Shorten your time in purgatory

Wouldn't trust this man...something in his eyes, sends a shiver down my spine.

Weird!

Scary!

What a terrifying picture! It gave me quite a turn.

I've had a look at Cohen's piece and somehow don't think it would do me any good to take it on board.

Muddled!

I disagree with just about everything he says.

Cripes! He looks like that Rev Acid bloke from the What Kind of Atheist are You thread...

Yep -

That "do you really care?" 3 posts back is a link.

Be careful though. It's scary.

It really needs to turn into a "bun fight".

Just found the tweet from Gransnet that started this.

They deserve this thread to go tits up all wrong, and have to be deleted! It's all their fault!

Just googled Nick Cohen to see who's spiel petallus should have taken on board.

He's only a journo!!!

do you really care?

I agree, petallus, and there are laws against speech that incites to violence or hatred against others. Nothing I have said has done that. Nothing I have said was said with the intention of hurting anyone. Nor does any scoffing of mine actually hurt anyone or their beliefs. Nobody is threatened by what I say on gransnet.

I flagged up the stuff about the pope's indulgences offer because I thought it was a good subject for discussion and because it made me laugh. If people can't cope with that, I'm sorry for them, but they really do need to learn to live with (not necessarily agree with, just live with the knowledge of) other people's points of view however ill-conceived or misguided they think those views are.

After all, those of us who think indulgences are bonkers live with the knowledge that there are probably a lot of people who believe that offer from the pope literally. Fine. It all adds to life's rich tapestry and "for what do we live but to make sport for our neighbours and to laugh at them in our turn."

I really do think people who say they are 'hurt' by all this are just being too precious and silly.

I have done with this thread.

Bags I don't think the right to freedom of speech has no limits.

I was going to go on but I've just realised we did all this, or something similar, a few months ago.

"--Mr Darcy-- Religion is not to be laughed at. That's an uncommon advantage and uncommon I hope it will continue."

But not freedom to insult? Like shouting 'Fire!' In a crowded theatre. We exercise some discretion over our freedom to speak.

How about respecting my "cherished belief" in freedom of speech? Live and let live means you should do that, even if you don't believe in it.

Blimey! There's a contradiction in terms if ever there was one – saying live and let live but not believing enough in freedom of speech to let it happen when something is said that one finds insulting or upsetting.

I guess you need to take on board the Cohen passage then, petallus.

Yesterday this thread was going fine with people (even me) respecting others' intepretations of the indulgences stuff (and I still do) while still thinking the whole Twitter thing was (is) very funny and, from my point of view, ridiculous. While I understand the belief from others' point of view (I'm thinking of MiceElf's explanation), I still can't accept it as anything other than slightly barmy from my point of view.

Intelligent debate includes ridicule whether one likes it or not.

Because it is insulting and that, in my view, has no place in an intelligent debate.

I was not 'asking' about live and let live Bags. I was making a statement.

I do not think all atheists are able to 'let go' of religion. In some cases, there is still an emotional tie, albeit a negative one, which seems to have it's roots in earlier life.

I am all for a respectful debate on religion. I've had quite a few of those myself in the past.

What I do not like is when atheists refer to other people's cherished beliefs as 'codswallop' or 'rubbish' or say they are puzzled that intelligent people can possible believe in a God and so on.

Yes, riverwalk. Various Christian beliefs are part of our culture and are therefore open for discussion whether we hold the beliefs or not. Just as political ideas are open for discussion whether we agree with them or think they are stupid, or fashion ideas, or art ideas, or anything.

I think there's a difference between the kind of banter when describes and what is going on here. Yes, we do joke about the absurdities of our own religion and between religions with people we know and yes, we do recognise absurdities. But the purpose of that kind of banter, as when suggests, is to oil the wheels of social interaction.

Ana in Muslim countries, satirists, in as much as they can, poke fun at religion, or at least the religious leaders.

As Bags says I think it's down to the influence of the dominant religion in a country.

In the UK the established church, and Christianity in general, has influence in the legislature and in matters such as education, health, broadcasting, etc., so it's not surprising that people feel free to challenge its doctrine and practices.

Islam is not ridiculed here but it's much criticized. As for Bhuddism, most of us I expect don't know much or come in contact with it - so it's off the radar.

Well said, tegan. I hope I may quote you next time someone asks me why I'm talking about it.

That was to petallus.

Religion is endlessly discussable and fascinating in that it still shapes the world that we live in, in one way or another, whether we believe in a God or not.