It's called respect. Every person has the right to believe and practice what they want unless those beliefs or practices hurt others. It doesn't matter how true or right you think they are.

Yes! I'm not saying otherwise. I said right at the beginning (or meant to) that I respect people, and I respect their rights, including the right to believe whatever. That is distinct from respecting ideas. It is not my goal to harass anybody, but anyone should be able to publicly criticise any idea without a deafening chorus of "you big meanie!" or being marked out for death. Those criticisms may be wrong or otherwise objectionable. Fine. Respond in kind! It's a two way street.


And I'm not so sure that most beliefs are genuinely harmless.

Oh yeah, I know most practises associated with religions are harmful and I never claimed that we should just let those lie in the interest of tolerence.

Well, yes. Note the phrase "If you wish". That's what we're talking about. I mean, it's not like we're going to walk up to someone on the street, ask them if they're religious, and then say "Buckle up, then. 'Cause I've got some news for you".

But if I have a television show, or an article, or a book, I can damn well say whatever I want in it. It's my venue. If you think that what I say is disrespectful, or that it's wrong then maybe you shouldn't watch, listen, or read it. Or do. Watch, listen, or read, and then call, or write to explain to me why I'm wrong. That's okay, too. But you don't get to tell me what I can or can't say in my own venue. I won't come into your church and start screeching about you being wrong. Hell, I won't even go on the 700 Club, and do that. I am being respectful.

He doesn't know what he's talking about. All the religious people I know acknowledge that prayer is like throwing letters in bottles in to the ocean; there's never any guarantee God will respond in the way you want.

Whilst I agree with this point in principle, it's a very fine line to tread and I think most people do not have the ability to discuss ideas without criticising the person.

I agree with Nate's first point. It is my belief that not everyone's prayers are answered, perhaps God is busy fending off African starvation? Maybe he's preparing for the apocalypse =) but when I pray, I shit you not when I say they sometimes get answered in some shape or form.

Yesterday I prayed that I would be alive today.

ZOMFG, GUYS

Note the word 'sometimes'.

Yes, I'm sure the grand creator of the universe puts his plans on hold at our whims, and that our telepathic hotline to said creator is required to inform him of our desires.

And I'm sure those "answers" would not have happened anyway. I remember when I was young and superstitious I wished for things all the time. And some of those wishes came true, many years later. Irrefutable proof of a (lazy) guardian genie, or probability over time? None of my demands for the laws of physics to be suspended in my favour where met.

You're missing the point. They make it okay to pray and provide the foundation for those who take it seriously. They enable the extremists.

I dislike religion, the main reason being it provokes people to have loads of really boring arguments.

The best thing about on-line arguments is that you don't have to read them.

fucking this.

also it makes me feel more stupid than usual.

And gay marriage will inevitably lead to legalised bestiality and paedophilia.


Slippery slope arguments are bullshit.

You misunderstand, it was not a slippery slope argument at all. Take for example, your basic Anglican or Catholic church. I don't mean to be specific about denominations but it sets the right atmosphere. The clergyman may well understand and support things like evolution and metaphors in the holy texts (arbitrarily designated, it seems to me), but how often do they actually say it openly to their congregation? How often do they mention before, after or during a reading that this or that is only figurative or poetic, and they should listen to doctors or scientists for details? Ever? How is their flock to know? They could all go an research it themselves, but... seriously.

Sure, the smart ones are going to be well aware of the effort and cause-effect of their doctors' treatment of their children, but when the tale is relayed to the rest of the congregation you know great emphasis is going to be put on the prayers they made in their darkest moments, rejoice in the apparent answering of those prayers and thank god for interceding (as opposed to those doctors?). Is it any wonder people come to believe that prayer is actually useful, that with faith anything is possible, that faith is all you need to alter reality?

And then something stupid happens, and they're all "that's not what our religion is all about, no sir!" Well good job making that clear. Sophisticated religion my arse.

Yes, but it takes up valuable time for members that do, time that could be spent arguing about cow tipping or zoophilia.

Quick hypothetical situation question for the smart people: After a knock on the head, I believe in a silver cockroach called Jim. I believe Jim guides my purpose, and wants due recognition for his efforts. Am I a nutter or have I just invented a new religion?

I talk to my friend Mark about the glory of Jim, and he believes me. He is happy to be considered a follower of Jim. What about now? Are we both nutters or the founders of a religion?

You're the founders of not just a fucked-up religion, but a very fucked-up religion.

Yes.

Well that was conclusive. Thanks y'all.

I'd call it a cult. You need some political clout before it becomes a religion.

How far do you think I could push Jimianism at work? Mondays off? Jim has decreed that thy shall start the week slowly...

There's already a Cult of Jim in the swordfighting society at Glasgow, are you going to have a crusade?

Jim has many names, and many forms. That cult is of an inferior jim, a false jim (Note lack of capitalisation). Jim is a kind being, and will let them have their fun. But on the Day of Jim-udgement, they will have to say they are sorry and stand in the naughty corner.

Hm...

I hate terrorists and extremists...

...but on the same token, I can't stand South Park.

This should be fun to watch!

No, it's not you. Their content is intentionally meaningless and empty, and the problem is that their viewers take the show's content and adopt it as a lazy alternative to becoming politically informed.

I can't stand that shit. The show SHOULD encourage you to investigate for yourself, but they stop at that point because, wouldn't you know it, tweens and teens are fucking lazy.

I still can't believe they reduced alcoholism to a matter of choice... oh, sorry, "disciprine." Takes a hell of a lot more work than that, said the informed viewer.