Is it "bigotry" to think a religion is stupid, silly or evil?

[JoeB131]

it is when you give the other associated mythologies/fables (Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism, ect...) more credence when they are as equally, if not more, preposterous.

Its like saying "Racism is wrong but sexism is A-OK "

oh yeah, "Ampad"!!!

YOu know when Romney's the nominee, you'll be whining about AmPad louder than I ever did, Lib-boy.

Of course one set is more perposterous than the other.

The Abrahamic religions are based on real history. Most of the people mentioned in the Bible were real people. the stories might have been embellished, propagandized, and so on. But the places and people were real places and people. Again. Mostly.

They have more "Credence", as you say, because they probably really happened.

Mormonism gets no such wiggle room. Joseph Smith lied, and he knew he was lying when he did it. (Unless he was crazy, which I doubt. Too well organized.)

If I live in 1300 and tell you the world is flat because I don't know any better and it certainly looks flat from my perspective, I'm a lot less culpable if I live in 2012, know the world is round but try to convince people it's flat because I'm kind of a malicious asshole.

see what I bolded LOLOL

Why does that make a difference.

Hey, guy, Jerusalem is a real place. You can visit it. You can find it on a map.

Please point out on a map a single place in the book of Mormon that can be verified to have actually existed.

Thanks.

Now, I know you really don't WANT to understand why I consider one worse than the other... because you are really engaging in handstands to do it.

 

[Newby]

To state that simply evades and avoids the obvious facts associated with the known development of mankind and his civili ation. 'Course that's what those who accept the foolishness of ancient god worship do anyway.

I love this guy...yes, the fact that he was one of the most intelligent humans who ever lived does cause me to pay extra attention.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." ~Dr. Albert Einstein~

No, to state "The Bible never states the age of the Earth" is fact, period. If not, please tell me the chapter and verse where it definitively states the age of the Earth.

LOL!!!

Quote to me the verse and chapter of anything which binds the ancient god worship with reality.......ain't gonna happen

Thanks for playing, you just lost.

 

[MeBelle]

..a person who won't listen to anyone whose ideas or beliefs are different from his or her own; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group(as a racial group) with hatred and intolerance'

The best kind of bigot is one who throws out the label on someone and has zero justification for it.

 

[Dot Com]

YOu know when Romney's the nominee, you'll be whining about AmPad louder than I ever did, Lib-boy.

Of course one set is more perposterous than the other.

The Abrahamic religions are based on real history. Most of the people mentioned in the Bible were real people. the stories might have been embellished, propagandized, and so on. But the places and people were real places and people. Again. Mostly.

They have more "Credence", as you say, because they probably really happened.

Mormonism gets no such wiggle room. Joseph Smith lied, and he knew he was lying when he did it. (Unless he was crazy, which I doubt. Too well organized.)

If I live in 1300 and tell you the world is flat because I don't know any better and it certainly looks flat from my perspective, I'm a lot less culpable if I live in 2012, know the world is round but try to convince people it's flat because I'm kind of a malicious asshole.

see what I bolded LOLOL

Why does that make a difference.

Hey, guy, Jerusalem is a real place. You can visit it. You can find it on a map.

Please point out on a map a single place in the book of Mormon that can be verified to have actually existed.

Thanks.

Now, I know you really don't WANT to understand why I consider one worse than the other... because you are really engaging in handstands to do it.

You claimed you were an atheist dummy. That would mean they are ALL equally improbable Logic is CLEARLY not your strong suit

 

[BluePhantom]

So any bias I have against Catholicism is well founded.

Hold on. Let's back up a second here. Bias is one thing. Bigotry is something quite different. I have never met a person in my life who holds no biases. Something as small as my preference for redheads over blondes and brunettes is a bias. Now one may argue that that's an irrelevant bias but that's not necessarily so. When I have a student (I teach at a university remember) who has red hair, green eyes, pale skin, and is petite with a big rack...look I may be a professional but I am also a human being. Do I run the risk of evaluating that student's performance more favorably because of possible a sexual attraction? Absolutely I do. At that point the bias becomes very relevant. So I find I have to be very careful in my evaluation of students who have characteristics for which I am positively or negatively biased to ensure that my evaluation is not influenced by factors that are unrelated to actual performance.

Now that's just being a human being. Bigotry on the other hand is taking those natural biases to an extreme. It's applying the "halo effect" (people with characteristics for which we have a positive bias can do no wrong) or the "pitchfork effect" (people with characteristics for which we have a negative bias can do no right).

So to say you have bias against Catholics....hey no big deal given your experience with them. Personal experience creates biases. It's when one allows that bias to influence their judgement on other things about a person unrelated to that issue that is when the line has been crossed toward bigotry, racism, sexism, etc.

 

[JoeB131]

You claimed you were an atheist dummy. That would mean they are ALL equally improbable Logic is CLEARLY not your strong suit

Noooo.... Just because I don't t hink there is a God doesn't mean there wasn't a King David. There was archeological evidence that there was. There is evidence there was a Jesus.

There is no evidence there were Nephites, Lamanites, Golden Tablets or any of that nonsense. Every bit of 'evidence' for Smith claims- the Book of Abraham Papyrus, the kinderhook tablets- have subsequently been found to be fakes or misinterpretations.

 

[del]

^

still feeling the shame of the swirly

 

[JoeB131]

Is some freakish thing still following me around?

Guy, get some friends. Seriously. Or hire a hooker.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

On the broad topic, easy answer. No, pointing out logical holes in the doctrines of popular religions during intellectual conversation isn't bigotry. Discriminating against a person/group of people based only upon the religion to which they subscribe, in most cases, is bigotry (if I was working the door at a night club, I wouldn't let those snake cult dudes from Conan in. They're trouble.) Bigotry is when you do something negative to someone or assign specific negative traits to them based only on your knowledge that they belong to a broader group. Anybody who tells you that, to avoid being bigoted/racist, you have to agree with everybody's religious premises and cultural philosophies is probably trying to recruit you into a political party.

On this Mormon topic: I'll agree that the story of Mormonism's origin seems spectacularly silly. It blows any other religious fish-hook gag right the f*%# out the water. Imagine being one of those original Mormons. Some dude who lives in your neighborhood telling everybody that, while he was in the woods with nobody around to witness it, God came to him with instructions that included lots of women having sex with him. And everybody bought it! I know six year olds way harder to trick than that. That, however, is just my thought on the topic. I wasn't in the woods with ole Joe that day, and for all I know Jesus could have hollered at him.
All that said, I wouldn't have any qualms about electing Romney to President because he's a Mormon. His actual record and past declarations of the ins and outs of his political philosophy give me more than adequate reason to cast my vote elsewhere, and besides, I've known many religious people, Mormons included, who don't seek to impose their values on people who don't agree. I must therefore acknowledge the possibility that politicians exist who don't seek to use their office to enforce their religious tenants on the people they represent. Especially Romney. I associate him with greasy politician way more than Mormon. Romney will stay in or out of your personal religious business depending on what the polls are telling him is a more popular position today, Mormonism notwithstanding.