Why Are Americans Still Uncomfortable with Atheism?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
American antipathy for atheism is as old as America. Although many colonists came to this country seeking to practice their own faith freely, they brought with them a notion of religious liberty that extended only to other religions—often only to other denominations of Christianity. From John Locke they inherited the idea that atheists cannot be good citizens and should not be brought into the social contract; in “A Letter Concerning Toleration,” Locke had written, “Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God.”
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
I suspect the root cause of negative attitudes towards atheists stems largely from ignorance. Some people are taught, and actually believe, that atheists are immoral, bad/evil, untrustworthy, ect., for no other reason than because they do not believe in god.
Agreed.
The article goes into that a bit.
I'm in a conversation on another forum where believers are saying just that - that atheists can't be moral, because they have no reason to be, no consequences to fear. I'd say that says more about them than about atheists. But saying as much gets me accused of "casting shade" on Christians (they never hesitate to cast shade on atheists. Hmmm.).
Indeed. If someone needs god or religion to be good or moral, then that's a character flaw with them. Atheists are perfectly capable of being good and moral without god or religion.
What forum would that be?
Morality is not about following an edict because of fear. Morality is understanding the difference between right and wrong.
Atheists do not believe in a god and thus recognize no absolute morality. The Bible, the Qur'an, etc. are understood to simply be the words of ancient men and thus the mores and values of same.
Atheists thus operate on a modern moral code - one that has evolved with society. It is this moral code that empirically suggests what is right and what is wrong. We have learned, for example, that the owning of another human being as property is immoral. We have learned this in spite of 'holy' books which effectively condone such behavior.
It is amazing that some people actually think that morality = behaving out of fear.
Ya gotta be a dentist.
I would be interested knowing that too.
To add to this point, I would say some feel anger towards atheists because it puts their own fear of dying front and center. There must be a God. There must be something after this life.
Christians are very immoral and the worst type of people. They feel they can get away with anything because all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and claim to be sinners while passing judgement on others and not permitting others that same forgiveness. I feel sad for people who are Christians.
I'll pick an atheists every time over a Christian. They aren't trying to twist their actions to fit into a made up rule. They don't need guidelines to tell them what is right and wrong.
It's not open to the public.
I wouldn't say that of all Christians. I know some very good Christians who consistently go out of their way to help others, and would give the shirts off their backs if they thought somebody else needed them. I know some who are accepting of others' religious views, sexual orientations, lifestyles, etc.
Like all groups, they're a mix of good and bad.
My dearly departed parents would argue that point no doubt. My senses of right and wrong along with my morality came directly from them. While other venues may have reinforced their values to one degree or another, there was no doubt in my mind regarding consequences awarded to infractions.
It is the individual that opts to do good or not, no other person or entity should hold sway over that as you are the one to be held accountable for your actions or lack of them. Only sheep require a shepherd in my estimation.
Maybe...... I don't want to take this in another direction so I'll take a step back.
It's a good article and I don't want to derail it.
My dad would, for sure. I'm not even sure whether he's a believer or not. He doesn't attend church, except occasionally to make my mom happy. But he's a good man.
He watched his own mother, who was a believer, avoid going into churches for most of her life. Grandma's first husband ran around on her and beat her and their two sons, so she left him. And the church ostracized her for that. She was apparently supposed to let him abuse her, and perhaps catch whatever STI he cared to bring home to her, because divorce was sinful. After that, she only went to church for weddings and funerals.
I agree. Atheism means parting with all the comforting promises of one's religion. Given reality is harsh with no guarantees (and that the environment in which we live is actually hostile to life) it is not pleasant to lose hope that ultimately a big someone has our back and everything will all work out.
On top of that, the comfort that we will see our departed friends and family can only exist with a religious belief. It truly sucks that death is final and that reality makes it even more difficult to cope with the loss. Of course people are inclined to believe the good promises of religions.
It is all about comfort IMO.
It truly sucks that death is final and that reality makes it even more difficult to cope with the loss.
Does it though? I think that is the most tragic concept of religion. Nobody ever thinks through the nightmare scenario of being eternal. At some point, any sane individual would want it to end. After a million years of experiencing everything there is to experience thousands of times over, the ONLY thing left to want would be to stop existing as yourself. Whether that means your life force dissolves and reorganizes into some form of reincarnation, or goes permanently dormant, you can finally stop being you. Being eternal does not ever give you that option, by definition.
Anger might be a part of it. But perhaps it has more to do with the mental comfort mechanism religion provides. It can be very appealing to some if they believe they'll live forever in paradise with loved one if they believe in their god/religion.
TiG has always acknowledged that.
I was speaking about the loss of friends and family:
We all have people we would like to see again. I am betting you do too.
Good grief. It is impossible to qualify every phrase with: 'based on what we know'.
Given the fact that nobody in recorded history has credibly demonstrated that there is any form of existence beyond death and that most every religion on the planet claims a life beyond death and thus would love for this to be evidenced, it is reasonable to conclude that life after death is false. Possible (since we cannot prove otherwise) but certainly improbable based on modern knowledge.
In general, almost everything we 'know' is NOT 100% certain. Thus every comment made, every fact cited is implicitly qualified by 'based on what we know'.
I was raised in what I thought to be a rather conservative non denominational church (the church was big supporters of missionaries) Old Pastor Foss was probably 80 when I was a kid and a rather humorous old guy .. I do not recall him pushing the idea of 'we shall meet on the beautiful shores' kind of thing .. he was more of a care, share .. reach out and lend a hand kind of 'christian' … death was not final, as the individual lives in through loved ones of the deceased .. deeds did not define him .. he embraced 'the religion' of the Atheist as hard working deniers of Gods existence (a reversed missionary so to speak) .. I never once heard him say a negative thing about anyone ...
I am not religious, but Pastor Foss's words (he preached tolerance) will always stick with me, .. he and his "can I get an amen" : )
That I cannot argue with .. have you ever seen Morgan Freeman's 'Story of God' on National Geographic? It is quite interesting!
The more I learn of physics the more I am open to the idea that anything is possible and that reality is more interesting than anything we can imagine in our minds.
But I will still draw conclusions and those will be based upon what we know. So, ultimately, until we have evidence that there is a life after death (a profound claim that requires equally profound evidence) I think it is sensible to hold that death is final. Could be wrong, but all signs suggest otherwise.
Yup, but we need to still acknowledge that contemporary religions (most all) promise Heaven (or equivalent).
True … I am certain that Pastor Foss (the only preacher I knew) was promising Heaven, yet it is not something that sticks out in my mind .. Heaven did not appear to be his sole purpose for being a Pastor and leading a congregation … he wanted the good in people to matter, not focus on the negative...
Negative seems to be the norm now - there is only glimpses of good allowed to be seen ..
(I have found my own Heaven .. when I die, my boyz know to cremate me and have NO services whatsoever, the simpler the better, do not even announce my passing, just take me to Glacier and dump me off at Iceburg Lake)
Is this "no absolute morality" clause, absolute?
Are you asking if 'recognize no absolute morality' means 'absolute morality is impossible'?
Perhaps you can just tell me what you want me to understand from your @1.1.3 comment. Because, what I 'hear' is this:
To which, I deduce you totally accept no absolutes about morality or words to this effect. You are a relativist. Yes or no?
I put forth the specific qualifying question that would disambiguate your question so that I could properly answer it. Why do you ignore my question and continue instead to ride off the tracks?
See, you are now off deducing and presuming.
Do you ever see me making claims of absolute certainty? Given I routinely note that it is possible that a creator entity exists and that this entity would logically be the arbiter of objective morality (the definer of what is moral) your confusion makes no sense.
We can be certain about formal systems of our own making (e.g. arithmetic). We can be certain of the soundness of an argument based on logic and the acceptance of the premises. But regarding reality itself we are necessarily uncertain because I do not think any of us are omniscient.
This good hearted atheist knows good hearted religionists.
I'd put it differently since it's the bible-babblers who so frequently have no consistency whatsoever in their moral standards as we've previously discussed in regards to slavery, the murder of the innocent, etc. Their ONLY standard seems to be that their imaginary friend is above reproach.
As to your question, my comment is in furtherance of @1.1.28. Why don't you understand that?
I answered your original vague question regarding absolute morality. If you have a follow-up (that is not about me) then ask a direct non-vague question. If not, great.
Odd. You have no qualms telling all the poor Christians of Newstalkers there is no evidence to believe in God, faith, or spirituality it is all just a ruse, ad nauseam. And, yet the obvious statement: You are a relativist is off the table. Disturbing double-standard.
Fair-mindedness is an insistence upon looking at all sides of an issue. Not just being attracted to one over and beyond the other. Perhaps, I can state: Some atheists are relativists. It's impersonal. Does not get to the heart of the matter, but might work. How about that?
I am not the subject of this article.
But, true, there is no evidence of a sentient creator. Personal feelings or mere words (no matter how old) is not evidence. Facts are facts.
Address the topic of the article, please. Only warning.
Yes, some atheists are relativists. Some theists are relativists.
How does any of this relate to the topic? If you have a point just go ahead and make it. Good grief.
Relativist: noun - the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.
A "relativist" would say it was moral to own slaves back during the time of the bible, some might even say more recently, I believe it to be an evil from the very first human slave.
Humanist: noun - the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to human society in historical context, and are absolute. Making someone a slave a thousand years ago is just as wrong as making them a slave today.
"You have no qualms telling all the poor Christians of Newstalkers there is no evidence to believe in God, faith, or spirituality it is all just a ruse, ad nauseam."
"Aw, the "poor Christians"... the ones who have controlled much of the modern world for the last 2,000 years, the ones who have justified slavery and murder and the inquisition all in the name of their religion. Telling them the truth about how there is NO actual evidence of the God they say they have murdered and enslaved people in the name of is not my problem, its theirs. If they didn't want to feel bad about being total dicks to other humans, maybe they shouldn't have so readily embraced such a flawed fantasy.
Indeed, some relativists might.
If you would like to debate the point of evidence for a creator entity then you have always been welcome to do so. Given you hold that there is evidence to believe the grandest claim - that there is a creator entity - something that would be of staggering importance to all if true - then provide the evidence and logic.
'I just know' is not evidence. The Bible, Qur'an, etc. are not evidence; they are books that (even worse) serve as their own corroboration.
From my perspective, it is quite clear that there is no evidence for a creator entity. And we should really demand extraordinarily good evidence for such a bold claim.
You complain that I (et. al.) make this point. So if we are so wrong, illustrate our failings with evidence and logic.
Let me be explicit: I am not willing or going to discuss anything I wrote to TiG with anyone else. This 'area' of discussion for me is done.Thank you for the consideration, nonetheless.
I have nothing more to offer you, sir. Thank you, but I am out.
You are not willing to discuss anything you wrote to me with anyone else per @1.1.42 AND now @1.1.43 you include me in the list.
Works for me. But that does tend to support the observation that the evidence and logic in support of a creator is woefully lacking.
We all have people we would like to see again. I am betting you do too.
On the flip side, we all have people who we would dread reconnecting with too. Goes both ways. It’s not exactly heaven if you have to spend eternity with great aunt Tillie, who always punches your cheeks and tells boring stories about when she was a little girl.
How would you see lost loved ones in the beyond if they weren’t eternal anyways? The two concepts are married to one another in most religions. Christians don’t think they will go to heaven for a second terminal go around, they think its forever.
You paint with a broad brush. Encompassing a group of people with your beliefs about them is just as bad as them judging others about their beliefs.
On one hand you have a group of people that claim to be something that they are not.
On the other hand you have a group of people that never claim anything.
Even I can see the difference.
I have seen way too many times people claiming moral superiority when it turns out not be the case.
Yes, you're probably right. I can't change the way I feel though. If they aren't guilty of what I claim then they are complicit.
I always find it interesting that Theists or agnostics, post stories like this here on NT, about how they are perceived poorly, persecuted, etc., etc. though these same atheists or agnostics are willing to come to these and other articles that involves religion and insult anyone that does follow a religion.
Maybe that's why they are not accepted? Food for thought.
I doubt that Sandy seeded this article to whine about mistreatment. I suspect she is making the point that atheism is flat out misunderstood by many theists.
An atheist is a human being who is not convinced a god exists.
You can see on NT alone that many inexplicably seem to think that an atheist is one who:
Lots of naive (and willfully ignorant) redefinitions of a very simple concept: 'not convinced a god exists'.
Missed seeing you around Shrekk. Hope all is well with you!
Hmmmmm..... (Pj thinking, thinking, thinking)
Nah - I don't think so.
Thanks Tessy - I got stuck at a secure site longer than I expected and couldn't use my phone or bring my laptop on the base. The few minutes a day I did have internet access it was all just catching up on other work.
Sandy,
After reviewing what Cal said, he was very much on topic. A discussion should be open to all POV's and he was trying to explain why the situation that you described is going on.
It's part of the indoctrination process, specifically the Christian indoctrination process. The first step is to convince a child they are miserable sinners and without Gods forgiveness will be tortured and tormented for eternity. The next step is convincing them that their behavior means less than their faith because no matter how much they sin, they can always beg God for forgiveness. I believe these two parts of Christian indoctrination produce two things, people who imagine that you can't be a good person without God, and people who believe, because they are convinced they are hopeless sinners, its not their fault when they do very bad things and they know they can have fun Monday through Saturday doing the things most atheists would never even consider, then falling on Gods mercy on Sunday. Then come Monday morning, rinse repeat. For an atheist, they have to take full responsibility for their actions, they have no one else to blame it on.
I'd say anyone wanting an excuse for their bad behaviour will fine one. Religious or not.
Perhaps. But many theists will proclaim a default to goodness for no other reason than because they believe in a god or follow religion. They also proclaim they will be forgiven if they do engage in bad behavior for the same reasons.
" But in making smoking such a taboo, do we risk actually increasing the lure of it? Like the appeal of the forbidden apple in Eden, the lure of chocolate cake for the dieter, the seduction of the unavailable, yet desired person. Who among us has not gone without some thing for so long, only to binge on it later. If we are always told “No!” is it not human nature to at least want to try it?"
I believe that the inherent nature of religion labeling certain activities as taboo, while also telling their followers that if they fall into temptation they can fall on Gods mercy and be forgiven, has actually created its own vicious cycle. A believer is constantly warned about doing certain "sinful" things, then gets an adrenaline high when being sneaky and committing the "sin", then getting another chemical high when tearfully approaching God asking for forgiveness which gives them a sense of relief until the next time they desire an adrenaline high to feel alive again. It's a high I believe MANY religious conservatives are addicted to, but because they imagine themselves being forgiven they still lord it over the other "sinners" who haven't come to their God for forgiveness even though their actions during the week are just as bad if not worse.
The part I like about superstition is that you get to blame your own bad behavior on your imaginary friend, like the bible-babblers who say: "I don't hate fags, it's my imaginary friend who hates fags." A recent case in point is that soon to be defrocked homophobic Catholic priest in the Chicago area.
Wow!!!
God Evolution and " Morality " is that an Oxymoron, what happened to " The Survival of the Fittest " see NO morality in that!!!!
Except all religions do NOT claim that.
You know, except for the absence of real facts, you might have had a point of some kind somewhere in there about something or other.
Can you name a religion that claims other religions are true? Show us that doctrine, please.
Bahai, but that's about it. And even they teach some religions aren't to be accepted, but they're one of the only ones that teaches the many religion path to God.
"The Bahá'í Faith (/bəˈhɑːiː, -ˈhaɪ/; Persian: بهائی Bahā'i) is a religion teaching the essential worth of all religions, and the unity and equality of all people."
That is an interesting conundrum. From wiki:
How can you pick random scripture to study, while rejecting the underlying principles within it that clearly intend it to be the one true religion.
They believe that the other religions are simply different methods of understanding the underlying essential truth. If someone want to believe something the human mind is perfectly capable of constructing some justification for it. That is why we need to hold true to evidence and logic and discard beliefs based on desire which lack (or, worse, contradict) fact.
You made the claim that every religion claims all other religions are false, so prove it.
Show us that doctrine, please.
And you claimed they don't do that, so you need to prove your side of the argument as well.
Lol. Surely you know that's not how it works? Try to be less disingenuous.
Oh? Debaters aren't expected to support their comments?
Why would you say that? Did you even read the comments above? If you make a claim, support it.
And Texan made a claim.
If all religions say the others are false, how are any of ...
https://www.quora.com/If-all-religions-say-the-others-are-false...
If all religions say the others are false, how are any of them true? Not all religions claim that. On Quora, that claim is mostly made by some Christians, Muslims and some fundamentalist branches of Hinduism, for example ISKCON. Most other religions make no such claim at all…
Your turn, as I have ALREADY PROVEN YOUR STATEMENT FALSE.
See 3.1.11.
He made a claim first, one which most people would know was false, and now I have proven it false.
Would YOU care to try and validate his false claim?
That's okay.
I did prove it, and now the matter is done.
I won't get any reasonable response.
But you did see how his false statement was left out there, while demands were made of me to prove mine?
And now everyone has gone strangely silent.
Isn't that just typical?
I like how your Southern Baptist buddies put it: "god does not hear the prayer of a Jew."
They traditionally have similarly vile views about Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, and pretty much everyone who isn't a white evangelical Christian extremist.
Well, gee, that's just swell and all, but once again, has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
Can you make some relevant point germane to the discussion?
I think your initial claim was thoroughly debunked despite that fact that there might be one or two superstitions in the world which don't condemn all other superstitions as false. The general rule is that the overwhelming majority do exactly that - it's an innate aspect of their tribal nature and necessary to separate us from them.
Maybe that explains why superstitious conservatives tend to be the most racist folks in a society, because their brains have been steeped in a reactionary form of tribalism?
Heck, even the Jesus character engages in that tribalistic and exclusionary crap when he supposedly said "I am the way, the truth and the light." So at the very least we see that all Christian superstitious sects are inherently tribalistic and exclusionary.
Mormons tell you to do your own research, think on it, and then ask God if it is true.
Anyways, the claim was that every religion claims all other religions are false.
Which is incorrect, even as you yourself admitted.
Actually I didn't say that at all, just that there MIGHT be one or two superstitions which don't exhibit the pervasive tribalism and exclusive "truth" which every other such superstition on the planet revolves around. Even if the Baha'i are as non-exclusionary as they claim to be (and I doubt that based on personal experience), it wouldn't change the fact that religious superstition as a rule is innately exclusionary given that all the other cults exhibit that trait. If there really are such non-exclusionary sects than they're the tiny exception to a virtually inviolate rule.
.
Hmmmm....that must be why they decided that black folks were subhuman "mud people."
Now, if you are not saying that there is at least one religion that does not do it, then why did you write the bolded words? Why not write ALL instead?
As usual, when something doesn't make sense, it usually isn't true.
Probably because there could be such a cult, I'm just not aware of any. It's pretty clear that tribal exclusionism is a central trait of superstitious ideologies. No wonder racism and xenophobia come so easy to those groups.
I just can't make you read all of the posts and see for yourself that not all religions believe other religions are false.
Sometimes you have to just do it all on your own.
But your failure to do so doesn't negate any of the facts.
I read all the posts and so far you haven't cited any examples to the contrary, and certainly not a sufficient number to disprove the general rule.
It does seem to be a very consistent trait for virtually all the world's superstitious traditions and most definitely for the major ones. I can see why some minor and historically persecuted superstitious groups might have a pretense of not being exclusionary in order to survive (or for their members to remain alive), but even minority sects become abusive and exclusionary when they gain power.
You have been told of the Mormons. Someone else mentioned B'Hai.
Ever hear of Methodists?
I was raised for several years in an Episcopal church.. Never hear one word about it being the only true religion.
Once again, the claim was that every religion claims all others are false.
I don't know what the fuck you want to keep arguing for, as that has been proven false.
interesting reads:
All Christian sects are inherently exclusionary - "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me." Even more amusing is that they tend to be internecine exclusionary too, with Southern Baptists traditionally hating Mormons, Catholic and Jews and pretty much any other group which wasn't Protestant or Baptist and exceptionally white. No surprise that some leading SBC pastors still preach that exact same bigotry.
Heck, the sect you say you were raised in exists in large part due to a schism rooted in exclusivity.
.
That's an obviously bad example which doesn't support your assertion at all and directly undermines it if you know anything at all about the LDS sect. The LDS claim to be the sole "true religion" and they even have an old white dude with a hot line to their sky fairy so they can know the Truth (as interpreted by elderly white supremacists). And even if you ignore what they preach their actions are very exclusionary indeed and very deliberate about excluding non-Mormons, lapsed Mormons, gay Mormons, etc.
I know I can not make you read anything, but you should try it sometimes.
The argument is and was based on what one poster posted--that AL religions claim ALL others are false.'
That is not true, as has been shown.
Argue WTF you want, but you can't argue the fucking facts.
So far you actually haven't managed to cite any. Mormons certainly don't qualify and that was the group you cited and from what I personally know about the Baha'i they don't qualify either, nor do any of the other Christian sects you cited (all of which are exclusionary). But even if you were able to find one such non-exclusionary group it doesn't change the initial premise in any meaningful manner - one exception doesn't disprove what is true of literally every other nutty cult on the planet. If anything it might indicate that this very unusual and hypothetical superstition has other fundamental differences from every other superstition on the planet.
Let's do this then:
You show where Mormons or Methodists or B'Hai claim all other religions are false.
When you can DO that, you MIGHT have a valid point.
Right now you do not.
As everyone can clearly see.
I await your PROOF for the claim that was made--that ALL religions claim ALL others are false.
Since you seem very interested in this subject I figure I would weigh in again, but this time with more detail. Note that Bahai is a good example (as I noted @ 3.1.4 ) but the example is only superficial.
The Bahai religion claims to hold all other religions as true . But, like anything, one should not stop at the bumper-sticker. When I first learned of this odd position, my question was: ' how could they possibly come to such a conclusion given the religions contradict each other (and themselves)?' .
The short answer is this: Bahai believe that God is unknowable ... that the only thing one can know about God is that God exists. They accept the other religions as simply flawed human attempts to describe the same God. They do not accept these religions as correct and thus clearly not true . They accept them only as attempts to connect to the one and only God.
The acceptance of all religions as true is demonstrable bullshit. Nice sounding but clearly not as it seems. Also, the Bahai believe that their views are the most current views (and thus most correct). So there you go.
The Mormons take a similar stance . They are tolerant of all religions because they hold them to be trying to connect with God. But they do not claim all other religions are true . Indeed, only the Mormon religion is true (to them):
Finally, the Methodists are a Protestant religion with specific beliefs. I do not know why you mention them since clearly their beliefs are in conflict with many other religions and thus could not possibly hold these other religions to be true .
The claim was that ALL religions claim ALL other religions are false.
Your post seems to bolster the argument AGAINST that being true.
And just because a religion holds certain positions does NOT mean they think others are false.
That is extremely wishful reading on your part.
You should realize that no religion is actually going to hold any other religion to be true - not without a caveat. Think about it logically, if another religion is the true religion then your religion cannot be the true religion unless it was identical to the one deemed true.
If you have any links to bolster the claim that ALL religions claim ALL other religions are false, I would like to read them.
I didn't claim anything other than that claim is false.
Given the information I offered to you @3.1.29, I am quite convinced that nothing anybody writes or links (did you bother to follow the links I provided in my earlier comment?) will be acknowledged. I sense you will claim to be correct in spite of what is offered. Information offered and information ignored; your loss.
I read your links.
They do not support the claim that ALL religions claim ALL other religions are false.
I have acknowledged every post, and am STILL waiting for the links to prove the claim that ALL religions claim ALL other religions are false.
people, including you, have posted all sorts of things, but amazingly, no one will post what is asked.
Why is that?
My comment was to show your three examples are not religions that actually hold other religions to be true. It is funny that you do not admit this after having read what I offered.
Speaking only for myself, I would not assert: ALL x DO y. That opens the door for people to play games -as you are doing- demanding someone show a list of all religions that have or do exist cross-referenced to all other religions that have or do exist with proof that each reference is a denial of truth. Your demand is ridiculous. And you know it. I think everyone reading this thread knows it. I also do not think your argument is impressing anyone.
The way in which one addresses an ALL x DO y claim is to offer at least one counter-example. You offered three counter-examples. After watching you complain that nobody was addressing your challenge I weighed in and demonstrated that all three of your counter-examples are not religions that hold other religions as true.
So if you want to show the original ALL x DO y assertion false find a religion that actually does not consider itself the true religion. Find a religion that instructs its followers: 'yeah, well we might be right about our beliefs ... maybe .. maybe not ... but, hey, this is what we are going with'. It is that ridiculous.
Nice moving the goalposts.
The claim that was all religions claim all others are false.
Not one thing about being the sole true religion.
If I make a claim that all atheists claim all religions are false, it would be reasonable for someone to challenge me and insist on proof of my claim, wouldn't it? Would it be incumbent on me to prove my claim or on you to prove that my claim is false?
What do you think 'ALL x DO y' means? It is the general form of your claim: 'ALL religions DO claim all others are false'. I am directly aligned with the goal posts. Don't resort to cheap tactics.
If a religion holds all other religions are false then it holds itself to be the one true religion (or considers itself to be false too). See? This is a consequence of the logic. And if a religion holds another religion as also true then the other religion is either the same religion or the claim of truth is self-refuting via contradiction.
Absolutely!
If the claim is provable then you would bear the burden of proof and be expected to provide same. However, if it is not provable (and the claim you presented cannot be proved) then what I would do is give a counter-example. One solid counter-example ipso facto shows the claim is wrong. Done! You offered three counter-examples. After watching you complain that nobody was proving what you know cannot realistically be proved (enumeration of all religions with universal cross-referencing) I decided to show that your counter-examples were flawed.
If you seriously want to debate this point (and you would do this with the person who made the claim) you would find a solid counter-example.
I responded to the poster who made the claim.
I guess we will agree to disagree.
Flip the script for me. In that Atheists seem to be the ones that have a problem with religion. Not the other way around, not for me anyway. I don’t judge Atheists, to each their own imo.
Many Atheists on the other hand seem to have a real problem with the religious. Look no further than NT for proof of that.
If I had a nickel for every time an atheist here talked down to a person of faith, Perrie wouldn’t need to worry about advertisers. I could easily cover her whole nut and have enough left over for all that and a bag of chips.
Atheists have a problem with religion being forced on us, and with religious bigotry against atheists by theists.
Believe whatever you like. But if you want me to believe, you need to give me a good reason why, and your faith isn't one. And if you (generic "you") decide to then denigrate me for my lack of unsupported faith, well, now you're (generic "you're") being a bigot, and you shouldn't expect kindness in return for bigotry.
What I choose to believe, or not believe, is of no concern of yours. “I” owe “you” nothing in that regard. That’s the self-righteous component of what i’m talking about. Folks like you think i do because i’m NOK to you with a choice of faith.
You’ve just illustrated exactly what i’m talking about. You expect folks to accept your choices but you don’t accept others.
In a debate there are two sides. Both sides are convinced they are more right than wrong. So criticizing one side for not accepting your view and promoting their view is missing the whole point of the dialectic.
Further, you totally missed the point Sandy just made:
Here Sandy is talking about the dialectic and she starts with a conditional statement: "if you want me to believe". She is simply stating that in the religious debate, if the religious side wishes to prevail and convince her of their position then that side needs to supply a good reason. She notes that the fact that the religious side has faith is not a good reason for her.
Instead of reading a perfectly sensible and fair statement of agnostic atheism you imposed a false meaning (not even supported by her words) and then deemed her words to be judging and imposing on theists.
What you interpreted is not what she wrote.
Or, put another way:
Why do yo think I'm arguing that point? I demonstrably am not.
Exactly. Thank you.
Then you need to choose your words more carefully. When you say:
You are being argumentative. Very much so actually.
You need to read all of my words.
How is that referring to your belief in any way?
And you are engaging in the dishonest practice of selectively editing my comments, and assuming that nobody will notice that you are trying to apply the quoted phrase to your beliefs rather than mine.
This is amazing. I just explained this and you chop off the critical part of Sandy's statement and toss out a fragment of a sentence.
Look:
You quote her as saying only: " you need to give me a good reason why"
And then criticize her words. By removing the first part of her sentence you changed the meaning of the entire sentence.
Wrong, I quote the entire sentence in my previous post. Anyone who cares to folllow the thread can clearly see that. And It’s very clear that some here aren’t interested in that. Not surprising for some folks on NT unfortunately.
So stop making excuses. You can’t have it both ways.
Either you respect others beliefs or you don’t.
Which is it?
Then there is no excuse for you continuing to insist that the phrase
applies to your beliefs.
Lol okay, don’t answer the question .... didn’t really expect you to .... so i’ll Leave you to play your sophomoric reindeer games with your friends and with this thought ......
Thanks for providing more empirical data to support my original point. Much appreciated!
Anyone reading this thread can see the intellectual dishonesty in your comments.
is in no way me being concerned with what you believe, as you attempted to assert in your comment 4.1.1.
And it is blatantly obvious too.
I suppose some think they can just double-down on a failed claim and that readers are too obtuse to notice it.
So it seems.
There is no weakness in admitting that one has misunderstood another's comments. Unless one has done so deliberately, of course.
As with Sandy, I do not care one way or another in regards to ones beliefs or lack there of them. It is when one foist their beliefs on others that I part company.
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one person living or dead that has figured this out. By virtue of that, there can be no right or wrong belief system, only your own.
Not at all. Atheists couldn't really care less about one's religion. The problem is when the religious try to push their beliefs onto atheists.
Theists are just as bad, if not worse. If I had a nickel for every time I heard a theist state atheists are immoral, going to hell, untrustworthy, ect., simply because atheists do not believe in god, I could retire.
That's great that you're never been prejudiced against atheists and have never talked down to them, that's to be commended. However, that makes you one of the few. When nearly 90% of the planet have some sort of religious belief, and less than 5% considering themselves "atheist", I find it disingenuous to try and claim atheists are the problem, even if every one you ran into "seemed to have a real problem with the religious". The reality is that the vast majority of religious persons just take it for granted that everyone around them, everyone they respect, will have a similar belief in God. And not just any God but only the God they were indoctrinated to believe in from childhood. The lack of respect and disdain shown for non-believers and those of other faiths for the last 2,000 years can't be overstated. While you claim to not treat non-believers any different, you cannot deny the fact that MANY believers do. And while the constitution bans any sort of religious litmus test for elected office, the religious refuse to vote for anyone purely on qualifications but require their candidate to believe in the same brand of God they do before getting their vote. So yes, many atheists do have a problem with the religious, and those problems are very real and very justified.
Some people are accepting of others beliefs, some are not. We can play the vilify the other guy all day long but the fact remains both extremes are guilty of it. The majority still remains accepting.
Its just that the fringe of both sides tend to be loud and extremely crass in that regard.
Atheists tend to be seen as trying to look down on other people.
They present a presumption that, intentionally or not, the more intelligent people reject belief in God.
Atheists default "proof" to their position. They claim the default, quite unfairly and illogically.
Nonetheless , like all people, atheists should be approached on a case by case basis.
You don't get to change the rules of logic to suit your religious beliefs, John. The default position is logically - with no proof of the existence of God, there is no reason to believe claims of God's existence. We can't logically prove there isn't a God, so it's on you to prove that there is. Russell's Teapot.
By your logic, you should be willing to accept as true the claims of the existence of the multitude of other gods that have been worshipped in all cultures past and present. You don't, and rightly so. We just apply the same criteria to your own as you do to others.
I don't need to prove anything. GOD to me is Whatever arranged the atoms to be what they are. Be it a force, an entity or a being. mother nature, bigbang, WHATEVER arranged the atoms IS MY GOD. Period, I know no more and need nothing else.
Sandy, a true and fair "default" about the existence of God can ONLY be applied to agnosticism. Not atheism. This isnt even a close call. True atheism claims there IS no God. It is a positive assertion. And it requires a burden of proof be on it.
No one can now, or ever , prove there is no God. It is not possible. Therefore granting atheism , or the assertion that there is no God, a default position is out of the question.
That is strong atheism, not "true" atheism. What is "true atheism" anyway? Most atheists are probably weak atheists, in that they are not convinced there is a god and/or do not accept the claims for one without evidence. Claiming there is/is not a god with certainty is a logically indefensible position.
Which is why most atheists are agnostic atheists. They don't make an assertion that there is no God. Just that, given the lack of evidence for God (or gods), they do not believe that there is.
That is precisely why the burden of proof is on those claiming that there is a God.
You can't prove that there's no Zeus. Does that mean that the default position is that Zeus exists?
I pretty much addressed all of that in 5.2.4, as did Gordy in 5.2.3.
and TiG @ 5.4
Yes, sorry. I scrolled up, but not down
"Weak" atheism is just a way to claim the default. Let's face it, if you have the default position in an argument that cannot be proved one way or the other , "voila", you cannot lose !
One either believes there is a God, believes there isn't a God, or believes we cannot know.
There is no need for "weak" or "strong" atheism. If you are a "weak" atheist you are an agnostic.
Atheists typically do not argue -as a main point- that agnostic atheism is the default. It might be mentioned as part of a larger argument but I would be surprised if any atheist thought that this was a significant thing. I have mentioned it in the past more to establish a perspective: 'by default we are agnostic atheists - religion is learned'.
The reason why there are terms such as agnostic atheist (or equivalent) is because the term 'agnostic' applies strictly to knowledge - not to belief. To be precise, when speaking of agnostic belief one needs to bring in the theistic element. Ergo we have:
This more precisely distinguishes the categories of belief/non-belief. Not sure why this is controversial.
No. Agnosticism is just the only rational position to hold, whether it be agnostic theism or agnostic atheism. You are a theist. You believe that God exists, but you don't know that for sure. So it's irrational to be a gnostic theist. Agnostic theism is a more rational position. Same on the atheist side - agnostic atheism is a more rational position to adopt than gnostic theism, because, as you rightly pointed out, we can't prove that there is no God (or gods).
Weak atheism is the logical most intellectually honest position to hold. It doesn't claim certainty one way or another. It simply is not convinced of affirmative claims without evidence.
A lack of belief is not a belief in itself.
Apparently there is, as they hold two different positions.
Wrong! TiG explains it perfectly.
I myself would never attempt to diminish anyone's religious system, but the key in that phrase, is that it is their belief not mine. This is a subject that can have no absolute answer (until one takes the ferry ride that is), but your religion or lack of it is one of the few truly personal things that one can possess, why are so many willing to share it.
As an aside there are and have been many brilliant individuals that manage to balance their religion and the temporal world, therefore intelligence or lack of it would have little to do belief, after all it is only a belief.
What that shows is that intelligent folks are able to set their superstitions aside when it matters, like on issues of science, civil rights, secular government, etc.
The more accurate observation is that atheists look down on the soundness of theistic arguments. I have noted for years that intelligence does NOT seem to be the determining factor for religious beliefs. Rather it is the way our different brains work. Some of us are naturally skeptical and/or seek strong justification before accepting something as 'generally true'. Others do not need evidence and more readily accept as true that which 'sounds good' to them.
Couple that now with indoctrination - a well-honed societal process that can ensnare even the most skeptical minds.
Not true. Atheists do not claim to have proof that no god exists. That is an extreme atheism (gnostic atheism) and very few atheists hold such an unsupportable position.
We are born without any knowledge of a god. Without any knowledge of a god we clearly do not believe in a god. However, once our elders start teaching us we eventually understand that there is a god and that god depends upon whatever our elders believe. Thus if you were born in India you might hold that Brahman is god. In Afghanistan you most certainly would believe Allah is god. In the USA you are most likely to believe Jesus is god. The concept and thus the believe in a god is learned. But we are all born without knowledge and belief in a god - we are all agnostic atheists by default.
I have known many Atheists in my lifetime, and they are no different than me or anyone else.
They have hopes, dreams, work hard, play hard, love their family and want the best for them.
They vote and serve their country, willing to put their own life on the line just like any Christian.
They bleed red and can feel pain just like any other human being.
They don't go around knocking or doors trying to convert others to their way of thinking and telling those who won't agree that they will go to Hell if they don't.
They get sick and die just like any other human being.
And the Creator loves them and forgives them just like He does all of His other children.
That is why I don't have a problem with people who choose to be an Atheist.
Funny thing, I do not see atheism as a choice. Atheists are simply not convinced there is a god. If a good reason presents itself then the atheist becomes a theist. I understand that some (gnostic atheists) hold that it is not possible for any god to exist but that is irrational and unsupportable. They are a slim minority.
That is a very good reason. In that many Atheists simply do not believe there is a God it is their own choice to believe that way, just like Christians choose to believe there is a God.
As you said, humans are not born with any kind of belief, it is something that they are taught or learn about on their own, and then make their own mind up about what they choose to believe.
Whether an Atheist would at some point choose to believe in God I can not say, as none of the Atheists that I ever knew ever mentioned that scenario.
Just my own experience.
TiG meant that it's not a choice, in that we could not choose to believe, even if we wanted to. Much as we can't convince ourselves that Santa actually will come down the chimney with gifts, or that the Easter bunny brings candy.
I'm not sure that I made a choice to be an agnostic. I went to church, did all the churchy things and still felt no presence of a divine spirit. Not once.
Now I sleep in on Sundays
Most atheists are likely indoctrinated into a religion as a child simply because of the prevalence of religion in the world. At some point (when they have had access to other information) the atheist mind finds that the religious teachings do not make a lot of sense. No doubt it varies considerably by person, but it seems to me that atheism is often the result of reversing indoctrination.
What is more difficult to explain is actually those cases where theists claim that they were once atheist. I can appreciate 'finding religion' in response to traumatic events because religions are outstanding at offering hope to those who feel hopeless (and similar emotions). But outside of that, I do not see how someone can be indoctrinated, grow out of it, and then return to the indoctrination.
Ultimately, though, belief in a god (or lack thereof) is the result of what information we have in our minds and how our minds work. Some minds are more skeptical than others.
How do you believe everything is what it is then ?
Is life, the planets and everything just a huge accident with no design ?
Personally I read the books, the bible the Book of Mormon and parts of the Koran, Then I asked myself WTF I believed.
My final answer was: "Whatever arranged the atoms to be all that is, is My GOD." Period
I know no more and dont need to. I also don't believe any live person knows for sure anymore that I do on this and of course I could be wrong as well.
But, Thankfully, to each their own !!
I can access the evidence for those, if I can't see it with my own eyes.
Nobody I know has ever seen God (or Allah, or Vishnu, or Zeus). To my knowledge no living person whose own existence is a certainty has, either. Their stories are just that - stories written by men. One can prevent no more evidence for its validity than another, and most have been contradicted by science. We know that Apollo is not riding a chariot across the sky, pulling the sun along behind him.
Is life, the planets and everything just a huge accident with no design ?
My final answer was: "Whatever arranged the atoms to be all that is, is My GOD." Period
I know no more and dont need to.
That's Deism and it doesn't require a personal "god" much less a sentient one.
... and not even deism if Steve recognizes that the known universe might not be 'arranged' by a sentient agent but rather an emergent form.
My GOD is not personal. Personally that is what I believe though.
"Whatever arranged the atoms to be all that is, is My GOD."
I know no more and dont need to.
Possibly. Possibly not. I choose to accept "possibly not" rather than assign a deity to that role to suit some psychological need.
When I look around at the world and all the ways it works together form the bacteria on our eyes to the whales eating plankton. IF this was all an accident, it was sure a damn good one.
I read the major religious books (over about the course of a year) then I went to meditate and think on what did I actually believe that is what I came away with.
"Whatever arranged the atoms to be all that is, is My GOD."
I know no more and dont need to.
I'm also a firm believer in to each their own, so if your good, I'm certainly good with it for you.
It's a huge leap to go from the observation that things exist in the environmental niches they can tolerate to the assumption that a "god" made it that way. It's also a wholly unnecessary leap to make unless it satisfies some psychological need. And there's nothing wrong with that if it does, just don't let that need blind you to reality.
Then you'll probably think its a huge leap from thinking perhaps GOD is everything not only the creator but also the creation.
Whatever arranged the atoms
I'm still good with it.
Uh, never really thought about it.
... O well, If its a psychological need that it satisfies so be it. I just like and believe in the simplicity of it. I read the books, Bible , Book of Mormon, and parts of the Koran then I thought .. Well, Self, WTF do I personally believe. (and consciously went out to a beautiful rolling meadow and "meditated"on it.
As I sat there that is what I came up with. "Whatever arranged the atoms to be all that is, is My GOD."
Ever since then that's really all I've needed and that was like 30 years ago.
So, if that fills a psychological need I have/had. Good.
That's why I mentioned Deism up thread. Your view of a "god" is the same as Spinoza's "god", ie "nature's god". George Washington would approve but note that such views could get you lynched in the 1600s and in some parts of the south today.
Yeah I noticed. I took a quick look at you rlink, thanks A few years ago someone else said that was what I believe sounded like. Deism so I looked real quick, yep IF I was to subscribe to any religion that may be about the closest that I've heard of.
At the time I didn't really look into it much at all, haven't since and don't really care to now. I do not care to subscribe to or learn about others religion much anymore. Not that I fear it, I just don’t care, I have what I need.
Like I said I read for over a year, {pretty steadily} And I read the old testament, the new testament, the Book of Mormon and parts of the Koran + I had lots of Sunday school and churches of a good variety throughout my life as well.
So, I had my share of religion(s) and what others think about the details of their specific religion of choice. I don’t need any more of that either I have what I need. Part of it may be the independent type soul in me. As I've always been.
Talking Like we have on (little of anyone Preaching) I can get involved with and enjoy though.
PS: I also found my scroll button works really well when wanted. lol
But thanks for the link and information, But like I just said, I do not care to subscribe to or learn about others religion much anymore. Not that I fear it, I just don’t care, I have what I need.
PS: And you are correct, yep IF I was to subscribe to any religion it would probably be Deisum. I don't.
Thanks again, sincerely, Steve
It's not an organized religion which you can belong to, it's just a general category description of what it sounds like your beliefs are. That's really all I was saying.
However it's worth noting that Deists were often smeared as being atheists including Jefferson, Franklin and others. So the central topic of the public being uncomfortable with atheists has been a persistent problem in the US. In a way it's remarkable that the US even exists given how virulently uncomfortable that era was with atheists. Maybe it also says something about the Age of Enlightenment that the founders could hold views like yours without getting lynched.
Not believing in the right religion (the 'right' religion being the accuser's religion) is probably not much better than being an (evil) atheist.
It was not that long ago (the Reformation) that Catholics were torturing and then burning Protestants at the stake for daring to be Christians who do not believe in the authority, rituals and decrees of the Catholic church (e.g. papal primacy, sacraments, apostolic succession, ...) itself but rather limit their beliefs to the Bible.
There has been a lot of 'believe what I believe or I will kill you' in human history.
Deist, atheist or even the wrong denomination often meant death.
LoL + Wow !
I never considered that views like mine would have ever could have perhaps been grounds for getting lynched. ouch
It never crossed my mind, I guess that's kinda a case of me taking our religious freedoms for granted.
Because you are correct not believing in the written as being the sacred word in some times would have been paramount to blasphemy.
Damn, I'm even more glad now that I was born where and when I was.
Seriously, Thanks
lol
.............................
As for Deist being n organized religion, I just figured if they had a name for it there was an organisation as well. Like I said I never really checked into it.
Thanks
It probably depends a lot on the context of the era, the place, and which cult is doing the persecuting. Apostates (those who leave a particular cult) usually get treated the worst of all. You have to have strong incentives to keep those members so shunning, lynching or decapitation all work well in that regard. They're treated as traitors but someone with the exact same views wouldn't be if they didn't first come from that particular cult.
Indeed. My example could actually be viewed as mass apostasy. The Protestants were all apostates in the eyes of the Catholics.
"Is a great crime to not concur with my beliefs."
Atheism is just a reaction to overt theism. I’ve said it a million times: if theists would mind their own business, and stop insisting on incorporating their religious world view into secular government, they would never hear from atheists again, unless they asked for a debate.
Organized religion never has been and never will be anything more than a way to control masses of gullible people who are weak minded sheep.
Stunningly wrong. But an excellent example of why atheists are not liked.
Thanks.
Nope, not wrong. And for the record? I am not an atheist.
Sounds like you fear atheists because they threaten the social control exerted by the powerful over the gullible.
Wow. I bet you call yourself a good Christian, too, eh?
I have always thought the same thing. Religion was a tool created specifically in which to control people spread out across the land. An easy way to manipulate people has been and always will be through fear and intimidation. Fear, that your God is always watching you. Fear, that if you break the rules you will not go to heaven and you will not be reunited with your loved ones.
Of course you could be forgiven (for a fee). Your sins could be washed away or swallowed with some wine (for a fee). Your divorces wiped off the books (for a fee).
Religion is a racket, a business and a tool that has been politicized.
They should not be tax exempt.
Based upon what I've experienced on NT ((as well as many years on numerous other online forums) I'd say that many people are not uncomfortable with Atheism. In fact, they are more uncomfortable with Atheism and quite comfortable with Religion!
So why the disagreement? Well, let's just say I am uncomfortable with over-generalizations!
_______________________________
(Of course for both sides the Religion of Islam is often the exception to the rule)
I myself have no problem with those who choose to be Atheists. The same as I have no problem with those who choose to believe in a Supreme Being of any kind, be it God, Allah, Buddha, or other religious belief.
What I do have a problem with are those who try to push their own religious beliefs onto me or others and demean, condemn and denigrate those who do not believe the same as they do. How they worship, or don't, does not make them a better or worse person, only the person they think themselves to be. Just because a person claims to be a Christian does not mean they are a good Christian, but, they may THINK they are a good Christian even when they only talk the talk big time, but, fail to walk the walk.
Frankly, I don't care one whit about the religious beliefs of others, I work on myself to be a good person and try to be respectful of others who simply want to live their life in a manner that makes them happy and to have a meaningful life. Just like me.
My opinion.
If more people were of your mind, the world would be a better and safer place.
I just went to pick my son up from spending the weekend at his dad's and was listening to NPR's coverage of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, and today's memorial service. Heartbreaking, what religious bigotry can lead people to do.
It is indeed heartbreaking. And such deeds done in the name of God are the mot vile. I cannot believe that God would condone such acts. However, perhaps the God they worship would.
There are a great number of people in the world who are mentally ill and use their religious beliefs to engage in acts of violence and atrocity in the name of their God.
However, the Creator I believe in is a loving and forgiving Spirit, who loves all His children no matter what religious beliefs they have, and certainly does not hold with His name being used to take the life of others in such acts in His name.
Just my opinion.
Ditto. Well said.
Atheism - Agnostic Atheism specifically - questions things and makes the religious feel uncomfortable (and many of the conservative religious minded constantly play the "victim card" and feel "persecuted"), it threatens their belief system and (many times) what they built their whole life around. If the religious are incorrect then what happens ? that crashes an entire belief system and would break millions of people mentally, it would threaten their entire lifestyle.
personally i could care less if you believe in God, Allah, a baked potato or whatever else you wish to believe in, but don't think that the belief equates to "fact" that your God exists - it remains simply a belief. I think that upsets many of the religious as well - that others don't take their belief as "fact". You are free to your beliefs - just don't push them onto others (which seems to be a very popular thing with many of the religious, to try to make others believe as they do and if others refuse - condemn, threaten or even kill them)
It seems many theists think exactly that, i.e. belief = fact.
Atheism is nothing, it's simply the default position of every human. We are all born atheists, god belief has to be taught and learned. 'Atheist' should not even be a word. Do we call those who don't drive, adrivers? Or those who don't swim, aswimmers? Of course not, you don't describe a person by what they are not. The only thing rejection of the 'god' fairytale makes you, is sane and rational.
If atheism is allowed in society pretty soon there will be atheists knocking on your door early on a Saturday morning trying to give you a book full of blank pages and trying to convince you of the truth of their empty doctrine. We simply can't allow that.
More likely the atheists would simply lecture for 30 minutes while calling the person names and insulting their intelligence.
Or, you know, what already happens would keep on happening, which is none of what you just said.
i see that from many of the religious (calling others heretics etc) - especially condemning people to burn and be tortured for eternity just for not lock stepping with their belief system or questioning it.
It kind of does, if you have read some of the posts on any issue regarding religion on here.
I know, they aren't knocking on doors.
And I never claimed otherwise. Both things happen. That doesn't cancel them out.
Personally, while I believe in God myself, I don't care if anyone else does. My faith is strong enough for me. I don't need any validation from others regarding it. Nor do I ever try to "recruit" anyone to my religious views. And I damn sure don't knock anyone who believes or doesn't believe in God because of it.
How does one time a "lecture" that is written?
Please don't be obtuse.
E.A Am I missing something ?
What is a " Lecture " to you?
If it is only " Written " and not spoken, how can it be a " Lecture "?
E.A ::
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lecture
lecture
See more synonyms for lecture on Thesaurus.com
Well, we don't go door-to-door. If we lecture anybody on this site, it's necessarily via the written word, so the duration of said "lecture" must depend on the reading speed of the reader. I've yet to see the written post here that I couldn't read in well less than 30 minutes.
i agree - both things happen - i never claimed otherwise.
The sheer volume takes time to wade through. And many of the posts are poorly written, so it takes extra time to sometimes try to understand whatever the hell the poster was attempting, and failing, to say.
Sure, sure.
Why Are Americans Still Uncomfortable with Atheism?
Can it be that some atheists are not as open-minded as they want others to think they are? Could it be that some atheists are closed-minded? That some Americans can not trust some people who choose to not understand issues and solutions which cause their lives to matter?
I'm sure some are.
Same as some theists are.
But I'd say it's extremely close-minded to say that atheists can't be moral, or can't be good citizens, which is something that some theists say with regularity.
The article squarely places its focus on Atheism. This is not about atheist-theist comparisons, is it?
Atheists can be open-minded and practice a moral code . I know this, because:
This theist does not view all atheists negatively. Let's "open" with this consideration in mind.
It's about the reasons that some Americans are still uncomfortable with atheism, as per the title. And one of those reasons is that theism tells them to be.
Agreed. So what point are you trying to make?
I know quite a few open-minded theists. Indeed, those who recognize that they might be wrong, theist or atheist, are open-minded.
IMO, most atheists recognize that they might be wrong. They would assign low probabilities on it based on the lack of evidence but they realize that a creator entity is possible.
IMO, most theists do not allow even the possibility that they are wrong. Their god exists. Period.
Of the two, theist and atheist, it seems to me that the atheists are more open-minded. Of course, I might be wrong about that.
And only their god, and only their version of that god.
Theism does not tell me to be uncomfortable with atheism and atheists. I represent theists you can discuss issues in-depth with if you want. It is time to put unease— at-ease.
I'm glad it doesn't tell you that. Others have a different interpretation.
[Removed]
Do you have something enlightening, or even coherent, to contribute?
Maybe it doesn't tell YOU that but who or what exactly told the majority of Americans not to vote for atheists, and the majority of states (at one time) to ban atheists from public office? It sure as hell wasn't atheists who did that, it was bigoted and superstitious Christians who did that.
I can not speak up for others' interpretation. So I ask you: Does my position have value in your 'economy'? Do you agree with me diversity should be universal?
Not especially. Some religions, or sects thereof, call for oppression. All of the Abrahamic religions are misogynistic to some degree. All have scriptures which call for genocide. All have authorized death for apostasy. IMO, the world would be much better off without the stricter interpretations of these religions. I don't think there's really an argument to be made for the Taliban, for example.
Your position has value, so long as you allow that mine does, too.
Of course your atheist position has value! As for diversity in our country: Do you agree life in the U.S. will be better if we all can get along under this nation's 'roof'? If we all can exist in peaceful diversity? Is it worth striving towards.
Why would anyone argue against peaceful diversity? Of course we should strive toward it. Some viewpoints are not compatible with it, though, so universal diversity does not further peaceful diversity.
I like your article's image. Two animals co-existing and respecting each other as they are emotionally. Such 'development' requires us to think critically, imagine ourselves being better, and pragmatically strive for a new level of diversity.
It's deceptive. The cat had just been goaded into swatting the dog's nose, and was resting on his laurels
You are one of the very few here at NT, Cal
And in the instance of rest - this delightful image of what can be was captured for all time. No bared-teeth; no bristle hairs; diversity on display.
Dear lady, I know your statement to be correct, but do allow me to widen it out just a bit with some information about "tribes" in America learning to "get it." Seeing these occasions, one 'old' and one new, gives me hope for proper diversity. Peace, my good friend.
When people put down their slings, arrows, and rocks, as 'tribalism' falls away, positive and useful results rush in to fill the spaces . What-if. What if atheists of America locked arms with people of faith in the throbs of tragedy as well? Is it possible they would see each other anew? A friend indeed!
I think many do. But as many of us are closeted in our offline lives, it's not very visible.
Most everyone I know is, or presents as, a theist.
Well come on out! Do so at your own pace. No pressure. Just do it!
Sandy, my philosophy my whole life is I am going to "do me" and people can like it or lump it. Just keep their hands and problems off me and "my stuff," - and everything will be just fine.
My brain simply works that way. Otherwise, I feel 'bottled up' and worse a 'stupor' would overcome me. There are no people around me who bring states of 'permanent' confusion to my life. I simply can not abide it.
Unlike most Christians, atheists don't usually walk into a room and start talking about their lack of belief. Also, the prejudices against atheists are still very real so most avoid announcing it. That also keeps any believer around them from thinking they're faith is being challenged thus feel impelled to start an argument that never ends well. Being able to have open honest conversations and debates in an anonymous forum is really the only way an atheist can communicate their beliefs, or lack thereof. History has taught us that debating religion in person rarely ends well and has led to much violence, from holy wars to tar and feathering non-believers.
You are not alone. Far from it. I believe most folks of "faith" feel exactly that way. The extremists are the minority.
On the other hand it seems some here, of little or no faith, are the ones trying hard to push their views. Or at least actively trying to discredit/demean those of mainstream faith.
SOSDD
There is not a single Christian scripture that calls for genocide or murder. Christians are not under the laws of Moses which apply only to the Jews.
Nor is this our world as Jesus taught us. Christians are to be seperate from the world
I have given them your message and that is why the unbelieving world hates them.
For their allegiance is no longer to this world because I am not of this world.
15 I am not asking that you remove them from the world but I ask that you guard their hearts from evil,
16 For they no longer belong to this world any more than I do.
17 “Your Word is truth! So make them holy by the truth.
18 I have commissioned them to represent me just as you commissioned me to represent you.
19 And now I dedicate myself to them as a holy sacrifice so that they will live as fully dedicated to God
and be made holy by your truth.”
20 “And I ask not only for these disciples, but also for all those who will one day believe in me through their message.
21 I pray for them all to be joined together as one even as you and I, Father, are joined together as one.
I pray for them to become one with us so that the world will recognize that you sent me.
22 For the very glory you have given to me I have given them so that they will be joined together as one
and experience the same unity that we enjoy. John 17:14-22
DP.
Mystery lies in ignorance. That opening statement is not pointed in your direction. It is to get you and others to understand that every group that has demanded change - eventually had to expose its tender underbelly to the world in order to "come of age." Yes, even Jews. Even Christians. Even black slaves. Even 'tribes' in America. Even homosexuals. Each one in turn over the centuries can mark the day each stood in the public square and took on all questioners.
The question: What kind of friend shall atheists be in the American community?
@14.1.18 I proposed a simple statement which only came to me today - after I posted the video above and read from Sandy and friend Trout Giggles:
What-if. What if atheists of America locked arms with people of faith in the throbs of tragedy as well? Is it possible they would see each other anew? A friend indeed!
Go public in a first impression that bodes good tidings. A helping hand. No one can deliver your message to the world - about what atheism means to you better than you. Express diversity for all people who hold to a good standard. And, your views will draw people, ever so slowly, and then comes an avalanche of good-will. For our citizenry loves a good-hearted, well-meaning, story!
My understanding is this is what the Jewish people do. They put forth something of value and use to help this nation's downcasted, damaged, injured, and outcasts. Christians likewise. Even black slaves. Even 'tribes' in America. Even homosexuals. And, good is reciprocal to the groups.
Perhaps what atheists need is some authentic good news press. What do you say to that? (Smile.)
Hi Sparty On! My brother, I am pushing for diversity in the United States. Diversity of a kind probably never seen before. So what am I talking about?
One day some years back, I sat down to discover what my own rhetoric means: To love my brothers and sisters as I love myself. And I came face to face with the question: Who the heaven are my "brothers and sisters" really?
The answer hit me: They are people of all races, tribes, groups, and caliber—including people I had never considered ever sitting beside in or out of public view. So, what does this look like?
(Calbab pauses to take a deep breath.)
It looks like opening up to people I would never have accepted into my mind or life because of their hatreds, their "outrages," sexual fetishes and oddities, and any of an assortment of issues and statuses I personally would not consider appropriate for my life. But, these people choose to live this way for themselves legally. So, what does this not look like?
It looks like me not accepting crime, gang-violence, abuses, or any of an assortment of issues and statuses for which society and community can not bear to allow under a standard of diversity. What does all this mean?
It means I had to get clear that I can like-appreciate-love all people who stretch my mind to include their legal and peaceful manners of existences in this land I share with them. It's extreme diversity—it can and will stretch us to consider people possessing freedom (owed them in the Constitution) whom we never would have allowed into our limited or "approachable" frames of reference. And for the record - that's atheists folks too!
No argument and that is a honorable quest to be sure.
Love is much like the concepts of free speech/expression/etc. In that if someone loves you, it's easier to love them back. It only gets hard when they don't.
If you have truly met your quest, you are a better person than i and i hope that you are.
Peace, my brother. Thanks for the heart-felt words! (I kind of reworked @14.1.26 while you posted. So check it out!)
Did they remove the Old Testament from the Bible?
Your remark to EA
How so? Can you provide any examples of that? All I see are people across the board (atheists to theists of all kinds) who can't stand the bigots and the theocrats who want to use the state to enforce their sect's sharia laws.
Do Christians disavow the sky fairy which Moses claimed ordered him to have the Midianites exterminated (except of course for the prepubescent girls who were to be kept as sex slaves)?
Do they disavow that this sky fairy commanded the murder of the innocent first born sons (including farm animals) because he was pissed at the Pharaoh?
Heck no they don't......they don't even have the balls or the basic sense of ethics to condemn those Bronze-age myths!
Same here. And assumes that everyone else is a theist, too. Of the Christian variety, no less, unless there are obvious outward signs (yarmulke, niqab, etc.) that they follow another faith.
And then there are the deliberate misunderstandings intended to cast us in a negative light. One need only look at a conversation above in which I said that, if someone wants me to believe in their religion, they'd need to give me a good reason why, and that was taken as me being overly concerned with his beliefs.
As Paul noted, the OT stories are written as an example to us of the blessings or suffering that comes from either following or rebelling against God. And as Jesus noted, the OT testifies of Him and His coming so that we know of His nature and character.
Gentiles even during the time of the OT were NEVER under the laws of Moses. They fell under the 7 Noahide laws
The Noahide Laws
2. Not to blaspheme God
3. Not to murder
4. Not to engage in incestuous, adulterous, bestial, or homosexual relationships
5. Not to steal
6. Not to eat a limb torn from a living animal
7. To set up courts to ensure obedience to the other six laws.
Since each law has extensions and interpretations (see number 4, for example) there are in fact more than seven laws that gentiles are commanded to observe.
Judaism regards any non-Jew (GENTILE) who keeps these laws as a RIGHTEOUS person who is guaranteed a place in the world-to-come." This is taken from the book; "Jewish Literacy, The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People, and Its History" Chapter 263 "THE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS" page 509. The author is Rabbi Joseph Telushkin and author of two of the most influential Jewish books of the past decade; "The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism" and "Why the Jews? The Reason for anti-Semitism
In the book, "EVERYMAN'S TALMUD", by Rabbi Abraham Cohen, (a summary of the teachings of the oral interpretation of the Mosaic Law), Page 65 we read, "To the Gentiles who were not prepared to enter the fold of the Judaism, a moral code, known as the seven commandments of the Sons of Noah, was offered. It consisted of the precepts: "The practice of equity, prohibitions against blaspheming the Name, idolatry, immorality, bloodshed, robbery and devouring a limb torn from a live animal" (Sanh.56a). By righteous conduct, based upon these fundamental laws they would earn the divine approval." Even the strict Jews believed that the Sabbaths were not necessary as binding on the Gentiles. Circumcision of the flesh is necessary before any person is required to observe the any Sabbath.
“The Law and the Prophets were in force until John’s day. From then on the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed and men are forcing their way into it. Luke 16:16
Hebrews 8:1,2,6,13
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.(verse 6)
In that He says, “A new covenant ,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (verse 13)
Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. Luke 12:20
The Bible in Acts 15 with the Jerusalem Council, enforced the teaching of Jesus that the Laws of Moses do not apply to Gentile believers
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well Acts 15:24-29
" The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God a]" has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it." Luke 16:16
In that He says, “A new covenant ,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Galatians 3:24,25
For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness for everyone who believes Romans 10:4
Still part of your scripture, said to describe your god and its commandments. And therefore used by Christians to justify genocide, misogyny, and the death penalty for such offenses as heresy and witchcraft.
Some atheists are indeed closed-minded. Some theists are closed-minded.
Some conservatives drive expensive cars. Some liberals drive expensive cars.
Some Democrats are fond of frozen custard. Some Republicans are fond of frozen custard.
By your logic (as it were) one could answer the question:
"Why Are Americans Still Holding to Theism?"
with:
Could it be that some theists are closed-minded?
One problem with those atheists is that they refuse to open their minds to faith.
If only they would allow in faith, they would understand.
You shall be assimilated into the Borg.
Come to think of it maybe religion was what they were referring to.
Being an atheist in America is a lot like when a Star Trek crew would beam aboard a Borg vessel but would be ignored until they actively threatened the Borg ship or crew in some way. We watch all the indoctrinated Christian Borg performing their programed functions without question, their hive mind coordinating their actions to spread their "serenity" to all corners of the universe.
There's at least one episode on the original Star Trek with an overt analogy about a religious hive mind, I think it was called "This side of paradise." Good episode actually with a rather beautiful woman with whom Spock fell in love.
Good analogy.
In that episode, people were under the influence of alien plant spores. Kind of like being on a constant high. Perhaps the best line of the episode is when just after Dr. McCoy gets in a fight with the colony leader Elias Sandoval, and he snaps out of the spores influence:
Sandoval [to McCoy]: "We've done nothing here. No accomplishments, no progress. Three years wasted. We wanted to make this planet a garden!"
That kind of describes a religion's effect.
Yes, Jill Ireland.
Another problem with those atheists is that they keep posing challenges that are really difficult to rebut.
Why do they ask about evidence? Why do they point out contradictions in the Bible? Why do they raise profound questions such as: 'why does God allow horrible things to happen to innocent children?' and 'how can all the world's historical and extant religions be wrong except for yours?' ?
It is so frustrating always scrambling to come up with answers - and the canned answers from religious websites are not very effective.
Locking this article while I'm at work.
Back in business.
Just now I had time to read the seeded content to this article. As I have found to be the norm, the NYT has done a deep-dive and absorbing writing story on this subject. I took a great many notes, . . . and in the end opened with this quote above.
First, let me say this: I love all people - in a general sense. That includes atheists.
Second, alas! It appears clear that there is little to nothing new under the sun: Opposing groups have been fighting before, doing, and probably after my time on Earth. I am sorry to discover this long and disturbing history between believers and non-believers; between church and atheists.
Third and last: Mr. Gray's book, "Seven Types of Atheism,” strikes me as a book I need to have on my reading list. Moreover, reading this article gave me real insight in just how we, a ll of us, nihilists included, believe something—many things, in fact, about ourselves, the cosmos, and one another.
You know what, Sandy? Just forget it. I GIVE UP.
TiG wrote an article that responds to your comment 1.2.56. It would best be discussed there.