There are many things I do not understand too, but I don’t pretend my ignorance is in any way evidence for anything; rather, it is an opportunity for thinking and learning.

, Excellent post!

Religion is age old since the civilization came into existence. It began when human’s brain advanced to realize to have faith, and worship the systems of the society. Human lived in small groups, regulations and systems were formed to maintain discipline in the group. All small groups had own ideology that were obligatory to all group members. As they were too small in groups, system differed from group (society) to group. In order to initiate members to worship the system, an icon was formed that harmonized the ideology. Rituals were essential part that to be carried in occasions for rejuvenation. During this period their rituals were for natural resources icons like sun, moon, river, fire etc; spirits icons like group gods and character icon (idols) like devil or angel.

As I feel, ritual is a practice to follow the ideology and its inscription, Those who have faith in bible inscription are Christian and who have faith in Quoran are Muslims and have faith in veda are hindus. So Christianity is the system (religion) and Christians are society, bible is inscription and Jesus Christ is icon. A difference of opinion in society split up from Jews to Christianity or branches like Roman Catholic, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Pentecostal or others.

So religion is a system of belief in society. A ritual is main part of religion that builds citizens of the society to trust, respect the ideology of the society. Each religion has its own inscription for its group. When number of followers grew and opted to join the group that resulted to expansion of particular religion. On the other hand in many cases conversion method by force or temptation was/ is also adopted to expand its wings

http://www.learningquranonline.com

But can you have faith, specifically faith about something that directly references an action on your part, without taking action? Like the example of having faith that you’re supposed to kill unbelievers. If that’s what you have faith in, and you don’t kill unbelievers, in what way can you still say you have faith?

“The question I have is, does the fact that it is an alterable trait somehow justify the bigotry and intolerance shown towards it?”

Somewhat, yes. Because you are showing your disdain/intolerance towards the trait, not necessarily towards the person.

If I’m intolerant of you because you kill dogs (for example), that’s not being intolerant of you so much as it is of your actions. It can become disdain of you because you are causing the action, but it start with the action. With an unalterable attribute, it becomes all about the person, no action at all.

First, I want to apologize for misreading your comment about suppressing people. Sometimes I should read slower!

Faith, in itself, is not harmful. The examples you provided, good ones, too, are of faith being put into action. That’s when it can become harmful. People can believe in alot of things, and they all don’t have to be theologically related. It’s when it’s put into action that it can be harmful, I agree. Doesn’t matter if it’s a Scott Roeder, a Tim McVeigh, a Stalin, a Hitler, an Idi Amin, etc.

Second, all the things you mention are not worldviews or ideologies. They are traits that are essentially unalterable. A religion, ideology, worldview or philosophy is not an unalterable trait.

I’ve heard this point before. The question I have is, does the fact that it is an alterable trait somehow justify the bigotry and intolerance shown towards it? I’ve had people tell me that believers are stupid, illogical, irrational, a danger to others, a danger to society, a danger to the country, should be outlawed, and even that believers shouldn’t breed. As you see in my writings, I’m an equal opportunity bigot basher. I believe that bigotry is bigotry, period.

When I see the word “anti-theist”, I think it means “against theism”. Not “against the theists”.

I see your point, but for this discussion, I’m specifically using the definition provided…just to keep things focused. If one chooses to be anti-religion, that’s their opinion and they’re welcome to it. It’s when it crosses the line into “against the theists” is where I draw my line.

I’m only against the theists who specifically cause harm.

We agree here.

I don’t have all the answers, and I sure as hell have my doubts. In my lifetime I’ve gone from Catholic to agnostic to atheist and back to Christian. I can understand where people are coming from on about any argument. I don’t feel it’s my job to “convert” anyone, either. In the Great Commission (which is often misinterpreted as the Great Conversion), Jesus says to make disciples of all nations. In essence, he’s saying “Go, teach, share”. I can only present what I know, what I believe. What others do with that is their choice.

I try to make it a point that I primarily do that through my actions knowing that’s what it’s truly about… compassion, serving others, living peacefully, standing up for the powerless, giving voice to the voiceless. It’s not about tracts and numbers. I screw it up from time to time, but you’ll never see me admit to being perfect. In fact, I often say just the opposite..

In Mark, the earlier gospel, Jesus says “Whoever is not against us, is for us.” It’s to be interpreted as “live and let live”. It makes no difference to me what one believes (odd for a Christian, I know), as long as one does no harm to others.

That depends entirely on what you have faith in.

If I have faith that I can fly, this leads me to direct harm if I test that faith by stepping out a window.

If you have faith that your deity wants you to kill non-believers, is it not harmful when you act on that faith?

Faith in and about benign things can be harmless. But that’s not the faith I worry about.

“should they be suppressed?”

A few things:

First, you note that I said specifically in my response that I was against the idea of suppressing people.

Second, all the things you mention are not worldviews or ideologies. They are traits that are essentially unalterable. A religion, ideology, worldview or philosophy is not an unalterable trait.

“to holding an entire class of people”

Here is where we may be talking past eachother.

When I see the word “anti-theist”, I think it means “against theism”. Not “against the theists”.

I’m only against the theists who specifically cause harm. I’m against theism in general because it appears to be inaccurate, but I’d never attempt to force anyone to stop believing. I’d try to convince them, sure, but never force.

Faith, in and of itself, is not harmful in the least. Are there those who use religion to manipulate people, justify the unjustifiable? Yes, and you’ll never see me disagree with that point. People can, and do, use anything to justify their own prejudices and bigotries. No single group is immune to it…not believers or non-believers.

Anti-theism is simply bigotry masquerading as intellectualism. Exchange believers with any other group and tell me you’d still agree with those statements. Gays, blacks, women, muslims, hispanics….should they be suppressed?

One you cross from criticizing an idea to holding an entire class of people in utter contempt, believing they’re dangerous, should be silenced, shouldn’t breed, should be outlawed…then you cross into bigotry.

That should not be tolerated.

This is only true if you assume that the many theistic religions are in no way harmful.

“second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. If a person believes these things, then they will likely be anti-theists who work against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it.”

I agree with everything up to “promoting alternatives”. After that, I disagree.