Americans find atheists a particularly repugnant minority. According to Gallup, they are more disliked than any other major religious group, with the exception of Scientologists.
Research by Gallup also indicates the majority of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheistic presidential candidate. Even a gay candidate, the data suggest, would face less formidable discrimination.
But what is it about atheists that makes the American public revile them so intensely?
To illustrate anecdotally, in 2007, a Sunday-school teacher asked a class of fifth and sixth graders to draw a Christian and a non-Christian. One student drew his Christian as a cheerful-looking man holding a cross and declaring, “I LOVE GOD!!”
His non-Christian was unkempt, tattooed, covered in piercings, holding a bottle of “drugs” in one hand and displaying angry eyebrows. His speech balloon read, “Cussing! God isn’t real!”
This is, to my observation, actually a pretty accurate depiction of the popularly perceived dichotomy between theistic and atheistic character. The atheist is beheld as a hopeless individual roaming a world which, devoid of gods, is without purpose or potential for the morality that would ward him away from swilling down bottles of “drugs.”
The prevalence of this sort of stereotyping, particularly in highly conservative areas like Oklahoma, is unfortunate.
The reality is that an atheist is not someone who is morally rudderless, who wants to eradicate all religion, who is “angry at God,” who worships Richard Dawkins or who is even certain of the nonexistence of a god.
Major minority
Significant statistical data on atheists is actually fairly scant. According to a 2004 study by the American Psychiatric Association, depressed theists are less likely to attempt suicide than depressed atheists. A study released in 2008 by scientists working at the Universities of Ulster and Aarhus implies a correlation between atheism and elevated intelligence.
Studies like the former are frequently cited by people wishing to demonstrate the bitter nihilism of atheists. But would it be sane to make strong, sweeping judgments on the basis of either of these studies or others like them? Would we consider it acceptable to use statistics like this to justify stereotyping racial minorities? In fact, is there any evidence at all that justifies making strong generalizations about the character of atheists?
Not that I’m aware.
The only characteristic we can attribute to atheists with justified certainty is definitional: They do not believe in a god or gods.
To my experience, atheists generally do not hate religion or wish to see it forcibly extinguished. I would characterize my own feelings toward religion as a mixture of disgust and irritation, though God knows I’m not above enjoying the apocalyptic artwork of William Blake, Martin Scorsese’s film “The Last Temptation of Christ” or the Catholicism-centric britcom “Father Ted.”
Nor am I incontrovertibly certain of the nonexistence of a god or gods. If evidence emerged suggesting the existence of a god, I would readily adjust the certainty of my atheism.
However, anecdotes about people inexplicably being cured of cancer don’t count as evidence.
The Bible doesn’t count as evidence until independent confirmation is unearthed of its supernatural claims. These sorts of things aren’t discounted because of a commitment to disbelief in gods, but because they’re legitimately worthless as evidence.
From Darwin to Dawkins
Another semi-popular misconception is that atheists hold science as a kind of surrogate religion and worship scientific figures, particularly Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins.
Funnily, I’ve found that Richard Dawkins is associated much more closely with atheism by those outside the atheist community than by those within it. While I’d say the majority of atheists I know like Dawkins, a significant minority find him pompous and overrated.
The only atheists I’ve ever known to actually worship Dawkins are girls who find his sophistication and general Britishness sexy.
So far as Darwin goes, while most of the atheists I know appreciate his contributions to science and are aware of him as a likeable sort of guy, I doubt most of them could provide more than a very loose description of his life or of his personality, things one would expect a person’s worshippers to know intimately.
Despite my intense aggravation with the way religion facilitates human rights abuses, particularly in contemporary Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, I would never support a law banning religiosity. Every atheist I’ve ever spoken with on the topic concurs.
Theism, delusional though it may be by our estimation, should not be restricted except in those instances in which it leads to rights infringements.
I never attempt to sugar my dislike of religion, and I hope the thinking theists in my readership will see that although I differ with them on important points, I have no desire to do them harm and am more than a dead-eyed atheist stereotype.
Similarly, it doesn’t bother me that the Bible says Christians should shun me (2 Corinthians 6:14) and appreciate the many Christians who have chosen to ignore this command.
However, it does bother me when unwarranted stereotyping is used as a justification for intolerance toward atheists.
It bothers me that coming out as an atheist would be suicide for politicians in most parts of the country.
It bothers me that my sister was mocked and harassed in high school for her own lack of belief.
It bothers me that, throughout America, people are being intimidated into silence about the very simple and unthreatening fact that they don’t believe in a god.
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print Story
Mail to Friend
More Stories
Comments
I just wonder why people cannot just keep their religious believes private in this country.
I grew up in an European country that counts 45-55% atheists with the rest being apathetic religious people. I was born atheist, from atheist parents and grand-parents. I grew up without even knowing what religion was. I lived in many countries and during all this time I never cared a second about what other people's believes were, and so did they.
The day after I arrived in the US, I stumbled upon christian extremists that roamed the Union asking questions to bystanders. They were VERY hostile to the fact that I am an unbeliever. Such a warm welcome. Thank you Oklahoma.
You should know that I do not hate or dislike you as an atheist. I see you as my brother whom I am to love (not shun), regardless of what you personally believe.
But that set aside, as far as atheists in politics go - and you must not take this personally, because I assure you it is not - the founding fathers of this great nation made it very clear from the outset that we were always to be a nation ultimately ruled by Divine Providence - i.e., the Supreme Law of God. There's a reason that we are a REPUBLIC as opposed to a DEMOCRACY - the founders knew well that democracies inevitably fail because majorities can be(and occasionally are) wrong. Majorities matter in this country for the purposes of holding elected representatives accountable for their actions. But these representatives and all of our politicians in government are ultimately accountable to a Higher Law. Alexander Hamilton, a signer of the Constitution, wrote: "The law...dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other." (The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. I, p.87). James Wilson, another signer of the Constitution and a US Supreme Court Justice wrote, "All [laws], however may be arranged in two different classes, 1) Divine 2) Human...Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine" (The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Vol. I pp. 103-105). Whether you agree with it or not, The United States of America and her laws were founded upon Divine Law - this is what the founders intended. That is why we must oppose any who fail to recognize God from taking up office in our government.
Wow Mesocyclone, that's like 20% lie and 80% irrelevant.
My viewpoint of atheists at one point was like that because I had never actually met one that was open about it (I might have had closet atheists at my high school for all I know but never any open athiests). Considering some of my fraternity brothers are atheists I learned that they can be in fact good people. I also have a pure agnostic fraternity brother.
That is not to say the stereotype does not exist without reason. I'm sure there are plenty of self-proclaimed atheists out there that take what Dawkins says at his word without thinking about it. My nickname for people like that is "religious atheist" and is meant to be as insulting as is sounds as they are being completely hypocritical. They argue the "tenants of what is bad about religion" and yet can't seem to realize that they do the same exact things in their own beliefs while at the same time not realizing the large number of logical theists out there like me. Perhaps I'm an anomaly in the scientific community? I doubt it.
As long as an atheist can respect that I'm a Christian and that I can also be logical and sane then I have no beef with them; if I get treated as inferior just for being a Christian I don't feel any respect for that person.
Unfortunately it's the most outspoken that become the stereotype and it's anti-religious bigotry from Dawkins and all kinds of bigotry from self-proclaimed Christians such as Westboro and numerous other organizations. (The pure Creationsists and ID as science people also don't help.)
Also I think HR 1014 and HR 1015 are ridiculous.
Mesocyclone, let's be clear. From you're perspective, given that the Founding Father's were "Christian," you are implying that all holders of public office must recognize the "Christian" god, an entity who's dictates are not clearly defined. Which version of Christianity should our representatives attest to believe in? Given that the various sects of Christianity differ widely on what their god's "Divine Providence" is for the human race, what actions should they be taking in order to fulfill it? If all of our governmental leaders based their actions on their version of Christianity, the government would come to a complete standstill with the various sects arguing about points which no evidence or reason could bring to compromise. While I agree that the concept of a pure Democracy would be ineffective, just as the Founding Fathers did, the concept of a Republic should not be based on the promotion of one religious perspective but should depend upon the election of representatives that the people feel have the PRACTICAL judgment and wisdom required to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, despite what any mob sentiment might be at the time. Christian "Divine Providence" of any flavor is not required to ensure these things, and in fact can often stand in their way.
To JJanowiak: It would serve you well my friend to restudy your early American history. I can recommend "The Papers of George Washington", "The Papers of Alexander Hamilton", and "The Papers of Thomas Jefferson", for starters. And if you're really inspired, I'd read the "Federalist Papers" too while you're at it. They only all have to do with the birth of our nation and the visions the founders had for us; not that you would be interested.
So... the overwhelming amount of Americans find Atheists repugnant, and you find this indicative of poor character on the theists part?
Rather then everyone else being bigoted and evil, maybe atheists are just a bunch of douche-bags?
Hey mesocyclone, you know what saying something like "atheists should not hold office is?". Hint: it's in the title of this editorial. You can hide behind that IRRELEVANT info or just admit your bigotry up-front.
"You should know that I do not hate or dislike you as an atheist. I see you as my brother whom I am to love (not shun), regardless of what you personally believe."
Well, Meso, you should know that as an atheist I don't hate or dislike or want to shun you either. Not sure about that brother stuff, though.
Am I correct in inferring from the citations of the founding fathers and your taking their (your interpretation of their) views as guides for today you advocate that we should go back to slavery, disenfranchise women, etc.?
I just have to say for the record that 2 Corinthians 2:16 is NOT referring to generally shunning people of different beliefs. Instead, when taken in context of the chapter and the rest of the Bible, it is saying that Christians are to not get so caught up with them in relationships that they then become LIKE a non-Christian in actions and attitudes. In the Bible Jesus himself was seen as a "friend of... sinners" (Matthew 11:19). Jesus chose to eat dinner with the thieves and prostitutes instead of with the so-called "religious" leaders. Jesus was loving them, he cared for them. Ephesians 5:2 says to "live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us." We cannot love others if we do not associate with them.
So an apology and a change of heart is called for from the Christians to those whom we have judged. We have been forgiven much and so are being transformed throughout our lives to be more and more like Christ, learning to love and forgive like He did (2 Corinthians 3:18). I hope and pray that all of us, as finite messed up humans stuck in this world, can reach out to love each other.
Mesocylone,
Stop cherrypicking and chopping up quotes from the Founding Fathers to support your fundamentalist tripe. I'm extremely pleased that you referred JJanowiak to "The Papers of Thomas Jefferson." I actually have read many of Thomas Jefferson's writings (not just skimmed them for tidbits that support my beliefs). With that being said, I would like to provide you some WHOLE quotations from one of our most brilliant founders:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
-Letter to Francis Hopkinson
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Letter to Alexander Von Humboldt
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Letter to Thomas Cooper
"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. "
-Letter to Correa de Serra
Now, mesocyclone, does that sound like someone who believes that elected officials must subscribe to the Judeo-Christian worldview?
Dr_McKennan, while I agree that your attestation is a possibility, and that we Atheists are perhaps "just a bunch of douche-bags," as you so poetically phrased it, I would question whether the perception of "the overwhelming amount of Americans" is based on actual knowledge of who Atheists are and the sorts of things we actually do. Perhaps this perception is based purely on what is heard from the pulpits of churches, the mouths of religious youth group leaders, and the rants of televangelists and radio preachers who have a vested interest in maintaining their base of faithful offering givers, whose numbers will dwindle if this whole Atheism thing ever catches on (note: I do not believe that all church leaders are only in it for the money and will agree that most feel a deep personal conviction about the correctness of their faith, but regardless of their motives, the concept of Atheism stands against their faith and is often publicly lashed out against).
Mesocyclone you might want to rethink your assertion there. Divine Law is a very nebulous concept. By your logic, if I believe a law is the edict of Odin, then I am a qualified office holder, but if I profess to base my opinion of law on logical thought and precedence I am not. Divine Law can mean anything I believe it to be as long as I profess to believe I am following the will of *any* supreme being. How is that superior to the views of an atheist?
Yesterday a man who had no fear of punishment in an after-life (an atheist) killed ten innocent people before escaping any punishment or shame by killing himself. Why would any sincere atheist, regardless of whether he believed an after-life existed, want to live in a world where no one feared punishment in an after-life? It isn't secularly logical. Wanting to spread atheism isn't logical
I would like to apologize for my misuse of the word "you're" in place of the word "your" in the first line of my first post. Such instances will be avoided in future.
Dr_McKennan said, "Rather then everyone else being bigoted and evil, maybe atheists are just a bunch of douche-bags?"
Case in point.
mustafa, that must be satirical or your are a fool. You know there are plenty of examples of people who have murdered and maimed who believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Belief in an afterlife does not protect against brutal behavior, since the consequences faced in the afterlife are defined by the believer. I hope you were being satirical since a lot of atheists like to point to the evil committed by theists in this type of discussion.
Oumotorcyclist:
Yes, as a Constitutionalist American, I will stand by my position and concede to you that the founders intended our government leaders to turn ultimately to the authority of the Christian God when crafting policy. This of course does not mean that they intended that non-Christians would not enjoy the basic rights of American citizenship (thus you have the First Amendment which provides for the free exercise of religion). "Separation of Church and State" was intended to ensure that the American government never established an official church (so as to keep the government from encroaching unduly on the rights of the people to practice their religion). At the same time, the founders also believed that the most essential key to building a prosperous and free nation that would withstand the test of time rested ultimately in crafting our laws on the pillars of Christian morality. They never intended for non-Christians - let alone atheists - to assume the high levels of office in our American government. Contrary to what many would argue, religion can never be severed completely from the government. In his 1796 "Farewell Address", George Washington clearly emphasized the important role of religion in the government: "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?" I realize that this will sound harsh or "bigoted" to modern audiences, but I do believe the founders were right to establish the nation's guiding laws on Christian morality. I also believe they were philosophically far more educated men than you or I, which is why I tend to put my trust in their judgment. After all, were it not for their wisdom and foresight, you and I would not presently be living in the free land we proudly call "The United States of America".
Jesus Christ, everyone has something to say hear, and I see repeat offenders! Listen, in America, we missed out on the religious debates of Europe that took place during, and after, the enlightenment. The very argument this country faces now has already been solved in many other countries. Likewise, there is a worldview that predates many modern religions, held by such figures as Socrates and Marcus Aurelius and later expanded, that God is not a humanoid being, but is the sum of all existence and order. This order is commonly referred to as the logos, or even God as well. The repugnance of religion today is the fundamental attachment to the superstitious.
dargus et al, if you slowly re-read my post you'll see that I did not say anthing about not believing in an after-life per se, just the "fear of punishment in an afterlife."
Kebold and Harris had no fear of an punishment in an afterlife. Whether they did not believe it existed, or if they expected to be rewarded by their lord Satan is irrelivant. Duh.
From Mesocyclone
"(...) the founding fathers of this great nation made it very clear from the outset that we were always to be a nation ultimately ruled by Divine Providence - i.e., the Supreme Law of God [sic]"
Is this country supposed to be like Iran? Did someone ever think that even the founders of the USA could be wrong on a couple of things?
From kcreasey
"Considering some of my fraternity brothers are atheists I learned that they can be in fact good people."
So what are they usually? Worthless trash?
From Dr_McKennan
"maybe atheists are just a bunch of douche-bags?"
Who is throwing the first stone?
From mustafa
"Yesterday a man who had no fear of punishment in an after-life (an atheist) killed ten innocent people before escaping any punishment or shame by killing himself. (...) Wanting to spread atheism isn't logical"
Yeah right, 9/11 hijackers were atheists.
For AslanFollower
"I [Jesus] will kill her children with death" Revelation 2:23
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
"And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." Acts 3:23
"And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers" Revelation 2:27
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Hebrews 10:31
"He that is not with me is against me" Luke 11:23
"he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36
"But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not (...) it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city." Luke 10:10-2
"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." Timothy 2:16
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22
mustafa, you wish people to believe something purely for social control? I have enough confidence in the human race to believe we don't need that kind of nonsense. Besides, no one here is trying to convert anyone to atheism, rather avoid oppression and negative stereotypes.
Mesocyclone, that kind of thinking is dangerous to all a free government stands for. The founders also thought only white, landowners should vote. Since you are such an originalist do you also believe that as well? If not, perhaps the founders were mistaken about only Christians governing too, not that I agree with you assertion to begin with. As it has already been clearly shown, you cherry picked quotes to support your argument. I'm sure some of the founders would agree with you, but I doubt the nation they envisioned was so rigid. Besides, had that been their intention, why not codify it in the Constitution?
Mustafa is just an idiot and a troll, you should ignore him.
I don’t believe in Bigfoot, but I don’t hate Bigfoot. I don’t curse him when I’m alone. I don’t bother to insult or offend believers of Bigfoot. Some atheist shares my behavior but most are god-haters. People, who simply don’t believe, are better described as non-religious. To publically identify as “atheist” is, at the very least, to identify as anti- religion in the political sphere, and thus a proponent of a religion free society. There are plenty who are not bashful about saying so.
Even Lenin understood the power of religious belief as a behavior modifier in controlling the masses. It is incalculable how many hands have been stayed from committing crimes ranging from jay-walking to murder by the fear or punishment in an after-life. To want to live in a society with as little such fear as possible is not logical (aka stupid).
Zac,
Throughout your article you make your views on religion very clear. You actually state that you view religion with "disgust" and "irritation". Wow, those are some strong words for someone complaining about how badly they are treated by people of faith. You say that people of faith are delusional. You sugar-coat this by graciously indicating that while you are disgusted and irritated by the delusions of the faithful, you actually don't want to do them any harm. Wow, you're a swell guy!
You then sit back and whine about how bad atheists have it.
Let me get this straight, you call the beliefs of other people disgusting, irritating delusions, and yet you are so traumatized that people of religious faith have a similar feeling toward you? Talk about a double-standard.
Zac, not only are you a hypocrite and a whiner, you are just as much an intolerant, narrow-minded bigot as the most vociferious, creationist bible-thumper in small town Oklahoma.
By the way, beliefs sometimes have costs. Personally, I couldn't care less if you have no god, or if you worship Zeus. However, in case your mom didn't tell you when she was getting you ready on your first day of kindergarten, not all the kids are going to like you. I know you find this difficult, because you very clearly adore yourself. However, there are people in life who are going to be mean to you. Get over it.
mustafa, no one is saying fear of postmortem retribution isn't a good motivator, it obviously is. If that is what you require to not do harm, then please by all means believe you will be punished after you die. However, such fear rarely confines itself to the simple, don't harm people or follow the law scenario you create. It tends to bleed into other areas, like sex before marriage is bad, or eating pork and on and on and on. Is abstinence before marriage or eating pork a quantifiable positive social value? Could they be negative ones? How do we contain this fear and prevent it from creating negative social values? Fear of punishment is a powerful motivator, but it is also quite unpredictable. Your view on this issue is far too simple. I contend that this fear you say is so beneficial can just as easily be twisted to the negative as not having the fear at all. If not more so, since this fear is in no way rooted in quantifiable reality, hence my earlier mention of all those who injury to avoid punishment after death.
dio and dargus:
I am NOT saying that this country is supposed to be like Iran. Iran is a theocracy. Typically in a theocracy, EVERY ASPECT of human life (right down to what people are and are not allowed to eat) is controlled by one single religion. Typically in a theocracy, people are not allowed to practice any other religion other than the religion established by the state. I am NOT advocating for a sort of theocracy state where people aren't free to practice their religious beliefs and go about their daily lives, nor am I suggesting that the founders were promoting a theocracy (obviously they weren't or they would have established a theocracy instead of a republic). What I DO imply is that the founders intended that certain moral principles (which are derived from Christian morality) would NEVER be separated from how the government operates - namely, that the policies that our government officials enact must not compromise the pillars of Christian morality upon which the nation was founded. A nation with laws based on Christian morality does not necessarily imply a theocracy state where people aren't free to practice their beliefs. That's why we have the Bill of Rights....
On the issue of white land-owning males having all the power and other problems of the day, the founders themselves were quite aware of these problems. That's why they created this process of "amending" the Constitution - because they foresaw the need to eventually address this kind of problem when the political climate would allow for it. That's why we subsequently have amendments like the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the 19th Amendment, which granted women's suffrage rights. And before you get all excited and say "These amendments and subsequent civil rights laws, etc, prove that the founders were wrong in their views", and throw the baby out with the bathwater, I would inform you that all of these Constitutional amendments and subsequent laws yielded changes that are quite in line with Christian morality (and with the moral teachings of other religions, I might add); any true Christian will immediately denounce slavery, racism, and sexism, because Christ teaches us to treat one another with equal dignity and respect. None of this contradicts my assertion that the founders intended for Christian morality to guide our government and her policies, nor does it contradict the corollary that the founders intended for Christians to hold the highest public offices of our land.
dwalker2006,
Nice hate speech but nobody is asking anyone to feel okay with the atheists. Not at all. Actually I am like you, I cannot care less if you have gods, or if you worship 100lbs of plaster on a cross.
The point of the paper is to argue against discrimination. It is not about discrimination based on gender, or sex orientation, or on political positions, or on skin color. No. It is about the discrimination against unbelievers. Try to get a job while being an atheist in Oklahoma.
Mesocyclone, do you realize many people used the Bible to support the idea of white, male landowners being the only voting class? I'm not a theological expert, but I do know there is quite a bit in there about women subjugating themselves to men, which would suggest in a nation based on Christian values women would not be afforded the right to vote or participate in governing. See the whole problem with this Christian values straw man is it means different things to different people. Sure, you have many sects of the religion agreeing on basic tenants, but they are plenty of sects that don't. The Bible is a big book and it says a lot of things, which are open to a very wide range of interpretations. You gain no protection again injustice by claiming something has Christian values. You might as well say, "The American system of governance, brought to you by Sony." Even if the founders, also a poor way to make an argument since there were many founders who had differing beliefs, intended only Christians to hold office, and again why didn't they codify it in the Constitution if that is what they believed, I don't think that system would be of any use today and in fact would probably have been amended out of the Constitution generations ago.
Dio,
Hate speech? Did I ever say I hate anyone? Did I ever call for violence against anyone? I don't hate anyone based just upon their acceptance or rejection of any religion.
You need to get past this ridiuclous notion that someone disagreeing with you strongly is hate speech. Is it hate speech to call someone disgusting, irritating, and delusional all in the same article?
I've noticed a large number of young people in univeristy today use terms like 'hate speech' because they can't fathomm a world in which someone would actually disagree with them. Obviously, anyone who disagrees with your point of view is engaging in hate speech.
I called the author a narrowminded, intolerant bigot because he casts a very wide net when he stereotypes religious beliefs with HATEFUL terms like disgusting and irritating. I stand by my characterization of this author because the language he uses is in fact narrrowminded, intolerant, and bigoted. I don't express hatred of the author or call for violence against him. This isn't hate speech; it is just telling it like it is in a very frank way.
If the point of the paper is to argue against discrimination, the paper failed miserably. Rather than argue against prejudice, the author just advertises his own prejudices about beleivers. Therefore, he loses all credibility.
I don't care if the author is or is not asking the reader to feel warmly toward atheists. I never took that as the message at all. All I am pointing out is that the author's message comes across as hollow and superficial when he is speaking out against discrimination while pointing out that he stereotypes all religious faith as a disgusting, irritation delusion. The reader can only assume that the author feels that believers are by default disgusting, irritating, and delusional since they hold to a disgusting, irritating, and delusional world view.
The author is as bigoted as the very people he is speaking out against. Same species animal - different color stripes. Are we to believe that somehow his prejudices and stereotypes are excusable while those of religious people are somehow more evil? He is blatantly engaging in the same behavior that he is condemning.
By the way, if you are having trouble getting a job in Oklahoma because you are an atheist (which I strongly doubt), do what most believers would do and reply to any interviewer or manager that asks about their religion (which is highly illegal, by the way) that it is none of their business. I can't possibly fathom a world in which someone is asked about their religion at a respectable job interview.
Mesocyclone,
A fair government is moral. We agree on that. However I do not agree with you on two points:
1) Morality is derived from religion and is subordinate to religion.
2) Your claim that this country should be ruled by christians.
For point 1 we should start a new thread. Do you really want to talk about that?
For point 2, let me point a contradiction in your reasoning:
A) "We were always to be a nation ultimately ruled by Divine Providence - i.e., the Supreme Law of God"
B) "The founders intended for Christian morality to guide our government and her policies"
C) "The founders intended for Christians to hold the highest public offices of our land"
As opposed to:
D) "I am NOT saying that this country is supposed to be like Iran. Iran is a theocracy."
First of all, do you know how the REPUBLIC of Iran (that is the official name) is working? Then how do you qualify a country met to be ruled by members of a religious cult, that bases its principles on religious claims, and that bars non-religious members to participate in the community? Do you think that the words "founders" and "Christians" in B and C can be equally replaced by "ayatollahs" and "Muslims"?
Oh, Zac. I am so thankful to live in Portland, Oregon. Not because of yourself of course but rather the ethical climate. I personally equate extreme cookie-cutter athiests to anarchists. In the same way that the overzealous anarchists (hello! You're an organized group against organized government?!) make the majority of protesters look terrible I think the black-clad stereotypical athiests have made the rational non-believers a joke. I identify myself as an agnostic athiest is asked. Though I've been tempted to worship the great Spaghetti Monster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_...
""Considering some of my fraternity brothers are atheists I learned that they can be in fact good people."
So what are they usually? Worthless trash?"
Good job on twisting my words to mean something I didn't. Don't make assumptions on what people think otherwise you'll read into something where there isn't anything.
That statement meant that atheists have as much the ability to be bad as good AS MUCH AS ANY PERSON.
For dio,
This is going to SOUND unbelievable and possibly hypocritical, but I do not believe that what I said contradicts with the verses you responded to me with.
However, I am unsure whether or not you really want to hear an explanation of the theology of why I (and other Christians) don't think they're mutually exclusive. If you do I'd be more than happy to tell you and discuss it. Just let me know....
Since atheists do not believe in a god or a heaven or a hell they do not believe Hitler in being punished in Hell for his actions. Furthermore they have no basis to condemn Hitler for what he did, since their ideas of right and wrong, and good and evil, are subjective. Indeed, Hitler thought he was doing good, very unpleasant but ultimately for the greater good. Atheists have no grounds to condemn him. Who are they to say that treating human beings like cattle is wrong? Certainly not they who believe that there is no existence after life, and life itself is thyerefore meaningless.
If it is possible to do what Hitler did and escape punishment in an afterlife then all that remains is to escape punishment in this life by killing oneself, which is what Hitler did. Forcing him to put a premature end to his life was the only punishment this world was able to give him. The same is true for Kebold and Harris, the Virginia Tech slayer, and the guy yesterday. What difference does anything make as long as one escapes the consequences in this life
Regardless of any earlier actions, their belief in a punishment in an afterlife (and thus a god) was factually documented by how they spent their last hours
I knew I was missing some Godwin in my life today. Thanks, mustafa.
Who cares about Christian beliefs or Moslem beliefs or other beliefs? Religion should be a personal thing and not something to shove in someone's face..The Christians or those claiming to be Christian in this state have an inferiority complex and want to keep trying to convince people they are the only "chosen" faith. The idiot legislator who wanted to pass a house resolution is one such. Fear and blind faith is what they rely on..
THat is a bunch of garbage. but they are entitled to t heir personal feelings. Consequences are stated very clearly in Buddhist and Hindu beliefs too. Hindus are polytheistic and Buddhists are agnostic. Meaning they are not relying on a divine power but they believe life forms do not end by death but by karma you pay the consequences of your actions in this life in your next life. But they dont go around telling others that. Right or wrong can come from many sources. Not all Christians have done good. They slaughtered millions in the name of their god just like moslems and tried to force people to convert. That is how Brazil, and a lot of other places became Catholic. So anywhere whatever floats your boat is fine. Aethist, or agnostic or god believing everyone is ok.
@dwalker2006
I think you're drawing conclusions. What are your views on atheism? If they are similar to his on religion then I think you might want to reconsider your statement.
I do think that Zac is a bit hateful to hold religion with "disgust" and "irritation" though. I don't do the same with atheism. I can understand where they are coming from for the most part but disagree.
I find SOME atheistic beliefs irritating such as those who proclaim that science or statistics disprove the existence of God. They are more likely abusing such tools without realizing their own beliefs are blinding them. I know this as I know someone personally who does do that. I think Dawkins does this, too. Science and math currently cannot prove or disprove God; that is currently left to oneself to decide.
I know of several people, some personally, that given the chance would define "a belief in God" as a mental illness.
"Despite my intense aggravation with the way religion facilitates human rights abuses..."
I feel that I must point out that religion is not the only thing that facilitates human rights abuses. Greed & lust for power probably rank higher. Also it's not RELIGION but BELIEFS IN GENERAL that you're thinking of. Beliefs can cloud one's observations no matter WHO the person is, theist or atheist.
dwalker2006,
Look, the guy says he finds religion disgusting. You equate that with a characterized hate towards you. So, now, how should we qualify your reply, namely "Zac, not only are you a hypocrite and a whiner, you are just as much an intolerant, narrow-minded bigot as the most vociferious, creationist bible-thumper in small town Oklahoma"? Are you, by any chance, not vindictive and spiteful in this reply? Anyway, this word fight is leading to nowhere so I will not talk about that part anymore. You can go on if you like, I do not care.
However we do agree on something. We do not like the invasion of our privacy nor that we do like discrimination based on personal convictions. But they were better ways to say that in the paper, I agree.
About the job thing: well, just try it and you will see.
Mustafa: gb2 /b/
Dio:
Let me be clear. I am not a religous person. I don't take Zac's article as a personal attack against me or my beliefs. If this is atheists vs. religious folks, I choose not to pick a side.
My point is not that the atheists are right or wrong or that the religious people are right or wrong. I couldn't care less about that debate.
What I am speaking out against is Zac's inconsistency and hypocrisy. My original comments were not vindictive or spiteful. I am just speaking very frankly and candidly and in a fashion that is appropriate given Zac's comments and the level of hubris that they reveal. I beleive that his comments about the religious folks represent the very way of thinking that he is supposedly attacking. How can he in the same article condemn stereotypes and prejudices and then advertise his to the world?
I would (and often do) call the religious folks on this if they tried the same thing.
What I hate more than just about anything is elitism and the hypocrisy that goes with it. Unfortunately, Zac demonstrates these traits very well (just like a lot of religious people do), and I'm calling him on it. It isn't done out of hatred for him or any other atheist.
Discrimination against any person because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof is totally wrong.
By the way, if you ever get asked about your religion in an interview, I strongly adivse you to get a lawyer and sue the company. You would make a lot more money than if you worked there. Asking anyone about their religion in a job interview is a very serious crime.
For kcreasey,
My mistake. That reminded me of what some religious extremist told me one day. Okay, sorry about that. And I agree with you, mustafa is probably a 4chan /b/tard.
For AslanFollower,
Sure, a good chat sound like fun to me! Just send me a message.
For mustafa,
*writes in my notebook* "Hitler cannot be condemned by atheists." I did not know that one. What about Bin Laden? Can we?
For eightbitgirl,
You rock.
mustafa, objective vs. subjective morality? Yawn.
kcreasy:
I don't know that I have any views on atheism, at least none that I feel strongly about. I don't have many strongly held religious beliefs. I'm still figuring these things out for myself, so I don't consider myself qualified to tell other people they are wrong on these matters.
I can't put atheism and theism in these nice little boxes where everything is black or white. The fact is that nearly any set of beliefs can be used for good or evil. People can be led to committ terribly crimes and kill people in large numbers by both theistic and atheistic political systems, and both have happened in the 20th Century.
My criticism of Zac (and my argument with Dio) has absolutely nothing to do with the strengths and weaknesses of atheism or theism as belief systems.
To kcreasey and dwalker2006,
Now that you mention that, yes, I do not quite agree with the "the way religion facilitates human rights abuses" he mentioned. Though I kind of guess where a resentment like that is coming from. Before coming to OK, nobody ever tried to convert me to a religion. Being on your toes permanently does not help in having kind feelings toward the religious extremists and their views. But I agree, it gets biased.
It is a crime to discriminate a job candidate based on their religion. I know that and it is never asked directly by recruiters. But, oh well, I can go work in other states and other countries anyway.
If Hitler does not suffice as a symbol for an ultimate evil-doer, then replace him with who you will, the point remains.
When you say "What about Bin Laden?" what you are really asking is what about Islam. Isn't it?
Like the church of Satan, Islam rewards evil (as defined in Judeo/Christian civilized world). Islam is a good example of how humans can see good/evil as subjective. Like atheism, as to basis for a "civilized" world, it is a failure.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
The first commandment given by the voice of Yahweh from the mountain to the children of Israel was "I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." It's just a statement identifying who the true God is.
The first line in the Bible is "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Yeshua(more commonly known as Jesus) said "If you don't believe Moses, how can you believe Me?"
In every man there is a sense there is a God. The Bible also states that God will reveal Himself, but only to those who believe He is, and who diligently seek Him.
If you can't believe the first line in the Old Testament, you can't believe the clarification of who the true God is given at Mt. Sinai, and further clarified in Yeshua the Messiah. Yeshua can't help you if you don't accept the simple statement of fact in Genesis 1:1.
I was not always a believer. No one is born a believer. But if you don't start with trusting Genesis 1:1, there can be no knowing who the true God is. Yeshua stated as much, and He is the Creator who spoke from the mountain the 10 commandments. But you can't know that if you reject Genesis 1:1.
Start trusting that first line in the Bible, and see what happens.
Dio,
I don't think Zac is wrong that religion has been used to justify violence. However, atheistic systems have also been used for the same purpose. I think all that means is that unfortunately you can use just about any type of belief system to get people to do terrible things.
I would point out that Jesus Christ never had a standing army and never explicity told his followers to kill other people. In fact, he told them just the opposite. People have taken his message and abused it for political purposes. Of course, the same isn't true for all founders of religions. I don't say this as a defense of christianity, just as an observation of how religion can be manipulated.
I have to ask, why would you be on your toes permanently because someone is trying to convert you to their religion?
The OU campus is a pretty diverse place, with a lot of different groups pressing a lot of different messages. I get hit up all the time by church groups. I just say 'no thanks' and go on my way. I never really think about it. I don't see why this would make anyone angry toward the religious crowd.
@dwalker2006 Basically what I meant is to make sure you're views on atheism weren't the same as Zac's on religion as it would be hypocritical. As it is clear that isn't then there is nothing wrong.
@dio I unfortunately at times am having to defend myself against some atheists who's experiences with Christians give them a wrong impression. One example was that someone's close friend defriending them when he came out as an atheist to him. I find that sad.
Zac,
First impressions are very important.
Hopefully you read the comments to your columns. This is meant to help you.
Get a new photograph, with a smile. One less stern, that won't invite comments just to rile you up. You look like you are angry already, and that just incites sharks to go in for the kill.
Lighten up, and you will see less biting commentary. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
@mustafa,
Look, do you really need to be told in a book that killing is wrong or do you know it without a holy book? Your point is that you are trying to label atheists as amoral persons sympathetic to sadistic killers. After trying to decompose your babbling I am unable to establish a logic connection such as "killer implies atheism". You also really seem confused or unable to figure out the meaning of the word subjective on top of that. What do you mean by Islam rewards evil?
@dwalker2006
Yes, actually you do not need a religion to massacre your neighbor. Any kind of kinship (religious or ideological) and any good rhetoric will suffice. Which is why I quite not agree with Zac on that.
If you want to know why I am wary of extremists, then I will just point you to the very first post in this thread. I have to also add to this that they went as far as to stalk me to my apartment.
@Overundersidewaysdown
It takes some courage to write that in Oklahoma, especially under your real name. Be bold, Zac, what ever you may say, virtuous or not, there will be always at least someone to trash you.
@YusifHaUriel
When I read you, I feel like I am reading a machine output. You know, the kind of thing cycling over and over again and which world consist in just a memory register containing something like:
PROGRAM YusifHaUriel
REAL OneTrueGod
DO WHILE(You do not believe in the OneTrueGod)
Say "I believe in the OneTrueGod"
END DO
END PROGRAM
Seriously, do you ever think outside of your box?
"Look, do you really need to be told in a book that killing is wrong or do you know it without a holy book?"
The answer to that, believe it or not, is yes, people do.
Killing is one of our basic animal instincts. It took the civilizing effect of certain religious dotrine to tell people that killing (and other things natural urges) were undesirable and should be supressed.
Some religious base societies (Aztec, Incas,etc.) failed to make this specific distinction.
Where else do you get a basis to condemn Hitler (an atheist), and how do you encourage the atheist at you side to do the same?
Susan Atkins, of the Manson family, said this: "It takes a lot of love to kill someone."
@mustafa
Correction: YOU need to be told in a book that killing is wrong. Do not put me in your group. All right, you can take it bad or not, I do not care, but I find your statement to be amazingly disturbed. So, mustafa, what about if I point you some ayats to read in your good book, are you ready to go ahead and exterminate the kafirs like me like it is suggested?
*writes below the Hitler's quote* "Killing is a basic instinct". Wow, I can see that you are certainly a psychology major, aren't you? What else is a basic instinct? Being an idiot?
If I go on with your reasoning, people that were living before or who were without the reach of your prophets were just beasts fornicating and killing each other mercilessly, huh? You learned that in class or it is in the hadiths?
Listen, mustafa, morality is NOT derived from religion and is NOT subordinate to religion. You do not need to worship Allah or the flying spaghetti monster to know that sadistic murderous bastards are wrong. Why do I feel like I am talking to wall? Okay, you know what, prove that "religious is equivalent to good" and that "nonreligious is equivalent to bad". You have a few thousand years to answer.
Mustafa,
Have you ever heard of a nice period of time around 1000 A.D., now referred to as "The Crusades," where people of good European Christian faith went marching to Jerusalem to kill "infidels" and decided to massacre Jewish populations along the way? How can you claim that we Atheists have no sense of morals from which to say something is good or bad for society, while you can because you have some "holy" book that knights once prayed over right before they slaughtered innocent women and children in the name of Jesus?
Mesocyclone,
3 questions:
1. What are "Christian" morals?
2. Given this set of morals (if they can indeed be defined), why do you believe that someone who does not profess the Christian faith will not necessarily have morals that fall under these guidelines and act on them accordingly?
3. What makes you think that someone who does profess Christian faith will follow this set of morals?
It seems to me that you assume that the current "moral code" of the Christian religion is:
1. Universally accepted across all sects of Christianity and
2. The same set of morals that the Founding Father's held.
I am not sure that I would stand behind either of these assertions. I was raised a Seventh-Day Adventist, and I can remember growing up that there was some contention with other faiths about what it was that Jesus considered to be "moral" behavior, though I will grant you that Adventists do hold some...interesting beliefs on the interpretation of scripture. Also, I believe it is possible that the nature of Christianity has changed significantly in the past few centuries, and that words like "deism" could possibly thrown into the mix of this discussion.
Mesocyclone
Lets start with Article 6 of the US constitution:
"but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Earlier, it says that:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; <b>and all treaties made</b>, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
Why is this important?
In the period 1796 to 1797, the US signed a treaty with Tripoli. John Adams, a founding father, sent it to be ratified.
Article 11 of this treaty had this to say on the issue, and remember treaties are the supreme law of the land on a par with the US constitution: <b>As the Government of the United States of America is not, <i>in any sense</i>, founded on the Christian religion</b>...
And that isn't even going into how, just to hammer the point home, the founding fathers adopted the first ammendment.
Now, you claim to have studied US history, or at least claim those who disagree with you haven't. Well, I can't help but come to the conclusion that if this is so, you don't show much of the very <i>human</i> value of honesty in your post.
Reading through this thread, Zac Smith's point seems clear. Without provocation, several posters have portrayed atheists as un-American, "douche-bags," whiners, enablers of murderers and murderers. I know many atheists who are very American, nice, good humored and (for lack of a better word) non-murderers. They just want to live their life in the best, most enjoyable way possible, and they do so by being enjoyable people.
Mythman:
If I had called atheists disgusting, irritating, and delusional, would I be using provocative language?
Zac uses these terms to describe religion. Therefore, your claim that Zac did not provoke his religous readers and was treated unfairly by them rings hollow.
The author makes claims of unfair prejudice against atheists while making bold negative stereotypes of religious people. It is profoundly hypocritical. He is doing with his article the very thing he is supposedly speaking out against.
He comes across as a spoiled brat who wants to be treated with the same respect and dignity that he denies people of faith.
By the way, I never portrayed atheists as whiners...just Zac. I have NOTHING whatsoever against someone because they are an atheist. My argument is with Zac's hypocrisy, elitism, bigotry, and chidlish sense of entitlement...not his belief system. I couldn't care less about that.
I agree that there are many atheists who are very nice people. Some of my best friends are included among them.
Dio, have you ever seen the Star Trek episode where they defeat the planet of robots using illogic? This is essentially what mustafa is trying to do. The argument goes like this. If you don’t believe in a supreme being who decides what is right and wrong, all morality is subjective and therefore you can’t condemn any behavior. Further, being a person who trusts in logic, it would only be logical to rape, murder and pillage as much as you possibly can as long as you can avoid the negative Earthly consequences of those actions. It is a stupid argument because no human is a fully logical being anyway, and there are plenty of ways to justify not being a brute. However, where they are going to try get you is by posing the hypothetical question would you steal, kill etc. if it would benefit you and you knew you would not be caught (face no Earthly consequences). If you say no, then they will surmise the only possible reason you’d be compelled to do this is the influence of God. This is where the smoke is supposed to start coming out of your ears. Yes, it is very much like talking to a wall and not worth your time.
Ok perhaps I didn’t make my own person position clear enough but then I assumed I could talk about this issue from a strictly secular logic view point. Apparently most atheists only know how to respond to Christian Bible thumpers or Islamic bundles of wood. I said in my first post that wanting to spread atheism isn’t secularly logical. Why are so many unable to discuss this on that level without accusing me of being Christian or islamic.
We live in a popular culture that reveres “the dark side.” Evil for evil sake has been elevated to respectability. The black-arts have been sanitized and satanic characters are heroes. These kinds of cultural conditions have a down side. When evil is normalized, evil things begin to happen. Duh. The rash of horrendous killings,ending with suicide, is just one of them.
After Virginia Tech everyone was boohooing and wanting to how such a thing could happen. Yet any suggestion that America’s love affair with evil may be to blame is ridiculed.
I am non-religious. Of the best known religious doctrines I see Judeo/ Christian as the best model for blanket application. I don’t call myself an atheist because from what I see an “atheist” is primarily motivated by a hatred for the god he claims not to believe in, and a desire to knock out any moral underpinnings a society might have.
If the term basic animal instinct baffles you, why don't you ask a visiting evolutionist where it is we come from?
If you know of a civilization that could be considered “good’ that developed without any teaching to that end, please tell us.
The fact that in 1000 AD people, without our high sophistication, perverted some religious doctrine for personal greed does not discredit religious doctrine as a positive behavior modifier. Duh.
Yes there are individual atheists who are “good and nice” they have personal creeds to which they adhere. But there is no universal standard of atheism. Other atheist are free to develop their own set of values. But I don’t believe atheism can produce a higher percentage of “good” citizens as even Christianity can.
Christianity produces a higher percentage of good, decent people than atheism does. To withdraw such moral underpinnings and replace them with atheism will result in chaos. Why go there if we not just a bunch of God-hating anti-social masochists?
I don’t like calling myself an atheist either. I’m an atheist leaning agnostic. I dislike the moral authority many religious people claim because a book gives it to them. I similarly dislike sanctimonious atheists. However, you assertion that religion is necessary I also find equally repugnant. I said it earlier and I’ll say it again, no one here was preaching atheism, simply defending it against those who feel it is inherently inferior to religious belief. I don’t think anyone should go around trying to push their beliefs on others. The whole point of this article is that many of the faithful automatically assume there is something wrong with the faithless. They don’t believe in a magical being who watches and punishes them, how can they be trusted? You, as someone who claims not to be faithful, are furthering their argument. Perhaps you can tell me what the universal standard of Christian is. I’ve yet to see one.
I think the problem you have is a semantic one. I suspect most “atheists” are actually agnostics, as is Dr. Dawkins according to what he stated in his lecture. You seem more worried about the stupid fanatical ones, who are few and far between, and there are plenty of fanatical faithful. I think we’d do much better to create an agnostic society, even with underlying Christianity, than fanatically atheist one, which is what you seem to think will result. Still, I don’t see the Christianity as necessary. It is simply what has grown to be the standard value system in the Western world over the course of millennia. Yes, I agree instantly moving away from it might be a social shock, but secular values could easily fill that void over time. Christian values are just as mutable as secular ones. It all depends on how you interpret the holy words. What I took away from the article is fanatical Christians should be more agnostic and not have instant score or pity for the faithless. My view is everyone should be an agnostic, no matter what they believe is the most likely answer to the unanswerable questions.
"Listen, mustafa, morality is NOT derived from religion..."
Then where does it come from? because it is not a natural impulse. Our concepts of "good" are "social constructs," "learned behavior" as advocates of gay rights, among others, never tire of telling us.
Why can't anyone can tell me on what grounds, other than your personally chosen morality, you can condemn another atheist's chosen morality.
A witness to the death of the Virginia Tech killer stated that he was about to come her way when he heard the sounds of the SWAT team approaching so "he quickly killed himself."
Why quickly? Why not suicide by cop? He did not want to risk surviving and being taken captive. Killing himself was the plan, taking others with him was the thrill.
His plan did not just included, but depended on dying before suffering any consequences.
Since he feared no punishment in the here-after, then if he denies the relatives of his victims and society any chance to rebuke him ... he wins.
See how that works
@dargus
Yes there are every ingredients of a disturbed mind behind his answers:
- Confused and sometimes nonsensical or childish arguments scrambled in a rather unstructured chunk of text.
- Redefinition of concepts (notably atheism).
- No sources to backup claims, with all examples coming from personal feelings.
- Apocalyptic views of society in which an evil mastermind corrupted everything.
- Vague movie/game references about some sort of killing instinct and some sort of "dark side".
- Obsession with the religious figure of satan.
- Maybe the conviction of being someone chosen (since that person is not bastardized by the "dark side" and is "highly sophisticated" and blames America).
I know that, with about 25,000 students studying at the Norman campus, that we are to stumble upon deranged people. I just hope this one is not violent.
@mustafa
Look, it may sounds bizarre but, please, go talk to a counselor.
mustafa, what I fail to understand is if you are non-religious, how do you avoid these pitfalls? You point to particular case and say, if they believed in a God who would punish them, and being a Christian is no guarantee one would believe they would be punished for such actions, they wouldn’t have done this. No one is disputing the fact that these people didn’t believe in punishment after death, but that doesn’t lead to Christianity is better. This fear of punishment after death doesn’t provide a moral compass, it only enforces whatever moral beliefs you already hold. A Christian can just as easily convince themselves that a brutal act will not cause them to be punished in the afterlife. Take abortion clinic bombers as an example. I think the best solution is to teach the golden rule, at least what comes after that can be logical. Religion is inherently not logical since supernatural events can cause any proposition to be true. However, Christianity, sans fanatical devotion and using interpretations of book as the ultimate moral authority, is a perfectly acceptable solution too.
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make here. What I also don’t get is if you are non-religious, as you stated, how can you use words like “good” and “evil”? By non-religious, do you mean you believe in a God who enforces your morals? You make no sense to me.
“Obsession with the religious figure of satan..”
Yes, Satan is a religious figure isn’t he. There is even a Church of Satan. How come atheists like you never direct your anger at Satan and his church? When a strip bar wants to open up within shouting distance of a grade school why is it always up to some church group to publicly oppose it. Why doesn’t the American Atheist Union oppose the spread of such immorality? Answer : because the political interest of all atheists is represented by the ACLU which is always found defending the strip bar or whatever the case is.
When have you ever condemned the outward display of satanic symbols? Why do you malign anyone who is concerned with the elevation of Evil in our culture as having an ‘obsession with the religious figure of Satan?’ Why don’t you have an obsession like mine? Because you obsession with Satan, is a fascination.
It is clear how atheist would reshape society and that is why they are met with such disgust. Duh
@mustafa Are you angry? Are you taking medication? Do you have a counselor?
“How come atheists like you never direct your anger at Satan and his church?”
For one, I’ve never met a Satanist. You are correct in stating that I’ve never objected to the display of a satanic symbol, and why would I when that right is protected by the Constitution, nor have I ever objected to the display of a Christian symbol. Your argument is becoming more disjointed and difficult to follow. I don’t know where the ACLU came from either.
“I assumed I could talk about this issue from a strictly secular logic view point.”
Alright, how did Satanism enter the argument then? I thought we were talking about Christian vales vs. the absence of them. If you are non-religious, why are you now using such religious language and absolutes? I thought we were both non-religious had no moral authority, or is that only atheists? If so, what is your distinction? I get the feeling you are fibbing about your religious beliefs.
... if you are non-religious, as you stated, how can you use words like “good” and “evil”?
Bingo! I think you got, and who are you to tell Hitler what good and evil is?
I place those words in qualifying marks because who is to say what is good and what is evil in a world where morality is increasing relative? I know what good is and I know what evil is. I really don’t like people who promote what I consider evil. They are polluting my world and making it a dangerous place.
Just because I don’t consider myself religious doesn’t mean I should feel comfortable leaping into Hell with a glad yell. The popular culture is steeped in the Christian version of Hell. You and your friends object to sight of religious symbols in public. Have you ever objected to the sight of ads for movies like Hell Raiser, Hell Boy, Spawn, Little Nicky...the list is endless. Do you object to Metal, scum like Rob Zombie and Marilyn Manson, AC/DC? Ever gone to a concert and given the “horned hand?” Would you tolerate the presence of a guy wearing a Charles Manson t-shirt.
I think people who are into evil should have the “stuffin” beat out them. Don’t you?
How could a lover of evil object to being on the receiving end of evil, he should thank us, right?
The golden rule? isn’t that from the Christian Bible?
@mustafa Dude, you should stop drinking mountain dew.
The fact that people state founding fathers blah blah without knowing actual history or the relevance to the period is highly frustrating.
Those who were not of Christian stock in this period were highly persecuted (or killed), so it was common for most to state their belief in God as to avoid such. As for our founding fathers let's talk about George Washington.
Washington was an early supporter of religious toleration and freedom of religion. In 1775, he ordered that his troops not show anti-Catholic sentiments by burning the pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Night. When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists." In 1790, he wrote a response to a letter from the Touro Synagogue, in which he said that as long as people remain good citizens, their faith does not matter.
This is all that should matter to another.
Again, I object to the sight of religious symbols in public? Excuse me, have we met? I work for evangelical Christians and have never had any type of conflict with them.
The Golden Rule was in the Bible, but it is part of many cultures, including Ancient Greece which predated Jesus by a long shot. If you wish to quote Leviticus, you know all the other stuff that's in there.
If you don't consider yourself religious, what does Hell have to do with anything? You seem to be one giant walking contradiction.
Oh yeah, as to the point of this article. Q.E.D.
Not all the founders of our republic considered it necessary for a citizen to be religious or have a belief in God in order to serve in public office.
"The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:546
"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
The author of our Declaration of Independence also didn't think that our freedoms and civil liberties depend in any way upon our religious beliefs.
"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
I don't know that you can get much clearer than those quotes.
It is amazing how some in the Religious Right in this country will cherrypick quotes from the founders of our country to justify special treatment for religion. Start doing some research, and you quickly realize that 1) the founders had radically different ideas about the role of religion in society and 2) many of them did not place the importance on religion that we are led to believe they did.
Let's not forget that the founders were the radicals of their age. Their ideas - that people could rule themselves without a king, that religious freedom wouldn't cause society to collapse, natural rights, equality under the law - sound mild today but were extremely radical ideas in their time. They were not establishment. Why would all of their ideas and beliefs about religion be mainstream?
"If you don't consider yourself religious, what does Hell have to do with anything?"
I know what evil is and I know what good is. I want to live in a world with as much good as possible. A place where guys don’t go around shooting innocent people from cars like Wednesday, and like in the movie Natural Born Killers. Do you like that movie? or people who do?
I don’t like people who promote evil. What is so hard to understand about that?
Hell, Satan are the quienessential symbols of evil in this country. Am I supposed to ignore the spread of these symbols and their influence just because there is a connection to a specific religious dogma? Is that what you do?
There is a shop at the mall where you can buy evil-jewelry, gold chains with gold letters EVIL. How cool. I know what I would do to someone I caught wearing such garbage. The same thing I would do if it were a swastika or a Charles Manson t-shirt. What would you do? Would you be their friend?
“I object to the sight of religious symbols in public? Excuse me, have we met?”
There have been two local controversies involving atheist beliefs. When private groups wished to erect large Christian crosses on private property, atheists protested and even attempted to use the courts to stop them. One site was in Edmond, one in Norman on west Lindsey. Seen it?
The politically organized atheists, with whom you apparently don’t wish to be lumped, have been working overtime for years to remove religious symbols and influence wherever they can. If you don’t share their aims perhaps you might suggest to Zac that this is the reason so many view atheist with disgust.
Christianity - A First Century Palestinian Jewish Zombie, who was also his own father, was sent from heaven, to die so that I can be forgiven. Makes perfect sense. Why didn't god just forgive us because he loves us. Plus I am not ready to forgive him for all the atroshious things he did in the old testimate. Maybe Jesus was a peace offering to us from him. that would make more logical sense.
Listen. I base my life on logic, rational, critical thinking. I have three children, a loving wife, have survived two wars, and had a bout with a brain tumor. I did all this without appealing to a higher power. I am an Atheist and proud, and I am a soldier. My Brother is the same and he is a Policeman. Many of my co-workers share simular views. Non-believers make up 20% of the military and 90% of the National Association of Sciences. Chances are you meet us every day and don't know it. We don't wear crosses or pins....yet.
It is time to be intellectually honest with ourselves. Religion is fossilized philosophy, it is stagnant and irrelevent to modern society. It is a mear echo of our brutal ignorant past. Most of the christians that I know don't believe half the stuff in the bible. It is a combination of religious indoctrination during the critical stage in early childhood development and tribal loyalty.
As an atheist I am willing to respect all religious beliefs, however embarrassing they may be, as long as....you stop flying airplanes into our buildings, stay out of our public schools, stay out of our public courts, allow us to explore potential life saving medical advances, stop discriminating against homosexuals, stop oppressing or promoting inequality of women, stop spreading ignorance to aids infested africa reguarding the use of condoms, the list goes on.
I realize that religion is an extremely sensitive subject, yet I find it disheartening that this debate has digressed from an educated argument, to a bitter, mud-slinging competition. I agree that the constitution clearly calls for separation of Church and State, as well as that the founding fathers were not as religious as popular history might lend itself to believe--specifically Jefferson. In fact many historians are in agreement that the US has experienced a religious enlightenment since the countries conception.
I would also like to dispute the claim that Darwin was an atheist; he was a self-proclaimed agnostic. It is commonly misunderstood. Nowhere in the Origin of Species does Darwin attack religion or the existence of God, however his findings do (in ways, unintentionally) dispute Christian theology. After reading his full autobiography, it is evident that Darwin endured an internal conflict between believing in God and scientific fact. Darwin even considered, as he claims in his Autobiography, becoming a Clergyman in his early life. So I believe that calling Darwin an atheist is false. However, people seem to lack the curiosity to research their own claims and distinguish truth from rumor. Most notably, at the end of Darwin's Autobiography, in the last line he states that because of his inability to correlate what he knows to be scientific evidence, to the Christian creation story (I say story without either confirming or disputing its legitimacy), he "for one must be content to remain Agnostic" (Darwin, Autobiography). In my opinion, as well as others, it is implied through his personal experiences that Darwin in part desired to believe in a God, though it is not explicitly stated.
I also believe Atheists are portrayed in a negative light, it is not true in all cases- as nothing is true in all cases- yet I find that Atheists do have a certain reputation. I have never found an atheist wandering around trying to convert me to atheism as I have been approached by various Evangelicals (though I have not found them hostile, all except one), nor have atheist ever committed violent crimes in the name of anarchy, which is often associated with atheism. To my knowledge Atheism is not a campaign against religion, but more a product of people’s dissatisfaction with the institution of the church, its grip on politics and moral thought, as well as people’s ability to question. Sometimes I find that Atheists have been Christian, and become disillusioned with it.
I will not state my own religious affiliation because I do not deem it relevant. I wish to make as objective interpretation of the subject as possible, despite that aspirations utter impossibility by any man or woman. Yet, if there be an inquiry I will comply.
By mustafa's own logic.
Non-religious people have no authority to call anything good or evil.
"who is to say what is good and what is evil in a world where morality is increasing relative"
"Where else do you get a basis to condemn Hitler (an atheist), and how do you encourage the atheist at you side to do the same?"
Yet, you continue to take a moral high ground in this debate.
"I know what evil is and I know what good is."
Really? How, Mr. Non-Religious? I'd say it is obvious from the way you go about making your argument that you are a religious person. A non-religious person wouldn't invoke all of that religious imagery. What does your God say about lying? Does He not mind if you are trying to make a point?
mustafa
Religion has sweet bugger-all to do with morality. It has NEVER been a source of morality.
Think about it:
The big 10.
Of them you have:
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not perjure.
The rest are actually unconstitutional in most Western Democracies, or contrary to current Western values.
Respect thy elders, for example, doesn't exactly wash in a society where children are expected to speak up for themselves if they are being abused.
Those three on the other hand, well the Bible doesn't actually claim to originate them - you only get slaves in a society with the concept of property, perjury has always been frowned upon in all legal systems and Moses, who was the adoptive brother of the Pharoah, was run out of Egypt for murdering someone.
Our current morality contains concepts which are completely different to the Bible.
The Bible says kids should be killed for backchat - do that today and you will be had up for murder. Rape, in the Bible, is perfectly fine within a marriage. In current day law, it is still rape.
Unbelievers are to be burned like dry twigs. Nice.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - Yeah, nowadays you start killing people for being witches? Not exactly smiled upon.
Even those rapture ready Christians who think life is sacred (At least until it is actually breathing for itself) aren't biblically correct: A child isn't given its soul until its first breath according to the Bible, and it can be read that the Bible doesn't really think it is a child until after its first month out of the womb.
And that kind of makes their whole thing in favour of single mothers giving birth rather than aborting particularly bad: A bastard shall not enter the gates of heaven even unto the tenth generation.
So what they have actually done is condemned that child to an eternity in hell, because they didn't abort it - this is of course, assuming you think that the vile, sick and perverted torture loving kiddy killing genocidal megalomaniac described by the Bible actually exists.
God in real terms is the ultimate villain protagonist.
Morality isn't exactly the Bible's strong suit.
This post and the ensuing discussion both intrigue and alarm me. But first, I wish to commend the author on his his writing ability. Zac shows great promise as a persuasive author and presents a well planned and illuminating article.
I am unsure of the draw of this article or website to various groups or select representatives of those groups. Some social opportunities draw a self-selecting crowd that sways resultant observations drawn from the original event. The majority of the comments posted by Christians contain the same self-righteousness that I find so revolting in televangelists and door-to-door Bible Thumpers. It appears that their surety of belief in their cause negates the need for reason, logic, or common social decency towards their fellow man. Most religious posts here seem devoid of reason and, perhaps against the conscious desires of the Christians who hold them, provide further fuel for attendant atheist's anti-theistic stance. The cherry picking of partial quotes to support a belief or point are either done with woeful ignorance or the conscious attempt to deceive. Either way, they demonstrate no moral or intellectual superiority and undermine the very points (I assume) they wish to express.
Regarding anti-theist sentiment, I do not mean to imply that all atheists are anti-theistic. However, as a cause and motivator for indulgence in causing the suffering of others, there is no single cause of more pain and anguish throughout history than the calling of religious righteousness. And the sad crown of that race is still being fought over by the "great" mono-theistic religions of the Sons of Abraham, namely Christianity and Islam. The study of religious history and human history categorically proves that religion in general brings suffering to the masses and delays the scientific advances that have brought relief from disease, respite from starvation, increased longevity, decreased infant mortality, and other great benefits to our species. The feeding of random homeless or the donation of old clothes to poor villagers does not redeem the past sins of Christianity or any other religion with oceans of blood upon their hands.
Myself, I am anti-theistic. I believe that no good will come from the belief in any false reality no matter how fervent or wishful the believer. I place no belief in prayer but instead choose to create my own destiny. I hold no fear of the oft trumpeted divine retribution, yet I hold beliefs and a dedication to morality far superior to all but a select few Christians whom I have met.I see religion as a curse and a scourge upon mankind. But if I were to believe in one supernatural being, I would believe in the Christian portrayal of the fallen angel, Satan. Who else could, or would, create such as pernicious system of belief sewing such distrust and hatred? Good riddance Christianity. Good riddance to them all.
..”it is obvious from the way you go about making your argument that you are a religious person”
You are apparently unwilling to entertain the possibility that it is possible to be non-religious yet recognize the acknowledged benefits certain doctrines have, and thus be reluctant to remove them.
Throughout my posts I have consistently stated the case in the logical secular sense. You have done nothing but avoid seeing anything but a religious approach. You don’t seem to know how to deal with the idea: is there a logical reason to maintain religion in a society, particularly the Christian religion in the USA.
As to- no one wanting to spread atheism, this is contradicted by the likes of the Philip Pullman author of the books from which the movie “The Golden Compass” is based. He is quite unabashed in his desire to spread atheism.
“A non-religious person wouldn't invoke all of that religious imagery.”
Well there certainly has been a lot of it coming from types like Tokeloshe, Mesocyclone.
I think that you, like them, are not equipped to deal with an approach that does not carry the easy target that is the Christian Bible, especially the Old Testament. The book of Mormon and the Koran are even bigger targets.
When you are approached by someone without this target, you have to rationalize a way to give him the target or you just can’t compete.
"Where else do you get a basis to condemn Hitler (an atheist), and how do you encourage the atheist at you side to do the same?"
Well how do you.
Rather than wrestle with the question or god or no god try just the question Is life meaningless?
I do believe the world is Nihilism; the belief that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.
If life is meaningless then Hitler was entitled to do what he did. After all what did it really matter?
The modern Nihilist movement certainly kicked-off with the New Wave music of the late seventies. Are you a NIN fan?
Since you feel that a true non-religious person shouldn’t object to the spread atheism, would it be OK for him to be concerned about the spread of Nihilism?
The common belief shared by all these wacko murderers is that they saw existence as meaningless,
I know good and evil as I see it. There is that better.
I have looked at most religions, if only peripherally, at least enough to know its basic components. And of course I was raised with the typical exposure to Christianity and, in truth, for some time I did accept it. So? Isn’t that typical of the militant atheists on this page? How many of you were fortunate enough to be raised in a religion-free family? Why do remnants of such training, somehow, make a person “un-atheist,” the same way assimilating Native Americans are considered “un-Indian,” and Blacks considered “Oreos?’
Is it the fear of showing such characteristics that drive so many of you to such outrageous displays of god-hate?
You have admitted that religion is a valuable behavior modifier, now include the obvious comfort and support people derive from it. You would remove that as well?
If you have grown up in the US then you must know this society was shaped by the dominant Christian religion. How can you assure anyone that a replacing it with a religion-free society will be an improvement? Especially when there is growing evidence of a correlation between the declining influence of religion in people’s lives, and the rise of mass-murder suicides and other extremely anti-social behavior?
These are logical question worthy of being answered. Instead of hoping ridicule will suffice, try a real response.
First off, I said, “No one *here* is trying to convert anyone to atheism.” I said this because I was confused why you even brought up the subject. It is clear now you wanted the debate to go in the direction is has now, as opposed to the “atheists are discriminated against” point the article was attempting to make.
I am in no way unwilling to accept the fact that a non-religious person might see an advantage to a religious society. There could be many justifications for such a position. However, I believe you have simply failed to make a secular case. You go off on tangents about Rob Zombie, Satan and the ACLU, and have yet to explain how religious thought, specifically Christian, is superior to values based on secular ideas. Yes, secular values are mutable, but how do you explain the changing values of Christianity? How are Christian values formed? People read a book they believe to be the work of God, discuss their interpretations of it, and come to a consensus as to what values should be taken from it. How does this differ from how secular values are created? People get together and come to a consensus as to what values are to be deemed beneficial and which are to be deemed negative. Sure, it is possible to come to the conclusion that mass murder, torture or any other action is a “good” value, but please explain how believing in a God deters this? The Bible can be, and has been, interpreted to support brutal acts. You can blame this on our ancestors’ lack of high sophistication, as you did, but that seems like a cop out to me. If that is your argument, couldn’t we become so sophisticated that we won’t need the social control you claim is such a benefit of religion? Perhaps even in the near future?
“Rather than wrestle with the question or god or no god try just the question Is life meaningless?”
If you mean there is no all-powerful being to give my life meaning, I’d lean very strongly towards yes. If you mean can I bring meaning to my own existence, I’d say certainly life is not meaningless. Does Nihilism necessarily concern me? No. Does NIN concern me? No. Do I think people should believe if there is no God they should do whatever is best for themselves regardless of the pain that might be brought on someone else? No.
“I know good and evil as I see it. There is that better.”
Yes, and so do I.
“You have admitted that religion is a valuable behavior modifier, now include the obvious comfort and support people derive from it. You would remove that as well?”
I don’t wish to remove anyone’s comfort. I have zero problem with religion as long as it does not cause the believer to infringe on my right to live my life as I see fit, providing living my life does not infringe on someone else’s right to live theirs.
How can you assure anyone that a replacing [Christianity] with a religion-free society will be an improvement?
I can’t. I never said it will be. All I said is being religious, Christian in this case since it is what you chose to focus on, is not inherently better than being non-religious.
“Especially when there is growing evidence of a correlation between the declining influence of religion in people’s lives, and the rise of mass-murder suicides and other extremely anti-social behavior?”
Please present this evidence. While we are on the topic of evidence, I would like to revisit a claim you made earlier.
“When private groups wished to erect large Christian crosses on private property, atheists protested and even attempted to use the courts to stop them. One site was in Edmond, one in Norman on west Lindsey. Seen it?”
I can’t find any evidence of this. Can you link to an article to support your claim?
Atheists are purists Christians want to pour animal blood on. If one's religion requires a Universal Body Fluid Precaution kit, I'm not interested. Atheists are rugged individualists, not commercial conformists, and it infuriates Christians.
-Bubba
One site was in Edmond, one in Norman on west Lindsey….evidence..?
Google - Edmond Ok cross controversy, or giant cross on I-35 in Edmond Oklahoma there are several references to it.
About ten years ago Bethel Baptist Church on Lindsey erected a large cross on it’s main building setting off many left wingers and atheists complaining about how it might be offensive to Arabs or Hindus etc. The fact that their reasoning was totally flaky didn’t stop them from making it. The Norman Transcript gave it coverage and editorial space. Do you wish to study the episode or just check to see if I’m making this up?
If you ask for documentation of an event in the manner that you it implies that the charge is so outrageous that if verified it would cause you to give pause. But will it? My experience with leftists is that whenever they are shown that such charges are indeed true they simply shrug it off, conveniently forgetting how upset they were just moments before.
These stories are true and they’re only two of thousands of incidents that go on every year. I put them forward to support the contention that atheist resent the sight of Christian symbols per se. Yet, like you, they are very comfortable with the Christian symbols of evil. That is inconsistence thinking and bias judgment.
I see a lot of what I call evil being promoted in our culture. It offends me. It pollutes my world and makes a more dangerous and cruel place. Why are you unable to share that resentment?
“If you mean there is no all-powerful being to give my life meaning, I’d lean very strongly towards yes.”
No I mean, what meaning does the existence of human beings on this planet have?
Imagine if you can, that it were possible to measure the totality of all human experience… of every person who has ever lived. Then divide that sum into two groups: joy/happiness vs. pain/suffering. We would see the former made miniscule by the latter.
If life has arisen as a result of random accident then the net result of human existence is as a medium for the experiencing of pain and suffering.
In that is the case, then this existence is a rouge existence. If it serves no greater purpose why do humans permit it to continue? It would be better to self-destruct in order to avoid further suffering. Imagine if the human race had died off in the year 1900. Look at all the suffering that would have been prevented; no WWI, WWII, AIDS etc.
This is what Susan Atkins was referring to when she said, “It takes a lot of love to kill someone.” She was saving them from future suffering.
“Do you wish to study the episode or just check to see if I’m making this up?”
I’m asking for evidence because I want to check your interpretation of it. I don’t deny that there are some atheists who are offended by Christian symbols, but I am not one of them, provided they are private displays. Bringing in the law to remove a symbol on private property will fail so I don’t see why anyone would attempt this route. I Googled the words you suggested and found only brief references to it. I would like to understand all of the context surrounding the controversy. I will continue to research. I recall an incident involving the state fairgrounds, but that is public property and a different subject entirely. I certainly would take a vocal stance against anyone attempting to censor someone’s right to free expression on their private property. Further, most “Christian symbols of evil” displayed in the context you have described are not religious per se, but rather a rebellion against religious dogma.
“My experience with leftists is that whenever they are shown that such charges are indeed true they simply shrug it off, conveniently forgetting how upset they were just moments before.”
How am I a leftist?
“I see a lot of what I call evil being promoted in our culture. It offends me. It pollutes my world and makes a more dangerous and cruel place. Why are you unable to share that resentment?”
I certainly resent things I see as evil. However, Rob Zombie and the other popular culture icons you have chosen to vilify don’t fit that definition. How familiar with these icons are you and the people who enjoy their artistic expression? Do you know any?
“If life has arisen as a result of random accident then the net result of human existence is as a medium for the experiencing of pain and suffering. In that is the case, then this existence is a rouge existence. If it serves no greater purpose why do humans permit it to continue?”
Simple, as long as humans exist they can increase their net happiness. Because there was so much suffering in the past in no way means it must be so in the future. One could easily argue that the human race should have the chance to better itself. Isn’t that the point you were making about how much more sophisticated we are now compared to our brutal ancestors who used religion as a justification to kill and mame?
You could certainly approach the world the way you do if you don’t believe in a higher power, but your view of the world is one of the most pessimistic I’ve ever heard. I still don’t see a coherent argument for why someone who believes in religion is superior to one who doesn’t. If you want to make a worst case argument, which you seem to be, I can make one for religion too.
There is no god. Get over it. Atheists are smarter than religitards. You people believe in the afterlife because you can't accept your own mortality, you fantasize about living after your death so much that you actually believe these fairy tales. And you justify your hatred with 'well primitive people 2000 years ago wrote it so it must be true!'
Re: Atheists
First, let me say that I am a Christian. Secondly, let me emphasize that I don't belong to ANY organized religion, and find the mere thought of joining a religion to be repugnant.
I'm a firm believer in letting people alone in their beliefs, whether they're atheists, satanists, pagans, buddhists, mormons or whatever. I strongly dislike people foisting their beliefs upon me, so it's something that I do not do.
That being said, when a discussion of beliefs is on the table, it seems that I get the most vehement opposition from atheists.
I don't foist my beliefs upon them, why do they go out of their way to ridicule mine?
Mustafa, you think that because atheists don't believe in the punishments of hell, there is nothing to prevent them from murdering. (Apart from punishments of this world I suppose, and the fact that blood makes one squeamish of course.) Well what of the catholic? He can kill whoever he wants, confess his sins and he gets to spend the eternal afterlife in paradise. Why aren't catholics constantly on murder sprees? There is nothing holding them back.
As far as your notion that even if religion is nonsense, it is still a good social modifier, to keep people in line. It is like you are repeating Marx's "religion is the opiate of the masses" line but adding, "and that's a good thing."
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.