Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

First topic message reminder :





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H9BuxeNro0#t=81

veya_victaous wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Why would I?
They need to back up why they think so.

Again religions are ideologies, so if I was say to you that racism is disgusting and that people who follow racism are small minded, would that be wrong to you?

When people start to define reality by their religion are they JUST ideologies?
for example Tommy truly thinks homosexuality is unnatural because of religious views in his mind that is "a real aspect of nature".

I think maybe we are arguing different things
The moral shit I don't care about as it is unprovable And generally they are all pretty similar especially once allowing for geopolitical perspective

Where i am concerned with Religions are their "statements about the nature of the universe" that is all that can be confirmed with science. As express multiple times any 'religion' to have merit on a scientific level  need to be applicable to all and not all people all LIFE. as we are just animals not some magic sky giants master work, we are just the another product of evolution.

Religions are ideologies because they are a set of beliefs that are structured.
Not all within ideologies are bad, in fact you will find some good in some and even some are majority good, but in religions like Christianity and Islam they are both a set of political and economic ideals for people. The economic tending to be good and the political a nightmare. Which discrminates against non-believers to suffer eternal punishment, as well as groups like homosexsuals, women etc are discrminated against. So these two are most definately ideologies with following the econonimc of the faith would bring about a good person. A conservative follower of the political ideals in the faith will ensure these views are imposed on others as commanded with doctrine. Hence why the economic aspect of these religions are good and represent people like Jesus, who also crosses over to the Polical with good values, but most of the political aspects of religion can be found in Theocratic society through the last 2000 years or so, which should be condemn. As they deny the well being and equality of others. Hence why the political aspect of a religion will tend to make a poor set of ideals. There is no leeway on commands that are literally believed. Commands make the belivers think they should govern their laws by them.
Why we should tend to comden the majority of the politcal aspects of these religions. Not all of course because as stated Jesus crosses in the Political aspect with good political ideals.

Hope that makes sense and why the political aspects to religion are generally poor when they are believed as divine

yes they are ideologies (I am not disagreeing with any of your points in the last post) .. but are they ONLY ideologies???
or are the also statements about the nature of the universe.

the reason I say this is:

Ideologies affect the way you act and what you think is moral, but what about "what you believe to actually exist in the universe"
Although today most concede science is the most correct, the bible is actually mainly  'descriptions of the nature of the universe' (or the Abrahamist incorrect claims about the nature of the universe) the whole garden of Eden, story of creation etc are statements about the nature of the universe (that are incorrect) the Bible claims the universe contains a magic sky giant that controls stuff, which there is no evidence for. more specifically it states thing like the earth being the center of the universe which is patently untrue.


Science cannot really be applied to morality as it is subjective BUT science is designed to find answers to questions about the nature of the universe, science can only fairly be applied to claims that religions make about the nature of the universe. but through doing this we can see that many of religions claims are incorrect... BUT the point many ex-abrahamsit miss is that Most religions do not actually say they "posses ALL knowledge and are 100% correct" so things can exist in addition to their claims, this particularly effects Buddhism and many shamanistic religions that make minimal claims about the physical nature of the universe and focus on harmony, well being and relationships... Or are actually correct/valuable/knowledge like preparations with tea trees etc that are natural antiseptics etc and I am sure victor could add many more religious elements of druidism that are actually correct statements 'about the universe' or specifically whatever planets have been used. These religions overlap with science in the methodology of their content, they lack the maths but the druid or aboriginal shaman put that in their religions because they have observed it work with reasonable consistency. which when you are talking stone age societies is pretty much as close to science as you can be.

Found it



This explains my point really well, from after 3mins
there is an overlap between ideology and 'explanation of the physical world'

From about 6 mins is why Tyson should be president

veya_victaous wrote:yes they are ideologies (I am not disagreeing with any of your points in the last post) .. but are they ONLY ideologies???
or are the also statements about the nature of the universe.

the reason I say this is:

Ideologies affect the way you act and what you think is moral, but what about "what you believe to actually exist in the universe"
Although today most concede science is the most correct, the bible is actually mainly  'descriptions of the nature of the universe' (or the Abrahamist incorrect claims about the nature of the universe) the whole garden of Eden, story of creation etc are statements about the nature of the universe (that are incorrect) the Bible claims the universe contains a magic sky giant that controls stuff, which there is no evidence for. more specifically it states thing like the earth being the center of the universe which is patently untrue.


Science cannot really be applied to morality as it is subjective BUT science is designed to find answers to questions about the nature of the universe, science can only fairly be applied to claims that religions make about the nature of the universe. but through doing this we can see that many of religions claims are incorrect... BUT the point many ex-abrahamsit miss is that Most religions do not actually say they "posses ALL knowledge and are 100% correct" so things can exist in addition to their claims, this particularly effects Buddhism and many shamanistic religions that make minimal claims about the physical nature of the universe and focus on harmony, well being and relationships... Or are actually correct/valuable/knowledge like preparations with tea trees etc that are natural antiseptics etc and I am sure victor could add many more religious elements of druidism that are actually correct statements 'about the universe' or specifically whatever planets have been used. These religions overlap with science in the methodology of their content, they lack the maths but the druid or aboriginal shaman put that in their religions because they have observed it work with reasonable consistency. which when you are talking stone age societies is pretty much as close to science as you can be.

No they are just ideologies, which also have within some scientific claims. The belief system is based on many ideals, where again Bhuddism has much political and economic ideals. Even Bhuddism can be corruped and has by extremists, even though the extremist view I admit is far removed from most Bhuddist teaching. The more political the religion the more problematic it is. Great if it may have some explanation to nature etc, but that dispells nothing of the bad political laws imposed by that belief system. Mnay do not allow for different ideals and beliefs.
So you speak of some of the better ideologies that I spoke of where they are more working with scientific evidence for views formed within doctrines. That is fine for a belief system as long as there is little political inspiration. I gest where you are coming from Veya, but they are ideologies.

what is the ideal of Adam and Eve? or most of Genesis?
it is the way people in the middle east a few thousand years ago described the nature of the universe
The Bible as a document contains lots of claims about what exists in the universe and the way it moves and was made etc, They are all wrong BUT they are still someones description of the nature of the universe
And in fundamentalist Islam today they teach that the word in the Koran is FACT, they are very literally with very visible consequence claiming description of the nature of the universe that is needed to allow their ideology to be indoctrinated.
Another way to look at it is ....
How do you or Ben know that the bible is wrong even though you were taught it's ideologies?
I assume it is because it doesn't 'fit' with what you were taught is the 'real' nature of the universe (and because that is science and can be demonstrated)


The druid and aboriginal stuff is not 'science' because it wasn't 'measured' although very similar it does not meet the requirements to actually be science. Science has confirmed many of their treatments work... however... tea tree oil will work if you pray to the great serpent or not

Regarding Buddhism the point is more that it doesn't say as much about what is the nature of the universe... so there is not that much for science to try and confirm or deny. Buddhism is more like philosophy and psychology very 'science-like' but tries to explain unmeasurable things so it makes it very difficult for it to meet the requirements of science.

Politics will exist regardless of religion But i agree the 'institution of religion' is pretty much always bad {although is it not 'power structures' both or nations secular leaders are guilty of greed if not corruption }

Religion consists of multiple components it was, for a long time, the be all and end all for education. Thus it has more than just morals (ideology) it also has the 'facts' that the societies of that religion wanted to communicate/remember/record.. {seen in the creation of the bible as a political means of reunifying the roman empire}
The development of science changed things because now there is repeatable experimentation and mathematics that allow us to better define 'facts' as scientific Laws and accepted Theories. Plus we realized most of that other shit was wrong

Science is still a belief system just a moral less one (maybe 'moral absent' one is better way to put it) since it entire focus is on the nature of the universe.

The above about morals is why VOD and HF could never win
Science and religion can only be compared through what they have in common. which is their description of the nature of the universe

and in Christians case the evidence is "this old book says so" .... which is no match for all the work science has gone to collecting measurements from the universe to come up with it's answers (which it hasn't completed yet)

Also add that is why creationism MUST be kept out of science classrooms it is not science there is no basis in scientific methodology. Much like the fundamentalist Islam, it is an attempt to define a child's thoughts about the nature of the universe in a manner that will allow their ideology to be indoctrinated.

If You get taught too much about what is real then you wont believe their fairytale

victorismyhero wrote:oh why oh why do I have such an over active imagination

I now have an image of didge...all 6 foot something of him, bent double in a small wardrobe (closet) head down, arse in air praying to a picture of the flying spaghetti monster....

thats gonna haunt me forever........

I remember the flying spaghetti monster, it made an appearance on the sky chat forums

Why atheists laugh at religion?
They do it because they are arrogant enough to think its ok to ridicule some ones beliefs.
It isnt

Nems wrote:Why atheists laugh at religion?
They do it because they are arrogant enough to think its ok to ridicule some ones beliefs.
It isnt

So you are saying Nems I should not ridcule the religious belief that endorses marital rape found within both Christianty, Islam and Judaism?
Do you not ridicule such a poor belief that makes people with literal beliefs think they can force sex on their wives?
Its nothing to do with any arrogance but like that has happened greatly in the west challenge very poor beliefs in these ideologies.

veya_victaous wrote:what is the ideal of Adam and Eve? or most of Genesis?
it is the way people in the middle east a few thousand years ago described the nature of the universe  
The Bible as a document contains lots of claims about what exists in the universe and the way it moves and was made etc, They are all wrong BUT they are still someones description of the nature of the universe  
And in fundamentalist Islam today they teach that the word in the Koran is FACT, they are very literally with very visible consequence claiming description of the nature of the universe that is needed to allow their ideology to be indoctrinated.
Another way to look at it is ....
How do you or Ben know that the bible is wrong even though you were taught it's ideologies?
I assume it is because it doesn't 'fit' with what you were taught is the 'real' nature of the universe (and because that is science and can be demonstrated)  


The druid and aboriginal stuff is not 'science' because it wasn't 'measured' although very similar it does not meet the requirements to actually be science.  Science has confirmed many of their treatments work... however... tea tree oil will work if you pray to the great serpent or not

Regarding Buddhism the point is more that it doesn't say as much about what is the nature of the universe... so there is not that much for science to try and confirm or deny. Buddhism is more like philosophy and psychology very 'science-like' but tries to explain unmeasurable things so it makes it very difficult for it to meet the requirements of science.

Politics will exist regardless of religion But i agree the 'institution of religion' is pretty much always bad {although is it not 'power structures' both or nations secular leaders are guilty of greed if not corruption }

Religion consists of multiple components it was, for a long time, the be all and end all for education. Thus it has more than just morals (ideology) it also has the 'facts' that the societies of that religion wanted to communicate/remember/record..  {seen in the creation of the bible as a political means of reunifying the roman empire}
The development of science changed things because now there is repeatable experimentation and mathematics that allow us to better define 'facts' as scientific Laws and accepted Theories. Plus we realized most of that other shit was wrong  

Science is still a belief system just a moral less one  (maybe 'moral absent' one is better way to put it) since it entire focus is on the nature of the universe.

I know the bible is wrong as its full of contradictions, hate, discrmination, backs genocide in the form of herem, endorses slavery etc.
I do not need science to understand how the bible is very wrong.
Again science is not a belief system, no idea what these belief systems you think science has set down as dogma not backed by evidence?

Why isn't it?

There are thousands of people with crazy beliefs who we don't simply ridicule- but lock away due to what they believe. The insane.

The only difference is when millions of people are led to believe in the same crazy nonsense, that apparently means we should respect it to the point of absurdity.

So why isn't it ok to ridicule religious beliefs?

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:Why atheists laugh at religion?
They do it because they are arrogant enough to think its ok to ridicule some ones beliefs.
It isnt

So you are saying Nems I should not ridcule the religious belief that endorses marital rape found within both Christianty, Islam and Judaism?
Do you not ridicule such a poor belief that makes people with literal beliefs think they can force sex on their wives?
Its nothing to do with any arrogance but like that has happened greatly in the west challenge very poor beliefs in these ideologies.

You wouldn't ridicule that would you? You'd criticise it, but you wouldn't laugh about it surely.

The main reason some athiests laugh at religious people is because of their belief in God or gods, not because of the practices which sometimes go on in that religion.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

So you are saying Nems I should not ridcule the religious belief that endorses marital rape found within both Christianty, Islam and Judaism?
Do you not ridicule such a poor belief that makes people with literal beliefs think they can force sex on their wives?
Its nothing to do with any arrogance but like that has happened greatly in the west challenge very poor beliefs in these ideologies.

You wouldn't ridicule that would you? You'd criticise it, but you wouldn't laugh about it surely.

The main reason some athiests laugh at religious people is because of their belief in God or gods, not because of the practices which sometimes go on in that religion.

I would ridicule anyone that backs that belief that marital rape is okay. As they are allowing something they cannot prove exists to back a view to make rape exceptable.
I ridicule poor beliefs that effect the equality and well being of others. You see now in the west many now ignore these parts from the religion and I back many of those believers and would not ridicule them, because they have adapted their faith for the better.

Eilzel wrote:Why isn't it?

There are thousands of people with crazy beliefs who we don't simply ridicule- but lock away due to what they believe. The insane.

The only difference is when millions of people are led to believe in the same crazy nonsense, that apparently means we should respect it to the point of absurdity.

So why isn't it ok to ridicule religious beliefs?

Well some people do ridicule the "insane" Les. I'm sure you wouldn't approve of that, so why do you approve of ridiculing those who you consider have "crazy" religious beliefs?

I think the problem is the difference between "ridicule", "laugh at", and "criticise".

We laugh at the beliefs because they are ridiculous, we have no feeling to not do so out of 'respect' because many religious practices are so unworthy of respecting.

I'm in a very irreligious mood today anyway. I had a gorgeous 200lb burger earlier and it should have come with a beer- but due to it being a 'Holy Buddha day' they refuse to serve beer nationwide for two days, so I had to make do with a coke

Eilzel wrote:Why isn't it?

There are thousands of people with crazy beliefs who we don't simply ridicule- but lock away due to what they believe. The insane.

The only difference is when millions of people are led to believe in the same crazy nonsense, that apparently means we should respect it to the point of absurdity.

So why isn't it ok to ridicule religious beliefs?

Well said Eilzel
The only reason is over sensitivity to a view that people if when challenged on such poor beliefs, clearly then must understand either their faith has things that we associate with that are very wrong or they get upset because they believe a God has made these commands and that to ridicule this is to mock their deity.
Well any deity that endorse marital rape, slavery, Herem etc, should be completely mocked as abhorant and daft that some people ignore common sense because they are led by their beliefs..

Eilzel wrote:We laugh at the beliefs because they are ridiculous, we have no feeling to not do so out of 'respect' because many religious practices are so unworthy of respecting.

I'm in a very irreligious mood today anyway. I had a gorgeous 200lb burger earlier and it should have come with a beer- but due to it being a 'Holy Buddha day' they refuse to serve beer nationwide for two days, so I had to make do with a coke

You think they're ridiculous, but to those with faith they're not. Nobody says you can't laugh at religious people, but if they have a go back at you, don't be surprised. You wouldn't like it if someone ridiculed you for being gay would you?

Not the people raggs, the beliefs.

Eilzel wrote:Not the people raggs, the beliefs.

Same thing Les - let's not split hairs.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Not the people raggs, the beliefs.

Same thing Les - let's not split hairs.

Should racists be ridiculed for their beliefs?
Should those sexist be ridiculed for their beliefs?

Here we go... Because being innately attracted to people of the same sex is obviously exactly the same as believing god impregnated a virgin in Palestine 2000 years ago with himself, before getting himself killed to forgive the sins caused by a talking snake, then coming back to life a floating to heaven 3 days later, because a repeatedly edited and retranslated 1600ish year old book says so... Yep yep just the same...

Eilzel wrote:Here we go... Because being innately attracted to people of the same sex is obviously exactly the same as believing god impregnated a virgin in Palestine 2000 years ago with himself, before getting himself killed to forgive the sins caused by a talking snake, then coming back to life a floating to heaven 3 days later, because a repeatedly edited and retranslated 1600ish year old book says so... Yep yep just the same...

But Les, someone else might not agree with you. You see, you are looking at this purely from your own point of view. To those with faith, what they believe is perfectly reasonable, and it's a feeling - like being gay presumably is.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Same thing Les - let's not split hairs.

Should racists be ridiculed for their beliefs?
Should those sexist be ridiculed for their beliefs?

Well the distinction that Les was drawing was between the beliefs and the people who hold those beliefs, so you're replying to the wrong post really.

So you equate a belief, for example, that Jesus is the Son of God, with things like racism and sexism - ie, you're saying it's a bad thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Here we go... Because being innately attracted to people of the same sex is obviously exactly the same as believing god impregnated a virgin in Palestine 2000 years ago with himself, before getting himself killed to forgive the sins caused by a talking snake, then coming back to life a floating to heaven 3 days later, because a repeatedly edited and retranslated 1600ish year old book says so... Yep yep just the same...

But Les, someone else might not agree with you. You see, you are looking at this purely from your own point of view. To those with faith, what they believe is perfectly reasonable, and it's a feeling - like being gay presumably is.

How can someone of the abrahamic faiths who holds literal beliefs, based on no evidence other than a book written centuries ago. That some people take this outrageous far fetched story as true, whilst at the same time claiming all others are far feteched and wrong thus ridiculing every other belief. I have told you before the very fact if someone believes in a religious doctrine that claims to refute the other is ridiculing that belief.
So I fail to see how being allowed to rape a woman because you are married to them is reasonable just because that person has faith. It may be perfectly reasonable to them, which is the absolute problem and why people suffer at the hands of religious doctrines.

Faith is fickle. If you had been born in Lahore you'd probably be Muslim, if you'd been born in Bangkok you'd probably be Buddhist, Bangalore Hindu. By chance you are a British Christian. Pretty weak grounding for your feeling. Further, most atheists were born with religion hoisted on them and educated themselves out of it.

None of this happens with sexuality. It is not the same.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Should racists be ridiculed for their beliefs?
Should those sexist be ridiculed for their beliefs?

Well the distinction that Les was drawing was between the beliefs and the people who hold those beliefs, so you're replying to the wrong post really.

So you equate a belief, for example, that Jesus is the Son of God, with things like racism and sexism - ie, you're saying it's a bad thing.

Sorry that is a poor excuse again. In Christianity marital rape is exceptable, so is sexism, so is slavery, so is Herem. Jesus never condemned them. So Jesus is meant to be God and has endorsed these beliefs and before he came man made flesh carried out countless atrrocities.
This deity raised Israelites above all others as a race, when biologically such a thing does not exist. That is racism pure and simple

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:Why atheists laugh at religion?
They do it because they are arrogant enough to think its ok to ridicule some ones beliefs.
It isnt

So you are saying Nems I should not ridcule the religious belief that endorses marital rape found within both Christianty, Islam and Judaism?
Do you not ridicule such a poor belief that makes people with literal beliefs think they can force sex on their wives?
Its nothing to do with any arrogance but like that has happened greatly in the west challenge very poor beliefs in these ideologies.

Im saying if people want to believe in god and or a religion. That is their business not yours. You believe what you believe and that's ok with me.
Stop saying everything is poor. its bloody irritating.

Eilzel wrote:Faith is fickle. If you had been born in Lahore you'd probably be Muslim, if you'd been born in Bangkok you'd probably be Buddhist, Bangalore Hindu. By chance you are a British Christian. Pretty weak grounding for your feeling. Further, most atheists were born with religion hoisted on them and educated themselves out of it.

None of this happens with sexuality. It is not the same.

It doesn't matter Les. People born in the UK to a Christian family have plenty of opportunity to reject that Christian belief, and yet many don't - because they feel that it's right. You are basically trampling on people's feelings.

Having said that, I don't mind a bit of laughter about religious people - it depends how it's done really. I was watching a clip from Absolutely Fabulous featuring Bo and her "epiphany", and I laughed.

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

So you are saying Nems I should not ridcule the religious belief that endorses marital rape found within both Christianty, Islam and Judaism?
Do you not ridicule such a poor belief that makes people with literal beliefs think they can force sex on their wives?
Its nothing to do with any arrogance but like that has happened greatly in the west challenge very poor beliefs in these ideologies.

Im saying if people want to believe in god and or a religion. That is their business not yours. You believe what you believe and that's ok with me.
Stop saying everything is poor. its bloody irritating.

If you read back Nems, I have no issue when it is personal belief.
I have an issue when it effects the well being and equality of others.
Chill out, why on earth are you getting so bothered at how I word things.

Insane people feel that what they think is right too, they're still insane. I'm not saying religious folk are insane of course, just making a comparison as to why 'beliefs' should be open to ridicule as well as scrutiny and criticism. The chances are stronger any individual belief set is wrong than right (since only one can right). And every religion has at least some fantastical elements- why shouldn't that be ridiculed?

Sexuality is comparable to gender and race, they are facts about the nature of a person, religion is not.

The Words


BACON BROTHERS
Children Lyrics

Jesus walked on water, he turned water into wine
If you believe this to be true that's just fine, just
fine with me
Moses walked the chosen people straight through the Red
Sea
If you think you are chosen Brother that's alright with
me
Are there 72 virgins waiting for you when you're gone?
Are you rocking to Nirvana? Rock on, rock on

But Please don't hurt the children, please lay down the
rod
Please don't send your bombs in and say you're doing
the work of God
Faith is not a weapon. Hate won't set us free
You believe what you believe and that's OK with me

Those aliens inside your head have filled your heart
with fear
So hook yourself to my machine and you'll get clear,
get clear
You can quake and shake your horse and buggy, wear that
little hat.
Or get yourself 100 wives, I'm OK with that
Broken mirrors, tarot cards, black cats, and ESP
You believe what you believe and that's OK with me

But please don't hurt the children, please lay down the
rod.
Please don't send your guns in and say you're doing the
work of god.
Faith is not a weapon. Hate won't set us free
You believe what you believe and that's OK with me

She kissed me in the summer storm, the rain fell from
above
So I believe in nature . I believe in love
And I believe that nine months later I held him on my
knee.
You call that a miracle? Who am I to disagree?

But Please don't hurt the children, please lay down the
rod
Please don't send our Sons and Daughters in and say
you're doing the work of God
Faith is not a weapon. Hate won't set us free
You believe what you believe and that's OK with me



Source: click here

Eilzel wrote:Insane people feel that what they think is right too, they're still insane. I'm not saying religious folk are insane of course, just making a comparison as to why 'beliefs' should be open to ridicule as well as scrutiny and criticism. The chances are stronger any individual belief set is wrong than right (since only one can right). And every religion has at least some fantastical elements- why shouldn't that be ridiculed?

Sexuality is comparable to gender and race, they are facts about the nature of a person, religion is not.

And do you ridicule and laugh at those "insane" people Les?

I do now draw the distinction you do between sexuality and religious belief. Some people will indeed ridicule someone for being gay, or being black, or white, or whatever.

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:

Im saying if people want to believe in god and or a religion. That is their business not yours. You believe what you believe and that's ok with me.
Stop saying everything is poor. its bloody irritating.

If you read back Nems, I have no issue when it is personal belief.
I have an issue when it effects the well being and equality of others.
Chill out, why on earth are you getting so bothered at how I word things.

Im chilled Sorry Didge I just find your inability to deviate from certain stock words bit frustrating

I don't ridicule insane people raggs, but their beliefs are ridiculous.

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

If you read back Nems, I have no issue when it is personal belief.
I have an issue when it effects the well being and equality of others.
Chill out, why on earth are you getting so bothered at how I word things.

Im chilled Sorry Didge I just find your inability to deviate from certain  stock words  bit frustrating

No problem Nems, is not my intent to annoy by using the word, just is easier to write I guess.

Any how Have a good day, may catch you later.

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:

Im chilled Sorry Didge I just find your inability to deviate from certain  stock words  bit frustrating

No problem Nems, is not my intent to annoy by using the word, just is easier to write I guess.

Any how Have a good day, may catch you later.

K Didge

Eilzel wrote:I don't ridicule insane people raggs, but their beliefs are ridiculous.

So would you laugh if someone said they were Napoleon or whoever, and then say - oh but I'm not laughing at you.

Yeah, I know it was a bad example, but it was the best I could do for the moment.

That's rather on the absurd end lol. I guess I would laugh at them but I'd also pity them- they are insane afterall!

But I see your point. However if a lunatic said he had an (imaginary) friend called Sam, I'd laugh at the idea but probably not the person.

Likewise I laugh at the stories if Jesus, the Ramayana etc (though epic, it is silly people think these actually happened anything like we are told), but not the billions who believe them.

If however you tell me you speak directly to god on daily basis (full blown two way conversations, not praying) I may well laugh at you.

There are levels of absurdity of course haha

For race, gender and sexuality however, there is only the fact that we are.

Eilzel wrote:That's rather on the absurd end lol. I guess I would laugh at them but I'd also pity them- they are insane afterall!

But I see your point. However if a lunatic said he had an (imaginary) friend called Sam, I'd laugh at the idea but probably not the person.

Likewise I laugh at the stories if Jesus, the Ramayana etc (though epic, it is silly people think these actually happened anything like we are told), but not the billions who believe them.

If however you tell me you speak directly to god on daily basis (full blown two way conversations, not praying) I may well laugh at you.

There are levels of absurdity of course haha

For race, gender and sexuality however, there is only the fact that we are.

People do say they speak to God though - they say that's what conscience is.

So then Les, if someone was in a pub where you were and they were ridiculing homosexuality and gay people big time, that would be OK because after all, they're not actually ridiculing you personally?

Again its not the same, since your sexuality is what you are, same as gender or race.

Eilzel wrote:Again its not the same, since your sexuality is what you are, same as gender or race.

Different issue Les. You said that you ridicule someone's beliefs, not the person themselves. That's why I asked you that question. If someone ridiculed homosexuality, they're not ridiculing you personally, but wouldn't it feel like the same thing?

It isn't the same. I would not care of people mocking atheism, or socialism, or liberalism, a views I subscribe to to varying degrees. Indeed I'd take any such mocking as an interesting challenge but not a personal insult.

Sexuality, gender and race are different, on all three it would be an insult since those are fundamental parts of our being.

Eilzel wrote:It isn't the same. I would not care of people mocking atheism, or socialism, or liberalism, a views I subscribe to to varying degrees. Indeed I'd take any such mocking as an interesting challenge but not a personal insult.

Sexuality, gender and race are different, on all three it would be an insult since those are fundamental parts of our being.

It's exactly the same. You say you're mocking a person's belief, not the person. If someone mocked your homosexuality, that would mean that they're not actually mocking you - going by your own logic.

You keep on and on trotting out this mantra that it's "different". It's not different. People who are not gay don't know what it's like to gay, right? Well those who don't have a deep, lasting religious faith don't know what that's like either. It's part of them, Les, just as being gay is part of you.

So do you think race and religion are the same? Is your gender as fixed as your faith?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:It isn't the same. I would not care of people mocking atheism, or socialism, or liberalism, a views I subscribe to to varying degrees. Indeed I'd take any such mocking as an interesting challenge but not a personal insult.

Sexuality, gender and race are different, on all three it would be an insult since those are fundamental parts of our being.

It's exactly the same. You say you're mocking a person's belief, not the person. If someone mocked your homosexuality, that would mean that they're not actually mocking you - going by your own logic.

You keep on and on trotting out this mantra that it's "different". It's not different. People who are not gay don't know what it's like to gay, right? Well those who don't have a deep, lasting religious faith don't know what that's like either. It's part of them, Les, just as being gay is part of you.

Incorrect Rags, I once was very religious and truly believed in God.
Mocking homosexuality is mocking every homosexual. They do not have a choice who they are.
Mocking the female species is degrading every single woman. They do not have a choice who they are.

However:
Mocking Christianity is not ncessarily mocking all Christians, as they differ in their beliefs, as somme do not even see Jesus as the son of God but only a messiah. Some may have been indoctrinated from an early age, but in adulthood, they all  make a choice to believe. They do not have to believe in Christianity, yet they choose to do so.
Mocking Nazism is mocking all Nazi's. Some may have been indoctrianted from an early age but in adulthood, they all  make a choice to believe.

You are trying to compare trhings people are to things people choose to believe.
They are not the same in any shape or form.
What you are saying is that beliefs should not be mocked, which means protecting also Racism, Anti-homoexuality, ISIS extremist version of IWahhabist Islam, from any mocking..


Again I have no issue where people have a personal religious beleif that does not effect the well being and equality of others. Sadly the main Abrahamic faiths have so very appalling comands within them. That literal belivers to think they can impose their beliefs on others. I am not trying to impose my athiesm on others, they have a choice to believe as I have a choice not to believe. Right wing ideology, just as the left wing ideology have some who get incesed if they are ridiculed for their beliefs, just as religions also can be ridiculed.

Anyway a person of strong faith can take ridicule, because to them it does not matter what someone says, their strengh in their faith can overcome any mocking. This mocking is not in many cases directed at all followers of that faith but at some within that faith who hold views that are in conflict with the well being and equality of others.

Hi didge,

Raggs is trying to cast her Christianity as deep a feeling as my sexuality or her being a woman. I understand that, its how she feeks. But she is ignoring millions of people who prove the opposite all the time.

Millions of atheists in the world were once believers. Further, millions of people of religion will have changed religion during their lives.

The same is not true of race, gender and sexuality. Raggs can claim otherwise all she likes. But ignores the problem of millions once even devout believers demonstrating otherwise.

Eilzel wrote:Hi didge,

Raggs is trying to cast her Christianity as deep a feeling as my sexuality or her being a woman. I understand that, its how she feeks. But she is ignoring millions of people who prove the opposite all the time.

Millions of atheists in the world were once believers. Further, millions of people of religion will have changed religion during their lives.

The same is not true of race, gender and sexuality. Raggs can claim otherwise all she likes. But ignores the problem of millions once even devout believers demonstrating otherwise.

And you can claim otherwise all you like, but you are mocking a person when mocking their belief, and you are trampling on their feelings in exactly the same way that someone would trample on your feelings if they mocked homosexuality.

All this is just an excuse for you, and tbh it's pretty ignorant as well.