by nicolaou 28 Replies latest members adult
Atheists ran the inquisition! That's a take I hadn't heard before!
"You can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth". You don't think that could be a coercion to join a particular group? My lunchbreak is over now so feel free to take your considered time over any response you care to make.
Atheists ran the inquisition! That's a take I hadn't heard before!
No it is people that want to dictate what others think and believe--like you-- that ran the Inquisition. The flavor of ideology is not what matters, it is the totalitarianism. This is what your lunacy leads to:
The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. ....................Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals. [4] [5] Many Orthodox (along with peoples of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions (see Pitesti prison ). [6] [7]
That is like an Atheist Inquisition.
"You can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth". You don't think that could be a coercion to join a particular group?
It is a persuasion, not a coercion. Get it straight. Dissenting and incorrect points of view are the price of a free society, you fight them with education. You want to fight them with something worse.
Your cure is worse than the disease.
Burn
Tolerance is a disease that destroys life's excitement. Intolerance is a necessity and part of life's rich tapestry.
If Jesus had not been able to find any intolerant people to hand him over to the Romans he would have failed in his mission on earth.
I respect the right of Christians, and all religious people, to die for their beliefs and they respect my right to help them on their way in the arena. It all works out well and makes us feel needed.
We who are about to die salute you!
Ave sockpuppet, morituri te salutant.
It is a persuasion, not a coercion.
Fair enough. Still, this isn't a debate about semantics or the meaning of words - as important as we both consider those definitions to be. It's about recognising those place where respect is deservedly due.
Dissenting and incorrect points of view are the price of a free society, you fight them with education.
Couldn't agree more.
You want to fight them with something worse. Your cure is worse than the disease.
Ummm, what? I get the feeling we've got our lines of communication crossed. Burn, I have absolutely no truck with your religious beliefs, I disrespect them in the proper sense of the word although I am tolerant of them for as long as they do no harm. That doesn't mean I do not respect you!
I am not a totalitarian lunatic as you (respectfully?) assert.
That is like an Atheist Inquisition.
No true Atheist would take part in an inquisition. touche
I draw the line at when people are forced to take a course of action that is bad for themselves and/or for society because of the leaders of a group. If they do not take that bad course of action, they are in for a mess of trouble from the group. I also do not like people to draw others in on false premises and then use force or threat of force to keep them in.
So where should the lines of intolerance and disrespect be drawn - if they should be drawn at all?
I suspect that meanness is a perfect place for drawing the line. Meanness doesn't deserve respect.
If one can avoid calling the people who believe (in stupid things) stupid, then I have a chance of reaching them.
Without respectfully disagreeing with their stupidity, you'll get nowhere, I suppose.
And you might get nowhere with them anyway, if they're also bigoted or closed-minded, but it's worth a try to reach them tactfully (or not), anyway.
Ignorance is a very stubborn thing, but so is arrogance, I have found.
Meanness doesn't deserve respect. If one can avoid calling the people who believe (in stupid things) stupid, then I have a chance of reaching them. Without respectfully disagreeing with their stupidity, you'll get nowhere, I suppose.
Thank you Joy. I made the same point myself just a few topics ago with; Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT stupid!
Sometimes though a vigorous debunking of cherished beliefs is interpreted as an attack on the believer. Accusations of arrogance, intolerance and even bigotry are levelled at those who undermine the foundations of belief - irrespective of any merit their arguments may have.
Totally agreed, Nic! I hate it when someone asserts that religion deserves some kind of respect, regardless of the stupidity of a particular assertion or assumption made my the religious person, based on faith, rather than reason, research and/or evidence.
Sometimes, simply questioning bizarre and superstitious ideas is viewed as hostile, when really, all you're doing is trying to get someone to use the mind or re-direct faulty thinking.
Realizing that someone's assumptions are faulty isn't arrogance, but it's easy for people to feel that it is when you start showing them things they'd rather not see or know, especially if it brings into question some cherished thought or rigidly observed and irrational practice.
