And this is different from if a Jehovah’s Witness got shot exactly how? Or a Muslim? Or any number of other believers? I mean, I know there are people who despise atheists but there are people who despise all forms of believers as well. JW in particular have been the butt of this ridicule all of my life anyway so the idea that they’re somehow not irritating but an atheist would be smacks of “Oh man somebody would HAAAATE ME if I did that” like a teenager wailing about unfairness.
I say this as a person who doesn’t care if an atheist knocked at my door to tell me all about what he doesn’t believe in. He’ll get the same thing a believer will get from me: nothing. No anger, no ire, no listening, no careful consideration. A simple “Not interested, thanks.” and the door closing. As much as many atheists online want to be martyrs (heh) of their brave stance against religion, IME most people just don’t care if they don’t believe in anything. Luckily the atheists I know offline seem to not give religion a passing care. IME it’s people online who have the vapors about religion. I’m glad they have a place here to do it so they can not get dramatical about it in my life.
A Muslim getting shot would probably get the same reaction. A JW, I think not, in part because people are more used to it and in part because I suspect many people think JWs practice an extremely strange form of Christianity.
Note that I live in Brooklyn, where for obvious reasons JWs are undoubtedly viewed with slightly less distaste than in other places.
I think that’s true of a vast majority of people. I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that people who will shoot JWs >= people who would shoot atheists.
I still say that atheist proselytism doesn’t make sense, so my assumption would be they were doing it just to bug people. Atheism isn’t a consistent philosophy, so there’s nothing to proselytize. So if your intent is to stir up crap, then, yes, you’re going to stir up crap.
The Cthulhu thing would at least obviously be a joke. At least, it would be to me–many Christians are taught that such cultists exist, have no familiarity with Lovecraft, and would so be scared and thus possibly react in anger. If you do it indiscriminately, it’s either a poorly thought out joke, or, again, an attempt to troll people. And if you get pleasure from seeing people react badly, well, you get what you get if that backfires.
You want to canvas atheist philosophies, such as humanism or rationalism? Go right ahead. At least then you have some sort of argument, rather than just going around saying “God doesn’t exist”–the only thing atheism is consistent on.
But most people aren’t scientists. And even scientists only notice those things when they are looking for papers to reference.
Yes, most of us are aware of “new atheism” and how stupid it is compared to the real thing. People who treat atheism as a religion are not really atheists. They’re just anti-theists, aka bigots of another stripe.
But any result important enough for the average person to have ever heard about is going to be tested. And you don’t seem to understand how references work. You don’t go looking for random papers to reference, you reference the papers that either laid the groundwork for the work you are doing or give results that you are saying you are doing better than.
As I understand it, “new atheism” is not about treating atheism as a religion, but about respected figures in science or the humanities coming out and explaining why religion doesn’t make sense. It is much easier to dismiss kooks and low class blabbermouths (however important they are in getting our rights) but it is much harder to laugh at Dawkins and Hitchens. Which is why new atheism pisses off the nominally religious literati so much.
Nonsense. First off, like Voyager said, it’s not treated as another religion. It could be called anti-theism, but those two points are not synonymous. Secondly, how is believing in evidence and logic another form of bigotry? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Why is atheism considered anti-religion when compared to other prostheltizing efforts, which also say one’s religion is wrong?
I think if I were to go around looking for converts to rational thought, I’d approach it as scientific realism over strait up “god doesn’t exist” or the already-vilified secular humanism. Showing only how science goes about understanding the world, and emphasizing the tenets of repeatability and falsifiability, you could avoid the part where no deities are needed. People can still have their god if they need one for matters of the soul.
What I can’t figure out is why so many people think god is the only reason we don’t all murder each other. “Do unto others…” works just fine as a basic moral code even if it weren’t taken from the Bible.
Guy my wife knows was out in his driveway working on his motorcycle when two men (nice haircuts, suits and ties) walked up and asked if he would like to “talk about the Bible.” He (ponytail and filthy, oily jeans) enthusiastically replied “Yes - just give me a minute!” and went into the house. Came right back out holding a dozen or so Bibles and asked which version they’d like to discuss.
Certainly there has been an atheist movement and I think a lot of the negative reaction to atheism has more to do with the overt attacks that a few outspoken atheist have made against any and all public demonstrations of faith by the public themselves.
None but religious extremist support a state sponsored religion (and even then, only if it’s theirs).
But when “activist” bully and sue others over such stupid things as saying “Merry Christmas” (when it’s Christmas). Or force the removal of the Ten Commandments from a court house (even though it is the foundational basis for western law). Or to forbid a graduating senior from thanking whom he or she chooses to credit for their success, they cross the line that they accuse others of crossing.
Madelyn Murray Ohare wasn’t wrong for saying that a public school shouldn’t be able to force a student into praying or saying that which they do not believe. But she and those like her are wrong when they prevent others from doing so, when it*** is ***what they believe, no matter the time or place IMHO
I think if atheist kept it more to themselves (as they would like others to) no one would care at all. Not to say that they should not share their beliefs if they feel so compelled, just that they shouldn’t shove their beliefs about how or when religious views of any other kind are expressed either.
Atheism is not a belief; it is a lack of a belief in a specific thing. Would you call the lack of a belief in talking frogs, for example, a belief?
Also, somehow it is fine for theists to “shove their beliefs” down others’ throats at every bloody opportunity, but when atheists push back it is unacceptable. If theists would simply keep their yaps shut about their beliefs, instead of trying to spread it to the unreceptive every second of the freaking day, you’d hear nary a peep from atheists, but that won’t happen, because theists, especially Christians, specifically the American variety, have a practically orgasmic attachment to their persecution complexes.
You might want to revisit that list of ten, especially the first 4. “I am the Lord thy God…”, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me…”, “Make no graven images…”. What western laws are based on this?
No one in the US prevents schoolchildren from praying when they want to. It’s only when a teacher introduces religious material to the class that they run afoul of the law.
You mean they shouldn’t act like Jehovah’s Witnesses and go knocking on doors? We can agree upon that, but you’re complaining to the wrong group.
When did she do that? You’re still allowed to pray in school on your own. Or, as they say, “As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in school.”
“I think if insert various religious group here kept it more to themselves (as they would like others to) no one would care at all. Not to say that they should not share their beliefs if they feel so compelled, just that they shouldn’t shove their beliefs about how or when religious views of any other kind are expressed either.”
I think the point here is not that religion should be the basis for law now, just that our tradition of law historically has a basis or foundation in religious traditions. I think it’s fair to display the Ten Commandments if and only if it is in the context of other ancient codes of law.
