Atheism and religious hate

[Mavorpen]

because you live in a country where you have a right to ridicule and insult ANYTHING.
Religion is nothing special.



pot and kettle.

Also I have never killed, assaulted, or advocated the the death or assault of anyone for disagreeing with my position. If most religious institution could say the same I would have less of problem with them. Absolute morality is dangerous, because it can justify any cruelty or harm.

Only Obi-Wan deals in absolutes.

Close enough.

[Czechanada]

I'm an agnostic and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE atheists who can't respect peoples' right to religious freedom. I'm not religious and probably never will be, but why does that give me a right to ridicule, attack, and insult those who are?

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

Religious people aren't usually accepting of differences. For example, religious people tend to only marry people of the same religion.

[Phocidaea]

I'm an agnostic and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE atheists who can't respect peoples' right to religious freedom. I'm not religious and probably never will be, but why does that give me a right to ridicule, attack, and insult those who are?

because you live in a country where you have a right to ridicule and insult ANYTHING.
Religion is nothing special.

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

pot and kettle.

Also I have never killed, assaulted, or advocated the the death or assault of anyone for disagreeing with my position. If most religious institution could say the same I would have less of problem with them. Absolute morality is dangerous, because it can justify any cruelty or harm.

I agree that in most of our countries we have legal rights to insult whoever. Doesn't make them moral rights.

Your second argument just confirmed my preexisting beliefs: you think almost all religious people advocate the death and/or assault of people in some group. That's about as crazily misled and bigoted as you could get. Even among the infamously-bigoted Christian right in the US, I'd wager maybe 5-10% would actually advocate physical violence against gay people, for instance.

There's a difference between hate and threats. I hate a lot of people- that doesn't mean I send them death threats or something.

[Sociobiology]

Explain, please. A null assumption is not an assumption.

The suggestion that there is an option which has 'less assumptions' is more a suggestion that a lot has been missed, and that the whole thing is wrapped up in masses of Occam's Razor. This is More Assumptions when you really think about it.

It would help if you knew what occam's razor actual is.
for two models with EQUAL explanatory power you use the one with the least number of unfounded assumptions. Because there is an infinite supply of more complex models with the same predictive power. In this way you zero in on the most accurate model the most quickly , by trading simplicity ONLY for increased accuracy.

[Sociobiology]

because you live in a country where you have a right to ridicule and insult ANYTHING.
Religion is nothing special.



pot and kettle.

Also I have never killed, assaulted, or advocated the the death or assault of anyone for disagreeing with my position. If most religious institution could say the same I would have less of problem with them. Absolute morality is dangerous, because it can justify any cruelty or harm.

I agree that in most of our countries we have legal rights to insult whoever. Doesn't make them moral rights.

define moral rights.
we are free to insult everything because if your idea cannot withstand insults it has no place in a pluralistic society.

Your second argument just confirmed my preexisting beliefs: you think almost all religious people advocate the death and/or assault of people in some group.

and you betray your own bias, I am opposed to religion because it is unscientific. I am strongly opposed to all uses of unscientific claims to justify harming others. Religion is just one of the most common sources of this, and by supporting the unscientific claim a religious person is adding support to those that do use it to do harm, albeit is very mild manner.

whether or not you advocate the act, a religious person is advocating the the thing used to justify that act.

Even among the infamously-bigoted Christian right in the US, I'd wager maybe 5-10% would actually advocate physical violence against gay people, for instance.

And you believe this is significantly higher or lower than the number of atheists that support it?

[Bottle]

So, why, in a church of all places, should the religious not preach their doctrine? What's wrong with them using a baptism to preach against abortion? Or using a funeral to preach their values?

EDIT: typo.

Speaking as a Christian, might a good reason be because people like Bottle are going to be there?

I mean, purely from the selling the religion point of view, you might as well realise that your traditional hellfire-and-damnation, preaching-to-the-converted sermon might not be particularly suitable for the occasion, especially if you'd like people to realise your religion isn't actually all about burning evil people and other atheists at the stake. Ditto, the idea of using inclusive bible translations, and not wandering around with "God hates fags" signs.

But then the day Christians start using common sense is the day hell freezes... never mind.

Precisely. This is a simple matter of courtesy, one which most normal people (religious or otherwise) tend to master in childhood.

A funeral is generally not a good place to, say, go on a rant about how the deceased is burning in Hell, right? Even a Christian who really and truly believes that the deceased is burning in Hell would be capable of understanding this, and of showing respect by not bringing the subject up during the wake. So why do we have some Christians acting like it is SO VERY HARD to do this, or it is SO VERY OPPRESSIVE to be expected to show the same fundamental manners that any human being over the age of 4 is expected to show?

Why, because they have been taught, from infancy, that they are just that special. The All-powerful All-knowing Creator Of Everything thinks they, personally, are a special and unique snowflake who was lucky enough to be born into the One True Faith and know all the great secrets of the universe, and consequently their own Very Important Beliefs should necessarily be given priority over any trivial considerations such as manners, respect, or basic humanity.

[Zottistan]

because you live in a country where you have a right to ridicule and insult ANYTHING.
Religion is nothing special.



pot and kettle.

Also I have never killed, assaulted, or advocated the the death or assault of anyone for disagreeing with my position. If most religious institution could say the same I would have less of problem with them. Absolute morality is dangerous, because it can justify any cruelty or harm.

I agree that in most of our countries we have legal rights to insult whoever. Doesn't make them moral rights.

Your second argument just confirmed my preexisting beliefs: you think almost all religious people advocate the death and/or assault of people in some group. That's about as crazily misled and bigoted as you could get. Even among the infamously-bigoted Christian right in the US, I'd wager maybe 5-10% would actually advocate physical violence against gay people, for instance.

There's a difference between hate and threats. I hate a lot of people- that doesn't mean I send them death threats or something.

1) There's no such thing as a moral right.
2) Don't make assumptions. His argument was flawed, but he in no way suggested that he thought all religious people were violent. He was just saying that religious groups through history, religious groups have persecuted atheists. Of course, atheists have persecuted the religious, too, and that's where the fault in his argument lies.

[Bottle]

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

I'm an atheist who attacks the majority of religions as being bigoted, ignorant, anti-science, and somewhere on the continuum between utterly useless and actively harmful.

And yes, I am better than people who subscribe to bigoted, irrational, anti-science belief systems, at least insofar as that particular criterion. I may not have a better jump jot than they do, of course. It is virtually a foregone conclusion that I do not have better penmanship than they do. I will even generously grant that they are probably better than me at reciting the various scriptures upon which their bigoted beliefs are based.

But am I better than a homophobe/racist/sexist who uses his/her personal superstitions to prop up his bigotry? Better than an ignorant twit who presumes to place his/her personal opinion on the same level as the lifetimes' worth of research done by real scientists? Better than any of the countless religious leaders who promote ignorance, hatred, and tribalism in the name of God? You're goddamn fucking right I am.

[Sociobiology]

I agree that in most of our countries we have legal rights to insult whoever. Doesn't make them moral rights.

Your second argument just confirmed my preexisting beliefs: you think almost all religious people advocate the death and/or assault of people in some group. That's about as crazily misled and bigoted as you could get. Even among the infamously-bigoted Christian right in the US, I'd wager maybe 5-10% would actually advocate physical violence against gay people, for instance.

There's a difference between hate and threats. I hate a lot of people- that doesn't mean I send them death threats or something.

1) There's no such thing as a moral right.
2) Don't make assumptions. His argument was flawed, but he in no way suggested that he thought all religious people were violent. He was just saying that religious groups through history, religious groups have persecuted atheists. Of course, atheists have persecuted the religious, too, and that's where the fault in his argument lies.

one side persecutes by insult and argument, the other does so through murder and violence, this is hardly comparable.
I don't care about history in this context I care about how the ideas are used RIGHT NOW.

[Bottle]

I'm an agnostic and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE atheists who can't respect peoples' right to religious freedom. I'm not religious and probably never will be, but why does that give me a right to ridicule, attack, and insult those who are?

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

There's also the problem of what an insult is. I see some posters get insulted when someone tries to have a rational discourse with them. To give an example, an atheist will get angry when someone explains what a god is, thinking they're trying to convert them. Theists also get angry when others try to explain that a universe can exist without a god.

I don't think this is a problem at all. If you feel they're insulting you, report them to moderation. If this is the real world, then I can somewhat understand.

Bingo.

Also a lot of people assume that if I use curse words, I am cursing AT them (i.e. attacking them). Some of us are just vulgar asshats, and it's nothing personal.

[Sociobiology]

Speaking as a Christian, might a good reason be because people like Bottle are going to be there?

I mean, purely from the selling the religion point of view, you might as well realise that your traditional hellfire-and-damnation, preaching-to-the-converted sermon might not be particularly suitable for the occasion, especially if you'd like people to realise your religion isn't actually all about burning evil people and other atheists at the stake. Ditto, the idea of using inclusive bible translations, and not wandering around with "God hates fags" signs.

But then the day Christians start using common sense is the day hell freezes... never mind.

Precisely. This is a simple matter of courtesy, one which most normal people (religious or otherwise) tend to master in childhood.

A funeral is generally not a good place to, say, go on a rant about how the deceased is burning in Hell, right? Even a Christian who really and truly believes that the deceased is burning in Hell would be capable of understanding this, and of showing respect by not bringing the subject up during the wake. So why do we have some Christians acting like it is SO VERY HARD to do this, or it is SO VERY OPPRESSIVE to be expected to show the same fundamental manners that any human being over the age of 4 is expected to show?

Why, because they have been taught, from infancy, that they are just that special. The All-powerful All-knowing Creator Of Everything thinks they, personally, are a special and unique snowflake who was lucky enough to be born into the One True Faith and know all the great secrets of the universe, and consequently their own Very Important Beliefs should necessarily be given priority over any trivial considerations such as manners, respect, or basic humanity.

actually in many cases it is far worse they are taught X is wrong and thus they have a moral duty to stop X regardless of what harm they do.

the single most dangerous part of all religions is FAITH. Certainty counter to evidence, as a virtue.

[Zottistan]

1) There's no such thing as a moral right.
2) Don't make assumptions. His argument was flawed, but he in no way suggested that he thought all religious people were violent. He was just saying that religious groups through history, religious groups have persecuted atheists. Of course, atheists have persecuted the religious, too, and that's where the fault in his argument lies.

one side persecutes by insult and argument, the other does so through murder and violence, this is hardly comparable.
I don't care about history in this context I care about how the ideas are used RIGHT NOW.

Theists use murder and violence against atheists?

[Dyakovo]

one side persecutes by insult and argument, the other does so through murder and violence, this is hardly comparable.
I don't care about history in this context I care about how the ideas are used RIGHT NOW.

Theists use murder and violence against atheists?

Yes.

[Zottistan]

Theists use murder and violence against atheists?

Yes.

I'm going to need at least two more cases.

[Altaila]

Well I guess I fall into your category because I also hate religion and believe nobody should have the right to tolerate crap.

Why, well?

1) Religion is a business

2) Religion attracts insecure people and creates a large fan base so when there is a war and you have a massive fan base behind you, you can do whatever you want.

3) If you can make a person believe a great lie like religion, you can make therm believe and do anything.

4) People in this forum like talking about evidence but there is no evidence that religion is real and when we attack them for that, when we attack corruption and lies, we are blamed for violating peoples rights.

[Sociobiology]

There's also the problem of what an insult is. I see some posters get insulted when someone tries to have a rational discourse with them. To give an example, an atheist will get angry when someone explains what a god is, thinking they're trying to convert them. Theists also get angry when others try to explain that a universe can exist without a god.

I don't think this is a problem at all. If you feel they're insulting you, report them to moderation. If this is the real world, then I can somewhat understand.

Bingo.

Also a lot of people assume that if I use curse words, I am cursing AT them (i.e. attacking them). Some of us are just vulgar asshats, and it's nothing personal.

there was a great study about this showing that religious people do not model god as a different being in their heads so when you insult their god you ARE insulting them.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full

[Ostroeuropa]

Bingo.

Also a lot of people assume that if I use curse words, I am cursing AT them (i.e. attacking them). Some of us are just vulgar asshats, and it's nothing personal.

there was a great study about this showing that religious people do not model god as a different being in their heads so when you insult their god you ARE insulting them.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full

Seen that study.
Remember it next time you hear someone say "God hates fags." or when they state gods opinion on something.
You know EXACTLY what they mean now, and we have science to prove it.

[Sociobiology]

one side persecutes by insult and argument, the other does so through murder and violence, this is hardly comparable.
I don't care about history in this context I care about how the ideas are used RIGHT NOW.

Theists use murder and violence against atheists?

I never said against atheists, but yes. Do you know what apostasy is?
religious people use violence against lots of people with no justification beside religious ones.

[Zottistan]

Theists use murder and violence against atheists?

I never said against atheists, but yes. Do you know what apostasy is?
religious people use violence against lots of people with no justification beside religious ones.

I mean in the west. Where religion is in its rightful place. In a church.

[Europa Concordis]

Anti-theists are perhaps the worst people in the world.
Hypocritically, many of them are of the left wing and espouse values such as tolerance and equality, yet they can't tolerate religion when it does no harm to them.

Truly, conceited atheists are the scum of the globe for their intolerance, hypocrisy and just plain meanness.

[Ostroeuropa]

Anti-theists are perhaps the worst people in the world.
Hypocritically, many of them are of the left wing and espouse values such as tolerance and equality, yet they can't tolerate religion when it does no harm to them.

Truly, conceited atheists are the scum of the globe for their intolerance, hypocrisy and just plain meanness.

What a bastion of tolerance you are showing yourself to be. Look here good people for a true believer in good ole christian values, here is your idol.

[Divair]

Anti-theists are perhaps the worst people in the world.
Hypocritically, many of them are of the left wing and espouse values such as tolerance and equality, yet they can't tolerate religion when it does no harm to them.

Truly, conceited atheists are the scum of the globe for their intolerance, hypocrisy and just plain meanness.

Irony at its finest.

[Vestr-Norig]

Theists use murder and violence against atheists?

I never said against atheists, but yes. Do you know what apostasy is?
religious people use violence against lots of people with no justification beside religious ones.

I can't remember having ever hurt anyone because of my religious belief...?
The number you're talking about here would be extremely small, and almost non-existent in the Christian world. The vast majority of religions preach about love and tolerance, not hatred and violence, and so does the people of these religions.

[Ostroeuropa]

I never said against atheists, but yes. Do you know what apostasy is?
religious people use violence against lots of people with no justification beside religious ones.

I can't remember having ever hurt anyone because of my religious belief...?
The number you're talking about here would be extremely small, and almost non-existent in the Christian world. The vast majority of religions preach about love and tolerance, not hatred and violence, and so does the people of these religions.

That must by why the catholic church, the largest christian denomination, publically supports discrimination based on gender and sexuality.
I'm sure THAT doesn't inspire gay bashing at all.
I'm sure their insistence that condoms are bad doesn't kill millions of africans. etc.

Which do you belong to them, cath, prot, or ortho?

[The Equine Dominion]

Anti-theists will, indeed, someday set about the violent destruction of religion. They preach for freedom and tolerance and yet they cannot tolerate people who merely wish to worship their god(s) in the private of their own homes. I can't wrap my head around them.