"Respecting" people's beliefs... - Page 11

vhawk01 · #**101** 01-04-2007, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what bothers me the most is when someone says what "they" are doing is hurting/offending "me". Whenever you acknowledge "a them" that has an influence and power over "a you," you're making yourself a victim, and to me that is the definition of defeatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I suppose you are arguing that blacks should just let cross-burnings and racial slurs from the KKK just roll off their backs? THAT'S defeatism. Fighting the intolerance is much more optimistic as it assumes change might be possible.

I'm the first to agree people can be too sensitive (witness deadly Muslim riots over freaking CARTOONS) - but "just ignore everything you don't like" is not an effective strategy for change.

Religious beliefs strongly affect the lives of non-believers, and as such athiests have reason to debate these beliefs in the hopes of working towards eliminating them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he was saying what you think he was saying, although perhaps I am wrong. I think we was saying that simply feeling victimized by something is unacceptable. But I don't think that is what we are doing, I think we are trying to argue and get the point across that there is an unfair situation.

Especially since, in this case, the only action that needs to be taken is for people to REALIZE the double-standard and bias.

bkholdem · #**102** 01-04-2007, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what bothers me the most is when someone says what "they" are doing is hurting/offending "me". Whenever you acknowledge "a them" that has an influence and power over "a you," you're making yourself a victim, and to me that is the definition of defeatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I suppose you are arguing that blacks should just let cross-burnings and racial slurs from the KKK just roll off their backs? THAT'S defeatism. Fighting the intolerance is much more optimistic as it assumes change might be possible.

I'm the first to agree people can be too sensitive (witness deadly Muslim riots over freaking CARTOONS) - but "just ignore everything you don't like" is not an effective strategy for change.

Religious beliefs strongly affect the lives of non-believers, and as such athiests have reason to debate these beliefs in the hopes of working towards eliminating them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he was saying what you think he was saying, although perhaps I am wrong. I think we was saying that simply feeling victimized by something is unacceptable. But I don't think that is what we are doing, I think we are trying to argue and get the point across that there is an unfair situation.

Especially since, in this case, the only action that needs to be taken is for people to REALIZE the double-standard and bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the double standard with attractive vs. unattractive people or classism, etc?

Should I get all pissy and demand to be treated fairly when waiting in a line at a nightclub and some hot chick strolls in without waiting in line? Should I demand everyone do this?

revots33 · #**103** 01-04-2007, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Should I get all pissy and demand to be treated fairly when waiting in a line at a nightclub and some hot chick strolls in without waiting in line? Should I demand everyone do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I don't think it's unreasonable to try and take steps to change the nightclub's policies if you think they are discriminatory, and if it is important enough to you. Why wouldn't you? Is is just that you think you'll be seen as an annoying whiner? That's how most people who try to effect change are usually taken by the status quo.

Of course I'd argue that religious faith effects non-believers to a much more important degree than getting into a nightclub - yet it is still considered "intolerant" to criticize someone's faith. Why? I think it is because (as someone mentioned earlier) the faithful have a weapon at their disposal - the ability to brand you as godless and immoral (and often the threat of violence), to in effect punish athiests for daring to speak out.

IronUnkind · #**104** 01-04-2007, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I'd argue that religious faith effects non-believers to a much more important degree than getting into a nightclub - yet it is still considered "intolerant" to criticize someone's faith. Why? I think it is because (as someone mentioned earlier) the faithful have a weapon at their disposal - the ability to brand you as godless and immoral (and often the threat of violence), to in effect punish athiests for daring to speak out.

[/ QUOTE ]

That this seems unjust to you suggests that you ought ot disagree with Sam Harris's thesis. After all, it may be that these violent theist mobs (you said that the threats were common, right?) have taken a cue from Harris's reasoning and decided that it is okay to be intolerant of godless immorality.

vhawk01 · #**105** 01-04-2007, 08:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what bothers me the most is when someone says what "they" are doing is hurting/offending "me". Whenever you acknowledge "a them" that has an influence and power over "a you," you're making yourself a victim, and to me that is the definition of defeatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I suppose you are arguing that blacks should just let cross-burnings and racial slurs from the KKK just roll off their backs? THAT'S defeatism. Fighting the intolerance is much more optimistic as it assumes change might be possible.

I'm the first to agree people can be too sensitive (witness deadly Muslim riots over freaking CARTOONS) - but "just ignore everything you don't like" is not an effective strategy for change.

Religious beliefs strongly affect the lives of non-believers, and as such athiests have reason to debate these beliefs in the hopes of working towards eliminating them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he was saying what you think he was saying, although perhaps I am wrong. I think we was saying that simply feeling victimized by something is unacceptable. But I don't think that is what we are doing, I think we are trying to argue and get the point across that there is an unfair situation.

Especially since, in this case, the only action that needs to be taken is for people to REALIZE the double-standard and bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the double standard with attractive vs. unattractive people or classism, etc?

Should I get all pissy and demand to be treated fairly when waiting in a line at a nightclub and some hot chick strolls in without waiting in line? Should I demand everyone do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure? If you think this is important, go ahead.

If you DON'T think the priviledged status that all members of any faith have is important, feel free to ignore it, I suppose. Although I can't see how you could so easily dismiss it, especially in the US, and especially now.

vhawk01 · #**106** 01-04-2007, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course I'd argue that religious faith effects non-believers to a much more important degree than getting into a nightclub - yet it is still considered "intolerant" to criticize someone's faith. Why? I think it is because (as someone mentioned earlier) the faithful have a weapon at their disposal - the ability to brand you as godless and immoral (and often the threat of violence), to in effect punish athiests for daring to speak out.

[/ QUOTE ]

That this seems unjust to you suggests that you ought ot disagree with Sam Harris's thesis. After all, it may be that these violent theist mobs (you said that the threats were common, right?) have taken a cue from Harris's reasoning and decided that it is okay to be intolerant of godless immorality.

[/ QUOTE ]

It IS ok to be intolerant of godless immorality. This is hardly what we begrudge the 'violent theist mobs.'

LooseCaller · #**107** 01-04-2007, 08:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]

What about the double standard with attractive vs. unattractive people or classism, etc?

Should I get all pissy and demand to be treated fairly when waiting in a line at a nightclub and some hot chick strolls in without waiting in line? Should I demand everyone do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this is a flawed analogy because part of the reason you're standing outside the nightclub to begin with is that you're aware of the great number of attractive women inside the club. discrimination in many industries is required for them to be as popular as they are and is beneficial.

the reason that the unwarranted respect for religious belief is an issue is because it's a dangerous bias. the reasons for this have been listed above many times.