I’d meet y’all in hell, if I believed in it.
MRREALTIME –
Gee, maybe I’m slow, but it doesn’t seem to me that other atheists are the ones you need to convince of that.
So what? You just sit over there are you side and we’ll sit over here on ours, each nursing our negative feelings? I guess if I was in the extreme minority, I’d have trouble seeing the utility of that. I’m not advocating that anyone kiss up to the majority or espouse anything they don’t believe, but without communication and mutual respect, you cannot possibly hope to make your point of view known to, or respected by, those who currently are ignorant of it and disrespectful of it. But you will find that many people have very little time for people who literally insult their intelligence. Personally, I couldn’t possibly attempt to grasp such complex concepts, not until I figure out how to put my panties on without ending up with both legs in one hole. :rolleyes:
First of all, I should say that I missed Sunrazors earlier response to my “flippant” remarks, and I think it was a very articulate post. I would only add that it still seems to support my working theory here that to the extent one is religious…one is ignorant, be it willfully or not. I mean to say, a person can be honestly unaware of something, but they can also choose to turn a blind eye to it because they dont like the sound of it, or it makes them uncomfortable…they essentially close their minds.
I could, for example, simply replace “religion” with “ignorance” in your post and still get the same general gist.
NOW to JODI,
I would NEVER advocate two sides not dialoguing. As I said I am surrounded by very religious folks, and yet I have close friendships with all of them, and I dialogue with them often, and we often both come right out and say “you are totally ignorant of the truth”, yet we continue to dialogue. To me, the fact that they are talking to me at all, and sometimes even listening, is the first step to getting back to reality.
I am quite sure that religion = ignorance, and I may try at some point to mathematically prove it. Slightly religious people are slightly ignorant, and intensely religious people are intensely ignorant, willfully religious people are willfully ignorant. Yes…it does seem to check out.
I just wish sometime, someone would acknowledge that at least 5% of Americans are atheists, that we exist, and are just as much Americans as all the Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., etc.
In all seriousness, Eve, I’m happy to take the lead on this. What type of acknowledgement would you like? I’m perfectly serious. But all I ever hear is that you (generic you, not you personally) would like to be acknowledged by the rest of us dispensing with any display of our faiths in public, and as much as I like and respect you – which is enormously;, you know, for two people who have never actually met – I honestly don’t think that’s a reasonable request. I don’t see how it validates your faith (or lack thereof) to expect me to shut up about mine. I know we have different understandings and expectations of our government – namely, that you believe the government ought to be absolutely 100% secular in all things, and perhaps believe that was how it was intended to be, whereas I don’t mind and in fact appreciate the occasional spot of ceremonial deism, being as a deity is something I have no problem getting behind. But I don’t think it’s fair for you (generic you) to expect me to abandon my POV to make you feel more “welcome” in yours. I’m not an atheist; I don’t believe as you do. In fact, I disavow your belief, or lack thereof. I don’t judge you for it; I don’t believe that God judges you for it, since your unbelief must be at bottom His doing and therefore His will. I don’t advocate persecuting you, and I have never knowing withdrawn my hand or my regard from anyone for being atheist. I’m honestly not sure what else you’re looking for, but if I knew, and if I felt I could in good consicence give it, I assure you I would.
MRREALTIME –
Great idea! No one has ever attempted to do that before! There’s probably worldwide acclaim awaiting your definitive disproof of God, so you’ll want to get right on it.
I dont see how my formula on religion=ignorance necessarily would relate to proving or disproving the existence of og.
Og really has nothing to do with it. Its just a state of mind, a regressive trait among humans that becomes less apparent as ignorance becomes defeated. Its hard not to think they must be related somehow.
No one prevents a Christian from displaying his or her faith in public. You have cross jewelry, fish symbols for cars, t-shirts with slogans proclaiming your faith, holiday displays in yards and churchyards, and complete strangers frequently witness to others. And Christians have numerous tax-exempt public buildings to practice their beliefs in openly. They are called churches.
Laws protect schools and courthouses from promoting one religion (over another). And if only 5% of Americans are atheists, then it is a reasonable assumption that many Christians have also voted to remove religion from schools and courthouses. Atheists are not solely responsible for separation of church and state.
Atheists don’t have an agenda to remove faith or the right to practice it from any human. We are a rather small and widely scattered group; so it is nice to have some sort of fellowship. That is why it is heartening to see a rise in our stats; even if it is rather slight.
We sleep in on Sundays, but by and large we are just as kind, considerate, and friendly as any Christian.
I certainly never said or implied you were not, and this doesn’t answer my question as to what, if anything, I should be doing to “acknowledge” your existence, when I’m not doing anything to acknowledge the existence of, say, Zoarastrians or Jains.
I am not against the separation of church and state, BTW; I think it’s one of the most important precepts in our system of constitutional government. I am, however, comfortable with the small amount of ceremonial deism that Eve is not – i.e., “In God We Trust” on money, opening the U.S. Supreme Court session by saying “God save the United States and this honorable Court”. If there is 99% separation, I’m okay with that. Others are not. I’m interested to know what, other than ceded the other 1%, might be an appropriate acknowledgement of a faith or lack thereof.
I didn’t take Eve’s original post as a subject for debate. I felt that it was more of a “We exist, there are a few of us, just checking in with other atheists” sort of thing. But since you asked… tax exempt status for our group would be nice.
I’m not asking for a debate. If my question appears intrusive or challenging, then I withdraw it.
So back to the OP, anyone know of a good spot for atheists to meet and chat specifically? share experiences, frustrations, general community building etc?
Mods: the following is a bit harsh; however, I am well-familiar with those who mock others yet proslytize Jesus. A life among true beliviers has shown that I don’t know how to state the truth without stating it harshly and rudely. I apologize, and I beg forgiveness.
Okay, I’ll acknowledge that you are the one-in-a-billion who is innocent. On the off chance that you are not, let me ask the following:
Do you treat astrologers with the same respect that you treat your priest?
Do you accept that wiccans worship a god or goddess as valid and real as your own god?
Is Zeus just as real and personal as Jesus?
Is the avoidance of black cats as intellectually compelling as worshiping Jesus?
If you answer “no” to any of the above questions, the you are a…
A) Piece of fucking shit!
B) Intellectually bankrupt piece of fucking shit!
C) Deceitful piece of fucking shit!
Let me state in real and unambiguous terms just how the religious nonsense sits with me. Please, keep in mind that I am regularly defined as less-than-human because I don’t have any bloody superstitions: Either PROVE your superstition, or admit that you aren’t even human. Step up, cunt.
That’s it. Get it? Thats how I am treated by bloody America. So, if you don’t like the truth, then go hang with Jesus, because he’s chock full of lies.
Does that work? Either prove Jesus is more real than Bigfoot, or shut the fuck up. Keep in mind that I can prove that the bloody military trashed the Pentagon on 9/11 if I say that Jesus told me. Just as the idiotic claim that the military shot a missle into the Pentagon requires effin’ huge proof, so does the claim that Jesus affects our lives needs huge proof.
Respectfully, I wouldn’t be so harsh if you didn’t fit the typical pattern. You think your stupid superstition is the end-all, be-all, yet you most likely mock those who do not respect your beliefs. Is Zeus just as valid as Jesus? Do you pay homage to the Pharohs as eternal gods? Do you go to Catholic Mass in addition to your Protestant worship?
If you don’t, you’re just another hypocritical cunt.
When? Name even a single instance of this, ever.
Seriously, this is one of the things that bothers me most. I can’t remember a single case, ever, of someone trying to tell you that you can’t display your faith in public, except in the sort of curtesy sense of not praying loudly in libraries.
I hear this all the time from the religious, how we’re trying to make their kids not pray in schools, make them not say “under god” in the pledge, make them not honor or display the ten commandments, make them…
Nonsense. Such an attempt would be unconstitutional, but the same “freedom of religion” clause that we athiests so cherish.
Let me be completely clear on this point: Pray all you want, whenever you want. Put whatever symbols, writing, whatever on your stuff you want. Believe and display your belief however, whenever, and in whatever form you want. Teach your kids creationism, witch-burning, and the secret get-out-of-hell-free handshake in private schools.
But DO NOT MAKE ME DO IT. You want prayer in schools or at football games: fine. No one’s ever tried to stop you, much ranting from the likes of Pat Robertson notwithstanding. But you can’t have MANDATORY prayer in (public) schools. You can’t use my tax dollars to try and make me do it. You can’t use the government to endorse your religion. You can’t insist that people who don’t share your faith can’t marry because your faith forbids it. You can’t add the words “Under God” to the pledge of allegiance, while actually saying on the record that it’s because athiests aren’t citizens, and not expect us to take umbrage. If you hold public office, you can’t use the office to prostletize, or use the ten commandments as though they were laws. You can’t use the public school classrooms to teach religion (there are almost ten times as many churches in this country as public schools, for Og’s sake.)
That’s all we’re asking. We’re not asking you not to believe, not to display your beliefs. All we’re asking is that you leave us out of it, and not try to subtly insist that there’s nothing offensive about having “In God We Trust” on the money–the fact that people ARE offended by it should be a hint that maybe it’s time to reconsider.
Of course, athiesm is no guarantee of basic curtesy. Your mileage may vary.
Maybe you don’t, but I do. I used to believe in… something. Sprits, some divine force, I don’t really know exactly. It was never an especially well-formed belief, more just sort of an imitation of the beliefs of various people in my family. Hell, I was even involved in Eckankar for a while. But as an adult I came to the conclusion that it was all bullshit, and I never really strongly believed in the first place. As a kid I was much more interested in reading about science, and that certainly hasn’t changed.
This is a very common belief among religious skeptics, and I myself believed it too until I read Pascal Boyer’s important book, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. Boyer adeptly demonstrates why that view and almost all of the other common beliefs about the origin and nature of religion are mistaken: **they just don’t comport with the best evidence. ** I urge every religious skeptic to read that book so that they can participate in more informed and scientifically valid arguments with believers.
Coupling Boyer’s analyses with the psychology of general belief, I hold that instead of “religiousness=ignorance” (if we’re going to employ extremely brief forumulas), the truth is closer to "religiousness=strong evolutionary predisposition combined with the lack of specific intellectual tools needed to break free of those predispositions coupled with normal human psychological flaws and biases, particularly confirmation bias. (I realize that’s pretty wordy, but I just couldn’t do with less).
If all you mean by that is that conflicting ideas often pass through our minds, then fine. But if it is supposed to mean that we can believe directly contradictory views, then I reject that outright. Fitzgerald was dead wrong about that!
Nonsense. The only way that can happen is if we totally compartmentalize those beliefs and thus they cannot both be “embraced” simultaneously. No, those who compartmentalize and thus can hold views from both worldviews can only do so in the broadest and most generalized way. In reality, such believers reject science and facts and knowledge whenever they interfere with their religious dogmas.
Then you’ve never talked to any priests. Roman Catholic teachings, beliefs, and dogmas insist that God can be known to exist purely by unaided reason and logic alone, with absolutely no recourse to scripture or anything else. Furthermore, I’ve never encountered any religious proponent of any mainstream Western faith claim or admit that belief is “illogical and unreasonable.”
That’s an outrageous assertion. Can you back it up?
Look, I’m a soft atheist and philosophical agnostic, so I’m more or less on your “side”. But your claims are just plain stupid. How could you not have heard of all the hundreds of times we secularists have told believers they can’t display their faith in public places? Such as with Christmas creches on public property? Such as with enormous crosses on public property? Such as with the Ten Commandments in courthouses? Sure, we have excellent legal and constitutional arguments for our views, but to deny that we’ve tried to limit public displays of faith makes you out to be a fool.
Those views are just plain wrong. You clearly don’t understand First Amendment jurisprudence and history at all. We DID force kids to stop praying in public schools! We DID try to remove the “under God” portion of the pledge! We DID force them to stop displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses and other public buildings! What the fuck is wrong with your thinking? How could you not know this?
Believers CAN’T and shouldn’t pray aloud whenever or wherever they want! They CAN’T and shouldn’t put whatever symbols, writing or whatever anywhere they want! What the fuck is wrong with you? How could you not know this?
What the fuck is wrong with you? They CAN’T and shouldn’t have prayer in public schools or at football games, ninny! We sued the shit out of them for trying and won!
Look, TimeWinder, your claims demonstrate that your thinking is out of touch with reality. We DID do the things you claim we did not! What’s to be gained by being dishonest about it?
Well, for starters, when the government refers to all of us as “under god”, or when the president speaks to the nation and asks “every american to pray” for whatever issue he’s concerned with at the moment, I’d say we’re being ignored. We’re being misrepresented regularly in this country and our current president practically says, “tough shit. I’m a christian and I’ll call everyone a believer if I want to.” We’re constantly grouped in with the majority through these comments and practices. I’m sure we’re all paying for the military chaplains and the opening prayer in government meetings through taxes.
The appropriate approach would be to never do these things.
js_africanus :
First of all, you clearly have personal issues, and you chose to use Jodi, who seems to me to be a very kind person, as your whipping post.
I dont believe this is the “pit” and your words are harsh and uncalled for.
I dont see how the things you list are not direct and common causes of ignorance. I think my “equation” still is valid, in spite of its brevity.