Theists - Is my anti-religious bigotry as bad as I think it might be?

[Taverner]

I will admit, I have made bigoted statements against religion

And I've got a chip on my shoulder - whether or not it's deserved is irrelevant

I should not punish the theist world for my own prejudices

This is making my problem, your problem

That is, well, fucked up

I apologize for any bigoted statements I might have made in the past

Keep in mind, I do not apologize for my logical statements

But my bigoted ones, yes, that was wrong...

Make nice?

[Betsy Ross]

1. Thanks for the post.

I had to post an apology last week for saying FU to an anti-religious poster. Was that you? I have lived on both sides of the belief matter. I now think there is a biological factor to religious belief. That makes me more tolerant of beliefs on both sides.

[Taverner]

2. Not sure if that was me...

I've been doing a lot of reading on antiracism - and the one thing I've found is that it's best if we let go of our prejudices...

[madrchsod]

3. sometimes the discussions about religion is worse than....

anything in the i/p forum. i have no idea why some think that i have some sort of weakness because i believe in the universal messages in the history book of the middle eastern peoples. i have no problem if people chose not to believe in any religious or spiritual belief so i would expect them to not to have a problem with mine.

if more would do what you have done maybe a civil discussion about this subject would benefit both sides of the issue.

[Humanist_Activist]

4. What universal messages?

See its this arrogance of many religious people that I personally can't stand. Transferring your subjective beliefs into thinking they are universal(apply to everybody) because, unlike all the other folktales, oral histories, myths and legends that exist out there, yours is "special" and "divine". What's ironic is that you probably think my previous sentence is belittling your beliefs, but frankly you automatically belittle the religious beliefs of billions of people through your own religious beliefs by default. This is a big reason why civil discussion is almost impossible, your arrogance and self-assurance in your beliefs' correctness is so ingrained, its impossible for you to even attempt to see it from a different angle.

For example, let's look at this "history book of the middle eastern peoples" that you mentioned, I'm assuming you are talking about the Bible, even though your definition is wholly inadequate and inaccurate. The Bible can best be defined as a compilation of books and documents that are collections of myths from contemporary cultures(adopting Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths, the Flood, Cosmology, etc.), along with written and oral histories and legends, with some contemporary historical events, all of which were subjected to later editing and reediting. As a work, the Bible is an interesting piece of literature, on a scholarly level I admire it, in it contains the keys to the development of early Jewish religion, particularly the development of it from polytheism to monotheism as a gradual process. It also contains within it politically motivated edits and revisions that illustrate tensions between the various Hebrew tribes and the nations of Israel and Judea. Some historical events, such as the a couple of sieges of Jerusalem by the Babylonians are accurate and verified by extra-biblical sources.

However, using it as anything more than literature and a book to study past beliefs and historical events doesn't seem wise. From an outsider's perspective, the Bible isn't substantially different from the Icelandic Sagas, or the Vedas, or the works of Homer or Ancient Egyptian writings. All these examples are beautiful works of literature, all of them contain some facts, historical and in some cases contemporary to when they were written, just like the Bible. They also all contain elements of the actions of gods and men, of fantastical creatures and magic, yet none of them could be considered universal in any real sense, none of them have any advantage over the others in being factually accurate or moral guides. Some of them even claim divine inspiration, yet the evidence for this is lacking, and none of them are the Truth with a capital T.

The Bible, like all these books and stories, is a product of its time, chronicling the beliefs, events and practices of a Semitic people who lived on the east side of the Mediterranean from approximately 600 B.C to about 100 A.D. No more, no less.

[Taverner]

11. I suppose you could call "the golden rule" a universal message

Being as it seems to be in pretty much every religion. It was in Judaism and Buddhism long before Christianity even existed.

However, I always thought the Golden Rule was a no-brainer, kind of like "don't stick your hand in the fire"

[TexasProgresive]

5. Thank you

prejudice is an awful thing that gives us license to act, to speak in a reactionary way. I remember a quote from Readers Digest many years ago. I can't remember who said it but it goes something like this: "If at dawn all prejudices were eliminated by noon we would've created new ones."

Prejudicial behavior seems to be a part of human nature-just look at the furor surrounding the Casey Anderson trial.

Here in Texas we have an expression about assholes and opinions, everybody's got one and they all stink."

As far as religion goes I would define myself as a Christian Agnostic. Faith is not knowing but is something else. I know that makes no sense but there you are.

My real concern is that so many people are so riled up about so much stuff that I think we should change the name of the country to U.U.P.I.A.W. The Un-United Panties in a Wad. It pervades our whole culture. We have become a nation of cranks. I place the blame firmly on the "Compassionate Conservative Uniter" George W(orthless)Bush.

[trotsky]

6. It's always going to depend on the person you ask.

To some, even on DU, the statement "I do not believe in your god" is religious bigotry.

Others are OK with that but classify the statement "I think religious beliefs are irrational" as bigoted.

A tiny few are OK with anything you say, because they know those are just words and their faith cannot be shaken by words.

Bottom line is, although the policy on DU is that attacking beliefs is OK but attacking believers is not, there are many believers who take ANY negative statement about their faith as a direct attack on them. Don't worry about upsetting them, because they will FIND a reason to be upset no matter what. Kind of like those who take offense at Mohammed cartoons or preach on Sunday morning TV shows.

[brendan120678]

8. I agree...some will always be offended.

I personally, as a theist, am not offended when people offer up their statements of belief such as, "I do not believe in your god" or, "I think religious beliefs are irrational."

That is the individual's own beliefs, so I won't attack it or see any need to be offended

I'll admit, however, that I get a little irritated when people use terms like "sky-god," "sky-fairy," "Jesus cracker," etc. in a mocking way. I don't retaliate (usually), but it is irritating.

[Taverner]

10. "Sky God"

The reason we use this descriptor is because a great deal of religious art paints him this way, and it puts things into a certain perspective. At the time Michaelangelo did his famous painting, most people in Europe thought God lived in the sky. Their previous Gods did so why not the new God? It wasn't until the 19th century that it became fully accepted that the world is not flat, and that the universe does not circle the Earth.

"Jesus Cracker" comes again from religious art, and for most of Christianity's history, Jesus was thought to be white and have a mullet:



This was despite him being a Jewish man, described as having curly black hair and looking more like this:



Of course, in the 20th century, many religions encouraged believers to re-identify Jesus in their own culture. I think this has to do with Wesley, but I'm not sure. That is where depictions like this came from:

[dimbear]

13. Strangely enough, there is testimony in antiquity that Jesus was rather

plain looking. By testimony I mean something not an obvious forgery.

[edhopper]

7. The only thing I pre-judge about religious people

is that they believe in something that is not real.

[Taverner]

9. Agreed. And I still say that pointing that out is not being prejudiced.

If I were to point out that Zeus and Apollo aren't real either, I wouldn't get too much push-back on that either

[Old Troop]

12. Well Taverner, I'm a pretty serious believer...

but your opinions and the way you express them are fine by me. Sometimes your posts challenge me to really think about my own prejudices and and beliefs and sometimes they make me smile and think "he lost the argument with his ardor." You have the right to express your anger and contempt in any way you choose -- I have the right to take your comments seriously or simply chuckle and move on.

[didact]

14. Apology accepted! God bless you!!

:evilgrin:


edit for quick pull of trigger and bungled spelling!