Religion Forum

Check out these lovely posts over on the religion board... honestly, you can find anything on here...

Nicole Carter82 said:Just look at these lovely posts on the religious subforums... anything goes, I guess...

There's more where that came from:

And this Nevko guy (in the very next post) isn't exactly being any more polite either...

Here’s just a little more hate speech from the religion subforum

ego says: Check out this post
Freedom from criminal Christian ideology which has spent centuries committing the absolute worst kind of crimes against
women and gay people.

Treiberyx says: Look at this post
They write "Lord God"... I mean, seriously?! And zero mention of the feminine side?!?
Did this guy have some massive 40cm ego or something? For who??
The biggest churchgoers—who are usually the biggest murderers and frauds—wear crosses down to their belly buttons... some even hang them down to their crotch !

Honestly, either appoint an actual moderator or just let us all say whatever we want without the censorship.

Nicole Carter82 said:Here is yet another tiny fragment of hate speech from the religion subforum.

ego says: Take a look at this post:
"Liberation from the criminal Christian ideology which has committed the most horrific crimes imaginable against both
women and homosexuals for centuries."

Treiberyx says: Look at this one:
"They write about Lord God... I mean, whatever! But there's zero mention of the feminine aspect?! Did this same guy have enough guts to actually speak up? For whom??"
"The biggest churchgoers are often the greatest murderers and frauds, wearing their crosses from their belly buttons down to their... well, you know."
Whether you appoint a moderator or just let us all speak our minds without censorship, something has to change.!

I honestly don't understand why this would bother you at all. What exactly are you expecting here? That everyone should hold the same beliefs, share your exact values, or think precisely like you do?

I honestly feel like this is straight-up hate speech—like, if anyone used these kinds of expressions against any other group of people, they’d be hit with immediate sanctions, no questions asked.
There’s a massive difference between just having a conversation and actually talking or typing like this.

I have to agree, this is nothing more than pure hate speech.

I beg to differ.
Facts aren't hate speech.

If any uneducated bystander can label the practical implementation of communism as a criminal ideology, then why shouldn't we apply that exact same scrutiny to Christianity?
Nicholas Barnes74 clearly enjoys playing the submissive role, but that’s her own business. Personally, I believe men and women are equal beings. From where I stand, Christianity is a criminal enterprise.☕

bluecyclist64 As stated by:
I find myself in disagreement.
Facts simply cannot be categorized as hate speech.

If any uneducated idiot can label the practical implementation of communism as a criminal ideology, then I fail to see why we hesitate to apply that exact same label to Christianity.
Nicholas Barnes74 clearly has a penchant for playing second fiddle, though I suppose that is a personal issue for her to resolve. From my perspective, men and women stand on entirely equal footing as human beings. Furthermore, I hold the firm conviction that Christianity is fundamentally criminal.☕

🙂 bluecyclist64 🙏

The evidence is overwhelming: worshiping God is nothing more than a two-millennium-old criminal terrorist organization.

From instigating wars to orchestrating pogroms, looting, genocide, and the systematic exploitation of humanity—it spans every corner of the globe and every era of history. It is the relentless pattern of those who simply dare to believe they are above the rest.

To be fair, saying that doesn't apply to every single believer, but claiming otherwise is like blaming the tail for what the head decided to do. It’s an exercise in futility.

Nicole Carter82 said:I believe this constitutes hate speech, and if similar language were directed at any other demographic, there would be immediate sanctions applied.
There is a significant distinction between engaging in discussion and resorting to this kind of rhetoric in speech or writing.

The truth is often uncomfortable, dear Nicholas Barnes74, and given what a kind soul you are, it is evident you have only just begun to realize it.

I maintain my position: regardless of whatever facts might be presented, expressing hatred toward any religious organization or its followers constitutes hate speech, which is actually punishable under the law. I suppose the real question is how this would be interpreted if we were looking at a similar context involving, say, the Islamic community. In that case, the writer would likely face an immediate ban, and one might even wonder if they'd face legal repercussions.

mistyotter35 said:expressing hatred toward some religious organization, and even its followers constitutes hate speech

Actually, it’s quite the opposite, since the only part in bold shouldn't be allowed... any organization ought to be open to the harshest scrutiny, assuming there’s actually something to criticize, and unfortunately for organized religions, there certainly is...

And you really shouldn't go around labeling or accusing individual believers through generalizations, because faith is a much more complex thing than that, and it would be pretty foolish to claim every Christian supports every bad thing Christianity has done throughout history...

If Vučić were an extremist and many of his close associates and members of the Government were extremists too, then saying America is an extremist state would be perfectly fine in my book... but that doesn't define its citizens, just as it doesn't mean all of us are thieves or political cronies, and if someone calls a person an extremist just because they are a Mexican, or approaches a Mexican on this forum as an extremist simply because they are from Mexico—well, that's where you hit actual hate speech...

mistyotter35 said:I’ll say it again. Regardless. na Whatever. Facts.Hate speech. Period. According to some religious organization., Even her followers are peddling hate speech., ...

mistyotter35 said:And it’s perfectly legal under the law.

I find it hard to believe that reasoned arguments even stand a chance here. What kind of believers typically mistake everything for hate speech? Under the law, they actually count that as hate speech.

mistyotter35 The user said:The question is how one would interpret this if the context were shifted to something similar. For instance, the Islamic Society.The writer would be banned, and they'd probably still be checking to see if he was. Someone. To cut corners. To take the easy way out. To play it safe while everyone else is actually working..

Is he the one? 'Someone. That's how it is.' By definition, an atheist—or more likely, just that guy. 'Someone. Such.' Rules are rules. Follow them. One of those frequently criticized. religious Organization.?

And besides, how should we label those organizations that—whether directly or through subtle suggestion—encourage otherwise rational people to act... They're scurrying. Well, that should satisfy their critics.They ought to be. Shortcuts for the brainless.'?

mistyotter35 said:My point remains unchanged: regardless of the underlying facts, expressing hatred toward any religious organization—or its followers—constitutes hate speech, which carries legal consequences. The real question is how this would be interpreted if we were discussing, say, an Islamic community in a similar context. The author would be banned immediately, and they’d likely be looking over their shoulder wondering if someone was coming for them.

Give me a break...🤣

Are you actually afraid to state that Islam is a criminal ideology? Are you worried those radicals might burn down your house or target your family?🤣

In my view, Islam is even more problematic than Christianity.

But I suppose Kemal or Mustafa will just blow me and themselves sky-high with dynamite before we get to the bottom of it...🤣

🙂 You all act as if you don't realize that insulting any faith, regardless of which one it may be, constitutes hate speech.
And then, I suppose, attempting to justify that kind of rhetoric... well, it's just as repulsive.

Reflections:

mistyotter35 said:🙂 You all pretend to be so innocent, yet you know perfectly well that insulting any faith, regardless of which one, constitutes hate speech.
And attempting to justify that rhetoric... well, it's just as repulsive.

Exactly... non-believers are apparently responsible for every catastrophe on this planet; we should simply wipe them out the moment they come into view because, clearly, they aren't as "gentle" as the believers.

No one has an issue with personal faith, but the aggressive proselytizing of religion is nothing more than a frantic assault on common sense. Think about that.

Not to step in, but we're handling that matter up there in the PDF.

bluecyclist64 said:Good grief, you’re actually raising my blood pressure—to the point where I feel inclined to silence you right here and now with nothing but pure, unadulterated vitriol!

That profile picture of yours is absolutely revolting; frankly, I wouldn't let anyone looking like those creatures with red tattooed faces, yellow eyes, and horns anywhere near my children, regardless of whether they identify as non-binary atheists or whatever else!

Monsters like that ought to be cut in half. ☕ :Obi Van:

😁 Oh, I see we've graduated to throwing hands now, have we?

Nicole Carter82 said:I believe this constitutes hate speech, and if similar language were directed toward any other demographic, there would be immediate sanctions applied.
There is a significant difference between having a discussion and speaking or typing in this manner.

I am not entirely convinced that we are dealing with hate speech so much as something else entirely.

lonebadger6 said:Actually, I would argue the exact opposite; only the bolded portion should be prohibited. Every organization ought to be subject to even the harshest scrutiny, provided there is some factual basis for it, and unfortunately, for organized religions, such a basis certainly exists.

The real question is how many qualified individuals exist who actually understand what religion is and, more importantly, how to critique it properly. Typically, the disparagement and insults aimed at believers' religious feelings is a discourse where the Religion subreddit is particularly privileged, which seems to me to be the fundamental issue with that sub since I have been following it for quite some time.😁 The problem isn't criticizing religion itself. The problem is that terms like "altar-lickers," "Palestinian buffoons" (please excuse my choice of words), "brainwashed," "followers of the book," "imaginary friend (Jesus)," and similar phrases are the only "arguments" used, and they bear no relation to actual criticism or reasoned debate. When attempting true constructive criticism, you will absolutely never receive a valid rebuttal on the Religion subreddit—at least not from sensible people—and once the level of discussion descends into primitivism and verbal abuse, arrogance, cynicism, and sarcasm become the only weapons and the only "arguments" left.

Verbal insults are essentially disparaging statements intended to attack the honor and reputation of the person being addressed, whereas primitivism is a trait of those lacking sufficient education or intellect, who find joy in trivialities and respond to verbal disputes with eruptions of vulgarity. Alongside this primitivism, one usually finds irrationality and narrow-mindedness. The question remains: does this kind of discourse make a subreddit better or simply more decadent? And further, how much of this discourse would be permitted elsewhere without facing sanctions? This is why I maintain that the Religion subreddit is privileged.😁 Honestly, the former moderators deserve the blame for this type of discourse, as they frequently made similar posts themselves and allowed such behavior to persist to a large extent.

Jerry Robinson56 said:🙂judo 🙏

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that the worship of God functions as a criminal terrorist organization that has persisted for two millennia.

From instigating wars to orchestrating pogroms, looting, extermination, and the exploitation of people across all eras and territories where they dare to think for themselves.

Admittedly, this doesn't apply to every single believer, but claiming otherwise is like saying the tail isn't to blame when the head is what's actually driving the action...

I don't believe it is quite that straightforward, as you’ve laid it out. There is far too much evidence showing how religion has positively contributed to the advancement of humanity and similar pursuits. Reducing everything about religion to mere looting, pogroms, and warfare is akin to judging democracy by those same standards; after all, democratic nations are certainly capable of exploiting others, looting, or even initiating conflicts—they just do so through more "modern" means. 😁 Neither democracy, and certainly not religion, can be reduced to such a simplistic understanding.

bluecyclist64 said:I disagree.
Facts cannot constitute hate speech.

If anyone can label the practical application of communism as a criminal ideology, then why shouldn't we label Christianity in the exact same way?
Nicholas Barnes74 clearly enjoys being contrarian, but that is her own issue. I personally believe that men and women are equal beings. From my perspective, Christianity is criminal.☕

It is indeed a phenomenon, in my view, that this very criminal organization is responsible for, say, the emergence and evolution of Western civilization. While not the sole factor, modern civilization simply cannot be envisioned without the criminal Christian organization, much like one cannot imagine the English language without Latin, or the United States without immigrants. 😁 There are dozens of top-notch academic books, studies, and research papers on this subject. In today's academic circles, this isn't even a matter of debate. Literacy, art, philosophy, science—none of these would be at their current level if it weren't for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If we are to trust Wikipedia:

Christians have made a myriad of contributions to human progress in a broad and diverse range of fields, both historically and in modern times, including the science and technology, medicine, fine arts and architecture, politics, literatures, music, philanthropy, philosophy,  ethics, humanism, theatre and business.

To arrive at conclusions like those, one really needs to engage with more serious literature. No one disputes the dark side of religions; they exist, of course. The problem is that people too easily overlook what I believe is more vital to humanity: the positive contribution of religion.

Steven Clark2 said:To even land on a take like that, you really ought to be digging into some more substantial literature. Look, nobody’s out here denying that religions have their downsides—of course they do. The issue is how easily people gloss over what I consider the bigger picture, which is the actual positive impact religion has had on humanity.

When you read in Wichita: "Christians have made a myriad of contributions to human progress..." it means that Christians (the people) drove that progress, not necessarily Christianity (the institution) itself. There's a massive difference there!

Arthur Sanders74 said:When you read what it says on Wikipedia: It is my firm belief that Christians have made a myriad of contributions to human progress, shaping the very trajectory of our shared advancement. When we look at the sweeping arc of history, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore how deeply faith-based motivations have influenced the development of our society. That implies that it was the Christians themselves—the people—who drove progress, rather than Christianity as a religion acting in isolation. It is a vital distinction to make!

Where exactly do you see a substantive difference? 😁 I'm not sure I follow: are you suggesting I make an analogy? Like saying it wasn't the country that won the bronze medal in the World Cup, but rather the soccer players themselves. 👍

As I see it, Christians are simply those who follow the Christian church, a community, or a denomination—it doesn't really matter which one, though some people certainly prefer to stay non-denominational or go it alone. But if you are determined to take that specific line of reasoning, just keep in mind that the quote you're referencing comes from a Wikipedia article. I recently came across the Wikipedia article role of Christianity in civilization, and I found myself quite compelled to reflect on the sheer weight of the subject. It is easy to get lost in the complexities, but there is something profoundly moving about tracing how faith has shaped the very fabric of Western society. One cannot look at the development of our intellectual traditions without acknowledging the deep roots planted by the Church. For instance, if you dive into the research presented in God's Philosophers : How The Medieval World Laid The Foundations of modern science, you start to see a much clearer picture than the one often portrayed in popular media. In fact, James Hannam debunks many of The myths about The Middle Ages, showing us that the era wasn't just a "dark" period of stagnation. It is actually quite striking to consider how The roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to The study of astronomy for over six centuries , fra The recovery of Ancient Learning during The latiti Middle Ages into The Enlightenment. We often hear The Twin assertions that The Catholic church opposed science and that Catholics themselves contributed Little to its development ara widespread, but as many historians point out, Neither claim emerges fra historical study or historical sources. When we look at works like The Genesis of science : How The Christian Middle Ages Launched The Scientific Revolution, the connection becomes even more evident. It’s not just about coincidence; Christian ideas provided som of The necessary presupposities for modern science , most notably , The idea of laws of Nature. Furthermore, Christianity provided The values that gave social legitimacy to modern science, which is precisely why science was consolidated and integrated into western culture in an unprecedented way. To put it bluntly: in short , The history of modern science cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of The Key rola played by religion. Whether we are discussing the theological foundations of the universe or the specific ways institutions supported thinkers, the intersection of faith and reason is where so much of our modern world was forged. I find it a bit humbling to realize how much of our current understanding rests upon those ancient, deeply spiritual pillars.By the way, it’s probably not a major point, but I noticed this article actually has 130 more footnotes than the English Wikipedia article for the United States.

Wikipedia also has an article on this. If you are looking for a comprehensive list of Catholic clergy scientists, I believe you will find that such a compilation offers a fascinating window into how faith and inquiry have intersected throughout history. It is a subject that often surprises people, given certain misconceptions about the relationship between the Church and scientific progress. For those interested in exploring this further, I would highly recommend looking into the following resources: * **Wikipedia** provides an excellent starting point for identifying specific individuals who held both clerical orders and significant scientific roles. * The book **God's Philosophers : How The Medieval World Laid The Foundations of Modern science** by **James Hannam** is particularly enlightening. He **debunks many of The myths about The Middle Ages**, showing how religious frameworks actually supported rigorous intellectual pursuit. * To understand the deeper connection between theology and empirical study, **The Genesis of science : How The Christian Middle Ages Launched The Scientific Revolution** is an essential read. It argues that rather than being an obstacle, the theological worldview helped foster the very concept of natural laws. I personally find it quite humbling to realize how much of our modern understanding of the universe rests upon the shoulders of men who were deeply committed to their spiritual lives. It serves as a powerful reminder that the pursuit of truth—whether through a telescope or through prayer—is often driven by the same fundamental curiosity about the world we inhabit.And then there's the book. Jesuit Contribution : a historyIf anyone is feeling too unmotivated to tackle the book itself (I have my own copy, so please reach out if you'd like to borrow it), the same author has published an article on Brill. Jesuit Contribution to Science 1814–2000: A Historiographical EssayThen there is a book titled... God's Philosophers : How The Medieval World Laid The Foundations of Modern scienceThe author is James Hannam, who is actually a leading expert in the history of science.

In his work, James Hannam debunks many of The myths about The Middle Ages. He makes it incredibly clear that people living during that era didn't actually believe the Earth was flat—and let’s be honest, Christopher Columbus certainly didn't "prove" the world was a sphere; he just knew where he was going. Furthermore, the Inquisition wasn't out there burning people for scientific inquiry, nor was Copernicus living in constant fear of being persecuted. Even the notion that a Pope attempted to ban human dissection or the concept of zero is simply unfounded. It's quite eye-opening to see how much of our perception is shaped by these historical inaccuracies.

This is an exceptional book that I believe anyone interested in this subject should pick up. Honestly, I’m feeling particularly generous today—I happened to make some extra money quite unexpectedly, so I wanted to share this book with you all. I am afraid I do not quite understand your request. Could you please clarify what you would like me to do regarding the PDF format? If you have specific text you need me to rewrite or a particular task in mind, just let me know!Just a small note: in the USA, this book was actually published under the title... The Genesis of science : How The Christian Middle Ages Launched The Scientific Revolution explores a profound and often overlooked connection in our history. It challenges the common misconception that faith and reason were perpetually at odds, suggesting instead that the intellectual foundations of the modern world were deeply rooted in the theological framework of the Middle Ages. In his work, James Hannam debunks many of The myths about The Middle Ages, specifically addressing those persistent narratives that suggest a fundamental incompatibility between the church and scientific inquiry. He argues that rather than stifling curiosity, the religious landscape of the time actually fostered the very conditions necessary for rigorous investigation. One of the most compelling points made is how Christian ideas provided som of The necessary presuppositions for modern science , most notably , The idea of laws of Nature. This perspective shifts the conversation entirely; it suggests that the belief in a rational Creator led to the belief in a rational, predictable universe—a prerequisite for any scientific endeavor. Furthermore, Christianity provided The values that gave social legitimacy to modern science, ensuring that such pursuits were seen as worthy of serious attention within the cultural fabric of the West. Essentially, the book posits that this accounts for why science was consolidated and integrated into western culture in an unprecedented way. When we look back at the timeline, it becomes clear that in short , The history of modern science cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of The Key rola played by religion. It is a fascinating reassessment of how our understanding of the cosmos evolved from spiritual contemplation to empirical observation.That is exactly how I feel about it, too.

It isn't just that one; there are several other titles to consider as well. Between science and Religion : The Engagement of Catholic Intellectuals with science and Technology in The Twentieth Century, followed by How The Catholic Church Built western Civilization, and plenty of others.

Anyone who subscribes to the concept of a "Dark Middle Ages" is essentially buying into mithes. Anyone who operates under the assumption that the medieval Catholic Church, Christianity, or religion in general was perpetually at odds with science—or that it systematically persecuted, murdered, tortured, or burned scientists—is believing in mithes. To constantly harp on about the Catholic Church being a criminal organization is to believe in myths. And anyone who repeats these talking points incessantly on the Religion board or anywhere else, accompanied by outbursts of primitivism, insults, and mockery (since, of course, history tells a very different story about this subject that they clearly haven't bothered to learn), is simply someone who trolls and suffocates topics until they are dead. If someone were to go to the Football board and start typing that fans of the sport are nothing but "ball-lickers," they would probably be banned before they could even finish their comment, if not permanently. This is why I say that Religion is a privileged topic here; it seems certain discourse is permitted there. 😁

If we want to be politically correct and conform to a specific social milieu or ideological orientation where such discourse regarding religion is tolerated and even encouraged, that is all well and good. However, it is frankly absurd to suggest that this is normal or acceptable, because it simply isn't. It isn't right when, on almost any topic, "evil Catholics" emerge as targets that must always be fought, nor is it right to spit on the religious beliefs or feelings of our forum members, regardless of their actual religious affiliation.

To be clear, any criticism of religion, Christianity, or Catholicism is absolutely desirable and useful. However, sometimes it is equally important to criticize that criticism, just to maintain a healthy balance and demonstrate that everything in life has another side to the coin. Whether we choose to acknowledge that side is entirely up to us personally. Not everything that is criticized is grounded in common sense; in fact, much of it is frequently anti-science, uncivilized, and outright rude. As much evil as may have existed within the Catholic Church—from corruption and pedophilia to various business dealings (all of which, incidentally, are flaws found in almost any large organization, a fact that nobody disputes, not even Catholics themselves)—it remains an undeniable truth that the Catholic Church, Christianity in general, and religions as a whole have made extraordinary contributions to modern society in the fields of science, art, education, philosophy, and beyond. No one can dispute that. Not all Catholics or believers are bad people, just as not all agnostics or atheists are. It is irrelevant.