Given the weight of contemporary knowledge / scientific understanding, I’m rather inclined to ask the contrary question: Do non-Atheists merit respect ?
But I wouldn’t - Live and Let Live 
The point of the example still stands, you cannot take the part and apply it to the whole.
Also, some of what you are saying seems to be you being overly sensitive.
That doesn’t show a lack of respect so much as it shows a lack of understanding at what to reply to someone when they answer a question differently than is expected.
Hypothetically, if I ask you how your wife is doing and you say that you got divorced and I say how sad. It just means hey, oops, wrong question. For all I know, your divorce may have been the greatest single event of your life. However you threw me for a loop, and I didn’t know how to answer.
And all this stuff about pamphlets being handed to you or people asking why you are no longer religious. Is all of this a lack of respect to you or is it simply a case of you be bothered by it. What you have to remember is that to some people, finding religion is the greatest thing that has ever happened to them. Is it so wrong for people to want to share that joy with you? Is it so hard for you to just walk by or tell them no thanks?
Hmmm. Let’s see if I can translate this out of a religious context. My wife is totally caught up in ice skating; she loves it. I do not, and consider it a waste of time. Sometimes she introduces me to her skating buddies. When they ask me if I skate, and I say that I do not, sometimes they say, “How sad,”, or “Too bad.” In response to your quote above, I ask myself: do I feel disrespected? No I don’t. Not at all. What’s going on here?
There are (at least) two ways of interpreting, “How sad.” One: “I feel sad when I hear that.” Two: “What a sad situation.” Another one: “What a sad person you are.” (So make it three.) There is no disrespect in the first. There is a lot of disrespect in the third. The second? I suppose it depends on your world view. From her world view, it is indeed a sad situation; you are an immortal soul, and that immortal soul is headed for immortal torment and separation from the universal source of light and love. Sad indeed. From your point of view? Nothing sad about it. A simple statement of truth.
But how reasonable is it to expect her to put on your world view in order to show respect? Well, it is certainly reasonable for a black man to expect a bigot to put on a world view including equality to show respect for him. As a society, we think nothing of condemning bigots who refuse to take into account the world view of minorities when in the presence of minorities, even if we allow them to be bigots in the presence of other bigots. On the other hand, we do not require minorities to put on the world view of bigots when speaking to them; far from it! We expect them to act act as equals, and support them in doing so.
Thus, in reacting from a “world view”, as far as society is concerned, in general majority rules.
In other words, what you are dealing with here is not a matter of doctrine, or a matter of etiquette, but a matter of culture. When you ask, “is it not reasonable for an atheist to get respect in this matter?”, it seems to me the question resolves to, “is it not reasonable for people, in general, to take into consideration the atheist world view in this area?” which in turn (again, in my view) seems to resolve to “are we not, as a society, sufficiently courteous and multicultural to accept as legitimate the atheist world view, given the part of atheists in our society?” This is a cultural question.
And it seems to me the answer is, in may parts of the country, “No.” Parts of our country pride themselves on their multiculturalism, but many others do not. We are not the most bigoted nation on earth by any means, but we are far from the most tolerant. In some places, at least, being openly of another religion than the norm is a courageous act. We may not like this, but it is a fact.
Ironically, that’s exactly why we atheists find you hardcore religious so funny.
Now, can we quit with the insults and talk about the topic?
Sua
So 51% of them would vote for an atheist. That’s a good 3.2% more than it takes some people to win a presidential election.
NiceGuyJack, do you know how many wars have been started throughout history based upon the belief that “my God can beat up your God?” People around the world are intolerant of others who also believe. It’s not just you they’re singling out.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Satan *
**
My son-in-law was specifcally questioned on his belief in God when he became an Eagle Scout. To become and Eagle Scout, one may not be gay nor be an atheist, which tells us something about where we non-believers rank.
Umm…Sua? Kyomara IS an atheist. S/he was just pointing out that atheism, to herself/himself is about as important in their own personal life as their lack of belief in unicorns. It just doesn’t matter.
since my definition of atheist is:
a person that BELIEVES that there is no god.
then it’s just a negative belief which cannot be supported even if there IS NO GOD. so i give atheists more respect than i give most christians for not going along with the silly majority.
since most christians believe in eternal damnation they think god is a sadistic moron, so they get very little respect.
no god makes more sense than a dumb god.
Dal Timgar
:o :o Saw that line and saw red, thereby ignoring the basic rule - read the whole fricking thing. Abject apologies, Kyo
Sua
The Atheism Web: An Introduction to Atheism
Note especially the discussion of “strong atheism” and “weak atheism”.
Everyone deserves respect (at least until they do something boneheadedly stupid, IMO, but that’s a different topic 
). Just because you were denied respect by close-minded theists who can’t grasp the idea that your views differ from theirs doesn’t mean you don’t deserve it. If anything, their inability to grant you resepct suggests to me that they are not worthy of receiving it in kind.
I would disagree with your dictionary definiton of agnosticism if that is the only definition, because of the narrow use of the word “claim” as in “someone who claims God is unknown or unknowable.” This is an activist definition that oddly asserts God, when agnostics aren’t activists and don’t assert God. I claim we don’t need a God because we never had just ONE before living off planet (hence atheist). But, someone who doesn’t know one way or the other, or does NOT “claim to know” is agnostic because they don’t claim anything. So, I would define an agnostic as “One who disclaims a knowledge of God(s).” Otherwise, to claim God is anything at all is to contradictorily know something about God. Big difference.
Anyway, back to the subject. Some people (like me) think that faith is not really opposed to knowledge, but opposed to reason itself. Faith does not use reasons, and since practical knowledge is impossible when dealing with supernatural beings, this is made worse by “faith” attempting to eliminate good reasons for not believing anything (if we don’t know how/what/why God is, how can we know how/what/why he should be?).
We cannot know God in an honest sense because we couldn’t fathom him regardless if he is in fact the creator of the universe, etc. If we cannot know God if he was in our presence, then we really don’t need faith in the unknowable to be judged as worthy. If he chooses to be unknown it is because he has reasons, and he would not demand that we make a life out of praying to our false image of him. In fact, it merely demonstrates bad faith when we commit to support other people for their claimed knowledge of God (especially considering their belief in Satan as deceiver). They need us to have faith in THEM on behalf of God, which is contrary to God’s direct will to be unknown or hidden, (for good reasons, we assume). But, if God has reasons, so can we, and faith is again a dismissal of reasons. So, church leaders are expoiting a faith in God opposed to reason, who as supreme being would never make any churches, true or false, to fight over his definition and lead people astray from their conscience. This alone disproves an involved God.
Back to reason. Reason dictates that we have no right to make a claim about the divine realm at all if we can’t preceive it. It has nothing to do with faith that it doesn’t exist, but everything to do with right of assertion (honesty, integrity, etc). To have faith in a mystery is to want it to be real. Bottom line: If god was testing us, we wouldn’t know the answers, and therefore he would be obviously testing us to see if we can live without him, or perhaps to see who would fall for his faith-based imitations. If it is not the case, then it doesn’t matter, because either he forgot, or doesn’t care or doesn’t exist. So, atheism is logical. Faith is not merely illogical, but anti-logical, since it denies and discourages the use of mental faculties and makes us the opposite of God, or even opposed to God.
To make matters much worse, faith means that we also desperately want something to be true. This could mean that one merely wants their personal image of it to be true, denying the possibility of an unexpected reality. My point is, most people seem to have faith through themselves that they think they know what God should be and have the nerve to suggest what they expect from him in return (an obviously projection of infantile will). This leads to other over-confident projections of will. Nevermind the implications, they are quite disturbing and dishonest.
So in summary:
All Christians that posted said you do deserve respect
Some atheists say that everyone deserves respect
Several atheists say Christians do not deserve respect
Wow, strange results.
Enderw24 said:
No, more likely there is some idiot segment of the population out there who are “undecided.” So we’ve still got work to do before we can elect our first openly atheist president. Convert the heathens!
Nobody needs to deserve respect.
It is a gift, freely given but all too frquently lost.
Strange interpretation of the results seems more like it.
I read every word here twice to make sure of it, and I saw only one post that even hinted of this, and I thought that dal_timgar who said that ALL PEOPLE OF FAITH don’t deserve respect, not just Christians, as you implied.
Nevermind that he might have been playing devil’s advocate. Nevermind he might have been just making a point. Nevermind that he might just be an asshole.
You still interpret it the way you did.
Strange results indeed…
This is fun.
First: MEBuckner said
In response, the following is from my original post on this thread:
I expressed my opinion as a means to open a discussion. I did not mean to express contempt or ill will. It has been a long time since I have thought about atheism, and I wanted to offer my honest opinion in order to get the ball rolling. BUT…more on this later.
Sua said:
I love this. you leave the board for 24 hours. You come back to find yourself attacked, defended, and aoplogized to all in the time it takes you read the posts. That three-minute roller coaster ride is so cool. Apology unconditionally accepted, Sua. Thanks.
Flymaster said:
Thanks for expressing exactly what I was having trouble expressing. But I’m not an atheist. I thought I was for a while, but then I realized he above and figured out that if being an atheist was that important to me, I couldn’t possibly be an atheist.
Getting back to MEBuckner’s question…I’ll give a shot at explaining what I THINK atheism is, but I confess that it is going to be based on personal experience and opinion. I have not yet read the link you provided and I promise I will after I have posted.
Atheism is total lack of belief in any kind of higher power, whether a creative power, a controlling power, or simply a power at work in the universe holding all things together. “Atheism,” to me, implies absolutely no faith.
During the time I thought I was an atheist, I often expressed my atheism in terms of faith. When I would have a spiritual debate with more riligious friends, I would always tell them “just as you have faith that there IS a god, despite being unable to prove it, I have faith that there is NOT a god.” At some point I started to see that it was silly to express a lack of faith in terms of faith. So I figured that whatever I was, I wasn’t an atheist.
So really, I guess it comes down to an argument of word meaning. Atheism strikes me as being a bit like anarchism. It is defined culturally by the very thing it denies. Atheism in theory is fine, but I think putting it into practice seems difficult. Mostly, I guess, because there is really nothing to practice.
Tied to this is my inability to understand why other posters have been capitalizing it: “Atheism.” This, coupled with many atheists’ vehement defense of atheism makes the whole thing seem less like atheism and more like some kind of complicated “anti-religion.” (“Anti” like the “anti” in “anti-matter,” NOT the “anti” in “anti-nuclear.”)
What do you think?
Hmmm…I think you should read the link.
…and I ought to read it again as we continue discussion, but on first read, it only slightly alters my opinion.
It seems like the difference between “weak” atheism and “strong” atheism is a bit like the difference between “communism” and “Communism.” And this can be seen even more clearly in “atheism” vs. “Atheism,” which I mentioned in my last post. There are a number of ways these ideas are similar, but the one that struck me the most was that the capital letter edition is what happens when the lower-case letter edition is put into practice and gets all screwed up.
This is a vastly oversimplified analogy, of course. For one thing, big “A” Atheism (“strong” atheism) is not going to cause any massive purges of the opposition or attempt to oppress the religious. And also, since we are talking about peoples’ personal beliefs (Atheism) as opposed to a social system that affects large groups of folks (Communism), in the end there is really no point in even arguing about it, because whatever Atheists choose to call it, it is just what they believe, and no skin off my back.
But can we keep going anyway, just for fun?
The link you provided only drove further home the fact that “strong” atheism is defined not by what it is, but by what it is not. The idea of actively not believing and calling it atheism just seems misleading to me. Not believing in certain gods, not believing in any kind of higher power, simply believing that God’s existence cannot be proved, etc…there are so many variations mentioned in the text. If you’re talking about a religion (a “positive” belief), there is lots of room for variation: you open up a field and everyone can play wherever they want. But the “a” in “atheism” defines it as a “negative.” Calling it “atheism” removes the field altogether. No one gets to play.
But I guess I’m trying here to escape the feeling that this is an argument of semantics or than anything else and I’m jsut being picky. I just don’t think that “strong” atheism can rightfully be called “atheist.” Especially since the folks who spend most of their time professing their atheism are these “strong” types. The name, to me, is misleading.
How’s that?
My computer just about coughed up a lung when I tried to send this the first time.
I read the link…and I ought to read it again as we continue discussion, but on first read, it only slightly alters my opinion.
It seems like the difference between “weak” atheism and “strong” atheism is a bit like the difference between “communism” and “Communism.” And this can be seen even more clearly in “atheism” vs. “Atheism,” which I mentioned in my last post. There are a number of ways these ideas are similar, but the one that struck me the most was that the capital letter edition is what happens when the lower-case letter edition is put into practice and gets all screwed up.
This is a vastly oversimplified analogy, of course. For one thing, big “A” Atheism (“strong” atheism) is not going to cause any massive purges of the opposition or attempt to oppress the religious. And also, since we are talking about peoples’ personal beliefs (Atheism) as opposed to a social system that affects large groups of folks (Communism), in the end there is really no point in even arguing about it, because whatever Atheists choose to call it, it is just what they believe, and no skin off my back.
But can we keep going anyway, just for fun?
The link you provided only drove further home the fact that “strong” atheism is defined not by what it is, but by what it is not. The idea of actively not believing and calling it atheism just seems misleading to me. Not believing in certain gods, not believing in any kind of higher power, simply believing that God’s existence cannot be proved, etc…there are so many variations mentioned in the text. If you’re talking about a religion (a “positive” belief), there is lots of room for variation: you open up a field and everyone can play wherever they want. But the “a” in “atheism” defines it as a “negative.” Calling it “atheism” removes the field altogether. No one gets to play.
But I guess I’m trying here to escape the feeling that this is an argument of semantics or than anything else and I’m jsut being picky. I just don’t think that “strong” atheism can rightfully be called “atheist.” Especially since the folks who spend most of their time professing their atheism are these “strong” types. The name, to me, is misleading.
How’s that?