Respecting religion???
Discussion
mattmurdock said:
You really do have an ego problem over this, don't you?
I understand that a person's faith is often a core part of their self-identity, and to be told it is nonsense can be upsetting. However, there are several threads on this site alone already discussing the seriously evil acts carried out by some theists.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether religions and the religious are worthy of respect or not. It is a fact that most major Western religions are intolerant as part of the tenets of the religion. If people choose to ignore those tenets, it is likely because they are tolerant and understanding people who would have been good to others even if they had not been subjected to religion at an early age.
The problem with the average theist, is that despite their almost complete lack of following the tenets of their chosen religion, the fact they identify as religious gives legitimacy to the religion itself. If no one claimed to be Christian, or claimed to be Muslim, then the religions themselves would have less power. Instead, this legitimacy is used by others to lend support to their acts, even if those acts would not be supported by the 'average' theist.
I gave you an answer on the intolerance, and you still refuse to respond to any of the questions or points I have asked you, or to Winston's question. Instead you continue to throw insults and deflect.
Did you mention religious attitudes to gays? I don't agree with it. What else do you want me to say? I understand that a person's faith is often a core part of their self-identity, and to be told it is nonsense can be upsetting. However, there are several threads on this site alone already discussing the seriously evil acts carried out by some theists.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether religions and the religious are worthy of respect or not. It is a fact that most major Western religions are intolerant as part of the tenets of the religion. If people choose to ignore those tenets, it is likely because they are tolerant and understanding people who would have been good to others even if they had not been subjected to religion at an early age.
The problem with the average theist, is that despite their almost complete lack of following the tenets of their chosen religion, the fact they identify as religious gives legitimacy to the religion itself. If no one claimed to be Christian, or claimed to be Muslim, then the religions themselves would have less power. Instead, this legitimacy is used by others to lend support to their acts, even if those acts would not be supported by the 'average' theist.
I gave you an answer on the intolerance, and you still refuse to respond to any of the questions or points I have asked you, or to Winston's question. Instead you continue to throw insults and deflect.
The nastiest thing I've ever heard first hand was from a non-theist chap who said a gay son of his would be dead to him. I've never heard that kind of thing said in Church. I believe it's an old outdated opinion, some people have the goodness or intelligence to see past it, some don't.
Now, Winston's question - why would I want to answer him, for what reason would he be asking? To ridicule me for it? Even without an answer he likes to offer others my answers that i haven't even given yet, even before I've seen the question. I don't think him worthy of consideration.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Then answer the points I raised a couple of pages ago, about Jesus and the Bible. Or are you saying your faith and beliefs are beyond any discussion, criticism or debate? If you truly believe what you believe, why is it so difficult for you to defend your beliefs?I am happy to explain exactly why I believe what I believe, happy to defend the reasons and underlying thoughts, and more than happy for someone to tell me it is nonsense provided they explain their reasoning for this. There should be no thought, no belief, no institution or society that is beyond reasoned criticism or beyond questioning, and mocking if necessary.
Setting ideas up on pedestals and denying critique is a sure fire way to demonstrate the emptiness of your argument.
Einion Yrth said:
Blue Cat said:
I am none of things, so yes you have every right to tell me that you think I am wrong and why you think I am wrong but the question was why do people feel the need to do it in such an deliberately insulting way.
No. The question was "should we respect religion"; all the rest has been getting off topic. The general position among many, or most, of the atheists who have posted is that we should respect peoples rights to believe anything they choose but that those beliefs themselves must be open to ridicule. If having your beliefs ridiculed offends you, then I'm sorry but as you are at liberty to ridicule anything that I may believe that right extends both ways.You don't respect my views so you feel that you have the right to ridicule them whereas I would not ridicule your views, as I feel that would be disrespectful.
Blue Cat said:
And that's the point
You don't respect my views so you feel that you have the right to ridicule them whereas I would not ridicule your views, as I feel that would be disrespectful.
And there I am afraid we shall have to agree to differ; there can be no belief or belief system that is not open to ridicule if, to any observer, it is patently ridiculous. You don't respect my views so you feel that you have the right to ridicule them whereas I would not ridicule your views, as I feel that would be disrespectful.
mattmurdock said:
Then answer the points I raised a couple of pages ago, about Jesus and the Bible. Or are you saying your faith and beliefs are beyond any discussion, criticism or debate? If you truly believe what you believe, why is it so difficult for you to defend your beliefs?
I am happy to explain exactly why I believe what I believe, happy to defend the reasons and underlying thoughts, and more than happy for someone to tell me it is nonsense provided they explain their reasoning for this. There should be no thought, no belief, no institution or society that is beyond reasoned criticism or beyond questioning, and mocking if necessary.
Setting ideas up on pedestals and denying critique is a sure fire way to demonstrate the emptiness of your argument.
Sorry what was toir question about Jesus?I am happy to explain exactly why I believe what I believe, happy to defend the reasons and underlying thoughts, and more than happy for someone to tell me it is nonsense provided they explain their reasoning for this. There should be no thought, no belief, no institution or society that is beyond reasoned criticism or beyond questioning, and mocking if necessary.
Setting ideas up on pedestals and denying critique is a sure fire way to demonstrate the emptiness of your argument.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm not sure if any of these are direct questions, but in response to you asking why it is so hard to believe Jesus existed, I replied with the following. I had a feeling you were simply ignoring it because you did not want to answer, but there you go.mattmurdock said:
You are determined to turn this into a black and white argument, and keep employing the dodgy logic that Iain pulled you up on earlier.
Even if I concede that I cannot prove without a doubt that Jesus did not live two thousand years ago, what evidence do I have that the various gospels are an accurate reflection of who he was and what he believed? I don't need certainty - in fact, certainty is the realm of faith, not science. All I need is doubt, or the probability of doubt.
Taking as read he existed, to believe he is worth following I need to have little to no doubt that the gospels are an accurate reflection of what he did and said, I need to have little doubt that the editing of the gospels performed by the early church selected the correct and accurate versions, I need to have little doubt that the subsequent language translations performed at different periods in history in any way introduced inaccuracies.
Modern biographies about people who have various primary sources to prove their existence and what they did are often riddled with inaccuracies, biased interpretations and outright lies, yet I have to have little doubt that any of the specific accounts of Jesus' words and actions in the Bible suffer from the same issues.
As it stands I don't just have a little doubt about those things, I have a lot of doubt about them. The probability that the gospels that make up the Catholic approved Bible are an accurate reflection of the life of Jesus, given what we know today, is vanishingly small.
Even if I concede that they are all true and accurate reflections of what he said, I then have to contend with the question of why I should hold his words in any more esteem than Confucius or any of the other humans who came before him and essentially said the same things. To hold him in reverence, but not the others, seems odd to me unless I accept he has some special quality that makes his version more worthwhile. That special quality is surely that he is the son of God, because if he isn't, why is he called out as unique?
Of course, that entails not having any doubt that God exists, and as the primary evidence that God exists is the Bible that leads to a wholly unsatisfying set of circular reasoning. Added to that I have the weight of a couple of thousand years of rational inquiry that has demonstrated a complete and utter lack of any other proof for the existence of any god, let alone the one described in the Bible.
Ah, you say, but surely the fact that we have a bewildering variety of Christian denominations today, and societies based on the Christian faith essentially formed the modern world, is more than enough reason to hold him up as a special person. None of the others did that.
Well, then surely we should be holding up Paul over Jesus, as without him there would be no Christianity. Or maybe we should be holding up Constantine as without him there almost certainly would not be a Christian basis to most of the major Western societies. Why the focus on Jesus?
Even if I concede that I cannot prove without a doubt that Jesus did not live two thousand years ago, what evidence do I have that the various gospels are an accurate reflection of who he was and what he believed? I don't need certainty - in fact, certainty is the realm of faith, not science. All I need is doubt, or the probability of doubt.
Taking as read he existed, to believe he is worth following I need to have little to no doubt that the gospels are an accurate reflection of what he did and said, I need to have little doubt that the editing of the gospels performed by the early church selected the correct and accurate versions, I need to have little doubt that the subsequent language translations performed at different periods in history in any way introduced inaccuracies.
Modern biographies about people who have various primary sources to prove their existence and what they did are often riddled with inaccuracies, biased interpretations and outright lies, yet I have to have little doubt that any of the specific accounts of Jesus' words and actions in the Bible suffer from the same issues.
As it stands I don't just have a little doubt about those things, I have a lot of doubt about them. The probability that the gospels that make up the Catholic approved Bible are an accurate reflection of the life of Jesus, given what we know today, is vanishingly small.
Even if I concede that they are all true and accurate reflections of what he said, I then have to contend with the question of why I should hold his words in any more esteem than Confucius or any of the other humans who came before him and essentially said the same things. To hold him in reverence, but not the others, seems odd to me unless I accept he has some special quality that makes his version more worthwhile. That special quality is surely that he is the son of God, because if he isn't, why is he called out as unique?
Of course, that entails not having any doubt that God exists, and as the primary evidence that God exists is the Bible that leads to a wholly unsatisfying set of circular reasoning. Added to that I have the weight of a couple of thousand years of rational inquiry that has demonstrated a complete and utter lack of any other proof for the existence of any god, let alone the one described in the Bible.
Ah, you say, but surely the fact that we have a bewildering variety of Christian denominations today, and societies based on the Christian faith essentially formed the modern world, is more than enough reason to hold him up as a special person. None of the others did that.
Well, then surely we should be holding up Paul over Jesus, as without him there would be no Christianity. Or maybe we should be holding up Constantine as without him there almost certainly would not be a Christian basis to most of the major Western societies. Why the focus on Jesus?
In brief Matt, that is your analysis.
I don't feel the same way.
Perhaps I am happy to act with less 'proof' than you.
I don't set out to 'disbelieve', I do feel that your own mindset leads you to come to the negative conclusion every time when considering evidence or probability of Jesus' existence. That's your prerogative.
As to why I would hold Jesus views more dear than others? Why not? I like them. Doesn't mean I don't take interest in the views and actions of philosophers and other figures in world history.
I don't feel the same way.
Perhaps I am happy to act with less 'proof' than you.
I don't set out to 'disbelieve', I do feel that your own mindset leads you to come to the negative conclusion every time when considering evidence or probability of Jesus' existence. That's your prerogative.
As to why I would hold Jesus views more dear than others? Why not? I like them. Doesn't mean I don't take interest in the views and actions of philosophers and other figures in world history.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Fair enough, at least you answered. My mindset is to critically challenge everything I see and hear, simply because I think that is the closest way to get to the 'truth' of any situation. Your mindset clearly differs from mine.As I said, whether Jesus did or did not exist is not really important to me. There could be lots of evidence that he did exist, and I would happily accept that. What is of more concern to me is the whole son of God claim, and how that has been used to add weight to his words and deeds.
I don't know you or your background so I can't in all honesty comment on why you are happy to accept such a low burden of proof over Jesus, but not over Odin or Vishnu or Ra. I will note that statistically it is extremely likely that you were either raised by others who shared that belief, or you have suffered some emotional trauma and been guided by someone who shared that belief.
Your belief clearly brings you comfort, and you are clearly disregarding the trappings of the major Christian denominations, so I can see how you feel persecuted by people who are angry at the religions themselves, or the actions of literal theists. I still don't think that gives you the right to claim your beliefs should not be subject to critical analysis by others, or to mocking by those with a more rational mindset.
Blue Cat said:
The point is that it has been said many times on this thread that anyone who has a belief is feeble minded, stupid and uneducated.
Does being nasty about other people's beliefs and faiths make you a better person?
Perhaps you shouldn't have said "feel free to attack" if you were going to be sensitive about it.Does being nasty about other people's beliefs and faiths make you a better person?
Feel free to attack my atheism. No problem. Be as nasty as you like. Your religion is pretty nasty to me on the subject of my eternal damnation if I don't accept the Lord your God. So there's not much more you can say that would be more offensive than to condemn my (non-existent) soul to eternal hell fire. Catholicism is so blindingly offensive to me that I see no problem dishing it out to its followers.
P.S. All of my relatives are Catholic (every living person related to me by blood that I know of is Catholic, other than my children, Mother, sibling, the lot). They know how I feel. We get along fine, though. We just don't talk about it any more..........
mattmurdock said:
Fair enough, at least you answered. My mindset is to critically challenge everything I see and hear, simply because I think that is the closest way to get to the 'truth' of any situation. Your mindset clearly differs from mine.
As I said, whether Jesus did or did not exist is not really important to me. There could be lots of evidence that he did exist, and I would happily accept that. What is of more concern to me is the whole son of God claim, and how that has been used to add weight to his words and deeds.
I don't know you or your background so I can't in all honesty comment on why you are happy to accept such a low burden of proof over Jesus, but not over Odin or Vishnu or Ra. I will note that statistically it is extremely likely that you were either raised by others who shared that belief, or you have suffered some emotional trauma and been guided by someone who shared that belief.
Your belief clearly brings you comfort, and you are clearly disregarding the trappings of the major Christian denominations, so I can see how you feel persecuted by people who are angry at the religions themselves, or the actions of literal theists. I still don't think that gives you the right to claim your beliefs should not be subject to critical analysis by others, or to mocking by those with a more rational mindset.
You see, I don't feel it any more rational to believe that Jesus didn't exist than it is to believe. Quite the same as the existence of alien life that is superior in intelligence to our own, we just don't know for sure either way.As I said, whether Jesus did or did not exist is not really important to me. There could be lots of evidence that he did exist, and I would happily accept that. What is of more concern to me is the whole son of God claim, and how that has been used to add weight to his words and deeds.
I don't know you or your background so I can't in all honesty comment on why you are happy to accept such a low burden of proof over Jesus, but not over Odin or Vishnu or Ra. I will note that statistically it is extremely likely that you were either raised by others who shared that belief, or you have suffered some emotional trauma and been guided by someone who shared that belief.
Your belief clearly brings you comfort, and you are clearly disregarding the trappings of the major Christian denominations, so I can see how you feel persecuted by people who are angry at the religions themselves, or the actions of literal theists. I still don't think that gives you the right to claim your beliefs should not be subject to critical analysis by others, or to mocking by those with a more rational mindset.
So mocking belief in Jesus is quite a worthless thing to do in my opinion.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Voight, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you read my post in a hurry and misinterpreted what I was saying.Even if I think it is rational to believe that Jesus existed, I do not think it is rational to believe he was/is the son of God, or an aspect of God, or possessed of any supernatural abilities at all. That is the bit I would consider worthy of mocking, because it is clear that the weight of rational evidence over the last couple of thousand years is that it is extremely unlikely that anything supernatural exists, and almost impossibly unlikely that the God as described in the Bible exists.
So, is it rational to believe a chap called Jesus existed and said some nice things - possibly. Is it rational to believe all the claims about him in the Bible, or that he is the spokesperson for a supreme being that was happy to interfere directly in peoples affairs and then sod off and leave us to it - not really, no. Is it rational to give the sayings of an entirely normal human Jesus any more credence than the thousands before and after him that essentially said the same things (be nice to one another) - not really, no.
If you really can't see that the only reason Jesus is regarded as worthy of worship today is that people think he is divine, then I do worry for your faculties. If you strip away the divinity, don't really think that God fellow ever existed and do not follow the tenets of a particular faith, then I'm not sure how someone could then call themselves a member of the Christian faith.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don't see too many people devoting their life to the worship of Che Guevara and then calling themselves Guevarians.As I pointed out, a number of biblical historians suggest that without Paul writing a bunch of letters, there would not be many people who remember or revere Jesus, any more than people remember or revere Akhenaten of Egypt for his promotion of the Hebrew God. Without Constantine deciding it would be a good idea to have the Roman Empire worshiping the same deity, there would be no Roman Catholic Church, and likely very few Christians.
Jesus is not remembered and revered because of his actions, he is remembered and revered because a couple of people decided to promote the book they were writing about him and his supposed divinity, and then another bunch of people decided that not believing in him would be punishable by imprisonment and death.
If you do not want to critically analyse the foundation of your beliefs, then nothing I am saying is going to be of any relevance to you. But please do not come on here espousing rationality and then not actually back it up with any reasoning.
Grumfutock said:
You are missing the obvious sir. Why the hell would that fact get in the way of a good, old fashioned PH bust up! Most on here don't know what a fact is!
Actually I find it quite depressing. All these atheists who insist that science is the be all and end all and who don't actually have a f
king clue as to how modern science developed. The Oxford Calculators are one very good example of physics being researched 300 years before the age of enlightenment.plasticpig said:
Actually I find it quite depressing. All these atheists who insist that science is the be all and end all and who don't actually have a fking clue as to how modern science developed. The Oxford Calculators are one very good example of physics being researched 300 years before the age of enlightenment.
I'm not sure you can classify these as scientists. They were philosophers if anything, coming to conclusions without testing them.king clue as to how modern science developed. The Oxford Calculators are one very good example of physics being researched 300 years before the age of enlightenment.mattmurdock said:
I don't see too many people devoting their life to the worship of Che Guevara and then calling themselves Guevarians.
As I pointed out, a number of biblical historians suggest that without Paul writing a bunch of letters, there would not be many people who remember or revere Jesus, any more than people remember or revere Akhenaten of Egypt for his promotion of the Hebrew God. Without Constantine deciding it would be a good idea to have the Roman Empire worshiping the same deity, there would be no Roman Catholic Church, and likely very few Christians.
Jesus is not remembered and revered because of his actions, he is remembered and revered because a couple of people decided to promote the book they were writing about him and his supposed divinity, and then another bunch of people decided that not believing in him would be punishable by imprisonment and death.
If you do not want to critically analyse the foundation of your beliefs, then nothing I am saying is going to be of any relevance to you. But please do not come on here espousing rationality and then not actually back it up with any reasoning.
I'm not entirely sure how you can arrive at the conclusion that Jesus' actions were not the motivator for his stories to be written, that the authors just wanted to 'promote' their booky-wook! I'm not entirely sure you are a rational thinker at all. As I pointed out, a number of biblical historians suggest that without Paul writing a bunch of letters, there would not be many people who remember or revere Jesus, any more than people remember or revere Akhenaten of Egypt for his promotion of the Hebrew God. Without Constantine deciding it would be a good idea to have the Roman Empire worshiping the same deity, there would be no Roman Catholic Church, and likely very few Christians.
Jesus is not remembered and revered because of his actions, he is remembered and revered because a couple of people decided to promote the book they were writing about him and his supposed divinity, and then another bunch of people decided that not believing in him would be punishable by imprisonment and death.
If you do not want to critically analyse the foundation of your beliefs, then nothing I am saying is going to be of any relevance to you. But please do not come on here espousing rationality and then not actually back it up with any reasoning.
If a man did today what he is reported to have done do you think he would be worthy of acclaim? And if a book is written about him does the memory of his actions owe everything to that book or does that book owe everything to his actions?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff