Why atheists are bothered?

[RaveyDavey]

Having been quite a long time lurker on this site and others, I was jolted into thinking about the whole upsurgence of Atheism by this excellent article in the British Times that really highlights, for me, why Atheists as a group have decided in the last few years to start to speak out:

XXX.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article2617350.ece
(And apologies for the duff link, don't seem to be able to post it... hope i'll be forgiven as it is a genuine one )

There are two factors here that should be understood:
1) A demand and insistence on tolerance for people's views and beliefs - a recognition that opinions and beliefs have a right to be expressed and that right should be protected.
2) A recognition that while the right to have a view is respected - the view itself has no entitlement to that respect.

It is the second point that has really, in my mind, been forgotten - certainly in this country the beliefs themselves have become sacred irregardless of their absurdity, offensiveness and irrationality.
What I find depressing about many arguments from the religious is that they are only defending their view's apparent legitimacy rather than its quality in today's society.

Atheists, freethinkers, liberals etc have very little concern that you subscribe to various views due to their biblical/koranic/etc source (that is your right) but that you subscribe to those views and more importantly seek to impose them on others/us despite our distaste for them.

No one should force a lifestyle or lack of one onto others - allow them to live the way they should choose. You do not have to respect that lifestyle but you should respect the right to lead it.

Interested to hear all your comments...

 

[TheManeki]

Having been quite a long time lurker on this site and others, I was jolted into thinking about the whole upsurgence of Atheism by this excellent article in the British Times that really highlights, for me, why Atheists as a group have decided in the last few years to start to speak out:

XXX.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article2617350.ece
(And apologies for the duff link, don't seem to be able to post it... hope i'll be forgiven as it is a genuine one )

The way the board is set up, you can't post links until you've made a given number of posts. It can be annoying, but I'm sure it has some benefits at times.

Anyhoo, here's the link in a more clickable format:

http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article2617350.ece

 

[Paulos23]

After reading the article I can't see how that is Atheists speaking out. The Muslim students are requesting not to do something that is required for the job they are training for. I can't see how they can expect to stay out of contact of things like rubbing alcohol or not diagnose a STV, especially if they are going to go into general practice. I think it would be a big disservice to their patents if they ignored STVs, or didn't swab down the skin with alcohol before sticking the needle in.

This is a case of religion trying to ignore the realities of the world. And the world rightly saying, if you want to do this, you have to do all of this because people's lives are on the line.

 

[TheManeki]

The article seems related to of one of Richard Dawkins' questions: If you have an irrational belief, why does it become protected once it is associated with a religion?

I think religions can make valuable contributions to society; however, beliefs should be critically examined for how well they work with reality. Belief systems written for people who lived millennia don't always fit with what we know and do now. Those belief systems need to adapt to fit reality, not the other way around.

 

[Bombila]

I think it's important to also note this quote from the article:

" Worse, some Muslim medical students refuse to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases, and a few will not help patients of the opposite sex. The BMA and GMC confirm that such demands are being made. They have been turned down; moreover, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Doctors and Dentists Association condemn the requests and say rather nicely: “The prophet said, Learn about witchcraft but don’t practise it.” "

The rhetoric of 'all religious practice is irrational' is beside the point made here, I think. The point is that the religiously superstitious, be they over-strict Muslims or creationist Christians or others, must not be allowed to endanger the rest of us with their absurd practices.

 

[Beanieboy]

RaveyDavey - do you agree or disagree with the article?

In Minneapolis, 70% of the cab drivers are Muslim. Someone coming in from out of town was passed by 19 cab drivers because she was carrying alcohol. Muslims are not to be around it (as suggested by the checkout clerks who opt out of touching bottles they sell.)

I certainly respect that choice, but then one shouldn't work where someone will come in contact with it. It's like being vegetarian and working at a Bonanza or a supermarktet, and refusing to sell meat. It makes sense that you would go work in a vegetarian restaurant or Co-op, but it isn't your place to tell others they can't buy the store's merchandise.

 

[TheManeki]

I knew a vegetarian Hindu family that owned a Subway franchise. Even though it went against their religious convictions, they had no problems owning the place and selling the usual Subway fare.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I disagree. I think atheists are bothered for the same reason other people who say they disagree with religion and feel compelled to come to a religious site and speak out. They are looking for answers at places they feel led to go to find them. There are many non-Christians here and it use to annoy me. Now I see it as people who are blind to what they are looking for so they argue to rationalize how they live and what they superficially believe. There's one man's opinion for you.

 

[IzzyPop]

I disagree. I think atheists are bothered for the same reason other people who say they disagree with religion and feel compelled to come to a religious site and speak out. They are looking for answers at places they feel led to go to find them. There are many non-Christians here and it use to annoy me. Now I see it as people who are blind to what they are looking for so they argue to rationalize how they live and what they superficially believe. There's one man's opinion for you.

Or you could just ask an atheist why they are bothered...

 

[Autumnleaf]

Or you could just ask an atheist why they are bothered...

They tell me why they think they are bothered. It usually has to do with some asinine bit of if/then logic they are having trouble wrapping their mind around.

 

[clarksided]

Hold up cowboy, I'm not the one who believes in a poor man's compilation of ancient myths.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Hold up cowboy, I'm not the one who believes in a poor man's compilation of ancient myths.

That's the usual comeback. Now from here we can go in several different predictable directions I'm not interested in pursuing. You chose to come to a Christian forum. Make yourself at home. I hope you find what you're looking for.

 

[clarksided]

I was looking for some interesting discussion and some outrageous stuff to laugh at.

I have found both. So your prayers/hope are no longer needed.

 

[Beanieboy]

I disagree. I think atheists are bothered for the same reason other people who say they disagree with religion and feel compelled to come to a religious site and speak out. They are looking for answers at places they feel led to go to find them. There are many non-Christians here and it use to annoy me. Now I see it as people who are blind to what they are looking for so they argue to rationalize how they live and what they superficially believe. There's one man's opinion for you.

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Voegelin]

why Atheists as a group have decided in the last few years to start to speak out:

Started to speak out? They spoke out during the French Revolution. They spoke out in St. Petersburg in 1917, in Budapest in 1919. Atheist governments controlled over half the population of world from 1949 to 1989. For nearly 80 years, atheists ran Russia. They ran Cambodia under Pol Pot. The 70 million + atheists in the communist party are in charge in China today. Atheists have been speaking out for a long time.

 

[Beanieboy]

why Atheists as a group have decided in the last few years to start to speak out:

Started to speak out? They spoke out during the French Revolution. They spoke out in St. Petersburg in 1917, in Budapest in 1919. Atheist governments controlled over half the population of world from 1949 to 1989. For nearly 80 years, atheists ran Russia. They ran Cambodia under Pol Pot. The 70 million + atheists in the communist party are in charge in China today. Atheists have been speaking out for a long time.

and what does this have to do with the OP?

The OP is simply talking about problems when religion interferes.
I gave an example of Minneapolis Taxis at the airport. The OP link gives an example of people who work at a convenience store who don't want to touch alcohol that they sell. Another suggested that Muslims not participate in any Christmas parties or birthday parties, because it is tolerating nonbelief in Allah.

"Sorry, Julie. Going to have to miss the birthday party in the office because you don't believe in Allah."

At least they'll have a party pooper...

 

[RaveyDavey]

After reading the article I can't see how that is Atheists speaking out. The Muslim students are requesting not to do something that is required for the job they are training for. I can't see how they can expect to stay out of contact of things like rubbing alcohol or not diagnose a STV, especially if they are going to go into general practice. I think it would be a big disservice to their patents if they ignored STVs, or didn't swab down the skin with alcohol before sticking the needle in.

This is a case of religion trying to ignore the realities of the world. And the world rightly saying, if you want to do this, you have to do all of this because people's lives are on the line.

No I agree that this article is not itself about Atheists speaking out, but it is an example of some of the religious demands on other people that are making Atheists speak out.

In this case the examples are so extreme/ridiculous that even the moderately religious are starting to complain... perhaps having been made aware of things like this by the more vocal Athiests?

 

[RaveyDavey]

RaveyDavey - do you agree or disagree with the article?

In Minneapolis, 70% of the cab drivers are Muslim. Someone coming in from out of town was passed by 19 cab drivers because she was carrying alcohol. Muslims are not to be around it (as suggested by the checkout clerks who opt out of touching bottles they sell.)

I certainly respect that choice, but then one shouldn't work where someone will come in contact with it. It's like being vegetarian and working at a Bonanza or a supermarktet, and refusing to sell meat. It makes sense that you would go work in a vegetarian restaurant or Co-op, but it isn't your place to tell others they can't buy the store's merchandise.

I agree with the article very much. And I also agree with your point that, yes, regardless of the reasons/rationality of anyone's belief they do have a right to live to it... BUT as the article highlights with extreme cases why would anyone wish to place themselves in a situation where their beliefs/wishes will be definitely challenged and then seek to change the situation rather than avoid it?

To me it smacks of people being unnessesarily obstinate, seeking confrontation, and forcing others to change the rules to put up with them.

This is where I brought up my arguement that currently beliefs are seen as sacred not the right to have them.

 

[Autumnleaf]

and what does this have to do with the OP?

The difference between millions of people getting killed by lack of religion and someone waiting awhile with a bottle of booze in her hand has everything to do with the OP. This is part of the if/then logic I mentioned earlier. Its the same flawed logic lawyers use to get ignorant juries to make errant decisions based on limited information.

 

[RaveyDavey]

The difference between millions of people getting killed by lack of religion and someone waiting awhile with a bottle of booze in her hand has everything to do with the OP. This is part of the if/then logic I mentioned earlier. Its the same flawed logic lawyers use to get ignorant juries to make errant decisions based on limited information.

The poeple killed in your so-called 'atheist' regimes were killed because they objected to having a system forced upon them.

Stalin - imprisoned and killed people who threatened the socialist ideals that he was implementing in russia, as well as the countless millions who died due to his poor economic/industrial/agricultural desisions. Wiki: "However, his crash programs of industrialization and collectivization in the 1930s, along with his ongoing campaigns of POLITICAL repression, are estimated to have cost the lives of millions of people." (my capitals)

Pol pot - Wiki: "The combined effect of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions is estimated to have killed around 2 million Cambodians"..."His regime achieved special notoriety for singling out all intellectuals and other bourgeois enemies for murder."

First of all - get of your noble high horse about these people getting killed for their religion... THEY WEREN'T. Of course some of the bravest people could well have been religious, indeed some could well have been atheist too, what is the common factor for all the executions is that they were killed for resisting the regimes who forced undesirable changes onto them.

And this is what atheists are currently trying to do - stop groups forcing others to conform to their beliefs