"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

[BaneTheBrawler]

Since you recognize the similarities between your own hatred and that of religious nuts (and the generalizations of both), yes, that's pretty fair.

Edit: Post ninjas! And actually, Siat, that's remarkably similar to the reason I have for believing in God. I think. I explained a bit about it in this thread, kinda towards the beginning. You might find it interesting, although it's difficult to put into words.

[Demosthenes11]

Right. That whole shit about feelings and whatever was some other guy. Not me. I did talk about my beliefs much much earlier in the thread, but that ran its course.

And I actually have no objections to Siat's opinion- after all, he's entitled to it. However, what I DO object to is the hypocrisy of someone making a hateful generalization about a group for making hateful generalizations about a group. And, I don't think religion should be untouchable, merely that when you talk about it, you should do so in a mature, respectful way- much like any other subject of weight.

I keep saying read the thread because that question doesn't even apply to me, and the fact that you think it does implies that you didn't read the thread.

Serious question: Do you find someone saying "religion is garbage and has no place on Earth" to be offensive?

[Siatdiat]

Since you recognize the similarities between your own hatred and that of religious nuts (and the generalizations of both), yes, that's pretty fair.

But I don't feel hate for you, or my parents, or any other religious person in general. More like pity really, I feel like people are victims of religion who think they have been freed, but are actually being enslaved. I just think religion is dangerous and evil. Being willing to offend people about their religious beliefs doesn't really equal hatred. I would also never make any move or side with any move in politics to limit peoples religious freedom. Apparently Alleya wins your respect for making nice little posts that aren't rude or whatever. I guess I have just had too many discussions with people about religion to really see any reason to try to have a reasoning debate with people who have beliefs that are based on ignoring reason and having blind faith. You can have your god of the gaps, just remember those gaps are getting smaller and smaller every day.

[BaneTheBrawler]

re: Demos: Obviously.

It's not so much that Alleya won respect, but rather, didn't lose any. And really, aside from the comparison to viruses, I haven't really been offended by any of your posts. As for the actual debate about religion... well, as I said, I've already explained my views in this thread. They're around page 10ish I think. Already done the hypocrisy thing twice in this thread, don't really want to have another philosophical debate unless the previous one has been read.

[ronin sparthos]

I think it's important to distinguish that most of the voices that speak out against religion tend to be towards the monotheisms because they tend to be the most self-destructive due to the texts that back them. If Jainism were the dominant religion in many parts of the world I think it's safe to say that we'd be on a planet with much less bloodshed than the one we live on now.

All religions aren't built equal.

[Siatdiat]

I think it's important to distinguish that most of the voices that speak out against religion tend to be towards the monotheisms because they tend to be the most self-destructive due to the texts that back them. If Jainism were the dominant religion in many parts of the world I think it's safe to say that we'd be on a planet with much less bloodshed than the one we live on now.

All religions aren't built equal.

Jainism wouldn't be desturctive? I don't think we need everyone starving themselves to death because walking might kill an ant or not producing food because it might kill a frog when they dig a hole in the ground.

Add: The very root thing about people believing in any religion is the very root of the evil of religion. I think people who believe in the horoscope are silly too. If people accept this fairy tale without evidence or proof, and raise their children to accept it, what will they not be fooled by? There are tons of christians who say they are christians who don't really go to church or do anything christian. Here is an interesting clip.

[Cadsuane]

This just in: new agers mystics and spiritualists are just as fucking stupid as orthodox whatevers

[ronin sparthos]

Jainism wouldn't be desturctive? I don't think we need everyone starving themselves to death because walking might kill an ant or not producing food because it might kill a frog when they dig a hole in the ground.

Somehow, I think I'd rather be on the planet where people are so mindful of the life around them that they'd abhor killing another creature than the one where we frequently have men, women and children being killed because one tribe didn't agree with the religious beliefs of another.

You're always going to have radicals but at least there would be no divine command built in that suddenly justifies atrocities against other people. Jainism in my opinion is definitely an improvement over the three monotheisms in the message it attempts to convey.

[Siatdiat]

This just in: new agers mystics and spiritualists are just as fucking stupid as orthodox whatevers

This post isn't very clear to me. Are you agreeing or are you trying to say that believing crystals can heal you is more intelligent and based on empirical medical evidence than praying to god?

[Demosthenes11]

re: Demos: Obviously.

Why is that offensive though? If someone really liked basketball, but his friend said "meh, I hate basketball, I think it's stupid and pointless," would you deem that offensive?

[BaneTheBrawler]

If I gave a shit about basketball, I probably would. What's your point? Obviously offense is derived from one's own perspective, but it's not difficult to avoid offending others. Remove the word stupid and suddenly you have an actual debate about whether basketball has some value to society. A debate that, in and of itself, can contribute to society. If you have a choice between getting your point across and pissing off 10 people, or expending the tiny amount of effort it takes to be respectful while still making your point, why wouldn't you do the latter? Also, why wouldn't those 10 people get pissed that you didn't make that extra effort? You could have, but you chose not to. I could have held that elevator, but I didn't. Pretty sure the guy who has to wait for the next one is pissed.

One could argue that no one is owed any respect until they earn it, but that undermines the entire concept of civil/human rights.

[Siatdiat]

Christianity or any other irrational belief system doesn't need to be respected in my opinion. What if I suggested that we try and have respectful discussions with neo-nazis about their silly ideas? I really don't see a difference.

[Lucavi]

^ I can support this simply because Christianity does not predate morality. A person is more than capable of being moral without the influence of a specific religion. When you remove the concept of morality from religion, all you are left with is an absurd amount of laws and restrictions, and a belief in the afterlife, neither of which have any tangible effect on morality outside of serving as a method of scaring an individual into living a moral life (for a given definition of morality depending on whatever religion that person subscribes to).

When a Christian starts talking about how God created the world and man, therefore man must have come before morals, that's when I shake my head and walk away. Its like people willingly choose to be idiotic.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Christianity or any other irrational belief system doesn't need to be respected in my opinion. What if I suggested that we try and have respectful discussions with neo-nazis about their silly ideas? I really don't see a difference.

What if I suggested that we try and have respectful discussions with minorities about their silly ideas? I really don't see a difference.

Arbitrarily deciding what is and is not deserving of respect is what makes religion so dangerous. Goes back to hypocrisy. You either apply the same standard to everyone or everyone gets to choose their own standard. If everyone gets to choose, you end up with anarchy.

As I said earlier.

[Siatdiat]

What if I suggested that we try and have respectful discussions with minorities about their silly ideas? I really don't see a difference.

Arbitrarily deciding what is and is not deserving of respect is what makes religion so dangerous. Goes back to hypocrisy. You either apply the same standard to everyone or everyone gets to choose their own standard. If everyone gets to choose, you end up with anarchy.

As I said earlier.

There are major differences here that must be going over your head.

[BaneTheBrawler]

I would suggest that it is the other way around.

You claim to hate religion because some religions are judgmental... and then you go around judging people who follow religion. That is hypocrisy. It's also supremely arrogant, which is yet another reason it's annoying.

[Siatdiat]

I would suggest that it is the other way around.

You claim to hate religion because some religions are judgmental... and then you go around judging people who follow religion. That is hypocrisy. It's also supremely arrogant, which is yet another reason it's annoying.

I hate religion because I liken it to believing in Santa Claus. I can judge peoples views for what they are judge them according to it. As far ss arrogance, I could never compete with the arrogance of the abrahamic religions or their God.

I'm on a kindle at the moment and it keeps capitalizing God against my will, I normally don't do that.

[BaneTheBrawler]

What gives you the right to judge other human beings? Claiming that right is the highest form of arrogance, and it's an action you share with the religions you hate.

[Siatdiat]

What gives you the right to judge other human beings? Claiming that right is the highest form of arrogance, and it's an action you share with the religions you hate.

The major difference I think is my judgements are based on intelligence, reasoning, and free thought. Religions judgements are based on old books. Serious question: what do you think about Mormonism? Be honest.

[ronin sparthos]

What seems to be missing in this thread is the fact that religion will never cease to exist. Ideas such as Christianity or Islam may fall before the sands of time like the Greek pantheons or Aztec cultures of yesteryear but people will never think in a purely logical fashion and surely in the next 2000 years a new religious belief will have adherent followers.

Try as we might as a species to continuously answer the questions that make up that void filled by religious belief, spirituality will forever be apart of the human species because people are different and science won't satisfy some. Be this spiritual belief minor superstition, ancestor worship, a personal deity or an outright belief that a deity is pulling the strings on the minor nuances of your life it will continue to persist.

As it stands the current non-believing community is met with scorn and discrimination across large tracts of the globe. Like any outgroup they are labeled as dangerous and driven into the ground at every turn but what must not be repeated is the urge to make war in the name of reason. There is a distinct difference between standing your ground and demanding religion respect your way of life and systematically attacking anyone who professes faith because you feel they're worth less than you.

Look no farther than the Christians to see what happens when you go from being oppressed to being the oppressors within the span of a couple hundred years. We have history at our fingertips and we'd be fools to repeat it.

So long as the monotheisms hold the power they do innocent blood will be spilled but what should be the ideal is a world where religious moderates stand side-by-side with their non-believing counterparts against the extremist elements of faith. It will continuously be a battle of ideas, minor spats are inevitable but I see it as akin to the integration of races where eventually enough people become accepting hat both sides take away something constructive from coexistence.

Religions have changed and they will continue to change. The best thing non-believers could do is shift religion away from it's extreme elements through action. That action is putting our money where our mouths are and living life in a moral fashion without the backing of supernatural authorities, helping those in need regardless of religious affiliation, respecting those who keep their religious belief out of the public arena and constantly challenging those who use religion as a weapon of oppression.