Why do we have to put up with Religious People?

Great Debates
262

I’m still not sure what the OP wants. Permission to kill Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc? Maybe lock them up somewhere so they can’t spread their beliefs? Or put them in reeducation camps that will teach them the errors of their ways?

Seriously, OP, you resent the hell out of people whose beliefs are different than your own* and think they should all shut the hell up, but what are you proposing? A law? “Reeducation”? The right to shut 'em the hell up by whatever means are necessary?

*I’m sure you’ll hate this, as convinced as you are that you’re unimpeachably right, but since the existence of a Supreme Being can neither be confirmed nor denied, opinions either way are beliefs, no matter how certain one is of one’s own viewpoint or how ridiculous one thinks any other viewpoint is. Many religious people hate it, too. There! Something you have in common!

263

So there are ‘secular’ arguments for anti-abortion positions as well as anti-LGBTQ position. Most of us realize that there is a religious belief behind most of it though. So anything can really be secularly justifiable in that way if you just think about it enough and sometimes use secular humanism where it touches upon religion.

264

That’s a laughably absurd reaction to the op.

265

I am a Hindu atheist. It is perfectly okay to be an atheist or agnostic or anything else you choose in Hinduism.

You don’t have to believe in God or Evil or Rebirth or Karma or heaven or hell or anything to be a Hindu.

One of the core recommendations of Hinduism is to be a seeker rather than a believer. And everyone is advised to seek the truth for themselves rather than believe.

Having said that; there are equal number of fanatics in Hinduism just like other religions.

266

Oh, come on. It’s a very vague OP. Little Nemo asked what the OP meant by “put up with” and never really got a good answer. It’s a vaguely worded question.

267

Agreed. Had the question the OP posted been: “I wish I didn’t have to constantly deal with religiosity”, my reaction and opinion would have been far different.

268

The only enforcement method is that I won’t take your argument seriously, and that I will advocate that others do not as well.

Then make those secular arguments for anti-abortion or anti-LGBTQ positions. If you are motivated to do so informed on your beliefs, that is fine. But asking me to humor your beliefs for the purpose of imposing your will on others is not, IMHO, fine.

“It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is not a valid, IMHO, argument. Using the bible to justify discrimination or using “Religious Freedom Acts” to enable such are not basing an argument on a secular position.

As an example, I would point to the infamous Hobby Lobby case, where they wished to impose their religious beliefs upon their employees. Their justification was that they were religious, they had no secular reason behind their arguments. That is the sort of imposing of religious beliefs on others that I do not think should be considered acceptable.

If you can make an anti-abortion argument without invoking souls or the sanctity or sacredness of life, then do so. The argument can be evaluated on its merits. If you have to rely on church or liturgical interpretations to back your argument, then I do not think it should be considered seriously. I am not saying that, in this culture steeped in religion, it is not taken seriously, I am just saying that I will not, and I would advocate that others do not as well.

I derive all my ethics from pure selfishness, the only honest place to start. I can tell you how everything from stealing to murder to poverty to war negatively effects me. Can you tell me how someone else’s abortion or someone else being of a sexual orientation or gender identification of their choosing negatively effects you?

Once you have explained the harm that these other people’s actions are doing to you, then we can weigh that harm against the harm that will be done to them if your will is imposed.

TBH, I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for anti-abortion or LGBTQ positions that didn’t fall back on religious belief at some point. (Or maliciously fabricated or misinterpreted data.)

ETA: I used “you” a bunch, and I mean it to be used against anyone posing such arguments, not actually addressing you, @ISiddiqui.

269

So here’s the thing. No one is disagreeing that you can do that. Nor is anyone saying it’s wrong you do that or you don’t have the right to do that. Debate on these things is good and healthy.

But that doesn’t seem to be what the OP is saying. Folks have been making the point that one does not have to accept religious arguments, but the put up with seems to go beyond that and we are trying to figure out that actually is.

Which is why I approached it from the legal POV rather than the moral argument POV.

270

Oh and on the on the abortion side there are some who argue for life on the basis of heartbeat. This argument comes up even among conservative atheists like George Will.

271

Who is this WE and why do we have to say ANYTHING at all? Are you under the impression that every religious person or group is in agreement with one another? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

272

I agree, in a certain sense, with LSLGuy - except that I don’t think it will take centuries - it will only take decades. Within mere decades, religion is going to be regarded with intense hostility and ridicule worldwide.

As a Christian, I don’t want that to happen, which is where I differ with LSLGuy, but I very much expect it to happen.

273

I assume this is the thesis for your debate. Well, you already have your answer. You can say this whenever you want to. You just did.

Now can you get in trouble for saying this to authorities in Saudi Arabia? Sure can. Can you get in trouble for openly criticizing Philipines President Duterte’s death squads in the local paper? Sure can. Are those things bad? Yes. And?

There’s no debate to be had. Nobody here seriously disagrees with the above.

So debate over then? Because if just want to vent over the shittiness of it all that’s fine, but that’s really not a debate. It’s just a rant. Which is pretty much what I think the OP boils down to and I think it is in the wrong forum.

274

Except that line for “being an asshole” is often much lower for the nonreligious than for theists. In 2012, an atheist named Justin Vacula tried to buy ads for a Pennsylvania freethought organization, on County of Lackawanna Transit System buses. The ads were as inoffensive as they possibly could be: blue posters that read simply: “Atheists.” Then the website of two atheist organizations.

The transit company rejected them, because they don’t “accept ads which could be deemed controversial or otherwise spark public debate.”

So simply saying the word “atheist” is somehow offensive or controversial.

Christians don’t have to put up with this.

275

Thank you, Jesus! [ i kid, i kid]

Really, I am agnostic, I think there may be something out there, but heck if I know what-it may be a little of everything may be right. But I do know that I try to be the best person I can because it is the right thing to do, not because some diety is going to punish or reward me.

I remember thinking to myself that for all we know, if you believe in a specific afterlife, that is what you get, reincarnation- see you next time around the wheel, rejoin the cosmic soul-ok and death is nothingess-so long charlie.

276

To be fair, I don’t know that many of the people who talk this way know themselves whether they are talking figuratively or not; they just know it feels good to think it without thinking too hard about the details.

I think that applies to many/most people’s religious beliefs in general.

277

That isn’t the first time such a ridiculous and insulting reaction to this kind of question has been made, and it won’t be the last. At least the term “militant atheist” hasn’t been thrown into the mix yet.

278

I’m guessing though that a lot of times, it depends on HOW you state said lack of beliefs. If one does so in the way the OP mentions, I’m not surprised the reactions would be negative.

If you want to go around and say, “I don’t believe in sky fairies/tooth fairies/all that nonsense” without people getting pissed off, well, that has nothing to do with religion having a special place. You can’t act like a jagoff, and then be shocked when people treat you like one.

Just like some Christians don’t like it that they can’t go around and tell people they’re going to Hell without negative reactions, either. Guess what? That’s life.

You don’t to pretend to believe, but you don’t have to be a dick about it, either. And no, it’s not about “paying lip service” or “giving religion special treatment.” It means, simple, “don’t be a dick.” If you can’t understand the difference well, that’s your problem.

279

About the worst thing theists get from atheists is having their god insulted. I’ve heard many atheists testify about how their family turns on them when they come out. (I’m lucky, no such problems.)
I had the only atheist congressman I know of, and I’m in Silicon Valley with lots of non-Christians. And he came out late in his career.
Some people use magic sky pixie to be insulting, but others use it to show how theists are addicted to special pleading with respect to their god. As in “God is unknowable, so don’t ask me to demonstrate his existence, but I do know exactly what he things about your sex life.”
I was in alt.atheism when the Invisible Pink Unicorn was invented, and she was invented specifically to deal with special pleading. Invisible pinkness was a reference to the trinity. No one I was aware of associated God with the IPU, but the very concept of the IPU pissed off theists no end.
There may be no more blasphemy laws (in the US, at least) but the idea is slow in dying.
I think the reason that so many scientists are atheists is not because we’re smarter, but because we get to go to college and grad school in an environment where atheism is the norm, and being an atheist is not a dangerous position to hold. It’s a bit safer to be an atheist than it used to, but not as safe as being gay. Which is fine with me since it is easier for us to stay in the closet, and we could almost always get married.

280

This is true - for many the mere existence of atheists is offensive.

But I’d extend this to anything non-Christian. I’d think it likely that the same bus company would reject any ad for a non-Christian, or at the very least, non-Abrahamic, religion.

It’s “Christian privilege” instead of “white privilege” and Christians are so steeped in it in our society they can’t perceive it. Underneath that is “theist privilege”.

281

Frankly, I don’t think Justin Vacula would have encountered any problem if he had made his order somewhere in Europe.