A question for Christians- is anti-christianity offensive?

[swilow]

^Just chill. Being angry at creationists won't change anything. People cling to god because it/he/she/they are seen as the last bastion of hope in this dying world. I disagree with creationism on the grounds that it is illogical, and has been proven incorrect. It doesn't anger me that people wish to believe in it. If it did, I'd be angry all the time.

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?

Nope, not at all. I was after a straight forward answer to a straight forward question, and got one finally. I'm not looking to discuss things as 'positive or negative', simply wondering something. You didn't HAVE to join in ya know? IMO, he answered the question- he's a christian, hence referenging jesus isn't odd at all. In fact, it has illustrated something for me; that belief in god and his so-called words make such discussion pointless

 

[MrM]

You didn't HAVE to join in ya know?

But i wanted to. It's an interesting topic of discussion.

In fact, it has illustrated something for me; that belief in god and his so-called words make such discussion pointless

This is a good illustration of why atheists and rationalists dislike organised religion so much. If you are unlucky enough to pick the wrong religion (i.e. one that includes rampent God-Hates-Fags style homophobia or sharia law) then god's so called words are just as immune to discussion as if you pick a nicer one.

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.

There is a big difference between hatred and causing offence. I am not sure how this quote about hatred answers the original question about causing offence. I can't speak for all other atheists but whilst i am sure many of my opinions might be offensive to certain religious types, i don't generally hate them. This is an important point to me because causing offense does not have the same negative implications as hatred does as offense can be as much down to the reaction of the person offended as it can be to do with the intentions of the offender, whereas hatred is usually a negative harmful emotion that puts the person feeling it at fault.

Likewise the more 'artistic' forms of anti-christianity (like the original example given of Behemoth) may well cause offence to some christians but this does not mean it is necessarily motivated by hatred (although in Behemoth's case for all i know it might be and i'm sure it is for some people). If the quote damien gave can be said to answer the original question in any way i would have thought he means that christians just assume it is hatred as their religious text tells them to expect this.

 

[qwe]

However, where I disagree with you is that religion is the root of the problem

sorry, i didnt mean to imply this!

without religion, we'd have all these same problems

but i think religion really does exacerbate them, especially in localized areas, to a huge degree, due to the nature of rigid belief systems tied with political institutions

but the root root root cause, is too fuzzy, too complex. we cannot blame these things on religion itself, i agree with you. but religion has been used as a tool to perpetuate these things, and does play a very major role. that is what i was getting at

 

[spaceyourbass]

Many people focus way too much on the problems that religion has caused in the often way-too-distant past. They forget that churches used to be sources of science (yes, science!), research, and literature. The Church used to be a valuable institution of education, communication, the spread of knowledge, and establishment of civilization. If you're going to use Galileo to refute my entire argumet, you simply don't know the facts of history. You're focusing way too much on the way-too-distant past.

Churches are valuable sources of therapy for countless millions of people. Not everyone can afford a psychologist/psychiatrist, but everyone can afford church. Church is free. The African American community, for example, is deeply rooted in Christianity. Studies have shown that children who say that religion is very important to them do better in school that non-religious children. Also, people are less likely to become addicted to drugs and suffer from identity crisis (especially with AAs) if they're religious. Religion keeps many people from being depressed. People who were born and will always be dirt poor can find comfort and happiness with faith and the church community.

So call them "sheep," call them "dumbass idiots who don't believe in science," call them whatever the hell you want. I say if it makes people happy, then church is a valuable institution that people shouldn't be so quick to criticize.

Let's not get caught up in the conspiracies of the Pope and the money and the corruption. Rather, we should think of the poor black lady who goes to church every Sunday and is a better woman for it.

 

[ebola?]

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.

...does this make you the ironic punch-line?

ebola

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

IMO, Jesus-Christ (if he existed) would be anti-Christian and ppl that are anti-God are much worse. The so-called athiests never experienced God.

Jesus (if he existed) was the Logos or logic of God (John 1:1).

(I'm not a "christian" but a Christ . . . I believe in Logos.)

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

I must say I find anti-evolutionists so offensive

Just chill. Being angry at creationists won't change anything.

Just wanted to add that not all creationists are against evolution. I don't understand this mentality at all. It's scientifically proven that life evolves, and I would also strongly disagree that creationism has been "disproven". How so exactly? Just because life evolves, doesn't mean some other lifeform can't intervene/tamper with it somehow.

If scientists somehow cloned/genetically spliced together two animals creating a new and different third animal, wasn't that species "created" in a sense? It doesn't mean the animals were not evolving before on their own, or that the new animal wouldn't evolve, if it were to somehow be bred and survive as a species on it's own.

I've been screaming for years about this flawed idea that creationism and evolution are two mutually exclusive theories. Not at all! And I don't understand why religious people are threatened by evolution any more than I understand why science minded people tend to be threatened by creationism.

**Note- I understand I am not talking about "creationism" as most people might mean it, but my views are that the human race was created by an intervening of some third party, so in my eyes, that's still a form of creationism.

 

[Enlitx]

You can debate without putting down the ideas of others.

I'm all for debate where all viewpoints are equally respected.

As I have been saying ad nauseum, there is a difference between putting down a person and putting down an idea. I am sorry that you are so insecure in your beliefs that you would become personally offended by them being challenged. An emotional response to your beliefs being challenged is indicative of a shaky basis for beliefs. For example, I don't get emotionally upset when people challenge my beliefs about biochemistry, I just start listing off fact a, fact b, fact c, etc...

 

[Dtergent]

To answer swilow's question, I believe many Christians are used to being attacked and also possess some ability to ridicule themselves. I would compare this to the way Americans speak and act when they travel abroad (most especially Bush-era)-- they are apologetic about their nationality and always ridiculed by other nationalities who are not ordinarily racist. For many reasons-- they are the dominant power, they are not customarily the subject of oppression, etc.

I myself am guilty for poking fun at Americans (though to a decreasing level), in front of them and around my friends, because I find some aspects of their lifestyle humorous. However, when I really think about it, I am applying a large double standard to the cultural differences I would normally be more tolerant of. For some people I know, this is elevated into the some weak hatred.

However, I don't believe this should be the case. Just because the US is a Superpower (as Catholicism is a "Superreligion"), it doesn't mean we can attack Americans because of their governments' actions or how some aspects of their society happens to be structured. I think we should take this approach to Christians as well, separating them from their history, the powers that run the Vatican, or even a lot of inane holdovers.

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

Pretty much.

I'm probably closest to a universalist like MDAO, and believe that atheism has not been helped much by a large portion of its vocal practising population focusing on being anti-religious, to some sort of fundamentalist degree. So much of the atheistic and freethinking journals have wasted too much space focusing on this, when they can move away from being reactive and into more constructive ideas.

Religion (mystical religions, in particular, or mystical forms of even more mainstream religions) lead people to a phenomenon which is undeniable, and that more "sober" atheists understand something that leads to "pantheistic reverence". Perhaps focusing on this common aspect can allow for ideas to flow more freely between different beliefs.

 

[Enlitx]

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.

Why don't they deserve the same condemnation as people who say the earth is flat? Both groups of people have the same amount of evidence to back up their claims. I am with Dawkins on this one, doling out respect to primitive religous beliefs should be a thing of the past.

 

[Enlitx]

So call them "sheep," call them "dumbass idiots who don't believe in science," call them whatever the hell you want. I say if it makes people happy, then church is a valuable institution that people shouldn't be so quick to criticize.

First of all, have any links to back up those statistics?

It is never good to subject people to mental castration to placate them. Just because religion is the opiate of the masses doesen't mean that opiates are good. There are better, long term solutions to people's happiness and well being besides archaic folklore from the Hebrews.

 

[swilow]

There are better, long term solutions to people's happiness

Such as? For if you know that secret, share it and save the world. Who are we to say whats better anyway?

 

[Enlitx]

Such as? For if you know that secret, share it and save the world. Who are we to say whats better anyway?

Excercise, proper diet, healthy relationships, and regular medicine if needed. The problem is convincing a population to give up a superstition that they have held for so long. People don't want to disbelieve, therefore they will do mental gymnastics to preserve their deluded thoughts.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

However, I don't believe this should be the case. Just because the US is a Superpower (as Catholicism is a "Superreligion"), it doesn't mean we can attack Americans because of their governments' actions or how some aspects of their society happens to be structured. I think we should take this approach to Christians as well, separating them from their history, the powers that run the Vatican, or even a lot of inane holdovers.

Thank you, your eyes are open. Amazing post, I wish bluelight had rep points!~

Such as? For if you know that secret, share it and save the world. Who are we to say whats better anyway?

Exactly!

 

[Dtergent]

^(edit: for Enlitx)

When you look at your suggestions, many of them are at the heart of the beginnings of religions.

Many had to be practical to begin with-- affecting people's health and mental clarity, in matters such as fasting, hygiene, farming, rest days, etc. Of course, you pile contextual recommendation on top of contextual recommendation and you get a whole unwieldy conflicting database of rules. But is that religion per se?

Is the personification or storying of the "numinous feeling" being deluded, or are they forms of explanation that may have been relevant to some cultures and not to our current?

 

[New]

First of all, have any links to back up those statistics?

It is never good to subject people to mental castration to placate them. Just because religion is the opiate of the masses doesen't mean that opiates are good. There are better, long term solutions to people's happiness and well being besides archaic folklore from the Hebrews.

This relates to what I was saying. One can learn from any text...whether it be archaic folklore or a medical journal. The central message of most religions is basically a long winded form of "don't be an asshole or else other people will treat you like shit". I would think one would respect at least that much from what religious text has to say, even if the religions themselves have not quite caught up yet.

Religion and mental castration are mutually exclusive. Just because someone retards their life over to doctrine because of their religion doesn't mean, say, I do the same thing. My religious practice involves knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to be highly valued. As a result, I learn as much as possible. Were I not raised Jewish, I would most likely be into New Age spiritualism. Or an Atheist.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

This relates to what I was saying. One can learn from any text...whether it be archaic folklore or a medical journal. The central message of most religions is basically a long winded form of "don't be an asshole or else other people will treat you like shit". I would think one would respect at least that much from what religious text has to say, even if the religions themselves have not quite caught up yet.

Religion and mental castration are mutually exclusive. Just because someone retards their life over to doctrine because of their religion doesn't mean, say, I do the same thing. My religious practice involves knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to be highly valued. As a result, I learn as much as possible. Were I not raised Jewish, I would most likely be into New Age spiritualism.

Absolutely. It's about the big picture. Religion has wisdom to offer as well as science. As well as a general set of rules and guidelines for how we should live our lives, it also provides a gateway for exploration of the self and personal spirituality, if one knows the proper way to use it. If I read the Bible, I can choose to read it with an open mind, to see what it might mean for ME and MY life. What it's meant to other people for centuries doesn't have to mean shit to me if I don't want it to. I can take whatever wisdom and lessons I want from it, and leave the rest behind. This goes for anything.

 

[Enlitx]

^(edit: for Enlitx)

When you look at your suggestions, many of them are at the heart of the beginnings of religions.

Many had to be practical to begin with-- affecting people's health and mental clarity, in matters such as fasting, hygiene, farming, rest days, etc. Of course, you pile contextual recommendation on top of contextual recommendation and you get a whole unwieldy conflicting database of rules. But is that religion per se?

Is the personification or storying of the "numinous feeling" being deluded, or are they forms of explanation that may have been relevant to some cultures and not to our current?

I think the belief that a supernatural being created you and ultimately determines your fate lies at the heart of most religions.

 

[lostNfound]

^^^ Fair call in a sense i guess, but I would think that Supernatural isn't quite the correct word to use here.

 

[Dtergent]

Enlitx, I'm not sure if "who or what created you" is even the central theme in most religions. Also the very idea of "something" determining your fate is also a very "flat" way to look at religion. It is very simplistic and ignores the philosophy and "science" of religion, if you may.

In a very basic sense, my idea of how religions are formed is as follows, so you see what perspective I am coming from:

*Someone has a "numinous experience", a very qualitative and real experience. Can be described as bliss, can be what we feel the loss of delineation of where the self ends when we are on psychedelics, something like the "tongues of flames" described by the apostles (or disciples, I'm not sure). I believe most major religions have mystical beginnings.

*Someone creates a practical path (lifestyle, rituals, etc.) for other people to recreate the feeling. The reason why "born again" religions are so powerful in their draw is because they create this very real feeling through rituals-- we've all seen them-- the people going into convulsions and speaking in tongues. This feeling is very special to human beings and we attach ourselves to things that are able to make us experience it. Most modern religions make no attempt to make us understand it either.

*Sometimes (a lot of times) this path gets institutionalized, scaled up, whatever. In other times, the goal to attain the said "qualitative feeling" is altogether lost (as in most modern day Christianity, where the focus is on doctrine).

But religion per se is not a bad thing.