How should Atheists and Religous people treat each other?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

But other people, like you, obviously believe everyone (apart from the 13 year old boy writing this right now) deserves respect.

I think you (and anybody els) should earn respect before I offer it to you.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Fish

I think you (and anybody els) should earn respect before I offer it to you.

Fair enough.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

I wouldn't say that this poll is useless.

Sorry I didn't pay close enough attention to this one earlier.

What makes a poll useless (to my mind)? Simply the fact that it's not useful. It's obvious what the answer is going to be. No one is honestly going to say they think people should treat each other badly. The ones who did were almost certainly joking. Therefore, a poll this limited accomplishes nothing, and is therefore useless.

Also, you haven't been here long enough to know my sense of humor. For that I apologize.

But other people, like you, obviously believe everyone (apart from the 13 year old boy writing this right now) deserves respect.

Not true. I believe in showing everyone respect until they prove they don't deserve it; exactly the opposite of the "must be earned" school of thought. I certainly respect your opinions. My mostly-not-serious comment wasn't about opinions, it was about polls that can only have one serious answer.

I'm interested in finding out about other peoples opinions. Plenty of people are (No, I'm not going to put up a poll about that).

Most of the old-timers here (and I mean those who have been here for awhile, not those of us who are genuinely old) already know each others' opinions on most subjects, and have already decided who deserves our respect and who doesn't

My comment about "useless polls" wasn't about your question, only about the poll itself. Asking questions is the only way to learn. Endless polls don't serve that purpose. This is true of most of the polls that have ever been started in General Topics.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

I think we are talking about two different things. What I was referring to is personal freedom of expression. It has nothing to do with the state. What I as an individual citizen am allowed to say regarding religion or for that matter anything. I should not be hinder from expressing myself. Nothing I can say as an individual citizen should infringe on "the cost of the freedom of others." Of course if I'm slandering them or suggesting that they should be harmed, that is a different matter. But to suggest that God exists? To talk openly about Him?

That is fine as long as people not wanting to need to hear you or who got tired to tell you time and again to talk to somebody else and stop bothering them, inbdeed are left alone by you. If you rub it down their throat time and again, or use official places that should be left alone by religion (for example the armed services, public school, courts, the parliament) for your preachings and confessions, then expect anger from those not seeing why they should sit still and just give up the neutrality of these places while they do not share your views anyway. Same is true for the private sphere of people, if you penetrate it, you are the aggressor, and it is the right of the attacked to defend himself against your invasion.

It is like advertising via paper mail. The occasional advert in your mailbox at the door, is one thing. If you need to take out an armload of paper every m ornming and throw it away, then that is something different.

It is like a birthday celebraiuton of neighbours. If they do it once a season, good neighbours will not complain. If the throw a party every weekend and into the night, conflict is ahead.

It is like the radio I love as a metaphor. If you need to ask your neighbours time and gain to be mor esilent, you sooner or later will be verxy an gryx abiut their overstepping of borders at your expense.

Total freedom you can have when you live all alone on a island where there is nobody else.

And if there were a religious sect claiming it is it's duty and part of its religion to missionise and actively approach others instead of waiting untiol others approach it and of curiosity ask it, this would ne no excuse either. In a secular society, such a special status for it must not be accepted. A religion claiming that its followers have the divine obligation to rob a bank every Thursday, will not be given that right and will not get away with that either. Man rights in form of the lawcode of tghr state we live in, comkes before claimed rights by relgious cults. Maybe not in theocray and in Islam. But we are neither theocracy nor Islamic, and I will set up a fight any day to prevent that we fall this deep again. We have been there. It was not pleasant time for European people. The freedoms we have today, the rights, the knowledge, the diversity of arts, sine and culture, all did emerge not because religion fostered this, but was won in bitter fighting and dear suffering against the bitter resistance of religion. Our forefathers, generations of them, must turn in their graves if we would throw these precious gains away now, needlessly, without reason - on behalf of religion'S claims for wanting a special status again. They fought for centuries to take that special status away from it, and where it had it, it abused it terribly, and in parts of the world still does so.

That'S what I like about Jews and Buddhists. They do not try to actively missionise.

Surely you're not saying people should keep silent about that?

If it is the inappropriate time or the inappropriate place they chose, you sure can bet I will tell them to shut the hell up. And if they continue to bopther me or others again and again, I will become very aggressive if needed. Occasionally over the years, very rarely in recent years, missonaries of this or that sect found themselves on my doorstep and making a mistake, ringing the bell and telling me they want to talk with me about their God. I doubt they have good memories of meeting me. I recommend leaving confessing your faith to temples, books, or dedicated TV stations. In America their seem to be plenty of the latter. The secular nature of our society I want to see staying intact, and unbeleaguered. Islam does not follow that, and I am a strong enemy to it. I see other religions overstepping the lines and wanting to change the society and state according to their faith not any different.

I think you are looking at an extreme scenario here. It's just not going to happen. Not in a democratic state with freedom of expression and a diverse mix of viewpoints. Especially in the USA. To many people with guns. Nor in my country, Canada. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would suggest that if a country that already has separation of Church and State were to allow this to happen, religion playing a role in government, then something is very wrong in that country.

Formally, Germany is a secular state, in practice it unfortunately is not, in fact the state heavily assists the churches, and that is the reason why the Germany Catholic church is the richest national Catholic church in all the world, and in almost no other country it enjoys so far-leading exceptions from laws and tax duties. Most foreigners do not know this, but Germany has mandatory church taxes. Additionally, the state throws property and influence after it by using public tax money to build social institutions like hospitals and social offices of any kind, and runs them financially, but then allows the church to add some 5-10% of the building and maintenance costs and for that hand all property and management authority over to the church which then can claim it its own. And people like me, certainly no friends of the church, are helpless and still must pay with parts of our money for this conspirative acting! I am no church member and I am confessing enemy to the churches -. and still by state'S laws get forced to throw money after them and boost their influence and property, law and tax evasion and diplomatic special status!

Additionally, under the impression of mobbing and threatening of Islam in the West who always seems to be on rampage over some recent offence it suffered, not only did EU law criminalise the criticism of religion and especially Islam by making it an offence according to anti-discrimination and anti-hate-speech laws, but while the Catholic church looses many members in the wake of scandals and stories about widespread pedophilia its allies in poltiics - and that are not few - want to stop that by punishing those who leave the church with a mandatory penalty tax they have to pay for cultural or social issues then. Just weeks ago the Vatican also ruled that members feeling themselves as Christians but disagreeing with the church and its policies and thus leaving the church while seeing themselves still as Christians should be stripped of all benefits that in the end leave them "excommunicated" without calling it excommunication. Well, a modern mind of course will not be intimidated by this superstitous tool of powerpolitics, but it illustrates the mental attitude of the church, which is after power and control over people. The pope said it clearly hwen visiting the Us, pretty much ther first he said when heaving left the plane was that the primary duty of Catholics is obedience to The catholic church. Not to God's will. Not to Jesus' preachings. Not the ten commandements and not the spirit of the sermon on the mount. But to the church.

[Takeda Shingen]

I'll practice my faith where I please and when I please, thank you very much. A guest at our dinner table, or an observer at a resturaunt gets to watch us say grace. Don't like it, Skybird? Too bad. You can stomp around and say how much you hate it, and you constantly do on this forum, but you cannot take my rights. How I love civil liberties.

EDIT:

The funniest thing about it all, Skybird, is that you wish to establish your very narrow view of personal liberty by denying personal liberties to an enormous swath of people ranging from the religious to homosexuals to immigrants. It's hard to see someone like that in a positive light, but it is unfortunately the image that you choose for yourself. In many ways, I feel sorry for you. Your hatred of 'the other' is far too intense to accomodate understanding.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I am a non-religous person and I respect others of any faith reguardless of that persons religon I would treat that person as an equal.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is fine as long as people not wanting to need to hear you or who got tired to tell you time and again to talk to somebody else and stop bothering them, indeed are left alone by you. If you rub it down their throat time and again, or use official places that should be left alone by religion (for example the armed services, public school, courts, the parliament) for your preachings and confessions, then expect anger from those not seeing why they should sit still and just give up the neutrality of these places while they do not share your views anyway. Same is true for the private sphere of people, if you penetrate it, you are the aggressor, and it is the right of the attacked to defend himself against your invasion.

Agreed, if the same rules apply for Atheists or any other group that voices an opinion. The Atheist Bus poster campaign would be included .

Total freedom you can have when you live all alone on a island where there is nobody else.

Sorry, but I already have that freedom. If you don't like it feel free to complain.

The secular nature of our society I want to see staying intact, and unbeleaguered.

The secular nature of society almost always refers to the separation of Church and State. As far as private citizens are concerned, freedom of choice, freedom of religion or lack of is the rule of law. I know of no laws that prevent individuals from doing missionary work. Your freedom is being able to ignore them. Or be rude to them. I just tell them "I'm not interested. Have a nice day."

Just weeks ago the Vatican also ruled that members feeling themselves as Christians but disagreeing with the church and its policies and thus leaving the church while seeing themselves still as Christians should be stripped of all benefits that in the end leave them "excommunicated" without calling it excommunication.

Yea, I got that deal many years ago. I'm okay with it. No hard feelings at all.

[Stealhead]

@Takeda..... And you cant take away his right to complain about it either.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

@Takeda..... And you cant take away his right to complain about it either.

I've yet to read where Takeda tries that. The only one I see that is trying to take away rights is Skybird.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

@Takeda..... And you cant take away his right to complain about it either.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

You can stomp around and say how much you hate it

EDIT

August beat me to it.

Most foreigners do not know this, but Germany has mandatory church taxes.

Same old rubbish same old lies, germany does not have mandatory church taxes, germany has church tax on people who choose to declare that they are a member of the church.

not only did EU law criminalise the criticism of religion and especially Islam by making it an offence according to anti-discrimination and anti-hate-speech laws,

Religion and the EU in one line, you know that is going to be a whopper he is telling.
After all if that ridiculous claim were true the rabid islamophobe would be serving a long term instead of writing here.


I see a pattern emerging, could it be said that militant atheists are exceptionally intolerant and are habitual in their divergence from the truth?
As such could it be said that they are no different from the nutty fundies who claim to be religious?

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I'll practice my faith where I please and when I please, thank you very much. A guest at our dinner table, or an observer at a resturaunt gets to watch us say grace.

I'm an atheist and I wouldn't deny you that. If I were a guest at your house I'd say grace with you. At least keep my mouth shut since I don't know how to say grace. If you were a guest at my house I'd give you time to say grace by yourself before starting to eat. Same for a restaurant.
Even a moderate religius table discussion would be fine with me.

But the moment you'd ask me why I don't embrace Jesus and the almighty lord I'd throw a plate in your head.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I'll practice my faith where I please and when I please, thank you very much. A guest at our dinner table, or an observer at a resturaunt gets to watch us say grace. Don't like it, Skybird? Too bad. You can stomp around and say how much you hate it, and you constantly do on this forum, but you cannot take my rights. How I love civil liberties.

EDIT:

The funniest thing about it all, Skybird, is that you wish to establish your very narrow view of personal liberty by denying personal liberties to an enormous swath of people ranging from the religious to homosexuals to immigrants. It's hard to see someone like that in a positive light, but it is unfortunately the image that you choose for yourself. In many ways, I feel sorry for you. Your hatred of 'the other' is far too intense to accomodate understanding.

You remind me of a conflict I had with Steve two years ago. Steve defends freedom, and says he wants it, absolutely yes. I even believe him that. But by wanting that freedom, really, absolutely, by demanding absolute freedom indeed, he refuses to realise that by that he necessarily destroys freedom. Te the small limitations of freedom everybody has to accept when living in a social context in order to allow highest-possible ammount of freedom for all of the community, he called tyranny on the grounds of that it either is total and absolute freedom, or it is no freedom at all. And that, as I saw the issue with him, made him go into a deadlock mode he never managed to escape. ( Yes Steve, Popper and the tolerance paradoxon, what else (and you still have not solved it, I bet) ). By dealing in absolutes about freedom, he creates consequences that will finally destroy freedom. Still he probably correctly claims that he really wants freedom, and as I said, I believe him that. But ust having an ideal, is not good enough. One must also have sense for reality. But although he is not aware of it, in his way he choses he help to destroy it. And he got very angry when I time and again tried to make him aware of that contradiction, and he said I misunderstand it all, and distort it, and opportunistically ignore things, and it was about my manners, and style, and whatever. - Yeah, Steve, I know, and feel free to explain your differing view of it again. I can only base on how those events were perceived by me, and I must not see it like you do. I just want to explain something to Takeda, no intention to start that old fight with you again. So give your different opinion if you want, but I will not start to debate it all AGAIN with you.

With you, Takeda, it is not the same way, but it is a comparable thing. You claim one thing, that you are open and tolerant and not a fanatic believer and religion member and so on - but you do not care that in consequences of what you help to cause and trigger (maybe even in good intention), you help to install and also act on basis of double standards and expect the one side - atheists - to just sit still and put when religion claims more space at cost of their rights and freedoms, but when they defend themselves and secular society against this and angrily turn against those who all too naturally expect them to just give ground and live with it, you call that - well, what you call me. So, it is your double standards I take serious issue with.

I would still give you the benefit of doubt if you wouldn't have started to shoot those underhanded and unneeded sniping shots at me - do not deny you had aimed at me, just don't - even in situations were I had not been present until then and where religion was no hotly debated issue at all. You have started to see the atheist and Skybirdian crusade just in every thread and behind every corner, and although i did not react to those events every time and just left you alone I nevertheless certainly took note of it. And I draw consequences from that that affect my position towards and view of you.

But the truth is if you use my profile to list all threads started by me, you will find not one in the past months if not years where I started one over a religious or atheistic topic and created a mess. There are no threads on theologic confrontation started by me. I have even driven back the number of my critical Islam threads very considerably (though not to evade religious debates - I just ran out of empty bins to vomit into) . Check it yourself, I did two days ago and went back until January (Jim, no, Steve said the links do not work, I do not know why, so use the stats page from my profile).

But I certainly reserve the right that if somebody takes his right to have religious views put into a thread, I by the same right give counter-views and ask it some questions about itself - and for some religious people, even this often already is too much, and is an offense. Well, so be it, let them be offended, its free, its is no health hazard, its fun for the whole family and costs you no dime.

I do not even necessarily "get triggered" when somebody says "I believe this and that" as long as he makes clear that this is his private thing, hell, occasionally I even describe my own views on for example cosmology, but I make it clear, always, that these views are my approach on things, and I often put them in form of questions, because I know we can not have ultimate certainty on anything. Science does not claim ultimate certainty. Religion does so. Just when people, start to imply generalisations of their religious beliefs all too naturally as if those believing different do not exist or are just some blind poor dogs who must be helped out of their misery, I start to feel anger rising over this arrogance. The worst offence a religious person can tell a person not sharing his belief, is "But Jesus still loves you", or "I still include you in my prayers" or something like that That is the climax of inherent haughtiness and self-rightousness. It tells the other that he just is too small and too dumb as to see how wellmeaning one's own religion is towards him. You want to pray for me? Okay, just do it, costs me nothing and it is your lifetime. Just don't bother me with it and don't go boasting with it. You could as well calculate my horoscope. I'm not interested.

I had a talk about comparable topics some weeks ago with a girl friend of mine, whom I know since long, and she made an interesting comparison to all this (she never is in this forum, but occasionally silently reads here, for she knows I am writing in here). She said it compares to sexist males who try to blackmail or lure or press a women into having sex with them, who approach her with sexual jokes, or by abusing their superior position, or a relation of the woman'S dependency, they give hints of sexual meaning, occasional touches with their hands, say something of obviously double meaning, and if the women in her uncomfortability starts to complain and fights them back in words and threaten to complain at a higher office, they make it appear as the hysteric reaction of a weak girl with low self-esteem who says No but in secret means Yes. "Can'T stand a joke, eh? Relay, I was kidding, don'T blow this beyond proportions. What you mean, its all harmless! Can'T see the joy in a shared weekend? Well, I make you see if only you let me". I think, that comparison matches perfectly, in some ways. This arrogance and haughtiness I see so very damn often, and many atheists do, and we are so sick and tired of being belittled like that. But when we fight back with determination, then people like you suddenly appear and accuse us of intolerance, arrogance, and missionising. Busses with Christzian slogans or Muslim slogans are all fine. But dare to do that with this: "God most likely does not exist" What a provocation! How dare they? Have the no shame and respect for anything anymore? It can'T get more distorted. Double standards par excellence. And you are surprised why we then react with growing anger and hostility?

It's better we avoid each other, you and me. Personal fights like this do no good for the forum.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

With you, Takeda, it is not the same way, but it is a comparable thing. You claim one thing, that you are open and tolerant and not a fanatic believer and relgion member and so on - but you do not care that in consequences of what you help to cause and trigger (maybe even in good intention), you help to install and also act on basis of double standards and expect the one side - atheists - to just sit still and put when religion claims more space at cost of their rights and freedoms, but when they defend themselves and secular society against this and angrily turn against those who all too naturally expect them to just give ground and live with it, you call that - well, what you call me.

You keep saying it, and I keep telling you to show me where I said it. You can't. Your argument is a lie, Skybird. Shame on you, if you can feel shame.

Originally Posted by Benetov

I'm an atheist and I wouldn't deny you that. If I were a guest at your house I'd say grace with you. At least keep my mouth shut since I don't know how to say grace. If you were a guest at my house I'd give you time to say grace by yourself before starting to eat. Same for a restaurant.
Even a moderate religius table discussion would be fine with me.

But the moment you'd ask me why I don't embrace Jesus and the almighty lord I'd throw a plate in your head.

I don't make it my business to proselytise to guests, strangers or people I meet on the street or internet forum. Contrary to what you are reading from Skybird, I did not and have not ever in my 13 years on this forum put my rights above any other. I simply ask to be treated with the same respect that I show to others. Some people have a problem with that.

[TarJak]

There is of course a 3rd option which I rarely see used and that is to simply ignore one another and not react to any baiting from either side of the argument. But then that might be boring to some.