What do you think about this statement?

[metalis4ever]

You know what they say about Academia.

I just don't understand why religious believers believe they are exempt from social scrutiny or critique.

Exactly!!...Religion is part of Society not above it..All Religions in the United States no matter the size of the population are nothing more than Micro-Cultures yet some people would like to view their Religion as above the overall Culture of our Society. All Religions are equal as no one Religion is more important than the others and are definitely not more important to our Society than our overall Culture as defined by the Constitution. When one looks to the "Organic Analogy" of Herbert Spencer if the United States were a living breathing Organism it could survive without Religion and Religious Beliefs as they are simply fingers if you will however it could not survive without The Constitution. Yet certain members of these Micro-Cultures would like to think that they are the heart and brain of The United States when really they are expendable appendages that our Society could adapt to live without.

I am not attacking Religion just merely pointing out the Anthropological facts sure Religion is important to a lot of people in our society and it defines individual norms and values which is also important to our society but said norms and values are not universal as those are derived from our overall Culture.

 

[jimmiej]

Well, for me personally, I don't exactly appreciate it if someone tells me my religious beliefs are fairy tales. I would feel like they were talking down to me, I guess, is the best way to explain it. Maybe it wouldn't bother some people, but it would bug me just a bit.

I encourage you to remember Christ's words to us:

Matthew 5

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

 

[GeorgeG]

I did not refer to anyone's religious belief as fairy tales. I even qualified my statement by adding that people do change both ways with further thought as they get older. There seems to be a defensive mechanism in play here. That's okay, though.

 

[VickiVM]

Quoting Rob Bell in reference to what Christians uphold to be our truths based on scripture: "God has spoken. Everything else is commentary."

Religion and doctrine is the commentary part. For us, Heaven and Hell are real places. Our salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way to attain residence in Heaven after we die. Hell is the alternative where Satan resides.

Regarding the child - his family has imparted their beliefs to him. When the child is older, he will be able to discern if he wants to hold onto that belief system or choose another. As believers, we recognize that God is at work in everyone's lives - not just those who assert belief in Him.

 

[bicker]

No one has to refer to another persons beliefs as mythical or fantasy or fairy tales. It is just a matter of referring to another's beliefs with respect.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Remember, that the former, itself, is another person's belief. Implying that someone should keep their beliefs to themselves, in a forum where beliefs of other people are being shared, is not respectful. What I find, though, is that conscientious naturalists don't generally talk about their belief by referring to what any specific supernaturalists believe. As in this case, typically it is a supernaturalist who puts forward their beliefs (a.k.a. "myths") as truth, and then the naturalist replies by putting the supernaturalist's assertion of truth in its proper context, from the naturalist's perspective. From a naturalist's perspective, there is no difference between putting such "myths" forward as truth, and calling those things "myths". If there is transgression in the latter, then there is surely the same transgression in the former.

But when you refer to someone's beliefs as "fairy tales", it has a condescending tone to it, and I think some people might find that insulting. If it doesn't bother you to insult someone, then you can say what you want.

Condescension is typically in the mind of the beholder. Eleanor Roosevelt said that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

 

[bicker]

Well, for me personally, I don't exactly appreciate it if someone tells me my religious beliefs are fairy tales.

I can appreciate that. Try being a religious minority in this country; you'll be shocked at how much more often your beliefs are dismissed out of hand as a result. It is difficult to muster up the personal fortitude to demand the respect for the truth that the truth reasonable deserves. It is worth it, though, when it fosters the progress our nation has made over the last 150+ years.

 

[Tiggernut_jadie]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Remember, that the former, itself, is another person's belief. Implying that someone should keep their beliefs to themselves, in a forum where beliefs of other people are being shared, is not respectful. What I find, though, is that conscientious naturalists don't generally talk about their belief by referring to what any specific supernaturalists believe. As in this case, typically it is a supernaturalist who puts forward their beliefs (a.k.a. "myths") as truth, and then the naturalist replies by putting the supernaturalist's assertion of truth in its proper context, from the naturalist's perspective. From a naturalist's perspective, there is no difference between putting such "myths" forward as truth, and calling those things "myths". If there is transgression in the latter, then there is surely the same transgression in the former.

Condescension is typically in the mind of the beholder. Eleanor Roosevelt said that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

Thank you for this post it sums up the situation beautifully!

I've never really understood why it is 'acceptable' to say that someone's political beliefs, way of raising their children, even colour of their car can be critisised but say that YOU beleive their religion is a myth and you are suddenly being intolerant and condescending!

 

[ols386]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Remember, that the former, itself, is another person's belief. Implying that someone should keep their beliefs to themselves, in a forum where beliefs of other people are being shared, is not respectful. What I find, though, is that conscientious naturalists don't generally talk about their belief by referring to what any specific supernaturalists believe. As in this case, typically it is a supernaturalist who puts forward their beliefs (a.k.a. "myths") as truth, and then the naturalist replies by putting the supernaturalist's assertion of truth in its proper context, from the naturalist's perspective. From a naturalist's perspective, there is no difference between putting such "myths" forward as truth, and calling those things "myths". If there is transgression in the latter, then there is surely the same transgression in the former.

Condescension is typically in the mind of the beholder. Eleanor Roosevelt said that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

It doesn't make me feel inferior for someone to talk in a condescending manner to me, I said that I didn't appreciate being spoken to in that way.

 

[ols386]

Thank you for this post it sums up the situation beautifully!

I've never really understood why it is 'acceptable' to say that someone's political beliefs, way of raising their children, even colour of their car can be critisised but say that YOU beleive their religion is a myth and you are suddenly being intolerant and condescending!

I don't have a problem with someone saying my religion is a "myth", if that's wht they think, but I do have a problem if they say my beliefs are a "fairy tale". If they say my beliefs are a fairy tale, then it does come across as though they are making fun of my beliefs, which I think is disrespectful.

 

[luvsJack]

I encourage you to remember Christ's words to us:

Matthew 5

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Thank you.


Bicker, please; saying that"it is their belief" that God is a myth is just excusing the insulting way they choose to speak to or about someone's religious beliefs . There is no excuse for intolerance of others. I have never purposely said anything insulting to someone who is of another religion or of no religion at all. I can excuse one time of calling my beliefs "myths" but after the poster is told it is insulting then they should change their terminology. It seems to be that the only ones on this board who have to be "all accepting" are the Christians.

 

[ols386]

I did not refer to anyone's religious belief as fairy tales. I even qualified my statement by adding that people do change both ways with further thought as they get older. There seems to be a defensive mechanism in play here. That's okay, though.

Post #32 did make reference to religious beliefs as being fairy tales.

 

[Goofyluver]

Thank you.


Bicker, please; saying that"it is their belief" that God is a myth is just excusing the insulting way they choose to speak to or about someone's religious beliefs . There is no excuse for intolerance of others. I have never purposely said anything insulting to someone who is of another religion or of no religion at all. I can excuse one time of calling my beliefs "myths" but after the poster is told it is insulting then they should change their terminology. It seems to be that the only ones on this board who have to be "all accepting" are the Christians.

Why is it seen as insulting when non-believers express their opinions on religion? Why must we "change our terminology" in order to appease religious folks? Wouldn't intolerance be insisting that someone "change their terminology" simply because there is a difference in ideals?

 

[ols386]

Why is it seen as insulting when non-believers express their opinions on religion? Why must we "change our terminology" in order to appease religious folks? Wouldn't intolerance be insisting that someone "change their terminology" simply because there is a difference in ideals?

Hi Goofyluver.....I don't mind a non-believer expressing their opinions regarding religion, and they are entitled to their beliefs just as I am, but when they call my religious beliefs a "fairy tale", I interpret that as them making fun of my beliefs. Now maybe I'm mis-interpreting that term, but that's how it makes me feel, and if they know that's how it makes me feel, then why would they continue to use that term?

Just asking your opinion.

 

[Goofyluver]

Hi Goofyluver.....I don't mind a non-believer expressing their opinions regarding religion, and they are entitled to their beliefs just as I am, but when they call my religious beliefs a "fairy tale", I interpret that as them making fun of my beliefs. Now maybe I'm mis-interpreting that term, but that's how it makes me feel, and if they know that's how it makes me feel, then why would they continue to use that term?

Just asking your opinion.

I find it extremely condescending to be told by religious folks that I should keep my opinions to myself simply because they disagree with my assertions on religion. Why would religious folks continue to insist that those that disagree with them are wrong and that they should keep their opinions to themselves? If they (the religious folks) know that I find their beliefs to be based in mythology and that I equate such beliefs to fairy tales, why would they persist in attempting to change my mind or insist that I must alter my language for their benefit?

 

[luvsJack]

Why is it seen as insulting when non-believers express their opinions on religion? Why must we "change our terminology" in order to appease religious folks? Wouldn't intolerance be insisting that someone "change their terminology" simply because there is a difference in ideals?

So if a Christian voices their opinion that everyone who does not believe is going to burn for eternity; that's ok with you. If that Christian says that the belief that God does not exist is ignorant; that's ok?

Why is it not sufficient to just say you do not believe?

I cannot believe that this many intelligent people cannot understand how calling someone else's beliefs "fantasy" is insulting.

 

[ols386]

I find it extremely condescending to be told by religious folks that I should keep my opinions to myself simply because they disagree with my assertions on religion. Why would religious folks continue to insist that those that disagree with them are wrong and that they should keep their opinions to themselves? If they (the religious folks) know that I find their beliefs to be based in mythology and that I equate such beliefs to fairy tales, why would they persist in attempting to change my mind or insist that I must alter my language for their benefit?

I'm not insisting that you alter your language for my benefit, you can call my religious beliefs whatever you want...but does it not bother you that if you call my beliefs a fairy tale, then I feel like you are making fun of my beliefs?

 

[GeorgeG]

Post #32 did make reference to religious beliefs as being fairy tales.

I just checked post #32 and did not get "fairy tales" out of it. I did see a reference to myths, which is merely pointing out that not all is necessarily factual. I suppose it's all in the mind of the beholder, though.

 

[ols386]

I just checked post #32 and did not get "fairy tales" out of it. I did see a reference to myths, which is merely pointing out that not all is necessarily factual. I suppose it's all in the mind of the beholder, though.

Sorry, it's post #132

 

[Goofyluver]

So if a Christian voices their opinion that everyone who does not believe is going to burn for eternity; that's ok with you. If that Christian says that the belief that God does not exist is ignorant; that's ok?

Why is it not sufficient to just say you do not believe?

I cannot believe that this many intelligent people cannot understand how calling someone else's beliefs "fantasy" is insulting.

I cannot fathom that intelligent religious folks, who claim to be secure in their beliefs, are insulted by others expressing their ideals. Why? Is it an attempt to silence the "wrong" belief? To force conformity to Christian ideals?

I'm not insisting that you alter your language for my benefit, you can call my religious beliefs whatever you want...but does it not bother you that if you call my beliefs a fairy tale, then I feel like you are making fun of my beliefs?

I'm not bothered when Christians tell me I'm going to hell for being a non-believer, etc. because I don't subscribe to those beliefs.

 

[ols386]

I cannot fathom that intelligent religious folks, who claim to be secure in their beliefs, are insulted by others expressing their ideals. Why? Is it an attempt to silence the "wrong" belief? To force conformity to Christian ideals?



I'm not bothered when Christians tell me I'm going to hell for being a non-believer, etc. because I don't subscribe to those beliefs.

I realize that you don't subscribe to that belief, but I wouldn't say that to you anyway, even if I thought it. Who am I to tell you that?