It's quite sad that you feel that way as I really like you as a person and I'm religious myself, but it's important to consider that many people find the tendency of some atheists to place themselves on a high pedestal and perceive religion as a trouble-maker equally distasteful. They question why people kill each other in the name of God, but what I mostly see is people being killed for resources, xenophobia/racism, nationalism, and even ideology like democracy or communism, those are reek from blood and genocide. People talk about how religion is spread by the sword, but secular Democracy is also globally installed through guns and bullets, bombing people back to the Stone Age because they think they know better how to a country.
I mean there are layers and perspectives to consider. But lets just leave it as that.
Do many atheists, in your view, place themselves on a high pedestal? I've heard that some people think this is what Richard Dawkins has done, but regular people?
When you say "kill each other in the name of God", my first thought tends to be about the Crusades - the idea of sending "good Christians" to the Holy Land to take it back. What kids tend not to be taught about that is that some of the people going on crusade are 3rd and 4th sons (or more) who didn't have much opportunity at home for inheriting anything, so the crusade was an opportunity to acquire something - money, treasure, rank, and property (providing everything went well for them and they weren't killed on the way through sickness, starvation, dehydration, annoying the locals of the lands they passed through, etc.). I suppose some of the crusaders really did think they were doing it in the name of religion, but many of them were doing it for personal advancement and to acquire land - resources, in other words.
Ditto the Europeans in North America. Missionaries claimed to be 'saving souls' while the soldiers and merchants stripped the land of everything they could carry off, including some of the people.
Like I said it's cultural not religious individuals I have a problem with.
Like in the United States without Christianity as a cultural force we would be far ahead of where we are now. But some individual lady who quietly reads her bible is no problem.
I have no problem if people have different beliefs than me but when they try to push for special privileges or think society should be influenced by their ideas things become problematic.
A Muslim majority country, all good. A Muslim theocracy I wouldn't want to even visit (would you?)
I imagine most atheists like that probably come from a background of religious oppression or abuse from their families which they are reacting to.
I was forced to attend church until age 13 but I never was told I was going to hell or anything like that, it was more a tradition in the family.
I did goto a crazy boarding school for a time where they would berate us as sinners and addicts and tried to force everyone to go to AA type groups.
Adamant atheists are kinda like vegan fanatics they tend to push away support rather than garner it.
'Adamant atheists'... many years ago I belonged to a Yahoo group called "Real World Atheism". It was okay for awhile, but when some of them started talking about burning churches and told me I wasn't a real atheist if I didn't agree that this was a good idea, I left the group. That's not a group that discusses things rationally. It was morphing into a hate group, and I want no part of that.
What exactly is a Muslim theocracy? Are the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Brunei examples of Muslim theocracies? I mean, I should ask myself why I wouldn't want to visit these places. Or is it the Afghanistan? A country that's been embroiled in wars against major players since the 1800s (from the Great Games) till today, always shifting from one instability to another and never getting a chance for statecraft or to form their own government over such a long period of time can be intimidating to visit. However, I find it far less horrifying than the prospect of visiting atheist North Korea, which also feels isolated in a way, albeit not as much as Afghanistan.
People project their expectations onto their children in so many ways, and it doesn't have to be related to religion. Children in South Korea, Japan, China, and even Singapore also suffer due to rigid schedules and high competition among their peers, which are mainly instigated and rooted in their households. I have a Chinese friend who has had a heart problem since he was in high school due to his parents enforcing a strict study schedule, which consisted of studying at school followed by a marathon study session at home with a private teacher till night all weekdays, and video-games only at weeked, then boom heart-problem and there are many atheistic household like this as well.
It might be that understanding that there are things more valuable in this world than material gain and material success can have a positive impact on people. Learning that there are certain things that are beyond our control can also make us less obsessed and ambitious about ourselves and children. The perspective might differ if you think that you only live once and you must either succeed in becoming what you want now or your life will be or is a disappointment.
I just looked up the definition of "theocracy" and the two most common are that a country is ruled/governed by religious leader(s) and/or the country is ruled/governed by a deity(ies) through human intermediaries. There are places in the world that are theocracies. There are places in the world that are not theocracies, but where there are people (both politicians and regular citizens) who are actively attempting to turn them into theocracies.
But some visitors just don't get it because that's not how they conduct themselves in the West. This makes me wonder if they also walk around topless in the West. Many people, as well as the Indonesian government, mostly blame the Russians for these actions, while the person who stormed the festival was a German, and the one who refused to stay silent during Nyepi, as far as I know, was Italian, but ofc Russian is easier target.
Yes, people walk around topless in the West, though usually only where it's appropriate (ie. beaches, pools, backyard, etc. It's a way to cope with heat, although there are some people who still think tanning is a good idea. There are places where women can be topless (if memory serves, it's legal in BC and Ontario and if a woman is breastfeeding).
That said: There are places with signs up saying, "No shirt, no shoes, no service". Going shirtless on public transit is frowned on (not sure if it's against the bylaws).
And atheists know religion better than people who take it religiously?
Seems there's this guy on the forum here, you might have heard of him. He identifies as not-a-believer/not religious, yet he's started no fewer than FIVE well-used "Ask a Theologian" threads, and tends to be the go-to person for a lot of questions. He's been active lately in the "When was Jesus born?" thread in the World History forum.
I am, of course, referring to Plotinus.
In US socio-political discourse, you may hear the terms "melting pot" and "salad bowl." The assimilationist position is the melting pot, where the myriad ingredients blend together and become indistinguishable from one another. The integrationist model is the salad bowl, where the ingredients retain their individual form and flavor, but work together toward the whole.
I haven't heard the term "salad bowl" before. In Canada we call it the "Canadian mosaic".
but I have to admit that I gained a whole new appreciation for the stereotypes about American tourists when I traveled to other countries and saw them in the flesh, with my own eyes.
Have you ever watched "The Amazing Race"? There have been a few teams on that show who displayed some remarkably boorish behavior and would rant loudly if someone who spoke English didn't immediately run up to them and offer to help them with directions. The show's host sees the footage from their races as they go along, and was definitely not pleased at how they behaved.
