respect of beliefs for the atheist

[Key]

On 11/14/2019 at 8:47 PM, FredClaus said:

"If I follow the philosophy of atheism, stoicism, and skepticism blended(and I do, by the way), then am I not entitled to enjoy the exercise of statement of that belief?"

 

I have not read the threads on this board you described and I have not read all the replies to this one, however I would answer YES.  I may not agree with you on some topics, but that's what's great about this country. We are all free to have our own beliefs and we are free to express those beliefs.  If someone is being respectful of others who may not think the way they do, I think we are all entitled to our beliefs.  If you are expressing your beliefs so that we may learn and understand how you feel, and what you believe I am completely on board. 

What I don't think anyone has the right to do is disrespect anyone because of their beliefs.  That is not in line with any of the religions we associate with here.  I also don't think that any one religion should be forcing it's views on others, or preventing them from worshiping and celebrating as they wish because they don't agree. If you don't agree, step out while the others do their thing.  It's call respect, and being a good human being.  I don't care what religion you are, if you are a nice person I will respect you.  By the way, I don't know if it's right to say Atheism is a "religion" I just used that word because I don't know enough about Atheism to call it anything else. 

 

Keep sharing your beliefs here. Those who can't respect that are not worth your time.  

Atheism to some may be considered a "religion", as many define that word as a belief system. Therefore, Atheism is a belief that does not necessarily include a deity without proof of existence.

There are many that find power exists in nature alone, without need in belief of any gods, for example.

[Pete]

44 minutes ago, Key said:

Atheism to some may be considered a "religion", as many define that word as a belief system. Therefore, Atheism is a belief that does not necessarily include a deity without proof of existence.

There are many that find power exists in nature alone, without need in belief of any gods, for example.

Other than not believing in a god there is nothing that connects one atheist to another.  How that can be described as a belief system I don't know. Many don't believe Santa Claus is real. Under that definition that must be a belief system too.

No, it is more like some want atheism to be seen as a religion as they share. That to me is a nonsense. I mean, how do you have a belief system in something you don't recognise exists to have a belief about?

Edited November 19, 2019 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 5/20/2018 at 3:09 PM, cuchulain said:

I have heard in other threads condemnation of the atheist point of view when responding to christians, even from those who call themselves atheist.  I have been told the reason is that we must respect all beliefs.  But that is a paradox contained within its own statement.  If we as a group at the ULC and especially on this website must respect all beliefs and philosophies, isn't it inherently understandable that the philosophy I follow should also enjoy that respect?  If I follow the philosophy of atheism, stoicism, and skepticism blended(and I do, by the way), then am I not entitled to enjoy the exercise of statement of that belief?  The exercise of skepticism is such that I would naturally question a person who alleges some divine being exists as described by the christian members of our community.  So...I am somehow less entitled to express my beliefs and philosophical understandings because they are contrary to another members...because they are christian and I am not.

 

I can perfectly understand not browbeating someone for believing differently, not harassing them, not deliberately aggravating them, not baiting...but being told that I cannot disagree with someone who posts in an area of the forum that allows for discussion, that seems contrary to the spirit of the forum in my opinion.  I think so long as things are kept on a civilized level, as long as things don't escalate to derision, that simple disagreement and discussion of that disagreement should be welcome.

 

I am late to the party.  I just found this thread.

 

 

People have some claim to respect.  Not ideas.  There is no way that I am going to respect Flat Earthism.  

 

Civility is good.  Respect only works if it's mutual.

 

When the pious don't respect Atheists -- the Atheists are under no obligation to respect them.

 

My mistake.  I simply forgot this old thread.  

Edited November 19, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Other than not believing in a god there is nothing that connects one atheist to another.  How that can be described as a belief system I don't know. Many don't believe Santa Claus is real. Under that definition that must be a belief system too.

No, it is more like some want atheism to be seen as a religion as they share. That to me is a nonsense. I mean, how do you have a belief system in something you don't recognise exists to have a belief about?

 

 

In a world where nobody ate meat, there wouldn't be a word for vegetarian.

 

Atheists exist, because the believers forced us into existence.

 

 

[Key]

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

In a world where nobody ate meat, there wouldn't be a word for vegetarian.

 

Atheists exist, because the believers forced us into existence.

 

 

Good point

[Key]

17 hours ago, Pete said:

Other than not believing in a god there is nothing that connects one atheist to another.  How that can be described as a belief system I don't know. Many don't believe Santa Claus is real. Under that definition that must be a belief system too.

No, it is more like some want atheism to be seen as a religion as they share. That to me is a nonsense. I mean, how do you have a belief system in something you don't recognise exists to have a belief about?

I wasn't trying to blanket all Atheist under my explanation, but merely suggested some. Also, to other people, like Dan, they are all lumped together simply because they don't believe in his God.

I also offered an example. Don't assume it was meant to cover all, either.

There are, to be sure, very many branches of atheism, with the trunk being no belief in "God" without evidence. Belief systems can very well be made intact as such, just as my example showed.

There are many factions, or varying belief systems of other religions with little to connect them, too. So, perhaps your definition of a "shared" theory or belief should have to suffice?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Key said:

I wasn't trying to blanket all Atheist under my explanation, but merely suggested some. Also, to other people, like Dan, they are all lumped together simply because they don't believe in his God.

I also offered an example. Don't assume it was meant to cover all, either.

There are, to be sure, very many branches of atheism, with the trunk being no belief in "God" without evidence. Belief systems can very well be made intact as such, just as my example showed.

There are many factions, or varying belief systems of other religions with little to connect them, too. So, perhaps your definition of a "shared" theory or belief should have to suffice?

 

 

I think that you are over thinking this.  Making it more complicated than it is.

 

I use vegetarianism as a template for Atheism.

 

What do we know about vegetarians?  Only one thing.  There is no meat on their plates.  There are many different styles of being vegetarian.  What any individual vegetarian eats, is highly individual.  Assumptions are likely to be mistaken.

 

What do we know about Atheists?  Only that they are without Theism.  This and nothing more.  Some have philosophy.  Others don't.  Some are materialists.  Others are not.  We know nothing about any individual Atheist.  Except one detail.  We know what is not on their plate of spiritual nourishment.  There is no god there.

 

We do know something else.  People have all manner of emotional baggage.  There are a lot of non-vegetarians, who have a burning, passionate hatred, for vegetarians.  They take being vegetarian as a personal rejection of themselves.  There are also vegetarians who insist on trying to make the whole world vegetarian.

 

You know.  People have issues.  If nobody ate meat, there wouldn't even be a word for vegetarianism.  Conflicts arise over difference.  The more we try to eliminate difference, the worse it gets.  In the end, we have to live with each other.

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I think that you are over thinking this.  Making it more complicated than it is.

 

I use vegetarianism as a template for Atheism.

 

What do we know about vegetarians?  Only one thing.  There is no meat on their plates.  There are many different styles of being vegetarian.  What any individual vegetarian eats, is highly individual.  Assumptions are likely to be mistaken.

 

What do we know about Atheists?  Only that they are without Theism.  This and nothing more.  Some have philosophy.  Others don't.  Some are materialists.  Others are not.  We know nothing about any individual Atheist.  Except one detail.  We know what is not on their plate of spiritual nourishment.  There is no god there.

 

We do know something else.  People have all manner of emotional baggage.  There are a lot of non-vegetarians, who have a burning, passionate hatred, for vegetarians.  They take being vegetarian as a personal rejection of themselves.  There are also vegetarians who insist on trying to make the whole world vegetarian.

 

You know.  People have issues.  If nobody ate meat, there wouldn't even be a word for vegetarianism.  Conflicts arise over difference.  The more we try to eliminate difference, the worse it gets.  In the end, we have to live with each other.

 

 

 

What you say may well be true, especially to you. Again, I simply made one example. I am well aware of many differing views, as well as beliefs, and stated so. The question was how it would be a belief if something didn't exist. 

In truth, even if you don't think so, it isn't always as less complicated as you present, either.

So, in kind of like Schrodinger-esqe situation, we are both wrong and right. Even in that we have similarities as we do differences. There is no escaping differences, as that makes distinctions, whether we like them or not.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

What you say may well be true, especially to you. Again, I simply made one example. I am well aware of many differing views, as well as beliefs, and stated so. The question was how it would be a belief if something didn't exist. 

In truth, even if you don't think so, it isn't always as less complicated as you present, either.

So, in kind of like Schrodinger-esqe situation, we are both wrong and right. Even in that we have similarities as we do differences. There is no escaping differences, as that makes distinctions, whether we like them or not.

 

 

I'm not clear on where this is going.  Still, I think it depends on the assertion.

 

If I assert that I don't believe in God -- that is the end of it.  Unless, somebody wants to argue with me about my non-belief.

 

If I assert that there is no God -- that is a statement of fact.  This is a positive statement, which needs something to back it up.

 

I use Atheism in the first sense.  A simple declaration of non-belief.

 

Others use Atheism in the second sense.  A statement of fact, which requires evidence to back it up.

 

This is the confusion.  These days, I tend to avoid the Atheist label.  There are many Atheists, who are prepared to spend their lives fighting word wars.  I'm not one of them.  At least, not any more.

 

Alright.  What do we mean by religion?  To my understanding, simple non-belief is not religion.

 

Now we add context.  If someone enters the military -- and his dog tag says Atheist in the spot reserved for religion -- well -- maybe.  It's context.     

 

 

Of course, when my assertion is that I don't care -- misunderstanding my meaning, takes more effort.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I'm not clear on where this is going.  Still, I think it depends on the assertion.

 

If I assert that I don't believe in God -- that is the end of it.  Unless, somebody wants to argue with me about my non-belief.

 

If I assert that there is no God -- that is a statement of fact.  This is a positive statement, which needs something to back it up.

 

I use Atheism in the first sense.  A simple declaration of non-belief.

 

Others use Atheism in the second sense.  A statement of fact, which requires evidence to back it up.

 

This is the confusion.  These days, I tend to avoid the Atheist label.  There are many Atheists, who are prepared to spend their lives fighting word wars.  I'm not one of them.  At least, not any more.

 

Alright.  What do we mean by religion?  To my understanding, simple non-belief is not religion.

 

Now we add context.  If someone enters the military -- and his dog tag says Atheist in the spot reserved for religion -- well -- maybe.  It's context.     

 

 

Of course, when my assertion is that I don't care -- misunderstanding my meaning, takes more effort.

 

 

Now you are overthinking. My point was a deity isn't always necessary for a belief system to be a religion, hence the reference of some people actually worshipping (for lack of a better term) nature. So, your issue is what is the non-belief.

I made no intention on questioning what you personally believe, for I know enough by now not to have to.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Key said:

Now you are overthinking. My point was a deity isn't always necessary for a belief system to be a religion, hence the reference of some people actually worshipping (for lack of a better term) nature. So, your issue is what is the non-belief.

I made no intention on questioning what you personally believe, for I know enough by now not to have to.

 

 

 

I think I'm following your thought more clearly.

 

When Atwater Vitki -- a Norse follower -- was on this board, he made this distinction.  He did not worship the Norse gods.  He emulated them.

 

Some people do worship Nature.  I think most of the time, it would be more accurate to say "reverence".  

 

I have an authentic Buddhist initiation to Medicine Buddha.  Again, worship is not involved.  Medicine Buddha is understood, to be a personification of healing.

 

I think gods do help distinguish religion from philosophy.  The line is not solid.  Communism is a non-theistic religion.  I don't know how to classify Taoism.

 

 

 

[Pete]

Communism is a difficult one as it means something different according to the country. For China and Russia to a lesser extent it is just organising the country as if one big factory with the dictatorial leaders at the top and a pretence that it is some how democratic. 

In the UK the communist party has reshaped itself as a Socialist party trying to redistribute the wealth so everyone gets a share. I am not a member because it still supports Russia and China in many ways. However it has moved as it used to celebrate Stalin in the 70s and now criticizes even Putin.

Other socialist parties vary between the Trotskyites who want all out revolution and democratic socialism which supports businesses and Capitalism.  Although although the later is secular it's not against anyone's freedom of religion and is ruled by the electorate.  Its main concern is the 20 trillion pound tax avoidance and the fact everyone else is suffering Austerity.  It does not seek revulsion and has criticism of both Russia and China. The biggest party   Labour Is a bit like the Democrates. So if it is a religion I am not sure how you would define it. For some maybe and for others not so.

The Trotskyites I feel maybe as they believe that everything will be wonderful if they destroy Capitalism and as far as I see is that they want to be in charge. They are rigid in their politics and get angry if challenged.  I think that makes them a bit like a religion. Its complicated. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Pete

[Key]

56 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

 

I think I'm following your thought more clearly.

 

When Atwater Vitki -- a Norse follower -- was on this board, he made this distinction.  He did not worship the Norse gods.  He emulated them.

 

Some people do worship Nature.  I think most of the time, it would be more accurate to say "reverence".  

 

I have an authentic Buddhist initiation to Medicine Buddha.  Again, worship is not involved.  Medicine Buddha is understood, to be a personification of healing.

 

I think gods do help distinguish religion from philosophy.  The line is not solid.  Communism is a non-theistic religion.  I don't know how to classify Taoism.

 

 

 

Bravo! Exactly, my friend. 

I had argued with someone about this similarly in a Christian context somewhere. I stated that Jesus didn't intend to have a religion formed to worship him, but rather have people emulate him and have faith to be able to do the things he could do. Yet, as he was Jewish, he still revered God. Didn't sit too well with the other guy, for some reason. 

 

In honor of Atwater Vitki: Skol! 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

Bravo! Exactly, my friend. 

I had argued with someone about this similarly in a Christian context somewhere. I stated that Jesus didn't intend to have a religion formed to worship him, but rather have people emulate him and have faith to be able to do the things he could do. Yet, as he was Jewish, he still revered God. Didn't sit too well with the other guy, for some reason. 

 

In honor of Atwater Vitki: Skol! 

 

 

 

In my Pantheist days, I was very clear about the parallels between Buddha and Jesus.

 

That just as anybody can achieve enlightenment and become a Buddha -- anybody could gain Christ Consciousness and become a Christ.

 

There are some obvious differences.  In Buddhist thought, Buddha was a messenger.  He had discovered the Path. 

 

In Christian thought, Jesus was the message.  "The Way, the Truth and the Light".

 

Of course, Buddha never meant to start a new religion.  He was a reformer of the Vedic religion of his time.

 

Jesus also did not start a new religion.  That was Paul.

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

Communism is a difficult one as it means something different according to the country. For China and Russia to a lesser extent it is just organising the country as if one big factory with the dictatorial leaders at the top and a pretence that it is some how democratic. 

In the UK the communist party has reshaped itself as a Socialist party trying to redistribute the wealth so everyone gets a share. I am not a member because it still supports Russia and China in many ways. However it has moved as it used to celebrate Stalin in the 70s and now criticizes even Putin.

Other socialist parties vary between the Trotskyites who want all out revolution and democratic socialism which supports businesses and Capitalism.  Although although the later is secular it's not against anyone's freedom of religion and is ruled by the electorate.  Its main concern is the 20 trillion pound tax avoidance and the fact everyone else is suffering Austerity.  It does not seek revulsion and has criticism of both Russia and China. The biggest party   Labour Is a bit like the Democrates. So if it is a religion I am not sure how you would define it. For some maybe and for others not so.

The Trotskyites I feel maybe as they believe that everything will be wonderful if they destroy Capitalism and as far as I see is that they want to be in charge. They are rigid in their politics and get angry if challenged.  I think that makes them a bit like a religion. Its complicated. 

 

 

Communism is like any other religion.  The schismatic factions can't live with each other.  When they have the power of the State behind them -- it gets bad.

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

I had hope to point out the main Socialist/Communist groups. Democratic socialism is responsible for giving us the national health service, schools, work rights, and pensions and many positive things across Europe.  Communism scares me whether its state Capitalism or Trotskyites.  Russia/China is not something that we feel comfortable with. Like religion it's there way or no way.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I had hope to point out the main Socialist/Communist groups. Democratic socialism is responsible for giving us the national health service, schools, work rights, and pensions and many positive things across Europe.  Communism scares me whether its state Capitalism or Trotskyites.  Russia/China is not something that we feel comfortable with. Like religion it's there way or no way.

 

 

The Chinese Communist Party is drunk with power.  They persecute followers of the various religions, because they can not stand competition.

 

The Russian Orthodox Church, has made their own deal with the Devil.  The State supports them and they support the State.

 

This brings us to the American Evangelicals.  Power mad and depraved.  Just like all the other Theocrats of the world.  They want to rule with the backing of the State.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

Scary scenario.  Luckily we don't get that so much except when Abortion and Gay rights is mentioned. However,  they do not have a majority anymore. It's more so in Northern Ireland. Yet,we do get Bishops sitting in the house of Lords.

I have seen some of the people from the US bible belt and think it would be awful to live there.

When I went to New York and got a taxi through Queens the drivers had evangelical sermons on his radio night and day, he proudly told us. I thought talk about brainwashing. 

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

In America, the Evangelicals gave us President Trump -- and they own the Republican Party. AKA, the Grand Old Party -- AKA, the Party of God.

 

[Pete]

Frightening