Atheism: A Right or a Privilege?

Post Reply New Topic

Let's list the facts, shall we?

I'm a gay, atheist, furry, aspie, diplomacy favoring dude.

But only one sixth of the above sentence has any relevance to the topic or the actual question below. (Guess which one!)

Question: Is it a right or a privilege to think objectively when it comes to anything, but especially supernatural and afterlife centered topics?
It could be argued 'right' because it seems to be inside the freedom of speech idea. But anytime I've told someone I was an atheist or sought to prove how any sort of God could have been invented and made believable through generations of myth-making paired with actual amazing but explainable events, I've been shunned/ostracized.

Help? x.x

One does not need permission to be either an atheist or a believer. One believes what he/she will. One disbelieves what he/she will. It is as simple as that. People think what they want to think.

ruveyn

It's a "right" to express one's atheism and/or anti-theism in the sense that it's protected by the law in various developed countries. It's a "privilege" in the sense that it may be unwise to do so in a variety of contexts in modern American society unless one is particularly well-off enough to be immune from the influence of others to the point where they can express their uncommon beliefs.

My own experience with disclosing my anti-theistic sentiments is that it offends quite a few people who are atheists (of a faithatheist variety, albeit).

It is a right to think / believe / understand as you can and must.

THEORETICALLY it is a right to say what you believe. Some peoplw would say it is a duty.

IN PRACTICE expressing some beliefs in some contexts will get you into legal trouble - forget freedom of speech - words ,mean what Big Brother says they mean and Green Monkeys are free to be the right color.

Realistically, every time you express an opinion or belief you run up against the probability that someone will beat you up. You are getting lambasted for talking atheism. I [especially in this forum] can get lambasted if I talk up theism.

Me - I keep my mouth shut unless I am VERY sure what the outcome will be.

You have a right to express your opinions, and if others dislike those opinions they have a right to respond as they see fit, within the confines of the law (they cannot attempt to cause you physical harm or discriminate against you in the workplace, but basically anything else is fair game).

Eh, people can transgress the confines of the law so long as they are subtle. Heck, what you do is you just punish someone for something that is not allowed, but which every single individual transgresses. A good office example is the internet policy. Most offices allow people to use the internet there for personal uses, so long as it does not interfere with work, however, the rule on the books is against the use of internet period. All an employer has to do is selectively enforce this, and they can basically discriminate in the work place without a clear way to show a legal issue.

Expressing any view should be a fundamental right. Whether or not the person you're talking to will actually listen to you, though, is a whole other matter; once someone has convinced themselves of something - whether it's a conspiracy theory or a religious belief - it's almost impossible to convince them that it isn't true, even if you put absolute proof right in their faces.

It's how conspiracies work, it's how brand loyalty and fanboyism works, and yes, it's how cults and religions work. And it blinds people from reality.

Why not ask if breathing is a right or a privilege?

ruveyn

I think that reliance on expression is too limiting. In the Canadian legal system,

This separate enumeration of these freedoms is important, because the application of section 1, which sets out that rights and freedoms are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Because section 1 can be applied to each freedom individually, the standard for reasonableness of a limitation on, say, freedom of peaceful assembly might be much lower than the standard for reasonableness on freedom of expression which in turn might be lower than the standard as it relates to freedom of belief.

The distinction might seem to be an academic one, but it can have practical consequences.

It's a right. Or at any rate it's an impossibility to prevent people from believing what they believe and thinking what they think. Nations may attempt to control the thoughts of their populations. But all they can actually do is ongoing advertising campaigns for their favored point of view. Nobody has figured out a way to actually stop somebody from having a particular thought or belief.



The thing is, just as you have a right to believe whatever you want, so do other people. If they want to believe in God, that's their right too. And if they don't want to talk to somebody who doesn't share their belief, that's also their right. Painful as it is, other people aren't required to associate with somebody they don't approve of beyond what is required as a coworker, neighbor etc. They can't run you out of town. But they are allowed to decide they won't converse with anybody who doesn't believe in God.

You have rights too. You have the right to also spend no more time around them. I recommend moving to a place where atheism is not so shocking and horrifying to people. There are plenty of places in the U.S. where you will find your views just get a shrug or even a "I don't believe that either" agreement.

Neither. That is simply an ability we can either appreciate, regret, compliment, complement or complain about in relation to ourselves or others.


Only a fool would (expect anyone to) believe s/he could actually prove that matter either way, and any such attempt would cause me to greatly question his or her ability to think objectively.

Furry?

But yea, you can think however you want.

Thinking is something we do. Like breathing. As long as we live we think. So is being alive a right or a privilege?

ruveyn

I just realized you are new here, 808Owl, so maybe I should have been a bit more thoughtful.

You have actually asked two questions:

... while really meaning to only be asking the first. But either way, atheism is the most-likely to ultimately prove foolish ...

... and welcome to WP.

808owl is asking several questions here most of which have been answered quite well. A persons mind is his own and he will think as he chooses and hold whatever opinions and beliefs that seem good to him regardless of what anyone else says (with all due respect to several satirical threads about thought crimes started by another member.)

Expressing those opinions is a right, however, as others have pointed out, so is disagreeing with them. I have seen topics here where a Christian would start a thread and politely ask all atheists to keep keep their opinions to themselves. Does the atheist have the right to express his opinion anyway? Yes, it wouldn't violate any Wrong Planet rules though it would be rather rude.

Do people have a right to be rude? Yes, they do but of course other people might get a little annoyed if they are.

I think atheism is a far less foolish lifestyle then that of a nun or a suicide bomber.