Why are religious people easily offended?

[atanu]

Most people become atheists because they've used logic No they're not. I, for one, would immediately put it in perspective: -----

Are we always sure that the logic and the perspective are not being clung to?

I think there might be something to the OP. Anger, annoyance, irritation, etc. can tell us something about our egos. In general, I suspect the more egotistical we are, the more things provoke us. To the extent that religions might or might not help us deal with our egos, we should expect them to be of some benefit in ameliorating our anger, annoyance, irritation, etc.

I believe that most, if anot all, religious teaching do aim to show that ego is a mirage , but us -- the egos might not have yet arrived.

 

[The Wizard]

Its a personality or individual aspect. Consider it also as a gauge of someone's wisdom or current development in their religion. It's something they need to work on. If you notice, many older people or wise believers are always unphased compared to younger newbies (ie, age is still irrelevant, but it is a common event). However, there is one aspect that sceptics don't ever realize. Yet, it is very simple it will still go right over their heads and they never learn nothing. That is usually becouse they don't pay any attention to the effects or values of belief. They even think belief doesn't actually exist..

Faith and beliefs objectively alter people's paths in life, change their directions, enhance results and make things better (depending on individual and usage), many MANY things- becouse they simply "effect." Now, once a person gets their rythum the last thing they want to do is throw all their beliefs on chopping block and hack it to pieces. Beliefs have to be "believed". So, constant doubt, questioning, scepticism, etc ruins the effectiveness of beliefs. Beliefs arent a notion to entertain and analyze 24 hours a day. Any one who constantly does such things loses all reason to believe in anything and therefore loses all the effects along with it.

For this reason you may understand why various folks don't question theirself and will find an obsessive sceptic as unwanted company... imo.

 

[Chisti]

After all the pages and pages of threads about Richard Dawkins' behavior, you can honestly say that atheists' behavior will not give people a chance to attack them?

Maybe, an example will simplify it for you. I call a Christian names. He gets angry and beats me up in front of a lot of people. Those people shake their heads and think to themselves: christians talk of forgiveness, but it looks like they can't even handle insults. What good has their religion done them?

Now I call an atheist names, same reaction. What do you think people are going to say?

 

[ChristineES]

I have never found religious people as a whole being more easily offended than nonreligious people. If someone religious did get offended by something, you have to keep in mind that religion is a way of life not just some passing fancy. On top of that, being religious doesn't mean the person is any less human and to giving in to their anger or frustration.

 

[Me Myself]

In a way you are offended because you have to get on a counter-attack as you say yourself, ''offended'' doesn't mean it has to be insults it can be also false-claims or true ones.

What he discribed didn´t sound like a counter attack at all.

this is exactly the problem. People asking for proof or evidence about anything that you say, is not a "counter-attack". It´s a RESPONSE. A matture one I say to that. It makes the other people think. Making one think shouldn´t be seen as any kind of attack :/ .

 

[F0uad]

F0uad,
You are right that there are no uncaused events logically. That has absolutely nothing to do with a personal theistic creator god. It proves nothing of the sort. Especially since using logic (more basic > less basic) such a God violates logic.

Tell me what is illogical about one god that created the Natural-laws we are abiding to? While on the other hand you have nothing creating something and a possibility of 1 to the power of 124 of the Natural-laws to come in existence as it does now?

What sounds more logical be honest

 

[Sunstone]

I believe that most, if anot all, religious teaching do aim to show that ego is a mirage...

I think, on the whole, that is much truer of the great Eastern religions than of the great Middle Eastern religions. While the Easter religions teach the ego is a mirage, or at least, a transient flux, the Middle Eastern religions seem to accept the ego with reservations. Their reservations are that it is to be constrained by ethics.

That is, the Middle Eastern religions seek to rope in, guide, or restrain the ego through ethics, but not to eliminate or ameliorate it by realizing it's illusionary nature or transience. At least several of the Eastern religions, on the other hand, seek to eliminate or ameliorate the ego through a process of realizing on a very fundamental level the illusionary or transient nature of the ego.

In my opinion, ethics alone is a relatively unskilled way of dealing with the ego.

 

[Me Myself]

Tell me what is illogical about one god that created the Natural-laws we are abiding to? While on the other hand you have nothing creating something

That´s ot the only other alternative.

Maybe before the big bang there was already a cosmic law that Big bangs happen, create universes, entrophy eventually destroyes them, and then big bangs happen again.

This law could be eternal in the same way that God is eternal, so it didn´t "came out of nowhere", it simply was always there (instead of God always being there)

 

[Sunstone]

I don't quite get this. If religious people are easily offended, doesn't this show that their religion is so powerless that it can't even stop them from getting offended over trivial matters?

It might also indicate their religion is not all that concerned with stopping them from getting offended over trivial matters. Some religions seem to pay mere lip service to that ideal while actually being focused on other matters.

 

[Badran]

Most people aren't good with handling their egos. Most people don't like being questioned, criticized or getting told that they're wrong. Most people would like to believe that they're right.

Most people are also religious. May be thats why it might seem to some as if religious people are more prone to this than others. That is, the sheer number of religious people who are like that, might make someone confused and make a silly generalization that this is something more specific with religious people, or something they're more prone to.

 

[Badran]

Most people become atheists because they've used logic and reason to arrive at their position, whereas a lot of those who adopt a religious faith do so to meet emotional, more subjective, needs.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Most people adopt beliefs or abandon them to meet emotional, more subjective, needs.

Actually all people do that in my view, without exception. The only difference being is that some try harder at putting effort in their choices, and in finding out whether what they're doing or thinking is 'right', by putting their process through logic, and under criticism of others in order to be able to see it objectively, as much as possible.

And that group of people does not in anyway, shape or form, represent "most" atheists. Or most of any group. Its few people in every group, in my view.

 

[blackout]

I do find it pious folly, when religious people take offense for the sake of their god or prophet.

As if their god or prophet can't take care of him/herself.

Staunch piety/holiness tends to extend humorless offence to the nature of god/&prophet-
as it is the nature of said practitioners.
(and people's versions of 'god' tend to reflect themSelves)

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think it would be appropriate to remind everyone that here at RF we do not have the right to not be offended.

We encourage members to challenge and learn from each other. That is what this place is all about. There is a difference between challenging and attacking folks however.

When people paint any group with a broad brush or make all inclusive statements or even false statements is when things get out of hand.

 

[atanu]

I think, on the whole, that is much truer of the great Eastern religions than of the great Middle Eastern religions. While the Easter religions teach the ego is a mirage, or at least, a transient flux, the Middle Eastern religions seem to accept the ego with reservations. Their reservations are that it is to be constrained by ethics.

That is, the Middle Eastern religions seek to rope in, guide, or restrain the ego through ethics, but not to eliminate or ameliorate it by realizing it's illusionary nature or transience. At least several of the Eastern religions, on the other hand, seek to eliminate or ameliorate the ego through a process of realizing on a very fundamental level the illusionary or transient nature of the ego.

In my opinion, ethics alone is a relatively unskilled way of dealing with the ego.

I agree that ethics alone is poor way of dealing with the ego and its doings. The eastern religions teach that knowledge of one's nature is the highest purifier. And in this regard it is taught "Know that you are not the doer". I, however, feel that transcience of ego-soul is taught in Middle Eastern religions also but somehow those teachings seem to get hidden.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Are religious people easily offended? I would say, yes they are.

Are non-religious people easily offended? I would say it depends on the person and what is said about them.

People who have something to lose are the most easily offended IMHO.

From my perspective, gay rights advocates are the most sensitive and quick to anger of any group followed by Muslims and LDS in that order.

One could make an argument that the Atheist's have the thickest skin until you take a look at the threads we have about hell. The funny thing is, most of these threads are started by atheists who invite people to upset them.

I would say the best of us can lose our composure when the right buttons are pushed. Very few are immune and are the most mature members not in age but in wisdom handle this situation the best.

I think a better question would be, what group acts the most mature? My guess would be the Hindu members seem to be in the best control of themselves.

 

[Kathryn]

Maybe, an example will simplify it for you. I call a Christian names. He gets angry and beats me up in front of a lot of people. Those people shake their heads and think to themselves: christians talk of forgiveness, but it looks like they can't even handle insults. What good has their religion done them?

Now I call an atheist names, same reaction. What do you think people are going to say?

I didn't need it to be simplified for me but thanks.

You're assuming what most people will think - and that's why your example fails. If I saw a Christian beating you up, I'd simply think he was probably a jerk - or maybe even that perhaps you deserved it (if I didn't know the cause of the fight). I'd think the same thing about an atheist beating you up.

To me it's pretty simple - people are responsible for their own actions regardless of whatever belief system they structure their lives around. As I said in an earlier post, the ease with which people are offended is, in my opinion, indicative of their emotional maturity and self confidence, or lack thereof. Not their belief system.

 

[beerisit]

I didn't need it to be simplified for me but thanks.

You're assuming what most people will think - and that's why your example fails. If I saw a Christian beating you up, I'd simply think he was probably a jerk - or maybe even that perhaps you deserved it (if I didn't know the cause of the fight). I'd think the same thing about an atheist beating you up.

To me it's pretty simple - people are responsible for their own actions regardless of whatever belief system they structure their lives around. As I said in an earlier post, the ease with which people are offended is, in my opinion, indicative of their emotional maturity and self confidence, or lack thereof. Not their belief system.

Bravo:bow::bow:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't quite get this. If religious people are easily offended, doesn't this show that their religion is so powerless that it can't even stop them from getting offended over trivial matters?

Heck, religion can't even stop people from asking silly questions based on broad generalizations and sloppy reasoning, but I somehow doubt that it's the religion that's at fault.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd say that to take offense is primarily due to:
#1 - One's personality
#2 - How important the faith is to one
#3 - The confidence one has in that faith.

If #1 is prone to being offended, #2 is high, and #3 is low, then we have a perfect storm of fulminating fundie.
Just look at Rev Rick.....thrice now, he has driven up from KY to MI, just to bi*** slap me for my offensive remarks here.
I'd complain if I didn't really deserve it. Thanx, Rev!

 

[waitasec]

I don't quite get this. If religious people are easily offended, doesn't this show that their religion is so powerless that it can't even stop them from getting offended over trivial matters?

Btw, I am not saying it's okay to offend people, religous or otherwise. Just wondering how religion is going to help a guy attain the highest (god or liberation or whatever) when it can't even help him with small things, such as anger management, self control etc.

i've often thought of this myself. seems religion is more about the persons maturity level than anything else...and even those who are not religious are mature...go figure.