Should theists learn to accept being treated with contempt?

[guillaumeb]

Should women learn to accept misogyny?

Should racial minorities learn to accept racism?

Should LGBTQ people learn to accept discrimination?

Should the poor earn to accept an economic system that disenfranchises them?


The real question should not speak of accepting blasphemy, or racism, or misogyny.

The real question should be, how can we move past these various examples of intolerance?

[ret5hd]

1. Should flat-earthers learn to accept being treated with contempt?

[guillaumeb]

2. The flat earth "theory" is easily disproven. eom

[Blues Heron]

3. If you're a grown adult you who believes in tooth fairies and magic and such

you really can't expect to be taken seriously by any thinking person. That's just a fact.

[guillaumeb]

5. A silly and reducionistic premise.

Do you feel that it should be taken seriously?

[Major Nikon]

8. The reason few take you seriously is because you try to float nonsense like this OP

Do you honestly expect people to respect stupid ideas? If so you are going to be disappointed often.

[guillaumeb]

10. More framing.

A small group does not translate into "the many".

[Major Nikon]

13. But you don't think pretending religion is no different than any other protected class is "framing"

Very telling that.

Learn how to think, Gil.

[guillaumeb]

15. More channelling?

Understood.

[Major Nikon]

17. More gibberish

[Blues Heron]

9. There's no difference between the goddess of teeth and your yaweh or allah or thor

same idea.

[Bretton Garcia]

28. Ancient maps evidence flat earth beliefs

Ships are pictured coming to the edge of a flat earth, like the edge of a table ... and falling off.

A few more sophisticated persons in ancient times suspected the world was round. But they were in a tiny minority. Until say, Magellan circumnavigates the globe, etc..

[guillaumeb]

29. Everyone knows that the invisible force field prevents the ships from falling. eom

[Bretton Garcia]

67. Invisible gravity...

..was never mentioned in the Bible, it seems likely. For which invisible spirits seem mostly about psychological spirit.

[Lordquinton]

46. No, they knew the earth was round

Eratosthenes of Cyrene did an experiment that proved it, and even calculated the size with pretty close accuracy.

[Bretton Garcia]

50. Yes. But how many believed him?

Today a common complaint by atheists, against religion, is that Christian Medievals believed in miracles, creationism, and a "flat earth."

Christian apologists have tried to argue that THEY never believed any such thing. And your example suggests that indeed, some (pagan?) intellectuals guessed the world was round. However, many Christian maps still seem to reflect backward beliefs, in a flat earth.

Everyday Christians were not up to date, compared to science and intellectuals.

[Lordquinton]

51. The maps have clever illistrations

that play with the constraints of a piece of paper where the illustrator had fun. It's really hard to nail down whether it was known or not, but we can confirm that many times across the centuries they did know that it was round. For example Columbus wasn't concerned if the earth was flat or round, he just wanted to find a better route, and thought he could get there a new way. His expedition was too expensive, not that people thought he would sail off the edge of the world.

Every day christians probably didn't even consider the world outside their county very much, except for soldiers who were sent to war and then were lucky enough to make it home.

[Bretton Garcia]

52. Christians today like to say they didn't take the maps literally.

And that they never misread all that.

But knowing Christians as we do?

The maps also often showed monsters at the edge of the world. And we know when faced with Terra Incognita, or unknown territories, many peoples were fearful; and felt there might be - or even said there were - monsters there.

This persisted as late as 1960 or so. When some people were still looking for say, Big Foot in the unexplored northern woods. Or the Loch Ness monster in Scotland.

Or to this day, Noah's Ark in Turkey

[Lordquinton]

54. And sailors were (are?) Very suspicious

But they could see ships sail past the horizon and come back.

The world was less known, and there were large creatures still wandering around back then. Imagine describing an elephant or a moose to someone a Continent away.

I feel it's not a truly valid comparison between today and a thousand years ago. Among the learned it was known and accepted the earth was round. Most people were not educated so they wouldn't have reason know otherwise. Now we have access to all the world's collected knowledge at out fingertips and people claim they know better.

[Bretton Garcia]

65. If religions erred in the past?

Then they can be erring today, in similar ... or different ways too.

Once we see they are not as perfect as they often claimed, it seems wise to always keep an eye on them.

[Lordquinton]

66. There are pleanty of things religion got wrong

And still do. They don't claim it's flat for the most part (I think) anymore, but that would be an interesting research project.

The Netflix documentary showed more of a conspiracy angle instead of a religious one, but it followed one group of flat earthers. It did, however, show the cult like devotion they have, they find direct evidence they are wrong, they run experiments and say if they find X then the Earth is a sphere and then repeatedly find X, and discard it.

[Major Nikon]

6. People who can only think with analogies shouldn't be taken seriously to begin with

Out of all the recognized protected classes, religion is the only one that constitutes nothing more than theology. Equating religion to a biological constant is idiotic. Contempt of a particular gender or race isn't the same thing as contempt of an idea.

[Major Nikon]

4. So logical failure is what dictates the acceptability of contempt

Good to know.

Contempt of an idea ≠ contempt of a person. If you think it does, then you might want to put some thought into how attached you are to your idea.

[guillaumeb]

7. Again,

Should women learn to accept misogyny?

Should racial minorities learn to accept racism?

Should LGBTQ people learn to accept discrimination?

Should the poor earn to accept an economic system that disenfranchises them?

If anyone feels a need to demonstrate contempt for the vast majority of your fellow humans, what does that demonstrate about that person?

[Major Nikon]

11. Once again you insist on forming a strawman argument that is easily debunked

Contempt of an idea ≠ contempt of a person.

When you continue to insist on your easily debunked logical fallacy, your credibility is going to suffer. Learn how to think, Gil.

[guillaumeb]

12. Channeling your inner M?

Understood.

[Major Nikon]

14. Gibberish

[guillaumeb]

16. Observation.

The scientific method.

[MineralMan]

36. Are you born with a religion?

If not, there is no parallel in your examples.

[Eko]

33. At least the flat earth "theory"

is a claim that people are making that can be proved or disproved. Their claim actually makes some kind of sense compared to the one religions do.

[MineralMan]

35. What if there is no proof for a flat earth.

What if faith is the evidence of it?

[Major Nikon]

18. ...

[guillaumeb]

19. Finally.

Cultivate your gif(t)s MK.

[Major Nikon]

20. Cultivating your canned replies

Another exercise in banality.

[guillaumeb]

21. I am still looking for that theists who calls opponents deceiver.

A site search was unproductive.

[Major Nikon]

22. Duplicity noted

[guillaumeb]

25. Noted:

Lots of Christians think non-Christians are tools of the devil. We have a regular here who calls his detractors “deceiver” which is code-speak for the devil. The idea is if you aren’t with them, you must be against them and working for the other side. Many of them are indoctrinated with these warped ideas from childhood.

[tymorial]

31. Lol

[Glamrock]

23. Why not?

I’ve learned to accept being treated with contempt by some religious folks. It’s a two way street.

[guillaumeb]

24. But should you, or anyone, have to learn that?

Would it not be better if we did treat others as we wish to be treated?

Or is it human nature to do otherwise?

[Glamrock]

44. Of course I shouldn't have to learn that, brother.

And of course it would be better if we treated others as we expected to be treated. Unfortunately, here on planet earth, that's not the way it works.

Athiests treat people of religion with contempt because they hold to beliefs that are no more than superstitions, in the eyes of the athiest. And the religious hold people like me in contempt for either insulting the deity they believe in by not believing, or for opening the door to the possibility that their beliefs may not be based in reality.

I could give a shit less, as long as person A's beliefs don't trample on the rights of person B, dig? But again, here on planet earth, that's not how things work.

So yeah man, that's human nature. Sorry it took so many words to get an answer my friend....

[Thomas Hurt]

26. You should define contempt...

If someone disagrees with you is that contempt?

If someone says something about Christianity that offends you is that contempt?

Does contempt include being physically assaulted?

If someone does teat you with contempt do you expect that their freedom to believe or speak should be curtailed?

[guillaumeb]

37. Contempt in a strictly verbal sense.

Assault is criminal.

[TlalocW]

27. Aren't some theists supposed to be ready for that?

At least in Christianity, doesn't the Bible tell its adherents to expect it?

TlalocW

[guillaumeb]

38. Are there 2 standards of acceptable conduct ?

Should we not treat others as we wish to be treated?

[MineralMan]

62. Is that what you do? Treat others as you wish to be treated?

If so, what is your complaint?

[trotsky]

64. "Should we not treat others as we wish to be treated?"

But you don't follow that philosophy. You've admitted as such.

Instead you judge others, and then dispense eye-for-an-eye justice. You desire to punish others until they conform to the standards you want to set for them. (Reserving the right for yourself, of course, to follow a different set of standards.)

[tymorial]

30. Here we go again

[Alpeduez21]

32. Your analogy is flawed

Women don't try and force me to live like a woman when they want legislation for equality.

Minorities don't try and force me to live like a minority when they want legislation for equality.

The LGBTQ community doesn't try and force me to live like a member of the LGBTQ community when they want legislation for equality

The poor don't ask people to give up wealth when they ask for legislation for a living wage and social surfaces.

These examples you gave merely want the constitution to be enforced.

The real question is not should theists learn to accept contempt. It's when will they stop trying to usurp the constitution with biblical law?

[Mariana]

68. Christians like Gil are so oppressed in this country.

[MineralMan]

34. Should theists treat atheists with contempt?

So many questions. So little space.

[guillaumeb]

39. Please try to stay on topic.

Thank you.

[MineralMan]

40. I do not take instructions from you, sir.

The topic is contempt. I am on topic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Do you really see blasphemy in the same category as racism and misogyny?

A reminder of the definition at the start of the thread that seems to have set you off:

Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.[1][2] Blasphemies can also mean any irreverent or disrespectful action or remark.[3] Some countries have laws to punish religious blasphemy,[4] while others have laws that sanction those who are offended by blasphemy to effect their wrath on blasphemers. Those laws may condone penalties or retaliation for blasphemy under the labels of blasphemous libel,[5] expression of opposition, or "vilification," of religion or of some religious practices,[6][7] religious insult,[8] or hate speech.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

"Deities", "holy persons" (living? Who gets to declare a person "holy"?), "things", or "something". Not classes of people, which racism and misogyny are about. The poor and LGBTQ people are classes of people too.

Are you really saying that sacred objects, or supernatural beings, have the rights and expectations that humans have? That we must show reverence to any person declared "holy", rather than treating them as a human being just like us?

You're cheapening the idea of human rights, for the sake of unproven ghosts, charlatans, and relics. You're trying to paint yourself as someone concerned with the poor, etc. rather than someone who wants to use them as a prop in a poorly thought-out argument.

[guillaumeb]

42. The real question should be, how can we move past these various examples of intolerance?

And that is my point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. So how did "blasphemy" creep into your OP?

It is not "intolerance", just as stating "ghosts don't exist" or "Michael Jackson was a paedophile" is not "intolerance".

[Lordquinton]

47. And there go the goalposts!

Funny how you chastized MM for being off topic, then posted this.

[trotsky]

58. Is blasphemy a form of intolerance?

Do you feel blasphemers should be punished and/or silenced?

[MineralMan]

61. You were asked a question. Why did you not answer it?

Instead, you pose a different question altogether.

Do you consider blasphemy to be intolerance? It's a simple question that was asked you. Do you have an answer?

[gtar100]

45. You make a very good point.

In the other thread about blasphemy, I said that one's religion should be able to stand up to criticism but I didn't really take into account what you're referring to, which is other people being harassed and treated with contempt time after time. At that point, there is no dialog and just, well, harassment. Even if one is right on all the facts, being a jerk is just plain wrong.

One issue I see here is with laws pertaining to blasphemy. I don't see how they do any good. They are used to silence criticism, not protect people from harassment. On the other hand, a lot of the vitriol towards religion, and Christianity in particular, that I see and hear both on this board and other places, I see it as a release of a lot of pent up anger toward the oppressive nature many churches and other religious institutions have exhibited throughout history. At this point in time, we have the freedom to speak out without fear of being arrested, tortured and possibly burned at the stake. It makes sense there would be a great deal of contempt for religion in general because of how heavy-handed religious people have been towards others who haven't shared the same beliefs.

All the better for the religions themselves if the criticism and anger burns away those who just used their religion for power and manipulation and to cover up perverted behaviors. A lot of these charlatans that profess such great faith are often the very demons tearing the religion apart. What better way to destroy religion than to corrupt it from the inside out.

So I can understand athiests who really tear into religion with a vengeance but at some point it does become tit-for-tat. And if unchecked, it's just as disrespectful as unwelcome proselytizing by people from a church.

I hope we can discuss religion in a way that goes beyond the reactionary and values the sincerity we all feel about our perspectives and personal experiences. Since the subject is religion, we're talking about some of the deepest mysteries in life. It should be a joy to explore and differences can be acknowledged and appreciated if they don't come with the baggage of demanding everyone else to see and believe - or not believe - the same way. Nature provides us with the most illustrative example of how to live in a world filled with diversity. We ought to be emulating that rather than trying to define the one true way for everyone. It can be done with respect and humility. Why not.

[Lordquinton]

48. So the things you are asking about are not equal

The real question should not speak of accepting blasphemy, or racism, or misogyny.

For starters, theists are the majority, and almost always the opressors. Second, racism and misogyny is directed at people, blasphemy is not.

Basically you are saying that your good deserves the same rights and respect as margenalized people.

[Mariana]

49. Jesus said to rejoice and be glad when that happens.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." - Jesus.

Do you reject this part of Jesus's message, Gil?

[no_hypocrisy]

53. There's a spectrum of theists, some of whom are humanists who believe in Jesus, Allah, and more.

I can work with them. I can assist them. I can support them.

[Voltaire2]

55. Blasphemy? Are you serious?

[MineralMan]

56. Apparently so...It's a conflationgasm!

[trotsky]

59. Yes, he is seriously trying to protect religious privilege...

by comparing blasphemy to actual bigotry against human beings.

[Act_of_Reparation]

57. Maybe theists *should* learn...

...not to compare their experience as a disproportionately empowered majority demographic to the systemic oppression of women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people.

Now quit your whinging. You're embarrassing yourself.

[trotsky]

60. Should the theists of Westboro Baptist Church learn to accept being treated with contempt?

I have nothing but contempt for theists who believe that non-straight/non-cis people are going to hell, and that funerals of people who support equality for all should be picketed.

Do you believe people who express intolerance for the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church should silence themselves?

YES or NO gil.

Bet you won't answer, because this exposes the fatal flaw in your pathetic attempt to shield your beliefs from criticism. You yourself hold many theistic beliefs in contempt, but it's different when it's YOUR sacred cow, isn't it?

[edhopper]

63. Should Right Wing Trumpster accept being treated with contempt?

Should politicians like Steve King and Louis Gomert accept being treated with contempt?

Should pundits like tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity accept being treated with contempt?

Should I go on?