So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right? Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it? There can only be one truth. This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing. This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.

So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right? Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it? There can only be one truth. This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing. This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned. That is one of the many problems with that brand of Christianity yes. Thing is you can't say that is also true of every religion so you don't get to use that argument against them all. Hence an example in why arguing against them all is pointless.

So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right? Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it? There can only be one truth. This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing. This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned. Not every religions holds that there can only be one truth. So, while yes some religions can inherently cause harm to others, this is not true of all religions. I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die!

Only when ideas hurt people are they bad. No no no no no no no. "Moderates" are culpable because they provide the room for interpretation in their attempt to cede to secular society. If a moderate can interpret or ignore passages about stoning nonbelievers to death but still adhere to tenets about love and somesuch stuff, then a fanatic can get away with being correct when they take those stoning passages literally. That's the problem. The moderates don't hold fanatics up to a standard of rigorous examination because otherwise they'd be apostates themselves.

So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right? Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it? There can only be one truth. This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing. This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned. Not every religions holds that there can only be one truth. So, while yes some religions can inherently cause harm to others, this is not true of all religions. I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die! I know at least a few Christians who believe that salvation is for everyone regardless of belief or disbelief in Jesus or God or whatever. On the other hand, I've had a few Christians condescend to me by essentially implying "I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell, neener neener neener" (indeed, very fucking Christ-like of them). Again, this is one of those things that depends on the beliefs of the individual religious person.

So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right? Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it? There can only be one truth. This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing. This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned. Not every religions holds that there can only be one truth. So, while yes some religions can inherently cause harm to others, this is not true of all religions. I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die! I know at least a few Christians who believe that salvation is for everyone regardless of belief or disbelief in Jesus or God or whatever. On the other hand, I've had a few Christians condescend to me by essentially implying "I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell, neener neener neener" (indeed, very fucking Christ-like of them). Again, this is one of those things that depends on the beliefs of the individual religious person. Daaaaaamn. They really are working "off the book" as it were. Why even bother calling yourself Christian at that point? Crazy. Edit: Well... I guess they could be using the corrupted Greek root for Christos (Savior) from which Christians take their name. So they aren't really followers of the teachings of one Yeshua of Nazerith but rather of a generic "Savior" figure who has nothing to do with the New Testament. Then you could sort of call them Christians yes.

So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right? Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it? There can only be one truth. This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing. This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned. That is one of the many problems with that brand of Christianity yes. Thing is you can't say that is also true of every religion so you don't get to use that argument against them all. Hence an example in why arguing against them all is pointless. Map comparing Abrahamic religions to the Dharmic and Taoic religions. I don't care that there are tiny little religions that don't necessarily make unverifiable universal claims. They're not very common. What we have here, evinced by this map, is a very serious problem.

Only when ideas hurt people are they bad. No no no no no no no. "Moderates" are culpable because they provide the room for interpretation in their attempt to cede to secular society. If a moderate can interpret or ignore passages about stoning nonbelievers to death but still adhere to tenets about love and somesuch stuff, then a fanatic can get away with being correct when they take those stoning passages literally. That's the problem. The moderates don't hold fanatics up to a standard of rigorous examination because otherwise they'd be apostates themselves. I'm all for calling extremists dumbasses and holding them culpable for their actions regardless of their beliefs. In fact, I'd any religious person not willing to hold extremists culpable for their actions are, essentially, extremists themselves and not moderates. You seem to have an odd idea of what a moderate is and then applying it to anyone that describes themselves as moderate.

So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right? Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it? There can only be one truth. This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing. This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned. Not every religions holds that there can only be one truth. So, while yes some religions can inherently cause harm to others, this is not true of all religions. I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die! I know at least a few Christians who believe that salvation is for everyone regardless of belief or disbelief in Jesus or God or whatever. On the other hand, I've had a few Christians condescend to me by essentially implying "I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell, neener neener neener" (indeed, very fucking Christ-like of them). Again, this is one of those things that depends on the beliefs of the individual religious person. Daaaaaamn. They really are working "off the book" as it were. Why even bother calling yourself Christian at that point? Crazy. Not really. That's a pretty basic idea presented in many parts of the Christian bible. It may be contradicted at points, but it's by far the most common feature. Believe in God/Jesus or go to hell. End of story.

Map comparing Abrahamic religions to the Dharmic and Taoic religions. I don't care that there are tiny little religions that don't necessarily make unverifiable universal claims. They're not very common. What we have here, evinced by this map, is a very serious problem. 1. No one lives their life on cold hard logic. Stop bitching about unverifiable claims. Unless a claim is hurting someone it is not bad. 2. So, what, now we just don't count Eastern religions in the word religion?

Only when ideas hurt people are they bad. No no no no no no no. "Moderates" are culpable because they provide the room for interpretation in their attempt to cede to secular society. If a moderate can interpret or ignore passages about stoning nonbelievers to death but still adhere to tenets about love and somesuch stuff, then a fanatic can get away with being correct when they take those stoning passages literally. That's the problem. The moderates don't hold fanatics up to a standard of rigorous examination because otherwise they'd be apostates themselves. I'm all for calling extremists dumbasses and holding them culpable for their actions regardless of their beliefs. In fact, I'd any religious person not willing to hold extremists culpable for their actions are, essentially, extremists themselves and not moderates. You seem to have an odd idea of what a moderate is and then applying it to anyone that describes themselves as moderate. All a moderate can really say without calling their own faith into question is that a fanatic's interpretation is wrong, and that's a dead end because there is no wrong interpretation of religion by its very nature.

So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right? Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it? There can only be one truth. This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing. This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned. Not every religions holds that there can only be one truth. So, while yes some religions can inherently cause harm to others, this is not true of all religions. I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die! I know at least a few Christians who believe that salvation is for everyone regardless of belief or disbelief in Jesus or God or whatever. On the other hand, I've had a few Christians condescend to me by essentially implying "I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell, neener neener neener" (indeed, very fucking Christ-like of them). Again, this is one of those things that depends on the beliefs of the individual religious person. Daaaaaamn. They really are working "off the book" as it were. Why even bother calling yourself Christian at that point? Crazy. Not really. That's a pretty basic idea presented in many parts of the Christian bible. It may be contradicted at points, but it's by far the most common feature. Believe in God/Jesus or go to hell. End of story. No I meant the people he referred to that said salvation is for everyone regardless are the ones not reading their own damn book.

Map comparing Abrahamic religions to the Dharmic and Taoic religions. I don't care that there are tiny little religions that don't necessarily make unverifiable universal claims. They're not very common. What we have here, evinced by this map, is a very serious problem. 1. No one lives their life on cold hard logic. Stop bitching about unverifiable claims. Unless a claim is hurting someone it is not bad. 2. So, what, now we just don't count Eastern religions in the word religion? If you're making claims about universal reality (as religions necessarily do) you best as fuck be using verifiable claims. That's been my point from the start.

All a moderate can really say without calling their own faith into question is that a fanatic's interpretation is wrong, and that's a dead end because there is no wrong interpretation of religion by its very nature. Yes there is. I fully accept my interpretation could be wrong. I'm only human after all. You keep trying to fit "religion" under one specific group of ideas that have to apply to all of them. Stop.

So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right? Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it? There can only be one truth. This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing. This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned. That is one of the many problems with that brand of Christianity yes. Thing is you can't say that is also true of every religion so you don't get to use that argument against them all. Hence an example in why arguing against them all is pointless. Map comparing Abrahamic religions to the Dharmic and Taoic religions. I don't care that there are tiny little religions that don't necessarily make unverifiable universal claims. They're not very common. What we have here, evinced by this map, is a very serious problem. So pick a group, or preferably a single subgroup, and make a thread about that specifically. Because as long as you are trying to make claims about "religion" as a whole all Quid has to do (and he is perfectly correct here) is find a single example of a religion to whom your objection does not apply.

No I meant the people he referred to that said salvation is for everyone regardless are the ones not reading their own damn book. Ah, yeah, that's true.

Alright, clarification for Quid's sake: Religions that make universal claims about reality. For the record, these are the religions that the vast majority of people believe in.

If you're making claims about universal reality (as religions necessarily do) you best as fuck be using verifiable claims. That's been my point from the start. Not until you demonstrate how they're bad if they don't hurt anyone. Because as I've said before, I have no problem with people claiming space clowns help determine their economic policy so long as said policy has, does, and continues to work without harming people. If a guy who thinks God resides in his glasses has directed him to and how to creates the cure for cancer then I'm fine with that.

Alright, clarification for Quid's sake: Religions that make universal claims about reality. For the record, these are the religions that the vast majority of people believe in. So now it's not religion, it's most religions. Also, quite a few Taoists believe in ancestral spirits. There's another one of those unjustifiable claims that's getting schools bombed.

If you're making claims about universal reality (as religions necessarily do) you best as fuck be using verifiable claims. That's been my point from the start. Not until you demonstrate how they're bad if they don't hurt anyone. Because as I've said before, I have no problem with people claiming space clowns help determine their economic policy so long as said policy has, does, and continues to work without harming people. If a guy who thinks God resides in his glasses has directed him to and how to creates the cure for cancer then I'm fine with that. You keep creating these hypotheticals. I'd challenge you to find one for each of the billions of people that have been harmed in the name of religion.

Alright, clarification for Quid's sake: Religions that make universal claims about reality. For the record, these are the religions that the vast majority of people believe in. So now it's not religion, it's most religions. Also, quite a few Taoists believe in ancestral spirits. There's another one of those unjustifiable claims that's getting schools bombed. It's a pretty prominent feature in the majority of religions. I feel safe in generalising.

You keep creating these hypotheticals. I'd challenge you to find one for each of the billions of people that have been harmed in the name of religion. People have been hurt for reasons other than and because of religion. People have been helped for reasons other than and because of religion. You're problem is with religion that hurts people. I'm sorry it's not an equal fucking scale but, as mentioned earlier, people throughout history would have been dicks whether or not they believed in a religion.

If at best, the belief in a higher power provides someone with peace of mind and a sense of community, and at worst, damages their credibility amongst those outside of their community, who condescend to think that their perspective is more 'true' or 'healthy', then it seems to me the good outweighs the bad. It doesn't matter what a person believes in; belief in a higher, controlling power is just a part of your view of the world. Since no one can claim that their view is anymore accurate than someone else's, their view is just as good as yours. At worst, that belief is used by the person to make other decisions and hold other beliefs. I'm not going to start citing examples of people using religion to justify horrible things, because it's not necessary. Just wanted to point that out. I was referring solely to the person holding the belief. If they did something horrible which, according to their belief, was morally sound, then what they've done (for them) isn't so bad. Yes, it's horrible for someone else, but not for the believer. The problem then is that we've got one action that, from the perspective of one person is bad and from the perspective of another person is good. I'll use the example of a man coming across a tribe of people who, according to their culture, consider it an unforgivable injustice to touch each others hands. Not knowing this, the man reaches out and shakes hands with one of them, and as a result of this is accused of being rude and is chased out of the tribe's camp. Without meaning to, he'd deeply offended all of them. One thing about religion anyway is that you've got a whole lot of people who believe the same thing, and as a result of that, an action performed by one believer will be interpreted the way it was intended by another believer. Religions provide a set of rules, and without a definitive list of 'rights' and 'wrongs' (albeit generally open to interpretation) people are disorganized and free to justify things however they please. In the example you've cited, the act of hand-touching was not itself immoral, though it had grave social implications. The man was not necessarily wrong, though a bit presumptive. He would have been morally wrong had he known about the custom and still chose to touch the villager's hands because of the emotional duress caused by a person purposefully violating one's sacred custom or what have you . Anyway, this is an example of a cultural norm making significant an action which would otherwise be morally insignificant. This is the only sense in which moral relativism holds any water. If that same village had the custom that all visitors to the village had to violently rape a female prisoner or themselves face execution, that custom is still morally wrong regardless of the local beliefs.

Oh, and I'm religious and don't use it to justify harming anyone nor use it to justify much of anything. It does, however, make me feel kind of better. Therefore: Not all religion is bad.

It really is the "believe/behave/worship this way or else you're going to hell" that has me so turned off of actual religious institutions. I mean... Many many of the religions today are offshoots from the same thing, devoted to the same main text. For the most part, their values are similar, they follow the same rules/commandments, and should by all rights get along fine. But every little difference in the way they've chosen to follow these beliefs are magnified until they're totally different and at times at war with each other. Maybe I'm being naive, but given the tenants of the original text they all believe is the word of God, shouldn't there be alot more unifying of belief and less division?