My parents are Lutheran and they can’t stand creationists either.
Right, which is why an atheist who proposes making religion illegal is an idiot, because it wouldn’t work, and even if it would work, it would be morally wrong.
So yes, religious practice has increased dramatically in former communist countries were it was once heavily deprecated. In lots of other parts of the world, religious practice has dwindled considerably.
I’m pretty much an atheist. I think here in Ireland the (Catholic) church has gone from hot to naught in record time. There’s still plenty of residual religious belief but people don’t feel obliged to attend mass nearly as much as in the past. I don’t know too many vociferous atheists though, most of my friends are more or less atheist. In fact the religious ones stand out because they’re rare.
Well . . . I guess we’re trying to avoid anything that might lead us to the point where we have an organization and we have to pick a name.
I don’t believe that, so does that make my apathy more acceptable to you?
I think the situation is kind of analogous to drugs. They may hamper humanity to some degree, but the “war on drugs” is much, much worse.
Trying to convert the religious just makes them more likely to try to force their way into my government.
The group who do not believe in leprechauns don’t do much charity work either 
Seriously though, I do love the Foundation beyond belief.
Thats a pretty bad analogy. The war on drugs is compulsory and I would never support any kind of punishment for not being an atheist or reward for being one (really the same thing). I do support programs that help people to not abuse drugs, get clean, not get diseases from sharing needles ect. No one should go to prison because of drug use btw, it’s idiotic in the extreme to do that to people unless you’re in the private prison business and then you’re a big dick in any case.
I think you missed SmartAlecCat’s point entirely, which is that sometimes the action taken against an idea or entity is worse than the idea or entity itself. I think we can all agree that tossing atheists in prison willy-nilly would do little to advance the “cause” of atheism. (Of course, we would be able to have the atheist corner of the yard and get amateur atheist tattoos and so forth, so it wouldn’t be all bad.)
umm not sure why you’re using the opposite of the scenario to assert its problems and if you’re going to use a comparative case don’t use one that if thought of logically supports what you are opposing. (encouraging people not to kill themselves with heroin in nonpunitive ways = good I hope?)
Yours and Skammer’s posts point out that the whole Atheist-vs-Believer battle detracts from the real fight: Good vs. Evil. It shouldn’t matter on either side who has what beliefs or lack thereof.
I think that with more and more info at your door steps, people are keeping their options open. They are exploring the ideologies of God and are very much vocal about it.
Perhaps you could rephrase your thought in the form of a sentence, because I have no idea what you’re going on about.
I hope it is the sign that the lemmings are walking towards the light out of the woods…
yes and yes, ever since you stopped burning us at the stake. we will become the dominant philosophy very soon. god willing.
The problem is who defines evil. In some cases the religious define something totally innocent as evil because their book tells them to. The Prop. 8 trials showed how weak the claim that gay marriage is evil is when you can’t quote Bible verses.
@ Voyager, Yes, Good vs. Evil is subjective. Both sides will define their cause as good, but I don’t know how better to put it. In the Prop. 8 case (which I don’t know much about, but going on what you said), what would you think of a Christian who rejects anti-gay notions in the bible and disagrees with attempts to use the bible to institute anti-gay measures? Say what you want about cherry-picking, he’s shown a better side of humanity, and I don’t think you can denigrate him just because he’s a believer.
Well, I believe that evangelists are intrusive and creepy, be they for religion, lack of religion, or Justin Bieber. So I guess you could say that I fear being intrusive and creepy, and that I’m apathetic about what other people believe so long as they aren’t bothering me.
Here’s the thing - my theory is that we decide good versus evil atheistically, in other words based on some ethical thinking and some built-in morality and some training. Once religious people do that they find support for whatever they decided in their religious texts. To stay with homosexuality, I’ve seen people find support for gay rights in the Bible and other people find support for oppression in the Bible.
The problem comes when those without a good ethical argument for their position push it anyway because God said so. They can do this when appealing to voters, like in the Prop 8 campaign. When arguing in the courts, however, they cannot, and have to use science and logic, and I think it is pretty well agreed that the pro-Prop 8 forces got their asses handed to them when they tried this.
It is quite similar to court cases on Creationism. When Creationists run for school boards and the like, they can support their position with God said it, I believe it, and anyone who disputes the Bible is a heathen and an atheist. When they go to court they need to demonstrate that creationism rises to the level of something that can be taught in science class, and they fail every time.
From the General Social Survey:
Percent of respondents who don’t believe in God:
1988 1.5% (n=1,481)
1991 2.3% (n=1,517)
1993 2.9% (n=1,606)
1994 2.5% (n=2,992)
1998 3.2% (n=2,832)
2000 2.8% (n=2,817)
2006 2.2% (n=4,510)
2008 3.0% (n=2,023)