What's the lesser of these two "evils"? If someone tells you how great his religion is or someone tells you why your religion is stupid, which is more offensive?

Its more offensive if someone tells you your religion is stupid.

religion is religion..there will always be differences till the end of this world...

the latter.......People can believe whatever they wish.....as long as they show me the same respect.....no problems.

spider

Deride -

Don't preach. Live it; show it; pass it on.....respectfully.

Kat

What's this???? The gold standard of Ann Coulter fanboys who called somone a 'jackass' trying his hand at a morality play?

:::::lites in JSH dim in film noir fashion:::::

::::spotlight gets potted up on center stage:::

::::Rod Sterling steps out of the shadows and into the spotlight:::

SpiderCMB. He forgot the Internet has a long memory for unrepentant namecallers. Fans of Irony, there's a signpost on the road up ahead-- it reads, "Welcome to the Spider Zone".


-Kerry "it's just satire, folks" O.

Hi there Kerry! Waves frantically.
Kat

offensive is when due to religion people have to die

KerryO,

I've said this before, but you simply took that comment the wrong way. I meant it that you were acting foolishly. The most common meaning of that word, when applied to another person, is someone who is acting foolishly. I am sorry that my choice of words hurt you, that wasn't my intent. I hope that you will accept my belated apology.

In religious discussions views concerning the disbelief of doctrines are just as valid as views concerning beliefs in doctrines. If the view of disbelief is based on the idea that something seems “stupid”, foolish, or completely irrational then this is a valid reason and shouldn’t be taken as an insult.

People often take things personally when there was no intent to make them personal. This largely stems from the difference in views. Someone who is charging that a religious doctrine is irrational is doing so from a purely rational stance. However, for the person who believes in the doctrine they see this as a direct insult to their beliefs. They make it personal in this way.

As an example, I personally feel that it’s absurd to believe that the creator of this universe arranged things so that he would need to become incarnated as a mortal man with the express purpose of being nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of man.

In all honesty, this is the most absurd notion I can imagine. I see no reason why anyone should be offended that I feel that this is absurd. Stating that it seems absurd to me is nothing short of the truth. It’s a valid view and one that deserves being voiced.

I have stated many reasons over the past months why I believe the way I do, and they are all based on the very proclamations of the religious doctrine itself. For example, the doctrine claims that this God is all-wise, all-powerful., and with this God all things are possible. Yet this all-wise, all-powerful God couldn’t think of a better way to free man from sin than to be incarnated as a man and have himself nailed to a pole?

I’m sorry that this seems absurd to me, but it seriously does. As a mere mortal man I can imagine better ways to deal with the problem and this leaves me wondering why a supposedly all-powerful God who can do anything imaginable had to resort to such an archaic method of saving men from sin. It just doesn’t ring true in my mind. It’s too far-fetched. Moreover, this is so typical of the types of stories that men were known to make up at the time. It’s well-documented that these types of stories were commonplace. Why would an all-wise, all-powerful God come to earth and repeat the same kind of folklore that men had already made up previously?

This just makes absolutely no sense to me at all and suggests to me that this God is seriously lacking in his own creativity and originality. Could the creator of our universe have been this limited in his thinking?

My answer to this question is no, the creator of this vast universe would not have been so limited in his thinking to come to earth as a man and do basically an instant replay of the very same kinds of tales that mankind of that period had already been making up on their own.

I personally feel that it’s quite reasonable to ask people to consider if this story makes sense and to state that it makes no sense to me. They shouldn’t be offended by that.

For me, the argument that it’s a totally unreasonable story is probably the single best argument against it.

Moreover, it was recently brought to my attention by Creativesoul in another thread that one of the biggest problems I have with this particular religion is the focus on personal salvation. And let’s face it, with the idea that God came to earth as a mortal man just to die for our sins being the focal point of the religion there can be no denying that the focus is indeed on personal salvation.

So I also argue that I feel that it is unreasonable (i.e. stupid if you like) to be pushing a religion on society that has as it’s main theme the salvation of individual souls. The reason that I feel that this is unreasonable is because our modern society already seems to be overly egocentric as it is. Pushing a religion onto them that only emphasizes personal salvation only serves to make people even more egocentric.

For this reason, I would like to see humanity begin to focus on philosophies that direct them more outward, with concerns about living in harmony with their surroundings rather than focusing on saving their own personal souls.

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have that philosophy to offer. At least not in a detailed form that could be offered up on a silver platter to humanity. I do suggest a pantheistic view of the world. But people aren’t ready to buy into it in mass numbers yet anyway. Before people can buy into a new philosophy they must see the failures of the old. Getting them to see the failures of the old is just as important as offering them the new.

In a sense you could say that I’m paving the way for the ones who will follow me. I’m spreading seeds of skepticism with the very best of intentions. In the hope that mankind will move forward to a religion that isn’t so egocentric. A religion (or better yet just a philosophy of life) that is based on mutual respect not only for one another but for our entire planet and all living creatures on it.

To me, the idea that everything is in “God’s hands” is actually a very detrimental attitude. People use that notion to preach against human intellectual achievement. They say that we shouldn’t be tying to second guess “God”. But what if they are wrong? What if there is not God with a master plan as they believe? What if their entire religion is nothing more than a manmade mythology? Then what?

They will be standing around sucking their thumbs while their whole planet dies beneath their feet!

The bottom line is that Christianity simply doesn’t motivate people to become involved in maintaining this world. It steers their attention away from this life claiming that their next life is what’s really important. It causes them to become focused on saving their own egotistical souls. And it even instills them with the idea that God will take care of everything! Just pray and have faith!

That’s a hands-off approach to life. We are on spaceship earth and no one is at the helm because everyone thinks that God is in control and has a master plan. But if they are wrong, then the whole religion was the most detrimental event that ever occurred in all of human history!

Seems to me that it’s worthy cause to try to convince people that it’s an unreasonable religion.

If they are insulted by this, that’s just too bad.

As to Spiders original post - I don't think it serves any purpose to deride anothers beliefs. I think it legitimate to question another's beliefs - if only for personal understanding, and if it seems illogical - to point that out, but it should end there.

As to Abra's post - it certainly is utopic, and I wouldn't argue that the world would be a much better place if it could be determined that there exists a philosophy that everyone could adhere to. If only we could get the radical Is;lamists to listen to him.

As to the absurdity of personal salvation - this is quite an interesting subject, and one that deserves it's own thread, but I will address it here. For me, it is not so far fetched to think that man - throughout time - has shown himself incapable of co-existing with one another without inflicting harm on others, either intentionally or indirectly - either commissive or omissive. At some time or another - we all fall short of perfection. And this is not contingent on a God's opinion of our actions. We are perfectly capable of being aware of our own short comings.

On this earth - there is only one fact that cannot be denied.
We're all going to cease existing on it. We are all dying.
What lies beyond? This thought crosses everyone's mind at one time or another. Some think nothing, other's think there's Heaven or Hell, others just heaven. Others think we just keep coming back. Despite the well reasoned out conclusion - the fact remains. We will all die. So, Personal salvation, or "what happens after death" is not a unique concept. There is no difference between any religion or philosophy - all address the question. It's only the responses that differ.
Oddly enough - wars are fought between people who's answers differ. That is the absurdest thing of all. The desire to speed another towards their answer in the name of defending theirs. But as evidenced by Abra's post - once we've made the decision what our answer to that question is - all others seem absurd. Unless they do not contradict the answer - then it's acceptable. But when it contradicts.... watch out. What follows is the standard response "What if when you die you discover you were wrong?" Really - does anyone really want to have an answer to that question? Of course not. The standard response to that question is "I'm not". And how could we be. We spend our entire lives establishing our position on what we believe happens to us after we die. And who's to say who's right. What matters, really, is that whatever one thinks awaits us after we die - be prepared for it.

But that’s just my point. Here we go putting “what really matters” into the next life rather than on this life.

When I speak to the issue of religion I speak of it in terms of its affect on humanity as a whole in this life.

In terms of personal salvation or what will happen to me personally when I meet my maker I’m not the least bit concerned with. I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it. I figure that my maker has to be at least as nice as me. If that’s the case then I’ll be in good hands.

Jesus taught that we will be judged by how we judge others. If Jesus can be trusted to speak the truth and then there won’t be any judgment for me because I don’t judge others at all. When I get to the gates of heaven they will just open with no questions asked. This must be the case by Jesus’ own proclamation.

Now some people may claim that I do indeed judge others. But that’s their own misconception. God knows better and that’s all that really counts.

When I denounce Christianity I’m not passing judgment on anyone. I’m talking about how a global religion has historically had an adverse affect on humanity as a whole. There is no moral judgment in that whatsoever. It’s just an observation of fact.

To continually reduce the religion to what an individual is going to say to their maker on judgment day is to continually drive home my point that the religion just serves to focus people on saving their own egos!

What would I say to my maker on judgment day? I’d say, “Well I tried to save your planet but people wouldn’t listen”.

Seriously, that’s what I’ll say. I won’t even be thinking in terms of trying to make excuses for my own personal behavior. On the topic I’ll just accept whatever happens. I’ll be at the mercy of my maker. May he be as compassionate and as forgiven as me! That’s all I can say about that.

Que Sara Sara

If God is not as understanding and as compassionate as I am, then we’re all in a hell of a lot of trouble! That I can guarantee you!

niether one. I know what I believe and live. Insults in anyway just shows they need patience and love...Blessings..Miles

What would the world be like without Christianity? You don't know, therefore any "observations" you make are purely subjective and are not fact, but opinion. People belong to religions, if Christianity didn't exist, that hole would have been filled by another religion. Since you have no way of knowing what that religion would have been, saying that the world would have or would be better off without Christianity is pure speculation.

Really? Are you sure about that? Sounds like "pure speculation" to me. I mean, how do you KNOW what would happen? I would submit that the removal of one fairy tale in no way necessitates its replacement with another. That just perpetuates the root error.



All religion is "pure speculation," in the end.

84% of the world's population belongs to an organized religion. 92% of the world's population believes in the divine. Since I am talking about the 33% of the world that believes in Christianity, they already show a propensity to believe in religion. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if Christianity didn't exist, those people would still belong to a religion or believe in the divine.

How does calling Christianity and religion in general a "fairy tale" further the debate? Is it constructive mock another's beliefs? Perhaps you missed the point of this thread, you might want to read the OP and think about it a little bit.



Deriding the beliefs of another doesn't further the debate, it doesn't convince people that you are right and it can hurt the feelings of the people who hold that belief. I think it would be nice if everyone in this forum would preach instead of deride. Tell me what is so great about being an athiest or pantheist or Pagan or whatever, don't tell me why my beliefs are "stupid".

Percentages -- even overwhelming percentages -- don't prove that the adherents are correct in their beliefs. We could raise the "flat earth" issue, the Earth-centered model of the universe, etc. --

Your argument about people believing in some religion even without Christianity seems a bit of a stretch to me -- relying on a sort of "spiritual inertia," perhaps? Back to "pure speculation." How do you know what would happen in a hypothetical situation? And "propensities" can be manipulated, directed. Remove the incentive for manipulation, and maybe people move on to something more rational.



Who am I mocking by expressing an opinion? I happen to believe religion is nothing but fairy tales. The moment I express an opinion, I'm "mocking"....? I'm not putting anyone down -- I enjoy a good fairy tale as much as the next guy. I'm just not going to live my life in such a way so as to please a fictional character.

I fail to see why so many (note, I did not say "all"!) Christians get so bent out of shape any time someone expresses an opinion -- no matter how innocuous -- that differs from their own. A "statement" does not necessarily constitute "mockery."



Perhaps you might want to tone down your tendency to see an attack where no such attack exists.

Despite your wishes to the contrary, people other than those who follow your beliefs in lockstep ARE allowed to state their opinions here.



Well, one great thing is that I know how to spell "atheist"! -- Just kidding.

Look, I'm not trying to deride anybody. I'm trying (and failing miserably, evidently) to understand why people feel so threatened and get so defensive, simply because someone raises questions about a belief. I don't think your beliefs are "stupid" -- they make no sense to me, but that's certainly no indictment since I can't even cook hot dogs without starting a fire or blowing something up.

Spider, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover seven times. I've done a LOT of other reading ABOUT it, as well. And it just doesn't work for me. If it works for you, that's great.

As to the OP, I'm not particularly interested in listening to anybody preach OR deride. I'm just trying to understand why anyone feels either is at all necessary.

LexFonteyne,

Calling someones beliefs "Fairy tales" is deriding their beliefs. I'm not sure why you can't see that, perhaps you aren't able to admit that you are wrong. And I'm not bent out of shape, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but it's not going to ruin my day. I'm just wondering why so many, such as yourself, can't talk about Christian beliefs without deriding those beliefs. It's really unfortunate. Sometimes I suspect that the mods might regret creating this particular forum, due to the contentious nature of most of the discussions that happen here.

You're certainly entitled to interpret the term any way you like, although it looks to me like you're going out of your way to take an "offense" that was not intended. I don't mean it to be derisive -- to me, it simply reflects a standard of incomprehensibility that I find baffling. If I wanted to be derisive, I think it would be much simpler to use a term like "lies" or "deceptions," which I think are equally applicable, but more likely to provoke the typical knee-jerk defensive response.



I've been wrong plenty of times, and I'll be wrong plenty more. If I'm wrong about this subject, I'll be the first to admit it. I've never had a problem with admitting my own fallibility....!



Again, if you see derision where none is intended, you create your own "untenable situation." How are we supposed to "talk about Christian beliefs" if the nonbelievers are required to walk on eggshells, simply to avoid bruising the tender psyches of those who are damaged by mere questions?

Kerry raised the "jackass" point. I think that is far more derisive than anything I've said here -- you refer directly to a poster; I refer to a book, a system of belief, and not to any individual directly. Which is more offensive? And yes, I saw your explanation for "jackass." But it smacked more of backpedaling than apology.



As a moderator myself, I am all too aware of the "contentious nature" so often found here -- and I am all too aware that the vast majority of it is caused by a small group of people. I'd like to see that change, but I'm skeptical. It's hard to have a real discussion about these topics when I've been repeatedly condemned to hell for expressing an opinion....!