Is there a rationale for this prejudice against atheists?

[flashl]

Watch Out for those Terrible Atheists

A recent study conducted by the University of Minnesota shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the last person for whom Americans would vote in a presidential election. “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians” all ranked higher than atheists in public acceptability. Furthermore, Americans are “least willing to allow their children to marry” atheists.

State laws instill and perpetuate this attitude. Article IX, Sec. 2, of the Tennessee constitution states: “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.” Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas have similar laws.

George H. W. Bush while campaigning for President in 1987 exhibited this same attitude, “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

Apparently all theists good and all atheists bad. If this is the case, atheist and agnostic businesspersons like Microsoft’s Bill Gates, investment guru Warren Buffet, Apple’s Steve Jobs and CNN founder Ted Turner should all be exiled for their unbelief. Don’t forget to include the 93% of National Academy of Science members who lack belief in a personal deity. What about atheist Pat Tillman, Arizona Cardinal football star, who left a $3,600,000 salary to enlist in the U.S. Army and subsequently got killed in Afghanistan? The oft-repeated theist claim, “there are no atheists in foxholes” insults a true American hero.

Dissent Voice

[AnOhioan]

1. If I could rec this one 10 times, I would.

[sloppyjoe25s]

156. I'm an atheist and I still shout "God" during sex...

Does that make me a bad atheist?

If I could rec this thread a million times I would.

There is nothing more sinister, dangerous, and totally lacking in values, patriotism, or morality of any sort than an Evangelical of any religion.

[Cheap_Trick]

187. really?

i always shout "oh my non-existent supreme being!"

[lostnotforgotten]

238. Who Has Sex Anymore? - Sex Free For 15 Years Now!

eom

[Donnachaidh]

2. Atheists point out the gaping holes in the *mythology* of faith

Theists cannot stand that. It makes theists look bad. :shrug:

[mzmolly]

27. Deists don't mind, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

[Neo-wobbly]

3. "No atheists in foxholes"

And damned few in prison, for much the same reason.

[msongs]

9. most foxes are probably athesists :-) nt

[goddess40]

44. I'm confused by your post

there are the same ratio of atheists in foxholes and prison as there in general society. Granted there are a lot of religious fakers that fool parole boards but just because they talk the talk they sure don't walk the walk.

[Neo-wobbly]

66. That's sort of my point

People tend to get "religious" under extreme circumstances; prisoners, especially, find religion because atheists don't get parole.

The other half of my point was that atheists are too smart to get into foxholes and prisons in the first place :)

[immoderate]

90. Where do you get those numbers?

Atheists in prison number about 0.2%. Much less than the approximately 15% of the population. These numbers are widely available.
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

You might say that they are lying. But that's just you.

--IMM

[goddess40]

192. It's hard to trust "the numbers"

because people are very cautious about admitting they are atheists. Having worked in a prison I would say the number is probably higher than .2%.

[Minnesota_Lib]

93. My response to the "foxholes" quote is usually…

“That is correct. The foxholes are crowded with true believers, curled into fetal positions, praying for divine intervention to save them. Meanwhile, the atheists, uncomforted by such illusions, have left their foxholes and taken the fight to the enemy, knowing that is the only way they will survive the battle and win the day.”

Pisses people off. LOL

[SteelPenguin]

101. My response

I think it's George Bernard Shaw...That there are no athiests in foxholes, isn't an argument against athiesm, it's an argument against foxholes.

[krkaufman]

140. Now that is profound. thanks. n/t

[tavalon]

160. You made me laugh out loud!

Thanks! I'm a pagan who isn't the least threatened by atheists. I don't get why another's belief or non-belief should in any way threaten mine, but apparently, that's an unusual pov.

[Pamela Troy]

133. My own response is that,

judging from wartime accounts that I've read, there are few more profane, cynical, violent, and irrational beings than a soldier on a battlefield.

That may not make them atheists. It sure as hell doesn't make them pious either.

[defendandprotect]

146. Right --- so much for silly sayings . . . !!!

[Jackpine Radical]

163. There are no atheists in the foxholes. True.

Personally, that's where I turned agnostic.

[defendandprotect]

214. Wonderful-!!! Actually, FEMA has a better response record than "god" --- !!!

[provis99]

134. "No atheists in foxholes isn't an argument against atheism,

Its an argument against foxholes." Good one, too.

[defendandprotect]

148. Let's also point out that crazed religious notions often lead to foxholes --- !!

[libbygurl]

171. Ha! nt

[ElboRuum]

135. Excellent Point...

:toast:

[TrogL]

174. I was in a foxhole - all I saw was a 200 foot tall Green Man

No, I hadn't been drinking, my hoochie mate saw him first and pointed him out.

However, the Green Man is an archetype like a Great Old One, not an diety.

[smoogatz]

191. A self-serving theist myth.

My father was in combat in the Pacific in WWII for four horrific years. He became an atheist during the war, as did a great many GIs. It was the only way they could make sense of the brutality they witnessed and were a part of.

[mzmolly]

4. I'm not an atheist, and I have no idea why people would

"distrust and despise" those who are? I think that atheism must be greatly misunderstood?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

6. Misunderstood because of the religious who attempt to define us

using hyperbole, stereotypes and outright lies. When 80% of the population is taught from birth that someone without belief is inferior and/or evil, it becomes ingrained in the societal psyche . I see a lot of this, even from "progressive" thinking DUers.

[mzmolly]

12. I do think that goes both ways though.

If we could just allow others to believe or not without ridicule it would be "nice" < for lack of a better word. ;)

[riderinthestorm]

30. While I think you meant your post to be kind

your reply essentially means that atheists aren't "nice" and that we don't allow others their beliefs without ridicule.

Most atheists, THIS atheist, never discuss their atheism outside of this board since to do so in real life (and in my life that means Wheaton, IL - one of the world's great evangelical capitals of the world) can and does mean instant loss of business, friendships, social contacts and worse. Ridiculing believers??!! Do you really believe that this applies to atheists?

I would go further in that those people who have written books (Dawkins, Hitchens etc.) aren't "ridiculing" although believers so desperately want that to be so. They are simply laying out the atheist's rationales, yet even that is too much for believers. And thus any simple application of logic, or challenge to dogma etc. - it's cast as "ridiculing".

As this study shows, it's atheists who are the ones who are overwhelmingly subjected to "ridicule" although I would go so far as to say it's actually a lot darker and worse than that - if only it were as mild as "ridicule".

[mzmolly]

34. What I meant was that both atheists and "believers" have been very

over the top in their condescending, insulting tone here.

Also, most arguments refuting "believers" are only responding to one segment of that population, biblical literalists. I find that offensive as well.

I am sorry if you feel you can't express who you are. The stunning poll noted above gives cred to your feelings. However, I will say that I can't share my beliefs openly either, nor do I desire to. My beliefs are largely personal, and I'm not on a "conversion" crusade. ;)

Peace

Edited "insultive" so as not to offend the academics among us.

[kath]

38. FYI, "insultive" is not a word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insultive

[mzmolly]

39. It's slang. See >

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=insultive

2. insultive

1)adj. Describing an insulting action or condition.(Am-Eng slang)
2)adv. A state of being insolent.(am-Eng slang)

syn: rude, abhorrent, impolite
ant: complimentary, polite, thoughtful

tags rude abhorrent impolite ghastly insulting insult
by Montgomery Seattle, WA. May 28, 2006 email it

I guess I'm "hip" - which is a newer word according to dictionary.com? ;) I'm sure they'll add "insultive" to the official "word list" in a few years.

[libbygurl]

170. All the atheists I have known have by far been much more 'Christian' in their life practices

and ethics than a lot of so-called Christians that I know.

I'm an agnostic myself, but I understand why many choose to have a faith in their lives (and others don't even choose it, just go with whatever everyone else does).

And no, to the poster who says it goes both ways, atheists are FAR MORE demeaned and marginalised by the theist majority than the other way around! Atheists are far more tolerant of their theist brethren than the opposite.

In the USA, it's this anti-intellectual and all-too-ready-to-believe-in-the-next-saviour-speaker-whatever-whoever-makes-me-feel-good trend that's been brewing for many decades now, helped along mightily by the rise of evangelicals that continues to keep atheists at the fringe of this less thinking and rational society.

[mzmolly]

196. I disagree as it pertains to DU.

I don't consider it tolerant to suggest that people who have "faith" are anti-intellectual, for example.

[libbygurl]

201. They're not mutually exclusive. Although I do think anti-intellectualism does play a big role

...in the propensity for many others to fall prey to the ultrareligious atmosphere across this country. DU is certainly not representative of the population at large.

[mzmolly]

204. I agree. But, my post was not in reference to the "ultra-religious"

it was in reference to how those who have "faith" here are disrespected at times, by those who do not and visa versa. I would agree that Atheists are the greater "victims" as the topic pertains to society at large.

:hi:

[libbygurl]

211. Maybe I should've posted my comment in reply to the original msg!

Glad we agree on something! Although I really haven't witnessed myself any disrespect towards believers on DU, unless I just don't visit those threads.

I say, live and let live, but I hate evangelism in religion.

Hey, good to meet you, too. :hi:

Have a good night, and will be signing off now.

[mzmolly]

247. I'm guessing you don't visit the threads?

;) Check out the Religion area sometime. I try to stay away myself as it can get quite ugly.

Have a great night yourself. :hi:

[BuelahWitch]

261. Some atheists used to be quite nasty in the astrology/spirituality forum too

Until Skinner kicked them out.
I agree with Molly, people should have the ability to believe or not as they choose, and not ridicule others because they feel differently.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

61. It may sometimes go both ways, but is mostly a one way street

If I challenge a particular tenet of a person's belief structure, they consider that ridicule. It's impossible for atheists to challenge a religious claim because 1) we're accused of ridiculing the religious person; 2) if we make strong points the argument ends with "it comes down to faith", as if atheists are somehow weak because they refuse to exercise blind faith in an unprovable deity.

We can't win, and as others have pointed out, coming out of the atheist closet would ruin many of our lives. The battle, for many of us, is only fought anonymously online at places like DU. Forgive us if we are overly vehement here at DU, but this place is one of the few areas of our lives we can meet and discuss our (non)beliefs. We don't have meetings... :)

Most atheists, myself included don't care what others believe, so long as that belief isn't portrayed as "truth" as if atheists are somehow wrong for thinking critically and coming to a different conclusion.

[mzmolly]

109. I disagree. I think your point is dependant upon HOW a belief is challenged.

If you start tossing around "sky daddy" that's offensive, just as I presume it is when Atheists are told "you will burn in hell" for not "believing"?

If someone says to me "you can't prove there is a God" I say, I don't wish to. I don't give a rats ass what you believe or not. But, I will not insult you for coming to a different conclusion based upon your outlook.

[yellerpup]

194. I had Baptist cousins growing up who used to LOVE imagining me burning in

hell because I didn't believe. They got such pleasure imagining me in flames because they were picturing me naked.

[pokercat999]

165. I love faith, I always hope the poker player across the

table from me has a lot more faith than an understanding of the math involved in the game. :evilgrin:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

5. all I have to say is...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We're free to believe or disbelieve anything we want, when it comes to religion.

[pitohui]

10. we're also free to starve to death if the religions fuckwits who own businesses don't hire us

there are lots of good and sound reasons why atheists feel obliged to keep their beliefs to themselves, the discrimination is real

[mzmolly]

13. I never discuss religion in an interview.

Never have, thankfully. I could not really articulate my belief system in such a format, nor would I.

[pitohui]

14. most jobs aren't won thru interviews, they're won thru connections/networking

but thanks for playing

[mzmolly]

19. That's interesting. I've never gotten any job through "connections/networking"

but thanks for the reply.

[pitohui]

33. nonetheless most real jobs are gained that way and you must know it

i'm glad you have the luxury of believing that "it don't affect me, so fuck everybody else"

alas most of us must live in the reality based universe

[mzmolly]

35. Your responses are clearly over the top and full of straw-men.

If one reads my posts in this thread, I think it's clear that "fuck everybody else" is not part of my agenda.

As for me, I consider myself a "Deist" - my beliefs may be less popular than yours?

[defendandprotect]

220. Of course, UTAH, at one time being a prime example of running things by religion ---

in that case . . . Mormonism.

[BuelahWitch]

260. In small businesses it can be

as I imagine a small business run by Catholics in Mass might. But I worked for several large companies while living in Salt Lake and the surrounding county and my religion, or lack of it, was never a factor.

[defendandprotect]

290. As I understand it . . .

and Roseanne Barr has brought some attention to this ---
but of course, things have changed somewhat I imagine in the past decade ---

At any rate, what I've read of it is that those who protect the hierarchies kept
them filled with Mormons -- and I have read of complaints that some have not been
promoted or barred from positions because they weren't Mormons.

In general, the old saying . . . "It isn't what you know, it's who you know" . . .
isn't that far from wrong, even in more liberal times. It always helps to have a
network --- college connections --- family connections.

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. What a load of horseshit...

you must live in a very small town or live a very sheltered life..

[raccoon]

77. It's not a load of horseshit. It's been my observation and experience too.

Your experience and that other poster's must be very much out of the ordinary.

[LanternWaste]

103. I imagine my experience is out of the ordinary also...

I imagine my experience is out of the ordinary also as all of my adult jobs have been won simply through a sit-down interview after applying for position X with the companies.

I'm sure a poster will soon point us to a valid, peer-reviewed study illustrating which method is a more common in getting a job... :shrug:

[Dorian Gray]

139. I also have gotten most jobs through an interview process

not through "who I know.' But, if that is how the majority of americans get jobs, then their religious beliefs would matter little.

[Ghost in the Machine]

141. Yes, it's always because someone else is different or wrong.. right?

It *can't* be you who is different or wrong... ever... can it?

Every job I've ever had, and believe me, I've had MANY, have come from answering an ad in a newspaper, inquring about a "help wanted" sign, or from simply pulling into a construction site and asking if anyone was hiring anywhere. I've gotten MY jobs based on my own merits and experience, NOT because of who I knew, or anything else. I've done this from Miami to Atlanta to this little backwoods town in Tennessee that I live in now...

[fascisthunter]

186. Sorry, But I Have Seen It First Hand

more than once.

[goddess40]

46. the Elks won't let people join unless they say they believe

and in my city the Elks club connections are important to the business community. If you apply and are honest about your non-belief they will bar you from the club and not allow you to even come as a guest of a member.

[mzmolly]

48. I've never heard of the Elks Club. What specifically does one have to believe?

:shrug:

[A HERETIC I AM]

56. Primarily that men look good in a Fez

Second that alcohol is good for you.

[mzmolly]

58. I agree on the second point.

;)

[ElboRuum]

137. No on one, yes on two.

[goddess40]

73. Elks Mission statement

http://www.elks.org/

Our Mission

To inculcate the principles of Charity, Justice, Brotherly Love and Fidelity; to recognize a belief in God; to promote the welfare and enhance the happiness of its Members; to quicken the spirit of American patriotism; to cultivate good fellowship; to perpetuate itself as a fraternal organization, and to provide for its government, the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the United States of America will serve the people and communities through benevolent programs, demonstrating that Elks Care and Elks Share.


They need to add except for atheists, with atheists we can be uncharitable, unjust, hateful and disloyal. In my town the Elks is used as a place to do business so if your not allowed in it can have negative effects on you career/business.

I meant to post this last night but my computer froze up and I was to tired to mess with it.

[mzmolly]

110. Bizarre, though

I doubt most Americans rely on the Elks club for work? Also, it sounds like a right wing organization? I would not be comfortable using them to find work.

[sybylla]

150. Same in my community

I haven't been able to get what I think is a dream job at a local health care facility because the bigwigs have connections to the Elks. One of my former customers - an ass hat and an Elk - is apparently fowling my reputation. This isn't based on religion, but I can't join and bring an end to the badmouthing because of my lack of belief.

[El Pinko]

42. Even if there wasn't discrimination, most athiests aren't out to proselytize.

I'm an atheist, and although I enjoy owning my own mind and all the intellectual freedom that comes with it, atheism is NOT a comforting philosophy of life with fantasies of angels and pearly gates awaiting us at death. It doesn't present a loving supernatural being that is there for us in the best of times and the worst of times. We have to depend on ourselves, and that's not always easy.

So I really have no interest in winning anyone over to "my side". I ended up here because none of the religious stuff ever took with me. Even as a little kid I KNEW Santa was fake and I wasn't much older when I realized that religions were just made-up stories, too.

But if others choose to believe in them and are happy in their choice, nothing could make me happier. Happiness is hard to come by in this life and I'm glad for anyone that has found something that helps them.

I may enjoy talking about atheism and why it makes sense to somebody who doesn't understand it. But I couldn't care less if they "convert" or not.

But all the religions sure seem hell-bent on converting everybody else...



I don't blurt out that I'm an atheist for no reason, but I would never lie if I was asked. I've never lived in a really bible-thump area and don't think I could.

[Chovexani]

60. All religions are not out to convert people

My religion could give a shit less what anyone else believes. In fact, it actively discourages people from joining.

Please stop conflating evangelical Christianity with "religion".

[sammythecat]

65. What religion is that?

Your description sounds like a group of arrogant snobs.

[NMMNG]

72. Because they don't force their views on others they're arrogant snobs?

And if you read her sigline you'll discover what her religion is.

[Chovexani]

106. LOL, you're a piece of work.

I'm Pagan. And no, my particular path is not filled with arrogant snobs, any more so than the Eleusinian, Orphic or Dionysian Mystery cults of ancient times (or even traditionalist Wicca today). It's an initiatory occult path ("occult" by the root meaning of the word, which is "hidden"). The reason we actively discourage people from joining is that it's really not for the faint of heart--there's a lot of deep study and hard work involved, on pretty much every level: metaphysically, psychologically, you name it. It's very challenging. At its core, it's about dealing with the Shadow, in the Jungian sense, and turning it into a place of power rather than fear.

For people raised in a largely Christian culture (even people who reject a Christian-style religion), it can be hard for them to accept, since many people's idea of "religion" is showing up to a service, singing half-heartedly from a book and listening to someone talk, and then going home until next week. Even a lot of Pagans have this attitude nowadays. The way a lot of people are trained by society to think about "God" and "faith", it can be really hard for them to unlearn it, especially the unhealthy bullshit. I've had a lot of potential students show up at my proverbial doorstep wanting to study because it sounds cool, only to flinch at the work involved and not come back.

So I've instituted what I like to call a temp-to-hire process. I'm willing to teach pretty much anyone, as long as they're not creepy (unfortunately, creeps are out there--especially when the priestess is an attractive young woman). But they must be willing to really show a commitment to their growth before I'll get into the heavy things with them.

[defendandprotect]

217. "Please stop conflating evangelical Christianity with "religion" --

Actually, I think it is Evangelicals who do that . . .
and it should be YOU who tell them they're wrong --

Most of us can recognize "organized patriarchal religion" --

[Chovexani]

226. It's not just Christians doing it, as evidenced by this thread

And 99.9% of the religion related threads on DU, and pretty much every single discussion of religion in the press in general. People start bashing "religion" when what they really mean batshit insane born again Christianity--or more recently, Islam. If you really want to know how offensive that is, it's basically on par with people throwing in atheism when they start talking about religions, as if it's a religious belief. It's in the language. If you can tell the difference, good for you. Please educate your peers the next time they start going off on how the "religious" are evil theofascists. Most of the religious people on this planet do not subscribe to absolutist monotheistic spiritual paths such as Christianity. We do our best to tell people this.

I don't think atheists really understand that minority religionists are on their side. We get just as much shit as they do from the fundies.

[El Pinko]

236. I meant religion, not Christianity.

There are few religions that I wouldn't have any qualms about.

Believers in minority religions have my sympathies for what they get from the fundies, but many of them proselytize, too.


And Muslims force everyone to practice their religion in countries where they're in power - they're even worse than the fundies.

[defendandprotect]

242. First, go back to your post to which I responded . . .

Here's what you said . . .
"Please stop conflating evangelical Christianity with "religion" --

I replied . . .
Actually, I think it is Evangelicals who do that . . .
and it should be YOU who tell them they're wrong --

Most of us can recognize "organized patriarchal religion" --


YOU were talking about Christianity ---

and now seem to be changing your point ---


What I would stress to you is that organized religion is quite different from true, individual spirituality -

That would include ALL organized patriarchal religions, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish ....
whatever.

And --- NO -- people quite well understand the wrongs of organized patriarchal religions over
2,000 years --- from Crusades to Witch Hunts --- and generally "Introducing the Sword with the
Cross" and the embracing of a violent "god."

We saw a renewal of Fundamentalism during the past two decades from born-again Christians and Muslims -- but, of course, most Fundamentalists are not violent. More than normally religiously
aggressive, perhaps --- but not necessarily violent --- though from what we saw of Catholic leaders
encouraging "pro-life" activists to move them to "action" indicates that leadership can and does
try to use members for their own ends --- and I include Islam in this. The fanatically religious,
whether Christian or Muslim, too often lack the ability to question what they are being taught by
church leaders --- in fact, they seem to have been taught to FEAR questioning either their religion
or their religious leaders.

And, again, I'd stress . . . it's up to YOU and others who object to Evangelical claims about
being Christians or whatever to deal with them --- just as we try to deal with them by speaking out.

Meanwhile --- the Vatican is supposedly going Evangelical ---







It's not just Christians doing it, as evidenced by this thread
And 99.9% of the religion related threads on DU, and pretty much every single discussion of religion in the press in general. People start bashing "religion" when what they really mean batshit insane born again Christianity--or more recently, Islam. If you really want to know how offensive that is, it's basically on par with people throwing in atheism when they start talking about religions, as if it's a religious belief. It's in the language. If you can tell the difference, good for you. Please educate your peers the next time they start going off on how the "religious" are evil theofascists. Most of the religious people on this planet do not subscribe to absolutist monotheistic spiritual paths such as Christianity. We do our best to tell people this.

I don't think atheists really understand that minority religionists are on their side. We get just as much shit as they do from the fundies.

[El Pinko]

235. I didn't really feel the need to answer that...

The number of religions that don't proselytize is miniscule compared to the ones that do - and I would personally consider brainwashing one's children into one's religion to be proselytizing.

I've been proselytized by Buddhists, scientologists, Krishnas, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons AND evangelicals. Jews don't seem to recruit much...

I have two kids and my wife tries to get them as hooked on buddhism as she is - I just tell them what I personally believe and tell them that it's up to them to believe how they choose when they are grown and that they shouldn't choose their religion or lack thereof based on what mom or dad believe. What could be more sick than implying to a child that your love is conditional based on acceptance of some religious doctrine?

[LanternWaste]

104. Much like political party activists...

"But all the religions sure seem hell-bent on converting everybody else..."

Much like political party activists... I get more activists proselytizing at my door than I do religious types.

But yeah... they're both annoying in that they tell me with Absolute Righteousness what I'm doing, why I'm doing it and how I'm living are all completely wrong and that only their organization/church/candidate has the 'Right Answers For Our Problem'...

[pitohui]

7. the rationale is that americans don't tolerate people who don't think just like them

if we had a device that could peep into people's brains and read their true thoughts, i'm pretty sure that it would turn out to be that the majority of people are atheists, however, for whatever reason, we are all supposed to wear the mask in public and pretend we believe in pie in the sky when we die

yet when we're alone with our intimates, we all know damn good and well that we don't respect the intelligence of the true believers -- nor should we

known atheists are hated because they're brave enough to step out of the closet and most of us feel we can't take that risk except from behind a keyboard, the brave folks like pat tillmann may take a stand, but most of us feel (with reason) that we would be otracized and unemployable if we didn't play along w. the bullshit

how many businesses have the fish symbol? yet no business in the world that i've ever seen has an atheist symbol!

[electron_blue]

8. A rationale for this? None that I can think of. Seems pretty irrational if you ask me.

I have known people who believe in a god (or two or three) who have no problem with atheists. They just treat religious preferences privately. The ones who get the most up in arms about it remind me of vigilant homophobes. I think they react strongly/violently in order to minimize self-examination.

[Greyskye]

11. We're evil, EVIL!

:sarcasm:


Hmm, is there also a correlation between number of hearts received and religious beliefs? (look up) :tinfoilhat:

[awoke_in_2003]

161. "is there also a correlation...

between number of hearts received and religious beliefs?"
Well, if so, I must be more of an atheist than you, because I only have one heart:)

[Greyskye]

164. At the time I posted...

...so did I!

I received my second one within 3 minutes of that post.

Coincidence? :tinfoilhat:

:rofl:

[Marr]

15. Really, I expect most religious people who admit to hating atheists

hold just as much animosity towards anyone that doesn't practice their religion. It's just considered impolitic to say so.

[mopinko]

16. cuz they know how bad they would be without big daddy watching.

is all i can figure. they seem to really be sure that you can't be a good person except out of fear. and they have a lot of that.

[mopinko]

17. cuz they know how bad they would be without big daddy watching.

is all i can figure. they seem to really be sure that you can't be a good person except out of fear. and they have a lot of that.

[Kajsa]

200. What a crock of crap!

--- All Xians are alike- they all do this- they all say that- they all feel this---

:sarcasm:

[angrycarpenter]

18. I am an atheist

but if certain people ask me if I believe I will say yes. In the past saying no has earned me a long sermon on how wrong I am. Atheism is not a faith as much as a rejection of blind faith. If it will keep the peace I will say I believe in god. It's not like I fear hell or heresy.

[mzmolly]

21. I'm not into blind faith either,

but I "think" there is a "creative force" of sorts. Don't know what that involves exactly. ;)

[angrycarpenter]

24. In a universe as vast as ours

A god may very well exist. But I cannot imagine that such a being would be interested in the sinful thoughts of a few ants. Much less building a heaven or a hell to punish or reward as the case may be.

[mzmolly]

26. I agree.

But I do feel our beings may "live on" in some manner. I don't believe that the "organic" is all there is. However, I'm not dogmatic about my thoughts and I am open to the fact that I may be wrong. :hi:

My beliefs best fit into the "Deist" category -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Beliefs_about_immortality_of_the_soul

[angrycarpenter]

28. It would be nice to have an afterlife

That may also be probable. But to me total oblivion seems very restful. I only argue with those who claim positive knowledge of a god or afterlife. As long as the person starts with "I don't really know for sure" then they are cool with me.

[mzmolly]

29. I'm with you. Either way,

it's "rest" when we are done here.

And I don't think it's honest to say one is positive "God" exists. I do wish that those of us who "believe" there is a "God" could come to terms of respect with those who do not, however. Either way, if there is an afterlife, I feel that it's open to so called believers and non-believers.

Thanks for respecting my "beliefs" - if you can call them that. ;)

[defendandprotect]

218. Well...you could consider reincarnation --- I think it's an interesting concept ---

and ALL the major organized religions taught it at one time ---

until it became inconvenient for the elite.

[ProfessorGAC]

89. An Adjunct To That

If God punishes the entire world (or country) for the actions of a few, doesn't that make God prone to temper tantrums.

No God image i've ever heard, that makes any sense to worship, is so fragile as to be unable to control rage. That lack of control hardly is the stuff of omnipotence.
The Professor

[mzmolly]

111. I don't think "God" does "punish".

This again is a response to the largely "Fundie" thought process on "God".

[defendandprotect]

219. And it is the newer patriachal religions which produced a "Devil" and "Hello" ---

presumably in their own image --- !!!

[raccoon]

78. Have you ever tried saying, "Why do you want to know?"

Of course, most evangelical Xians would be on your back if you said that. :sigh:

[knitter4democracy]

20. For crying out loud, that is just plain crazy.

Why should anyone's non-faith matter? What do I care what someone else believes or doesn't believe? Sheesh!

[mzmolly]

23. Minnesota is somewhat "reasonable" so the results surprise me.

:(

[ldf]

31. Why should anyone's non-faith matter?

by the same reasoning that all us loving homosexual couples threaten the institution of heterosexual marriage.

it doesn't.

but "god" is frequently used as a justification to hate.

edit to add...WOW! someone gave me a heart. i am humbled.

[knitter4democracy]

37. You know, I don't get that one, either.

I have a DFA friend who's been with his hubby for over 20 years. Heck, my mom has yet to have a marriage last that long (though the one she's in now is the best ever, so here's hoping ;) ). Why is their marriage not legal but my mom's four marriages legal?

Heck, I used to be an evangelical and even went to an evangelical college and never got it then. I just plain don't understand why someone else's private choices should be of any concern of mine.

[raccoon]

80. Homosexual couples threaten the patriarchal society. nt

[east texas lib]

22. Hatred for non-believers requires only obedience to doctrine...

And to the uber-theist, the worst crime one can commit is live a life without fearing their
God. To them, it is blasphemy of the highest order. All non-believers must be negated by any
means available. Ironic, is it not, that the Allmighty seems to need so much help in dealing
with those pesky Atheists and the like. Seems like God would have destroyed
them or made them all believers long ago if God truly existed in the Abrahamic sense.
This of course is an issue that billions of people have died warring with each other
over, and I personally think that they will kill us all( the whole planet ) to bring
about the end-of-time prophecies of their holy books.

[mzmolly]

25. Keep in mind that the "end of time" prophecy is not a universal belief

within Christianity. Some theologians feel this perspective is a distortion of the faith.

http://www.faithfulreader.com/guides/0813343143-guide.asp

I do agree, that the literal interpretation of God as it is "written" in various holy books, is not believable.

[east texas lib]

40. Unfortunately in Texas...

"Literalists" seem to hold sway. As a child growing up in a fundamentalist Church of Christ
household, I was not allowed to even associate with one of my best friends because he was a
Baptist. His crime? The fact that during worship, musical accompanyment with instruments
(guitars, pianos and the like were allowed) with the choir within HIS church. For this and
many other reasons I turned away from their teachings and thus became the family heretic.
One of my uncles asked me why I left the church. I told him that in my view the church had
left me. I thought that he was going to strike me, he was that angry. They did not tolerate
dissent back then very well. As far as I am aware, they still do not.

[mzmolly]

43. Yikes!

I can understand being turned off. My dh was raised in a strict "fundie" type home and it had the same impact on him. It is a shame that some use fear and dogma to teach what is supposed to be an ultimate form of love.

[goddess40]

49. My son's best friend was lost because his dad found out we are atheists

He was very rude to us after he found out, nice behavior for the local Rabbi.

[mzmolly]

113. That's terrible.

I'm sorry to hear that goddess40. :(

[east texas lib]

207. Ironic, indeed...

That someone belonging to a faith that has persecuted so much would show such intolerance to
another merely because they possess a differing viewpoint.

[LanternWaste]

126. I live in TX, too.

I live in TX, too. Could you point me to a mainstream church which holds (either written or not) literalism to be a basic tenet?

I ask because I hear about them quite often, yet never seem to get a definitive answer as to their locations.

[RainDog]

166. Surely you're not claiming there are no literalists in TX??

If by "mainstream" as in "mainstream protestant" that is sort of limited to lutherans, episcos...Anglicans or Congregationalists (and these two are mostly in the northeast, iirc.

However, "mainstream" as in who believes what where most definitely puts all of the south in the fundie/literalist camp. I'm from Tennessee, my sister lives in TX, and there is really no difference between the two, in terms of fundies all over the place... rich ones, poor ones, educated ones (lots of engineers), uneducated ones...

maybe you live in Montrose or something.

so, here is a list of fundie churches: Southern Baptists, Church of Christ, Methodists (depending, like Baptists on the sect, i.e. American v. Southern Baptist, some Presbyterians, as far as I know, AME - African Methodist Episc.- maybe depends on the sect, like baptists, etc? Never met a non-literalist, tho. "Christian" churches (evangelical, etc) Also Russian Orthodox.

then the charismatic churches (including some Catholic ones) Assemblies of God, Church of God, Apostolic Church Pentecostal, .plus a whole bunch of other little churches in one horse towns. these are "full gospel" churches, which means they speak in tongues as a matter of course, while the evangelical fundies think that stopped...but it's true, it did happen, and ignore that we don't do that literally.

I have spent lots of time in Texas and there are churches all over the place, just like in TN. There are people who proselytize, just like in TN, they sponsor missionaries to convert the heathens, just like TN, they preach that woman are "under the protection" of their husbands or fathers, they believe that if you don't believe what they do, you are going to hell. some believe that once you are baptized, you're set. others think you can "lose your salvation" and will have to get right with god or you'll go to hell.


There are also fundie church schools all around TX, just like TN. these schools indoctrinate kids to doubt evolution, to adopt fundie religious beliefs, and to convert non-believers.

The issue, as far as "god" goes is that one segment of the religious world is defining religion, which is funny because that's what they believe is their right. Looks like they've been pretty successful.

I've never had an atheist come up to me to try to convert me. I've never had an atheist tell me I was going to hell. I've never known an atheist who disowned a child b/c of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, loss of virginity before marriage, or "living in sin." I've known every one of those circumstances from when I grew up in TN.

what about those HUGE billboard signs that "quote" god. how arrogant is that? have you never seen those? Every time I've been to TX I've seen them.

I don't care what someone else believes in the privacy of their homes or their places of worship. I do care when they try to insert their beliefs into my religion-neutral constitution, or my children's textbooks, or funding from my govt. with tax dollars.

Beyond internet sites where atheists scream about how obnoxious certain believers are, the only ones I hear squealing about the "rights" and the depravity of our nation are the fundies, with the occasional raw meat of one parent or another who will not abide by their intrusion into schools, etc.

I don't think I could ever again live in the south, or in any area with a large concentration of fundies. Where I live, there are religious people and non-religious and people, for the most, get along, b/c the believers, for the most part, respect atheist's right not to believe. This is how I've found every college community to be in any state in any city (except when the college is one founded/funded by fundies. so maybe you live in such a community too. - like Austin, or near Rice.

[east texas lib]

193. Certainly!

Try Highland Church of Christ or Abilene Christian University in Abilene, TX., for starters.
But there are many, many others there too. From laid back to hardcore thumpin', I'm sure
you'll find what you seek. By the way, Charles Stenholm, our Congressman for many years there,
once remarked that the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom OF religion, not
freedom FROM religion. And I do believe his sentiment accurately reflected that of his
constituency.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

254. Texas has churches on every corner.

Most of them literalist. I've heard of Church of Christers telling other people, like their own mothers, that they were going to hell because they didn't go to THEIR church. Lots of people convinced theirs is the ONE TRUE CHURCH. A pretty laughable idea if they weren't so serious about it. In fact I've been told I'm going to hell too. I've been called an evil woman. I tell them "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "As you did it unto the least of them, so also you did it unto Me" that their supposed prophet and savior, Yeshua ben Yusef, allegedly said. And I say "Thank you for that Christian love."

Growing up near Houston, I knew a girl whose dad was a Lutheran minister, Missouri Synod, which is very conservative. The girl got a job at a restaurant to get out of the house, and married a boy she met at work. The father refused to have any contact with her after they got married. Why did the father cut off all contact with his daughter? Because she married a Baptist.


Lots of people in TX, out in the country, have BIG crosses in their front yards. I mean like 8 or 10 feet tall. Sometimes decorated with white Xmas lights all year round.

I bet they would not like it if I put up a Unitarian-Universalist flaming chalice within two slightly overlapping circles, for a symbol. They take atheists, agnostics and anybody else with questions. They don't throw anybody out, either.

You really can't get away from them except in the city, as was previously mentioned, in Montrose, around Rice University or in college towns such as Austin.

Waco is a college town but it's conservative - Baylor U. is the "Vatican City of the Baptists" as Molly Ivins called it. Read up on W.C. Brann. He started a paper in Wacko (as some of us Texans call it) called The Iconoclast, and that is where the Crawford Iconoclast gets its name. He said things like, "The trouble with our Baptists is that we do not hold them under water long enough."

Eventually they got tired of his criticism, and Mr. Brann got shot, out in the street, in the year 1900. He was carrying a pistol and shot and killed his murderer as well.

It's like pulling teeth to get this state into the 20th century. Or even the 19th century after the Civil War was over.

BTW, Ken Starr's mother lived in Elkhart, Texas. Anderson County, what's known as Deep East Texas. The county seat is Palestine (pronounced Pal-es-teen). There is a Starr Cemetery on Highway 19 between Elkhart and Palestine.

[puebloknot]

153. Lucky me, the U.S. Army took me away from Texas and the Church of Christ!

Your post has a familiar ring. My mother and her family were C of C. My father's family (not my father) were Baptists. The tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife over who was *right*! My mother would not condone my ever entering a Baptist churth (den of iniquity). Luckily, my father was a closet agnostic, and he "beamed" his refusal to cooperate to me in subtle ways.

I remember when I was 14 my father explaining to me that Jesus was a communist (little "c"), owing to his advice to give to the poor!

My father was stationed in Germany when I was 12 to 15, and we were on vacation in Switzerland and Italy during my 14th summer. There we were, driving over St. Gothard's Pass, viewing the beautifuly scenery, when my mother became very excited, and told my father to pull over! And what had caused her incredible excitement? Surely she had seen a piece of landscape we couldn't dare miss! NO! SHE HAD SEEN A BUS, PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, WITH "ABILENE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE" EMBLAZONED ON THE SIDE! And I remember thinking, "They follow you, wherever you go!" :(

You do know that Kenneth Starr, our beloved Special Prosecutor, is one of them, don't you?

[RainDog]

172. I knew his post, too.

CoC and Baptist didn't like each other... some doctrinal issues here and there, but the CoC thought the baptists were terrible because they allowed an organ in the church. where I was, they could sing, just not have musical instruments. I guess "organ" was too... suggestive.

Catholics were just hopelessly heretical to all fundie protestants. people were very "territorial" about their beliefs.

I once had a teacher call me and another female friend out in the hallway to talk to us b/c we weren't behaving.
This teacher said that she had some hope for my friend because she was CoC...but she didn't know what to do about me. this was a public school.

[east texas lib]

198. No, I didn't know about Kenneth Star...

It figures, though. I also recall how we were not allowed to use the word "ordeal", because
my maternal grandmother considered it to be a "Catholic" word. My grandfather just rolled his
eyes and suffered in silence, preferring to keep the peace. Now THERE was a "real" man!

[LeftHander]

32. Look out gay, recently naturalized muslims....nt

[Cabcere]

36. I don't understand it.

IMO, there is absolutely no reason to be rude, disrespectful, or mistrusting of anyone on the basis of their beliefs, especially if those beliefs do not directly (negatively) impact anyone else. :shrug: Live and let live, maybe?

[LiberalHeart]

41. We just need to hire a good PR agency.

[lastliberalintexas]

47. Because atheists are dangerous

I'm being quite serious here. An atheist might not necessarily be the smartest kid on the block, but s/he has been able to think outside the box, ignore conventional wisdom and any other cliche you can think of. I have never met an atheist (or agnostic, Buddhist, Zennist(?) or deist) who was willing to be one of the herd. That's dangerous to the elite, but also to many of the followers who need that structure imposed on life- neither group is willing to accept those who have rejected such rigid belief systems.

[raccoon]

81. Great post. nt

[Kitty Herder]

209. Good answer! nt

[Forrest Greene]

50. Folks Don't Want To Take A Chance On Being Near Atheists

...when the eventual lightning bolts strike them.

[SidDithers]

122. Great pic from a post yesterday...

Sid

[Forrest Greene]

131. Yike

Now is that lightning headed up or down?

[moodforaday]

51. A little something for ya

A cartoon by one of the my favorite Polish cartoonists:



The lines read:

top-left: Peter, come here a minute!
top-right: You really should stop playing with that boy.
bottom-left: Why, mom?
bottom-right: Because his parents are in hell.

This, of course, is not an abstract joke. It's well-grounded in the cultural/moral reality of a "Catholic" country.

[kwassa]

52. I think this study is bullshit

though it is constantly cited on DU. This one study pops up all the time.

Most of America is non-religious, and doesn't care about religion or atheism. It might be difficult to be an atheist in the Bible Belt, but that is a specific demographic that most of this country doesn't share.

Secondly, there is a new definition of atheism that most of the country has never heard of, the "lack of belief in Gods" or soft atheism. Those that oppose atheism think of the old definition, so there is a big conflict in terminology here.

[JBoy]

53. Your assertion that "most of America is non-religious" is wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Among "developed nations", the US is one of the most religious. According to a 2002 study by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the US was the only developed nation in the survey where a majority of citizens reported that religion played a "very important" role in their lives, an attitude similar to that found in Latin America.

Most U.S. citizens adhere to Christianity (78.5%). A 2001 survey found 15% of the population to have no religious affiliation, still significantly less than in other postindustrial countries such as Britain (44%) and Sweden (69%).

[kwassa]

54. one of the more interesting contradictions

what people say to pollsters, and what they do, can be quite different. I no longer have the cite, but there was an interesting article contradicting this religious position. Inadvertently, in simply interviewing people about how they spent their time, relatively small numbers actively participate in a church or other religious organization. The numbers that actually show up in church on Sunday are far smaller than strictly religion polls would claim.

People can consider themselves religious, or the pop term of the day, spiritual,but have no active practice or participation in a church. They stay in bed or go to the malls. They wish to appear upstanding citizens so they give certain responses to pollsters.

edit to add:

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

How many people lie about going to religious services?

Various studies in recent years have cast a grave doubt on the 40% value.(of those who claim to attend weekly services)

Public opinion polls generally do not report real opinions and events. They report only the information that the individuals choose to tell the pollsters. Quite often, their answers will be distorted by a phenomenon called "social desirability bias." Pollees answer questions according to what they think they should be doing, rather than what they are doing. For example, a poll by Barna Research showed that 17% of American adults say that they tithe -- i.e. they give 10 to 13% of their income to their church. Only 3% actually do. 9

The gap between what they do and what they say they do is closer in the case of religious attendance. It is "only" about 2 to 1.

there is much more specific information cited here about specific amounts of attendees in church,

[Solon]

55. The fact of the matter is that both of you are right...

The United States has the largest MINORITY that are ACTIVELY religious in the entire developed world. Just because they are a minority doesn't mean much, most people, the world over, aren't that active in their religions, the only major exceptions are cloistered communities and theocracies that carry actual penalties for those who don't participate. However, most of the people who don't go to church on Sunday aren't Atheist either, most are Christians in belief, even if they are unchurched. Just because someone sleeps in on Sunday doesn't mean that they all of the sudden don't believe in Jesus Christ as their savior or anything like that. Nor does it mean they tolerate Atheists either.

The unchurched are people who, for various reasons, aren't active in any church. Some find the atmosphere of many churches in their areas oppressive. Others are in active opposition of a church's position on one or many issues. My mother is an example of that, she doesn't go to Catholic Church because of their positions on choice, women's rights, and marriage equality. As she puts it, "Jesus Christ doesn't exclude people." At the same time, she still identifies as Catholic, and shares the theological beliefs.

[kwassa]

62. I don't think you can draw that conclusion

However, most of the people who don't go to church on Sunday aren't Atheist either, most are Christians in belief, even if they are unchurched. Just because someone sleeps in on Sunday doesn't mean that they all of the sudden don't believe in Jesus Christ as their savior or anything like that. Nor does it mean they tolerate Atheists either.

Nor does mean that they DO believe Jesus Christ is their savior, or care about the concept of saviors at all, or care about atheists in the slightest. They think the claim of being religious is simply the socially acceptable answer to those who question them.

The unchurched are people who, for various reasons, aren't active in any church. Some find the atmosphere of many churches in their areas oppressive. Others are in active opposition of a church's position on one or many issues.

and many others simply don't care very much. The idea that the vast majority of those that claim to be religious never go to church is pretty ludicrous. 75% claim to be religious, and 20% show up in church. Actions speak louder than words, I think.

[Solon]

63. I would agree that many, perhaps most, don't care about church that much...

but it doesn't follow that they wouldn't care about Jesus Christ or Atheists. In matters of personal belief, the only litmus test is whether they claim to be a member of a religion. Unless you are psychic, you have to take them at their word. Who knows how religious most people are, the fact is that most Americans are raised Christian, and self identify with the faith they grew up in, whether they currently practice it, whether through weekly church service, or praying to Jesus that they get a good roll in craps in Las Vegas is irrelevant.

The fact is that most Americans don't tolerate Atheists, it doesn't really matter how religious Americans are overall.

[kwassa]

83. I disagree, obviously.

but it doesn't follow that they wouldn't care about Jesus Christ or Atheists. In matters of personal belief, the only litmus test is whether they claim to be a member of a religion.

well, maybe for you it is the only litmus test. To me, it is all about what they do.

The truth is that people congregate together to share the religious experience, as there is a power to the communal experience. People have their own private practice as well, of course, but most involved want to share it. When they don't, it makes me wonder a bit about their professed belief.

The fact is that most Americans don't tolerate Atheists, it doesn't really matter how religious Americans are overall.

Are there other studies aside from this one? Most American I know are utterly indifferent to atheists, of course, as they are to religion. Most religious people I know are also indifferent to atheism, because they are only concerned about their own church and religious community. I think that the only group likely to be truly anti-atheist are religious fundamentalists.

[Solon]

152. Ancedotal evidence is useless, as you well know...

In addition, to your first point, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who go to church just to "go through the motions", so to speak. There could be various reasons for this, societal acceptance, for family, they like the social setting, etc. Just because a person goes to church doesn't mean they are religious either. That's why there's a weakness in your argument, there is no objective standard to determine who is a religious Christian. We rely on self identification for a very simple reason, such a personal matter can only be determined by that person, and whatever Deity they worship. No one else can rightly judge their heart or faith, to do so would be presumptuous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. Your own link disagrees with you

You say: "The idea that the vast majority of those that claim to be religious never go to church is pretty ludicrous. 75% claim to be religious, and 20% show up in church."

But your link says: "The director of the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton University, Robert Wuthnow, said that the terrorists' attacks have not changed the basic makeup of the U.S.:
* About one in four of American adults is devoutly religious;
* one in four is secular, and
* the remaining half is mildly interested about religion."

So why do you think it's 'ludicrous'? A lot of religious teaching says it's the relationship between a person and their god that counts, not public professions of their faith - that 'God' sees into their hearts etc. So it's perfectly reasonable for someone to be religious, have a standard idea on the Christian god, and yet not go to church services regularly.

[kwassa]

84. I think it is ludicrous

So why do you think it's 'ludicrous'? A lot of religious teaching says it's the relationship between a person and their god that counts, not public professions of their faith - that 'God' sees into their hearts etc. So it's perfectly reasonable for someone to be religious, have a standard idea on the Christian god, and yet not go to church services regularly

Nah, not so reasonable. You are right that the relationship between God and an individual is a personal one, but as I said in a previous reply, there is power in the shared religious experience, which is why churches exist in the first place. If people are really into a religious practice, they seek out a like-minded community to amplify that practice.

Your quote above does not prove your case, by the way. If half the population is mildly interested in religion, it does not stand to reason that they have strong convictions and beliefs about religion that would lead them to hate atheists. The one quarter of devoutly religious, depending on the religion, are far more likely candidates to discriminate against atheists.

and part of that discrimination is a misunderstanding of what atheism is, too.

[gollygee]

79. Even if only 20% show up in church regularly, that doesn't make 80% "non-religious"

I know TONS of people who don't physically go to church but who consider themselves religious, and you must too. You can't just change the definition to suit what conclusion you want to reach. People who are religious care about religion and teach their children (if they have them) about religion. Maybe they're lazy religious people, but they're still religious, regardless of whether they physically go to church.

[kwassa]

85. I haven't changed any definitions

Please point out where I have.

[gollygee]

87. You seem to be defining "religious" as "attends church services"

which doesn't include everyone who is religious. Maybe I've misread your other posts.

[kwassa]

88. No, but ....

I do believe there is a correlation between the two.

[gollygee]

91. A 100% correlation?

I have neighbors who don't go to church. They read their kids Bible stories and have their kids say prayers before bed. They send their kids to religious preschool run by a church. Their kids are baptised. These people are clearly religious, but they don't go to church. I know lots of people like this. I have to believe they're all over, not just in my part of Michigan.

[kwassa]

96. why do you ask?

I don't think your neighbors are remotely typical, unless you live in an area where there are very few churches. People who are into religion also like to be in community.

Ask them why they don't attend the church they send their children to. That is an interesting question.

[gollygee]

124. Most preschools here are religious, and they are much less expensive

but even people who don't go to church often respond to daycares that classify themselves as Christian environments. It's very typical of people I know, and we have plenty of churches. I think you're only seeing what you want to see. People will sometimes say they are religious but don't have a "church home".

[immoderate]

97. So why do people lie to pollsters here, but not in England or Sweden?

:shrug:

--IMM

[kwassa]

112. Do they?

They may not lie on this question in England or Sweden, as being religious there may have less of a positive connotation.

They might lie to pollsters on other questions, though.

[immoderate]

116. At least one of us doesn't understand what you wrote.

People are either more religious here, or they lie about being religious to avoid discrimination.

What might they lie about in England or Sweden?

--IMM

[kwassa]

120. Not being English or Swedish ....

I have no idea. Their love for fish and chips or Volvos?

I think people are more religious here AND some others lie about being religious.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

102. Yes, it's like when I was reading the responses on the BBC website to

the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks about Sharia, and poster after poster went on about Britain's Christian heritage, and I thought, "How many of you have been in church since Easter? Or Easter twenty years ago?"

[kwassa]

114. and how many know a thing about sharia, either?

I think numbers have gone way down in the church in England. We've actually had an influx of church choir/organists from England here in the DC area due to the churches there being unable to support them any longer.

[madmom]

108. the town in which I live structure their very existence around church...

no school activities on Wednesday..church night, no big to-do on Sunday or Wednesday because it takes people away from church or people won't come because they will be in church.Wednesday night is a big night for fast food joints because people want to eat quick so they can go to church, everything opens late on Sunday cause people are in church,etc. etc. etc. My children were ostracized because we didn't have a "family church", why should they even be asked that question?

[libbygurl]

177. By golly, you could be describing the very town in which I live!

Nearly everyone around me leads lives revolving around their church activities, too, and it's mostly Baptists and Methodists around. I don't even go to mass, except when there's a good classical/Baroque music performance (so that's only during Christmas or Easter, maybe).

To their credit, although I have jokingly called myself a 'Catholic pagan' to my work colleagues (I'm a lapsed Catholic - a small minority in this town -/agnostic), who laugh at it, but no one has behaved any differently towards me because of that. In fact, many of them are genuinely good people.

It's those vocal, intolerant, religious right-wing nutcases and evangelicals that really get my goat!

[defendandprotect]

222. Well --- the Vatican is writing off America, Canada and Latin America . . .

and is moving on to see their bread buttered in Asia and Africa.

On the other hand, these surveys have been questioned because actual church-going/contributions, etc
don't seem to match up with what's being said.

Notably, the Church scandals have awakened many -- though Italians seem to have always known of the
sexual perversions of the priesthood over 2,000 years. They have a "what's new?" attitude on it.

Of course, the native American Indian experienced the same kinds of perversions by priests from both
the Catholic and Mormon churches in their church schools.

"Once the cat gets out of the bag" . . .
and the Vatican very well understood that which is why they played hush-up and pay-off for so long.

[defendandprotect]

223. And . . . the Vatican is also going Evangelical ---

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. But this study says they do care about atheism

and it matches with others - eg

Gallup has been asking people about whether they would vote for atheists for president for quite some time.
Here are the numbers who have said "no" over the years:

February 1999: 48%
August 1987: 48%
April 1983: 51%
July 1978: 53%
December 1959: 74%
September 1958: 77%
August 1958: 75%

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

Or this list of 'candidate assets' from Feb 2007:

http://people-press.org.nyud.net:8080/reports/images/307-11.gif

Not believing in god is held to be worse for a president than never having held an elected office!

No, if you are right that the majority of Americans don't care about religion or atheism, then they'd say they're willing to vote for one - they'd say "don't care" in this question. There may be misreporting about whether they themselves go to church - but people don't try to make themselves look more prejudiced than they actually are.

[trotsky]

94. It's nice to see attitudes are changing, ever so slowly.

Maybe in 50 years it might be the non-factor that kwassa insists it is today.

[kwassa]

117. George Gallup Jr. is an evangelical Christian

from a 2004 article, since I can't find the one I want on the same subject, that had said that Gallup's polls on religious observance are biased by his own viewpoint.

Moveon.org thinks Gallup is biased.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/septemberweb-only/9-27-31.0.html

This isn't the first time the prestigious Gallup survey has been out on a limb with pro-Bush findings," according to the ad. Gallup predicts that more Republicans will vote in November than Democrats. Exit polls show more Democrats will vote, says MoveOn, and George Gallup Jr., son of the poll's founder, refuses to fix his faulty methodology. "What's going on here?" asks MoveOn.

Well, you see, Gallup knows the influence its polls wield, MoveOn says. If the public perceives one candidate to be winning, more voters will side with the winning candidate. Journalists cover the polls, pundits comment on them, and the public is fooled into thinking Bush will win. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But why does Gallup want Bush to win?

MoveOn suggests it's all because Gallup Jr. "is a devout evangelical Christian." Gasp!

Gallup "has been quoted as calling his polling 'a kind of ministry.' And a few months ago, he said 'the most profound purpose of polls is to see how people are responding to God,'" the ad says. "We thought the purpose is to faithfully and factually report public opinion."

[muriel_volestrangler]

173. And Pew? And the University of Minnesota?

I can't help feel you're dodging the issue here - that at least half the US population, in surveys done by different organisations, freely admit to a prejudice against atheists. They wouldn't do that unless they actually were religious, and prejudiced. The personal feelings of Mr. Gallup might alter the question asked, but do you really think he sits down and falsifies the results?

Add in the numbers of non-prejudiced religious people (eg those who post on DU), and you have a significant majority of religious people in the USA. So the others surveys saying most of the country is religious will be true.

[kwassa]

234. Surveys reflect their design

The way the questions are posed influences their results.

I have seen the challenges to Gallup's results, but not to the others.

and no, I still don't buy that most of the country is religious, and I've already spoken to why.

Most people know little about atheism, and see it as a belief system, as that is the old common belief. The newer definition we see here is largely unknown to the general public, I think.

[AngryAmish]

57. 'cause they are godless??

[Chovexani]

59. Is there any good reason for any kind of prejudice?

Humans as a group are hateful, xenophobic sheep. :shrug:

[Der Blaue Engel]

182. I think the question is, "what makes haters hate atheists more than every other group they hate?"

It does seem a little astounding. And depressing. :(

[Chovexani]

255. I can't wrap my brain around it, but here's one theory

The only group I've ever come across that's hated as universally and irrationally as atheists are polyamorists. Being poly myself, I've had perfectly liberal, tolerant friends completely flip their shit when I came out to them about it.

It's mindboggling, but I can see parallels between that kind of knee jerk reaction and the reaction atheists get from a lot of people. People as a rule are basically insecure and need a lot of external validation for their choices. A lot of the anti-poly sentiment goes something like, "that's disgusting and selfish, TRUE LOVE is about sacrifice and is only meant for one other person, you must not love anyone at all!!11" I've seen this sentiment expressed right here on DU. I never understood it until someone once told me that pretty much everyone has the "one that got away", that they had to give up for some reason or another, and most people are haunted by those choices for years. Polys challenge the very foundation of the monogamy myth, and thus make people question the decisions they've made and the emotions they've felt/suppressed over the years. When faced with that, most people flip the fuck out.

I think some of that is true with atheist haters, too. As a rule, people tend to equate religion with some sort of sacrifice, hardship--even if it's something as dumb as a Christian football fan going to church instead of watching the big game on Sunday, but even if that sacrifice, hardship, submission to a higher power hurts it's for their own good. It makes them better people, more contented people. They're so caught up in this cycle of self-denial/suppression/reward that when confronted by people who still manage to lead happy, fulfilling, morally upright lives without buying into that, there's a tiny part of them that wonders if what they've been taught is incorrect and everything they've been through has been for nothing. Hell, it's not even necessarily just atheists; I've seen the same arguments used by Judeo-Christian types against Pagans and other religions that don't follow that model.

People who are secure in their own beliefs and/or lifestyle do not generally feel the need to flip out at other people over their worldviews and ways of life.

[FlyingSquirrel]

64. I used to be Catholic and am now an atheist

I remember when I was a kid they would talk about atheists in school. Pretty much they attempted (and succeeded, for those without the brains to think for themselves at some point in their lives) to brainwash us into thinking that atheists were the worst sort of people on the planet, Satan's own followers and messengers, someone who would just as soon stab your eyes out as look at you.

Pretty f'd up huh.

When I moved into a public school for awhile in middle school, I was shocked to learn that a word existed that all my new classmates knew, that I had never heard of. This shocked me because I had a pretty darn good vocabulary, and knew it. And I knew that these kids were no smarter than me. So how the heck could there be this word that they all knew that I had never heard of?

The word was,

Dogma.

I had been sheltered from that word in my private school upbringing. I think that was the moment in my life when I really began to see what had been going on, and it started me on the path to where I am today.

[Jim Lane]

67. I will admit that I'm prejudiced against religious people.

I know this attitude of mine is wrong. People are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they wish -- including the RW fundies who, partly because of their religion, help elect war criminals to high office. Even from the point of view of political expediency, I know that many religious people are my allies. Every significant progressive cause or organization I've been involved in has had many supporters who were motivated by their religious beliefs. I don't know how many meetings I've attended at churches and synagogues because those were the places that would give us the space for free or cheap.

And yet, and yet... I can't rid myself of a sense of superiority to those who believe in God. I can't completely eliminate my occasional impatience with people who don't see things the way I do.

Now, suppose that these attitudes of mine, instead of being directed against the establishment worldview, were directed against a minority? Suppose that my beliefs were buttressed by wording on every coin and bill I carried? Suppose that every significant public event began with an implicit reaffirmation of my opinion? Those are the circumstances for people who are religious. I have to assume that, if I lived under comparable circumstances, instead of the reverse, then my prejudices would be even stronger and even harder to overcome. In fact, it would be much less likely that I'd be able to recognize them as prejudices at all. In that light, the prejudice referred to in the OP, while still wrong, is at least more understandable.

So, to all those fundies and garden-variety bigots who hate or distrust me because I'm an agnostic: Te absolvo.

[raccoon]

82. That's OK, Jim. They feel superior to those who don't believe EXACTLY as they do, so

why shouldn't other feel superior to them?

:silly:

"I can't rid myself of a sense of superiority to those who believe in God. "

Good post.

[ourbluenation]

99. I'm an atheist and my mother is a believer who does NOT feel superior.

She lives in love and humility.

[Jim Lane]

105. Thanks for the support, but I prefer not to descend to the fundies' level. :) (n/t)

[JerseygirlCT]

293. Wise and thoughtful post. nt

[spoony]

68. Perhaps those with such a tendency

associate atheism with people who call them stupid, insane, child abusers, immature, responsible for everything wrong with the world, etc. for being religious.

This is likely a direct result of the most visible atheists in the world being Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. Or theists visiting web forums.

[Cabcere]

125. Maybe so...

...I don't think that makes it right, though. I have been called stupid, a sheep, childish, hypocritical, and just about every other name in the book by self-identified atheists because of my Christian upbringing, but at the same time I believe that all humans deserve to be treated decently and not discriminated against. Sure, it doesn't exactly make me happy to be called a freeper just because I believe in a God, but I can certainly understand the anger coming from those people who self-professed Christians have oppressed for centuries. And I think a bias against atheists is, quite honestly, incredibly stupid. How does someone's belief or non-belief affect anyone other than them, if they don't use it to justify horrible things? It seems to me that, sadly, many organized religions end up twisting various aspects of the faith they profess for their own agendas (profit, conquest, etc.), with much more terrible results than minor rudeness and disrespect. :shrug:

I don't know; I might not have expressed myself clearly here, but basically I'm just trying to say that I think hating a certain group of people just because of something that doesn't hurt you is pretty ridiculous. :hi: Peace.

[LanternWaste]

129. I think you got your point across rather well.

I think you got your point across rather well. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase for you... "Intolerance of another person's faith is no better than intolerance of a person's lack of faith."



:hi:

[Cabcere]

144. Thank you

and very well said! :hug: That paraphrase sums it up perfectly, I think. :hi: Peace.

[MedleyMisty]

180. I don't understand "because of my Christian upbringing"

I think that this is one of the big disconnects for me and why I have trouble understanding religion.

What does your upbringing have to do with why you define yourself as a Christian? Yeah, your parents might believe in something and tell you about it, but nothing says that you have to believe what they believe.

[Cabcere]

183. I don't necessarily define myself as a Christian

but there are certain Christian principles that were a big part of my life as a child, and some of them I still believe today (not necessarily because they are Christian principles, but because I think they are good ideas). Because I was raised in a churchgoing family, I tend to associate these "values" with the Christianity that I learned from my parents, although most of the ones that I believe in are things not exclusive to Christianity - like "love your neighbor," try to help people, etc. I don't equate Christianity with "good" and/or any other belief (or lack thereof) with "bad," or vice versa, but it seems that in some cases here on DU Christianity - in any form - automatically is associated with bad things. Which I can certainly understand; some pretty awful things have been done in the name of Jesus Christ. I guess the point I'm trying to make, though, is that when people make generalizations about the intelligence, sanity, etc. of Christians, they are talking about my family and some of the teachings I grew up with, not all of which are necessarily "bad." :shrug:

Again, I'm probably doing a horrible job of explaining this, but I hope that makes at least some sense. :hi: Peace.

[malaise]

70. I don't care who hates atheists

What I believe or don't believe is my business. At least we don't start wars over imaginary friends.

[spoony]

74. No, just over land and power, same as everyone else.

[NMMNG]

71. No

It's all religious bigotry and ignorance.

[Smith_3]

75. And people wonder why Christians taking bashing here on DU.

Last time I checked, there weren't any states in the USA that had laws against Christians running for offices. For a Christian in the USA to claim that he is suffering of discrimination is just ridiculous.

[City of Mills]

86. Because theists believe morals are derived from one's faith in a higher power

Hence, athiests cannot be moral people.

[MedleyMisty]

92. That scares the hell out of me

I guess it goes both ways, because it scares me that they don't have an internal moral compass and have to rely on two thousand years old myths and superstitions.

[defendandprotect]

224. Right, without religion they'd all be made bombers --- ??? Oh, oops ---

some of them are mad bombers even with religion --- !!!

Who ever said religion is good for mental health --- ???

[L. Coyote]

95. A "rational for prejudice" is oxymoranic, but morans don't know that.

If you think you reason, do you? :rofl:

[northzax]

98. what's the worst part about being an atheist?

no one to talk to during orgasms.

besides that, I am willing to make a deal with all those who believe in an afterlife. We split into two groups: y'all and us. we get to run this world (on which you are only present for less than a century) and all y'all get the afterlife for eternity. cool? seriously, why not be my slave for 40-50 years in exchange for an eternity of Paradise? what do you have to lose? I promise I will be your slave in the afterlife.

[defendandprotect]

225. Aaaaah . . . "Pie in the sky when you die---!!" . . .

[YOY]

100. I would say that Theist fear that Atheists do not answer to a higher authority morally.

When in fact they do. They have to answer to themselves. A scary thought: personal accountability of one's actions and no higher authority to forgive you.

[Festivito]

107. I've tried discussing with DU atheists and always found it lacking.

To assert and unprovable as non-existant, seems a position of anger, rather than assertion based upon personal belief.

I've tried to finds something further, but failed thus far. I have dear family and friends who are devoutly atheist -- not agnostics, and I'd have no problem with putting them in political offices.

But, that disconnect does bother me.

I do not want highest level decisions being made from a standpoint of anger at organized religion.

Please understand, other people may not think it out like this, they just "have a feeling" that they don't like something,... and, it would make sense for these people that an atheist would rank below Isamist, even in these days.

[Bill McBlueState]

115. which DU atheists assert that?

By "assert and unprovable as non-existant" I think you mean they assert that no gods exist.

But in my experience, it's rare for anyone on DU to assert that no gods exist. Generally, DU atheists simply don't believe in any gods.

Surely you can understand the difference.

[Festivito]

199. One lacking is that the definition keeps changing.

Agnosticism is not knowing if there is a god.
It is a(not) gnosis(knowing). It is the opposite of knowing; it is knowing that one does not know god.

Atheism is a(not) theism(god-belief).
A belief that there is no theistic god. It is the opposite belief of the theist belief.

Oh, I realize atheists can band together and create wordy and separate definitions for their word, and hold to those definitions with fervor. But, I answered the OP's question: Why do those outside that band hold prejudice against atheists? Outside that band, they don't hold to some outstandingly made definition, they use the one they know. And, I tried to describe, in answer, why they fear, and therefore quell atheists.

[Lance_Boyle]

281. "not belief" != "disbelief"

Your definition of atheism is wrong, and needs changing. Positive atheists hold the belief that there is no god. Negative atheists do not hold the belief that there is a god. World of difference between the two. Agnostic is something else - more akin to "maybe, maybe not, but I can't be arsed worrying myself about it."

[Festivito]

285. Perhaps "everyone" is wrong, yet it's part of the rationale.

The OP was looking for the rationale, and rationale is not necessarily based on truths. The people causing the most harm to our side are people who do not know YOUR definition that YOU SHARE with SOME OTHERS, but NOT WITH THE PEOPLE HURTING YOU.

Think of what the difference between an agnostic's maybe and a negative atheist's not holding a belief. It leaves the theist to develop a rationale that pushes your definition into being uselessly redundant and therefore disposed.

BTW: LOve your bible warning. I hope to use it at my church, if you do not mind.

[Jokerman]

118. No anger here, just rational thought.

If I assert that unicorns don't exist, is that "a position of anger" or does that label only apply when my assertion conflicts with your superstition?

[geomon666]

154. Fuck those unicorns!

Had to be said.

[Festivito]

203. If only they had taken to your imperative demand. /nt

[Festivito]

202. If you stand in front of a little believer in unicorns, it is, is it not?

Now, one can do a good job of proving there are no unicorns to reasonable persons, but not to all.

But, why bother?

If the problem you have is with a particular book on unicorns, why not just say you have a problem with that book on unicorns, or on how it is read, practiced and understood.

It is a position of anger to dispel the joys of Santa, magicians and unicorns in front of little believers.

I also see it as a position of anger to dispel the joys of a god in front of big believers.

[mondo joe]

205. A "little believer"? Are you suggesting that adults and kids who believe in Santa are

to be treated by an identical standard?

[Festivito]

230. Why not? And, why not answer my question. /nt

[mondo joe]

251. Certainly. It is not necessarily a sign of anger to correct an error.

I am little interested in convincing others that their unicorns, gods and santa's are unreal.

But I am yet less interested in censoring myself so they can live without knowing others do not share their beliefs.

[Festivito]

278. Your opinion, does not necessarily affirm they err.

You can go up to a kid and say that there is no Santa, you dummy.

AND

You can go up to a potential voter and say that there is no god, you dummy.

Which uncensored speech will get you the result you like best?

[mondo joe]

284. I don't see the relevance of your question.

"You can go up to a kid and say that there is no Santa, you dummy."

You could, but I don't know why you would if you were an adult. Unless of course it's your child and they're old enouigh that you think they ought to let go of that.

"You can go up to a potential voter and say that there is no god, you dummy."

Sure, you could. I also don't know why you would, and don't see it happening.

What I do see, however, is believers foisting their religion on others, and atheists pushing back.

[Jokerman]

268. "Little Believers and Big Believers"

Are you saying that an adult who believes in god is an innocent that should be protected and carefully handled, much like a small child who believes in unicorns? Wow.

Even as a life-long atheist I have enough respect for believers to treat them as adults. To do otherwise seems to be, oh I don't know, a bit angry.

[Festivito]

280. No. You're stretching analogy all the way into reality.

And the analogy is not designed to streach that way.

See the response happening to be above yours,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2854651&mesg_id=2863666

Yes, sometimes you want to...

[Jokerman]

283. Ah yes, reality. That place you're trying so hard to avoid.

I saw the response you linked to but I thought if I re-stated the question maybe you could come up with a more realistic answer. Apparently not.

Anyone who calls a child "dummy" is an asshole and ANY politico who uses the word "dummy" to address ANYONE deserves to taste defeat.

So now that your straw-man is dead, any reality based reply?

[Festivito]

287. Perhaps your glib response is your reality avoidance.

You seem not to comprehend that mixing analogies, even with that greatest of analogies, reality itself, like mixing metaphors, neither helps discussion and usually hurts it. I'm not hiding from reality. I'm trying to describe it. Perhaps not well, but I'm trying. And, I'm trying to get my point across to people who think radically differently from me, but we do have a common need, to knock these RepubliCONs out.

But, alas, another DU atheist thread and once again I find it lacking. It must be me, I'm sure you'd think.

If I could get you guys to understand a few things we could take the churches into our hold and drop those thieves where they belong, forever, together. But, alas, there is hard heartedness and hard headedness in droves.

[Jokerman]

289. Yes, as a matter of fact I do think it is you who is "lacking".

"I'm not hiding from reality. I'm trying to describe it."

Setting up a straw-man then knocking it down is no way to describe reality.


"If I could get you guys to understand a few things we could take the churches into our hold"

Sure, if those uppity atheists would just shut up and keep their "angy" opinions to themselves, we could beat the republicans by becoming republicans. Great strategy there dude.


"But, alas, there is hard heartedness and hard headedness in droves."

Ah, the old standard, "If you'd only open your heart and your mind then you'd see the believers are right" bullshit. And if that wasn't offensive enough maybe you could try insulting my comprehension skills.

It's not atheism that makes us angry, it's this kind of tired old crap from believers who's faith is so weak that it can be threatened by the mere existence of other opinions.

I seriously doubt that we have anything more to discuss.

Cheers.

[WhollyHeretic]

123. So you're happy with people making the highest level decisions based on millenia old works

of fiction.

If you hear anger from atheists it's probably anger from having religion shoved down our throats constantly and the fact that we're essentially banned from holding office because of people like you.

[Festivito]

206. Again, lacking: reading, comprehension.

Your first sentence: I did not say what you've written about me saying.

Your second sentence: first part: you seem to agree with me, it is an anger.

.second part: Huh? I went to special effort to say that I would support an atheist for political office. If others were like me, atheists would not be banned. How did you not comprehend that?

[WhollyHeretic]

213. You said you'd vote for people you personally knew. You then went to say you don't trust

atheists to make big decisions. Talk about reading comprehension. I did not say atheism was from anger but pointed out the reason atheists may be angry about things (especially with your attitude)

[Festivito]

239. Again, these exemplify why I find DU atheism talk lacking.

1. I did not say I approve of making decisions, any decisions, based upon books of ancient writ.
YOU:

My first sentence is obviously implied in what you wrote.

YOU:

So you're happy with people making the highest level decisions based on millenia old works of fiction.

FROM MY?:

I do not want highest level decisions being made from a standpoint of anger at organized religion.

ME AGAIN: Huh?

2. Are you insisting that I must have meant that I would ONLY vote for atheists I personally know in order for you to prove your statement about me: "...we're essentially banned from holding office because of people like you."

Even after I protest that.

OH, PULEEEEEESE.

The original OP question was why are people upset about atheists and I tried to explain why.

Do note that I hear atheists saying that they do not like government people making law based on "a myth". They mean the Bible.

Can those atheists understand that anti-atheists, i.e. theists-at-minimum, don't want people who believe the Bible a myth making decisions for them, ... either?

Some we can never win, some we can win.

We could harness those people to vote with us, and no longer vote against us and all I hear to help pull them over is: myth, stupid, ...

Who cares. Let's win.

[WhollyHeretic]

215. My first sentence is obviously implied in what you wrote.

[montanto]

136. "devoutly atheist OMG!!!!!11!one!!!!eleven!!

and when I say OMG It's just something even atheists say! That kills me!

I gotta tell all my friends that I'm a devout atheist!

[Festivito]

208. Glad you enjoyed it. Some A's are more devout than some X-tians.

Vastly more devout.

[mondo joe]

266. There's nothing about atheism to be devout about. Perhaps you mean some atheists are as obnoxious

as believers. I can't disagree with that.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. I assume you don't believe in unicorns, leprechauns, or the tooth fairy.

Is that based on a "position of anger"?

[Festivito]

216. No.

First, I cannot say that unicorns do not exist. I'm pretty darn certain, however. I'd bet money they don't, and with me that's a big thing.

On the other hand, they do exist in dreams. Dreams exist. Then, I guess, unicorns do exist.

But, to be against belief in unicorns seems to me to be a position of some anger. Otherwise, why bother?

[Warren DeMontague]

253. Where do you get the delusion that Atheism = being "against" belief in God?

Atheism means not believing in "God". Not any God, or Gods. That's the generally accepted definition. You can not believe in something without being somehow opposed to anyone believing in it.

Oh, I know, it's so much more fun to have the steroeotypical image of the "angry atheist", particularly when buying into the conceit of the poor, put upon, religiously persecuted Christian Majority that we hear about on FOX News during the "War on Christmas" Season. :eyes:

Personally, I'm an Atheist (at least, that's one of many labels I self-apply in certain circumstances), and I could give a fuck what you believe or don't believe. Not because I'm
"angry", but because as long as you keep your belief away from my kid's public school science and biology textbook, and don't try to use your belief as an excuse to outlaw my wife's birth control pills, really, why should I care what you cart around in between your ears?

But your argument, here, is that Atheism- again, which, if it could be summed up in one simple declarative sentence would loosely translate to "I don't believe in God" is "based on a position of anger". You don't believe in Zeus, right? How about Thor? Vishnu? You're an Atheist, at least as far as certain Gods are concerned. Is this because you're angry at Zeus, Thor, or Vishnu believers or angry because some people might believe or might have believed in them at one point?

[Festivito]

277. What differs between atheist and agnostic in terms of belief? NOTHING?

An agnostic does not believe in a god, because an agnostic does not know if god exists.

An atheist does not believe in a god, because an atheist, I would think, denies that god exists.

OTHERWISE, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATHEIST AND AGNOSTIC?

...let's keep it simple for a moment.

[Warren DeMontague]

286. I am reasonably certain that there is not a 500 foot tall invisible, undetectable orangutan sitting

on my house right now.

Can I "prove" it? No. But the standard default position, at least for me, re: claims for which there is no corroborating phsyical evidence, is disbelief.

Not to mention the fact that, as Carl Sagan once said, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Agnosticism, as I take the word to mean, is "not sure". Well, realistically, everyone with a functioning cerebellum who is not a total dogmatist of ANY stripe ought to be, in some sense, "agnostic" on all sorts of matters, and that goes for most religious people, too- Because (I would hope) most people have doubt and at least occasionally question their own assumptions. And certainly those of us committed to a scientific understanding of the world understand that any current model we hold about reality is only as good as the best data available. I think most thinking religious people harbor some doubt, at some time- meaning they don't KNOW 100%- but nevertheless would resist being categorized as "Agnostic".

I don't believe in that for which there is zero available evidence, as a standard position. While, as I said, most of us -religious or not- are probably on many levels "agnostic", labelling oneself philosophically as capital-A "Agnostic" at least gives the impression that one lends equal creedence to all propositions- like God/No God, Zeus/No Zeus, Unicorns/No Unicorns. Like I said, I don't ascibe equal probability to the idea that there is an invisible ape on my roof as I do to the idea that there isn't. The default position, for me, is disbelief, barring new evidence to the contrary.

But none of that means I'm "angry". :hi:

[Festivito]

288. Not calm! Not angry, you say. BUT, not describing the difference.

Just attempting to redefine, then expand on definitions.

And, yes, you cannot prove nor disprove anything. (The only thing I know, is that I know nothing.)

But, you won't describe the difference, because YOU CAN'T. If you did, you'd realize what I was saying.

And, if you did that you might get caught listening to the rest of what I'd be saying and you'd really be angr.. oops, rantful.

I wish you well, my fellow impeach W cohort.

[mondo joe]

263. And if others were trying to force you to live in accordance with Unicornism maybe

that would make more sense to you.

[NMMNG]

169. ???

To assert and unprovable as non-existant, seems a position of anger, rather than assertion based upon personal belief.

I assert nothing and have no personal belief. I simply don't believe that gods exist because I've not found sufficient evidence for them. How is that a "position of anger"?

I do not want highest level decisions being made from a standpoint of anger at organized religion.

Of course that's a mis-perception, but that aside; You have a problem having high level decisions being made from a standpoint of "anger at organized religion" but no problem with them being made from a standpoint of anger at someone who offended the politician's deity? For example, you wouldn't mind a politician passing a law prohibiting something that he believed God found sinful?

[Festivito]

228. Thanks for the response Buffy.

I assert nothing and have no personal belief. I simply don't believe that gods exist because I've not found sufficient evidence for them. How is that a "position of anger"?

Let me rewrite that:
I assert nothing and have no personal belief. ASSERTION: I simply don't believe(I.E. PERSONAL BELIEF) that gods exist because I've not found sufficient evidence for them. How is that a "position of anger"?

What is the difference between not knowing, not having sufficient evidence; and the opposite of knowing, i.e. agnosticism?

And you do assert. And you do have personal beliefs. And, I'd check to see if you are really angry with me or some prior posting.

NEXT:

Yes, I think the position is an anger. You don't. I do. Okay.

NEXT:

No. I do not support theists acting out of anger. Nor are they necessarily acting out of anger because they exist. Understand that theists do not exist solely because there exist atheists, but atheists DO ONLY exist because there are theists.

EXAMPLE:

Passing a law based on one religion's view is against our Constitution and against what America is about -- to me at least.

DONE.

Let's all realize as well that we are all angry at our government... at least.

I'd really prefer the fundies would be on OUR SIDE where they belong, their prior party slain with truth. Not the fundies slain. As Republicans took the racist south, we could take the religiously devout AND WIN. That's what I want.

I want the petty grenade throwing to end. It just scares them away from us.

[NMMNG]

231. I don't know how I could have anger with you or some prior posting

Considering I had no idea who you were prior to my previous reply to you. However it seems you harbor a great deal of anger/resentment towards atheists. Accordingly I'll leave you with it as I don't see it being reconciled any time soon.

Peace.

[Festivito]

240. Hey, we could all use some peace now.

BTW the prior posting did NOT necessarily have to be with me. In fact, I thought there was a preconception that did NOT come from my post, now nor prior. So, you didn't have to say you did not know me.

Perhaps I do have anger at DU atheists from the time I spent in circles with them. But, it would be from the circles, not the atheism.

And the OP question was why are people upset with atheists, and I think I've been answering that all the way through.

Peace back at you, and all around us.

[defendandprotect]

227. First of all, you're acting as though organized patriarchal religions have done no wrong . . . !!!!

And rather than your garbled version of it, I think the saying you are look for is this one:---

"All intelligent people recognize that there is no way to prove the existence of a god, nor
any way to disprove it."

In organized patriarchal religions, many of us recognize a disconnect -- a huge SPIRITUAL
disconnect . . .

with women, homosexuals, people of other creeds, as well as pagans, agnostics, atheists,
people of color, native indigenous peoples --

not to mention nature, the planet, animal-life ---

You should also keep in mind that there is a world of SPIRITUALITY, distinctLY different from
the worlds of organized patriarchal religions and its violence and violent teachings.

[Festivito]

241. And, what would that have to do with answering the OP's question?

And, no, I'm not assuming religions, patriarchal or not, of having "done no wrong".

I could contend that a religion is not wrong, but its organization is wrong, its practice is wrong, its spirituality is wrong shown by its disconnect. But, it would all be conjecture.

We need to win elections.

The OP wanted to know why atheists are maltreated. I wanted to explain why I think it is so.

Oh, yes. There is a world of spirituality. And, I wish you connected to its soaring heights, and good night.

[defendandprotect]

244. THIS was in response to your comments in msg #107 . . .

I've replied to the overall question of the thread in other posts ---
not directed to you.

So you are adding that organized patriarchal religion is "not wrong" --- except in "organization, practice and its spirituality and disconnection" --- !!!

Really . . . ???

LOL

[truedelphi]

119. Yes there is a rationale!

God hates you! Simply hates you!

Whereas for the rest of us woe forlorn sinning pukes of wretches, he absolutely has nothing but love for us!

;)

[krispos42]

121. Yes, and a very good one

The religious folk look forward to the day they get to sit on a cloud with a harp or 72 dark-haired virgins (or white grapes) and watch all the non-believers drink boiling piss while being whipped by demons with flaming cat-o-nine-tails.

Atheism threatens them this smug, holier-than-thou vision, and it pisses them off.

[LanternWaste]

132. I'm certainly not looking forward to what you described

I'm certainly not looking forward to what you described. At best, I'm ambivalent about it. More often than not, when I do actually think about it, I'm filled with a sense of both dread and of numinous.

"theism threatens them this smug, holier-than-thou vision, and it pisses them off."

No-- what I'm really threatened by and pissed off at are my own failings-- much like everyone else, regardless of faith (or lack of faith).

[progressoid]

127. Ya, but how do we compare against Lesbian Muslim Immigrants?

:shrug:

[montanto]

128. Because theists have a flock to fleece! eom

[Javaman]

130. Once a person realizes that

man created god, the rest is easy.

[crim son]

138. Given the nature of "faith" this doesn't surprise me.

In fact, I can no longer be surprised by any stupid thing the american people are likely to believe. I've lost the capacity.

[GOPBasher]

142. There is a rational explanation: Most people are not rational.

There are a lot of stupid people in the country, and that's why there is so much predjudice against Atheists. They are too stupid to realize that one can be moral without being religious. That's a perfectly rational explanation for the predjudices. Oh, you meant, "Is there a rational reason to be predjudiced against Atheists?" No, there isn't. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

143. There's a lot riding on the one-male-god belief scam . . .

elitism, patriarchy . . .

"Manifest Destiny/Man's Dominion Over Nature" which are the licenses to exploit nature, natural
resources, animal-life --- and even other human beings according to various myths of inferiority.

Nonetheless, organized patriarchal relgiion is falling ---
it can only be kept in place by violence.

[The Wizard]

145. Zeus be with you

As soon as someone qualifies whatever they're going to say with the words "I believe," the issue gets to be an opinion rather than a conclusion based on logic, reason and empirical data.
Zeus is a Democrat.
Look at where our current faith based government has gotten us: in a deep moral and fiscal hole.
It says In God We Trust on all the money because that's the only real religion. I have yet to see those words on any house of worship.

[libbygurl]

179. Heh, I did read that 'In gold we trust' was mistakenly (?) printed on some coins many years ago...

...and these today have become invaluable collectibles. Wonder if a prankster got into the US Mint and did that?

Closer to the truth than most realise!

[onehandle]

147. One thing is for sure.

DU is intolerant of religion.

Good ol' "Liberal" DU.

[CaptJasHook]

151. YES, Atheists are hard to control with our mind control lasers.

They must be silenced. -the Management

[WoodyD]

155. Atheists are a threat

to an authoritarian society. Religion trains you to defer to authority, shut the hell up and do what you're told. It's also used to put people in their place. Stay poor -- Jebus loves you poor folk. In fact, feel sorry for those poor rich bastards because Jebus loves you more.

This is anecdotal evidence, but FWIW I have noticed among my family and friends that those who are more intensely religious are also more respectful of authority. Any authority, even some small-town bureacrat who's obviously incompetent, corrupt or both. "But he's a city councilman!" they'll say, when I say "Bob's a blithering idiot." Or "You have to respect the president!" even if he's . . . well, even if he's Dubya.

[salib]

157. Well I have certainly faced prejudice for being atheist

Just a couple of months ago at the Dem Party County Executive Committee (CEC) Meeting (I am a Precinct Chair). They always have to trot out the "moment of silence for the ..." (insert your favorite feel-good excuse for prayer), and I just ignore it.

However, this time the chair asked me to say something (basically a prayer, let's face it) because she was not being inspired, I guess. Well, I had to say "I cannot."

Uh oh! I hear grumbling and one person shouts out "Well, you're a Christian, aren't ya!?" Everyone was looking my way.

I said "No. I am not."

It was, of course, dropped. But suddenly everyone was suspect of what I was doing, including handouts for a drive to increase Precinct Chair participation in the CEC. Almost no one participated, and of course there are all those "looks" that may mean nothing, or something, or whatever.

So, from this experience and many, many others, the prejudice is real. It is right here with us.

It is also pathetic.

Carl Sagan referred to the "demon haunted world."

There are a large number of fearful people around us.

[Zoigal]

181. My husband gave me a lovely necklace with the American Atheist Society logo on it today.

it today (my BD.). Can't wait to have someone admire it and ask the meaning. z

[salib]

184. That is pretty cool.

I am closer to the Bright's as an organization, though.

[tavalon]

158. Yeah, You're godless!

BTW, that was my poor attempt at humor. I think the actual reason is that those who do believe in a sky daddy are threatened by the idea that atheists may just be right and that all that happens after we die is we rot, a thing that is terrifying to many. So I think the hatred is borne out of fear. Small minds come up with big hate.

[sofa king]

159. Sure there is a rationale. But it's irrational.

Once upon a time, the sister of a friend of mine related to us a story about how some very sly fellow at a Mormon college managed to convince a large proportion of the student body that there was a loophole in the no sex before marriage rule: anal sex wasn't mentioned at all, anywhere (oral sex had already been nixed by a First Presidential revelation in 1982). So anal must be okay, riiight? Within a few weeks, exploring the ins and outs of this theological blind alley with this one student became very, very popular among the female students, with hilarious, if predictable, results.

My first question was, "how in the hell could all those women be so damned gullible?"

My friend's sister had a quick and reasonable answer: religion doesn't teach critical thinking skills, it teaches people to avoid such things, tangling logic inextricably with crises of faith and piety with blind obedience. But people, especially young adults, are most responsive to the messages they want to hear.

So one evil genius whipped out the one logical tool allowed in the box, the hammer, and used it against his fellow students to nail 'em.

I have no reason to doubt that there's a kernel of truth in that story (probably right next to the gum and the peanuts). But it serves as a metaphor for the larger picture: people seem to be willing to endure a lot of discomfort for the larger palliative of easy answers. If you tell them straight up that they're getting fucked in the ass, they're only going to get angry at you about it, because you're taking away the salve that masks the pain.

[balantz]

162. Some of this may have been said upthread, I haven't read all posts.

Atheism threatens the structure of belief by which the elite control the masses. A Gates or Buffet atheist is no threat because they are elite. When you are elite you can pretty much say or do what you want, as long as you are part of the ruling order and don't rock the boat. Gates and Buffet don't try to promote atheism as far as I have seen and don't rock the boat.

Deeper than that, even the non-elite are threatened, those who share the same heiarchy of beliefs that uphold their view of how they fit into the accepted order of the human world. It is the human mind part of pack mentality. The masses can be drummed up to protect the shared belief structure as a way of ensuring their viability in society, and as a way of surviving.

Some "religions", for example Zen Buddhism and nonduality teachings, could possibly be seen as threatening because they follow no image of a diety and usually promote acceptance of all people and all different ways of life.

Ultimately a belief is just a belief, a thing of thought and feeling, but it often carries a lot of weight.

[kimmylavin]

167. K&R

So I can read all the responses when I get home from work! :)

BTW, I'm a proud atheist.

[confrontationclaws]

168. As an absolute atheist...

I just need to say that I hate being defined as a "non-believer" or as someone who "does not believe in god." These frameworks presume that god exists, and for some reason I do not "believe in s/he/it."

That's not what it's about. An earlier poster remarked that you rarely hear someone say "there is no god" (as opposed to "I don't believe in god").

Well, here it is: There is no god. Never has been. Never will be. It insults my belief system to be pigeon-holed as a "non-believer" when there is nothing provable in which to believe.

I only hope I can be successful in instilling these thoughts in my children. Trying to keep them from being influenced daily by faith-mongers is harder than keeping them from the Disney channel.


Rant over.

[harun]

175. The United States is great because the majority knows it is better

to elect people who believe they are going to be held accountable to a higher power some day.

[RainDog]

178. this is bullshit

why do you think it is better to be held accountable in some future other world, rather than the one right here? That's the basic idea the founders came up with and wrote into the constitution, along with ways to contractually deal with issues that come up.

an atheist has to account for her/his actions in the here and now, with visible conseqences.

Your statement that Christians are better because they are scared of their version of Zeus or Mithras, etc. is sad, honestly. The only way to be great is to instill the fear of god into everyone? hmmm, don't remember Roosevelt doing that, and he led us through one of the most difficult and dangerous times in our nation.

on the other hand, if someone believes in an apocalypse, they may fall victim to their self-fulfilling prophecies and fuck us all.

[Der Blaue Engel]

188. That's funny

The majority seem to be voting in people who, by their own belief system, will be burning in a sulfrous hell for all eternity. At best, that makes them in league with Satan. Enjoy the handbasket.

[JBoy]

210. So, how's that been workin' out for you?

[Kitty Herder]

221. You mean like Bush? nt

[defendandprotect]

229. You mean like George W. Bush--- ???? Is he still talking to "god" . . . ???

[krabigirl]

249. Better how? By starting illegal wars? Oh well, at least they are accountable.

:sarcasm:

[lapislzi]

296. I don't give a crap about an imaginary "next world."

I expect my elected officials to be accountable to ME.

[Arugula Latte]

176. It's interesting that on the Internet you see how widespread atheism is

People aren't afraid to post their true beliefs due to the anonymity factor, and it's evident there are many, many of us who do not believe -- probably more than most religious people ever imagined.

[fascisthunter]

185. Athiests are UNCONTROLLABLE.... their Minds are Freer

than religious minds which are somewhat controlled.

[JBoy]

212. Nothing like a controlled mind

[defendandprotect]

232. "Obedience" was cited as a central problem ....

by the poet/author whose name I can't recall at the moment . . .
but she was a lesbian and said to have had a head like Ceasar's ---

At any rate, she lived in France during the time of the WWII ---
and crossed over into Germany immediately after its end in order to try to
answer the question of why there was no resistance from Germany citizens.
She concluded it was because they "obeyed" so readily.

Germany was 90% Christian --- 70% Catholic, I believe --- at that time.

And, of course, the Pope's signing of a treaty with Hitler showed the way ---
and the various local churches called for cooperation.

[defendandprotect]

248. PS: The female poet/author I mentioned is GERTRUDE STEIN --

[Christa]

189. K & R

This should be a sticky

C

[yellerpup]

190. It's only been "one nation under god" since McCarthy. eom

[defendandprotect]

233. Keep in mind . . . that's an OPTIONAL phrase . . . but children are rarely taught that any more !!!

I was at a library at the shore one day and a group of children were meeting --- I think they
were Girl Scouts --- and the female instructor was reciting the pledge for them . . .
including that phrase --- WITHOUT telling them that it was optional -- and STRESSING it.

It wasn't my home town so I was reluctant to intrude ---
otherwise, I would have stopped by and pointed that out.
In fact, it is one of our more religously fanatical Catholic towns at the shore where they
are trying to keep a nativity on display on public grounds while the church itself is just
a few hundred feet away!

[yellerpup]

258. In our small town we have a big 4th of July all-day-long party in the park

that begins with the singing of the "National Anthem" and the Pledge. I sing the "National Anthem" (because we are supposed to--it's just devilishly hard to sing) and while the VFW raises the flag I make a BIG DEAL out of leaving out the 'under god' part. The pledge works better without it. I remember re-learning the pledge in school to insert 'under god' (early 50's, I forget what year) and it was very clumsy phrase to insert. Much better: "One nation with liberty and justice for all."

[DUlover2909]

195. People of faith feel threatened by atheists

because we're usually smarter than they are.

[southlandshari]

245. Not this person of faith

I've served as a Christian missionary on four continents and remain deeply committed to my faith - it impacts all areas of my life.

What it does not do is lead me to sit in fear OR judgment of others for their beliefs.

Paint with a smaller brush next time.

FWIW.

[MedleyMisty]

252. Hmm - maybe you can help me understand too

I'm trying to understand the religious mindset - it's so foreign from mine. I was never indoctrinated with anything as a kid and have never felt a need to believe in anything that wasn't real. I don't even understand when other atheists say that it's hard or painful or whatever to not believe - reality is beautiful and good and true and fun and full of compassion and empathy and love, despite the attempts of the human species to ruin it.

Okay, so - if you really believe that Christianity is true, doesn't that invalidate the other religions and mean that the people who believe in them or don't believe at all are wrong, which will most likely lead to dire consequences after they die? And if not and you think they can be true too, why call yourself Christian?

I tend to think that people choose religions because they read the book it's based on and agree with it and believe everything it says - which I think is why I tend to assume that most Christians are Bible literalists. The Bible is the basis of the religion after all, right?

But I'm beginning to learn that a lot of people don't choose their religion that way - thus my question to Cabcere about what your upbringing has to do with it. I agreed with my mother when she said that when people talk about other people they're really talking about themselves, because I could see that was true. When I learned about dinosaurs when I was six and asked her how God could have created the world in seven days with humans on the seventh day if dinosaurs existed for millions of years before humans, she said, "Umm, days were longer back then." I didn't believe that because it was obviously not true. I don't quite get the concept of believing something just because your parents did. But then she didn't really believe that - it was obvious that she didn't know what to say really.

Okay, like in AP Biology when we studied evolution everyone had this big conversation about how they think that evolution is true but that there is also a God. That directly contradicts the Bible, does it not? So if you think that, then obviously you think that the Bible isn't God's direct literal word and is just a collection of human writings. So if it doesn't fit anymore, why not just write a new book and leave out all the bad stuff like stoning people to death and homosexuality and birth control being wrong and all that and put in all the scientific discoveries and moral progress we've made in the last two millenia? Basing "morality" and public policy on the writings of people who lived two thousand years ago when the world was unimaginably different is a crime against humanity.

Anyway - you seemed nice and flexible enough that maybe you wouldn't get personally offended by questions, so yeah...

[southlandshari]

262. I am certainly willing to try!

You speak of trying to understand the religious mindset. One thing that may contribute to your frustration with that task is that there really isn't one monolithic and unified mindset among religious people in general, or even Christianity specifically. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious here, but it is a point worth keeping in mind when trying to understand non-atheists. My answers to your questions will not provide any real illumination on the way all Christians think. In fact, they will contradict the views of some. But I hope you find them helpful in some way, because I believe you are sincerely trying to understand rather than to challenge or discredit others.

I believe that the Bible is a collection of chapters written by humans describing the events of their times and their interpretations of those events. A book compiled through debate and deliberation of many more humans, religious scholars of different communities over a long period of time. This overview of biblical canonization gives more detail. It has been translated into hundreds of languages and is available in dozens of versions. I do not believe the Bible is the absolute literal word of God. How could it be?

I do believe that the authors were divinely inspired, but at the end of the day, they were also human, as were those who followed them and made decisions about which of their writings would be chosen as the voice of religious authority. If it is the literal word of God, God had a habit of contradicting himself from time to time.

:)

You'll find some very good information on the differing views of groups of Christians on the inerrancy of the Bible here.

You make a very important point in your post above the role of upbringing and experience as factors in one's religious choices later. My faith is far more rooted in my life experiences than it is tied to absolute belief in religious scripture. I was raised in a very open and loving church congregation by parents who involved my sister and me in volunteerism early on based on their understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible. I suppose that can fairly be called indoctrination. But I will say this: the Christianity I was taught was not afraid of questions or doubts. I was very involved church activities with strong leaders who encouraged open discussion and viewed being a Christian as a lifelong journey. I went on to serve as a missionary for several years in Africa, the Middle East and back here in the States as part of a multicultural program embracing peace and justice and the Christian call to work for both around the world.

Obviously I'm no biblical literalist. I would agree with you that there is indeeed "some bad stuff" in the Bible. That said, I suggest to you that to throw it out and replace it with a new book that just "leaves out all the bad stuff" would be just as subjective a process as the original canonization. Who would decide what got left in and what got left out?

The Bible is as complicated as we are as humans. That is one of its beauties, to me. It challenges those of us who believe in God and in the example of Jesus Christ to continually read it, digest it, reflect on it and eventually find our own inspiration - and outrage - in its words. Some of us will draw different conclusions than others. There is no way around it, I'm afraid.

The short answer is, there is no universal answer to your questions. But I've given you mine, and I hope it was helpful in some small way.

:hi:

[DUlover2909]

267. I meant people of faith that discriminate against atheists.

[southlandshari]

271. Why didn't you say that?

I'm not trying to be ugly to you. I'm just pointing out that I reacted to the words in your post.

Language is powerful. I think if we want to be understood by others, we all (me included) should be aware of the words we choose. If we mean a certain subset of a larger group, if only takes a few keystrokes to make that distinction but it will go a long way towards better understanding and more interesting discussion.

Sorry for the mini-soap box. I'm not only a Christian, I'm also a journalist.

:hide:

[DUlover2909]

295. I failed to make the distinction

because I sorta thought that the title of the thread "Is there a rationale for this prejudice against atheists?" was the question and I was trying to propose an answer that I think is true. I figured it was implied that it was the people of faith in general that had the prejudice. You're right though. I should have been more specific.

[Fearless]

197. What about gay atheists? I shudder to think...

[NMMNG]

237. We're at the complete bottom of the barrel

:scared:

[southlandshari]

243. only if you are gay atheist illegal immigrants with MRSA

Plain old gay atheists don't rank lower than the fourth circle of hell in political circles these days.

Maybe the third.



;)

[NMMNG]

250. Oy, that's not even funny

Peter LaBabera would advocate shooting you on sight if you fit into that category. :scared:

I'll take standard gaytheist for now.

[southlandshari]

272. Yes it was

Admit it.

You laughed.

:D

[Fearless]

294. I'd have to agree...

No sense in giving up citizenship and sneaking back into the country just to reach the fifth ring.

[JanMichael]

246. As a non-theist/marxist I suppose I scare some people.

Then again just about everybody I know, and work with, both of these two things about me and trust my judgment and ideas on most everything. Basically they all like me and trust me.

Hmmmm...I must be a theist snake charmer...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

256. One could make the argument that atheists are more moral than believers.

Why?

Christians do good because they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

Atheists do good, just because it's the right thing to do.

No god needed, no afterlife needed.

So the argument could be made that doing the right thing without fear of punishment or promise of reward is more moral than doing the right thing because of behavioral considerations.

[ieoeja]

273. Ironically, the New Testament says the same thing.

It quotes Jesus as saying that doing a good deed for a reward counts for nothing.

[meow2u3]

257. It's fear of MILITANT atheism

..brought about by the Cold War. Americans have been conditioned from birth to fear the spread of militant atheism, and if such people were to assume power, a la Soviet Russia et al., all religions would be outlawed and they'd be punished in one way or another just for practicing their religion.

[MedleyMisty]

259. But that makes absolutely no sense

Is it projection because they want to outlaw non-belief and make the US a theocracy, so they assume that we want to do the same thing from our end?

[southlandshari]

264. Yes, but it is very real

I don't know that the propaganda about militant atheism was as much about wanting a theocracy in the U.S. as much simply using any tools available to instill fear in people so that those in power could retain power.

One thing I've observed over many years of living all around the world....the vast majority of "religious conflicts" are not about religion at all. They are about power -- political power, socioeconomic power and material resources (land, oil, diamonds...you name it).

People seeking power over others will often frame their conflict in religious terms in order to rally others to their cause.

It is manipulative as hell...but very, very effective.

:(

[Akoto]

265. I can only say that, as a Buddhist ...

I have no problem with atheists. More power to you, in fact. Find your personal truth and make the most of it. :)

[Lars39]

269. Did you get the responses you wanted? You abandoned the thread.

[BoneDaddy]

270. Yes there is a rationale

The very thinking of atheism is anathema to the very existence of believers and thus shakes them to their core. That is very threatening even for believers to comprehend.

[southlandshari]

274. I disagree

The very thinking of atheism is an anathema to some believers.

Many of us aren't shaken or threatened by atheism at all.

:)

[BoneDaddy]

275. Thanks for the clarification

but I was referring to the irrational religious. I understand there are plenty of religious with rational minds. My bad.

[southlandshari]

276. Thank YOU for the clarification

:hi:

[harun]

279. All the believers I know were atheists at least some point in their lives

Why would they be frightened by something they used to be? They aren't. Their fear is of God.

[BoneDaddy]

282. I don't think it is so simple

as that. Sure there have been atheists, who, usually through some sort of testing experience turn to God, but I bet that the vast majority of atheists were raised in, and subscribed to some religious belief in the earlier stages of their life.

I disagree with your statement though that MOST believers were atheists at some point in their lives. I think most people may have a period of doubt but my experience is that most religious have been raised in religious households and continued to believe what they were raised with, NEVER really challenging that belief system.

I am a believer by the way, just not in the traditional sense.

[Blarch]

291. There is no cure for what this country has.

Fuck this shit hole, I am going to start treating people differently, thats the final straw.

[JerseygirlCT]

292. People fear what they don't understand

If they've never actually gotten to know someone who is an atheist, they can easily assume that all atheists are terribly different from them, and scary.

Similar to the pervasiveness of homophobia. It starts to fall apart when more people get to know gay folks, and discover, shockingly, that they're just as nice, or not, as everyone else they know. They have mortgages and health problems, and all the other detritus of life we all deal with.

Fear breeds hate.