Is arguing against religious belief intolerant?

bus77

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Ridiculing someone's philosophical beliefs would be acceptable, so why not religious beliefs, given that they are much more likely to be riven with tautology, pseudohistory and blind acceptance?

Those early greek philosophers were put to death for going against the local religion. There is not that worry now, but it perhaps serves as an example of the way 'talking' stops and 'loyalty' kicks in and any challenges you make could fall on even deafer ears.

Standman

iUseVi wrote: »

So would your friend be of the view that "Well those religious beliefs are entirely wrong, but what does that matter?" That seems a silly to me. If you think someone is wrong, you think they are wrong, no need to dress it up in niceties.

The thing is he can't make the leap of faith, but he "understands" that it is true for a lot of people, and is of the opinion that if it makes them happy then its fine by him. What frustrates me though is that you can still respect other peoples right to believe whatever they want, but at the same time it doesn't mean that you can't say it's ridiculous when you are around other people of the same mindset. I suppose he thinks it's a bit dishonest or nasty or something.

iUseVi

Standman wrote: »

The thing is he can't make the leap of faith, but he "understands" that it is true for a lot of people, and is of the opinion that if it makes them happy then its fine by him. What frustrates me though is that you can still respect other peoples right to believe whatever they want, but at the same time it doesn't mean that you can't say it's ridiculous when you are around other people of the same mindset. I suppose he thinks it's a bit dishonest or nasty or something.

That's fair enough, as long as you assume that religion keeps itself to itself - and doesn't interfere in peoples lives in politics, education, etc. :rolleyes:
Problem is, if you were to start a little poll over in the Christianity forum, almost all of them would advocate that they absolutely should stick their finger in every single pie...See the hazards of belief thread for the tip of an iceberg.

Dades

iUseVi wrote: »

Problem is, if you were to start a little poll over in the Christianity forum, almost all of them would advocate that they absolutely should stick their finger in every single pie...See the hazards of belief thread for the tip of an iceberg.

FWIW I wouldn't see the users of the Christianity forum as being typical of your average Irish Christian (read: Catholic). And hence one is less likely to encounter one in everyday polite conversation.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

That's fair enough, as long as you assume that religion keeps itself to itself - and doesn't interfere in peoples lives in politics, education, etc. :rolleyes:
Problem is, if you were to start a little poll over in the Christianity forum, almost all of them would advocate that they absolutely should stick their finger in every single pie...See the hazards of belief thread for the tip of an iceberg.

Yes, Christians should stick their finger into every pie - as should Muslims, atheists, homosexuals etc. It's called democracy.

Of course you are free to campaign for a society where religious people have no right to stick their fingers in any pies. It has already been tried in a few places (Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, China etc.)

iUseVi

Dades wrote: »

FWIW I wouldn't see the users of the Christianity forum as being typical of your average Irish Christian (read: Catholic). And hence one is less likely to encounter one in everyday polite conversation.

Fair point. I suppose the Christians that I tend to talk to are not the norm. Apologies to normal Christians.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Christians should stick their finger into every pie - as should Muslims, atheists, homosexuals etc. It's called democracy.

Of course you are free to campaign for a society where religious people have no right to stick their fingers in any pies. It has already been tried in a few places (Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, China etc.)

Well who doesn't like pie?!

If some Christians had their way it wouldn't be democracy, it would be a society run under "God's law" or the ten commandments or some such. Just look at the power the RC church exerted in this country until not so long ago. This may only apply to some of the more radical Christians, not the average one (certainly not you PDN), but still the danger applies.

nozzferrahhtoo

iUseVi wrote: »

Why not? Do you not think they could handle it? Most of the atheists I know used to be some form of Christian (geographic location and all that), and they don't suddenly now think that raping children is a good thing.

Do you really think that if you deprived them of their God that they would be any different?

Absolutely I do not. THEY seem to think so however. I was "debating" one person on you tube who was asking me why I dont rape mentally handicapped babies. At one point he openly said "I see no reason for you not to join the fun in raping these babies. Without a moral lawgiver why wouldnt any of us join the fun?"

FUN? These are his words not mine.

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At one point he openly said "I see no reason for you not to join the fun in raping these babies. Without a moral lawgiver why wouldnt any of us join the fun?"

I think what this guy really meant was that if he didn't believe that there'd be an angry deity to contend with, that he'd be out raping babies.

A lot of religious people seem to think that way. And can't seem to understand that it's possible to be decent and honorable without also having to believe there's a fractious deity with a hot poker in the vicinity.

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

I think what this guy really meant was that if he didn't believe that there'd be an angry deity to contend with, that he'd be out raping babies.

Yes, thats exactly what I think he meant too. Which is why I made my original quote which someone questioned. My quote was that "There are some people who, for the sake of the children around them, I hope they never lose their faith".

That guy on youtube, whos username i think was Vrod00, certainly qualifies as one of these people.

iUseVi

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Absolutely I do not. THEY seem to think so however. I was "debating" one person on you tube who was asking me why I dont rape mentally handicapped babies. At one point he openly said "I see no reason for you not to join the fun in raping these babies. Without a moral lawgiver why wouldnt any of us join the fun?"

FUN? These are his words not mine.

Think it's been summed up pretty nicely. The question is, is religion actually restraining any of these people from doing any of these things? (raping babies, etc.)
Or do they just think that it does? Hard to know, really.

nozzferrahhtoo

iUseVi wrote: »

Think it's been summed up pretty nicely. The question is, is religion actually restraining any of these people from doing any of these things? (raping babies, etc.)
Or do they just think that it does? Hard to know, really.

Its hard to know because I think the answer is both. For most people I think that there is no reason to assume that they havent got the same evolved morality that we do. If they suddenly lost their faith there is nothing to assume that the disgust they feel at the concept of harming children in this way would continue.

It would be making too much of an assumption, however, to say that there is no one in the world who really honestly has desires towards kids and is only restrained by religious beleif.

Some would say, Im sure, that this is a reason to keep religious beleifs alive, but Id disagree. Theres too many religious beleifs that PROMOTE such immorality also. So it would probably balance out if religion in its entirety were ever removed. The people being prevented only by god from indulging in such acts would proceed to do them. However the people in a religion being taught its all ok would stop. So its certainly not an argument for or against religion in and of itself.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Absolutely I do not. THEY seem to think so however. I was "debating" one person on you tube who was asking me why I dont rape mentally handicapped babies. At one point he openly said "I see no reason for you not to join the fun in raping these babies. Without a moral lawgiver why wouldnt any of us join the fun?"

FUN? These are his words not mine.

The raping babies example is frequently used by theists as a counter-argument against those who claim that there are no absolute standards of morality. It serves that purpose well since most of us do believe that raping babies is absolutely wrong, rather than merely being contrary to cultural mores. That, of course, is very different from saying that people will start raping babies if they stop believing in God.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

Well who doesn't like pie?!

If some Christians had their way it wouldn't be democracy, it would be a society run under "God's law" or the ten commandments or some such. Just look at the power the RC church exerted in this country until not so long ago. This may only apply to some of the more radical Christians, not the average one (certainly not you PDN), but still the danger applies.

No, I'm not going to let you away with that one. You said:

Problem is, if you were to start a little poll over in the Christianity forum, almost all of them would advocate that they absolutely should stick their finger in every single pie...See the hazards of belief thread for the tip of an iceberg.

From discussions over these issues on the Christianity board I am hard pressed to think of any posters who would favour any church or religious organisation exercising any such kind of undemocratic control over society.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

The raping babies example is frequently used by theists as a counter-argument against those who claim that there are no absolute standards of morality. It serves that purpose well since most of us do believe that raping babies is absolutely wrong, rather than merely being contrary to cultural mores. That, of course, is very different from saying that people will start raping babies if they stop believing in God.

How does the fact that atheists consider raping babies wrong demonstrate that there is an absolute standard of morality? If someone said it was "absolutely" wrong they would mean it was definitely wrong. Not that it was some higher law of the universe. People know it is wrong by instinct, there's no need for a God anywhere.
The whole point is that atheists are just as moral as theists. An absolute standard adds nothing to our morals that have evolved as a species.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

No, I'm not going to let you away with that one. You said:

From discussions over these issues on the Christianity board I am hard pressed to think of any posters who would favour any church or religious organisation exercising any such kind of undemocratic control over society.

If you say so, but you can only speak for yourself.

Here's a little excerpt from something called the "strategic plan" from evangelical.ie. You might be familiar with it. I've highlighted in bold the interesting bits.

The Kingdom of God becomes UNAVOIDABLE in every
sphere of Irish life

...
Our vision of unavoidable Christianity is that at every turn, in every place, the Christian message
would be seen, heard or encountered in some way that people could not help but “trip” over it! TV
debates would ask for an evangelical voice; politicians would seek evangelical input; media would
publish evangelical views. Community bodies would have evangelical involvement. Universities would
teach courses on biblical values. Art galleries would display the work of evangelical artists. Companies
would operate not for profit alone but also for a higher purpose. Evangelical architects would design
new buildings and public spaces with Christian values in mind....
The reaction could be positive or negative, but the Kingdom of God would be unavoidable.

True, it's not exactly a plan for world domination or "undemocratic" behaviour. But I'm certainly justified in saying they want their finger in every pie. It's obvious that the more control they have the better for them.

"politicians would seek evangelical input; media would
publish evangelical views." This concerned me the most.
If a Christian wants to run for public office, fine by me. But to actually think that they should be consulted on issues by default is ridiculous.

karen3212

No, I don't think arguing against religious belief is intolerant. I don't pick arguments with people in the real world though, even though I work with a few people who bring their religion voicerifiously into work with them.

I try to respect people despite their beliefs, so in the real world I wouldn't ridicule a person, but I might if I've had two, snort if someone goes on about fairies.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

If you say so, but you can only speak for yourself.

Here's a little excerpt from something called the "strategic plan" from evangelical.ie. You might be familiar with it. I've highlighted in bold the interesting bits.



True, it's not exactly a plan for world domination or "undemocratic" behaviour. But I'm certainly justified in saying they want their finger in every pie. It's obvious that the more control they have the better for them.

"politicians would seek evangelical input; media would
publish evangelical views." This concerned me the most.
If a Christian wants to run for public office, fine by me. But to actually think that they should be consulted on issues by default is ridiculous.

Yes, as a member of the Evangelical Alliance I am very familar indeed with the strategy you quote from.

Christians want to get their message 'out there'. In that we are no different from vegetarians, environmentalists, socialists, pacifists, or any other group of people that have opinions in common.

For years Evangelical Christians were treated as second class citizens in Irish society because of the dominance of the Catholic Church. (I remember the days when social ostracism was so pronounced that some of my friends had to drive 20 miles to buy groceries because local shopkeepers refused to serve 'born agains') Now we are growing in number and we have as much right as anybody else to make our voice heard. If politicians want us to vote for them then they need to listen to what we want - that is democracy. If the media wants us to subscribe to their TV stations or newspapers then they need to listen to what we want - that is capitalism.

This is not about control, but rather accountability. It is about politicians being accountable to those who vote for them. It is about the media being accountable to those who ultimately provide the money that pays their salaries.

If our local TD thinks that it would be ridiculous to consult Christians over issues then that he is free to ignore us. However, given that the number of our church members who are on the electoral roll exceeds his electoral majority, that might be somewhat short-sighted of him.

robindch

iUseVi wrote: »

evangelical.ie wrote:

every turn, in every place, the Christian message would be seen, heard or encountered

it's not exactly a plan for world domination

Sounds like it to me -- a world where evangelical christianity seeps out of every brick is nothing but world domination!

It's the type of thing that 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 threatened:

Corinthians wrote:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

As though the same religious message being "seen, heard or encountered" in "every place", whether wanted or not, is desirable. The citizens of North Korea know what that's like.

Resistance to this Borg-like conformity isn't so much intolerance, as sanity.

.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

This is not about control, but rather accountability. It is about politicians being accountable to those who vote for them. It is about the media being accountable to those who ultimately provide the money that pays their salaries.

But we live in a secular democracy. In a republic there should be a separation between church and state otherwise you're effectively repressing people who don't believe the same things that you do.

If our local TD thinks that it would be ridiculous to consult Christians over issues then that he is free to ignore us. However, given that the number of our church members who are on the electoral roll exceeds his electoral majority, that might be somewhat short-sighted of him.

And what kinds of policies would you be telling him to implement?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Christians want to get their message 'out there'. In that we are no different from vegetarians, environmentalists, socialists, pacifists, or any other group of people that have opinions in common.

Though I agree with your idea that values can be promoted democratically, I can't visualise new buildings designed with "vegetarian values" in mind!

evangelical.ie wrote:

Evangelical architects would design new buildings and public spaces with Christian values in mind....

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Yes, as a member of the Evangelical Alliance I am very familar indeed with the strategy you quote from.

Christians want to get their message 'out there'. In that we are no different from vegetarians, environmentalists, socialists, pacifists, or any other group of people that have opinions in common.

Like I said, I have no problem with a Christian voting a certain way, or going forward for public office. But that's not this is about.
Like Akrasia said so eloquently:

In a republic there should be a separation between church and state otherwise you're effectively repressing people who don't believe the same things that you do.

PDN wrote: »

For years Evangelical Christians were treated as second class citizens in Irish society because of the dominance of the Catholic Church. (I remember the days when social ostracism was so pronounced that some of my friends had to drive 20 miles to buy groceries because local shopkeepers refused to serve 'born agains') Now we are growing in number and we have as much right as anybody else to make our voice heard. If politicians want us to vote for them then they need to listen to what we want - that is democracy. If the media wants us to subscribe to their TV stations or newspapers then they need to listen to what we want - that is capitalism.

This is not about control, but rather accountability. It is about politicians being accountable to those who vote for them. It is about the media being accountable to those who ultimately provide the money that pays their salaries.

If our local TD thinks that it would be ridiculous to consult Christians over issues then that he is free to ignore us. However, given that the number of our church members who are on the electoral roll exceeds his electoral majority, that might be somewhat short-sighted of him.

If you are so large in number you have an excellent advantage. You are in the perfect position to motivate people to vote in a certain way.

How is this not control? The "strategy" wants evangelical christians in every single part of everything. I hardly think the vegetarians are striving for the same goals.

You want the private ear of politicians. That is not democracy. Of course you have as much right as anyone to "have your voice heard". But that is not what this is about - you already have that right, it's called voting.

No, by their own admission evangelicals are gunning for saturation of Christianity in every single sphere of life, whether people want it or not.

Our vision of unavoidable Christianity is that at every turn, in every place, the Christian message
would be seen, heard or encountered in some way that people could not help but “trip” over it!

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

But we live in a secular democracy. In a republic there should be a separation between church and state otherwise you're effectively repressing people who don't believe the same things that you do.

Separation between Church and State means that the State should not favour any religion over another (or indeed over those who have no religion at all), nor should the State show preferential treatment to the Church over and above what is accorded to any other voluntary association. This means that the Church should have the same rights and influence as organisations such as the Automobile Association or SIPTU - no more, and no less.

And what kinds of policies would you be telling him to implement?

Not telling him to do anything. However, the following are areas of concern that I have raised with local politicians where our values and beliefs are influenced by our religious faith:
a) The current educational system, dominated by the Catholic Church, is offensive to our members. We resent paying taxes to fund schools that prop up an ailing religious institution. We want a secular educational system where religious instruction can be carried out by parents off school premises and outside of school hours.
b) We support a liberal immigration system that will stop penalising asylum seekers who wish to work, contribute to Irish society, and to support their families. Any politician who votes on immigration in a way that panders to racism or xenophobia will alienate a large number of our voters.
c) We want Ireland to contribute a much higher percentage of our GDP to combatting poverty and hunger internationally.
d) We want Ireland to take a much stiffer line against countries that practice human rights violations.
e) Most of our members will not vote for any politician who supports the death penalty or abortion for reasons other than where the mother's life is at risk.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Sounds like it to me -- a world where evangelical christianity seeps out of every brick is nothing but world domination!

It's the type of thing that 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 threatened:

Robin, your ability to try to impart a sinister meaning to the most innocuous Bible verses is truly astounding. A peek into your mind would be a wondrous experience!

The passage you quote from 2 Corinthians 10 is understood by Christians to mean that, in our personal struggle to live life righteously and not give in to temptation, that prayer helps us to win this battle. It is about how individual Christians can live more moral lives.

As though the same religious message being "seen, heard or encountered" in "every place", whether wanted or not, is desirable. The citizens of North Korea know what that's like.

Resistance to this Borg-like conformity isn't so much intolerance, as sanity.

An atheist comparing Christianity to North Korea is like a German comparing a synagogue to the Gestapo.

Come on Robin, you know fine well that the Evangelical Alliance is not suggesting that Christianity should be the only message that can be encountered. We simply want to make sure that our voice is out there amongst all the other voices in the marketplace of ideas. Are you really so intolerant as to find that idea offensive?

eoin5

Evangelical architects would design
new buildings and public spaces with Christian values in mind....

Evangelical public places?

PDN

PDN wrote: »

This is not about control, but rather accountability. It is about politicians being accountable to those who vote for them.

Politicians are accountable at every election, to all the voters.

An example was Dana as an MEP. She didn't have to listen to anything I had to say about secularism but I still had my say in the next election.

iUseVi

eoin5 wrote: »

Evangelical public places?

Beats me. I struggle to think of "evangelical" things to add to public places/spaces. No statues that could be idolised? Perhaps pulpits provided for spontaneous street preaching.

allabouteve

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

If something is as utterly ridiculous as religon is then it's perfectly reasonable to say so. People who use the offence card as in 'You're offending my beliefs' should believe in something a little - or a lot - more logical and reasonable if they want to demand respect for it.

To tolerate delusion is to give respect to it. How anyone can respect theistic belief in the face of all evidence contrary, in the face of all logic, all reason, and all historical knowledge is beyond me.

Do I sound intolerant?:)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Robin, your ability to try to impart a sinister meaning to the most innocuous Bible verses is truly astounding.

And likewise, your remarkable ability to convince yourself that even the most noxious biblical quote smells of nothing but purest rosewater really does suggest that you're rather less interested in a reasonable reading of the text, and rather more interested in seeing what you would like to see.

PDN wrote: »

The passage you quote from 2 Corinthians 10 is understood by Christians to mean that, in our personal struggle to live life righteously and not give in to temptation, that prayer helps us to win this battle. It is about how individual Christians can live more moral lives.

If that's the case, then one really has to ask why the author chose to write nothing about the really rather sensible meaning that you have inexplicably arrived at, but the quite sinister sentence that I quoted directly from the text.

Even the basic vocabulary itself, quite apart from the meaning, is quite illustrative -- "demolish", "pretension", "set up against", "captive", "obedient"; not much about the difficulty of living ethical lives in that, is there? Nor even anything about the value of prayer, which isn't even mentioned in the quote, or even in the rest of Corinthians 10, let alone recommended as treatment against temptation. Where on earth did you pull that one out of?

PDN wrote: »

You know fine well that the Evangelical Alliance is not suggesting that Christianity should be the only message that can be encountered. We simply want to make sure that our voice is out there amongst all the other voices in the marketplace of ideas. Are you really so intolerant as to find that idea offensive?

If the evangelical alliance doesn't want to be thought of as an organization which wants to create a world with the kind of of in-your-face, clanging cymbal-babble as implied by the phrase "every turn, in every place, the Christian message would be seen, heard or encountered", then it might be worth considering dropping the phrase from the organization's advertizing copy.

In the irreligious world where you're selling this vision of a future in which one cannot escape from evangelical christianity, it's really rather overbearing to accuse anybody of intolerance when all they're doing is taking you at your word

PDN

PDN wrote: »

a) The current educational system, dominated by the Catholic Church, is offensive to our members. We resent paying taxes to fund schools that prop up an ailing religious institution. We want a secular educational system where religious instruction can be carried out by parents off school premises and outside of school hours.

We have a common cause - the Evangelical-Atheist Alliance anyone?

Although that would make it sound like we were aggressive secularists.

karen3212

The phrase that really bothers me in their statement is ''whether the people want it or not''. How are they going to force the rest of us to put up law according to their beliefs, I wonder.

Anyway policy has to be based on the evidence available, and not what tom, dick and harry believe.

And I've seen the last census, the other religions(besides catholic) in Ireland are a tiny minority, don't know where the huge numbers mentioned are coming from.