=atheists. Also real political power in any country in the world as far as I can tell.
opinions??

12/22/2008 5:05:44 PM

really now

12/22/2008 5:09:53 PM

What makes the atheist's struggle the worst amongst all the world's minorities? Were they put in the back of the bus? Denied loans for their identity? Given small pox laden blankets? Stoned for their faith (or lack thereof)? Gassed and cremated in camps? Lynched for staring at the wrong person? Tortured until they changed their beliefs?

I agree that atheists get a lot of crap, especially from the religious who constantly harass them about their lack of beliefs, but given the sheer number of atrocities out there, I doubt the atheists have had it that bad.

12/22/2008 5:11:07 PM

^

this thread is dumb

12/22/2008 5:13:58 PM

Gypsies

12/22/2008 5:14:46 PM

Worldwide of course atheists have been persecuted. Do you know any history at all? This thread is dumb because it is still ok to persecute people who don't believe in your god just so long as they don't have a god.

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 5:16 PM. Reason : adsfadf]

12/22/2008 5:15:16 PM

This thread are stupid.

12/22/2008 5:15:23 PM

if someone is dumb enough to run around trumpeting the fact that they are a self-avowed atheist, they deserve whatever scorn is heaped upon them because they are intentionally TRYING to stir up resentment and get people to notice them.

essentially, I think public atheists are attention-seeking-drama-whores who WANT to annoy people, yet turn around and get all pissy when people get annoyed.



but, don't ask me. I'm a militant agnostic, so my opinion of atheists are already skewed.

12/22/2008 5:34:31 PM

So by your argument Muslim that is persecuted because of their beliefs should have just kept their mouth shut? They were asking for it? I do agree that sometimes there are rabble rousers of all denominations but I still hold that it is more PC to persecute atheists.

12/22/2008 5:40:26 PM

^ islam is a religion, atheism is not.

It doesn't hurt an atheist to keep their mouth shut, there is nothing about atheism that mandates your cry from the hills what you believe. Religions OTOH are different.

Atheists who feel it's their duty to shout "hey i'm an atheist" at every opportunity are not in fact real atheists. They are dumbasses.

Note this is different than merely not participating in inconsequential religious rituals.

12/22/2008 5:44:18 PM

a good discrimination should be against something you cant hide.

12/22/2008 5:44:26 PM

Quote :

"this thread is dumb"

Quote :

"This thread are stupid."

Please don't post stupid shit like that. If you don't have something nice to say....

I was about to start a similar thread, but just hadn't decided on a way to frame it. However, I would've characterized atheists (in america) as being hated, as not be tolerated, and generally regarded as less-than-worthy of the title "citizen". Bush senior once said that he didn't even consider atheists to be patriots, let alone citizens!

12/22/2008 5:45:59 PM

Religions are hurting society,science, and equality and have throughout history. Atheism would end a lot of this so why not preach it like any other belief. Atheism is belief based just like any other religion. It is the belief that logic (in some instances science) will lead you to the truth. So Paulisdead you should hide your beliefs so you don't get discriminated against.?

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 5:52 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/22/2008 5:50:31 PM

Quote :

"I was about to start a similar thread, but just hadn't decided on a way to frame it. However, I would've characterized atheists (in america) as being hated, as not be tolerated, and generally regarded as less-than-worthy of the title "citizen". Bush senior once said that he didn't even consider atheists to be patriots, let alone citizens!"

Okay? While this may be true, there's no way atheists are anywhere close to "most discriminated against minority." Discriminated against more than others? Sure, but let me know when

Quote :

"Were they put in the back of the bus? Denied loans for their identity? Given small pox laden blankets? Stoned for their faith (or lack thereof)? Gassed and cremated in camps? Lynched for staring at the wrong person? Tortured until they changed their beliefs?"

that stuff happens and then we can have a thread worthy of reading. Until then, this thread is dumb.

12/22/2008 5:59:51 PM

Quote :

"if someone is dumb enough to run around trumpeting the fact that they are a self-avowed atheist, they deserve whatever scorn is heaped upon them because they are intentionally TRYING to stir up resentment and get people to notice them."

No. People of all faiths and faith traditions feel the need to spread their message. Atheists are no different from monotheists in this regard.

Quote :

"Islam is a religion, atheism is not."

They are both faiths. There are atheist churches.
atheists != non-theists != agnostics



Here's a way to look at the issue:

[x] disabled president (1932)
[x] catholic president (1960)
[x] black president (2008)
[ ] female president (2012? 2016?)
[ ] jewish president (2016? 2024?)
[ ] hispanic president (2020? 2032?)
[ ] openly gay president (2048? 2084?)
[ ] convicted felon president (2040? 2100?)
[ ] wiccan president (2052? 2120?)
[ ] pedophile president (2288? 2564?)
[ ] atheist president (2472? 3000?)

12/22/2008 6:01:52 PM

[x] atheist president (1861)

12/22/2008 6:36:17 PM

HAPPY FESTIVUS EVERYBODY!!!!

(*whee*)

12/22/2008 6:38:17 PM

Are we talking about true discrimination here or are we talking about popular opinion?

I think its the later.



Atheist: You will respect my religion on the basis of my whiney logic

Intelligent person: Yeah, good luck with that (laff)

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 7:22 PM. Reason : ^ BREAK OUT THE SELF LOATHING EGG NOG!]

12/22/2008 7:11:53 PM

^^^
Lincoln was a deist.


^
Yeah, atheists are not popular. At all. Nor are they generally respected.

12/22/2008 7:22:42 PM

The OP is giving the rest of us a bad name.

We aren't the most persecuted minority.

However, it is true that we are the last minority that it's still socially acceptable to shit all over without any repercussions.

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 7:28 PM. Reason : ^^ And that is just fucking retarded hyperbole]

12/22/2008 7:27:41 PM

please lets just keep this on topic, i dont feel like rehashing this debate again

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 7:32 PM. Reason : and by the way, I talk shit about all organized religions. Thats one thing I dont discriminate]

12/22/2008 7:30:11 PM

Quote :

""Islam is a religion, atheism is not." They are both faiths. There are atheist churches. "

Atheism is pretty far from a faith. having a "church" doesn't make something a faith.

Atheists however who think atheism is a religion are not real atheists.

12/22/2008 7:40:22 PM

^
Atheism isn't a religion. Neither is monotheism. However, atheism is a faith.
Atheism, as many people with monotheistic faith would say, requires the most faith of all. It's one thing to simply dismiss belief in god or regard it as unknowable, but it's a very different thing to put your foot down and say, "There is no god." That takes faith.

12/22/2008 7:53:36 PM

You're misstating Atheism, and this is a common occurrence.

Let's think of something that you would say you believe in. Like, for example, if you flip a coin it will either land on heads or tails. You could say, "I believe this coin will land on heads or tails." And you would probably be right. However, can you say with 100% certainty that the coin will lands on heads or tails? Of course not. It could land on it's side. It could spontaneously combust while in the air. It could quantum tunnel into another dimension. While the odds of these things happening are incredibly rare, they can happen. But, if I did an experiment where I flipped a coin a million times, and every time I did it landed heads or tails, I could say with reasonable certainty that on flip million and one that it will land either on heads or tails.

An Atheist would say, "God does not exist." And, when he says this, he doesn't say it with 100% certainty. This is a simplified statement of, "Based on the evidence that I've seen of the natural world, I can say with almost certainty that God does not exist." Even so called "militant" Atheists like Richard Dawkins take this same position.

And, unlike a Christian, an Atheist would be perfectly willing to change his stance on the issue if any evidence came out to dispute this conclusion. Can you say the same thing for a Christian? Of course not, because, to them, there's absolutely no way to prove that God does not exist.

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 8:07 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 8:06:14 PM

atheism is not, and can not be, a religion. it is a "lack of belief in gods"

that said, every self-professed atheist I've ever known pushes their atheist logic on everyone with enough unrestrained religious fervor to make Simon the Zealot blush.

12/22/2008 8:18:20 PM

I think when you say "Atheist logic" you just mean "logic."

12/22/2008 8:20:31 PM

^^^ No, that is wrong.

You're blurring the line between agnosticism and atheism. Let me make this clear, there is no middle ground between an agnostic and an athiest. None whatsoever. I dont know where this version came from, the athiest is defined as a person who refuses to acknowledge any notion of god. And will remain the definition as long as the english language remains viable in the modern world.

Quote :

"And, unlike a Christian, an Atheist would be perfectly willing to change his stance on the issue if any evidence came out to dispute this conclusion. Can you say the same thing for a Christian? Of course not, because, to them, there's absolutely no way to prove that God does not exist."

So atleast i'm not the one guilty of hyperbole here

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 8:28 PM. Reason : holy editing batman!]

12/22/2008 8:23:04 PM

Quote :

"this version came from but the athiest refuses to acknowledge any nothion of god and will remain so as long as the english language remains viable in the modern world."

Ahh, so we're sticking with "dictionary definitions only" now, aren't we? If that's the only way you can "win" your argument, then I won't disagree with you.

However, according to Merriam Webster:

Quote :

" Main Entry: athe·ist Listen to the pronunciation of atheist Pronunciation: \'a-the-ist\ Function: noun Date: 1551 : one who believes that there is no deity "

I believe that there is no deity. And, like I stated earlier, I take that position because no evidence has shown this not to be true. I don't state it with 100% certainty, because I will never take that position with anything. No one can.

Quote :

"So atleast i'm not the one guilty of hyperbole it seems"

Show me a way that I can prove to a Christian that God does not exist. Because, as it has been shown, even if I show them that there is an incredibly high likelihood (99.999999999% chance) of there being no God, the person will still simply state, "But you can't prove there is no God."

And you know what, that person is right. I can't prove that there is no God. I also can't prove that we don't live inside the Matrix. But if I can't prove that we don't live inside the Matrix, would you then take the affirmative stance on that issue simply because I couldn't prove it?

Of course not. You would say, "But God, where's the evidence that we live inside the Matrix? I see none. There's no way I would believe that we live inside the Matrix unless I see any evidence to the contrary."

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 8:30 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 8:28:28 PM

see? you're exactly who i'm talking about.

Quote :

"You're misstating Atheism, and this is a common occurrence."

(1) to talk about atheists as a homogenous group with a codified belief structure is completely ludicrous. at the least you have to differentiate between strong atheism and weak atheism. weak atheists have no personal belief in god/s, whereas strong atheists demand that there is/are no god/s

(2) to capitalize "atheism" is just totally fucking pretentious.

Quote :

"You could say, "I believe this coin will land on heads or tails." And you would probably be right. However, can you say with 100% certainty that the coin will lands on heads or tails? Of course not. It could land on it's side. It could spontaneously combust while in the air. It could quantum tunnel into another dimension."

(3) fucking :carlface: already. where do you people come from. i swear.

Quote :

"And, unlike a Christian, an Atheist would be perfectly willing to change his stance on the issue if any evidence came out to dispute this conclusion. Can you say the same thing for a Christian? Of course not, because, to them, there's absolutely no way to prove that God does not exist."

(4) you have no capacity to speak for any Christian, much less Christianity as a whole. You can not (and no atheist ever has) demonstrated any evidence that "disproves" a creator in general or the Christian godhead in particular.


I learned a long time ago that atheists are just as full of shit as any other group of religious zealots, and it's why -- even though i currently don't have a belief in any gods -- i'd never call myself an atheist. because it presumes way too much about the universe that you have no clue about.




[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 8:37 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 8:34:09 PM

^^ It is possible. The mind is more malleble than you think, especially a church go'er whos completely wrapped up with the idea of dying and how terrible it would be. I could murder their whole family infront of their eyes and them next. They might switch stances then, might....

but that just goes to show you're wrong about religious pre concieved notions. Not everyone is the stereotypical bible living christian and not everybody is the stereotypical bible thumping athiest (some stay quiet and just leave everyone alone). I'm not even the stereotypical agnostic in the sense I accept my own spiritual inclinations of deism in conjuction with my stance in agnosticism as the only logical position. So thats why I called your statement hyperbole. Its only right for some and not others.

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 8:41 PM. Reason : spelling and grammers not good tonight, so dont expect it to be]]

12/22/2008 8:37:52 PM

Science H. Logic.

While I wouldn't say that athiests are the most discriminated against minority, there have been polls that show that they are the least trusted demographic.

12/22/2008 8:39:47 PM

well, no wonder. listen to them.

12/22/2008 8:40:17 PM

Hey, why don't you just stay out of this thread until you have a point to make instead of just attacking people's character?

Quote :

"You can not (and no atheist ever has) demonstrated any evidence that "disproves" a creator in general or the Christian godhead in particular."

Yeah, and you can do that for any ridiculous position. Hence the "floating teapot" and "flying spaghetti monster" arguments. Can you prove that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster? No. Does that mean that there's a flying spaghetti monster? No. Does that mean there's a high likelihood of a flying spaghetti monster? No.

And why not? Why would you say that there is or isn't a flying spaghetti monster? I'm not asking a rhetorical question here. I honestly want you to answer.

Quote :

"i'd never call myself an atheist. because it presumes way too much about the universe that you have no clue about"

The same argument applies here. Would you presume that there is no flying spaghetti monster? Why or why not? And please, try frame your answer without calling me a fucking idiot.

Quote :

"well, no wonder. listen to them."

Yeah, arguing with logic and reason. How awful.

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 8:40 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 8:40:18 PM

Quote :

"You're misstating Atheism, and this is a common occurrence. .......... An Atheist would say, "God does not exist." And, when he says this, he doesn't say it with 100% certainty. This is a simplified statement of, "Based on the evidence that I've seen of the natural world, I can say with almost certainty that God does not exist." Even so called "militant" Atheists like Richard Dawkins take this same position."

Those are non-theists or agnostics calling themselves atheists. We don't have to play word games here; these are clearly two different things.* If you say, with faith, "I can say with complete certainty that no god (or gods) exist.", then you are an atheist -- you are faith-based. Your position on theism is that there are zero gods. Not one, not more than one, not unknown, not "n/a", not uncertian, but zero. If you say "I can say with almost certainty that god does not exist.", then you are making a secular statement, a non-theistic statement, a gnostic or agnostic statement. It just makes sense to put those whom are faith-based in groups with the "-theist" suffix. Polytheists have faith in there being two or more gods. Monothesists have faith in there being one god. Atheists have faith in there being zero gods. All three are irrational, non-logical, and faith-based, unlike the rational, logical, reason-based assertion: "I can say with almost certainty that god (or gods) does not exist."

*(joe_schmoe's "strong atheist" is just an atheist. His "weak atheist" is a non-theist or agnostic calling themselves an atheist.)

Quote :

"atheism is not, and can not be, a religion"

This has been repeated, and I simply don't see where anyone has claimed that atheism is a religion. No one has said that.

Quote :

"it is a "lack of belief in gods"

No, that is non-theism. Atheism is belief in godlessness.


[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 8:46 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 8:44:55 PM

Quote :

"No, that [a lack of belief in gods] is non-theism. Atheism is belief in godlessness."

holy crap, Willy Nilly, are you fucking with me? what do you think the "a" in "atheism" means?

"theism" literally means "a belief in gods". "a" is the prefix meaning "without"... now let's put the two together: "atheism" = "without a belief in gods".

there are two basic types: Strong and Weak. weak (or negative) merely lacks belief. strong (or positive) not only lacks beleif but actively asserts that there are no gods, and can not be any gods.

this is basic atheism 101. look it up.




Look, God, i think from some of your earlier posts, you must be mixing up your personal flavor of atheism with basic precepts of agnosticism. let me help you:

Quote :

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity ... it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. --T. H. Huxley"

an unabashed assertion to know for certainty that there is not, and can not be, any gods anywhere... is just another unprovable opinion.









[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 8:58 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 8:47:11 PM

Quote :

"an unabashed assertion to know for certainty that there is not, and can not be, any gods anywhere... is just another unprovable opinion."

I never said it was provable. What's your point? It's the fact that it's unprovable that makes it faith-based.

Quote :

"atheism" = "without a belief in gods"

Really? The dictionary says "atheism" = "one who believes that there is no deity". (As if whatever you or the dictionary says matters. Words are imperfect symbols)


[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 9:05 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 8:57:26 PM

I think there needs to be a new system of combining philosophical terms to a degree where any stance can be better recognized.

For instance I wouldn't call God a full blown athiest. She/He has already shown enough honesty to his/her human intelligence capacity to admit to not knowing for sure god doesn't exist. Theres needs to be a degree of flexibilty with this. I like to be an called an agnostic deist myself but its hard to not come off douchey when you want people to treat you different is this regard. I feel staple terms should be made and used to clearly identify someones standing. It sure would help stop the bickering and occasional insults.

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 8:59 PM. Reason : /]

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 8:59 PM. Reason : my typing speed is trailing my thinking speed, my bad]

12/22/2008 8:58:19 PM

^^ Ok. then we're in agreement, and just arguing semantics.


^ i think God is an agnostic who has an emotional hangup with needing some amount of certainty in his life.





[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 9:01 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 8:59:50 PM

Quote :

"I think there needs to be a new system of combining philosophical terms to a degree where any stance can be better recognized."

Some kind of object model would be good. That way, people could disagree on what the object names might be, but conceptually, they would all fit the model. I bet this is underway. (programmers will inherit the earth)

12/22/2008 9:11:30 PM

Quote :

"Really? The dictionary says "atheism" ... "

it's real clear, Willy. what does "theism" mean. now if you slap an "a" on front of it, then you have your original definition negated. you're a programmer right? you should be able to understand this general concept.

and, BTW, if you have to google dictionary entries for philosophical constructs, you're not going to do very well.

12/22/2008 9:17:15 PM

So according to all of your statements how would you define someone who simply states (as I always have) reason and logic are the only accurate tools to understanding the universe. and that reason and logic strongly supports the idea that there is no god (cannot be proven) just as it strongly supports that there is no flying spaghetti monster. Oh and my original point still stands atheists and agnostics seem to be the most pc group to attack. This country is a great example. There are people who still try and force intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public schools. That is such a stupid fucking idea (because the theory is incredibly stupid) it should simply be dismissed. On the other hand you try and remove Christian objects from government buildings and there are massive accusations of lawless atheists trying to destroy the US.

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 9:57 PM. Reason : adf]

12/22/2008 9:56:40 PM

dont worry, intelligent design folks get their come uppins regularly. Watch the daily show or Cobert for instance.

as for this question:

Quote :

"So according to all of your statements how would you define someone who simply states (as I always have) reason and logic are the only accurate tools to understanding the universe. and that reason and logic strongly supports the idea that there is no god (cannot be proven) just as it strongly supports that there is no flying spaghetti monster."

I would say you're using reason and logic incorrectly as its a fundmentally impossible question to ascertain. Thereby being untrue to your human intellectual capacity and to reason and logic itself.

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 10:08 PM. Reason : there]

12/22/2008 10:05:26 PM

using correct tools does not mean you will ever get the job done But you sure will get a lot closer.

12/22/2008 10:12:05 PM

Yes I for one, love astronomy. It's something I could learn all my life and people certainly have and still do. But I think we are a fair way from truth of it all, if we could possibly attain said truth (the vastness of the universe is quite intimitating to my homo sapien mind).

I am interested to know the outcome of the new hadron collider and what it might mean for physics in general. It'll give us another step into knowing what matter is.

Hey wait a sec, this thread is officially derailed. Good going everybody

12/22/2008 10:20:06 PM

Quote :

"I would say you're using reason and logic incorrectly as its a fundmentally impossible question to ascertain. Thereby being untrue to your human intellectual capacity and to reason and logic itself."

This is a bad statement to make. You can't say that because you can't prove something, that shouldn't negate it's possible existence. There has to be a degree of rationality and reasoning here.

Again, and I use an example, and AGAIN, you can't prove that I don't have an invisible friend. This is a fundamentally impossible question to answer. Even if you say, "I've made an invisible friend detector. And this detector shows no evidence of your friend," I could still say, "Well, he decided to walk away." or "he disappeared" or something as equally unprovable.

However, what would you believe? Would you believe I did or would you believe I didn't have an invisible friend? Even if it was unprovable? Why?

100 years ago people would have called me crazy if I said that I could project a live image of myself cross the entire world, complete with sound and interactivity, instantaneously, while floating in the heavens, yet this is easily a reality today. Who's to say what our knowledge, logic, and reason can't find the answers to?

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 10:24 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 10:21:03 PM

Back on topic. Discrimination derision etc. against atheism/agnostics is still approached as pretty ok in modern society even in a relatively "free" country like the US.

12/22/2008 10:25:47 PM

You gotta understand, I dont give stupid answers to stupid questions if i'm in a serious discussion. Hold on, let me explain. Theres nothing going to be solved by my answering, so why utter the breath. If I wanted to go in circles of imaginary logic then I might as well include the number i to go before 0 and 1. You see, it doesn't have a meaning. Its a useless bother I dont have time for.

12/22/2008 10:25:54 PM

How is that a stupid question? Is it because you're experience cognitive dissonance?

Prove to me that my imaginary friend doesn't exist. You can't. Does that validate his existence? Does that legitimize his existence?

Why is that acceptable with God as the explanation of the mysteries of the universe?

12/22/2008 10:28:16 PM

Because of the equality aspect. The only reason its an acceptable notion is because its an identity inverse to the absense of god.

If I were ask why god created the universe then I could also ask why

nothing created the universe.

Two inane questions are just as valid an approach

12/22/2008 10:32:29 PM

No one ever said that nothing created the universe.

12/22/2008 10:33:33 PM