America's Most Distrusted Minority

[nbcrusader]

I've never met an atheist who actively proselytizes or tries to push his/her views on others

I think it is usually done by lawsuit.

 

[indra]

Hell, haven't we been through the discussion of incidents where even secular celebrations of religious holidays have to be stopped because of the almighty fear of possibly offending someone?

We had hearty threads on the subject not three months ago.

That doesn't stop the celebration. Not at all. I find it sad that you think because a nativity can't be put up on the lawn of a public building that is "stopping" Christmas. Especially considering that Christmas is a FEDERAL holiday in the US. I'd say that pretty much negates any whining about any attacks on that holiday.

The threads were discussing the perception of attack, not any actual attack. And I would think that most Christians would welcome Christmas (and Easter) being returned to more religious holidays instead of being used as marketing ploys as they are now.

 

[I'm Ready]

although I do not consider myself an atheist, I do not practice religion in any form

I don't think negatively of religion or any activity related

I had no idea that there was any discriminatory beliefs against atheism is america

truly shows how far we have come in accepting others

 

[maycocksean]

Just putting my 2 cents in as a Christian.

My brother is an aetheist. I think he has every right to any rights afforded all Americans.

I do not support George W. Bush, nor do I believe that the United States is a "Christian" nation or that Christians do or should "own" this country.

I also suspect that there are a lot of "closet aetheists" out there, people who say they believe in God but really, at the end of the day, don't.

Finally, I don't see aetheists as "evil" people. In my brother's case, he just doesn't see the evidence for the existence of God. As someone who DOES believe in God, I don't think God hold's that against him. If he's honestly not convinced, how could a loving God possibly hold that against him? My feeling is that when the time is right God will reveal Himself to him and after that it's up to my brother what he does from there.

But that's just me.

 

[a-mole]

i am not sure what atheists do in america.. but i know many people who are (incl. me) and we get famously along with the the one's that believe in something.

The only thing where we never come into terms is: "one has to belive SOMETHING!"
but then again: religion & beliefs you only talk about with whomever you feel comfortable with.. and if oyu are in the mood. We usually have moe interesting (to us) topics than telling each other how we think the world works

i am quite surprised about that article.. what's the big deal?

edit://
there was some mentioning about Moral values in this thread.
Does this mean people really think that atheists are these cruel, shameless barbarians.. running around being mean?
I mean, values and morals are not entirely imposed on someone by religion. It is done by society (family, friends whatever). These of course are invluenced by whatever religion is/ has been the strongest in the surroundings. However, many of these ideas are not inventions of religions and based on faith, but can easily understood with logic as well (because they are basic ideas that help a society to prosper). Where would one/ society get if people ran around murdering, raping ans killing each other (metaphorically & for real)? One does not have to believe in god or whatever to feel and behave in a humane way.
Ok, for justification why one should behave like this and that (when someone tries to influence my behavior) other arguments than "coz the bible/ jesus/ mohamad/ that one scroll/ that frog over there..." say so"

So - err - question. Do atheists in america unjustifyable react any moe (in)tolerant than "believers" in the USA?

(am i making sense?)

 

[Irvine511]

seems as if being an atheist can get your parenting privileges revoked should you undergo a divorce -- serves them right, i suppose, for protesting the increasing encroachment of religion into the governmental sphere:

[q]"That time and place, it turns out, is 2005 Michigan, where a modern Shelley might be denied custody based partly on his 'not regularly attend[ing] church and present[ing] no evidence demonstrating any willingness or capacity to attend to religion with [his children],' or having a 'lack of religious observation.' It's 1992 South Dakota, where Shelley might have been given custody but only on condition that he 'will agree to present a plan to the Court of how [he] is going to commence providing some sort of spiritual opportunity for the [children] to learn about God while in [his] custody.' It's 2005 Arkansas, 2002 Georgia, 2005 Louisiana, 2004 Minnesota, 2005 Mississippi, 1992 New York, 2005 North Carolina, 1996 Pennsylvania, 2004 South Carolina, 1997 Tennessee, 2000 Texas, and, going back to the 1970s and 1980s, Alabama, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska. In 2000, the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered a mother to take her child to church each week, reasoning that 'it is certainly to the best interests of [the child] to receive regular and systematic spiritual training'; in 1996, the Arkansas Supreme Court did the same, partly on the grounds that weekly church attendance, rather than just the once-every-two-weeks attendance that the child would have had if he went only with the other parent, provides superior 'moral instruction.'"

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf

[/q]



can you just imagine the frenzy that we'd hear from O'Reilly (i can hear the outrage already! weeks of programming!) right on up to the nation's most fanatical Christianists if a Christian parent were denied custody rights on the basis of his/her religion? and rightly so.

too bad that we, again, do not extend the same support to atheists that the religious demand for themselves. to say that you are fighting for religious freedom (!) and then to turn around and ignore such gross violations of the rights of atheists --apparently, some of us are more worthy than others.

i had no idea that American citizenship was predicated upon a stated belief in God.

more to come. been a busy day.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]You really have to deal with the antagonistic viewpoint instead of the usual "it applies in my case, but not yours".
[/q]



there's much more to say, but for now, i'm going to only address this point -- it is 100% intellectually bogus to draw parallels between atheists and "ex-gays."

you simply cannot compare religion vs. non-religion with gays vs. ex-gays. one is dealing with belief systems, the other is dealing with sexual orientation. one deals with metaphysics, the other with biology. for you not to give a moment's thought to the wide gulf between the two, for you to ignore such glaring distinctions as fundamental as this, pretty much speaks to the lack of thought you've given both to atheism, as well as to the motivations of the "ex-gay" myth and its political machinations.

atheism is a legitimate alternative to religion; becoming an "ex-gay" is not a legitimate alternative to one's unchosen, innate sexual orientation, and the promotion of "ex-gays," especially in the context of a high school Diversity Day, is evidence that one group is there specifically to angatonize the other and to delegitimize (in the facile mind of the Christianist) the unanimously accepted understanding of the medical community. for political and social discrimination against gay people only has any viability if one can make the case that sexual orientation is either "selected" or that it can be "cured."

the case cannot be made. hence, the rise in publicity of the "ex-gay" myth is the desperate sounds of a group of people who have lost the argument, and will soon lose their discriminatory clout as their homophobic bigotry goes the way of racism, sexism, and anti-semitism and into the sewer of American history.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm sure the ex-gay folks will be happy to know they are myths.

 

[melon]

I'm sure the ex-gay folks will be happy to know they are myths.

Good. Someone needs to tell them that.

Melon

 

[nathan1977]

Does a representative government equal discrimination?

 

[Irvine511]

I'm sure the ex-gay folks will be happy to know they are myths.

considering most if not all of the prominent spokespeople for the "ex-gay" movement have "relapsed," and the "success" rate is astonishingly low, and those who are "successful" tend to live lives of celibacy, then i think it's fairly safe to let them know that being an ex-gay is a myth.

and i think they'd agree. they might have learned to control their natural sexual impulses, but they have not purged themselves of sexual desire.

i feel tremendous empathy for them as most have suffered enormous emotional abuse at the hands of the church. the vast majority come from conservative Christian homes and they're simply kids trying to make their (bigoted) parents happy the only way they know how.

instead of wasting money on "ex-gay" camps, don't you think the time, money, and energy would be better spent helping children and parents come to love and accept and cherish each other, regardless of sexual orientation?



but, anyway, this thread is about atheism.

what do you think about atheism as a means to determine who is a better parent?

 

[Irvine511]

Does a representative government equal discrimination?

no, but a representative government that does not protect the rights of minority groups does equal discrimination.

 

[nathan1977]

Your posted article says nothing about discrimination, simply opinions from those polled. I'm surprised you seem to advocate regulating the way people think.

 

[financeguy]

Ahem is there any chance we keep debates over gay rights out of this?

Look, an atheist is simply one who at an intellectual level finds the evidence for the existence of a god or gods unconvincing and accordingly chooses the default intellectual position of non-belief in God or gods,I suspect this is what DrTeeth was hinting at with his question.

Put 100 atheists in a room and they'll likely agree on pretty much nothing - apart from their general non-belief in a God or gods.

 

[verte76]

I don't like this "ex-gay" stuff, either. It's making assumptions about gays that I don't think are right. Being gay is not a choice. No one chooses their sexual orientation. I'm not an expert on gays, but I'm skeptical of claims being made for the existence of ex-gays. It sounds like an excuse for homophobia to me.

 

[VertigoGal]

I'm not going to believe there's a furry blue moose eating macaroni on top of my house til someone gives me evidence. Atheism isn't a positive belief, it's a lack of one. I don't see why people can't grasp that concept.

I love when religious folk overcome their differences and profess to be oh-so tolerant because "we all believe in the same god."

The whole idea of atheists trying to destroy religious celebrations is a myth. Of course there're a few in every group who think everyone should think as they do. But it's largely Christians in the US anyway who manage to work their beliefs into actual legislation that actually affects people.

 

[verte76]

I'm not going to believe there's a furry blue moose eating macaroni on top of my house til someone gives me evidence. Atheism isn't a positive belief, it's a lack of one. I don't see why people can't grasp that concept.

I love when religious folk overcome their differences and profess to be oh-so tolerant because "we all believe in the same god."

The whole idea of atheists trying to destroy religious celebrations is a myth. Of course there're a few in every group who think everyone should think as they do. But it's largely Christians in the US anyway who manage to work their beliefs into actual legislation that actually affects people.

We're going to elect a guy governor in my state this year who's built his entire political career on the premise that Christians are being persecuted. You know Roy Moore, the Ten Commandments judge? If he gets elected I'm going to be one unhappy citizen.

 

[VertigoGal]

You live in Alabama, right? I'm right next to you in Georgia. Anal sex is illegal here (last I heard).

 

[verte76]

Yes, I live in Alabama.

 

[Irvine511]

Your posted article says nothing about discrimination, simply opinions from those polled. I'm surprised you seem to advocate regulating the way people think.

[q]"That time and place, it turns out, is 2005 Michigan, where a modern Shelley might be denied custody based partly on his 'not regularly attend[ing] church and present[ing] no evidence demonstrating any willingness or capacity to attend to religion with [his children],' or having a 'lack of religious observation.' It's 1992 South Dakota, where Shelley might have been given custody but only on condition that he 'will agree to present a plan to the Court of how [he] is going to commence providing some sort of spiritual opportunity for the [children] to learn about God while in [his] custody.' It's 2005 Arkansas, 2002 Georgia, 2005 Louisiana, 2004 Minnesota, 2005 Mississippi, 1992 New York, 2005 North Carolina, 1996 Pennsylvania, 2004 South Carolina, 1997 Tennessee, 2000 Texas, and, going back to the 1970s and 1980s, Alabama, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska. In 2000, the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered a mother to take her child to church each week, reasoning that 'it is certainly to the best interests of [the child] to receive regular and systematic spiritual training'; in 1996, the Arkansas Supreme Court did the same, partly on the grounds that weekly church attendance, rather than just the once-every-two-weeks attendance that the child would have had if he went only with the other parent, provides superior 'moral instruction.'"

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf
[/q]



and i don't know where i've advocated any sort of regulation for how people think. i'm merely pointing out that notions of religious "tolerance" and "diversity" and "freedom of expression" only travel so far, and that atheists are unfairly discriminated against in our society.

 

[Irvine511]

Ahem is there any chance we keep debates over gay rights out of this?

um, you know, i try, and i didn't mention a word about gay rights until someone else brought it up, but whenever i post on something it seems like people are forever trying to drag in posts i've made on other threads to draw parallels, no matter how weak or strained.

however, i don't care what the thread is, if it smells like homophobia, i'm going to call it out.

 

[financeguy]

I'm not going to believe there's a furry blue moose eating macaroni on top of my house til someone gives me evidence. Atheism isn't a positive belief, it's a lack of one. I don't see why people can't grasp that concept..

Exactly!

 

[verte76]

Oops, sorry, financeguy, I shouldn't have mentioned the gay thing in my post.

 

[SunBloc]

Excluding and labeling groups of people are the slave tags of present day. The Christian majority obviously has two sets of teachings - God's ideas and the religious club's ideas.

 

[nbcrusader]

i'm merely pointing out that notions of religious "tolerance" and "diversity" and "freedom of expression" only travel so far, and that atheists are unfairly discriminated against in our society.

Crocodile tears when you readily denounce the rights of other groups freedom of expression or inclusion in "diversity" events.

Let's try and use consistent principles here.

 

[melon]

Let's try and use consistent principles here.

I agree. I hope you'll be inviting atheist speakers to denounce Christianity at your next worship service.

If that happens, I'll consider the idea of inviting "ex-gays" to a diversity event.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize "diversity" was so limited in scope.

 

[melon]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize "diversity" was so limited in scope.

It's okay. I'll understand if you didn't realize that "consistent principles" means that Christians have to live by the same standards that they put on everyone else.

So if, by definition, "diversity" means allowing people who hate homosexuals a voice, I'd like to hope that Christians are diverse enough to give "ex-Christians" a turn at the pulpit. It's only fair.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

It's okay. I'll understand if you didn't realize that "consistent principles" means that Christians have to live by the same standards that they put on everyone else.

So if, by definition, "diversity" means allowing people who hate homosexuals a voice, I'd like to hope that Christians are diverse enough to give "ex-Christians" a turn at the pulpit. It's only fair.

Melon

You should think about the idea of consistent principles before drawing poor analogies.

If the subject of a meeting is homosexuality, then I wouldn't expect ex-gays to be included.

If the subject of a meeting is Christianity, I wouldn't expect other religions to be included.

If the subject of a meeting is diversity, I wouldn't expect groups to be eliminated.

 

[yolland]

but, anyway, this thread is about atheism.

what do you think about atheism as a means to determine who is a better parent?

Looks like this thread has strayed pretty far from the discussion Irvine intended.