I've been on this forum for about a month or so and one of the biggest arguements I have noticed evolves from a dislike of anothers beliefs. Now I've heard from and discussed with many people, from around the world to this forum page and one thing I have allways seen is a inner hatred for anyone that goes against or tries to dissprove anothers theories or beliefs.

In my experince on studying different beliefs and faiths that most of these come out as being non-hateful especially from the people explaining such beliefs or faiths. In the beginning of the discussion most have this non hateful state of mind but in the middle and more towards the end the topic goes from freindly chat to aguemental hatered toward the other person.

My question is, If you put your self out as not being hateful towards other beliefs not your own, what makes you feel justified when you turn hate toward that person and their different beliefs when they dont agree or argue with you?

Isnt it in your beliefs to not hate? So what excuse do you have to justify it?

And if it is in your personal beliefs to hate what makes it justified?

speaking for myself, I do not hate anyone on these forums.

My entire time here has been spent trying to get folks to see that "one way" is not "the way" for everyone.

That being said, I have learned that it is human nature to defends ones position and ideas. No one, but no one likes to think that they may be wrong and so, people will become passionate about defending their beliefs when they are challenged.

agreed jm.

To add, the problem dave is looking at is the fallacy of associating the messenger with the message. Any discussion on a topic should remain completely on the argument itself, and not on the presenter.

I really do not see anybody on this forum "hating" other members, or even hating opposing views. Not agreeing with something is different from hating it.

I agree with jm and hyper,

I think at times, we may become frustrated with someone while debating a particular subject, but I don't see a lot of hatred here. I also see a great deal of passion. People who post are to some degree passionate about the topics they debate seriously, and that passion may be seen as hatred in a particular thread, but then you see those same people either agreeing (jm, hyper and I agreeing here is a perfect example) or exploring different views about one side of a debate.

So I shouldn't hate things of religion?

I shouldn't hate slaughter?

I shouldn't hate rape?

I shouldn't hate child molestion?

I shouldn't hate oppression?

I shouldn't hate torture?

I shouldn't hate intolerance?

I shouldn't hate...

I disagree with a lot of beliefs because of these "kinks" in their beliefs which just reinforce the hatred they spread.

I agree with JMPD....it is human nature to protect your beliefs and not let anyone damage that.
I'm not just talking about spirituality...but personal beliefs that you aquire about all things.
I recently said something in another topic that hurt someone that I considered a friend.
Thinking about it afterwards I saw my flaw and understand the wrath I received for doing so as it was well deserved.
My point is that there is no such thing as a universal belief.....all beliefs should be accepted just as everyone has a different personality. I learned this the hard way but I'm better because of it.

Good point. And I was not pointing any fingers with this post toward anyone on the forum. Just pointing out that there are many who wont even discuss topics or they get on them just to hatefully argue. So I guess the real question is, is there any justification to self rightous ignorance?

Good reply. Thats what I'm getting at. But there are some who "jump the gun" for the sake of arguement and do to an extent attack the presenter. For example I had one attack me just because of my Christian type avitar.

LOL


Again, human nature being what it is, it is sometimes hard for a person (or persons) to "let go".

If one gets into a heated debate with another on a thread, there is sometimes 'bleed over' in other threads where a person has taken things personally.

Self righteous ignorance? While there are a few folks here who have basically stated "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts", I think the majority of forumites here are genuinely interested in learning what others think and feel.

And, just between me and you, there are one or two here who just like to see what kind of ruckus they can cause.


editted for typos.

Good reply. And I'm glad you can discuss this way with others. It makes discussion way more fun when everyone can go out of the room without any ill will after a heavy discussion and still be friends.

Great reply. In my opinion if we didnt make mistakes we wouldnt learn anything. Im glad you had that experince to learn from.

I would think it's the same justification to hating the KKK or Nazis.

Perhaps we should be looking at the world from a human standpoint instead of a god's standpoint? We can all see that god's standpoint only creates awful human beings. The religions and their deeds over the ages are clear and outstanding evidence of crimes against humanity.



The Crusades were crimes against humanity. Not really my fault you're posting in this section with a 'paladin' avatar. Wasn't an attack either, more of a question.


It should be also noted this section is called "Spirituality vs Skepticism".

I hate.. oh yes how I hate.

Hate drives my evil heart. *cackles*

You certainly do SC. You hatred of Bacardi knows no bounds.

Ever look up the word, "Hate"? Not only the definition, but all those synonyms relating to an animus for , in this case, some one's personal faith. I imagine what compels one to hold faith in something religious is they hope it will make them a better person in their sense of self and their relation to other persons and all aspects of life in general. So then what does it say of the person that holds faith that hate is part of what they believe in, to communicate what they believe in!? Because hate does have a voice. It's heavy with the perfume of disrespect, that seep between someone's written words of disdain for another. Hate has a vibration, it resonates on the air, when hate is expressed in person, and on these forums it can even come through just reading line after line, of the words someone speaks to say someone else is wrong! Or speak their faith that god is an elitist. Which makes all others, not in that chosen few, less than. It then becomes a communication of quiet contempt, as someone claims they are tolerant when they speak afterward from that lofty opinion that holds they are special. In which case that contempt is actually sufferance. Almost as if it is a pityable thing that so many others, not like them, are blind. I think there are many ways people live hate. Besides the obvious.

The question was what justifies your hate towards such acts or the people who do them. If you found out that someone you like or care about such as a famly member or a best friend had done such acts in the past would you turn around and hate them for these past actions if you found out they did them? What if you your self ended up in one of the catagories that you stated? Would you in turn hate yourself?

Great reply, Like I have stated earlier in a few other posts it all has to do with respect.

What justifies it? Well it's wrong and I'm using my own moral compass (outside of religion) to see slaughter, torture, oppression, rape and more is wrong and it shouldn't be tolerated. I don't give a crap if some god says it's alright to do it, I'm looking at these problems from a human stand point.

I would do that.

If by some chance I did do any of those, I would see I am a monster and I would more then likely 1. end my life or 2. Shed the wrongs and work for the light.

hate is a harsh mindset to have towards someone. If somebody does something to the point of being truely hated, they are very lost souls.

One who sins to the point of being hated isnt worth even a thought, their actions would be justified by divine justice?

So because you view it as wrong it is wrong? To view this from your own opinion is fine but to take it as a human stand point is wrong. For instance people who do these things dont consider the action wrong because they have justified themselves when they do it. It would be like Hitler saying in a speach that he is wrong for murdering Jewish people while doing it. He justified his actions which in his mind and his followers minds made it right. But does that really make it right? Are they wrong for believing they are right just because your opinion says no they are not?

But what makes sin a sin? Aside from the laws of God and Christianity nothing. Vanity for instance is a sin. But to the person that is doing it(That does not believe in the laws of sin) They are just being and maintaning their own beutiful boastful self.

Well a human standpoint would see slaughter, rape and all that are bad for humanity.

Hitler can justify all the wrong he wants, but it'll still be wrong. I'll still hate him for his deeds. From a human standpoint Hitler was very wrong and bad for humanity.

Yes, they are wrong for that reason when they're trying to justify genocide, mass rape, oppression and other very horrible things against fellow men, women and children.

For that, I see no reason to respect or even tolerate such behavior or practices.

I believe there is an underlying code of ethics that encompasses the Human race. For example in the middle East the oppression of women, one could say that that is their culture and not ours so to them the actions are just. But this isn't true, they are still wrong.

We know in our hearts as humans that the oppression of women, like in the Middle East, is wrong.

If we look throughout history the human moral code has come along way. The fact remains that it is still evolving it is still progressing. It doesn't matter what term you use "sin", or "moral wrong".......it doesn't take religion to teach these things.

As far as the example of "Vanity" sure its a sin in the Biblical sense. But one learns that vanity is a negative action as a result of what vanity spawns. This lesson would be learned best by the adage "what goes around comes around". Religion is not needed to learn this lesson and as a result change one's ways.

But would you be willing to forgive him if he repented those acts? Would you still hate him after he repented and turned his bad behavior to good?

The point I'm trying to get at is anything that you percive as wrong is from your own perception. Just because in a vote like situation people have agreed that his actions were wrong doesnt necessarily mean they were right in saying that he was wrong. What if something you done was considered atrocious and vile by a group of people? would you agree with them just because they said stop youre wrong in doing this?

Are you taking up for mass murderers because they think its right what they are doing?
If so then I will certainly tell you they are wrong as will anyone else.....at least I think everyone else.

Hate is such a strong word. I do not think there is any justification for hating somebody because of their belief, or hating a certain belief system or culture, but I think it is justifyable to dislike, or not agree with.

So are you saying that rape, torture, murder, are all okay as long as the holy books are recommending them?

It's not just "my view" or "Kratos' view" that say they are wrong. They are very harmful to another human being, and that makes them wrong, I am just able to understand that. Anyone who can do those things to an undeserving person, even if they have found self-justification, have a skewed perception of reality, or no conscience.

If something I did was considered vile by another group of people (assuming it's something that doesn't harm other people), I would ask them why they consider it as vile. If they gave me an unreasonable reply, I would not stop agree with them. For example, if I was gay, I would not agree with Christians just because their Bible says its a sin, because does being gay hurt another human? No.



What if their belief says that everyone should behead random people in public, rape women, etc? Would you not hate someone who supports a belief like that? If someone says "I think it's good to run around killing people for fun" would you just go "I disagree but I respect your opinion"?

You make a good point. But with the sence of oppressing women such as the middle east is doing, it is only through or laws and judgements that we see this as wrong. If for instance you grew up in this type of enviroment without anyother influence you would think nothing of it. That is just the way it would be and how the mind set would be for the act.

If you notice most women that have lived this lifestyle are uncomfortable with this change of influence. Or they are confused on how to live because they have grew up in this type of lifestyle and now an option has been given. Now to us who have been raised that oppression is wrong we see it as wrong so we through are own judgement decide that we must stop this crime.

But at the same time a middle eastern woman that was raised in the oppressed lifestyle will look at the free woman of our lifestyle with the same disgust because in their eyes it is wrong to live that way. So really you view that such action is wrong is only from your opinion and your understanding of the law you live by. And what about the vain people who dont give a damn what others think. And sure when the bad comes around they may repent their ways but most when given the chance will change right back when given the opportunity.

I don't see it as such. All though these women were raised in that environment doesn't mean that they like it, sure it is all that they know, but their submissiveness was wrought out of fear, from duress. Regardless of the cultural norms there, it is still wrong. I assume that is why there is such an intervention taking place there now. Its also interesting to note that this oppression is a result of that culture's religious ideology.



When people have the choice to choose between oppression and freedom, freedom will be chosen. To have the moral code that sparks an intervention of this oppression is definetly because of our moral judgement.......and there is such a thing as good judgement. We have that moral code and it is correct, because regardless of where you live, beating women is wrong!

Now the question remains is what seperates the "haves", from the "have nots" in regards to this moral compass.



Then this is all the more motivation to keep pushing the need for morality throughout the world. Someone has to take the lead and set an example. We are all humans the only thing that makes one more just than the other is how we treat the person next to us.

Swamp, thanks and i accept that you are sorry..no hard feelings

I hate psi-ball.........Oh wait! Sorry, i misunderstood! Any way..........

Hate, being an emotion, is hard to justify. Can you justify love?

I think the real question is, can you justify the actions inspired by hate? And I think there is no answer! Can you justify the actions inspired by love? Not if they hurt YOU! What if the person you care most about in the world falls in love with someone else, and LEAVES you? Maybe they can use love as a justification, but YOU sure as heck can't. Way too subjective/objective.

I could care less about repention. It's as useless as giving a bike to a fish. It's only a vessel to make guilty people blame someone else for their own evils and stupidity. Even if he somehow turned good after his deeds resulted in over 65 million deaths, I would not.

It's interesting that you try to defend genocide, rape and oppression here. Your god may approve of such things, but I do not. If you're here to convince me otherwise, you're going to be facing a brick wall.

If those people called me out and told me I was vile, I would listen and take into consideration of what they mean. I've done it before in my life over things I choose to believe which now I do not. I don't see how growing as a person with my opinions would be a bad thing. It also wouldn't mean I would agree with them and adopt the ideas or respect them for what they consider values.

These things are not of themselves peculiar to religion, they can arise from all kinds of ideologies, social interaction, hell people kill each other over a game of soccer, what about sex and love they've brought forth the malice in mens souls on more than a few occasions. You can't apply a broad brush approach. Religious/spiritual beliefs are no less immune to unscrupulous, malific people twisting it's doctrine for their own evil ends. To use this an an argument against religion is in itself oppressive.

Sure there are. No twisting needed either in very many cases. The christian god boasts of his slaughtering to commit geneocide against the humans. He's sent countless babies, women and men into the flames of hell for their deeds. He's commanded people to wage war, allowed them to pillage and rape even allowed slavery.

The crimes commited against humanity in the justifying of religion is horrible. Oceans of blood have been spilt and vast screams to fill the air are lost.

Just the belief in such a god and those people before you, is a salute to the ages of it's deeds and misery it's spread.

You might all well burn the Constitution of the USA since it contains references to slavery.

Many historians and archelogists adore studying certain time periods and admire different individuals in history because of the changes and improvements that they brought to the times that they lived in. It does not mean they embrace all of the culture and practices of that time.

Goddess quoted the father of the Epicureans because she admired the particular view he reveals in the quote. I seriously doubt that she herself is an Epicurean who embraces all of their philosophy and practices just because she likes this one point of view. Athesists can admire and use quotes from the Bible if they like a point of view, or from any other book. It is only fundamentalism of any type that insists you believe all or nothing of any text.

there is a time to love and a time to hate.

this is why I'm ok now with being called a bigot when I practice discernment. "The dog barks, but the caravan moves on." (- some old saying)

Great observation in post #15 GoddessWhispers.

I see it this way - hate is the most extreme point of dislike, and love the most extreme of like. So there is the fine line, where one is neutral and has to prefer which way they percieve another. But preference is somewhere between stopping at the point of dislike and then to hate, or to turn back, go to neutral, and then to like. To go to love, well, that is a hard one. It takes alot of energy.

Slavery is no longer part of the US however and it's illegal. I've yet to see a passage to say all what was said and written is false in the bible for example. God didn't mind war, mass rape, slaughter, and pillaging. Such a nice god.

The US also isn't a religion... It's a country.



Of course they couldn't do it all. I bet they did some of it though.

What does this have to do with what I asked you? Just because I used the word repent? Or is it that you are still judging me for being a Christian? Its seems that the only posts you have made do with the Christian God. If anything you only proven your hate for Christian belief and believers. That is not even the point of this topic. I put this out from a complete non-faith aspect. I meant hate in general not by just a religious point of view. If that was the case I would have said in the description of the topic Christian based ideals only or religous ideals only but instead I directed this to everyone and their opinion religous or not. Yes you hate Christianity. We know that. Anyone that reads your topics and posts will know that. My question is what justifies hate and ignorance on subjects other than these Christian hate posts you only seem to put out?

Read my post above where I was answering you.

My hate? Interesting... I'm simply disagreeing with god in the bible for allowing war, rape, pillaging and more. I'm soo very sorry that I hate those things.

What justifies my disagreeing with christians? Well of course their holy book, actions through out history and more. It's really not that hard.

Well I must say that I quite agree with Kratos...

I HATE pedophiles. Quite strongly and no matter how much they "Repent" I still hate them... I HATE rapists and there is little that can change that.

These people I hate no matter what they do. A Serial Killer could save a child out of a burning building but it does not in anyway make up for the harm he has done in his life.

In my personal life I try not to hate people. If I can't find common ground I might not associate with them but I won't actively dislike them... That said were a Pedophile to move into the neghbourhood I would most likely be in the crowd throwing rocks at his windows.

I agree with you too. I in my beliefs I think pedophiles are sick and wrong too same with the other crimes stated. My question is why do you think it is wrong? Is it because this is your own perspective on the matter or because you've been taught through your society's laws it is wrong? Everyone feels justified in their actions because in their eyes it is right. Is it wrong just because majority voted it is wrong? What if our society grew to accept pedophiles for example. Do you think you would have the same strong beliefs against it? And I dont mean right now or ten years ago after they said it was wrong. I mean that troughout generations it was excepted and you were raised to believe it was right. What if pedofilia was in this "what if" world as acceptable as lets say owning television or having a drink after work or anyother non-chilont action people do today? Would you still think it was wrong? Would you accept it when a majority decided that it wasn't ok even though in law and perspective it is right? Would you change just because they said so?

For example lets say you were attacked by a killer. In defense you had to kill him to prevent him from killing you. In court by society's laws you are guilty of murder even though it was self defence. No one believes you killed this person in self defense and you are found guilty and given the death penalty. Is that considered justice? Would you consider yourself justified in your action even though it was resulted in killing that man? Would you agree with your sentence just because majority voted against you? Thats the question in this topic not what you've been trained to belief as justifiable. But what you really believe to be justified. And can you even do this without turning to outer influences?

What would you say if I told that all pedophiles are saved and everybody who does not fondle at least three children are doomed to hell? You probably would scream bloody murder and call for my execution, wouldn't you? Well, everybody who is married and goes to a 9 to 5 job is the same in an opposite aspect. Everything has its opposite. Hell has its opposite. How many pedophiles existed before Hitler? Hitler was a pedophile and he believed that he descended from the Master race that dwelt in Atlantis. Y'all are still wondering about Atlantis aren't you? Atlantis will never be here again, neither will Hitler, but the more you study Hitler and the more Atlantis comes up, there is the pedophiles. You notice we had no real problem with pedophilia until they started comparing the policies of George W. Bush to Hitler's regime. Then came out the pedophilia of the Catholic priests. If they would have started comparing the policies of the mortuaries to the policies of The death camps of Aushwitz, what would have happened? I think maybe there would have been uncovered sex with dead bodies, you think? How often do you think that that happens? Nobody yet has compared the procedure of Eugenics used in Nazi death camps to those used in the United States. Here is an example of it:


In 1927, the Rockefeller Foundation of New York City, New York, USA provided funds to construct the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics in Berlin, which came under the directorship of the appropriately named Eugen Fischer. Adolf Hitler read Fischer's textbook Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene while in prison at Landsberg and used eugenical notions to support the ideal of a pure "Aryan" society in his manifesto, Mein Kampf (My Struggle).

By the outbreak of WWII, in 1939, an estimated 400,000 people had been sterilized. However, in 1940 the need for hospital beds for wounded soldiers prompted a "final solution" for "lives not worth living." Psychiatrists and medical doctors identified more than 70,000 mental patients who were poisoned with carbon monoxide in extermination centers at psychiatric hospitals.

The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927. In its early years, and during the Nazi era, it was strongly associated with theories of Nazi eugenics and racial hygiene advocated by its leading theorists Fritz Lenz and Eugen Fischer, and by its director Otmar von Verschuer. Under Fischer, the sterilisation of so-called Rhineland Bastards was undertaken.

In the US:

The Race Betterment Foundation was founded in 1911 in Battle Creek, Michigan with money from the Kellogg cereal fortune. The Foundation sponsored three national conferences on race betterment (1914, 1915, and 1928) and started its own eugenics registry in cooperation with the ERO. The Galton Society, founded in New York City in 1918, was the most overtly racist of the American eugenics organizations. Its members used physical anthropology to confirm their bigoted notions about the supposed superiority of the Nordic race.

Formed in 1923, AES quickly gave rise to 28 state committees that worked to bring eugenics into the mainstream of American life. Under the direction of Mary T. Watts, the AES education committee used state fairs to popularize eugenics. Exhibits illustrated Mendel's laws and calculated the societal costs of continued breeding by "hereditary defectives," while the Fitter Families Contests showed the results of breeding good human stock.

Still like Kellog's Corn Flakes? There is probably many children out there who do!

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/54/54_26-34.pdf TELLS IT ALL!

If it doesn't work copy and past to your browser.

Now this is not hate, it is truth.

Y'all brought this subject of hate up.

Is there any justification for hating this?

Who Bought Atlantis Up?

And what has Hitler got t do with Atlantis.

And what has Hitler wanting to live under the sea got to do with this topic?

This is just silly.

This is the example of the point I was getting across. Can we hate this? Is there justification in these actions. It all depends if you A, agree or B, dont. Now most will go and hate the Nazi side because it is Nazi. But then (maybe not to the same extreme) the other side you belong to is doing basicly the same thing. So were is justification? In the eye of the beholder only. Both sides from Nazi to Kellogs felt they were justified in their actions and obviously so did the majority, so they went through with the actions. Thanks for the reply.

Use your mind! Y'all threw around these words on pedophiles and serial killers and Hitler! I just expanded on it. My mind is not a closed mind!

Hitler thought he was a descendant from the Nordic race from Atlantis.

ND-Dave, your post popped up there after I started writing this and I agree with you, but it has to stop somewhere. There are people who think that they are going to live forever. And forever lasts about 80 to 100 years. Hate takes off about 20 years. Love though, adds about 10 and then it adds a lifetime. I don't know what it does if you do a lot of things that cause hate and a lot of things that cause love. Like, maybe you spend a lot of time in the hospital.

Are you directing this towards me and my reply?

See above ^

Thats the thing though what makes one hate or love something? There are plenty of ideals and likes that others possibly hate. Is anyone justified to hate something just because it doesnt go with their ideals or likes? It's like the kid who hates chess that runs into the chess club and smacks all the peices off the boards during a game session and then steals all the boards and burns them. Is he justified in doing so? Well probably not to the chess club and all the chess lovers around the world. But more than likely when he gets in to trouble for doing so all the chess haters will stand up for him and say yes because they agree in his actions. Now when it gets down to this point the majority wins be it chess haters or lovers be it through war or court or anyother means. Well lets say for instance the two groups go to war. And lets say throughout this war the chess lovers win. Well after the chess lovers win they ban chess hating and make it a crime to do so. So even though chess hating was once a free way to live ones life that many followed it is now a heavy crime. Is it justifiable that just because the chess lovers won the war they get to make the rules for the rest of the world on how to view chess?
This is a pretty crazy mediphore but hopefully it gives some insight on my thoughts on the post.