On "Whackjob Atheists"

[NMMNG]

The claim has been made that there are 'Whackjob Atheists' out there. I beg to differ. When have atheists ever:

-Bombed an abortion clinic or killed an abortion doctor
-Demanded that half the population be denied access to a medical procedure even if their life is in danger
-Picketed a funeral , holding signs that say things like "I'm thankful for IEDs/AIDS/Dead gays/Dead soldiers"
-Demanded that people be denied the right to marry (and other basic civil rights) because of what some ancient book says
-Attacked and even killed gays because of what that same book says
-Demanded that children be taught inadequate and even false information about their bodies and sexuality in public schools with public funds
-Demanded that scientific facts be stifled and unsubstantiated personal opinions be taught in their place in public schools with public funds
-Refused to allow theists (or anyone) to run for public office
-Waged a war in the name of atheism
-Staged a suicide bombing in the name of atheism
-Killed women based on questionable accusations of "witchcraft" because some book said witchcraft was "evil"


etc, etc.

???

When any of the above occur I'll be more than happy to admit that 'Whackjob Atheists' exist.

[lvx35]

1. Mao, Stalin, Mao, Stalin, Mao, Stalin.

Atheistic regimes have existed and done bad things. Atheistic people have existed and bad done things. Disbelieve in deity doesn't make you morally perfect, nor does belief in a deity.

[dweller]

4. Commies...

c'mon, get your idealogues right.

dp

[onager]

5. Those were political, not "atheistic" regimes

But thanks for dredging up one of the oldest--and weakest--slurs against atheism.

You'll be onto something if you can find a regime that was specifically set up to promote the atheist (dis)belief system; i.e., the People's Atheistic Republic Of Whatever. And it would need laws that specifically stated atheism was the only form of religious thought allowed, and all others were legally forbidden.

Good luck.

FYI, here's the official status of religion in China. It's similar to the old Soviet Russian Constitution:

The Constitution provides for freedom of religious belief and the freedom not to believe; however, the Government seeks to restrict religious practice to government-sanctioned organizations and registered places of worship, and to control the growth and scope of the activity of religious groups to prevent the rise of competing possible sources of authority outside of the control of the Government.

The Criminal Law states that government officials who deprive citizens of religious freedom may, in serious cases, be sentenced to up to 2 years in prison; however, there were no known cases of persons being punished under this statute.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/23826.htm

on edit:

Full disclosure: I'm proud to be one of those Angry Whackjob Atheists.

[lvx35]

11. communist regimes advocated atheism and oft locked up people of faith.

There is a lot of historical data backing this up. Religion as an instument of "imperialism", the "opiate of the masses" (as marx said) and needed to be suppressed in the form of level headed atheism.

[onager]

16. Oh, you mean they denied people's rights because of their beliefs?

Whew! I'm sure glad such a thing could NEVER happen in the good ol' USA, One Nation Under Gawd and all...

Arkansas Constitution, Article 19, Section 1: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court".

Maryland, Declaration of Rights, Art. 36: "...nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God..."

Art. 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution. "

North Carolina State Constitution, Article 6, Section 8: "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Pennsylvania State Constitution, Article 1, Section 4: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina State Constitution, Article 6, Section 4: "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee State Constitution, Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State."

Texas State Constitution, Article 1, Section 4: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Article 4, Section 2: "No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being..."

Article 6, Section 2: "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

[lvx35]

17. That's a different thing, but I'll comment.

Basically all I have to say is that's a serious civil rights issue and I am behind you 100% on that. I think any real interpretation of the 1st ammendment covers the rights of atheists as well as anybody else. I see A true separation of church and state as worth working for both for secular and religious reasons.
But I disagree with the tone of the OP. :)

[Inland]

25. Wow, watch that nonsequitur LEAP into play.

From somehow denying the communist regimes were atheist to saying the US has discriminated against atheists in a few laws....that are unenforceable.

[onager]

27. Troll ignored

I see you still have that reading comprehension problem, so when you've worked on that for a while, maybe we can talk.

:hi:

[Inland]

28. Two out of two found it a "different thing". You responded to neither.

It seems to me that a) I read your posts exactly right and b) you admit you went for the nonsequitur.

[Goblinmonger]

96. Not a non-sequitur

but a blatant disregard for fact: there has only been ONE government that officially abolished all religion. Can you name it? Don't give in to the US propaganda about what communism was/is.

[Dorian Gray]

110. Maybe Inland...

Maybe they are "unenforceable," but they shouldn't exist. They should be stricken from the state constitutions, to be fair. Their very existence doesn't speak well for the Freedoms of our atheist friends.

[Tigress DEM]

38. One thing I don't get, why would you want to id as a Whackjob?

Very interesting info on the way China does the dance with religion. It puts a new light on the attempt to keep religion from rising to dominate a nation. Still their practice also leaves something to be desired.

To me the Whackjob is someone out on the fringe who takes the most extreme meaning of the ideology and therefore distorts it. It's a person who demands that all believe their way is the only way.

Now Atheism is a loose collective as I've observed, but due to past persecution and present threat of more, it is solidifying some. Even as a group that basically just wants to be left alone to believe as they choose - which is to NOT believe in God... more tenets are beginning to form. Which is fine, it just opens Atheists up to attracting whackjobs. I'm of the opinion that every ideology attracts them and it is up to the group to enforce common sense restraint on their own to keep respect going among us all.

I also think that people can do something that could be considered whackjob behavior without being totally crazy. Skydiving for instance. Why would someone jump out of a perfectly good airplane? But I'm told it's a lot of fun and I don't see skydivers to go on killing rampages or campaigns to make everyone jump at least once. Although their enthusiasm can easily be seen they manage to get along well in society for the most part.

[NMMNG]

6. In the name of atheism? Because of atheism?

I think not.

[lvx35]

12. dupe deleted

[lvx35]

13. That's because atheism doesn't affirm anything.

Its not a pro-active force saying how life should be, as Islam or even communism. So no, you don't have people doing violence in its name, but on the other hand you don't really have people doing ANYTHING in its name, where with, say Christianity, you can see great cathedrals, great works from Bach and Raphael and Newton done in the name of God.

[NMMNG]

14. Trade some beautiful pieces of architecture and music for

some of the most heinous wars and genocides in history? Not to mention centuries of repression of science, healthcare and humanity, plus torture, murder, divisiveness and more.

I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Tigress DEM]

43. But the US of A is about diverse groups working togther w/respect

Why does it have to be an either/or?

For the many warts on the Christian Faith there are good honest people who follow Christ's example, make positive contributions to society and don't judge someone for being an Atheist.

The Church as a repressive political tool? Yeah, I'd like to see that crap ended too.

Still, the voice of the church can be used for good as long as it remains separate from the workings of the government. Our clergy here in MN got together and demanded that the legislature address critical human needs in their session because they were all caught up in a stadium standoff and the Guv's "no new taxes" pledge and had forgotten about the needs of the people they represent. It had a positive impact.

Whether you examine your human heart and realize you can do better and pull yourself along that road or examine your heart and listen for the voice of God to help you be better and pull yourself along the road, as long as you get on that road whose business is it how you got there?

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. There's a lot of difference between "uninspiring" and "whackjob"

Yes, atheism itself may not encourage people to great works, but it doesn't stop them either. It is essentially harmless - so claims that it is threatening the ideals of freedom and liberty are a bit annoying.

[Inland]

26. That's the rub: NOTHING is attributable to atheism, good OR bad.

YOu can say that atheism has stimulated anyone to do bad things. Or good things. Aside from setting up a team that can easily point out the fault of the other team, it has no purpose, agenda, promise, at all.

It's no more relevant than saying that "gum chewers never had an inquistion" or "astrologers never bombed an abortion clinic." It's true, and so what.

[Tigress DEM]

31. Even as a Christian, I can't stomach the way you said that.

Atheists have valid belief systems that simply aren't tied up in a view of GOD or gods.

Atheism can affirm that humans can and should behave in good ways toward each other without having to fear a wrathful God that is going to punish you if you don't.

Humanism is an alternate belief system that many atheists favor.
Science is another belief system. Not all of science is provable, there are many theories and ways to interpret our existence here on the planet.

Artists do not have to believe in God to create great work of art and neither do architects.

Just because the Church owned much of the world at one time and wonderful things were built, does not justify saying atheism doesn't "affirm anything." Inquisitions and other terrible wrongs were committed by the very church that put money into those wonderful things to justify their awful behaviors.

And if Christians were more open minded to allowing others to simply believe and would occasionally listen instead of drinking the koolaid, more people would know these things instead of just believing that whatever their belief is - is the only good in the world.

[Inland]

34. But you are confusing two things, atheism and humanism.

Don't confuse what atheists might believe and what atheism is. Atheists believe many things, like, for example, stalinism. But there's nothing about atheism that compelled stalinism. Or humanism. In those cases there is then something more than, other than, atheism. Atheism is nothing, a not-belief.

So it's somewhat disingenuous to say the atheist does not commit mass murder because of or on account of his atheism. It's true, but only true the extent that the atheist does not do anything because of or on account of his atheism. Atheism in and of itself supplies no norms, goals, promise, agenda, nothing.

Which brings us to the affiliation of atheists appearing on DU as atheists, with FSM sig lines, cute little green animations, and the like. It seems to me that there really isn't any reason to fly atheism as a flag, as it is not a belief system or a program. Basically, atheism as atheism without more provides nothing besides an ability to bash people for the sins of their group, without exposing oneself to criticism for one's own group. Only on an internet anonymous board, could someone expect to win "debates" by standing for nothing and believing nothing besides the bad nature of "the other guy". Most places, standing for nothing and being nothing would be seen as a form of nihilism and considered amoral and socially destructive, but not in the R/T section.

[Tigress DEM]

36. No, I am stating that Atheism only states a dis-belief in God and I

understand that there are many other positive belief systems available to them to choose, so the simple statement that they don't believe in God isn't any more offensive to me than they don't prefer to eat chocolate ice cream.

YOU are the one saying that if they don't believe in something other than Atheism that they stand for nothing.

IF it weren't assumed that someone HAS to believe in God in some fashion or another, a person wouldn't have to even STATE they are an Atheist. Do you walk up to people on the street and quiz them on their eating habits and then judge them based on how they answer?

To be an Atheist doesn't absolutely mean they believe in nothing and affirm nothing because you are taking one statement about their life and creating the whole.

Knowing someone is an Atheist means you either simply accept them as they are or or at the very least refrain from being lazy and assuming you know what they DO believe. You have to ask and listen and be open to what you hear.

If Christians could be more Christlike they would do that. Even Jesus went to Samaria and made it a point to not belittle people for different beliefs. And no religion OWNS the word "belief" it has it's very own place in the dictionary.

[CarbonDate]

45. It wouldn't be necessary to self-identify....

...and express solidarity with one another if the fundies left us the fuck alone and let us live our lives as we would.

But they don't.

So it is.

[okasha]

51. Just out of curiosity, how have the fundies prevented you

from living your life as you would?

Have you ever been denied housing because you're an atheist?

How about service in a restaurant?

Or transportation when you've paid for your ticket?

Have you been denied employment or promotion in your job because you're an atheist?

Have you been denied the right to vote?

Taxed inequitably because you're an atheist?

Charged extra interest or refused a loan or credit card?

Have you been refused the right to an education because you're an atheist?

Refused health care?

Refused the right to marry?

Attacked and beaten within an inch of your life?

Forced into a place of worship at the point of a weapon?

Taken away from your parents and sent to a mission school?

Herded onto a reservation?

Other? Please explain.

[Tigress DEM]

53. What if there were an Atheist who wanted to run for Governor?

Pick a state. Maybe they could, maybe they couldn't. In another post here it shows that belief in God, while not necessarily a specific religion is required in some states.

I didn't know that before today, but just like the red line banking scandals where the banks kept coloreds out of white neighborhoods by not giving them loans at all or only if they applied for an accepted neighborhood, if there is a law that states belief in God is required to run for office I think that could keep some people out that might be better than those who say Lawd, Lawd while doing the devil's work.

I've heard of Atheists being beaten.

A gay atheist can't get a civil union in some states and have no church to go to for a blessing of their union.

What if the best local college for your area of expertise is a fundie school? Would they let an atheist in?

Unless you have walked a mile in an Atheist's moccasins, please don't judge.

I'm not an Atheist but I'm not blind either. Their problems are valid and if DU treats them with respect we'll all be better for it.

[okasha]

55. But I'm not asking for hypotheticals.

I'm asking a person who made a specific claim to provide specific facts. If there are states that bar atheists from public office, then the solution is to get the ACLU on it and file a class action suit. Why hasn't this already been done? I'd happily sign and circulate petitions to get any such idiot law revoked. I should think that would be a fair no-brainer for the Supremes, given that the fed Constitution trumps the state documents, and the first amendment is pretty damn clear.

If a gay atheist can't get a civil union, it's because s/he's gay, not because s/he's an atheist. Unfortunately, having a chuch to bless your union when the state won't grant a license confers none of the rights of marriage as they are enjoyed by heterosexuals. The benefits are not legal but psychological and spiritual--the latter unnecessary, according to atheists.

I do know an atheist who's been beaten. Her attackers, though, had no idea she's an atheist. She and a straight friend were assaulted as they came out of a lesbian bar, and both nearly died.

Hmm. I'm having a hard time imagining that a fundie school would be the "best in the area" in any field, since they're notoriously weak in both academic and technical fields. But given that such schools would also refuse Catholics, gays, very possibly persons of color, the discrimination would in no wise be unique to atheists.

I walk in my own Native American pagan moccasins, thank you.

Edited to add:

The Supremes have already stomped down the religious tests in State constitutions.

A U.S. Supreme Court case -- Torcaso v Watkins -- in 1961:
In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso to be a Notary Public. According to Atheism.About.com:

"When the time came for him to actually assume his duties, he was denied his commission and had his appointment rescinded because he refused to declare his belief in God."

"Article 37 of Maryland's Declaration of Rights stated: 'o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God'." 3

Torcaso filed suit in state court because he felt the test unfairly penalized him for his lack of belief in God. He argued that the religious test had violated his rights under U.S. Constitution -- both:

The 1st Amendment (which guarantees freedom of religion) and
The 14th Amendment (which makes certain provisions of the Federal Constitution binding on the individual states).

He lost. 4 He appealed to the State Court of Appeals 5 and lost again. Finally, he won before the U.S. Supreme Court. He had the support of the American Ethical Union and the American Jewish Committee, who filed amici curiae ("friends of the court" briefs).

The court ruled unanimously in Torcaso's favor. Justice Black, writing for the justices stated:

"This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States."

This ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court presumably makes all of the religious tests for office in the various states listed above to be unconstitutional.

During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the state tried to make the case that the religious test did not impinge on Torcaso's religious freedom. They stated:

"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office."

However, Mr. Justice Black ruled:

"There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers - those who are willing to say they believe in 'the existence of God.' It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical 'establishment' of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers....."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

[Tigress DEM]

57. You know an atheist who was beaten for different reasons.

I know one who was beaten repeatedly because they asked what church he went to and he said he didn't believe in God. So he got it every day after school.

Children in fundie families are beaten if the don't drink the koolaid. Why do you think they get so messed up in the first place.

Being a Native American and walking in your own moccasins is fine as long as you aren't judging someone else. But the tone of your post was like a slap in the face. The subject line seemed fine, but the examples given were like a challange to prove that Atheists have valid cause to cry foul.

You have to be intelligent enough to realize that these people who go out and abuse those who are different than themselves will use any excuse. Why would you doubt people who come together as a group and say, "No we aren't going to be nice to them, they've abused us," just because they say they are Atheists and you don't know of any abuse that's happened to them personally.

A note about my use of Pagan. I only use that to describe people who prefer that term for themselves.

I suppose since many Native Americans believe in the Great Spirit, I personally never considered it to be a pagan religion. Just an area open to interpretation. It is another belief system that I admire and respect. I certainly like the Great Spirit more that the Fundy's God. My God is a God of Love and from what I've read about various Indian cultures their faith includes not only benign deities, but a "communion of saints" type thing with their ancestors - hence the whole dread of archaeologists digging up people and their things that were put to rest. Then I'm a strange one. Got a thing for the power of a totem. Tigress DEM.

[okasha]

60. But it was a challenge.

That's exactly what it was. There have been numerous fundie whimpers of discrimination against Christians from the Robertsons and Falwells, and no proof that any such thing has occurred. There have been claims of discrimination against white males--again, no proof. All I'm asking is for someone who says fundies keep him from living his life the way he wants to live it is that he give a specific instance or two that fundies have indeed prevented him from living his life the way he wants to live it. All the atheists I know personally, including my friend who was beaten because she's lesbian, live their lives exactly as they choose, fundies be damned--and you can take that verb any way you like. :D Most of them have led incredibly rich and creative lives, full of professional and personal accomplishments. (I say "most" because some are too young yet to have the kind of experiences their parents have had.)

You have to be intelligent enough to realize that these people who go out and abuse those who are different than themselves will use any excuse. Why would you doubt people who come together as a group and say, "No we aren't going to be nice to them, they've abused us," just because they say they are Atheists and you don't know of any abuse that's happened to them personally.

Obviously. But "they" can be a very large word. I seriously doubt that any religious person on DU has actually beaten or otherwise abused an atheist, unless you want to count philosophical disagreement as abuse. It's rather foolish to attack one's natural, liberal, allies because of their religious beliefs--or skin color, or sexual orientation, or whatever.

I suppose since many Native Americans believe in the Great Spirit, I personally never considered it to be a pagan religion. Just an area open to interpretation.

Oy. "Great Spirit"--many prefer the term "Great Mystery" in English--is not another name for Yahweh or Rabbi Jesus.

Then I'm a strange one. Got a thing for the power of a totem. Tigress DEM.

I hear you, sister. :toast: The Native American "communion of saints" also includes the animal spirits, and it seems we share one. ("Okasha" means "wildcat.")

[Tigress DEM]

62. I personally wonder when it's the right time to challenge, though.

I've learned that asking for examples while pre-supposing there would be no suitable answer doesn't always provide a place for that answer to be said. In my case I really want to know the answers because I think there is some healing that needs to take place here on DU, but it's hard to get at what's going on when everyone is in such a row.

Sorry about the "Great Spirit" thing. I don't mean that I assume it's really "my God" just that there is room to agree on some things because of that term and so I haven't sought to disagree with anyone about their beliefs or even considered it as Pagan.

I drive by an inner city tribal housing cluster on my way home from work most days and I often pause and wonder about my fit with my faith.

Because of how awful religious people treat others these days and because Pope Benedict looks quite mad, I haven't been comfortable in the chruch of my birth for a long time. I came up as a Catholic during VaticanII and it was at that time there was a renewal between Christians, a lot of openess between faiths and I studied Anthropology and many, many cultures. My parish didn't have the whole "everyone else is going to Hell" attitude until I went back home as an adult and they had scrapped most of VaticanII's provisions.

I've actaully wondered if I could remain a Christian, but learn Indian ways as an enrichment and as something to pass on. So many youth don't seem to want their heritage or so I hear and I think the world would be a lesser place without it, but in my heart of hearts I know that's not my job.

Still Okasha the Wild Cat and Tigress DEM probably have a lot more in common than just our monikers.

Peace!

[okasha]

98. When there's misinformation about, immediately

is the best time to challenge it. Look how quickly it became "fact" that atheists cannot hold public office or a position of public trust in some six states--yet those state constitutional provisions were unanimously struck down by the Supreme Court almost half a century ago. I happen to work for a local government in one of those states, and one of my colleagues is an atheist who writes regular columns on Biblical contradictions for a regional journal. When I was interviewed, I was not asked whether I acknowledged a "Supreme Being." My former position was also one of "public trust," and I was specifically instructed, when interviewing others for taxpayer-financed positions, that religion or lack of it is an area one CANNOT ask about, along with disability status, political affiliation, etc., etc..

Because of how awful religious people treat others these days and because Pope Benedict looks quite mad, I haven't been comfortable in the chruch of my birth for a long time. I came up as a Catholic during VaticanII and it was at that time there was a renewal between Christians, a lot of openess between faiths and I studied Anthropology and many, many cultures. My parish didn't have the whole "everyone else is going to Hell" attitude until I went back home as an adult and they had scrapped most of VaticanII's provisions.

I know a number of Catholics, including a couple fairly conservative clergy, who agree with you on Benedict. Their name for him before he was elected Pope was "the Rat," and they still call him that. Some may leave the church, others have simply battened down and hope to wait him out. If his successor is as backward-looking as Benedict himself, then they'll consider their options.

I've actaully wondered if I could remain a Christian, but learn Indian ways as an enrichment and as something to pass on.

I think you might enjoy that. There are places where Native American beliefs and liberal Christianity complement each other quite nicely--think St. Francis, for instance.

Still Okasha the Wild Cat and Tigress DEM probably have a lot more in common than just our monikers.

I suspect you're entirely right about that!

[trotsky]

108. Geez, for supposedly being a member of a religious minority,

I would have expected a little more sympathetic perspective from you, okasha.

I can address most of your questions by saying that while there is no "official" discrimination per se, it's mainly because most atheists keep quiet about their lack of belief, especially in their public lives. Just for one example, you don't think the fundie asshole that owns an apartment building and won't rent to homosexuals wouldn't also refuse to rent to an atheist? But the atheist can "hide" is atheism, while that option is not available to the homosexual couple.

Only 52% of Americans would vote for an atheist if they otherwise agreed with the atheist's policy positions - you don't think that attitude carries over into whatever position of power they might hold? Whether it be landlord, boss, community leader, you name it - the motivation and pattern of intolerance is there.

Taxed inequitably because you're an atheist?

This one, I can directly address. You bet I am. Churches aren't taxed, which benefits churchgoers because they don't have to give as much to their church. But since I don't have a church, my tax burden is higher to support the institutions of believers. Secondly, with President Dumbshit's faith-based programs, I'm taxed specifically to fund churches and their proselytization programs disguised as social services.

I find it sad that you think just because discrimination against atheists isn't an official, enshrined part of American society (and apparently almost comparable to the Holocaust) that it doesn't affect our lives to a significant extent, which is all that CarbonDate was saying. The fact that so many of us have to keep quiet in our real lives is a testament to the discrimination that can and does occur. As someone who is not a Christian yourself, surely you have run into similar situations?

[Tigress DEM]

52. Any group has the right to bond together and have their opinion

I respect that.

Course, I'm not a fundie. I am a Christian, though.

I'd like to see us all be less defensive and argumentative with each other because we could make better progress. This is something that would be good for everyone.

"Lord save us" if we lost the logic and humor of the Atheists. Positively tragic.

Lighten up people. We have a country to save and NO ONE is putting ANYONE under a bus on my watch because we have so much work, so little time and it would just be too boring if we were all the same anyway.

[NMMNG]

68. Stalinism was not about atheism

Stalinism was about communism. How many times do you people have to have that pounded into your disingenous heads?

[Inland]

99. It most certainly was about atheism, among other things.

Not only was atheism a part of the official ideology OF COMMUNISM and the soviet state, but it was a goal for the people to be brought about a persecution of clergy and religious and the appropriation of churches.

I'm not sure how much more Stalinism could be "about atheism". I guess your point is that there was more going on under Stalin than atheism, the suppression of churches, and the occasional one way ticket to the gulag for clergymen. But still, atheism was part and parcel of both communism and Stalinism.

I guess it's just a question of how far one is willing to go to blame everything bad on religion. If the premise is that there's no such thing as an atheist whackjob, then Stalin was not an atheist. Oh, excuse me, not a "true atheist".

[Goblinmonger]

101. Dude

if you can't see the humor of my "Stalin wasn't a true atheist" post, then you SERIOUSLY need to lighten up. Take a sense of humor pill or something.

[Inland]

106. I saw the humor. When I picked myself up off the floor, dude,

and wiped the tears from my eyes, I made a point. Some of us let the truly hilarious people make all the funny stuff.

[NMMNG]

102. Some light reading

Stalinism

Left Communism

Maoism

Christian Communism



Not a peep about atheism being the foundation of any of the ideaologies, or even a significant force within them. In fact, I didn't see mention of it at all (if anybody comes across it feel free to point it out).

[Inland]

107. "Being the foundation, being the force".

I guess it's all about a really, really qualifying term. I mean, atheism is part of the official communist state ideology of Stalin's USSR, but it's not a FOUNDATION. Churches are shut down and clergy are persecuted pursuant to that official atheism, but it's not a FORCE.

Whatever. Let's just say that Stalin was an atheist, that communism was officially atheist, that there's nothing inconsistent with atheism and either Stalin or communism or the persecution of whomever. Then you can quibble over whether it comes to a "force" or "foundation" all day long.

[Orrex]

37. The argument-from-art is useless

Throughout the centuries, the reasons that art so often labored in service of the church are that

A The church had the money for it
B The church could fine/jail/excommunicate/banish/execute you if it deemed your work contrary to the church or the church's doctrine

Absent this powerfully repressive ruling body, art would almost certainly have progressed regardless, as long as someone was willing to fund it.


Plenty of work has been atheist. That is, artistic works abound that have nothing to do with the big Patron In The Sky.


By the way--when we're talking about atheist institutions that work for the betterment of mankind a la "Christian" charities or hospitals, let's not forget that monument to secularism, the United States of America. Despite its many warts and recent wrong-turns, our fine non-theistic nation has done a lot of good over the years without ever swearing God in as our commander in chief.

[CarbonDate]

44. You're one of the few....

...who actually understands what atheism is, or rather isn't. It isn't anything; it's a lack of religious belief, not a belief system itself.

Thank you for actually "getting it". :)

[Tigress DEM]

56. Thanks, I am respectful, but maybe not as on target as you think.

I haven't met an Atheist who didn't have other beliefs, so in spite of what they choose not to believe, I focus more on what they do believe. You may not believe in "Him" but you do believe in you and the things that make sense for you.

So that we aren't splitting hairs, based on what you said I would categorize Atheism as a choice rather than a lack of religious belief. Yet in order to get through our time here on Earth and make sense of life we all pick up belief systems. Even if it's just science or common sense.

Personally I view choosing not to believe in God is a simple belief system. Like turning on a light switch.

You flip it and you know electricity comes from somewhere and makes the light go on. A religious person may have a different idea of what that power is, but both of you know if the light doesn't go on, you check bulbs, the fuse box and your last payment to the electric company because you have "faith" that it should work the way it has countless times before.

I don't think that religion has the right to OWN the words belief or faith, but if you say Atheism isn't a belief system and you are the one living it, I'll buy that.

I don't know what the answers are for other people so however you define your life is how I will respect it. Hey, if I die and there is no Heaven, no big deal. I plan on living my life here in a Christlike manner not because I get a prize at the end, but because it's a much better way to treat people if you do it without hypocrisy or self aggrandizement.

[Orrex]

63. Science is NOT a belief system

Despite your apparent "getting" of atheism, I must take issue with your characterization of science.

Science is a system of tools and methods by which an explanatory model of the universe is formed and expanded. If these tools or methods are shown to be faulty, they are rejected in favor of better ones. "Belief" doesn't enter into it.

One can argue that a particular scientist's "hunches" or "intuitions" guide the process of science, and that may well be the case. After all, one seldom undertakes research without some opinion of where it might lead. But "belief" in that sense is a starting point, and even the "belief" is abandoned if shown to be incorrect. In most western religions, "belief" is the sole justification for the entire system. If one's theistic "belief" is shown to be false (eg, if the divinity of Christ were proven false), then the whole religion falls to pieces.

The lightswitch analogy is fundamentally flawed, too. You don't have faith that the light will come on; you conclude, based on the majority of countless prior experiences, that the light will come on when you flip the switch. That's entirely different from any "faith" in God.

Here's a better analogy: Your friend presents to you a switch that, according to him or her, will cause some remarkable but entirely non-verifiable phenomenon to occur somewhere that you can't see or go to. You flip the switch a few times, and nothing seems to happen. The friend has flipped the switch plenty of times but hasn't actually seen the wondrous phenomenon and doesn't know anyone who has, either. But still, you both decide to believe that the phenomenon occurs as described each time you throw the switch.

Do you see why that's a more apt analogy? It describes a situation that you can't verify and that no one has ever verified, yet you and your friend choose to have faith in its outcome regardless.

Your expectations regarding an actual lightswitch, in stark contrast, are based upon the known behavior of a physical object with which you have direct and repeated personal experience.

[Tigress DEM]

72. Many things in "theoretical science" are not experientially provable.

I know of no one who has ever actually seen a black hole and been able to prove its physical makeup, only it's gravitational effects, but I'll take their word on it.

Quantum physics is still pretty theoretical.

And just out of curiosity how many times did you have to turn on a light switch before you "concluded" you had seen enough positive outcomes to verify your research?

Someone does have to have a question in their mind and a general faith in the process called the scientific method to go about the process of proving their theory either works or doesn't. You don't have time to learn experientially every part of any method you would ever use to process a scientific evaluation of something so you go on the faith that those scientists who went before you were correct in their assumptions.

You're not going to go out and reinvent carbon dating - you're going to use that tool because you logically believe it's been proved accurate enough for what you need.

If you don't believe that the scientific method is a valid evaluation tool that should produce consistent results, than when your results were different from those you expected it would be easy to say the process was flawed, instead of inspecting for some possible contamination or reason why the results didn't come out the way you thought they would.

If I turn on a light switch and it doesn't work, I don't start praying. I look for logical exceptions to what should be a system that works. Science and religion or Christians and Atheists don't HAVE to be at odds.

If a unified field theory came into play, science might change dramatically. It might be the difference between having use of an astrolabe and access to the hubble telescope before it crashes and burns... last I heard no funding to save it.

I HAVE a lot of experiential basis to believe in the existence of God based on what I know to be true in this world and it's not measurable because it's something I feel, like the wind on my face or the sun on my back. Being a Christian is like having a richter scale inside of you - being in tune to the seismological tremors set off by God's presence that others don't feel. I don't have any science to make it work for you and you don't want it any way.

So let's just agree to disagree on that and get on with DU business. Someday one of us will be right and we'll have our answer. Until then it isn't worth stressing each other out about.

[Random_Australian]

74. 1) High Five *snap*. Why? You are the only other DU'er to mention

Unified Field Theory.

"Someday one of us will be right"

Logically, at the moment, you are not allowed to prove or disprove the existence of God. In any empirical way anyway. Sure you can feel God, but not conduct an experiment to prove His existence.
Similar for disproof.

But, logic is starting to work differntly now under good old Quantum Physics (eg. Virtual Particles), so under a UFT/GUT/TOE we may just.

We can agree to disagree until then, but I reserve the right to get really, disproportionally excited about stuff like string theory. Good thing no-one has expressed any opinion in any way to the contrary! ;)

[Orrex]

97. I guess I agree to agree to disagree, then

I know of no one who has ever actually seen a black hole and been able to prove its physical makeup, only it's gravitational effects, but I'll take their word on it.

Quantum physics is still pretty theoretical.

But nobody in the field (and I mean nobody) is saying "quantum physics explains phenomenon X because I believe it does." Instead, the statement is made that quantum physics provides the current best explanatory model, so that's the one we use. When a better one comes along, we'll use it instead. The same goes for the black hole.

You take their word on it because they have expertise in the field and because their assertions are peer-reviewed. That's a far cry from the heartfelt testimony of theists whose opinions can't be verified or peer-reviewed, no matter how passionately felt.

And just out of curiosity how many times did you have to turn on a light switch before you "concluded" you had seen enough positive outcomes to verify your research?

Of course I don't know, because my exposure to the magic of lightswitches occured when I was very young, so I don't remember it. Just like most theists were exposed to their mythologies at a very early age. However, if subsequent "experiments" revealed that the lightswitch doesn't work, or if I had no rational basis to conclude that the switch did anything at all, then I'd abandon my so-called "belief" in the lightswitch theory of illumination. Theists, in contrast, maintain their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary or an utter lack of evidence.

I HAVE a lot of experiential basis to believe in the existence of God based on what I know to be true in this world and it's not measurable because it's something I feel, like the wind on my face or the sun on my back. Being a Christian is like having a richter scale inside of you - being in tune to the seismological tremors set off by God's presence that others don't feel.

Well, if God made me, then clearly he calibrated my richter scale before sending me off alone into the cruel world wholly lacking in evidence for his existence. The sin, then, is his for giving me the tools of rational investigation and then damning me for making use of them.

I don't have any science to make it work for you and you don't want it any way.

What you or I want has nothing to do with it. It's a question of evidence, or in this case the complete lack of it. Based on this lack, I assert that we have no basis for concluding that God exists. You instead conclude that your "feeling" is objectively correct and that your "feeling" eliminates any need for evidence. You're welcome to believe that way, of course, but any claims based on personal, internal "feelings" should never be mistaken for a convincing argument. To be honest, even if I "felt" that God exists, that feeling would be grossly insufficient for me to conclude that he does exist. Intellectual honesty demands greater evidence than a "feeling."


Additionally, I should mention that you're blurring the line between "believing" a thing and "accepting" a thing. I accept that carbon dating is effective because it has borne fruitful results and because experts with direct, personal experience in its use all provide consistent and independent corroboration of its efficacy. Contrast that with a belief in the testimony of the God-faithful, each of whom posits a personal and different "experience" with God, none of which supports any other.

[heidler1]

70. I've been to europe and went into many cathedrals and they were obviously

financed by kings for self aggrandizement. There is also a obvious attempt to get a connection between royalty and god so as to control the masses.

[Inland]

24. What difference does THAT make?

Whackjob believers do it for god, while whackjob atheists don't do it for god?

[Tigress DEM]

32. Whackjobs only use a belief system as an excuse to get away with stuff.

I don't think Atheism or Christianity or Muslim religions etc... should allow whackjobs to obscure their real messages. So each should police their own.

Atheism is often a statement that humans are simply humans and don't need God to define them or make them more than that.

So if you take the God piece out entirely in the evaluation of Atheism, it is very affirming because it says every good thing we have done is our own.

Course, when we are bad we can't blame the devil either.

Still to say Atheism doesn't affirm anything shows a lack of understanding of the deeper aspects of that belief system.

[NMMNG]

71. You're missing the point

The acts mentioned in the OP are typical of religionists who act on behalf of their "deeply held religious beliefs". They do them because their deity told them to, or because something in their religious books said to. They are not religionists who are acting in the name of some other principle.

Stalin and Mao were not acting in the name of atheism or "atheistic beliefs", they were acting in the name of communism and they just happened to be atheists.

[bluesbassman]

77. I respectfully disagree.

I agree with what you say about Stalin and Mao, because there is no "doctrine" or central teaching of atheism that could be used as justification for heinous crimes.

There are verses, passages and themes in many of the major religions that can be pulled out of context, partially quoted or mis-interpreted by people to justify their own agenda. That is why I disagree with your statement that these people act because their deity told them to, or their religious books said to. While I am not familiar with all of the vast number of minor religions, I can say with conviction that the major religions all have at their foundation the concept that all of mankind is connected on a spiritual level, and we should treat each other with compassion and love. So IMO, acting in a manner that some of the religious extremists do is a subversion of those teachings.

[Random_Australian]

78. That is the attempted teaching, yes....what would you say to, for instance

removing the arbitrary laws? eg. not milk and meat in the same meal, no shellfish, that kind of stuff?

If you remove the 'explaining the inexpliacble' stuff - the 'God made the lightning' attitude that led to witch burning from the Bible, then I'll have to agree that most of the rest of things going wrong is from placing people into arbitrary groups. Lastly, though, I would point out the asymmetry - though not inherit to religion, something about it can drive people crazy more than group-interaction discrimination.... the whole 'blowing self up bit'. I wonder what it is?

What do you think?

[Tigress DEM]

83. I don't have enough of all religions, but from a Christian perspective...

I line up the Bible to His direct teachings and in studies I've done gotten historical perspective on some that help me understand why there seem to be contradictions.

The whole food thing was before antibiotics and kept things like salmonella and dysentery at bay. It isn't as necessary now that we know about those things, but after generations of eating that way there is biological selectivity toward that diet, so I'd leave it alone. It doesn't really hurt anything and it's a way to live faith consciously - which tends to be a good reinforcement if that is how you want your life to be.

Oh and food in the temple for the priests as "forbidden" Jesus said about that that it really wasn't a big deal because they were intelligent enough to know they wouldn't die from it or something like that, but that if someone who really believed it was wrong followed their example, they could die because of their belief or lose their faith. SO he basically said, don't do something if it would make a lesser person stray. Take the high road.


Sounds corny, but he basically said, "If you do these two things the rest will follow:

Love God with your heart and soul AND Love one another as I have loved you."

A lot of religions have some version of the "golden rule" but this says to me I have to keep myself spiritually centered and from the abundance I experience I will have the love to give to others. Where I lose patience because I am only human, I have an exhaustible supply available. It may be all in my mind, but just like a male falsetto voice, it certainly seems to be something entirely different.

I see how many times Jesus sat with those outside society's grace and treated them with respect and I see that as how I should behave as well. In general there's a lot more honesty at the fringe and that's always good. There are also several times he cautions against judging others at all, to leave that to God and work on our own lives instead.

I see who he got mad at and why, Pharisees for their hypocrisy and shady dealings, mistreatment of the poor were one group, the money-changers in the temple the other. So it's easy to see why the Bush administration catches my ire like no one else can.

Other than that, he stood his ground even when people were looking to stone him or others, old fashioned kangaroo court - pre kangaroo. He calmly explained things to people even when they were baiting him or slandering him.



So instead of throwing anything out, I put it in historical context or compare it to what Jesus said and did. By doing that and looking at where we are today, I can usually find some lesson for myself to apply. Well, I don't go to the Old Testament on purpose often. Too much begetting going on there... <grin>

[Random_Australian]

84. Good, good good. That sounds fair, we shall disagree on a lot in

R/T, But I much prefer it when people have systems of belief that they have 1) Thought about and 2) Doubted the inerrancy thereof. (Of course, an attitude that others should be left alon in their beliefs is good too ;))

*ahem* as for the Old Testament... isn't that that book that some guy counted the begettings in and told us the age of the world? :D

Edit: Because 4.8 billion years is a LOT of begettings! <grin>

[Tigress DEM]

86. People lived longer back then. Moses 600 or something...

Methuzula was older yet... Would still be a LOT of begettings! OY! Even just back to the "eye blink" of human existance on the planet.

Thanks anyway. I just hate it when people assume that because I have faith that I am stupid.

I am open to others ideas and I could be wrong. Still feel this path works for me.

[bluesbassman]

109. Sorry for the delay...

I misplaced the thread. TigressDem made some valid assessments of what the historical and biological significance of some of the OT laws were (thanks TD), so I won't address those issues. But as for things like "blowing self up", therein lies the problem of "religion". My observations are that people with a preconceived agenda will take any teaching and subvert it to fit that parameter. For instance, I don't believe that the original physicists working on atomic theory were contemplating using their theories to produce weapons capable of destroying the planet, yet subsequent men took their "teachings" and did just that. Likewise, the great spiritual teachings were meant to foster love for our fellow man. It has been subsequent people with personal or corporate agendas that has produced the perversions of those teachings.

[NMMNG]

82. So you're saying then

That only the good acts people do can be attributed to Christianity and "right" reading of the Bible, and bad acts are obviously attributable to "wrong" reading of the Bible/taking things out of context, and are marks of people who are not "real" Christians?

[Tigress DEM]

85. Not exactly, think more "practice" vs "unintended use"

If you could see someone practicing their faith like you can observe someone practicing violin, it would go like this:
When a student is first learning to play a violin it sounds like something being killed.
After much practice things may improve or another instrument chosen. Maybe hockey if music is not the strong suit.

Someone can honestly be trying to live according to the Bible and still make stupid mistakes and over eagerly try to convert others, and this can happen after some time has passed and they are trying to improve their faith. Some religions do stress aspects like rejecting Homosexuality that sound discordant in the ear of anyone who looks at what Christ said about not judging others.

But when you see someone like (blanking on his name he is so repugnant to me) the guy who goes to funerals and brings anti-gay signs... He claims to be following God's will but it looks to me like he is beating someone over the head with his violin instead of playing any music on it.... How likely is it that this guy is a bigot whose found out he can write of his living expenses if he puts a church around his family and con a few others to join? About 98%. Could he be a religious whackjob that truly thinks he's right? Could be, but from the way I read the Bible, he should be playing hockey and leave the violin to someone who can hear the music and bring it out of the instrument, because he is sure enough killing Christianity in the eyes of many people.

[NMMNG]

103. So what then do we do?

For both parties are protected by the First Amendment, catered to by political parties, given preferential treatment in myriad ways, etc.

Those who are honestly trying to live according to the teachings of Christ...

And those like Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et. al. Those who harass others, seek (and get) repressive laws against others, incite people to harm others, instigate prejudice and hatred against others, directly cause harm to people, and so on.

[Inland]

100. I'm getting exactly the point. Are you getting mine?

The point is that once atheism is defined as a nothing, a non-belief, with no attributes at all, nobody does anything for "atheistic beliefs", merely because of definition. So?

By defintion, nobody can say that atheism has stimulated anyone to do bad things. But nobody can say that atheism has stimulated anyone to do good things. Aside from setting up a team that can easily point out the fault of the other defined team, it has no purpose, agenda, promise, at all.

Therefore your OP is as true, and relevant, as saying that "gum chewers never had an inquistion" or "astrologers never bombed an abortion clinic." It's true, and so what? Gum chewing and atheism couldn't cause, or stop, or have any bearing on what Stalin or anyone else did. Nothing comes from nothing, so religious belief and atheism are only opposites in the same way 100 is opposite of zero. One can only wonder why anyone makes it their primary identity.

So Stalin WAS an atheist, which is nothing, with an additional belief, namely, that religious belief caused people to do bad things. Hm. Lesson is, you gotta watch what positive beliefs are held in addition to the nothing that is atheism.

[Tigress DEM]

30. Atheism used to abuse. Just like Christianity used to abuse.

It wasn't "in the name of Atheism" because that isn't any part of that belief system which simply does not believe in the existence of God or gods (and often other things the group feels aren't rational or provable.)

The stated regimes use of a non-religious system was abusive because it didn't allow dissent. It was almost more ANTI-Theism and was as abusive in its actions as any inquisition or witch hunt.

In the same way that you know the nature of people who share your Atheistic views don't sign on to abusing others in the name of Atheism legitimately, also Christians know that to abuse others in Christ's name is absurd. Unfortunately the church leadership isn't always functionally compassionate and hypocrisy abounds and people of all stripes and flavors are not perfect and get corrupted by power.

The thing is, each group has to police their own, because only someone who has been there and done that can convincingly talk to someone about promoting respect while battling for equal treatment under the law and not resorting to tactics that are in and of themselves a bad idea for any government to use because they create more problems than they solve.

Moving forward to create a better government we should learn that the mistakes of the religious people who try to make their beliefs more "valid" by lacing them up with the law of the land would be equally bad if we somehow used the law of the land to tromp on those beliefs.

[Orrex]

39. Don't forget to include Hitler in your red herring!

Unless you're claiming that Mao or Pol Pot or Stalin personally executed the millions who died under their regimes, then you must explain to me how you exonerate the countless persons of faith who facilitated those murderous programs.

I'd wager that American "Christian" soldiers killed far more innocent European civilians than Hitler himself did. And I'd also bet that the 100,000+ innocent Iraqis slain during Bush's regime weren't killed by crusading atheists.

Godwin's Law notwithstanding, theists are mighty quick to trot out Mao/Stalin/Pol Pot/(Hitler) whenever someone suggests that religion is very often little more than a primitive, regressive, and bloody superstition. Yet none of these theists seem willing to recognize, in terms of pure statistics, that the vast majority of murderous facilitators must likewise have been people of faith.

Once theists have done that, we can start discussing the murderous policies by which the "New" world was colonized by people of faith, as well as the many centuries of oppressive theistic rule (which continue to this day).

[Proud_Democratt]

42. People of faith tend to overlook the atrocities in OUR country.

[Goblinmonger]

95. Mao and Stalin

weren't TRUE atheists. No true atheist would do what they did.

[Erika]

2. Atheists are feared, hated, and reviled

They are the scape goat and punching bag of the right wing.

Truly interesting. The Right wingers see them as the evil doers. No proof, no logic. Atheists are different so they should be sought out as the enemy and persecuted.

Hitler proclaimed his Christianity as did Mussolini.

[bluem]

3. perfectly put

and I agree 100%

[Tigress DEM]

61. But it shouldn't be that way.

To solve it, people on both sides have to put aside some share of their grievances and find new solutions.

I believe in the validity of how Atheists are discriminated against, and I know more today than I did before, but I don't think anyone here is really a "whackjob Atheist" because if they just got the respect they deserved and were allowed to obtain the same tools to move forward in life anyone else does without having to be branded as something weird that mustn't play with others, most anyone I've met here on DU would be just fine with that.

I think they deserve more as well, simply as human beings.
But I think the original battle that this skirmish arose from is talking about whackjobs as those who want to crush underfoot the fundies who have oppressed them and although I can relate to the sentiment - who hasn't been oppressed by fundies and sick to death of them by this time? - REVENGE and that is what we are talking about, isn't a valid political agenda for a progressive party.

[Orrex]

64. Welcome to DU, bluem!

:hi:

[onager]

8. And apparently, the LEFT isn't too crazy about us either...

:hi:

Thanks for the post. Always good to hear from you.

[Tigress DEM]

33. Not by everyone - and hopefully a new tolerance will emerge.

We are at a major growth point here with this issue.

During the Founding Father's time the best they could imagine was Freedom to CHOOSE one's religion which IMPLIED Freedom NOT to choose, but at the time Freedom to Choose AGAINST religion wasn't in their specific mindset.

It's like if someone at that time had asked "Where's your buggy?" and the answer was, "I rode my bicycle." It seems like it has to be the wrong answer, but it's not. France was working on that invention at the time, but it was way out of the scope of mainstream knowledge. If that's what you were riding, it's the truth, whether someone understands it or not.

Still, the heart of the OP is that if Christians do bad things you can't rag on Atheists for any bad they might do and your comment about Hitlter and Mussolini proclaiming their Christianity and the whole "I'm a victim" mentallity won't help the Progressive Cause.

Each group policing their own whackjobs is the best answer. And for goodness sake every ideology is going to attract them. To sit here and say our ideology is so great it could never create whackjobs is the height of conceit - and exactly LIKE the Right Wing which everyone agrees needs clipping.

The other thing the DU and DEMS in general have to embrace even more firmly than before is TOLERANCE and RESPECT for ALL Belief Systems - and that is INCLUSIVE of Atheism or any "non-belief of mainstream religion" kind of thought.

WE need to REFRAIN from LAZY slander ... that is saying some negative thing about a group that even we ourselves understand to not be about the MAJORITY of the group, and yet demanding that people see it applies to the group as a whole.

AND we need to STOP taking GLOBAL Offence ... if someone makes such a statement, step back and clarify whether that really meant "you" - being part of the group is not justification enough to be offended if there is a clear and specific action being cited. IE are you doing the specific behavior cited? No? Then don't be offended on behalf of those that are doing said behavior.

The reasons for this is so that we discuss the issues and agree upon non-acceptable BEHAVIORS rather than non-acceptable BELIEF Systems with level heads and passion. That way we can have meaningful dialogue that might actually solve problems rather than have text based shout downs based on global arguments that can't be solved. Which would be a situation most Atheists I know would find a welcome relief.

[CarbonDate]

46. The reason they see us as evil....

...is pure projection. They project their motives onto us and imagine how they would behave absent the threat of Hell or promise of Heaven and figure that's the way we are.

They don't understand that we have a more highly developed ethical system than they do (and no, I'm not referring to all theists, just the ones who paint us as evil because of their own lack of real ethics). But how could they? Expecting these simpletons to grasp those sorts of complexities is akin to expecting a child to lift the back end of a car; it's simply not going to happen.

[followthemoney]

7. Just a normal person without superstitions

I don't call myself atheist. Angry religion afflicted people call me that name. I'm just a normal well adjusted healthy un-afflicted person living in a demonstrably crazy and superstitious world.

[Tigress DEM]

40. Just a normal person who believes in God and tolerance for others.

Nice ta' meet'cha, Followthemoney. Your moniker was my first cut decision making tool for our Mayoral elections and for deciding if a DEM is full of bull or not. "Did he/she take money from RNC?"

Do you think everyone who believes in God is "afflicted with religion" or are you open to the possibility that in some as now not provable way there could be a God, but you're not going to waste your life worrying about it?

I mean, we didn't have "proof" of black holes for a long time either. But fortunately no one asks you to believe in their existence on every dollar you spend.

[followthemoney]

66. I just don't spend a lot of time thinking about religion except

when someone else brings it up. I am interested in how people think about God for its predictive value. I expect believers to be constrained in their behavior when it comes to encroachments on the rights of others.
Whatever it takes to help a person measure up to their own standards is fine with me. No one should instruct another until they have perfected themselves. Therefore, I don't accept religion advice because those who believe themselves to be perfected are deluded and very flawed. Deism and pantheism are interesting but I don't claim them for myself.

[silverweb]

9. It's all a question of degree.

Athiests who proclaim with absolute certitude that there is no such thing as the supernatural or any deity can be just as arrogant and obnoxious as religious fundamentalists who proclaim with absolute certitude that their deity/dogma is the one and only truth.

The fact of the matter is that no one knows. Any certitude is a matter of belief and not objectively provable fact. For that reason, I agree completely with the article's statement that degrees of agnosticism are "the most logically defensible stance."

Personally, I believe in possibilities -- and hold exploring all possibilities as one of the most awesome challenges of being human.

[NMMNG]

10. Being obnoxious or arrogant can be annoying, yes.

But it does not restrict the rights of anyone, nor does it cause harm to them. The activities described in the OP clearly do, often to an extreme degree.

Annoying and restricting or causing harm are very different things.

[silverweb]

15. Point taken.

However, I believe that's only because militant athiests have never been in the same positions of power that religious zealots have ruled from.

It's power and the need to hold onto it that leads to cruelty and persecution of others, not one belief system or another.

On the other hand, the point I was originally trying to make is that militant extremists at both ends of the belief spectrum are equally wrong and closed-minded, and that some degree of agnosticism is, as the original article stated, the only logically defensible position.

[Random_Australian]

20. Mostly true, one thing I'll seek your clarification on:

"militant athiests"

Please ensure people know that you deem militancy or extremism on part of the person is NOT caused by atheistic belief.

That would be analagous to the Fundamentalists belief bieng because of their Christianity!
However, note that the 'destroy those unlike me' happens when people are placed in groups, yes.
But this is note from anything intrinsic to the belief or system of the group, in requires only that people be placed in groups.

(In case you had not noticed, I have been doing discrimination in social psychology recently - if I have used assumed knowledge from it, my apologies for the confusion)

[silverweb]

35. I'm speaking from personal experience.

I know a couple of "militant athiests." They are completely convinced that there is not and never could be any kind of deity and are mortally offended by those who make even passing reference to such. In fact, they become insulting and combative with anyone who dares to claim belief or considers the possibility. They refuse to even consider that there are realities outside of their understanding.

I'm talking about the kind of person who writes angry letters to the editor because a columnist implies a belief in reincarnation by saying "in this lifetime." I'm talking about the kind of person who gets argumentative with someone who says, "Thank God." I'm talking about the kind of person who says (and this is a direct quote), "I'm offended by the idea that you think the universe is unknowable," and means it viscerally.

This is the kind of militant, arrogant athiest I'm talking about. In a position of power, this kind of person wouldn't think twice about forcibly eliminating all religion or spiritual pursuit.

Absolute certitude of this sort, unprovable in any degree, is dangerous because it has no respect for other viewpoints and cannot tolerate a "live and let live" attitude. It is too arrogant to even consider that it could be wrong or based on incomplete knowledge. This is militant athiesm and is just as dangerous as fanatical evangelism.

The agnostic, on the other hand, whether leaning more towards a belief in or denial of deity/supernatural, isn't afraid to say "I don't know." The agnostic is therefore able to be openminded, accepting the possibility that other viewpoints also have merit, especially since all such discussion is just speculation anyway.

[CarbonDate]

47. Most atheists....

...will gladly consider any evidence you might have of the existence of gods or other supernatural beings.

However, we already know that you have no such evidence, so some choose to skip that particular formality and cut to the chase: you can't prove that gods exist, so we won't engage in discussion on the matter.

If you can prove that god(s) exist, then you're sitting on a goldmine, let me tell you. Most people can't, so trying to convince us otherwise is a waste of time, especially those of us who were raised with some sort of belief system and have already considered (and subsequently rejected) all the arguments that religion poses. It's a tedious exercise for us.

[silverweb]

49. I don't know "most athiests."

However, I do know people from all parts of the spectrum -- from radical refusalists to evangelical zealots and many variations in between. The only thing that really differentiates these people is their degree of closed or openmindedness.

If you're asking me to provide "evidence" either for or against any supernatural realm or god(s), you're asking the wrong person. I don't claim any personal knowledge or evidence in the matter. What I DO claim is an open mind to the unknown.

I also realize that the more our sciences learn about our universe, the more I am awed and aware of the miniscule amount of knowledge we actually are capable of achieving. That is not evidence to prove or disprove the existence or likelihood of god(s) and I put it on a par with speculation about alternate dimensions, coexisting universes, and other esoteric hypothesizing. I don't rule anything out at this point, but that doesn't mean I "believe in" what has not yet been demonstrated to be true. At this point, "possibilities" are a pretty good description of our early learning.

As I've already said, any discussion on the matter is pure speculation, anyway, and any arguments pro or con are therefore moot. It's fun and stimulating to talk about, but we still don't know.

I'm perfectly happy being in awe of that mindblowingly vast unknown and allowing for the possibility that there is a Great Intelligence behind it all... or not. It's exactly that openness to possibilities that both the evangelicals and "militant athiests" I know don't like, and that is what I find arrogant and obnoxious about both groups.

[Tigress DEM]

89. Well said.

I particularily liked the final paragraph.

"I'm perfectly happy being in awe of that mindblowingly vast unknown and allowing for the possibility that there is a Great Intelligence behind it all... or not. It's exactly that openness to possibilities that both the evangelicals and "militant athiests" I know don't like, and that is what I find arrogant and obnoxious about both groups.

The whole "you can't prove God exists so I'm right" just seems rude to me.

[Random_Australian]

90. ??? If you are taking the most logical position, then unfortunately

that particular rudeness is the truth.

x( Under the whole 'null hypothesis' thing, atheism is the correct logical position. That doesn't make atheists worse (more heartless) or better (of better moral standing) than others, but if you are going the logic route, atheism, or more correctly agnostic atheism or weak atheism is the far-and-away most valid hypothesis.

Just checking: Right about what?

- That atheism is the most logical belief/non-belief system? Yes, "You can't prove God exists so I'm right" is actually true. My apologies if this causes antagonism.

- Anything else whatsoever ever: No, it doesn't hold, and anyone arguing that it does has not considered the statistical nature of thought-process validity.

So I am not accused of arrogance, this is how it could be put: via scientific method.

1) The whole sum knowledge of this world is (Relativity, Quantum Physics, Psychology) Nothing other than this is known to be true, and it is not believed. Note that there are many unknowns. These are known to be unknown, and any explanation offered or different from the current is a hypothesis.

2) You want to add something via some hypothesis. It must: (Unordered)

A) Explain all current observable phenomena
B) Predict or be testable as a hypothesis in some test.

3) Then if it is tested it enters the world of theory.

I'll cut it off there. Religion or anything indeed supernatural, is a hypothesis and has the burden of proof.

************ONE LAST BIG DISCLAIMER**********
There is only one person who I know, on the entire planet, who believes and feels whatever he deems to be the most logical emotion.

So this above is like saying that 'stop worrying, it won't make it better'. Does not work and I don't expect it to.

MAIN POINT: This system does not tell us how to live or what to believe. It is literally the most logical belief and that is all.
As far as I am concerned: Go ahead, believe pretty muich what you want. (I may take exception to the KKK but that is a different night's tale).

It is a belief system - it does not have to be the most logical thing, especially if you find peace in it. But it isn't the logical conclusion of a study of the world. But that doesn't matter. But it is not valid in terms of objective evidence. But that doesn't change a thing.

Whatcha think? (Asbestos, asbestos, my kingdom for some asbestos)

[Tigress DEM]

92. In my opinion -

If Atheists/Agnostics et al wish me to leave them to their lack of belief in God without making a fuss about it, it is easier for me if we both simply say, "I can not know if God exists or does not, but I respect your opinion because it is yours."

I was responding to post 49, and the end paragraph mostly. As an agnostic this person can admit that at every age science can move in leaps and bounds and understands that to say what we know in the here and now is the ONLY logical provable thing is insulting to me and my intelligence and/or capacity for logic.

I can respect that you believe science and empirical knowledge are the end all be all and the most logical argument from you viewpoint - and you may be right.

But for you to foist upon me and demand that I agree that yours is the only logical conclusion acceptable is the height of arrogance. You can not disprove God from me and just like you don't want me to preach to you, I'm not interested in being patronized or treated as intellectually inferior to yourself.

Do I ask that Creationism be accepted as science fact? No.

Do I think there may be a valid theory out there that will eventually prove God exists. Yes.
Do I feel the need to change my career and go find it? No.

I simply want to live my life and be respected for who I am. Sounds like the other side of a lot of the posts out there.

Maybe Atheists could take a small note from Christendom and strive to treat others as they wish to be treated. Although you probably wish I would make it all about science fact and not speculation, so maybe you are.

Whatever.

Good Night.

[Random_Australian]

93. *Ow!* I guessed that would happen.It was very difficult to acheive clarity

in what I meant - but I meant what I said when I said that it does not matter that it is THE most logical assertion

Ah! I understand now - here is where we split: "But for you to foist upon me and demand that I agree that yours" I don't. I had guessed I may sound like that..... it was... difficult to avoid.

I truly wish that religion remain in this world.

I do not expect you to change your beliefs, nor will I argue that mine are superior - in matters of morals, one can certainly say that no form of 'better' 'superior' or anything of the sort is equal to 'Logically the statistically correct logical position'.

I am, at times, extremely literal minded. I see know that this prevented me from making myself clear.
I also expect that I still, after this post, may not be understood. You have my apologies for both confusion arising from the post to which you respond and this one.

Ugh! So difficult.
I have an idea: I'll accept that you did not mean any ill in that post if you realise I did not in mine. Actually, that is a stupid and foolish idea. Again my apologies: I henceforth change it to "I accept you meant neither snark nor ill will in your post". Much better.

Goodnight, it is past my bedtime.

[Random_Australian]

54. Sure, you can say that there are some people who are loonies who

are also athiests, but just ensure to make clear that you do not blame atheism or a property thereof for their behaviour.


Unless you do, in which case it is flamewar time.

[Tigress DEM]

59. How about this?

From what you said, I hear that someone who is an Atheist does not want that description of someone's choice of disbelief in God to be hooked up with "militant" any more than a Christian wants the Fundy's to be allowed to use Christianity as an excuse for their mayhem.

So really the only sticking point is this:

A) Rational Christians on DU have access to more facts and have no problem walking up (posting up, emailing, lambasting) Right Wing Fundies and telling them that their mayhem is not Christlike and disowning as publicly as possible people who say Lawd Lawd but do the devil's work.

B) Can Rational Atheists on DU (although as a group they are not so herd-able as cats) get together at least enough to agree to walk up (or post up) to anyone claiming to be an Atheist who advocates the blatant misuse of any power* they may have or obtain as a group and tell them to knock it off - it makes you guys look bad?




*(Like reinstating feeding Christians to the lions or similar militant behavior)

[Random_Australian]

65. We don't act as a group; whenever we feel a fellow atheist

has crossed the line, we tell them we think so. (Ask some of the older DU'ers especially, they've seen a few off or so I hear)

Note: 'We' means 'any of us as individuals' not 'us as a collective'.

----------------------------

As for blatant misuse of power - that stems entirely from bieng placed into groups; when people are placed into specific groups, then they don't get along.

(Basically, the 'we are all people with different religious beliefs' is much more cohesive to a stable society than 'those are the Christians, those are the Jews, those are the Muslims, those are the athiests'. (Hardly a revelation))

[Tigress DEM]

58. Another alternative. Believe what you believe, but don't push it.

After working both sides of the fence here for a while I had to ask myself, "Since I am open to the idea of the possibility that God may or may not exist does that make me partially agnostic?"

Not really. I know what I believe and it works for me. It's the way my life is going to be lived, but my respect for others is also part of that. Letting others define their own path unless they specifically ask for my direction doesn't mean that I don't feel confident about my path. When I die if there is no Heaven or Hell, that's fine. I will still feel better for having lived according to my beliefs.

I don't push anyone to believe as I do and if that's really bad, oh well. But no matter how I read Christ's words I can't see going to Hell because I didn't beat someone over the head with the word of God.

Living as best of an example as I can. That's clearly my job.

Helping those God puts in my path. Clearly my job.

Foisting religion on them? Not so much.

Helping to create a theocracy so some rich people can control America. Not even close.

[Random_Australian]

19. Degrees of agnosticism? If you want to go to straight out logic,

then atheism is the most defensible. (For any given hypothesis that has no proof or disproof, it is not believed until it has proof. However, in the event of proof, belief changes)

However, this is a analagous to telling someone to feel a certain way, becsause it makes logical sense. You know, "Quit worrying, (xyz)"

(Well, at least the vast majority does not feel emotions because it is the most logical thing to do. In fact, the only person I know who does, wishes he didn't)

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Depends on the meaning of "whackjob."

Have the crimes you cite been committed in the 'name' of atheism? Nope! But, that doesn't mean there are not those who revile religion and spirituality with such intensity as not to be described, at least in my opinion, as 'whackjobs.'

Face it, no matter what group you belong to, there is always going to be a "branch" that doesn't represent the majority of said group that gets 'all the press.'

Heehee...I have to say, "some of my best friends are atheists." The intelligent ones will get that joke. In actuality, there is only one person I know (and respect) that is an atheist. She happens to be a member of DU. We have never met, but I have come to respect her. We may not always agree on things, but she is respectful of me, and I try to do the same for her. If she were to post that she had a tragedy or need, I would do what I could, but I would refrain from prayer because that would be disrespectful to her. Conversely, if I had a problem, I would not expect a prayer from her (a snide remark, yes :)), but I feel I would have her support.

Just as all atheists are not amoral, not all spiritual people are "psycho" and irrational. I may disagree with certain assertions, I may even get forceful in my disagreement, but I will not try to make someone believe in the same spiritual path as my own. I can only expect the same.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. If you take the religious spectrum of

belief with the atheists on the left, the moderate religions in the middle and fundamentalists on the right, I would imagine the whackjob ratio is very low on the left of the bell curve.

And they probably tend to be whackie in their words rather than their actions.

[Strong Atheist]

23. Agree with all, especially:

And they probably tend to be whackie in their words rather than their actions

[Tigress DEM]

29. Thot - let's drop the labels and talk about extremism and abuse of power.

Democracy is about the rule of the people and that includes an implicitly stated promise to not WALK ON any minority for the sake of the majority. We're not there yet and the last 30 years have been an unraveling process on that social promise.

BUT TO ME the main thing to come away from this whole issue is that WE THE PEOPLE CANNOT BECOME THAT WHICH WE FIGHT AGAINST - in any way shape or form - OR WE LOSE because if we take on those EXTREME types of behavior it doesn't matter what wonderful ideals we attach to it. Those very EXTREMIST behaviors crush underfoot the ability to realize those ideals by the very weight and canter that they must carry to be so extreme.

It's like the difference between being the political storm cloud that masses strength and brings with it the winds of change and cleansing through correct action and being an F5 tornado that wrecks everything in its path. Nobody needs F5 characters in their movement forward creating policy.

If you have the decency to say that if any group of Atheists got into the level of Extreme behavior you abhor in the Religious Abuse Realm, then you're not a Whackjob Atheist. Believing STRONGLY in something isn't being a whackjob. (Belief isn't the property of religion either.)

Wanting a government that respects you and lets you live your life as you see fit is not being a whackjob of any kind. Wanting a government that executes payback in the form of repression of previous oppressor for indignities suffered at their hands is moving toward that extreme. While understandable as a valid vent, it isn't what we want as a party platform.

INSTEAD of Blasting Anyone for their beliefs no matter how extreme or bizarre they may appear to one, we should stress RESPECT and TOLERANCE.

Behaviors like listed in your example should not be allowed to be justified by a belief system and if Atheists ever were to retaliate in kind their behavior should be addressed and their religious views left out of it.

Bottom line, whatever gets a person through their day is their own business, but if you're pissin' in your neighbor's pool, your neighbor has every right to throw you out - and "Jesus told me to" or "the moon was in an adjunct phase to mars" are not valid excuses on the behavior. Even "but he pissed in my pool every week for the last year" shouldn't get someone off the hook. Doing the same kind of thing back instead of resolving the issue like an adult is still wrong.

Just think of ultra extreme feminists from awhile back, who were in the whole Amazon thing and wanted to only bear female children and abort male fetuses. They were such a minutely small fraction of the feminist movement, but it was like throwing 5 skunks in a crowded stadium. It cleared a whole generation out of that movement.

[CarbonDate]

48. Atheists have no power to abuse.

Since some form of religious belief is a qualifier for being granted any sort of power in this country, any sort of "atheistic extremism" (and really, if you want to get into semantics, what is the extreme of nothing?) is inconsequential. That we are shut out of the political process the way we are is a valid form of oppression, whether it is instituted through official government policy (as it is in states like Texas and Maryland) or through the "tyranny of the majority" (as polls that show that a majority of Americans would never elect any atheist to any office show). Even homosexuals fare better than us, as there are two openly gay members of the House of Representatives.

What's offensive is the insinuation that there is some sort of equivalence between our occasional snarky remarks and the actual oppression we experience in this country at the hands of the Christian majority. While our situation is notably better than that of the Palestinians or other oppressed minorities in the world, it still isn't in accordance with American ideals.

Even within the Democratic party, too many people are perfectly willing to throw us under the bus to win a few more fundamentalist votes. The right to be left the fuck alone is pretty basic, but it seems to be too much to ask from some people.

I realize I went off on a tangent a bit, but to expect us to be pleasant and polite while we're being pissed on every day is a bit condescending, IMO. "Well, I'd have a much easier time convincing them to stop pissing on you if you'd stop griping about it; you're just bringing it on yourselves." I'm not pointing at you, but that is the attitude we get from the left while the right pisses on us.

[Tigress DEM]

50. #1 Being an Atheist doesn't stop you from being human - so you have power.

#2 I'm NOT expecting ANYONE to be "pleasant and polite while being pissed on". I advocate adult methods for dealing with the problem. Tell the person not to piss on you and go take a hike is perfectly acceptable in my viewpoint. Calling the cops and having them dragged off your property if they put up a fuss as well.

What I SAID was, "going over to someone else's house and pissing in their pool as a retaliation" is NOT a justifiable action. Religion or lack thereof is not a valid excuse.

#3 I honestly was not aware of any laws that required religion to run for office until this post, although I've heard of other abusive things done to Atheists. I have never asked any candidate their religious affiliation and if they volunteer it, I'm not inclined to believe they are really a person of faith until I see them walk the walk instead of talking the talk. So in that way, with me, it isn't to their advantage just to say they believe, they still have to pony up the behavior that makes them a good candidate for the position. I want a politician in office who will give me their word and keep it. If it takes an Atheist to get that job done, fine with me.

Just like in the past when blacks were kept out of white neighborhoods by banks who wouldn't loan them the money if the house they wanted was there, the laws you state are a back door way to discriminate due to religion and are wrong for America.

#4 If you think I am insinuating that "snarky remarks" are equivalent to actual oppression, you have misunderstood me. I agree that there is a long way to go until we become a country that lives up to our ideals of tolerance in many areas and especially persecuting people based on religious differences.


#5 Two things I'm cautioning ANYONE (Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist et al) against are:

A) LAZY slander ... that is saying some negative thing about a group that even we ourselves understand to not be about the MAJORITY of the group, and yet demanding that people see it applies to the group as a whole.

B) GLOBAL Offense ... if someone makes such a statement, step back and clarify whether that really meant "you" - being part of the group is not justification enough to be offended if there is a clear and specific action being cited. IE are you doing the specific behavior cited? No? Then don't be offended on behalf of those that are doing said behavior.


When you say, "Even within the Democratic party, too many people are perfectly willing to throw us under the bus to win a few more fundamentalist votes. The right to be left the fuck alone is pretty basic, but it seems to be too much to ask from some people."

...I hear that you're getting pounded and I'm sorry to hear that, but it is my impression that some of it may be misunderstandings instead of true malice intended. My objective in pointing that out is if there is more unity here on DU with these issues than we realize and we're only arguing because we're dealing with long term hot issues that make everybody jump for standard arguments instead of listening to each other then we are missing out on making real progress and just having a group jackoff of sorts. (Pardon my crassness)

I honestly don't think anyone wants to throw any member of DU even figuratively under the bus because we know our numbers mean something and whenever we all get going in 1 direction at anyone time and quit fighting long enough, we really affect changes that make a difference.

I know I don't have anything against you as a person or Atheists as a group, but you may not get that from my remarks since you don't know me and we all have our own filters to contend with. Namely, if you get shit on enough you start to expect it when anyone squats in your near vicinity even if they are just trying to get close enough to have a conversation with no malice intended.



IF WE on DU can unravel this dilemma and learn to talk with each other about the issues and agree upon non-acceptable BEHAVIORS rather than non-acceptable BELIEF Systems with level heads and passion we can pave the way for the meaningful dialog that might actually solve problems rather than have text based shout downs based on global arguments that can't be solved. That would be a situation most Atheists I know would find a welcome relief.

[NMMNG]

69. But do atheists even have the desire to abuse (power or not)?

We don't have any doctrines or dogma (either our own or that handed down from "on high") that tell us what to do, or dictates what should be done to/about others. Therefore we have no need or desire to direct the lives and behavior of other people. Insofar as others are not harming us or other people, why should we care to interfere in their lives or control them in any way? What would be our motivation to "abuse" them in the name of atheism. (I'm not speaking of people who happen to be atheists and commit atrocities under the auspices of political ideologies.)

I can't speak for anybody else, but as far as I'm concerned I have no desire to interfere with anybody else so long as their behavior is not controlling or harming another person. I've already made my ethical/moral inclinations clear in a previous thread on the subject.

[Tigress DEM]

73. What is a concern is the amount of anger and even rage...

coming from those who profess to be Atheists at (it seems all Christians) for the behavior of the present day right wing fundies and historical Christian whackjobs.

People who stand by you day in and day out on all these other issues just want a little assurance that rumblings we hear about the kind of things that Atheists "should" do to those crazy Christians is merely venting and not an actual political platform.

I get mad at those who use Christianity against people for any reason too. I've said that if GW were on fire 3 feet in front of me I wouldn't piss on him to put him out. Yet, if someone told me that isn't exactly a Christian thing to say, I'd agree and admit I'm still working on that issue.

I say things like maybe SOD Rumsfeld should spend some time at GitMo experiencing only the torture - I mean interrogation - techniques he approved for detainees. Maybe all the administration who has committed these war crimes should have a room there. But I wouldn't make it a platform. It's a vent of frustration not a plan of action.

Most people don't know any Atheists personally and even when you do, a lot of times deeper subjects don't come up because of how to deal with the language of going deeper when you each have very different ideas of what that is.

So unless someone has been lucky enough to get past that with someone, most Rational Christians who see the abuse heaped on Atheists and not knowing exactly what you do to cope with it, wonder if it's getting to be too much and will create whackjobs - or has. Not you, but theoretically.

What most Christians don't know, and you have been better than most at educating us, is that Atheists aren't generally a whole lot different than most folks. I don't know exactly how you let go of things and move on without God, but I've seen Atheists do it just fine once they made a decision to do so.

And conversations about general ethical behavior comes down to ethics, just leave the motivation out and most things are agreeable.

Sometimes if I discuss deeper things with an Atheist it's like I have my faith as a boat to get where I'm going and I look over I see that person paddling an imaginary boat and looking at me strangely as if they see me the same way. But hey, if we are both getting where we need to go, it just doesn't matter.

[Random_Australian]

75. DU is a good place to vent. In real life, from hearing their stories

around DU, be assured that atheists are not really militant about it until threatened.

RawStory managed to be unbelievably offensive, and some DU'ers supported them and attacked us for getting mad - so tensions are running really high right now. Remember 'until threatened'. And if calling for a belief based purge is not threatening, nothing is.

Anyway, in case you wonder at the offense atheists took to rawstory, the article in question heaped shit upon atheists - clearing the way for acceptable discrimination based on atheism, if you will.

[NMMNG]

76. I can only speak of the atheists I've encountered myself ,

in person, online or in print. And none of them have seriously advocated "doing" anything to Christians, be they fundie whackjobs or their more liberal counterparts. I know more than once I've said I'd be perfectly happy should the fundies go to live on some island or in S.C. (where they've clamored to cluster and secede from the union)so more rational people might live in peace. However I've never advocated sending them there against their will by force. Such is not my way.

[Tigress DEM]

87. Yeah, like I said, that's a vent.

It's what they deserve, but it isn't what they will get even if prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And as long as they are put away where they can't hurt anyone I will be happy, but I get upset at them because they make my life miserable because I constantly have to be very careful so no one thinks I'm like they are. It's hard when so many words I might use without offending people before all this started up are suddenly radioactive.

My wanting them to go to GitMo was in response to newly uncovered evidence that Rumsfeld actually gave the order to have the prisoners naked and threatened with snarling snapping dogs. They put the officers who follow questionable orders on trial and then we find out how high up their orders came from, and where is a soldier to go from there? What recourse against orders from the SOD when the pRes is and SOB?

I DO get more angry at them than you might because Christianity is sacred to me. It is supposed to be about honoring the way that the "Prince of Peace" lived. So how can these people who claim to be Christians start an unjust war and go out and torture in His name? Calling evil good and good evil is blaspheme and is the only unforgivable sin. Probably because if someone is that whacked out, they can't find their way back.

I am not perfect, but I don't make that claim either. I just try to call things as I see them.

[NMMNG]

67. I see

WE THE PEOPLE CANNOT BECOME THAT WHICH WE FIGHT AGAINST - in any way shape or form - OR WE LOSE because if we take on those EXTREME types of behavior it doesn't matter what wonderful ideals we attach to it.

And where in the OP or in any of my (or any other atheist DUer's posts) have you seen such a suggestion made?


Wanting a government that respects you and lets you live your life as you see fit is not being a whackjob of any kind. Wanting a government that executes payback in the form of repression of previous oppressor for indignities suffered at their hands is moving toward that extreme.

Again, where in the OP or in any of my (or any other atheist DUer's posts) have you seen such a suggestion made?

INSTEAD of Blasting Anyone for their beliefs no matter how extreme or bizarre they may appear to one, we should stress RESPECT and TOLERANCE.

Respect and tolerance for people who claim we are not citizens? Who refuse us our civil rights? Who would kill us if they could get away with it? Would you do the same?


Bottom line, whatever gets a person through their day is their own business

Remember that when a loved one of yours is murdered because somebody's "deeply held beliefs" told them it was the right thing to do.

[Tigress DEM]

79. I am confused.

You seem to selectively run back & forth between this is a DU thing - no it's not.

When I said, "WE THE PEOPLE CANNOT BECOME THAT WHICH WE FIGHT AGAINST - in any way shape or form - OR WE LOSE because if we take on those EXTREME types of behavior it doesn't matter what wonderful ideals we attach to it."

I was looking at the tone of your OP that basically says, if we don't do anything on this list, don't tell us anything we do is wrong. To ME - that is a very fundy like view of the world. It probably isn't how you meant it, so I was hoping to find agreement in staying away from the extremes, but you just went back to we aren't a "we" but we don't do that stuff anyway.

No ideology is perfect to suggest that Atheists since they are not really a religion can't be held accountable for the actions of anyone in their "non-group" but that every other grouping that you want to put together IS a group and is therefore responsible for things back to the dark ages is just one of those techniques to be right no matter what because it's comparing apples and oranges and proclaiming that apples always hated oranges anyway. Again, if I were writing a fundy script for Atheists, that's how I would do it.

When I wrote "Wanting a government that respects you and lets you live your life as you see fit is not being a whackjob of any kind. Wanting a government that executes payback in the form of repression of previous oppressor for indignities suffered at their hands is moving toward that extreme." I tried to give an example that was obviously outside of what anyone here on DU would do to bring up some place of agreement on, well yeah, no one here would promote that. But you took the exact opposite meaning. That may have been somehow unclear on my side.

When I wrote, "INSTEAD of Blasting Anyone for their beliefs no matter how extreme or bizarre they may appear to one, we should stress RESPECT and TOLERANCE."

That I really thought was clearly DU, but you went out to the general population with it. Fist let me say that I HAVE been blasted here by the Atheist population and have had my faith called superstition, my intelligence and parentage questioned etc.

I don't know any legitimate way that anyone could "claim Atheists are not citizens" please explain that and how your "civil rights" are abused other than having to see "in God we trust" on the dollar bill. That doesn't prevent you from spending it.

Your comments about "Who would kill us if they could get away with it? Would you do the same?"

What are you talking about?

Have you had death threats from people on DU or elsewhere? And how does me trying to stand up for Atheists and understand what is going on and ask for tolerance and respect from both sides earn me a place in that questionable roster of people who mean you harm?


I said, "Bottom line, whatever gets a person through their day is their own business," as in your faith or choice to not believe in God and my choice to believe in God is our own business and as such people shouldn't use that to judge us.

AND YOU RESPONDED - "Remember that when a loved one of yours is murdered because somebody's "deeply held beliefs" told them it was the right thing to do."

How much have you been drinking or what are you smoking that you need to go there? Do you really think that the only people who are evil out there are on mentally deranged religious kills? What about sociopaths who don't believe in God but don't have a moral compass either? Would you like me to lump them in with you and make you responsible for their behavior? I don't think you would appreciate it.

This has been surreal. Hopefully we'll both find better ways to express ourselves so it doesn't come out so harsh sounding to the other person.

Peace.

[Random_Australian]

81. Well, that was two people missing each other entirely when walking

opposite directions in a 2-foot wide street.

As for the OP; she was saying that atheists do not do those things in the name of atheism. Wait long enough, and some who is an atheist will also murder-suicide over something - but atheism does not cause this. Note that religious people - through purpose as yet not attributed to any given causal influence - have been known to blow themselves up and whatnot. (In part it was a rant against "militant atheists" and "atheist extremists". You will find people who cannot understand the theist position in any form of logic, but not really) Religion also.... no wait, I really ought to let Buffy talk this through. It is her post.

[NMMNG]

88. It is both a DU thing and a nationwide issue

I was looking at the tone of your OP that basically says, if we don't do anything on this list, don't tell us anything we do is wrong.

No, actually I was saying that if we start behaving in such a manner in the name of atheism, THEN we can be called "Whackjob Atheists". But not before.


I don't know any legitimate way that anyone could "claim Atheists are not citizens" please explain that and how your "civil rights" are abused other than having to see "in God we trust" on the dollar bill. That doesn't prevent you from spending it.


"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George H.W. Bush
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/007162.htm

Christian Thugs Using Violence to Silence Dissent

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

snip

This form of religious intolerance is not limited to Texas. Six other states (MA, MD, NC, PA, SC and TN) all have similar exclusionary language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions.

In a few states whose constitutions include the text of the oath of office, the candidate must swear an oath to God. Such an oath would prevent ethical non-theists from taking office.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

Atheists Discriminated Against in Child Custody Cases

Prisoners who request a vegetarian or vegan meal typically must declare a specific religion that they belong to in order to have their request honored. It is not enough to be veg*n for ethical reasons...they have to ascribe to some "approved" religion. http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2001mar/2001marprison.htm

Etc, etc.


Your comments about "Who would kill us if they could get away with it? Would you do the same?"

What are you talking about?

Fundamentalists, who take the Bible at its word (or at least the parts they want to). The Bible says to stone gays to death. It also says:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

So there are those out there who would no doubt like to put this into action along with the command to stone gays to death.


A little over the top? Maybe, but then this entire week has been a full frontal assault on non-believers, so we're all a bit testy. We get crapped on perpetually, then get a motherload like what we got this week, and people wonder why we're "angry". You say it's been surreal? Try being a mere 1-2% of the population with with none of the privileges of the majority group (and fewer rights), getting barraged with abuse on a constant basis, and then listening to the majority group cry about how "oppressed" it is. That's surreal.

[Tigress DEM]

91. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 -- last book in Old Testament. Yup, damm harsh.

Not the way of Jesus, though.

Matthew 10:1 - 16 Still sounds a bit weird, but there is a major tone change.

Jesus sends his disciples out like defenseless innocents to find the house of someone trustworthy to give the good word to and says leave peacefully if it's not received well.

10:5 last line (and leave the Pagans, Atheists et al alone - don't even go there)
10:14 if they don't want your message shake the dust off your feet (and leave the judgment to God)
10:16 be careful of your safety, but harm no one.


http://atheism.about.com/b/a/209897.htm
Internet Anecdote about a real event or some right wing attempt at humor? Still doesn't answer why you put me in that group of people who would hurt you, but we'll assume it's been a tough week and you're kind of punchy.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/007162.htm
OK, if someone wants to come to America the INS test could be an issue. I hear ya.
BushI and II both idiots and their opinion means about as much to me as meatloaf. It's there.

http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2001mar/2001marprison.htm
Hadn't thought about vegans in prison much, but with all the protests that could become a problem.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/256589.htm
Custody is often about many things that don't include parental fitness. I see how it's tough to play the game when there is abuse and hostile religions involved.

I grew up making my own choice for faith and that worked out for me, but I went to many churches and I do have a kind of smorgasbord religion I guess.

I heard about the oath to run for office. That's a bummer. Should be changed. How about to uphold the Constitution and gotta take a test to prove you know the issues?


Well, I'm glad no one was making specific threats against you and thank you for the information about ways that Atheists get discriminated against.

There are a lot of archaic laws that most places don't enforce, but this administration has been digging old stuff up lately. Gotta work on those things make sure there are exceptions for persons who don't ascribe to the "under God" bit, but are a wonderful contribution to our nation.

[okasha]

94. The "religious test" for office struck down 45 years ago

The religious test for office in those state constitutions was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1961. Had you kept reading a little further down the same page you cite at religioustolerance.org, you would have seen the following:


A U.S. Supreme Court case -- Torcaso v Watkins -- in 1961:
In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso to be a Notary Public. According to Atheism.About.com:

"When the time came for him to actually assume his duties, he was denied his commission and had his appointment rescinded because he refused to declare his belief in God."

"Article 37 of Maryland's Declaration of Rights stated: 'o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God'." 3

Torcaso filed suit in state court because he felt the test unfairly penalized him for his lack of belief in God. He argued that the religious test had violated his rights under U.S. Constitution -- both:

The 1st Amendment (which guarantees freedom of religion) and
The 14th Amendment (which makes certain provisions of the Federal Constitution binding on the individual states).

He lost. 4 He appealed to the State Court of Appeals 5 and lost again. Finally, he won before the U.S. Supreme Court. He had the support of the American Ethical Union and the American Jewish Committee, who filed amici curiae ("friends of the court" briefs).

The court ruled unanimously in Torcaso's favor. Justice Black, writing for the justices stated:

"This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States."

This ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court presumably makes all of the religious tests for office in the various states listed above to be unconstitutional.

During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the state tried to make the case that the religious test did not impinge on Torcaso's religious freedom. They stated:

"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office."

However, Mr. Justice Black ruled:

"There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers - those who are willing to say they believe in 'the existence of God.' It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical 'establishment' of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers....."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

As for GHWBush--like son, like father. Generations of inbreeding, and all that. Question: has anyone actually introduced a bill to deny citizenship to atheists? Who else denies that atheists can be patriots? The armed forces will provide a memorial/tombstone for atheist veterans or active duty soldiers, complete with a distinct symbol to denote and respect their atheism. That certainly seems to me to be official, governmental recognition of their patriotism.

Your comments about "Who would kill us if they could get away with it? Would you do the same?"

What are you talking about?

Fundamentalists, who take the Bible at its word (or at least the parts they want to). The Bible says to stone gays to death. It also says:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

So there are those out there who would no doubt like to put this into action along with the command to stone gays to death.

There are, and they're called Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists. They're not just enemies to atheists and gays, but to Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians like Tigress DEM, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone else who thinks the Constitution is a good thing and doesn't agree with them. They are, dare I use the word, whackjobs. All of us, atheists, pagans and liberal Christians alike, would be far better served if we stopped railing about what the Spanish Inquisition did five hundred years ago, or the State of Texas did fifty years ago, and concentrated on neutralizing the actual enemy at hand.

[NMMNG]

104. Religious test or no religious test

Would any candidate for office in today's political climate be able to get elected without frequently and openly declaring his/her religious affiliations? Specifically his/her Judeo-Christian (preferably Christian) religious affiliations?

Not bloody likely.

[okasha]

105. Possibly not, and that's wrong.

But it's not a civil rights issue, or a legal issue, and the situation will not be helped by framing it as one. It is, to put it bluntly, a public relations issue. If one in ten Americans is atheist, as one in ten Americans is gay, then almost every American knows an atheist. The more atheists that are "out" and demonstrably, boringly normal, the harder it's going to be to demonize you. That's a lesson the gay rights movement learned years ago, and it's paying off.

[Inland]

111. Still, an atheist could measure "progress" by the election of a "first".

It's not a civil rights issue, but I can see how someone could measure it as "arrived". Framing it as a civil rights issue is contrary to the public relations needed.

[Proud_Democratt]

41. Points well made and very obvious! How could anyone argue..

these basic facts? However, I'm sure there will be some sort of verbal revenge....ho-hum...

[Tigress DEM]

80. see post 67 --- Surreal, but it probably is a misunderstanding.

It's tough. I usually make statements that I understand is to the whole of DU both sides of this issue and I wonder if that is something I should clarify more consistently.

Lots of times this group is used to being lectured at from a holier than thou perspective. I'm coming from a place of finding cooperation, but maybe a lot of that is something people pick up in body language, eye contact and such. I've said things like this face to face and been understood, but on DU things have been a little weird lately.

I suppose we are all stressed out.