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 )

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

A 2005 Gallup poll showed that 24% of people in Britain believe in astrology.

The average of large-scale polls indicate that around 34-35% of people in Britain believe in God. It jumps to around 45% if you include those who aren't sure.

Let's leave aside the idea that nearly 60% identify as Christian, which is a large block of people who identify as Christian but don't believe in God.

of course human cultures are different. But those differences narrow when we talk about gaining knowledge about the world. While science is practised differently around the world, it's within a fairly narrow band, and mathematics is on another level of universality.

You did, by suggesting that number (a mathematical concept) is a form of language that changes over time. It isn't.

The words we use to describe those mathematical ideas may change, but the fact of them does not.

Binky Yes, if you believe in them, they become a reality in you (manifested in you brain and body through your thought patterns altering brain physiology).

keep place all that in a time context and the differences increase (due to change).

Jassy Let's leave aside the idea that nearly 60% identify as Christian, which is a large block of people who identify as Christian but don't believe in God - how do you know this?

The words we use to describe those mathematical ideas may change, but the fact of them does not.

Hmm not sure about this one, Jassy There are new discoveries in maths are there not?

It's what people say in the Census. Do you think they're liars?

But anyway, what has all this got to do with being rude?

It's what people say in the Census. Do you think they're liars?

Is it? I only remember being asked about my religious beliefs. Not whether I said I was Christian but wasn't.

Hmm not sure about this one, Jassy There are new discoveries in maths are there not?

All of which build on mathematical principles and ideas - in mathematics, nothing is accepted as fact until it has been properly proved.

There are a few exceptions to this - but none of those exceptions had been rigorously proved.

Another way to look at it - assuming no one removes one of the fingers on your hand, or you don't grow another one, what would cause the number of digits on your hand to change?

Another way to look at it - assuming no one removes one of the fingers on your hand, or you don't grow another one, what would cause the number of digits on your hand to change?

My perceptions and understanding of number altering (and everyone else's for this to become a collective truth). Hence cultural differences in understanding for eg as seen with the Piraha people.

The nearly 60% is from the 2011 Census - I thought from your question that was the figure you were querying.

The most reliable poll of theist/deist belief in Britain is a YouGov poll of 64,000 people from the same year (which is an enormous sample and well beyond statistically significant - most robust polls have samples of 1-2000) found that 34% believed in either a theist or deist God.

This aligns with other polls, such as a 2008 poll that found that less than 40% of people believed there is a God, a 2006 poll that found 35% of British people believed in any God or supreme being, and a 2005 poll that found that 55% did not believe in a higher being, with 10% unsure. This demonstrates fairly strong consistency across the polling.

What is your point Jassy? Is it regarding what is taught in schools? When has that ever been down to solely what the public want?

"My perceptions and understanding of number altering (and everyone else's for this to become a collective truth)^

I would argue strongly that the number would not have changed, at all. We have never seen a shift in perception or understanding of number of the type you are describing, but even if our perceptions did change (ie we all suddenly started seeing double), the things that can be measured could still be measured in the same way as now, and not change. It's a constant.

There are many ways in which individual perceptions can be false, misleading and destructive, as well as the positive, warm and fuzzy you are describing. Including 'shared/collective truths' among certain groups.

caps, you're the one who dismissed keep for suggesting that there is an equal basis for theist/deist Christian worship and the teaching of astrology as fact in schools.

I was pointing out that the two are a lot more equivalent than you'd think, and moreover that simply because a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it true.

Jassy My point is, with only (variable) human perceptions available how can you ascertain truth?

I don't think I dismissed anyone. As for equivalent belief, Astrology is a distinctly different belief to Christian belief. Christians believe we have free will and do not have to be controlled by the planet's and star's influences.

The fact that I think of something and it changes a few synaptic connections or releases neurotransmitters does not mean that thing has become real or has physically manifested.

To be honest, if you believe that fairies can exist in the same way that God can (ie in peoples' minds) then I'm happy with that as a conclusion to the discussion.

You remove as much perception variation as you can through replicable means - such as measurement.

On the second - I'm sorry if you thought I meant the beliefs were equivalent in what they state or what their followers believe, I was pointing out that they were more equivalent in terms of numbers believing they were true than you seemed to think.

So if we are taking 'number of believers' as a measure of what should be taught as fact in our schools of who should get to play in the legislature, astrologists have a reasonable case.

As it happens, I don't think either are true and that neither should be taught as fact or allowed to influence legislation more than other pressure groups,

Binky I do believe manifesting in people's minds is one example of physical manifestation - because essentially a pattern of brain development could be detected, with the right equipment. Why is brain physiology somehow not real enough for you? I think it is something people can severely underestimate the implications of...

*Jassy: 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?*

Nuance is important when it comes to people's feelings and language, don't you think? I hope you can appreciate that there is a world of difference between, "I believe this (which is not what you believe)" and "You are wrong". It may amount to the same thing, but the tone is different. I'm sure this is nothing you don't already know.

What I am saying is you can choose not to offend someone without sacrificing your beliefs. Let me try an example from another perspective. Someone I know believes that non-believers, adulterers and homosexuals will go to hell. However she has friends who are all of those things. She never brings it up unless asked, and then she is careful and polite in her response. Because she cares about others' feelings and doesn't want to cause offence. Of course she feels sad that her friends are going to hell (unless they see the light and repent). But she accepts that as adults in the UK they have undoubtedly been exposed to religion at some point and made up their own minds. So she enjoys their friendship and hopes they see the light one day and continues about her fairly blameless existence.

In this way, because of courtesy, mutual respect and tolerance, people of different beliefs are able to live peacefully and not end up trading insults and death threats. I don't think this quiet tolerant style of religion is the minority - yet - although I fear it may be on the decline.

Bold fail :/

Jassy I said before I believe consensus amongst large numbers of people is no irrefutable determiner of what is right. A lot of people can be wrong.

Merry, I think that's a fair distinction - and to be fair I don't know anyone who would say to a religious person 'I think you're wrong' on hearing someone believed in a god.

I don't think that's true if the religious person begins propounding the basis for their own belief once they know I'm an atheist, though, because I find that equally disrespectful. As you say, however, most people don't.

Yep, that's grand, caps. But in that case, we shouldn't take anything as a 'collective truth', should we - the word 'truth' is somewhat misleading in that case in suggesting that because it is collectively believed by a large group, it is therefore true?

Jessy - I agree, aggressive proselytisers are rude.

How can atheists be 'wrong'? - it is their opinion and perfectly valid.

The world would be a lot better place if people didn't persist in thinking they are 'right' rather than 'right for them'.

If you can't think of a kinder way than comparing it to believing in fairies Hak I give up. Maybe you just go around without even thinking of how you come across to others and how it might upset them. I prefer a bit of tact.

Interestingly no one has answered my question of 8.04 when I asked if you can't bully if stating a fact.