I think I’m gonna stick with ‘atheist fury’, thanks all the same cougar. It makes me feel strangely potent. 😯

Western Buddhism, perhaps?

Diet Buddhism.

nealglover – Member

Rusty spanner, I’m a bit confused now.

A couple of pages back when someone suggested people had a right not to be insulted based on their religion you said that they didn’t and you could say whatever you wanted to them and there was nothing they could do about it.

When it was pointed out that this wasnt actually the case, you said you had been arguing against religion being part of that legislation for years (but you seemed not to be aware of it previously?)

You can insult whoever you like, as long as, as pointed out above, there is no intention to harass etc.

There was a thread about this a couple of years ago when the Tyneside Koran-burning case came to trial.

I attempted to debate the intricasies & interpretation of the legislation with TJ, Fred & Ernie, who all disagreed vehemently with my opinion.
There were even insults directed against me 😀
I enjoyed the debate very much.

It’ll still be in the archives if you want to look.

Even the modz are laughing at the devout.

I know that was a joke but just for clarity so we can avoid ad modinem attacks; I’m posting here (and generally) in my capacity as a forum user, not a moderator.

Neal, the legislation does not provide a right not to be insulted based on religion.

I’ll quote it again ….

Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden

Granted, anyone can claim that their intent was not to distress or harass, as a get out.

But the example I quoted above was pretty clear.

abusing someone isn’t nice irrespective of the reasons why. That’s not a religion issue, that’s being a decent human being issue.

Challenge ideas – yes.
Abuse someone randomly – no.

That’s always been my point. Saying ‘religious people are ignorant and feeble minded’ is not challenging the ideas, that’s just being nasty and prejudiced.

Offending and insulting aren’t synonyms.

Personally I think we are all missing a trick.

If you can’t beat them join them.

Set up the church of mountain biking.

There are already rules (although not on stone tablets as far as I’m aware)
There are already places of worship / pilgrimage.
There is already a great schism (29ers)

Set it up as a religion – claim charitable status – claim all the VAT back on tyres. Everyones a winner

What tyres for sunday prayers?

Halo Choir Boys, of course…

That’s always been my point.

Cool; we’re in agreement on that, then.

Saying ‘religious people are ignorant and feeble minded’ is not challenging the ideas, that’s just being nasty and prejudiced.

Is it, though? If you accept religious explanations of, say, creation of the world over well established scientific theory, evidence and proof, then you’re either ignorant (literally – ie, you don’t know any better) or you lack some form of critical thinking which would otherwise empower you to call into question the circular reasoning and inconsistencies that such “explanations” attempt to provide.

It’s a rash generalisation perhaps, and it’s not particularly nice to call people names; but I don’t think it’s automatically “nasty” without knowing context and intent, and I don’t really see how it could be called prejudiced?

Blah, blah, blah…
…You’re not a very good Catholic, then.

How very dogmatic of you.

I’d wager that Barnleymitch’s knowledge and understanding of Catholicism is at least as valid as your own.
Perhaps a more “scientific” approach would be to question whether your own pre-conceptions of “good Catholics” hold true?

Slightly more introspective, but also less confrontational and judgemental.

What tyres for sunday prayers?

This time of year… Mudrakes…. as it’s all a bit dour and super somber.

Come September and harvest we can crack out the Kenda 8 blocks and have a tear up.

Right I’m gonna be late… catch you after the service

That’s always been my point. Saying ‘religious people are ignorant and feeble minded’ is not challenging the ideas, that’s just being nasty and prejudiced.

Although technically it is true.

Halo Choir Boys, of course..

Applauds

Although technically it is true.

So you are opting to be prejudiced and unpleasant here, just to make it absoultely clear?

Aye, you’re right joolsburger , I’m as thick as shit me. Better tell the wife to pack her job in as a senior lecturer as well. 🙄

That’s always been my point. Saying ‘religious people are ignorant and feeble minded’ is not challenging the ideas, that’s just being nasty and prejudiced.

Although technically it is true.

Meh…

Aside from the genuinely ignorant – eg never been taught otherwise I’ve actually always been impressed by the capacity of bright religious people to hold onto some of the sillier tenants of their faith.

I mean the intellectual rigour involved in the beliefs held by “young earth creationists” would tire me out pretty quickly.

Personally I’d just give in and go along with everyone else and you know all that “evidence” and other stuff

No to make it absolutely clear I am using those words in exactly the way they are intended to be used.

Ignorant – Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: “ignorant of astronomy”.

In this case the belief in something without a shred of evidence and despite the evidence to the contrary

Feeble minded – Is perhaps a little harsh and I withdraw that however the cognitive dissonance required to believe in god and post that using a computer on the internet is mind boggling.

Prejudiced and unpleasant, I’m not the one in a club based on hatred and fear.

I’d wager that Barnleymitch’s knowledge and understanding of Catholicism is at least as valid as your own.

I know what a quack sounds like, that doesn’t make me a duck.

I don’t doubt that BM knows at least as much about Catholicism as I do, and probably a lot more. But he’s choosing to ignore it.

Perhaps a more “scientific” approach would be to question whether your own pre-conceptions of “good Catholics” hold true?

I don’t have any preconceptions of anyone, but I do have a basic understanding of the core tenets of the Catholic church, and their pro-life isn’t something that’s ambiguous. If you’re going to align yourself with a group and then choose to ignore what they stand for, you’re not a very good member of that group.

If I ate fish, I’d be a pretty poor vegetarian. If I continued to call myself a vegetarian whilst chowing down on a cod fillet, would that not suggest that perhaps a different label is appropriate? Hey, maybe I should look into what those pescetarians are up to?

Slightly more introspective, but also less confrontational and judgemental.

My intention wasn’t to be either of those things, sorry if it came across otherwise.

Granted, anyone can claim that their intent was not to distress or harass, as a get out.

Intent is a legal idea, which is contained in many laws. Intent makes the difference between murder and manslaughter or other lesser charges, for example.

What I want to know is:

If catholics truely believe in transubstantiation can a vegetarian take communion?

I’ve actually always been impressed by the capacity of bright religious people to hold onto some of the sillier tenants of their faith.

Sure.

This is where I was going with “rash generalisation.” One of the most intelligent, educated people I know is a Christian (and a polymath). I had a lengthy discussion with him about it as I couldn’t consolidate the two. Basically, he said he compartmentalises the faith side of things and treats it wholly separately from everything else. His ‘conversion’ tale is not wholly dissimilar to Ro5ey’s.

I have to disagree with joolsburger on this.

Saying all religious people are ignorant is just ignorant in itself, as amply demonstrated by barnsleymitch’s always honest, intelligent and patient contributions to these threads.

I was brought up as a Catholic myself, by a fiercely religious mother and an atheist father and am fully aware that there are lots of very complex reasons why people believe what they do.

In my opinion, and it’s just that, it’s fine to insult an opinion or belief, but attacking the individual holding that opinion is a matter which should be approached differently.

Oh, and nealglover, here’s a link to the thread I mentioned above, discussing the relevant legislation.
Only a couple of years ago, but it’s interesting to see the contrast in the tone of debate between then and now.

Link.

I do have a basic understanding of the core tenets of the Catholic church, and their pro-life isn’t something that’s ambiguous. If you’re going to align yourself with a group and then choose to ignore what they stand for, you’re not a very good member of that group.

I know several women who considered leaving the CofE over the women bishops vote. My wife was pondering moving to the Quaker congregation.

Membership of a church gives its views authority. The Church of England uses the answers given in religious views on the census as support for its ideas, for example. Obviously, they choose to ignore the fact that lots of people ticking the CofE box do so because they were Christened so that’s what their label is, rather than because they actually agree/believe in what the church says.

The RC church goes one further, and just uses the number of baptisms. If you had some water splashed on you as a baby you’re in, regardless of your stance now.

nealglover – Member

A simple test, we throw them all into Grafton Water, those that float we burn as witches.

(I fully expect the “Edinburgh Defence” to be deployed )

Please tell me you’re not serious? 😆

I don’t want to get too deeply involved in this Cougar, I’ve already wasted too much of my day on here, and mrs Mitch will probably withdraw all hands up jumper rights from me when she realises I’ve spent yet another day off sitting on my arse. Without knowing how I’ve thought / acted and interacted with other members of the church regarding my doubts and beliefs, you seem to be getting a bit judgemental, although I perhaps started that by describing myself as a ‘not very good Catholic’. i was merely trying to point out that not all Christians, Muslims, Catholics whatever, are following the tenets of their faith blindly.

I believe that the religious are ignorant of the fact that there is no god. I can’t dress it up or sugar coat it. I think it’s a completely mad idea and I’d be less honest and lack integrity if I pretended I thought something else for the sake of politeness.

At the end of it all my beliefs have no impact on anyone, live and let live etc. Theirs really do and in many ways very negatively.

At the end of it all my beliefs have no impact on anyone, live and let live etc.

…and thereby hangs the tail! The truth is that if none of the nonces thieves, murderers or adulterers operating under the auspices of religion chose to ponitificate about their faith, I very much doubt whether anyone much would comment on religion here or elsewhere. The problem is that they cannot just be content with finding the Lord, they have to bore the rest of us with their issues.

So for the record, my personal beliefs are my business and no one elses. If I choose to share them, and those I share them with wish to comment then thats fair enough by me, because I’ve opened that door. Trouble is the religionists can’t quite get that point.

The truth is that if none of the nonces thieves, murderers or adulterers operating under the auspices of religion chose to ponitificate about their faith…

You conveniently forget people who mutilate children genitals, oppress women, or discriminate against gays.

At the end of it all my beliefs have no impact on anyone, live and let live etc. Theirs really do and in many ways very negatively.

… because atheists/non-religious people have never done anything to negatively impact anyone

🙄

Ha that old chestnut. I can’t actually recall when bad things were done expressly in the name of atheism/secularism. Yes I know Stalin was an atheist but he also had a mustache, so what, Hitler was a catholic and only had one nut.

I don’t see the atheists in Uganda calling for the murder of gays etc etc etc.

Whatever way you dress it up if you truly believe in a life after this one you’re likely to act very oddly indeed.

Without knowing how I’ve thought / acted and interacted with other members of the church regarding my doubts and beliefs, you seem to be getting a bit judgemental,

As I said just there ^^ that wasn’t my intention, and I apologise unreservedly if that’s how it came across.

not all Christians, Muslims, Catholics whatever, are following the tenets of their faith blindly.

Sure. And the same argument applies; why would they, then?

This is probably a generalisation but, if you(*) subscribe to an organised religion, you (presumably) believe that its preachings are godly in origin. You obviously believe in a god, and yet you’d wilfully reject god’s will and teachings because you believe you know better. How do you then consolidate a love / fear of god with such disobedience? Moreover, why / how would you then continue to say you’re following that religion when you clearly aren’t?

I understand that many religions values are products of an earlier time and not really compatible with modern society. I just don’t get why you’d still identify with a particular religion whose views are in conflict rather than your own, rather than finding a different faith which was more appropriate.

(* – “you” as in “someone”, not you personally)

S’ok Cougar, I was going to post and apologise for using the term ‘judgemental’ anyway. (Edit) long rambling post deleted.

Yes I know Stalin was an atheist but he also had a mustache, so what, Hitler was a catholic and only had one nut.

It could be argued that Stalin could do what he did because of the conditioning of the religious system in place before him. People were accustomed to following the orders of an all powerful leader.

I pretended I thought something else for the sake of politeness.

That’s not what I’m asking you to do, ffs!

Do say: “I don’t share your beliefs”
Don’t say: “Hahaha you stupid bastard”

I really can’t understand why people are struggling with this.

In my opinion, and it’s just that, it’s fine to insult an opinion or belief,

I don’t think it is. It’s fine to disagree, and discuss, but all I’m asking for is a little **** politeness! Discuss, don’t insult. There is never a need to insult people.

I’ve actually always been impressed by the capacity of bright religious people to hold onto some of the sillier tenants of their faith.

One might say that a characteristic of intelligence is the ability to reconcile apparently mutually exclusive points of view.

At the end of it all my beliefs have no impact on anyone, live and let live etc. Theirs really do and in many ways very negatively.

An absolutely gigantic straw man. Lots of people have beliefs that affect others negatively. It is in no way exclusive to religion. Also, lots of religious people do not have beliefs that affect others negatively.

Poor poor reasoning.

This is probably a generalisation but, if you(*) subscribe to an organised religion, you (presumably) believe that its preachings are godly in origin. You obviously believe in a god, and yet you’d wilfully reject god’s will and teachings because you believe you know better. How do you then consolidate a love / fear of god with such disobedience? Moreover, why / how would you then continue to say you’re following that religion when you clearly aren’t?

Probably one of the most discussed topics in all of history. Lots of reading to be done…

In my opinion, and it’s just that, it’s fine to insult an opinion or belief,

I don’t think it is. It’s fine to disagree, and discuss, but all I’m asking for is a little **** politeness! Discuss, don’t insult. There is never a need to insult people.

But I said it’s fine to insult the opinion or belief (my quote in bold).
Do you agree?

By the way, do you consider ‘ffs!’ and ‘a little **** politeness!’ to be polite? 😀

BTW, I do think in certain circumstances it’s fine to verbally insult or attack an individual.
If that individual is attempting to pass off hatred and predjudice as religious or political belief and refusing to engage in polite and rational debate, for example.
Sometimes, rarely, it’s the only alternative.

That’s not what I’m asking you to do, ffs!
Do say: “I don’t share your beliefs”
Don’t say: “Hahaha you stupid bastard”
I really can’t understand why people are struggling with this.

You can ask all you want but I don’t have to comply. You don’t get to control what I say, anymore than I get to control what you or anyone else says.

following the tenets of their faith blindly.

no need to, jesus (or his associated preachers in america) can fix the blind. seen it on TV.

You can ask all you want but I don’t have to comply. You don’t get to control what I say, anymore than I get to control what you or anyone else says.

And you can tell me that you don’t care all you want.. see, that’s how conversation works. I’m not expecting you to do what I say – I’ve been alive too long to expect it 🙂

But I said it’s fine to insult the opinion or belief (my quote in bold).
Do you agree?

No – do not INSULT it – disagree with it nicely.

The bottom line – don’t be a ****

I do think in certain circumstances it’s fine to verbally insult or attack an individual.
If that individual is attempting to pass off hatred and predjudice as religious or political belief and refusing to engage in polite and rational debate, for example.
Sometimes, rarely, it’s the only alternative.

It will never, ever work, will just result in two abusive people instead of one. Save your breath.

No – do not INSULT it – disagree with it nicely.

And what if that belief is then violently forced upon you?
Is it ok to fight back?
As long as you don’t insult anyone?

It will never, ever work, will just result in two abusive people instead of one. Save your breath.

I think you’re wrong. Satire can be a potent weapon.

Some beliefs are so vile that those who espouse them are deserving of ridicule and insult.
They have, by voicing their hatred, by their abandonment of reason and rationality, forfieted their ‘right’ to politeness.