I can say with some degree of certainty that all atheists hold irrational belief. All theists hold irrational beliefs outside of their religious beliefs. In both cases it is often true that we can do better. And usually someone not wanting to sit in row 13 at least admits he is being irrational.
I think some of the previous posts hit on my opinion: that this issue is really about “okay, so you don’t respect religious beliefs. What does that mean for how you treat religious people in general and in specific situations/contexts/sets of beliefs/behaviors?”
Atheists have given some very good reasons why they don’t respect religious beliefs. It was only on the second page, IIRC, that how this affected how they actually treat other people started getting discussed. Which, of course, might lead to the question (at least for some) of “why should I care if I treat religious people like morons? That’s what they are, that’s how they treat me as an atheist, and they objectively make the world worse for their beliefs, so why should they be treated any respect?”
Hmm, actually, that’s a good summation: “why, exactly, do I need to respect religious beliefs” is sort of about “why, exactly, do I need to respect religious people” in some ways.
I experienced a miracle. I had doubts and questions. I met the Lord. I didn’t get answers, but didn’t have questions any more. I did not check his I. D. Later, I returned to my doubts. I had the same miracle again. I have not needed to be convinced again.
I believe the bible is a book about men who sought to know God. I find wisdom in it. I could believe as I do without it. My faith is in the Love of God, not the book. I also find wisdom in the works of Lao T’su, and others. But for me, wisdom, knowledge, and the matters of the intellect are not a part of faith. For me it is entirely and completely personal.
Tris
Yes, but what if the Tomatoites had a tomato ritual every year to honor the god Cambell by throwing hot tomato soup at each other and they hit you in the ace by accident. You sue for 1 million and win plus they go to jail, the OTHER tomatoites would have to riot for their Lord Tomato and use more than iron chariots. Tomatoes all over your house, your car, your kids, your place of business! It is written in their Tomatu-ran!
Okay, so maybe it’s less bloody than what real religion leads to, but no real difference on the lack of logic and maturity in the first place. Yes, go worship the fairies you love, but no guns! Ooop! That’s a requirement.
This is why I’m impotent whenever I hear the word “sects”. They all claim their tomatoes are the TRUE tomatoes and are sacrificed for the holiest salads. Some reject the adding of buffalo mozzarella to the cut tomato and only the male may do that. Others forbid the making of, distribution and ingesting of all marinara sauces, some allow meat sauces. Don’t get me started on the Cucumberites… 
You’ve had two miracles and met god.:dubious:
More likely ‘an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato’ or similar explanation.
Gone around healing the lame or leading people out of bondage lately? Just wondering how you managed to pull off such an audience.
It’s them criticizing me for not being “respectful”, while looking the other way or outright making excuses for people who not only aren’t “respectful” but who are actively trying to impose oppressive laws.
Yip. And that’s where you find the answer. You want them to respect you and your beliefs, so you do so for them. Furthermore, while it’s not the goal of every atheist, most that are disrespectful want less people to believe in religion. Part of what is attractive about most religions is a sense of fairness, and appealing to that by treating them well is a good idea. Getting them all defensive is not.
Plus, when you think about it, what stuff about religion really bothers you the most? Is it the fact that they believe differently than you, or that so many act as assholes? Does it make sense to harp on the least important part, and risk alienating them, rather than focusing on the part most of us already agree with?
Now, on the other hand, if you are just being disrespectful because you enjoy it. (A position at least one atheist has admitted to), then, yes, this doesn’t apply. But that makes the question meaningless as what you “need” to do doesn’t factor into it.
The division of people into different groups, groups willing to kill each other at the drop of a hat, based upon mythology.
Except they won’t and have no intention of doing so. When they say respect, they mean “submit!”
Those are not two different things in this case.
As H. L. Menchen said:
Sensible advice. Are you going to tell someone that his wife is homely as a mud-covered stick and his children appear to be the result of some dark deed in a pig sty? Or are you going to refrain from being a jerk?
In living memory some southerners thought segregation was a moral imperative, as Catholics seem to feel about denying women sacraments.
Should they have been permitted to serve only whites?
What, like, say “Americans” and “Vietnamese”? Should nationality be mocked, also?
It’s easy to generalize. It being easy to simplify issues and generalize about them doesn’t make doing so right.
I won’t mock nationality…but it sometimes is hard to see any point to it.
Two kids, alike in every way, are born fifteen miles apart. One gets health care, an education, a good job, and retirement benefits. The other lives in a hut made of cardboard and old tires…
Ideally, there would be no more difference between “nations” than there is between states in the U.S., or counties in England. Equality of Opportunity would really mean something.
Trinopus
In the sense of a church having white-only membership or allowing only whites to participate in some rituals like communion, much as I dislike it, I’m reasonably sure the answer is “yes”.
He can’t change what his children are biologically like, and ugliness is neither irrational nor dangerous to others; its a badly flawed analogy. Do you tell your neighbor that his wife is a lunatic who talks to invisible people and cuts herself with razor blades, and that his children torture small animals? That’s what religion is like.
That’s where we disagree. I feel there’s an inherent human right to equal treatment, except that which is earned. Having a penis is not usually a personal accomplishment.
Are you saying then that Synagogues and Mosques should be required by law to allow men and women to pray together?
I recall a few years ago a poster here complained when someone wrote, “the Bible is just an old book”, insisting that such “disparagement” of religious beliefs should be off limits. I think this is an example of what the OP is talking about.
I’ve noticed the tendency of people arguing the religious viewpoint to run their opponents’ rhetoric thought a fine-tooth comb in search for even a hint of flippancy that they cay use to change the subject to one of “mocking religion”.
I suppose I am
Ok, should Mormon Temples be required to allow non-Mormons to enter.
Also, how do you do this without violating the right to freedom of association as granted by the Constitution?