Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

999 replies

startrek90 · 20/03/2015 15:32

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 Angry )

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 11:22

are you disputing that the Bolsheviks/Communists were atheists? Or are you disputing that the atheist Bolsheviks/Communists killed millions of people?

as usual theists just can follow the ideas closely in this case as they are so desperate to blame people and give religion a pass.

Obviously the bolsheviks were communists and atheists. the important point is that there isn't a link between atheism and being a mass murderer. Bolsheviks didn't and couldn't justify killing based on atheism, since atheism says nothing about morals. Atheism neither forbids nor promotes mass murder.

Religion has been used to justify endless violence.

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.

It's meant both as an offense and to make a point (often, a very good way to make a point). What is the difference exactly between fairies and God? When a spirit is beside you, what experiment can you perform to first of all detect it, and second distinguish between a fairy and God. This, actually, is an example of where atheists are perceived to be rude and offensive, but the main reason for this is that religious people simply have no reply to this rather simple question. It is a condescending point, but what's the answer?

All this talk of spirits really makes me think of the word woo. You see this a lot in new age stuff (I particularly can't stand the completely meaningless use of the word "energy" in these contexts). Sorry, I just can't engage with it too much.

and relevant because you have to wonder whether secularists in other places are as embarrassed as they must be in Britain at the offensiveness displayed by so many atheists.

You are welcome to commission a survey. I highly doubt your survey will bear the results you think it will. Of course there are a lot of vocal atheists now who say a lot of outrageous things, many of whom I disagree. We aren't one person. The only things that binds us together is atheism, and possibly humanism, and those things are rather easy to defend.

Secularism might not have got off the ground at all in the US if it had been associated with the gobsmacking intolerance and the views on religion and people with a religious belief that have been posted here.

baseless speculation.

"militant atheism" is a term like islamophobia - just meant to silence. Besides rudeness, which I conceded is not unlikely in these debates (on both sides I might add), what exactly do the militant atheists want that's so offensive? All I want is religious privilege to be rescinded, and I am in fact ready to defend religious expression of individuals at every turn.

capsium · 26/03/2015 11:33

What is the difference exactly between fairies and God?

I believe God has ultimate authority and is the only creator God, according to my Christian beliefs.

When a spirit is beside you, what experiment can you perform to first of all detect it, and second distinguish between a fairy and God.

Since a spirit is a non physical entity there is no experiment you can perform to detect physical presence. Distinguishing between a fairy (I'm taking the definition as meaning non Godly spirit) and God? Well if you are in communion with them, is the nature of the spirit identical to the nature of the God in the Bible ie. are they for Christ (not against Him)?

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 11:39

so, all those are your beliefs, and you admit have no basis in reality.

so, why is it preached in schools? my beliefs are not.

NurseRoscoe · 26/03/2015 11:45

There is a difference between someone being rude to/about you personally or having a negative opinion of other religious people they have encountered for reasons relating to religion, such as preaching at them, judging them for not being religious or knocking their door at ridiculous times to talk about things they aren't interested in.

capsium · 26/03/2015 11:49

Just because they are my beliefs does not mean they have no basis in reality, keep. It is just that there is no evidence which proves them.

They (my beliefs) are preached because the law makers who established the law thought they should be. There are many who (have) support(ed) worship in schools and the teaching of RE, otherwise it would have been abolished already.

What are your beliefs keep? I cannot say why they are not preached, if you don't say what they are.

capsium · 26/03/2015 11:55

And whether you believe spirits are woo or not, keep the word does describe something, that people have understood as a phenomenon. Hence the non physical presence (existence within the imagination, collective imagination, through living matter) and the fluidity between existence and non existence.

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 11:59

If there was a spirit beside the two of us, and you claimed it was there but that there was no way to even demonstrate this distinguishable from wind, then this claim of yours would entirely be just your feelings and nothing more. That's what I mean by not based in reality. As you yourself claim, it's not physical and just your feeling or belief.

I know why it is taught in school, just like I know why slavery was legal. I am saying it has no rational or moral basis.

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 12:00

for being taught in school (that should be the end of the sentence).

By the way, I have no problem with RE. religion taught as a subject is perfectly fine. It's obviously something we all need to know about the world.

capsium · 26/03/2015 12:05

keep I believe there is physical manifestation to belief though. As thought processes effect our brain physiology, there is a physical effect. This can effect our perceptions and even the rest of our bodies since the brain is the control centre for the rest of our bodies. So there is realization regarding beliefs, in that they are realized and become a physical reality, in us. So nothing is just a feeling, if it becomes a thought pattern.

Why has Christianity or (broadly Christian worship as per what occurs in schools) no rational or moral basis?

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 12:11

you are just describing the physical manifestations of feelings in the body and brain. I can believe and feel that 2+2 = 5. That belief would then be just as real and physical as the one you describe. However, that says nothing about the truth of the belief itself. no matter how much I feel 2+2 = 5, and how physical that idea becomes through my feelings and body, it's still just plain wrong.

I was talking about the specific case of God and spirits, because by your own admission there is no way to test the presence of God and spirits. Thus their only existence, by what you are saying, is through your feelings.

capsium · 26/03/2015 12:15

keep If you take the collective perceptions of a very large group of human beings it becomes an accepted truth for that group. I am sorry, but putting God aside, I cannot see any way out of relativism and post modernism.

capsium · 26/03/2015 12:18

^ One person can be 'wrong', whole groups of people can be 'wrong'. Numbers do not make much difference in terms of validity. Our language is also fluid, meaning change over time. If everyone started saying 5 instead of 4, 5 would become to mean 4.

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 12:18

then our schools should teach all accepted truths for large groups, no matter how much evidence there is for it? interesting. I hope to see some astrology in class soon. I don't know what you are talking about with relativism.

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 12:19

If everyone started saying 5 instead of 4, 5 would become to mean 4.

no, it really wouldn't.

capsium · 26/03/2015 12:21

keep Astrology? I didn't know it was so widespread.

Regarding relativism, I suggest you do some more study, if you want to engage in this particular conversation that is. Or ask a more specific question, if it just the connection I have made that is phasing you.

capsium · 26/03/2015 12:23

keep I suggest you read something about how language evolves over time and meanings change. Number is a form of language IMO.

Binkybix · 26/03/2015 12:24

I know we all operate confirmation bias - that's why I saId all humans do it. It's just that you didn't seem to acknowledge that possibility when you gave your example. Being aware of it is valuable to me too - it's part of the framework that helps me understand things beyond my own experience.

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 12:27

I suggest you read something about how language evolves over time and meanings change. Number is a form of language IMO.

you suggest I read more, but then end with an opinion? "five" is part of our language, the number 5 is not.

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 12:28

and I know what relativism is. I just don't know how it got inserted in the conversation.

JassyRadlett · 26/03/2015 12:29

Caps, you're talking apples and oranges. If we started using a different word for the mathematical concept of 'four' - let's say 'goat', then yes, 2+2 would = goat.

However, that wouldn't change the mathematical reality that 2+2 would still equal the number we currently call four. That is a mathematical reality that doesn't change over time.

Just because we started calling it 'goat', it wouldn't mean that mathematically, 2+2 would turn out to be a hoofed mammal.

capsium · 26/03/2015 12:30

Binky Then we are agreed on that. I love the Bible and Christianity, in that is can add thousands (very loose use of number here , I could have said infinite - thinking about it) of years of experience and wideness to perspective to my own.

capsium · 26/03/2015 12:33

keep Just that human perspectives are so culturally biased, it is extremely difficult to discern what is actually right from them, even collectively.

capsium · 26/03/2015 12:36

Just because we started calling it 'goat', it wouldn't mean that mathematically, 2+2 would turn out to be a hoofed mammal.

I never said it would Jassy. But there could be some fun in translating and also a ghost of the only meaning could exist in the connotations of the new usage.

capsium · 26/03/2015 12:36

^ 'old' not 'only. Typo.

Binkybix · 26/03/2015 12:39

So to carry on the fairy analogy, if I think of fairies they become physically manifested so are real too in the same way?

Swipe left for the next trending thread