Be a good little atheist...

MG1962 said:
Operative word, so actually you dont know either way and just assume
Click to expand...

Your denial is getting tedious. The evidence has been presented to you. Apparently no amount of evidence will change your opinion so no more time wasting is of use here.
 
quadraginta said:
My current personal favorite, which I've mentioned a few times before around these fora, is the 2008 U.S. Senate race between Elisabeth Dole and Kay Hagan.

Lizzie Dole; Incumbent U.S. Senator. Impeccable conservative credentials. Served in four different Republican administrations. Reagan's Secretary of Transportation, Bush the Elder's Sec. of Labor (the only woman to hold two Cabinet level positions). Wife of Bob Dole. President of the Red Cross for nearly a decade.

Kay Hagan; Ten years as a state senator in the North Carolina General Assembly.

At the contest's eleventh hour, only a week or so before election day the Dole campaign brought out the big guns. They ran an ad which accused Hagan of "secretly" consorting with known atheists, and even (Gasp!!! :jaw-dropp) accepting campaign contributions from them.

This piece of defamation was Dole's downfall. Even in an atmosphere both local and national of attack ads which were setting new records for sleaze the god-fearing voters of N.C. could not forgive such a vile calumny, not even if it was one of their very own doing it.

Accusing someone of this sort of moral failure was simply too despicable. Public opinion swung toward Hagan instantly, and stayed there. Lizzie Dole lost the election for using campaign tactics that were too reprehensible for people to stomach. This in a state that kept Jesse Helms in office for thirty years.
Click to expand...
And this incident is evidence atheists are not commonly discriminated against in multiple settings and locations? Is Hagan herself openly an atheist?

How many openly declared atheists hold or have held state or federal public office in the US? Is it proportionate to the number of atheists in the population?


Or have I misread your post and you were intending to point out atheism is viewed as so potentially negative, even associating with atheists was used against a candidate in a campaign ad?
 
Last edited:
Has SE Cupp ever even articulated her beliefs? I have heard her say she is an atheist, but literally, that is it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I can't put the Darwin fish on my car because my clients might be offended if they see it. How many Christians would be worried about clients seeing a Jesus fish on their car?
Click to expand...

I disagree.

You don't put the Darwin Emblem (Fish don't have legs) on your car because you think clients might be offended.

Christians don't have that problem because they are, first off, comfortable with their faith,second, don't care what you think, or third, hope it will lead to a chance to discuss their faith.

In the end, if you want to put on the Darwin Emblem and don't for the reason stated, you are suppressing your beliefs in order to make more money. That is no different than breaking your moral code to make money, in my opinion, except in degree. Perhaps though, if it is important to your clients, you could put a Christian Emblem on your car and maybe make more money. The degree would still be the same.

There are two differences here. Firs, the difference in reaction to the two signs and the fact that both groups are fully aware of the reactions. When I hear someone claim an atheist is "militant" or a member of the "new atheists" I immediately know they are most likely talking about a strong willed person who finds it important to live their beliefs. They are comfortable with them and don't care what others think about it.
 
qayak said:
I disagree.

You don't put the Darwin Emblem (Fish don't have legs) on your car because you think clients might be offended.

Christians don't have that problem because they are, first off, comfortable with their faith,second, don't care what you think, or third, hope it will lead to a chance to discuss their faith.

In the end, if you want to put on the Darwin Emblem and don't for the reason stated, you are suppressing your beliefs in order to make more money. That is no different than breaking your moral code to make money, in my opinion, except in degree. Perhaps though, if it is important to your clients, you could put a Christian Emblem on your car and maybe make more money. The degree would still be the same.

There are two differences here. Firs, the difference in reaction to the two signs and the fact that both groups are fully aware of the reactions. When I hear someone claim an atheist is "militant" or a member of the "new atheists" I immediately know they are most likely talking about a strong willed person who finds it important to live their beliefs. They are comfortable with them and don't care what others think about it.
Click to expand...


Where do you live? LOL I'm not saying that Skeptic Girl is right but if Christians are so comfortable with their faith then why do they talk about their faith all the time? Why do they need to impose it on other people.

I know quite a few Buddhists who for a long time I thought were atheists. You know why? They usually don't talk about their "faith." They just sort of Zen. The same with Jews. Jews will talk about their faith with other Jews but for the most part they don't hoist it on other people.

But Christians and Muslims never shut up about their faith. It's everywhere. Like the other person said. One of the number one things I see on just facebook daily are people asking for prayers for their friends or loved ones.

Are you serious?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And this incident is evidence atheists are not commonly discriminated against in multiple settings and locations? Is Hagan herself openly an atheist?

How many openly declared atheists hold or have held state or federal public office in the US? Is it proportionate to the number of atheists in the population?


Or have I misread your post and you were intending to point out atheism is viewed as so potentially negative, even associating with atheists was used against a candidate in a campaign ad?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I think the poster misunderstood the implication here.

They did not turn on Dole because she outed and atheist and "for crying out loud, who cares!"

They turned on Dole because the woman was NOT an atheist, and it was deemed lower than low to accuse a Christian of being an atheist. The public has spoken.

Although on the other hand I know a few atheists who would lose their mind if someone confused them with a Christian.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The Darwin fish is a statement in support of a scientific evidence based reality.
Click to expand...

But scientific evidence based reality doesn't care whether you support it or not. It just is.

Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't suppose you've noticed the irony of discussing your opinions in a forum. :)
Click to expand...

Fair point. But I'm here on a sceptics' forum discussing scepticism and subjects related to scepticism with other people on a sceptics' forum. That's not the same as walking around with a t-shirt emblazoned with the phrase "I don't believe in God". Which is, essentially, what the Darwin fish is. I honestly can't imagine why anybody would.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Maybe instead you should look a little more closely at the reality of the bigotry toward atheists.
Click to expand...

I would like to see this more clearly myself. I am willing to admit that I may be an exception in that I haven't experienced this.

I'm also interested in how much you feel you are part of a class in this and how strongly you identify with the term atheist as a relevant descriptor. I'm asking because I don't get the emotional content here.

My wife is Baptist and I'm an atheist. Her side of the family is not extremely nutty about it, but they are certainly young earth creationists, born again believers and bible literalists. With this small sample, I find that being reasonable and otherwise a decent person seems to count more than whether I am prone to thanking Jesus every five minutes. From my perspective it is a very small, very circumscribed issue that is connected to personalities rather than a large movement thing or a general societal ill that needs fixing. I would like to hear about how I have mistaken the terrain though.
 
Malerin said:
Because it's fun and there's no consequnces. If I thought it would cost me a job (or get me kicked out of a teacher program) it wouldn't be nearly as fun. I guess my question is Why are some people compelled to tell you their beliefs even at the detriment of their job, family life, etc?
Click to expand...

I explained why I did it, and how I did it, and under the circumstances I described, it was quite understandable.

1. There was an open atheist there.
2. The two women seemed to be friends, good friends. Lunch dates, birthday cards, etc.
3. I was only asked once, "So, what do you believe?" and answered simply "Oh, I'm atheist, just like Mrs. M," and it was never discussed again, until the day the Fundie got in my face screaming, and then I found out the truth.


I think it's just ego. Some people can't stand it if they hear someone express a belief they think is wrong. They're compelled to chime in. People must know the truth! Something stupid like that.
Click to expand...

If you mean me, that never happened. Not even a little.


NOW, of course, I not only won't mention it, I'll outright lie and say I'm a good Christian, and I have said that. As I said in another thread, you don't have to hit me with the **** stick twice.

But you believe whatever you want that makes you happy. I know the truth.
 
Gawdzilla said:
Objecting in Silence Never Changed Anything
Click to expand...


From your link:
Silent is not equal. Taking offense is social pressure that has evolved to keep others silent. We don’t want to offend, but we can’t keep silent. No one should.
Click to expand...


Since you seem to be recommending this editorial without comment, I'm honestly curious. Why can't "we" keep silent? Why is it that "no one should"?

I'm not saying you should keep silent. I'm just asking.

In most cases, I will choose to be silent, just as I will choose to be silent if an obese person raves about a place to get great ribs, or a dog lover goes on and on about the pleasures of owning a dog. I don't personally care about ribs, or get emotional satisfaction from a dog's loyalty, but I don't feel that someone gushing about something that's important to them is an implicit request for my opinion on the subject.

If "we don't want to offend" is an honest sentiment rather than a disingenuous platitude, silence on this subject should be just as possible as silence on any other subject.

As Jefferson said, my neighbor's beliefs neither pick my pocket nor break my leg. If that is the case, why is it that "no one should" suppress an opinion? If you would prefer that your neighbor not express his opinion, isn't setting a good example of the behavior you'd like to see at least as valid as adopting the behavior of which you disapprove?
 
bokonon said:
From your link:



Since you seem to be recommending this editorial without comment, I'm honestly curious. Why can't "we" keep silent? Why is it that "no one should"?

I'm not saying you should keep silent. I'm just asking.

In most cases, I will choose to be silent, just as I will choose to be silent if an obese person raves about a place to get great ribs, or a dog lover goes on and on about the pleasures of owning a dog. I don't personally care about ribs, or get emotional satisfaction from a dog's loyalty, but I don't feel that someone gushing about something that's important to them is an implicit request for my opinion on the subject.

If "we don't want to offend" is an honest sentiment rather than a disingenuous platitude, silence on this subject should be just as possible as silence on any other subject.

As Jefferson said, my neighbor's beliefs neither pick my pocket nor break my leg. If that is the case, why is it that "no one should" suppress an opinion? If you would prefer that your neighbor not express his opinion, isn't setting a good example of the behavior you'd like to see at least as valid as adopting the behavior of which you disapprove?
Click to expand...

All that is required for evil to triumph if for good people to do nothing.
 
Gawdzilla said:
All that is required for evil to triumph if for good people to do nothing.
Click to expand...
So, if a co-worker said "My mother is having her surgery tomorrow, I'm praying it is successful," that's an evil that you'd have to confront lest civilization crumble?
 
bokonon said:
So, if a co-worker said "My mother is having her surgery tomorrow, I'm praying it is successful," that's an evil that you'd have to confront lest civilization crumble?
Click to expand...

Well, you're asking him, but when that is said to me, I just tell the person sincerely that I'll be thinking of him/her and mom (which is exactly the same as praying and has as much effect and benefit), and ask if they need anything.

It works out fine; they never seem to notice I didn't say "pray."
 
slingblade said:
Well, you're asking him, but when that is said to me, I just tell the person sincerely that I'll be thinking of him/her and mom (which is exactly the same as praying and has as much effect and benefit), and ask if they need anything.

It works out fine; they never seem to notice I didn't say "pray."
Click to expand...

"Prayer, how to do nothing and still think you're helping."
 
Gawdzilla said:
All that is required for evil to triumph if for good people to do nothing.
Click to expand...

I don't think being an atheist makes me a good person. And I'm not sure how it is that religion triumphs if I do nothing. My best guess is that Christians would follow this platitude and use it to witness more often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom