|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 16:11:26 GMT
I wouldn't.
Somebody needs to talk to this. Why would we sit there and not try to help him? The guy is clearly detached from reality, and as you said, the same goes for religious ideas, so specifically related to those, why would we not try to help? We get this idea that tolerance means we should never question things that are irrational because we're afraid of offending somebody. F that.
Are you thinking personal code of conduct or government policy (laws)? He's going to give you an answer but the real answer is he has no idea.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 10, 2017 16:14:27 GMT
"Just to be clear, I am in no way suggest religion be made illegal."
The suggestion is there if you're going to use the example of how we treat illiteracy as a model for how we should treat religion.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Mar 10, 2017 16:32:00 GMT
Because bigotry is wrong regardless of the target.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 16:41:33 GMT
I would be tolerant of them believing that they are Napoleon. I wouldn't.
Somebody needs to talk to this. Why would we sit there and not try to help him?
And I'm happy to try and talk religious people out of their religion... if they are okay with having that conversation, or they are the ones seeking to convince me that they really are Napoleon. Of course, one can't talk people out of such things unless they are open to it. Many religious people are. Many are not.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 10, 2017 16:54:24 GMT
Everyone's beliefs should be tolerated, except where they cause harm to others. Irrational beliefs shouldn't. I agree, it's only an issue if it impacts others, but the fact is the major religions especially DO IMPACT OTHERS. But I disagree that we should ever stop questioning irrational beliefs as though any and every belief is to be shown respect. If irrational beliefs dont hurt anybody then who cares? In many cases irrational beliefs are a good thing. For example someone believing that the souls of their ancestors talk to them and that they will live forever after their physical selves die. I would argue it is immoral to criticise such a belief as you risk someone losing that emotional comfort.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 17:07:55 GMT
If an irrational belief hurts someone, it is no longer intolerance, it's prevention.
Anytime a religious person has tried to do harm to others beyond hurt feelings, they are taken down in non-sucky countries.
It is perfectly legal and possibly encouraged to hurt peoples' feelings routinely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 17:09:12 GMT
A big aspect of religion is that it gets more appealing the older you get. Notice how the demographics tend to reflect this. I believe that in addition to trying to influence behaviours and instill a moral conscience, there is the comfort that is provided, regardless of it can be proven or disproven, that as we get closer to death, that our lives are not meaningless and that we have some type of purpose, or that our existence will not always feel so futile.
If you're elderly or have faced death (and I'm a cancer survivor,...though I really dislike that word "survivor" because it implies the ordeal is over), there is this intrinsic need to feel that we're part of something larger than ourselves. If it gives comfort to people to believe that they're going to meet their relatives or have some type of "life after death" experience, then why would you go out of your way to harm their beliefs just to "prove" something to them?
I believe that their beliefs affect their quality of life including that experience as they are nearing death. You really think it's more important to tell a dying person their life-long religion is hogswallop and spend effort explaining science and the burden of proof,...for what? What purpose?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 17:17:31 GMT
A big aspect of religion is that it gets more appealing the older you get. Notice how the demographics tend to reflect this. I believe that in addition to trying to influence behaviours and instill a moral conscience, there is the comfort that is provided, regardless of it can be proven or disproven, that as we get closer to death, that our lives are not meaningless and that we have some type of purpose, or that our existence will not always feel so futile. That isn't really correct. Old people, more than any group, stick to what they are comfortable with. Rarely do they stop being religiou and then all of a sudden at death become more religious.
Old people are more religious primarily because they realized the value of religion as younger people.
Granted, the young go through a near inescapable part of their life that makes them, hopefully, temporary idiots. Religion becomes less appealing the more selfish we become which can start at any age, but particulary hits the young people.
That is the reason that it is silly to presume a young person with nary a wit of intelligence and far less wisdom is ill suited to explain the dangers of religion.
They are a walking talking ball of confusion and emotional angst that can't be taken too seriously. However, some of the good ones are capable using that emotion in other ways that don't involve whining about religion.
That said, a lot of the haters on the board are a bunch of old geezers grizzled by either the hard life they lived or the easy life the religious majority allowed them to have despite their hatred of the religious.
We are nice like that!
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Mar 10, 2017 17:21:54 GMT
People can believe what they want. If it gets offensive I tell them whatever I want. I have no respect for relgion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 17:26:22 GMT
I'd like to suggest you watch the talk that Stephen Fry gives re: the audacity of religion and how it has not served to advanced the species as a whole, how it has been degrading to women and unfair to minorities.
Religion in general can serve to mobilize people and control them into specific behaviours, and it can also serve to bring comfort to those looking for some type of purpose that they either cannot or did not achieve in real life. That's the phrase I'm sticking with, "in real life." Religion is faith and belief, and actions are a by-product.
There are many people who utilize religion as a controlling force because by golly if they've lived a rough and oppressive life, you can bet they're not going to take kindly to the younger generations having more freedoms and acceptance than they were allowed. There's bitterness to be sure.
Not always, but it is a factor worthy of consideration.
I'm suggesting religion can be utilized to comfort someone in pain, and it can be used to oppress people and distract them from the real world.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 19:39:35 GMT
Society has advanced just fine with religion in the mix.
At worst religion messes with the past but but not really and that has little to do with advancement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 19:45:26 GMT
Actually you need to be able to compartmentalize with regards to religion and societal advancement. Advancement of a society as a whole relies on science which is evidence-based and reproducible.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 20:03:43 GMT
Actually you need to be able to compartmentalize with regards to religion and societal advancement. Advancement of a society as a whole relies on science which is evidence-based and reproducible. This is not true.
Society functions based on needs of that society.
The earth would be doomed if the primary part of its advancement is scientific.
Anything that is important in society is important without need for compartmentalization.
Science and technology has existed in lock step with religion for thousands of years and both with advancements.
To pretend that religion is somehow barbaric and war technologies and environmentally disastrous technologies are not is a ridiculous way of thinking about things.
The earth will be doomed on the basis of misused science way and lack of compassion that is routinely taught in the best religions long before it will be based on religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 20:33:58 GMT
I'm quite happy to be tolerant of the religious beliefs of others, up until the point where they start to lobby for laws that have a basis in their scriptural or spiritual beliefs.
The problem, particularly with Muslims, is that tolerance is not sufficient. They want us to respect their beliefs and change the way that society operates in order to specially accommodate their beliefs and practices.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 20:36:26 GMT
Because bigotry is wrong regardless of the target. Bigotry is a difficult word to define though. I think that religious beliefs are atavistic and childish - is that a bigoted attitude on my part? But I am happy to tolerate religious differences as long as religious remains a strictly personal matter and not one that informs public policy. Unfortunately, religion cannot seem to coexist with secular legislature.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 20:42:02 GMT
Because bigotry is wrong regardless of the target. Bigotry is a difficult word to define though. I think that religious beliefs are atavistic and childish - is that a bigoted attitude on my part? But I am happy to tolerate religious differences as long as religious remains a strictly personal matter and not one that informs public policy. Unfortunately, religion cannot seem to coexist with secular legislature. It's right up there with saying gay dudes are gross because they like it in the butt.
No physical harm is caused by either statement and either statement could be hurtful &/or offensive to the group.
So it doesn't matter in the end unless you try to harm that which you find distasteful.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 20:44:16 GMT
I'm quite happy to be tolerant of the religious beliefs of others, up until the point where they start to lobby for laws that have a basis in their scriptural or spiritual beliefs.
The problem, particularly with Muslims, is that tolerance is not sufficient. They want us to respect their beliefs and change the way that society operates in order to specially accommodate their beliefs and practices.
Which is fine as long as people understand that of there are laws that infringe n their beliefs are attempted, they will push back on that as well.
Their reactions are no different.
The law doesn't affect my beliefs in the slightest and if a law passes that contradicts my beliefs then my beliefs will easily win out.
It's not that big of an issue, but then I'm not forced to marry gay people either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 20:57:45 GMT
Bigotry is a difficult word to define though. I think that religious beliefs are atavistic and childish - is that a bigoted attitude on my part? But I am happy to tolerate religious differences as long as religious remains a strictly personal matter and not one that informs public policy. Unfortunately, religion cannot seem to coexist with secular legislature. It's right up there with saying gay dudes are gross because they like it in the butt.
No physical harm is caused by either statement and either statement could be hurtful &/or offensive to the group.
So it doesn't matter in the end unless you try to harm that which you find distasteful.
I think that statement about gay guys being gross because of liking anal sex is rather borderline, but it's perfectly reasonable to say that anal sex is repulsive to you and that you can't help but associate that act with gay men. I don't take offence to it, but then again, I am not the type of homosexual who 'likes it in the butt', so am an exception to your generalisation. I think that in both cases, you are passing a judgement either on what the people in that group believe, or their proclivities for particular sexual act, so both are not bigoted in the sense that they should be subject to moral judgement.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 21:22:45 GMT
It's right up there with saying gay dudes are gross because they like it in the butt.
No physical harm is caused by either statement and either statement could be hurtful &/or offensive to the group.
So it doesn't matter in the end unless you try to harm that which you find distasteful.
I think that statement about gay guys being gross because of liking anal sex is rather borderline, but it's perfectly reasonable to say that anal sex is repulsive to you and that you can't help but associate that act with gay men. I don't take offence to it, but then again, I am not the type of homosexual who 'likes it in the butt', so am an exception to your generalisation. I think that in both cases, you are passing a judgement either on what the people in that group believe, or their proclivities for particular sexual act, so both are not bigoted in the sense that they should be subject to moral judgement. I wasn't making a generalization. I was giving an equivalency.
I don't care how gay men do it. I only care about the sex I have.
Likewise, I don't care if people don't like the fact that I'm Christian. It is more important that I like being a Christian.
However, the point remains that even if I were offended, offending me is allowed.
Stopping me from following Christianity is not and it isn't even possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 21:31:33 GMT
I think that statement about gay guys being gross because of liking anal sex is rather borderline, but it's perfectly reasonable to say that anal sex is repulsive to you and that you can't help but associate that act with gay men. I don't take offence to it, but then again, I am not the type of homosexual who 'likes it in the butt', so am an exception to your generalisation. I think that in both cases, you are passing a judgement either on what the people in that group believe, or their proclivities for particular sexual act, so both are not bigoted in the sense that they should be subject to moral judgement. I wasn't making a generalization. I was giving an equivalency.
I don't care how gay men do it. I only care about the sex I have.
Likewise, I don't care if people don't like the fact that I'm Christian. It is more important that I like being a Christian.
However, the point remains that even if I were offended, offending me is allowed.
Stopping me from following Christianity is not and it isn't even possible.
That's all perfectly reasonable, and I wish that most theists would have that attitude. And as long as your beliefs are for you and not for informing the laws that I have to follow, then I am happy to tolerate your beliefs (even if I reserve the prerogative to make fun of them). Likewise, I don't care much what the views of theists are about my sexuality, just as long as I have the liberty to conduct my affairs in a way that does not cause harm to anyone else.
|
|