Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
"A giant homophobic sky fairy? Okay. Worshipping Europe's many pantheons? You silly subhuman pagan."
So, appearently religious tolerance is a must have when it comes to abrahamic religious, yet all "pagan" faiths are at best considered silly and idiotic and at worst are either depraved rapists or white supremacists.
I can't even describe the double standard.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oooh, Gigantala. We wondered what were you up to.
It's kinda ridiculous, yes.
But look at it this way - Abrahamic religions have had a humongous effect on Western society and mentality, and no matter how secular you are you will have a very hard time escaping from their subconscious influence.
I often find pagan religions in a modern context silly on a very superficial level, since my immediate thought is that their supporters would be bored teenagers who want to be witches and warlocks. Superficial, like I said, but I can't help the thought of it. Obviously there are people out there who are pagans for much more substantial reasons, and all respect to them.
But I suppose Abrahamic religions are easier to accept, at least, on the basis that they have structural support of society at large, which they helped fashion in many ways. Like it or not, even atheistic Westerners have quite "Christian" values, since our values will always be informed by what we observe and what has come before. Many atheists, in that sense, might be considered "secular Christians", with moral compasses that conform to the essential, core values of Christianity without believing in Biblical or spiritual stuff.
Of course, such core values are not exclusive to Christianity. By the same token, though, it would be reasonable to consider an atheist born and raised in the Middle East to be a "secular Muslim", or an East Asian atheist to be a "secular Buddhist". These religions and their values run deep in their respective societies and cannot be removed by simply ceasing to believe in the gods and deities that act as their posterchildren. And that's not necessarily a bad thing; most of these religions have a view along the lines of "being nice to people is better than being mean to them by a long stretch", which I think is essentially a good moral starting point.
Obviously, we want to reject the particular aspects of religion that conflict with this central moral guideline and objectively proven science, but I don't think much of demonising religion much as a whole, mainstream or not. The best thing to do is to let people choose their own way, and I'd consider that a necessary freedom in any democratic or otherwise intellectually free society. Believing in God may not be particularly rational from an objective point of view, but I also consider it a moral imperative to respect the spiritual views of others. Essentially, I'm saying that trying to force people to disbelieve religions is just as anti-intellectual as religious nuts railing against science, since it infringes upon freedom of thought and freedom of individual moral perspective.
Again, Alex said it way more eloquently than I.
Gets kinda funny when I factor in who says that, eh heh heh.
Hey! I'm not a teenager, and I don't want be a witch, nor a warlock! Don't make me post knight macros!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Psst, my rage is facetious. I suggest you make your apology facetious as well.
Honestly, claiming double standard and then referring to the Abrahamic God as "a homophobic sky fairy" seems rather counterproductive to me.
Do not assume it was serious.
Then all is well. You may now return to your scheduled mockery.
Last time I tried mockery, you threatened to ban me.
Pffft, it was a semi-warning at worst, and due to context. See a different thread for another instance of the same.
Mike G can't read small text
#crosspostingmemesfromotherforums
WHY IS EVERYONE WHISPERING
This thread is now a library.
TO AVOID THE ATTENTION OF THE ILLUMINATI.
Aren't most Buddhists atheists anyway?
uh
no?
Many of them are, in the sense of not believing in god(s). I don't know if it's actually "most".
Buddhists believe in a higher power. Don't atheists believe in no higher power of any sort?
a "no" + theos "god", something like that.
edit: just noticed - "and due to context". I knew it. It was because I was WINNING.
@ninjaclown: The phrase "higher power" is rather vague, but if nothing else the typical usage of the word "atheist" tends to imply a lack of religious belief rather than merely a lack of belief in gods...but we don't really have a word for the latter that lacks the connotations of the former.
^
What about irreligious to mean someone who has a lack of religious belief?
@OP: But the Abrahamic God isn't homophobic (any longer)
Just because people use abstract concepts to justify their own beliefs, it doesn't make those abstract concepts any more naturally pertaining to those beliefs.
@Buddhism: Buddhism is an atheistic religion insofar as it doesn't feature an anthropomorphization of creation or any other abstract concepts. It does feature a metaphysical understanding of the universe under which there are certain laws, though. But there are no Gods, according to Buddhism. At least, if memory serves, anyway.
@Whale: That works, but on the other hand one can believe in gods without being religious so using "irreligious" with the intended connotation of also being atheist (in the strict sense) isn't really any less wrong than the reverse.
Thats the point,
That atheism and religiousity are different and such be treated as different.
Besides, you can totally be a knight. It only costs 150 dollars.
@Whale: Yes, but the correlation between the two is strong enough that it's a) going to be impossible to completely separate the two, and b) it's actually useful to have a term that encompasses both.