Why so touchy about religion? | INFJ Forum

Why so touchy about religion?


Registered User #666
Feb 7, 2009

I almost feel like putting this in the mature topics thread lol.

But I've noticed that people get extremely stubborn over religious discussions. Particularly over the harm or the good religion has caused. I am not just talking about theists, atheists can be just as bad (ex Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins.)

Also whenever I bring up religion with other people they either get extremely uncomfortable or extremely pissed.

So I ask why?

Why so touchy?

Why so insistent?

I have my own theories that I will bring up later I am to sleepy to write them.

Be nice ! I mean it!
Last edited:
The memetic control mechanism does not like being questioned.

Being questioned threatens its survival.

It has asserted itself as the absolute, divine truth, so any questioning can only be the work of those who have not been touched by its wisdom.

Also the memetic control mechanism promises that something nice will happen if you believe it and usually something bad will happen if you don't.

Isn't much safer to believe in it at all costs than to risk something bad happening?

The memetic control mechanism knows all too well to have its host shut down all rational thought processes when its nature is questioned and to constantly attempt to replicate itself by attaching itself to new hosts.

It's survival of the fittest.
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
Religion, like sexuality, is at the core of someone's belief. Also like sexuality, there isn't concrete evidence that absolutely proves anything. It's philosophical, and someone with claim their perspective is right but it's all a matter of opinion and faith, on both sides: belief in God or no belief in God.
  • Like
Reactions: Lucifer
Because stupid people are touchy about their stupid beliefs.
Well, not everyone is so touchy about it. Those who are are usually also more touchy about their political views.
That's so true!
For example, TLM is not touchy about the subject because he is half machine, half man. He is able to proccess religion through a variety of mechanical chips that filter out all touchiness is nearly every subject. I call it genious--- other people wonder why he cracked open his skull, cut out half of his brain and replaced it with a robotic imitation of the human brain. Some think he's a nut, but hey, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. Or should I say man/robot?
Should I be surprised that no "touchy" people have posted in this thread yet?
It's just means we're the cool kids of this forum :D
Good question.

I kind of like the "People are morons" theory too.

But now you've got me thinking about it.

Hm. Pondering.

Am I touchy about my religious beliefs? Not really, I don't think. I don't talk about them much because they're pretty much my business and not anyone else's.

I don't like having people tell me what to do/think, however. And many, if not all, religious or atheist or even philosophical conversations usually begin and end with someone telling me what to do/think or trying to "enlighten" me.

That sort of thing is annoying.
Yeah and there is no right answer.
They are probably tired of having arguments with people about the stuff. They believe their views and they are tired of people questioning their spirituality with logic, because while the two can play nice, they tend to miss each other's points sometimes.
Yeah and there is no right answer.

Golden mean fallacy.

While it is logical to claim that an answer cannot be derived, it is not logical to claim that there is no answer. To do so stakes a claim that the answer lies somewhere between the opposing positions or is relativistic.
Yeah and there is no right answer.

Incorrect. The "Right Answer" is an answer arrived at through logic, constant questioning and constant attempts to prove it wrong through examination of its evidence.
Proven within the boundaries of science to be Law, rather than Hypothesis.
Incorrect. The "Right Answer" is an answer arrived at through logic, constant questioning and constant attempts to prove it wrong through examination of its evidence.
We have to define "right".
Proven within the boundaries of science to be Law, rather than Hypothesis.

Religion is a very subjective, non-provable topic, therefore it is impossible to create a right or wrong answer that applies to everyone, and that everyone will agree on. The right answer is up to the person who believes to decide. Religion is actually a process that can not be completed, more then anything.

What it really comes down to is if the person is open to hearing other sides and theories then just their own. As with nearly everything in the world, blind faith is not a good thing, and does not lead to any kind of growth.
Right is Objective.

If their religion cannot be proven along scientific (objective) grounds, then it is not right.

See? Simple.
I smell semantics.

Right is simply used because it is easier to say then having a long winded explination into why someone believes what they believe, and trying explain what they exactly mean by "right".