When is it okay to call someone a bigot or accuse them of hating?

[DaShi]

Do you ever change your signiture? That's old and it never was very good.

I've been changing it subtly over the past two years.

[Kidlicious]

A Catholic person who believes that Jews are morally inferior because Jews do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, for example.

AARG! Morally inferior is not the same thing as wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The issue comes because your god is your moral center. Your religion tells you how to behave in the ways that best please your god. Other religions must have inferior moral codes in your beliefs or you should switch, by reasoning. Imran's very words, "not very complete understanding" demonstrates the inadequacy and inferiority of their moral code (though may allow it to rank higher than other religions, in his view) compared to his.

Not necessarily. Morality (right action) can be differentiated from othodoxy (right thinking). Someone can be heterodox (other thinking) in thinking, yet follow the right action, and vice versa. The most obvious is, of course, the so-called "golden rule" - treat your neighbor as yourself (or, in Christian terms, Jesus's 2nd Commandment). I can hold up Gandhi as an example of right action but not fully correct thinking, and far more moral than many Christians who may have the right thinking, but not even close in right action. It helps that Christians believe that everyone has the spark of the divine within them and thus can work for God's good without even really knowing they are doing the will of the Creator.

[kentonio]

Believing others follow an incorrect doctrine of thinking implies superiority. Just saying someone has 'not correct thinking' means you are stating you know better than them.

[Jon Miller]

Yes, you think you know more than people who you disagree with about knowledge. This is basic logic.

Other than that, you are quite wrong.

Christians think similar to me (have similar beliefs/etc), so I think that they have 'correct thinking'. However, I know many humanists, muslims, Jews, and others (neopagans too) who are more moral, and so on, than many Christians.

Scientists think similar to me (have similar beliefs/etc), so I think that they have 'correct thinking'. However, I know many non-scientists (even ones who believe in things incompatible with science, like homeopathy (which is unlike most religions in that it makes claims which science says is false)) who have knowledge which many scientists do not have.

Amnesty International think similar to me in many ways, so I think they have 'correct thinking'. However, many of the actions that it supports I find morally reprehensible at worse and making things worse instead of better at best.

I think one of the greatest signs of intelligence is the ability to consider a complex reality.

JM

[kentonio]

No-one is saying that it means you consider yourself superior in all aspects, but it does mean that you consider yourself superior in some ways. How could it not? This only really has relevance because some religious folks insist on pretending an ultimate humility that is immediately invalidated by this one simple thing. You can't claim to be completely humble and open minded when you also think you know better than everyone else about something you consider the most important thing in the world.

[MrFun]

AARG! Morally inferior is not the same thing as wrong.

AARG! Today is not Priates Day, matey.

[Jon Miller]

No-one is saying that it means you consider yourself superior in all aspects, but it does mean that you consider yourself superior in some ways. How could it not? This only really has relevance because some religious folks insist on pretending an ultimate humility that is immediately invalidated by this one simple thing. You can't claim to be completely humble and open minded when you also think you know better than everyone else about something you consider the most important thing in the world.

One issue is of tolerance, which I was discussing earlier in this thread.

You also seem to have a problem with the idea of thinking you are right and someone else is wrong (which is always the case when you are right) and thinking that you are superior to the other person. This makes it difficult to be tolerant to those who think differently than you probably.

Also the difference between pride and self-esteem maybe? I think that humility in the Christian sense means being in your place. One of the great sins (and is the sin of Lucifer in the Bible) is placing yourself in the place of God. Christ humbled Himself, He took a place far below His own. Not God, not even a King, but that of a servant. Not only a servant but a criminal and one who was reviled. Yes, still a teacher, otherwise we would not have heard of Him.

If you read fantasy and mythology, about the incarnation, this is not the story you read. Instead you read of heroes and kings and mighty men.

Another point perhaps I can demonstrate from my interactions on Apolyton.

Anyone who follows economics threads knows that I disagree quite strongly on certain things with KH. I actually think that you and I agree more on such things. But I recognize, despite the fact that I think he is wrong, that KH is my superior in economics and economic thinking.

JM

[Egbert]

I think one of the greatest signs of intelligence is the ability to consider a complex reality.
JM

The greatest sign of intelligence is the realisation that I, Braindead, am always absolutely right. My moral and intellectual superiority over everybody else gives me the right to judge others. The worth of an opinion is for me to decide and it is for me to decide what is good for other people. This is because I am so enlightened and filled with moral goodness. I am also very modest and humble.

[Jon Miller]

Thank you for the example.

JM

[kentonio]

One issue is of tolerance, which I was discussing earlier in this thread.

You also seem to have a problem with the idea of thinking you are right and someone else is wrong (which is always the case when you are right) and thinking that you are superior to another person. This makes it difficult to be tolerant to those who think differently than you probably.

I don't really understand what you mean here, you seem to be saying exactly what I was trying to get at. Religous people have an inherent sense of superiority given that they believe they follow the correct path and this does indeed usually lead to a lack of tolerance. As DaShi was pointing out earlier, this is especially noticable because its a superiority about something that the person considers so vitally important a part of them, their moral center.

Also the difference between pride and self-esteem maybe? I think that humility in the Christian sense means being in your place. One of the great sins (and is the sin of Lucifer in the Bible) is placing yourself in the place of God.

Which to me sounds like little more than slavery, but lets not get into something we can never agree on.

Christ humbled Himself, He took a place far below His own. Not God, not even a King, but that of a servant. Not only a servant but a criminal and one who was reviled. Yes, still a teacher, otherwise we would not have heard of Him.

If you read fantasy and mythology, this is not the story you read. Instead you read of heroes and kings and mighty men.

Except that he still managed to end up the hero at the centre of a crowd of fawning admirers. Which is the plot of countless fantasy stories (quite possibly influenced by the biblical stories of course).

Another point perhaps I can demonstrate from my interactions on Apolyton.

Anyone who follows economics threads knows that I disagree quite strongly on certain things with KH. I actually think that you and I agree more on such things. But I recognize, despite the fact that I think he is wrong, that KH is my superior in economics and economic thinking.

As do I. I find his sense of morality about as appealing as HC's, but when it comes to economics he's someone I'd consider an expert. I don't see how this is particularly relevant though? No-one is saying that religious folk must feel superior to others in every way, just that superiority is implied in terms of moral thinking. Obviously you'd feel superior to KH in that regards of course, as he has no morals.

[Jon Miller]

The point is that I can recognize that KH is wrong at the same time as recognize his superiority.

Even in the same 'sphere'.

I think, based on what I have read, that Ghandi was my moral superior. And I would definitely agree that he was a moral superior to many Christians I know/read about. However, he was not a Christian. He disagreed with me, and I think I am right and he was wrong. Like I do with everyone who disagrees with me.

The feelings of superiority when you disagree with another person is a big problem. But it isn't necessary to feel so.

The solution is not to never disagree with another person, or to never think you are right. The solution is to not feel superior based on that thought.

In the realm of religion, in the realm of economics, in the realm of science, in the realm of social order and politics.

Another example, I am a scientist. I don't think I am a superior scientist to everyone else, in fact, I think I am quite average. However, o the points where I disagree with other scientists I think I am right and they are wrong, even if it is science and I think they are superior scientists.

Especially in cases where the other person is superior to me, I will look carefully at their arguments, but it does not mean that I stop thinking that I am right and they are wrong.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I don't really understand what you mean here, you seem to be saying exactly what I was trying to get at. Religous people have an inherent sense of superiority given that they believe they follow the correct path and this does indeed usually lead to a lack of tolerance. As DaShi was pointing out earlier, this is especially noticable because its a superiority about something that the person considers so vitally important a part of them, their moral center.

What you mean is that "humans have a tendency to, when they think they are right and another person is wrong, feel superior to that person".

Since the religious are peope you think are wrong, you pick them out (and do the same thing to them as you complain about some of them doing), but it isn't a function of being religious.

It is a problem due to ending up with a lack of tolerance. But you can start with yourself, and not fall into the same trap.

JM

[Kidlicious]

You just can't explain faith to some people. That's all there is to it.

[kentonio]

The point is that I can recognize that KH is wrong at the same time as recognize his superiority.

Even in the same 'sphere'.

I think, based on what I have read, that Ghandi was my moral superior. And I would definitely agree that he was a moral superior to many Christians I know/read about. However, he was not a Christian. He disagreed with me, and I think I am right and he was wrong. Like I do with everyone who disagrees with me.

The feelings of superiority when you disagree with another person is a big problem. But it isn't necessary to feel so.

If Ghandi was your moral superior, then how can you feel like your moral path is a superior one to his? If anything that makes your sense of moral superiority even stronger, because you're saying that even though he was a more moral person, you still know better than him.

The solution is not to never disagree with another person, or to never think you are right. The solution is to not feel superior based on that thought.

Which I'm arguing is impossible.

In the realm of religion, in the realm of economics, in the realm of science, in the realm of social order and politics.

I don't see those as being of equal comparison. Religion provides a worldview that an opinion about an area of science does not. You can concede an argument about science and in doing so become a stronger scientist. Your scientific views evolve and your knowledge becomes stronger as you encompass new ideas. You can't concede arguments about religion because religion does not evolve. To concede an argument that contradicts your religion means that you are accepting that your god can potentially be wrong.