Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

Should atheists not be able to refuse to do something based on those beliefs, just as religious people can?

Enter the mission statement of atheism: Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a morality. Atheism holds to no beliefs except the belief that there is no divinity.

I am honestly surprised I have to be the one to bring this up, having had it thrown in my face so often.

That doesn't mean an Atheist can't do something for moral reasons, see the Unabomber for example.

[Cuppsworth]

Every time someone has some beef with "religion," they really mean Christians. When they have a problem with the Bible, they only have a problem with the Old Testament. Never take up any beef (pork?) with Jews despite them regarding the Old Testament as more important scripturally. This does include the Talmud among their scriptures.

to any atheists arguing against Christianity and cite the Old Testament, it would be better to argue against the Jews. From my experience, Western Christianity pays much more attention to the New Testament as opposed to the Old.

Love,

Cuppsworth.

[RedKing]

And then Willfor was the ninja.

But yes, to give a concrete example: I can be an atheist (I'm not) and still find murder against my personal morality, and thus refuse to commit murder. I'd even posit that one can be a pro-life atheist, depending on your personal definition of when life begins.

As stated though, the problem with granting blanket acceptance to things like that is that it could be abused. "Wearing pants is against my morality." "Allowing gays to live is against my morality." "Working is against my morality."

The thing with a religion (for the most part) is that the claims are verifiable and reproducible. If you're Jewish and you claim that eating pork is against your religion, there's plenty of written evidence to support that, as well as a whole lot of other Jews who will back you up on that claim. (There are also plenty of Reformed Jews who will nod while wolfing down that last pork chop, but that's a different story.)

This gets into grey territory when people start using the "religious reasons" loophole and citing obscure and/or personal religions. Like the girl in my area who was expelled for violating school dress code with a nose piercing, who sued and claimed that it was for religious reasons and that her religion was the Church of Body Modification. She won. In her case, there apparently is a recognized organization of that name with about 3500 members.

In theory, I could found the Church of the Red King, come up with whatever theology I want to support whatever it is I want the right to do, then claim religious exemptions to do it. Which is a pretty blatant and cynical manipulation of what those laws were intended to do.

[Virex]

Every time someone has some beef with "religion," they really mean Christians. When they have a problem with the Bible, they only have a problem with the Old Testament. Never take up any beef (pork?) with Jews despite them regarding the Old Testament as more important scripturally. This does include the Talmud among their scriptures.

I take it you don't live near a mosque?

[Leafsnail]

Every time someone has some beef with "religion," they really mean Christians. When they have a problem with the Bible, they only have a problem with the Old Testament. Never take up any beef (pork?) with Jews despite them regarding the Old Testament as more important scripturally. This does include the Talmud among their scriptures.

Unsupported blanket statement gooooooooooo

[Criptfeind]

At any rate, Antisemitism was and still is somewhat a big issue. So such a thing would be taboo even if it was true.

[Virex]

At any rate, Antisemitism was and still is somewhat a big issue. So such a thing would be taboo even if it was true.

Unfortunately, pointing out antisemitism usually results in the one who's pointing it out being accused of racism so I don't think that's going to change soon.


Oh wait, you're from the US...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Elaboration, Virex?

[Virex]

Elaboration, Virex?

Eeeehm, I think I'd rather stay on this board under this name for a liiitle longer. Sorry, not going to risk that.

[Criptfeind]

Yeah. I don't understand. One can point out a thing without being accused of it being a reflection of oneself right?

[Zrk2]

Should atheists not be able to refuse to do something based on those beliefs, just as religious people can?

Enter the mission statement of atheism: Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a morality. Atheism holds to no beliefs except the belief that there is no divinity.

I am honestly surprised I have to be the one to bring this up, having had it thrown in my face so often.

I did not say it was, I was referring to people who had their own moral hierarchy's, instead of one set out by a religion, by 'atheists' I mean 'people whose moral system is not defined by an organized religion.' Although there are also various philosophies which are atheist which set out their morals very like an religion, so that is also what I was referring to, it was rather something of a blanket term.

[Virex]

Yeah. I don't understand. One can point out a thing without being accused of it being a reflection of oneself right?

Well, the point is that a lot of people seem to think that antisemitism in Europe is mainly incited by the religious figurehead of some particularly Middle-Eastern religion that some would call 'unsupportive of Jews and gay people by nature', but actually saying that out loud is not that smart according to people that value their wallet (or peaceful living, space depending on their place of residence and who you're talking to.)


Note: I did not intend to insult, threaten or inconvenience anyone with this post and I hope anyone of all religions and walks of life can appreciate that I do not officially support these views.

[Leafsnail]

Well, the point is that a lot of people seem to think that antisemitism in Europe is mainly incited by the religious figurehead of some particularly Middle-Eastern religion that some would call 'unsupportive of Jews and gay people by nature', but actually saying that out loud is not that smart according to people that value their wallet (or peaceful living, space depending on their place of residence and who you're talking to.)


Note: I did not intend to insult, threaten or inconvenience anyone with this post and I hope anyone of all religions and walks of life can appreciate that I do not officially support these views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

I think a lot more people would say that blaming social problems on some "outsider" religion is disgraceful.

[Glowcat]

As stated though, the problem with granting blanket acceptance to things like that is that it could be abused. "Wearing pants is against my morality." "Allowing gays to live is against my morality." "Working is against my morality."

The thing with a religion (for the most part) is that the claims are verifiable and reproducible. If you're Jewish and you claim that eating pork is against your religion, there's plenty of written evidence to support that, as well as a whole lot of other Jews who will back you up on that claim. (There are also plenty of Reformed Jews who will nod while wolfing down that last pork chop, but that's a different story.)

I like how you rationalized religious privilege while denying the right of Atheists to have any of their moral values acknowledged as worthy of similar protection. Although it is rather strange that you both recognize how morality can divorce itself from religion (Jews eating pork) and yet seem to argue in its favor as something to be protected on basis of shared beliefs. Did I read you wrong? Your argument also seems to ignore that, if one simply needs to point out a common belief system, secular organizations could equally form and say "yeah, this falls under a shared idea of morality."

Maybe the better answer is to throw out the whole thing? Heck, two of the examples you gave for abuse are actually covered by Abrahamic religious tradition already, and we clearly don't protect the second because, thankfully, not even religion's sanctity in our society is enough to allow such monstrosity a serious hold in our culture. Instead it exports itself to African countries... but at least we don't allow it here. The "against my morality to work" thing is however protected, and I believe even was once enforced in some locations, although only on the Sabbath. It isn't much of an abuse though, since not working means not getting paid.

[Virex]

Well, the point is that a lot of people seem to think that antisemitism in Europe is mainly incited by the religious figurehead of some particularly Middle-Eastern religion that some would call 'unsupportive of Jews and gay people by nature', but actually saying that out loud is not that smart according to people that value their wallet (or peaceful living, space depending on their place of residence and who you're talking to.)


Note: I did not intend to insult, threaten or inconvenience anyone with this post and I hope anyone of all religions and walks of life can appreciate that I do not officially support these views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

I think a lot more people would say that blaming social problems on some "outsider" religion is disgraceful.

Are you consciously abusing the fact that I can't discuss this with you?