For agnostic/athiests a poll: Does religion ever offend you?
- Thread starter Xanikk999
- Start date
}
croxis
Chat room op
You need to insert the word "some" into some critical places in your statement.
As you can see above, boxes do no good.
As you can see above, boxes do no good.
Love
Deity
the "Only when they push it on others." is fitting most, cuz its many suizide bombers in islam...
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
Fanatic atheist. I feel sorry for the religeous folk. They are brainwashed. I am offended when I have to adapt to a religeon.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
I am offended when they come up with that "atheists are immoral" crap.
Mhmmm I'm not sure about this, Ive never had anyone pray for myself specifically. It in essence shouldn't offend me, but it would depend on the spirit in which it was undertaken. For instance, if it was out of Pity (i.e. because of me being misguided and so on), then yes I think I would be offended, because you have judged me, and that I find offensive. (probably some combination of pride, not thinking of myself as "weak" yet you do and some other things
).religion as a rule does not offend me, I tolerate it, and I can respect aspects of it (but then, I view religion as a means to an end, and not the end itself). And because I merely tolerate it, I am offended when theirs faith in their religion affects me, adversly or positivly.
woody60707
Deity
I can't think of one thing a person can do that would offended that wouldn't be very illegal - so no.
On that same line, people have the right to think anyway they want. If a person wants to ban the right for gay people to get married, and their only reason for voting that way is that "god says so" well thats their right.
Just as it's my right to call then a dumba$$. But to get a offended by it, nah.
On that same line, people have the right to think anyway they want. If a person wants to ban the right for gay people to get married, and their only reason for voting that way is that "god says so" well thats their right.
Just as it's my right to call then a dumba$$. But to get a offended by it, nah.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
It causes a sort of wry amusement in me. I suppose I'm most likely to thank them and wish them well.
Be careful who you generalize, there. Atheist as I am, I don't have problems with people practicing their religion in that way. Now, if their religion says "Also, egg the house of any gay you know," that's offensive. Like that one fellow said, if it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, they're free to do whatever they like.
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
Same here. I hate people who try to convert me.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Huh? You would be offended by someones faith that affected you positively? That, I dont understand.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I humbly submit that no ones religion says to egg some gay persons house. While it may be offensive....its not religion.
Tricky wording in the poll. How exactly does one define "being offended"? Many things about religion (or specifically, certain religious people, but that's obvious enough to be implicit, I think) bug me, but being bugged is not the same thing as being offended. However, that same thing that bugs me can be the root cause of other behavior that does offend me. It bugs me, for example, when a religious person projects their religious moral code on those that want nothing to do with their religion. When a religious person tries to tell a homosexual person what not to do with their genitalia, for example, that bugs me. It's annoying, but in that context, it's just noise. When that noise, however, is translated through the mechanism of political power - that is what gives me offense. The abuse of power in that position is actually what gives me offense, but it's the religious context that provides the impetus. It's a complex issue.
In short, I think that people have a right to believe whatever it is they are inclined to believe. When they start trying to project that belief upon others, it's annoying. And when they start using power of any kind to give weight to that projection, it's offensive.
In short, I think that people have a right to believe whatever it is they are inclined to believe. When they start trying to project that belief upon others, it's annoying. And when they start using power of any kind to give weight to that projection, it's offensive.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
It's all about what a specific religion induces people to do. I don't go so far as to day "Muslim extremists are religious, Christians are religious; therefore Christians are ultimately responsible for the 9/11 attacks." Heck, I don't even say "The KKK follows Christianity, therefore all Christians are responsible for the KKK's hate crimes." I do, however, say "The Spanish inquisition was done in the name of Christianity, the holocaust was done in the name of Christianity, the hate crimes of the KKK were (and are) done in the name of Christianity, the anti-gay legislation and sentiment in America is significantly spurred by Christianity, countless impedements against scientific progress have been caused by Christianity, etc. etc."
I'm not saying that all Christians should feel the least bit responsible for the above events. Individuals are responsible for their own actions, not those of the group they identify themselves with. However, groups can, and often should, be accountable for the actions taken by those who follow them. Jesus seemed to be a pretty good guy, from what I gather. But the messiah alone does not make the religion. Those who came after him have also had major effects on Christianity. If any of them had said "Love he who follows a false God as your brother," or "He who lies with men as women shall not be scorned," or "That which is found by the wits of Man is to be treasured," the world would be a much better place. Again, I don't lay any of these great atrocities at the feet of every individual Christian. It's just that I believe them to be the result of Christianity as a whole.
Incidentally, this is why I don't lay the crimes of the most terrible Atheist regimes (Stalin, Mao) at Atheism's feet. Atheism has no code of conduct, and thus those that follow it act on their own volition. Stalin did what he did because of his independent worldview, and thus only he and, to a lesser degree, those that followed him, are the only ones responsible for what he did.
The Holocaust was not done in the name of Christianity, I don't know where you get that. It was done in the name of German nationalism.
Now, shgowing up on someone's doorstep is a lot more effective than anyone realizes. There are people who are willing to listen. And either way, proselyting is not imposing your religion on someone or taking away their ability to choose, any more than salespeople render us helpless.
Now, shgowing up on someone's doorstep is a lot more effective than anyone realizes. There are people who are willing to listen. And either way, proselyting is not imposing your religion on someone or taking away their ability to choose, any more than salespeople render us helpless.
King Flevance
Deity
I think the problem with gay rights is that the church should have its rights too. If America wants to make gay marraige legal, fine. But the Christian church should not condone it IMO. There is a large controversy over some churches allowing gays to attend. I don't have a problem with gays going to Christian church. Everyone should be welcome into God's house, but asking God to grant a blessing on something stated as sin that the world cannot prove that people are born gay is pushing beliefs onto the church.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
It was a concentrated attack on one religion by a group of nationals motivated at least in part by religion. Religion has always played a huge part in nationalism. German schoolchildren were taught to be ready to live and die for God and their Füher. I know that this is just evil men perverting religion for their own gain, but I also know that Christianity doesn't have a very good track record for tolerating opposing faiths.
I am really not seeing it. I don't see how Christianity can be blamed for the Holocaust.
At any rate, you have Stalin's purges; what this teaches us is not to say that the religious beleifs of a person committing an atrocity is always relevant.
And some Christians have been more tolerant of other religions than others.
At any rate, you have Stalin's purges; what this teaches us is not to say that the religious beleifs of a person committing an atrocity is always relevant.
And some Christians have been more tolerant of other religions than others.
King Flevance
Deity
Christians will always be persecuted by people that misuse the faith. Some white supremacy groups use the christian name. They do it in movies alot.
There is some division in people over what race Jesus was.
But Christians do not have suicide bombers. You can not interpret OUR Christian bible into that kind of insanity. Our bible makes Christians bear a cross for the world. It is better that you hate us, than the muslims honestly. Hating the muslims only gives their faith power it seems. But they should not be ignored entirely though either obviously.
But I agree the Holocaust was a tool for government control and nationalism. Their idol was Hitler, a time Germany wishes to forget.
Indeed.
Ridiculous. Many people have and still do interpret YOUR Christian bible into exactly that kind of insanity. It takes an extreme presumption to say that the people that interpret the Bible as a justification for violence are "misusing" it, but the people that use the Koran for the same purpose are somehow following the "correct" Islamic faith.
There is a lot of violence in the Bible. Most of it is in the Old Testament, which a lot of Christians try to discard as outdated (which of course begs the question, why is it still in the Bible, then?), which pretty much boils down to one interpretation of the Bible vs. another. The same old argument, over and over.
The bottom line is, EVERYONE who follows the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, or whatever other religious texts you bring into the fold, believes that their interpretation is the correct one. This applies as much to the modern-day Christians preaching peace as it did to the medieval crusaders that felt they were on a mission of God to kill infidels, who butchered entire cities of women and children.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
You mean like opening up soup kitchens for the poor and homeless, or operating shelters for them? Or volunteering for organizations like the Red Cross or the Salvation Army and going to places like the Gulf Coast post-Katrina, or to New York City post-9/11, or to the East Indies post-Tsunami, to help people pick up the peices of their lives? You mean like donating, collectively, hundreds of millions of dollars per year for various charities? You mean like paying out of my own pocket to take an EMT class so that I could volunteer eight hours per week to run on the ambulance so that if my fellow citizen was in trouble that someone qualified would be there to help?
Yeah, thank GOD for the kind of things that religion induces people to do. A lot of people wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for what we religious people are induced to do.
Similar threads
