Does religion offend you?

[Achronos]

However, any religion that condemns me in such a condescending manner simply because I reject its idea on the 'truth' of existence, then it does offend me.

And it's that Christian piety which offends me as well, that is no way to present any religious beliefs in my opinion. I urge you as well to look into that condemnation but of course never believe in something out of fear. If someone told me I was going to hell, I would take it as face value and not automatically reject what they believe. They could be interpreting the certain faith a wrong way.

Speaking of my own faith, Jesus Christ doesn't want to condemn anyone, his love for each person is like the amazon river watering a lilly.

[Tom62]

I think that religion inspires people to do good, beautiful, bad and ugly things.
It is the dark side of religion, that offends me.

[Cite134]

However, any religion that condemns me in such a condescending manner simply because I reject its idea on the 'truth' of existence, then it does offend me.

And it's that Christian piety which offends me as well, that is no way to present any religious beliefs in my opinion. I urge you as well to look into that condemnation but of course never believe in something out of fear. If someone told me I was going to hell, I would take it as face value and not automatically reject what they believe. They could be interpreting the certain faith a wrong way.

Speaking of my own faith, Jesus Christ doesn't want to condemn anyone, his love for each person is like the amazon river watering a lilly.

Why not? I would reject anything a human/dogma would say about what's going to happen (especially me) after death. Especially if they just assume that's what's going to happen.
I looked into it and the bible told me enough of what I needed it to disregard it as 'truth'. I wouldn't just find Christianity offensive in this case, though. ANY religion that does so is offensive to me.
&
So your interpretation is the true one? What makes one interpretation any more wrong than yours?
Hell? Not scared at all. Can't be scared of something I do not believe exists in the first place.

[fazFwQo83]

Not at all, but religious organisations give the credit to god. I'm saying we should give the credit to the people who make it happen and leave god out of it. I'm saying that people often identify compassion and kindness with religion and god. I'm saying that it's rubbish. People are capable of great compassion and we don't need some imaginary god character to motivate us to help another human being.

I agree that the association between the Christian god and good works is nonsense, and that "god" as a motivating concept is incredibly weak.  However, I was making my point in reply to this post another member saying that they saw no good that religion does; I was pointing out an example I've seen of religion doing good, without reference to whatever they might claim as inspiration.

With that being said, I would have to concede that while religion certainly has it's dark side, they [good people who belong to religious organisations] do some good along the way too.

[Fininho]

Many Christians wish they could be labelled "pragmatic believers": believing only the good side of their faith.
I could go along with that, if my support would not be a terrible offence to those many innocent victims of religions!
Islam is a case in point.
It is a terribly belligerent faith, with a terribly dark side.
Do I then applaud only its mild face?
No, not even that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because of our visceral desire for God. Even atheists have proven this, unknowingly.

You realize that you are assuming your premises, right?

That is the whole point of faith. Faith is to have a reason, to have a knowledge, to have a sense of security and understanding, that the 'ideology' is indeed a real fact.

Security?  Yes.  "Knowledge"?  Not so fast.  Faith is about believing even though you cannot know.

Also, you'll need to present evidence that your "ideology" is factual in its claims.

Jesus Christ destroys religion. Yes, even Christian "religion". Biblical Christianity is not a religion.

Unfortunately for your argument, the presence of over 30,000 different sects show that either:

1) Your claim that "Jesus destroys religion" is wrong; or
2) There is no Jesus Christ.

Also, your assertion that modern Christians aren't really Christians is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Asmodean]

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Being an atheist, it makes the guy learn about a lot of fallacy types, shades and models.  :hmm:

[Thumpalumpacus]

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[1]

    Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." [Brighton is not part of Scotland.] The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. [Aberdeen is part of Scotland.] This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
    â€"Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

A simpler rendition would be:

    Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
    Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
    Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

An example of a political application of the fallacy would be in asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.[2]

[Fininho]

"Speaking of my own faith, Jesus Christ doesn't want to condemn anyone, his love for each person is like the amazon river watering a lily."

It sound fantastic love, but the reality is so crudely horrible that the saying should be banned.
Jesus' love my foot!
What love?!...
I can tell you of several coarse LIES this impersonator told in the gospels!
He lied to his best friends.
I believe Jesus was addicted to hashish.

[SomewhereInND]

Look people, if you are a real athiest:

1. God just doesnt exist,  only humanity exists.  Period.

2. Humanity creates the gods and monsters.

3. Religion is just a series of stories created by humanity.

4. In the end, your dead.   Humanity might survive, but who cares, your dead.

It is not any more complicated then that.  Dont be offended by religion, be offended by humanity.

[Asmodean]

wiki

Of course! The all birds can fly-fallacy, as I have learned it.  

[Inevitable Droid]

1. God just doesnt exist,  only humanity exists.  Period.

2. Humanity creates the gods and monsters.

3. Religion is just a series of stories created by humanity.

4. In the end, your dead.   Humanity might survive, but who cares, your dead.

To which the theist responds:

1. God exists.

2. God created humanity.

3. Religion is a series of stories revealed by God.

4. In the end, you go to heaven or hell.

At that point, we have four options:

1. Walk away from the conversation.

2. If proximity permits, punch the theist in the face.

3. Repeat our allegedly self-evident claims again, more loudly and with a redder face.

4. Defend our claims with logic.

The first option negates the reason for this message board's existence.  The second is sub-human.  The third is sub-human.  The fourth is what often gets done here.

[SomewhereInND]

If you insist on 4, I would use reason, not logic.

Logic gets us to where we are,  Reason makes someone stand up and yell 'WTF is wrong with us?'

Your #3 & #4 and bacon greese, will just get you a heart attack.

Your #2 would feel real good.

Chuckle and walk away with #1, which might alieve the heart attack.

[Inevitable Droid]

If you insist on 4, I would use reason, not logic.

On another thread, when I asked you to differentiate the two, you replied as follows:

Logic gets you shroders cat.
Reason says the cat doesnt care what you think.

I have no idea what that is intended to clarify, since Schroedinger made no claims as to what the cat cared about.

Some are willing to classify intuition as a form of thinking, such that, logic and intuition are two distinct forms of thinking.  I can accept that definition.  But even if I do, I can't use intuition to defend truth claims.  Intuition is a leap from observation to conclusion across mental territory the brain keeps hidden.  That hidden mental territory, by virtue of its being hidden, renders intuition useless for defending truth claims.

If reason isn't identical to logic, then unless it includes intuition, I have no idea what reason is.  What is it?  If reason is thinking, and thinking is logic and intuition, then I'm left with logic when debating.

[Asmodean]

The second is sub-human.  The third is sub-human.

...but oooh, how fun!