Respecting religion???
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Confirmation bias? Non believers tend to be far less vocal than their religious counterparts - so when you do see a preachy one - they stick in your mind.I have yet to see an atheist street preacher, have never had one knock on my door wanting to talk about their non-belief, i was never taught about atheism in school, wasn't forced to sing atheist songs, and they don't stand around outside my station on a wednesday morning. The same cannot be said of religion or the religious.
Religion is so pervasive - we simply filter out the vast majority of it.
trumptriple said:
Well put Voight Kampf.
Why should I respect someone's personal space? Why should I respect someone's peace and quiet in the library? Why should I respect anyone? Because it's polite and civilised and tolerant. People eating on the train annoy me far more than religious people.
The problem is that religion is not behind closed doors and being conducted in a civilised way, it is getting everywhere and when I turn my nose up at it it seems I am being disrespectful. Why should I respect someone's personal space? Why should I respect someone's peace and quiet in the library? Why should I respect anyone? Because it's polite and civilised and tolerant. People eating on the train annoy me far more than religious people.
Agree about train eaters!
People confuse tolerance with respect.
People are entitled to believe whatever they want, even if it's rubbish, and I am tolerant of that.
If my neighbour told me he had fairies at the bottom of his garden, I would be tolerant of his right to believe that, and would stand up to anyone who wanted to harm him because of his strange beliefs.
But I do not have to have respect for the drivel he believes, anymore that I have to respect someone who believes in an invisible magic man in the sky.
And the Pope is a t
t. You are not entitled to use physical force on someone who is verbally abusive. That is not a proportional response. You are entitled to be verbally abusive back.
But if someone insulted my mother, I wouldn't even do that, I'd just walk away. But then again, I think I have more morality than the pope. I am not the head of a worldwide criminal organisation for a start.
People are entitled to believe whatever they want, even if it's rubbish, and I am tolerant of that.
If my neighbour told me he had fairies at the bottom of his garden, I would be tolerant of his right to believe that, and would stand up to anyone who wanted to harm him because of his strange beliefs.
But I do not have to have respect for the drivel he believes, anymore that I have to respect someone who believes in an invisible magic man in the sky.
And the Pope is a t
t. You are not entitled to use physical force on someone who is verbally abusive. That is not a proportional response. You are entitled to be verbally abusive back.But if someone insulted my mother, I wouldn't even do that, I'd just walk away. But then again, I think I have more morality than the pope. I am not the head of a worldwide criminal organisation for a start.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 16th January 09:17
Stevanos said:
The problem is that religion is not behind closed doors and being conducted in a civilised way, it is getting everywhere and when I turn my nose up at it it seems I am being disrespectful.
Agree about train eaters!
There are billions of people around the world following a religion without bothering you.Agree about train eaters!
It depends how you 'turn your nose up at it' too.
Derek Smith said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
People confuse tolerance with respect.
And that's the crux of the matter. I'm quite happy to allow the religious to believe what they want to beleive, but I can't respect them for it.
Absolutely, 100%. Mind you, the religionists must be used to this by now. There is no religion in the world that commands greater than 50% of the world's population, therefore any religionist must realise that most people out there think they are daft for believing what they believe.Gaspode said:
Absolutely, 100%. Mind you, the religionists must be used to this by now. There is no religion in the world that commands greater than 50% of the world's population, therefore any religionist must realise that most people out there think they are daft for believing what they believe.Crush said:
If the older religions fell out of favour, people would simply choose something else to blindly follow and preach about.
The best and only religion, far more sense than the old ones. Abide with, er, me.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudeism
The Dudeist belief system is essentially a modernized form of Taoism purged of all of its metaphysical and medical doctrines. Dudeism advocates and encourages the practice of "going with the flow", "being cool headed", and "taking it easy" in the face of life's difficulties, believing that this is the only way to live in harmony with our inner nature and the challenges of interacting with other people. It also aims to assuage feelings of inadequacy that arise in societies which place a heavy emphasis on achievement and personal fortune. Consequently, simple everyday pleasures like bathing, bowling, and hanging out with friends are seen as far preferable to the accumulation of wealth and the spending of money as a means to achieve happiness and spiritual fulfillment.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Shouldn't this be directed at religionists?I don't mind women being thought of as equal to men. I don't mind people doing what the hell they want to on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. I don't mind people drawing pictures. I don't mind a person being gay, and two people being gay together. I don't mind people in Africa using condoms to facilitate the control of AIDS. I don't mind people tearing up pictures of people. And I rather like pigs - the animals themselves and once they are cooked. And shellfish.
These are things I feel are important to me yet the religionists say I'm wrong and will be condemned.
If pope doesn't want to see cartoons, don't buy the magazine. I don't want to either and haven't. If popes don't like gays, then don't go with gays. If some day is 'sacred' to you, then don't do those things which you find so offensive when others do it on those days. If you want AIDS to spread, then carry on doing what you are doing to Africa. And if you don't want your picture torn up, don't give them away and certainly don't condemn the person for all eternity - especially while forgiving those who abused children and then allowing them to do the same thing elsewhere. And if you don't like pigs, don't eat them. It's all rather simple enough.
The main problem, and it is a biggy, is that religionists don't seen to question themselves. They believe without evidence so there is, obviously, no argument against them. It is the circular argument of it being right because they think it is right.
So please, religionists, be nice to me. Don't restrict my freedoms, don't take money from me to further your aims, don't, especially don't, interfere with my kids, either physically or mentally. And don't expect me to treat you in any way special just because you suggest you are better than the rest of us. You are not. You are, to me, just like plane spotters, bewildering but, if they keep themselves to themselves and don't block access roads to airports, I will tolerate them.
In fact I prefer plane spotters.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff