So, what? He clearly identifies himself as black and anyone seeing him on the street would not mistake him with a caucasian. I thought your point was that there was something about caucasian culture that produces more atheists. Now are you saying it is genetic?
If you followed this whole thread through you would see that I am not saying that at all. You would also note my regret in using the caucasian term in the title in the first place. But for me a litle side issue has developed independant of my original hypothesis. That is the general perception that once blood of another race exists in a person no matter how genetically predominant the caucasian component, that person ceases to be caucasian.This is a common and easy error to make. It is also a well known fact that very few people in America can claim to be 100% black. America is truly a melting pot.
If a white person and a black person have a child, then that child is still caucasian as far as I’m concerned. That child is still black as well.
I have been following the whole thread, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. I believe that friedo’s cite was in reference to your request that a non-caucasian atheist step forward. I didn’t understand your objection to it. I think I see the reason for my confusion.
Race is all about perception. There is very little genetic basis for racial identification. A child of white and black parents is whatever race other people think the child is, and whatever race the child identifies himself or herself as. The fact the that the child may be “genetically” half white and half black is irrelevant.
This idea of a gentic basis for race is another common misconception.
Just a note to inform you that Reginald Vaughn Finley, the Infidel Guy noticed a flurry of hits on his website from the straight dope last night.He informs me through e-mail that he is three generations black. His great grandmother was native Indian and his great great grandfather was of Irish descent.
I’m starting to lose track of just what grienspace’s position re: atheism and “Caucasianness” is at this point.
Well, Reggie does live in Georgia, and everyone knows Georgia is located in Caucasia, right…? Q.E.D.
Okay.
Well, I do apologize earlier for assuming you live in the United States. However, the basic point still stands. Canada, like the United States, is a predominately Christian country. (Culturally and demographically speaking.) Therefore, any atheists you happen to encounter there will likely devote more time and energy to defending their beliefs from Christians than they will to defending their beliefs from Hindus. Atheists in India, on the other hand, probably spend a good bit of their time debating the merits of Hinduism. This only makes sense–Christian missionaries in Japan would likely find their audiences a bit mystified if they kept giving sermons about the evils of Hinduism; Baptists in Utah are probably not going to be primarily concerned about their children converting to Rastafarianism; and so forth. Your basic point in this thread makes about as much sense as saying “All Christians speak English” (or French, as the case may be). The atheists you personally encounter tend to focus on Christianity. You do not personally encounter all atheists, or even a representative sample thereof.
Well, what you did say was “Don’t forget the Bill of Rights was drafted and signed by professed Christians.” Also, the American Constitution and Bill of Rights contain no references to God; the American Declaration of Independence does, but contains no references to Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Bible, or anything specifically Christian.
If anything, but Christianity is not the most tolerant religion in the world. I would probably have to say that atheists are the tolerant ones. Grienspace, do you know of any religion that atheists persecute? I didn’t think so. Atheist do not beleive in God but they don’t look down on other religions (no matter how silly they are). We (atheists) do not try to convert or influence anyone with our own beliefs (actually lack of beliefs).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
I’m starting to lose track of just what grienspace’s position re: atheism and “Caucasianness” is at this point./
[QUOTE]
Me too. I seem to be addressing a dozen different issues in response to charges/questions and counterpoints.
[QUOTE]
Well, I do apologize earlier for assuming you live in the United States. However, the basic point still stands. Canada, like the United States, is a predominately Christian country. (Culturally and demographically speaking.) Therefore, any atheists you happen to encounter there will likely devote more time and energy to defending their beliefs from Christians than they will to defending their beliefs from Hindus. Atheists in India, on the other hand, probably spend a good bit of their time debating the merits of Hinduism. This only makes sense–Christian missionaries in Japan would likely find their audiences a bit mystified if they kept giving sermons about the evils of Hinduism; Baptists in Utah are probably not going to be primarily concerned about their children converting to Rastafarianism; and so forth. Your basic point in this thread makes about as much sense as saying “All Christians speak English” (or French, as the case may be). The atheists you personally encounter tend to focus on Christianity. You do not personally encounter all atheists, or even a representative sample thereof./
[QUOTE]
In Canada, particularly on the west coast, very few people go to church. Furthermore,we really have the feel of the united nations out here, and we promote the idea of multiculturalism, which is even supported by tax dollars. So I have a reasonable confidence that i have a general understanding of foreign cultures in general, and after all, we do live in the global village.Now various posters have quote my original premise as a 100% proposition. That is there are no atheists period in India for example.I did not expect anyone to take the title of this thread literally.
[QUOTE]
Well, what you did say was “Don’t forget the Bill of Rights was drafted and signed by professed Christians.” Also, the American Constitution and Bill of Rights contain no references to God; the American Declaration of Independence does, but contains no references to Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Bible, or anything specifically Christian./
[QUOTE]
Well you are right,only the Declaration of Independance contains references to Divine Providence, Supreme Judge of the World, Creator, God. Would you suggest that these titles refer to anyone other than the God of Christians or Jews?
Well, those words were written mainly by Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist who didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus or in any of the miracles in the Bible.
Here’s your original post:
Now, how did you expect everyone to “interpret” that? I pointed out that there a number of atheist and humanist groups active in India. If one-tenth of one percent of the population of India are atheists, then that adds up to about 1,000,000 atheists. And just how many hard-core, self-professed, activist, militant, in-your-face atheists like me do you think there are in the United States and Canada? This message board isn’t necessarily a representative sample of anything either.
Atheists are tolerant? Don’t persecute? I don’t think so. Certainly Christians have been persecuted in the Soviet Union, There was 0 tolerance for the “opiate of the masses”
In China today, Christians are being sought out as enemies of the state, a declared atheist state.
Atheists don’t try to influence? Why are atheists responding to me in this forum. What is the goal of atheist organisations and web sites? Preach to the converted? I don’t see any other religion attacking (ridiculing) Christianity on the net.
You need to back up such a specific statement, otherwise people are going to be misinformed. In chapter 32 of “The life of Thomas Jefferson” written just eight years after Jefferson’s death, B.L. Reyner writes “Jefferson was liberal in contributions to the support of the simple religion of Jesus.”
Well, “atheist” is a broad term, just as broad a term as “theist” is. Most self-professed atheists in the U.S. and Canada don’t consider themselves to be Marxist-Leninists, just like most self-professed North American theists don’t consider themselves to be Wahhabites, Christian Reconstructionists, or devotees of the Death Cult of the Goddess Kali. Obviously, some atheists of the non-Stalinist variety do try to “influence” others, for a variety of reasons–intellectual enjoyment; a desire to test and sharpen one’s own beliefs by civilized debate with people of other views; a desire to defend one’s own beliefs when one sees them as being unfairly attacked; a principled committment to “the truth”, whether specifically the truth about the existence or nonexistence of God or the truth of the Christian religion, or perhaps the truth about peripheral issues, like whether or not all atheists are Caucasians; or an attempt to change the beliefs of theists to the extent of at least getting them to recognize and respect the rights of atheists, even if the theists don’t personally change their beliefs about God.
Well, I’m not sure exactly where you draw the line on “criticizing” or “debating” or “questioning” on the one hand; and “attacking” and “ridiculing” on the other. Relations between Christians and Muslims can get a little testy from time to time–a web search will turn up a number of sites like Answering Christianity, written by a Muslim.
Of course, one reason why Christians get challenged a lot is that Christianity challenges every other belief system. Answering Christianity was written in response to the Christian web-site Answering Islam. Many atheists get into debates with Christians when Christians assert that atheists are fools, that atheists are Satanic and evil, and so forth. Jews, who don’t ordinarily proselytize, have established such sites as Jews for Judaism in response to the efforts of Christian groups like Jews for Jesus. Christians certainly have the right to seek converts and try to persuade others of the rightness of the Christian religion, but everyone else also has the right to respond accordingly.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
Now, how did you expect everyone to “interpret” that? I pointed out that there a number of atheist and humanist groups active in India. If one-tenth of one percent of the population of India are atheists, then that adds up to about 1,000,000 atheists. And just how many hard-core, self-professed, activist, militant, in-your-face atheists like me do you think there are in the United States and Canada? This message board isn’t necessarily a representative sample of anything either. /
[QUOTE]
A careful reading of my previous posts here and in the Pit under the Andros thread might clear up your confusion. My original understanding of the definition of atheism is what atheists today would call hard atheism. unfortunately I can’t edit my original post.
By the way, I appreciate what I learned from you regarding atheism in India. However lets not compare numbers of atheists in India with hard atheists in America. Such a comparison has no relevance in this debate.BTW India now has a population of 1 billion ? I’ve got to check that out.
Jefferson did consider himself to be a follower of what he felt was the philosophy taught by Jesus, but he didn’t consider Jesus to be the Christ or God, and although Jefferson might have called himself a Christian, I think using that word to describe him does violence to the language.
In a letter to William Short, October 31, 1819 Jefferson wrote that he followed the “true” teachings of Jesus, but rejected the “artificial systems*, invented by Ultra-Christian sects”. The asterisk gives Jefferson’s footnote, where he enumerates some of the beliefs he rejected as erroneous:
While some of those things are in fact beliefs of specific Christian sects–“his corporeal presence in the Eucharist” that of Catholics, “election” that of Calvinists–belief in the deification of Jesus, the resurrection, original sin, and atonement are all pretty central to Christianity, and I find it hard to term someone who doesn’t believe in any of them a Christian.
Jefferson didn’t even agree with all of the doctrines which he accepted that Jesus in fact taught. In another letter to William Short, dated April 13, 1820 Jefferson states that
If by “hard atheists” you mean “people who categorically state that there is no God and could not possibly be one”, then there are damned few such people, in the North America or India. If by “hard atheist” you mean “people who have no belief in any God, and consider there to be very good reasons to doubt the existence of the specific deities of known religions, like Jehovah/Jesus or Shiva”, then how do you know there aren’t such people in India? There are organized freethought, skeptical, and humanist groups in India, which seek to combat what they see as the harmful influence of religion; specifically, Hinduism.
The Britannica gives the 1998 population of India as 984,004,000.
Your 6;19 post was excellent and informative and I yield the point I made to you. Obviously other religions do attack Christianity on the net.
Yes, and make some effort to undermine god based religions.
Do you believe that there possibly could be a god/God ? If so then aren’t you agnostic?
Since “god” is a word with so many differing definitions, I could hardly say there could not possibly be such an entity. With respect to “God” as “the creator or designer of the Universe”, I haven’t seen any reason to believe in such an entity (or entities) and therefore have no belief in one. I would accept the label “atheistic agnostic” with reference to that concept. Having no knowledge (hence, “a-gnostic”) I have no “theism” or belief in God (hence “a-theist”). With respect to “God” as “the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent perfect being traditionally defined by Christian theologians”, or the traditional Christian Godhead in which Jesus Christ is asserted to be “very God and very man”, I think there are internal logical inconsistencies in those concepts which make them as impossible as a “four-sided triangle” or an “Invisible Pink Unicorn”. With respect to “God” as “the supposed revelator or inspirer of the infallible and inerrant Christian scriptures”, I think the Christian Bible is clearly errant, and therefore such an entity does not exist. I also have grave moral reservations about the entity which is described in many parts of the Bible. Since most people I run into mean something more like “the God of Christianity” (or at least a personal, theistic God, who answers prayers and so on) than “some unknown intelligent and willful entity or entities who somehow created the Universe”, it seems more accurate to call myself an “atheist” and leave it at that.
I nearly overlooked your cites with regard to Thomas Jefferson, and you certainly have supported yourself.
However, although Jefferson disavowed the deity of Christ, He supported the teachings of Christ. This is a small point indeed but this particular discussion arose out of my characterizing the founding fathers as professed Christians which never was much of a significant point in the first place.
I read just today, in Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the Future of America, by Thomas Fleming, that Hamliton joined an organization to protect both Christianity and the Constitution in the early United States. The very next paragraph said something to the effect (I browsed in the bookstore, and don’t remember the exact quote) “…its purpose was to protect Christianity and the Constitution against the Republicans, whose leader, Thomas Jefferson, was an atheist.” If anyone owns this book, it is in the first chapter.
Gore Vidal, in * The Decline and Fall of the American Empire* says that “Tom Paine, when asked his religion, said he subscribed only to the religion of humanity.”
Positive Atheism magazine has these quotes from Paine:
There are several more, which can be found at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/paiframe.htm
So his religion, or lack thereof, can be described as ambiguous at best. Certainly he was not a Christian.
By the way, on the first page of this thread you stated that “One would be sufficient” in proving that all atheists are not Caucasian. You’ve been shown several, why are you not satisfied?