Something I have been thinking about.

For those who don't know, I'm an athiest. I don't believe in god, I don't see any point in believing in god, as it's own conscience that guides us. But that's besides the point here. I don't care about what other people think or believe, so long as they don't preach it to me. This isn't a new idea, and I would say with almost absolute certainity that a majority of tolerant athiests believes in this point. But then I got around to thinking, is that really tolerant? If I changed some words around, what would be the difference from saying "I support people believing in god, I just don't want them to preach to me" and "I support desegregating schools and neighborhoods, just not where I live"? I'm stumped, can anyone help me figure out if I believe in a bad point or is there more to it then just that?

 

The issue of 'good' or 'bad' has been a busy topic of conversation for the past couple of days on this forum... Needless to say, it did not accomplish anything more than providing a clear understanding that the terms are indeed subjective. Therefore, IIMHO, the question you ask cannot be conclusively addressed by anyone other than your own self. It is you who determines what is 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', etc., in your own personal life. If you truly don't care about what other people think or believe and should someone approach you with those thoughts or beliefs that you are not favoring, then politely tell them that you are not interested.. I do it all the time when a JW comes knocking at my door. No harm done, everyone involved walks away to carry on with their usual lifestyle.

 

You do realize that your comment above adds weight to the idea that there are no inherent morals as preached by so many religious people, and that morals are purely a personal thing, different for all.

 

What is wrong with saying "I'm okay with religion as long as it doesn't step on my toes (or doorstep)"? It's no different to saying "I'm okay with swingers clubs as long as no one tries to recruit me to join". The point isn't so much how your iterate your position, but how you act on this position when and if encroachments are made. There would be few atheists here who respond in protest at religious encroachment, and I dare say you (and I) are one of them. Drilling a little further down, is this reluctance to protest a factor of civility (and if so, it must be asked how and why it's better to say nothing)? Or is it residual to centuries of oppression of any expression of non-belief? ie, even those of us with no present or former ties to religion are 'fearful' of expressing our position. If this latter is true, then it behoves those of us with the energy and commitment to protest at appropriate opportunities.

Keeping in mind that if you chose to take your moral cues from a genocidal magic monster in the sky, you're not really in a position to claim exemptions from derision and protest.

 

Your thin skin is an issue only you can address. You might as well say, "I don't hate republicans--just the ones who live a republican life-style or hold republican beliefs or dares to advocate for republican things" and expect that will rid the universe of republicans. Your thinking suffers from the impossible ultimatum atheists here present all the time--I will stop attacking religion when absolutely every person in the world who has religion stops practicing it." People are haters of others who disagree with them or they are not. You have to decide which you are, but in doing so consider this--do you want to be one of those people the purposefully seek out and harass those who disagree with you, or are you going to be "Meh, whatever."?

 

I realize that what you are saying is your perspective and within probability it is also your belief. On the other side of that same coin, is the fact that you are seemingly attempting to define the situation for all people ("no inherent morals as preached by so many religious people"). It is up to each individual to determine what he/she believes, and subsequently while "so many religious people" (as individual persons) believe that there are inherent morals to be found in the various religions, then there are inherent morals to be found by each of those that believe. Belief (what one believes) is a strange critter. It is not based on physical or logical evidence. You and others can proclaim that such belief is illogical or irrational or moronic or many other adjectives, however, your opinion is not the opinion of those that are believers. Until you can show PROOF (evidence or argument that will compel the mind of each of those persons to accept what you provide as true), then you are peeing against the wind. So make sure that your argument or evidence is thoroughly and completely convincing before you embark on that journey.

 

Perhaps I can help. What you have created here is a false dichotomy based upon a bad analogy. I don't see your two statements as being morally equivalent.


"I support people believing in god, I just don't want them to preach to me." There is nothing contradictory in this statement. Not desiring to learn about someone's religion does not in any way detract from your belief in their right to participate in said religion.

On the other hand...

"I support desegregating schools and neighborhoods, just not where I live." This is a blatant statement of hypocrisy. If you support segregation in your own community, then you support segregation.

Yep... Bad analogy.

 

When ever one closes one's mind to anything, they are done learning about that subject.
If you want desegregated schools, just not in your neighborhood, you really don't want desegregated schools.

 

I feel that it's important to educate yourself completely, which means listening to the other side. I am an Agnostic, but I think it's important to listen to religious people defend their positions. And I ask the hard questions because I want to know what their answers are. It brings me closer to understanding where they come from, and ultimately, it strengthens my position as well. You should never turn your ear off to knowledge. That's what makes people ignorant. I've been ignorant before, and just trust me, it's not pretty.

 

Indeed!

Many atheists (myself included) are very interested in religion, and continue to ask questions of the religious in the hope of gaining insights. Unfortunately, very few seem willing to actually answer questions - compelling those whose curiosity is greater than average to consider things like studying theology. In the same way that an oncologist must study the way in which malignancy works - it strikes me as a little odd to be actively an atheist yet refuse to explore the very thing we're opposed to.

 

Do you recall what the 'Bible' said about throwing pearls before the swine? Consider it.

 

But you believe in Truth, though.
Right???

 

No, I believe in my perspective of the truth. Unless I'm missing something here.

 

I don't mind religious people, it's just the idea of how tolerant am I actually when I say that to them is the problem. I agree with you completely, but it's when I have to draw the line is my concern.

 

You're right on that, nobody likes people who don't want a product or service in their backyard. Is there no way to make that point seem less intolerant?

 

Maybe I'm jumping the gun here, but if you say that you don't want them to preach to you, why is the problem. If it's because you don't want to hear them becuse you're busy, that's fine. But if you don't want to hear them because you're so set on your own beliefs you won't change yours, there's a similarity between the two.

- - - Updated - - -

That's certainly something to think about. I'm not sure if I'm convinced but still, thank you and everyone who has posted here about this.

 

My problem here isn't so much the idea that I have a right not to be converted or have religion shoved down my throat, it's the idea that even back in the 1950's with racism, there were people that had the exact same position as I mentioned earlier. They didn't mind it when minorities gained rights, but just not near them. Back then they would have thought that was a normal position to have. Today we call them bigots and racists. My concern is that while it may be acceptable to us now to have that position, isn't it still inherently an intolerant position to maintain?

- - - Updated - - -

I do that now, but for some reason it doesn't feel right to me. Maybe it's the idea that I'm turning down free knowledge but it just doesn't seem to click with me for some reason.

 

I'm always willing to listen to people when they talk about their religious beliefs or other topics. It gives me perspective into how they think and also makes me evaluate my own beliefs. Beyond that, as long as you're willing to consider someone else's belief then you're fine.

 

Consider, if you will, the following scenario:

Schools, universities and colleges around the world came to a unanimous decision to start acting according to your "pearls before swine", to be implemented immediately. Only those who met certain non-academic criteria, and agreed to sign contracts vowing only to use the information obtained in a very narrow and specific way, would be granted an education.

Christian possessiveness and arrogance regarding the sharing of knowledge is objectionable. And suggesting that those who don't meet your very particular criteria are 'swine' is putrid.

 

So, which is it? Surely you know what your own motivations are, don't you?

Besides, what's the harm in merely listening to someone discuss their beliefs? So long as they aren't attempting to use the power of the state to enforce their religious beliefs, I personally have no problem with people merely talking about their religion. I find religious beliefs interesting.

 

Considered and rejected as the secular education is not anything near being spiritual enlightenment. Bad analogy on your part.

 

ditto. I love hearing grown ups talk about fairies and magic as though they're real. as for the willingness of such folk to consider someone else's 'belief', I've found that a little thin on the ground. my own experience of Christians is that they're quite the opposite. more often an open revelation of atheism is met with things like "why are you angry at god", or "what happened to you that made you lose faith", or "it's wrong to deny god". I could count on one hand the number of Christians I've personally known or met who responded with "oh cool, atheism huh? I've not met many atheists, so tell me more about it", or words to that effect.

 

you wish it was a bad analogy. unfortunately for you, it ain't. we are talking about KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, EDUCATION, after all.

spiritual enlightenment ..... snorffles

 

Wrong again. 'the pearls before the swine' is not about "KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, EDUCATION'... it is about spiritual enlightenment. snorffles right back at you.

 

ah, so it's about a FEELING?

you guys are just greedy with your warm/fuzzies, I take it. don't want to share the recipe with anyone who has the wrong sort of kitchen?