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 )

Militancy comes from hatred.

Atheists are perfectly capable of hatred and other ignoble motivations (anger, envy, greed, etc). In the case of militant atheists what is hated is organised religion and also individual religious belief.

"Atheists are perfectly capable of hatred and other ignoble motivations (anger, envy, greed, etc). In the case of militant atheists what is hated is organised religion and also individual religious belief."

Of course they are. Atheism is not a moral code. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. It is perfectly possible to be an atheist and also a hater of organized religion.

Good thing there's so few of them actually around then, isn't it math.

Trouble is, people notice the noisy minorities on either side, and then some of them make sweeping generalisations.

My religion has been fought and died for to gain the position it holds in this country

I was saying that is disingenuous not to include 'has killed for' in this sentence too. Nothing to do with whether you approve of killing people now (I had been workung on the assumption that you don't).

Why is Penn jillette suddenly a spokesperson for atheism? He is an agressive sceptic, both of religion and pseudo science. Why are religious extremists spokespersons for religions? They are aggressive believers, both of religion and pseudo science...

Why are religious extremists spokespersons for religions?

That's odd. If I think of a 'spokesperson for religions' I come up with people like the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope.

Atheists don't have a 'spokesperson' because it's not an organised movement. If I was thinking of a secularist spokesperson in the UK it'd probably be Terry Sanderson.

I was being completely sincere, Binky. I recognise and remember people's sacrifices for the sake of my religion. Yet I don't believe in killing. The two sentiments exist within me, such is life. I love people although they are flawed. I might hate those flaws at the same time.

I was being completely sincere, Binky. I recognise and remember people's sacrifices for the sake of my religion. Yet I don't believe in killing. The two sentiments exist within me, such is life. I love people although they are flawed. I might hate those flaws at the same time.

"Why is Penn jillette suddenly a spokesperson for atheism? He is an agressive sceptic, both of religion and pseudo science. Why are religious extremists spokespersons for religions? They are aggressive believers, both of religion and pseudo science..."

I meant- why has he become such on this thead? There are public atheists, but it is not a collective movement.

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury a religious extremist, by the way? Or the Dalai Lama? Is Stephen Fry an extreme Humanist?

Caps, you seemed to be suggesting earlier that the fact your religion had been fought for and died for meant it deserved special protection in our culture. Pointing out that it was also killed for is reasonable in that context - and sort of undermines the moral authority of the former two if it ever existed.

No, but when you are using aggressive bible-bashers, extreme orthodox jews or koran-thumping muslims are the representatives of their religions to prove your point, then you deserve to get one of the most extreme militant atheists to represent you.

I would like to see Christianity (and Islam, Judaism and the rest of the big brand superstitions) treated exactly the same as belief in pixies, UFOs, crop circles and astrology: believe in whatever crap you like but don't bother other people when they are smarter than you ie not interested and don't feel entitled to special treatment on the grounds of your ridiculous delusions and imaginary friends.

Indeed, Hakluyt, and you don't have to be primarily a Communist or a Bolshevik or a Maoist, etc. to be motivated by hatred of religion and belief. All you have to be is an atheist who hates. Your attempts to push strident belief in the rightness of atheism and the concomitant/hand in glove attempts to destroy religion and individual religious belief in the USSR, which was a central element of Communists' atheism, to the sidelines of Soviet history are making you look unreasonably unwilling to engage with reality. And there was me thinking this was a foible restricted to followers of religion.

Your definition of atheism is so limited and narrow that it is almost meaningless. It is actually meaningless, since atheism is actually whatever any given atheist says it is. In the case of Bolshevik/Communist atheists, atheism meant hatred of religion and a deep desire to see it destroyed by whatever means necessary. You can't say they weren't atheists and primarily motivated by their atheism when they themselves said they were atheists and publicly proclaimed their intentions and their motivation.

Sadly, Errol, those noisy minorities give everyone else a bad name.
This unfortunate reality is compounded by the zealous atheists who try to split hairs about whether Communist atheists were Communists or atheists. It is also compounded by atheists who don't ask enough questions of other atheists, such as 'why did you see fit to post that bullshit spouted by Penn Jillette, HairhHandedFucker?', and don't make statements such as 'Penn Jillette certainly does not speak for me, and I repudiate everything in that item you posted, HairyHandedFucker,' at the time the item was posted. And also refusal to acknowledge the rude contempt and hostility implicit in comparisons of belief in God to belief in fairies.

"No, but when you are using aggressive bible-bashers, extreme orthodox jews or koran-thumping muslims are the representatives of their religions to prove your point, then you deserve to get one of the most extreme militant atheists to represent you."

Was anyone? I don't think I was!

Oh, and there's no such thing as a militant atheist. See my posts passim. for an explanation. Or if you like, I'll explain it again.

Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Honest, that's all it is.

Sure, it can be accompanied and conflated with hatred of religion. It can be accompanied by and conflated with secularism, or humanism, or the ability to bake the best carrot cake in the world.

But at its essence, it's exactly what it says. The opposite of theism. The lack of belief in god or gods.

Exactly jassy- for me it's not complex.

Jassy it's not what I meant . It was more a comment concerning how rules and privilege are generally historically established in societies and fairness. Pretty universally according to my knowledge. Apart from Christ, who let himself be put to death and rose again, according to Christian belief. And not forgotten for 2000 years.

I'm sorry you don't like the absence of a belief in God or gods as a definition of atheism, and would rather provide your own. Do you do this with other words too? It must make conversation rather a roller coaster ride!

Ok, then I misunderstood your intention in including that - to me it read as a justification for privilege. In the sense you meant it, killing actually seems more relevant!

"“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’" Lewis Carroll.

It is all those things Jassy. But I find it impossible to feel grateful for people killing, as I am against it, it goes against my beliefs. I find war heartbreaking too. I am thankful that Christianity has a place in our society and recognise people's sacrifices though, so the issue is complex.

"I am thankful that Christianity has a place in our society"

Are you thankful that the place Christianity has in society is forced on everyone, whether they want it or not?

I don't know why you think we should be remotely bothered by what you would like to see SolidGoldBrass-thankfully you don't get to be world dictator and have to sanction everything. We all have free choice-long may it continue.

math - apologies, I don't read every word of every post, and don't open every link - the one I thought you were referring to looks to be something else and I can't find this 'penn jillette' link.

" We all have free choice-long may it continue " Well, non Christians don't have freedom of choice when it comes to education in England.....although Christians do.