How many of you would punish religious people for being religious?

[paulpablo]

Sometimes.

OK, so in answer to the question in the OP, you are in favor of punishing people for being religious, if it's a religion which you judge to be bad.

No, only if they declare they believe in punishing people for not believing.  Put another way I don't believe I should die, so if someone says they believe I should die then I would be morally fine with them being killed. 

There's no specific religion (there might be some exceptions) in which every follower believes disbelievers should die.  So it's not about me judging entire religions,  But if someone of any religion believes that I or other non believers should die for not believing then I'm morally fine with them being killed.  

The same goes for atheists who believe in killing religious people just for being religious, I think it would be morally fine for them to be killed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sometimes.

OK, so in answer to the question in the OP, you are in favor of punishing people for being religious, if it's a religion which you judge to be bad.

Sure as shit not gonna let the devotees of the goddess of stabbing out eyes run around "practicing their religion" are we?  If calling them assholes is punishment then actively preventing them from carrying out their religious duties certainly is.

[Belacqua]

OK, so in answer to the question in the OP, you are in favor of punishing people for being religious, if it's a religion which you judge to be bad.

No, only if they declare they believe in punishing people for not believing.  Put another way I don't believe I should die, so if someone says they believe I should die then I would be morally fine with them being killed. 

There's no specific religion (there might be some exceptions) in which every follower believes disbelievers should die.  So it's not about me judging entire religions,  But if someone of any religion believes that I or other non believers should die for not believing then I'm morally fine with them being killed.  

The same goes for atheists who believe in killing religious people just for being religious, I think it would be morally fine for them to be killed.

That seems clearer. 

You're in favor of killing people whose beliefs are in favor of killing people whom you judge not to be deserving of death.

So let's say, for example, that you believe gay marriage is a good thing. (I believe this too.)

And let's say that there is a group of fanatics who believe that you should be killed for believing that.

You believe that these fanatics should be killed.

So you and the fanatics agree that some people should be killed for their beliefs, you just disagree over which people should die.

[paulpablo]

No, only if they declare they believe in punishing people for not believing.  Put another way I don't believe I should die, so if someone says they believe I should die then I would be morally fine with them being killed. 

There's no specific religion (there might be some exceptions) in which every follower believes disbelievers should die.  So it's not about me judging entire religions,  But if someone of any religion believes that I or other non believers should die for not believing then I'm morally fine with them being killed.  

The same goes for atheists who believe in killing religious people just for being religious, I think it would be morally fine for them to be killed.

That seems clearer. 

You're in favor of killing people whose beliefs are in favor of killing people whom you judge not to be deserving of death.

So let's say, for example, that you believe gay marriage is a good thing. (I believe this too.)

And let's say that there is a group of fanatics who believe that you should be killed for believing that.

You believe that these fanatics should be killed.

So you and the fanatics agree that some people should be killed for their beliefs, you just disagree over which people should die.

There probably are some exceptions but in general you're probably about right.  I think some of this would depend on how much of a legitimate violent threat the person is to the people they believe deserve harm.  And how much evidence there is that they really believe what they say they believe. If a guy with no arms and legs and no friends backing him up wanted to kill all people with arms and legs, I'd have no urgency to kill him.
 If I was Jewish, surrounded by Nazis in a death camp and their beliefs were backed up by potential violence I'm sure my urgency to kill these people for their beliefs would increase. 

These are two extreme sides of the spectrum.

[vulcanlogician]

Atheists on the internet? We're setting the bar pretty low aren't we? Wouldn't you be annoyed with an argument premised on "theists on the internet say x"?

And you'd be justified in thinking that. Because it's strawmanning.

As you can see, it's hard to get a straight answer here.

Fake obviously thinks that raising a child in a religion is child abuse. But we knew he would say that.

Valkyrie seems to equate "religion" with "cutting a child's forehead," which is a practice done within a certain religion, but not, I think, something essential with or contiguous to religion. 

Boru brings up circumcision, without any argument as to whether or not it's child abuse, or relevant in any way.

Helios wants to talk about his own thing and doesn't want to address the issue. 

So the subject was that Dawkins, among other atheists, believes that raising a child within a religion is child abuse. No one wants to say that he's wrong. 

If he's right, and it's child abuse, then religious parents should be punished.

You make a good point. I said "internet atheists" was too strawmanny, and then you produced Dawkins, who (for some reason) we both agree is less strawmanny than "internet atheists." But I personally don't give two fucks about what Dawkins thinks unless he happens to be right, which happens somewhat consistently.

I don't agree with Dawkins on: "raising a child with religion constitutes abuse."

Boru said it better than I. Many atheists disagree with Dawkins on this.

I don't think raising a child within a religious practice is necessarily immoral. To the objections against circumcision, that's a good discussion to have. Secular circumcision practices, if they existed, should equally suffer such moral scrutiny,shouldn't they? . What would be the verdict for secular institutions imposing circumcision to all youths from on high, as some kind of tribal identity marker? Would that be right? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Belacqua]

You make a good point. I said "internet atheists" was too strawmanny, and then you produced Dawkins, who (for some reason) we both agree is less strawmanny than "internet atheists." But I personally don't give two fucks about what Dawkins thinks unless he happens to be right, which happens somewhat consistently.

Well, it doesn't really matter who said it. Dawkins, or his fanboys, or somebody else. I've heard it said, and I'm surprised you haven't. A lot of over-the-top anti-religious things get said on forums like this, and they usually go by unchallenged because it's a safe space to vent one's hatred. 

I don't agree with Dawkins on: "raising a child with religion constitutes abuse."

Yes, I was assuming you'd be more reasonable than Fake or Dawkins. 

But the point isn't so much whether a religious upbringing is or isn't child abuse in OUR eyes. The point I was making is that, for those people who DO agree with Fake and Dawkins, and call it abuse, to be consistent they would have to demand that the government intervene in the family and punish the parents. Because abuse is illegal, and requires punishment. 

So that is a case which answers the question in the OP: we know that some atheists would, if they could, punish religious people. 

(I referred to them as "Internet atheists" because I never talk about stuff like this with people face to face. Only on the Internet.)

I have no idea what percentage of atheists agree with this. Not a large percentage, I assume. (Unlike some people, I won't assume that the most extreme cases of a certain kind of belief are representative of everyone with that belief.) Perhaps Fake or Valkyrie or one of the other posters who associate a religious upbringing with the absolute worst examples in the world would like to clarify. It may be that they would like to mete out punishment, but don't want to say so on a thread like this. (Since Ahriman brought it up, and he's unpopular, people are likely unwilling to give him what he seems to want.)

Ahriman has posed a good question. The vehemence of many of the anti-religion statements made here certainly give the impression that the posters would be willing to take action.

[Fake Messiah]

Well, it doesn't really matter who said it. Dawkins, or his fanboys, or somebody else. I've heard it said, and I'm surprised you haven't. A lot of over-the-top anti-religious things get said on forums like this, and they usually go by unchallenged because it's a safe space to vent one's hatred. 

It's still better than fanboys of Aquinas and Augustine who actually wrote openly that people should be killed for their religion (like Jews) - you know, fanboys like you who is also a frequent apologist for Inquisition, apologist for the killing of Giordano Bruno by the Holy Office, etc.

[zebo-the-fat]

As I have said before... you can either be alive or dead...   200 years ago I wasn't alive, so I must have been dead, in another 200 years I will also be dead... why would one be different from the other?

Because you weren't "dead" 200 years ago, you just didn't exist yet.

How is my state 200 years ago different from my state in 200 years from now? I don't exist in eaither one

[Ahriman]

Because you weren't "dead" 200 years ago, you just didn't exist yet.

How is my state 200 years ago different from my state in 200 years from now?   I don't exist in eaither one

Once something exists, it exists forever, in some form or another.

[zebo-the-fat]

No it doesn't!

besides the atoms that make up my body existed 200 years ago and will still exist in 200 years