… I am all for constructive debate and the topic is usually a good one for it. The central questions of any region have exercised the minds of believers, atheists, agnostics, philosophers, scientists, Uncle Tom Cobby etc for thousands of years and will continue to do so. But that is not the point. Most threads on this topic are merely rehashes on a rotating 48 hour basis of entrenched positions, often with derogatory overtones towards those who chose to follow whatever faith they chose. You know what they say about too much of a good (?) thing?

But fine, it was only a suggestion. The weather is ok, I have the second day of a demo booked and I am off for a ride. Enjoy the religion roundabout!

Wallace, “jog on” is an excellent way to avoid the swear filter. But I take the underlying point and will happily oblige!

Edit: Grum, was that “religion for atheists”? By chance, I saw the author on a weekend chat programme recently and read the intro to his book. Might download the whole book as it made similar points. Aethism for today meets the nudge principle?

And in general, religion asking for tolerance actually means ‘we want to keep the special status we’ve had for hundreds of years’.

I don’t think so, to be honest. Most Christians I know don’t care if it’s an established religion or not. The people who care about that tend to be the ones who are are just being deeply conservative. Being conservative is the problem there, not being religious.

Most Christians I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who’ve never met or spoken to them, based on things they don’t understand.

Most Christians I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who’ve never met or spoken to them, based on things they don’t understand. believe

FTFY

Wallace, “jog on” is an excellent way to avoid the swear filter.

But also a well known phrase used in common parlance.

No surprise that we disagree molgrips, seems to be the case on just about every issue. 🙂

Most Christians I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who’ve never met or spoken to them, based on things they don’t understand.

I don’t for a second think that Christians are stupid or ignorant, certainly the devout members of my family aren’t. But I do think some of the core tenets of Christianity, if you believe them literally, are daft.

You don’t have a right to have your opinions respected, whatever they may be, and however far-fetched they are. Religion tries to demand that right.

And surely I do ‘understand’ Christianity, having been raised as a Christian in a Christian country.

However many atheists understand very well what Christians are all about and regard them in exactly the way they ought to be regarded.
The arrogance of them is what I can’t stand, the bible is the word, the truth, the Gospel not only do they claim to know there is a god but more over they know the mind of god too, what a farce.

I don’t for a second think that Christians are stupid or ignorant, certainly the devout members of my family aren’t. But I do think some of the core tenets of Christianity, if you believe them literally, are daft.

Well I agree with you on that.

You don’t have a right to have your opinions respected

Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them. With which some people on here seem to struggle. That’s all I am trying to say on these threads. You do have to respect other people’s right to hold a different opinion on subjective matters – and that means not slagging them off or being prejudiced. It’s never good to be prejudiced.

Oliverd – It’s fine not to believe in a religion, but if you don’t understand why someone else does, it doesn’t mean that it’s automatically stupid.

I may not understand string theory, doesn’t mean it’s a load of rubbish, does it? A lot of people probably would think that though.

Most Christians I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who’ve never met or spoken to them, based on things they don’t understand.

Similarly it would be fair to paraphrase that with ….

Most non religionsists I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who’ve never met or spoken to them, based on things they don’t understand.

That point cuts both ways. However, I think the difference being that I can’t immediately think of any non religionsists who have made up a pseudo intellectual argument to oppress the Believers. Seems to me that behaving appalling badly goes hand in glove with pontificating about religion….any religion.

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

No, you don’t. 🙂

I could call someone a crab walking, toad licking, sidewalking, basenji loving poltroon, and there’s nothing they could do about it.
NOTHING! 😀

I’d feel bad about it and probably wee in my own shoes though, depending on who I was insulting and the opinion they had just espoused.

Most Christians I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who’ve never met or spoken to them, based on things they don’t understand.

(Devil’s advocate)
But if religion is a subjective opinion, all levels of understanding are also necessarily subjective too, aren’t they?
(Devils’s advocate)

Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them. With which some people on here seem to struggle. That’s all I am trying to say on these threads. You do have to respect other people’s right to hold a different opinion on subjective matters – and that means not slagging them off or being prejudiced. It’s never good to be prejudiced.

Religion hasn’t exactly traditionally been that tolerant/respectful towards atheists or other religions/denominations though has it?

I find the idea that the religious might think I and all my friends will be damned to an eternal hell if we don’t repent and find god pretty offensive. I know someone who’s mother strongly believes that about them and its tragic tbh.

I’m not telling them they can’t say it though.

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, in India, a man faces 3 years in jail for pointing out that a miracle wasn’t a miracle.

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

Tell that tp the gays the christians so warmly embrace
again this tolerance is a one way street andmuch of what they say is offensive and insulting to me and many others

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…. talking to myself 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, 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]

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.

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

intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone

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 never ever encounter one preaching to you or knocking on yor door to pass on the message. they do not do it on STW but that does not mean they do not do it general. Its obvious which sides “preach” their message ad infinitum to the opposite side.

Yes, you do

Could you explain this in light of the following comments by the highest ranking catholic in the UK on homosexual marriage- in what sense were those who support gay marriage being protected from being offended for their beliefs?

“captives of sexual aberrations

I mean how tolerant is that eh 🙄

“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.

“harass” 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. 😕