No it isn’t, and the OP is my cite. It may be what you want to turn it into, but tough.
Then you can’t say that any given religious person is going to automatically disagree with you.
If something should be illegal that is caused by religion, it should be illegal when not caused by religion.
On the other hand, if something is awful but legal, you have every right to speak out against it, or even against the religion that causes it. Just don’t expect them to care, that’s all. They are the ones who might say “it’s none of your business.” At that point, to make them listen, you might want to stop attacking their religious beliefs and try to find more common ground.
“This isn’t about God.”
Do you really think “no, He doesn’t” or “there is no God” is going to work better on people like that?
Yes, including yours.
I think this must also answer the titular question of the thread. Atheism cannot impart responsibility, if it’s just an absence.
I think I characterized the OP quite well.
Great point.
I didn’t.
And yet there has been a lot of social progress on these issues over the years. So I think some people actually do care.
There are some devout religious people who reject this entire concept, believing that anything that isn’t about God is sinful.
I don’t recall saying otherwise.
“Which of course they won’t agree with because they believe the law needs to reflect their morality,”
To me that implies that few religious people would simply say “you have your beliefs and I have mine, and religious freedom compels me to leave you to yours.”
But you just said:
“Which of course they won’t agree with because they believe the law needs to reflect their morality…”
So are you changing their minds about their own religion’s beliefs, or what?
Yes, some.
Just pointing out that when you challenge the beliefs of others, you open yourself up to challenge. And I see a stalemate coming.
We were discussing a particular group of religious people, and I think you are in the habit of ascribing intents to posters that are not actually reflected in this posts.
I think over time people’s interpretation of religious doctrine evolves, yes.
Obviously. I think you’re making the assumption that arguments from conviction never change anything, and there’s a lot of evidence that says that is wrong.
We were?
So there’s a group of religious people that atheists have no beef with. Okay.
Sure, I don’t think I have immediate problems with a lot of Asian religions.
There are millions of CHRISTIANS, in the U.S. and elsewhere, who believe in religious freedom and tolerance and all that stuff, and the ability to disagree with others about many moral issues without conflict.
The U.S. invented religious freedom, remember? And probably nobody who voted for it was an atheist at the time.
Uh, yes:
I’m sure I could keep quoting my own posts and find other examples. Please read more closely. I realize Der Trihs mostly deals in huge generalizations and absolutes regarding religious people, but most of the other atheist posters here do not.
I have no beef with most religious people and I’m not the spokesman for atheism. Can we get back on topic now?
Oh, you were only talking about a particular group of religious.
OK.
Ignoring the attempted hijack, I think an atheist has the same ethical obligation to correct belief that she/he feels is harmful to society at large as anyone else. It isn’t the atheism that should be the driving force, though-it should be the general understanding that enforced and/or deliberate ignorance is a desease that cripples society and progress.
At that time, no. Not even Paine was an atheist. But given the reasons he gave for his deism in The Age of Reason, I suspect he would be one today.
To be fair to me, yours weren’t specific when in the context of the thread. When you say “particularly when you’re talking about people…” you could still be referring to ALL people within a group, and simply characterizing them.
But now I understand you, so no matter.
That was the topic in the OP.
Paine was certainly rejected by most of religious America after the revolution.
Still, the fact remains that he and most American leaders and common folk embraced religious freedom, to a point.
You mean as religious people?
So you think religious people have a duty to go fix society, and atheists have a duty to fight them?
What’s the difference?
Yes, I made that clear from the start.
I was specific, and you also didn’t ask before making an assumption about what I meant.