I'm back!

I will respect anyone's beliefs and their freedom to have those beliefs.

I'm half with you there: I respect anybody's right to their beliefs, but I have no respect whatsoever for the beliefs themselves when so many of them are such an outrageous affront to logic, reason, morality and human rights.

I will respect anyone's beliefs and their freedom to have those beliefs.

 

I'm half with you there: I respect anybody's right to their beliefs, but I have no respect whatsoever for the beliefs themselves when so many of them are such an outrageous affront to logic, reason, morality and human rights.

I would imagine religion in one form or the other has cost more lives than the 2 world wars put together.

Religion is just a symptom of a more fundamental issue, which is an inadequate relationship with reality. There's a huge spectrum of human irrationality that goes from putting on 'lucky' items of clothing for job interviews at one end, through the middle ground of crystal healing and astrology, to believing that we are being watched over by benevolent supernatural beings at the other. And most of us are on the spectrum somewhere: we're all human, and we're all susceptible to the limitations of our pattern-seeking primate brains, our superstitions, and our primitive fear of the dark.

Where we have to be very careful is in saying that religious beliefs are different to any other belief, and that they should be treated with special deference or respect: that's a very dangerous path to go down. Bad ideas are bad ideas, regardless of how long they've been around, how popular they are, or how much meaningless ceremony and mystical woo they are dressed up with, and they should be open to equal ridicule and contempt.

Religion is just a symptom of a more fundamental issue, which is an inadequate relationship with reality.

Where we have to be very careful is in saying that religious beliefs are different to any other belief, and that they should be treated with special deference or respect: that's a very dangerous path to go down.

I do actually agree with this.

Religion is just a symptom of a more fundamental issue... Bad ideas are bad ideas... and they should be open to equal ridicule and contempt.

I'm a devout atheist personally, but I still draw the line here (excuse the redaction, but I've hopefully retained your meaning). I don't really understand how intelligent and rational people can also have faith/religious belief, but I certainly don't hold those beliefs in contempt or subject them to ridicule. Personal belief systems are the prerogative the individual, and tolerance is a kind of fundamental requirement IMO. In fact, it's lack of tolerance that's got us where we are now, which all things considered is a pretty shitty state.

Religion is just a symptom of a more fundamental issue... Bad ideas are bad ideas... and they should be open to equal ridicule and contempt.

I'm a devout atheist personally, but I still draw the line here (excuse the redaction, but I've hopefully retained your meaning). I don't really understand how intelligent and rational people can also have faith/religious belief, but I certainly don't hold those beliefs in contempt or subject them to ridicule. Personal belief systems are the prerogative the individual, and tolerance is a kind of fundamental requirement IMO. In fact, it's lack of tolerance that's got us where we are now, which all things considered is a pretty shitty state.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they like, but they are not entitled to demand that their beliefs are taken seriously by everyone else, or that their beliefs be made a 'special case' and exempted from the ridicule that similarly outlandish and totally unsubstantiated beliefs attract. If you stand up in public and say you believe Elvis is still alive, or that aliens traveled light years across the universe just to abduct you and subject you to an anal probe, you will immediately pay a price in the form of ill-disguised laughter. Why should equally ludicrous religious beliefs be any different? And where those beliefs are morally outrageous, as they so often are - the genital mutilation of children, the subjugation of women, or the edict that condoms are worse than AIDS, to pick three random examples - our contempt is the very least they deserve.

Religion is just a symptom of a more fundamental issue... Bad ideas are bad ideas... and they should be open to equal ridicule and contempt.

I'm a devout atheist personally, but I still draw the line here (excuse the redaction, but I've hopefully retained your meaning). I don't really understand how intelligent and rational people can also have faith/religious belief, but I certainly don't hold those beliefs in contempt or subject them to ridicule. Personal belief systems are the prerogative the individual, and tolerance is a kind of fundamental requirement IMO. In fact, it's lack of tolerance that's got us where we are now, which all things considered is a pretty shitty state.

 

Everyone is entitled to believe what they like, but they are not entitled to demand that their beliefs are taken seriously by everyone else, or that their beliefs be made a 'special case' and exempted from the ridicule that similarly outlandish and totally unsubstantiated beliefs attract. If you stand up in public and say you believe Elvis is still alive, or that aliens traveled light years across the universe just to abduct you and subject you to an anal probe, you will immediately pay a price in the form of ill-disguised laughter. Why should equally ludicrous religious beliefs be any different? And where those beliefs are morally outrageous, as they so often are - the genital mutilation of children, the subjugation of women, or the edict that condoms are worse than AIDS, to pick three random examples - our contempt is the very least they deserve.

It's pretty easy to focus in on extreme elements of any belief system, Mark, and pick out elements that don't stand up to scrutiny; however, I'm speaking more generally. My point is that - IN MY OPINION - ridiculing and holding in contempt another's personal belief system is crass and intolerant. YMMV, of course, but I don't have to agree with you any more than you do with me.

As an aside, there may be members here who hold religious beliefs, and referring to them as ridiculous and contemptible is probably pretty insulting to them. Sometimes opinions are better kept to oneself.

I'd love to know how this thread has gone so far !

and how we ended up on religion again!

I'd suggest that we let it drop before it goes the way it nearly always does

It's pretty easy to focus in on extreme elements of any belief system, Mark, and pick out elements that don't stand up to scrutiny; however, I'm speaking more generally. My point is that - IN MY OPINION - ridiculing and holding in contempt another's personal belief system is crass and intolerant. YMMV, of course, but I don't have to agree with you any more than you do with me.

As an aside, there may be members here who hold religious beliefs, and referring to them as ridiculous and contemptible is probably pretty insulting to them. Sometimes opinions are better kept to oneself.

To start with your last point, whatever I may or may not think about religious beliefs, I do at least do the people who hold them the courtesy of assuming they can speak for themselves.

The issue is not one of picking out extreme elements of a belief system, it is about whether or not you care about distinguishing good ideas from bad ones, and whether you think that there are some types of bad idea that should be given protected status and thereby be made immune from criticism.

Let's look at this another way. I'm a scientist, and in my earlier days (before I renounced academia and became a capitalist pig ) I would publish my work and present it at conferences. And in both those environments, had I presented something outlandish - say that I believed the universe was actually assembled by a novel genus of invisible weevil that we had to worship dutifully or risk being nibbled for eternity - and then presented no evidence whatsoever to support it, I would have been ridiculed, pilloried, and my research would have been denounced as contemptible. What you appear to be saying - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that equally outlandish ideas with no basis in fact (creation, virgin birth, resurrection, life after death etc) should be treated with more deference merely because they are religious views. What I'm saying is they shouldn't.

The fact that people may find criticism of their beliefs offensive is no justification for not criticising them. There are plenty of people out there who will kill you, and think it their holy duty, for doing so. They require no apologists.

I'd love to know how this thread has gone so far !

and how we ended up on religion again!

I'd suggest that we let it drop before it goes the way it nearly always does

I'm oot

So what if any one gets offended... they can always pray to stop people offending them.

People get offended at the slightest thing nowadays when did every one become so delicate and fragile .

So what if any one gets offended... they can always pray to stop people offending them.

People get offended at the slightest thing nowadays when did every one become so delicate and fragile .

How dare you call me fragile as if it’s something to be ashamed off - I have an inalienable right to be what I want and of you disagree I will tell all my friends on Twitter and cry into my blessed box of doughnuts.

It's pretty easy to focus in on extreme elements of any belief system, Mark, and pick out elements that don't stand up to scrutiny; however, I'm speaking more generally. My point is that - IN MY OPINION - ridiculing and holding in contempt another's personal belief system is crass and intolerant. YMMV, of course, but I don't have to agree with you any more than you do with me.

As an aside, there may be members here who hold religious beliefs, and referring to them as ridiculous and contemptible is probably pretty insulting to them. Sometimes opinions are better kept to oneself.

 

To start with your last point, whatever I may or may not think about religious beliefs, I do at least do the people who hold them the courtesy of assuming they can speak for themselves.

The issue is not one of picking out extreme elements of a belief system, it is about whether or not you care about distinguishing good ideas from bad ones, and whether you think that there are some types of bad idea that should be given protected status and thereby be made immune from criticism.

Let's look at this another way. I'm a scientist, and in my earlier days (before I renounced academia and became a capitalist pig ) I would publish my work and present it at conferences. And in both those environments, had I presented something outlandish - say that I believed the universe was actually assembled by a novel genus of invisible weevil that we had to worship dutifully or risk being nibbled for eternity - and then presented no evidence whatsoever to support it, I would have been ridiculed, pilloried, and my research would have been denounced as contemptible. What you appear to be saying - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that equally outlandish ideas with no basis in fact (creation, virgin birth, resurrection, life after death etc) should be treated with more deference merely because they are religious views. What I'm saying is they shouldn't.

The fact that people may find criticism of their beliefs offensive is no justification for not criticising them. There are plenty of people out there who will kill you, and think it their holy duty, for doing so. They require no apologists.

Superb.

What made you become a capitalist pig?

What made you become a capitalist pig?

I'm too insubordinate to work for anyone else. It was either self-employment or unemployment.

What made you become a capitalist pig?

 

I'm too insubordinate to work for anyone else. It was either self-employment or unemployment.

Ah that’s what caused us to turn to the dark side.

I still occasionally feel unclean though

t

It's pretty easy to focus in on extreme elements of any belief system, Mark, and pick out elements that don't stand up to scrutiny; however, I'm speaking more generally. My point is that - IN MY OPINION - ridiculing and holding in contempt another's personal belief system is crass and intolerant. YMMV, of course, but I don't have to agree with you any more than you do with me.

As an aside, there may be members here who hold religious beliefs, and referring to them as ridiculous and contemptible is probably pretty insulting to them. Sometimes opinions are better kept to oneself.

 

To start with your last point, whatever I may or may not think about religious beliefs, I do at least do the people who hold them the courtesy of assuming they can speak for themselves.

The issue is not one of picking out extreme elements of a belief system, it is about whether or not you care about distinguishing good ideas from bad ones, and whether you think that there are some types of bad idea that should be given protected status and thereby be made immune from criticism.

Let's look at this another way. I'm a scientist, and in my earlier days (before I renounced academia and became a capitalist pig ) I would publish my work and present it at conferences. And in both those environments, had I presented something outlandish - say that I believed the universe was actually assembled by a novel genus of invisible weevil that we had to worship dutifully or risk being nibbled for eternity - and then presented no evidence whatsoever to support it, I would have been ridiculed, pilloried, and my research would have been denounced as contemptible. What you appear to be saying - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that equally outlandish ideas with no basis in fact (creation, virgin birth, resurrection, life after death etc) should be treated with more deference merely because they are religious views. What I'm saying is they shouldn't.

The fact that people may find criticism of their beliefs offensive is no justification for not criticising them. There are plenty of people out there who will kill you, and think it their holy duty, for doing so. They require no apologists.

 

Superb.

What made you become a capitalist pig?

.........this'll be good. Settles back and....

Now for round 2......

No longer interested. However, I certainly won’t be apologising for being mindful of other peoples feelings.

mmmmmm DOUGHNUTS

I'd love to know how this thread has gone so far !

and how we ended up on religion again!

I'd suggest that we let it drop before it goes the way it nearly always does

I dunno Ian, the discussion seems relatively civilised at the moment.

Reading all this stuff makes me want to shuffle over to Rationalwiki for a bit.

I'd love to know how this thread has gone so far !

and how we ended up on religion again!

I'd suggest that we let it drop before it goes the way it nearly always does

 

I dunno Ian, the discussion seems relatively civilised at the moment.

And there's no reason why it shouldn't remain that way. So far all we have had is the bizarre spectacle of a 'devout atheist' pre-empting any offence the religious members of this forum might take by taking offence on their behalf - something I would find presumptuous and patronising in the extreme.

I'd love to know how this thread has gone so far !

and how we ended up on religion again!

I'd suggest that we let it drop before it goes the way it nearly always does

 

I dunno Ian, the discussion seems relatively civilised at the moment.

 

And there's no reason why it shouldn't remain that way. So far all we have had is the bizarre spectacle of a 'devout atheist' pre-empting any offence the religious members of this forum might take by taking offence on their behalf - something I would find presumptuous and patronising in the extreme.

Yes, devout atheist - not sure that the term requires any further explanation, but for the sake of clarity it means that I have no religious belief whatsoever. Anyway, you think I'm presumptuous and I think you're a gobshite... I guess that makes us quits.

...I think you're a gobshite....

What trenchant criticism. Move aside Voltaire; step back into the shadows H.L. Mencken - there's a new kid on the block.

...I think you're a gobshite....

 

What trenchant criticism. Move aside Voltaire; step back into the shadows H.L. Mencken - there's a new kid on the block.

I'l take that as a compliment

...I think you're a gobshite....

 

What trenchant criticism. Move aside Voltaire; step back into the shadows H.L. Mencken - there's a new kid on the block.

 

I'l take that as a compliment

You're most welcome, sir.

Now then [mention]learningtofly[/mention], let's stop being a pair of tools and let me have your honest opinion on this:

Having seen the stuff on your site (which is great, by the way) I thought you'd be a good person to get a second opinion from. At the time it looked kind of cool - a bit Art Deco and ethereal, but now I can't decide if it's interesting enough to get framed or if it's a bit, well... naff.

Go on - let me have it...