Where are you as a non-theist

[C-Nub]

I'm kind of curious as to where the rest of you guys, whom I consider to be 'colleagues' for lack of a better word in non-theism, fall in regards to your views on faith.

I take very much the same view as Richard Dawkins, and did so before I knew he existed. I think theism, faith, religion and any sort of belief in God is a very bad thing for humanity, if not for every individual who, for lack of a better word, 'suffers' from it.

I think its safe to say that, while I'm not entirely proud of this, that I think less of theists than I do of comparable non-theists. I have less respect for people of faith, because, as I've mentioned a few times, I think its a dirty word and a lazy, fearful thing to have. I think of faith as something for people who are too weak to accept the fact that we're basically just random chance monkey spawn, only because it isn't appealing to do so.

So where do you guys fall? Are you more tolerant than I am, or less so? I hope its more, honestly, because those less tolerant than me must be getting close to rounding up the theists and forcing them all to live in Australia.

[Evales]

While I myself could never openly accept I God I realise there are people who do. I know some people who have turned to God because of bad things that have happened in their life and I know people who believe in God yet who believe in evolution as well and it causes them no qualms.

I do not respect fundamentalists because I believe they are the people who restrict others rights for no reason. But for anyone else who believes in God somewhat rationally I try to argue at their level, with theories about God, in order to prove a point.

I believe strongly that the right to religion should be protected, but also that the right to religion means the right to go without. However I don't believe religion should enter anywhere in the Government. ie. Public schools do not try turn science classes into Intelligent Design classes, religion can be learnt about in social studies where it belongs.

[Vladd44]

I see no more reason to protect religious freedom than to protect people's right to believe in ghosts or any other nonsense.

The kid gloves approach to religious zealots just empowers them and their fairy tales.

If people wish to be a christian, I believe there should be an ignorance tax (there is precedent to taxing ignorance it is called lotteries) they should be required to pay.

If they teach their children their beliefs I think they should be liable for child abuse charges.

[McCulloch]

If people wish to be a christian, I believe there should be an ignorance tax (there is precedent to taxing ignorance it is called lotteries) they should be required to pay.

The Gullibility Tax is entirely voluntary.

I, for one and some theists agree with me, believe that religious organizations in a secular state should not be given different treatment by the various levels of government than other not-for-profit organizations. Governments should be blind to religion.

[Vladd44]

If people wish to be a christian, I believe there should be an ignorance tax (there is precedent to taxing ignorance it is called lotteries) they should be required to pay.

The Gullibility Tax is entirely voluntary.

I, for one and some theists agree with me, believe that religious organizations in a secular state should not be given different treatment by the various levels of government than other not-for-profit organizations. Governments should be blind to religion.

Voluntary participants buying pieces of paper with numbers on them, voluntary participants wanting to believe in ghosts goblins and magic. Tax them I say!!!

I disagree about being blind about religion. When people engage in behavior that will result in costs being incurred to the government, they should be liable for their foolishness.

Religion has all sorts of negative impacts, it is time they get called out on the carpet and pay up.

[McCulloch]

I disagree about being blind about religion. When people engage in behavior that will result in costs being incurred to the government, they should be liable for their foolishness.

Then tax the behaviors which result in increased government costs, not religion. People should not be taxed for having a particular political viewpoint, aesthetic sense or holding a particular ideology. That is too draconian for me, too much like the thought police. Tax people for making buildings in cities which are unused most of the week. Charge people for gender based discrimination. But don't tax ideas.

[JoeyKnothead]

I disagree about being blind about religion. When people engage in behavior that will result in costs being incurred to the government, they should be liable for their foolishness.

Then tax the behaviors which result in increased government costs, not religion. People should not be taxed for having a particular political viewpoint, aesthetic sense or holding a particular ideology. That is too draconian for me, too much like the thought police. Tax people for making buildings in cities which are unused most of the week. Charge people for gender based discrimination. But don't tax ideas.

Very well said.

[Evales]

I see no more reason to protect religious freedom than to protect people's right to believe in ghosts or any other nonsense.

The kid gloves approach to religious zealots just empowers them and their fairy tales.

If people wish to be a christian, I believe there should be an ignorance tax (there is precedent to taxing ignorance it is called lotteries) they should be required to pay.

If they teach their children their beliefs I think they should be liable for child abuse charges.

And yet by claiming they need to be punished when they are not harming anyone you are also being ignorant.

[C-Nub]

One could, which isn't to say that I am, argue that indoctrinating anyone or re-enforcing their beliefs in an organized fashion is in fact hurting them, as you are pushing or peddling a belief system with little statistical probability of being accurate. In effect, you are advocating dishonesty, if you are a church, that is.

Personally, I would like to see religion abolished, but I would like to see it done through education and progress, not through government or even more militant intervention.

[McCulloch]

Personally, I would like to see religion abolished, but I would like to see it done through education and progress, not through government or even more militant intervention.

Not abolished but dissolved from lack of interest and improved education.

[Mister E]

Hey, new here.

I accept that the concept of God must exist in order for the universe to "bother" existing - but do not think this is reason in itself for religion's existance - nor belief in any specified God as such. I think that religion has had one of the most detrimental impacts on humanity, second only to our current education system and humans themselves (as in the inability of most humans to think rationally about actions). In a perfect world I would like to see religion abolished - but in the form we have in the present where religion causes more good than bad overall seems like a nice temporary buffer for humanity's psychological problems. Religion should not be struck down in the current culture we have - although if I had lived 300 years ago I would be saying differently. Religion is dying anyway, so let it cause at least some benefit to humanity as it goes.

Lol, I was going to put down that religious atheism group but I wasn't sure if it allowed me to post in here so I've gone for agnostic. So really I'm a "religious atheist".