As I recall, Cybil Shepherd’s character on Moonlighting was casually atheist - no anger at God or religion or anything, just a shrug of indifference.
While I don’t agree with the “spectacularly” part of this, your broader point is why I generally answer that exact question with “I’m a Secular Humanist” rather than “I’m an atheist”. As far as I’m concerned, it amounts to the same thing, but as far as the questioner is concerned, the former seems more like a belief system analogous to their own, and less of a contrary position to their own belief system (so, less of the Argument Sketch feeling , I guess).
Not that I care for offending the finer feelings of the religious, mind you, but in my experience, most people who’d even ask the question “So, what do you believe?” don’t know what a SH is, so it opens the way for further questions and explanation on my part much more so than the usual hostile reaction to atheism.
How so? I mean, what would be better about your view of death if you were Buddhist?
Buddhism is the ultimate “life” religion - its core goal is very much about coming to terms with the here-and-now.
I was raised Atheist, but I’ve drifted away from it. I suppose that growing up I had it better than a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness when it comes to being challenged by narrow-minded Christians.
But I do consider it a serious problem that Atheists were identified as America’s most distrusted minority.
It’s very upsetting to think that a moral, community-minded man like my father, who volunteered years of his time coaching, refereeing, scoutmastering, and myriad other things while rearing three children, pursuing higher education, and working for the government, is considered to be untrustworthy and downright scary by most Americans.
Most of your sitcom and drama type shows are going to have some episode where the characters are arguing and bickering and obsessed with gifts until some event happens in which they suddenly remember that it’s all about god and haul it to church.
Really? The religion thing was a major them in every episode I ever encountered, from the preachy messages about pre-marital sex to the fact that the police force would refer every troubled kid in town straight to the two leading character ministers for a good chat about god.
The reality is that you don’t notice a bias when it swings your way. You don’t notice the bias in TV shows to theism because you are a theist.
How many out of the closet atheist candidates have there been?
I guess when you’re part of ‘us’ it’s easy to belittle the feelings of ‘them’.
I somehow think that if a President of the United States pointed to a minority group you belong to and said ‘I don’t think they should count as citizens’ you would have a bit harder time blowing it off than you do when the excluded group doesn’t include you. I mean, would you really be downplaying the insult if he’d said that black people shouldn’t count as citizens?
Such disingenuousness is uncharacteristic of you, unless you have redefined “thread shitting” to mean “asking for clarification”. The fact of the matter is that you hosted a Pit thread in your forum that bashed the faithful for two pages before I finally asked my question. If I may summarize:
In the opening post, we were called “brainwashed”. In post #3, we were told we should keep our opinions to ourselves. Post #5 me-tooed the OP. We were informed in #6 that the poster’s wife has “quite a few of them” at her workplace. It was already beginning to sound like Stormfront talking about Blacks. Then it mellowed out for a bit (other than some sarcasm) until post #12, when an American bristled at a Canadian snipe. You did not mention any thread shitting there.
In #13, we learned that our holiest day is a frustration for the poster who doesn’t even acknowledge the day to her children. We learned from #14 that he’s merely glad he can lie now that he’s atheist (it there was sarcasm, it failed to come across). There was lamentation in #18 about having no weapons to fend off witnessing and having to endure freedom of speech in laundromats. It was in #19 that we learned we are the opposite of “progressive, forward-thinking people”.
And so it went, references to how we “babble” (#53) and whatnot until #56 when the poster proudly described how he threw a couple and their sick animal out of a veterinary hospital because they dared ask if he cared to pray with them. Then the thread veered off for a while into a hijack about computer systems. No mention of thread shitting then either.
The first notable post by a Christian is #74, which was actually sympathetic to the distress expressed by atheists, complete with an apology on behalf of others and encouragement that he would do his part to tell Christians to knock it off with the Stalin references. Was that where the thread shitting began? Is it that we just drag shit with us wherever we go in addition to being stupid, narrowminded, and intolerant?
Because I didn’t post until #81, after it became clear that all the adjectives describing how horrible we are had been used up. And the reason I posted then was because of #80, in which the poster admitted to being so mean to his Grandmother that he hopes she doesn’t die so he won’t feel bad. (One wonders why it matters anyway, since she has “never put one thought into her beliefs” anyway and, besides, the poster can easily “crush her” with his arguments.)
It seemed ironic to me that the thread was about what atheists had to endure, but people had begun describing the things they do to the faithful in order to taunt them, make them uncomfortable, or just plain kick them off the property. It seemed like atheists were presenting some challenges of their own.
Then, I never came back in until #117, when the thread had already veered off into a discussion about how some atheists would believe if they could see evidence or proof. And so I asked what they would consider to be evidence or proof. Is that where the thread shitting began? When I asked for that clarification?
As you know full well, witnessing threads from the faithful are routinely shat upon straightaway without even the courtesy of waiting a couple of pages for them to have their discussion out. It seems to me that atheists got in their fair share of bashing before you moved the thread. So what you say is factually wrong. Theists did not pop in for a debate. Atheists ignored the title as much as anyone. And no one forced you to do anything, least of all to move the thread.
I tried using “secular humanist” for a while. Some folks were familiar with the term. Among those who were not, this is how the conversation often went:
Them: What religion are you/What do you believe?
Me: I’m a secular humanist.
Them: What does that mean?
Me: [explanation]
Them: Oh, so basically you’re an atheist.
Sometimes it bothers me that I’m in the minority of the sane. And that the future for my kids (if I have any) is in the hands of the insane.
But in everyday life my Atheism doesn’t cause me a problem. If anything I get a little more respect for being a rational person.
Edit: Has there ever been an “Ask the Atheist” thread?
And the point is, they aren’t. They’re expressing their sexuality and affection in an equivalent way as other couples.
How could they not? Belief in their deity is the foundation for their moral system. All else flows from that.
There is no requirement that you believe in something because you lack belief in gods. “I don’t believe in gods, therefore…” There is no “therefore”.
“What do you believe?”
“Well, since I don’t believe in unicorns…”
It’s foolish and insulting to use that construction. You aren’t a moral person because of what you don’t believe. If the tooth fairy appeared to you and commanded genocide of the unbelievers, would you comply? If not, why not? Because you don’t believe in the tooth fairy? But the tooth fairy has proven itself to you! Lack of belief isn’t a valid reason, anymore.
I don’t mean my view of death, I mean the actual experience of death. I have what I consider to be a highly enlightened logical view of the process, but when push came to shove I was scared shitless. It was just kind of a passing thought, but I guess what I meant was that if I were Buddhist I would be more at ease during the experience of thinking I was about to die, because I would know that I was moving on to some new and interesting life.
Let’s not muck up our science, now. The article you linked didn’t say that–it just said that they were the most distrusted minority. For all we know, that could mean that 8% of respondents said they distrusted atheists, compared to 5% for Muslims, 4% for lesbians, whatever.
Nothing exists in a vacuum, least of all religion and lack thereof. In most of the world, one specific system of religious faith is the default answer, and the fact that you don’t subscribe to that faith is important to specify if an atheist wants to give a complete answer. What do you want us to say? “I believe in, uh, I dunno, animal rights?” That’s absurd. The question is clearly about whether or not you subscribe to an acknowledged set of theistic faith systems and, if so, which one.
I know, but at least you’ve had a chance to lay out some of your beliefs - and by Secular Humanist, I mean basically the tenets of the 2nd Humanist Manifesto. Usually in reverse order so the “no god can save us, only ourselves” bit comes at the end. I kick a little Buddhism in there too for laughs. So if they say “so, basically, you’re an atheist”, after all that, in a dismissive way, well, I know they’re not worth any further conversation.
I find my former adherence to, and continuing nod to the 5 precepts of, Buddhism acts as a buffer for this sort of dismissiveness. Hell, if it’s someone I don’t actually want to speak to, sometimes I just tell people I’m a Buddhist. Not a lie, exactly, and certainly not incompatible with atheism.
I see where you’re coming from now - rebirth. I found it odd that you’d pick Buddhism for the example, though - the cycle of rebirth being what Buddhism is all about avoiding. Looking forward to the next life is more of a Hindu thing IMO.
And now we’re insane. Maybe we’ve been wrong about atheists on this board. Maybe they really are missing out on something. Maybe they really are morally empty. Maybe tip-toeing around eggshells to keep from offending them in even the slightest way has been a gross waste of time and effort. After all, even Stranger On A Train, of all people, has joined in with the faith bashing chorus. Where are those SDMB atheists who would have stepped in and stood against the slurs and jabs woven throughout this thread? Gone, obviously. Before anyone decides to respond with more puffy-chested screeds about our madness and lunacy, keep in mind that we’re just babbling and we can’t help it. Give us the pity we have earned by virtue of our stupidity. I think I understand now why the Libertarian Party is such a hapless bunch of unelectable keystone cops. It’s mostly atheist.
There are times though, when someone says “oh YOU, you don’t believe in ANYTHING” which is offensive when you consider that most people like me who ‘don’t believe’ have thought it out carefully and believe in a great deal of principles and causes.
Well, you could have searched a little harder and found the results. Your posited 8% isn’t even close.
From here.
Admittedly, I can’t seem to find anyplace on the 'Net that has the *actual results * of the survey.
That’s exactly what I mean. If someone asks you what you believe, in a religious context, “I believe in the human obligation to care for the beautiful garden of nature we live in” is not going to cut it; the next question fired your way will be “Yeah, but what do you believe in? God? Allah? Jehovah? Siddhartha? Siddhartha Vicious?”
:smack: Just goes to show what I know about Eastern religions.
Gala Matrix Fire, that sounds like a hell of a loaded question to me. Asking “What [group] doesn’t share your vision of American society?” strongly implies that there is some such group. The difference is subtle, but it’s there.
Well, there is certainly an understanding disconnect here…but I beg to differ on who is having it, you or me.
Let me try and rephrase. By and large no one CARES that you are an atheist, or to use the other example, that someone is gay. It will be the vocal minority that bothers to take exception to someone being atheist or gay or whatever. Just like it’s the vocal minority of atheists (or gays, or whatever) that just HAS to rub it in the face of the public to get a reaction. Sort of like what you are seemingly advocating.
I don’t HAVE to rub it in anyone’s face that I’m an agnostic. I don’t NEED to have the majority of the population conform to my own outlook on life…nor do I NEED to take offense whenever the dreaded religion rears it’s ugly head. I don’t have to be offended when prayers are said at dinner…nor do I need to make my displeasure with those prayers known. I don’t need to tell people they are wrong, or idiots, or really anything because they have faith.
However, a small number of any sub-group (like atheists) seemingly can’t stand it if they DON’T rub the larger populations noses in their beliefs. Certainly, if you do that you are going to get exactly the reaction you get…which is people being defensive and outraged. This is a natural HUMAN reaction to having their beliefs thrown up in their face…sort of, I don’t know, like the reactions of folks like you to having to keep their mouths shut (a.k.a. not going out of their way to make sure everyone KNOWS that you are an atheist and further that they are all idiots because of their wrong headed beliefs).
Strawman. I’m not saying you have to cave into religious types on all things. I’m saying you don’t have to throw it in their faces all the time. I’m not going to sit by and allow, say, prayer in schools, nor the teaching of psudo-science like ID or creationism in the public schools. That is political and I whole heartedly endorse such actions. This doesn’t mean I have to go around with a big sign on my chest and a chip on my shoulder anytime religion crops up. I can understand why the sub-group that is atheists has a number of folks who just HAVE to take things to the other extreme…it’s just amusing when they do that and people react defensively the atheists who are pushing are like ‘See? I’m being persecuted!’
Reminds me of :
-XT
Well, let’s see. My mom is about six inches shorter than me, late fifties, corporeal (with a street address and everything), communicates via phone/email, demonstrates her existence in person several times yearly for birthdays and holidays, enjoys literature and painting, has a sharp wit, cooks a mean turkey… You’re right about one thing anyway-- there are a lot of specific things I can say about my mother as she’s been good enough to exist within the confines of my pathetic human perceptions for the duration of my life thus far.
Man, all that perfection… and yet, something’s missing, isn’t it? Perhaps “perfect existence?” I mean, surely something so ridiculously perfect should be able to perfectly assuage doubts over something so painfully basic as His very existence? I know, I know… free will, mysterious ways, yadda, yadda. Incidentally, God in all his perfect glory knows exactly what it would take to convince me of His existence. I suppose that, if He does exist, there’s a good chance He’s currently attempting to impress on me the extent of His Perfect Coyness or Perfect Aloofness.
What, did Home Depot have a sale on cross nails? How’s the view from up there?
Honestly, if you’re going to posit the existence of some fabulously perfect personal entity that is completely outside the realm of someone else’s perception, proffer overwrought metaphysical explanations that seem to veer toward solipsism, and then get all huffy when someone says, “That sounds kinda screwy”, I suspect you’re going to spend a lot of time in a huff. You’re a smart guy. Surely you understand this.
And here I thought it was because they tend to hold a completely inaccurate view of human nature (either naively or disingenuously) and labor under the delusion that the human spirit and a healthy amount of bootstrapping will condense into a functioning public works infrastructure for some reason which will become apparent once they’re in office. 
I have necver in my lifge seen any such episode. The only references I have seen to the actual Nativity are in the Peanuts Christmas Special where Linus quotes a bit from the Gospel of Luke at the end. Remembering that “the season” is supposed to be about peace and brotherhood? Sure. Including God in the equation? I suspect you are projecting your own irritation onto shows where ir never occurred.
Conversely, you imagine theistic events that never happened because the mere thought of theism irritates you to no end.
If the President of the United States actually made such a statement in public, I would be outraged, just as I was outraged when Catholic Scalia wrote that it was OK for the government to shut down other groups’ sacraments when he was secure in the knowledge that his and my religion had been exempted from Prohibition.
On the other hand, I have a harder time getting excited about an event that has only one witness (who has his own agenda) that was never expressed publicly.
I agree that it is a bad thing that atheists cannot successfully run for office in this country. But you are the one who twisted my initial statement and have continued to dodge around making baseless claims about the situation, in general, and my position, specifically. Get either Bush to repeat the statement in public and I will condemn them in public.
I don’t usually ask this series anymore…
If your god commanded you to do something that you knew was wrong, would you obey? If so, why? Or can you tell the different between right and wrong, and refuse?