Woodstock of atheists

[creep]

whereas most people don't ask about religious affiliation and don't care.

i have never ever been asked about my religious or political beliefs by any employer in my lifetime. i just see it strange how atheists seem to want to label themselves as atheists. can't people just believe in what they believe without having a title?

[Hype]

huh? are you serious? it's not a complex, it's a reality
At some conservative jobs here in Mexico you have to be like everyone, I've known people who are very capable but haven't gotten a job because of being atheists or liberals.

Yes, people running a business tend to want to hire people that they feel are in line with their values and morals. It happens.

I've been discriminated against for not being a catholic and a neoconservative.

I've also been discriminated against by not getting a job offer because my non minority status prevented them from meeting a quota.

So it cuts both ways.

I just don't know any other group that whines as much as atheists about how bad they have it, whereas most people don't ask about religious affiliation and don't care.

People tend to dislike atheists because they whine about things like "In God we Trust" on money. No one cares. Shut up.

Dude.. wait a second... It might be true that some people dislike atheists because they "whine" about things like the word 'God' on the money, but that's not the ONLY reason people "dislike atheists". I think it's probably more likely that people dislike atheists because they viscerally equate "atheist" with "moral nihilist". And anyway, "dislike atheists" is a disturbing way of characterizing it in the first place, because we're not supposed to dislike entire groups of people that way (based on characteristics that can't possibly apply to each individual... like disliking Jews because they're greedy or cheap, or red haired people because they are creepy, angry, and have no souls... or whatever.) It is true that some atheists in the United States like Madalyn Murray O'Hair have come across in such a way as to make it much harder to take "atheists" as a group seriously (and personally I have misgivings about considering "atheists" a group in the first place). But O'Hair herself was brutally murdered. And the historic treatment of exceptional human beings who happened to be atheist (and/or gay, etc.) is so brutal in itself that surely attempts, however "whiney" or minor they may seem individually are commendable.

You should read what happened to Bertrand Russell (it's very short and straight-forward, no philosophy): http://www.vny.cuny.edu/gutter/panels/panel14.html

That kind of shit is ridiculous, and yet it's serious. Real people's lives are affected by this. It's not whining to be vocal about the injustice of being denied a job because of your (lack of) religious beliefs, regardless of your quasi-libertarian corporatism.

[creep]

or red haired people because they are creepy, angry, and have no souls...

you have to admit there is a lot of truth in that though.

[Hype]

or red haired people because they are creepy, angry, and have no souls...

you have to admit there is a lot of truth in that though.

It is more or less true of many people.

[Hokahey]

or red haired people because they are creepy, angry, and have no souls...

you have to admit there is a lot of truth in that though.

[Larry B.]

[dali]

People tend to dislike atheists because they whine about things like "In God we Trust" on money. No one cares. Shut up.

If atheists pay the same taxes as other religious people than we atheists have as much right to separation of church and state as them.

Believe me, if money said "In God we DON"T Trust" you can bet that christians would be complaining just as much, if not more.

[Larry B.]

yawn

[dali]

yawn

you don't have any "american" money, that's why.

[Larry B.]

yawn

you don't have any "american" money, that's why.

Yeah, our money doesn't say "God", I think...

It's just that sometimes people taking part in these discussions need to remember that the only solution for any religious problem is to kill a lot of people. They don't believe in your god? Kill them. They believe in some stupid spaghetti monster? Kill them. They're killing people who don't believe in their spaghetti monster? Kill them.

That's the only effective solution. Everything else is a waste of time. People who believe in stupid shit are stupid: that's why they believe in stupid shit. You don't want stupid people in your atheist club anyway.

[Hokahey]

People tend to dislike atheists because they whine about things like "In God we Trust" on money. No one cares. Shut up.

If atheists pay the same taxes as other religious people than we atheists have as much right to separation of church and state as them.

Believe me, if money said "In God we DON"T Trust" you can bet that christians would be complaining just as much, if not more.

The fact that anyone would even care is ridiculous. But clearly, it means more to the simple minded to have that on their money and it doesn't really affect you in any way. So why make a stink about it? It just screams the need for attention.

[creep]

People tend to dislike atheists because they whine about things like "In God we Trust" on money. No one cares. Shut up.

If atheists pay the same taxes as other religious people than we atheists have as much right to separation of church and state as them.

Believe me, if money said "In God we DON"T Trust" you can bet that christians would be complaining just as much, if not more.

The fact that anyone would even care is ridiculous. But clearly, it means more to the simple minded to have that on their money and it doesn't really affect you in any way. So why make a stink about it? It just screams the need for attention.

[perkana]

creep, I used to like you

[creep]

creep, I used to like you

we can work through this

[Hype]

People tend to dislike atheists because they whine about things like "In God we Trust" on money. No one cares. Shut up.

If atheists pay the same taxes as other religious people than we atheists have as much right to separation of church and state as them.

Believe me, if money said "In God we DON"T Trust" you can bet that christians would be complaining just as much, if not more.

The fact that anyone would even care is ridiculous. But clearly, it means more to the simple minded to have that on their money and it doesn't really affect you in any way. So why make a stink about it? It just screams the need for attention.

Well, I don't care much, but simple-minded people have actually used the fact that 'god' is on the money to be on school-boards and argue against the teaching of evolution at meetings. It's a tangential point, but it's worth pointing out that simple folk often reason poorly and because this is a democracy, we may want to be on guard about inadvertent brainwashing.

I recall reading a study that showed that placing voting booths in or near a church, or near a crucifix tends to correlate with conservative/republican-positive outcomes, though I can't figure out what to google to get a link to the thing... but maybe someone else can try to find it, or I'll find it some other time. But even if that particular case isn't quite accurate as I've described it, given that the United States purports to be democratic, we may want to simply bear in mind that something as subtle as pulling out your wallet to show your ID at a polling station and seeing "IN GOD WE TRUST" on money, either at the time, or all the time... may be affecting voting patterns. I'm not comitted to this as an actual reason to argue that you should take it off the money... I'm just saying that it's not totally stupid to think about it.

[Artemis]

here you go...

not the actual study but an article about it.

http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2012 ... sway_votes

[Hype]

here you go...

not the actual study but an article about it.

http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2012 ... sway_votes

Thanks! That's what I was remembering. I hope it makes sense why I think that's at least a reason to ask whether having a loaded phrase like "In God We Trust" sort of out there all the time might have a similar effect, or at least might have the potential to have some effect --- an effect, that is, that we don't necessarily want polluting democracy. Hoka should agree with me that the government being able to control minds this way is bad.

[dali]

Well, I don't care much, but simple-minded people have actually used the fact that 'god' is on the money to be on school-boards and argue against the teaching of evolution at meetings. It's a tangential point, but it's worth pointing out that simple folk often reason poorly and because this is a democracy, we may want to be on guard about inadvertent brainwashing.

I recall reading a study that showed that placing voting booths in or near a church, or near a crucifix tends to correlate with conservative/republican-positive outcomes, though I can't figure out what to google to get a link to the thing... but maybe someone else can try to find it, or I'll find it some other time. But even if that particular case isn't quite accurate as I've described it, given that the United States purports to be democratic, we may want to simply bear in mind that something as subtle as pulling out your wallet to show your ID at a polling station and seeing "IN GOD WE TRUST" on money, either at the time, or all the time... may be affecting voting patterns. I'm not comitted to this as an actual reason to argue that you should take it off the money... I'm just saying that it's not totally stupid to think about it.

Thank you for making my point.

People think that "God" on money is meaningless but IMO it's a slippery slope to "We'll if God is allowed on our money why can't we have religious statues in the front of courthouses, or hell, why can't we make people swear on a bible in a court of law".

You either have COMPLETE separation of church and state or it doesn't exist. There aren't allowed to be "exceptions" to separation of church and state just because "that's the way it's always been"(ie. "tradition").

[Hype]

I think we can be tactful/sensitive about it, sometimes. Other times, when the matter is more pressing (e.g., issues of blatant injustice/harm against individuals) I think we ought to be loud and devastating in our opposition to it.

I think it is similar to other rights issues -- I have at times thought that all rights movements need a 'dangerous' or 'offensive' element to them to really make people pay attention. The Civil Rights movement had the Black Panthers and Malcolm X, the women's rights movement has extremist, or at least very loud, and possibly offensive, women, or arguments; animal rights has PETA and "eco-terrorism", etc. And likewise I think that though I sometimes disagree with the methods or attitudes espoused by some atheists, sometimes they need to go that extra step to causing undue offense, just to remind people that we exist and that there are real issues here that ought to be taken seriously.

[perkana]

One part of Mexican history that I'm very proud of is Reform War and out of it came the Reform Laws...

The first of the Liberal Reform Laws were passed in 1855. The Juárez Law, named after Benito Juárez, restricted clerical privileges, specifically the authority of Church courts, by subordinating their authority to civil law. It was conceived of as a moderate measure, rather than abolish church courts altogether. However, the move opened latent divisions in the country. Archbishop Lázaro de la Garza in Mexico City condemned the Law as an attack on the Church itself, and clerics went into rebellion in the city of Puebla in 1855-56. Other laws attacked the privileges traditionally enjoyed by the military, which was significant since the military had been instrumental in putting and keeping Mexican governments in office since Emperor Agustín de Iturbide in the 1820s.
The next Reform Law was called the Lerdo Law, after Miguel Lerdo de Tejada. Under this new law, the government began to confiscate Church land. This proved to be considerably more controversial than the Juárez Law. The purpose of the law was to convert lands held by corporate entities such as the Church into private property, favoring those who already lived on it. It was thought that such would encourage development and the government could raise revenue by taxing the process. Lerdo de Tejada was the Minister of Finance and required that the Church sell much of its urban and rural land at reduced prices. If the Church did not comply, the government would hold public auctions. The Law also stated that the Church could not gain possession of properties in the future. However, the Lerdo Law did not apply only to the Church. It stated that no corporate body could own land. Broadly defined, this would include ejidos, or communal land owned by Indian villages. Initially, these ejidos were exempt from the law, but eventually these Indian communities suffered and extensive loss of land.
By 1857, additional anti-clerical legislation, such as the Iglesias Law (named after José María Iglesias) regulated the collection of clerical fees from the poor and prohibited clerics from charging for baptisms, marriages, or funeral services. Marriage became a civil contract, although no provision for divorce was authorized. Registry of births, marriages and deaths became a civil affair, with President Benito Juárez registering his newly-born son in Veracruz. The number of religious holidays was reduced and several holidays to commemorate national events introduced. Religious celebrations outside churches was forbidden, use of church bells restricted and clerical dress was prohibited in public.
One other significant Reform Law was the Law for the Nationalization of Ecclesiastical Properties, which would eventually secularize nearly all of the country’s monasteries and convents. The government had hoped that this law would bring in enough revenue to secure a loan from the United States but sales would prove disappointing from the time it was passed all the way to the early 20th century.

So it's sad and frustrating to see that the party that is in power wants to revert most of this.

[crater]

We are the whiners
We should shut up
We are the simple minded
We are the ones screaming for attention

[Hokahey]

I think we can be tactful/sensitive about it, sometimes. Other times, when the matter is more pressing (e.g., issues of blatant injustice/harm against individuals) I think we ought to be loud and devastating in our opposition to it.

I think it is similar to other rights issues -- I have at times thought that all rights movements need a 'dangerous' or 'offensive' element to them to really make people pay attention. The Civil Rights movement had the Black Panthers and Malcolm X, the women's rights movement has extremist, or at least very loud, and possibly offensive, women, or arguments; animal rights has PETA and "eco-terrorism", etc. And likewise I think that though I sometimes disagree with the methods or attitudes espoused by some atheists, sometimes they need to go that extra step to causing undue offense, just to remind people that we exist and that there are real issues here that ought to be taken seriously.

Well stated and I cant disagree with any of it.

[chaos]

http://theweek.com/article/index/226625 ... in-america

The rise of atheism in America
The number of disbelievers is growing, but they remain America's least trusted minority. Why?
POSTED ON APRIL 13, 2012, AT 11:07 AM

The National Atheist Organization's "Reason Rally" in March: 19 percent of the American public spurns organized religion in favor of skepticism about faith.

How many atheists are there?
It depends on your definition of the term. Only between 1.5 and 4 percent of Americans admit to so-called "hard atheism," the conviction that no higher power exists. But a much larger share of the American public (19 percent) spurns organized religion in favor of a nondefined skepticism about faith. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the "Nones," is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. David Silverman, president of American Atheists, claims these Nones as members of his tribe. "If you don't have a belief in God, you're an atheist," he said. "It doesn't matter what you call yourself."

Why are so many people leaving religion?
It's primarily a backlash against the religious Right, say political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell. In their book, American Grace, they argue that the religious Right's politicization of faith in the 1990s turned younger, socially liberal Christians away from churches, even as conservatives became more zealous. The dropouts were turned off by churches' Old Testament condemnation of homosexuals, premarital sex, contraception, and abortion. The Catholic Church's sex scandals also prompted millions to equate religion with moralistic hypocrisy. "While the Republican base has become ever more committed to mixing religion and politics," Putnam and Campbell write, "the rest of the country has been moving in the opposite direction." As society becomes more secular, researchers say, doubters are more confident about identifying themselves as nonbelievers. "The collapse of institutional religion in the first 10 years of this century [has] freed so many people to say they don't really care," said author Diana Butler Bass.

How are nonbelievers perceived?
Most polls suggest that atheists are among the most disliked groups in the U.S. One study last year asked participants whether a fictional hit-and-run driver was more likely to be an atheist or a rapist. A majority chose atheist. In 2006, another study found that Americans rated atheists as less likely to agree with their vision of America than Muslims, Hispanics, or homosexuals. "Wherever there are religious majorities, atheists are among the least trusted people," said University of British Columbia sociologist Will M. Gervais. As a result, avowed atheists are rare in nearly all areas of public life. Of the 535 legislators in Congress, for example, only one — Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) — calls himself an atheist. Few sports stars or Hollywood celebrities own up to having no religious faith.

Why so much distrust?
Many Americans raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition are convinced that atheists can have no moral compass. Azim Shariff, a University of Oregon psychologist who studies religious thinking, sums up how believers view nonbelievers: "They don't fear God, so we should distrust them. They do not have the same moral obligations as others." The antipathy may have actually grown with the recent emergence of "New Atheist" writers such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, who have launched impassioned attacks on organized religion. Dawkins has encouraged his followers to "ridicule" anyone who could believe in "an unforgiving control freak" and "a capriciously malevolent bully" like the God portrayed in the Old Testament. Dawkins's harsh approach, said Barbara J. King, an anthropologist at the College of William and Mary, has confirmed "some of the negative stereotypes associated with the nonreligious — intolerance of the faithful, first and foremost."

How have atheists responded to this negative image?
A coalition of nonbelievers is out to make atheism more acceptable, starting with last month's "Reason Rally" on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., where thousands stood up for their right to not believe. Silverman of American Atheists, who helped organize the rally, said it was intended to give heart to young, "closet atheists" who fear the social stigma of being "outed," in much the same way closeted gays do. "We will never be closeted again," he said. Some within the movement advocate taking a more conciliatory approach to believers, too. Alain de Botton, the Anglo-Swiss writer of the new book Religion for Atheists, assails Dawkins as being "very narrow-minded," and praises religions as "the most successful educational and intellectual movements the planet has ever witnessed."

Will atheism ever be accepted?
If growth continues at the current rate, one in four Americans will profess no religious faith within 20 years. Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a "legitimate political segment of the American population," afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities. But he's not advocating a complete secular takeover of the U.S. — nor would he be likely to achieve one, given the abiding religious faith of most Americans. "We don't want the obliteration of religion; we don't want religion wiped off the face of the earth," Silverman said. "All we demand is equality."

Atheists in foxholes
Atheists are barely visible in politics and entertainment, but they are clamoring for recognition in another area of public life — the military. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers estimates that 40,000 soldiers identify as nonbelievers, and counts the most famous casualty of the war in Afghanistan, former NFL star Pat Tillman, as one of its own. In attempting to secure the same rights and support enjoyed by religious soldiers, the association lobbies against the idea that "there are no atheists in foxholes," and wants "atheist chaplains" made available for the ranks of the armed nonbelievers. Jason Torpy, the association's president, says that nonbelievers outnumber every religious group in the military except Christians, yet receive no ethical and family counseling geared to their own nonbeliefs. "These are things that chaplains do for everybody," he said, "except us."