Why it is wrong to NOT attack religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackey33

ha-ha that's great...I don't believe in a "christ" but you are dead on accurate - BTW, i have a dentist appointment tomorrow, pray for me!

:thumbsup:

---

To the Flying Spagetti Monster I will pray. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine

Why attack something you don't believe in?

And what about people who adopted their religion based on their own volition... perhaps even into their 20s, or later? Those who WEREN'T indoctrinated into it by zealous parents, or active participation in religious institutions? Those people DO exist, you know? So, because they've decided to believe in something greater than themselves, they're worthy of ridicule... spiteful accusations... personal "attacks" on their beliefs? How are they harming any of you by believing in a God, or Gods, or nature, etc.?

I know of very few deists who shun discourse, but I know of many who despise personal attacks made by those citing "logical" assumptions/suppositions that disagree with theological thought. I respect your choice to believe or disbelieve to your heart's content, and I would never attack you because of your beliefs/disbeliefs. All I ask in return is that the same courtesy be extended to me, otherwise we'll have a pissing contest/battle of wits on our hands that will never end.

It all boils down to one word: RESPECT. Either you have it, or you don't. And I've come to find that people from both sides of the isle commonly don't.

---

I would attack something I don't believe in if I see it hindering mankind. I am never making personal attacks, but if someone claims a belief that (even generally) leads to violence I will voice my mind. It is not hidden knowledge that a huge portion of the conflict in today's world is inter-religious. If the only/main reason for poeple fighting is in the name of a diety, how can any logical person deem that religion a good thing? And don't think I am pointing out the actions of the few and labeling the whole. It takes more than a minority to suppress tibet, or ethnically cleans africa. Somehow america, which is politically driven by judeo-christian thought tries to play cop and leads to more violence.

I am ok with diests, but still if you are happy with everything the way it is why do you need the diety at that point? The thing is, even starting with the best intentions, it is so easy to twist belief into a reason to persecute someone else.

I would argue that those choosing religion later in life are just as much a product of indoctrination as a kid brought up by his parents religiously. There was a quote I read about how Bush Sr made a claim that atheists were not americans b/c "we are a nation under god". To have the most powerful man in the world (at the time) say something like that should bring shivers to anyone not of his religious beliefs.

Next thing you know america will be in iran "preaching democracy" in the name of god. With leaders, media, and ultimately a vast majority of the public behind these kinds of thoughts it isn't far fetched.

I don't see how respect has any place in this debate. I will always respect a person as a person, but why do I have to respect religion more than I have to respect your choice of favorite hockey team?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coelho

Well... in this case your reasoning also allows criticise peoples sexual orientation. Everybody is born male or female. Yet, during their lives, they can choose to be anything between this two opposites.

BTW I dont agree with any kind of criticising, whatever it may be. I only know how is to be me, i dont know how is to be anyone else. So i cant make choices for anyone else, and i cant claim that the choices i did myself with regard to my own life are the best ones for anybody else with their own life.

---

I am 100% ok criticizing those that "choose" (and I hate to use that word here) b/c the fact of the matter is, if everyone decided to be gay, humanity would eventually die out. But when you look at the facts, the human race isn't on a path for extinction for lack of breeding. As long as those that are gay aren't negativly impacting society I have no problem whatsoever with them. On the contrary I have had gay friends all of my life. Now, if the species was dieing out and someone refused to breed, I would haev a problem with them.

Now how can I say you are doing society harm when choosing religion. At the most basic point, time. A gay person doesn't spend thier time any differently than a straight person for all intents and purposes. Religious people and non-religious DO spend their time differently. For ever hour you are praying, or in church, etc is an hour where you could have up and just done something tangible.

Many diests have essentially solved this by just believing enough to say they are religious (far easier a thing to do than debate it) but could be called atheists for all intents and purposes other than the fitting in part in society. If you spend your time doing anything b/c you like it that again I am fine with. But when was the last time a world war broke out over an argument between a group that thought crossword puzzles were the "true game" and all those checkers fans should burn in hell?

all i have to say is if someone is going to use their religion to say i am evil,they are wrong and deserve to be attacked equally to their accusations.


if you say your bible says im going to hell, i say nature says you are an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggrole1

Now how can I say you are doing society harm when choosing religion. At the most basic point, time. A gay person doesn't spend thier time any differently than a straight person for all intents and purposes. Religious people and non-religious DO spend their time differently. For ever hour you are praying, or in church, etc is an hour where you could have up and just done something tangible.

---

I don't understand, what is so bad about spending time praying or meditating? At the very least you wouldn't be consuming many resources while sitting in solitude with your thoughts so wheres the harm in that?

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think criticizing and essentially preaching to religious types is the right way of going about this. Most religious people are not violent. If you honestly think religion is the main thing fueling wars and violence around the world, you are a little naive. God doesn't pay for AK-47's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggrole1

If the only/main reason for poeple fighting is in the name of a diety, how can any logical person deem that religion a good thing?

---

How can any observant person deem that all acts of war are perpetuated solely by followers of religion? If a few fundamentalist politicians commit an atrocity, and supposedly do so "in the name of religion", why am I grouped in along with them? How many people have I killed in the name of religion? Or the majority of other believers, for that matter? How many atheists do you suppose are fighting and killing as we speak... or have done so in wars since past? Is there even a consensus for that sort of thing? Or do they not matter, since they are only following orders from a supposed religious zealot? Are their actions forgivable under these circumstances? Religion isn't the problem here... extremists are. Why not fight them, as opposed to entire religions who are not inherently violent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggrole1

There was a quote I read about how Bush Sr made a claim that atheists were not americans b/c "we are a nation under god". To have the most powerful man in the world (at the time) say something like that should bring shivers to anyone not of his religious beliefs.

---

Yet you honestly believe that everyone of the same religion supports his assertion concerning the definition of a "real American"? Is it not possible that Bush Sr. was the one twisting the ideals of his religion and sense of patriotism, as opposed to the collective religion itself doing the twisting? Or because he is/was a high-ranking public official, are you claiming that his actions and words speak for everyone who shares his religious ideology? If you think that's the case, then does Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, the Columbine bozos, etc., speak as a collective whole for all the atheists of the world? I would never make this claim, but apparently some would liken me to zealots like George Bush, Bush Jr., and the sort just because we believe in the same deity.

You stated earlier that attacking someones choices that they've made in life is "fair game." How can you "respect a person as a person" if you feel it's fair game to attack the choices they make in life? That's not respect in any sense of the word.

Everybody's making comments about how it's all relative to how someone's been raised and their experiences and not to judge someone till you've been in their shoes, which is true... The objective evidence is the same for everybody, and people make different conclusions from exactly the same evidence. So getting real offensive can be stupid.. but he does have a point in saying that everyone has the right to criticize other people's practises. If we can't criticize anybody's beliefs, how can we judge anything? We could only say that it's different, even if it's crazy like the Holocaust or something. So you gotta be able to criticize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine

Yet you honestly believe that everyone of the same religion supports his assertion concerning the definition of a "real American"? Is it not possible that Bush Sr. was the one twisting the ideals of his religion and sense of patriotism, as opposed to the collective religion itself doing the twisting? Or because he is/was a high-ranking public official, are you claiming that his actions and words speak for everyone who shares his religious ideology? If you think that's the case, then does Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, the Columbine bozos, etc., speak as a collective whole for all the atheists of the world? I would never make this claim, but apparently some would liken me to zealots like George Bush, Bush Jr., and the sort just because we believe in the same deity.

---

You've got a point, but doesn't that raise warning bells? What you just mentioned, leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Bush... Had a huge amount of power. Hitler changed the whole general moral framework in Germany. A leader that knows about conformity could do alot... change the beliefs of millions..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

all i have to say is if someone is going to use their religion to say i am evil,they are wrong and deserve to be attacked equally to their accusations.

if you say your bible says im going to hell, i say nature says you are an idiot.

---

I like this simple way of putting it!

Also... Mackey, have fun at the dentist and may the FSM touch you with his Noodly Appendage. (Read up on Pastafarianism... it IS possible to poke fun at organized religion and not be nasty about it!)

People attack religion and act like its the problem of the world. Well sorry to break it to you but its not. Go deep down to the history of every war and you will see that none of them were started for religion but for land, money etc. If there was even no such thing as religion all these wars would still be going on. Religion is something just to coat it to get more support.

And attacking someone elses beliefs is not the way to go. That is basically personally attacking someone and saying they are flat out wrong. You dont know %100 either so you just may be proving your own ignorance. I am all for an intelligent conversation to talk about your points but attacking is wrong and creates problems.

Exactly! Wars start with greed, even though governments say they are for other reasons. The Crusades weren't even purely about saving heathen souls... they were about control of important trade routes; it was just easier to shove the idea down the throats of the peasants that they were being conscripted for a holy war, not for a trade war of which they, as lowly serfs, would never see the spoils.