Cake.
No. See above.
Kids usually get the news about Santa on the street, or if they are smart enough, figure it out for themselves. The other stuff has been around forever. And I hate to break it to you, there is no Nessie - the famous picture was a hoax.
When pressed theists say this - and the next minute turn around and tell us exactly what God thinks about our sex life.
Wrong and fucking wrong. I have been discussing atheism on line since 1975. I’ve run into exactly one atheist who made a positive claim as you say, and he was an idiot about other things also. Go read about atheism from atheists. Go watch some YouTube videos. They all say that atheism is a lack of belief in any god since no one has given adequate evidence for the existence of such. There are gods believed in on Earth we’ve never heard of. Do you think we make positive claims about them. How about the god believed in by the inhabitants of a planet circling a star in a galaxy 500 light years from us?
Though atheists don’t make this claim, theists make it of us all the time. That’s because it is easier to refute a nonsense strawman version of atheism than to demonstrate the existence of their god or gods.
[QUOTE=ASL v2.0;22292915 She is a contrarian god and desires anonymity above all else, but ambiguity first and foremost.
ETA: This post has not been edited. It is the unadultered, slightly modified word of the one true Gods.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is!
Not so sure I buy this. I’m 100 percent atheist, with zero belief in anything that has no evidence. I used to be fairly patriotic but that has waned over the years as my country has gotten more fucked up.
Sports however, I’m a total fanatic. I follow my favorite teams… errrr religiously.
Well like I said, just occurred to me one day. Not that I would expect an exact 1:1:1 correlation in every case, I just wonder if they’re related somehow.
There are similar provisions in the Constitution of South Carolina. In fact, it’s in South Carolina’s constitution at least three times:
A really nice guy named Herb Silverman (at that time a math professor at the College of Charleston) found about this garbage back in the Nineties. The South Carolina Constitution is a bit of mess (and this was in the Old Days, when you couldn’t just [Ctrl-F] for “Supreme Being” in the text of the document) and my understanding is that he initially only noticed the provision about atheists not being allowed to be Governor, so he ran for Governor on a platform of explicitly saying “I’m just doing this to challenge this absurd and un-American provision of our state constitution”. The courts basically rejected his claim on grounds of “standing” (“Come back to us when you’ve actually won a gubernatorial election and we’ll consider your case”), but then he found out about the other provisions, and as it happens, under South Carolina law being a notary public “counts” as holding an office under the state constitution.
It took seven years of legal wrangling before the South Carolina Supreme Court finally (and unanimously) recognized that these provisions are unconstitutional under the United States Constitution (including the Fourteenth Amendment). Herb Silverman was then allowed to become a notary public. (Huzzah!)
Note that a Court decision doesn’t generally remove text from a legal code–including a state constitution–it just renders it unenforceable. The constitutions, of South Carolina or North Carolina (as the case may be) would have to be formally amended to explicitly remove those provisions*. So, North Carolina’s “no atheists” language is undoubtedly an unenforceable dead letter, but that doesn’t mean there’s any pressure to actually change it, because “Ew! Atheists!”. Bottom line, though, although someone could almost certainly mount a legal challenge in North Carolina, even though it’s a “slam dunk” it would likely take years and tens of thousands of dollars just to get a court to say “Yes, of course that isn’t right”…and that still doesn’t mean a perfectly decent and well-qualified citizen with sensible policy views, but who happened to be an atheist, could actually get elected to office.
*And amendments to the United States Constitution don’t even do that; the original language about electing Senators or the Vice President is still “there”; just superseded by later amendments. I don’t know if any or all the states do it that way or not.
I agree that there are probably some methodological issues with that survey (the self-selection issue). But some of the posts in this very thread also show that atheists still face a degree of misunderstanding and even prejudice in the United States.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Some of us hold a pretty strong belief that there are no gods and can’t ever be - I do. This isn’t a claim that I have some supreme way of knowing there are no gods, but a practical view that it seems impossible. On the “spectrum of theistic probability” [Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia] we come in at a 6.9 or a 6.999 or something. Similarly I have no way of knowing for certain that all of existence as I know it isn’t just a dream I’m having, or that other people aren’t just entities I’m imagining, but these notions are ridiculously implausible and I live on the basis that existence and other people are real.
I’m driven to be interested in religion because of the enormous impact it has on government, law, and custom - an ugly poison I seem to have to put up with and work around.
What you’re referring to sounds like “apatheism,” apathy or disinterest regarding the question of the existence of God/gods.
¡Força Barça!
Although I have made the (I believe rational) decision to quit being a Barça fan in 2025 (perhaps even as soon as 2022) and switch to “not interested in sports”.
I do not collect stamps, but I especially do not collect stamps from island nations prior to WW II. I’m that kinda non-philatelist.
Me too. If all non-atheists were devout deists who believed in a god but didn’t think that god cared about our morals, I’d devote as much attention to religion as I do to not liking strawberry ice cream.
He/she/it is drinking from Russell’s teapot, right?
One of the less flattering definitions of “faith” is belief in something for which there is no evidence. While I cannot prove that God does not exist I have found no compelling evidence of that existence so I term myself as a strong agnostic. Tr: An atheist too lazy to argue.
In the end, I am indifferent in what a person may or may not believe in but rather how they treat other people.
One of my favorite poets once remarked that the question of who is right is wrong. The important question is Where is the love?
And, for me, that’s the real heart of the matter… because the end result of the arguments about which god is better inevitably seem to end with one group of people being oppressed by another.
My family has been torn apart, literally for generations, by religious conflict. Even as a child, this seemed like lunacy. Wait… You’re fighting about… what, exactly? We can’t talk to them, because they’ve left the church, so now they’re evil. … what?
Is that love? Isn’t love the whole, you know, supposed thrust of religion?
How this sort of thinking has survived all of these years is a mystery to me.
What I remember from my religious upbringing is that we were instilled with the notion that you cannot be a good person if you do not believe. This first became problematic to me when I learned that my best friend in school was an atheist, and he seemed like a better person than me (later I found out that he is a die-hard Packers fan, but I was able to forgive him that).
I think it really is canon: without the redeemer, you are fallen and cannot get up on your own. Even though there are enlightened and tolerant believers who are willing to get along with unbelievers, the overall undercurrent of belief leads to the instinctive sense that atheists must ipso facto be not good people, hence, a declarative unbeliever will never gain the support of the faithful.
There is a troubling irony to that point of view. Atheists have to be decent people, because that is all they have. The believers, on the other hand, can behave in all manner of detestable ways because they have the evil tempter to blame it on and the glorious savior to cleanse their souls – leaving them free to go sin again so that they can go get cleansed again, on ad infinitum.
Or as I heard it from a wide variety of christians over the decades: “We christians are not perfect, but we are forgiven.”
This statement did not make me more sympathetic towards the individual claiming that.
Very well put. I’ve never heard a satisfying theological response to that.
I know for a fact that I’m better at being a christian than many, many christians and yet I do it without the implicit threat of eternal damnation. I just do it because I think society functions better that way.
I think that is a morally superior worldview.
I try not to be too self-congratulatory about being an atheist. I get that there can be a tendency to want to react to allegations that we are inherently immoral, but beyond that I think there’s risk in going around patting ourselves on the back for our own, “superior”, morality. “Skepticism” (which, like morality, is an attribute some atheists seem to think they possess simply by virtue of being an atheist), particularly when applied selectively or unevenly, can be a pathway to false truths and hateful beliefs that rival or surpass mainstream religious belief for their toxicity.
There are, for instance, homophobes, transphobes, and racists in the skeptic community, and they can be just as convinced that it is their “skepticism” that has led them to hold those beliefs with “good reason” as a Christian might believe they’ve divined the truth of god’s will from the Bible or through direct revelation.
Just as we insist that atheism is not a religion itself, but rather a single position on a single question, we should not pretend to have any inherently greater claim to moral superiority strictly by virtue of our atheism. It may be that atheism, as currently expressed in relatively advanced (technologically, compared to other parts of the world) and largely secular societies in Europe and the US, does tend to correlate with higher levels of altruism, empathy, and “morality” (whatever that is), but at the end of the day that will still say little about whether or not individual atheists possess these qualities, or whether atheists will continue to possess them in such degree should it cease to be a minority view (encompassing more and more people because it’s what they were born into, rather than because it’s what they arrived at on their own after much consideration).
Atheism, in and of itself is not inherently moral or immoral. It says absolutely nothing about a person’s worldview beyond the rejection of the god hypothesis.
I do stand by my claim in my post above though. I do good things and behave in an ethical way and my atheism has nothing to do with it. I think that something doing those same things because they think they are commanded do so by a specific divine being are on shakier moral ground.
I believe that’s exactly what ASL v2.0 was saying.
Anyways, on that basis, I like to tell the following short story to progressives: when I was an atheist I was a moderate Republican, and voted for George W. Bush and John McCain for President (though I did vote for Kerry in the middle there). I converted to Christianity in late 2009 and haven’t voted for a Republican since (not even down ballot) ;). I guess it kind of says a similar thing in a different way - though more right leaning friends of mine don’t like that story as much.