S/O: When your spouse is no longer part of your faith

[Rosie_0801]

Maybe we're using the word "privately" in a different way.

I can't speak for Sadie, but keeping religion private doesn't mean we ban people from wearing crucifixes and everyone needs to worship behind closed doors in the dead of night. Private means we keep the separation of church and state.

[Murphy101]

Huh ? I just wanted to establish that no-one is talking about taking away the right to worship or have a religion.

 

I honestly don't understand the anger coming across here. I think you may be reading something into my post that wasn't there. I really don't mind if people want to talk about their church while they are shopping or worship in a quiet room at work or anything of that sort.

 

It's really hard to have a conversation when people keep making angry assumptions about what you say.

 

I'm not even remotely angry. I simply addressed my qualms with your post? I agree assumptions about what I'm saying is making it hard for you to understand me?

 

Your question was why be respectful, presuming the right to practice in private or at church.

 

I guess I don't understand your question then bc it seems to imply you would think it okay to not be respectful outside those realms. If not, yay, glad to hear it. :)

[Rosie_0801]

I'm having trouble seeing why people don't make the distinction between dissing a person, and dissing an  idea - even a strongly held and precious idea. I think that's at the nub of what I'm trying to work out.

 

 

Because it is not a mere idea, it is Truth and attacking Truth puts children in danger? I had a situation like that a few months ago and you'd better believe I went all mamma bear about it.

[marbel]

I believe she is talking about the difference between treating a person with respect and treating a deity and all it says with respect.

 

For example, I might think Ares' evil twin is a nasty piece of work who does not deserve one iota of respect, even if I did believe in him. I would treat his followers politely but I would still think badly of him and whatever unpleasantness his followers do in his service. I respect the *people* and their right to life as they see fit (within the boundaries of the law) but I would have no respect at all for the deity or the religion itself. 

 

I have seen it claimed by followers of other gods that I should respect the religion and the deity, even when it is mandating things I find abhorrent, and "merely" respecting the people and their right to follow the religion is not good enough. I ought to behave as though I am perfectly ok with their horrible rituals, the horrible reasons behind their horrible rituals.

 

 

Not sure that is clear enough, but it's the best I can do for now. These sort of ideas make me feel much the way I felt when I was reprimanded by someone for not being appropriately patriotic towards America, when obviously, as an Australian, I have no allegiance to America at all.

 

OK, think I've got it, thanks; that did help.

 

Couple of followup questions:

 

1.  How can one respect (or disrespect, for that matter) a deity in which one does not believe?   OK, not a deity but, go with it here - I don't believe in Santa.  So how would I respect or disrespect this being who I do not believe exists?    The similarity falls apart here because I need to say I can still respect people who believe in Santa but actually I don't think I could, at least anyone over the age of 10.  Or maybe 8.   

 

2.  Why the heck would anyone expect an Australian to be patriotic toward America?  

[Anne in CA]

Sure. Some people here - not you - have equated an atheist saying aloud something along the line that 'religion seems nuts to me' is disrespectful/snarky, when actually it's just a statement of how someone genuinely feels.

 

I don't think I should be able to go  around calling my friends idiots for being religious either. But I do think I should be able to say what I think about religion - which isn't always flattering - without that being seen as snark or personally nasty.

 

It's the difference between calling a person a fool - nasty - and calling an idea foolish. I think it's very dangerous when we impose social niceties on the discussion of ideas in order to squash them.

This is something I really do agree with. It is one thing to be able to say what you think, as long as you are not degrading anyone, and another to be insulting someone. I do think some subjects like politics and religion are so sensitive that unless someone completely agrees with you they find what you are saying offensive. 

 

I mean, make no mistake, I believe what I believe because I have extremely good reasons for those beliefs. I do not hold my beliefs because they were taught to me from the cradle or because they were taught to me by someone in authority over me. I believe those things to be true for everyone else, whether or not they believe those things. I believe there are truths that frame the world, and while I do not believe you have to be a Christian to understand and use those truths to your advantage, I think those truths are real. I believe that Jesus Christ walked the earth and that he was God and man, and while I can be respectful of people who think that's silly, I think I should be able to say my thoughts without snickering. Christians are not supposed to be quick to take offence. 

 

Very few people snicker at me as I have gotten more articulate. Thank you SWB! 

 

When Susan Smith killed her children one of my new coworkers (who just assumed there were not Christians working in such a liberal environment) said "How about those Christians who have started killing thing children?" He was all set for a diatribe and my coworkers froze, lol. I graciously changed the subject, although I could have verbally squashed him. I gave him grace, and we worked together beautifully for many years after that. I am so glad I was kind. Kindness is free.

 

Later I learned he had been really burned by religious people in his life. 

[fraidycat]

However, no, to say people are only free to practice and live their faith privately is terribly wrong. That is a gross distortion of what freedom and rights are supposed to be in the states.

Nope. It's really not.

 

And Sadie is in Australia as far as I can tell. How did this get to be about the American Constitution?

[mamajag]

Honey, you can speak for yourself but don't presume to speak for me.

 

As for the idea that an atheist is someone who just needs a good dose of vilification to understand the truth...well, it's novel, I'll give you that.

 

 

I don't like saying it's not a choice because it takes away from people who really don't have a choice in what they are. It's a lack of personal responsibility that is troubling. At some point, atheists decide to be that just as religious people choose their religion.

 

I never said what you're implying, either. I had already made the decision to convert and that decision led to a certain group of boardies deciding to attack me from all directions. I thought a group of people priding themselves on being "free thinkers" and demanding tolerance would be more...tolerant.

[Murphy101]

Well, I'm not really a very offensive person, so it's hard for me to come up with something that might meet a more tolerant view of offence :)

 

I'm having trouble seeing why people don't make the distinction between dissing a person, and dissing an idea - even a strongly held and precious idea. I think that's at the nub of what I'm trying to work out.

 

 

Because there are many things that we as individuals view as part of us.

 

There are many almost universally common things almost all individuals almost everywhere cannot separate from their identity. (Did I say almost enough to cover the exceptions?)

 

Marriage

Religion

Parenting

 

Are the big three.

 

I think you answered before you read my reply upthread :)

Repeatedly apparently. :)

[Rosie_0801]

 

1.  How can one respect (or disrespect, for that matter) a deity in which one does not believe?   OK, not a deity but, go with it here - I don't believe in Santa.  So how would I respect or disrespect this being who I do not believe exists?    The similarity falls apart here because I need to say I can still respect people who believe in Santa but actually I don't think I could, at least anyone over the age of 10.  Or maybe 8.   

 

2.  Why the heck would anyone expect an Australian to be patriotic toward America?  

 

1. I don't think any deities whether they have traditions behind them or whether they were made up yesterday for someone's Dungeons and Dragons game have any interest in my opinion, and the problem lies when one of their followers hears me say something they don't like to hear about their deity. Otherwise, bypassing actual humans, I suppose Athena would be a tad upset if I went about decapitating owls and decorating her statues with cow pats. Some Middle Eastern deities are reputed to be very much offended by the worship of other deities and people generally not doing as they are told.

 

2. I don't suppose they did. But they were hurt that I didn't behave as though I was.

[Rosie_0801]

I don't like saying it's not a choice because it takes away from people who really don't have a choice in what they are. It's a lack of personal responsibility that is troubling. At some point, atheists decide to be that just as religious people choose their religion.

 

 

I think you are missing the distinction between what one believes and what one identifies as. I have no choice about what I believe and don't believe. It is just there in my mind and heart. I have plenty of choice as to what I identify as, what vocabulary I use.

 

The lady who was talking about converting from Christianity to Wicca clearly can't help but think and feel that way. But she does have a choice as to whether she calls herself a witch, Wiccan, a seeker of the divine feminine, non-Christian, currently searching, etc. I couldn't possibly return to Christianity. I am simply not built that way. I choose to call myself a Pagan, though, because it is a convenient lexical item that may be applied to my stance. If I lived in The Place Where Pagans' Children Will Be Spat At In The Street, I bet I'd say I'm non-religious at the very strongest.

[mamajag]

I disagree. If children are born theists, then why do they require catechism? 

 

 I didn't say that and you know it. I'm actually saying just the opposite, that people choose their beliefs.

 

Therefore, children, who are born atheists, no more choose that condition than they choose to be born without clothes.  Just because it is the societal norm for many adult humans to endorse an invisible, untouchable, unobservable God or gods, does not change the natural condition they were born into. It does not erase the original default setting--it overrides it.  Sometimes for life, sometimes not.  But, when someone can no longer maintain that precarious balance between the observable evidence and the unobservable assertions, and is forced to acknowledge that belief in a god or gods is no longer possible, it's not so much a choice as it is an instinctual move to preserve one's psyche from further trauma due to the irreconcilable. 

 

I don't believe anyone is born with a belief system or lack of one. It's not genetic. There is no default setting like you describe. The only reason anyone would actually embrace that thought is if they want protected status as a minority. Otherwise, the logic atheists claim to embrace is just the luck of genetics.

 

I have never heard or seen a baby equipped with some type of alarm to indicate he or she is in spiritual distress and needs a God to pacify him or her. They are not born looking to connect with God; they aren't born with a drive to pray or perform acts of contrition to appease God.  Babies aren't born with a driving instinct to go to Mass or to be baptized or any other such religious compulsion. Those are all requirements that have nothing to do with the natural state of a baby's needs, physical or emotional.  Ergo, atheism, not theism, is the natural state of infant humans.  It takes an active choice, an act of will, to change that state--usually on part of the parents, but eventually, on part of the individual to maintain that belief.

 

​I would differ with that based on my own experience with my kids. I was raising them atheist. Part of what made me look into Catholicism was their hunger for something more. I saw them blossom when we started attending RCIA together. They were spiritually hungry. Not all children are, but mine were.

 

Finally, if you were hateful as an atheist, you still have that capability as a theist.  You are who you are as a person, and whether you believe in God or not, your innate empathy for other humans should inform you as to what is healthy and what is not.  It is a cop out to say that belief or non-belief drives one to behave poorly.  Whether you are an atheist or not, you can perceive what pain is, and that to deliberately cause others pain is a form of predatory social behavior and detrimental to your social relations with other people. That is not due to any esoteric understanding, but perfectly observable knowledge of human social interactions, starting in early childhood.

 

Of course I still have that capacity. I choose otherwise, now. I merely said that I did not fully understand how hurtful it was when I was atheist and talked to people of faith. I had previously thought I probably annoyed them the way those who tried to convert me annoyed me. I didn't realize the depth of the hurt, no.  I've learned a lot in the last year about myself. I don't enjoy you repeatedly putting things in my mouth that I did not say. I never blamed poor behavior on one's status as a theist or atheist. I merely pointed to an event in my life that pointed out to me something I had been previously unaware of. The timing of it was secondary.

 

[Murphy101]

Nope. It's really not.

And Sadie is in Australia as far as I can tell. How did this get to be about the American Constitution?

It did not and I didn't say it did. However, when mentioning rights, it helps to give a point of reference on what I'm framing the opinion upon. :)

[Joker]

I don't like saying it's not a choice because it takes away from people who really don't have a choice in what they are. It's a lack of personal responsibility that is troubling. At some point, atheists decide to be that just as religious people choose their religion.

 

I never said what you're implying, either. I had already made the decision to convert and that decision led to a certain group of boardies deciding to attack me from all directions. I thought a group of people priding themselves on being "free thinkers" and demanding tolerance would be more...tolerant.

 

This is just something I do not understand at all. I have never chosen to believe. I just believe. God is very real to me and even when angry I know He is there. I am not choosing to believe. I just do.

 

My dh is an atheist and he does not believe. Dh is not making a choice. He wants to believe and reads/studies/participates every Sunday but he still does not believe. He is not making a choice to not believe. He is making a choice to try and believe and go through the motions in the hope that one day he does believe. Right now he doesn't though. Dh truly wishes it was just a choice.

 

The idea that we all just choose our religious beliefs is really out there to me. I have been very angry at God and it honestly would have been easier for me at that time to just choose to believe He wasn't real. I couldn't do it.

[Murphy101]

For me, it's not about disrespecting or respecting a deity. If there is no deity, you are quite right, there's nothing to respect or disrespect. When I talk about religion I'm talking about what is built around that deity, not the deity itself.

 

 

People are always (OK, hyperbole but it feels like it) smacking me on the hand for not understanding American culture. I don't think of this as an American board, I think of it as a board of thinking moms, but it seems that isn't the case for a lot of people. Some people do get offended at ideas that don't line up with the Constitution, whereas I guess I am just thinking more abstractly than that.

 

What I find fascinating is America is HUGE and so when people say things like "American culture" I am sitting here thinking, "WTH are they even talking about? California? New York? South Dakota? Mississippi? Florida? The South? Native American? Yankees? Our West? ???"

 

To me saying "American culture" is like saying "European culture". What? Like they're all French? Or British? Or?

 

There are usually a few things that refers to.

 

1. Rugged individualism

2. The constitution

 

For many Americans, sadly, their meager education wrt the constitution is the sum total of their knowledge of "rights". I don't agree with it and find it rather sad, but there it is. I think it is normal, and to some extent helpful, to know the opposing debaters point of reference. So if they are basing what is a right on their limited knowledge of the constitution, they are going to need some explanation to grasp my reference to Thomas Aquinas' definition of rights.

 

Likewise, if someone in Australia is using a different value of rights, that might be helpful. It might not change my opinion, but at least I have a clue why they are saying public practice of a religion is not a requirement to actually having freedom of religion. Maybe. In theory anyways. :)

[fraidycat]

Ok. I get confused in discussions like this when people conflate rights with respect.

 

In my opinion respect is not ever a right. It can be earned, it can be given. It should not ever be expected. Expectation = disappointment.

 

Then knickers get twisted and things go topsy turvy and feelings get hurt. Vicious cycle.

[eternalsummer]

Children are born without language as well.

[fraidycat]

Children are born without language as well.

Now you're arguing against yourself? I'm having trouble following your logic here...

 

Babies grow into children who are taught language, just as they are taught religion.

[fraidycat]

In addition, if they are not taught language, they don't acquire it.

If not exposed. Some may take the "taught" part too literally, here, so wanted to clarify that they can acquire if exposed as much is not directly taught.

[fraidycat]

In addition, if they are not exposed to language, they don't learn it.

;) i see we were on the same page here.

[Lavandula]

 

Finally, I've got a stomach virus, and the screen flickering is making me want to vomit, so I'm out of this conversation. 

Our whole family has one  :glare:

 

I think the thing shouldn't be learning the language, but how easy it is to learn the language? Perhaps that'd be a better comparison. Some people are just naturally good at learning languages. Some take longer or never can, no matter how hard they try. Some people naturally believe in a god. Some try and just can't. 

[Lavandula]

Or don't feel the need to try. I have one child who has grown up without any significant exposure to religion or spirituality, and he's none the worse for it No gaping hole, nice kid...no interest in religion at all.

Yep. I've always struggled with it. DS is agnostic and never has. He's always been interested in religion, but we've talked and he's never had any desire to join one. I know other people who aren't even interested in the history. It's not like they chose that, it's just how they are.

[mamajag]

Mamajag, do you now realise, as a person of faith, that the way you've been talking about atheists in this thread is pretty hurtful ? As I said upthread, I don't think you mean to be, I just think you're not recognising it.

 

Hurtful, how? Because I believe faith or not is a choice one makes? Because I disagree that we're all born atheists? I haven't made generalizations about atheists. I have talked about personal, specific instances of my experiences both as an atheist and a person of faith. People have purposefully twisted my words and put words in my mouth that I did not say. I can't apologize for people deciding to interpret whatever I say in the worst possible way.

[Alte Veste Academy]

nm, misunderstood

[[email protected]]

Would you all like this thread to continue? If so, stop 1) attacking each other and 2) reporting each other. 

 

Really, up to you.

 

Moderator

[eternalsummer]

And...?

 

1. They acquire their mother's language, not one true language.

2. Are you comparing atheism to self-chosen mutism ?

 

(Butter softening, I could clean, but meh)

 

I agree; I'm not religious, but I do see the value in religion and spirituality, and I think that (like language), it's something fairly natural to humans.

 

I don't think we disagree.

[eternalsummer]

Some individual people don't need/have spirituality, but pretty much all human civilization since forever has.

[unfrumpable.]

Some individual people don't need/have spirituality, but pretty much all human civilization since forever has.

 

But in the past it was created to help people understand natural phenonemon that was going on that they didn't understand. The vast majority of that has since been explained by science. So, I don't see it as they needed spirituality, but that they turned to/created that because they had no other explanation for what was happening around them.

[albeto.]

Humor at someone else's expense is not humor. There's other words for it, but witty isn't the one I would choose.

 

 Religious beliefs aren't exempt from humoring those who don't share them, even if religious people really really don't like their beliefs to be laughed at. 

 

Blahblahblah. Basicly you're argument for an atheist being a mocking jerk is that it's okay because you think Christians are worse. The old erroneous two wrongs make it right theory.

 

There's nothing wrong with exposing erroneous content in education. If it's done in a clever, humorous, lighthearted way, it gets the message across well. Arguably, it gets the message across better than a reasonable discussion, especially when reason is considered of secondary value to belief. It's short, sweet, gets right to the point, and is memorable. FSM icons can be found just about everywhere religious icons can be seen, thus spreading the message even more. A picture speaks a thousand words after all. 

 

Right. You caved to age old peer pressure humiliation tactics. It's no different than the bully who mocks and ridicules a kid's best friend until they are too embarrassed to be seen at the lunch table with that friend. I get it. Nothing new there.

 

It is not bully tactic to expose erroneous information mistakenly used in education.

 

As for serving as a warning... Warning of what? Are you okay with atheist threatening religious people now too? If one is okay with bully tactics, I suppose that would be the next logical step, but I don't agree with either.

 

Threatening with what? Promoting facts to be taught in public schools some more?!? Holding a government agency to accountable to stop promoting a religious belief as guaranteed by the First Amendment?!? Or what exactly, people will continue to laugh at what strikes them as ridiculous?

 

One, I wouldn't be okay with Christians mocking atheist either and I don't think I've ever participated in doing so. It would make me very uncomfortable to listen to another do it too and I'm confident I'd call them on it fairly quickly. It's unkind and I've never heard of a heart or a mind converted because of being mocked. (Though it seems by your example it's a great way to make an atheist.)

 

I see ad hominem attacks are okay with you. According to you, atheists are "mocking jerks," "bullies," and apparently something so... harsh? you won't or can't articulate it here.

 

Your argument is essentially that religious people are being persecuted because their beliefs are not protected from criticism and ridicule. 

 

Two, obviously, billions of people do think their religion has substance and evidence of some sort that satisfies them. They don't have to meet your criteria for it to be credible to them.

 

Irrelevant. Belief isn't evidence. Belief in opposition to evidence gets called out, regardless of the community who believes. This isn't limited to religion in education, but astrology, numerology, kabbalah, chi, dream-catchers, and really any belief system confused with education.

 

Three, humor, at least in my opinion, is only humor when both parties walk away laughing. When it only aims to belittle, ridicule, shame, and mock someone - that's not humor. It's sure something alright. But humor and wit is not it.

 

But that isn't the only aim, and it isn't really the important aim. The aim is to expose the unreliability of creation stories as sources of objective scientific information. 

[mamajag]

I'm not mad at you, but yes, you have said things like stating when one just is an atheist, as opposed to choosing to be an atheist, that is just a lack of personal responsibility.

 

Here's where we are misunderstanding each other. I think the main reason I think that atheists don't want it to be a choice is because then they could be a protected minority like blacks, Latinos, etc. Otherwise it does not matter, and it's just splitting hairs. I didn't say being an atheist shows a lack of personal responsibility; I said saying it's not a choice shows a lack of personal responsibility for one's life choices. 

 

You've talked about an entire group of people 'vilifying you', which is simply incorrect.\

 

No, that actually happened here last fall when I decided to convert. I was a part of a social group where I thought I had friends, but it turns out it was all conditional on believing or not believing as they wished me to. When I openly said I was going to RCIA to explore Catholicism, I was viciously attacked by them. It wasn't "incorrect". No one in this thread is vilifying me, but it doesn't change what happened last fall.

 

Nobody is twisting your words. They are just reacting to your words as written on the page. If you don't think those words represent your thoughts, make use of the edit button. I do it all the time. No-one expects everyone to write down their thoughts perfectly.

 

I've pointed out several times in this thread where people have said I've said things that are nowhere in my posts. No one has been able to quote me saying the things attributed to me because get this...I didn't actually say those things. It's not so much twisting my words as adding to them that's the problem.

 

[albeto.]

I'm sorry, but yes, belief systems or the lack of one is a choice. You weren't born an atheist any more than I was born Catholic. I say that as a former atheist. I chose that for years.

Every baby is born atheist, ignorant of every belief system in existence. One's choice to embrace or reject any given religious belief is dependent upon a lot of variables, including their environment, personal experiences, and temperament. 

 

I didn't know until I converted how hateful and uncharitable I was in an attempt to insulate myself from religion. It took members of this board I considered friends completely turning on me and vilifying me for me to understand it. I take full responsibility for it now.

 

I'm not sure I understand. You were hateful and uncharitable before but now you're nice? What kind of villainy were you accused of?

[eternalsummer]

You don't have to be born something for it to not be a choice, right?  

 

I can go blind later in life even if I'm not born blind; that doesn't make blindness a choice.

 

Why has the last several pages of this thread felt like splitting hairs?

[Lavandula]

"I think the main reason I think that atheists don't want it to be a choice is because then they could be a protected minority like blacks, Latinos, etc."

 

I'm a minority in 2 different categories. I certainly don't think atheists need any protection like I do for the other parts of my identity. Acting like I'm lying, and just want it to not be a choice, is frankly insulting and dismissive.

 

eta: It's really not fair to act like only atheists are saying it's not a choice. Religious people have said so too. I don't get why you're only applying that thought to atheists?

Edited June 22, 2014 by Lavandula

[albeto.]

Ok, first, Alberto, if I'm reading you right, you were mocked by your husband for your religion to the point that you eventually lost that faith. That's awful, and I'm sorry.

 

No. This is not accurate.

 

Second, as for religion being something ilogical and irrational and learned, that's not my take AT ALL. C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity presents excellent arguments that are purely rational, for the existence of God, and why we feel the way we do about right and wrong. I'd highly advise it as a great read.

 

I've read it. The arguments are terrible, imo, reliant on logical fallacies and a desire to find respectable reasons to validate religious beliefs in a time and culture in which the religious beliefs are terribly out of step with a current knowledge of the world and moral code.

 

Finally, I've got a stomach virus, and the screen flickering is making me want to vomit, so I'm out of this conversation.

 

Yikes. I hope you feel better soon.

[unfrumpable.]

I don't think any non-spiritual people are looking to be a protected minority.

[Elisabet1]

I felt my question would derail the other thread.

 

I read Harriet's post explaining why a spouse who no longer shares the same faith would be devastating (http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/518671-cc-i-feel-like-ive-been-punched-in-the-gut/?p=5732999), specifically:

 

 

Is this how all Christian denominations feel it would be? Do people of other religions also find this to be true?

 

Not all Christian denominations are like this. 

[Elisabet1]

With my ex I became a Christian and he didn't, it bothered me greatly and prayed frequently about it. I desperately wanted him to go to church and be saved never realizing that I was the one who changed the rules of the game on him. I'm now an atheist and my dh is agnostic, if he became a Christian or Muslim or any other proselytizing faith I would be absolutely devastated. I can definitely appreciate the feelings from the op of the other thread. My atheism is a huge part of me and my outlook on life, having been a Christian, I could not appreciate my spouse becoming one at this point. We do occasionally go to the UU church here and enjoy that together.

Not all Christian religions try to convert other people. Not all Christian religions teach unacceptance of other religions. Many Christians are taught, through their churches, that their faith is not the only way to salvation and be accepting of others, aka, don't try to convert others.

 

Here is just one excerpt from one Christian site....

http://www.elca.org/en/Living-Lutheran/Blogs/2011/08/110815

 

"As a chaplain, God's call to me is to bring God's comforting presence to the afflicted without proselytizing. God is big enough to take care of himself; he does not need me as a PR agent. "

- See more at: http://www.elca.org/en/Living-Lutheran/Blogs/2011/08/110815#sthash.xNzcjSLB.dpuf

[mamajag]

OK, the mods asked to stop the personal attacks, so mamajag, might want to go and edit out the 'Reading comprehension, try it some time' statement. Unless you want the thread locked. That's not an attack, it's a request. So twitchy reporting fingers can be still :)

 

Sure, if you edit out the part about editing my posts.

[albeto.]

I assume that's how most people think.  Am I wrong? I assume people with no religious faith find it irrational.   I also don't expect people of any other faith, or no faith, to understand my faith. Why would I expect that?

Rational thought includes facts and logical analysis. Religion, by definition, requires belief by faith. Belief by faith is the opposite from belief by facts. That's why you might hear people refer to it as irrational. It's helpful to remember that religion isn't the only irrational belief - belief by faith as opposed to fact - that we have. Human cognition includes irrational beliefs, regardless of one's religious background. Here's a list of some cognitive biases that are likely to affect us: http://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-2014-6?op=1.

 

I also admit I don't understand a lack of faith in God.  Is that a horrible thing to say?    I am not saying I object to it*, just that I don't get it.

 

I don't think that's a horrible thing to say. It's natural to believe there's an agent behind seemingly unrelated events. Humans have evolved with this thinking. Here's a summary I find helpful in explaining the mechanics of belief (don't let the title throw you!)

[mamajag]

"I think the main reason I think that atheists don't want it to be a choice is because then they could be a protected minority like blacks, Latinos, etc."

 

I'm a minority in 2 different categories. I certainly don't think atheists need any protection like I do for the other parts of my identity. Acting like I'm lying, and just want it to not be a choice, is frankly insulting and dismissive.

 

eta: It's really not fair to act like only atheists are saying it's not a choice. Religious people have said so too. I don't get why you're only applying that thought to atheists?

 

Probably because they are a tangent to the original discussion. Choice was brought up when the post about minorities was brought up and atheists claimed it wasn't a choice and essentially put themselves in the same class as people in real need of protection. People arguing they didn't make a choice for that reason are the ones I am talking about. If it's not about being a special group, why does it matter if it's a choice or not? 

 

I think we all make choices every day....that theists and atheists alike make choices every day that either reinforce or weaken their belief or lack of belief. Stop reinforcing it and it's importance will fade over time.

[albeto.]

1.  How can one respect (or disrespect, for that matter) a deity in which one does not believe?   OK, not a deity but, go with it here - I don't believe in Santa.  So how would I respect or disrespect this being who I do not believe exists?    The similarity falls apart here because I need to say I can still respect people who believe in Santa but actually I don't think I could, at least anyone over the age of 10.  Or maybe 8.   

 

2.  Why the heck would anyone expect an Australian to be patriotic toward America?

 

Your first question hits the nail right on the head, for me anyway. It would be analogous to say you can believe in Santa all you want. Erect ornate Christmas buildings to honor Santa, wear little red hat icons on a gold chain around your neck, teach your children the values you think Santa brings. But you don't get to incorporate Santa lore into biology class. You don't get to teach about flying reindeer and little elves that live in the North Pole as a scientifically valid lesson. And when people ask you to stop and you don't, you don't get to complain when they snicker about these patently untrue, and arguably absurd claims. 

 

Your second questions works for me as well, but again, I draw the lines with unconstitutional encroachment on public policy.

[Lavandula]

Probably because they are a tangent to the original discussion. Choice was brought up when the post about minorities was brought up and atheists claimed it wasn't a choice and essentially put themselves in the same class as people in real need of protection. People arguing they didn't make a choice for that reason are the ones I am talking about. If it's not about being a special group, why does it matter if it's a choice or not? 

 

I think we all make choices every day....that theists and atheists alike make choices every day that either reinforce or weaken their belief or lack of belief. Stop reinforcing it and it's importance will fade over time.

I read back, and the original quote also included being Jewish. It was about how people are making generalizations about atheists when they wouldn't do that about other groups of people.

 

I really don't understand the point you're trying to get across in the part I made bold. You think my beliefs are a choice, I don't. Therefore I should drop the subject? I should just let you have misconceptions about my beliefs? As far as I know, I've been polite this whole time. I believe most others have too. I was trying to politely inform you about my lack of religion. I don't appreciate you arguing with me about it and then ending by acting it shouldn't matter/it's not important.

[mamajag]

I read back, and the original quote also included being Jewish. It was about how people are making generalizations about atheists when they wouldn't do that about other groups of people.

 

I really don't understand the point you're trying to get across in the part I made bold. You think my beliefs are a choice, I don't. Therefore I should drop the subject? I should just let you have misconceptions about my beliefs? As far as I know, I've been polite this whole time. I believe most others have too. I was trying to politely inform you about my lack of religion. I don't appreciate you arguing with me about it and then ending by acting it shouldn't matter/it's not important.

 

People make generalizations about everyone and everything every day. Swapping from atheist to Catholic I expected to get less crap from people but that wasn't the case.

 

I didn't say you should drop it. I'm asking what is the importance in insisting it's not a choice? Why is it important to make that distinction if it's not about protected status? What difference does it make if I believe it's a choice versus just how you're wired?

 

I haven't argued with anyone. I have had differing opinions and tried to understand exactly why it matters choice/prewired...

[felicity]

Idk. I'm still waiting for a nice religious person who wants to humour me and answer the questions I asked pages ago.

I consider myself pretty nice and I can try, but I've gotten a little lost in the thread and can't remember your questions. Can you repeat them or direct me & I'll take a shot.

[Lavandula]

People make generalizations about everyone and everything every day. Swapping from atheist to Catholic I expected to get less crap from people but that wasn't the case.

 

I didn't say you should drop it. I'm asking what is the importance in insisting it's not a choice? Why is it important to make that distinction if it's not about protected status? What difference does it make if I believe it's a choice versus just how you're wired?

 

I haven't argued with anyone. I have had differing opinions and tried to understand exactly why it matters choice/prewired...

Someone said that the comparison to black/gay people doesn't work because those things aren't a choice. As far as I know, the people who are saying it's not a choice are just trying to clarify that. I'm not going up to people in the street and yelling, "MY AGNOSTICISM IS NOT A CHOICE! GOSH!" but if someone here is saying otherwise, then yes, it does matter to me. I don't like people thinking I chose to be something when I didn't. Part of it is just not liking when people are saying something about my identity and I don't consider it true. I also think it implies I'm choosing not to be a Catholic or whatever other religion.

[felicity]

So, to steer things away from the point scoring and personal insults, what I'd really like to hear is the argument for why religion should be respected particularly, accepting that the right of anyone to practice a religion in their home and place of worship  is a given.

 

There seems to be some thoughts around public discussion of atheism and by atheists being somehow disrespectful to religion. Yea ? Nay ? Yes, and it doesn't matter ? Yes, and it does matter ?

 

I honestly don't spend much time worrying about what people that I'm not actually related to think about religion in general and my religion specifically. If you want to discuss atheism and why you're an atheist, by all means, go for it. But if you are going to have your discussion with me and you want me to agree with you about how there is no god (little or big g), I'm going to have to say that I disagree. That would be part of the discussion. It's not disrespectful to have the discussion in the first place about atheism though. 

 

If it's a public discussion I can't see how that would be at all offensive. If I'm at a PTA meeting and for some reason people are discussing creationalism vs evolution and it gets into a discussion on religion/lack thereof, as long as the discussion doesn't devolve into calling names or hiding our children from each other, a discussion can only be a good thing. Right? 

 

Also, as far as terms and definitions go, why does it matter what someone calls themselves? I am LDS and consider myself a Christian but I know that many people don't. Probably because of that I've never cared what people want to label themselves, whether it's atheist, agnostic, or purple monkey. 

 

Are those the questions? I'm hoping I answered them in a way that makes sense. I just too four little girls, two of which were not mine, to an outdoor showing of Frozen where they forgot that today is the equinox and that sunset would be much later than they expected. So the movie didn't end until after 10:00 and I've still got a rousing chorus of "Let it Go" in my brain. All of that to explain away any weird or nonsensical answers.

[felicity]

As far as believing in religion being a choice, I think that for some people it is. I know the exact same information as my dh does. I've done the same research and in some cases more. But as I said before, I do believe. I don't work without that belief, I am not the Felicity that I know. 

 

However, my husband doesn't believe. And since it is, to an extent, a choice that I make, I would think that not believing is a choice he makes. But it isn't. One of my kids had one of those little plastic bracelets and left it in the car--it said something like, "choose to believe." (Those may not be the exact words, but I know that was the sentiment.) He scoffed at it and said, "choose, like that's how it goes." I remember it very clearly because I was really surprised. For me it is a choice to believe, but for him it's not a choice not to believe, even with the same information.

 

I just thought that was interesting in light of the discussion.

[mamajag]

I understand how it could be a shock, I just can't feel it. And from the outside, it seems a pretty incomprehensible way to live.

~

No longer addressing maize in particular...

 

That isn't something I'd say in the other thread - but this is an open thread, and both the religious and non-religious have every right to state their views on the matter. Treating a

loved one who has changed their faith perspective as a completely different person seems to me to be inviting pain into your life and that of your spouse.  OK, fair enough, the marriage isn't the same, but the person is.

 

If they were loving before, they'll be loving after. If they were ethical before, they'll be ethical later.

 

Beyond the eternity aspect, which, yes, I don't understand, and the impact on day to day prayer/church attendance etc, what I'm hearing in this thread is that the non-Christian is substantially not the same person they were before. I totally reject that.

 

I reject that they are substantially the same person. They may still be a loving, ethical person, but many of the Church teachings simply wouldn't matter to them any more. Things that were once certain regarding the children's faith formation or not using artificial birth control are now open to debate. To someone who truly lives their faith and are active in the church community, it can be heartbreaking. The life you envisioned together is no more.

[eternalsummer]

I am not religious, so I suppose I'm not technically qualified to answer your question, but:

 

when you say "why should religion be respected particularly?" I'm not sure exactly what you mean, so my answer might not fit.

 

Do you just mean, why shouldn't people who are not religious tell people who are religious (or purposefully imply) that they're idiots?  If that is the question, the answer is just the culture of the place of interaction and the nature of the discussion.  

 

Like, here, I get that it's generally not cool to tell nonreligious people that they are going to hell, or that you feel sorry for them because they clearly have no moral compass, or something.  

 

If we were on 4chan the discussion would be a lot more free, and people would not be likely to extend either atheists or religious people or anyone any particular amount of respect - that is a place where direct speech rules, for the most part, and respect is largely discarded.

 

 

If you're saying, why should we respect people's religious views in a way that we don't necessarily respect their views on say tv shows or politics or the necessity of makeup, I'd say it's because people are generally both more personally identified with their religious views than those things, and because there is a component to religion that is not something people tend to want to examine.  It's not based (in my understanding, though again I am not religious) on which religion wins an argument, or stands up to scrutiny of various sorts, but on a personal faith which doesn't really require outside examination to either be confirmed or lack confirmation.

 

 

[eternalsummer]

I can see how there would be perceived moral regression if some of the morality that both husband and wife believed in was specifically rooted in the religion.  I never had religion as a direct source of my moral beliefs, so I can't speak from experience, but I can see something where perhaps the newly non-religious spouse changes some moral views.

 

 

[felicity]

Yep, and I said as much in the other thread. 'It can be a terrible shock when your world tilts on its axis.'

 

That's fine for you to reject that.  I think it's inviting a lot of pain into your  life to think in that the person you married has gone but that's just my opinion.

 

I can only speak as someone who was Catholic and is now an atheist - and I am definitely the same person as I was, just with a layer of pain and struggle removed. I'm not a better person than I was, but I'm certainly not a worse one :)

 

In that other thread a lot of people have mentioned observing 'moral regression' in spouses who have stopped believing in God. I do think that's a dangerous way to talk about other people, seeing a causation where there is only a (possible) correlation.

 

But yes, change to a lifestyle, even a very deeply lived lifestyle, is bound to be tough. The question is, does it make it tougher to carry into that change the idea that a spouse is somehow no longer themselves...

 

I wonder also if it makes a difference if there is a progression, like in my family. The person left the church first, later Christianity, and then even later identified as atheist.  Maybe because I had time to get used to each stage I didn't notice a major difference in my dh all at once? I don't know.

 

I think I'd rather continue to see him as the man I always have, just with a different belief, or lack thereof. 

 

I hope that doesn't sound condescending, it's not meant to, I'm just thinking out loud now. But I shall now go to bed to the tune of "Let it Go..." just in case.