive. Constantly bombarded by it on the TV every time the Pope farts or some Islamic numpty makes a stupid video about a kidnapped overseas worker or the British Christian Propaganda Broadcasting Corporation tries to ram it down my neck.

Do you find me shouting "It's all about biological adaptation and random cause and effect" before blowing myself up on the underground?

blowing myself up on the underground

Retrospectively, of course. 😉

Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them.

No you don't.

So there was a debate on the tellybox on Sunday "Is there a hell"

A very earnest young woman said yes there most definitely is and if you don't want to end up there then you had best accept Jesus into your life because as far as going to heaven is concerned he is the only game in town.

When asked if she was bothered by the fact that some of her loved ones would not be going to heaven she said she was a bit but not all that bothered as the person she loves most is Jesus and he will be waiting there in heaven.

What happened to all the people that a benevolent all knowing god place on earth before the birth of Jesus wasn't covered, but it seems a bit mean for god to create all these people before the time of Jesus when belief in him was their only path to salvation.

Personally I don't really mind what people want to believe so long as they keep it to themselves. Firmly believing anyone not of your religion is going to hell and preaching about it seems a bit strong though and is hardly tolerant.

"it's all bollocks"

The thing that I find hard to believe is there is a heaven and a hell in the form described by organised religion more than the fact that there may be some form of life after death.

As Alan Watts puts it imagine going to sleep and never waking up in the same light as waking up after never having gone to sleep.

but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them

What is their message to me ?
Im a bad person , a siner and destined to an eternity of hell and suffering becasue i dont follow their rules or share their beliefs
Why bless them for that 🙄

When my message gets this intolerant you might just have a point as it is I merley say they are wrong and they should leave me alone and not force their views on others who dont agree [ i am not forcing them to stop going to church, endure an aetheist ceremonty in school or marry gays am i?]

I could of course start killing you for saying things that are against my beliefs as well like they have done , perhaps engage in a Aetheist war etc

Its laughable to hear them talk about tolerance consiodering what they say

Man... I'm drawing blood here, biting my lip.

I will not get involved today.... I will not get involved today.

Now there IS a sign of madness.... talking to myself.... maybe you guys are right after all 😀

People can believe what they want. What I object to is taxpayers cash being used to provide a duplicate school system for one religion. Drive round Glasgow and there are dozens of pairs of primary schools near to each other.

School should be for education not indoctrination. Religion should be taught in the home and the church.

Now there IS a sign of madness.... [s]talking to myself[/s] praying.... maybe you guys are right after all

Go on, you KNOW you want to.

That point cuts both ways.

Yes, but the religious people aren't popping up on here saying 'atheists, what a bunch of ignorant cretins' every two weeks, are they? They are also not the ones getting entrenched in these stupid arguments. They do a great job of turning the other cheek, something from which we could all learn I think!

Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them.
No, you don't

Yes, you do. We have a moral obligation not to randomly start on people whenever we feel like it. How the hell were you brought up?

Constantly bombarded by it on the TV

That's not true. The pope's in the news now because he's a major world figure. There'd be just as much coverage if a US president resigned. You're just picking on that particular story because it's a religious figure. Fine you don't believe in it, but the head of an organisation including a billion people resigning IS news, regardless of if you agree with that organisation.

And don't bring terrorists into this FFS. Terrorists exist, regardless of religion. If you think we wouldn't have terrorism without religion you're an idiot. Do you blame the existence of football for hooliganism?

Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them.

No you don't.

Well.......

Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, [b]religion[/b], or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3]

Any communication which is threatening, abusive or [b]insulting[/b], and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]

[i]Watching the pope on the news, just find it so bloody weird how many religions around the world can become so big and powerful, all based on faith over fact.[/i]

Money, power, influence and self perpetuating bureaucracy mostly. In reality it had little to do with faith, that's for the 'little' folk, but more to do with banking, diplomacy etc etc. early church was the grease that oiled the machines of kings and their ambitions

Mostly

A simple test, we throw them all into Grafton Water, those that float we burn as witches.
(once they've dried our sufficiently not to wreck the log burner, of course)

nealglover - Yet the religious are allowed to insult people quite freely (gays, non-believers, women etc) and that's just tickety-boo.

We seem to be seeing this little gem about 'being offended on someone else's behalf' and use of the term 'handwringing' lot on here lately. It's usually a good indicator that someone has no actual argument that I agree with.

Fixed that for you, my fragile little flower...

😉

Thanks Woppit

Already had a little go this morn...

And I will be going to a lunchtime service at St Marys Aldermary... at bottom of Bow Lane later.

Come along I'll buy you a pint in the Watling after

Yes, but the religious people aren't popping up on here saying 'atheists, what a bunch of ignorant cretins' every two weeks, are they? They are also not the ones getting entrenched in these stupid arguments. They do a great job of turning the other cheek, something from which we could all learn I think!

Another view: They don't start threads, because the secular doesn't negatively impact their life. They don't argue, because there are no rational counter arguments for religion for the religious to make.

teasel - again then, by your logic weren't slavery abolitionists just 'offended on someone else's behalf'? Oh I forgot you don't have an argument.

Well if that law is applied in the way that you seem to be implying then those religious folk who insult everyone who disagrees with them (and yes I have been insulted by such types) better think before they start spouting their nonsense.

Do you blame the existence of football for hooliganism?

Pretty much.

Expressing a hateful position is one thing, questioning someone's position and pointing out the quite obvious contradictions is simply debate. If people feel insulted by the easy dissection of their own belief systems that's their issue not mine.

by your logic

You don't have a clue what my viewpoint is.

nealglover - Yet the religious are allowed to insult people quite freely (gays, non-believers, women etc) and that's just tickety-boo.

I didn't say that was ok though did I ?

I was just pointing out that its actually NOT ok (legally) to insult someone based on their religious beliefs.

(Despite what some people on here seem to think 😐 )

I've run out of Chocolate Hob Nobs 🙁

nealglover - Member

"Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them."

"No you don't."

Well.......

'Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3]

Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]'

You should have bolded this bit

[b]intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone[/b]

as it's quite important.

They are also not the ones getting entrenched in these stupid arguments. They do a great job of turning the other cheek, something from which we could all learn I think!

Yes, you do

"captives of sexual aberrations

“The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships, we have failed those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wider society by our actions.”[17]

see the terms used such as struggling with and saying it is harmfule
I mean imagine if i said thia

The empirical evidence is clear, being religious is demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such beliefs, we have failed those who struggle with this afflcition and wider society by our actions.

now that is offensive for you

Miuch of what they say is offensive and what is worse is it based on a beleief that has no proof

Lifer, Yes your right I should have.

[b]"harass" [/b]does seem quite relevant.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Grum - I'm a Catholic, admittedly more by the way I was brought up, but religious all the same. I'm pro gay marriage (good job really as I have a gay son), I'm not anti abortion, and to be honest, other than getting involved in pointless debates on here (despite knowing I really shouldn't bother), have no opinion either way on atheism. People are just people, I either get on with them or not, but I never base that on their beliefs regarding religion. Don't tar us all with same brush, that's not really 'ticketyboo' either. 😕

grum - Member
teasel - again then, by your logic weren't slavery abolitionists just 'offended on someone else's behalf'? Oh I forgot you don't have an argument.

teasel - Member
You don't have a clue what my viewpoint is.

I love the internet

Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3]

Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]

I've always argued that religion should be not be covered under this legislation.

Religion is an opinion, no more and no less.

I try not to hate people because of their opinions, but sometimes those opinions are so vile it just can't be helped.

Not using lame "Clarksonisms" such as "Religionists" would be a good starting point

Yes, but the religious people aren't popping up on here saying 'atheists, what a bunch of ignorant cretins' every two weeks, are they? They are also not the ones getting entrenched in these stupid arguments.

I suspect the frequency of appalling and hypocritical behaviour on the part of the "religionsists" of the world may have more influence on the frequency of said threads than the fact that people who post may or may not be athesists. Its a bit like seeing a comet ala Chelyabinsk recently, you can argue that people should simply ignore it, but the reality is that its going to provoke a reaction, and perhaps some pointing and staring.

Just moving on one step, tell me more about these stupid arguments by atheists.......

nealglover - Member
Lifer, Yes your right I should have.

"harass" does seem quite relevant.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Bear in mind that's harass in the legal definition, not the 'criticism is harrassment' definition.

mitch - wasn't meaning to say that all religious people are like that, more that it seems to be allowed/justified to express what would normally be considered bigotry/ignorance if you dress it up as a religious belief.

I don't think religion should be exempted from the same standards applied to everyone else, which seems to be what is generally demanded.

I love the internet

This thread is evidence that sharing ones viewpoint is...er...pointless, Alex.

Carry on...

@barnsleymitch - surely by the admissions in your post you cannot be a Catholic.
If the organisation to which you say you belong has rules precluding the belief in those elements you cannot belong to it. Or is that splitting hairs?

Yet the religious are allowed to insult people quite freely (gays, non-believers, women etc) and that's just tickety-boo

No it's not.

questioning someone's position and pointing out the quite obvious contradictions is simply debate.

That's absolutely correct, but that's not what I'm arguing against. It's the constant insults that I have an issue with.

I try not to hate people because of their opinions, but sometimes those opinions are so vile it just can't be helped.

Vile opinions are vile irrespective of whether or not they are religious. Likewise, benign opinions. A great many religious people do not hold vile beliefs.

I've always argued that religion should be not be covered under this legislation.

You can argue that as much as you like.

But it is included. So that's the way it is currently.

Actually I chose the word carefully, as I wanted to avoid reference to any one particular religion. In my book they are all as bad as each other, and there is little to chose between them. I started off with believers, but in context I felt it would be taken as a Christian reference, thus the offensive Clarksonism.

The word you were looking for is "Religious" 😉

I suppose what I'm saying, admittedly not very well, is that just because someone is religious, or has faith, whatever, they don't always follow doctrine blindly. Fair enough, I could be accused of cherry picking which bits of Catholicism I agree with, but hey ho, I'll deal with that when I have to. Or not, depending on your viewpoint 😉

You don't have a clue what my viewpoint is.

by that argument i should not be worried if they rape women ..its a crap argument - if its not yours I would stop articulating it and say what you think

You can argue that as much as you like.

But it is included. So that's the way it is currently.

Yes, I know.
Awful, isn't it?

A piece of legislation ruined to appease the religious.
A huge opportunity missed.

he is right about a memem about handwringing and being offended for others that seems to be crop up on here

I'm not handwringing btw, I am arguing against poor thinking.

You're arguing against human nature.

Probably.

Calling it human nature doesn't excuse it though.