Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This thread is about the distinction between the two titular groups.

I often say that I oppose most aspects of theism (and I do), but cannot admonish people on an individual level for their beliefs. Religion, for all its faults, is often used for good, or for emotional support, or for social interaction and acceptance. It can inspire great art, or great lives, or many other positive things.

Now, I'm a believer that the good that religion does would not go away if religion went away. The good exists within people, not the institution. The creativity and love within people would find other outlets. So I feel justified in railing against organized religion, confident that it removed from the people involved.

...

I do think it is important to make a distinction here though: Saying something like "I think {insert theistic religion or religious belief} is harmful and wrong because of this..." is fine in my book. But saying something like "Christians are like this..." is not ok. The distinction is that one is talking about the institution, the beliefs themselves. The latter is generalizing people. Just because it is not a specific person does not absolve the statement of unjust slander.

The same, of course, would go for any philosophical or religious opinion. I think ideas should be challenged if there is fault with them, but I do not like insulting people who can be loving, intelligent, and humane even if I disagree with them.

There are, of course, exceptions. I have no qualms with attacking those who use their beliefs as justification for opinions and acts that I see as morally reprehensible. I wouldn't, for example, attack the idea of suicide bombing but be respectful to the bomber. He's stupid too. Not all examples are that extreme, but you don't have to look far to see religion being used to justify hatred and bigotry.

...

In any case, I have been told that the line is perhaps not as clear as the above comments draw it. For example: If I question the idea of "faith", and call it harmful, I have been told that it does in fact question and/or attack people of faith. Or if I oppose a religion intellectually, it directly opposes the people who believe it. Imo, it opposes their beliefs, certainly, but not their character.

But I could be wrong, and it's possible that it does cross a line at some point, depending on the nature of the debate.

...

I suppose it could be titled "Non-theists and Non-theism" instead. No sense limiting ourselves. Feel free to talk about either.

This thread is for general discussion on this topic, but I'll offer a few leading question in case the topic flounders:

How do you make the distinction between the two (or don't you)?

Where/when does it cross over into personal attacks?

Should be be more careful about speaking negatively about others? Or less careful?

Are others able to make the distinction, or is it something that doesn't happen as often as it should in society?

A. I get back to you on that one. My head needs to be clea for a proper answer.

B. We should speak with courtesy towards each other. No one likes a smart ass much less an ass. People with lack of courtesy get no attention IMO.

C. I don't believe in limiting speech. But I do believe in responsible speech. Case in point:

I see a very obese man with a deform scar in his face sitting in bench inside a park. I approach the man and say to him "You're a very fat and ugly person" Now, I am stating a fact and I am using my freedom of speech....does that make it right? Courtesy...that's all it takes to have a conversation.

D. See A.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I do think it is important to make a distinction here though: Saying something like "I think {insert theistic religion or religious belief} is harmful and wrong because of this..." is fine in my book. But saying something like "Christians are like this..." is not ok. The distinction is that one is talking about the institution, the beliefs themselves. The latter is generalizing people. Just because it is not a specific person does not absolve the statement of unjust slander.

Far too many people here use that as a thinly veiled excuse to insult people of faith by attacking the religion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Far too many people here use that as a thinly veiled excuse to insult people of faith by attacking the religion.

Fair enough. You're absolutely right. But that can also be a valid justification for legitimate intellectual differences about belief systems. If people only pay lip service to the distinction, then insult others, they aren't actually upholding their word. But in principle it doesn't seem like it's morally reprehensible (to me at least).

My problem comes with how reverent we are supposed to be around religious beliefs. If we disagree with political ideas, debate is healthy and encouraged. But if someone believes in a God based on faith and shoddy evidence, we're supposed to step back and say "I respect that and won't question it." It stifles debate because people get too touchy about the subject, and take attacks on the religion as attacks on the person.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
My problem comes with how reverent we are supposed to be around religious beliefs. If we disagree with political ideas, debate is healthy and encouraged. But if someone believes in a God based on faith and shoddy evidence, we're supposed to step back and say "I respect that and won't question it." It stifles debate because people get too touchy about the subject, and take attacks on the religion as attacks on the person.

Religion and politics (along with most things) are very different though.

Religion isn't supposed to have anything to do with reason or evidence, it is simply what a person wishes to believe. Trying to argue against religion using "Christianity is dumb because you can't prove that god exists" is, frankly, idiotic. In politics you can say things like that because trying to run a nation without some rational behind your actions is completely insane (which is why religion and politics are supposed to be separate in most governments).

The same argument extends to science, math, sports whatever.

Debate about religion can only work if either both sides have respect for each other (which is quite clearly not the case for the vast majority of atheists I've seen on KMC) or if it takes place purely involving religion (Talmudic scholarship or comparison f religions). Trying to apply rationality or science to people's faiths will always fail unless one side or the other is willing to give ground.

The problem arises when religion begins to encroach on other areas such as medicine, science and politics.

When one uses their personal spiritual beliefs, which as established aren't based on reason or evidences, as justification in particular issues in medicine, science, politics etc. I feel no need to use kid gloves. You've brought that belief into a realm where it's accountable to scrutiny, ergo I will scrutinize.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The problem arises when religion begins to encroach on other areas such as medicine, science and politics.

When one uses their personal spiritual beliefs, which as established aren't based on reason or evidences, as justification in particular issues in medicine, science, politics etc. I feel no need to use kid gloves. You've brought that belief into a realm where it's accountable to scrutiny, ergo I will scrutinize.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The problem arises when religion begins to encroach on other areas such as medicine, science and politics.

When one uses their personal spiritual beliefs, which as established aren't based on reason or evidences, as justification in particular issues in medicine, science, politics etc. I feel no need to use kid gloves. You've brought that belief into a realm where it's accountable to scrutiny, ergo I will scrutinize.

How can you separate a politician from his religious beliefs? I know we are all into this "secular" age these days but can secularism actually exist?

When you elect a politician you do it based on their personality, belief system, reputation...your not electing them supposing that they will treat every issue without referencing their own moral code otherwise it wouldn't matter who you vote for because they would all be the same right? Clearly not. How can you expect them not to go back to their beliefs, be they spiritual or ideological when making decisions...If a politician is Catholic and therefore anti-abortion would you expect them to put their beliefs aside? I suppose you probabally would. But if a politican was a communist would you expect them to put their beliefs aside when drawing up the budget? No.

Its double standards.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How can you separate a politician from his religious beliefs? I know we are all into this "secular" age these days but can secularism actually exist?

When you elect a politician you do it based on their personality, belief system, reputation...your not electing them supposing that they will treat every issue without referencing their own moral code otherwise it wouldn't matter who you vote for because they would all be the same right? Clearly not. How can you expect them not to go back to their beliefs, be they spiritual or ideological when making decisions...If a politician is Catholic and therefore anti-abortion would you expect them to put their beliefs aside? I suppose you probabally would. But if a politican was a communist would you expect them to put their beliefs aside when drawing up the budget? No.

Its double standards. If you read my post more carefully you'll find it isn't about whether or not people should bring their religious beliefs into science and politics and medicine; but that in the event that they do I feel no need to treat their religious beliefs in any more reverence than I do other people's non-religious rationale behind particular stances on particular issues. If they use their beliefs to justify stances or intend to impose certain stances based on those beliefs in realms where evidence and reason are a requisite then they will be subjected to the same level of scrutiny and critique as any other stance.

As to your example, I wouldn't ask a Catholic politician to put his/her beliefs aside, but I certainly wouldn't endorse the imposing of them on others by voting for him/her either.

"Because God says so." doesn't pass muster for me when determining whether the rationale behind policy is sound.

xmarks made most of my point for me. If it was just harmless belief, I'd have no problem with it. But peoples' beliefs tend to leak into other aspects of life, and on a larger level in society as well. No strongly held religion is an entity unto itself...it comes with a large set of opinions and tendencies that affect the world around them, and many other people. That's why I have no qualms with debating against many different beliefs.

And the politician example is case and point. If a politician is legislating based on his beliefs, we have every right to question them if we disagree. I wouldn't have him set aside his beliefs, but I would (in an ideal setting) have him voluntarily change them to better suit reasonable thought, not blind faith.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If you read my post more carefully you'll find it isn't about whether or not people should bring their religious beliefs into science and politics and medicine; but that in the event that they do I feel no need to treat their religious beliefs in any more reverence than I do other people's non-religious rationale behind particular stances on particular issues. If they use their beliefs to justify stances or intend to impose certain stances based on those beliefs in realms where evidence and reason are a requisite then they will be subjected to the same level of scrutiny and critique as any other stance.

As to your example, I wouldn't ask a Catholic politician to put his/her beliefs aside, but I certainly wouldn't endorse the imposing of them on others by voting for him/her either.

"Because God says so." doesn't pass muster for me when determining whether the rationale behind policy is sound.
I have no qualms with that, it was more a point about secularism in general...but you say you don't wish a politician to impose his beliefs onto other people, cum catholic politician-abortion example...what about the socialist politician, would you wish him to impose his particular views on people when designing a economic policy?

Two questions that would need to be answered first to make the scenario analogous in my opinion:
1) Does the "socialist politician" in question give valid/testable justification underlying any particular policy. Is there a solid rationale?
2) What personal freedoms exactly are being violated in the enactment of a budget? What individual rights are being taken away?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Two questions that would need to be answered first to make the scenario analogous in my opinion:
1) Does the "socialist politician" in question give valid/testable justification underlying any particular policy. Is there a solid rationale?
2) What personal freedoms exactly are being violated in the enactment of a budget? What individual rights are being taken away?

In the case I was thinking of the only rationale said politician gives is "its the right thing, the just thing" or something along the lines of taken wealth from fat cats for the benefit for the poor...and the rights that are being violated? Could be anything from forced employment, confiscation of wealth...etc

What personal freedom would the Catholic politician be taking away if he banned abortion?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What personal freedom would the Catholic politician be taking away if he banned abortion?

The freedom to abort a pregnancy, the freedom to decide that it might be better not to raise a child when feeding yourself is a struggle, the freedom to not give birth the the child of a rapist, the freedom of a woman to make a choice about how she wants to live and when she wants to start a family.


Nothing big.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The freedom to abort a pregnancy, the freedom to decide that it might be better not to raise a child when feeding yourself is a struggle, the freedom to not give birth the the child of a rapist, the freedom of a woman to make a choice about how she wants to live and when she wants to start a family.


Nothing big.

What about the Child's freedom to live? Or does that not count because it doesn't have a birth certificate?

The woman had the freedom to have sex, she did it. She needs to take the responsibility...please don't say "what if she was raped" thats an extreme example and in this country only about 10% or less of abortions are done because either the woman was raped or delivering the baby endangered the mothers life.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_4116461

Oh, btw I don't support banning abortions so don't think im trying to impose my views on others.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What about the Child's freedom to live? Or does that not count because it doesn't have a birth certificate?

The woman had the freedom to have sex, she did it. She needs to take the responsibility...please don't say "what if she was raped" thats an extreme example and in this country only about 10% or less of abortions are done because either the woman was raped or delivering the baby endangered the mothers life.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_4116461

Oh, btw I don't support banning abortions so don't think im trying to impose my views on others.

Not really the place for this discussion. But you know perfectly well that there are plenty of circumstances where women put themselves at risk of becoming pregnant because they lack education or out of desperation.

I won't spam this thread so if you'd like to continue quote me in the abortion thread in the GDF.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
In the case I was thinking of the only rationale said politician gives is "its the right thing, the just thing" or something along the lines of taken wealth from fat cats for the benefit for the poor...and the rights that are being violated? Could be anything from forced employment, confiscation of wealth...etc

What personal freedom would the Catholic politician be taking away if he banned abortion? For the former, then no I wouldn't support the politician - the rationale for the economic policy was untestable and subjective, but I don't really see how economic policy can violate rights and in your example the examples you gave were to be frank pretty weak. By forced employment do you mean... like.. slavery? I don't think there really is a right to be wealthy... unless you mean having no wealth whatsoever and total redistribution of wealth which would never happen anyway.

For the latter Symmetric Chaos has responded adequately and I'm bored of abortion as a discussion point right now.

IMO, criticizing a belief system is not the same as criticizing the people who believe it. But some people identify so closely with their belief, they have virtually no identity w/o it.

There are respectful ways of presenting an opposing POV, ways of making it clear that what you're saying is not a personal attack, but rather what you don't like about the belief system.

Lines are crossed when someone chooses to cross it, either the speaker or the listener.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For the former, then no I wouldn't support the politician - the rationale for the economic policy was untestable and subjective, but I don't really see how economic policy can violate rights and in your example the examples you gave were to be frank pretty weak. By forced employment do you mean... like.. slavery? I don't think there really is a right to be wealthy... unless you mean having no wealth whatsoever and total redistribution of wealth which would never happen anyway.

For the latter Symmetric Chaos has responded adequately and I'm bored of abortion as a discussion point right now.

I think the people of East Germany say would have found their rights and liberties serious dampened by socialism...regardless, it seems what you are saying is that if any politician uses anything be it religion, ideology or even superstition in an argument for something you would treat all of them with the same scrutiny?

Pretty much, that's sort of why I posted that in my first post I thought religious justifications entering realms subject to such scrutiny, shouldn't be given any more reverence than any other underlying rationale. Which is what I think the thread was originally about, but now I'm not so sure where it's gone.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Pretty much, that's sort of why I posted that in my first post I thought religious justifications entering realms subject to such scrutiny, shouldn't be given any more reverence than any other underlying rationale. Which is what I think the thread was originally about, but now I'm not so sure where it's gone.

Yes I agree with that.