Why do some people feel the need to denigrate the religious?

Post Reply New Topic

No they are not. They follow the Christ who never once tore the flesh off anyone.

Just because someone does something bad in someone else's name that doesn't mean the person they profess to follow would approve of their actions and doesn't mean that other followers approve of their actions.

the christians who actually follow jesus and give away their wealth to the poor are few and far between.
the christians who are members of clubs that have the blood of philosophers and scientists and women on ther hands are billions.

Religious people today, including Christians, don't support or advocate what was done during the Inquisition.

Though it's worse when accompanied by violence, of course religious intolerance, by anyone, regardless of their beliefs is undesirable (and unacceptable at these forums--at least according to the written rules)

It isn't a matter of what someone's religious beliefs are. What's relevant to this thread is the matter of intolerance.

...you know, attacking someone because of their beliefs

Michael829

I really do think such belittlers feel a sense of righteous indignation.

Shlaifu has given a good example. Just in a couple of comments I can see he doesn't like hypocrisy and he cares about people so dislikes that people have been mistreated in the name of religion. Therefore how can religion be respected? It must be right to tear it down and help others to not be hurt by it. So gets angry. But I personally don't see the point in being angry at people. A reasonable discussion without name calling is better so we can understand each other. I actually think we could start a thread on the points he has raised (I don't want to take this one off topic).

In another example I've had born again Christians go off their nut at me because I don't believe in the trinity. Again, they feel righteous indignation. I can't get my head round why they think being angry at me will win me over, but they really feel like I am missing out on a real relationship with God because I seem to be not willing to understand his 'true nature'. Also they are annoyed that I'm openly telling people I don't believe in the trinity and explaining why. Not that ive done that on here in years...

^Is that like the trinity without the Oxford comma

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost... Answering this question may lead to thread derailment.

What I find interesting (i.e. annoying) is that whenever there’s a discussion on WP about religion it immediately deteriorates into attacking Christianity. The OP didn’t single out any religion. I stand by my original assertion that People are People and they treat each other awfully. DedumtintinDedum tin tin Help me understaaaand...

Religious beliefs, like all beliefs, are fair game. Attack Christianity or the forms of Christianity that you object to. Attack Islam or the forms of Islam you object to. Attack Sikhism or the forms of Sikhism that you object to. But don't attack Christians, Muslims, or Sikhs, or any other religious group.

You're right that the "give away all my possessions" Christians are outnumbered by the "kill the unbelievers" Christians. But both groups are outnumbered by the "try to be the best person I can" Christians. Same with all other religions.

oh no, I have been misunderstood.
I like hypocrisy in certain cases. If we were to accept that our military employs torture, and set up realistic rules on how and to what extent etc.- then things would get much much worse very quickly- the dam would be broken and people would be argueing about how much flooding is too much. I am all for hypocrisy here.

what upsets me with religion is that it is by dogmatically opposed to knowledge and historically it has been murderously opposed to it. And I am unable to understand how people can advocate modern, moderate opposition to knowledge, in the way there are moderate communists, who refuse to see that the flaw is systemic, or moderate anti-semites, who say the concetration camps were a step too far, but it was the right direction.
willful blindness has in the past led to murderous willful blindness.

also: I singled out christianity for a very specific crime against human progress, which was the attack on the library of alexandria- precisely because there is a modern, moderate version of it, that carries within it the essential flaw.
going after hindus and muslims, -religions where not just the essential flaw, but actually the medieval expression of it is still very much alive - is a moot point.

'best' by what standard? - the religious person is not open to discuss the standard he's aspiring to.

Really good thoughts guys! I think that about covers everything.

I myself have no problems with, and even enjoy a good debate as long as both sides show basic respect for anothers beliefs.

Having known people now both on and offline who do go out of their way to dig at it - it's usually a combination of degrees to which people around them compelled them to dogmatic standards on one side and the kind of breakup they had with faith when they went from believing in a supreme being, personal deity, or whatever else to no longer believing.

It's incredibly difficult to argue with power of personal experience and anecdote and people often choose their struggles, their fights in life, etc. by either what shaped their experience in profoundly positive lights (to be protected) or what severely damaged their experience (taking the anti-* stance), and that tends to lead the the worldviews of people who both find a thing utterly sacred on one hand or the worst human invention on the other. To that extent it seems like while some life-long nonbelievers have very sharp criticisms of faith and its management/mismanagement of social structures their critiques tend not to be quite as fiery as those who had their impressions seared in recent memory.

One thing I might add too on the crimes against written history and human knowledge and the ways both Christians and Muslims took turns desecrating the library of Alexandria, or the classic arrest off Galileo and admissions that anyone who saw his evidence would have to be hallucinating, a lot of that does deeply reflect a world that at the time made reality with a sword and wiped history clean in the same manner. Some cultures had more respect for record than others, particularly radical and self-centered belief systems demanded domination of other thoughts and ideas by the wholesale destruction of any evidence to the contrary.

I still think I have to divide the horrific accidents of history, which there are many, and the 'spiritual' instinct or drive to look inward to find something greater. For those less faith-inclined Sam Harris actually does do a fairly good job of covering that in Spirituality Without Religion and actually made a pretty good effort to discuss that issue in his last conversation (Waking Up 105 I think it was) with Dawkins and Dillahunty when he reiterated that he's against religion as a whole but sympathetic to the existence and reality of mystical experience. I think that instinct can be put to good use, as well as the insights gleaned from mystical experiences (best run through an interpretive filter obviously), but it has to have any sort of textual dogmatism or utopian 'solve one problem and solve them all' wrung out of it not to be a road back to barbarism. The world is clearly too complex, and really too beautiful and allowing of personal freedom at this point, to gain anything by a return to tribal customs ruling culture or being considered the best available model for morality.

I see religion as completely unnecessary because you don't need to have a belief in some higher power to have good ethical values. Even believing in an afterlife is meaningless. If there is an afterlife, then you will end up where you deserve to if you live your life the way you see fit, whether you make horrible choices or follow an ethical lifestyle. On the other hand, if there really is no afterlife, then the actions you take now are completely irrelevant. It is up to each individual which path they will take in life. When the time comes they will only have themselves to blame for where they end up. If the path that I'm on is wrong, then there is something seriously messed up with the world. If a higher power does exist, then it is up to that being's discretion as to how each individual will be judged, not what some ancient text says.

Here's a good topic for debate; if every religious group is absolutely certain that their beliefs are right, and by extension everyone else's beliefs are false, then how is it that everyone can be absolutely right and absolutely wrong at the same time?

It's pretty much all tribal.

More and more, those who are seen as being of a different tribe are attacked and vilified time and time again. We see it a lot between the hard left and the hard right, both of which are nuts.

One of the greatest benefits of religion is for those who move into a new town or area. Instead of holing up in their new home or apartment and not doing anything and not meeting people or going to bars and getting drunk and meeting people they probably shouldn't meet, they can go to church and find a home where they will be accepted much more readily.

Think about it. Instead of being outside of all the tribes, you become a member of a small, and possibly influential, tribe.

You have a good chance of being accepted faster if you have something in common. For many, religion is that common feature.

That's fine a lot of people feel that way.

But the thread is about why people thinks it's ok to be nasty to, name call and belittle believers. Do you do that? If so why do you think manners don't matter in this instance?

It's only natural that frustration will grow when dealing with people that are completely set in their ways. Some people are even so devoted that they refuse to listen to any kind of logic or reasoning. It's like a stubborn little kid trying to win a game by ignoring all of the rules and making up his own. Of course this frustration will grow and eventually degrade into insults and attacks. Needless to say, resorting to such tactics is never okay, yet that doesn't stop it from happening. As for me, when I was younger I used to have several mean things to say, but thankfully being quiet and reserved kept me from saying anything that I would regret. As I got older I started to understand why I felt that way, which made it easier to keep my frustration in check. Even to this day it still happens, and I even feel guilty to have such mean spirited thoughts.

That's my own personal view on the subject, and it will likely be much different from other people's perspective and experiences. I really don't believe that people feel it's okay to bring harm to others, it's just something that happens when they act out of frustration.