U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-08-2009, 10:43 AM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,849 posts, read 30,414,282 times
Reputation: 22357

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
That's what I thought too. Until you ask some of them for in depth opinions. Then I realized that there are many more insane people than is generally believed.
I believe that in our own way, we are all insane. Who can judge another? Who is so perfectly snow white? Nobody I know.

20yrsinBranson

 
Old 06-08-2009, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Omaha
2,716 posts, read 6,221,881 times
Reputation: 1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by radraja View Post
Just because someone is religious, doesn't make them a zealot.

Suburbs and rural areas tend to have larger religious populations. That's pretty standard. But in most cases, the people you're referring to are just normal people. I don't understand the perception that being religious automatically makes you a backwards hick, because that's clearly not the case in most of the US.
Religion seems to offend the non-religious and vice versa. It's no different than a devout Christian thinking an Atheist is a "devil worshipper".

The only thing that proves is that hypocrisy and ignorance runs rampant on both sides.
 
Old 06-08-2009, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Omaha
2,716 posts, read 6,221,881 times
Reputation: 1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
Considering that atheists are a fragment of the general population, I'd find this hard to believe, literally speaking.

Non-Christians. Better?
 
Old 06-08-2009, 10:52 AM
 
2,502 posts, read 8,057,369 times
Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by burgerflipper View Post
Religion seems to offend the non-religious and vice versa. It's no different than a devout Christian thinking an Atheist is a "devil worshipper".

The only thing that proves is that hypocrisy and ignorance runs rampant on both sides.
True. I just don't understand how people can claim to be so open-minded and progressive, while being prejudiced (for lack of better word) against a whole group of people. It seems ironic to me. Wouldn't someone who is truly liberal embrace everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation?
 
Old 06-08-2009, 10:53 AM
 
3,277 posts, read 4,621,990 times
Reputation: 1913
Quote:
Originally Posted by burgerflipper View Post
Non-Christians. Better?
Non-Christians are still a tiny fragment of the population. Judaism, the largest non-Christian religion, is almost 2%.

And even then we're talking about religious here. So I think we should be talking about all religions. I find that most Atheists and Agnostics are Atheists and Agnostics because they have made a well thought out, calculated decision that they don't accept the logic and reasoning of religions. A larger proportion of religious people are religious for the purpose of tradition, or because they simply have never truly pondered why exactly they believe what they believe and whether it's worth it to continue, or they're simply afraid of the concept of death outside of religion or afraid of the judgment of others. To be an Atheist in a society where at least nominal religiousness is the norm requires one to examine why they are the way they are. As a member of the majority group, be it religious or ethnic, you always have a sense that you can be who you are without ever realizing that there is anything to think about at all.
 
Old 06-08-2009, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Omaha
2,716 posts, read 6,221,881 times
Reputation: 1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by radraja View Post
True. I just don't understand how people can claim to be so open-minded and progressive, while being prejudiced (for lack of better word) against a whole group of people. It seems ironic to me. Wouldn't someone who is truly liberal embrace everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation?
Because most aren't truly liberal. In fact, most don't have the slightest clue as to what the original fundamentals of liberalism were meant to be.

Today's version of liberalism has moved from equality to hypocrisy. The only thing they have REALLY held true was the rejection of religion.

Come to think of it, the liberalism movement's foundation was tolerance and equality while rejecting the religious. Sounds like they have held true to their values - hypocrisy.
 
Old 06-08-2009, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Omaha
2,716 posts, read 6,221,881 times
Reputation: 1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
Non-Christians are still a tiny fragment of the population. Judaism, the largest non-Christian religion, is almost 2%.

And even then we're talking about religious here. So I think we should be talking about all religions. I find that most Atheists and Agnostics are Atheists and Agnostics because they have made a well thought out, calculated decision that they don't accept the logic and reasoning of religions. A larger proportion of religious people are religious for the purpose of tradition, or because they simply have never truly pondered why exactly they believe what they believe and whether it's worth it to continue, or they're simply afraid of the concept of death outside of religion or afraid of the judgment of others. To be an Atheist in a society where at least nominal religiousness is the norm requires one to examine why they are the way they are. As a member of the majority group, be it religious or ethnic, you always have a sense that you can be who you are without ever realizing that there is anything to think about at all.
First, I really think we are underestimating the non-religious population of this country. ME personally, from living in Nebraska (Omaha), notice about a 60-40 split between believers and non-believers.

I understand and agree with your statement. I think we are getting off course, though. The original question was more of a back handed statement claiming Christians are uneducated, close-minded, fanatics.

While I will agree with a portion of them, the same goes with non-Christians and everybody else for that matter.

I think it just goes to show how stupid and primitive mankind is in general. It's just as outlandish to think an explosion created life as we know it as it is to believe some kind of God created it, imo.
 
Old 06-08-2009, 11:08 AM
 
3,277 posts, read 4,621,990 times
Reputation: 1913
Quote:
Originally Posted by burgerflipper View Post
Come to think of it, the liberalism movement's foundation was tolerance and equality while rejecting the religious. Sounds like they have held true to their values - hypocrisy.
If you are a Liberal, and believe in freedom of beliefs and opinions, then would it not make sense to oppose what at that time imposed itself on others, often violently? With orgnisations like the Catholic Church with their Inquisitions and Crusades, it would have made perfect sense for the Liberals of that time to reject religion in that incarnation. It's tantamount to a racially tolerant person rejecting the racially intolerant. On its face it sounds logical to say that this is hypocritical, but it is a reasonable position to hold depending on the circumstances.

That's why liberals are against imposing religious people, zealots, but okay with the non imposing religious people.
 
Old 06-08-2009, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Omaha
2,716 posts, read 6,221,881 times
Reputation: 1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
If you are a Liberal, and believe in freedom of beliefs and opinions, then would it not make sense to oppose what at that time imposed itself on others, often violently? With orgnisations like the Catholic Church with their Inquisitions and Crusades, it would have made perfect sense for the Liberals of that time to reject religion in that incarnation. It's tantamount to a racially tolerant person rejecting the racially intolerant. On its face it sounds logical to say that this is hypocritical, but it is a reasonable position to hold depending on the circumstances.

That's why liberals are against imposing religious people, zealots, but okay with the non imposing religious people.
Early 18th century during the "Enlightenment", yes, that's a reasonable statement.
Today, they are just playing the same intolerant games as the hardcore Christians.
 
Old 06-08-2009, 11:13 AM
 
Location: where my heart is
5,642 posts, read 7,988,233 times
Reputation: 1661
Nobody has a problem if people would just keep their religion to themselves. It's when they feel the need to convert the world, where the problem comes in. I have every right to not answer my doorbell when they ring it bringing their pamphlets. I have the right to say no thank you and hang up my phone. I have the right to not be accosted on the street, etc., etc. You may have the right to your religion and free speech, but I also have to the right to not listen to you.

Live your life and leave me to live mine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top