Are atheists discriminatory towards theists?

My view is that for many religious people the structure of the religion itself helps them almost immeasurably, and for that must be applauded. I just find the whole concept of religion, and religious/irrational belief bizarre - and fascinating.

Likewise to judge a person as a serial killer based on the slew of victims they leave behind is flagrant discrimination?
Religious beliefs ARE irrational.
A person is thus IRRATIONAL in the respect of this aspect of their life if they hold such beliefs.
That is not to say that they are utterly irrational in all respects - but how does one know where a religious person will draw the line with their irrationality?

Atheists, taken as the "weak atheist" position of merely lacking a belief in God, does NOT HAVE BELIEFS! They therefore can not believe in the freedom to practice that non-belief.

See above.
Rationality is not a "belief".
Hopefully schoolroom teachers try and teach their pupils to think rationally. Are they then guilty?

Yes, "strong atheists" - those who believe in the non-existence of God - are, IMHO, "guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose one's beliefs". Both sides demonstrate irrationality (with the exception of those "strong atheists" who can clearly define the God that they don't believe in and provide logical rebuttals to that God's existence.)

Misconception.
Morals will not be the same from individual to individual - as we all have wide-ranging experience on which to draw - as well as different levels and types of intellect and, more importantly, different personalities.
However, at a fundamental level I think that they should all be the same for those that live in the same society.

1. You will always get a split decision on this due to the highly emotive nature of the subject-matter. I actually waver between positions: mother's right to own her own body .v. the right of the life within the womb.
What I can say is that no amount of "preaching" or "guidance" from a priest, from books, from religious or scientific people will move me from this undecided state - until such time as I am far closer to the subjet matter.

2. No problem with it at all - and they should have equal rights, expectations and considerations as a heterosexual couple.

3. Do not agree with it at all - for many reasons: irreversibility of the decision, the "easy out" for the criminal, no possibility of repentence etc. I basically think there are far better options.

4. Immigration is an entirely economic decision. Everyone should have the right to choose where they live on this planet, but should expect to abide fully with the laws of the society in which they intend to live - including paying tax etc. Also, the society has a responsibility to ensure the well-being of the current population, and to prevent it from being over-crowded etc.
This is obviously a different matter to Asylum.

5. Ideal social system: "Social Capitalism" - which is basically Capitalism (which does work OK) where everyone is free to pursue their own desires but with the ultimate aim of providing for the social needs of the society. So free education at all levels - free health care at all levels - free utilities (water, gas, electricity etc) to private households etc. Obviously this would require far higher taxation levels than you see at the moment. My view is that this will never work in practice due to the corruption and mess of bureaucracy - such that the additional taxes would be wasted on red-tape and middle management rather than meeting the social needs of the end-user. Just look at the UK NHS as a present day example - where additional funding does NOT equal better service!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think the issue here is so much atheism vs. theism, but of certain personality traits.

Someone who has a very controlling or manipulating personality, be he theist or atheist, will act like a "fundamentalist", shoving his beliefs down everyone's throat, trying to control them in one way or another. His religion or worldview is quite accidental in all this.

Granted, there are worldviews and religions or doctrines that seem to particularly appeal to the controlling mindset and encourage it. (Like religions that have a strong policy towards converting.)



* * *


As for discrimination:
I think the term got a bad rep. We discriminate all the time. We don't associate with everyone, we don't eat just anything, we don't just do anything etc.. We are discriminating, our actions prove it. How this basic act of living is described in words, is another matter, though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The one thing I can say is that I have never ever had an atheist knocking on my door telling me I must lack belief in gods.

You'll find it's generally the theist that will come along and force his belief upon the atheist - who then feels the need to defend himself from such intrusion.

Perhaps it's worth asking why you came to a science website instead of a muslims only website. Although yes, you do get the occasional atheist that will intrude upon a purely religious forum and rock the boat, it's usually the other way round.

Upto the would-be-parents.

Upto the person that the penis or vagina belongs to.

I disagree with it.

I see no issue with it if you come to work, to pay taxes and to support the country you have moved to. If you come to burn our flags, claim all our benefits and get free housing then I don't agree with it.

Not overly bothered.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but people often see their own faults as positive attributes.

 

You need to reexamine your motives; your first comment contradicts your second one.

I thought the whole idea of secularism was freedom?

You are obviously delusional. Fundamentalists come in all shape and sizes and religion or non-religion is not a prerequisite. If you cannot see this, you have a lot to learn yet.

Baseless propoganda.

Yes all politicians being so selfless and compassionate and easily led by the nose.

Obsessive

Nothing like self interest to make things crystal clear

And yet you are not moving to Europe.

You are obviously very susceptible to what the media dishes out and have yet to learn of an amzing process called critical thinking; foul language does not convince me that you are right, just that you are unable to discuss with civility.

I'm not surprised that you attribute motives to people based on your colored perceptions. American has been involved in 200 foreign interventions in the last 200 years. So by your logic its a nation beset with religious fanatics. Only 2% of the population is atheist and most of these keep it under their hats.

I would reconsider moving here if I were you.

 

Did I single anyone out? I thought the atheists deserved a ranting thread and I gave them something to rant about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You've been lucky. However, maybe it's worth doing a survey to find out how many people have had theists intrude upon them waving holy texts in their face in comparison to the amount of atheists they've had come round demanding they lack belief in gods.

Didn't know you were an atheist.

Right, apologies - that wasn't to mean 'you' specifically. It was an open 'you'. Happens a lot round here. The point was that many come here simply to preach their beliefs. It's no different to getting a knock on the door - with some fundamelist Woody preaching damnation and hellfire unless you believe what he says, and as long as you aren't gay, (those are open 'yous' as well - get used to them).

 

Yes, they do, but that was not my point.

You discriminate as well. Everyone does. Only that the politically correct word for that is "choose".

 

Yikes.

Talk about discrimination!

 

I'm not sure I entirely agree; I might choose not to associate with certain persons because their personality is incompatible with mine; but I consider discrimination as being applied to a whole group of individuals based on a shared characteristic.

e.g. religion, race, gender, age, class, educational level, IQ, sexual orientation.

 

More like self-righteousness! See previous comment

 

I guess its pretty bad here.

Am not; which is why I never had the experience

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well everyone has free speech; you need not read the thread if it disagrees with your opinion.

Well I thought your open yous might look different somehow, since you always took mine very personally!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

you mean almost all atheists discussing the issue in a public forum. i am an atheist and i don't go around all day walking up to people i think might believe in god and trying to convince them of their irrationality. if however, i find myself engaged in a discussion about the merits of religion or aspects of religious belief, i feel warranted in expressing myself.

who's judging? i have religious friends who i respect for their worth as people, whether they are religious or not. i think their belief is irrational and i think many of them cling to it out of fear or weakness or sometimes even nostalgia, but i'm sure we all do that from time to time. however, many of these people are only believers in name and not in practice. it is the growing contingent of radical religious (particularly evangelical) conservatives in this country (the US) who take money from their congregations and attempt to use it to influence policy decisions that favor allowing a particular religion undue representation or preferential treatment in the public sphere that really bothers me and that i think should be countermanded. that's not discrimination, its simply defending a long-standing policy seperating religion and the government by speaking out when you think someone is attempting to erode it.
i think that you have blurred the line between agreeing with something and tolerating it. atheists on here do normally seem to agree that there should be freedom to exercise religion, as long as the religion is kept private and does not bleed its way into public law. you can think that someone's beliefs are irrational and still support their right to believe as long as they don't try to force you to live by their rules. you also have the right to attempt to persuade people to abandon their irrational and potentially damaging ideologies through rational argument in a public forum.

the church that uses its vast financial resources to influence the making of laws to reflect their particular beliefs is wrong. the radical christian politician who refuses to consider scientific data, but wishes to outlaw abortion because his priest tells him that life begins at the moment of conception is wrong. there is no organized athesit effort to attempt to outlaw religion. there are very few, if any uncloseted atheist politicians in the US that currently hold office. even the atheists who most often declare the beliefs of the religious to be irrational still support their right to live by their own beliefs as long as they don't try to make everyone else live under the the onerous and often illogical rules of their particular god. so in short, no, they are not both equally guilty of trespass on the freedom to choose.

i've never made that point, so i can't speak to it. although i do find your statment to be both inaccurate and somewhat suspect.

abortion - should be up to the potential mother/father

homosexuality and gay marriage - doesn't hurt anyone, and should probably be legalized.

capital punishment - two wrongs don't make a right.

Immigration - from where to where?

ideal social system - there is no such thing.

without islam, islamic fundamentalism could not exist. however, i think that if one were to leave religion intact and attempt to diffuse the situation, it must necessarily be seen as far more complex than just a clash of cultures. i think that many muslims are angered by real or perceived greivances that they have with past US and western european foreign policy that has been destructive to their countries and cultures and people. however, another part of it is that they see western culture as prurient, sinful, and in need of cleansing on behalf of allah. that will exist as long as religion remains a dominant force in people's lives. the only things that will change are the perpetrators of religious intolerance and the victims of it.

 

Ah, then your invitation to come here to conduct an experiment was just another load of BS?

Funny, you've not shown any hint of being such, in fact, you claimed not to know anything about evolution but now claim you're a molecular biologist? Even comments and questions most first year students should know appeared to escape you?

I'm smelling a lot of fish manure here.

 

Been away for a day, time to pay catch up.

Sam

So your judgement of theists is based on a limited definition of rationality?

Don't take definitions from encyclopedias my life ain't long enough. My pocket dictionary works fine for me.

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl) adj.

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Influenced by reasoning rather than by emotion.
3. Of sound mind; sane.
4. Based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation.

That was from dictionary.com because you can't cut and paste from a Collins pocket gem.

Now looking at that has made me modify my position just a little.
If you live in a Taliban held village for instance then embracing Islam seems like a pretty rational thing to do. If you belive in the existance of giant man swallowing whales, a six thousand year old earth, rising from the dead and the absolute right to life of fleas and ticks then I have to suggest that your rationality meter is poorly calibrated.
On the other hand not eating pork when you live in a hot country prior to the invention of the fridge is probably a rational decision. To persist with that practice following the arrival of the chest freezer is, however, open to question.

In some cases, such as religious belief, the argument may be valid but its soundness cannot be known for the truth of its premises cannot be known.

Sounds like a cop out.
We know what were talking about, lets go light on the semantics eh?
Keep this up and I'll change the word of the day from rational to ratiocinative..

in YOUR opinion, theists are irrational, they are all extreme? Please clarify.

Collecting beer bottle labels is IMHO irrational but I wouldn't descibe it as extreme. Seems to me that nobody adopts the label "extreme" they have it placed upon them by others. I think theists are irrational but I don't consider any of them extreme per se. It's just that some prefer the message whilst others worship the creed.
A case in point..
I am of course a member of the Church of England. I know I'm in the club 'cos it's written on my birth certificate. BTW the C of E is the only church I know that admits athiests

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There's a bit of a kerfuffle within the church right now over the ordination of gay priests. Both sides in the dispute consider the opposite position as extreme.
Go figure.
Once you wave goodbye to rationality everything is relative.

Ah! Obviously no discrimination here at all!

None whatsoever. If living in fantasy land works for you then go girl!
Just don't expect me to join in.

What do the words "freedom of belief" mean to you?

It's strange expression thats for sure.
You can limit a persons practice but how do you stop a person from believing whatever they want?
How do you even know what they believe unless they tell you?
Even then they may be lying.

And why would you presume that you must be converted to one of them?

Well theists all claim to be heirs to a body of knowledge and understanding denied to mere atheists like myself.
I ought to join up out of curiosity if nothing else.
Besides perhaps I'm wrong in which case getting into god might buy me credits for the afterlife.

And if all atheists have individual moral positions not controlled by peers, what is the basis for morality in atheism? Who decides what is right?

Basis for morality?
A combination of selfishness and altruism tempered by personal experience.
Multiply that by the total population and you get social morality I guess.
Perhaps you could call it consensus morality.
Hows that?

At any time? Under any circumstance? At what point in the pregnancy would you say its too late? Or is that question moot?

I have a personal position but as a man it ain't worth a toss.
So I won't bore you with it.
One can only assume that women in general know what they are doing and should therefore be allowed to do whatever they think is best.

your opinion is that marriage being a theistically sanctioned relationship is irrelevant in the current social context?

Yup!
Nice sentence BTW. You should write textbooks.

What about pedophiles who murder their victims? serial killers? mass murderers and terrorists?

If you think methodically and cold bloodly killing people just because it suits your world view is a bad thing then consistancy dictates that capital punishment is a bad thing also.
For me personally, I formulated my opinions at a young age. I was a big reader as a kiddie and two names stick with me. Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley
Putting aside my ethical concerns it takes a certain sort of person to be executed. I doubt we'll ever see OJ or Phil Spector on death row.
Good lawyers cost big money.

So you view immigrants as cheap labor? What about the educated ones, who want a better standard of living for themselves and their families? Are they allowed to come as well and compete for your job?

There are guys with degrees flipping burgers now. If you'd put your efforts into classical history instead of biochemistry where would you be now? The pubs and clubs of England are tended and swept by legions of twentysomething arts graduates. That maybe an exaggeration but I like the image and there is a debate to be had as to why that sullen guy stacking shelves in your local book store is a philosophy grad.
I'm sure well educated immigrants suffer the same hurdles.
I don't view migrants as cheap labour, they are cheap labour. All labour is cheap in a global economy. It's a competition thing.
BTW They can try for my job if they want but as I offer my services to the general public who are, by and large, racist. I will always be more popular.
Hooray for racism

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Besides I wouldn't make a dog do my job but it does pay well. It still feels like cheap labour though.

That all felt a bit scrappy. I've had a busy day and have been spraying text in 5 minute chunks.
My apologies
Dee Cee

 

For Mr Scott

So they are irrational just becuase you say they are?

No they're irrational because they make no sense.
Water into wine, Elephant headed gods, big floods, Supreme beings.
Whose gonna fall for that sort of nonsense?
Theists never offer any evidence and none of them can ever tell you where God came from. They can't even agree on how many Gods there are.

I said Irrational. Period because I couldn't be bothered posting the bleeding obvious not out of blind faith in the truth of the statement.

Hmmmm Interesting.

Well if it got you thinking then that's no bad thing.

When they act like Atheists and try to control anothers belief.

So how do you control anothers belief then? Do tell.
Perhaps you feed them to lions would that work?
Maybe all you can do is try. If so, then theists don't have much to worry about.

Again becuase you say so.

Are you really suggesting that some supernatural creature hangs about watching what were upto?
It's obviously fantasy. Go check out the bible. The first few chapters are a hoot. The special effects are a bit limp though but then it has been kicking around for a long time and can't be expected to capture the zeitgeist.

Seems you are having doubts.

Not really. Just hedging my bets.

Interesting you seem to encourage rewarding violent behavior.

Violent behaviour is rewarded. That's the lesson from history, far as I can tell.
When it comes to terrorism I suspect that the violence used used largely as a form of communication and it is up to us how we respond.

Nice to natter.
Dee Cee