Its perfectly acceptable to be rude to religous people...

[startrek90]

Definately going to get flamed here but oh well.

I get the feeling that this is perfectly acceptable to be rude about religous people. From reading the threads on this forum, and my experiences in RL, the amount of rudeness and sometimes plain nastiness is awful.

I am religous. I don't care if people are not, if they go to church or how they live their own lives or raise their children. As far as I am concerned as long as you obey the law, do what you want.

So far I have seen people imply that all religous people are closing their childrens mind, are ignorant, bigots.... its horrible!

I don't deny that there are people who are that way and use religion as an excuse.... but quite frankly you can be ignorant and rude without religion.

I am being unreasonable to be offended, but it really bothers me that its culturally acceptable to be rude to and about people of faith. You wouldn't do it to someone from a different culture or race would you? I have never bothered anyone with my faith so please stop taking it as an insult!

(Just venting, been lambasted in RL for daring to buy my son a Noahs ark toy. I thought it was cute with all the animals etc... but apparently I am raising him to be ignorant, bigoted and stupid. He will hate gay people and women and generally be a horrible person.....apparently grrr )

So typical. Atheists killing people. communists are atheists therefore... if you can't see the difference between an atheist killing people and religious people killing others using their religion as justification, then you need to dig deeper.

What the schools?

On what grounds?

Hak the writings contained in the Bible is one form of evidence. Church tradition another. There is some archeological evidence. Individual experiential evidence another. None is proof in itself.

Is anyone prepared to put their money where their mouth is?

I don't know what you mean. 175 and 176 are perfectly sensible, and 174 doesn't go far enough. worship should be banned in state schools.

And secularism isn't a "hot potato". It thrives in a lot of countries.

worship -> collective worship.

Stalin attended a seminary, but he was expelled from it. Obviously he wasn't that devout!

In 1899. After four years, niminy

He immediately fell for the 19th centuries version of earthly heaven leading to earthly hell, Marxism.

And of course Nazism was Catholicism for people who thought Catholicism just wasn't anti-semitic enough

Can you name one leading Nazi that wasn't brought up a Catholic? [Goebbels is only one who springs to my mind]

None is proof in itself.

is the koran, muslim history and archaelogical finds evidence for the truth of islam?

LePetit your child's complaints of a physical assault were ignored. This would go against any discipline policy regarding how incidents should be reported and resolved.

I never knew Stalin started to train as a priest....everyday's a school day!

Goebbels is only one who springs to my mind

I thought he was brought up catholic, and got excommed.

But it's the indoctrination and admonishing a child for not having a belief I want to complain about.

keep

is the koran, muslim history and archaelogical finds evidence for the truth of islam?

Yes.

What archaeological finds are there?

Children have the right in schools not to be discriminated against for their religious beliefs or lack of them, LePetit. So Ofsted should consider your complaint.

capsicum ... oh... so there's quite a lot of evidence for Zeus etc too? And the Hindu patheon?

There's evidence of how Christianity (and other religions) came into being, but not of them being actually true.

keepitsimple0 for some reason I thought Goebbels was a Lutheran - thanks for putting me right

Hey - back off Zeus! Now he is real.

Look it up Binky, I have watched documentaries with some fantastic finds and theories but am not a historian myself, so cannot give you an expert view.

Errol I did say the evidence was not conclusive...so why the confused face?

I don't like looking stuff like that up because I'm sure there are lots of very uncredible websites make claims that are not supported by the actual evidence and I don't know enough to discern between them. I had assumed you knew more having presented it in this discussion.

Can anyone else help?

And Errol's right - that is evidence that Christianity started (which we kind of know already) not that the premises it was based on are true. So it's not just 'not conclusive' it's trying to prove something different.

I was confused how this 'evidence' for christianity and islam (and by extrapolation similar for other religions) was supposed to be applied. If any one of them is 'true' then the others are false.

Splitting hairs there Binky.

If you don't like to call it evidence call it data, then. But in doing so, you must realise that all evidence should be treated as data, strictly speaking.

that is evidence that Christianity started

i certainly don't doubt christianity exists.

Because data just exists and is not there to prove anything.