Alright, I'm making two different Topics so I can try and get people away from the "What's Bothering You?" thread. Don't want to totally disrupt what that thread is about (I'm partially guilty as well).

So, debate your issues or non-issues with religion here. Please, please, please, keep it cool. Don't be over-aggressive. No insulting each other. I don't normally make this a rule, because I am very guilty of using sarcasm within posts, although I've tried to stop of late. Please try and keep sarcasm to a minimum! Focus on what other people say, the whole of their message, and evaluate their thoughts and opinions on a logical level.

People are dumb when it comes to religion, and I include atheism and agnosticism in there when i say that. Religion is not something I feel should generally be discussed a central topic as it only takes 1 strong opinion to turn the whole discussion into something terrible.

Be tolerant of people that are religious and people that are not. Atheists and fundamentalists both need to understand this.

There is no word in the english language that describes malicious anti-religious zeal (in the way that 'Bigotry' describes malicious religious zeal). That's led to a sort of societally-acceptable...... 'persecution,' I guess, I don't like that word, but 'discrimination' doesn't fit either.

What I mean is, Homophobia is BAD. Racism is BAD. Sexism is BAD. But 'generalizing religious people according to negative stereotypes and passing judgment' isn't even in our lexicon. We can't even have a conversation about that, because there isn't a word for it -- unless we're talking about 'Mooslims,' because Islamophobia also has racial implications, which puts it on the radar.

All praise be to Sofia Vergara

Praise the one and true god Gaben, heed his sacred words.



In all seriousness though.
I really don't feel like re-typing all the points from that thread when there's no one in specific being replied too.

So I'll leave The original topic link here so people can scan through my posts to get my stance on the issue if they want.

But I more expect those I were debating to simply come here and continue it, so people will be able to see my stance on the matter anyways.

I'll respond here since it's the proper thread.

To me that's the same as saying "I knowing he's a raping, murdering, racist homophobic lunatic. But he's a nice guy if you get to know him".
Not in the sense that I claim all religious people are like that (In fact, that's not what I'm implying in the slightest). But in terms of how I view the Religion itself.
The good and bad are all part of that religion, and I'm not going to ignore all the vile stuff in the religion just cause it might also have some good in it.

Well I don't ignore the vile parts of religion, I just recognize that not everybody chooses to act on them. There are religious people who are capable of being decent, even if it does take massive cherry-picking to get there. I'd rather have decent half-assed followers than a bunch of Bible literalist fundies.

Jannah said
I'll respond here since it's the proper thread. Well I don't ignore the vile parts of religion, I just recognize that not everybody chooses to act on them. There are religious people who are capable of being decent, even if it does take massive cherry-picking to get there. I'd rather have decent half-assed followers than a bunch of Bible literalist fundies.

We're in agreement here.
I'd like to re-post a clarification I made in the last thread...

Magic Magnum said Now to clarify, often times when this debate happens people confused my strong disliking of Religion for a strong disliking for religious people.
I do not dislike people who are Religious, my issue is not with them. But with the foundation of the Religion itself, the fact something that has no evidence to support not only causes so many people to regard it as fact, but has been known as either the cause, or the tool used for many if not all of the most barbaric acts in human history.

I'll also let it be known I'm no fan of the "New Atheism" movement, because reasons I'd rather not reveal here since it'll certainly devolve into political discussion.

If you mean Atheism+ I agree with you 100%.

Jannah said
I'll respond here since it's the proper thread. Well I don't ignore the vile parts of religion, I just recognize that not everybody chooses to act on them. There are religious people who are capable of being decent, even if it does take massive cherry-picking to get there. I'd rather have decent half-assed followers than a bunch of Bible literalist fundies.

You know, us literalist fundies tend to be the ones who sit quietly and listen to organ music and sing hymns, and contemplate the laws of god and nature.

But I don't expect you to get that, I mean.... if anybody can name an example of a fundamentalist christian being portrayed in pop-culture (of any media) in a positive and respectable way, I'll paypal you five dollars.

mdk said
There is no word in the english language that describes malicious anti-religious zeal (in the way that 'Bigotry' describes malicious religious zeal). That's led to a sort of societally-acceptable...... 'persecution,' I guess, I don't like that word, but 'discrimination' doesn't fit either.

What I mean is, Homophobia is BAD. Racism is BAD. Sexism is BAD. But 'generalizing religious people according to negative stereotypes and passing judgment' isn't even in our lexicon. We can't even have a conversation about that, because there isn't a word for it -- unless we're talking about 'Mooslims,' because Islamophobia also has racial implications, which puts it on the radar.

I figure that the reason there's no special word for discrimination based on religion is twofold. First, it's because religious people as a whole have never actually been a minority or second-class group that was the victim of awful oppression and the like. Certain religions have been, such as Judaism, but they were discriminated against by other religions rather than because of the fact that they were religious. Blanket anti-religious discrimination is a new thing, and it hasn't reached anywhere near the point of religious people being a disadvantaged minority. Anti-non-religious discrimination has been a thing for a lot longer, but there's no special word for that either; I'd guess this is partly due to the fact that atheists and co. are such a small minority in the world that they don't have much of a voice to be heard above the din of other groups that are discriminated against, partly due to the fact that atheism is already becoming very widely accepted in the western world without the need for any big movement, and partly due to to my next point.

Second, religion is not an innate characteristic of a person. Race and various racial markers are the products of genetics. A person's physical gender is also the product of biology that cannot be changed (though it can be fucked with through surgery and hormones). Based on current scientific research, sexuality and sexual preferences are also things that are largely programmed in (not just base genetics, they're also influenced heavily during fetal development), though this one is more shaky than the other two because it's an inclination and behavior system rather than an obviously immutable physical characteristic. Religion, however, is not even close to an innate characteristic. People change their religious views all the time. Children will not suddenly develop religion at a certain age if they are not exposed to it. Religion is a social construct, a learned behavior that can be changed almost at will. Religion is in fact a choice (really and truly a choice, not a "choice" like anti-homosexual propaganda nonsense talks about), just as lack of religion is a choice, so treating someone a certain way based on their religion or lack thereof is treating them that way because of a choice they have made. Some would say that it wouldn't be the bad kind of discrimination (just the kind which means "to make a distinction") to look down on a person who chooses to decorate their lawn with those atrocious little gnome things, so there's an argument to be made that it isn't the bad kind of discrimination to look down on a person for their religious choices. This is basically bullshit, treating someone poorly based upon what group they belong to is the negative kind of discrimination, but this is the sort of reasoning I've seen used for why it's fine to discriminate against religious people or atheists in the past. The stuff about it being a choice is just why it's probably set aside as a totally different category even by those who don't think it's cool to discriminate based on choices, because discrimination based on innate characteristics is seen as being far worse.

Add those two things together and I think they make a decent answer to why there is no special word for anti-religious (or anti-non-religious) discrimination. Give it some time and there might be some ridiculous term (religiophobia maybe? whatever ends up sticking on social media and then gets picked up by news media first will be the one, I wager, regardless of how silly or inaccurate it might be) to describe this relatively new kind of discrimination. Honestly, I'm surprised Fox News hasn't already pushed something like this, particularly Bill O'Reilly with his major segments about anti-Christian hatred around every holiday. Here's hoping that whatever becomes the popular term, it isn't religiophobia or anything as awfully stupid as that.

Jannah said
I'll also let it be known I'm no fan of the "New Atheism" movement, because reasons I'd rather not reveal here since it'll certainly devolve into political discussion.

Hah, that term. It amuses me that people felt the need to relabel secular humanism as "New Atheism" just because Dawkins and Hitches and others got big sales with their books. But yeah, I can understand why you'd be hesitant to bring up specifics, because I can guarantee that there would indeed be debate, and I'd almost certainly be one of those arguing against you.

Magic Magnum said
If you mean Atheism+ I agree with you 100%.

Atheism+ and its ilk are garbage, largely because they're not "New Atheism" in any way. They have all sorts of dogma at work and reject a lot of reason (particularly that which contradicts their dogma), so they don't fit into the modern secular humanist category that is "New Atheism." Understandable mistake to make though, if you'd never heard the term used before. Took me half a minute to remember it was something else, heh.

mdk said
You know, us literalist fundies tend to be the ones who sit quietly and listen to organ music and sing hymns, and contemplate the laws of god and nature.

But I don't expect you to get that, I mean.... if anybody can name an example of a fundamentalist christian being portrayed in pop-culture (of any media) in a positive and respectable way, I'll paypal you five dollars.

That's not just true of media, it's also the perception in general social interaction. The quiet and contemplative ones of any group are rarely the ones who get seen because the loud and stupid ones grab all the attention. Take a look at how poorly vegans are perceived because of the loud and stupid ones, but then you have all the vegans who just do their thing and don't cause any problems. It's one of those shitty things about how humans work, generalizations happen based on what we see.

Jorick said Hah, that term. It amuses me that people felt the need to relabel secular humanism as "New Atheism" just because Dawkins and Hitches and others got big sales with their books. But yeah, I can understand why you'd be hesitant to bring up specifics, because I can guarantee that there would indeed be debate, and I'd almost certainly be one of those arguing against you.

Well that's exactly it. I don't like Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. However, I do respect Dawkins for his work in evolutionary biology. He should have just stuck to that though since it's what he's actually good at.

Atheism+ and its ilk are garbage, largely because they're not "New Atheism" in any way. They have all sorts of dogma at work and reject a lot of reason (particularly that which contradicts their dogma), so they don't fit into the modern secular humanist category that is "New Atheism."

There's many dogmatic atheists and I don't like them either. Like there's that whole "atheist church" thing. That just seems weird. Why set up something that is almost universally a symbol of the exact group you claim to oppose? I have also noticed there tends to be a lot of conspiracy theorists in the atheist community. I suppose "free thinking" for them is taken a bit too literal. *shrugs*

Jannah said
Well that's exactly it. I don't like Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. However, I do respect Dawkins for his work in evolutionary biology. He should have just stuck to that though since it's what he's actually good at.

Just because you don't agree with his opinions doesn't mean he isn't good at the secular humanism thing.

But yeah, I figured that would be your reason for disliking it. We could skip having any sort of debate on the matter and agree to disagree, just to save us both a lot of time and effort.

There's many dogmatic atheists and I don't like them either. Like there's that whole "atheist church" thing. That just seems weird. Why set up something that is almost universally a symbol of the exact group you claim to oppose? I have also noticed there tends to be a lot of conspiracy theorists in the atheist community. I suppose "free thinking" for them is taken a bit too literal. *shrugs*

I'm against dogma (which I define as things that are held as unquestionably true by a group) of all kinds (because everything is open to and should be questioned), so I'm with you there. "Atheist church" feels like an oxymoron, and I really detest how some have tried to put forth various texts as being worthy of becoming the "holy text" of atheism. The whole point is a lack of belief in a deity, why must they try to build a belief system around that one lack of belief? It's just awkward.

Eh, I haven't seen any great number of atheist conspiracy theorists. I've seen more religious ones, but I account that just to pure demographics more than anything else. Crazy fucks come in all shapes and sizes, so no surprise that some would be drawn to atheist things. Maybe they think that free thought means atheists want to free their minds from the control of the aliens/robots/lizard people, so they won't have to wear their aluminum foil caps for protection any more.

Jorick said
I figure that the reason there's no special word for discrimination based on religion is twofold. First, it's because religious people as a whole have never actually been a minority or second-class group that was the victim of awful oppression and the like. Certain religions have been, such as Judaism, but they were discriminated against by other religions rather than because of the fact that they were religious. Blanket anti-religious discrimination is a new thing, and it hasn't reached anywhere near the point of religious people being a disadvantaged minority. Anti-non-religious discrimination has been a thing for a lot longer, but there's no special word for that either; I'd guess this is partly due to the fact that atheists and co. are such a small minority in the world that they don't have much of a voice to be heard above the din of other groups that are discriminated against, partly due to the fact that atheism is already becoming very widely accepted in the western world without the need for any big movement, and partly due to to my next point.

Are you familiar with the story of the christian fish?



I mean besides that it's a fish, do you know about it? Homework assignment.

Second, religion is not an innate characteristic of a person.

Okay, I'm gonna do us both a favor and delete what was about to go on here. There is some..... unsafe things happening with my medicinal situation, and it's not gonna .... make for like, you know, ah..... a good read. But the long and short of it is, you have decided that that, which is most precious to me, is not
INNATE ENOUGH

and therefore it's not a big deal, I mean, it's not like you were BORN with a soul, right? So who cares?

this is like ten paragraphs beyond the place where I should really stop. Okay. But that's exactly what I mean, right? 'It's not okay to hate this this or this, but go ahead, hate christianity, I don't give a fuck, not my bible."

Walking away. I just zoned out and had a conversation with littlefinger. We'll revisit this later.

Jorick said
Just because you don't agree with his opinions doesn't mean he isn't good at the secular humanism thing. But yeah, I figured that would be your reason for disliking it. We could skip having any sort of debate on the matter and ag

That's not my reason for disliking them. It was just another point I brought up. I'd rather not get into why I dislike them as it could turn ugly. I need sleep soon anyway(class in the morning).

mdk said
Are you familiar with the story of the christian fish?

I mean besides that it's a fish, do you know about it? Homework assignment.

Yes, early Christians were persecuted by the predominantly Jewish Romans and used the symbol to secretly meet and such; however, as I said in what you quoted, I'm well aware certain religions have been hated and discriminated against by other religions before. Antisemitism is a thing with its own word, but again that's a religiously based thing, it's one that falls under the umbrella of bigotry because it's hatred for a group whose religious beliefs differ from the ones a person happens to think are right. In the post I quoted you were speaking of general anti-religious sentiments, or at least that's how I read it. You said there was no word for anti-religious zeal, not that there was no word for anti-Christian zeal. If you'd specified rather than speaking in general terms that would have been a rather different post, because things are very different when you go from talking about religion as a whole to talking about a specific form of it.

Okay, I'm gonna do us both a favor and delete what was about to go on here. There is some..... unsafe things happening with my medicinal situation, and it's not gonna .... make for like, you know, ah..... a good read. But the long and short of it is, you have decided that that, which is most precious to me, is not
INNATE ENOUGH
and therefore it's not a big deal, I mean, it's not like you were BORN with a soul, right? So who cares?

this is like ten paragraphs beyond the place where I should really stop. Okay. But that's exactly what I mean, right? 'It's not okay to hate this this or this, but go ahead, hate christianity, I don't give a fuck, not my bible."

Walking away. I just zoned out and had a conversation with littlefinger. We'll revisit this later.

Er, did you read the last part of that paragraph? I absolutely and emphatically stand by the fact that religion or lack thereof is not an innate characteristic; something that can be converted to or from at the drop of a dime is not an innate characteristic, end of story. However, if you read further, such as to the second to last sentence of that paragraph, I said that using that as a claim for why discrimination is allowable is pure and simple bullshit. The last sentence of that paragraph was me giving my thoughts on why people in general don't see religious discrimination as being as bad as other kinds of discrimination (the innate vs. not innate thing), not me agreeing with that stance. Discrimination is discrimination, doesn't matter what it's based on, if you're treating one person or group worse than another because of things that aren't harming anyone else you're an asshat, plain and simple; that part about harming others is in there because I make allowances for discriminating against murderers and such, because that's entirely reasonable discrimination.

So yeah, dunno if it was because of how I phrased things or what, but I'm gonna call this one a misunderstanding. We're in agreement here that discrimination based on religious views is the same level of bullshit as discrimination based on race, gender, or sexuality.

Jannah said
That's not my reason for disliking them. It was just another point I brought up. I'd rather not get into why I dislike them as it could turn ugly. I need sleep soon anyway(class in the morning).

Oh, alright then, mistaken assumption on my part. Fair enough on not wanting to bring specifics up, things can turn ugly with these topics even when people are just rehashing the same tired old points they've always used, so introducing anything new and possibly controversial could make some heads explode. People are silly like that.

I'm way more suspicious online of religion than I am in real life. It's worth noting that because I've worked alongside preachers with no problem but then I go online and it's a huge contentious problem. DItto with working alongside muslims. You take it in more context when you actually know the person involved. Absent that context, it's easy to go off the deep end and put the magnifying glass on everything a person of faith/no particular faith might say.

But then you get online and the people talking about it are usually taking it to an extreme that makes everyone look bad. Go fig.

Hmm...

Ok, so I'm part of an atheist community and just went ahead and asked them what's the difference between normal atheism and new atheism.

In the meantime though, from the info I gathered (from here and a simple google search) is accurate, it seems to mean mostly agreeing with stuff Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins say. Stuff like you don't need religion to be moral, not using religion as an influence in decision making etc.

And with that info, I would call myself a new Atheist.
And I don't see what's to dislike (outside of religious reasons) for an atheist saying that they can be moral without a religion.
So I'm assuming there's more to the term of New Atheism than has been revealed to my searches on it so far.

Brovo said
Hmm...