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

[Jon Miller]

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.

I know better than every other person in the area where I disagree with them in. This is by definition, otherwise I would not disagree with them.

You also disagree with Ghandi about religion. Do you think that he was your moral superior or inferior?

Which I'm arguing is impossible.

Your problem with something that I and Imran (and many others) find possible and practice should tell you something.

It is just that you do not experience it in your own life.

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.

I learn about Christianity, and God through Christianity, quite often. That does not mean that my God is wrong, that means that I am.

I don't think anyone, except Christ, has nothing to learn about God.

2000 years of Christianity, or 3000+ years of Abrahamic religion, proves you wrong (as a society).

JM

[kentonio]

I know better than every other person in the area where I disagree with them in. This is by definition, otherwise I would not disagree with them.

Sure, we all feel superior about things when we think we're right.

You also disagree with Ghandi about religion. Do you think that he was your moral superior or inferior?

I don't believe in an ultimate guidebook of moral rules, so thats a difficult question for me to answer. I have huge admiration for the way he went about certain things, but I think he was wrong about others. In as much as I can see people as either moral or not moral, I'd probably call him my moral superior yes.

Your problem with something that I and Imran (and many others) find possible and practice should tell you something.

It does tell me something, it tells me that you both are unwilling to accept that feeling superior is a human trait that is universal.

I learn about Christianity, and God through Christianity, quite often. That does not mean that my God is wrong, that means that I am.

Except that you just subtly changed the subject. I didn't say that you might be wrong about the details of christianity, I said you might be wrong about something that contradicts christianity.

2000 years of Christianity, or 3000+ years of Abrahamic religion, proves you wrong (as a society).

Explain please. If anything I'd say the last 2000 years have shown that humanity has evolved and progressed in spite of religion not because of it. Christianity today for instance has next to nothing in common with Christianity of a thousand years ago, and yet there have not apparently been any new visitations from god in the meantime. Can you explain that?

[Jon Miller]

I don't think you know much about Christianity.

Or religion in general.

And you don't seem to be consistent. You obviously disagree with Ghandi, and yet you don't see any problem with viewing him as someone who is not your inferior.

Yet you do think there is a problem with religious people (especally Christians), that they must view all those who do not think similarly to them as their inferiors.

I think that you just do not understand religion, the religious, and especially Christianity. Not really humans either.

JM

[Kidlicious]

kentonio, just because God is not what you expect doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Talk about logic.

[kentonio]

I don't think you know much about Christianity.

Or religion in general.

Wow, I expected better from you. Disappointing.

And you don't seem to be consistent. You obviously disagree with Ghandi, and yet you don't see any problem with viewing him as someone who is not your inferior.

Because I don't align myself with a worldview that imposes an entire framework of beliefs on me. I can think that Ghandi was awesome in some ways and a dick in others, and it doesn't cause any conflict whatsoever. How is that in any way inconsistent?

Yet you do think there is a problem with religious people (especally Christians), that they must view all those who do not think similarly to them as their inferiors.

No, not especially christians, put away your victim card for a minute please. I do believe there is a problem with religious people because by aligning yourself with a religion and accepting some pre-defined rulebook of morality, you are then far less able to accept ideas that contradict your religions.

I think that you just do not understand religion, the religious, and especially Christianity. Not really humans either.

When all else fails, play the man not the ball. Very christian of you. Shame, I was actually enjoying what I thought was a reasonable conversation.

[Jon Miller]

I am just saying that our conversation has basically come down to you saying that religion and humans behave in X and Y and me ( a religious person and one who has studied religion a fair bit, in addition to having experiences to the contrary of your X and Y) saying that they do not.

What more can I say? My personal experience and knowledge disagrees with your statements (in areas where you do not have personal experience or knowledge).

The correct response on my part then is to tell you that I think you are lacking knowledge and to acquire it.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I can go about making sweeping statements that are completely contrary to what african-americans say about african-americans experience in the US.

Or I can acknowledge that I do not understand african-americans in the US and seek understanding.

Which is the right way to go about it? Should an african-american (in such a situation) spend time explaining to me that I am wrong and that what I claim their experiences are go against their personal experience, when the issue really is just that I don't have a clue and have not really even associated with african-americans in the US nor have I studied the african-american experience in the US?

JM

[Elok]

Ken, I'd advise you to drop the conversation at this point. It seems like you're insisting we admit to feeling something that none of us can, in all honesty, say we feel.

[kentonio]

I can go about making sweeping statements that are completely contrary to what african-americans say about african-americans experience in the US.

Or I can acknowledge that I do not understand african-americans in the US and seek understanding.

I'm calling bull**** because you are claiming in effect that you are capable of completely suppressing the human emotion of vanity when it comes to moral issues. Oddly enough when people make wild claims that happen to consist of them being awesome, I tend to roll to disbelieve, especially when there are daily examples of them being demonstrably wrong.

[kentonio]

Ken, I'd advise you to drop the conversation at this point. It seems like you're insisting we admit to feeling something that none of us can, in all honesty, say we feel.

None of you ever feel any superiority when you discuss or consider morality with others who you think are morally wrong? Ok then..

[Jon Miller]

Do all humans feel superior to another person due to thinking that they are right and that other person is wrong?

No.

I also don't see why you single out Christians (or the religious) for this accusation, but figure it must be because it is a group that you think differently than?

JM

[Kidlicious]

It doesn't matter what we feel. It matters what we believe.

x post

[Jon Miller]

None of you ever feel any superiority when you discuss or consider morality with others who you think are morally wrong? Ok then..

Was the claim that no Christian ever feels superior to another due to thinking they are right and that other was wrong?

Your claim was that every Christian always feels superior to another due to thinking they are right and that other was wrong.

JM

[Elok]

None of you ever feel any superiority when you discuss or consider morality with others who you think are morally wrong? Ok then..

But you haven't said anything about others being morally wrong, only about having incorrect beliefs, and those are two different things. Now, if those incorrect beliefs advocate serious immorality, you might have something. For example, if a religion mandates arranged marriages between grown men and barely-pubescent teenage girls (as with the Jeffs branch of Mormonism), yeah, it's kind of hard not to feel repulsed--come to think of it, that taboo is purely modern though, a result of changing customs rather than Biblical mandate. Anyway, I imagine you feel repulsed too.

But their ideas about God being a human who matured into a deity (I think that's what they believe) are merely incorrect. I guess I sometimes roll my eyes at some of the wilder stuff, like everybody righteous getting his own planet to populate via spirit sex; is that what you're talking about? Even if so, I know plenty of atheists/agnostics do that too, so it's hardly an exclusively religious thing.

[kentonio]

Do all humans feel superior to another person due to thinking that they are right and that other person is wrong?

No.

Yes. It's why smugness exists.

I also don't see why you single out Christians (or the religious) for this accusation, but figure it must be because it is a group that you think differently than?

Actually this whole thing has been about saying that the religious are no different to anyone else. You're the one claiming a difference.