A question for Christians- is anti-christianity offensive?

[Enlitx]

I can't speak for the mods by my own interpretation is that you have to respect peoples right to believe in what they want; you don't have to respect the belief itself.

Peter pan, flying spaghetti monster, scientology and christianity are all examples that (in my opinion) deserve no respect whatesoever. I'd be lieing if i said otherwise.

No one can force you to respect the idea and if you say you do just to be politically correct then you are a lier. Respecting a persons right to believe what they wish (as long as their beliefs don't require them to go around being violent or whatever) is different and much easier.

I would never tell people they have to believe what I do, and I won't be attacking people personally. For example, I won't call you stupid for believing in Peter Pan but I will say that the belief in Peter Pan is about as dumb as it gets.

The idea that Peter Pan is an equal and respect worthy notion as any other belief is insane, and there is no amount of hyperbole in that statement.

BTW, I agree that Christianity, the flying spaghetti monster, and pretty much all other religions deserve no respect. They simply haven't earned any.

 

[mariacallas]

I'm Catholic...but I rarely, if ever, get offended by anything offensive / in bad taste etc said about being a Christian/Catholic --- whatever. I've just always been this way.
I dont really see the point of getting knickers in a twist about it, and in fact, I find a lot of of these so called offensive things quite funny. hahaha.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

qwe, I'm well aware that there are religious communities that peddle ruthless authoritarianism and groupthink, to the detriment of perfectly healthy and harmless people who don't fall into line. I agree with you that authoritarianism is a step backward for people, too, and if we're to evolve into a higher form of sentient being (which is a dream of yours I've also shared, and enjoy your musings on immensely), it won't come from a system that is intolerant to those who are different or new.

However, where I disagree with you is that religion is the root of the problem. I think some people are going to create communities of people who share their spiritual goals and moral values, with names and symbols and vested material interests like any other human institution, no matter how they've been taught to behave socially. More educated people are less likely to choose organized religion, because they have more options and venues available to them for solidarity and moral support. But even a goodly number of them find or create some form of organized religion that fits them -- there are even religions, largely populated by the highly educated, that require little to nothing in the way of supernatural belief, but in every other regard are most recognizably religion.

I just think it's an issue of geography and access to resources and opportunities. Good seed sprinkled on arid land will grow subpar crops. Likewise with human communities -- ones that are lacking in natural resources, transportational convenience, jobs, and other good reasons to continue living there, are going to produce communities of people that are subpar, and weak in meeting the needs of people who are even just a little bit different. Such places lend themselves to authoritarian social orders, because authoritarianism at least guarantees nobody (except those at the very top) will take liberties with scarce resources. In a place where there's potentially much to fight and get antsy about, authoritarianism buys a brittle sort of harmony at the price of the submission of the many to the few.

The American Heartland has a lot of economic problems. The people who live there are largely those left behind by the late 20th century migration to the coastal cities. Their livelihoods are undercut by the complete loss of America's industrial sector, and the undercutting of a need for agricultural labor by machinery, huge greedy agro-corporations, and cheap migrant labor. Coalition behavior, knee-jerk 'falling into line', is the tortuga maneuver (that's a reference to Roman military history) of any threatened people who aren't very powerful individually. Naturally they'll take well to religious punditry that encourages clinging to things that worked in the past, unquestioning loyalty, and venting collective frustrations on those who don't fall into line.

qwe, I think it might be time to ask yourself if the Heartland is really the best place for someone of your smarts and talents. The place, and the institutions that rule it, won't change until the place becomes much more economically hospitable for humanity in general, and that's anyone's guess when that'll be! I know I couldn't live there long term.

I don't spite the people who cling to the Midwest as home. Nor to the native peoples of the Arabian penninsula. Nor those of the Andes mountains. It's not their fault their values have no truck with the likes of you and me -- they simply adopt the values they need to adopt to survive, under less than ideal conditions.

I'd say our best hope is to aim for policy changes that eliminate vast discrepancies in human enfranchisement and economic opportunity across the earth (something all religious communities I've ever attended willingly have preached as a central tenet, btw.) If that were to happen, you'd have a situation like you presently see on N. America's coasts -- a 'some do some don't' pattern of religious adherence, with most of the practiced religions being pretty benign.

Bottom line: the state of religion in any place is an effect, not a cause, of the constraints of living there.

 

[Enlitx]

However, where I disagree with you is that religion is the root of the problem. I think some people are going to create communities of people who share their spiritual goals and moral values, with names and symbols and vested material interests like any other human institution, no matter how they've been taught to behave socially. More educated people are less likely to choose organized religion, because they have more options and venues available to them for solidarity and moral support. But even a goodly number of them find or create some form of organized religion that fits them -- there are even religions, largely populated by the highly educated, that require little to nothing in the way of supernatural belief, but in every other regard are most recognizably religion.

Anything that requires blind faith and discourages critical thinking creates a huge problem. It is pretty easy to make a group of people do horrible things if they are used to not questioning their beliefs. It also discourages productivity since so many of the things we use in society are a product of the scientific method.

And I don't think that people who are more educated are less likely to be involved with religion because they have more moral support. I think the main reason is because they have been trained to use critical thinking skills and probably gain enough knowledge that it becomes impossible to delude themselves any further that religion represents something real.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ Well, I do think religion represents something real, namely the need to be part of something larger than oneself. And until some institution, that's quite obviously not religion, comes along that can meet the very real human need of overcoming individual alienation just as well or better, religion of some sort will always have a niche.

Religious groups vary widely in terms of what they ask you to accept a priori, without question. As I already said, some ask very little at all, and cut right to the chase about realizing all of our inherent oneness.

I've also known many deeply religious people who have no problem exercising all the critical thinking they need to be in the driver's seat in their lives.

 

[Enlitx]

^ Well, I do think religion represents something real, namely the need to be part of something larger than oneself. And until some institution, that's quite obviously not religion, comes along that can meet the very real human need of overcoming individual alienation just as well or better, religion of some sort will always have a niche.

Religious groups vary widely in terms of what they ask you to accept a priori, without question. As I already said, some ask very little at all, and cut right to the chase about realizing all of our inherent oneness.

I've also known many deeply religious people who have no problem exercising all the critical thinking they need to be in the driver's seat in their lives.

I guess I was referring to the belief in some sentinent being who created us and watches over us when I said it was real.

Some religious people definetely display cognitive dissonance, in that they think critically about some things but wave all of their intellectual rights when it comes to religion. I am just saying that religion encourages that type of thinking, but it does not always succeed in submitting the believer to mental castration.

 

[beamers]

Atheists have been called the scum of the earth for millenia now (it is still a dirty word in America). Heresy was a crime punishable by death for most of civilisation. Now the shoe is on the other foot by just a tiny fraction (remember we aren't even burning people, largely just presenting rational and factual arguments against religion and its practices) and the other side cry "foul" as they run for the supposed moral high ground? Puh-lease......you dished it out for millenia and now you get the slightest taste of your own medicine and you can't take it, grow some balls.

If god has a problem with anything that is happening on this planet then he is more than welcome to come down and do something about it. I'm sick of this passive-aggressive bullshit, be a fucking man about it and stop playing intergalactic hide and seek with us.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

You can't be serious about respecting someone's right to worship Peter Pan, can you?

I'm absolutely serious. People have the right to view God in whatever way they see fit. It's all ONE anyway.

 

[MrM]

Atheists have been called the scum of the earth for millenia now (it is still a dirty word in America).

Good point.

I remember reading somewhere a survey of americans which showed most americans would find a homosexual president more acceptable than an atheist president (not that I have anything against homosexual presidents...)

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Atheists have been called the scum of the earth for millenia now (it is still a dirty word in America). Heresy was a crime punishable by death for most of civilisation. Now the shoe is on the other foot by just a tiny fraction (remember we aren't even burning people, largely just presenting rational and factual arguments against religion and its practices) and the other side cry "foul" as they run for the supposed moral high ground? Puh-lease......you dished it out for millenia and now you get the slightest taste of your own medicine and you can't take it, grow some balls.

It must be really easy to hate on an entire subset of people (the religious of the world), when they're anything but a unified front with a common history, common vision for the future, or common spokesperson. 8)

 

[moonyham]

I find absolutely EVERYTHING highly offensive about christianity. Im an atheist alright, and just the fact that christianity is the sole reason that science isnt more advanced than it is today is enough for me to instantly become hostile towards any and every christian.

religion needs to die... sooner rather than later.

It must be really easy to hate on an entire subset of people (the religious of the world), when they're anything but a unified front with a common history, common vision for the future, or common spokesperson. 8)

There is one thing all religons(ok, 90%?) are united on.. and thats there dislike/hate for atheists. We HAVE been persecuted since.. forever

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ You're the only one I see hate coming from. And you need to stop.

Religious people clearly don't AGREE WITH atheists (except for some Dharmic religions, which are explicitly atheist). I think you could make that blanket statement. But claiming almost all religious people HATE atheists is a stretch. What I've seen is more of a 'too bad for them, they don't know what they're missing out on' kind of attitude, which is a whole lot different than hate.

It is not socially acceptable to denigrate people's beliefs, and with good reason -- it causes discord and bad feeling between people. Which is why I don't take tolerate it here either.

 

[Enlitx]

^ You're the only one I see hate coming from. And you need to stop.

Religious people clearly don't AGREE WITH atheists (except for some Dharmic religions, which are explicitly atheist). I think you could make that blanket statement. But claiming almost all religious people HATE atheists is a stretch. What I've seen is more of a 'too bad for them, they don't know what they're missing out on' kind of attitude, which is a whole lot different than hate.

It is not socially acceptable to denigrate people's beliefs, and with good reason -- it causes discord and bad feeling between people. Which is why I don't take tolerate it here either.

I think you are pretty naive about how religions treat atheists. I don't know if it is your location or mine that makes the difference, but here in the midwest it is definetely not just a matter of "too bad for them".

There is absolutely no problem with denigrating people's beliefs as long as your are not attacking the person. Without the ability to attack beliefs, we would still be stuck in the stone age. Attacking beliefs is what moves knowledge forward. I think you just have an extremely non-confrontational personality, which is fine, but not everyone is like that.

 

[beamers]

It is not socially acceptable to denigrate people's beliefs, and with good reason -- it causes discord and bad feeling between people. Which is why I don't take tolerate it here either.

It has been historically socially acceptable to denigrate atheists in Europe and is currently socially acceptable in the American media still to this day was my whole point (Barack Obama even just mentions atheists as American citizens and the media goes nuts over it). You don't see the obvious hypocrisy of your statement?

Strawman......discussion of historical facts, scientific facts and rational arguments is not hate speech. It is so easy to shut down the channels of conversation with this "you have to respect my beliefs" nonsense, well how about you respect mine then as well. It's what atheists have said about religion all along, it is a conversation stopper and not starter. Circle the wagons and call someone a "Hater!!!!".

On a side note, to all my atheistic brothers and sisters Dawkins has a new book coming out in Sepetember called "the greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution". It is going to be great. This one will get a greater reaction than all his other books combined I'd say and it will be the most referenced book ever too hit the shelves.

But claiming almost all religious people HATE atheists is a stretch.

Seeing as we don't have a reasonable poll (or do we??? anyone???) I'd say neither party can claim an exact percentage. But to "mydoorsareopen" I would say this, try being an openly atheistic person in Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, or Sub-Saharan Africa and see what happens...in these parts of the world women are still burned for witchcraft to this day (maybe not Afghanistan, but the other two places mentioned)...you have to remember that religion isn't just your little sanitised, we are one world, help the poor, gay friendly, progressive Lutheran church in Maine. You're way off the far end of the spectrum there and in a tiny minority worldwide there. More power to these churches by the way, but I always wonder if you have to change something so much from its original positions what point is there in keeping it? I throw out beliefs with new evidence.

 

[Enlitx]

I'm absolutely serious. People have the right to view God in whatever way they see fit. It's all ONE anyway.

It is completely counter productive and juvenile to respect someone's belief in a storybook character that was clearly the product of someone's imagination. I never said people don't have the right to believe that, but people also have the right to call such a belief for what it is, idiotic.

 

[MrM]

^ You're the only one I see hate coming from. And you need to stop.

I think there is a difference between anti-religion (anti-christianity / criticism of religion / lack of respect for religion / whatever you want to call it) and hatred.

I think that most of the anti-religious people in this thread would agree with this.

(remember we aren't even burning people, largely just presenting rational and factual arguments against religion and its practices)

I think that presenting rational and factual arguments against religion is not (necessarily) the same as hatred. The two are not mutually inclusive.

I don't hate christians. I strongly dislike their religion and think it is mostly a force for bad in this world and we'd be better off without it. Some versions of christianity more than other. For me these are not the same thing.

But to "mydoorsareopen" I would say this, try being an openly atheistic person in Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, or Sub-Saharan Africa and see what happens...in these parts of the world women are still burned for witchcraft to this day (maybe not Afghanistan, but the other two places mentioned).

Another good point. I think that organised religion in the west has been tempered by secular society and modern science / sociology. If you disagree with this, why else would organised religion (generally) in the west be more civilised and liberal than elsewhere in the world?

 

[beamers]

It must be really easy to hate on an entire subset of people (the religious of the world), when they're anything but a unified front with a common history, common vision for the future, or common spokesperson.

I can make the same argument for fascism, not all German fascists wanted the Jews dead, not all of them even knew it was going on, let alone participated, not all fascists were loyal to Hitler, some liked Mussolini or Franco. So lets not denigrate fascists on this board as has been common practice in CEP. Please I won't stand for this kind of hate speech!

Likewise, it must be really easy to hate on an entire subset of people (Nazi's), when they're anything but a unified front with a common history, common vision for the future, or common spokesperson. Nice dodge.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

beamers, that's a faulty analogy. Fascism is one ideology that had many local interpretations that all took their influence from the same sources. Religion is a plethora of ideologies that come from a plethora of sources.

MrM, you do make a good point, and I appreciate you putting it so respectfully. I've been tolerant of athiests and other scoffers voicing their opinions on religion my entire tenure here as a mod. I don't enjoy reading their posts. Like I said in my first post in this thread, I'm inherently offended by anti-religious speech. There's no rationally talking me out of this; I know myself well enough to know that I will never warm to atheistic speech. But I've gritted my teeth and tolerated it, exactly for the reasons of principle you alluded to -- if I'm truly respectful of all worldviews, that needs to include ones I personally find repulsive on a visceral level. I encourage anyone here to go through old posts with the search engine. You'll see plenty of firmly atheistic posts that I let be without any issue.

Where I draw the line is when posters confront people about their beliefs, in language that clearly implies that the recipient is beneath their respect, should they choose to keep believing what they posted, rather than something else. This crosses the line from attacking an idea into attacking a person, from an argument of reason into a value judgment.

beamers, a better analogy with other forums would be this: Drug Culture does not tolerate posters passing value judgments on specific drugs or the users of those drugs. All this does is create silly, go-nowhere pissing contests of whose habit is better than whose. Instead, posters in Drug Culture agree to suspend such judgment, swallow their pride, and treat everyone as a fellow, equally as filthy drug user, so that common ground can be explored. If this rule were not upheld, you'd see a lot of posters unwilling to share frankly about their experiences with their drugs of choice, for fear of being on the wrong side of a stigma.

I aim to run P&S the same way. Let's just all agree that we're all seekers of meaning and direction in this world, who are, in the end, quite possibly equally as clueless as to what it all means, even though we try. Back when this forum was a free-for-all, the place was awash in endless and pointless semantic arguments between vocal holders of different ideologies. There was far more heat than light -- it was all about who could shout or shame the other into submission, and garner the most support. It was not at all a conducive environment to open sharing of wisdom and the finding of common ground, and many BLers ACTIVELY AVOIDED P&S.

So let me just state this for the record. I will take Richard Dawkins' famous advice 'It's time we stop being so respectful' OVER. MY. BROKEN. MODSTICK. If anyone has a problem with this, I encourage you to take this up with the administration. If I table this with my fellow mods and receive a vote of no confidence from the rest of the staff, I'll gladly step down. It would be awfully draining, not to mention a waste of my time, to run a forum where my principles are mostly not supported.

 

[Enlitx]

I aim to run P&S the same way. Let's just all agree that we're all seekers of meaning and direction in this world, who are, in the end, quite possibly equally as clueless as to what it all means, even though we try. Back when this forum was a free-for-all, the place was awash in endless and pointless semantic arguments between vocal holders of different ideologies. There was far more heat than light -- it was all about who could shout or shame the other into submission, and garner the most support. It was not at all a conducive environment to open sharing of wisdom and the finding of common ground, and many BLers ACTIVELY AVOIDED P&S.

So let me just state this for the record. I will take Richard Dawkins' famous advice 'It's time we stop being so respectful' OVER. MY. BROKEN. MODSTICK. If anyone has a problem with this, I encourage you to take this up with the administration. If I table this with my fellow mods and receive a vote of no confidence from the rest of the staff, I'll gladly step down. It would be awfully draining, not to mention a waste of my time, to run a forum where my principles are mostly not supported.

To me, it seems you have stifled any worthwhile discussion about ideas. Now it seems more like a show and tell of ideas. You are clearly biased towards metaphysical beliefs in supernatural deities, and I think it shows. I agree that people should not be personally attacked, but demanding equal respect for all ideas is just not conducive to good debate or formation of worthwhile knowledge. It just isn't how the world works. You are so damn inclined to make sure everyone feels all warm and fuzzy about what they believe to the point of being a little silly. I mean, if I can't call the belief in Peter fucking Pan idiotic (a storybook character invented for commercial reasons, clearly) then there is a serious problem. Like I have said, there are other forums that foster much better debate because people know that they must be able to justify and actually support their claims.

The biggest problem is that I think it will reflect poorly upon drug users. Not all of us who have used drugs have fried our brains to the point of lacking any deductive reasoning skills. If someone were to look into this forum I am afraid many posts would only reaffirm the belief of burnt out users who can't even form coherent or logical thought patterns anymore. But hey, it is your forum, I was just hoping that you would think about the image of bluelight to the outside world.

 

[MrM]

beamers, that's a faulty analogy. Fascism is one ideology that had many local interpretations that all took their influence from the same sources. Religion is a plethora of ideologies that come from a plethora of sources.

If the analogy is faulty when applied to religion as a whole (due to many sources) then surely it is not faulty when applied to christianity (arguably one source - christ - that has since diversified into many different sub types).

I'm inherently offended by anti-religious speech. There's no rationally talking me out of this

I think this shows that you can't limit a public discussion based on offense as wether or not someone finds something offensive is as much down to them as it is down to the issues being discussed. If you are inherently offended by anti-religious speech then it's going to be difficult to involve you in a discussion on the subject without causing offence and you can't expect people to limit themselves based on that (not that i'm suggesting you are).

So let me just state this for the record. I will take Richard Dawkins' famous advice 'It's time we stop being so respectful' OVER. MY. BROKEN. MODSTICK.

I think Richard Dawkins point is that you don't have to be respectful of religion. I agree with this. I don't think he is saying you can go around disrespecting the religious people themselves, just that the institutions and philosophies and content of the religion should not be above criticism (which is what people often mean when they request respect for their beliefs). Richard Dawkins is invited onto TV programs etc to discuss these issues in public so it's not surprising he causes offense to some people. Songs of praise (UK religious TV program) offends me but i don't expect that to be cancelled just to sooth my nerves.

My conclusion to the initial question ' A question for Christians- is anti-christianity offensive?' would be yes, sometimes, depending on the christian and how they respond, but so what? There is nothing wrong with anti-christianity (if by this you mean criticism of christianity rather than beating them up or going round their houses and hastling them in their own space) and christianity does not deserve a special level of respect that elevates it above this criticism as it is clearly not perfect and does cause many problems for society. Therefore if you are a christian and criticism offends you then anti-christianity is going to be offensive.

Also just to add perspective - there is enough variation in christianity now that some versions (for example liberal pro-homosexuals as real people not going to hell forever types) will be seriously offending others (conservative traditional homosexual hating types) just by practicing their faith the way they do.