A much-needed distinction.

[Makazradon]

As a religious-skeptic, I'm often told that I'm being offensive to religious people. This is false. Not once have I targeted anyone personally, or any practitioners of any religion. To demonstrate my point, I'll lay out a simple example:

Offensive: "Religious people are stupid."

Non-Offensive: "Religion is stupid."

It is not just offensive to someone who is religious, but to me as well. Despite my skepticism, it offends me that in the 21st century, we are unable to have friendly discussion without resorting to hatefulness and discrimination. Interestingly, the above distinction is apparent to anyone with a sound mind when relating to other subjects:

Offensive: "People who support the Denver Broncos are horrible."

Non-Offensive: "The Denver Broncos are a horrible team."

Virtually anything goes on literally any subject save for religion. Even in politics, many individuals point out, as they see, inherent falsehoods, inconsistencies and flat-out ridiculous views held by opposing parties with one another. After the discussion is over, these two individuals (who may even be the best of friends) will go back to laughing and joking.

This is what I'd like to see, globally, in the realm of religious discourse. I've ironed out these ideals to religious friends of mine, and they generally can accept it, so now I'm able to engage discussion without any hurt feelings or a false interpretation of certain opinions that I express. Some choose to receive what is obviously a point of disagreement to a skeptic regarding the belief itself as a personal attack. Which I am afraid is invalid and is the choice of that person alone.

Perhaps this subject has been touched-upon previously, but I feel it is something that certain individuals need to hear. My only intention is to point out what logic shows and to help religious folks see that a good number of us skeptics haven't the slightest ill-will toward a believer, but toward the system they follow. Often times, these people are unfortunately oblivious to the problems that are associated with the views, and are in turn exempt from criticism.(Of course there are those who choose to resort to personal attacks against religious practitioners, but that is obviously irrational and downright rude.)

[Bracket]

I don't really have anything to add to this, but i agree.

[+Sherapy]

As a religious-skeptic, I'm often told that I'm being offensive to religious people. This is false. Not once have I targeted anyone personally, or any practitioners of any religion. To demonstrate my point, I'll lay out a simple example:

Offensive: "Religious people are stupid."

Non-Offensive: "Religion is stupid."

It is not just offensive to someone who is religious, but to me as well. Despite my skepticism, it offends me that in the 21st century, we are unable to have friendly discussion without resorting to hatefulness and discrimination. Interestingly, the above distinction is apparent to anyone with a sound mind when relating to other subjects:

Offensive: "People who support the Denver Broncos are horrible."

Non-Offensive: "The Denver Broncos are a horrible team."

Virtually anything goes on literally any subject save for religion. Even in politics, many individuals point out, as they see, inherent falsehoods, inconsistencies and flat-out ridiculous views held by opposing parties with one another. After the discussion is over, these two individuals (who may even be the best of friends) will go back to laughing and joking.

This is what I'd like to see, globally, in the realm of religious discourse. I've ironed out these ideals to religious friends of mine, and they generally can accept it, so now I'm able to engage discussion without any hurt feelings or a false interpretation of certain opinions that I express. Some choose to receive what is obviously a point of disagreement to a skeptic regarding the belief itself as a personal attack. Which I am afraid is invalid and is the choice of that person alone.

Perhaps this subject has been touched-upon previously, but I feel it is something that certain individuals need to hear. My only intention is to point out what logic shows and to help religious folks see that a good number of us skeptics haven't the slightest ill-will toward a believer, but toward the system they follow. Often times, these people are unfortunately oblivious to the problems that are associated with the views, and are in turn exempt from criticism.(Of course there are those who choose to resort to personal attacks against religious practitioners, but that is obviously irrational and downright rude.)

It helps to say things in a way that is neutral, it takes practice though.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Makazradon]

It helps to say things in a way that is neutral , it takes practice though.

Most definitely.

I know from personal experience, that once one enters the realm of skepticism (after living a religious lifestyle), it's hard not to get arrogant, cocky, the like. I struggled with this myself at the age of 14 when I became a skeptic, but of course you can't let a silly hormonal teen dominate the terms.

[Boe]

Religious people sometimes define themselves through their religion. They use it as a reason for being. Hence why I think some people take so much offense to it, and may not like to entertain alternate viewpoints.

I've debated with some hardcore religous people, and they percieved it as a personal attack...even started insulting me personally to retaliate. Not all religious people are like this, of course. Just some of the nutters.

[Makazradon]

Religious people sometimes define themselves through their religion. They use it as a reason for being. Hence why I think some people take so much offense to it, and may not like to entertain alternate viewpoints.

I don't accept this line of reasoning (not saying you or don't, just from my own perspective), because religion isn't the only medium in which people dedicate their lives, even at the point of their reason for being. Some musicians say if they didn't write music, they wouldn't know what to do with their lives... some live in support of their favourite sports team... you name it.

[maca02]

I don't really have anything to add to this, but i agree.

same here, good post Mak

Edited December 16, 2010 by maca 01

[Boe]

I don't accept this line of reasoning (not saying you or don't, just from my own perspective), because religion isn't the only medium in which people dedicate their lives, even at the point of their reason for being. Some musicians say if they didn't write music, they wouldn't know what to do with their lives... some live in support of their favourite sports team... you name it.

I was careful in my wording to say Some people. It makes sense to me, because so many people are searching for a purpose in life, and religion is a great tool for that. Religion gives you hope, it soothes pain, it explains injustices, gives you goals...its more than just really really liking music, IMO. Because you take that away from someone, you leave them thinking.."What now? What's the point?"

I do see your point, of course. But I think its more than that.

[+Sherapy]

Most definitely.

I know from personal experience, that once one enters the realm of skepticism (after living a religious lifestyle), it's hard not to get arrogant, cocky, the like. I struggled with this myself at the age of 14 when I became a skeptic, but of course you can't let a silly hormonal teen dominate the terms.

LOL... It's the rite of passage of the teen; they'll find out in their 20s, that they really don't know anymore then the rest of us.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Euphorbia]

Offensive: "Religious people are stupid."

Non-Offensive: "Religion is stupid."

It is not just offensive to someone who is religious, but to me as well. Despite my skepticism, it offends me that in the 21st century, we are unable to have friendly discussion without resorting to hatefulness and discrimination. Interestingly, the above distinction is apparent to anyone with a sound mind when relating to other subjects:

Offensive: "People who support the Denver Broncos are horrible."

Non-Offensive: "The Denver Broncos are a horrible team."

I agree with you on the religion part, But try making that fly with a member of the Broncos...or just about anybody from Denver...or all of Colorado...

[Maizer]

As a religious-skeptic, I'm often told that I'm being offensive to religious people. This is false. Not once have I targeted anyone personally, or any practitioners of any religion. To demonstrate my point, I'll lay out a simple example:

I like the post, though I think its a bit more complex than that. To have a true discussion, you may have to take into consideration how much the other listener identifies with the subject, and what the position of the speaker is.

For example, if a big Michigan sports fan said:

"All Ohioans suck"

"The state of Ohio sucks"

Both would probably strike a nerve with Ohioans, but not register as much with, say, a Californian, whether he/she is the listener or speaker.

Another example. If a Japanese person were to say

"Americans suck"

"America sucks"

An American generally may not be as offended compared to a British person saying the above.

I think sometimes, rather than defining our own rules and applying it to others, we have to see what their boundaries are and role with it, within reason. Considering how important religion is to some folks, badmouthing religion can be offensive, depending on the speaker. Perhaps a better way to put it would be to use less confrontational words than 'stupid'?

Edited December 16, 2010 by Maizer

[Mr Walker]

As a religious-skeptic, I'm often told that I'm being offensive to religious people. This is false. Not once have I targeted anyone personally, or any practitioners of any religion. To demonstrate my point, I'll lay out a simple example:

Offensive: "Religious people are stupid."

Non-Offensive: "Religion is stupid."

It is not just offensive to someone who is religious, but to me as well. Despite my skepticism, it offends me that in the 21st century, we are unable to have friendly discussion without resorting to hatefulness and discrimination. Interestingly, the above distinction is apparent to anyone with a sound mind when relating to other subjects:

Offensive: "People who support the Denver Broncos are horrible."

Non-Offensive: "The Denver Broncos are a horrible team."

Virtually anything goes on literally any subject save for religion. Even in politics, many individuals point out, as they see, inherent falsehoods, inconsistencies and flat-out ridiculous views held by opposing parties with one another. After the discussion is over, these two individuals (who may even be the best of friends) will go back to laughing and joking.

This is what I'd like to see, globally, in the realm of religious discourse. I've ironed out these ideals to religious friends of mine, and they generally can accept it, so now I'm able to engage discussion without any hurt feelings or a false interpretation of certain opinions that I express. Some choose to receive what is obviously a point of disagreement to a skeptic regarding the belief itself as a personal attack. Which I am afraid is invalid and is the choice of that person alone.

Perhaps this subject has been touched-upon previously, but I feel it is something that certain individuals need to hear. My only intention is to point out what logic shows and to help religious folks see that a good number of us skeptics haven't the slightest ill-will toward a believer, but toward the system they follow. Often times, these people are unfortunately oblivious to the problems that are associated with the views, and are in turn exempt from criticism.(Of course there are those who choose to resort to personal attacks against religious practitioners, but that is obviously irrational and downright rude.)

I have a couple of problems with the way you explain this although i think your heart is i the right place.

For example, if religion is objectively stupidthen how can anyone who follows a religion NOT be stupid also. I tis more objective to say that 'Inmy opinion religion is stupid' but im not sure how then you can avoid the implication that you think anyone who follows religion must be stupid"

your second example does not match your first. A better analogy would be.

The denver broncos are a horrible team.

People who follow the broncos must be stupid.

In both cases, one opinion leads inevitably and logically to the second opinion . If you (generic you) dont want to insult people either dont say insulting things, or else make it very clear that these are your opinions and hcve ggod rational reasons for your opinions not emotive ones.

Otherwise i agree. Argue rationally on the facts as you know them, dont argue emotively or attack indivduals rather than their ideas.

Online it is very easy for a reader to make assumptions about a person, based only on the words they write. No one can judge another person accuratley, but to pass accurate judgelents wthout access to a persons life in the real world is impossible and foolish.

Also, what one person is thinking as they write is often not what the reader thinks or "hears" when they read the words. Readers come with inherent biases and expectations, which influence their perception of what a person writes. Ten they carry that inaccurate perception back and apply it incorrectly to the nature, character and values of the writer.