Christianity. n; The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Right, cards on the table here. I hate religion. All religions. They have caused unimaginable harm throughout history, and they continue to do so. I do not respect anyone's religious views. Not one of them. If you chose to believe that Mohammed rode up to heaven on a winged horse, I will call you foolish for believing something so absurd. I will happily allow you to believe it; you can believe anything you want, but I will absolutely not respect it. I also despise the way religionists indoctrinate children. The very concept of 'faith', that is belief without evidence, is a dangerous one. Religion is divisive, it causes people to segregate themselves according to which fairy-story they believe in, or even according to which version of the same fairy-story. In many cases it teaches that people who don't believe in the same fairy-stories are inferior, unworthy, dirty, and even deserve to die.
Anyway, in the comments section of an earlier post, a police blogger known as 200 called me a bigot.
He called me a bigot because I was attacking the catholic church for being able to duck out of anti-discrimination rules and continue to discriminate against non-catholics and homosexuals. (Despite my objections to the cathloic hatred of homosexuals I was also branded homophobic)
I can only assume that 30 years in the police removes one's sense of irony.
The catholic church has so much to answer for; it is difficult to know where to begin. The masses of instances of child abuse maybe? Where the church not only turned a blind eye, it actively protected the perpetrators. Priests were having sex with young children and the church allowed it.
Or was that just a cheap shot at the catholics? What about the untold millions who have died of AIDS and other STDs as a direct result of the catholic stance against condoms. How much more morally abhorrent can you get than telling millions of people who believe your every word that condoms have tiny holes in them, and that it is a sin to use them?
Hmmm, how much morally abhorrent can you get than that? Perhaps the muslim leaders who caused the failure of the World Health Organisation's attempt to wipe out Polio could stake a claim. Yep, as I write this, the entire world could have been completely Polio free. But our friendly religionist nutters told people that the vaccine was a trick by the evil west to make muslims impotent, and that no muslim should take the two small drops of liquid. As the project hinged on getting everyone vaccinated in a very short time of each other so that the virus had no hosts, the entire project failed because of this. Polio is now rife again.
Nice work faith-heads.
Of course it isn't just koran-bashers who like to stand in the way of disease prevention. Yep, bible-bashers would rather see women die from cervical cancer than allow HPV vaccines to be given out, in case it causes girls to be more premiscuous. You can't make this shit up. Maybe we should create some more STDs, that'll put people of the horrible sinful act of sex, what do you reckon, bible-fans?
As I said earlier, 'faith' is a very dangerous thing. Muslim suicide bombers have 'faith' that they will live on in heaven with 72 virgins. They actually believe this.
Had it not been for religion, those guys would not have flown planes in to buildings on September 11th. There is no evidence at all that people live on in a magical world up in the clouds, yet these people had 'faith' in it. Now they are dead, along with thousands of innocent people.
Why do religionists think that their absurd beliefs should be respected? Why do they think that the rest of us should accept them? Why is it considered rude to question somebody's religious views, and point out how stupid they are? It is fine to question someone's political views, their taste in clothes, or anything like that, but when it comes to religion; views no matter how absurd, must be respected.
Not here they ain't.
Peace
Blimey,
ReplyDeletetwo posts inspired by me in 2 days, I'm touched.
So much to say, but having just worked a long night shift, not enough time to say it.
Let me just clear up a coule of things. I didn't call you a bigot because you were attacking the catholic church; I said you were bigoted against the police (my reading of your posts here & on my blog) & said it seemed that you were spreading the bigotry to religion also.
My reason for this is because you exhibit certain characteristics which I believe show you to be bigoted or prejudiced against the police, that is, you stereotype the whole organisation & everyone within in it based on the examples of a small section of that group, you denigrate the good work of a large number of officers by generally just slagging them all off. This, I believe, is what bigotry is about. You are now doing the same to anyone with a religious belief.
I haven't branded you as 'homophobic' I merely asked what other groups you may dislike suggesting that the use of the word 'lezzas' in another post might give a clue. You defended the use of the word 'lezzas' as merely using a slang term for lesbians. I suggest that few people will see this word as anything other than derogatory & your excuse for using it as rather lame. I believe 'wog' was a slang word for black people, could you defend using it in the same way? I doubt you'd disagree that it would be unacceptable.
As to your latest post slagging off anyone who holds a religious belief I would point you to the dictionary definitions of a bigot "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race or politics & is intolerant of those who differ"
or "a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs & who thinks that anyone who does not hold the same beliefs is wrong"
or "blindly & obstinately attached to some creed or opinion & intolerant towards others"
I believe your post on religion exhibits the central principles of those definitions: "I hate religion", "I do not respect anyone's religious views", "I will absolutely not respect it", proof, if it were needed, that you, sir, are a bigot!
so much more to say on the actual content of your post but I'm off to bed.
Hmmmm, so I don't like the police, that makes me a bigot?
ReplyDeleteThere must be a lot of bigots around then.
I don't respect people's ridiculous beliefs in magic sky-pixies, that makes me a bigot? (even though I said people can of course believe whatever they want)
This is a typical religionist tactic; anyone who questions my 'faith' and won't let me do what I want in the name of my god, even if it means trampling all over the rights of other, is a bigot!
Assuming you don't respect my belief that Father Christmas is real, does that make you a bigot?
I have been called many things, but being called a bigot hits a raw nerve, as bigotry is something I cannot stand, hence my dislike of religion.
Thanks for your dictionary definitions, I think they perfectly describe religious fanatics.
In short, yes, all that does make you a bigot. We all have prejudices, some people just don't like to admit it.
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't assume you know what my beliefs & ethics are, if you want to know just ask. Funnily enough my children believed in Father Christmas, one of them still does, I don't feel any bigotry towards him because even though I know Father Christmas doesn't exist I respect his belief, I don't agree it's correct, but I don't think he is stupid to believe it & I don't hate him for it.
If bigotry is something you cannot stand you really need to examine what you wrote to understand why I say what I do.
The difference, it appears between us, is that I don't think you are a stupid idiot for not believing in God, it is obvously something you have considered & come to the conclusion which is right for you. Whether I think you are right or wrong is immaterial, it is your right to hold your views without being insulted or vilified for holding them, this is something you don't appear to afford to people who have also thought & considered & come to a different conclusion.
The dictionary definitions do describe some religious fantatics and I am sure there are many bigots among them, non-believers don't hold the monopoloy on bigotry. However, the majority of people who hold religion dear to their hearts are not fanatics, don't describe non beleivers as stupid fairy-tale believing idiots & just want to be allowed to live their lives without being rubbished by the likes of you.
The two photos you posted to illustrate your article do show bigotry, but come on, how representative do you think they are of the hundreds/thousands of millions of people who believe in a religion? You are being extremely selective & using them to stereotype anyone else who might believe in a god. This is bigotry.
At the end of the day, you have no more evidence that god doesn't exist than the Archbishop of Canterbury has that he does, you just have a different opinion.
Your diatribe against anyone who believes in god makes as much sense as a Manchester United fan calling all manchester City fans, stupid for following a different club.
I forgot to add regarding your first sentence in your reply "so I don't like the police, that makes me a bigot, does it? There must be a lot of bigots around"
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion it does & yes, there are a lot of them about. Bigotry is rife in society in many forms.
I have seen some really shocking & terrible crimes committed by some black males, rapes, murders, gang violence etc. If I went around saying black men are a bunch of rapist, violent thugs, you would rightly agree that I was being prejudiced & bigotted towards black people. Yet somehow when you substitute the word 'black' for police, this is somehow OK despite the fact that the vast majority of police officers are ethical, don't break laws, & do the job to the best of their ability. This is why I say you stereotype 'the police' & are bigotted towards them.
In no particular order;
ReplyDeleteyou have no more evidence that god doesn't exist than the Archbishop of Canterbury has that he does, you just have a different opinion.
Not valid at all. The onus of proof is always on the person stating the claim. Added to that it is impossible to prove a negative.
When the archbish says that he thinks the creator of the universe listens to his thoughts telepathically and actively controls events on earth; that's for him to prove. My stance is simply "no it doesn't".
When someone proves to me that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, then we'll talk about disproving gods.
Honestly 200, (and I don't mean this in a narky way) I would have thought that an ex-police officer would have understood how the 'burden of proof' works.
just want to be allowed to live their lives without being rubbished by the likes of you.
If only that were the case. But it's not, is it? Far from it, they want to have their children segregated in 'faith' schools, they want exemptions from certain laws on the grounds of their 'faith', they prevent the like of me from being able to do my weekly shopping on a Sunday evening, they stand in the way of medical research, they DEMAND that their views are respected.
it is your right to hold your views without being insulted or vilified for holding them
Yes, as I clearly said, it is everyone's right to hold any views they wish, and they should not be vilified unless their views are deplorable. But why shouldn't they be insulted? If I expressed a view that Doncaster Rovers played the best football in Europe, I would rightly be mocked (no offence Donny fans), but if I express the view that a magic sky-pixie created the entire universe 6000 years ago and that AIDS is my god's punishment for homosexuals, that gets a free pass? Nope.
And just to remind you, at no point have I said "I hate catholics" or "I hate muslims", so unless someone can be a bigot for not liking rock music or stamp collecting, then your insults fail.
If people want to believe in magic sky-fairies then fine, but don't indoctrinate your children, and don't expect special treatment.
I see, when you refer to 'they' - 'they want this', 'they do that' who exactly are you talking about?
ReplyDelete'they' do not have to prove anything 'they' are free to believe in what they want.
I find your viewpoint very arrogant to be honest, you continue to be offensive in every reply, you just don't get it do you?
No I don't 200, I don't get it. I don't get religion and I don't get why religionists think their views should be above criticism.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing you don't get is that I'm not saying religious views are or should be above criticism.
ReplyDeleteA mark of a reasonable approach to something you don't agree with is to debate it in a grown up way, I'm sure you are quite capable of espousing your views without the need to be offensive.
Why do you keep avoiding my specific questions?
Oh, and I don't actually think your slagging off, so far, of religion is the stuff of reasoned debate, just a diatribe of offensive words really...when you come up with some adult-based criticism, then we might have a useful conversation.
ReplyDelete200, please tell me which of my criticisms are unreasonable?
ReplyDeleteAll are adult, they might be uncomfortable to faith-heads, but that's not my problem.
I will say it again; if people believe in absurdities and wish to espouse your views on others, then that's their problem, and I will be very vocal in my opposition.
The reason why my anti-religion comments may seem offensive, is that we are so used to religion being treated with kid-gloves. This has got to stop.
PS. By 'they' I mean people who think that there is a magical being living in the sky who created the entire universe, listens to their thoughts, guides the world, will reward them and punish others after death. Is that specific enough of an answer.
I don't think there's much point in continuing this. You've failed to address specific points, I suspect because you have difficulty in answering them in a rational, evidence-based way and are happy to stereotype & insult everyone who doesn't have the same view as you.
ReplyDeleteLeaving aside what you think of people who follow religion, your argument that religion is the cause of all the world's ills is pretty weak too, but there's little point in taking that further, judging by the level of your responses so far.
Erm, what specific points haven't I addressed?
ReplyDeleteIf you think it's a weak argument, please PLEASE read some history, and keep up to date with current affairs.
Of course, if you which to ride off proudly back to church and proudly proclaim that you got one over on this heathenous non-believer, then fine. You have not addressed any of the facts I put forward as to why religion is such a negative force, (probably because even an apologist like yourself knows they are indefensible), instead you just trot out the 'bigot' line.
If you wish to have a proper discussion then I will, gladly. But shouting 'bigot' as soon as religion is treated in the same way as a discussion about anything else, it just doesn't cut it.
Anyway, you're right; I think we should leave it here. Maybe try again next time a religion-based story catches my eye.
You've trotted out the same old anti-religion crap about religion causing all the wars in the world without the basic understanding of any religious creed, nor the realisation that actually wars aren't caused by religion, they are caused by individuals who in most cases have completely misrepresented religion as a method to gain power & wealth.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't as far as I can see, put any FACTS forward as to why religion is a negative force, you've merely put an opinion which you continue to litter with personal insults.
This is all very ironic given how insulted & offended you said you felt being called a bigot.
This is why I have such a problem with your comments, you just stereotype, You have no concept of the individual, in your little world everyone conforms to the worst you can find (prejudice & bigotry).
You've done it to 'the police' you've done it to anyone with a faith, you've now done it to me - I won't be riding off proudly back to church to proclaim I got one over on a non-believer, I'm an atheist - but you never stopped to ask, did you, you're just happy to make sweeping stereotypical judgements.
That's why you're a bigot!
200,
ReplyDeleteI my claims were about religion as a whole, not about individual religionists. I also never said that all wars are caused by religion. I am sorry for insinuating that you were a religionist, but religious apologists (both believers and non-believers such as yourself) give credence to the more extreme groups within religion.
The few examples are quoted were real examples of just some of the things that religion has caused, directly, that would not have been the case had it not been for religion. AIDS spreading as a result of the church's stance on condoms is a prime example.
As I have said time and time again; people can believe what they want, but don't expect others to accept you views, accepting THAT someone hold such views in fine, but we should not be forced in to accepting the views themselves.
I still think you are incorrect to call me a bigot because I dislike religion. If I'd said I hate all religionists, then yes, that would be bigotted. I also don't understand where you saw any stereotyping of religionists from, I will say it again, I don't hate all religionists!
If you really think that religion is a force for good, and that it lays benign in world affairs, can I recommend you read some of Christopher Hitchens's work. I have The End Of Faith on audio book if you would like a copy...
Peace.