• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are People Of Religious Faith Typically Bigots?

Are People Of Religious Faith Typically Bigots?


  • Total voters
    58
Of course they are. One of the primary tenets of all religions is that theirs is the right one while all others are either in error or downright evil.

Is this a way for you to out yourself as someone who hasn't actually studied religion? There have been, throughout man's history, actually relatively few universal faiths.
 
of course not, at least not in this country

most religious people are not bigots because it takes more than feelings to be intolerant it typically takes ACTIONS or complete judgement where one views others as lessers

for example a person who THINKS and FEELS equal rights for gays is wrong is not a bigot based on that alone. But a person that tries to STOP a fellow american from having equal rights because they see that person as a lesser and not deserving of equal rights then they are now a bigot. Its the action, not the feeling.

Had you worded your question as "Are people of religious faith who try to be in the public limelight typically bigots?" Then I would have said yes. As a religious person, I find myself much offended by those who claim the same religion as I but are intolerant bastards. However, experience has shown me that they are a visible minority.

I read through here and some of it makes me sad but i still agree with what i said and it hasn't changed and i like maquiscat's post also. Dont know if i fully agree with all of it but the last two sentences are spot on.
 
No. There are lots of religious people who are not bigots, and if this is about SSM, there are churches that are very gay friendly. I have a cousin who goes to an Anglican church that is very welcoming toward homosexuals, it has a Pride Committee, flies the rainbow flag at times etc. Another Anglican church in the diocese I grew up in (same diocese) took part in Toronto's gay pride parade last month.
 
Is this a way for you to out yourself as someone who hasn't actually studied religion? There have been, throughout man's history, actually relatively few universal faiths.

Some things they do however share in common. Most oppose homosexuality, and almost all insist they are the one true faith.
 
You say there can be none that are 'right'? You know this how?
THey certainly can't all be right, and odds are yours isn't either.
 
Some things they do however share in common. Most oppose homosexuality, and almost all insist they are the one true faith.

....this is also untrue. I think you are thinking of "sects of Christianity" or "Abrahamic Religions" instead of "religions".
 
You would not be correct.

You have a point. Atheists are probably very close to having it right, but I'm just not 100% sure of it.
 
....this is also untrue. I think you are thinking of "sects of Christianity" or "Abrahamic Religions" instead of "religions".

I'm quite sure the Hindu believes his faith is the one true religion, especially regarding reincarnation and the untouchables. Perhaps some Buddhists do not, but that's not really a deity worshipping crowd...they are a bit more like agnostics. I wouldn't even call that a religion, more a way of life.
 
You would be hard pressed to find one in his country. What is a "united" Methodist, as opposed to a plain Methodist?

I would guess that it is the same difference as Baptist and Southern Baptist. You'd have to look at the churchs' tenets to know the differences.
 
So instead of providing actual empirical evidence to support various religious claims a dodge distraction is made by requiring to support "individuals from antiquity" which have nothing to do with the topic for this thread.

Here, let me break it down to you:

Well, he's incorrect...

The question though was not whether he is correct or not, the question raised prior to this dodge attempt was: On what actual empirical evidence can you assert that your religion is better than the rest?

See this is the topic of this thread, on what empirical evidence grounds do the religious have the right to be arrogant bigots? Not who is right or wrong.

But moving on:

...and your demand for empirical evidence (you previously wanted empirical evidence for Jesus) is disingenuous...

I also ask other religious concepts to be supported with actual empirical evidence. Including the main assertion that this "God" truly exists somehow. Why should people believe such nonsense fairy tales if there are not such evidence to support such statements?

...unless you can first provide me with empirical evidence for these individuals from antiquity:

You are in no position to set conditions of conduct. Especially not for using such conditions as means to evade the questions raised that (compared to these conditions) are at least relevant to the topic in this thread.

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

Going through the data that support the existence of ordinary people such as these distracts the topic raised in this thread. So kindly posit these evading and irrelevant figures to its appropriate place in DP threads, and answer the raised question which is the core issue in this thread:

On what actual empirical evidence can you assert that your religion is better than the rest? Provide this crucial evidence so as then we can move on to the next issue of: Even if you had the evidence, why be bigoted about it and not rather leave people be?
 
You still don't know what you're talking about.

But if you do you do not expect us to take your word that this "God" exists, do you? Provide actual empirical evidence to support such an assertion if interested to make your assertion believable to the rest.
 
I would guess that it is the same difference as Baptist and Southern Baptist. You'd have to look at the churchs' tenets to know the differences.

So many divisions, subdivisions and sub-subdivisions. All of them can't be right.
 
Sure,

What actual empirical data are there to support the Holy Bible's main assertion that this "God" concept truly exists?

"Squirrel"

:lamo
 
So many divisions, subdivisions and sub-subdivisions. All of them can't be right.

Depends. Are you wanting them to be right down to the last detail, or are we just covering the basic tenets?
 
I'm quite sure the Hindu believes his faith is the one true religion, especially regarding reincarnation and the untouchables

:lol: no. The Hindu does not think that worshipping the deities he worships are the One True Religion.

Perhaps some Buddhists do not, but that's not really a deity worshipping crowd...they are a bit more like agnostics. I wouldn't even call that a religion, more a way of life.

:doh
 
....this is also untrue. I think you are thinking of "sects of Christianity" or "Abrahamic Religions" instead of "religions".

Indeed there are many religions which are not exclusive. But orthodox Christianity is. Interestingly, Atheism is also an exclusive belief.
 
Back
Top Bottom