Absolutely - ive found most to be good people, so what if they have a few facts wrong. Nearly everyone I know have some facts wrong.

I do and in the future, I will hopefully get to visit them in the phy ward of the hospital.

Sick sick people. Circle of deception exists of attributing their social amusement of a shooting togod's will. Really screwy.

i know believers who are mostly good and i know some who are mostly bad, just like any other group. no as far as rapists and baby killers and all that, i have no compassion for them, but i understand that not all of them are that way. my mom believes in god, but she doesnt follow any particular religion. she just believes that theres someone bigger than all of us watching out for us. she doesnt hate gays or atheists or anything like that. she just likes the thought that were not alone in the end. for people like that, while i don't believe what they do, i don't have anything against it and i do have compassion for those folks

It is, in my opinion, a terrible mistake to assume that "showing compassion" should mean allowing people to skip accountability for their destructive actions, especially when those actions were taken with full knowledge that people would likely be hurt.

An example of healthy compoassion might be...a person whose beloved immediate family member was killed by a serial drunk driver should not plead with the judge to let the defendant escape conviction. Such "compassion" ignores the safety needs of future potential victims of this loose cannon drunk driver. But said family member could show a keen interest in supporting that the drunk driver receive effective addiction treatment, thus showing the defendant that, despite personal emotional pain, they do not write off that alcoholic's humanity; they instead show interest in helping that person become a better person and change their life for the better. ...that is just one of countless possible examples.

The God of the Bible loves rape and murder. He did plenty of it.

Do the beiever have compassion for the none ?? and why ??..

This illustration is a perfect example of a logical fallacy frequently committed by creationists. The fallacy is known as counting the hits and ignoring the misses. Another example of this, would be if two people were diagnosed with the same disease, and then one of them recovered while the other one died. They would acknowledge the survivor as being miraculously healed by god. The one who died isn't considered an indicator that god might not actually exist.

I am not a compassionate person, but whether or not they are religious has no impact on it.

I used to have empathy for them but over time it waned, as I realized that most of it is self-imposed torture. I mean, I get the difficulty in turning away from deeply held views, so I don't go out of my way to belittle them. I just don't have the patience for the B.S anymore.

I used to try to have compassion for them. It sucks being lied to and raised to believe in
things that don't exist.
However, since they stubbornly refuse to accept FACTS, and insist on continuing to indulge their delusions, any compassion I may have ever had is gone.
They continue to forcibly inject their beliefs into laws which govern us all. They continue to insist
that we all must live according to their delusions.
So, NO, no compassion for the believers at all.
I used to believe in "live and let live", but they won't allow that. Their behavior has made me an
anti-theist.

For some. When they find the promises made to them don't come true and they blame themselves rather than realize the promises made to them were just BS.

For others, I feel no compassion because their whole purpose in religion is so that they can jusdge others and feel smug and superior about themselves and condescendign abotu others.

compassion yes, respect no.

No compassion for bad people of any kind, regardless of motivation. Even most stupid people know the difference between right and wrong.

As long as I can have 'me time' I have compassion for others, need to recharge my batteries every so often.

I actually feel sorry for them when their entire philosophy and moral framework comes from a single book. I once dated a Christian girl and were out walking one day. She looked across the landscape and said that “God’s creation” was beautiful. To me, I find it more amazing that millions of years of geological processes moulded the landscape instead.

I feel that the complexity and subtlety of creation is far far more wondrous than “God did it” and thus I feel sorry for believers who cannot think outside their extremely narrow worldview. I will admit that during my teenage years I did believe in some kind of deity but when I admitted to myself later that I was actually agnostic, I stopped being afraid and my life became more enjoyable, more free and more exciting. I knew that I was responsible for my own life and yes, I have made mistakes and not seized opportunities but I accept total responsibility for those mistakes. Many believers subserviently accept it as god’s will and thus miss out on a very Important part of their personal growth and development.

I have no feelings about THEIR beliefs. I neither like them nor dislike based on there religion. What is wrong with us meaning humanity as a whole , that if you disagree with me we are enemies. Why do we work so hard and fight for our beliefs instead of discussing our beliefs and understanding each other. Are we just still too primitive of a species.

the thing is, bad things happening is not a good reason not to believe in a god. the fact that there is no realistic reason to believe in any gods is a good reason not to believe in any gods. "god is bad" is a lousy reason. in the history of religion, most gods have been bad! that never stopped anyone from believing in them.

g

If all manifest examples of religion were merely tyranny in mystical dress, it would be one thing. But religion is a symbiosis. It does serve a purpose for those who follow it. Religion in it's purest form largely seeks to address phenomena that cannot otherwise be explained. I think science does a pretty good job of explaining most phenomena, but even science requires a certain amount of faith (in the people who do the math, in the academic community as a whole, etc.)

Our world is largely controlled by forces so intricate and interconnected most people will struggle to see the patterns as they emerge. We are, to the best of our knowledge, alone, hurtling along on a big ball of rock in a vast expanse of nothingness. We live out our tiny, meaningless days, and for all intents and purposes, we are nothing more than cosmic dust in the yawning abyss of all of time. And when our life is over, there is no evidence to support anything thereafter.

That is a scary thing to come to terms with. And a lot of people simply cannot reconcile themselves with the idea of a world without a direct determined purpose of some kind, or perhaps a conflict of some kind. Competition and conflict are a natural part of any social organism's group dynamic. But religion also offers behavioral codes of conduct, arguments and philosophies on the nature of existence and the manner in which the quality of human life and connection are determined. In a large way, religion exists in the same way that laws do, but from the perspective of people who have no scientific explanation for things. If an animal is causing widespread damage to your community (who have a lifespan of 60 and a mortality rate over 60% already) because of an illness in the livestock...well, God said this animal is unclean so you can't eat it anymore. Problem solved. A large part of Kashrut law (the regulations regarding what makes food kosher or not) reads like a very comprehensive sanitation code for a desert culture with low access to water and no refrigeration.

Religion is being a latchkey child instead of an orphan.

But regardless of the horrible things that people do, regardless of any circumstance or group of circumstances, it is important to remember compassion, both in the name of cooperative social economics and in the interest of level playing fields. That's why diplomacy, while complicated and unsatisfying, is still preferred.

All parties involved in your (I hope) hypothetical scenario are, in some way, deserving of some kind of compassion. Yes, the first clergyman is guilty of a list of crimes against his fellow beings, and against his faith by using the position afforded him to obtain power and use it to abuse another.

But odds are good something happened to him at some point which inclined him to believe, however gradually, that this kind of behavior is acceptable.

All of us are people, convinced that we have figured out the correct path. Some of us are able to walk our own paths, some of us need to be lead, and some of need to be hand-held all the way to Judgement. But all of us are people just trying to do the best we can in the ridiculous and chaotic absurdity of this world, and all people deserve compassion and consideration.

Some people may present such a great danger to the greater community as a whole that yes, they have to be killed. If you imprison a hyper-intelligent serial killer, even if he only has interactions with the guards who bring him his food, there's a good chance he'll find some way to infect others with his madness/rage/whatever it was that drove him to monstrosity.

And while, in your example, the means and methods through which this particular idea is carried out are excessive and not acceptable as human behavior, we can justify and sympathize, even if we cannot excuse. This is a very extreme situation, which includes a long-term time component, and any emotional stress compounds by degrees of magnitude over time. And some people manage to entrench themselves so heavily in power or privilege that occasionally someone feels compelled, more or less by lack of perceivable options, to take the one choice left them.