Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Mighty AC]

Yeah, the long version is much less laughable. Thanks for Googling the story for Sharkman though.

[Mighty AC]

Purgatory is a scientific fact. Studies have shown it's actually not that bad though, it just has a lot of uncomfortable furniture and lukewarm meals served by mediocre department store restaurants.

Nice. I've eaten far too much mediocre food already, maybe that will count as time served. Plus, if I friend the pope on Facebook and 'like' at least 15 of his posts I will qualify for an ocean view room in the same building as Jesus.

[The_Squid]

You know what I think would be really interesting - but seems to be impossible? A discussion without the disrespect. I doubt it'll ever happen though, at least not on MLW, which is why I so seldom post in the threads about religion.

Any examples, or do we have to guess at what you consider disrespect.

From what I have seen, disrespect from a theist's point of view means disagreeing with them, asking to provide evidence and comparisons to other mythological beings.

[sharkman]

Nice. I've eaten far too much mediocre food already, maybe that will count as time served. Plus, if I friend the pope on Facebook and 'like' at least 15 of his posts I will qualify for an ocean view room in the same building as Jesus.

Squid, this is a flippant disrespectful remark. It's little more than taking shots at the christian faith. If you have a basic respect for people on this forum, you don't take shots at their faith just for yuks.

[Mighty AC]

The joke was in reference to the pope offering reduced purgatory time, for following him on Twitter. I know there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all comedy, but even my Catholic friends found that move funny. Again, your faith is just an idea. Ideas can be discussed and joked about. We don't demand special protection for our political ideas, why do you think those of the religious variety deserve a force field?

[sharkman]

Today's thought: Perhaps it is a worthwhile goal for atheists to get past their disrespect for believers:

(from the Washington Post)

I can’t tell you how refreshing it is, in a time of escalating rhetoric and hardening of ideological positions, to find someone who recognizes his own prejudice and wants to let it go. He told me he has “an instinctual desire to mitigate or annihilate my disgust for much of Christianity,” but that he finds this difficult to do. He eloquently elaborates his desire, saying, “There is nothing more effective at pickling the state of the soul and congealing the lucid flow of critical inquiry and the intellect than a rankling prejudice.”

[Bob Macadoo]

Squid, this is a flippant disrespectful remark. It's little more than taking shots at the christian faith. If you have a basic respect for people on this forum, you don't take shots at their faith just for yuks.

But it's OK to take shots at their _________ for yuks? (Insert cultural dress, political ideas, music taste, educational level, etc.)

Why is this item sacred so to speak?

[Bonam]

Why is this item sacred so to speak?

It's not. I think the reason some people are so sensitive about being called out on their religious beliefs is that deep down, in this age of science, they realize that their beliefs are silly, no more than Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, and they feel foolish for holding them. But the human brain is programmed to reflexively defend foolish beliefs rather than to change them, and it takes a lot to get past that. Hence the desire to insulate themselves from any criticism of their beliefs. It's easier to go on believing in things you know are foolish if you aren't constantly being reminded of how silly it really is.

[Bonam]

Today's thought: Perhaps it is a worthwhile goal for atheists to get past their disrespect for believers:

(from the Washington Post)

So you agree with that article? Note the comments it makes:

Given a contemporary, scientific view of cosmology and evolution, imagining the creator of the entire universe to have human qualities or to care about human affairs is absurd.

Christians, as we know and they themselves know, have to perform all sorts of dubious mental gymnastics in order to hold on to a cosmological view of God in a scientific age.

People don’t believe because they are certain; they use professions of certainty as a support for a nearly unsupportable belief

We are particularly well-suited, given our clear-headedness about the natural world and the fit between scientific theories and reality, to provide a corrective force to the harmful use of religion, but only if we also cultivate our compassion for religious people and our understanding of the good religions do in some people’s lives.

Frankly, this article seems to me to be quite condescending towards religious people. It basically says: "We enlightened atheists must be compassionate towards the believers who need to twist their minds inside out and believe in absurdities because it lets them sleep at night". If that's the kind of "respect" religious people crave, then by all means, it's all yours.

[Bob Macadoo]

It's not. I think the reason some people are so sensitive about being called out on their religious beliefs is that deep down, in this age of science, they realize that their beliefs are silly, no more than Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, and they feel foolish for holding them.

I don't equate a winged spirit with a dental fascination against a moral/cultural set of values prophesied by a Canaanite some 2 millennia ago.

One has societal value the other is worth about $2. You figure out which is which.

[sharkman]

Bonam, it's not that I agree with it but that it shows you anti-christians a different mindset than your usual one.

Yep, and isn't that a good place to start, instead of comparing what some people hold sacred to Santa? I mean, if that's what you need to get your kicks, have at it, but it's rather sophomoric.

He told me he has “an instinctual desire to mitigate or annihilate my disgust for much of Christianity,” but that he finds this difficult to do. He eloquently elaborates his desire, saying, “There is nothing more effective at pickling the state of the soul and congealing the lucid flow of critical inquiry and the intellect than a rankling prejudice.

And when you have a rankling prejudice you diminish your own capacity to think critically.

Edited September 25, 2013 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

Disrespecting my belief in Santa is like being racist.

[Mighty AC]

Yep, and isn't that a good place to start, instead of comparing what some people hold sacred to Santa? I mean, if that's what you need to get your kicks, have at it, but it's rather sophomoric.

That's the problem in a nutshell. In your mind, comparisons to obviously fictional characters are insulting because your god is real and the other characters are fake. But what evidence separates your god from something like a unicorn? If the word faith comes to mind, think about that idea too. Faith is a revered concept in religious circles, but what is it really? It's just belief without evidence. You're taught to be proud of your faith but that doesn't make the practice anymore sound.

In short, you are offended because something you believe without evidence is being criticized. It obviously bothers us when ideas we hold dear are challenged, but how are unsupported ideas treated in every other category on this forum? How would PIK respond to an unprovable jab at Stephen Harper? How would Shady treat unsupported praise for Obama? I've asked this several times but why do your religious ideas deserve special protection?

[sharkman]

That's the problem in a nutshell. In your mind, comparisons to obviously fictional characters are insulting because your god is real and the other characters are fake. But what evidence separates your god from something like a unicorn? If the word faith comes to mind, think about that idea too. Faith is a revered concept in religious circles, but what is it really? It's just belief without evidence. You're taught to be proud of your faith but that doesn't make the practice anymore sound.

In short, you are offended because something you believe without evidence is being criticized. It obviously bothers us when ideas we hold dear are challenged, but how are unsupported ideas treated in every other category on this forum? How would PIK respond to an unprovable jab at Stephen Harper? How would Shady treat unsupported praise for Obama? I've asked this several times but why do your religious ideas deserve special protection?

Faith. That's what it is. You can't measure it, grow it, transport it or give it away. And if you want to say it's not for you, that's your call. But to say its not for me is none of your business. Why would you do that? Why are you so threatened by how other people choose to live?

I am not offended. I am not offended in the least. I don't care if you want to "challenge' my "ideas". What you do or think or say is up to you, I was just answering a question about what's insulting. Now listen up. Try to put aside your biases just for one minute.

If you value people of faith differently than others(and you do as you have demonstrated repeatedly), then you are a bigot. That's what you are. You value a certain group of people differently than others so you are a bigot. There is no wiggle room for you try as you might. You are guilty by your own thoughts. It's not a democracy or open for debate. The point is, what you are saying/thinking about a group of people. The definition of discrimination is very clear(go pick out several definitions of discrimination online or your dictionaries on the shelf, its all there in black and white), it's no different than someone valuing gays less or blacks less. And the only feeling I have is not being offended, it's pity for one who can't see their own bigotry, and it helps me understand how bigotry got a foothold in our land.

What makes it funny is that you hold the christian Martin Luther King Jr in high regard while you discriminate against his faith.

[Bob Macadoo]

The definition of discrimination is very clear(go pick out several definitions of discrimination online or your dictionaries on the shelf, its all there in black and white), it's no different than someone valuing gays less or blacks less.

(Cont'd)...or democrat, or faith healer or communist less.

[sharkman]

No, that is based on words or actions, not simply being a person of faith. Look up discrimination in the dictionary of your choice.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm going to break the tension here in this thread and hope that atheists and Christians alike will agrees that these guys are fantastic, especially starting at the 1:50 min mark:

Edited September 25, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

If you value people of faith differently than others(and you do as you have demonstrated repeatedly), then you are a bigot. That's what you are. You value a certain group of people differently than others so you are a bigot.

Not correct at all. People are valued differently in different contexts based on their profession, education, gender, intelligence, etc, all the time, and there is nothing wrong with any of this. If I need my plumbing fixed, I value a plumber a heck of a lot more than a librarian. If I'm looking for a date, I value a woman a lot more than a man. And if I'm looking to cast a vote, I value someone who doesn't base their decisions based on ideas from a fairy tale.

[Bonam]

No, that is based on words or actions, not simply being a person of faith. Look up discrimination in the dictionary of your choice.

No, being a democrat or a communist or a conservative is about holding certain beliefs, just like being a Christian or a Muslim is about holding certain beliefs. There is no difference, and one can and should criticize Christians and Muslims just as much as one might criticize communists or conservatives, if one finds their views disagreeable.

[BubberMiley]

This whole argument is based on the ridiculous notion that by making observations about others, we are placing them on a "value scale" and declaring some to be not equal to others. That's simply not true. Humans make observations, both negative and positive, all the time. That doesn't mean they consider one human to have more "value" than another. That's just differentiating between them.

So the whole thread is based on a red herring that certain posters have created to bolster their claims that those who disagree with them must be bigots.

[Mighty AC]

I'm going to break the tension here in this thread and hope that atheists and Christians alike will agrees that these guys are fantastic, especially starting at the 1:50 min mark:

Wow...that was electric! I have no idea why so many people are leaving religion with talent like that.

[Mighty AC]

This whole argument is based on the ridiculous notion that by making observations about others, we are placing them on a "value scale" and declaring some to be not equal to others. That's simply not true. Humans make observations, both negative and positive, all the time. That doesn't mean they consider one human to have more "value" than another. That's just differentiating between them.

So the whole thread is based on a red herring that certain posters have created to bolster their claims that those who disagree with them must be bigots.

Exactly. I agree that criticism of ideas is not discrimination, though I don't think it was intended to be a red herring. I think the religious see their beliefs as special, elevated ideas that deserve to be protected from scorn. I think they believe that their 'faith' is something more akin to race or a physical characteristic.

That's why Sharkman can't get past his flawed race analogy and AW, stated that:

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.

Of course in reality, ideas about gods are no different than any other ideas, and people are actually deciding what they believe all the time. That statement certainly shows the power of indoctrination though. Ideas imposed on children, reinforced with rituals and protected by a cultural no discussion clause are hard to combat. They become deeply ingrained and almost permanent. It causes otherwise intelligent people to exempt just one concept from critical thought.

It was actually the 9/11 attacks that prompted Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennet to ignore the special cultural protections granted to religion and vocally challenge the idea of faith. Like indoctrinating kids to hate a specific race, programming them to accept an idea without evidence, is a great disservice. Like Dawkins has said it is possibly even a mild form of child abuse.

[Bonam]

Like Dawkins has said it is possibly even a mild form of child abuse.

I'd say it's a pretty severe form, not mild.

[GostHacked]

It's not. I think the reason some people are so sensitive about being called out on their religious beliefs is that deep down, in this age of science, they realize that their beliefs are silly, no more than Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, and they feel foolish for holding them. But the human brain is programmed to reflexively defend foolish beliefs rather than to change them, and it takes a lot to get past that. Hence the desire to insulate themselves from any criticism of their beliefs. It's easier to go on believing in things you know are foolish if you aren't constantly being reminded of how silly it really is.

All while ridiculing other people's beliefs.

[GostHacked]

I'd say it's a pretty severe form, not mild.

It's all about conditioning to me. Possibly a form of mind control. Repeat something (true or lie) often enough to make it a truth.