Not all atheists are anti-religion.

[Saltire]

Not even here in Washington.

On Saturday, I poked my head into the attic of the house I'm renting for the first time. Up there, I found a nice Craftsman claw hammer (mine, now) and a boxed-up nativity scene. The stable part is made of sticks and moss, and the figures are porcelain. It was in good shape and had all the parts (Mary, Joseph, 3 kings, cow, donkey, 2 sheep, and the baby Jesus). All the porcelain parts were bubble-wrapped.

I assume it isn't an heirloom, since it was bought commercially (it was in the orginal box). It wasn't left by the house's owner and I have no way to contact previous occupants. They've had half a year to come looking for their old stuff anyway.

I'm an atheist. I exchange gifts at Christmas because it's enjoyable, but I don't feel anything spiritual about the holiday. So what did I do with this set of religious knick-knacks?

I walked a few blocks to the Lutheran Church, and left it in their donation area. Just because I'm not into that stuff doesn't mean I oppose other folk's faith. Some family will probably be glad to have it, and I wish them all the joy they can get from it.

Could someone tell this story to Bill O'Reilly, please?

[ThePylon]

I always thought "atheism" meant, literally "without theism". There's nothing, IMHO, "anti" about it. In fact, isn't "anti-theism" a word? Would that apply to Dawkins, et al?

[Speaker for the Dead]

There are a lot of atheists out there (probably disproportionately represented on this board, for example) who are anti-religion, though. Since they're the ones most likely to come into conflict with religious people, they're the ones who end up representing "atheists" in the eyes of (mostly) Christians. The opposite is also true, as is frequently pointed out.

[tdn]

Meh. Over the summer I went to a Christian fellowship weekend thingy. I even played a Christian boardgame. When it came time to discuss my spiritual views, I was not shy about them, though I was careful not to offend. When it was all over I went out for beers with a couple of lesbians who also attended.

It's all good.

[control-z]

I don't think that view is uncommon. I don't need religion but I do understand it to a certain extent. I don't begrudge someone from doing what makes them spritually happy.

[pantheon]

I consider myself an atheist, and philosophically a Satanist, and I take my children to church and even occasionally attend with them. I also attend 12-step meetings several times a week and stand in a circle holding hands with people and am respectfully silent while they chant the Lord's Prayer.

I will admit I went through an anti-religious phase. I also went through many other phases of rebellion against my parents, school, authority and society in general.

As I matured though- I realized that rabid, mindless, in-your-face anti-theism was just as stupid and offensive as rabid, mindless, in-your-face theism and for the exact same reasons. Now I am simply without religion or any belief in God.

I can still be offended on principle by blind obedience, codified bigotry, legislated morality, and hypocrisy. I detest these things equally whether they are cloaked in religion or elsewise.

I don't believe in or practice any religions, but I do have a moral code and am a serious proponent of live and let live. I no longer try to talk others out of their beliefs, and I rarely share mine unless invited. I don't need to because no part of my belief system is dependent on others sharing it.

Besides, just because you see a little kid fishing in a puddle is no reason to take away his pole. :D

[Silver Tyger]

There are a lot of atheists out there (probably disproportionately represented on this board, for example) who are anti-religion, though. Since they're the ones most likely to come into conflict with religious people, they're the ones who end up representing "atheists" in the eyes of (mostly) Christians. The opposite is also true, as is frequently pointed out.

I wouldn't say there are more even here, just that the loud ones are also the most militant. (Respectful atheist here)

[tdn]

Besides, just because you see a little kid fishing in a puddle is no reason to take away his pole. :D

Not unless he's hitting you over the head with it.

[ShibbOleth]

I think religion is interesting, in a curiosity and historical sense. I don't mind that people use religion to suit their needs, although I'd prefer that people I care about not use it as a crutch. Many of my friends are religious to some degree or another.

That said, I think the world might be a better place if the world's population were slowly weaned from religion. Although I'm sure that in many or most cases religious reasons for hatred and atrocities would simply be replaced by ethnic or nationalist reasons.

[Canadjun]

I am an atheist/agnostic (never have quite figured out in my own mind which term best applies to me). I have no objection to other people having religious or spiritual beliefs as long as they don't push them on other people or use them to force other people to change their behaviours.
I happen to believe that religious beliefs can have an extremely powerful placebo effect in those that do have strong beliefs. As it happens I can not take advantage of that placebo effect myself since I don't have the prerequisite belief system, but I don't begrudge others taking advantage of that placebo effect as long as they don't do it to the exclusion of more "conventional" care (and in particular as long as they don't prevent others especially children from getting "conventional" care).

[Der Trihs]

I always thought "atheism" meant, literally "without theism". There's nothing, IMHO, "anti" about it. In fact, isn't "anti-theism" a word? Would that apply to Dawkins, et al?Antitheism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism) I've described myself as an "atheist and antitheist" on occasion.

[MaxTheVool]

Sad thing is that anyone even feels a need to state this in the first place.


If one were to make a list of "top 10 things which have a glimmer of truth at their core but are grossly exaggerated out of proportion with that glimmer in the minds of certain groups of people" (and that would be a fascinating list), the various negative views thrown around about atheists would be very high on that list.

Also, there's a huge difference between being anti-religion and being anti-religious-people. There's also a difference between what people say in contexts such as in-the-midst-of-a-heated-SDMB-discussion and the way they actually act in their day-to-day interactions with people.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

I am firmly atheist, and philosophically identify with metaphysical naturalism. However, I also understand the motivations behind choosing a life of faith - I believed at one time, and I don't think I was a horrible person then. I still can empathize with believers. Committing oneself to an atheist viewpoint is a scary prospect - there have been a couple emergencies with my kids, where I've wished that there were some god to pray to for help, or at least reassurance and comfort.

I also know that my non-belief notwithstanding, I cannot deny religion's impact on the world. And I do believe that the majority of that impact has been positive, rather than negative.

An anecdote - I was in Spain last year on business, and had the chance to visit the Cathedral de Sevilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seville_Cathedral) - the largest medieval cathedral in the world (as the proud tour guide pointed out, St. Peter's in Rome is a basilica, not a cathedral). I can honestly say that it is the most beautiful structure I've ever seen in my life.

I was there with a co-worker (a Spaniard) who had never visited Seville. As a Catholic, he was awestruck - seeing the look on his face made me a little sad I'd never feel the same as he, but also very happy for him that a lifelong dream had been fulfilled. I sat with him in the pews as he took some moments to pray, and I thought of this church where so much had been done in the name of religion.

First as a mosque, and then as a cathedral, where inquisitions played out, and infidels were imprisoned, but also where multitudes of homeless had been fed, and countless more had found the inspiration to commit worthwhile acts - great and small. I think it's safe to say that more lives had been saved than destroyed due to the presence of this monument to the divine - at the end of the day, it's provided a net gain to society, and it's really purty too.

For me to commit to a worldview dedicated to bringing an end to religion (which IMO sums up anti-theism) I would also need to commit to deconstructing all the positive things religion has contributed to the world, including that gorgeous testament to faith in southern Spain. No thanks.

[mswas]

As I matured though- I realized that rabid, mindless, in-your-face anti-theism was just as stupid and offensive as rabid, mindless, in-your-face theism and for the exact same reasons. Now I am simply without religion or any belief in God.

Ironic SDMB handle. ;) Would that more of the SDMB atheist offenderati agreed with you.

[mswas]

I think religion is interesting, in a curiosity and historical sense. I don't mind that people use religion to suit their needs, although I'd prefer that people I care about not use it as a crutch. Many of my friends are religious to some degree or another.

That said, I think the world might be a better place if the world's population were slowly weaned from religion. Although I'm sure that in many or most cases religious reasons for hatred and atrocities would simply be replaced by ethnic or nationalist reasons.

I'd argue that they are more often ethnic or nationalist today as well. That is why Indonesian Muslims have less trouble with the rest of the world than Arab Muslims. The War on Terror isnt the US vs Islam, it is the US vs particular ethnicities like Arab Al Qaeda and Pashtun Taliban.

[Malacandra]

A Craftsman hammer? Result! :cool:

[BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed]

I read the OP and thought "claw hammer?" "Porcelain" figures?

Then he got an idea! An awful idea! THE GRINCH GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA! "I know just what to do!" The Grinch laughed in his throat.

[elfkin477]

I wouldn't say there are more even here, just that the loud ones are also the most militant. (Respectful atheist here) I agree with you 100% and I'm a theist. There are plenty of atheists here who are not rabidly anti-religion. But, as with the more fanatical of my fellow theists, he who shouts the loudest is the best remembered.

[jsgoddess]

I'm an atheist. I exchange gifts at Christmas because it's enjoyable, but I don't feel anything spiritual about the holiday. So what did I do with this set of religious knick-knacks?

If it was pretty, I would display it. I think Nativity scenes are very attractive. I saw one last year that was made of auto parts and it was wonderful and whimsical.

I don't believe in ice-skating snowmen or Santa either, and I display those when they're attractive.



ETA: Here (http://www.novica.com/itemdetail/index.cfm?pid=129049) is the auto parts nativity. I think it's spectacular.

[ZipperJJ]

Good on you, Saltire. Peace, love and understanding rule!

[rivulus]

I am... well, best described as agnostic, but functionally atheist. I still have spiritual yearnings, but in the final analysis (in the trenches, so to speak) I just don't grok deity or religious doctrine.

Anyhow... I have always had great appreciation for the beautiful art and music inspired by religious beliefs and practice. Especially music written in honour of or about Mary, the mother of Jesus. Everything from Josquin's Ave Maria, gratia plena to Monteverdi's Vespers to Purcell's The Blessed Virgin's Expostulation to Samuel Barber's "St. Ita's Vision" from the Hermit Songs. I adore the songs, colours, and traditions of the Advent and Christmas celebrations in church. The more "high church," the better. Organ music, choir boys, incense, chanting, ancient carols, the works! I love the responses:
The Lord be with you
And also with you
Lift up your hearts
We lift them up to the Lord...
I can feel the emotion and inspiration behind all these things. That's what I appreciate.

Also, my brother is a minister. I have a great deal of respect for him, along with my mom, my sister-in-law, and various others who have a vibrant and compassionate Christian faith. With great fruits of the spirit. Damn, it sometimes makes me wish I believed all that.

But I don't.

[Chimera]

The rabid anti-theism displayed on this board and elsewhere is simply another form of the age old Ideological Superiority Game.

"You're stupid if you don't believe what I believe".

It's offensive and silly in all realms of Ideology, from religion to politics to wherever.

[Purgatory Creek]

I am what I call a "primary atheist," signifying that I was born without the capacity to believe in a deity or in anything else for which I have no evidence. I've noticed that sometimes the most vocal and angry atheists are the ones who feel they have been harmed by religion or have directly experienced the negative side of religion.

I simply don't care about religion. When others practice their rituals, I just stand quietly by, nodding pleasantly, until they are done, just as I do when my Aunt Ethel rambles on about her colostomy bag. I don't hate religious people or like them any more than I do other atheists.

What I do hate is when people think my atheism makes me a satanist. I dislike people of any creed who are unable to use logic.

[pantheon]

Ironic SDMB handle. ;) Would that more of the SDMB atheist offenderati agreed with you.

Heh, there is a little intentional irony. It's very close to (or a converse of) the Steven Roberts quote which Der Trihs mentioned" "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours." If I do have any after-death experience, and it involves finding out I was wrong (HAR HAR), I expect to meet the entire pantheon rather than just one Judeo-Christian God. If one is possible, they are all possible. Er, plus I was struck like a ton of bricks by the Pantheon as described in Byron's 'Childe Harold's Pilgrimage' (Canto the Fourth, CXLVI and CXLVII).

When I say I believe strongly in live and let live, it does mean I retain a bit of reflexive hostility to having religion shoved at me, and also any ideology, philosophy, fundraisers or body parts I did not ask for in my face. I have, I think though, outgrown my hand-stabbing phase (as Lib would say). I had to, for my own self-survival. As a recovering alcohol/addict (12-18-08=1000 days :D), I just can't afford to get that worked up about things I can't control. I value my serenity too much to flip-out over every god-botherer. ;-P

I take my daughter to church because she wants to go. I take her to whatever church she chooses, and we go or don't go according to whether she feels like it. She's settled mainly on one church, because several of her friends from school go there. I think she is learning social skills, compassion, generosity, and many other good things there. I'm also honest about my own (lack of) beliefs whenever she wants to discuss. (I'm a strange blend of Christian atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism), Satanist, Secular Humanist, Discordianist, and Pastafarian as well some others, so I have a bit of my own pantheon going on in my head.)

I go every once in a while to screen the message she is hearing....the same way I listen to her music occasionally or check out her MySpace page. (I created a page and she added me voluntarily and without being asked in any way- she thinks it is a hoot that her old dad is on it.) The church seems very open- all are welcome to take communion, there's no politics, OT brimstone, or bigotry in the sermons, etc. I'm proud of her choice and she'll probably get more out of it than I did since she knows she never has to go if she doesn't want, or she's free to visit a friend's church, or synagogue, or mosque, etc.

I didn't like theism forced on me, so I'm not going to force my atheism on her. Her belief system, her sexuality, her career path- all of her choices will be her own and she'll always know that she has my unconditional support regardless.

[Karyn]

I have no objection to other people having religious or spiritual beliefs as long as they don't push them on other people or use them to force other people to change their behaviours.

This pretty well sums it up for me to. I don't like pushy extremists regardless of the subject matter but in my experience most theists aren't like that. I object strongly to the idea of any group equating their faith with a political agenda to be forced on the rest of us but other than that I figure that anything that gives them a sense of community and shared moral values is a good thing for a lot of people. I don't think that it's all that different from the social justice groups that I've been part of - we share a common vision of working hard to change things on a local level and get strength and motivation from each other.

<pet peeve> One thing that does drive me nuts is using the bible as evidence for what's in the bible. It makes me want to tear my hair out. </pet peeve>

[Quasimodem]

An anecdote - I was in Spain last year on business, and had the chance to visit the Cathedral de Sevilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seville_Cathedral) - the largest medieval cathedral in the world (as the proud tour guide pointed out, St. Peter's in Rome is a basilica, not a cathedral). I can honestly say that it is the most beautiful structure I've ever seen in my life.

It is beautiful, and what makes it that way (IMO) is the time and love of one's craft that went into building/creating it.

One has to wonder about the people responsible for this beautiful cathedral and what they must have been like and what a strong work ethic they must have had - working from sunrise to sundown.

It's much the way I listen to Beethoven: not just to the music itself, but to the man. How he must have struggled, what it was like for him in his small apartment, sweltering hot in the Summer and unbearably cold in Winter. Sick all his life, yet still managing to give us the gift of such beautiful music. I think of him as having every right to tell them all in those days to go fuck themselves, yet he remained true to his art and had such hope for humanity.

You don't just look and listen to such beauty, you immerse yourself in it.

I have to ask, CPI: Did you put your hands on the walls and close your eyes the way I did with Beethoven's piano?

Quasi

[BigT]

I consider myself an atheist, and philosophically a Satanist, and I take my children to church and even occasionally attend with them. I also attend 12-step meetings several times a week and stand in a circle holding hands with people and am respectfully silent while they chant the Lord's Prayer.

I will admit I went through an anti-religious phase. I also went through many other phases of rebellion against my parents, school, authority and society in general.

As I matured though- I realized that rabid, mindless, in-your-face anti-theism was just as stupid and offensive as rabid, mindless, in-your-face theism and for the exact same reasons. Now I am simply without religion or any belief in God.

I can still be offended on principle by blind obedience, codified bigotry, legislated morality, and hypocrisy. I detest these things equally whether they are cloaked in religion or elsewise.

I don't believe in or practice any religions, but I do have a moral code and am a serious proponent of live and let live. I no longer try to talk others out of their beliefs, and I rarely share mine unless invited. I don't need to because no part of my belief system is dependent on others sharing it.

Besides, just because you see a little kid fishing in a puddle is no reason to take away his pole. :D

I don't know if you are still around, but I am so glad to meet a Satanist who is not an antitheist. That's the only kind I've encountered before, to the point that I thought that was the point.

I do wonder though. Why do you use that term instead of others? What is it about Satanism that makes it fit your philosophy more? I always assumed the title was specifically to point out the anti-Christian part, since it's otherwise similar to many other concepts.

[Peremensoe]

What can "Satanism" possibly mean if not a class of theism itself? It seems to me that Satanists subscribe to Christian mythology as much as anyone, they just revere a different figure within it than most. Unless this is some kind of "Satanism" not actually about Satan, in which case it seems poorly named.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

The rabid anti-theism displayed on this board and elsewhere is simply another form of the age old Ideological Superiority Game.

"You're stupid if you don't believe what I believe".

It's offensive and silly in all realms of Ideology, from religion to politics to wherever.I don't think that's fair. This is a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance. It's not a popularity contest. If one believes in fairies, no matter how smart, or nice, or pretty, or cool they are... they still believe in fairies.

[CairoCarol]

I am an atheist who worships zombies.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

It is beautiful, and what makes it that way (IMO) is the time and love of one's craft that went into building/creating it.

One has to wonder about the people responsible for this beautiful cathedral and what they must have been like and what a strong work ethic they must have had - working from sunrise to sundown.

It's much the way I listen to Beethoven: not just to the music itself, but to the man. How he must have struggled, what it was like for him in his small apartment, sweltering hot in the Summer and unbearably cold in Winter. Sick all his life, yet still managing to give us the gift of such beautiful music. I think of him as having every right to tell them all in those days to go fuck themselves, yet he remained true to his art and had such hope for humanity.

You don't just look and listen to such beauty, you immerse yourself in it.

I have to ask, CPI: Did you put your hands on the walls and close your eyes the way I did with Beethoven's piano?

Quasi
The Cathedral de Sevilla is so powerful, it can raise the dead! (Sorry, I reposted a link to my post here in another thread, and should have called out that it wasn't a recent post - but as zombies go, there are much worse topics to resume).

Quasi, I had a moment when I was walking up the bell tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Torre_de_la_Giralda_-_Plaza_Virgen_de_los_Reyes_-_Sevilla.jpg) - which was built on the remains of the minaret of a mosque originally on the site 800 years ago. It's 300 feet-and-change, and most of it ramp instead if stairs - a damn hard walk, and a killer on the lower legs, especially when you're as out of shape as I, and when the person you're with is practically bounding up the tower in excitement, and you're trying to keep up.

I asked my coworker Pablo for a breather, and leaned up against the wall, near the top, where the obvious Moroccan-influenced style of the old minaret stopped, and the Gothic stonework took over. And I began wondering at all the people who may have stopped in that very spot over the decades and centuries - old mullahs and priests catching their breath, stoneworkers taking a brief break between hours of backbreaking work, young monks looking in awe out the narrow windows to catch a glimpse of Seville from one of the highest structures in the Western world at the time.

Contrast that with the world I live in now - in a suburb of Portland, in a house less than 15 years old, where the oldest building within miles and miles is still only 150 years old. It's a pretty humbling experience.

[Czarcasm]

Does "anti-encroachment of religion on my life" = "anti-religion"?

[Max Torque]

In a way, I envy religious people. They seem to take great comfort from their faith, comfort that I'm too inquisitive to share. There are times that I've wished I could turn off what my mind tells me is true and wrap myself in the protective cloak of belonging-to-something-huge-and-historic. I bet it's nice.

But, I just can't understand people who are unwilling to question. So, I remain a stranger in a strange land.

[Dragwyr]

Does "anti-encroachment of religion on my life" = "anti-religion"?

I was wondering the same exact thing!

[Crown Prince of Irony]

Does "anti-encroachment of religion on my life" = "anti-religion"?

In my opinion, no. To me, "anti-religion"="all religious beliefs are delusions, and all religions are ultimately bad and should be destroyed". I think that it is imperative for atheists to oppose the encroachment of religious dogma on everyday secular life, but that's not calling for the destruction of religious institustions, it's just calling for them to back the f*ck off and keep their noses out of our lives.

[John DiFool]

In a way, I envy religious people. They seem to take great comfort from their faith, comfort that I'm too inquisitive to share. There are times that I've wished I could turn off what my mind tells me is true and wrap myself in the protective cloak of belonging-to-something-huge-and-historic. I bet it's nice.

But, I just can't understand people who are unwilling to question. So, I remain a stranger in a strange land.

Nice either-or fallacy there.

[Agent Foxtrot]

I think religion is a beautiful and wholly fulfilling thing. Wish I could believe in it myself.

[Quasimodem]

Just a tad off-topic and please bear with me, but despite a strict Catholic upbringing, I enjoy reading your posts and have learned from them: such as never be afraid to question.

Does that sound patronizing? Please don't take it that way, okay? i don't know how else to word it.

Thanks

Q

[Czarcasm]

In my opinion, no. To me, "anti-religion"="all religious beliefs are delusions, and all religions are ultimately bad and should be destroyed". I think that it is imperative for atheists to oppose the encroachment of religious dogma on everyday secular life, but that's not calling for the destruction of religious institutions, it's just calling for them to back the f*ck off and keep their noses out of our lives.Using this definition then, what percentage of atheists on this board are really anti-religious, in your opinion?

[Crown Prince of Irony]

Using this definition then, what percentage of atheists on this board are really anti-religious, in your opinion?

It's hard to nail down - I can think of a handful of posters (let's say, less than 10) that in my experience are staunchly anti-religious, as in, "all religion is wrong, and its very existence annoys me" as opposed to "religious dogma X is wrong, and it annoys me that the religious aren't condemning it". The distinction can be a bit subtle sometimes (but usually, the posters I'm thinking of have all the subtlety of a sack of bricks to the face).

Also mitigating this - I tend to stay out of GD and the Pit (althogh I felt compelled to post in the Pit lately, that's not typical for me), and I would imagine most of the anti-religious posts occur there. But the posters I have in mind usually don't hesitate to take their battels to IMHO, MPSIMS, CS, TGR, and ATMB, so who knows?

So in my inexpert and completely half-assed opinion, there are maybe a dozen or so posters (ETA - sorry, I conflicted with myself there compared to my first paragraph - I'll leave it as is) who I've seen exhibit what I would consider anti-religious attitudes. Considering that this board has a disproportionate number of atheists (compared to the commonly quoted 10% of the population) I would say the percentage of atheists who are active posters on this board - who are also truly anti-religious - is somewhere around 10%.*

Disclaimer: This estimate has a margin of error of +- 150 points.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

In a way, I envy religious people. They seem to take great comfort from their faith, comfort that I'm too inquisitive to share. There are times that I've wished I could turn off what my mind tells me is true and wrap myself in the protective cloak of belonging-to-something-huge-and-historic. I bet it's nice.

But, I just can't understand people who are unwilling to question. So, I remain a stranger in a strange land.

I guess the way I see it is this: it's human nature to want to see order in things. IMO, it's what has separated us from less sentient beings, and, combined with opposable thumbs and a bipedal gait, what led to our evolution as the dominant species.

While some people (myself included) prefer the order of the scientific method, and of pure reason and rigorous examination, religion arose in the absence of scientific knowledge. Despite millenia of scientific advancements since the rise of the worlds current primary religions, even today many people need the order that religion provides, especially regarding some of the big questions that science still has no answer for, like what happens after death, and what our purpose here on earth is.

Then there are societal advantages - most religions offer a social hierarchy and strong moral and cultural leadership that fulfills a latent desire for such deep in the human psyche that may be difficult to obtain elsewhere. It also provides what some call an "altruistic imperative" to do works of charity, that frankly can be difficult to justify using reason alone.

There's also the simple fact that most people have at least somewhat of a religious upbringing - its simply not common for people to abandond the belief system they were raised with.

Compound these and other societal factors, and it makes a lot of sense that most people believe in some form of religion.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

So in my inexpert and completely half-assed opinion, there are maybe a dozen or so posters (ETA - sorry, I conflicted with myself there compared to my first paragraph - I'll leave it as is) who I've seen exhibit what I would consider anti-religious attitudes. Considering that this board has a disproportionate number of atheists (compared to the commonly quoted 10% of the population) I would say the percentage of atheists who are active posters on this board - who are also truly anti-religious - is somewhere around 10%.*

Disclaimer: This estimate has a margin of error of +- 150 points.

I just really garbled this post - that's what happens when I start to write a reply, then get distracted and come back to it an hour later and don't do a full proof-read.

I should amend the bolded statement to read:
"I would say the percentage of active atheist posters on this board who are also truly anti-religious is somewhere around 10%."

Otherwise it appears I think that 10% of all anti-religious atheists are posters on this board, and that sounds just a bit off.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

Just a tad off-topic and please bear with me, but despite a strict Catholic upbringing, I enjoy reading your posts and have learned from them: such as never be afraid to question.

Does that sound patronizing? Please don't take it that way, okay? i don't know how else to word it.

Thanks

Q

Hi Quasi - I'm not sure who you're replying to, but it doesn't sound patronizing to me at all. :)

[Der Trihs]

In a way, I envy religious people. They seem to take great comfort from their faith, comfort that I'm too inquisitive to share. There are times that I've wished I could turn off what my mind tells me is true and wrap myself in the protective cloak of belonging-to-something-huge-and-historic. I bet it's nice.

But, I just can't understand people who are unwilling to question. So, I remain a stranger in a strange land.Nice either-or fallacy there.
It's not a fallacy, it's the simple truth. That's why they call it "faith" after all; religion requires you to turn off your mind, at least towards its basic claims.

[Guinastasia]

I guess the way I see it is this: it's human nature to want to see order in things. IMO, it's what has separated us from less sentient beings, and, combined with opposable thumbs and a bipedal gait, what led to our evolution as the dominant species.

While some people (myself included) prefer the order of the scientific method, and of pure reason and rigorous examination, religion arose in the absence of scientific knowledge. Despite millenia of scientific advancements since the rise of the worlds current primary religions, even today many people need the order that religion provides, especially regarding some of the big questions that science still has no answer for, like what happens after death, and what our purpose here on earth is.



Not all religions are necessarily opposed to science -- many great scientists were and are religious. (Galileo, Isaac Newton, Georges Lemaître, etc)

[Crown Prince of Irony]

It's not a fallacy, it's the simple truth. That's why they call it "faith" after all; religion requires you to turn off your mind, at least towards its basic claims.

You seem to feel that anyone who believes (what, maybe 80-90% of the population, including some of the world's preeminent scientists, artists, and thinkers) have "turned off their minds".

Maybe you can elaborate - do you care to actually offer anything of substance here? Would you want to refute anything I said here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14141588&postcount=41) for instance, regarding the human tendency toward faith?

[Crown Prince of Irony]

Not all religions are necessarily opposed to science -- many great scientists were and are religious. (Galileo, Isaac Newton, Georges Lemaître, etc)

Oh, I absolutely agree - my reply to Der Trihs must have crossed yours. Which to me is more evidence that religion is not without its value to society - it has inspired great thoughts, acts, and works.

Folks tend to forget that one of the most fertile periods of scientific advancement prior to the Industrial Revolution, the Islamic Golden Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_golden_age), was fostered by the expansion of Islam between the 8th and 16th centuries. The real irony is that modern Islam (right or wrong) is perceived by many on both the right and the left as a somewhat backward, oppressive culture lacking in scientific curiosity.

[Der Trihs]

You seem to feel that anyone who believes (what, maybe 80-90% of the population, including some of the world's preeminent scientists, artists, and thinkers) have "turned off their minds".By definition, or they wouldn't be religious. If some scientist took the Flying Spaghetti Monster seriously would you consider worshiping the FSM a belief worthy of respect? Or would you just think he's being idiotic? Because worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is no stupider than worshiping any other god.

Maybe you can elaborate - do you care to actually offer anything of substance here? Would you want to refute anything I said here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14141588&postcount=41) for instance, regarding the human tendency toward faith?As you wish:

Despite millenia of scientific advancements since the rise of the worlds current primary religions, even today many people need the order that religion provides, especially regarding some of the big questions that science still has no answer for, like what happens after death, and what our purpose here on earth is. Want, yes. Do they need it? no.

Then there are societal advantages - most religions offer a social hierarchy and strong moral and cultural leadership that fulfills a latent desire for such deep in the human psyche that may be difficult to obtain elsewhere. It also provides what some call an "altruistic imperative" to do works of charity, that frankly can be difficult to justify using reason alone.Nonsense. Religion is destructive to society (http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/religious-belief-and-societal-health/) and doesn't make people any more charitable. And pretending kindness in order to suck people into your religion isn't any more "altruism" than some corporation making a show of charity to get their name in the news. Advertising and charity are not the same thing.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

By definition, or they wouldn't be religious. If some scientist took the Flying Spaghetti Monster seriously would you consider worshiping the FSM a belief worthy of respect? Or would you just think he's being idiotic? Because worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is no stupider than worshiping any other god.

As you wish:

Want, yes. Do they need it? no.

Nonsense. Religion is destructive to society (http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/religious-belief-and-societal-health/) and doesn't make people any more charitable. And pretending kindness in order to suck people into your religion isn't any more "altruism" than some corporation making a show of charity to get their name in the news. Advertising and charity are not the same thing.

Your fallacy is assuming a church and a corporation are equivalent - one is an institution that is often ingrained in the history and culture of its adherents. The other makes widgets or cars or Fleshlights. Folks don't simply drop their religion once they gain the power of reason, like they'd change brands of deoderant. By equating one with another, you really do show a lack of understanding of that which you claim to oppose, revealing the shallow nature of your worldview.


I'm curious, do you even like any of the religious folks that you know? Unless you work freelance web design in an abandoned salt mine, and order pizza online every day, people of faith are your coworkers and neighbors, and the folks who bag your groceries and do your taxes. Do you just tolerate their existence, or do you actually know and care for any of these folks?

[Der Trihs]

Folks don't simply drop their religion once they gain the power of reason, like they'd change brands of deoderant. By equating one with another, you really do show a lack of understanding of that which you claim to oppose, revealing the shallow nature of your worldview.
Or I think that people who don't drop religion like a brand of deodorant that isn't working are being foolish.

And so far we have "Not respecting religion means you have a shallow worldview", "religion is necessary" and "religious people are morally superior". Want to go for "atheism = communism therefore atheists are mass murderers"? That one is a classic.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

Or I think that people who don't drop religion like a brand of deodorant that isn't working are being foolish.
The point is, religion is working for many of them - it provides them exactly what they need, and they'd be foolish to drop what works for them.
And so far we have "Not respecting religion means you have a shallow worldview"
No, I'm pretty sure what I'm saying is "not respecting all religious people means you have a shallow worldview".
"religion is necessary"
For many people, yes. Who am I to tell them what they need?
and "religious people are morally superior".And where did I say "religious people are morally superior"? I said religion offers a moral, cultural, and social framework that many people need - yes, I'll say it again, they need it, not want it as you feel. And not out of any particular weakness - I strongly feel, and nothing you've said convinces me otherwise, that humans have an innate, instinctive need for much of what religion has to offer, that can be difficult to find in the secular world. Structure, leadership, morality, an overall framework to build their own personal worldview on, take your pick.

Folks like me and you have found reason and logic to provide a better framework than religion - oh, wait, maybe that's just me.
Want to go for "atheism = communism therefore atheists are mass murderers"? That one is a classic.
You can stop flogging that old one-liner, dude. Sure, some folks have said as such. Maybe even some very powerful folks at some point (Eisenhower comes to mind).

So f***ing what? While I do feel that atheism is misunderstood (and I admit, the last time you and I got into it on religion, I was remarking on the unlikely stigma I faced coming out as an atheist), that doesn't equate to "all religious people believe the very worst things said about atheism, because at some point, a religious person said them!" That's just 5th-grade circular logic. Can't you come up with something more well-thought out than that? Seriously, I feel like I've brought a laptop to an abacus fight here.


Since I've stuck with this for so long, I think I deserve an answer to the second part of my last post - how do you feel about all those religious folks you encounter day-to-day? Do you reverse-proselytize to them every day? Do you paste on a smile? Or do you just pretend they don't exist, and then boil over with anger when you get home at the end of the day, and lock your door against all those oppressing masses shoving crosses in your face and trying to forcefully convert you?

In short, have you never met a religious person you liked and respected?

[SecondJudith]

In a way, I envy religious people. They seem to take great comfort from their faith, comfort that I'm too inquisitive to share. There are times that I've wished I could turn off what my mind tells me is true and wrap myself in the protective cloak of belonging-to-something-huge-and-historic. I bet it's nice.

But, I just can't understand people who are unwilling to question. So, I remain a stranger in a strange land.

Just as a data point, my religious group (progressive Judaism) does both (well, except for the "faith" part, depending on who you ask), and I find it's lovely. I'm sure there are many other religious branches that cover both "belonging-to-something-huge-and-historic" and encourage, even require, thorough and ongoing questioning, doubt and thoughtfulness.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Folks don't simply drop their religion once they gain the power of reason, like they'd change brands of deoderant.

The evidence (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm) suggests (http://www.slate.com/id/2211937/) that people do in fact change or drop religion like they might "change brands of deodorant".

[Der Trihs]

The point is, religion is working for many of them - it provides them exactly what they need, and they'd be foolish to drop what works for them.That's ridiculous; religion is a plague upon humanity; it causes immense suffering, is irrational, and is simply factually wrong. It's not some harmless little quirk, nor is it just a matter of opinion.


For many people, yes. Who am I to tell them what they need?The same person who is claiming that they do need religion.

I said religion offers a moral, cultural, and social framework that many people need - yes, I'll say it again, they need it, not want it as you feel. And not out of any particular weakness - I strongly feel, and nothing you've said convinces me otherwise, that humans have an innate, instinctive need for much of what religion has to offer, that can be difficult to find in the secular world. Structure, leadership, morality, an overall framework to build their own personal worldview on, take your pick.You are saying they need lies; that is definitely a weakness. Lies is all that religion has to offer. And the evidence is simply against you; the presence of religion is correlated with increasing social dysfunction, not less. The idea that religion is good for people is just propaganda.

You can stop flogging that old one-liner, dude. Since it comes up again and again and again, no I really can't.

Since I've stuck with this for so long, I think I deserve an answer to the second part of my last post - how do you feel about all those religious folks you encounter day-to-day? Do you reverse-proselytize to them every day? Do you paste on a smile? I avoid speaking beyond business with them whenever possible and certainly avoid speaking of religion to them. They are irrational, untrustworthy and potentially dangerous. There are probably more people on the SDMB who know that I'm an atheist than there are anywhere else.

[suranyi]

I avoid speaking beyond business with them whenever possible and certainly avoid speaking of religion to them. They are irrational, untrustworthy and potentially dangerous. There are probably more people on the SDMB who know that I'm an atheist than there are anywhere else.

Who do you find, in the real world, to talk about things besides business with? To talk about art, music, moveis? About things you like to do with your spare time? About travel? About women? About food? Are none of them religious?

[Crown Prince of Irony]

(Let's see if I can nail the quote tags in one go)


The point is, religion is working for many of them - it provides them exactly what they need, and they'd be foolish to drop what works for them.
That's ridiculous; religion is a plague upon humanity; it causes immense suffering, is irrational, and is simply factually wrong. It's not some harmless little quirk, nor is it just a matter of opinion.
My best friend - the one who was the impetus for this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=496248) (warning, thread is three years old, please don't revive - I really don't want to be patient zero for the great SDMB zombie outbreak of 2011.:D) - is Quaker, and he consciously chose it later in life after being kicked out of the Mormon church for being gay. As a teen, his lifelong faith rejected him for something that was beyond his control, and his church's elder urged his family to distance themselves from him (they politely told their elder to screw off - I've met most of his family, and they're pretty awesome people).

Yet after all that, he sought out a place of worship that would accept him for who he is, instead of rejecting faith altogether. He's one of the smartest, most compassionate, people I know, and his a faith that practices selfless acts, pacificism, and acceptance - is he or his chosen faith a plague on humanity?

Not to mention most of the world's great historical figures. The big trifecta of great historical figures of the 20th century - MLK, Ghandi, and Einstein - come to mind immediately. But basically take all the worlds great thinkers, and carve out 25% conservatively to represent the atheists, and what you have left are all people of some kind of faith. Do you really want to claim that their faith, which in many cases is a driving factor behind their acheivements, is a plague on humanity? Many smarter people than you or I believe. That doesn't make me believe, but it is enough for me to respect their faith.

For many people, yes. Who am I to tell them what they need?
The same person who is claiming that they do need religion.
Unlike you, I wouldn't presume to tell them what they need or don't need. It should be pretty damn clear by now: I'm not telling them they need religion, I'm telling you they need religion.

I said religion offers a moral, cultural, and social framework that many people need - yes, I'll say it again, they need it, not want it as you feel. And not out of any particular weakness - I strongly feel, and nothing you've said convinces me otherwise, that humans have an innate, instinctive need for much of what religion has to offer, that can be difficult to find in the secular world. Structure, leadership, morality, an overall framework to build their own personal worldview on, take your pick.
You are saying they need lies; that is definitely a weakness. Lies is all that religion has to offer. And the evidence is simply against you; the presence of religion is correlated with increasing social dysfunction, not less. The idea that religion is good for people is just propaganda.
You keep trotting out this study, but I've pored over it, and all it shows is that the US blows the bottom of the curve out on quality of life in developed democracies. If you doubt me, look at Italy and Ireland - toward the bottom or middle of the pack in most metrics, and both deeply Catholic countries.

One could easily interpret this study to say that America's fragmented belief system is more to blame than the sheer percentage of users, and that countries with a longer religious tradition, and more homogenous faith, are better off.

But I'm not saying that at all - I think the US dominates that study because our country is simply pretty f**ked up in a lot of ways not directly related to religion, and very much related to our profit-driven economy and the deep, wide class divide, combined with our lack of any kind of real universal health care. But I'm not going to get into that here.

Am I trying to say religion can never have deleterious effects on a society? Not at all - we all know that people can be motivated by their faith or their religious leaders to do and believe bad things. The Spanish Inquisition for one, the Crusades for another, the ongoing battles against gay rights for a third, and we could pick a hundred more examples before having to go to Wikipedia. But as long as petty people have egos, prejudices, and care about power and control, bad shit's gonna go down, whether it's in the guise of faith, revenge, or greed.

I'm not going to deny that religion has its place in society, just because religion can sometimes lead to bad things happening. I'll say it again: many people from all walks of life, both great and average, have a need for what religion can provide. And I can't presume to deny them that, even if I believe differently than them.


You can stop flogging that old one-liner, dude.
Since it comes up again and again and again, no I really can't.
"It comes up again and again and again" - where?!? Of all the times I've seen atheists being equated to communists on this board, it's always been you trotting out this old saw.


Since I've stuck with this for so long, I think I deserve an answer to the second part of my last post - how do you feel about all those religious folks you encounter day-to-day? Do you reverse-proselytize to them every day? Do you paste on a smile?I avoid speaking beyond business with them whenever possible and certainly avoid speaking of religion to them. They are irrational, untrustworthy and potentially dangerous. There are probably more people on the SDMB who know that I'm an atheist than there are anywhere else.

I really do feel sorry for you - some of the best, brightest, and most caring people I know are religious. You really must be a miserable person to feel the way you do.

[Guinastasia]

I avoid speaking beyond business with them whenever possible and certainly avoid speaking of religion to them. They are irrational, untrustworthy and potentially dangerous.

Damn, you found me out!

There aren't enough :rolleyes: to fill this message board over the above statement.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

One could easily interpret this study to say that America's fragmented belief system is more to blame than the sheer percentage of users, and that countries with a longer religious tradition, and more homogenous faith, are better off.

Just noticed this - somehow the bolded section snuck in from something else I was composing, via the clipboard. It should read:

"One could easily interpret this study to say that America's fragmented belief system is more to blame, and that countries with a longer religious tradition, and more homogenous faith, are better off."

[olivesmarch4th]

I'm atheist and probably something like pro-religion. I think it's fascinating and beautiful and a little inspirational, especially when faith drives people to take care of others. But I don't want it all up in my government.

The stuff like prejudice and bigotry - that's people. I don't really associate it with religion. I think bigots just use religion to sanction their ignorance.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

The evidence (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm) suggests (http://www.slate.com/id/2211937/) that people do in fact change or drop religion like they might "change brands of deodorant".

The source report (http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf) is a pretty fascinating read, if you're into that kind of thing. But USA Today and Slate's take on it were both a bit skewed, since they're both going for a kind of sensationalist slant.

According to the report, 28% of respondents indicated they had changed or dropped the religion they were raised in. This still leaves 72% of people sticking with their faith, which kind of proves my point. Unless you want to count Protestants changing affiliation - I'm ambivalent about considering that a real change in religion, since they're still sticking with Christianity.

But hey, if a significant percentage of those folks are embracing a humanist, godless worldview, I'm not gonna complain.

[Feyrat]

How about those of us who aren't atheists and are STILL anti-religion? Where do we fit in?

Seriously, I wish religious people would just shut the heck up about their beliefs. They're irrelevant, and somehow I'M the one being rude when I don't want to be beat about the head and neck with their holy book.

[Algher]

I'm atheist and probably something like pro-religion. I think it's fascinating and beautiful and a little inspirational, especially when faith drives people to take care of others. But I don't want it all up in my government.

The stuff like prejudice and bigotry - that's people. I don't really associate it with religion. I think bigots just use religion to sanction their ignorance.

You bring up part of the problem. Nobody seems to mind that MLK used religion for his work, but they do mind that many in the Confederacy used religion to justify slavery. I have had the rights of gays preached from the pulpit, and I know that denying gays rights is also preached from the pulpit. Many of the anti-death penalty activists do so out of following their interpretation of the 10 Commandments.

Saying you don't want religion on your government encompasses far more than just anti-gay and prayer in school folks.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

How about those of us who aren't atheists and are STILL anti-religion? Where do we fit in?

Seriously, I wish religious people would just shut the heck up about their beliefs. They're irrelevant, and somehow I'M the one being rude when I don't want to be beat about the head and neck with their holy book.

I don't feel that it's anti-religious to not want religion pushed down your throat. I'm against any mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance. I'm against anyone who tries to pass a law based on religious morality that impairs the rights of innocent, law-abiding citizens.

But if an individual starts preaching to me, I am in complete control over how I respond - for instance, when LDS or JW witnessers come knocking, I tell them politely that I am atheist, and they always say "thanks" and go away. If a family member tries to tell me I'm going to hell (hasn't happened in a long while) I calmly tell them I don't believe in life after death.

Or I could tell them "you're wrong/misguided/delusional/etc." - see how far that gets you in any discussion. I don't care if you're discussing religion vs. atheism, or Less Filling vs. Tastes Great, a response of "you're wrong" will never end well.


I guess a good litmus test for whether you are truly anti-religious if if you feel that religious people are all ...irrational, untrustworthy and potentially dangerous.

If you agree with that quote, then yeah, you're probably anti-religious.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The source report (http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf) is a pretty fascinating read, if you're into that kind of thing.

Thanks for the link.

But USA Today and Slate's take on it were both a bit skewed, since they're both going for a kind of sensationalist slant.

No doubt--nevertheless, the opening sentences of the report are:
Religion in the United States is often described as a vibrant marketplace where individuals pick and choose religions that meet their needs, and religious groups are compelled to compete for members. The Landscape Survey confirms that, indeed, there is a remarkable amount of movement by Americans from one religious group to another.

I think it's safe to say that they agree with the basic concept that many Americans shop around for religion.

According to the report, 28% of respondents indicated they had changed or dropped the religion they were raised in. This still leaves 72% of people sticking with their faith, which kind of proves my point.

I don't know. The consequences of choosing the wrong deodorant are fairly minor, so there is good reason for a person to try out several brands. The consequences of choosing the wrong religion are--assuming that one of them is true--quite dire, and I find it remarkable that over a quarter are brave enough to switch (at least for those told that they would be sent to eternal hellfire for behaving incorrectly). Unless, of course, the religions aren't believed in quite so strenuously as it appears. I can't say anything on that point.

[Guinastasia]

I'm atheist and probably something like pro-religion. I think it's fascinating and beautiful and a little inspirational, especially when faith drives people to take care of others. But I don't want it all up in my government.


Well I'm NOT an atheist, and I don't want religion in my government either, if that helps.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

No doubt--nevertheless, the opening sentences of the report are:
Religion in the United States is often described as a vibrant marketplace where individuals pick and choose religions that meet their needs, and religious groups are compelled to compete for members. The Landscape Survey confirms that, indeed, there is a remarkable amount of movement by Americans from one religious group to another.

I think it's safe to say that they agree with the basic concept that many Americans shop around for religion.

No argument here, except to surmise that maybe people aren't really shopping around for religion, per se, but rather for a congregation that meets their particular social/cultural/"spiritual" needs, but retains the core values they are used to.

I will say that America is a weird beast when it comes to religion, and it doesn't surprise me that our population seems more mercurial about its faith than other, nearly equally religious countries like Ireland, Italy and Portugal. We're a young country, with comparatively little shared cultural history to speak of, and we haven't really had a single religious institution intertwined in our history as have many European countries.

But I still think that speaks to the innate need many people have for religion in their lives - they may be church-hopping, but the point is, most folks who change affiliation for whatever reason are more likely to choose another faith (likely with pretty similar beliefs) than to join the ranks of us atheists/agnostics/Humanists.

Our ranks are growing though, and it does make sense - as many European countries drifted from their religious roots decades and centuries ago, so will the US in time (whether the fundamentalists like it or not).

I don't know. The consequences of choosing the wrong deodorant are fairly minor, so there is good reason for a person to try out several brands. The consequences of choosing the wrong religion are--assuming that one of them is true--quite dire, and I find it remarkable that over a quarter are brave enough to switch (at least for those told that they would be sent to eternal hellfire for behaving incorrectly). Unless, of course, the religions aren't believed in quite so strenuously as it appears. I can't say anything on that point.

There's an elephant in the room when talking about recent religious "drift" - Catholics switched their faith at a higher rate than average (32% of those born Catholic changed their affiliation in some way), with almost half of those who switched staying unaffiliated.

I wonder how many of those switched due to the sex abuse scandals, and of those unaffiliated, how many still believe in god, but just reject the church?

[SecondJudith]

But as long as petty people have egos, prejudices, and care about power and control, bad shit's gonna go down, whether it's in the guise of faith, revenge, or greed.

Hard to argue with this. I'm another religious person who is against religion in government.

[bartleby]

As I matured though- I realized that rabid, mindless, in-your-face anti-theism was just as stupid and offensive as rabid, mindless, in-your-face theism and for the exact same reasons. Now I am simply without religion or any belief in God.


This is the point that I always go back to when I have to deal with fundamentalist, evangelical atheists.

How is it better for you to tell me I'm deluded and stupid to believe, and shove that down my throat, than it is for someone to try to preach to you?

Why am I lumped in with a (admittedly, very loud) vocal minority of people, when I have never tried to convert anyone, never been rude about others beliefs (or lack thereof), never persecuted anyone for any reason?

I've yet to get any sort of answer to that other than bluster, smoke and mirrors.

[olivesmarch4th]

You bring up part of the problem. Nobody seems to mind that MLK used religion for his work, but they do mind that many in the Confederacy used religion to justify slavery. I have had the rights of gays preached from the pulpit, and I know that denying gays rights is also preached from the pulpit. Many of the anti-death penalty activists do so out of following their interpretation of the 10 Commandments.

Saying you don't want religion on your government encompasses far more than just anti-gay and prayer in school folks.
In Racism: A Short History, George M. Frederickson argues that it was actually the increased secularization of society that allowed slavery to truly take root in its most horrific form in the United States. Until then, many people believed they had a responsibility to teach slaves to read and write, to instruct them morally and generally take better care of them. Slaveholders also had to deal with Christians at the time who were opposed to slavery on religious grounds. The rise of secularism, he argues, allowed society at large to reject the notion that slaves where equal to white men and to embrace the concept of genetic inferiority. It's an interesting idea.

I agree that religion gets blamed for the evils of its followers and not enough credit for the good. Look at the role the Catholic church has played in alleviating poverty. Catholicism currently plays an enormous role in caring for immigrants in the United States. Then there's liberation theology which allowed oppressed blacks to find empowerment through the transformation of their opressor's ideology.

That said, plenty of us are capable of creating compassionate and strong communities without religious influence. I wouldn't argue that it's necessary for a just society... only that the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Feyrat]

This is the point that I always go back to when I have to deal with fundamentalist, evangelical atheists.

How is it better for you to tell me I'm deluded and stupid to believe, and shove that down my throat, than it is for someone to try to preach to you?

Why am I lumped in with a (admittedly, very loud) vocal minority of people, when I have never tried to convert anyone, never been rude about others beliefs (or lack thereof), never persecuted anyone for any reason?

I've yet to get any sort of answer to that other than bluster, smoke and mirrors.

I'll answer for me personally - it isn't. But maybe you don't realize how pervasive religion is in this country. Just in casual conversation (at least, here in West Michigan, which is admittedly a little Bible Belt of its own) people regularly thank God for trivial crap, say they'll be "praying for" someone/something/me, discuss the doings of their church and debate whether things are "wrong" or not with no basis besides the tenants of their faith. I just want religious people to shut the heck up, that's all. I don't care if they have religion - even though I think religion is both silly and dangerous - I just want them to keep it to themselves.

Personally, I don't go "rabid anti-theist" on anyone who isn't beating me with their Bible. I ignore it, 99% of the time. But the fact is that it's socially acceptable to harangue people about religion, at least in my part of the country, and it's not equally ok to tell people you don't believe in God or don't go to church.

Every time American Christians talk about their faith being "under attack" or use the word "repression" I laugh and laugh. We live in a society where being Christian is the default position and anything else is still abnormal. When that changes, I'll probably be less resentful.


I guess a good litmus test for whether you are truly anti-religious if if you feel that religious people are all

If you agree with that quote, then yeah, you're probably anti-religious.

I believe that religion itself is all those things.

I believe that religious people are silly and believe in absolutely ridiculous things that I find impossible to regard with anything other than incredulity.

I find the notion that there could be, and even probably is, a Greater Power of some sort totally fine. I find the notion that we could possibly know anything about It, or how It's mind works, or what It wants, or Its preferences, utterly ridiculous. We can't even understand how other humans think and feel. The idea that God is a person is, to me, the most offensive thing about religion.

Like I said, I don't think religious people are evil or malicious, but I can't understand why they think that something great enough to make the Universe cares who we sleep with, what name we call It, or whether or not I've lost my car keys.

[Der Trihs]

This is the point that I always go back to when I have to deal with fundamentalist, evangelical atheists.

How is it better for you to tell me I'm deluded and stupid to believe, and shove that down my throat, than it is for someone to try to preach to you?Because all the facts are on the side of atheism. And because sitting back and letting only the religious preach at everyone won't accomplish anything but let them spread their lies unopposed. What you are doing is demanding that atheists shut up and take it.

And what does " fundamentalist atheist" even mean?

Why am I lumped in with a (admittedly, very loud) vocal minority of people, when I have never tried to convert anyone, never been rude about others beliefs (or lack thereof), never persecuted anyone for any reason?

I've yet to get any sort of answer to that other than bluster, smoke and mirrors.Even assuming they are a minority* you support the exact same bad reasoning that they use to excuse their beliefs, you help make it acceptable. And you probably contribute financially to religious organizations of which they are a part.


*Which I doubt; it wasn't a minority that voted to outlaw single sex marriage here in California.

In Racism: A Short History, George M. Frederickson argues that it was actually the increased secularization of society that allowed slavery to truly take root in its most horrific form in the United States. Until then, many people believed they had a responsibility to teach slaves to read and write, to instruct them morally and generally take better care of them. Slaveholders also had to deal with Christians at the time who were opposed to slavery on religious grounds. The rise of secularism, he argues, allowed society at large to reject the notion that slaves where equal to white men and to embrace the concept of genetic inferiority. It's an interesting idea.Sound like another attempt to divert the blame. One of the motives for slavery and for it being so brutal and dehumanizing was to force Christianity upon the slaves, to erase their old culture and impose Christianity on them. And it largely worked, too. As for secularism making it easier to excuse slavery, Christianity in the Old South pretty much was nothing else but an excuse for slavery. The Bible can easily be used to justify slavery, and the old slavers and other racists have never had any problem using Christianity to excuse their actions. Blacks are the result of "the curse of Ham", or other races are separate and inferior creations of god; not human at all but animals. As for teaching slaves to read, that was just because some sects believed that everyone should read the Bible, not out of any actual concern for the slaves.