• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

A question for Christians- is anti-christianity offensive?

Enlitx, you're free to leave and go to one of those higher caliber forums you mentioned, if you wish. You're also free to take this up with my superiors if you wish. I run my forum as I see fit, for drug users who've had philosophical or spiritual revelations in the course of their drug use, and need a place to gather and share. Like I said, this is a sanctuary, not a coliseum. Sorry if this is a little touchy-feely for your tastes.

MrM, trust me, I've been pretty fair across the board when it comes to people respecting each other's beliefs. I'm open about my bias, as you correctly guessed. But I'm just as quick to shut down any Christians who give people crap for not accepting Christianity.

I apparently misunderstood the meaning and context of that Dawkins quote, so nevermind that.

All I'm asking is for people to not give each other a hard time for what each other believe, unless they're clearly looking for a debate. For example, I think someone should have the ability to start a thread called "Will God forgive me for what I've done?" without having to read a reply that says "The heart of your problem is that you believe in God to begin with."

That's how is used to be. Scoffers would come in, seeing it as somehow their right or their duty to "take out the trash" of supernatural belief, and rain on the parade of anyone who expressed any. This made me sick, because a lot of these people were not looking to have their worldviews picked apart, they were just sensitive souls seeking some existential guidance, sometimes within their preexisting belief system.

It's one thing to have Richard Dawkins on one talk show, and Britain's most famous Christian preacher on another TV channel, because anyone viewing can just choose to watch one, or neither. But on the Net's biggest English-language drug forum, this is it. People who consider drugs and their experiences on them to be chiefly a part of their philosophical or spiritual explorations, deserve a place where they can voice their ideas, and be taken seriously on their own terms.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
MrM, trust me, I've been pretty fair across the board when it comes to people respecting each other's beliefs. I'm open about my bias, as you correctly guessed. But I'm just as quick to shut down any Christians who give people crap for not accepting Christianity.
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't mean to complain about your moderating of these boards at all. I think it's just fine. When i was talking about limiting a public discussion based on offense i was discussing it in the general sense - i didn't mean to suggest that this was happening on these message boards, although i can see how you might have thought i did.

Atheists are no more imune to unreasonable behaviour than theists are.Religion is a heated topic to discuss and I know myself it's difficult sometimes not to respond to perceived hatred on the 'other side' with the same (or similar) yourself but it's all good practice on the interweb. If you can put your opinion across without getting angry and pissed off about it, if the other guy wants to be offended then that's their business. Richard Dawkins does this quite well (possibly better than Enlitx ;)).
 
Enlitx said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just because an imaginary heretic Jew with superpowers said that we should respect other people doesn't make it any less true(I hope the intention of the statment comes through).
 
Samael said:
Just because an imaginary heretic Jew with superpowers said that we should respect other people doesn't make it any less true(I hope the intention of the statment comes through).
Click to expand...


The discussion was about respecting ideas though. There is a difference there.
 
The same logic applies. One can respect the idea behind the idea as well. The vessel maybe be corrupt and googly-eyed, but the liquid inside is still quite viable.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
I run my forum as I see fit, for drug users who've had philosophical or spiritual revelations in the course of their drug use, and need a place to gather and share. Like I said, this is a sanctuary, not a coliseum. Sorry if this is a little touchy-feely for your tastes.
Click to expand...

How is that different from a journal? Forums generally exist to create discussion and debate about issues, if the goal is simply to share, usually people use a journal.
 
Samael said:
The same logic applies. One can respect the idea behind the idea as well. The vessel maybe be corrupt and googly-eyed, but the liquid inside is still quite viable.
Click to expand...

I am really not seeing that analogy. Many of the poster here even said to attack the idea, not the person. They just aren't the same thing. If you can't deem some ideas worse than others, there will never be any real meaningful debate.
 
I tend to dislike evangelicals of most any stripe...and having been raised agnostic, I am not particularly angry at Xianity.
So, yes, virulent anti-Xians can annoy.

ebola
 
Enlitx said:
I am really not seeing that analogy. Many of the poster here even said to attack the idea, not the person. They just aren't the same thing. If you can't deem some ideas worse than others, there will never be any real meaningful debate.
Click to expand...

There's an idea, and an idea construct. I find that a lot of people have the same idea, it's just that their idea-constructs are different. Maybe I'm just idealistic.
 
Fascism as with all political ideologies comes in many shades and guises.

Religion is a plethora of ideologies that come from a plethora of sources.
Click to expand...

This is firstly irrelevant and secondly untrue to a certain extent. Religions are pretty much all related, in the West and in the East, they make bascially the same metaphysical claims about the nature of reality. You have the Abrahamic religions in the West, Dharmic religions in the East and then also the native religions. The story of the same sun god has been rehashed over and over again.
My point still stands (and I think you missed it), just because some reasonable people can be convinced into following an ideology, that doesn't validate it's teachings or history. There were plenty of reasonable law-abiding Germans that believed in National Socialism's policies, it gave them hope of a better future, it brought Germany out of economic ruin but that doesn't make it right. The Nazi's during world war 2 were just the bad nazi's, you're not giving fascism a real chance here, there are plenty of moderate nazi's we need to reach out to and sing "kumbayah" with.

Mr. M and Entlix have made a compelling and intelligent case, your posts make great reading.

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.
Click to expand...

Good point...
Without the enlightenment 300 years ago in Western liberal Europe we'd still be in the dark ages with kings and queens, let us not forget that.
 
Last edited:
Heavens forgive someone for trying to improve the quality of intellectual debate on a public forum. Especially one labelled with the term "philosophy".....lol you mods are a joke.
 
beamers said:
Heavens forgive someone for trying to improve the quality of intellectual debate on a public forum. Especially one labelled with the term "philosophy".....lol you mods are a joke.
Click to expand...

You can debate without putting down the ideas of others.

I'm all for debate where all viewpoints are equally respected.
 
Beamers, the intellectual voices and venues of the world (or the West, if you want to limit it to that) have not definitively settled on atheism as a final, firm, and proven consensus answer. Those who don't accept it don't deserve the same condescension as people who believe the earth is flat, or people who support absolute monarchy. Many people who aren't unbelievers still have a lot to offer in the way of thought provoking, intellectually stimulating discussion, and regarding them as lesser thinkers just because they're willing to entertain more complicated or whimsical ideas about ultimate reality, is really alienating to people who have a lot to offer.
 
Beamers, the intellectual voices and venues of the world (or the West, if you want to limit it to that) have not definitively settled on atheism as a final, firm, and proven consensus answer.
Click to expand...

Western liberal democracies and scientists have and that's good enough for me. You're welcome as a woman to experience the value, freedom and rich tapestry of life that religion supposedly provides by travelling to the most religious countries in the world:!. Then you can tell me that atheism and Western liberal democracies are a bad idea.

Those who don't accept it don't deserve the same condescension as people who believe the earth is flat, or people who support absolute monarchy.
Click to expand...

There are some ideas that are just ridiculous and are not based in fact at all.
Entertaining these ideas in the interest of an "equal time for all sides" is moronic. Some issues are resolved and no longer have 2 sides.
Religion is the reason for flat earthers, creationists, an earth centric universe....add any ridiculous claim throughout history. I'm a student of biomedical science and we study evolution as part of our course, the evidence for it is so far reaching and volumous that it is truly a great feat of human accomplishment. Yet we still get these creationists on our forums at uni denying the obvious. It is this stubborness to open your eyes to the facts that only religion can instruct a brain to do so.

Many people who aren't unbelievers still have a lot to offer in the way of thought provoking, intellectually stimulating discussion, and regarding them as lesser thinkers just because they're willing to entertain more complicated or whimsical ideas about ultimate reality, is really alienating to people who have a lot to offer.
Click to expand...

That's a lovely sentiment in the era of PCness, but does the statement amount to anything useful in the real world? What does a person's religion have to do with what they can offer the world? In any situation whether it be political or social if anyone is offering anything other than evidence and historical fact what point is there in listening to them? What exactly do they have to offer besides medieval superstitions? Please explain your post.
Also if you think that making up a god and explaining that he simply made everything is a; too quote you, "complicated", answer to life's big questions then you are seriously mistaken, try studying genetics, quantum physics and evolution for just 3 years and then tell me which answer is more complicated. Proclaiming "god did it" amounts to putting these questions in the "too hard basket" and does nothing to further intellectual curiousity.
You can debate without putting down the ideas of others.
Click to expand...

Atheism is a negative claim, meaning you cannot prove it, you can only disprove all other options and even then it doesn't prove your case, however it does strengthen it considerably. Atheism is not an ideology, it is a lack of an ideology. You guys just see all comments in a debate as "putting down". You're a little sensitive. Entlix and Mr.M have both posted in neutral, diplomatic and even apologetic tones and you guys still get your back up.
 
Last edited:
This thread was really meant to be a chilled discussion involving christians.

Anyhow, I was hoping for Damien to answer, which he did.




Damien and Jesus said:
Nah.


Originally Posted by John 15:18
If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
Click to expand...

Simple response; cheers :)
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
Beamers, the intellectual voices and venues of the world (or the West, if you want to limit it to that) have not definitively settled on atheism as a final, firm, and proven consensus answer.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat true. The idea of a 'creator' is a genuine scientific theory for the creation of the universe.

Firstly, however, there is no evidence for this hypothesis and secondly if there was it still wouldn't support any one organised religion.

When you speak to scientists and intelectuals generally in the west, even those that do believe in a god generally take a slightly more nebulous less orthodox view of their faith. The scientists and intelectual voices and venues of the west, whilst not totally atheist, usually dont go in for the homosexual thumping abortionist doctor killing suicide bombing versions of the faith.

When atheists speak out against organised religion i think the thing that really anoys them is all the unprovable details that just so happen to be included in the bible / koran or whatever that people latch onto and take as justification for homophobia, sexism or suicide bombings (to give a few examples). If it wasn't for all this rubbish that somehow attaches itself to the idea that there is a creator and an afterlife and you should be nice to people i think that atheists would spend a lot less time worrying about the issue.

Personally i think it's a shame the Jefferson Bible didn't end up more popular. From what i understand that was a genuine attempt by an intelectual to take the good moral bits from the story of jesus (that few atheists would object to) and remove the casper the friendly ghost bits.

As much as atheism can never be proven, as time passes the more specific claims of religion (i.e. creationism, age of the earth being 6000 years or whatever stupidly tiny number it's supposed to be - sorry i'm a trained geologist...) can be, and have been.

swilow said:
This thread was really meant to be a chilled discussion involving christians.
Click to expand...

If this was supposed to be a discussion aren't you disappointed damian came out with a quote of someone elses rather than involving himself? Simply quoting from the bible doesn't make for a discussion - at best it makes for answer and response. How can you then discuss in positive and negative terms something that is supposed to be the word of god?
 
Last edited:
I must say I find anti-evolutionists so offensive, it really gets me riled up. I can't believe the pain and suffering they cause me on a daily basis, if only they wouldn't post such "down putting" comments on the internet. Evolution is my personal belief and they really need to respect that. Oh the humanity. If only the mods could keep better control on these negative comments, I'm sure they are doing their best.

On second thoughts evolution is a sound theory which has gathered evidence from many different fields over the last 150 years and it remains the only explanation for complex life on earth. I can respond intelligently to any criticism of evolution with scientfic fact and rational argument. There's no need for me to be offended if I've got the evidence on my side. On the other hand if I am only basing my beliefs on wishful thinking then I can see how bringing up obvious logical fallacies, and scientific facts against my claims can be offensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top