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 )

I said that beliefs about the future are based on evidence in a way that belief in God isn't. You contested that, saying there was evidence for Christianity. It turns out you meant there's evidence that Christianity exists, which is a given. There's no evidence in the same league as evidence we base our future plans on that God exists. Therefore the equivalence of the two types of beliefs that you claimed doesn't exist.

So - if a child at school taunts another with being fat - this isn't bullying because he is stating a fact and the child is fat and shouldn't be so sensitive? Have I got this right? You don't need to show any tact, kindness or consideration because you have 'fact' on your side.

I don't think it's acceptable to be rude to anyone, at all! Unless they are rude to you first!
I'm not religious. My husband's Irish and hates religion.
He is pretty vocal about it (inside our home)
But I tell my children they must decide whether to believe in God, or not based on what they read/hear/feel.
I DO get annoyed with people knocking on my door. So I either don't answer.
Or I answer and say we are not religious, please cross us off your list of people to call on.
No need for "slamming the door in people's faces" as I saw here once.
Charming.

I don't think you even need to be rude back- you lose it as soon as you are rude. ( as shown on TV where rude people are very open to ridicule and people side with the 'cool, calm and collected'.
Rudeness isn't reasonable to anyone.

I have never said that their is evidence for Christianity- I posted the definition of faith. I don't want evidence- it would no longer be a faith.

There's no evidence in the same league as evidence we base our future plans on that God exists. Therefore the equivalence of the two types of beliefs that you claimed doesn't exist.

I think this is your opinion Binky. I think a thorough examination of the evidence, which people base their decision making on, would show just how incomplete that evidence is.

"Well done Hak - you immediately came back and fulfilled my prediction!"

Could you say more?

And please could you explain why the comparison to beliving in fairies is rude?

So you're saying you think that the evidence for the existance of God is equivalent to the evidence that we base our understanding of the world now and how it's going to be on the near future?

Maybe if you could give an example of the beliefs we use to make plans and how they're the same then I'd understand more where you're coming from?

I do think that people have beliefs beyond religious ones that are not based on evidence btw - but I think they are also open to challenge and change based in the evidence available.

I also understand and agree with Meh's point that it's faith, which is not evidence based. Each to their own. But it comes back to my point that when someone tries to use that faith to impact others in the real world then I'll disagree. As I've said all along, I don't challenge others' beliefs for the fun of it.

Finally, I don't underestimate the impact that what people imagine to be true in the absence of evidence can have in the real world. Hence the need to challenge sometimes!

Sorry, bold fail - toddler crawling all over me!

Isn't the advice given for harmonious relations to never discuss religion or politics? People have their beliefs and always have done. That is part of the human condition and I can't see it ever changeing. Attempts to change/challenge those beliefs tend to result in wars. I think it is better to simply accept that others' beliefs do not match our own, tolerate their faith and be glad that they tolerate ours. I can't see any other way forward for multi-faith humanity now that we have basically planet-killing weapons. We have to learn to get on. I think politeness is a good starting point.

Read my post of 7.26 again Hak I can't put it clearer. It took you 2 minutes to say exactly what I said you would say.
Is comparing it to fairies said to be anything other than a put down- your opinion of faith? Could it not be put in a kinder, more tactful way with some understanding that some people couldn't possibly compare it with fairies?
Well said merrywidow. Politeness costs nothing.
Challenge by all means- but politely.
( if people don't know what rudeness is there is little hope)
(No replies to my post of 8.04)

"Could it not be put in a kinder, more tactful way with some understanding that some people couldn't possibly compare it with fairies? "

Could you give me an example?

Binky

Maybe if you could give an example of the beliefs we use to make plans and how they're the same then I'd understand more where you're coming from?

One example would be in education and how grade prediction, based on previous test performance and teacher assessment is used to determine future teaching. Yet most would accept learning is not usually linear, at the most it is a just a belief that we learn in a linear fashion.

I think this type of question (of how evidence is of use and used) can also be informed is by the Ellsberg paradox. This is an observance of the phenomenon whereby people prefer to choose the option where the successful outcome is less beneficial but probability more easily quantifiable, rather than going for an option where the probability is very difficult/impossible to quantify but the outcome much more beneficial. Essentially here it is saying people prefer to make decisions based on a probability which predictable but not very promising than base their decisions on something unpredictable (the odds are impossible to quantify, they might be greater or lesser) but more promising.

be glad that they tolerate ours

THey don't tolerate my lack of faith though- nor my desire not to have my kids indoctrinated at school.
It's a case of "put up and shut upbwe are fine with the status quo- so you should be too"

And I do make my feelings known in the wider community- I campaign for secular schools, I have sat on the board of governers at my kids school, complained to the LA and head teachers about worship in school, only to hit brick walls.

Schools act within the law when they force christian indoctrination upon our children.

we have to learn to get on- we could start by not forcing religion on our kids.

Hak I do think the comparison of belief in God to belief in fairies, is used by many as a 'put down' which is intended to offend. Whether people take offense is a different matter.

Personally I believe, as faeries are believed to be spirits, they are present in a spiritual sense - in the way they affect people (but not necessarily good). So a comparison to God, who is a spirit, is understandable from someone who does not recognise God's ultimate authority as a creative being.

antumbra Can you force indoctrination? Surely someone would have to be completely passive to be fully indoctrinated.

Antumbra- I know from previous threads that Capsium is completely unable (and I think it is unable, rather than unwilling) to see anything at all wrong with her desire for Christian worship at state schools to trump anyone else's desire for their child not to be expected to pray in order to take a full part in the life of the school.

Hak I think antumbra has spoken to me lots of times, regarding my beliefs, herself.

Thanks Capsium. I think I understand the paradox (just!)

But I still don't think this changed my mind. As I said before, humans do make mistakes in their thinking based on misplaced beliefs (or 'rules of thumb') - and inability to manage probability is a classic one. But having understood this paradox i would change my behaviour based on the evidence found and by being shown the underlying maths. It's a different approach to believing something despite a lot of evidence/logic to the contrary and very little evidence for the belief.

Likewise, there is lots of evidence about how people learn. I'm sure teaching practice is not not based on perfect evidence or perfect application of that evidence to design policy (it's not an area I inow much about at all). But it is evidence based to a degree, and open to revision in the light of new, better evidence (I would hope). Again, it's not perfect but it's a fundamental difference in approach.

As I said, I do agree that humans have beliefs that are not evidence based, or based on incorrect interpretation or application of evidence. That might have been a factor in how religion started - explaining the (then) unexplainable.

However, I don't accept that we all live our lives based on beliefs that are as unsubstantiated (or indeed contradicted) as those that are the basis of religion.

I will say again though, that I don't go round challenging peoples' beliefs for the fun of it and agree with live and let live as far as is possible - and expect the same courtesy.

Antnumbra Of course if someone is inflicting their beliefs on you in an unavoidable official capacity, or trying to convert you (or your children) they are fair game and you should rightly challenge them within the law. However, I don't think challenging their beliefs is ever successful and that it is better to assert your right to have your own belief respected. Arguments about religion itself never seem to get anywhere productive. They will never accept that they are wrong to believe; however, they must accept that your rights of belief/non-belief are equal to their own.

I applaud you for what you are doing for secularism and standing up for your right to raise your children according to secular values. But I think the case must be argued - politely - on the basis of equal rights alone. Once you start saing non-atheists are wrong/stupid/delusional, etc, you are being rude as well as shooting yourself in the foot, imo.

It's a different approach to believing something despite a lot of evidence/logic to the contrary and very little evidence for the belief.

This is not necessarily what Christians do either, Binky. The belief we have been 'given' 'sound minds', and should use them, is part of Christian belief.

There are things in life, for which there is little conclusive evidence though - much IMO. Having faith and courage in your convictions, provided through Christian belief helps IME.

Anecdotally I have been able to have a belief in terms of my own life and the evidence has presented itself to me at a later date. You have to make the decision to look for evidence and be ready to see it, otherwise it could very easily be missed.

If it helps you then that's great. Genuinely, that's a good thing for you.

But I do think that the evidence based approach does need to be abandoned to have a strong belief in God in the Christian sense. Not saying it has to be abandoned in all realms of life though.

On your third point, if you believe something then there is hard evidence later - great, you happened to be right. It doesn't mean other beliefs based on no evidence are any more likely. Also if you believed something you'll be looking for evidence for it, and more likely to interpret that information as supporting your belief - it's what humans do.

But merry, don't religious people think atheists are wrong?

I mean, any time I say 'I'm an atheist', it is implied that I think people who have religious beliefs are wrong. Are they offended by my saying I'm an atheist?

I'm not offended when people say they are Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Zoroastrian - but in saying that, they are clearly expressing the idea that I am wrong and generally that they think I'm going to have something less than positive happen in the afterlife. I'm ok with that - they can think whatever they like. I'd very much like it if they kept it out of the legislature and schools, though.

Also if you believed something you'll be looking for evidence for it, and more likely to interpret that information as supporting your belief - it's what humans do.

Binky I know, confirmation bias. Everyone has it. I don't believe it can be eliminated. We are contextual creatures.

Binky In fact recognition of my own biases is part of what makes my Christian faith so valuable to me. It widens my perspective away from my own past experiences - gives me a framework with which to think in.