NationStates Jolt Archive

Religious people are constantly shouted down and insulted for taking their lines on issues such as abortion and homosexuality from their religion and yet people who are not religious are allowed to have whatever opinion they want because its not a religiously based one. It seems an unfair bias that people with religious beliefs about are current issue are often refered to as "religious nutters" but all they have is a diffrent origin of an idea and that secular groups are somehow "more reasonable". While I can understand this term when said religious people start to kill one another but that is still only applied to those individual people. So is there any good reason for this or is it just deep seated fear of religious ideas.

Religious people are constantly shouted down and insulted for taking their lines on issues such as abortion and homosexuality from their religion and yet people who are not religious are allowed to have whatever opinion they want because its not a religiously based one. It seems an unfair bias that people with religious beliefs about are current issue are often refered to as "religious nutters" but all they have is a diffrent origin of an idea and that secular groups are somehow "more reasonable". While I can understand this term when said religious people start to kill one another but that is still only applied to those individual people. So is there any good reason for this or is it just deep seated fear of religious ideas.
Fear religious nutters? ha, ha, ha, HA, HA, HA!!!! lol, rotfl, lol, rotfl
That was funny.

We are trying to bring them to teh truth. They don't realize it, so we insult them so they do...Did that make any sense?

Stop whining. People only shout down religious people who want to base the law on their particular faith.

I have no respect for religious beliefs. Religious beliefs have no basis in anything I find important.

Religious people are constantly shouted down and insulted for taking their lines on issues

I'm one of the most religious people on this forum and I have never once been shouted down or insulted (except by the ignorant anti-Islam crowd) for it.

Go figure. Maybe it isn't your religion, Neo. Maybe it's just you.

The problem I personally have with the religious argument (not all of them, by the way, just ones based purely in religion and not fact) is that you can justify absolutely ANYTHING by saying, "I believe". If my religion says that a thousand angels routinely dance on the head of a pin, I don't have to prove it, I just have to believe it and it's 'true'.

That being said...if you have an argument not based in facts, just belief, then state that. "I believe ______". "I could be wrong, but this is how I feel." Be open to other opinions. Be open to changing your mind if the facts warrant it. Too many people use religion or assorted 'isms' as fact, when they can not be proven.

By the way, Neo Cannen, it is often YOU whom I have seen resort to ad hominem, so I'm not sure why you are calling the kettle black....

I'm a Pentacostal, Neo. I'm just not a political Pentacostal, or a psuedo-scientific Pentacostal.

My viewpoint closely matches that of President Bush's Science Advisor.

When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic."

Religious people are constantly shouted down and insulted for taking their lines on issues such as abortion and homosexuality from their religion and yet people who are not religious are allowed to have whatever opinion they want because its not a religiously based one. It seems an unfair bias that people with religious beliefs about are current issue are often refered to as "religious nutters" but all they have is a diffrent origin of an idea and that secular groups are somehow "more reasonable". While I can understand this term when said religious people start to kill one another but that is still only applied to those individual people. So is there any good reason for this or is it just deep seated fear of religious ideas.

Religious people aren't insulted at for this, they are debated with about it. The idea is, that you should take each situation independantely, rather than trusting whatever a system tells you to think on an issue, be that system a religion, a political system, or anything else.

Religion is personal and a belief that cannot be proved.

Logic, rationality and facts can be proved and are, funnily enough, logical and rational.

Can you not see why one view is more argued against?

Also, as SwimmingPool said, it's usually when people think their personal beliefs should dictate other peoples actions and restrict their rights.

And as Keruvalia said, it's more often the person that brings on 'being shouted down' not the view.

I'm one of the most religious people on this forum and I have never once been shouted down or insulted (except by the ignorant anti-Islam crowd) for it.

Go figure. Maybe it isn't your religion, Neo. Maybe it's just you.

I am not talking about on this forum. In general in the media and other places the anti-abortion Chrisitian sector is criticised as being unrealistic and unfair to women for some reason, and the anti-gay marriage Christian sector are called homophobes. People for some reason see fit to insult beleifs based on religion but not so for secular political ideologies.

This thread is going to have lots of arguments...

*Gets popcorn*

By the way, Neo Cannen, it is often YOU whom I have seen resort to ad hominem, so I'm not sure why you are calling the kettle black....

Eh? Care to give an example?

I am not talking about on this forum. In general in the media and other places the anti-abortion Chrisitian sector is criticised as being unrealistic and unfair to women for some reason, and the anti-gay marriage Christian sector are called homophobes. People for some reason see fit to insult beleifs based on religion but not so for secular political ideologies.

People are always going to criticize, label, and argue with people who are different from themselves. Get used to it.

Religious people are constantly shouted down and insulted for taking their lines on issues such as abortion and homosexuality from their religion and yet people who are not religious are allowed to have whatever opinion they want because its not a religiously based one. It seems an unfair bias that people with religious beliefs about are current issue are often refered to as "religious nutters" but all they have is a diffrent origin of an idea and that secular groups are somehow "more reasonable". While I can understand this term when said religious people start to kill one another but that is still only applied to those individual people. So is there any good reason for this or is it just deep seated fear of religious ideas.

Meh. Some people are just intolerant, and it turns out that "religious fundamentalism" is not really confined to the religious.

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’ --John 15:18-25

Fear religious nutters? ha, ha, ha, HA, HA, HA!!!! lol, rotfl, lol, rotfl
That was funny.

We are trying to bring them to teh truth. They don't realize it, so we insult them so they do...Did that make any sense?

Does it make sense? Perhaps. Is it right? No. Or...was your aim to make non-religious people look petty and small-minded?

Eh? Care to give an example?
I'll TG you...I don't want to tie up the thread:)

Does it make sense? Perhaps. Is it right? No. Or...was your aim to make non-religious people look petty and small-minded?
That's what I was aiming for

That's odd. I'm quite religious, and I've never had a problem on these forums. Of course, I don't support writing my personal religious beliefs into the nation's laws over someone else's either. ;)

Religion has no place in a nation's laws, it is a matter of personal belief.

They can have their own views. Have them. Fine. Base them on whatever they like. Everyone else does, they can too. No one is disputing that, and they few who are are bigots themselves.

However, quite frankly, in a secular society (particularly in America, as in not based in nor supporting any religion), when you start demanding that the rest of the world follow your beliefs and start making laws strictly based in those beliefs, that's where I get pissy.

To quote my favourite bumper sticker:

"He's YOUR God, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in Hell"

However, quite frankly, in a secular society (particularly in America, as in not based in nor supporting any religion), when you start demanding that the rest of the world follow your beliefs and start making laws strictly based in those beliefs, that's where I get pissy.


Democracy seems quite happy to serve a secualr minority but not a religous majority. Why is that?

Democracy seems quite happy to serve a secualr minority but not a religous majority. Why is that?
Which church has a religious majority in the US, Neo?

Religion is personal and a belief that cannot be proved.

Logic, rationality and facts can be proved and are, funnily enough, logical and rational.

Thats a huge non sequitar. For your statement to be true, then religious people would have to be incapable of rational or logical thought, which seems unlikely to be true when may of the greatest thinkers and scientists in history had religious beliefs.

Which church has a religious majority in the US, Neo?

Evangelical. There are more Evangelical Christians in the US than there are Athiests. Unless you want to lump ascribed agnostics with them but being a confirmed agnostic is just a contridiction in terms.

Democracy seems quite happy to serve a secualr minority but not a religous majority. Why is that?

I believe it has to do with the founders of the Constitution not wanting to squabble over theological differences between the many different sects in America at the time.

Same goes here and now.

Stop whining. People only shout down religious people who want to base the law on their particular faith.

Amen! :D

I'm spiritual but far from religious and I don't expect everyone else to be and I don't expect laws to be based on my personal beliefs. I will rail against you "religious nutters" too when you try to state a law should be based on your religious beliefs. I also get extreemely annoyed at those of you who think you need to help people by tellign them they are goign to suffer eternally if they don't convert to your beliefs.

Democracy seems quite happy to serve a secualr minority but not a religous majority. Why is that?

The US isn't a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic designed to protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority. In the US, we could care fuck all what the majority wants because there may come a time when the majority wants a part of the minority shipped off to their own island and left to rot.

If it wasn't for the protection of the minority from the tyrrany of the majority, the US would not have had the following reforms:

1] Free the slaves.
2] Women's suffrage.
3] Civil Rights Act.
4] American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
5] The Bill of Rights.

And so on and so on and so on.

I don't know about where you're from, but the majority doesn't count for much in the US.

Evangelical. There are more Evangelical Christians in the US than there are Athiests. Unless you want to lump ascribed agnostics with them but being a confirmed agnostic is just a contridiction in terms.

Speaking as a Pentacostal, I can assure you that the majority of American citizens are not Evangelical Christians. And the country is not composed of two simple groups - evangelicals and atheists.

You're leaving out Islam, Catholicism, Jews, and most Protestant branches of the church. And the Unitarian Universalists. And the Buddhists. And the Sikhs. And a host of others.

Evangelical. There are more Evangelical Christians in the US than there are Athiests. Unless you want to lump ascribed agnostics with them but being a confirmed agnostic is just a contridiction in terms.

Evangelicals may have a plurality, but they do not have a majority. Even if they did, it would still not be right for them to write their beliefs into law any more than it would be for me to write mine into law. Writing evangelical Christian beliefs into law would require me to go against my religion. Evangelical Christians are not the only religious voice.

Evangelical. There are more Evangelical Christians in the US than there are Athiests. Unless you want to lump ascribed agnostics with them but being a confirmed agnostic is just a contridiction in terms.

There are more Muslims in the world than there are Catholics, so by your logic should the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia be able to dictate policy to the Pope?

There are more Muslims in the United States then there are Methodists. Should I be able to walk into the local Methodist church and kick them out to make room for a new Mosque?

Let's think before we speak, eh?

Evangelicals may have a plurality, but they do not have a majority. Even if they did, it would still not be right for them to write their beliefs into law any more than it would be for me to write mine into law. Writing evangelical Christian beliefs into law would require me to go against my religion. Evangelical Christians are not the only religious voice.

They don't even have a plurality. Speaking as one, I know.

Religious people are constantly shouted down and insulted for taking their lines on issues such as abortion and homosexuality from their religion and yet people who are not religious are allowed to have whatever opinion they want because its not a religiously based one. It seems an unfair bias that people with religious beliefs about are current issue are often refered to as "religious nutters" but all they have is a diffrent origin of an idea and that secular groups are somehow "more reasonable". While I can understand this term when said religious people start to kill one another but that is still only applied to those individual people. So is there any good reason for this or is it just deep seated fear of religious ideas.

please. religion has always had "protected view" status, even now. here in crazy england, we let C of E bishops into the house of lords by virtue of being bishops and nothing more. where are the athiests their for similar reasons, or the communists (the right wings always attacking it for being a religion, ie having a book with its ideas laid down in, so lets start protecting it like one!)? we protect religious peoples rights to wear what they want to school (so long as it can be justified by their "holy" books), or even to set up schools that teach people religions view on science (ie its all lies, ignore all evidence, the earths only 6000. no, red shift is not evidence of the big bang, despite the fact it is. or the ever popular "god did it"). when have we allowed other ideologies to teach people exclusively their message? where are the anarchist schools? the syndicalist schools? the primitivist schools? bah. religion has always been protected, and always will be until people start thinking.

i was going to argue against "a deep seated fear of religious ideas", but no. your right. after thousands of years of being burnt and oppressed, atheists and agnostics of all kinds are probably going to have a slight fear of the rabid, irrational crowd of people proclaiming heretic and witch because they are able to read and question things.

ooh, you theists get me riled... just lucky i dont come to your house and have a massive demonstration, claim your going to be tortured for eternity and brick your windows.

Democracy seems quite happy to serve a secualr minority but not a religous majority. Why is that?
at least in America, the government was designed specifically to be secular, regardless of who is in the majority or minority, because secular government is the government which best serves ALL people (religious or otherwise).

you seem really fond of the "majority rules" idea, since you bring it up very often, and i wish i could figure out how to get across to you that the American government was specifically and clearly designed to prevent such a system.

They don't even have a plurality. Speaking as one, I know.

Well then, that only further strengthens my point. Yay.

In any case, it would be wrong to write the beliefs of any religion into the law because by doing that, one would be forcing members of other religions to go against their beliefs. I'm sure most evangelical Christians would not be happy to be forced to follow the beliefs of my particular brand of Unitarian Universalism, and I think they would be even less happy to be forced by the law to obey the beliefs of say... Wiccans or Satanists.

I am not talking about on this forum. In general in the media and other places the anti-abortion Chrisitian sector is criticised as being unrealistic and unfair to women for some reason, and the anti-gay marriage Christian sector are called homophobes. People for some reason see fit to insult beleifs based on religion but not so for secular political ideologies.

That is because marriage laws should not be based on religious belief.

Let me put it this way. Don't YOU hate it when someone tries to force their opinion down your throat? WHy shoudl those of us who do not believe in your bible have to abide by your bibles laws?

at least in America, the government was designed specifically to be secular, regardless of who is in the majority or minority, because secular government is the government which best serves ALL people (religious or otherwise).

you seem really fond of the "majority rules" idea, since you bring it up very often, and i wish i could figure out how to get across to you that the American government was specifically and clearly designed to prevent such a system.

In the USA, there is a designed separation of state and church. In other places it is more accidental (the UK). I agree with the reasoning on this.

I do not understand why you think that the USA does not have a majority rules system. I know that the founding fathers made it a republic, not a direct democracy, but this does not eliminate the tyrrany of the majority, except when, as is happening at the moment, there is an almost even split and the majority is not clear.

This is easy.

By definition- reasonable people base their beliefs on fact, or at the very least things that are likely to be true.

When you're reason for outlawing (as an example) abortion is that "it is ungodly", "God said it is wrong" or "The book of ... says ... and this is the word of God" then you no matter how strongly you believe it- you have to acknowledge that this is a belief and not a fact and reasonable people (by definition) will always side with the argument that is based on things that can be / have been proven.

This is easy.

By definition- reasonable people base their beliefs on fact, or at the very least things that are likely to be true.

When you're reason for outlawing (as an example) abortion is that "it is ungodly", "God said it is wrong" or "The book of ... says ... and this is the word of God" then you no matter how strongly you believe it- you have to acknowledge that this is a belief and not a fact and reasonable people (by definition) will always side with the argument that is based on things that can be / have been proven.

Very nice. Now what is a fact other than a belief about the world. Reasonable people, i.e. those that base their statements on what is and what is not true, can not say anything at all about the world.
Science is just one more set of beliefs. It happens to be a set that enbles us to predict events and control outcomes, as such it is a more prqactical belief than religion. This would be an answer to the question, however it was not the one that you chose to give.
Please realise that even the hardest of science, if it involves the world, is just a set of beliefs.

please. religion has always had "protected view" status, even now. here in crazy england, we let C of E bishops into the house of lords by virtue of being bishops and nothing more. where are the athiests their for similar reasons, or the communists (the right wings always attacking it for being a religion, ie having a book with its ideas laid down in, so lets start protecting it like one!)?

The house of lords has never been based on merit, but simply a hangover from the days of feudalism. Even then, there are far more people who self-identify as Christians than as Communists, so the likelihood would be that there would still be more bishops than communists.

we protect religious peoples rights to wear what they want to school (so long as it can be justified by their "holy" books),

As an anarchist you're against peoples right to choose what they wear????

or even to set up schools that teach people religions view on science (ie its all lies, ignore all evidence, the earths only 6000. no, red shift is not evidence of the big bang, despite the fact it is. or the ever popular "god did it").

Why shouldnt all views be taught, that way just leads to ignorance. If the evidence is so obvious then surely letting people make up their own minds is preferable to trying to force them into a single viewpoint.

when have we allowed other ideologies to teach people exclusively their message? where are the anarchist schools? the syndicalist schools? the primitivist schools? bah. religion has always been protected, and always will be until people start thinking.

You mean the way the Soviet Union tried to force people to "think"? By outlawing Christianity and introducing laws to punish those who continued to do so. Sounds very freedom-loving....

i was going to argue against "a deep seated fear of religious ideas", but no. your right. after thousands of years of being burnt and oppressed, atheists and agnostics of all kinds are probably going to have a slight fear of the rabid, irrational crowd of people proclaiming heretic and witch because they are able to read and question things.

Have you ever considered that atheism is just another form of religion. There is after all, no evidence that God, or a spiritual world in some form, doesnt exist. Ergo atheism is based on "faith".

ooh, you theists get me riled... just lucky i dont come to your house and have a massive demonstration, claim your going to be tortured for eternity and brick your windows.

You know, im sure the millions of Christians worldwide, and the religion that survived the persecutions of Rome, are bricking it at the though of you and your brick setting the world to rights. :rolleyes:

I do not understand why you think that the USA does not have a majority rules system. I know that the founding fathers made it a republic, not a direct democracy, but this does not eliminate the tyrrany of the majority, except when, as is happening at the moment, there is an almost even split and the majority is not clear.
the US was specifically designed to avoid empowering the majority to violate the basic rights of all persons (including minorities). the "majority rules" system is deliberately and critically restricted by the Constitution, at least in theory, and i believe that is one of the most beautiful parts of the American government. the majority is not empowered to enforce its judgements and values at will, and our history has shown how necessary such restriction is...indeed, most of the brightest points in American history were when the majority's will was rejected in favor of the rights of the minority.

the US was specifically designed to avoid empowering the majority to violate the basic rights of all persons (including minorities). the "majority rules" system is deliberately and critically restricted by the Constitution, at least in theory, and i believe that is one of the most beautiful parts of the American government. the majority is not empowered to enforce its judgements and values at will, and our history has shown how necessary such restriction is...indeed, most of the brightest points in American history were when the majority's will was rejected in favor of the rights of the minority.

I would love to believe this, but how and where is the power of the majority curtailed. You have a constitution, that a large majority can do what it likes with. You have a politically appointed supreme court, again thius depends on the majority. The executive and the legislative branches are elected by the majority. Where is the restriction? (Sorry for the hijacking Neo-cannen)

Very nice. Now what is a fact other than a belief about the world. Reasonable people, i.e. those that base their statements on what is and what is not true, can not say anything at all about the world.
Science is just one more set of beliefs. It happens to be a set that enbles us to predict events and control outcomes, as such it is a more prqactical belief than religion. This would be an answer to the question, however it was not the one that you chose to give.
Please realise that even the hardest of science, if it involves the world, is just a set of beliefs.

beliefs based on scientific evidence would fall into the category of "likely to be true".

But you're right these are still just beliefs.

Have you ever considered that atheism is just another form of religion. There is after all, no evidence that God, or a spiritual world in some form, doesnt exist. Ergo atheism is based on "faith".


Atheism uses faith but is not based on it. It is based on a desire to discover the truth, no matter what that may be, and until we find it, to believe whatever seems the most likely. Only there is faith required. It is a form of religion, but on a very different principle. All other religions are based on faith, as they set up belief as an end, not a means. Faith is more important than evidence.

Thats a huge non sequitar. For your statement to be true, then religious people would have to be incapable of rational or logical thought, which seems unlikely to be true when may of the greatest thinkers and scientists in history had religious beliefs.

Why would that have to be true? I never said they were totally seperate from each other. You could be rational and religious. You'd just have to admit there wasn't physical or scientific proof (thought I don't want to get into a debate about the existance of God).

Personally religion doesn't seem logical to me but my point was more that religion cannot be proved whereas other things can so obviously religion is more likely to come up against opposition.

---

Another point is that often people can be very hypocritical talking about sins when everyone is a sinner, condemnding people when that is Gods job and having hatred for people despite 'hate the sin, love the sinner'-one of the biggest concepts from Jesus. This can all lead to more 'shouting down' of religious views.

Atheism uses faith but is not based on it. It is based on a desire to discover the truth, no matter what that may be, and until we find it, to believe whatever seems the most likely. Only there is faith required. It is a form of religion, but on a very different principle. All other religions are based on faith, as they set up belief as an end, not a means. Faith is more important than evidence.

Sounds like you're describing agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism falls foul of this part of your post; "as they set up belief as an end, not a means". Atheism takes the point that God doesnt exist as an end in itself, preferable to established religions.

Agnosticists simply believe in keeping an open mind on issues of religion until better evidence presents itself. The eternal fencesitters! :D

I'm religious, but because of the separation of church and state in the US, I side with the more liberal people on abortion and gay rights. I read the Bible more generally, and to me, the message to love your neighbor stands out more than the message insinuating that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My brother made a good point the other day that people who are set on not being prejudice toward gays, (for example) often become prejudice toward the the people who condemn gays.
-Gnomic Philosohpers

In reading and posting in this forum I have seen quite a few insults hurled at religious people. I have seen quite a few insults hurled back at non-religious people. I, being a religous person, really don't care about these insults. Like water off a duck's back. . . Simply ignore the posters if they truly upset you. Do not reply to them and scroll right past their writings next time you see them.
Insults should garner no respect.

My brother made a good point the other day that people who are set on not being prejudice toward gays, (for example) often become prejudice toward the the people who condemn gays.


My best friend and I have come up with the phrase "ultra-liberalism and the hatred of the white male". It really is quite a humorous phenomenon and is the absolute worst part about living in Berkeley. People here are so "accepting" that they actually circle around and start to hate people who they assume are not accepting. :rolleyes:

What are you religious nutters on about?

Democracy seems quite happy to serve a secualr minority but not a religous majority. Why is that?
Sounds like your confusing "secular" with "atheist". A person cannot be secular but a society can.

Evangelical. There are more Evangelical Christians in the US than there are Athiests. Unless you want to lump ascribed agnostics with them but being a confirmed agnostic is just a contridiction in terms.
But are evangelicals a majority? Do they comprise more than 50% of the population? It's irrelevant anyway.

PS. Evangelism is not a denomination, but an inter-denominational movement.

Have you ever considered that atheism is just another form of religion. There is after all, no evidence that God, or a spiritual world in some form, doesnt exist. Ergo atheism is based on "faith".
You're thinking about antitheism. Atheism is the philosophy of neither rejecting nor accepting the existence of a god.

I am not talking about on this forum. In general in the media and other places the anti-abortion Chrisitian sector is criticised as being unrealistic and unfair to women for some reason, and the anti-gay marriage Christian sector are called homophobes. People for some reason see fit to insult beleifs based on religion but not so for secular political ideologies.
oh neo, dont take it seriously. it is a function of the media to put everything in the most dramatic light possible.

so you see on TV the religious nutcases who hold up signs wishing death on abortion providers or proclaiming that AIDS is the will of god against gays. THOSE people are real life attention whores going out there to get on TV.

so non religious people assume that this is the way ALL religious people are. *shudder* and religious people start to wonder why everyone hates them because they see the intense reaction against these hateful people.

if you look around you will find that most people are at least mildly religious and do not look badly on anyone who has a sincere religious belief which is based on love and tolerance.

I'm religious, but because of the separation of church and state in the US, I side with the more liberal people on abortion and gay rights. I read the Bible more generally, and to me, the message to love your neighbor stands out more than the message insinuating that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My brother made a good point the other day that people who are set on not being prejudice toward gays, (for example) often become prejudice toward the the people who condemn gays.
-Gnomic Philosohpers

It's true that if a stranger starts preaching against gays, he will have a hard time getting me to see him as 'smart', 'tolerant', 'friendly', ... Some of these things might be not true, but this first judgment is at least based on information about his personallity. Being prejudiced here is 'condemning' someone just for having a certain trait that does not say anything about his personality.

so non religious people assume that this is the way ALL religious people are. *shudder*
Only if those people never leave their home. Most people know that the majority of religious people are not hateful or crazy, because we all know religious people. Knowing each other is the best way to overcome prejudice and division.

Religious people are constantly shouted down and insulted for taking their lines on issues such as abortion and homosexuality from their religion and yet people who are not religious are allowed to have whatever opinion they want because its not a religiously based one. It seems an unfair bias that people with religious beliefs about are current issue are often refered to as "religious nutters" but all they have is a diffrent origin of an idea and that secular groups are somehow "more reasonable". While I can understand this term when said religious people start to kill one another but that is still only applied to those individual people. So is there any good reason for this or is it just deep seated fear of religious ideas.
*Laughs hysterically* You think... what??? Non-religious people DON'T get shouted at for their political beliefs? On what planet? There's a bias AGAINST religious people? We fear religion? *Falls out of chair laughing.* Oh, that's a good one. :D

oh neo, dont take it seriously. it is a function of the media to put everything in the most dramatic light possible.

so you see on TV the religious nutcases who hold up signs wishing death on abortion providers or proclaiming that AIDS is the will of god against gays. THOSE people are real life attention whores going out there to get on TV.

so non religious people assume that this is the way ALL religious people are. *shudder* and religious people start to wonder why everyone hates them because they see the intense reaction against these hateful people.

if you look around you will find that most people are at least mildly religious and do not look badly on anyone who has a sincere religious belief which is based on love and tolerance.
Probably works the other way as well. It's the atheists that make a fuss that the religious people see in the media. ;)

(Assuming, as Swimmingpool points out, that said religius people never leave the house.)

My major problem isn't so much with religious views, but with people who think the law should follow these views. This is a secular nation based on the constitution, not the bible.

Religious people are constantly shouted down and insulted for taking their lines on issues such as abortion and homosexuality from their religion and yet people who are not religious are allowed to have whatever opinion they want because its not a religiously based one. It seems an unfair bias that people with religious beliefs about are current issue are often refered to as "religious nutters" but all they have is a diffrent origin of an idea and that secular groups are somehow "more reasonable". While I can understand this term when said religious people start to kill one another but that is still only applied to those individual people. So is there any good reason for this or is it just deep seated fear of religious ideas.
Unfortunately we live in a cynical and self-involved age. Anti-religious bias has been popularized by the effete elite and Hollyweird.

In civilization, reason is a sign of character while religiosity - the absence of reason - is a sign of bad character and incompetence.

In civilization, reason is a sign of character while religiosity - the absence of reason - is a sign of bad character and incompetence.
That's a pretty broad statement to toss out without any backing. Care to explain your reasoning, or is that just pulled out of thin air?

I think part of the problem is that people who bash religion users is that their basis of view starts with an emotion. The problem is that non religious people tend to avoid looking at the facts about religion. For example, teen sex:
50 years ago, athiesm was almost unheard of in American culture. Teen sex was a sin to be punished by god (okay so faith os the reason for not having teen sex). People tended to have fewer if any partners before marriage. STDs were not a heavy burden, nor unwanted pregnancies and abortions because people were religious.

Now adays we have more athiests and fear of god is not so prevalient. Emotional reasons for not having sex (i.e; faith) are mostly gone, leaving only the logical ones. I could get preggo or AIDS, whatever. Of course, teens arent know for always seeing the rational as the best course so they go with their emotions (I want sex, I want her to love me, I want to feel good, whatever) Hmmmmm STDs are rampant, teen pregnancy and unwed parents are every where.
Anyone else see a link or pattern here?

That's a pretty broad statement to toss out without any backing. Care to explain your reasoning, or is that just pulled out of thin air?


Modern civilized attitudes towards religion are a result of the emergence of europe from the dark ages into the renaissance and enlightenment.

As reasonable thought overcame religion as the most effective way to interpret nature and the world, the religious world view became less and less easy to take seriously.

It has gotten to the point where the sheer volume of facts which one must ignore to be genuinely religious marks them as untrustworthy. If a person believes strongly in demonstrably falsehoods, how can they be trusted to be honest in other dealings?

If a person bases their opinions and decisions on faith-based beliefs rather than reasonable ones, it is difficult to consider them competent to make decisions because their decisions are predicated on something besides the facts that govern people's lives.

I think part of the problem is that people who bash religion users is that their basis of view starts with an emotion. The problem is that non religious people tend to avoid looking at the facts about religion. For example, teen sex:
50 years ago, athiesm was almost unheard of in American culture. Teen sex was a sin to be punished by god (okay so faith os the reason for not having teen sex). People tended to have fewer if any partners before marriage. STDs were not a heavy burden, nor unwanted pregnancies and abortions because people were religious.

Now adays we have more athiests and fear of god is not so prevalient. Emotional reasons for not having sex (i.e; faith) are mostly gone, leaving only the logical ones. I could get preggo or AIDS, whatever. Of course, teens arent know for always seeing the rational as the best course so they go with their emotions (I want sex, I want her to love me, I want to feel good, whatever) Hmmmmm STDs are rampant, teen pregnancy and unwed parents are every where.
Anyone else see a link or pattern here?

A chance you could perhaps give us some evidence that young people had less sex fifty years ago? And might that be in part accounted for by changes in the age at which people marry?

A chance you could perhaps give us some evidence that young people had less sex fifty years ago? And might that be in part accounted for by changes in the age at which people marry?

I think the proof is in the pudding on this issue. We have better Condoms and birth control now, but we have more cases of STDs, teen pregnancy ect as well. If the physical preventions are better, but we have more of the problems then it is not only plausable but probable that another reason is to blame. That reason is the increase in the behavior. And again, people are marrying later because the stigma of unmarried sex (brought on alot by religion seeing it as a sin) is largely gone. If there is no reason to marry this woman because I can sleep with her w/out the wedding ring, why would I bother getting the ring? People get married later now because they dont see marriage as a requirement for sex. That means sex happens more often between different people than in the past. Not only that but 50 years ago, if a girl got preggo, it was expected that the guy would marry her and support her and the kid (again a demand of most religions). If not, she was shunned by the community. That fear of losing you place in culture kept many young girls from sex.

I think the proof is in the pudding on this issue. We have better Condoms and birth control now, but we have more cases of STDs, teen pregnancy ect as well. If the physical preventions are better, but we have more of the problems then it is not only plausable but probable that another reason is to blame. That reason is the increase in the behavior. And again, people are marrying later because the stigma of unmarried sex (brought on alot by religion seeing it as a sin) is largely gone. If there is no reason to marry this woman because I can sleep with her w/out the wedding ring, why would I bother getting the ring? People get married later now because they dont see marriage as a requirement for sex. That means sex happens more often between different people than in the past. Not only that but 50 years ago, if a girl got preggo, it was expected that the guy would marry her and support her and the kid (again a demand of most religions). If not, she was shunned by the community. That fear of losing you place in culture kept many young girls from sex.


The best condoms and pills in the world dont do anything if kids dont use them.

I asked you to give some evidence that rates of sex among youth were lower then, and to account for the effect of later marriage on 'pre marital' sex.

I have read all of this thread and the bulk of it seems to be reason vs. religion and why one is better over the other. May i be so bold as to point out the Fathers of classical philosophy and reason: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle believed in fate, Mariah...or the great divinity, and the after life.
No where in any of thier writings have I ever encountered "you cannot believe in a being of supernatural existance and still retain reason."
In fact Plato's theory of perfection states than in order for there to be the idea of perfection there must be a being of perfection.

In the Bible John uses the word Logos, it is Greek.. it is where we get the word logic or reason from (loosely translated into "the word" if you are reading protestant Bibles.) "In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God." John 1:1
John was a Greek scholar. Suprise, suprise.

Do not so easily fill your egos with confidence when your study of such things has obviously much room to grow.

And as for personal comment I shall state this.

I am a Muslim, yet i believe in much of what science teaches because it can put into terms of understanding this Universe which God (in my belief) created. I am a Political Scientist because i care to understand humanity and where we may go on our paths in this world, not because i want to tell others to follow my way, but to help others discover the way that is best for them.

My husband is not Muslim, some of our best friends are athiests, agnostics, Christians and Jews, those who persecute us for our beliefs are sadly ignorant of personal freedom and identity. However, if our own Relgious leaders become unresonable and try to force our tenants of faith upon them, then we should assist the non-religious populus against such movements.
**It is wrong to enslave people to laws they do not believe in.**
Everyone must choose there own way to live, and come to conclusions about life without it being forced upon them. This is what free will is, we are blessed to have it, reason is learning what to do with your free will.
The laws of a country should support this, without favor to any religion, as long as it does not infringe on the health or safety of another.

If you feel you are unfairly judged you will be again, this is life. It is more important that you are not the one unfairly judging.

Eh? Care to give an example?
Yesterday you insinuated I was a crackpot and compared me to MKultra.

There, an example of you attacking someone without provocation in an argument.

but being a confirmed agnostic is just a contridiction in terms.
How do you figure?

Does everyone know god, they're afraid to admit it or some other such garbage?

I think part of the problem is that people who bash religion users is that their basis of view starts with an emotion. The problem is that non religious people tend to avoid looking at the facts about religion. For example, teen sex:
50 years ago, athiesm was almost unheard of in American culture. Teen sex was a sin to be punished by god (okay so faith os the reason for not having teen sex). People tended to have fewer if any partners before marriage. STDs were not a heavy burden, nor unwanted pregnancies and abortions because people were religious.

Now adays we have more athiests and fear of god is not so prevalient. Emotional reasons for not having sex (i.e; faith) are mostly gone, leaving only the logical ones. I could get preggo or AIDS, whatever. Of course, teens arent know for always seeing the rational as the best course so they go with their emotions (I want sex, I want her to love me, I want to feel good, whatever) Hmmmmm STDs are rampant, teen pregnancy and unwed parents are every where.
Anyone else see a link or pattern here?

Erm... No.

The point that you are missing is that Fifty years ago there weren't a bunch of right wing religious nutjobs shooting their mouths off about every little issue. Now the "Moral" types have to go around making a huge fuss.

I think another thing that actually might be the cause of MORE teen pregnancys IS improved protection. Teens are more confidant that nothing can go wrong, so they have sex more often. It only takes one mistake and then... Well you get the picture.

'Course then there's the question, "What's wrong with teens having sex?" to which the only reasonable answer, is "Nothing... But there is something wrong with teens having stupid sex."

There were atheists fifty years ago two, and we were making a stink then also. The only difference now is that the nutjobs have to make a big deal about everything that doesnt fit in their small minded worlds.

What are you religious nutters on about?
Yay!!!