Something I don't understand about religious beliefs

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I don't understand how someone can "offend" your religious beliefs.

I mean, for some inherent, unchangable part of you that can't be changed, such as skin colour or country of origin, slander is obviously offensive and serves no purpose.

But religion isn't like that. Religion is a belief, so how can anyone be "offended" by criticism of it? If I believe in communism, and someone argues against me, they aren't offending me, they're just critisizing my beliefs. If I believe in minimum wage laws and someone critisizes that, they aren't offending me. So if someone argues against your religious beliefs, how is offensive?

Similarly how can labelling offend religion? I mean, it would be offensive if someone said "Gingers are a bunch of losers", but it wouldn't be offensive to say "the policies of the current government are crappy". So why is it offensive to say "your beliefs are ridiculous"? How is that offensive? It's a simple statement about someone else's views, not offensive.

[SigniferOne]

It's very simple. Religion means a feeling of reverence towards something. If that object of reverence is treated with contempt, especially by critics of miniscule stature, it is impossible not to get offended.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

It's very simple. Religion means a feeling of reverence towards something. If that object of reverence is treated with contempt, especially by critics of miniscule stature, it is impossible not to get offended.

who here treats your God with contempt?

They simply express doubt that he exists, and question why you think he does.

[Monarchist]

You must remember that "I feel offended" is a very common phrase in our society. Lukewarm religious people easily take on popular aphorisms and ways of thinking. We're not some ivory tower gang, but human beings! Have some charity, because we need it just as much as you.

[xcorps]

who here treats your God with contempt?

There are a large number of posters here who treat the idea of God with contempt, and have no less contempt for those who believe in God. A recently closed thread is a perfect example.

[Blaze86420]

There are a large number of posters here who treat the idea of God with contempt, and have no less contempt for those who believe in God. A recently closed thread is a perfect example.

I have no problem with people criticizing my religion politely and raising legitimate points. Unfortunately, this seems to be the exception to the norm on this forum.

[Col. Tartleton]

I have no problem with people criticizing my religion politely and raising legitimate points. Unfortunately, this seems to be the exception to the norm on this forum.

The thing is that 99% of debates end in stalemate because religious (or atheist) people are not being reasonable. So it's quicker and easier to call them a stupid and skip out the twenty or so full essay posts of debate that normally occur before one concedes to the temptation of name calling.

[boofhead]

I've never really felt offended when people insult my religion. To me, they are fools, and doing so just exposes this. In the grand scheme of things, it is their loss.

The ''Piss'' Christ malarkey, for example. How pathetically stupid. The ''gay'' Last Supper thing. How totally gay.

In general they just remind me of the period when teenagers want to be rebellious, and fly in the face of anything sacred. It's so juvenile, and shallow, and tedious.

[thelionheart]

if a religion is criticized it wins two things: The ability to evolve better answers for people who doubt it, and a chance to talk with people who aren't interested in religion, but may be interested in making fun of believers !

[Helm]

It's certainly possible to offend the religious beliefs, or lack of them, of an atheist. So I don't think anyone is immune from it.

[Asgath]

I've always figured its something to do with a rather overbearing lack of logic and reason.

[k0zer]

Religious discussions in general, of the current year 2010 and perhaps of all time are futile. Simply put religion itself requires "faith" but with the intelligence of man and the scientific mind set of living in the current year of 2010 soon to be 2011, you cant have such discussion's. Because people want proof or adequate information to make a "belief" be a scientific fact.
So when person X says to person Y your "belief" is a fairy tale or has holes in the story-lines.
Person X's statement is a "belief" in itself. Whether persons Y has holes or flaws in his beliefs, according to persons X. That's persons X belief and he is entitled to his own belief.
A Belief has really come down to a personal choice because so many individuals or groups of people add things to each religion or teaching. Whatever a person wants to or doesn't want to believe that in itself is their choice\religion.
I find that there is nothing I can say or do to convince someone of a belief, nor do I want to. Because with all religions and beliefs and non-beliefs it takes "trust" or blind faith in order to understand
just what a belief or non-belief is. In other words Atheist have just as much Faith as do a Believer, but both party's can not prove that something exist or doesn't exist because that something is faith.

[Khassaki]

Atheist have just as much Faith as do a Believer, but both party's can not prove that something exist or doesn't exist because that something is faith.

Atheists don't stand against anything, they simply expect any claim to be verifiable. There is no requirement for "faith" in anything.

Very simply...

Is a deity like that which is described by christians that created the universe in 6 days possible? yes
Is a deity like that which is described by christians that created the universe in 6 days plauseable? no
Should a deity like that which is described by christians that created the universe in 6 days be given creedence? no

[k0zer]

Atheists don't stand against anything, they simply expect any claim to be verifiable. There is no requirement for "faith" in anything.

You make a good point in terms of "Atheists don't stand against anything". I suppose what I meant was "faith" in the context of the multiple definitions, not just faith in a supreme being. As in subconscious faith. Regardless of your religious background or culture etc. People exercise faith everyday without thought. But you can't put a verification to that faith, you just expect it to happen or don't even think about verifying. A scientist may choose the word theory instead of faith, but both words have the same make up.

[Biggreenfellow]

You make a good point in terms of "Atheists don't stand against anything". I suppose what I meant was "faith" in the context of the multiple definitions, not just faith in a supreme being. As in subconscious faith. Regardless of your religious background or culture etc. People exercise faith everyday without thought. But you can't put a verification to that faith, you just expect it to happen or don't even think about verifying. A scientist may choose the word theory instead of faith, but both words have the same make up.

That's not true. A theory must be based on facts, or it's not a scientific theory at all. Faith is based on nothing but the believer's imagination.

[Lord Rahl]

Because for many people religion is extremely personal. In Christianity the believer has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. So, if you go up to one of these Christians and say, "Your belief in Jesus is ridiculous", you're pretty much insulting something entirely personal and important in their life.

[Elfdude]

It's an emotional response to an emotional attachment.

[chriscase]

It's certainly easy to step on someone's toes when discussing faith.

The problem, in my opinion, is that, at least in the US, religion is historically bound up with culture. So birth, marriage, childrearing, death, and many points along the way come with rituals that are traditionally linked to religion.

My family celebrates Christmas as a cultural practice despite the fact that I have no Christian belief. I am fairly overt about the secular orientation of my holiday celebrations, but I still have to defend it occasionally.

The critical point regards boundaries. In a forum like this one, we enter under the assumption that ideas are fair game but individual persons are not. I can roast your claims up and down, but I cannot attack your person in any way. However, not all social interactions have these ground rules. A person praying in church or celebrating their child's baptism cannot be assumed, simply by his attendance, to desire a religious debate. In that case, it is a violation of personal boundaries to insist on a discussion. Likewise, someone who proselytizes and preaches to unbelievers outside the context of a debate forum can often be seen as imposing his opinion inappropriately.

As QualiaSoup puts it, if one wishes to maintain an unchallenged personal faith, one should not attempt to impose one's faith on others. Of course there will be those who say atheists can be and are just as dogmatic and boorish as theists (or more so). I myself am not interested in defining a "boorishness" metric, because I enjoy spending my time on pursuits that have some chance of success.

[Helm]

According to the Buddha you can only have true faith after you have lost your fear of death so faith can't be used with that intent, I like the way that guy thought even if the ay he thought was flamming baffling.

[Biggreenfellow]

According to the Buddha you can only have true faith after you have lost your fear of death so faith can't be used with that intent, I like the way that guy thought even if the ay he thought was flamming baffling.

How does fear of death affect one's faith in something? Most religious people I know are religious BECAUSE they fear death, and find the thought of an afterlife comforting.