Why are JUBbers so prejudiced against the religious/religion in general?

[MakeDigitalLove]

We're a small group of gay guys just bitching and moaning about religion, mostly because some of us have been verbally and physically abused by religion-driven folks.

Religious people are part of worldwide organizations with massive political and financial power, a lot of which is used in crusades against us because they are hellbent on ridding the world of "sinners."

I am DYING for you to show me how we're no different.

I already stated how. That there are people that dont believe in God who push their beliefs just as hard as the religious right. The numbers arent there but intent is still the same. Just as much as there are people who dont believe in God that see their belief as the "right" one.

I understand being agnostic and or atheist. What I don't understand is that the very same people who adopt these beliefs and are against religious extremism act no different then the extremists when it comes to expressing their beliefs.

 

[brokegayguy]

I already stated how.

No you didn't.

That there are people that dont believe in God who push their beliefs just as hard as the religious right. The numbers arent there

Well no fucking shit, Sherlock.

What I don't understand is that the very same people who adopt these beliefs and are against religious extremism act no different then the extremists when it comes to expressing their beliefs.

I love the way you're tip-toeing with your words here. You already know religion has been way more prejudiced in word and deed than gays or atheists or agnostics, but you focus so much on "intent" or how people "express" themselves in a major straw-grasping move to equate both extremes. As if saying "religion sucks" on an internet forum is equal to some preacher saying "gays suck" to congregations every Sunday.

The topic question is "why is JUB prejudiced against religion?" Either show us what specifically we have done that's anymore prejudiced than religion has been to us, or stop being so incomprehensibly naive.

 

[eastofeden]

I understand being agnostic and or atheist. What I don't understand is that the very same people who adopt these beliefs and are against religious extremism act no different then the extremists when it comes to expressing their beliefs

That is the bottom line for me.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

No you didn't.

I did, you apparently don't like the answer.

Well no fucking shit, Sherlock.

OK? You brought that up first.

I love the way you're tip-toeing with your words here. You already know religion has been way more prejudiced in word and deed than gays or atheists or agnostics, but you focus so much on "intent" or how people "express" themselves in a major straw-grasping move to equate both extremes.

I focus on intent and how people express themselves cause that is very important when it comes to any belief. If there were Catholics, Muslims or whoever that didn't force their beliefs on others or use their religion as a means to cause prejudice/violence there would be a lot less people who would have a problem with it. So yes, when an Atheist claiming their position is right or telling me what I believe is wrong I don't see a difference between a Catholic doing the same thing.

That is hardly grasping at straws.

As if saying "religion sucks" on an internet forum is equal to some preacher saying "gays suck" to congregations every Sunday.

I'm not saying that at all.

The topic question is "why is JUB prejudiced against religion?" Either show us what specifically we have done that's anymore prejudiced than religion has been to us, or stop being so incomprehensibly naive.

Let us get this right, you're the one having a problem with what I am writing because I made it quite clear that we are talking about how non-religious folk on here treat members of JUB who believe in god or are religious. I stated that the belief is mocked and belittled the same way the religious right are, which doesn't make sense to me considering the people on here that are religious or believe in God are very far from acting like that.

Though I am not saying there hasn't been actual religious nuts on here, because there have been, but when it comes to the regulars it is different.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Except that someone else's decision to believe or acknowledge (or not) a higher power is not a question of logic in the first place, let alone needing to come to you and prove it to you according to a burden of logical evidence. It's an issue of faith which is a concept you would be exposed to on the first day of any introduction to religion course.

This is all true.

However, I would argue that if this is going to become the basis of a number of laws and moral codes which all of us are expected to uphold, "faith" (which some of us do not have, or subscribe to) simply shouldn't be a good-enough argument for all of us to have to comply with. In such case, I think it only fair that some evidence be required and the burden of proof fall to those who wish to enforce it.








Hey look, a flying pig!

-d-

 

[blackbeltninja]

The irony here is that some of the people who are staunch atheists and some of the people who are staunchly religious often share the same quality...anyone who doesn't agree with them or see things the way they do is "wrong" or "stupid" or "uninformed"....and I notice they are more alike than they are different.

Neither one "knows" for certain that God exists or doesn't exist yet both are self appointed authorities that think what they believe is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

I think you're over-simplifying things. Atheists don't believe because there is not enough evidence for them to support this belief. It's like evaluating a legal case, and weighing up the facts which ARE known in order to come to a decision.

The religious, however, believe in spite of the lack of evidence. There is a big difference in the mind-set of both.

Of course, at this point we could argue whether beautiful sunsets, perfectly grilled pork ribs, a brilliant Cabernet Sauvignon, and whiskers on kittens should be accepted as evidence or not.

-d-

 

[LuckysRevenge]

I think you're over-simplifying things. Atheists don't believe because there is not enough evidence for them to support this belief. It's like evaluating a legal case, and weighing up the facts which ARE known in order to come to a decision.

The religious, however, believe in spite of the lack of evidence. There is a big difference in the mind-set of both.

Of course, at this point we could argue whether beautiful sunsets, perfectly grilled pork ribs, a brilliant Cabernet Sauvignon, and whiskers on kittens should be accepted as evidence or not.

-d-

Except its illogical to unnecessarily come to a decision without sufficient evidence.

If one does not believe in God why is there a need to believe in the non-existence of one. Again, I have no problem with atheists. I only have a problem with the assertion of superiority (by some atheists) over others.

 

[oakpope]

I've noticed the same thing, which is part of the reason why I typically don't discuss my own spirituality and religious beliefs here. There's even a thread here with pictures that mock religion. I find that incredibly insensitive and ironic considering what this forum is supposed to stand for.

I too noticed the thread. I chose to simply ignore it and not open it. I believe it's not a topic for me. But if it amuses some people here, by all means let them have their fun. My faith is not attacked by shocking drawings or pictures.

The only problem would be if it lead to people being violent or hateful or intolerant.

I believe intolerant religious people are those who didn't quite understood their religion or are manipulated by power hungry people, or have so little faith and are so ashamed by that that they feel the need to shout it to reassure themselves.

I dream of a world were people weren't at the throat of each other because of different opinions or beliefs.

 

[oakpope]

I'll get flack for that but, sometimes when discussing with atheists it feels like trying to explain 3D to a 2D stick man. It's difficult to share experiences when people don't want to listen.

 

[sixthson]

The only problem would be if it lead to people being violent or hateful or intolerant.

God knows we don't have any of that at JUB, right?

 

[xboxfan34]

The pictures in the Funny anti religious Internet pictures thread that have religious humor to them are really funny, I'm pretty sure no one can NOT laugh at a good "priest, rabbi and imam walk into a bar" joke.

"A priest was called away for an emergency. Not wanting to leave the confessional unattended, he called his rabbi friend from across the street and asked him to cover for him. The rabbi told him he wouldn't know what to say, but the priest told him to come on over and he'd stay with him for a little bit and show him what to do. The rabbi comes and he and the priest are in the confessional.

A few minutes later, a woman comes in and says, "Father forgive me for I have sinned."

The priest asks, "What did you do?"

The woman says, "I committed adultery."

Priest, "How many times?"

Woman, "Three times."

Priest, "Say two Hail Mary's, put $5 in the box and go and sin no more."

A few minutes later a man enters the confessional. He says, "Father forgive me for I have sinned."

Priest, "What did you do?"

Man, "I committed adultery."

Priest, "How many times?"

Man, "Three times."

Priest, "Say two Hail Mary's, put $5 in the box and go and sin no more."

The rabbi tells the priest that he thinks he's got it so the priest leaves.

A few minutes later another woman enters and says, "Father forgive me for I have sinned."

Rabbi, "What did you do?"

Woman, "I committed adultery."

Rabbi, "How many times?"

Woman, "Once."

Rabbi, "Go do it two more times. We have a special this week, three for $5." "

THAT is funny to me, it's nice, it's mildly offensive but still charming enough so that even Jewish people can laugh at it. But saying shit like "Religious people are scum", "theistic agnostics are weak minded and can't think for themselves" is NOT funny in the slightest.

 

[Willie Boy]

Except that joke is not technically anti-religious. There is a major difference between religious humor and anti-religious humor. Religious humor pokes fun at religion with the intent of making people laugh. Anti-religious humor, on the other hand, has the "soul" purpose of attacking religion/religious people and is meant to be hurtful.

 

[Willie Boy]

Case in point: my little "soul" pun was a bit of religious humor, there was no intent to be hurtful to any religious person or religion. Many may not find it all that funny, but no one (except for freaks) will find it hurtful.

 

[oakpope]

For humor I defer to a famous French humorist : 'One can laugh about anything, but one can't laugh with every one' (Pierre Desproges).

 

[zoltanspawn]

Caustic satire attacking Buddhism or Hinduism is unknown for all practical purposes on JUB.

Buddhists and Hindus are also unknown on JUB. Buddhism, Hinduism itself, for all practical purposes, none.

Perhaps people are chiefly attacking what bothers them here online, and, more especially, in their own real-life countries?

 

[Sausy]

I have nothing against satirizing, mocking, ripping those who use religion for malevolent ends. However the line stops at just ripping or mocking religious people, or even just spiritual people just because of your insufferable righteousness... you don't want people to shove phony gods or spiritual "nonsense" , well fucking keep the snotty "oh I'm so more enlightened and better than you" bigotry to yourself. Science is wonderful... we should explore the known universe for all the mysteries we can uncover. But I will not arrogantly presume there's nothing out there but what can be scientifically proven. I respect the agnostic who doesn't wave his finger at all the "stupid, foolish, superstitious" people because there is no agenda there. I have no problem with people who just don't believe in anything after this life, or just don't know and don't think it makes a difference. I have a tremendous problem with the atheists whose uber-secularism is as fucked up in its single minded self assuredness as they are not that much better than those who literally believe in a faith, or use faith for their own selfish purposes. Stop acting so high and mighty and learn a little humility.... you could sure use it.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

Let's do some math.

The European Conquest of the Americas -- Estimates range between 8 to 112 million Native American deaths to disease and conquest. They weren't killed because of their religion, but because they held the land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

Although the Reformation triggered lots of European deaths, even then the motives were mixed. French Catholics all too happily slew Huguenots and took their lands.

It's both trite and untrue to attribute war solely to religion or even predominantly. That assertion also blithely ignores the Asian and African wars that have also been based on race/clan/tribe, as well as territorial acquisition.

Smarten up. Do the math.

Yeah right the Spanish Conquistadors slaughtering hundreds of thousands had nothing to do with religion.

 

[xbuzzerx]

This is all true.

However, I would argue that if this is going to become the basis of a number of laws and moral codes which all of us are expected to uphold, "faith" (which some of us do not have, or subscribe to) simply shouldn't be a good-enough argument for all of us to have to comply with. In such case, I think it only fair that some evidence be required and the burden of proof fall to those who wish to enforce it.








Hey look, a flying pig!

-d-

I agree. I do not support religious-based state policy or law in any way and have voted my entire life against the political factions that would like to do so here. But, to be brief, someone who thinks faith is wrong because it lacks evidence simply doesn't understand what faith is. If you had faith in something because it had been proven to you it wouldn't be faith at all.

 

[bort138]

I agree. I do not support religious-based state policy or law in any way and have voted my entire life against the political factions that would like to do so here. But, to be brief, someone who thinks faith is wrong because it lacks evidence simply doesn't understand what faith is. If you had faith in something because it had been proven to you it wouldn't be faith at all.

Why is faith a good thing and how is it different from simply being gullible?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Why is faith a good thing and how is it different from simply being gullible?

Lucky spoke earlier in the thread about the kinds of circumstances people might find themselves in life where having faith in the idea of something better than the life you're stuck in can be a powerfully important thing. And the entire thread completely ignored it or threw a tomato at it and went back to bickering about other things. People were not apparently interested in why anyone would ever be motivated to want or need faith or find use for it.