you really can't expect to be taken seriously by any thinking person. That's just a fact.

Do you feel that it should be taken seriously?

Do you honestly expect people to respect stupid ideas? If so you are going to be disappointed often.

A small group does not translate into "the many".

Very telling that.

Learn how to think, Gil.

Understood.

same idea.

Ships are pictured coming to the edge of a flat earth, like the edge of a table ... and falling off.

A few more sophisticated persons in ancient times suspected the world was round. But they were in a tiny minority. Until say, Magellan circumnavigates the globe, etc..

..was never mentioned in the Bible, it seems likely. For which invisible spirits seem mostly about psychological spirit.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene did an experiment that proved it, and even calculated the size with pretty close accuracy.

Today a common complaint by atheists, against religion, is that Christian Medievals believed in miracles, creationism, and a "flat earth."

Christian apologists have tried to argue that THEY never believed any such thing. And your example suggests that indeed, some (pagan?) intellectuals guessed the world was round. However, many Christian maps still seem to reflect backward beliefs, in a flat earth.

Everyday Christians were not up to date, compared to science and intellectuals.

that play with the constraints of a piece of paper where the illustrator had fun. It's really hard to nail down whether it was known or not, but we can confirm that many times across the centuries they did know that it was round. For example Columbus wasn't concerned if the earth was flat or round, he just wanted to find a better route, and thought he could get there a new way. His expedition was too expensive, not that people thought he would sail off the edge of the world.

Every day christians probably didn't even consider the world outside their county very much, except for soldiers who were sent to war and then were lucky enough to make it home.

And that they never misread all that.

But knowing Christians as we do?

The maps also often showed monsters at the edge of the world. And we know when faced with Terra Incognita, or unknown territories, many peoples were fearful; and felt there might be - or even said there were - monsters there.

This persisted as late as 1960 or so. When some people were still looking for say, Big Foot in the unexplored northern woods. Or the Loch Ness monster in Scotland.

Or to this day, Noah's Ark in Turkey

But they could see ships sail past the horizon and come back.

The world was less known, and there were large creatures still wandering around back then. Imagine describing an elephant or a moose to someone a Continent away.

I feel it's not a truly valid comparison between today and a thousand years ago. Among the learned it was known and accepted the earth was round. Most people were not educated so they wouldn't have reason know otherwise. Now we have access to all the world's collected knowledge at out fingertips and people claim they know better.

Then they can be erring today, in similar ... or different ways too.

Once we see they are not as perfect as they often claimed, it seems wise to always keep an eye on them.

And still do. They don't claim it's flat for the most part (I think) anymore, but that would be an interesting research project.

The Netflix documentary showed more of a conspiracy angle instead of a religious one, but it followed one group of flat earthers. It did, however, show the cult like devotion they have, they find direct evidence they are wrong, they run experiments and say if they find X then the Earth is a sphere and then repeatedly find X, and discard it.

Out of all the recognized protected classes, religion is the only one that constitutes nothing more than theology. Equating religion to a biological constant is idiotic. Contempt of a particular gender or race isn't the same thing as contempt of an idea.

Good to know.

Contempt of an idea ≠ contempt of a person. If you think it does, then you might want to put some thought into how attached you are to your idea.

Should women learn to accept misogyny?

Should racial minorities learn to accept racism?

Should LGBTQ people learn to accept discrimination?

Should the poor earn to accept an economic system that disenfranchises them?

If anyone feels a need to demonstrate contempt for the vast majority of your fellow humans, what does that demonstrate about that person?

Contempt of an idea ≠ contempt of a person.

When you continue to insist on your easily debunked logical fallacy, your credibility is going to suffer. Learn how to think, Gil.

Understood.

The scientific method.

If not, there is no parallel in your examples.

is a claim that people are making that can be proved or disproved. Their claim actually makes some kind of sense compared to the one religions do.

What if faith is the evidence of it?

Cultivate your gif(t)s MK.

Another exercise in banality.

A site search was unproductive.

I’ve learned to accept being treated with contempt by some religious folks. It’s a two way street.

Would it not be better if we did treat others as we wish to be treated?

Or is it human nature to do otherwise?

And of course it would be better if we treated others as we expected to be treated. Unfortunately, here on planet earth, that's not the way it works.

Athiests treat people of religion with contempt because they hold to beliefs that are no more than superstitions, in the eyes of the athiest. And the religious hold people like me in contempt for either insulting the deity they believe in by not believing, or for opening the door to the possibility that their beliefs may not be based in reality.

I could give a shit less, as long as person A's beliefs don't trample on the rights of person B, dig? But again, here on planet earth, that's not how things work.

So yeah man, that's human nature. Sorry it took so many words to get an answer my friend....

If someone disagrees with you is that contempt?

If someone says something about Christianity that offends you is that contempt?

Does contempt include being physically assaulted?

If someone does teat you with contempt do you expect that their freedom to believe or speak should be curtailed?

Assault is criminal.

At least in Christianity, doesn't the Bible tell its adherents to expect it?

TlalocW

Should we not treat others as we wish to be treated?

If so, what is your complaint?

But you don't follow that philosophy. You've admitted as such.

Instead you judge others, and then dispense eye-for-an-eye justice. You desire to punish others until they conform to the standards you want to set for them. (Reserving the right for yourself, of course, to follow a different set of standards.)

Women don't try and force me to live like a woman when they want legislation for equality.

Minorities don't try and force me to live like a minority when they want legislation for equality.

The LGBTQ community doesn't try and force me to live like a member of the LGBTQ community when they want legislation for equality

The poor don't ask people to give up wealth when they ask for legislation for a living wage and social surfaces.

These examples you gave merely want the constitution to be enforced.

The real question is not should theists learn to accept contempt. It's when will they stop trying to usurp the constitution with biblical law?

So many questions. So little space.

Thank you.

The topic is contempt. I am on topic.

A reminder of the definition at the start of the thread that seems to have set you off:

And that is my point.

It is not "intolerance", just as stating "ghosts don't exist" or "Michael Jackson was a paedophile" is not "intolerance".

Funny how you chastized MM for being off topic, then posted this.

Do you feel blasphemers should be punished and/or silenced?

Instead, you pose a different question altogether.

Do you consider blasphemy to be intolerance? It's a simple question that was asked you. Do you have an answer?

In the other thread about blasphemy, I said that one's religion should be able to stand up to criticism but I didn't really take into account what you're referring to, which is other people being harassed and treated with contempt time after time. At that point, there is no dialog and just, well, harassment. Even if one is right on all the facts, being a jerk is just plain wrong.

One issue I see here is with laws pertaining to blasphemy. I don't see how they do any good. They are used to silence criticism, not protect people from harassment. On the other hand, a lot of the vitriol towards religion, and Christianity in particular, that I see and hear both on this board and other places, I see it as a release of a lot of pent up anger toward the oppressive nature many churches and other religious institutions have exhibited throughout history. At this point in time, we have the freedom to speak out without fear of being arrested, tortured and possibly burned at the stake. It makes sense there would be a great deal of contempt for religion in general because of how heavy-handed religious people have been towards others who haven't shared the same beliefs.

All the better for the religions themselves if the criticism and anger burns away those who just used their religion for power and manipulation and to cover up perverted behaviors. A lot of these charlatans that profess such great faith are often the very demons tearing the religion apart. What better way to destroy religion than to corrupt it from the inside out.

So I can understand athiests who really tear into religion with a vengeance but at some point it does become tit-for-tat. And if unchecked, it's just as disrespectful as unwelcome proselytizing by people from a church.

I hope we can discuss religion in a way that goes beyond the reactionary and values the sincerity we all feel about our perspectives and personal experiences. Since the subject is religion, we're talking about some of the deepest mysteries in life. It should be a joy to explore and differences can be acknowledged and appreciated if they don't come with the baggage of demanding everyone else to see and believe - or not believe - the same way. Nature provides us with the most illustrative example of how to live in a world filled with diversity. We ought to be emulating that rather than trying to define the one true way for everyone. It can be done with respect and humility. Why not.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." - Jesus.

Do you reject this part of Jesus's message, Gil?

I can work with them. I can assist them. I can support them.

by comparing blasphemy to actual bigotry against human beings.

...not to compare their experience as a disproportionately empowered majority demographic to the systemic oppression of women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people.

Now quit your whinging. You're embarrassing yourself.

I have nothing but contempt for theists who believe that non-straight/non-cis people are going to hell, and that funerals of people who support equality for all should be picketed.

Do you believe people who express intolerance for the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church should silence themselves?

YES or NO gil.

Bet you won't answer, because this exposes the fatal flaw in your pathetic attempt to shield your beliefs from criticism. You yourself hold many theistic beliefs in contempt, but it's different when it's YOUR sacred cow, isn't it?

Should politicians like Steve King and Louis Gomert accept being treated with contempt?

Should pundits like tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity accept being treated with contempt?

Should I go on?