As an atheist, it just leaves me feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. These survey results don’t shock me, and it probably won’t shock many other Dopers. See this recent thread, for example. As a New Yorker who has never been at a loss for atheist friends, I rarely feel like a total outsider even though I know where I stand.
But I do wonder where this leaves us. What (if anything) can atheists do to get America at large not to treat them like strangers? Do we just need to wait? I’m sure we’re tolerated more than we were decades ago, and I’m sure more Americans are willing to identify as atheists than in years past. Nevertheless, this doesn’t sound very good.
My apologies, by the way, for not having more concrete numbers from the study. Nobody seems to be reporting about it so far.
I think the problem is that many (not all) people who have been religious since birth don’t think that athiests/agnostics are or even can be as moral as they are - or even as moral as people from other religions. It seems (to me, at least) that there’s a relatively common thought among religious people that as we don’t think there’s a god hanging around upstairs making us responsible for our actions, that we don’t have any motivation or care to do good, even though (commonly) the views of an agnostic/athiest American in general would line up pretty well with a pro-choice religious American in the same area. So I think that stereotypical view probably contributes to the results.
Good thing the Catholic Melinda Gates’ parents did not mind her getting married to that unknown atheist fellow.
Half in jest, I do think just like other religions like to do, one should point to good Atheists, agnostics and unbelievers that make and made America what it is:
Many founding fathers were Deists, and I really can not picture them getting into the good graces of even the current moderate American churches, more likely I think they would dig Unitarian Universalism
But yeah, one can find some non-believers with faulty moral credentials, looking at you Woody Allen. List included also some non American examples, Charlie Chaplin, Arthur C. Clarke and Florence Nightingale are some of the notorious ones.
I guess this means that I should stop raising money for a run at the Presidency.
We aren’t doing so bad though. We control the media and the arts. At least we do according to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell et al.
I guess I’m not a real atheist though. I can’t absolutely deny the possibility of the existance of some as yet undiscovered “force.” However I think the possibility is near zero that this “force” would resemble the gods of any of our current religions. I guess that would qualify me for the rack and the stake.
I’m not perfectly sure what you mean by “peaceful quest.” But even if I was sure, I dislike pledging in general. I’d prefer to be judged by what I do, not what I solemnly swear to do. What you’re actually saying is that you’d trust my promise. You can’t trust me; you don’t know anything about me. It’s a person’s character that makes their word worth taking.
However I do think this speaks to the heart of the issue, which can be broadly viewed as “I trust people who are in my club” (or people who are the same as me). It seems that by now, Muslims, Jews, Protestants and Catholics in America generally see each other as being in the club. But to this point, atheists aren’t in.
Technically, that is a contradiction. Heathens were pagans: in fact, the words, while distinct etymologically, meant almost exactly the same thing in their Latin and Germanic roots–the rural folks who had not learned enough to give up their polytheistic ways and embrace Christianity. (I do detect a bit of Christian arrogance, there, I fear.)
[tourette’s response] Which word do you not understand, peaceful or quest?[/t] Sorry, it’s hereditary.
What do you seek for your happiness? If that quest is peaceful, pursue it according to your heart. I will not threaten it. If by chance, it should conflict with my peaceful quest, I will seek regulation that both may be fulfilled.
A pledge between strangers can be made with even a small sign. As you say, character or spirit shines through to those observant. We can only be fooled for so long.
Therefore, I will not ask you to swear. However, I would truly wish to hear the pledge to liberty coming from all government officials. How about you?
That is exactly my point. The answer is not confined by religion. The question is: Are you samaritan or pharisee (tyrant)? Do you seek peaceful quest for all, or do you deny it with biblical or constitutional laws? Do you trust in the spirit or the words?
It seems to me that we all have a stake teaching our children and supreme court justices the character and spirit of liberty. Even if the majority will never really understand, I would still have children and supreme court judges know it by heart. It might even sink in.
Now, now. I’d be a card-carrying atheist if I could only find the office where I can pay my dues.
I was pretty much using the second definition in a self-deprecating sorta way (hence the winky). If it’s imprecise, I lay the blame on dictionary.com. Although, living in Indiana and attending a religiously affiliated university, I sometimes wonder if my previous statement isn’t far too accurate.
Well, I’ll address this issue not as an atheist but instead from its other direction, as an American.
Though this country may not trust me, I nonetheless trust it. That’s not to say I believe it has no faults, but rather I believe it has the ability to mend its faults, no matter how intractable they may seem to the afflicted; or nonexistant to the oblivious.
I dont really like the word atheist…its like being called a “non-christian” because most of the word is made up of “theist”, implying that yes, while most believe in God, those people are defined by not believing in God.
I am an intelligent human being who believes in freedom and equal opportunity for all. I am against cruelty in any form and firmly believe we need to care for our environment, be kind to one another, and always be learning from others. I believe in truthfulness, obeying the law of the land, and accountablility of our leadership and those who wield influence over all of us…both corporate and government.
No one world view should be forced on anyone, but everyone should be allowed to express their view in the public forum in the forms of art, speech and media, as long as it does not impede or call for the removal of the basic freedoms of anyone else.
Id be surprised if many other so called athiests disagree with those statements, or most other people in general. So…I dont see the issue as to why we would be considered “not trustworthy”, and take general offence to the idea.
I am a true agnostic and I absolutely despise atheists and do not want to be associated with them in any way. I hate it when people lump atheists and agnostics together. I have found that the universe is a very strange (relativity, quantum mechanics) place and our tinnie little brains cannot comprehend it well. I don’t really believe in the gods existing religions hold but I am sure that the universe is a much more strange place that we can even fathom. I don’t believe humans that are really just glorified apes can suddenly rise out of the jungle and figure things out on scales so large and so small that we have no good reference for perceiving them.
Truth be told, I consider atheists both cocky and intellectually inferior and that is not a good combination.
Not a bad idea at all. It’s a real answer. I’d be worried that it causes sort of a ‘minority spokesman’ situation in which atheists are tolerated as long as they’re like Lance Armstrong and not too outspoken, but it’s definitely something.
So basically, you have the same angry and (I think) somewhat inaccurate view of atheists that much of America have of you. That’s heartening.
And agnostics are arrogant and closed-minded, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be moral people in other respects, or that they should be discriminated against legally or politically.
atheist: cannot reconcile the existence of God with their perception of reality. Goes about life as if no God exists.
agnostic: Does not know if God exists, does not know if Gods existence can be known…actually might not know if they really do not know. Suffice it to say they just don’t know.
theist: can and creatively does reconcile the existence of God with their perception of reality, usually with gusto.
I found that the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
puts “weak atheists” as almost indistiguishable from most agnostics, and claims that few athiests are “strong atheists” who outright deny the existence of any deity. I do not think **Shagnasty ** needs to be so dogmatic in his disdain for atheists, as he would likely find more in common with most so called atheists than not, and may need to refine his view both to the particular kind of agnostic he is, and which particular kind of atheist he has the problem with.
For me, two things. 1) Define what is meant by atheist. I see a large difference between those who don’t believe in God and those who adamantly believe there is not a God. 2) (Especially for the latter category) Try to adopt an attitude of “I may be wrong.” I wish people strong in any faith would adopt that attitude. And believe it.
Unfortunately, I think an attitude of “I may be wrong” is completely at odds with the concept of “faith”. Faith is the belief that in spite of any physical or observable evidence to the contrary, your world view is held as correct. In fact, the less supporting evidence you have, the “stronger” the faith required. To accept the possiblity that you may be wrong is to have weak faith, or no faith at all.
Hey, why not… it’s not a true atheism thread until somebody shows up and starts puffing up their chests about how their brand of godlessness is better than someone else’s.
