This is not a belief. It is a fact that religious beliefs insult (certain) people. (Note that I'm not saying that there aren't people insulted by atheism.)
Why are so many atheists so obsessed in insulting and making fun of other people's beliefs?
Because religious beliefs insult people.
Right. If someone hits me, then it becomes ok for me to hit others. If someone steals my car, then it becomes ok for me to steal other people's cars. If someone insults me, then it becomes ok for me to insult others.
It's not even a "payback" to the person who insulted you. You got "insulted" by some religious people, and as payback you feel entitled to insult religious people in general, including those who have done nothing to you.
Thus the justification you presented is completely flawed.
Why are so many atheists so obsessed in insulting and making fun of other people's beliefs?
Because religious beliefs insult people.
Right. If someone hits me, then it becomes ok for me to hit others. If someone steals my car, then it becomes ok for me to steal other people's cars. If someone insults me, then it becomes ok for me to insult others.
It's not even a "payback" to the person who insulted you. You got "insulted" by some religious people, and as payback you feel entitled to insult religious people in general, including those who have done nothing to you.
Thus the justification you presented is completely flawed.
You once mentioned atheists only reading and responding to things they wanted to read in the bible... but for some reason, it seems to me you are doing the same with completely ignoring nitsujrehtona's post.
You once mentioned atheists only reading and responding to things they wanted to read in the bible... but for some reason, it seems to me you are doing the same with completely ignoring nitsujrehtona's post.
Right. Because I read what I want then it's ok for atheists to read what they want.
I have never understood this "justification by mimicking" argumentation. Since people A do thing X, then it's ok for people B, who oppose A, to do the same thing X. Since religious people "insult" atheists, then it's ok for atheists to insult religious people. If religious people intentionally misread text, then it's ok for atheists to misread text. If religious people present flawed arguments, then it's ok for atheists to present flawed arguments.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Right. Because I read what I want then it's ok for atheists to read what they want.
I have never understood this "justification by mimicking" argumentation. Since people A do thing X, then it's ok for people B, who oppose A, to do the same thing X. Since religious people "insult" atheists, then it's ok for atheists to insult religious people. If religious people intentionally misread text, then it's ok for atheists to misread text. If religious people present flawed arguments, then it's ok for atheists to present flawed arguments.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Err... you seem to be missing something. I have never said it was ok atheists to read what they want. I also didn't say it was ok for atheists to insult religious people... that being said, your entire argument makes no sense at all.
Your argument however really amazes me. For the "insulting one another" part, some people might see logic in the argument:
To the question "Why do so many atheists (if it are many, can be agrued about) insult religious people?", someone answered "Because religious beliefs insult people.".
This answer agrees that many atheists insult people, and indeed gives the suggestion that it's caused by doing something that has been done to them.
In the case of "reading only what one wants to read", the chronological order is reversed though, since atheists supposedly read selectively first, THEN you did. You however said "Because I read what I want then it's ok for atheists to read what they want.".
I'm also surprised you admitted reading selectively.
This answer agrees that many atheists insult people, and indeed gives the suggestion that it's caused by doing something that has been done to them.
I didn't claim that the answer was not admitting the insulting. What I said was that the reason for the insults is flawed and not rational. Thus presenting it as a logical and valid reason is a mistake. It doesn't make the insulting any more acceptable.
In the case of "reading only what one wants to read", the chronological order is reversed though, since atheists supposedly read selectively first, THEN you did. You however said "Because I read what I want then it's ok for atheists to read what they want.".
No, the idea with that was that person A (me) says to person B "you are purposefully reading only what you want to read, ignoring the rest", to which person B counter-arguments "you are doing that right now too", as if that was a valid justification for the original deceitful way of reading. The fact that I may read deceitfully as well is in no way a valid justification or rational reason for the original deceitful reading.
I'm also surprised you admitted reading selectively.
It wasn't actually an admission. It was a figure of speech. "Because I read what I want then it's ok for atheists to read what they want" means "you are justifying your deceitful reading by accusing me of the same, which is a completely invalid argument".
Yes, you are repeating yourself, and not reading what I wrote...
Warp wrote:
What I said was that the reason for the insults is flawed and not rational. Thus presenting it as a logical and valid reason is a mistake. It doesn't make the insulting any more acceptable.
As I said, it was only 1 person who gave that answer. You are generalizing it. However, there does seem to be some kind of tendence with religion which makes it seem like you cannot have any critique on it, even if it are sensible arguments, and not necessarily insults.
Warp wrote:
No, the idea with that was that person A (me) says to person B "you are purposefully reading only what you want to read, ignoring the rest", to which person B counter-arguments "you are doing that right now too", as if that was a valid justification for the original deceitful way of reading. The fact that I may read deceitfully as well is in no way a valid justification or rational reason for the original deceitful reading.
As I said in my previous post: Baxter wrote:
I have never said it was ok atheists to read what they want.
, so I'm not trying to justify it. Too bad that I doubt that even this time you will notice/understand what I'm saying
I am interrupting your delightful debate on religion to inform you of my personal amusement that Bisqwit hasn't posted in this thread in 37 replies. I wonder why.
Which makes me wonder why it hasn't been split into its own topic...
Joined: 2/13/2007
Posts: 448
Location: Calgary, Alberta
I feel that people can believe anything they want as long as they dont laugh at or insult at other people for believing a different thing then they do.
Isnt that what all religions want? Worldly peace?
Warp, Baxter, could you please move your debate to the Theology thread?
Renting this space for rent.
Trying to fix image on this site. Please cut slack.
As of April 6th, 2012:
After a long absence, here we go again?
Warp, Baxter, could you please move your debate to the Theology thread?
Well... considering this quote from Warp concerning that thread, I don't think he will do so:
Warp wrote:
This is the stupidest and most useless thread in the entire site. Just lock it, please.
At any rate, Warp doesn't seem to be able to actually read anything he doesn't want to hear, so I will stop responding to anything Warp posts from now.
Bisqwit hasn't posted in this thread in 37 replies. I wonder why.
Cause this thread started to suck heavily due to abundance of pointless theological debates? Just a wild guess.
We have a winner!
Speaking of, up to 42 now, over two whole pages worth. Way to go, team.
So, Bisqwit, can we eventually see this split off into the theology debate topic sometime soon?
Why are so many atheists so obsessed in insulting and making fun of other people's beliefs? Is respecting other people really so hard to do?
How, then, do you explain the Crusades, the whole "Eternal hellfire" deal, all the fact that the first 4 commandments are entirely religious and have no bearing whatsoever on moral issues? I note that murder is considered less of a sin (if the commandments are in order of importance) than being Hindu, owning a statue of a "pagan" God (I have a sculpture of Athena in my kitchen, which dooms me to eternal hell), or even saying "Oh my God". Or even working on Sunday. If typing is considered work, you're all fucked because it's a sin.
If someone says "for now do this" and later "ok, that's enough, the purpose has been fulfilled, so you don't have to do it anymore" does that mean that the first command was somehow invalid? Does that mean that the first command was flawed? No, it just means that the first command was temporary, until the symbolical last fulfillment of that command happened.
If God had said "do this for 100 years and then stop", then nobody would complain. But if God says "do this" and then 100 years later he says "ok, now stop doing it", atheists immediately want to see some kind of inexistent contradiction there.
Wow, now you're really reading selectively. You seem to have completely missed my whole point, which was that if the OT is God's direct words and the NT is not, how can you trust the NT over the OT?
Wow, now you're really reading selectively. You seem to have completely missed my whole point, which was that if the OT is God's direct words and the NT is not, how can you trust the NT over the OT?
You are making an assumption I'm not. You are posing the question "if we assume that thing A is X and thing B isn't, then...". Your question starts from the assumption that the old testament is something more than the new testament, which is not necessarily the case. If Jesus is indeed one with God, then the new testament does have direct words of God too. Both the old and new testaments have both direct words of God and also writings and thoughts of people. Your preassumption is flawed.
Joined: 2/13/2007
Posts: 448
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Why did I not see this coming?
Besides, sur they contained that, but maybe it is different words of god and thoughts of people.
(Jees, its like talking to a 2 year old who doesnt know the meaning of Stop Posting here.)
Renting this space for rent.
Trying to fix image on this site. Please cut slack.
As of April 6th, 2012:
After a long absence, here we go again?
I'm saying that Christians are often just as, or more, intolerant of other people's beliefs.
Is that an answer to the question "*why* so many atheists are insulting"?
If yes, then it's once again the incomprehensible "monkey see monkey do" argumentation.
Warp, that wasn't a direct answer to the question, it's a statement that, as a whole, either people are insulting and people feel insulted. It doesn't matter if the insulter is atheist or christian.
People can be jerks, religion doesn't matter, stop pretending it does.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
What bothers me is that when people who strongly oppose religion are presented with the ethical question of why they are being so rude and insulting and why they don't respect other people who have done nothing to them, in the vast majority of the cases the answer is the same old "but religious people insult me" or the like, as if it was some kind of valid justification for them to be insulting too. They don't seem to see that this answer to the question is completely flawed. They don't seem to understand that they are doing exactly what they reproach other people of doing, and thus they are not any better. The answer is thus hypocrisy.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Warp wrote:
What bothers me is that when people who strongly oppose religion are presented with the ethical question of why they are being so rude and insulting and why they don't respect other people who have done nothing to them, in the vast majority of the cases the answer is the same old "but religious people insult me" or the like, as if it was some kind of valid justification for them to be insulting too. They don't seem to see that this answer to the question is completely flawed. They don't seem to understand that they are doing exactly what they reproach other people of doing, and thus they are not any better. The answer is thus hypocrisy.
There are jerks on both sides. There are jerks who are atheists who mock other people for their beliefs, and there are theists who mock atheists and other theists for their beliefs. I personally (and I only speak for myself) try not to criticize the people themselves, but rather their religion. You do know that some people believe in an evil intergalactic alien overlord. Jesus walking on water is just as outlandish, although not as funny. You see, religion is a great source of absurd humor. But people are people and one should not insult them personally
Then there are people who take insults to their religion (or lack thereof) as direct insults to themselves. These people are part of the problem as well.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
