20 Feb 23
This thread is about what is and isn't offensive in terms of rhetoric and points of view in the public domain and in private discourse.
The belief that Christianity is a myth is a legitimate and widely held perspective.
The belief that Christianity is founded on truth and is not mythological at all is also widespread and legitimate.
Is it justifiable to assert that it is offensive to Christians for someone to express the belief that Christianity is a myth?
21 Feb 23
@fmf saidSo much of the bible is scientifically inaccurate, self - contradictory, morally repugnant, open to interpretation and so on, that in the context of our present day mores and knowledge of the world around us it's defence cannot be sustained, morally or intellectually, as has been proven many times in these forums.
This thread is about what is and isn't offensive in terms of rhetoric and points of view in the public domain and in private discourse.
The belief that Christianity is a myth is a legitimate and widely held perspective.
The belief that Christianity is founded on truth and is not mythological at all is also widespread and legitimate.
Is it justifiable to assert that it is offensive to Christians for someone to express the belief that Christianity is a myth?
From a personal perspective, belief in the Christian god is no more or less offensive than belief in any other god or gods; people must be free to believe whatever they are given or told to believe, and religion can and does bind people and communities together, provide a moral social framework and so on. I'm a frequent visitor to Bali, where the daily manifestation of the belief in the Hindu gods is a thing of beauty.
It's only when religious people declare their religion to be 'the truth' above other religions and beliefs and against scientific knowledge, that it becomes justifiable to challenge that ascertion, and question its' legitimacy, whether this be offensive or not, and as to whether or not it is, (offensive) I can't really say, not being of any religious persuasion myself.
21 Feb 23
@fmf saidA) feelings don’t need justification. If Christians feel offended, so be it.
This thread is about what is and isn't offensive in terms of rhetoric and points of view in the public domain and in private discourse.
The belief that Christianity is a myth is a legitimate and widely held perspective.
The belief that Christianity is founded on truth and is not mythological at all is also widespread and legitimate.
Is it justifiable to assert that it is offensive to Christians for someone to express the belief that Christianity is a myth?
B) No one has a right not to be offended.
21 Feb 23
@moonbus saidYes, I know what you mean but I didn't mean "justified" in any sort of legalistic way. Perhaps "understandable" [i.e. to a neutral or reasonable person] might be a word that gets at what I mean better.
feelings don’t need justification. If Christians feel offended, so be it.
If one calls a Christian "deluded" or "gullible" or "self-deceiving" or "conned" by the theology, one could understand why they might be personally offended, which is why I have never referred to religious belief as "delusional" here.
Meanwhile, to say one believes Christianity is a mythology surely can't reasonably be framed as being personally offensive.
@moonbus saidWhen someone claims to be personally offended over disagreement in this way, then I think the real issue is insecurity and perhaps undiagnosed doubt.
Yes but … to challenge a belief system upon which some people’s belief in their own personal immortality hangs is a personal offense— to them anyhow.
@moonbus
Another "I think the real issue is"-type analysis I have of protestations of being personally offended by disagreements over core beliefs is that such protestations of being personally offended are often akin to a cross between "virtue signalling" and "manufactured outrage".
The signalling is intended for fellow believers [as opposed to being genuine communication with the non-believer] and the "outrage" is an affectation seemingly intended to shut down dissent and/or inhibit discussion: a kind of playing-of-the-victim-card, if you will.
22 Feb 23
@fmf saidAgreed. This is nowhere better evidenced than the Islamic world's manufactured outrage at the depiction of their prophet in Western media.
In addition to the virtue signalling, manufactured outrage, and poison-the-well components, I think there is something akin to identity politics on the table when ideologues claim to be "personally offended" by beliefs that diverge from their own.
@moonbus saidTrue.
Agreed. This is nowhere better evidenced than the Islamic world's manufactured outrage at the depiction of their prophet in Western media.
Although, the people who draw cartoons of Muhammad and pigs, or whatever, in the name of free speech are not demonstrating a genuine interest in free speech in this world; they too are exhibiting their own kind of virtue signalling, manufactured outrage, and poison-the-well posturing. They are not allies of the people in the Muslim world who are fighting for freedom of speech and other rights.
@fmf saidIt is not just a matter of freedom of speech, but freedom to think and question dogma. If people had not dared to question dogma, we'd still be stuck pre-Galileo, believing the Earth is immovable with the rest of the universe revolving around us. The edict against Galileo forbade him even to entertain the thesis hypothetically that the Earth moves, which is thought control.
True.
Although, the people who draw cartoons of Muhammad and pigs, or whatever, in the name of free speech are not demonstrating a genuine interest in free speech in this world; they too are exhibiting their own kind of virtue signalling, manufactured outrage, and poison-the-well posturing. They are not allies of the people in the Muslim world who are fighting for freedom of speech and other rights.
@moonbus saidPresumably you are having a laugh. You are elevating those Danish cartoonists [et al] and their trailer-trash antics to an absurd degree. Their explicitly -stated aim was to champion the principle of freedom of speech and yet they set the cause back by years in the Muslim world each time they indulge in their crass virtue signalling.
It is not just a matter of freedom of speech, but freedom to think and question dogma. If people had not dared to question dogma, we'd still be stuck pre-Galileo, believing the Earth is immovable with the rest of the universe revolving around us. The edict against Galileo forbade him even to entertain the thesis hypothetically that the Earth moves, which is thought control.