Insuting faith

[Andara Bledin]

The reason we don't care about non-golfers or non-homeopaths is that nobody uses golfing or homeopathy for demographics. But we have non-drinkers, and non-smokers, and unmarried, non-Hispanic, etc.

I never said anything about offensive or not: I spoke about motivation and basic civility.

You can be civil while at the same time pointing out glaring inconsistencies with another person's worldview. Or you can be a raging asshole while doing the same.

If one actually cares about anything other than propping up their own ego, they would choose civility and tact even in the face of lack of the same. Unfortunately, too many people are more interested in being "right" than actually working for the change they claim they want to see.

[Rapscallion]

The reason we don't care about non-golfers or non-homeopaths is that nobody uses golfing or homeopathy for demographics. But we have non-drinkers, and non-smokers, and unmarried, non-Hispanic, etc.

I never said anything about caring or not, nor about demographics. Different subject. I said that the only reason for atheism is theists.

I never said anything about offensive or not: I spoke about motivation and basic civility.

You might notice I brought up the topic of offence in the first post of this thread.

It's the core of what I perceive to be the problem. Someone says something offends them, but who decides or where do we draw the lines as to what is actually offensive and who can affect another person because of perceived offence?

Where are your lines in the sand?

Rapscallion

[Panacea]

I think it amusing that without theists, there are no atheists. We don't have a specific term for non-golfers, or non-homeopaths for examples.

Sure we have a term for non-homeopaths.

Doctors.

Who decides what is too offensive? I think that's the key here. Anyone could claim that something is insulting to their faith and control others not of their faith that way. I'm not 100% sure, but the UK laws require intent to be proved for hate speech etc.

Rapscallion

No one gets to decide what is too offensive. No matter how offended you get, violence is never an acceptable solution. I don't care who you are.

[siead_lietrathua]

You can be civil while at the same time pointing out glaring inconsistencies with another person's worldview. Or you can be a raging asshole while doing the same.

i think part of the issue with this is, some people will always consider it assholish. especially if you are saying something that can shake the foundations of someone's faith. you can be as polite as the stereotype southern belle and someone, somewhere, will think you're being a dick. not because of the tone of your words, just because you're saying the words.
there are always people who think no=rude, basically.

[Andara Bledin]

I said that the only reason for atheism is theists.

That's just silly. That's like claiming that the only reason that we have "unmarried" people is because of husbands and wives. It's a senseless statement.

Someone says something offends them, but who decides or where do we draw the lines as to what is actually offensive and who can affect another person because of perceived offence?

The line for what is offensive can be fairly mutable, but most of the time, it can be pretty obvious whether the offended has a legitimate grievance, or if the offender is being unfairly labeled.

Take the whole Charlie Hebdo thing. They do satire. It is, by it's nature, at least moderately offensive to the target group. If they're not offending somebody, they're probably doing it wrong. That said, they're not being assholes about it; they're trying to shine a light on things they think need to be recognized, and satire is their medium.

That said, taking retaliatory action beyond merely being offensive back is going too far. Even if the offender is the biggest asshole on the planet, if all they're doing is using words and images and not inciting others to do more than the same, the only appropriate action would be to either use the same tactics back or just walk away.

[Rapscallion]

Sure we have a term for non-homeopaths.

Doctors.

I am neither homeopath nor doctor.

That's just silly. That's like claiming that the only reason that we have "unmarried" people is because of husbands and wives. It's a senseless statement.

It's actually true, and so is your statement about unmarried vs married. Had humans not come up with the concept of marriage, there would have been no need for the terms 'single' or 'unmarried'.

That said, taking retaliatory action beyond merely being offensive back is going too far. Even if the offender is the biggest asshole on the planet, if all they're doing is using words and images and not inciting others to do more than the same, the only appropriate action would be to either use the same tactics back or just walk away.

I think this is where we're talking about the same thing. However, I'm interested in the finer detail.

There are cases where I'd say someone went too far, such as an atheist godfather putting severed pigs heads in a muslim's bed (hypothetical, fortunately). I wouldn't count that as acceptable to do to a non-muslim, for one thing. The outliers aren't usually difficult to decide on, especially when you measure intent.

The finer detail of where the line is drawn is of more interest to me. According to what Hyena Dandy has said, if I read it right he thinks his right to be offended trumps my right to do what I want to do. However, by that token I can point out that I am offended by that attitude, so does that mean he has to amend his attitude?

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

According to what Hyena Dandy has said, if I read it right he thinks his right to be offended trumps my right to do what I want to do.

You have every right to be a bigot, and I fully support your right to be a bigot. It doesn't mean that you're not a bigot.

[TheHuckster]

It's actually true, and so is your statement about unmarried vs married. Had humans not come up with the concept of marriage, there would have been no need for the terms 'single' or 'unmarried'.

I really don't understand your point. Where does this and the atheist thing aid in this discussion?

There are cases where I'd say someone went too far, such as an atheist godfather putting severed pigs heads in a muslim's bed (hypothetical, fortunately).

In pretty much every circumstance, religiously motivated or not, putting severed pigs heads in anyone's bed is generally frowned upon. A better example would be one in which doing something in general is innocuous, possibly even common in everyday life, but is offensive to a certain religious group in a certain setting.

One such example might be turning on lights against a Hasidic Jew's wishes on a Saturday just to mess with them, or being a guest at a religious Christian family's home and repeatedly using God's name in vain despite them repeatedly asking them to refrain.

Each of those aren't, in and of themselves, illegal or even really offensive to the majority of people. Your rights aren't being trampled if they ask you to stop, but if the only reason you're not stopping is simply because you know it annoys them or offends them, it still means you're being an asshole.

[s_stabeler]

I think there are two questions you have to ask- is the person offended being reasonable in taking offense? (to give an example- islam and headscarves/burquas/whatever. Feel free to wear it- but don't try to force someone not of your religion to wear it.
the second question is if the person causing offence is doing it either deliberately, or is being deliberately ignorant of the offence they are causing.

If the answer to both questions is yes, then you have a right to be offended. You do NOT have the right, however, to do anything more severe than asking the person to leave.

[Andara Bledin]

Had humans not come up with the concept of marriage, there would have been no need for the terms 'single' or 'unmarried'.

Just as I said. It's merely a matter of labeling and not of status. It's about separating people into groups. We were all unmarried before marriage was a thing, and we were all atheists until religion was a thing. Just because we didn't have a name for it doesn't automagically make that thing not a reality.

There are cases where I'd say someone went too far, such as an atheist godfather putting severed pigs heads in a muslim's bed (hypothetical, fortunately).

That's not just words, is it? That's moved on to actions. Actions are more than words or images and subject to far greater scrutiny and far less tolerance than speech or it's analogs.

The finer detail of where the line is drawn is of more interest to me. According to what Hyena Dandy has said, if I read it right he thinks his right to be offended trumps my right to do what I want to do.

He didn't actually say that, but I can see how someone intent on arguing against that point could read it that way.

Thankfully, he has clarified to show that it was most definitely not what he was arguing. My take was that he was saying another's lack of being overtly or specifically offensive doesn't trump his right to find offense.

As for the line, take the recent cake shop lawsuit. In that case, a bigot with a bone to pick against gays went into a gay-friendly shop to order a cake with a hateful message written upon it. The shop in question agreed that they would make the cake, and they even offered to give the man the icing to write the message himself, but refused to write or print the message themselves.

This is a great display of where the line can be considered to be drawn; the shop is affording him every right to convey his message of hate, but is taking a stand against him forcing them to help him spread his hateful message. They'll make and sell the sign and give him the lettering, but he has to construct the message on his own and display it somewhere other than their property.

[Hyena Dandy]

we were all atheists until religion was a thing.

Minor historical point, it's unclear when, if ever, religion was not a thing, since I recall reading some evidence of religious practice predating humanity.

[Kheldarson]

Minor historical point, it's unclear when, if ever, religion was not a thing, since I recall reading some evidence of religious practice predating humanity.

You mean Gobleki Tepe?

[Hyena Dandy]

While that's extremely early, no, I was talking about signs (that are debated but present) that there was specifically ritualized burial among homo erectus popularions. The only reason I bring it up is a lot of people I've known to take a "Humanity was wonderful and then some people seized power and invented religion to control it" approach.

[wolfie]

such as an atheist godfather putting severed pigs heads in a muslim's bed (hypothetical, fortunately).

Wouldn't an athiest mob boss be referred to by a different term than GODfather?

[siead_lietrathua]

- Just an observation / addition to the "athiests didn't exist until religion". it's not just a statement of past eras IMHO, it's something that is still true today. we're all born as athiests. then we are taught the religion of our family. just as we are all born a-linguists (for lack of a better word) and then taught the languages of our families. noone is born religious, just as noone is born speaking english or french or w/e. we are taught it.
we ARE born with a sense of curiosity, wonder and awe, and religion does provide a feeling of explanation for things we do not understand. but as we learn more facts, we lessen the need for religion. ie: the stars are no longer gods, they are chemical balls.

- to the idea that athiests spend a lot of time religion-bashing: athiests are a minority culture that are often belittled for not being in the majority and for standing up for their rights to not have faith shoved down their throat. people have been disowned for deconverting. in some countries, being an athiest can get you killed.
don't forget we have fratch-coloured-glasses on here. most places athiests have to debate don't have the no-personal-attacks rule. and it gets grating to be constantly mocked, threatened and attacked, while your aggressor is also playing the victim.
laughing at an athiest for fighting back against the religious majority is like laughing at the little kid trying to fight back when it gets shoved around by a bully. and then when the bully gets hit and cries, blaming the little kid as though they were the bully.