Not so much about religion as it is about the "I ain't come from no monkeys" "yeah but what about thermodynamics!!!!" "the sky is brown, prove me wrong" crap that gets posted.  It's less of a butthurt reaction and more of a facepalm reaction.

Don't know the "truth", but I know a bad way of reasoning when I see one.

No butthurt feelings myself. I am not religious and consider myself an agnostic, in that I don't believe I can actively disprove that there is no god/creator, just as much as I don't believe that the faithful can prove that their chosen god exists.

I get more butthurt about atheists that state outright that "there is no god." The universe is so vast, and the existence of life is such a mystery - even after studying all known science on the creation and evolution of life - there is literally no way to know any of this, and many atheists are the worst assholes about it.

One of my best friends for many years is a Mormon, and we have certainly had our religious debates, but I have no interest in changing his faith, and he has no interest in changing mine - though I know it would certainly please him if I were to become LDS, it's not his goal to change me. I respect that.

Now, the butthurt that I have experienced is in some of my wife's family trying to force THEIR beliefs on us. For example, my wife's extremely enthusiastic born-again stepfather once kicked us out of his house simply because my wife refused to even discuss some religious debate that he tried to rope her into - she was uncomfortable talking about it, and his response was to get in her face, yell, and tell her to get out of his house.

Same stepfather convinced my wife's mother not to contribute to our wedding fund (and we had a pretty cheap wedding to begin with) unless we made a Christian ceremony some part of it. My wife and I refused, as neither of us are religious. So wife's stepfather said that they would hold their own prayer circle in the middle of our ceremony. This was totally unacceptable, as this was my wife's day, and here they are planning to make a scene and put attention on themselves, all to appease their idea of what should happen at a wedding.

I had to tell my MIL that if they tried this, I would kick them out of our wedding myself, that didn't want any of their money, and would pay for all of it on my own. Only at that point did they stop, and the issue mysteriously disappeared into past and has never been mentioned by them again. MIL contributed nothing to the wedding, and my parents and I paid for whatever was left. That was a few years back and some things have changed, we have let that incident slide.

THAT is the kind of stuff that gives me the butthurt - forcing your beliefs on others under some misguided attempt to "save" them.

Believing things without good evidence is kinda the definition of bad reasoning. Hopefully you would want to talk and try to discourage bad reasoning instead of just throwing your hands up in the air and saying "whatever, believe whatever the hell you want to believe, astrology, chakras, spirit science, I don't care." [pats loved one on head]

Proverbs 16:33:

 "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord."

Do you believe that speaking to people in such a condescending manner is a sound and well-reasoned method for convincing them that their most deeply held beliefs are false?

How many times have you tried to convert believers to atheism using this method?  How has it worked, so far?

90% of the time I see anyone caring if your religious or not, its the ones that ARE that get all butthurt. But those instances are few and far in-between.

Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."

They're happy in their ignorance and they vote.

Beliefs don't garner respect, people do. I respect people too much to respect bad ways of reasoning.

Let me know when people like Richard Dawkins or James Randi start issuing edicts to murder people over religion.



 

I don't know that you should get "pissed" by someone using a faith-based argument.

Much of our lives is based upon subjective, intangible aspects.  Morality, ethics, philosophy ... all areas of subjectivity just as religion.
All are necessary.  All may have dissenters.

When you find yourself in a position where a person brings up an argument based on unprovable intangibles, what you have done is discovered the extent to which you may have that discussion with that person.

One of my closer friends is my minister.  Much All of what he believes is strictly fundamentalist.   I am not a fundamentalist.  Over the years, we have learned that there are many areas where there is no point in trying to debate.

He is a good man, loves his family, works hard, and teaches good values to his children.

And he damned well knows that he isn't getting anywhere with me when he says that God hid dinosaur bones all over the place to test my faith.

Even so, there is a great deal of wisdom to be had in discussions with him, and I value his insights and friendship.

I'm just intelligent enough to recognize what I should value and what I can dismiss.  I am faithful enough to recognize what I should not be overly concerned about when I disagree.

But I do not try to change his beliefs to suit me, and he -- oddly enough-- hasn't condemned me for where I deviate from his.

You didn't answer the question.  You just doubled down on the condescension.

Doesn't mean they aren't assholes.

Being condescending to bad ways of thinking (and not people) is important. I don't know how many people "converted". People don't tend to change their beliefs mid-way through a conversation (no matter what it is). I think it's more of a process of self-reflection coming from being challenged.



Sidenote: That image works with atheists as well, who can believe things without good evidence.

Religiously motivated murder is a much bigger deal than words that hurt religious people's feelings.  Ask Theo Van Gogh about that. You might have to dig him up first.



 

It's much more difficult to "live and let live" when real world issues that are being publicly debated are being discussed.  If people want to bring their religion into a policy debate that's their prerogative, but they should quit climbing on the cross when I go after that faith they've offered as a defense of their position in the same manner as their other points.  They can't have it both ways and act "SHOCKED" when I don't have any respect for their religion or really faith in general.  Either religion is a private matter or a subject of public debate.  Choose.

Not at all.

Your faith is really none of my business unless you choose to make it so.

In my day to day interactions with people of faith I avoid conflict as much as I can, the biggest issue I have is people trying to "save" my kids, which many see as their duty and I find rather offensive. As others have mentioned I wish believers would refrain from using the state to enforce their dogma but that's democracy. The larger issue is that the state has powers broad enough to make that an issue at all. But I don't mind if you say grace at my table or whatever, it's not an issue.

On the internet I'll argue. I don't feel like the usual etiquette against arguing over religion and politics applies on an anonymous board in a thread people chose to participate in, so people may get the impression I'm one of those butthurt types they like to complain about.

The thing is, religion involves some very fundamental assumptions about the nature of the universe, human nature, morality, and particularly the nature of the future and our responsibilities to it (prophecy) that I believe are often quite destructive. Those assumptions shape peoples opinions, and those opinions shape policy in a majority religious democracy.

Dogma shapes history and the world we live in, for good or ill.

Does disliking being subject to the consequences of dogma I don't share constitute butthurt? Seems to me it's unavoidable for everybody.

So in the context of this discussion, you feel that being condescending towards religious beliefs is important.

In polite company, such behavior usually results in a person being labeled an "asshole."  

Can we have just the atheists who polled "yes" post why they posted yes?

On the same note, can we have all the religious members who polled "yes" on behalf of a question aimed at atheists explain themselves as well?

no.  not legislating beliefs in any direction.  we can legislate for christian beliefs, and appease one system, or not legislate in any direction and everyone can do what they feel is right.  one accomplishes more freedom than the others, and allows one to make their own choices regarding their conduct within their belief system.

your having a belief does not give you the right to make law to force others to participate in a belief they dont hold.  there should be no legislation of belief, it should be held freely.  hold it if you choose, but i get the freedom to not hold your belief if i so choose.

obviously, this concept is confined to actions that have no direct negative impact on others...my buying a car, alcohol or doing business with a pawn shop on a sunday has no effect on christians going to church...if they think it is wrong, they are not obligated to participate in those things on sundays

What does saying "go hunt a bug" [go get HIV] get one labelled as in polite company, Cinci?

 

Assholes are a much bigger problem on this planet than religiously motivated murder.  

Their life, their rules.  My son is named after two very religious men whom I respect very much.

The problem I've found is that is most definitely not a two-way street.

One NEVER says such things in polite company.  

But when in Rome...

Lol.

Oh, I don't know.  I've made it 43 years so far, and have been able to manage.

When you've evaluated your expectations, your risk-reward ratio, and ask yourself what you have to gain or lose in the discussion, it becomes easy.

For instance... A teacher that I work with has systematically become more and more liberal to the point that she is a rabid Obama supporter.  I could debate her on every possible angle.  But she is rabid bitch with an ego the size of a Buick.

She knows my beliefs, and often tries to engage me in debates/arguments.  I always respond the same:  "Not the time, place, or person that I am gong to discuss this with.  Let's stick to the job we are paid to do."

I do not have discussions that close to my paycheck with people who I know are in disagreement.  It isn't worth my effort, no good will come of it, and I honestly have no respect for her.  All discussions are minutes of my life that I will never have again.


ETA:

I do, however, get what you are saying.  I'd have to know the "public debate" context specifically in order to respond in any but a generic way.

I have faith.  However, I have always contended that using your faith a point of evidence in any argumentative context is essentially a terminating choice.

When-- and if-- you do that, you have essentially "dug your feet in the ground" where there is no possible continuation of a debate.  In that sense, you have "lost" the debate.

I am not saying that you shouldn't "dig your feet in the ground" in your principles and views.  I am, however, saying that as a point of debate, it is admitting defeat.

Simple and straightforward things seem to get really fucked up, when religion gets dragged into them.

THIS.

I am friends with many 'atheists' and they are lovely people. No less moral than anyone else. No less happy. Good people.

But the 'Atheists' are a huge pain in the ass. It's all about how 'smart' they are and they have this huge chip on their shoulders.

Butthurt, butthurt, butthurt.

Why do you care? Them thanking God pisses you off? Butthurt. Unless it was you who saved them or helped them and they never thanked you, there's no reason to care.

Challenging unexamined premises IS important.

The taboo against it when it comes to faith has consequences too.

In polite company, I refrain out of politeness.

That doesn't mean I don't recognize the inherent downside in doing so.

Depends.....Is it Tyrion?  I pray that Martin doesn't kill him off... I'm not all the way through the books yet.

 

+1.

Though, I have to add that people who don't want you to think critically are not your friends. I view it the same as if someone REALLY REALLY believed whole-heartedly in astrology, psychics, "alternative medicine", etc. (some people devote a majority of their lives to these things as well). It may be hurtful to them to have these bad ways of thinking challenged but it's better than being a sycophant. If you really cared about someone you would want them to think critically. Bad ways of thinking lead to a cascade of errors.

Agnostic here

FWIW: I've seen more atheists act so contemptuous, disrespectful and downright hostile about people of faith than I have seen people of faith acting the same toward them.

By a factor of about 20:1. In fact, so many are so fervent at proselytizing and intolerant of others one would think that atheism is a religion to them, and they are as radical to their faith as any other religious extremist.

It sounds like you want to "fix" people, like you think that's your job.

How about you mind your own business?

I understand that if someone is eschewing modern medicine in favor of alternative medicine (that isn't working) or is inflicting it on their child (and it isn't working) then it's good to challenge that. Because it could literally be a matter of life or death.

But there's a grey area, where (for example) alternative medicine might help, has allegedly helped others, or is treating something that is not life or death and the person believes it's helping (and it's not causing them tangible, serious harm). In which case, maybe say something once or twice, but after that, shut your mouth and mind your damn business.

It's kind of like when a person smokes. They smoke, they are informed of its dangers, but they still want to smoke. I've heard people try to justify or minimize the dangers of smoking. I roll my eyes but I don't get into some big debate about it with them, because they've been informed, and it's not my job to try to fix their life. They are only hurting themselves. As long as they aren't trying to get me to smoke, aren't trying to smoke in my car or my house, I don't care.

And it applies to religion too. Are they trying to convert you? Then speak up. Are they going to vote in some way that affects your life? Speak up. But if they just believe? Why on earth do you care? Who appointed you to be the one to correct their thinking? Isn't that what preachy religious people do all the time? ("I just want you to see the light!") It's incredibly obnoxious, overbearing and condescending. But of course, when someone who is "right" (aka you) does it, that's different, isn't it? Because YOU are RIGHT.

Well said

 

See, you have got it all wrong. You've misunderstood.

See, HE is RIGHT. Because he knows he's right, he's allowed to correct the wrong thinking in others. It's not obnoxious when he does it. Because he is right.

You, on the other hand, are deluded and stupid. So if you were to try to convert him to your beliefs, that would be outrageous and unwarranted. Because you are wrong and stupid. And he is right.

Only right people get to correct and fix the bad thinking of others. And since he's right, he's allowed.

Is it all clearer now?

If someone came on this forum and believed that gun control worked, that socialism worked, and that we should all vote for democrats because they believed all that, would you not want to prove them wrong when it would be easy to do so with facts and logic?  Would you not feel compelled to correct them when you knew, based on facts, their feelings and beliefs were wrong?  Would it not frustrate you if they did the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "I'm not listening" when you confronted them with irrefutable facts?

You'd be surprised at how many doctors, nurses, and other health care workers are religious.

When a religious person is telling all of us that we should believe as they do, you can argue with them. But if they just believe, but are not arguing that you should as well, why do you care?

The difference between wanting gun control and socialism is that they affect others, they affect all of us. They are laws and forms of governing. How does that compare to, for example, someone who believes that God loves them, but isn't pushing this belief on anyone else, isn't voting in a way that affects anyone else? Why do they still need to be fixed and corrected by you, when what they are thinking really has no bearing on your life?

Is there anything that someone else thinks or does that you believe is none of your business, or is everything all other people believe or do something that you feel entitled to try to "correct," since you are convinced that you know better than them?

POLL: Athiests, Do you get butthurt if people have faith?

Nope, not a bit.  Unless they believe their faith must be my fact.

When someone is arguing gun control and socialism, they are usually trying to force everyone to believe as they do.



Me sitting here believing in God and going to church affects no one but myself. As long as I am not trying or attempting to force my belief onto others, why do you care so much what my personal beliefs are?



As I said before---I believe what I want, and you believe what you want. I don't try to convert atheists, so I don't want them to try and convert me.



SOME atheists (just like some Christians) can be fucking annoying in trying to spread their word.

Not believing things without good evidence is right. Believing things without good evidence is wrong. Thank you.

If you really cared about someone, you would want their beliefs to try and model reality. If they said "oh, look there's a 98 year old lady who's a smoker, so it's okay!", if you actually gave a shit about them, you would tell them their error in thinking.

Nope not at all

I never bash Catholics