No one is free from criticism. Harmful ideas should be condemned, when they are demonstrably harmful. But theist beliefs are such a vast range and diversity of ideas, some harmful, some useful, some healing, some vivifying, and still others having served as potent drivers of movements for justice; that to lump all theist religious belief into one category and attack the whole of it, only demonstrates your ignorance of theology, and is in fact bigotry.
By saying that religious and superstitious beliefs should be disrespected, or otherwise belittling, or stigmatizing religion and supernatural beliefs as a whole, you have already established the first level on the "Pyramid of Hate", as well as the first of the "10 Stages of Genocide."
If your religion is atheism, that's perfectly valid. If someone is doing something harmful with a religious belief as justification, that specific belief should be challenged. But if you're crossing the line into bigotry, you're as bad as the very people you're condemning.
Antitheism is a form of supremacy in and of itself.
"In other words, it is quite clear from the writings of the “four horsemen” that “new atheism” has little to do with atheism or any serious intellectual examination of the belief in God and everything to do with hatred and power.
Indeed, “new atheism” is the ideological foregrounding of liberal imperialism whose fanatical secularism extends the racist logic of white supremacy. It purports to be areligious, but it is not. It is, in fact, the twin brother of the rabid Christian conservatism which currently feeds the Trump administration’s destructive policies at home and abroad – minus all the biblical references."
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/5/4/the-resurrection-of-new-atheism/
Religious belief is a voluntary characteristic. Why should that not be considered when judging someone's character?
Are beliefs voluntary? Do you choose to believe that the sky is blue or that you need to drink water to survive? You certainly choose whether you support certain religious institutions and practices or not. But I'm not sure how much I buy the idea that beliefs (or religious ones specifically) are voluntary.
I don't understand how its not voluntary. Can you explain?
Can you explain how it is voluntary? I don't see why beliefs about things are choices?
It's voluntary because people choose to believe it.
In fact, for many religions that conscious decision is a necessary step. Christians, for example, teach that only those who accept Jesus Christ can be saved.
You are arguing this: "It's a choice (i.e. voluntary) because it's a choice." This is circular reasoning.
What we're arguing about is called doxastic voluntarism. My whole point here is that there isn't some single consensus on this topic. There are arguments for and against doxastic voluntarism.
I don't care about your personal beliefs regarding this topic. I'm pointing out the fact that "A chooses to believe B, therefore ..." is a form of argument that doesn't guarantee its conclusions if the premise "A chooses to believe B" isn't true. For this kind of argument to work you need to address whether or not "A chooses to believe B" really is true beyond just begging the question.
technically, yeah, you're choosing based on evidence. just a lot of very consistent evidence.
I'm questioning whether or not this is really choice?
Think of it as a sliding scale based on amount and consistency of evidence. You picked some on the extreme end of happening everyday and always consistent.
Like, i have a less firm belief that we'll have a snowstorm this winter. Much less amount of evidence, and less consistent, but it does usually happen so id probably plan for it to.
I can understand if this is how it feels to you, but I'm not sure everybody has this experience. I'd imagine a hardcore true believer in some christian sect probably feels more like they have to believe. Like, things are just so objectively true to them about their own religion that they can't not believe. Or something along those lines. I can't exactly vouch for the experience of all theists.
I dunno if you grasp objective vs subjective.
I see reading comprehension is hard for you. Let me help you. Please note the part I put in bold for you: "Like, things are just so objectively true to them..."
wow you even bolded the problem part yourself. What do you think subjective means? "to them" means it's subjective. Objective isnt "to" anybody, you dont exist as far as objective truths go. You could say you think it's hot standing in a room with a thermometer, and suddenly disappear. That thermometer's gonna be showing the same temp without you there, but the room's not gonna be anything to you if you're not there. It's objectively whatever temperature the thermometer shows, and subjectively hot to you.
What do you think "to them" means? You realize people can have beliefs about the objectivity of different claims right? For example: I believe that it is objectively true that me and you are having this discussion. Just because I believe this says nothing about whether or not it is or isn't objectively true. Please continue working on your reading comprehension.
From their subjective perspective
Gosh golly! It's almost like somebody can believe something is objectively true whether it is or not.
Werent you trying to argue that they have no choice in this belief?
The actual content of a persons beliefs and whether they chose those beliefs aren't the same thing champ.
Well i thought you were trying to argue that theyre believing objective things as to why they dont have a choice. But now youre saying it doesnt matter if its objectively true or not. So why else do you think they dont have a choice?
You can pretend like my point has suddenly changed here but it hasn't. If you go back and read what I've said, you'll notice all I've really claimed here to you is that:
With point 2, I'm not sure what you're so hung up about? It's not my fault you misread my original statement where I used the word objective (correctly in fact) and that you responded to your (incorrect) reading of that like it was some awesome gotcha against my point when it wasn't.
Concerning point 1, whether or not something is objectively true isn't exactly relevant to whether people get to pick and choose their beliefs.
Notice, I'm also not claiming people don't get to choose their beliefs in point 1 either. I'm saying it's debatable. There's no truth claim here from me about whether beliefs are chosen or not. What I'm saying is "OMG BUT THEY CHOSE THAT BELIEF", isn't being supported here when it should be.
If you're actually curious about the issue I'm pointing out rather than just feeling like you've won this discussion, the issue is to do with whether we accept doxastic voluntarism.
Please understand, I sincerely don't care which side you personally pick on the issue of doxastic voluntarism. I care about the fact that arguments along the lines of "Person A chose to believe B, therefore ...." are bad because they don't actually guarantee the truth of their premises when they should.
The sky being blue or my need to drink water aren’t beliefs, they’re facts. I don’t need faith to know that they are true
Your original statement was about beliefs and whether they are voluntary not facts. I'm talking about your belief about the sky being blue and your belief about the fact that you need to drink water to survive. Facts and beliefs about what things are facts are two separate things and whether or not these things actually are facts is irrelevant to my point.
Facts can be proven (if you stop drinking water you die), beliefs can not be proven (they don’t need to be, you have faith).
Proof, belief and fact are all different things. I'm talking about belief. You're trying to make a point about facts that is irrelevant to my point. Yes, I get that you can believe true, untrue, provable and unprovable things. This is beside my point.
This is objectively untrue. Some beliefs are provable. You can believe the sun will rise tomorrow. You can prove whether or not it actually does by checking tomorrow if the sun did or did not rise.
External pressures, community, etc. also factor in to membership in groups like the KKK. Should we not judge racists for being racist?
Not in the context of judging their character on the basis of their chosen employment, no. For example, a slaver deserves to be judged harshly for choosing to be a slaver.
I was not drawing that kind of comparison. I'm pointing out that the same excuses can be used for both.
The point is that involuntary characteristics are the ones that can't be used legitimately. Voluntary characteristics can be.