NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking over this a bit whilst browsing all the religion threads that have popped up over the last couple of hours. Do I discriminate against people who are religious... and... I think I do. I don't mean on a large scale, but if I'd just met two identical people and one revealed he was religious then I think I'd naturally accord that person slightly less respect. This isn't a blanket statement, I know plenty of people who are religious and I don't hold it against them. But I naturally perceive someone who is religious to be unreasonable unless I've been able to get to know them and found that they aren't.

I guess it's just a bit scary and odd when you find that your mind works in certain ways which you'd prefer them not to.

edit: please try and be true to yourself and give the option that actually reflects your actions and not your thoughts.

But I naturally perceive someone who is religious to be unreasonable unless I've been able to get to know them and found that they aren't.


I would agree. I'm not all-out against people of faith and religion, but I've got to ask myself, "Does this person have a shred of reason to them? Or are they making decisions based on erroneous material."

But then again, I ask that question just about every time I meet some one new. Whether its politics, religion, what ever, it can blind people's rational thinking.

I think I do to a degree. I'm silently critical of Christians who discuss their beliefs but are ignorant of theology. They go on and on about how they "feel" Jesus at the local Bible charismatic church, if I ask them about Augustine or Marian devotion or doctrinal issues, they're clueless. They strike me as ignorant, which is a major fault of mine, I think. If someone doesn't know theology, I can't accept their faith at face value and judge the authenticity of their beliefs.

*is thinking that he phrased the poll wrong and should have done it in degrees rather than type*

You two may have agreed with me, but you didn't vote with me :P

Augustine? Is he the heavenly and earthly cities theologist?

I do not discriminate against any religion. I choose to research them and know the truth behind them, the history and such. The only reigious people I dislike are those so completely wrapped up in the religious they choose to fight me about it because they know I don't believe in any religions. Nothing makes me angrier then having an extremist come up to me and try to argue about religion. I don't want to denounce anything. I just want people to know the real truth behind it.

Depends, really.

Somebody who states outright that he/she is a Christian, right after saying her name, I'll be taken aback as I'm not really used to that kind of outrightness and, depending on the circumstances, would find it odd or even impolite.
It wouldn't make me respect the person any more or less, though.

*is thinking that he phrased the poll wrong and should have done it in degrees rather than type*

You two may have agreed with me, but you didn't vote with me :P

Augustine? Is he the heavenly and earthly cities theologist?
Yup. "City of God," "Confessions," bunches of letters and sermons. He's one of the Fathers of the Church, and anyone who really wants to understand modern Christianity or the history of the Church ought to read his stuff.

Augustine? Is he the heavenly and earthly cities theologist?

He's the "Babies sin when they cry for food," theologian. After reading that, it was really hard to give the guy any credit at all. When it boils right down to it though, I'm pretty far from being an Augustinian Christian. I come much closer to agreeing with those he helped get labeled as heretics, like, for instance, Pelagius.

I think we read Augustine, Book XIX of City of God as part of classical political thought. I didn't like it all. Well maybe a little, but it just struck me that it was so authoritarian and suffering from an inferiority complex. It justifies slavery as being caused by sin. He says that to let a sin go unpunished is evil itself.

But... if I were to rephrase these with a different terminology then I could see myself agreeing with the ideas.

No man is without sin -> People are not perfect
To let a sin go unpunished is evil itself -> To be complicit in an injustice is as bad as to commit the injustice itself.

However, I can't rationalise that philosophers should go to hell.

Do you discriminate on the basis of religion?

In many ways, yes. However, I only make this discrimination based on how they tell me what they believe; not what they believe in. Be you Christian, Atheist, Hindu, Muslim or whatever, I care not. But be you a ranting evangelical, regardless of your leaning, I will give barely a thought to you.

Most atheists realize that their ideas have no more net validity than theists'. They have faith that there is no supreme deity.

However, there are some who are flat-out malicious and who are far worse than any fundamentalist religious person.

He's the "Babies sin when they cry for food," theologian. After reading that, it was really hard to give the guy any credit at all. When it boils right down to it though, I'm pretty far from being an Augustinian Christian. I come much closer to agreeing with those he helped get labeled as heretics, like, for instance, Pelagius.Sorry, but I'm no a Christian myself and I don't know who Pelagius is. If you could tell me in your own words, please? Rather than link me to a webpage.

Anyway, I knew theologist wasn't the right term, but all I could think of was
biology -> biologist
therefore
theology -> theologist (whoops)

Meh, I guess my problem is that I naturally assume a religious person to be fanatical unless I have reason to think otherwise.

Sorry, but I'm no a Christian myself and I don't know who Pelagius is. If you could tell me in your own words, please?

Sorry about that, although most Christians probably don't know who Pelagius is either. Both Pelagius and Augustine were theologians at about the same time. Pelagius wrote that, to attain salvation, the believer had to take the "first step" by essentially asking for salvation and accepting it. Once the believer took the first step towards God, God offered grace and guidance in all the rest. In truth, more Christians ascribe to Pelagian thought on this one than to Augustinian thought. You will find many more Christian churches that ask you to "invite Christ into your heart," than Calvinistic churches that preach predestinationism.

Augustine, on the other hand, wrote that human beings are completely incapable of doing any good action on their own. Only by the grace of God can a human being, who is completely and irreversibly tainted by Original Sin from birth, can any human being do anything good. So a human being cannot take the first step in seeking salvation. It just has to be given to them by grace. The entire concept of Calvinisic predestination comes from this idea. It is essentially a theology in which God hand-picks those who will receive salvation through no will of their own. People try and try to rationalize how this can happen and human beings still have free will, but it doesn't really work. Augustine said that human beings do have free will - but only to do evil ((LOL)).

Augustine was one of the first major sources of the entire theology of Original Sin - something I largely disagree with.

Meh, I guess my problem is that I naturally assume a religious person to be fanatical unless I have reason to think otherwise.

This is a bit like assuming that any American must have voted for Bush. The vast majority of the members of a given religion are not fanatical. Those that are simply stand out more.

I'm atheist and I discriminate against religious people

^80% of people here:rolleyes:

Not me, though.

I would agree. I'm not all-out against people of faith and religion, but I've got to ask myself, "Does this person have a shred of reason to them? Or are they making decisions based on erroneous material."

But then again, I ask that question just about every time I meet some one new. Whether its politics, religion, what ever, it can blind people's rational thinking. So what you're saying is, people are generally irrational and more than slightly stupid, so it's best to proceed cautiously according to that basis.

Sounds fine to me. ;)
I think I do to a degree. I'm silently critical of Christians who discuss their beliefs but are ignorant of theology. They go on and on about how they "feel" Jesus at the local Bible charismatic church, if I ask them about Augustine or Marian devotion or doctrinal issues, they're clueless. They strike me as ignorant, which is a major fault of mine, I think. If someone doesn't know theology, I can't accept their faith at face value and judge the authenticity of their beliefs. As far as I know, only a few Churches have Marian devotion and doctrinal issues.

And yes, of course I find myself judging people at first sight. Everyone does it.

Why isn't there a box for "I'm religious and I discriminate against certain religions?" I, personally, can only think of three religions (one religion, a sub-catagory, and a broad mass, really) that I discriminate against (Christianity, Satanism, and fluffybunny new age). The rest, well, I can't really be bothered to care.

He's the "Babies sin when they cry for food," theologian. After reading that, it was really hard to give the guy any credit at all. When it boils right down to it though, I'm pretty far from being an Augustinian Christian. I come much closer to agreeing with those he helped get labeled as heretics, like, for instance, Pelagius.

Hey, you have to have respect for heretics, they tend to be more interesting and they have strong enough faith to walk away from their church and face excommunication or death. Back before I completely left the church I was giving serious consideration to joining a group of anti-vatican II gnostics...now that was an interesting time.

Most atheists realize that their ideas have no more net validity than theists'. They have faith that there is no supreme deity.

To my knowledge, most atheists just lack a belief in a god rather than actively disbelieving in one.

However, there are some who are flat-out malicious and who are far worse than any fundamentalist religious person.

You mean like Nietzsche or something?

Hey, you have to have respect for heretics, they tend to be more interesting and they have strong enough faith to walk away from their church and face excommunication or death. Back before I completely left the church I was giving serious consideration to joining a group of anti-vatican II gnostics...now that was an interesting time.

Often, I think the heretics are right. Out of what I've read of ancient theologians, I have pretty much spot-on agreed with both Pelagius and Abelard - both declared heretical - on several matters of theology. I agree with the Anabaptists (who the Lutherans and Catholics persecuted pretty much equally) that a person must choose to be baptised, and thus baptism at birth means nothing. I flat-out disagree with any suggestion that any type of preacher is "closer to God" than I am or that I must go through a preacher of any sort in order to have a relationship with God.

So, yeah, I'd pretty much be a heretic all around, if I were trying to be Catholic.

I would agree. I'm not all-out against people of faith and religion, but I've got to ask myself, "Does this person have a shred of reason to them? Or are they making decisions based on erroneous material."

But then again, I ask that question just about every time I meet some one new. Whether its politics, religion, what ever, it can blind people's rational thinking.
So are you indicating that you are entirely "rational" yourself?

To my knowledge, most atheists just lack a belief in a god rather than actively disbelieving in one.
And these two outlooks are different how??

Why isn't there a box for "I'm religious and I discriminate against certain religions?" I, personally, can only think of three religions (one religion, a sub-catagory, and a broad mass, really) that I discriminate against (Christianity, Satanism, and fluffybunny new age). The rest, well, I can't really be bothered to care.
Ah! An honest bigot! How refreshing! :)

And these two outlooks are different how??

Well, for one, if you lack a belief in a god, there is no element of faith. It's no different than lacking a belief in invisible pink unicorns. There's no faith involved, you just lack a belief in them. By contrast, active disbelief would be where you firmly believe there is no god.

Discrimination? No.

I do to a small degree when it comes to people. It just shows what type of things they believe in, but I don't allow it to affect my assessment of their character too much. I care more about their actions than their beliefs. But still, it does affect me in some way, so I guess I went with the third option.

With girls, I totally discriminate like that. Religious girls are all about "no sex before marriage" so I just keep away from them.

By the poll results so far, all I have to say is...

Liars!

I understand that there probably are a few people out there who are genuinely tolerant of all other religions, but not in these numbers. At least the atheists are honest.

<snip>

This is a bit like assuming that any American must have voted for Bush. The vast majority of the members of a given religion are not fanatical. Those that are simply stand out more. Your heretic sounds interesting. I can definitely see why he was branded a heretic Shifting the emphasis from the institution to the individual. (there we go, my problem with religion is with the organised stuff. At least most politicians don't claim divine right/guidence)

Yus, I know that about the assumption. I know it's a bad assumption, and I'm not sure I've even met a religious fanatic. However, it's a stereotype that's stuck in my mind and will require effort to get rid of.

edit: What I'm trying to say with this is that when acessing the character of a person I give the atheist a higher starting point. It's easy for the religious person to make up that ground, but it's still there.

I've always found it stupid, and frankly a bit lazy to discriminate based on such wide categories. I mean, why hate someone simply for being religious (or atheist or of another skin color or nationality, etc.) when you can get to know them and discover just how big an asshole he or she really is?

Well, for one, if you lack a belief in a god, there is no element of faith. It's no different than lacking a belief in invisible pink unicorns. There's no faith involved, you just lack a belief in them. By contrast, active disbelief would be where you firmly believe there is no god.
Hmm. Rather a fine distinction to make, don't you think? Somewhat like splitting hairs.

I've always found it stupid, and frankly a bit lazy to discriminate based on such wide categories. I mean, why hate someone simply for being religious (or atheist or of another skin color or nationality, etc.) when you can get to know them and discover just how big an asshole he or she really is?I wasn't trying to talk about active discrimination, mainly because hardly anyone would admit to it, and I don't believe it to be that prevalent on NS. I was, however, trying to address unconcious discrimination. I'm not talking about hate, but rather distrust or a disinclination towards. I find it hard to believe that most people do not have discrimination of this sort. I know it's easy to say that you may not have this discrimination, mainly because it's easy to miss and deny.

For example. Say I asked you to describe to me
a) an American
b) a European
c) a Swede
d) a Russian
e) an Arab
f) a Nigerian
g) a Black person
h) a White person
i) a Christian
j) a Jew
h) a Hindu
j) a Muslim
k) a male
l) a female
m) an old person
n) a child

I'm willing to bet that everyone probably has a discriminatory stereotype of a certain group of people.

Hmm. Rather a fine distinction to make, don't you think? Somewhat like splitting hairs.

Well, to an anarchist like, the distinction between republicans and democrats (the US political parties) is like splitting hairs.

Interesting poll.

I am not an atheist, so by the poll's definition I am "religious". I don't preach or try to convert people and the last time I was in a church was four years ago for a sister-in-law's memorial service. I don't bring up religion in conversation unless it's germane to the discussion at hand.

And yet, at least the first two people to post on this thread question my reason?

Interesting poll.

I am not an atheist, so by the poll's definition I am "religious". I don't preach or try to convert people and the last time I was in a church was four years ago for a sister-in-law's memorial service. I don't bring up religion in conversation unless it's germane to the discussion at hand.

And yet, at least the first two people to post on this thread question my reason?I was trying to keep the poll options down, and as the poll's working out it might have only been worth putting into two options.

Anyway, to be fair, belief in a supernatural being is by definition not a rational act, but instead an act of belief. So on that basis it is fair to question your rationality (but then it would be a dull life if we relied soley on reason). Anyway, if we take reason in the philosophical sense then means relying on fact and deductive reasoning. I do not believe any religious belief has a basis in fact and decductive reasoning. It has a basus in opinion and inductive reasoning, which, at times, can be highly unrational.

I am religious, but I don't discriminate against other religions. I mean, I believe they are incorrect, but I don't force the issue. I suppose it is because I am Jewish, and Jews were discriminated against for centuries, so I don't think we should do that to other people.

There are Jewish heretics - the prevailing view of Christianity in the eyes of Judaism is that Christianity is a heresy of Judaism. I don't know of any others that exist today, though the Karaites - Jews who reject the Talmud - might qualify.

After thinking about it, I should make a change to my earlier statement. I don't discriminate against other contemporary religions. Making fun of extinct idolatrous religions is fine with me. I mean, it's not as if they're around to be offended!

I'm religious as well as an atheist and I don't discriminate against people based on their religion. I do discriminate against people based on hypocrisy. If one claims their religion is about love and compassion, but uses their religion as an excuse to hate and revile others, then I want nothing to do with them.