Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[bleeding heart]

So you think left-wingers are as knowledgeable and sensible as conservatives on matters of the economy, foreign policy, domestic social issues, and so on?

Since when?

[sharkman]

I've been referring to the attitude that all religious people are crazy/nutjobs/et al as "bigotry." It fits the definition: intolerance* toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

*unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.

And I suppose the title of the thread introduces the term as well as there certainly is bigotry against people of faith out there.

[Guest American Woman]

I think "bigotry" is certainly the wrong way to describe any of the criticisms leveled at Christianity in this thread.

Leveled at Christianity/religion, yes. Leveled at all Christians/religious people, no.

[Guest American Woman]

And I suppose the title of the thread introduces the term as well as there certainly is bigotry against people of faith out there.

Absolutely.

Edited to add: "heaping scorn on all religion" certainly fits the bill, too.

Edited September 21, 2013 by American Woman

[sharkman]

So you think left-wingers are as knowledgeable and sensible as conservatives on matters of the economy, foreign policy, domestic social issues, and so on?

Since when?

So do you or do you not have a problem with the thought that blacks are ignorant? If you want to sidestep the question, then I ask why is it so uncomfortable that you avoid it?

Having positive or negative attitudes towards a political philosophy based on results is not discrimination. Having such attitudes towards individuals of said group based on their actions or words is not discrimination. Discrimination is basing a formed attitude merely on membership of a group(look it up if you don't believe me). I don't do that, but whether or not I'm perfect is not the point.

You're saying then that if I am guilty of discrimination against left wingers, then it's wrong for me to criticize discrimination against people of faith. What kind of argument is that? What's wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.

Edited September 21, 2013 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

We've got people on the forum who feel smugly superior to religious people, who think all religious people are less intelligent, who attribute items that have nothing to do with religion to religious nutjobs - I'd say there's definitely evidence of bigotry against religious people on the forum.

[Moonlight Graham]

Black people are ignorant. Do you have any problem whatsoever with a person thinking that?

If a person said that, they aren't basing that opinion on scientific evidence. Someone who says Christians and people who believe in God are being ignorant can at least point to science to support their argument.

Sometimes discrimination is perfectly justified. Employers discriminate against lazy, unintelligent, unqualified job applicants. If I were hiring a researcher and needed someone incredibly logical, intelligent, and analytical, I probably wouldn't hire a Christian who believed the world was 4000 years old and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans. What's wrong with discriminating against such a person in that case?

edit: But that's not to say I would automatically discriminate against all job applicants who identified as "Christian", it all depends on their views.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[sharkman]

Look, it doesn't matter what excuses you come up with, you end up at the same place as the bigot. But beyond that, science can't prove there's no God. Science also can't cure the common cold, cancer, or unhappiness. Leading scientists once believe the earth was flat and that Eugenics was a solid gig.

If you discriminate on a job applicant based on their faith, that is against the law. Good luck with that one.

[Moonlight Graham]

Look, it doesn't matter what excuses you come up with, you end up at the same place as the bigot.

Bigot definition:

-One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

-a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

-a person who is extremely intolerant of another's creed, belief, or opinion.

I'm not a bigot against all Christians. But maybe I'm a bigot against really bad ideas. I'm an anti-Nazi bigot and an anti-KKK bigot. I'm utterly intolerant to those beliefs I'm also intolerant of the belief that the world is only 4000 years old. So I guess there's a few Christians out there whose beliefs (some of them) I'm bigoted (ie: intolerant) against.

But beyond that, science can't prove there's no God. Science also can't cure the common cold, cancer, or unhappiness. Leading scientists once believe the earth was flat and that Eugenics was a solid gig.

Ya science sucks. It also can't prove that 50,000 years ago there existed an invisible 50-foot tall transvestite named Steve who lived in the Sahara desert & had 5 eyes and 9 arms who danced around naked smoking weed. Gonna go worship Steve now. BTW Steve said the best way to live life is to not drink any liquids on Tuesdays, so I demand it be against the law to drink anything on Tuesdays and if you think I'm a nutjob you're a bigot!!

[sharkman]

That's good, now look up the definition of discrimination. And if you want to be a bigot, that's up to you, at least you admit you can be one.

Edited September 22, 2013 by sharkman

[Mighty AC]

To say that christians are stupid is also immature, and no different from saying that blacks are stupid.

Let's explore that. One is an inherited physical attribute and the other is a story built around the belief in a magical being.

Is there any evidence that skin pigmentation specifically influences intelligence? No. Can people choose their skin pigmentation? No. Are people free to change their skin pigmentation? No again.

Is there any evidence for magical, universe creating beings? No. Can people choose what they believe in? Yes. Are people free to change what they believe? Yes.

Hmmm...I'd say there is a difference between questioning the intelligence of believing in magic beings without evidence and a genetically, inherited physical attribute.

[Bonam]

Well said, mighty ac.

As to the whole idea of thinking certain people are not intelligent, hold unsound ideas, or are "nutjobs" is discrimination... I disagree. What is the alternative? Thinking that everyone is equally intelligent, that all ideas have equal merit? That's not even possible. Humans have brains for a reason, and it's not to blindly accept everything and be unable to differentiate between good ideas and bad ones.

[Mighty AC]

But beyond that, science can't prove there's no God. Science also can't cure the common cold, cancer, or unhappiness. Leading scientists once believe the earth was flat and that Eugenics was a solid gig.

You seem to struggle with logic, maybe I can help. The burden of proof for an idea lies with the party making the claim. For example: Prove that the earth wasn't created by a giant cosmic Gummy Bear. You can't, sure you can prove that it is unlikely but you can't absolutely rule it out. To be fair, it's not your job to disprove the claim, it is my job to prove the existence of our gelatin based overlord.

Similarly, science can show that gods are very unlikely but it can't prove a negative. Then again it's really the job of Christianity to proved proof a god. Unfortunately, it has not. Instead it encourages followers to take pride in their 'faith', which is belief without evidence.

Science builds theories on the best evidence available. When better evidence is obtained old ideas are dropped and the new ideas supported by facts embraced. Religion doesn't handle contradictory evidence quite so well does it?

Science has cured and prevented hundreds of diseases, including many forms of cancer. What diseases has religion cured? You'd think that magic fellow you believe in would help out a little, but it seems he is more concerned with making his own face appear in grilled cheese sandwiches. But that's important too right?

[Mighty AC]

Well said, mighty ac.

As to the whole idea of thinking certain people are not intelligent, hold unsound ideas, or are "nutjobs" is discrimination... I disagree. What is the alternative? Thinking that everyone is equally intelligent, that all ideas have equal merit? That's not even possible. Humans have brains for a reason, and it's not to blindly accept everything and be unable to differentiate between good ideas and bad ones.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov

[Bonam]

Science also can't cure the common cold, cancer, or unhappiness.

Science can cure the common cold and cancer, it just hasn't yet. It has however cured hundreds of other diseases that once ravaged humanity. As for unhappiness... would you really want a scientific cure, rather than finding happiness for yourself?

Leading scientists once believe the earth was flat and that Eugenics was a solid gig.

There were no "scientists" when the belief that the Earth was flat was commonplace, so wrong there. As for eugenics, it is scientifically valid, just not ethically/morally valid (and those ethics/morals don't come from religion).

[sharkman]

Well said, mighty ac.

As to the whole idea of thinking certain people are not intelligent, hold unsound ideas, or are "nutjobs" is discrimination... I disagree. What is the alternative? Thinking that everyone is equally intelligent, that all ideas have equal merit? That's not even possible. Humans have brains for a reason, and it's not to blindly accept everything and be unable to differentiate between good ideas and bad ones.

You make a couple of inaccurate statements though, were you meaning to?

First you re-define the issue as "certain people". That is not specifically the definition of discrimination. It's whole groups of people based on religion, race, or similar parameter.

Then you suggest the only alternative is to blindly accept any idea, when ideas are not what's in question, according to what the definition is. Discrimination is this:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favour of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

So to consider a group of people to be nutjobs based on religion instead of considering a single person to be a nutjob based on your judgement of his merits, is discrimination. For instance, you can consider me a nutjob because of the views or ideas I've presented here. But if I was to join this forum for the first time and say, "Hi, I'm new here and I'm a Christian", and you then view me as a nutjob simply because I identified myself as a person of faith, then you'd be discriminating.

Several of you do discriminate based on faith, and that's up to you. But it's discrimination none the less. It's no different than the person who says, " Gay people are nutjobs", or Mexicans are lazy. On the Eugenics, I'm not going to touch that. It was the basis on which Germany decided to purify its race, and disgusting.

[sharkman]

You seem to struggle with logic, maybe I can help.

And you struggle with discrimination. I think we'll each get along, though I will be more accepting of people than you I think.

[Bonam]

So to consider a group of people to be nutjobs based on religion instead of considering a single person to be a nutjob based on your judgement of his merits, is discrimination. For instance, you can consider me a nutjob because of the views or ideas I've presented here. But if I was to join this forum for the first time and say, "Hi, I'm new here and I'm a Christian", and you then view me as a nutjob simply because I identified myself as a person of faith, then you'd be discriminating.

I would only consider someone a "nutjob" only once they, individually, made statements that seem "nutjobish", such as expressing a literal belief in the existence of a magical being as described in many religions. I know plenty of people that identify as Christians that I do not consider to be "nutjobs". Hence no discrimination according to your definition, right?

1. "Hi, I'm new here and I'm a Christian." - you are not considered a "nutjob" yet

2. "I literally believe in God, heaven, and hell as described in the bible." - you are now considered a "nutjob"

Reasonable? In regards to the other part of your post... it is specifically the ideas expressed by the individual making statement 2 (or a statement like it) that invoke being judged as a "nutjob". So, it is the ideas that are in question, and since the judgement is made about the individual and the ideas he/she holds, and not about any identifiable group, then it is not discrimination per your definition.

I put nutjob in quotes because it is not really the word I would use... maybe misinformed, naive, lacking in critical thinking skills, would be better descriptors. They would need to make further self-condemning statements (like: "dinosaurs lived on Earth at the same time as humans", or "intelligent design should be taught in schools", or "Allah says women must wear full body covering at all times") before they were relegated to the realm of nutjob.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Bonam

[sharkman]

So all evangelical christians(who believe in God, heaven and hell) are not equal with you. Okay then...

I think over 95 percent of christians believe in God. That's kind of what a christian is. I'd say you are not tolerant of religious views.

[Bonam]

I'd say you are not tolerant of religious views.

Certainly not. However, that does not imply bigotry or discrimination, as explained above, by your own definition. I make no judgment about anyone until they themselves individually make a statement that expresses their particular ideas that I find to be implausible/objectionable.

[Guest American Woman]

Well said, mighty ac.

As to the whole idea of thinking certain people are not intelligent, hold unsound ideas, or are "nutjobs" is discrimination... I disagree. What is the alternative? Thinking that everyone is equally intelligent, that all ideas have equal merit? That's not even possible. Humans have brains for a reason, and it's not to blindly accept everything and be unable to differentiate between good ideas and bad ones.

The alternative is judging individual people, not automatically feeling smugly superior because they have religious beliefs. I'm sure there's many a religious person whose intelligence and critical thinking et al is superior to yours. Yes, we have a brain for a reason, and lumping millions of people into one group and feeling smugly superior to them is hardly the "reason" we have a brain as it's hardly using your brain. It's blindly putting millions of people down. That is bigotry.

Again. You are just the opposite side of the coin of the fundamentalists who insist their beliefs are The Truth, thinking everyone should believe as they do. You show no critical thinking in this regard at all.

[...]I feel smugly superior to religious people[...]

Edited September 22, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Is there any evidence for magical, universe creating beings? No.

That's your opinion, your view. Others see evidence of a God.

Can people choose their skin pigmentation? No. Are people free to change their skin pigmentation? No again.

Can people choose what they believe in? Yes. Are people free to change what they believe? Yes.

So as long as people can change what they believe to believe what you believe, putting them down for their beliefs isn't bigotry? Ok, then. Let's look at a few other areas of bigotry and apply that line of thought.

Gays can change their behavior. Women can change their belief that they are equal to men. Transgenders can change the way they act. Anyone who puts these groups down isn't a bigot because they can all change what they believe.

Here's the thing - people don't just "decide" to believe in a higher power. They do believe in it. It's ludicrous to say that someone can simply change that. It's the mindset of the fundamentalists who expect everyone to change their beliefs to theirs. So why should the religious be the ones to change their beliefs and not you? - How is that expectation any different from yours?

Hmmm...I'd say there is a difference between questioning the intelligence of believing in magic beings without evidence and a genetically, inherited physical attribute.

Again, "without evidence" is your take on it. But yes, there's a difference, but that doesn't mean both aren't bigotry, which I'm sure is Sharkman's point. There are different kinds of bigotry. You are no less bigoted than the example Sharkman provided. You take an entire segment of the world's population, lumping them all together into one category, and question all of their intelligence based on your beliefs. That's bigotry.

[BubberMiley]

Odd that someone would just repeat themselves over and over rather than answer the question about how "equal" doesn't mean "equal in society." It's like they don't really want to have a discussion and just want to call people bigoted. To each their own, I guess.

[Moonlight Graham]

Let's explore that. One is an inherited physical attribute and the other is a story built around the belief in a magical being.

Is there any evidence that skin pigmentation specifically influences intelligence? No. Can people choose their skin pigmentation? No. Are people free to change their skin pigmentation? No again.

Is there any evidence for magical, universe creating beings? No. Can people choose what they believe in? Yes. Are people free to change what they believe? Yes.

Hmmm...I'd say there is a difference between questioning the intelligence of believing in magic beings without evidence and a genetically, inherited physical attribute.

Excellent post.

Sharkman, your comparisons between blacks and Christians throughout the last few pages are ridiculous. They're logically incomparable.

[Moonlight Graham]

So all evangelical christians(who believe in God, heaven and hell) are not equal with you. Okay then...

Bonam never said that. He said if they identified with those beliefs, that he would think they may be "...misinformed, naive, lacking in critical thinking skills"