Why should we have to respect religions? [Archive]

Kadagar_AV

04-21-2010, 02:45

Why should we have to respect religions?

If someone would paint his toenails blue every odd week and bark at the moon we would label him crazy.

If someone can't work every 7th day and insists on a girl being pregnant from "god" we have to respect* him.

My humble question is, why do we have to respect religion? I mean, most educated people from where I come from would scream "are you nuts?!", but yet this board clearly regulates that we must respect religion.

What religion?

Can I make up my own?

Don't get me wrong, I really do not want to make a own religion... But the question remains, why do we have to respect religion?
Why can't we challenge it?
Why can't we laugh at it?
Why can't we mock it?

NOTE that the question is WHY, the reason of the thread is not to laugh or mock religion. I just wonder why we cant.

We can laugh at someone saying that there is an alien who will burn the USA in one year unless the states sacrifices 100.000.000 Nike boots, but we cant laugh at someone saying we have a life after life?

So again, why do we have to respect religion? Why is religion different from anything else?

* "respect" him in the same way you tell him his childs are beautiful and his wifes cooking is GREAT.

pevergreen

04-21-2010, 03:09

GeneralHankerchief

04-21-2010, 03:11

Because like it or not, it's a big part of the foundation our society is built upon. Disrespect religion = disrespect society itself. With the "newer" examples you cited, they're really not part of that foundation, so they're considered fair game.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 03:17

Why should we have to respect religions?

If someone would paint his toenails blue every odd week and bark at the moon we would label him crazy.

Would we? What about someone who checks twice to make sure they have their keys before leaving the house, and in their spare time pretends to be a warlord in ancient Japan, sending thousands of men into battle? Is he an obsessive compulsive megalomaniac?

How many of our behaviors and beliefs would be "crazy" to someone from another culture or time?

With religion, people usually believe to the level of sophistication that works for them.

Many of our innate psychological beliefs/assumptions are actually just cognitive biases. Religion is just one of them.

You aren't crazy if you see a face in the clouds are you?

So it's difficult to make the determination of which beliefs are respect worthy.

Reenk Roink

04-21-2010, 04:04

You basically answered your own questions Kadagar (GH made it explicity). We respect these religions because they are such an innate part of our society, and the beliefs are so widespread.

I, for example, think it is is pretty odd that people don't believe in God, or believe that scientific theories actually describe the real world, or that there is a natural causality, etc, but these (except the first) are some pretty deeply ingrained beliefs in (our) society.

The fact is that the dominant world religions exercise such influence on so many people's lives, that even among those who don't hold to them, many (rightfully so) shy away from mockery (though they may engage in always tactful criticism). It's why, for example, those Danish cartoons were such a retarded idea.

Think about why say Catholicism is treated and dealt with differently then Scientology.

PanzerJaeger

04-21-2010, 04:09

Common courtesy.

miotas

04-21-2010, 04:28

There's no reason you have to hold any respect for them, just don't disrespect them.

Lemur

04-21-2010, 04:28

Common courtesy.
Can't improve on that for logic, sensibility or concision.

Beskar

04-21-2010, 04:37

I think you can insult religion all you like, however, just expect to recieve insults back from those following religion. As such, it boils down to common courtesy, if you want to get along with those people with those beliefs, you have to make sacrifices.

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2010, 05:20

You don't have to respect religions. Everyone is entitled to speak their mind, but no one is entitled to have their ideas protected from insult, mockery or debunking. The only reason to respect religions is so you can receive the same respect back from religious people in your day to day life. If you don't care about constantly putting up a fight against the religious, then go ahead and disrespect them. It all depends on where you feel your time and energy is better spent. I know some who go about not challenging anyones religious beliefs because they want to actually do more productive things with such religious people and I know others who feel it is their duty to challenge every religious person thinking that reaching at least one person will be worth it (one less person inhibiting human progress in the short term, many less people in the future as now non religious person has children who are predisposed to not be religious either).

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2010, 05:24

Can't improve on that for logic, sensibility or concision.

I disagree, I don't think it is common courtesy to let everyone go about without their ideas challenged on a daily basis simply because you are too lazy to go along with having your own ideas challenged as well. How is a Democracy supposed to grow and flourish if the public's ideas are no longer in a free market of competition but instead in their own isolated bubbles becoming individual ideological Japan's circa Tokugawa shogunate?

Lemur

04-21-2010, 05:41

I don't think it is common courtesy to let everyone go about without their ideas challenged on a daily basis simply because you are too lazy to go along with having your own ideas challenged as well.
Allow me to expand on the point: It's common courtesy to let people worship and believe in peace, without mockery, debunking or rudeness. That said, there are times and occasions when courtesy does not apply. Satirists and comedians, for example, make their living by ignoring common courtesy, and I don't think they should be in any way held back. Scientology, for example, is such a ripe comedic target that it would be unkind to prevent comedians from ragging on it.

Likewise, there are times and occasions when it's appropriate to take a cold, hard look at a faith. But in general common courtesy dictates that we live and let live in matters of faith.

Obviously, I think this should be a matter of consideration and courtesy, not of law. There's a reason it's the first amendment.

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2010, 05:50

Allow me to expand on the point: It's common courtesy to let people worship and believe in peace, without mockery, debunking or rudeness. That said, there are times and occasions when courtesy does not apply. Satirists and comedians, for example, make their living by ignoring common courtesy, and I don't think they should be in any way held back. Scientology, for example, is such a ripe comedic target that it would be unkind to prevent comedians from ragging on it.

Likewise, there are times and occasions when it's appropriate to take a cold, hard look at a faith. But in general common courtesy dictates that we live and let live in matters of faith.

Obviously, I think this should be a matter of consideration and courtesy, not of law. There's a reason it's the first amendment.

Well I agree with that with the exception of the in general part. I would never walk into a church or disrupt someone during their prayer and start criticizing their faith, that to me borders on prosecution. But when I hear a story about how a lets say...a spinal surgeon (just watched LOST so thats why I think I chose that) is able to save someone's ability to walk after a brutal car crash and someone comments saying something to the point of "thank the lord he save his/her ability to walk!", is it my common courtesy to not say anything? Should I just live and let live and let this commenter continue praising god instead of suggesting the doctor who studied and trained for over a decade in order to help this person actually did the miracle (brought my modern science) and not god?

Banquo's Ghost

04-21-2010, 07:48

Some very good answers have already been given, so let me make the forum policy clear.

The relevant section explaining the rules (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?109341-For-Reference-The-Backroom-Rules-Explained) reads:

Nation and Religion Bashing

This occupation, a variant of trolling behaviour, deserves special mention. It is perfectly acceptable to take issue with a government or religious grouping, but we frown upon generalised insults. "I can't stand the Lilliputian government's excessive use of hemp rope against innocents" is fine; " Lilliputians are small-minded pygmies - just look at the rope abuse they allow" is not. Examples don't really help here - just remember that Respect thing we talked about. Would you like what you wrote said about your own nationality?

Religion is another powder keg. Please remember that we have patrons of all religions and none here, and that their beliefs are sincerely held. They are also very often very important to a person's self-image - literally "sacred" - and insults aimed at fellow believers (and we include atheism as a belief here - you know what we're getting at, so don't start that again!) provoke hurt and upset. There's nothing wrong with using historical and factual data to make a point, but with care please.

There is nothing about respecting "religions". The rules are about respecting members and their beliefs. That does not mean one has to agree, but that one can challenge with due regard to the importance of those beliefs to the individual so engaged.

It is all too easy to trot out simplistic and insulting stereotypes designed merely to troll for angry reactions rather than bring understanding. This is easiest using national and religious stereotypes, which is why we highlighted them. One might read the Roman Catholic Pedo Sex Scandals (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2475279&page=5#post2475279) thread for some excellent examples of both challenging posts and those peeking from under bridges in the hope they might find a choice morsel upon which to snack. There is little there about respect for a religion, but most patrons have shown a decent respect for our members of that religion.

It has been a most difficult thread to moderate, but luckily the vast majority of Backroom members understand the concept of respect, even when arguing passionately. And I for one, am enormously grateful for that. :bow:

Scienter

04-21-2010, 13:01

Common courtesy.

This. :yes:

I try to respect other people's beliefs when they differ from mine because I expect the same treatment from them. I don't expect people to believe what I do, and so long as they don't demand that I conform to their beliefs, everything is ok. To each their own, so long as they're not impacting or harming others.

drone

04-21-2010, 15:59

What about the reverse? Do religions have to respect us? There generally isn't much of that going on.

Lemur

04-21-2010, 16:02

Do religions have to respect us?
Absolutely not; silly question. Religions are and always have been free to disrespect, belittle, demean and crush believers since the beginning of time.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 16:04

I think it's about respecting people and not beliefs yeah? I think it is right to say that certain beliefs are ridiculous. The person may take offense, but the backroom is all about arguing which beliefs are ridiculous and which aren't. You can kick the ball as hard as you want as long as it's clear you aren't playing the man.

Strike For The South

04-21-2010, 16:25

Common courtesy.

+1

The more some of you talk the more I think I'm surrounded by social shut ins.

Louis VI the Fat

04-21-2010, 16:33

Hmm, a consensus being reached before page two, let me ask another question (well three):

'Should religion deserve more respect, or special respect, over other opinion?'

Is it more respectable for a state to put 'In God we Trust' on its currency than to put on 'In the Monster of Loch Ness we Trust'?

Or, to reverse it, should the theocratic 'One Nation under God' deserve less respect than the people's democratic 'One Nation under Socialism'?

Strike For The South

04-21-2010, 16:36

Hmm, a consensus being reached before page two, let me ask another question (well three):

'Should religion deserve more respect, or special respect, over other opinion?'

No

Is it more respectable for a state to put 'In God we Trust' on its currency than to put on 'In the Monster of Loch Ness we Trust'?
More respectable? No, but you wouldn't look crazy

Or, to reverse it, should the theocratic 'One Nation under God' deserve less respect than the people's democratic 'One Nation under Socialism'?

It would depend which side of the fence you fell on, but I submit one respects money for the financial power it has not for the words written on it.

Louis VI the Fat

04-21-2010, 16:46

More respectable? No, but you wouldn't look crazy Do you mean that cryptozoologists are (/look) crazy?

Why the difference in respect for those who believe in one unsees creature over those who believe in others?

drone

04-21-2010, 16:47

Absolutely not; silly question. Religions are and always have been free to disrespect, belittle, demean and crush believers since the beginning of time.
And unbelievers, or believers of a different philosophy, or even believers of the same philosophy with a very minute difference of opinion on how worship is to be performed.

Quid pro quo, Dr. Lecter. :juggle2:

Lemur

04-21-2010, 16:49

And unbelievers, or believers of a different philosophy, or even believers of the same philosophy with a very minute difference of opinion on how worship is to be performed.
Sure, but it's the crushing of the believers I find the most creepy. I'm really sick, so I'm not having much Google-fu right now, but I know for a fact that there's a Jewish prayer women are supposed to say where they apologize to God for being born female. Stuff like that always creeps me out.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 16:58

'Should religion deserve more respect, or special respect, over other opinion?'

It depends on what the other opinion is.

Is it more respectable for a state to put 'In God we Trust' on its currency than to put on 'In the Monster of Loch Ness we Trust'?

Yes, certainly.

The monster of loch ness is a supposed to be a physical creature, so it's existence is judged by the evidence. The evidence is that it's a hoax. It doesn't inherently have reasons to trust in it either.

In God we trust is much more vague, it isn't easily disprovable, and it at least makes sense theoretically. i.e., if god exists in a certain way, it makes sense to trust him, while if the loch ness monster exists, it doesn't make sense to trust in him.

Or, to reverse it, should the theocratic 'One Nation under God' deserve less respect than the people's democratic 'One Nation under Socialism'?

These seem pretty similar.

Louis VI the Fat

04-21-2010, 17:30

It depends on what the other opinion is.So respect for opinions are not based on respect for the person holding them, but on the worth of the opinion itself? And there is also a hierarchy in the worth of opinion?

The monster of loch ness is a supposed to be a physical creature, so it's existence is judged by the evidence. The evidence is that it's a hoax. It doesn't inherently have reasons to trust in it either.

In God we trust is much more vague, it isn't easily disprovable, and it at least makes sense theoretically. i.e., if god exists in a certain way, it makes sense to trust him, while if the loch ness monster exists, it doesn't make sense to trust in him.Should respect for a religion be based on the theoretical / theological worth of the religion then?
Do monotheistic religions deserve more respect than polytheistic ones? More than animismtic? Or are they all, however fundamentally different, of equal theoretical / theological worth?

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Does Scientology deserve as much respect as Lutheranism? Is it common courtesy to respect Scientology? If a weak-minded person, socially isolated, in adverse circumstances, is recruited by Scientology, do we respect this as a common courtesy, or do we faill him?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 17:44

So respect for opinions are not based on respect for the person holding them, but on the worth of the opinion itself? And there is also a hierarchy in the worth of opinion?

The words respect and opinion are a bit troublesome I think. Are we talking about respect in a "live and let live" sense, or in a "I admire this" sense? Are we talking about opinions as things that people believe, or purely subjective beliefs?

You can respect a person and think that their beliefs are false or ridiculous.

Should respect for a religion be based on the theoretical / theological worth of the religion then?
Do monotheistic religions deserve more respect than polytheistic ones? More than animismtic? Or are they all, however fundamentally different, of equal theoretical / theological worth?

A religion that supports doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is (arguably) more respectable than one that doesn't support it.

Does Scientology deserve as much respect as Lutheranism? Is it common courtesy to respect Scientology? If a weak-minded person, socially isolated, in adverse circumstances, is recruited by Scientology, do we respect this as a common courtesy, or do we faill him?

This is why "common courtesy" isn't really an answer.

Rhyfelwyr

04-21-2010, 17:49

In terms of legal status and the right to free speech etc, all beliefs deserve the same respect. You respect peoples' right to say them, without having to respect the content of what they say.

On these forums, it's more about your tone. For example, I made a thread suggesting the Pope might be the antichrist, you can't get much more critical of a religion than that. But if I just made a thread saying "Catholics are retardz" it would have got locked. Here in the Backroom, you have to attack the ideology, not the person that holds to it.

In RL, do what you want, we live in relatively free countries. In the US, religion has come to have a somewhat privileges position because people appeal to the First Amendment as if it is a 'positive right' at times (for example when they want to wear religious symbols to school that are otherwise against dress codes). In France, religious beliefs are persecuted because they are not allowed outwith the private sphere (I don't see why people think this is acceptable, what if free speech in general was only allowed in the private sphere?).

LittleGrizzly

04-21-2010, 17:52

I think you should be respectful of the thing as a whole. I wouldn't snigger if someone introduced themself as either a catholic, scientologist or a pagan. Now if we are going to take it down to individual parts of the religion, for example the story of Noah's Ark, or the removal of thetans from your body then it does get a bit silly. Ill be respectful of the whole but i really can't respect some of the crazier thinhgs religions claim...

Strike For The South

04-21-2010, 18:03

Do you mean that cryptozoologists are (/look) crazy?

Why the difference in respect for those who believe in one unsees creature over those who believe in others?

There is a stark differnce in looking for proof and deciding it would be a good idea to put ol nessie on currency. I mean if Scotland wanted to come out with a commerative coin that'd be fine, However, I was under the line of thought that it would be changed from one or the other.

The whole point is religion is a private issue and the state should neither help nor hinder it provided it does not begin to physically harm people the state has a duty to protect (I.E. minors)

Louis VI the Fat

04-21-2010, 18:12

The whole point is religion is a private issue and the state should neither help nor hinder it provided it does not begin to physically harm people the state has a duty to protect.The state also considers it her duty to educate young citizens / see to it that they are educated.

Would it be alright for a child to receive an education that teaches that 1+1=3? Or that 3 is really 1? That the earth is flat?

A religion that supports doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is (arguably) more respectable than one that doesn't support it.

This is why "common courtesy" isn't really an answer.I have a clear hierarchy of the theoretical and practical respectability of certain religions, yes. Child sacrifices to Baal are pretty low on the list, for example.

The words respect and opinion are a bit troublesome I think. Are we talking about respect in a "live and let live" sense, or in a "I admire this" sense? Are we talking about opinions as things that people believe, or purely subjective beliefs?

You can respect a person and think that their beliefs are false or ridiculous. Perhaps this latter, yes.

But what of those who adhere to Baal? I can't say I respect the person.

Your questions about terminology are essential, but I fail in coming up with a few quick thoughts.

Strike For The South

04-21-2010, 18:19

The state also considers it her duty to educate young citizens / see to it that they are educated.

Would it be alright for a child to receive an education that teaches that 1+1=3? Or that 3 is really 1? That the earth is flat?
.

I think you are using hyperbole to make your point. I would submit while schooling should be a right, parents have the right to teach the child what they see fit but should not expect to coddle said child when he can't function in the real world.

Are you arguing against paroichal schools? Which I submit while perhaps deviating from public schools in a few marked ways still prepare a child for the world...or the crazier evangelical home schoolers whom I submit the state has no right to intervine in what they privatley teach there youngsters.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 18:20

I have a clear hierarchy of the theoretical and practical respectability of certain religions, yes. Child sacrifices to Baal are pretty low on the list, for example.

Perhaps this latter, yes.

But what of those who adhere to Baal? I can't say I respect the person.

Your questions about terminology are essential, but I fail in coming up with a few quick thoughts.

Right, that's where it gets tricky, because to a certain extent the person is their beliefs. When you say a belief is ridiculous, you are calling a small part of them ridiculous. And it may be that a belief is a big enough deal that you lose respect for the person.

So saying "play the ball not the man" is a bit euphemistic, or equivocal or orwellian or two faced or whatever word I'm looking for here. You are always playing the man, it just seems to us that there's a proper way to do and an improper way.

rory_20_uk

04-21-2010, 18:24

Its not polite to mock what someone believes in.

Different people take it to different levels. I have a friend IRL who won't see Clash of the Titans (the movie) due to it having 'pagan' gods in it. Its not polite to mock something she believes so whole-heartedly in.

Sure you can do all of them, theres a time and a place though. This, I guess, is not the place to mock it. Laugh and challenge sometimes, but not all the time.

I try to respect everyone's beliefs, and in turn I hope they respect mine.

Most religions aren't based on respect - as your friend so aptly showed. Theirs is right, everyone else is going to Hell / should be killed / is subhuman. Why should I accept their prejudice merely as it's been around for a long time?

~:smoking:

Rhyfelwyr

04-21-2010, 18:33

Most religions aren't based on respect - as your friend so aptly showed. Theirs is right, everyone else is going to Hell / should be killed / is subhuman. Why should I accept their prejudice merely as it's been around for a long time?

~:smoking:

Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you can't respect them.

For example, I do not think all atheists are scum of the earth, many of them are better people than their Christian counterparts. Or another example, when me and PVC have our free will determinism debate, we respect each others wordlviews in that they make sense and come from strong well educated traditions, without saying that we are both right. On the other hand, we have less respect for, say, the modern day Evangelical take on the matter, since it doesn't make sense really.

rory_20_uk

04-21-2010, 18:47

Viewing others as wrong / inhuman / moving targets doesn't leave a lot of room for respect.

Judeism: Jews are the "chosen people". So, the rest of us are less important
Islam: Infidels are not put in the "we agree to disagree" category
Christianity: what is written tends to be more into converting rather than killing, but the lengths some will go to "save" a soul...

~:smoking:

Rhyfelwyr

04-21-2010, 19:10

Viewing others as wrong / inhuman / moving targets doesn't leave a lot of room for respect.

So you don't respect anyone who has any sort of religious faith, since you think they are wrong?

Personal qualities can be tied to a person's beliefs, but it's ofen a lot more complicated that that. If you take the average person, and raise them in different environments, they will end up with completely different views. If we were all born and raised a four hundred years ago, the chances are that all of us would be religious and view atheism as some sort of quirky ideology associated with political radicalism.

drone

04-21-2010, 19:52

So you don't respect anyone who has any sort of religious faith, since you think they are wrong?

No, rory_20_uk appears to be agreeing with my point. Religions generally don't respect non/unbeleivers, those who are not in "the faith" are generally seen as lesser beings. It's got nothing to do with whether you think a religion is wrong, it's the fact that that religion definitely sees outsiders as wrong. It's in the very nature of organized religion to do this.

Rhyfelwyr

04-21-2010, 20:05

No, rory_20_uk appears to be agreeing with my point. Religions generally don't respect non/unbeleivers, those who are not in "the faith" are generally seen as lesser beings. It's got nothing to do with whether you think a religion is wrong, it's the fact that that religion definitely sees outsiders as wrong. It's in the very nature of organized religion to do this.

I don't think its fair to generalise religions like that, most branches of Christianity do not see non-Christians as lesser beings. They disagree with their wordlview, but that happens both ways.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 20:14

No, rory_20_uk appears to be agreeing with my point. Religions generally don't respect non/unbeleivers, those who are not in "the faith" are generally seen as lesser beings. It's got nothing to do with whether you think a religion is wrong, it's the fact that that religion definitely sees outsiders as wrong. It's in the very nature of organized religion to do this.

Don't people generally not respect those with very different beliefs?

Arg, the vague use of religion coupled with "I don't respect them because they don't respect me" just confuses things. And the vagueness of "respect" too.

drone

04-21-2010, 20:57

Husar

04-21-2010, 21:21

Because I think not having to work every seventh day is a good idea regardless. Are you promoting some capitalist paradise here where people drone away seven days a week? :inquisitive:

Pannonian

04-21-2010, 21:34

Tellos Athenaios

04-22-2010, 00:22

Centurion1

04-22-2010, 02:30

you should respect a bloody religion because i respect you atheists for having no damn imagination. :tongue:

I dont know what the quality of your intellectuals are Kadagar but i know plenty of smart people who believe in religion.

drone

04-22-2010, 03:58

Respect ideas? There is absolute zero need for that, per se. What I think, you do need to do is respect those who hold a given idea as deserving of their own world view; however misguided they might be.
On the individual level, I agree. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want. And respect that others may believe differently.

Then it follows you should try not to offend them in unrelated arguments by constructing straw-mans, false generalisations or ad-hominems based on those.
Any organized religion becomes a bureaucracy of sorts. If the religion is tied into state power, even more so. This political structure does not lend itself to respecting individuals or opposing viewpoints.

Husar

04-22-2010, 10:13

you should respect a bloody religion because i respect you atheists for having no damn imagination. :tongue:

Trying to prove the atheist point, are you?

I don't think liking people for who they are regardless of religion or non-religion is that hard, neither is disliking strangers for their religion or non-religion hard.
Except of yourse if you're trying to say your friends are mostly idiots. ~;)

No, not you Centurion, you as in everyone.

Louis VI the Fat

04-22-2010, 19:58

Do the non-religious deserve respect?

Is there any group more convinced of its own righteousness than atheists? More smug?
Those who believe in human progress, in the increase of knowledge and enlightenment, should be the first to see that all knowledge and morality is a product of a time and place. Yet at the same time they declare their own values and knowledge universal and eternal. A whopping logical fallacy. Logic which they claim as their own too.

It's not just theory. The past two centuries have been the bloodiest in human history. It's the result of the progressofascists, enlightenment fundamentalists.
Their plunder of the planet, result of their 'humanity first' ideology, caused the largest Extinction Level Event in 65 million years.

I say we ban Western Enlightenment, at least forbid its adherents for the foreseeable future from practising their ideas. Ban their clothes too, these trousers-jacket-tie fundamentalist uniforms that destroy individual expression from NY to Paris to Tokyo.

rory_20_uk

04-23-2010, 13:19

How does the C of E fit into this?

The C of E is a political construct from about 500 years ago to usurp the Pope, and was more effective than most other attempts at the time. I thought that C of E was Christian, high Protestant church. Elizabeth I managed to kill many, many people for not bieng C of E, and that was also a facet of the Civil War.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

04-23-2010, 13:22

The C of E is a political construct from about 500 years ago to usurp the Pope, and was more effective than most other attempts at the time. I thought that C of E was Christian, high Protestant church. Elizabeth I managed to kill many, many people for not bieng C of E, and that was also a facet of the Civil War.

~:smoking:

I was hoping for something like this.

Judeism: Jews are the "chosen people". So, the rest of us are less important
Islam: Infidels are not put in the "we agree to disagree" category
Christianity: what is written tends to be more into converting rather than killing, but the lengths some will go to "save" a soul...
Church of England: People disagree with each other, but all these disagreements are all facets of the "greater truth", whose only certainty is that we all like tea and scones.

Fragony

04-23-2010, 13:56

I have zero respect for religion, why should I. I treat people like I want to be treated, and I want to be left alone. Any demand from me because of religion won't push the right buttons, asking for respect because you have an imaginary friend will get you one polite answer, trying to get shops closed on sundays or whatever pushy behaviour disgusts me so much that I couldn't be polite if I tried I detest that.

Pannonian

04-23-2010, 14:31

drone

04-23-2010, 16:19

I thought the C of E was just a land/money grab by Henry to finance his wars, with the side advantage of being able to ditch non-productive wives. I had no idea he made tea a sacrament. ~D

Rhyfelwyr

04-23-2010, 17:09

lol at the CofE bashing. Although I think many of the jibes have a lot of truth in them for much of Chrisitanity today. Everything is so polarised, either you are part of the hippie Jesus everyone is right camp, or you're a YEC that believes Jesus is about to return.

Centurion1

04-24-2010, 01:06

or your a centurion1 who wants the church to reform AND start a crusade.

Beskar

04-24-2010, 02:23

you should respect a bloody religion because i respect you atheists for having no damn imagination. :tongue:

You could argue differently, they have that much more imagination, they could imagine a concept where a God doesn't exist. Many theists completely fail at this point. Atheist can understand the universe in its true wonderful diversity that are beyond our realms of imagination, but still try. They don't go "Daddy, why is the sky blue?" "'cause God said so", they actually go out and find out why it is blue, in order to appreciate it, instead of the ol' "just 'cause" mentally.

Except for scientology, L. R. Hubbard was clearly taking some sort of illegal substance when he wrote that bible of theirs. But that is a different sort of imagination.

Brenus

04-24-2010, 08:58

“illegal substance when he wrote that bible of theirs. But that is a different sort of imagination.” Yope. But the 3 main monotheistic Religions started with people wondering in the desert without a hat. Very dangerous.

Rhyfelwyr

04-24-2010, 10:49

You could argue differently, they have that much more imagination, they could imagine a concept where a God doesn't exist. Many theists completely fail at this point. Atheist can understand the universe in its true wonderful diversity that are beyond our realms of imagination, but still try. They don't go "Daddy, why is the sky blue?" "'cause God said so", they actually go out and find out why it is blue, in order to appreciate it, instead of the ol' "just 'cause" mentally.

This is what I mean when I say that Christians saying their worldview is right isn't any different from when an atheist does the same. People always hate on Chrisitans for thinking their view of the world is right. But then, everyone think their way is right. Atheists think the Christian concept of God is unreasonable, baseless, contradictory, and Christians themselves are judgemntal, exclusivist etc etc. Ooooh how intolerant, atheists obviously think they are better to arrive at their own correct beliefs.

The Stranger

04-24-2010, 10:54

I disagree, I don't think it is common courtesy to let everyone go about without their ideas challenged on a daily basis simply because you are too lazy to go along with having your own ideas challenged as well. How is a Democracy supposed to grow and flourish if the public's ideas are no longer in a free market of competition but instead in their own isolated bubbles becoming individual ideological Japan's circa Tokugawa shogunate?

democracy as intended once wont work in anything but a small community. this beauty contest might. but in a beauty contest its not much about ideas is it.
you are allowed to critisize religion, you are allowed to talk about religion, you are allowed to disagree. That is not with clear offensive intent. There is a difference, and very large one, between mocking and criticism. the former is destructive, the latter always ought to be constructive. And as with all things in our societies we have banned intentional destructive things and condone only constructive actions. So you might just as well ask why am i not allowed to kill my neighbour for believing in a life after this one. i think you'd find the anwser quite obvious.

The Stranger

04-24-2010, 11:01

Well, there is "treat non-believers with respect" which is always nice, but there is always the exclusionary "have fun in hell, you unwashed heathen" aspect. This is the nature of any organized religion, there is always a need to tell adherents that they are special and above those that do not believe. If this didn't exist, why would anyone sign up?

isnt that the foundation of every society? societies exist because they exclude others, because they make a disctinction between us and them. if a society would include everything in it, it would become the universe and it would be meaningless to speak of society anymore. the same aspect is also there with atheists, its "treat believers and otherminded with respect" but there is also most of the times this "omg its so clear u stupid dimwitted smallminded people"

This is what I mean when I say that Christians saying their worldview is right isn't any different from when an atheist does the same. People always hate on Chrisitans for thinking their view of the world is right. But then, everyone think their way is right. Atheists think the Christian concept of God is unreasonable, baseless, contradictory, and Christians themselves are judgemntal, exclusivist etc etc. Ooooh how intolerant, atheists obviously think they are better to arrive at their own correct beliefs.

most people who are atheists nowadays, believe in the big bang, gravity, physics etc would have believed in god 400 years ago. because now they still believe only what is dominent, what they hear and are taught. they do not construct, scrutinize, investigate anything. and im not sure if i'd be any different. i would like to believe i would be, but i dont know.

Fragony

04-25-2010, 09:13

This is what I mean when I say that Christians saying their worldview is right isn't any different from when an atheist does the same. People always hate on Chrisitans for thinking their view of the world is right. But then, everyone think their way is right. Atheists think the Christian concept of God is unreasonable, baseless, contradictory, and Christians themselves are judgemntal, exclusivist etc etc. Ooooh how intolerant, atheists obviously think they are better to arrive at their own correct beliefs.

Atheists aren't as intrusive, everybody can do as they please, some religious people have problem showing the same courtesy, it's not enough to not shop on sundays, the stores need to be closed for everyone

Rhyfelwyr

04-25-2010, 10:49

Atheists aren't as intrusive, everybody can do as they please, some religious people have problem showing the same courtesy, it's not enough to not shop on sundays, the stores need to be closed for everyone

It's not like it doesn't work both ways, people of a left-wing persuasion seem to feel the need to make society work their way, look at the ban the burqa thread for a typical example.

Plus, there are double standards when it comes to spreading the ideas. If a Christian tries to convert someone, they get told to **** off and mind their own business. If an atheist tries to convert a Christian and the Christian tells them to **** off, then that's because they're brainwashed and won't challenge their beliefs.

You bring up an interesting example with the Sunday laws. Scotland was the only place in the UK that didn't have Sunday laws, yet it was the only place where shops actually shut on Sundays. Even in my lifetime this was the case, seems pretty extraordinary now but I guess it was just one of those quirks from the past. Anyway, the point was the shops shut because the people wanted them shut, not because they had to make it into another needless law, this is how things should work IMO.

Beskar

04-25-2010, 10:56

most people who are atheists nowadays, believe in the big bang, gravity, physics etc would have believed in god 400 years ago. because now they still believe only what is dominent, what they hear and are taught. they do not construct, scrutinize, investigate anything. and im not sure if i'd be any different. i would like to believe i would be, but i dont know.

Actually, Atheism isn't that dominant if you look at the numbers. So that argument is actually false. Many people actually put themselves down as religious, or even Christian even though they never even stepped in a church since their baptism due to the influence of tradition. So it is easy enough to argue there are many people who put themselves down as Christian would actually be Atheist.

Plus, there are double standards when it comes to spreading the ideas. If a Christian tries to convert someone, they get told to **** off and mind their own business. If an atheist tries to convert a Christian and the Christian tells them to **** off, then that's because they're brainwashed and won't challenge their beliefs.

That is an obvious doublestandard there. You miss out the part where the Christian goes "Well, I am going to Heaven and you are going to Hell! ner ner" or about how sinful you are for rejecting magical beings love. There are also instances where openly talking about atheism is actually "taboo", while openly talking about being a christian is "all okay". Reminds me of when there was a poster saying "There many not be a God", all the religious people got their knickers in a twist over it, and sent in tons of compliants, but you don't see athiests complaining constantly about advertisements for this church or another and other various things.

Rhyfelwyr

04-25-2010, 11:10

That is an obvious doublestandard there. You miss out the part where the Christian goes "Well, I am going to Heaven and you are going to Hell! ner ner" or about how sinful you are for rejecting magical beings love.

The afterlife element is irrelevant, atheists still think they are better for being what they are.

But this is fine, it's what everyone does, we all have our one worldview and we all think its the sole right one. Even a buddhist that beliefs everyone's beliefs have much truth in them and are all different paths to the same goal etc is still just as stubborn in believing he is right. The only reason he appears more tolerant is because more ideas can fit in with his own views, and he will always disagree with the claims to being the one true way made by Christianity, Islam, secular humanism etc - so he is still saying he is the only one who's view is right.

There are also instances where openly talking about atheism is actually "taboo", while openly talking about being a christian is "all okay". Reminds me of when there was a poster saying "There many not be a God", all the religious people got their knickers in a twist over it, and sent in tons of compliants, but you don't see athiests complaining constantly about advertisements for this church or another and other various things.

Some religious folk are a bit oversensitive. That's not because of the religion itself, some people just need to get over things.

It's not like militant atheists never freak out over things. How dare someone pray privately in school!

Beskar

04-25-2010, 11:17

It's not like militant atheists never freak out over things. How dare someone pray privately in school!

Never heard that is a problem. There has been a problem where a school has tried to force people to pray, which is something else entirely.

I have heard of christians complain to schools because during a video session, they had "Harry Potter" on, and they said how Harry Potter is the work of the devil and goes against the teachings of the bible.

Fragony

04-25-2010, 12:06

It's not like it doesn't work both ways, people of a left-wing persuasion seem to feel the need to make society work their way, look at the ban the burqa thread for a typical example.

Plus, there are double standards when it comes to spreading the ideas. If a Christian tries to convert someone, they get told to **** off and mind their own business. If an atheist tries to convert a Christian and the Christian tells them to **** off, then that's because they're brainwashed and won't challenge their beliefs. That is true, here in the Neds we call it the leftist church for a reason, christians and muslims don't even come close when it comes to intruding private space.

Fragony

04-25-2010, 12:13

That is true, here in the Neds we call it the leftist church for a reason, christians and muslims don't even come close when it comes to intruding private space.(posting from ps3 tried to quote)

The Stranger

04-25-2010, 12:30

what.. ur post doesnt make sense at the end.

Fragony

04-25-2010, 12:47

what.. ur post doesnt make sense at the end.

PS3 browser doesn't make sense, macbook was stolen when I came back to the Neds. Hardly functional all this

The Stranger

04-25-2010, 15:51

you are typing from your ps3? woah...

Fragony

04-25-2010, 17:25

isn't thar hard, got keybord mouse and a screen

Beskar

04-25-2010, 18:10

isn't thar hard, got keybord mouse and a screen

:laugh4: The typing mistakes just top it off. Also, naughty offtopic talking. :smash:

Mooks

04-26-2010, 12:43

You don't. If a religious person said something you find funny but it's religious, then laugh. You owe nothing to religious people, and vice versa. When I was younger and forced to go to church I had to hold back laughter almost the entire time (Granted, I went to some conservative churches). Some of the stuff religious people say is just loony. Doesn't mean you have to be a jerk to them though; there's just no point.

caravel

04-26-2010, 12:55

What religion?

Can I make up my own?

Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)

And yes. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/group.php?groupid=107)

Seamus Fermanagh

04-26-2010, 12:59

.... You miss out the part where the Christian goes "Well, I am going to Heaven and you are going to Hell! ner ner" or about how sinful you are for rejecting magical beings love. There are also instances where openly talking about atheism is actually "taboo", while openly talking about being a christian is "all okay"....

It's supposed to be "I hope I am going to Heaven...and would you like me to help you get there too?" The version you cite -- which does crop up too much -- is both the sin of pride AND bad sales tactics.