Be a good little atheist...

[Resume]

It was a question. The fact that you didn't want to answer it, even as an anonymous character on a skeptic's forum, suggests that you're probably not as obnoxious in real life as you like to pretend.

I'm betting he's pretty close . . . not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's like that movie with Jodie Foster Contact when they picked the other guy to go because they wanted someone to represent what most of the people in the world were like. Atheists do not do that.

I do, actually. I love that film, and I think that their reasoning in that bit was right, even though I fall into that 2% that don't believe (although actually the real figure is much higher).

Mind you, I think that Haddon in that film is God, so what do I know? I mean, he is pretty much omnipotent and omnicogniscent. "He hardly lands for anyone any more". He spends the film getting progressively further and further removed from Earth. He goes to a great deal of trouble to instil a tiny bit of faith in to one individual. And once upon a time he used to be a hell of an engineer. Yeah, he's God.

 

[truethat]

I do, actually. I love that film, and I think that their reasoning in that bit was right, even though I fall into that 2% that don't believe (although actually the real figure is much higher).

Mind you, I think that Haddon in that film is God, so what do I know? I mean, he is pretty much omnipotent and omnicogniscent. "He hardly lands for anyone any more". He spends the film getting progressively further and further removed from Earth. He goes to a great deal of trouble to instil a tiny bit of faith in to one individual. And once upon a time he used to be a hell of an engineer. Yeah, he's God.

Love it. I fall into that 2 percent as well. And I could stand down. I get it.

 

[truethat]

They talk about it because they are comfortable with it. It is only those who are uncomfortable who don't talk about it.



I know a lot of Buddhists who do discuss their beliefs. I don't know many Jews so I can't comment beyond saying that all the ones I know make it clear they believe in God.



Gee, do you think that could be because converting people is part of their religion?



Completely. Watch what happens when a discussion comes around to religion. Christians immediately push their beliefs while atheists squirm in their seats trying not to offend.

I stopped worrying about offending a long time ago and as soon as the topic comes up I point out their errors. Which, according to believers and many atheists on this list and in person, makes me a "militant" atheist. Which in my view makes them "militant" theists and I don't want to lose a contest in militancy.

I am a militant atheist to some degree. But to suggest that Christians are comfortable in their faith is news to me. They seem highly defensive.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I am a militant atheist to some degree. But to suggest that Christians are comfortable in their faith is news to me. They seem highly defensive.

Most American christians have no idea what their religion is about. They claim to be christians like they claim a political party, without knowing what that party really promotes. They do it because they're expected to do it, not from any real belief.

 

[qayak]

I am a militant atheist to some degree. But to suggest that Christians are comfortable in their faith is news to me. They seem highly defensive.

Only when you disagree with them. They mostly believe that people have the same beliefs they do and when they find out you don't, and that you will argue your point with them, that's when I find them getting defensive.

However, your mileage may vary. I just don't know of many people who are uncomfortable with a subject who will them bring it up with complete strangers face to face. Unless, like teenagers with vulgar language, they are going for shock value.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not clear on the clearly, but I grant that it might be me not paying close attention.

There has been plenty posted in this thread.

This I can comment on. We have two children. One is as atheist as I am and the other graduated with a degree from Bob Jones University and is teaching at a Baptist church school. I can't say that the "positions" are equally valued, but the people who hold them certainly are.

That's how they turned out. What I'm talking about is what did you do when you were in charge before the kids were making their own decisions. Did your wife take them to church or not and who decided?

This I could count as a win for atheism, couldn't I?

Hopefully you can count it as a win for your wife and yourself. As for atheism, not if one of your kids chose a religion as judgmental as the one they teach at Bob Jones.

Seriously though, a single anecdote is really not relevant to what is being described here. Look at your response to the politician question. It's time for you to drop this denial at least when it comes to replying in the thread. If you really couldn't say that a single atheist is or is not proportional to the population at large then why didn't you bother to look it up? Perhaps you preferred your weasel answer?

One that I know of. Pete Stark, Democrat, Representative from CA, 13th district.

Don't know. Depends on the strong/weak, secularist/humanist and a host of other odd ways we categorize these things. Would someone who is not religious but didn't push an atheist meme count? I also found two Buddhists.

Two Buddhists in the elected federal government? Who are they? And no, hiding your atheism does not count. No one is arguing there aren't closet atheists in office. I'm certain there are. Yet they have to pretend or they would not be elected.

I don't think it does matter much. At least not when I vote. I'm not expecting any religious authority to spring from the White House, either way. I hope that I wouldn't vote for someone solely because they were an atheist.

Another weasel answer. Here, let me help you out.

According to Adherents, a reliable source of religion poll data, 3-9% of US citizens are atheist, agnostic, or answer they "don't believe in god" when polled. There are 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, 5 Delegates and 1 Resident Commissioner (elected but don't vote), and the President (VP really elected on coattails), for a total of 542 elected members of the federal government. 3-9% would give you ~16 to 49 atheist/agnostics. And you found one.

Time to quit weaseling.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes. That was the point I was making. You said that the Darwin fish was "a statement in support of a scientific evidence based reality". And now you agree that scientific evidence based reality is inanimate and doesn't care whether you support it or not.

So...why have a symbol that shows support for it?

I am not inanimate. People put symbols on their cars. Science doesn't put symbols on cars.

I'm not sure it does. Reasoned argument promotes atheism. Education promotes atheism.

Geese is everyone going to keep weaseling in this thread? If billboards were ineffective advertising, there sure is a lot of wasted ad dollars being spent out there. And very few theists are amenable to a reasoned argument.

Are there really religious people out there who are unaware that Darwinism exists and that there are people who think it's the truth? That almost sounds like an inverse Jack Chick argument to me, where people in Chickland don't believe in Jesus because they've never heard of him. And would these people, if they do exist, understand what the Darwin fish was if they saw it?

I'm done with this mulberry bush chase.

 

[truethat]

Skeptic Ginger I think a lot more people are atheist, agnostic but sort of believe out of habit or just uncertainty. It's been a long history of God belief. It isn't easy to shake it off. But actually, I think a lot of people are just letting it hang about their shoulders. If something empowered them with confidence I do believe they'd be relieved to let it go.

 

[quadraginta]

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?

Yes, you misread the post.

It's even worse than that., though. Perhaps I didn't articulate it well. It wasn't merely that even associating with atheists was deemed negative enough to be used in an ad. It was that it turned out to be deemed SO negative that accusing someone of it was utterly beyond the pale, even in a cesspool of attack ads, and the backlash for stooping to such tactics was enough to loose an otherwise dependably conservative incumbent the election.

The backlash to this ad wasn't limited to just humanists and free-thinkers, either. Even the staid, uber-conservative, hard-shell Baptists that kept clowns like Jesse in the Senate for three decades were outraged, although Hagan was only a Presbyterian. After all, that's almost like a Christian, isn't it?

 

[tsig]

Belief in the supernatural is not evil. Anymore than atheist views are like being part of the KKK.

Your comment is rude and antagonistic. If you treat people like things that matter to them and that they care about and love are evil, then of course they are going to get upset.

I agree with the comments about shutting up for the sake of shutting up.

I have sat in silence many times in my life while people go on and on about their pets. I despise pets. Especially living n NYC. I think it is absolutely cruel and also quite disgusting that people have large dogs in NYC. I guess cats don't bother me as much except cat people always seem to be broke and have four cats at home. They also think nothing of using a fork to spoon out the catfood into the bowl and then toss it in the sink with people forks. Oh and the hair. Gross and the cat litter, don't get me started. I don't get it. I think it is enslavement of an animal for personal pleasure. I also have an Aunt and Uncle that allow their shoe dogs to eat at the kitchen table. The dogs nuzzle everyone's groin and I've seriously freaked out about being around them while I'm on my period.

However, when they go on and on about the love they have for their dog I listen and enjoy the conversation. Why? Because it's not about me, it's about what they love and their views.

However if they started going off in the middle of the conversation about how unfair it is in the world that they can't take their dog off the leash at public parks, (Something I am ferociously against) then I'm going to either change the subject or open my yap and say something.

Beyond that I'm being an ass.

You are aware that's a famous quote?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I am not inanimate. People put symbols on their cars. Science doesn't put symbols on cars.


Geese is everyone going to keep weaseling in this thread? If billboards were ineffective advertising, there sure is a lot of wasted ad dollars being spent out there. And very few theists are amenable to a reasoned argument.



I'm done with this mulberry bush chase.

This after you asked people not to use ancedotes?

Bwahahahahahahahah
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm betting he's pretty close . . . not that there's anything wrong with that.

Obnoxious? You mean like "Uppity ******"?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I am not inanimate.

I didn't say you were.

People put symbols on their cars.

Yes, I'm aware of that. The question I've been asking and, as yet, have got no answer for is - why?

Science doesn't put symbols on cars.

I didn't say it did.

Geese is everyone going to keep weaseling in this thread? If billboards were ineffective advertising, there sure is a lot of wasted ad dollars being spent out there.

Not all adverts work, no. There are ad campaigns that increase sales, there are ad campaigns that do nothing whatsoever to sales, and there are ad campaigns that decrease sales. I've seen nothing which indicates that atheist adverts have had any effect whatsoever. Do you have some evidence that they have?

And very few theists are amenable to a reasoned argument.

But they're more amenable to posters and Darwin fish?

 

[bokonon]

Obnoxious? You mean like "Uppity ******"?

More like "uppity guy who wants to wear blackface" or "uppity drag queen."

A black man has no option of keeping his race to himself. If someone is inclined to be prejudiced on account of it, he's either going to have to limit his interactions to those which don't take place in person or risk being subjected to that prejudice.

A gay man has the option, but keeping his sexual orientation completely to himself also means living a sexless life -- he can neither find a partner, nor appear in public with one, without tipping his hand at some point.

An atheist always has the option of being incognito. Being an atheist doesn't require you to DO anything, ever. If you want to express your opinion on the subject of gods, you're free to do it. Hearing a different opinion in no way requires you to express your own.

You've implied that you think "religion" is an evil that needs to be opposed. That goes way beyond being an "uppity" anything. It's like saying white people are an evil that needs to be opposed if you're a black man, or heterosexuality is an evil that needs to be opposed if you're gay.

It's one thing to oppose religious discrimination, and another thing to oppose religion. You claim to be engaged in the second battle. To me, that puts you more on the side of people who discriminate than people who are engaged in a noble civil rights struggle.

I think the religious discrimination battle has largely been won. As an atheist, I am not paid less, barred from military service, denied housing, or prevented from marrying and having children. No one compels me to attend religious services, profess belief in gods, or ride in the back of the bus.

If you need more excitement in your life, being obnoxious is probably going to dial up the drama. If it makes you feel better to pretend your struggle is in any way comparable to the struggles of black people in the 60s or even today, it's not illegal to have a rich fantasy life. Some people like to pretend they're Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter. Use the force, warrior man.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, then.

 

[quadraginta]

More like "uppity guy who wants to wear blackface" or "uppity drag queen."

A black man has no option of keeping his race to himself. If someone is inclined to be prejudiced on account of it, he's either going to have to limit his interactions to those which don't take place in person or risk being subjected to that prejudice.

A gay man has the option, but keeping his sexual orientation completely to himself also means living a sexless life -- he can neither find a partner, nor appear in public with one, without tipping his hand at some point.

An atheist always has the option of being incognito. Being an atheist doesn't require you to DO anything, ever. If you want to express your opinion on the subject of gods, you're free to do it. Hearing a different opinion in no way requires you to express your own.

<snip>

There are times when atheism can present some of the same social obstacles as homosexuality. It can even do so when being gay has become less of a faux pas. Atheists can find themeselves in the postion of feeling pressured to pretend that they are believers when they really aren't.

Check out Lionking's thread, "Would you ever take communion?" Although it was somewhat tangential to the main question of the OP, many of the posters there contributed their experiences of having to decide whether to 'come out of the closet' or instead to maintain the pretense of religious faith just to keep from offending the sensibilities of their family or friends, or sometimes even strangers.

Why should they have to? What justifies the emotional pressure that can be placed on someone simply for failing to share a superstition?

Sure an atheist may have the "option" of staying incognito, but the very idea that it should ever be needful is what is at issue.

 

[applecorped]

Not believing in something doesn't require a defense, only believing does.

 

[quadraginta]

Not believing in something doesn't require a defense, only believing does.

Not believing in something shouldn't require a defense. Sadly, it often does, because believers insist on it. When those believers can take advantage of familial or other emotional investments to load onto their attacks they rarely hesitate to, if they are going to be inclined toward attack at all.

 

[bokonon]

to maintain the pretense of religious faith just to keep from offending the sensibilities of their family or friends, or sometimes even strangers.

Why should they have to? What justifies the emotional pressure that can be placed on someone simply for failing to share a superstition?

Sure an atheist may have the "option" of staying incognito, but the very idea that it should ever be needful is what is at issue.

I agree that this is an issue. I would support everyone's individual decision, whether that was to be "out" or not.

To me, it's about like any other polite fiction adopted for social reasons. If your mother is proud of her pineapple and orange salad, makes a bunch of it for every social occasion, and sends you home with some, but you've never really liked it, you might confess this as an adult and take a chance that her feelings will be hurt. OTOH, you might continue to pretend to like it until her dying day. I would support either decision.

When Pat Tillman's brother said at his funeral, "He's not with God, he's *********** dead," I don't think he was out of line. I'm sure he hurt some feelings, but both he and his brother were already known as atheists. A funeral is the proper place to express one's grief, and it's just as valid to express it with the honest acknowledgment that you never expect to see the deceased again as with the honest hope that you will.

On the other hand, I was asked to present a pre-written speech at the funeral of a friend, whose wife and child are still our friends. The speech contained a Bible quote, and the usual platitides. I didn't believe what I was saying was true, but I read what was written and didn't add any editorial comments, out of respect for the man's wife who is a practicing Catholic. She was my wife's friend before we were married. My wife, also a practicing Catholic, knows I'm an atheist; whether she has shared this information with her friend is something I do not know. I'm not even curious enough to ask. I've attended baptisms or christenings or whatever they are, for my own children as well as those of others, and I just stand or sit silently and let the rituals play out. It's no more a big deal to me than if someone asked me to go to a baseball or basketball game with them. I'd be just as bored there, but I'd go, simply to be polite.

Not being a sports fan is about as essential to who I am as not being a God fan. People may figure it out when I never know who played the previous weekend, but I don't feel the need to bray "Sports are a stupid waste of time" every time the topic comes up at the office.