I think I amply demonstrated that Christians who don’t trust atheists don’t have any problems with hubris and intransigency.
I have yet to see any evidence that this equation has any truth to it.
I didn’t mean to imply you didn’t. And on your second point, I share your lack of evidence.
Personally, I tend to dislike attitudes that let people be vocally insistent that they know the absolute truth about something that isn’t knowable, and yooooouuuu don’t. Therefore, I consider rabid fundamentalists and the type of atheists who make judgment calls about entire populations’ intelligence based solely the fact that they believe in god to be equally distasteful. Spouting off to people that they’re going to hell or that they’re idiots for believing in a higher power are equally arrogant and condescending.
However in both groups the jerks are a vocal minority. Thankfully. Most religious people and most atheists that I’ve known have been respectful of others.
Though I consider myself christian, I don’t feel that there’s a reason to distrust atheists as a group. I trust people who are moral, and it’s untrue that atheists are incapable of morality. If such a blanket judgment were true, it would be impossible to find examples of atheists acting in the best interest of others, and obviously we can find those examples.
On the other hand, I also don’t believe that most religious people act morally just because they believe in God, either. If fear of God was enough to keep people from doing immoral things, we’d also not find examples of religious people acting in immoral ways, and you know those examples are also easy enough to find. Most people believe that they can repent anyway, so few believe their terrible acts are going to damn them.
People who act in a moral way do so because they want to do what they believe is right. It doesn’t matter to me if they came to adopt this attitude through reading the bible or simply because they feel better doing the right thing and don’t like feeling guilty for mistreating people. I like to think I’m not alone in this.
I’ve been baptized, confirmed and to confession. I came upon my atheism (or agnosticism if your prefer) as a teenager.
And you’re mistaken about the confirmed part. Confirmation, for Catholics, is done after your first communion, not before.
Define god. If you define god as “I am” (existence), it is no longer a question of whether there is god (the force of existence). It is only a question of the nature of god.
Which is ironic because it is the religious zealots that force their misguided “morals” on the rest of us. I find that most immoral.
If the question is who America should trust, it is not the atheists, nor agnostics, nor the devoutly religious, it is those within each group that understand equality in peaceful quest; the samaritans.
ItS
r~
Huh? Where have I professed to have the truth, never mind insistently? and based on your post, it appears we are in agreement.
I’m not following you here. Could you clarify?
And if you define God as Der Trihs, there really is a God and I’m him.
Neither definition is what most people would consider a god, much less their god.
I don’t think you understand what a multiverse is. In brane theory there has always been a multiverse. It never had a beginning. There was no “first” one. It’s always been the same one.
I still can’t let it go unresponded to. The First cause argument is a non-starter (so to speak). There is no need for a first cause and positing a Wizard would not solve that problem anyway because you’d have to explain what caused the wizard.
On a quantum level, particles arise spontaneously from nothing all the time. The kind of mechanics you’re referring to exist as well but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
“Magic” is my all purpose designation for anything supernatural. What I’m telling you is that you can’t show me that anything in the universe requires a supernatural explanation.
Please tell me which (mainstream) religion rejects the idea that god is the source of existence. Specific religions differ only on the other details.
r~
As I said, I did realize not all of them on the list are Atheists, but they are more like Agnostics or unbelievers:
http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm
Yeah, with Gary Heart and Bill Keane still around doing their unfunny intolerant (but it looks cute!) strips I can say that that god is totally unfair, better to think that kind of god is not there.
Ignoring all the true scotsman discussion of who gets to declare himself or herself what sort of an atheist that has interposed, I am not sure that there is much that you can do. You might consider getting your atheist friends in Hollywood (the fundies always assure me that atheists actually run Hollywood when they are not telling me that it is run by Jews or gasp atheist Jews), to place more atheists in prominent roles in the movies. (Just like women and blacks, you will probably have to start out as the sidekick or trusted buddy and move up from there. And you’ll need some warm fuzzy heroes, not just the hard-bitten cop or S.E.A.L. commander whom everyone expects to have no faith.)
The three things that I see working against acceptance or trust of atheists by the nominally religious of this country are:
[ul][li] Unfamiliarity with any actual atheists. Since atheists are fewer than 2% of the population, probably clustered in educational or city ghettoes, and often closeted, it is unlikely that many people even know that they know an atheist, so they are going to look on them as “other,” giving xenophobia a good head start on their impressions.[/li][li] “Experience” only with the most hostile atheists: Mark Twain is “forgiven” his atheism for having “lost faith” when his daughter died. Madelyn Murray O’Hair, Michael Newdow, and Richard Dawkins have all come across as not merely in disagreement with religion, but contemptuous of it. Regardless how legitimate their objections may be to belief or faith, one does not persuade others either to share the ideas or even to accept one’s person by expressing disdain for the person from whom wishes acceptance. We have a few posters, here, who are similar. They are willing to interrupt religious discussions to proclaim that lack of a god or to insert anti-religious spiels into historical discussions. Thankfully, they are a minority, here–if loud–but in the general public, they are far more likely to be noted as loud and objectionable, (and, perhaps, threatening), than those atheists who may ether prefer to discuss the topic of god politely or to simply ignore the topic altogether.[/li][*] Ignorance about such areas that are important to all people, such as morality or ethics. We have even had some prominent believers on this board who needed to be persuaded that one could develop or follow an ethical lifestyle without appealing to a God who establishes morality. Think how more difficult it would be for the run-of-the-mill citizen who has never even pondered the situation to encounter that concept for the first time. To most, it is simply outside belief. (It also does not help the position of atheists that a number of nineteenth century social rebels displayed both their rejection of a god and their rejection of social morals in quite public manners, providing grist for the mills of evangelical presses for years to come.)[/ul]
First, I thought you were trying to define God as “all that is”, something I’ve run into before; I apologize if I misunderstood.
Second, quite a few religious people regard the universe as something made by a god, not sustained moment-to-moment by him; I’ve met them.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The three things that I see working against acceptance or trust of atheists by the nominally religious of this country are:
[ul]
[li] “Experience” only with the most hostile atheists: Mark Twain is “forgiven” his atheism for having “lost faith” when his daughter died. Madelyn Murray O’Hair, Michael Newdow, and Richard Dawkins have all come across as not merely in disagreement with religion, but contemptuous of it. Regardless how legitimate their objections may be to belief or faith, one does not persuade others either to share the ideas or even to accept one’s person by expressing disdain for the person from whom wishes acceptance. We have a few posters, here, who are similar. They are willing to interrupt religious discussions to proclaim that lack of a god or to insert anti-religious spiels into historical discussions. Thankfully, they are a minority, here–if loud–but in the general public, they are far more likely to be noted as loud and objectionable, (and, perhaps, threatening), than those atheists who may ether prefer to discuss the topic of god politely or to simply ignore the topic altogether.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I agree with this 100%. When I was reading the list of “famous atheists” at the beginning of the thread, I was mentally saying; “Arrogant…selfish… kind of a jerk…” Not because of their atheism, but from what I knew of them previously as celebrities and public people. Most of those people, with the exception of Dawkins and O’Hair, I was surprised to find they were atheists - and yet they had ALL made a previous impression on me as not being “nice”. Not good PR for any minority group!
I still don’t get this. In what way were they jerks? We keep hearing about attitudes, hubris, intransigency, etc., but I don’t see it from the atheist camp in any significant numbers, and I could probably exceed the limits of a single post naming public Christians who exhibit those behaviors.
Exactly what makes them jerks?
But the point of the OP was trust, I do see that as a matter like when you allow Atheists to hold public office or positions of influence, As I have not seen the torches and pitchforks of the believers rising to destroy the Microsoft office in Redmond, I do think as a practical thing such a list has less to do on how nice they are but how capable they are.
So, I do think the answer is that yes America can trust atheists. American atheists follow the constitution of the US. And even if they do not acknowledge it, Americans trust atheists on many occasions, regardless what a survey says.*
- Last offer void in Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee where atheists can be excluded from holding office if she/he does not “acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”
I didn’t say I disagreed with you, did I? 
I quoted you because what you said is relevant to what I wanted to say.
Well, Penn & Teller have committed some pretty egregious logical fallacies on their television show. They’re also famously arrogant in person and their smugness rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
Katharine Hepburn is also well known for being “hard to get along with”, especially as she got older.
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is seen among many humanists as an intellectual license to be selfish and cruel.
George Carlin, Ernest Hemingway, Jesse Ventura and Howard Stern aren’t exactly cuddly teddybears you’d like to take home to Mom and Dad.
That list is populated by people that my peers and I think of as selfish, arrogant, bitter, angry and caustic, no matter what their belief or lack thereof.
Look, the bottom line is, I really shouldn’t have posted this here; my whole contribution to this thread is NOT GD material - it’s sub-par and more suited to IMHO because it’s so very anecdotal.
My point was: When someone says that atheists have an “image problem” in America, it rings true. It’s an interesting discussion to have: what responsibility do atheists have to show themselves to be trustworthy? Should they have to? To what degree are they mistrusted because of the failings of the believers in society, and to what degree do they bring it on themselves?
Actually, that would not support my thesis, since, if one does not know a person is atheist, one is unlikely to distrust atheists because one dislikes a person.
(Aside from that, I would have to disagree that there are very many disagreeable people on the list. One or two might have been known curmudgeons or cranks, but that would qualify as “eccentricity” and not translate into disdain. I would rate the following as decidedly likable, evem if they had some quirks:
and the following people are more lightning rods for people to love or hate, but are hardly universally despised:
YMMV)
The easiest way is to not do something to lose that trust. Have we as a group done something to lose it?
Not really, but then I start out trusting and only take it away when I have reason to. If someone starts out distrusting (which seems more like a personal problem), then sure, we can work to gain it, if we really give a damn what they think.
Pretty close to 100%, from what I can see.
With a rather few exceptions, not at all, and even those exceptions haven’t done anything to actually engender mistrust of atheism, based on the evidence presented so far.