If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
the leaflet thing happened to me once in cardiff
i was walking through cardiff centre wearing a slipknot hoodie as i was going to see them later that day when a group of preaching people tried handing me a leaflet. i declined saying no thanks to be shouted at telling me that i was going to hell and would be taking slipknot with me
of course, very mature me just shouted back that at least i would have good music
not the best response but it annoys me that someone can make a decision that they are better than me based on their religion and the fact that i don't want any thing to do with their religion
But if you speak to them they're generally alright people, just really belive what they're saying. I get more annoyed by the students with nothing better to do who put massive banners of vivisection up saying 'IS THIS OK?!?!' because you can't just say 'no thanks' like you do to the religious fundies. Mmm, I'm trying to have a chilled out day shopping, leave me alone plz.
Although definately agree with the ranters attitude, stand up shows are brilliant
How can you respect something that you think is utterly wrong? And why should someone respect something that they think is utterly wrong? I don't mean that people should be rude and abusive (like the Canadian gentleman) but why pretend to respect something you think is utterly wrong?
I think that anti-abortion people are completely wrong and that their viewpoint has zero credibility. Why on earth should I pay lip service to "respect" when I think they talk hundred-proof bollocks?
This is true.
As for the article...I'd hazard a guess that whoever wrote that is just as dogmatic in her own way as the people she criticises. The problem isn't religious fanatics per se, it's the human condition - people need dogma to give them a sense of stability, to have a way of understanding the world which suits them emotionally. Whether its religion, racial separatism, Marxism/egalitarianism/social construction etc etc is doesn't really matter - we all are subject to dogma.
(not slipknot mind, the comment)
What does "respect people's beliefs" even mean? It's exactly the same as all of those other meaningless terms which essentially mean "don't criticise my opinion/religious practices/political policy etc." People aren't capable of respecting beliefs, nor are beliefs deserving of respect. People are deserving of respect, their opinions aren't. You don't respect people's beliefs, you either agree or disagree with them based on the reasons they give. And while in many cases, this doesn't effect your opinion of someone, in other cases it's inevitable. If you find out that someone genuinely believes that Elvis is still alive, for example, it would generally change your opinion of that person to some degree.
As for the no faith = no morals argument, in my experience, that is only ever something I've heard atheists say as a response to the question, "but if you don't have any religion/don't believe in god, where do you get your morals/sense of purpose/meaning from?" A ridiculous question of course, because it suggests that any religious purpose one might claim is any less man-made than any other purpose we might make for ourselves. But more irritating to me is not the idea that faith is linked to morality, it's the idea that faith is a good thing at all. That goes for any sort of faith, be it a religion, a political system, the belief that a child will do well (and that last one is only faith if it's based on little or no evidence - no-one can claim that those kids you see on X Factor who obviously can't sing have benefitted from the faith their parents put in their singing ability, for example). But again, I think the mainstream idea of faith being good is simply rhetoric, which people generally don't believe if you're willing to dig a little deeper into their opinions. It's funny that the more faith someone appears to have, the less tolerable people will tend to find them. People only consider faith to be a good thing when it doesn't conflict with what we all know to be the rational truth. It's okay to believe that you will go to heaven, until you add the condition "unless you give your child a life changing blood transfusion," and then all of a sudden, the concept of everlasting life and a god that would rather you didn't save your child's life becomes a bit ridiculous to pretty much all of us. And so that basically means that most people don't really believe that faith is a virtue at all.
Its not that bad
I completely agree :yes: - The word faith used in the title is used in a very narrow sense to literally mean faith in God - possibly a short sighted editorial decision.
Not really. The other things that you might consider faith, such as nationalism, love, or even supporting a particular football team have all resulted in people acting in a way that they wouldn't even begin to attempt to rationally justify. The question isn't whether non-rational things have a place in human activities and experiences, of course they do. The question is whether acting irrationally leads to people being more moral, or has anything of importance to say about morality whatsoever. In my mind, the answer to this is clearly no. Give someone an ethical dilemma in which they have a faith-based interest, and they will almost always make the wrong decision, or the right decision for the wrong reasons. Ask someone to save 1 person they love, or 100 people they don't know, and you give them an ethical dilemma which would never be a dilemma if you remove the aspect of faith (in this case love) from the equation. It's the same if you asked the victim to sentence the criminal, or take a side in a war involving the country of their parents, for example. Now that's a natural thing that we have to put up with, and try to avoid whenever possible. But when it comes to religion, not only do we fail to avoid bringing it into discussions of morality, we actively encourage it. Religious faith specifically is still intrinsically linked with morality, and religious leaders are still consulted in issues of morality, even though when it comes down to a basic black and white decision, like the blood transfusion example, most people will agree that religious faith isn't helpful in issues of morality.
But yeah, I suppose if her rant was specifically talking about religious faith, then the word faith might've been a bit general. Although if you think about it, when people compliment someone with the term "man of faith," they're not talking about a loyal football fan, or someone who dedicates their life to art, or someone who loves their family, they're talking about someone with religious faith.
anyone not doing anyone else harm is worthy of being left in peace to beleive what they like.
I beleive that god was an extraterrestrial and we were his experiment, I'm not stupid enough to run around telling everyone I have the one truth and they should convert and I resent people trying to force their opinions onto me. I had many a discussion with jehova's that deny the obvious they say ok I will take you point of view into consideration and then after a 30 minuite explanation come back to square one saying the same thing again totaly ignoring the point that they said they were explaining. its the same with all religeons.
I just get on with life I harm nobody and expect the same back why can't others see that its soo simple to be happy - no I'm not happy because despite not harming anyone someone always wants to harm me but i guess thats human nature.
most religeous nuts would not even be able to explain the entire bibble to you despite saying they have the truth because they have been taught lessons based on minor parts that they just run around repeating.
there are many contradictions in religeon and the bible, did anyone know that god killed a man because he did not impregnate a woman but let his seamen spill on the floor (pulling out) and no the sin in gods eyes was not "maturbation" (well thats what the church call it though itm was not masturbation as we mean it) but not doing gods bidding and screwing at his will. it was god that ordered the woman to prostitute herself to this man. of course pulling out is the only contraceptive method accepted by the church having said it was a sin in gods eyes as that what the guy did, confused ? ye I bet you are !:hyper:
god did not kill or punish the two daughters that comited incest with their father and produced a son each with incidently were the founders of two great tribes.
put that to ya religeous nuts I make non of it up its in the bible to be read at will but conveniently ignored ! to my mind religeon is all about controlling people and thats that !
It was the xel naga.
I agree. That doesn't mean that the beliefs themselves need to be respected. Like I said, I don't think you can respect beliefs you find ridiculous. It's just not possible. And indeed, if they then cite those beliefs in a public discussion, then everyone else has the right to criticise their beliefs with the same venom that they would use in discussing politics, art, history, or any other field. You can't put your beliefs out there, and then cry offence the second someone turns round and says they're ridiculous. But this happens quite often.
I don't think that anybody can be truely moral because morality is subjective.
Even ideas of morality in relation to religion is subject to change, which is why (most) people don't use Christianity to sanction slavery anymore, but now it's all good to bash the gays whilst ignoring the fact that drunkardness is mentioned as a sin too and is far more of an epidemic.
Woohoo!
true but unfortunately we have this rthing called freedom of speech where you can go and even invent any twaddle you like and then go preech it, its that thing again where democracy is no longer about the wish and well being of the magiority but the seeking out of the minoritys and giving them more weight than the rest of us in the name of being fair !