USU78 Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 55 minutes ago, california boy said: A lot of people have a great deal of anger towards organized religion. And many have good reason to be angry. Dishonesty, hypocrisy, sexual predators, money schemes, trying to control the civil rights of others, dictating behaviors to everyone, even those that don't share the same beliefs, devaluing their families, political agendas, using religion to justify discrimination even in cases where that discrimination violates law, bombings, shootings, war, shunning, family conflict, beheadings, stoning, exclusion, honor killings, oppressing women. It is not like religion is neutral in how it functions in society. Why wouldn't some people hold ill feelings towards religion? If one were to insert "homosexuals" in the place of "organized religion" in your post, you and a bunch of others would be having puppies about now. How about that?! 4
6EQUJ5 Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, california boy said: A lot of people have a great deal of anger towards organized religion. And many have good reason to be angry. Dishonesty, hypocrisy, sexual predators, money schemes, trying to control the civil rights of others, dictating behaviors to everyone, even those that don't share the same beliefs, devaluing their families, political agendas, using religion to justify discrimination even in cases where that discrimination violates law, bombings, shootings, war, shunning, family conflict, beheadings, stoning, exclusion, honor killings, oppressing women. It is not like religion is neutral in how it functions in society. Why wouldn't some people hold ill feelings towards religion? Let me offer my version of your statement above: Quote A lot of people have a great deal of anger towards social justice warriors. And many have good reason to be angry. Dishonesty, hypocrisy, sexual predators, money schemes, trying to control the civil rights of others, dictating behaviors to everyone, even those that don't share the same beliefs, devaluing their families, political agendas, using "social justice" to justify suppression of speech and the eroding of civil liberty. This is true even in cases where that discrimination violates law or contributes to bombings (Unabomber) shootings (dude who shot Scalise), war (LBJ,HRC), shunning, family conflict, exclusion, and oppressing women, minorities, and gays who don't adhere to a very specific political and cultural orthodoxy. Why wouldn't some people hold ill feelings towards so-called social justice? I guess everything is a matter of perspective, CB. 3
carbon dioxide Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 “WTF is praying going to do?” wrote one commenter. “Wise up! He’s in hospital, science is the best place for him, diet change and exercise. Not random thoughts by you or anyone else.” Being in a hospital might actually be an added reason to pray. A 100,000 people die each year as a result of being in a hospital. Science does many great things but also has its is consequences like drug resistant bacteria.
california boy Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Let me offer my version of your statement above: I guess everything is a matter of perspective, CB. Actually both versions have validity. 2
california boy Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 19 hours ago, USU78 said: If one were to insert "homosexuals" in the place of "organized religion" in your post, you and a bunch of others would be having puppies about now. How about that?! Are you guys seriously trying to deny that there aren't any real reasons for someone to be angry with religion? The objection is that you are using inflammatory language that approaches Godwin's Law.
Analytics Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 5:23 PM, smac97 said: What is the basis for irreligious hostility to benign expressions of faith? Why limit the question to the irreligious? You don't have to be irreligious to be irritated by people who use expressions of faith as a way to sanctimoniously avoid doing anything to fix a problem in the real world. Benign expressions of faith are often dead expressions of faith. As James said: If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
JLHPROF Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Why limit the question to the irreligious? You don't have to be irreligious to be irritated by people who use expressions of faith as a way to sanctimoniously avoid doing anything to fix a problem in the real world. Benign expressions of faith are often dead expressions of faith. As James said: If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Yes, the bad behavior is often on both sides. The topic of this thread is how religious people are viewed (and thus treated) in our current increasingly secular society. A thread on how religious people behave towards those without faith would be a topic for a different thread. Expressions of faith receive a variety of responses in our current society, including those of disdain, disapproval, intellectual snobbery, and of course, haughty derision.
Damien the Leper Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 4:23 PM, smac97 said: So this story seems a bit odd: I'm not quite accustomed to vulgarity and prayer going hand-in-hand like this, but the overall sentiment is plainly sincere. I've never understood this sort of hostility to utterly benign religious faith. Pratt is not proposing prayer instead of medical care. And yet he is getting publicly slammed for something utterly innocuous. Seems rather intolerant. Fortunately, the responses were not all bad: I am reminded of a recent similar dustup involving similar public hostility toward religious faith by the apparent irreligious: What is the basis for irreligious hostility to benign expressions of faith? Thanks, -Smac Thank you for bringing this up. I am of the opinion that New Atheism has hardened people's hearts to the point that all empathy has been reserved for anything but religion. Are the religious not equally human and of value as the irreligious? The extremes of having religion and hostile atheism shoved down anyone's throats is reprehensible. Why do people lack the ability to be reasonable? Has compassion become a foreign concept? Why the rude and inappropriate responses? Why not set aside the differences and express love, charity and compassion? 4
Analytics Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Yes, the bad behavior is often on both sides. The topic of this thread is how religious people are viewed (and thus treated) in our current increasingly secular society. A thread on how religious people behave towards those without faith would be a topic for a different thread. Expressions of faith receive a variety of responses in our current society, including those of disdain, disapproval, intellectual snobbery, and of course, haughty derision... Great video clip. However, I disagree that the thread is about how "religious people are viewed (and thus treated)." The thread is about how a few non-religious people are irritated when, for example, there is a mass murder and rather than implementing common-sense gun laws that successfully prevent these shootings in every other first-world country, the Speaker of the House replies by saying that the victims are "in his prayers." Wil Wheaton explained why he said what he said. Quote “I’m not talking about religion or faith at all. I am talking about the speaker of the house who does nothing to address gun violence,” he replied. “Hey, real and actual people of faith: I hear you. I apologize for insulting you, in my rage at Paul Ryan’s refusal to address gun violence. Your faith is your business and people like Paul Ryan exploit it while they hide behind words without deeds, and people continue to die. ”[emphasis added] You don't have to be irreligious to have those sentiments. Wheaton's sensibilities on this issue can correctly be summarized by quoting James: faith without works is dead. I'm not conceding that Wheaton's behavior is "bad behavior." I'm just trying to address the question regarding what is the basis for his alleged "irreligious hostility to benign expressions of faith." Edited February 28, 2018 by Analytics 1
USU78 Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 16 hours ago, california boy said: Are you guys seriously trying to deny that there aren't any real reasons for someone to be angry with religion? Bigotry is bigotry, whether one honestly believes or merely feigns belief.
Bernard Gui Posted March 2, 2018 Posted March 2, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 3:23 PM, smac97 said: What is the basis for irreligious hostility to benign expressions of faith? There’s plenty of hostility expressed when conservative Christians express their faith, most recently demonstrated when the ladies of The View said this about VPOTUS Mike Pence.... Quote “talking to Jesus is one thing, but hearing Jesus talk to you could be described as ‘mental illness.'” But they are strangely silent when Oprah Winfrey declared she will run for President only if God tells her to in unmistakable terms. What a world we live in! 2
Storm Rider Posted March 2, 2018 Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) It seems like this hatred of Christianity, or anything having to do with Christianity, has become pervasive in Western society. Our institutions of higher learning rejoice in demeaning Western Civilization - and thus Christianity - while falling all over themselves for religions or philosophies of the East or anything, just not Western Civilization. Often this is done while cloaking their words to excuse all thoughts and actions - tolerance. It almost seems to me that hatred is uppermost in the minds of our citizenry all the time. Hatred is as the air we breathe' it is inescapable when we leave our homes. There is a hatred of the west for its sins, hatred of the west for its virtues, hatred of men, hatred of women who did not hate men as they ought to have been hated, hatred of religious people for taking their religion seriously, hatred of people who do not hate whom they ought to hate and who therefore vote the wrong way, hatred of the past for not being the present, hatred of the present for not being the future, hatred of all the imperfections of this world for being what they are, and, in the darkest souls, hatred of God, for being God. The worst and most vile thing is found in the Christian that strives to live their faith in a committed manner. It is this very commitment that engenders the sharpest hatred. The mere fact that a Christian is anchored by standards is viewed as the personification of evil - it is intolerance of all other life forms. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Life does not come by satiating every desire of or our mortal passions - that is a path of death. It is this understanding that rankles those who worship at the alter of modern hedonism. Edited March 2, 2018 by Storm Rider
CA Steve Posted March 2, 2018 Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Storm Rider said: It seems like this hatred of Christianity, or anything having to do with Christianity, has become pervasive in Western society. Again, the article was about "several followers of Chris Pratt" out of a pool of 14 million plus. How is this an indication of pervasive hatred of Christianity? If anything it should be evidence of how millions of his followers were comfortable with his public sentiment of Christianity. Edited March 2, 2018 by CA Steve
Amulek Posted March 2, 2018 Posted March 2, 2018 On 2/28/2018 at 2:23 PM, Analytics said: The thread is about how a few non-religious people are irritated when, for example, there is a mass murder and rather than implementing common-sense gun laws that successfully prevent these shootings in every other first-world country, the Speaker of the House replies by saying that the victims are "in his prayers." Wil Wheaton explained why he said what he said. Yeah, he was just so angry with a particular politician that he slipped up and happened to let out a classless dig at religionists in the process. Consider the following hypothetical: A church bus filled with children is driving to Vacation Bible School one day, when a drunken motorist driving a large truck collides with the vehicle – driving it off the road, resulting in multiple deaths. Upon hearing of the tragedy, a prominent politician comments that the victims are in his prayers. A member of MADD then takes to the Twitter and rants, “The victims were riding in a church bus. If prayers did anything, they’d still be alive, you worthless sack of [expletive deleted].” Here’s the thing: I can understand that said mother is primarily angry at the politician for his action (or inaction) with regard to policies she thinks would have prevented tragedies like the above from happening in the first place. But I also think she kind of tipped her hand about how much disdain she has for religion. She can apologize for the insult, but we now all know how she really feels. You can call it 'irritation' if you want, but if a similar comment had been said about a different class of people we would be using a different word to characterize the reaction. 1
Storm Rider Posted March 2, 2018 Posted March 2, 2018 2 hours ago, CA Steve said: Again, the article was about "several followers of Chris Pratt" out of a pool of 14 million plus. How is this an indication of pervasive hatred of Christianity? If anything it should be evidence of how millions of his followers were comfortable with his public sentiment of Christianity. CA, I wish it was just one example. It is nice to focus on the positive, but this is not a unique example. It is constant and unending. I do like your PMA, but I am no willing to stop watching what is going on; what people are saying, and what they are doing.
Calm Posted March 2, 2018 Posted March 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: CA, I wish it was just one example. It is nice to focus on the positive, but this is not a unique example. It is constant and unending. I do like your PMA, but I am no willing to stop watching what is going on; what people are saying, and what they are doing. It may be constant and unending but if it always just a handful out of millions, it is also insignificant. If you want to claim it as significant, you need to show it is a significant percentage of comments, etc. 1
Storm Rider Posted March 2, 2018 Posted March 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Calm said: It may be constant and unending but if it always just a handful out of millions, it is also insignificant. If you want to claim it as significant, you need to show it is a significant percentage of comments, etc. If I want to claim that our society has a signifiant percentage of those who express hatred towards Christianity then to support such a claim I need to show a significant percentage of comments? Are you limiting the ability to demonstrate this to this single instance of hate comments or is all comments? Your hurdle is not well defined; could you define it more clearly? Also, could you define what you want significant percentage to be to meet your standard? The reverse would also be interesting - where is the outpouring of support, appreciation and admiration in all comments? The absence of comments does not equate to support, acceptance, appreciation, etc. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 On 2/27/2018 at 5:53 PM, Atheist Mormon said: Yeah, sorry to inform you but it doesn't......I invested sixty years in it saw nothing of that sorts....Life is good & fulfilling without hanging out to empty hopes....As long as you know you are on the wheel and no one else....... You are speaking of personal experience, I take it, and feel that you got a raw deal (no answers to your prayers, etc.). Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with your religious feelings or lack of them. It is straight science, showing that in fact the human mind does have the capacity to effect outcomes, even if only on a small scale in these long-term experiments. Moreover, the effect is instantaneous, faster than light speed. How does that work? Have no idea. I thought that atheists had a liking for science. Am I wrong? 1
Recommended Posts