Insulting Religion

[(Q)]

I listened to the moron again and NO HE DIDN'T.

Yes, but you can't know that if you have your hands over your ears, your eyes shut and yelling, LALALALALALALALALA!

 

[Franklin]

We've been told many times that we're going to burn in hell... If that's not judgmental and insulting, I don't know what is.

It may be judgemental, but so what? There is nothing wrong with judgement. It isn't insulting though. It is just honest opinion. On the other hand, this moron actually wants to insult religious people with the intent of hurting their feelings. He is a sadistic bastard. Him being told that he will burn in hell shouldn't bother him in the least because he doesn't even believe in hell. So he should shrug it off. But he doesn't because he is a pushy atheist asshole.

 

[(Q)]

Common dictionary, or academic?

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.

 

[spidergoat]

Common dictionary, or academic?

(1) Jane grew up believing that the Universe is the result of a guiding force. But she has no care for the moralization and preaching, and lives her life from day to day doing right because it's the right thing to do. She doesn't know for certain that there is an afterlife. She has not attended church since childhood, does not promulgate, and if asked to explain her theology does not do so, as the guiding force she believes in is a mystery for her to understand, not knowledge for her to preach. By your definition, she is religious.

(2) Joe does not believe in God. But he loves flora. Indeed, he finds something psychologically rewarding about his relationship with trees and plants, which even includes talking to them. Certainly, he has many rituals, which he performs regularly, planting trees on a specific occasion each year, and finding metaphors, insights, and other psychointellectual rewards in thanking the trees for the apples, or the roses for their beauty. Despite his irrational beliefs in his relationship with trees and repeated ritual performances, he is not religious—at least, according to your standard, since there is no god at the heart of his behavior.​

Academically speaking, religion does not require "God". It simply requires a higher cause. If we limit "religion" to mere failure to reject the theistic proposition, such fundamental notions of religious function as creed, code, and cult—which have specific definitions in academia—become irrelevant.

Creed— What a group believes.

Code — How those beliefs translate into praxis.

Cult — How the group honors its beliefs—i.e., worship.​

These are elements found in any theistic religion, and many non-theistic associations with religion-like aspects.

It certainly makes it easier to criticize "religion" if you have no obligation to comprehend what you're criticizing.

Both example 1 and 2 are religious.

 

[Capracus]

LOL, believing in God IS religion, you dope.

Actually, it's not. But thank you for the insight into what the hell is wrong with evangelical atheists.

If most of these apply it is.

• Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
• A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
• Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
• A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.
• Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual.
• Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.
• A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
• A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
• A social group bound together by the above.

http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/a/definition.htm

 

[gmilam]

It may be judgemental, but so what? There is nothing wrong with judgement. It isn't insulting though. It is just honest opinion. On the other hand, this moron actually wants to insult religious people with the intent of hurting their feelings. He is a sadistic bastard. Him being told that he will burn in hell shouldn't bother him in the least because he doesn't even believe in hell. So he should shrug it off. But he doesn't because he is a pushy atheist asshole.

IDK... Being told that you're not "worthy" breeds contempt. I can understand wanting to tell self righteous assholes to "F" off.

 

[Tiassa]

Well, yeah ....

If most of these apply it is.

I would agree.

I would also suggest, vis-à-vis our neighbor's criterion, that there is a difference between one and most.

As I noted, creed, code, cult. Generally speaking, the only disagreement with your list is that it is more particular. For instance, the sacred and profane is simply a specific synthesis of those elements; defined by creed and code, such distinctions become part of cult. It is at once more complex than it needs to be for our immediate purposes, as well as an eventually necessary detailing of dimensions of these aspects.

My disagreement with (Q) on this point is a common problem one runs into with evangelical atheists; if they actually have some understanding of what they're criticizing, far too many absolutely refuse to show it.

 

[Seattle]

It may be judgemental, but so what? There is nothing wrong with judgement. It isn't insulting though. It is just honest opinion. On the other hand, this moron actually wants to insult religious people with the intent of hurting their feelings. He is a sadistic bastard. Him being told that he will burn in hell shouldn't bother him in the least because he doesn't even believe in hell. So he should shrug it off. But he doesn't because he is a pushy atheist asshole.

Just shrug his comments off.

 

[Balerion]

It may be judgemental, but so what? There is nothing wrong with judgement. It isn't insulting though. It is just honest opinion.

By that logic, nothing is an insult so long as it's an honest opinion. Obviously, this is problematic.

On the other hand, this moron actually wants to insult religious people with the intent of hurting their feelings.

You just said honest opinions aren't insults. This is his honest opinion.

And his purpose for insulting religions, as he stated, is no different than that of the religious; people call you a heathen or they say you're going to hell in order to make you look in the mirror and change your ways. He's hoping that maybe by hearing the truth about your faith, you'll do the same. So if he's wrong in doing what he's doing, then so are religious people who judge others.

He is a sadistic bastard.

Then so are you. since you're admittedly just doing this to hurt his feelings.

Him being told that he will burn in hell shouldn't bother him in the least because he doesn't even believe in hell. So he should shrug it off. But he doesn't because he is a pushy atheist asshole.

You can't even take your own advice here. You don't believe in what he says, yet you're obviously extremely insulted by his words and entirely unable to shrug it off.

 

[Balerion]

I would agree.

I would also suggest, vis-à-vis our neighbor's criterion, that there is a difference between one and most.

As I noted, creed, code, cult. Generally speaking, the only disagreement with your list is that it is more particular. For instance, the sacred and profane is simply a specific synthesis of those elements; defined by creed and code, such distinctions become part of cult. It is at once more complex than it needs to be for our immediate purposes, as well as an eventually necessary detailing of dimensions of these aspects.

My disagreement with (Q) on this point is a common problem one runs into with evangelical atheists; if they actually have some understanding of what they're criticizing, far too many absolutely refuse to show it.

In other words, you're trying to nitpick Q because you have nothing useful to say. Again.

Why don't you get to the point, like what exactly he doesn't understand about religion. Your self-righteous and condescending tone suggests you have more of an argument than the semantic one you've presented here.

 

[(Q)]

My disagreement with (Q) on this point is a common problem one runs into with evangelical atheists; if they actually have some understanding of what they're criticizing, far too many absolutely refuse to show it.

Come now, Tiassa, your disagreement with me has nothing to do with the definition of religion. I seriously doubt that you're going to go off on some tangent trying to convince us that believing in god is not religion, that would be as hilarious as it would be absurd. And, while you may argue there are other definitions of religion which may or may not be valid, certainly the primary one of believing in a god can't be debated. Folks who say they believe in a god but have no religion are as deluded as their beliefs in a god.

Btw, "evangelism" literally means "bringing of good news".

 

[(Q)]

It may be judgemental, but so what? There is nothing wrong with judgement. It isn't insulting though. It is just honest opinion.

Really? So you wouldn't object if you were told on no certain terms that you are the most worthless, evil piece of shit on the planet, that you're only good for one thing and that is to burn for an eternity in agonizing pain? That is an honest opinion and isn't insulting? Nothing wrong with that at all? It wouldn't create any conflict whatsoever for you to receive such a judgment? That is indeed the type of behavior you find to be perfectly acceptable?

On the other hand, this moron actually wants to insult religious people with the intent of hurting their feelings. He is a sadistic bastard.

Oh, so now that guy is a sadistic bastard because he wants to insult others with the intent of hurting their feelings? Can I therefore call you a worthless piece of evil shit that doesn't deserve to live? That won't hurt your feelings?

Him being told that he will burn in hell shouldn't bother him in the least because he doesn't even believe in hell.

There is far more than just being told one is going to burn in hell. Did you not see the video? Obviously, you missed quite a bit then.

So he should shrug it off. But he doesn't because he is a pushy atheist asshole.

Then, you can shrug off any insult we toss in your direction, too.

 

[Balerion]

Come now, Tiassa, your disagreement with me has nothing to do with the definition of religion. I seriously doubt that you're going to go off on some tangent trying to convince us that believing in god is not religion, that would be as hilarious as it would be absurd. And, while you may argue there are other definitions of religion which may or may not be valid, certainly the primary one of believing in a god can't be debated. Folks who say they believe in a god but have no religion are as deluded as their beliefs in a god.

Btw, "evangelism" literally means "bringing of good news".

I'm starting to think that's really all he has to say on the matter. (Aside from the inevitable wall-to-wall ad hominem post that's sure to come soon, of course)

Typical of this fringe "liberalism" that our neighbor subscribes to, he's just angry that anyone had something negative to say about religion, even though he knows it's true and in his heart of hearts probably agrees. But we're not allowed to say it, because that's how political correctness works, and he'll call you every name in the book to keep up appearances.

It's self-delusion on a religious level.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

In other words, you're trying to nitpick Q because you have nothing useful to say. Again.

Why don't you get to the point, like what exactly he doesn't understand about religion. Your self-righteous and condescending tone suggests you have more of an argument than the semantic one you've presented here.

Our neighbor expresses no comprehension of the fundamental components of a religion.

That is the point.

He relies on intellectually lazy definitions in order to post sweeping condemnations.

The thing is that for this sort of evangelical atheism, it's not really about religious behavior but the notion of God.

I mean, take yourself as an example. You can't comprehend the notions of creed, code, and cult, so you just write it off as "nothing useful to say".

Good one.

Maybe you recall recently when I asked repeatedly if atheists would take a one-question pop quiz? And none said they would?

That wasn't surprising.

Compare our neighbor's argument—

"LOL, believing in God IS religion, you dope."​

—with something a bit more substantial. Are you capable of perceiving the difference?

Or, are—

devising a logical argument from the source material available

and​

simply asserting a one-line, derisive, dubious talking point with the primary effect of reinforcing one's confidence in his own bigotry​

—the same thing in your book?

Typical of this fringe "liberalism" that our neighbor subscribes to, he's just angry that anyone had something negative to say about religion, even though he knows it's true and in his heart of hearts probably agrees. But we're not allowed to say it, because that's how political correctness works, and he'll call you every name in the book to keep up appearances.

Actually, I want you to quit going out of your way to be part of the problem. It really is undignified.

If you have something to say, say it. But if you don't like having to think about it, don't stage a cowardly retreat and call what you're incapable of addressing "nothing useful". You sound like a fundamentalist.

• • •​

Come now, Tiassa, your disagreement with me has nothing to do with the definition of religion.

On this occasion, it does. Your long-standing bigotry and irrationality is a matter of record. But this blanket, arrogant ignorance you pitch for the sake of being able to call people dopes just wouldn't withstand scrutiny.

As I noted to our neighbor Balerion, I repeatedly asked in a recent discussion if any atheists would be willing to take a one-question pop quiz. The question originated after an atheist advocate ignorantly asserted that Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan would be "on the coffee table of every member of the Westboro Baptist Church". (If he actually paid attention, he would know that fundamentalists loathe religious and historical scholars like Jeffrey Burton Russell, Elaine Pagels, and Karen Armstrong, whose works attempt to comprehend not just the effects of religion in history and society, but how those effects come to be.

It would seem to me that if anyone wants to be taken seriously about whatever they choose to criticize, it isn't too much to ask that they have a clue what they're talking about.

So, yeah, I suppose there's another disagreement between us.

Unfortunately, nobody wanted to take the pop quiz.

It would seem that, at least in our Sciforums community, atheists are presently unwilling to demonstrate their allegedly superior knowledge of religions and intellectual powers to comprehend.

This is not surprising.

 

[Sylvester]

OK Q, now tell me, just out of curiosity, what do i tell someone (close to me) who is dying? Because i really want to know.

 

[(Q)]

OK Q, now tell me, just out of curiosity, what do i tell someone (close to me) who is dying? Because i really want to know.

Tell them whatever you want. If you want to lie and insult them about gods and the afterlife, that is your prerogative.

 

[(Q)]

On this occasion, it does. Your long-standing bigotry and irrationality is a matter of record. But this blanket, arrogant ignorance you pitch for the sake of being able to call people dopes just wouldn't withstand scrutiny.

Well, at least Balerion was right about you coming out of the gate with personal insults and nothing of value to say.

 

[Balerion]

Our neighbor expresses no comprehension of the fundamental components of a religion.

That is the point.

He relies on intellectually lazy definitions in order to post sweeping condemnations.

There doesn't seem to be a point in there, T. You made up your mind about this point before you even entered the thread, and then decided--arbitrarily, it seems--that his general statement, which others here agree with, is untrue. This sent you off on a tangent about creeds, codes, and cults which seem to have no bearing whatsoever on either your point or the thrust of Q's argument. All of which begs the question: Just what the shit is your point, T?

The thing is that for this sort of evangelical atheism, it's not really about religious behavior but the notion of God.

I mean, take yourself as an example. You can't comprehend the notions of creed, code, and cult, so you just write it off as "nothing useful to say".

I comprehend them perfectly well. What I can't comprehend is what makes you think they have anything to do with the topic of this thread, or why Q's omission of said concepts in any way amounts to a shortcoming of his position. I mean, what's so hard to understand about "Religion insults us, so we should be able to insult them?" What about that concept requires a dialectic on disparate aspects of religiosity? No, never mind, I see the smoke coming out of your ears. I'll save you the trouble of scheming new ways to insult me indirectly in lieu of admitting defeat, and just say this: We--you and I--both know you're full of it. This is just another excuse for you, the Jesse Goddamn James of bigot-callers, to assassinate another poster's character because their views don't fall in line with your far-left PC BS.

Maybe you recall recently when I asked repeatedly if atheists would take a one-question pop quiz? And none said they would?

That wasn't surprising.

Somehow I doubt that's how it went down. Considering who the atheists of this forum are, I can't see them getting scared off by anything you could say. Well, except for when you decide you can't win and start handing out pot-shots from behind green-tinted moderator font.

simply asserting a one-line, derisive, dubious talking point with the primary effect of reinforcing one's confidence in his own bigotry

There's that word again. T, you've watered that word down so much it doesn't even mean anything anymore. I used to get upset by it, but at this point it's about as impactful as one of LG's shrugs.

Actually, I want you to quit going out of your way to be part of the problem. It really is undignified.

So far, you've only defined "the problem" as being people who don't have long discussions about the etymology and sociological history of the word "religion" before they use it in a sentence. If you can give me a reason to give a shit about your particular opinion on that count, then I'd love to have that conversation. In the meantime, all you're doing is trolling a thread that upsets your absurd sensibilities.

If you have something to say, say it. But if you don't like having to think about it, don't stage a cowardly retreat and call what you're incapable of addressing "nothing useful". You sound like a fundamentalist.

What wasn't clear about my post, T? Where was my retreat? Your comments have literally nothing to do with what we're talking about. I dunno, maybe you're too up inside your own head to realize half the crap you write down doesn't have any bearing on what's already being said. Then again, maybe you do, and that's why you spend so much time blogging on our site than actually engaging in discussions. Maybe you're more comfortable in a frame of mind where you don't have to worry about following the thread of a conversation.

Why don't you get back to it?

It would seem that, at least in our Sciforums community, atheists are presently unwilling to demonstrate their allegedly superior knowledge of religions and intellectual powers to comprehend.

This is not surprising.

It's Q's thread, so if he's okay with it, feel free to supply us with the question.

 

[Balerion]

OK Q, now tell me, just out of curiosity, what do i tell someone (close to me) who is dying? Because i really want to know.

So, in your mind, the best argument for believing in God is relieving the fears of a dying person?

That seems a shallow reason. Disingenuous, too.

 

[Motor Daddy]

OK Q, now tell me, just out of curiosity, what do i tell someone (close to me) who is dying? Because i really want to know.

Tell them you'll be wearing those shoes yourself soon enough. Remind them that trees die every day and nobody gives a sh!t. Remind them that their life as they experienced it was in their mind. Nobody ever saw it that way! Nobody remembers it like they did. Nobody had that front row seat in their life like they did. Tell them that in all fairness, that you are gonna celebrate when they die because they are finally advancing their quest in meeting God! Yahooooooooooo!!!!! Tell them you wish you were dying too so that you too can meet God and exist in Heaven forever! Lucky bastard, eh?