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.
LOL.....I said I myself do not respect the beliefs...my point...respect the right to state one's beliefs...no matter how stupid or ridiculous....I'm gay myself so I got dibs on your first line.....I just consider the source and ignore them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA
I agree....while I may find many beliefs absolutely ridiculous....I feel I still should attempt to respect them
Well first I guess I should disabuse you of this idea that I think "rational" is the only or even best way to judge a belief system. Maybe you believe that, but I don't. Reason is important, but it's just one component. I certainly think that you can have a basically logical, rational, and empirical belief that's bad. I mean look at Peter Singer.
Exactly how it is "logical and rational"? Unless you want to define life as someone who has usefulness to society, you can not logically or rationally come to that conclusion..
But you will just ignore contradicting ideas anyway won't you..
Exactly how it is "logical and rational"? Unless you want to define life as someone who has usefulness to society, you can not logically or rationally come to that conclusion.
I have heard this response before, but okay I guess I'm thickheaded here. Explain.
Why is defining the value of life by usefulness not logical or rational? What do you think is the logical or rational way of seeing the value of human life?
...religious fanatics don't want peace. They want their god to ruthlessly smite us non-believers.
All religious people are not religious fanatics. I think it's this kind of generalizing that causes bad feelings between religious and non-religious people.
If someone is sensitive enough to get butthurt over anonymous comments on an internet discussion forum, they've got issues.
So do you think that pretty much anything goes as long as it's online? Would you label someone as overly sensitive if he got hurt over the same comments said to him face-to-face? I am almost certain that most of the extremists on both sides (i.e. the religious and the non-religious) would not walk up to a total stranger and say some of the things they feel totally comfortable typing up and sending over the internet.
I try to imagine a City-Data Religion Forum conference held somewhere at an enormous venue where the religious and the non-religious got together in an informal atmosphere the opening night at a sort of a happy hour. I picture all of us wearing name tags stating "Religious Person" or "Non-religious Person" on them. I'm sure there are a few people who wouldn't think twice about walking up to a total stranger at this casual get-together and, upon reading the person's name tag, wouldn't hesitate to launch right in with an insulting remark (i.e. "You're stupid and delusional to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster," or "God hates you and you're going to burn in Hell forever.") I really do think that most people would be a lot more respectful in person than they are online, though. Looking at someone and seeing his or her reaction would be enough to keep most reasonable people from saying everything they might be thinking.
I really do think it's too bad that we can't show a little more respect and civility to one another, but I guess that's life. Some people are incapable of feeling good about themselves unless they are making other people feel bad about themselves. I chalk it up to insecurity on both sides.
So do you think that pretty much anything goes as long as it's online? Would you label someone as overly sensitive if he got hurt over the same comments said to him face-to-face? I am almost certain that most of the extremists on both sides (i.e. the religious and the non-religious) would not walk up to a total stranger and say some of the things they feel totally comfortable typing up and sending over the internet.
I try to imagine a City-Data Religion Forum conference held somewhere at an enormous venue where the religious and the non-religious got together in an informal atmosphere the opening night at a sort of a happy hour. I picture all of us wearing name tags stating "Religious Person" or "Non-religious Person" on them. I'm sure there are a few people who wouldn't think twice about walking up to a total stranger at this casual get-together and, upon reading the person's name tag, wouldn't hesitate to launch right in with an insulting remark (i.e. "You're stupid and delusional to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster," or "God hates you and you're going to burn in Hell forever.") I really do think that most people would be a lot more respectful in person than they are online, though. Looking at someone and seeing his or her reaction would be enough to keep most reasonable people from saying everything they might be thinking.
I really do think it's too bad that we can't show a little more respect and civility to one another, but I guess that's life. Some people are incapable of feeling good about themselves unless they are making other people feel bad about themselves. I chalk it up to insecurity on both sides.
I think it would be more fun if - at this C-D religion forum conference we didn't have tags stating our religious persuasion. We could all meet each other and chit chat - and then later we could guess people's religion!!! I think there would be some shocked people!
I think it would be more fun if - at this C-D religion forum conference we didn't have tags stating our religious persuasion. We could all meet each other and chit chat - and then later we could guess people's religion!!! I think there would be some shocked people!
Oh, you're so right! People might actually be civil to each other for awhile. They'd only start being rude after they found out there was a label they could attach to people, and therefore justification for their lack of civility.
Getting back to common ground would pizza be common ground? I mean okay vegans and the lactose intolerant can't eat dairy, but I mean on the Religious/Non-Religious thing? Any of you atheists like pepperoni? Or you Biblical Literalists out there? Or do you both reject pizza as an invention of those nefarious Italian Papists
I have heard this response before, but okay I guess I'm thickheaded here. Explain.
Why is defining the value of life by usefulness not logical or rational? What do you think is the logical or rational way of seeing the value of human life?
Because the word "useful" is subjected to who ever defines it. Eg. nazis thought it would be logical and rational to wipe out anyone who didn't fit into their idea of "useful".
Getting back to common ground would pizza be common ground? I mean okay vegans and the lactose intolerant can't eat dairy, but I mean on the Religious/Non-Religious thing? Any of you atheists like pepperoni? Or you Biblical Literalists out there? Or do you both reject pizza as an invention of those nefarious Italian Papists
Pizza sounds like a good common ground. With anchovy. Mind, I would put a good curry up as a second best meeting ground.
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.
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.
I said I myself do not respect the beliefs...my point...respect the right to state one's beliefs...no matter how stupid or ridiculous....I'm gay myself so I got dibs on your first line.....I just consider the source and ignore them.
