Stop!

[Devotee]

hello,

something has been bothering me. now, im not against atheist or agnostics, but what i am against are the anti-religious people. It seems that there are many people out there who see that one religious person does something wrong and then blame it all on religion, when religion didnt do it, the person did it. so please stop saying that religion is bad or poison, because even too much anti religion it poison.

thank you.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

no i will not

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Greetings

I agree that a religion in its entirety shouldn't be blamed for the actions of it's individuals. However, if the act that has been questioned is directly related to the religious beliefs of that individual then you can't say that religion hasn't played a part in it.

If, for instance, I was a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, then fanatical elitism and homophobia are attributed to my religious beliefs, but any particularly offensive acts I commit are my own. If my religion encourages these acts then I would blame the religion.

I also feel that religious belief should not be judged based on the acts or beliefs of any one religious system

GhK.

 

[Willamena]

I agree, Devotee. I find that calling other people poison just adds poison.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

there is a difference, Willamena, between calling someone poison and calling their religion poison.

 

[monta]

It is annoying and embarassing if for example you are an atheist and it is an atheist that is being obnoxious, but I would rather hear what someone has to say than not hear it, although sometimes I do get eye strain from all the eye rolling

 

[Willamena]

there is a difference, Willamena, between calling someone poison and calling their religion poison.

Goes for things that belong to pepole and with which people idenify, too (except poison).

 

[Willamena]

It is annoying and embarassing if for example you are an atheist and it is an atheist that is being obnoxious, but I would rather hear what someone has to say than not hear it, although sometimes I do get eye strain from all the eye rolling

I'd rather more people listened to Thumper's dad.

 

[Caladan]

It is annoying and embarassing if for example you are an atheist and it is an atheist that is being obnoxious, but I would rather hear what someone has to say than not hear it, although sometimes I do get eye strain from all the eye rolling

Actually I rather have the people with extreme world view of both parties locked in the same hall where they can hear what they all have to say till kingdom come and until they are blue in the face, the rest of us who fall in the middle can talk like normal human beings and share a few cold ones. :yes:

 

[monta]

I'd rather more people listened to Thumper's dad.

Actually I rather have the people with extreme world view of both parties locked in the same hall where they can hear what they all have to say till kingdom come and until they are blue in the face, the rest of us who fall in the middle can talk like normal human beings and share a few cold ones. :yes:

Bit too stepford for my taste but to each his own, don't get me wrong though if for example I was at work and had a difference of opinion with a collegue I would keep my mouth shut and expect them to do the same, but on rf I expect certain observence of etiquette and would hope for good manners, but I expect Christians to tell me I am going to hell and atheists to have a bit of a shout about some Hitchens quote they just read that is oh so fantastic.

 

[Caladan]

Bit too stepford for my taste but to each his own, don't get me wrong though if for example I was at work and had a difference of opinion with a collegue I would keep my mouth shut and expect them to do the same, but on rf I expect certain observence of etiquette and would hope for good manners, but I expect Christians to tell me I am going to hell and atheists to have a bit of a shout about some Hitchens quote they just read that is oh so fantastic.

Oh dont get me wrong.. we cant get everyone to behave and be a sport. im just saying that its far better to have people who are interested in dialogue than those who like to repeat what we've all heard thousands of times before.
My aim is to have the normal and moderate people outweigh with discussion the extra garbage on line.

 

[Katzpur]

there is a difference, Willamena, between calling someone poison and calling their religion poison.

Well, you know the old saying, "One man's meat is another man's poison,"... It works both ways. My religious is not poisonous to me, nor is it hurting anybody else. Why is it people at both ends of the spectrum have to paint everybody else with the same brush? It gets really, really old.

 

[Copernicus]

something has been bothering me. now, im not against atheist or agnostics, but what i am against are the anti-religious people. It seems that there are many people out there who see that one religious person does something wrong and then blame it all on religion, when religion didnt do it, the person did it. so please stop saying that religion is bad or poison, because even too much anti religion it poison.

I can understand your feeling, because you justifiably feel yourself under attack. But the way you address this issue suggests that you single out religious skeptics for special attention and excuse the behavior when it is directed from the opposite direction. The concept of blasphemy is not a new one. Atheism has been condemned by religious people throughout recorded history. The Charvakas (material atheists in ancient India), for example, were singled out for ridicule in the vedic literature.

It is a bad idea to make sweeping generalizations about people because of their religious beliefs, but there is nothing wrong with taking the position that religion itself might be harmful (or beneficial) to humanity.

 

[Riverwolf]

I can understand your feeling, because you justifiably feel yourself under attack. But the way you address this issue suggests that you single out religious skeptics for special attention and excuse the behavior when it is directed from the opposite direction. The concept of blasphemy is not a new one. Atheism has been condemned by religious people throughout recorded history. The Charvakas (material atheists in ancient India), for example, were singled out for ridicule in the vedic literature.

It is a bad idea to make sweeping generalizations about people because of their religious beliefs, but there is nothing wrong with taking the position that religion itself might be harmful (or beneficial) to humanity.

You might want to take another look at what he said; he specifically said he has nothing against atheism in general.

 

[3.14]

would you pay me to stop?

 

[Copernicus]

You might want to take another look at what he said; he specifically said he has nothing against atheism in general.

That is why I said that he "justifiably" might feel himself under attack. My point was that he singled out nonbelievers as the chief offenders in this kind of attack. In fact, the problem is that of making a sweeping generalization. Religious folks use the same tactic when they cite the atrocities committed by atheists, e.g. the Stalin atrocities, to attack atheism, even though the worst of those atrocities were not motivated by atheism.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is why I said that he "justifiably" might feel himself under attack. My point was that he singled out nonbelievers as the chief offenders in this kind of attack. In fact, the problem is that of making a sweeping generalization. Religious folks use the same tactic when they cite the atrocities committed by atheists, e.g. the Stalin atrocities, to attack atheism, even though the worst of those atrocities were not motivated by atheism.

I think this particular thread is motivated by richardlowelt's thread "Horrors of Religion." It doesn't look at all to me like he's trying to generalize atheists.

 

[Devotee]

That is why I said that he "justifiably" might feel himself under attack. My point was that he singled out nonbelievers as the chief offenders in this kind of attack. In fact, the problem is that of making a sweeping generalization. Religious folks use the same tactic when they cite the atrocities committed by atheists, e.g. the Stalin atrocities, to attack atheism, even though the worst of those atrocities were not motivated by atheism.

non-believers are NOT the issue at hand here. its the extreme Anti-Religious that attack religion as a whole kind of people that are causing the problem. and nor do i feel like im under attack. i just feel that religion, which if used correctly can be great, is trying to be destroyed. I just say let all religious folk BE! if they are taking it to an extreme, then yes it needs to be taken care of. but all religous people shouldnt be blammed for what one person did. thats all im saying.

 

[McBell]

hello,

something has been bothering me. now, im not against atheist or agnostics, but what i am against are the anti-religious people. It seems that there are many people out there who see that one religious person does something wrong and then blame it all on religion, when religion didnt do it, the person did it. so please stop saying that religion is bad or poison, because even too much anti religion it poison.

thank you.

The thing is...
It is a two way street.

Seems to me that the ones complaining the most about "poison" are just as guilty as those they complain about.

For example, the atheist who continuously complains about religion are the ones the theists are complaining about atheism. So one feeds the other.

Yet neither seem willing to be the one to stop feeding into the circle.

 

[Devotee]

would you pay me to stop?

maybe...