Infinity Lover

I think it's naive to assume that beliefs are religious by definition. Every thought in our mind is basicly correct to us, untill we conclude otherwise. And I BELIEF we all have some concepts and perceptions we feel most comfortable with, and reluctant to let go of; beliefs.

For those who can't quite grasp what I mean by nonreligious beliefs... imagine everybody being 100% certain about the same things, and you may as well start calling this an agreement-board. You pick a topic: the importance asscribed to appearance, how to raise your kids, what respect means, whether there is such a thing as love at first sight, pessimism, optimism, left progressive or right conservative, some people will prefer to look at it this way, others will prefer to look at it that way.


Is it fair to say someone is less entitled to having certain, or perhaps I'd better say uncertain, beliefs, because they're of a religious nature? Aren't non-religious beliefs of an irrational nature as well?

How someone manifests him/herself and behaves towards others, is somethings else I think. If you form a positive or negative opinion on someone's behaviour, that shouldn't purely be, because the motives behind it are of a (non)religious nature, but because of the way it affects that person, or others. I'm not trying to start a mudslingingfest about organized religion, or witnessing zealots condeming you to hell.

When does atheism become anti-theism? Forming a negative opinion on a person, not because of the way they behave, but because they have religious beliefs.

Wouldn't the latter constitute as adapting double standards, and be just as objectable as anti-atheism?

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

Amie

I agree here Mar...
yes I admit it is difficult sometimes to let go of things when those things are all you've ever known your entire life..
yeah it all comes down to subjective interpretations and personal perceptions...
I think it becomes Anti-theism when you develop animosity towards believers based merely on their personal beliefs...
I think in a way, yes...

[edit because I screwed up the quote boxes]

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Amie ]</p>

Grizzly

Infinity Lover,

I'm not sure if your post belongs in MF&P, however, I am not certain that it does NOT belong either. Let's leave it here and see what kind of play it gets.

I would say that ALL are entitled to their beliefs - rational or not. But I would not go so far at to say that all uncertain beliefs are created equal. Some uncertain beliefs are verifiable - or at least have the chance at verification. I believe that the earth is billions of years old. I have no personal evidence of this, but I believe that if I took the time to study it, I would most likely come to the same conclusions as others.

Religious beliefs are typically unverifiable. "God Loves Me" is not a verifiable belief. I would put these on a lower level.

But having said that, I want to reiterate that people are certainly free to believe what they want. It's when people with these beliefs want to force them on me is when I get angry. It's when they want to turn their unverifiable beliefs into laws, or when they want to teach these beliefs to my child, is when I stand up and fight.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

Ms. Siv

Whenever there is belief without any supporting evidence .. or belief despite evidence to the contrary ... dogma creeps in. Thats religion.

Theistic religions are not the only religions in the world. There are many others.
And they're all harmful.

- Sivakami.

Infinity Lover

Grizzly:
I think I see where you're coming from. But I hope you'll come to realize, that this is about a form of bigotry/discrimination. A moral issue pure and simple. And moving this thread to a religious forum, simply because it's about bigotry/discrimination based on religious beliefs, would be the mother of all ironies t.m.h.o.

Back to the subject:
I think that any form of discrimination is based on unfair judgements based on irrelevant criteria.

Harmfullness WOULD be a relevant criteria. There's nothing wrong with objecting to harmfullnes in any shape or form.

I would however like to again point out, that the subject here isn't organized religion, but being biased towards a person purely on the grounds of them believeing in matters such an eternal soul, afterlife, and a higher power. Anti-theism.

If someone for instance treats a person who believes in the power of prayer worse, than they would treat someone who believes that spanking your kids is okay...
...or ridicules someone who expressed how they feel loved by God, while not mentioning a word towards someone boasting how America is the greatest nation in the world...

...how does that NOT constitute as upholding double standards?

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

Dr. Retard

What's wrong with this? If I find out that a person believes that the Holocaust is a hoax, then I will form a negative opinion on that person. I am right to do so. Such a person deserves my contempt, and the contempt of everyone else. The same goes with some religious beliefs. If I find out that a person believes that God is returning next Thursday at 8pm EST, then that person also deserves my contempt. Loonies deserve our contempt. This seems like common sense to me.

Of course, not all people with religious beliefs are loonies. Such more-or-less reasonable religious folks don't deserve our contempt.

sweep

I think that one of the main problems is that persons tend to project their own 'internal scheme' upon others. This purports to describe exactly what others think: for example:

I think that black guy could be a thief: I wonder if that black guy thinks, I think that because he is a black guy he might be a thief. perhaps he is aware that I am pretending to cast a suspicious glace so as to put that thought into his head, or maybe that's only me, projecting a thousand thoughts into someone elses head

with regard to the topic, the Anti-theist presupposes that every theist, under the heading: 'organised religion' has a collective definition of god, jesus, soul etc, or perhaps that's only me. NO it isn't, since i am aware that everyone has a different view, including, those opposed to christianity.

What we really need to do here is to look at particulars, with reference to particular lifestyles, and particular persons. No doubt that, in some instances, a person will equate the belief with the enemy, a common attribution error (not to be confused with popular psychology texts: *keyword*&gt; popular) We're all alone, and yet we think that we belong somewhere, and that someone truly understands 'us', or maybe that's only me.

no, it isn't I'm never alone- shut up you, mr cynic isn't going to join the fray today- now where was I?

ah, yes, this might help:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

Infinity Lover

I agree. I think you could also explain that as everybody whiping up their own interpretation of what they observe

[qb]for example:

I think that black guy could be a thief: I wonder if that black guy thinks, I think that because he is a black guy he might be a thief. perhaps he is aware that I am pretending to cast a suspicious glace so as to put that thought into his head, or maybe that's only me, projecting a thousand thoughts into someone elses head </strong>
Maybe you're overanalysing and confusing the hell out of yourself?

<strong>with regard to the topic, the Anti-theist presupposes that every theist, under the heading: 'organised religion' has a collective definition of god, jesus, soul etc, or perhaps that's only me. NO it isn't, since i am aware that everyone has a different view, including, those opposed to christianity. </strong>

Not everybody takes the effort to make that distinction. I also think that many people end up sacrificing their individuality by adapting group related stereotypes, unfortunately fueling other's justification for generalisation and predjudice.

<strong>What we really need to do here is to look at particulars, with reference to particular lifestyles, and particular persons. No doubt that, in some instances, a person will equate the belief with the enemy, a common attribution error (not to be confused with popular psychology texts: *keyword*&gt; popular) We're all alone, and yet we think that we belong somewhere, and that someone truly understands 'us', or maybe that's only me.

no, it isn't I'm never alone- shut up you, mr cynic isn't going to join the fray today- now where was I?</strong>
Lol

<strong>ah, yes, this might help:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller</strong>

I think it just might.
It wouldn't help for only theists to speak out against anti-theism, additional weight to the cause is only gained when atheists put in their 2 cts as well.
And if one side of the equation isn't prepared to judge itself, it doesn't place that side in the best of positions to judge the other side.

sweep

on both sides of the equation, I think that we can agree that there are nice people (positive & constructive) as well ugly people (negative & destructive)&gt; there have been times when I was both, and for different reasons. Here again, we get to the part where the big picture fades into obscurity, and I start delving into the minor details, which makes me lose sight of the original point.

Equating an individual belief with a person and having a lower opinion of that person can be a mistake. There again, that is all we have to go on in a forum, but it isn't an excuse to cast a negative view, reflecting that view with appropriately negative words.

(Here are some of my problems: If I find that someone does something (eg&gt; smoking) that I don't like, I have cause to look down upon them. It is my way of making myself feel more important and less insignificant, than I already am. I automatically control that person in that I have a 'superior view'. of course, it is useful that I am aware that it is possible for me to be a fool. Another of my problems is that I assume others don't know what I am talking about, and have something useful to say.)

there, I have judged myself. horrible&gt; I feel weak and vulnerable. That brings me to another point. Part of adulthood involves not getting hurt, so if an individual can build a defensive shell &lt;in this instance, a belief that another point of view has less value&gt; we stay on top: some of my friends can find any excuse to demean another person, in favour of their own position.

Theism and anti-theism can be the same thing, I.e. looking down rather than up, in order to have personal power and control, adding up to less fear and insecurity, but it isn't all black and white.

so, theism becomes its opposite when a person has need to expand beyond the crumbling tower of theology. In this sense the individual simply moves house, so that they still feel safe. Yet, inevitably, marauding wolves come and start hammering: "little pigs, little pigs let me come in!" to which the pig replies replies: "not by the hairs on my chiny chin chin!"

This might relate to a cliche I have in mind: "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" was that appropriate?

Infinity Lover

Sweep; the way you can throw meaningfull thoughts on the table to ponder, never fails to impress me.