^^^
group side
individual group

Quote :

"The true atheist is just willing to say, "the possibility of God existing is so low that it might as well be zero.""

[Edited on December 23, 2008 at 3:18 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2008 3:15:48 PM

Quote :

"I do stand by my statement that they're the last unprotected minority that it is still socially acceptable to ridicule and burn at the stake (pun intended)"

This depends in very large part on where you are. In the political arena, I suppose this is still true. But there are plenty of places you can go where theists are the minority and the whipping boy for jokes because of their beliefs. I went to high school one of those places.* Of course, I didn't whine about incessantly like some people I could name, but it did happen. Hell, at one point I had the two (reasonably attractive) leaders of the Philosophy club begging me on their knees to come to their meetings because they didn't have anything but liberal atheists. Some of these people were even dumber than wolfwebbers, but still.

*-It's probable that in my high school, as a whole, theists were predominant. However, they certainly weren't as vocal, and the vast majority weren't in my classes.

12/23/2008 3:23:50 PM

^ wow, did you go to HS in North Carolina?

I can't imagine a place like that...

12/23/2008 3:24:54 PM

Yes, I have lived in NC my entire life. I went to public high school.

12/23/2008 3:28:33 PM

GOP you can always find a small sect where a minority group is the norm no matter how trivial they are. however in America as a whole Willy Nilly and agnostics are as a whole belittled by society. I am impressed that there is an Atheist out there who can say that if a god were to come up to and smack them in the face they still wouldn't believe that said god exists.

12/23/2008 4:01:43 PM

Quote :

"[x] atheist president (1861)"

Quote :

"Lincoln was a deist."

Interesting....
Obama will take the oath of office on the same bible that Lincoln used.

Quote :

"if a god were to come up to and smack them in the face they still wouldn't believe that said god exists"

Well, if it actually happened, then I guess I'd believe. But I have complete faith that it won't happen.

12/23/2008 4:12:28 PM

I also have faith that this won't happen but I can't state that it is impossible so where does that put me?

12/23/2008 4:17:43 PM

^ I wouldn't call that faith, that's reasonable conjecture.

12/23/2008 4:22:02 PM

You know, reading through this, it's amazing how much of the thread revolves around atheists complaining that people are dismissive of them. It's gone from, "We are horribly oppressed!" to "Nobody pays us any mind." I know which one I'd rather be.

Also, their almost physical reaction to people saying the word "God" is pretty impressive. I wonder, if a President were to mention Santa Clause, whether they'd take that as an official endorsement by the government of Santa's existence?

Quote :

"I am impressed that there is an Atheist out there who can say that if a god were to come up to and smack them in the face they still wouldn't believe that said god exists."

You're impressed that there are people on your side who are so stubborn that they wouldn't believe in something that they had seen, felt, and been physically harmed by? Congratulations, I guess. I guess I'm weak. If Allah appeared to me in person, kicked me in the balls, told me he was the only true god, and left me writhing on the ground in pain, I'd probably go to a Mosque.

Quote :

"however in America as a whole Willy Nilly and agnostics are as a whole belittled by society."

Belittled? Oh, boo-hoo. Everyone gets belittled by society. It fucking happens. We're a society of belittlers. Here is an extremely abridged list of things that "society" (meaning, a large number of people in the public eye) will belittle you for being:

a midget
Jewish
Amish
atheist
agnostic
evangelical christian
muslim
obese
flat-chested (women only)
little-dicked (men only)
slutty
virginal
communist
fascist
republican
democrat
libertarian (especially)
nerdy
stupid
a fan of anime
a furry
illiterate
dyslexic (and good luck if you're a dyslexic atheist, because nobody takes someone seriously who doesn't believe in dog)
on drugs
against drugs
drunk in public (most days)
sober in public (St. Patrick's Day, New Year's Eve)
not wearing underwear
wearing strange underwear
posting on TWW
whining excessively about how belittled you feel

12/23/2008 5:57:04 PM

snore

12/23/2008 11:19:48 PM

Quote :

"If Allah appeared to me in person, kicked me in the balls, told me he was the only true god, and left me writhing on the ground in pain, I'd probably go to a Mosque. "

My understanding is that all three major monotheistic religions believe in the same God, and that Muslims believe most of the Bible, and that "Allah" is simply their term for God--not the name of a different God.

Quote :

"^because of the issue a while back with the Air Force http://www.sptimes.com/2005/05/29/Columns/The_Air_Force_Academy.shtml I don't know what's the overall culture in the Marine Corps ... also the military has a serious Right leaning political bias so... [Edited on December 23, 2008 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]"

That is one side of one story in one place of one branch of the military. I mean, it sounds troubling, but it also makes news because it is the exception.

The military does have a right-leaning political bias (as do I). I would argue that military leans a little more libertarian in some ways than the population at large. At any rate, you can say whatever you want regarding religion, at least around your peers. If I trashed a junior enlisted Marine's religious beliefs, I would rightfully be stopped.

...but yeah, we have everything from evangelical Christians to Catholics (devout and nominal) to evangelical atheists, and a bunch of people who are agnostic/indifferent just in my local peer group of two dozen aviators in my squadron.

12/24/2008 12:37:46 AM

Quote :

"My understanding is that all three major monotheistic religions believe in the same God, and that Muslims believe most of the Bible, and that "Allah" is simply their term for God--not the name of a different God."

This is true, but to be completely honest my first concern wasn't accurately depicting the relationship between the Abrahamic religions. Would it help if I changed Allah to Shiva or Halie Selassie? Although actually that last one doesn't work, because Selassie was an actual dude who, had I been born earlier this century, could have actually kicked me in the balls and told me this.

Whatever. You got the point, and I'm not entirely sure that irrelevant nitpicking did anybody any good.

12/24/2008 12:45:29 AM

I wasn't trying to shitcan your argument. I was just making a side comment on something that I see screwed up a lot.

12/24/2008 12:54:11 AM

Fair enough. Although I assure you that Raptor Jesus and Allah-saurus are different entirely.

12/24/2008 1:05:11 AM

Quote :

"Also, their almost physical reaction to people saying the word "God" is pretty impressive. I wonder, if a President were to mention Santa Clause, whether they'd take that as an official endorsement by the government of Santa's existence? "

Exactly. People can't stand atheists because they go out and do douchey things like bitch about the fucking 10 commandments being shown in some podunk town where nobody in the town has a fucking problem with it, while they ignore the 10 commandments on the US SUPREME COURT'S DOORS, or some group from DC gets pissy and sues the state of South Carolina over optional license plates that cost extra to purchase that have a stained-glass window on them, wasting the tax money of SC's citizens. Overall, people probably don't care that a person is an atheist; they care that the atheist is a douche and is trying to push HIS beliefs on every one else, all while whining about having beliefs pushed on him by others.

12/24/2008 1:19:17 AM

^

Yeah, because it's only atheists that are pushing for the complete separation of church and state.

As long as one particular religion's sacred text is displayed in any courtroom, there is not separation of church and state. Until the word "god" is removed from all of our money, there is not separation of church and state. Until public schools prohibit the teaching of creationism in science class, and the practice of school-provided "prayer time" (or even worse, actual school-directed prayer,) there is not separation of church and state.


I don't understand how so many of you oppose changing these things without any legitimate defense for the fact that they are all blatantly unconstitutional.

Quote :

"bitch about the fucking 10 commandments being shown in some podunk town where nobody in the town has a fucking problem with it, while they ignore the 10 commandments on the US SUPREME COURT'S DOORS"

I don't think any true proponent of the separation of church and state, atheist or otherwise, ignores that. Also, it doesn't matter that "nobody in the town has a fucking problem with it." Any town, (or city, etc.) of any size that supports (even unanimously,) a law or public act "respecting an establishment of religion" is still unconstitutional and wrong. There was a town that not-long-ago passed a law that prohibits the devil from entering the town. :carlface: Of course, this law was struck down in court as unconstitutional. An entire town simply ignored the first amendment establishment clause. What were they thinking? Why do people act like these towns are innocent and should be left alone?

Quote :

"...the atheist is a douche and is trying to push HIS beliefs on every one else"

What? Can you give me an example of this? I've had at least two different monotheists knock on my door "with pamphlets", however I've never had an atheist come to my door...

[Edited on December 24, 2008 at 8:48 AM. Reason : ]

12/24/2008 8:44:49 AM

Quote :

"As long as one particular religion's sacred text is displayed in any courtroom, there is not separation of church and state. Until the word "god" is removed from all of our money, there is not separation of church and state. Until public schools prohibit the teaching of creationism in science class, and the practice of school-provided "prayer time" (or even worse, actual school-directed prayer,) there is not separation of church and state. I don't understand how so many of you oppose changing these things without any legitimate defense for the fact that they are all blatantly unconstitutional. "

1) Rants like that prove my fucking point.
2) It is actually debatable whether or not LOCAL governments can have such displays. You know why? Because the 1st Amendment says "CONGRESS shall not..." It says nothing about state and local gov'ts. We've taken an absurd position that somehow the 2nd Amendment applies to state and local governments when it was never meant to be so. Take your bitching elsewhere. And don't even get me started on creationism in schools. I'm sure you have absolutely no problem whatsoever teaching that evolution is a fact. So cry me a fucking river. Face it, people like you are fucking douchebags who push THEIR beliefs on other people, crying over fucking NOTHING. It doesn't matter if an atheist comes up to your door, pushing pamphlets or not... That's FREE-FUCKING-SPEECH. Get over it.

By the way, find me anywhere in the Constitution or amendments where the words "Separation of Church and State" appear, or, for the matter, the words "wall of separation."

12/24/2008 9:51:09 AM

Quote :

"We've taken an absurd position that somehow the [first] Amendment applies to state and local governments when it was never meant to be so. "

Does that mean the City of Raleigh can restrict speech, prevent public assembly, censor the press, ignore complaints of the citizenry, and mandate that everyone become an Evangelical?

12/24/2008 10:15:34 AM

Are atheists the most "discriminated against" in terms of getting a job interview or people avoiding us as we walk down the street? Of course not. But depending how broadly you define discrimination, a case can be made that we're on par with other traditionally "oppressed" groups. I've read that atheists are the least trusted group in America. While women and ethnic groups are making social advances, while homosexuality is becoming more acceptable, while America's majority has a generally neutral sentiment towards most beliefs and physical conditions, atheists are often met with disbelief that they don't believe in "SOMETHING" and some people make wild assumptions that we must be evil because of it. I'd say the unbalanced sex ratio is a form of discrimination too, considering most atheists are men and women want partners of the same religion.

12/24/2008 10:51:36 AM

Quote :

"Rants like that prove my fucking point."

Then your point was stupid. That wasn't even a rant.

Quote :

"It is actually debatable whether or not LOCAL governments can have such displays. You know why? Because the 1st Amendment says "CONGRESS shall not..." It says nothing about state and local gov'ts. We've taken an absurd position that somehow the [1st] Amendment applies to state and local governments when it was never meant to be so."

Don't make me laugh. Do you actually think that's the way things should be?

Quote :

"I'm sure you have absolutely no problem whatsoever teaching that evolution is a fact. "

Why would you know what I think? Furthermore, why would you think I'd want to teach falsehoods?
You're just making personal attacks -- don't think you're "point" has any worth.

Quote :

"So cry me a fucking river. Face it, people like you are fucking douchebags who push THEIR beliefs on other people, crying over fucking NOTHING."

Push them how?
Also, blatant unconstitutionality isn't "nothing".

Quote :

"It doesn't matter if an atheist comes up to your door, pushing pamphlets or not... That's FREE-FUCKING-SPEECH. Get over it."

I never said it wasn't free speech, and I'm sure somewhere, an atheist has done that, but that misses the point. You generalized atheists as douches trying to push their beliefs on every one else. Other than the door-knocking example that I provided, (which is quite rare for atheists -- certainly more rare than door-knocking by other faiths,) can you give me an example of atheists pushing their beliefs on others? If you generalized them as such, certainly you can think of many examples....

Quote :

"By the way, find me anywhere in the Constitution or amendments where the words "Separation of Church and State" appear, or, for the matter, the words "wall of separation"

The point of the establishment clause is to provide separation of church and state. Yes, that phrase doesn't appear in the constitution, but so what? (The second amendment, for example, protects your right to own a handgun. Where in the constitution does the word handgun appear?)

^

Quote :

" I'd say the unbalanced sex ratio is a form of discrimination too, considering most atheists are men and women want partners of the same religion. "

lol, sigh.

12/24/2008 11:01:57 AM

So we neglect to teach evolution (which is the most factually supported theory) in favor of what??? Intelligent design? All science is a construct of the devil to mislead people?

12/24/2008 11:16:54 AM

^
I think he meant teaching it as a fact, as opposed to a scientific theory. He said, "I'm sure you have absolutely no problem whatsoever teaching that evolution is a fact." to express his prejudiced generalization that atheists don't accept evolution as a scientific theory and push the idea of it being 100% fact.

[Edited on December 24, 2008 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

12/24/2008 11:25:24 AM

I know I was hoping he would come back with that response. I guess we shouldn't teach about gravity as if it is a fact either. Both are theories which one is more often treated as fact??

12/24/2008 11:28:34 AM

I think gravity is pretty rightfully regarded more as settled fact than evolution.

[Edited on December 24, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : and yes, the fucking theory of gravity argument isn't news around here]

12/24/2008 11:34:32 AM

Isn't gravity a law, and not a theory?

12/24/2008 11:34:47 AM

^^ Actually as a theory evolution is very sound. It has not been discredited despite MANY frantic attempts.
^The only reason gravity is ever described as a law is because when it was described it really has no more basis for being a law than evolution. In fact it is part of Newtonian mechanics which has been shown to not be completely accurate.
Btw I know it isn't news but that dumbass was just asking to step in it.

[Edited on December 24, 2008 at 11:41 AM. Reason : asdfdf]

12/24/2008 11:40:19 AM

...like running in the Special Olympics...

12/24/2008 11:41:40 AM

^^ I meant that the theory of gravity, while not provable, is more demonstrable than the likewise non-provable theory of evolution. That I'm much more willing to accept that we have gravity figured out to a greater degree isn't to the discredit of evolution so much as it is to the credit of gravity.


...and if I'm not mistaken, gravity is explained by both Newtonian physics and relativity. I don't know about quantum theory and all that shit. Also, as far as I can think of, there is nothing about Newtonian mechanics that is inaccurate so much as Newtonian mechanics is incomplete in terms of explaining everything.

[Edited on December 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM. Reason : but yes, I stand by my statement that, of the two theories, I place more faith in gravity.]

12/24/2008 12:53:22 PM

^ Evolution is observable in a petri dish.

Quantum explains gravity by positing the existence of a "graviton" which hasn't yet been detected, iirc.

12/24/2008 1:08:00 PM

^^ I would be hesitant to frame things that way.

There's some pretty amazing work going on now in statistical genomics that's shed a lot of light on evolution in new theories, and corroborating evidence. The main thing that makes evolution so hard to grasp is the time scales it takes things to happen. Really anything that takes longer than 1 human lifespan is difficult for people to really visualize. With gravity though, you see tons of examples of it everyday. But the theory of evolution, and the approximate time scales are very much confirmed; it's the origin of life, and the details that scientist are working on now. We know definitively that genomes have changed over a very long time, between/from different species. What's unclear is what types of events cause what types of changes.

and we've been learning tons of new stuff about gravity on a regular basis though.

It's "figured out" so far as you don't have to worry about you plane crashing because of a glitch in gravity, but let's say we wanted to send a probe to the next nearest star, our knowledge of gravity isn't complete enough yet to reliably do that. Specifically, Voyager 2 (or was it Voyager 1?) just recently crossed over the termination shock boundary of our solar system, and that threw a lot of curveballs to the astrophysics guys about how the universe actually works.

12/24/2008 1:40:19 PM

Quote :

"I've read that atheists are the least trusted group in America."

I don't know how this was determined, or whether it could possibly be determined reliably. But I have an immense amount of trouble believing that, given our track record, white people are not the least trusted group in America. I mean, come on. Right now I bet even Barack Obama doesn't trust white people. He's still waiting for them to shoot him, or at least say, "j/k about the president thing!"

Quote :

"atheists are often met with disbelief that they don't believe in "SOMETHING" and some people make wild assumptions that we must be evil because of it."

I'm not sure that this supports your case when it follows talk about minorities, homosexuals, etc. Plenty of people have precisely the same feeling towards homosexuality -- disbelief that they don't want an opposite-sex partner, followed by wild assumptions that they must be evil (and pedophiles, and sex offenders, and so on). Also, I'm not aware of any truck-dragging incidents in which the drag-ee was an atheist.

Quote :

"the 1st Amendment says "CONGRESS shall not..." It says nothing about state and local gov'ts. We've taken an absurd position that somehow the [1st] Amendment applies to state and local governments when it was never meant to be so."

This is an interesting point and one which I hadn't really considered. On the one hand, the Bill of Rights does pretty specifically refer to Congress, but as some people have pointed out, obviously nobody believes that states should be able to ignore its tenets. But then again, I would imagine that most state constitutions have something similar to this excerpt from NC's:

Quote :

"Sec. 13. Religious liberty. All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience."

It also has other points that basically echo the Bill of Rights as well, but with this particular example its noteworthy that it doesn't really set a basis for separation of church and state -- it merely says that the state isn't going to mess with your churches or beliefs.

Any new state since 1787 has had to include something like the above as per the Northwest Ordinance, which (along with the Enabling Acts) basically say that before Congress will admit a state to the union it has to create a constitution that fundamentally respects the ideas that would later show up in the Bill of Rights.

Long story short: States do have to follow the basic rules of the Bill of Rights, but it's far from clear (from the Constitutions of the country and the state) that state and local governments are as restricted as perhaps Congress is.

Quote :

"You generalized atheists as douches trying to push their beliefs on every one else."

And when he did this, he wasn't being fair. I see how it's easy for some people to confuse removing theism from government and promoting atheism in government (and elsewhere).

Quote :

"Also, blatant unconstitutionality isn't "nothing"."

But it is. It really, really is in a lot of these cases. The dollar bill has the word "God" on it. It also has a bunch of bizarre masonic symbols. The only person I've ever heard accuse the government of endorsing and supporting freemasonry is salisburyboy, and he got suspended for wanting to decapitate Mexicans. Many courtrooms and legislative buildings have the ten commandments in them. They also frequently have busts or other references to Hammurabi. Not even salisbury's crazy enough to accuse the government of endorsing Babylonian government or religion. When Greek or Roman mythology is referenced in a government capacity, nobody accuses the government of trying to get us to break out the togas and start talking to Zeus.

God in government can almost completely be reduced to a historical, rather than a religious, purpose. The Ten Commandments hang up alongside Hammurabi's code because both of these are ancient sets of laws that have historical importance. Lofty references to the divine get placed with cryptic freemason shit on the dollar because both are used to invoke imagery surrounding independence.

Government officials are allowed to mention God in speeches. They are allowed to say that there's not a God in speeches. One of these may do more for your election than the other, but that's more a problem with the electorate than it is with government (there are plenty of voters -- though perhaps not as many as once thought -- that won't vote for a guy who says, "I'm black").

12/24/2008 2:18:04 PM

^ But most people have a problem with people who say that they won't vote for someone because of his race.
In my opinion most of these people wouldn't have a problem with the same people saying they won't vote for someone because they are an atheist.
This was partially demonstrated in the Dole campaign. There was no attempt for anyone to say so what if Hagan is an atheist the only thing they tried to do was deny it. It would be equivalent to Mccain accusing Obama of being black and Obama saying no because I have a white grandfather.
Like I said before I may have overstated in my OP but Atheists are certainly extremely disrespected.

Quote :

"I'm not sure that this supports your case when it follows talk about minorities, homosexuals, etc. Plenty of people have precisely the same feeling towards homosexuality -- disbelief that they don't want an opposite-sex partner, followed by wild assumptions that they must be evil (and pedophiles, and sex offenders, and so on). Also, I'm not aware of any truck-dragging incidents in which the drag-ee was an atheist. "

It is interesting because it is the bible that condemns homosexuality I wonder how many of the truck dragging incidents involve atheists??

12/24/2008 5:54:37 PM

Quote :

"I think he meant teaching it as a fact, as opposed to a scientific theory. He said, "I'm sure you have absolutely no problem whatsoever teaching that evolution is a fact." to express his prejudiced generalization that atheists don't accept evolution as a scientific theory and push the idea of it being 100% fact."

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. That's what we call a "strawman." Actually, my point about evolution as a fact has everything to do with the simple fact that doing so expressly says that any religion claiming otherwise is wrong. How is that not an example of the government endorsing one religion over another? Spare me the bullshit about "theory vs. fact."

Quote :

"Does that mean the City of Raleigh can restrict speech, prevent public assembly, censor the press, ignore complaints of the citizenry, and mandate that everyone become an Evangelical?"

If it really wants to, then I suppose so. But, Raleigh would quickly find itself depopulated were it ever to do such a foolish thing.

Quote :

"You generalized atheists as douches trying to push their beliefs on every one else."

False. That's a good ol' man of straw.

Quote :

"Other than the door-knocking example that I provided, (which is quite rare for atheists -- certainly more rare than door-knocking by other faiths,) can you give me an example of atheists pushing their beliefs on others?"

I've already done so.

Quote :

"The point of the establishment clause is to provide separation of church and state."

No, the point of that clause is to expressly forbid Congress from doing those acts. Putting anything else into it is a gross misinterpretation of the original intent, something liberals have no problem doing when it suits them.

Quote :

"So we neglect to teach evolution (which is the most factually supported theory) in favor of what??? Intelligent design? All science is a construct of the devil to mislead people?"

strawman much?

12/24/2008 7:37:27 PM

everyone of aaronburro's posts I've seen look the same

______________________________________________
randomuser: Argues their point of view

aaronburro:

Quote :

"blah blah blah"

omg strawman!!!11one
______________________________________________

Rinse and repeat

[Edited on December 24, 2008 at 8:18 PM. Reason : .]

12/24/2008 8:17:27 PM

12/25/2008 12:01:12 AM

Quote :

"This was partially demonstrated in the Dole campaign. There was no attempt for anyone to say so what if Hagan is an atheist the only thing they tried to do was deny it. It would be equivalent to Mccain accusing Obama of being black and Obama saying no because I have a white grandfather."

Not really. Hagan and her people denied that she was an atheist because she's not an atheist. More to the point, though, Dole's attempt to paint Hagan as an atheist cost her a shit ton of votes. And I think that a lot of people responded to the ad like I did: Disgust that Dole would resort to throwing that around baselessly as an insult, rather than wondering whether or not I should vote for Hagan because she might not believe in God.

Quote :

"It is interesting because it is the bible that condemns homosexuality I wonder how many of the truck dragging incidents involve atheists??"

Absolutely irrelevant and could hardly more more distant from the point. You repeatedly assert that atheists are so much worse off than homosexuals because people think about you differently. But in reality, the feelings that you describe some as harboring towards atheists are very similar to those harbored towards gays, only with not nearly the same violence of outcome.

12/25/2008 1:13:42 AM

"I've officially been chopped N skrewed"
/

12/25/2008 2:41:54 AM

Quote :

"I don't know how this was determined, or whether it could possibly be determined reliably. But I have an immense amount of trouble believing that, given our track record, white people are not the least trusted group in America. I mean, come on. Right now I bet even Barack Obama doesn't trust white people. He's still waiting for them to shoot him, or at least say, "j/k about the president thing!""

It was a Gallup poll earlier in the year, looking at personal beliefs and politics or something like that. People were least willing to vote for atheists and viewed them as the least American/patriotic. I'll try to dig that one up. I saw a different Gallup (I think) poll that had Scientology as the recipient of the most public distrust over atheism by only a few points.

12/25/2008 3:26:57 AM

Quote :

"Actually, my point about evolution as a fact has everything to do with the simple fact that doing so expressly says that any religion claiming otherwise is wrong. How is that not an example of the government endorsing one religion over another?"

First of all, use some common fucking sense. Our education curriculum can't be a slave to religious doctrine. We've seen how well that's worked out through history, for one, and if science classes taught the Christian account of Creation, that would be endorsing a religion (and not science). If they taught "intelligent design", that would not be science, and that would still be endorsing religious viewpoints by exclusion (what about Buddhism?), if nothing else.

Additionally, is there any federal education curriculum requirement for teaching evolution? If not, then your argument holds no water to begin with by your own metric of the establishment clause only applying to Congress.

12/25/2008 3:41:32 AM

Quote :

"It was a Gallup poll earlier in the year, looking at personal beliefs and politics or something like that. People were least willing to vote for atheists and viewed them as the least American/patriotic. I'll try to dig that one up. I saw a different Gallup (I think) poll that had Scientology as the recipient of the most public distrust over atheism by only a few points."

Here are some poll results.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm
Granted they are compiled by an atheist organization but they are the results from established polls

http://richarddawkins.net/article,662,Atheists-come-in-last,USA-Today--Gallup-Poll

12/25/2008 11:27:11 AM

from ^'s link:

Quote :

"Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years: Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%) Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%) Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%) Baptist: 6% Woman: 8% Mormon: 17% Muslim: 38% Gay: 37% (1978: 74%) Atheist: 48% "

wow it's good to know we still have racist bigots who are intolerable of gays and people of different religions in this country

12/25/2008 1:20:00 PM

The bible belt has done wonderful things for this country. I would love to see this poll done in different states throughout the US.

12/25/2008 2:09:30 PM

^^I'm surprised that you're surprised.

12/25/2008 2:26:05 PM

not surprised at all

just didn't think the #'s would be that high

12/25/2008 2:49:18 PM

Quote :

"The bible belt has done wonderful things for this country. I would love to see this poll done in different states throughout the US."

I think you'd be surprised. If it's a national poll, then the "bible belt" has only a small influence. Hell, look at Prop 8 in California.

12/25/2008 4:10:17 PM

The poll results really surprise me, to be honest. I would have expected Muslims to win the "wouldn't vote for" list handily.

Reading the about.com article, though, something else occurred to me, which is that atheists don't fit in with many other "oppressed" groups because they are distinguished by a certain ideology (as opposed to skin color or gender, which is determined purely by genetics; also, arguably, sexual orientation).

They didn't ask what percentage of people would refuse to vote for a candidate who was Communist, for example. And at the end of the day, how much difference is there? Good old fashioned Communism is inherently atheistic. They're both conclusions arrived at through the logic (flawed or not) of the people who choose them. And as this thread demonstrates, atheism has an active political component that's taken just about as seriously as the American Communist Party.

The simple fact is that you have an ideology, a voluntarily chosen belief that is different from most Americans. Are ANP candidates oppressed because nobody wants to vote for them? No. They're just the minority. It's bad when people don't vote for you because you look different from them; it's bad when people don't vote for you because you have a vagina; it's democracy when people don't vote for you because they don't agree with you.

Of course, people from varying religious sects don't agree with each other, either, but most Protestants could elect a Catholic and most Christians wouldn't mind voting for a Jew. Of course, the theist population has a very important common denominator that atheists lack, something that ties them together and gives them fundamentally the same outlook.

12/25/2008 4:24:41 PM

Quote :

"Good old fashioned Communism is inherently atheistic."

I really never understood this assertion. Sharing your possessions and living for others sounds like ideas tought by religion. What part of Communism implies the nonexistence of gods? But off topic...

Quote :

"The simple fact is that you have an ideology, a voluntarily chosen belief that is different from most Americans."

Not at all. Atheism isn't a philosophical theory to me, it's just the result of my skeptical personality. I don't choose it anymore than I choose to be straight or like pizza.

12/25/2008 8:50:43 PM

Quote :

"The simple fact is that you have an ideology, a voluntarily chosen belief that is different from most Americans."

^ is making the same point, but I wouldn't view it as a "choice." For most of my life I attempted to believe in God, and it eventually came to a point where I couldn't pretend anymore. Even if there was a god, I'm shit out of luck because he would probably know that my faith wasn't real, and based entirely on my desire to not go to hell.

If I made up a religion right now, and provided with it a holy book that pretty much told you what the religion was about, would you believe it? Probably not. You either believe a claim or you don't; I don't believe the claim that there is a God. I can't choose to believe, in this case.

12/25/2008 9:30:22 PM

Quote :

"What part of Communism implies the nonexistence of gods?"

i think in purely Communist countries, the government is supposed to take the place of a god. By allowing people to believe in a god, the government is admitting there is something more powerful (or "benevolent") than them.

i could be wrong, though.

12/25/2008 9:35:16 PM

Quote :

"What part of Communism implies the nonexistence of gods?"

There have been various mutations of communism, of course, and I was trying to pre-empt this question with "good old fashioned."

As I understand it (and I do) most of the early, important, and influential concepts of the system held that religion was an "opiate of the masses" that must eventually be removed. Certainly several Communist countries attempted actively to suppress religion to whatever extent they could get away with it; Communist Albania prided itself on being the first "officially atheist" country in history.

Many of the actual practices of communism (sharing goods, socioeconomic equality, etc) are of course in keeping with the strict practices of many major religions. But the driving theory behind it runs categorically opposed to religion, and, probably more importantly, theist organizations tend to be politically oriented more in favor of the present (non-Communist) regime.

Quote :

"Atheism isn't a philosophical theory to me, it's just the result of my skeptical personality. I don't choose it anymore than I choose to be straight or like pizza."

Of course, many people -- including our formal resident Communist, Kris -- would argue that nobody really chooses much of anything, that you're really just a product of your experiences and genetics, and could be conditioned to do or think just about anything, given enough time. But of course, if that's true, nothing is a choice and really this conversation is moot.

Then again, I never subscribed to that particular train of thought, and argued with Kris about it to no end. But if you have a "skeptical personality," then I doubt it's purely a function of how you were born. You grew up in a certain environment that helped shape and promote that part of you. By the same token, one could easily argue that a person raised by a Muslim family in a Muslim community really didn't have any choice in being Muslim. Their environment played a pretty strong hand in making them a Muslim.

But of course, a Muslim, a Christian, and even an atheist can have their minds changed. It might take a whole hell of a lot for you do abandon atheism in favor of a religion -- but then again, it would probably take a whole hell of a lot to convince a Muslim guy from Saudi Arabia to convert to Christianity.

Now, let me emphasize, that your environment is more than the sum of its superficial parts. Your parents may have been religious, and you may have grown up in a religious part of the country, but that's not your whole environment, and some other factor there played a role in making you skeptical. I'm a theistic example of this -- my parents were protestant and agnostic, and North Carolina is overwhelmingly protestant, but something in my environment guided me to end up Greek Orthodox. I certainly don't think I'm genetically predispositioned to make that choice, especially given that every speck of my DNA comes from the opposite end of Europe from Greece.

---

At the very least, I think I can say with confidence that your atheism was more of a choice than your ethnicity or gender. I myself tend to think it was more of a choice than your sexual orientation as well, but it's not a point I care to debate.

[Edited on December 26, 2008 at 12:02 AM. Reason : ]

12/26/2008 12:01:16 AM