Asklemmy

Atheist here. My personal philosophy says to leave them alone as long as they leave me alone. If you start to preach or force it on me, I'll do something in the range of: politely excuse myself, to tell you to fuck off, depending on how forceful, persistent, and annoying you are.

But in almost all such encounters so far I've just smiled and nodded because it was often coming from people using religion to bring them comfort in difficult times, and they were often not forceful. And if they say things like "God bless you", I take it as a sign of respect, because they often say it out of either gratitude or out of positive feelings towards me. I've been fortunate enough to not encounter many religious fanatics, though I've heard many stories of them and am ready to pull out the Ol' Reliable in the form of "Hail Satan" if it gets to that.

My (lack of) religion's attitude towards all religions:

May you all be touched by thy noodley appendage

“No God before me” can have, and does have in the history of Christianity, three possible interpretations.

• the exclusivist one (Evangelical churches mainly): the Christian God is the only God, you have to confess him directly to be saved.
• the inclusivist one (mainly the Catholic church, and some Protestants), the Christian God is the only God, but you can unknowingly pray him when you pray an other God within other traditions, in other words you can be Christian without knowing it.
• the pluralistic one (other Protestants), most religions are equally valuable, but if you are Christian you should pray only the Christian God.

Of course this is just a model, all positions are deeper than that and most people mix two or even the three models. I don't know where the Orthodox Churches stand.

For myself, I tend to be somewhere between the second and the third model.

We hate Microsoft. Long live RMS and the flying spaghetti monster!

Personally, as an agnostic (leaning atheist) I don't have any particular dogma regarding other religions to follow. I will however share how I view religions.

• I've yet to encounter a religion that is verifiably true. As such I consider the religions of other people to essentially be opinions (personal beliefs).

• Opinions should not be held sacred in society, nor should they grant special rights.

• The religions of others only really become a problem if they make demands based on said religious belief, attempt to impose their beliefs on others, or spread verifiably false information.

I am a pagan. There are pretty much no widely accepted texts within paganism that make any statements about subject. In my experience most pagans are quite happy to coexist with other religions in general - and given that in almost all circumstances pagans will be in a small minority that makes perfect sense. On the other hand, most pagans that I know are far less happy to coexist with the more bigoted and hateful varieties of religion.

There is a strong feminist trend within paganism and this - particularly linked with the ahistorial but often assumed heritage of witchcraft, and the associated history of hanging and burning of witches - does not lead the more patriarchal end of the Abrahamic religions to sit well with a lot of pagans - and I know a lot who are far happier about visiting the roofless moss-covered shell of an abandoned church, with a hawthorn growing in the apse than they are visiting an occupied one (unless it is in search of a sheel-na-gig etc).

On the other hand, there is a strand of Norse paganism that crosses into white supremacy and neo-nazism, so that brings its own hate, bigotry and patriarchy. I do not know what their stance on other religions is.

Interestingly, Christianity is compatible with Judaism and Islam in that regard, though I'm not sure exactly what the other two say in kind.

The Christian God is the Muslim Allah, who is also the Hebrew Yahweh. All the exact same being.

Two words: Spanish inquisition

Buddhism is widely accepting of other religions. I’m atheist, and love the teachings of the Buddhas.

Looking at the world, seems likely that Satan is running it, not God.

When they say "Lord", which lord are they referring to in reality.... Without knowing.

I think that's baked into all the abrahamic religions. The Old Testament says so, and the Quaran also doesn't like heretics, especially apostasy is considered really bad. As far as I know the death penalty is how to deal with apostates in Islam. But it's not really better in christianity or judaism, the same tribal concept of extinguishing rival tribes is in the Old Testament and Torah. All these religions believe in the same god. So theoretically they're more compatible with each other than for example with atheists or people believing in different or multiple gods. Or people renouncing their ways.

You can have a look at buddhism, hinduism etc to find a different perspective, indigenous beliefs, pantheism or agnosticism. Or the ancient greeks, romans or egypts or maya civilization. They all have a very different view than we have with our abrahamic God.

I personally like science. Just because it's the only sane approach to knowledge. And it has proven to be the way that delivers the goods. And I think this and the observations I made contradict with the existence of any God. And we should not base our decisions on ancient tribal beliefs, so I'm not okay with any of the Gods who tell people what to do and what not to do. I link proper philosophy and progress in what we deem to be our current ethics.

I always thought the Ottoman Empire's millet system was interesting. Basically since it was a Muslim country that allowed other religions to exist, how do you rule them? Doesn't seem quite fair to make them follow your religious rules, but also you are a religious empire protecting everybody and what's in it for you to protect these non believers?

So they just had different legal systems set up for each religious community, and non-Muslims just had to pay a tax (the jizya).

In Theravada Buddhism, it call other religious views as just Micchaditthi (Pali word), originally meaning just "wrong view". But in recent years, atleast in my country the word is slowly becoming akin to stronger words like blasphemer, infidel, etc, which is quite sad because in the scripture, it seems obvious that the word wasn't use in such meaning.

Asking seriously: “ no gods before me”, does that mean it’s ok to have gods after that god?

It's all about perspective

Tiny deism is quantum religion. And thus, it is all religions.

Nothing, I have none. #KISS

Crom laughs at your god.

In Gita, Shri Krishna says "I am everything". This kind of kills the "otherness" of everything.

I don't know if it's a denomination thing, but I am what you'd call henotheistic despite otherwise checking out with the "no other gods before me" thing. Anything may exist.