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 )

No-one is saying Christianity shouldn't have a place in our society.

Or - do you think it's a fair imposition of privilege and discrimination based on religious belief? I suppose that is subjective, but it's incredibly difficult to support.

However I'll change my wording - it would have been more accurate if I'd said 'Ah, so you get how it's discriminatory'.

Also also (and sorry for the third post) - does the 'fought and died for' confer moral superiority? Does the religion with the best guns win?

It's not really subjective at all. Do Christians get an advantage denied to others in school admissions, in the legislature, and in worship in non-faith schools? Quite straight questions, with very straight answers - I can't see how this is in any way subjective

Sorry Jassy. I was going on the assumption you remembered my views from the numerous other threads I have posted on regarding this issue. I don't agree with faith based admissions criteria. Everybody welcome is my motto. I believe in inclusive schools. But ones where worship is allowed and made provision for.

No, 'fought and died for' does not convey moral superiority for me, rather I am expressing a recognition of other people's sacrifices.

There is a gap between 'allowed' and 'compulsory'.

Jassy Yes, but how many schools would make provision were it not compulsory to do so? Cuts are being made everywhere regarding non core subjects.
And worship is only compulsory in the sense that schools have to make provision for it. Parents can opt their children out. How fairly they are treated on opt out again is down to the schools. I believe opting out of worship should be just that though, not anything else, not opting out of whole school community gatherings within the school day.

But I have discussed my views extensively regarding this on other threads and been called some rather nasty names for doing so. I don't wish to repeat myself any more regarding this subject at this time.

'how many schools would make provision were it not compulsory to do so? '

Interesting question. Well, they aren't compelled to have Christian Unions (in secondary) but many do. It sounds a bit like 'this has to be mandatory because a lot of schools might not agree with me that it's a good use of school time and resources'. (though a lunchtime opt-in with teachers who did think it was worthwhile would be essentially free).

Errol Two sides of a coin. You, more secular prefer opt in. I, more religious, prefer opt out. I can live with it.

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...

Yes, I understand that all thoughts are essentially physical changes in the brain (a thought does not cause the physical change - they are the same thing). It is not however the equivalent of the thing you are thinking about being real in the sense that, for example, a book exists in the physical world.

As I say, if your argument is that God exists in the sense that people think about him, and in peoples' imaginations, then I wouldn't contest that. But it doesn't make the argument for him being real any more convincingly.

Real in the generally accepted sense of the word I mean. I assume everyone else is using this definition.

The opt-out as it currently exists simply isn't an acceptable alternative for most people - it excludes children from a core activity. I don't think that unacceptability would apply to an opt-in (well, there already are opt-in religious activities eg CUs)

"
Errol Two sides of a coin. You, more secular prefer opt in. I, more religious, prefer opt out. I can live with it."

Of course you can. You've got what you want. The ultimate "I'm all right, Jack" Who cares what anyone else wants? You have 18 hours to pray with your children, to take them to Church. But you want there to be a Christian element to the other 6 hours as well. So my children cannot take a full part in the life of theri school, and neither can children of other, non Christian faiths because what Christians want trumps all. And you can't even see the injustice of it.

fought and died for

Why did you miss 'killed for' out of that sentence?

KeepItSimple:

"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.

This is Penn Jillette piece HairyHanderFucker so helpfully posted upthread:
Atheists are also morally obligated to tell the truth as we see it. We should preach and proselytise too. We need to help believers. Someone who believes in God is wasting big parts of his or her life, holding back science [blimey it's true there really is nothing new under the sun]and love, and giving moral support to dangerous extremists. If you believe something you must share it, it's one of the ways we all learn about truth.

From this I gather that

• atheists can in fact be animated by moral compunctions.
• atheists think there is such a thing as objective truth.
• atheists think religion and science are irreconcilable.
• Penn Jillette is pretty smug on top of everything else (by which I mean of course a libertarian and champion of free market capitalism).
• atheists are not particularly original thinkers.

If you feel anyone is trying to silence you, then I suggest you too take Caffe's excellent advice to grow up, and ponder her statement on your feelings and how irrelevant they are. I assume you are implying that there is something wrong with 'silencing', and I would like to know what exactly you think is so wrong with 'silencing', since 'atheism says nothing about morals'?

Or are you trying to tell me "militant atheism" does not exist? I would call Penn Jillette a militant atheist and he would probably agree. When I see terms used like 'stoopid', 'ludicrous', 'brainwashing', 'harmful', 'crap', 'rubbish', 'woo-bollocks', 'bullshit', 'blind obedience', 'bigoted dumbfuck', 'I despise', 'I hate' (and there is much more) I assume militancy, and I am right.

If all you want is religious privilege to be rescinded, then that is secularism. Not militant atheism, which is another kettle of fish entirely. There are lots of believers who embrace the concept of a secular society and live very happily with schools where religion is not mentioned except in history class.

"And also out of the mouths of lazy, ignorant and ill-informed atheists who are really just common or garden bigots."

Of course atheists be lazy, ignorant, ill informed and bigoted. Atheism is not a moral code. All atheism is is a absence of belief in a god or gods.

Communist and Bolsheviks did awful things. But it was the communism and bolshvism that was the motivator. Not the atheism. You do not do anything because you are an atheist. Apart from not believing in God. You have to be an atheist and something else to be motivated to act in a particular way.

I also think opt out is not a good solution to anything.
I don't think opt in is either.

Fee paying religious schools with no catchment areas, secular state schools, with organised churches providing extra curricular religion lessons on weeknights and at weekends works perfectly well in the US. Lutherans, Jews, Catholics, Muslims and others all run congregational schools and weekend classes and parents pay to avail of both the confessional schools and the classes.

math - most of us had never heard of Penn Jillette before, are you saying you think he's a typical atheist (given the lack of the crucial word 'some' in the list of bullet points) ?

Not in my experience.

If all you want is religious privilege to be rescinded, then that is secularism. Not militant atheism, which is another kettle of fish entirely. There are lots of believers who embrace the concept of a secular society and live very happily with schools where religion is not mentioned except in history class.

Yes, that's what a lot of us here want (though I'd keep RS classes - religion is current not just history). Well, the atheists do, obviously there are religious people on this thread who don't.

Why is Penn jillette suddenly a spokesperson for atheism? He is an agressive sceptic, both of religion and pseudo science. He is a libertarian and holds some extreme free market views. He is also an atheist. Once again, all atheism is is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Militancy comes from something else- in Penn's case, I suspect, his scepticism. Sceptics can be very intemperate.

But it was the communism and bolshvism that was the motivator. Not the atheism. You do not do anything because you are an atheist. Apart from not believing in God. You have to be an atheist and something else to be motivated to act in a particular way.

What baloney. You can be an atheist and hate religion enough to want to murder religious people and destroy the fabric of the church.
Hakluyt, you are woefully misinformed and dreadfully confused.

Atheism was not merely a personal, private conviction of the Bolshevik and Communist leaders. State atheism was a central policy of the CPSU from the Revolution on. Official, forced atheisation was part and parcel of what the communists did in the USSR, alongside forced collectivisation, the various Five Year Plans, and industrialisation. 'Gosateizm' (Gos/ateizm) means 'state atheism' and it was a primary objective of Communism.

Why don't you ask HairyHandedFucker that, Hakluyt?

More to the point, why didn't you ask HairyHandedFucker that at the time the Penn Jillette piece was first posted?

Binky because I am against killing people. I do not believe in killing or the death penalty.

Binky because I am against killing people. I do not believe in killing or the death penalty.

You forgot 'arrogant' in your description pf PJ.

I see you are trying to place atheism in smaller and smaller little boxes, with ever-rising degrees of irrelevance in policy and the lives of individuals, and further and further from front and centre in their lives where individuals like Jillette would certainly place it.

"You can be an atheist and hate religion enough to want to murder religious people and destroy the fabric of the church"

Of course you can. You can also be an atheist and a serial killer. An atheist and a rapist. An an atheist and somebody who hates religion. Atheists do not hate religion. Some people who are atheists do.

No. My definition of atheism remains unchanged.