Special consideration for opinion derived from religious conviction?

[unbeliever]

I often find myself in debate being told that one person's opinion on a particular matter is not subject to criticism because it comes from their faith.

I'm unimpressed by this argument. If your god tells you to behave a certain way in return for the usual rewards that gods offer their worshippers for whatever tributes these modern gods are into nowadays, you go right ahead. I suspect that you'll be disappointed when the time comes and said gods do not come through on their rather lavish promises, but that's just my opinion. There remains a vanishingly small probability that one or more of the many gods from history is doing right by his/her flock but that's rather beside the point.

An opinion derived from reading an X thousand year old book, or more likely a subjective interpretation of it, is far less likely to contain great wisdom than the calm considered judgement of educated people after open debate and dispassionate consideration. I will state my opinions on whatever I see fit and if anybody's god doesn't like it I don't see why he/she can't express it directly via thunderbolts or whatever the modern equivalent is.

[sh3rb3t]

If your god tells you to behave a certain way in return for the usual rewards that gods offer their worshippers for whatever tributes these modern gods are into nowadays, you go right ahead.

 

Hmm... So you don't have an issue with the extremists blowing up themselves in order to send a message, and killing innocent people while they do it?

[tinfoilhat]

Hmm... So you don't have an issue with the extremists blowing up themselves in order to send a message, and killing innocent people while they do it?

 

Sounds like he doesn't like anyone who believes in god and if he can use their faith as a stick to hit them with to win an argument he probably will. Oh and call them stupid or mentally ill.

[unbeliever]

Hmm... So you don't have an issue with the extremists blowing up themselves in order to send a message, and killing innocent people while they do it?

 

There are obviously limits. I'm concerned her primarily with speech and expression in general. I'm not a supporter of extending freedom of expression to the use of high explosives.

[sh3rb3t]

Sounds like he doesn't like anyone who believes in god and if he can use their faith as a stick to hit them with to win an argument he probably will. Oh and call them stupid or mentally ill.

 

I am actually slightly of this persuasion - in the sense that I do not approve of the way extreme (please note here that I said extreme - religious people in general do not bother me in the slightest!) religious factions can go about changing our national customs to suit themselves. Especially when they insist that this country, as a predominantly Christian society originally, should pander to their needs.

 

However, what I took issue with, was the assertion that unbeliever seems to think that if their God told them to do it, then it's fine. It's NOT fine. Get a grip.

[unbeliever]

Sounds like he doesn't like anyone who believes in god and if he can use their faith as a stick to hit them with to win an argument he probably will. Oh and call them stupid or mentally ill.

 

I'm not a believer myself, but I do think it important to defend religious freedom. I don't mean to suggest that people of faith are inferior, just that if the only grounding their opinion has is in their faith they have little chance of persuading me of anything. Furthermore, I resent being told that if I make an attempt to persuade them using facts and reason I'm doing something wrong by contradicting what their god(s) have told them.

[jfish1936]

I don't approve of people cutting bits of their daughters sex areas "because of their faith"; particularly when in their "holy book" it's not mentioned. "Ah, but people of our faith have always done that" does not mean I can accept it as not being wrong.

This determination to cling to the "faith" isquite awe inspiring -- read "Maccabees" and see how the Jews fought to keep male circumcision, even against death penalties.

 

Now, religious freedom.

1/. People who believe in a "God" and have a ritual for worshipping him/her/it should be allowed to do it.

2/. They should allow those who differ from them the same freedom (the Pilgrim Fathers went to America to find "freedom of worship" and enacted draconian legislation against those who weren't of their particular beliefs).

3/. No human sacrifice, or bodily harm except by informed adult consent ( if you wish to become a priest of Cybele and castrate yourself with a flint knife, OK; but don't compel anyone else, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele )

4/. Do not unduly annoy your neighbour; nor let what your neighbour does unduly offend you.

[melthebell]

I smell a slight smell of islamaphobia in this thread Oo

[Ryedo40]

I'm not a believer myself, but I do think it important to defend religious freedom.

 

I agree, but 'religious freedom' is a bit of a broad term; i.e. I wouldn't defend someone's religious freedom to needlessly slaughter an animal as a sacrifice or mutilate a child’s body because the religious' faith based position, usually derived from a book written by ignorant and highly superstitious people, demanded it. Just as equally, I wouldn't defend 'religious freedom' if it meant that those of religious persuasion X gained privilege in society while those who differed from religious persuasion X were denied those same rights and privileges.

 

I don't mean to suggest that people of faith are inferior, just that if the only grounding their opinion has is in their faith they have little chance of persuading me of anything. Furthermore, I resent being told that if I make an attempt to persuade them using facts and reason I'm doing something wrong by contradicting what their god(s) have told them.

 

Faith based opinions, not being grounded in substantiated facts, will always be inferior – and, perhaps, that's why faith becomes the sacred cow that shouldn't be crossed.

 

I say keep crossing it. Positions of faith deserve no more respect than any other opinion.

[Anna Glypta]

I agree, but 'religious freedom' is a bit of a broad term; i.e. I wouldn't defend someone's religious freedom to needlessly slaughter an animal as a sacrifice or mutilate a child’s body because the religious' faith based position, usually derived from a book written by ignorant and highly superstitious people, demanded it. Just as equally, I wouldn't defend 'religious freedom' if it meant that those of religious persuasion X gained privilege in society while those who differed from religious persuasion X were denied those same rights and privileges.

 

 

 

Faith based opinions, not being grounded in substantiated facts, will always be inferior – and, perhaps, that's why faith becomes the sacred cow that shouldn't be crossed.

 

I say keep crossing it. Positions of faith deserve no more respect than any other opinion.

 

 

I've never understood how a god who is credited with creating a universe 70 billion light years in diameter has such a problem convincing everyone on this tiny speck of dust that he did it and not one of the 10,000 other similar figments of the imagination were responsible.