Beliefs Regarding Religion are Individual Beliefs

[MineralMan]

As we often see here in the Religion Group, individuals believe different things. The same is true outside of this group. It is a mistake to assign beliefs to an individual without that individual stating his or her beliefs.

That someone identifies as a Christian tells you very little about that person's beliefs. Given the huge number of denominations of Christianity, more information is needed before assuming that any individual Christian is like any other individual Christian. Christians believe and do things in very different ways. Some Christians are racists and bigots, while others are welcoming and supportive of all people. If some person who aligns him or herself with Christianity does a terrible thing, that does not reflect on other Christians, but only on the person who did that terrible thing. Statements abhorring what that person did should not be seen as criticism of Christianity, but of the person at fault.

Atheists too, have little in common with each other, aside from their non-belief in deities and other such supernatural things. If you don't like what some atheist said or did, that does not mean you can attack other atheists for that person's behavior. Even in a small sampling, like the Religion Forum on DU, atheists do not belong to any unified group. They are not part of a choir, nor do they even sing the same songs. Attacking one atheist for what another atheist has said or done is as foolish as attacking a peaceable, progressive Christian for what some right-wing fundamentalist Christian has said or done that was reprehensible.

Individuals. We are all individuals. It is important to recognize that and to not lump individuals together with others who may not share views. It's a mistake all of us, including myself, need to try to avoid.

[ExciteBike66]

1. I agree, although it is easier if people just admit to what they believe.

Sometimes folks here tend to avoid questions about exactly what they do and do not believe. In that case, it is tough to separate them from others who might call themselves the same religions label (e.g. Christian).

[MineralMan]

2. Well, if people don't say much about what they believe,

I just assume they don't believe much. I can only know a person on DU based on what they write here. Actually, that's how I deal with people everywhere. I tend to look at what people do, rather than assign beliefs to them. If someone tells me they're a Christian or a Buddhist or an Atheist, I will still wait to see how they act before forming an opinion of that person.

What I've noticed, though, about most Christians is that they're generally perfectly happy to tell you the fundamentals of their beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, either.

[TwistOneUp]

9. Yes, nothing is wrong with that...

As long as you ask first.

Some of us believe we have the Right To Be Left Alone. There's a law, iirc, that says something about one having the right to quiet enjoyment of one's life. I'd like to pursue the right to the quiet enjoyment of ... quiet. I'm not inferested in walking around outside whilst being accosted by whack jobs that tell me that I'm going to hell.

Telling peeps that they are going to hell for not agreeing with their dogma seems to be a very mean thing to do, so I infer from their behavior that proselytizing religious people are mean. I don't know about you, but I really don't want to be accosted by mean peeps when I'm out and about, "freedom of speech" notwithstanding.

[Cartoonist]

3. I disagree

There are individuals and there are ideologies. While you are correct in saying everyone has differences, there are ideologies that act as an umbrella to bring them together.

Two people sitting next to each other in a church pew may disagree on Gay rights, but they still support the same basic ideology.

When I attack religion for its crimes against humanity, some theists take it personally even though I never met them and am not referencing them.

When an individual does something abhorrent, it is not always confined to that person. Motivation must be taken into account. If that motivation comes from a religious source, then religion must be held accountable.

[MineralMan]

4. People shouldn't take criticism of actions taken in the name of religion

personally, as long as they disagree with such action. In fact, the correct response is to agree with the criticism. All too often, people tend to avoid criticizing their co-religionists, even if they adhere to some distant branch of that religion.

You're right, too, that motivation should be part of our judgment. Where that motivation can be narrowly discerned, then more general criticism can be fairly made. For example a racist act by a member of some sect of Christianity that often preaches racism can justifiably be blamed on the teachings of that sect. However, it's unfair to blame Christianity in general, since racism is not a universal teaching of Christianity. In fact, it is taught against by most denominations.

The thing I'm warning against is too broad an identification. That's a common mistake, and it's a logical error, besides. It's important to clearly identify what one is criticizing, whether it's an individual or a group.

[Voltaire2]

5. There is a huge difference between belonging

to a specific religious sect and being an atheist.

A religious sect has a specific generally written ideology, a set of beliefs that belonging to that specific sect implies, without contrary evidence, one believes. If a person identifies as belonging to, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church, it is fair to assume that they believe in all of the doctrinal positions of that church until they explicitly state otherwise.

Atheism has no ideology other than not believing in any gods. That is it. That is all atheists have in common by virtue of identifying as atheists.

[MineralMan]

6. Absolutely. Atheists are an unorganized bunch.

Religions, on the other hand, are just the opposite. The number of denominations and sects of Christianity is huge. Because of that, it's important to know more than just the fact that someone claims to be a Christian. What sort of Christian is important information, but that is often not known, so you have to look at the individual in most cases. When you do know what denomination a person adheres to, some predictions can be made, but few of us knows the tenets of more than a few denominations.

Among atheists, few belong to any organization of atheists. So, it's unlikely that a random atheist is part of any group, especially such a small group as a choir. I know of no choirs of atheists at all, although I know atheists, including myself, who have sung in choirs. Atheists on DU, however, probably could not put together a choir. I don't even know where other atheists live, so there's that, too. Rehearsals would be a real problem to arrange, I think.

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. The problems here are largely a matter of differentiation.

Some people are unable or unwilling to separate religious institutions from their adherents. They see criticism of the institution—the symbols, mythologies, rituals, dogmas, etc.—as qualitatively no different from criticism of the individuals who share them.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes. That is a real problem.

But, it is a problem for those who have that limitation, not for those who don't. For me, it isn't a problem. When I encounter someone who takes criticism of institutions personally, I recognize that and try to move on. I don't stop criticizing those institutions.

If I take exception, for example, to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and some Catholic takes that as a personal attack, I shrug and continue with my exception-taking. My intention, of course, is not to attack the individual person who is a Catholic. After all, not all Christian denominations believe that any such substitution takes place. Most see it as a symbolic thing. I'm not responsible for the feelings of the individual Catholic who dislikes my analysis.

On the other hand, that person might feel as though I'm attacking him or her personally. That's a flaw in their logic. It's regrettable, but shouldn't be a bar to my discussion of that doctrine, and isn't.

If I argue that I don't believe there is any evidence for the existence of Deities, then I can understand why a person who believes that such deities exist might take exception to my argument. However, I do not care what that person believes, nor do I mind if that person believes that a deity or deities exist. The argument is purely philosophical. I'm not trying to convince that person of anything. I'm just discussing the issue. Such discussions have been going on for centuries. They will continue to go on. If such a discussion causes pain or anxiety in someone, then that can probably be avoided by ignoring the discussion. I feel no responsibility to avoid participating in such discussions.

The Religion Group here on DU is always going to be a place where uncomfortable discussions about religious matters might occur. By its nature, the Group encourages such discussions. How a person reacts to them is the responsibility of the person who reacts, not of the person involved in the discussion.