Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686



Does this fit in with your experience? Sound about right? I personally don't know very many atheists (most of the ones I know are people from this board) as most of the people I know are either religious or not religious (as distinct from atheist). Is this a holdover from the 50s, when America tried to really separate itself from atheist communist Russia? Maybe people group those two adjectives together (consciously or not). I'll admit that I was a bit surprised by the results of this article, because I didn't think America could rank anyone below homosexuals...

_________________

When you interview 140 people and 2,000 homes, and then state that this accounts for the entire nation, this isn't right.

It's like saying that when Japan bombed pearl harbor, all Japanese citizens hate America or believe what was done was right. So thusly, killing anyone Japanese is just.

In my opinion, I don't rate Atheists below anyone. I believe that no one is better then anyone under any circumstances. Do I agree with what Atheists say? No, being Christian, but I believe in tolerance and respect for other people.

I do rate SOME atheists pretty low...
Not all of them, mind you, just a good percentage.
The reason for this is kind of simple. Most people form opinions of a group based on the majority of people belonging to that group that they've encountered. Fair enough. I'm sure some people would call that prejudice, but it's a fair assumption that, when you've met a lot of members from some group that all share the same trait, the group all shares that trait.

Unfortunately for atheists, most of the athiests I know are total jerks who think they're better than those who believe in something and use the fact that they "aren't stupid enough to believe in fairy tales" as "proof"...

I will say this, though. Recently, though, I've met some people who have proven that not all athiests are complete jerks.

I don't like the "athiests lower than muslims" thing, though. Personally, I don't dislike Muslims as a group. Like Christians, they have their own jerk-holes that run the outsider's opinion of the entire group down.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I'm so glad that I'm not the only person who thinks this in the world!



This seems to be a very astute observation. I'm so sick and tired of people of any religion treating me as if I'm completely immoral (and want to kill, maim, rape, steal, get drunk, get high, cheat, lie, and everything else those Jack Chick tracts show) just because I don't agree with their interpretation of their religion. And living in America, where Christianity is by far the dominant religion, I receive this attitude from Christians the most--but I'm certain that there are people of all religious beliefs who treat others in this way, just as I know (through personal experience) that there are plenty of Christians (and people of all other religions) who treat everybody as equals, regardless of their differing beliefs.

It's totally unfair and unfounded to say that Atheists--or the members of any other religious group--are immoral just because of their belief. After all, there IS the old argument that Atheists are good and moral people because they know it's the right thing to do, whereas Christians are good and moral because they fear eternal damnation. (I disagree with this generalization, however, because I know plenty of Christians who are not good and moral, and many who are, so I don't see it as being influenced by religion so much as they just do it because they, also, know it's the right thing to do.)

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I don't really see someone's religious affiliation as an indication of how I would "rank" them. I know atheists that are better people than some Christians I know, and vice versa. Because I'm agnostic, I view atheists and religious people the same way.

First off, as most of you know, I am an athiest.

First, I think people dislike athiests as they think "Well, fi he doesn't beleive in a god, then he doesn't beleive in the ten commandments, so he's probably a bad person". A seemingly logical assumption, but it covers a smal part of life and moral belifs.

I myself am an athiest because I beleive in the facts. To be honest with all of you, I beleive religion is just a hoax to get people to be civil. I have beleived in this for many years, and I made the conclusion myself, it just made sense. I rely on the facts, that's just who I am. Does that make me a abd eprson? No. If the people who beleive athiests are bad people would take the time to meet them, like years ago with black people, they'd see we're just normal. Just because I don't know what the ten commandments are doesn't mean I'm gonna go kill people. Just becase I don't beleive religion doesn't mean I don't have moral belifs on what is and isn't wrong. Just like any generalization, it's very poorly thought up.

Now, after reading the article.. (yes, i forgot there was an article... )



And where did he get this? How do you know why crazy people do the things. I could just as easily be that they aren't eating enough grapes. Well, I'm exaggerating, but being an athiest does not mean you don't know how to be moral, it menas you beleive there is no god. Two different things.



Religion and god are two different things. In this case, she thinks that by having no religion, you have no moral beliefs, you don't know right from wrong, but that isn't the case. I just don't beleive there is a god, that's all.

Well, I'm done for now. You see, Simpsons is just about to start...

Truly, it bugs me when people discriminate against atheists, or any religion for that matter. I do believe that some atheists have no morals, but so do a lot of Christian people, so do Muslim people, so do Jewish people, etc. What does bother me though, is when a minority, someone Atheist for example, (I don't know if you're supposed to capitalize that or not so I'm just going to) tries to get treatment as if they were the majority. Like what really bugs me is the Atheist people who try to sue to get God taken out of the pledge of allegiance. If I moved to a predominantly Muslim community, I would expect for people to continue as if I was Muslim, not change their culture to suit me. I don't put any religion below any others, but it just bugs me when people try to get special treatment when they are a very outnumbered majority.

I completely agree. People need to face the facts, a majority rules over a minoritry. I simply don't say "under God", I leave a blank space, or I just say it. They're words, they don't mean anything unless you give them meaning. Really, words shouldn't offend people. If I swore right now, there really shouldn't be a problem, becaue it's a word. Logically, getting offended by a word is odd, but not everyone thinks like that, and that's fine, but for me, the only words I think should actually offend someone are things bashing religion, race, etc.

But I'm getting off-topic. The point really is, those athiests that you mentioend say "People are trying to force their belifs on me!" but by doing things like taking "Under God" out of the pledge, you're forcing your belifs on others.

I feel that most americans don't know what atheist means. They say "they're all religion-less bastards" when the definition of atheist is "Does not believe in an almighty bieng." If people actually knew that atheists don't particularly have to give up religion, then they would probably think better of them.

_________________
Sister, now that we're grieving
Our fingers will falter
Our lungs will be leaking
All over each other and without even speaking
We'll know that it's over and smile and go greeting
Whatever comes next

Yeah, I knew that Atheism doesn't mean "No religion at all" but I do know people who think that. Misunderstanding is a big problem in.. the world in general. People seem to be fueled by blind hatrid, not reason. Just because you tell someone what Atheism means, they won't necessarily believe you because of all the crap they already think about the subject. I'm a Mormon, and people say Mormons are Non-Christian or a "cult" or something, which I know isn't true, and no matter how much evidence I give to change their opinion they'll say something more or less sophisticated than "Thats what you want me to think." In a world with this much pre-programmed discrimination and bigotry you sometimes just have to deal with it.

Maybe a lot of people confuse "Atheism" with "Satanism" maybe logically thinking "Well if they don't believe in God, then they must believe in Satan/evil."

I am wondering, can you offer any facts to back up your theory? Upon what evidence do you base this claim?

It seems to me, at least based on my own research of historical facts, that my religion was started when a man who had been brutally tortured and killed suddenly showed himself alive to a group of his close friends. This was attested by at least seven different writers, and witnessed by at least 500 people.

_________________

Oh, I probably should've seperated those two thoughts.

The things about how I rely on the facts is about how I'm loyal to science. The part about religion being a hoax is just a theory that makes the most sense to me. I don't know too much about religion though, so it's not a well-researched theory.

I suppose both sides have some logic in them.. I see the whole logic side, God doesn't exist, how could he? But I truly believe that there is, and that he watches over us. And besides, you can believe that Jesus Christ was a real person who lived, a good person but not our Savior. But I believe that he really is our savior, and he will come again. Without feeling the spirit and actually praying about the subject, I can see how someone could feel that there is no God, and that all existance is just by coincidence and will just continue with or without humans around to watch it happen. But because I have felt the sprit testify to me that that is not true, and that God really exists and watches over us, that Jesus Christ really was our savior, it is just what I believe. Its not really a matter of scientifical "proof" per say, you have to rely on faith.

Just found something interesting in the lyircs to a song, decided I should post it.



Just found it interesting... coudl be interpreted in a few different ways, though.

I think this thread may be in need of some toastpaint.

Why is it that every thread in here must degrade into the same debate, with the same rehashed argument?

To answer the original post: so far I haven't been discriminated against because of my atheism. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens at some point in my life, though.

- Kef

Well of course that's what people think. It's just logical.

People, Christians mainly, see their lives as led by God. All good things happen through God, all the good things they do are because the holy spirit is going through them. That anything could happen devoid of the Holy Spirit strikes them as impossible.

Moreover, they see atheists not as people who truly do not believe in a God, but as people who reject God for some reason. That we prefer to believe in no God and are sticking to a pseudo-belief out of spite. Thus we can't be moral because we are rejecting the one who gave us our very lives and all that's good in them.

When it comes to other religions, they can believe that people are Jewish or Muslim because they believe in Yaweh or Allah. They don't think, in that sense, that people are rejecting God, they just see a different one.

It's like HW Bush in 88, "Atheists are not citizens of the US."

_________________

Why yes, there is much discrimination against those who profess no belief in deities. Once many people hear that, they take off with the information running and infer many other things.

_________________
                            
S E R I O U S L Y .
_________________

incapable of friend-have

I've slowly learned more things about athiesm in America which might explain the rationale in the survey's responses.

American Atheists was founded in the mid-1960's by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, after she won a court battle over her son having to participate in Bible readings at his school*. Overtly, the group was founded to uphold the separation of church and state, but from various sources I've read (including a former American Atheist who is now a Christian), it was far more than that. It might not be now, since O'Hair is dead and a new president has taken over, but up until the end of O'Hair's leadership in 1995, "atheist version of Westboro Baptist Church" could describe American Atheists' actions very well.

American Atheists would protest any public display of religion, especially by Christians, and claim it was fighting for separation of church and state. As the former AA'er said, he participated in one such "non-prayer" in a public school auditorium, held in protest of Christians having a prayer meeting outside on the school's front lawn. They would sing songs titled "Gotta Fight The Battle of Separation of Church and State," I recall from the writing.

O'Hair ran a radio show in the 1970's dedicated to militant atheist bashing of reiigion and theism, and she/the AA would fire off a lawsuit over anything they deemed a "breach of seperation of church and state" (which must have been very easy to breach if they got all huffy over an after school prayer meet).

I never heard of her until I started looking, but Madalyn Murray O'Hair is a hero among militant atheists. She was called by Life Magazine "The Most Hated Woman in America" for her belligerent anti-religious jeremaids. She would even attack other atheists, apparently, and would expel people from AA for not sharing her views--apparently in a speech made in 1982 she alienated a lot of atheists with one big flame-y rant.

* Madalyn's own son converted from atheism to Christianity, something she never forgave him for. William says that O'Hair used him as a mere tool in furthering her personal hatred for Christians, that much of the claims made in the lawsuit that spawned American Atheists were spurious (including the allegations of being beaten by classmates)--that it was all just to further her publicity and personal crusade against Christianity.

---

So here's what I think. Since I was born in 1983, and I didn't really grow aware of the more global religious debate, the presence and force anti-religious movements have (which seem to be growing, sadly), and atheism's ever-swelling ranks among Americans and Canadians until 1998~2000, this kind of stuff is all new to me (and it chills me to the bone). But, for a lot of older Americans who grew up with Madalyn Murray O'Hair leading a crusade against belief in God, they probably attribute the actions of her, and the actions of American Atheists to all atheists. It doesn't help that this all had the background of the Cold War, as Racer X mentioned. Having a polar opposition to an oppresively atheist country during that time doesn't help perceptions of atheists here in the U.S., especially when a small group of them were (and still might be) obsessed with throwing religious beliefs into the memory hole.

For myself, i try to keep in mind that for every obnoxious, zealous, irrational and hateful clone of Madalyn O'Hair or Richard Dawkins I have had the displeasure of meeting, there are just as many tolerant and rational ones out there ... I've just run into more of the former than the latter. x_x

I however don't share the ideas held by the studies--for example, the one about atheists supposedly being incapable of morality. While it's true that they, unlike many religions, do not have a religious belief that guides them to moral correctness, there is still that sense of right and wrong instilled in us by society--if we are to function as such, we have carry out the laws, fufill our rights and duties, right? You brazenly try to break society, or the trust of individuals, you're ruining it not only for them but ultimately yourself.

_________________

Oh yes indeed.... Once again, the loudest, most obnoxious voices speak for us all....

This has gotten me thinking about how atheists make their positions known. And I reckon that atheists are slightly disadvantaged - and that they disadvantage themselves - in terms of presenting their beliefs.

Atheists are different from the other groups mentioned in the survey - like Muslims and gays - because they don't have a definable community and don't make the same attempts of making their position and views public. So makes sense, perhaps, that theists don't trust them - they're not really getting a clear view of what atheism is about.

Few atheists try to present an objective discourse about their beliefs and how they work. Too often it's in the context of religion. As in (and we've all heard these diatribes): "Atheism is logical, Christianity isn't"; or "WTF how dare these Christians make my kids pray in school" etc etc. Instead of making theists understand the atheists' position, this only serves to entrench the divisions between the two groups. And it's detrimental to the idea of atheism as a self-defined belief independent of religion.

And very often, a person's atheism is private - another reason why atheism isn't very well understood in a wider context. Most atheists are indifferent to religious debate, and don't get involved. Therefore, when people like O'Hair start spouting their hate speech, the moderate atheists are nowhere to be seen.

Maybe it's just me, but I always thought of Atheism as being a religion as well--not necessarily a belief system freed from religion. The reasoning for my thinking this is basically that since there is no substantial scientific evidence to show that NO God or spiritual realm exists, it takes just as much faith to stand up and say that there is NO God as it does to say that there IS a God, since both viewpoints don't have substantial scientific evidence to verify their claims/beliefs.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Again, it's important to make a distinction between weak atheism and strong atheism: a weak atheist has the feeling that God doesn't exist, but won't assert the nonexistence of God; a strong atheist asserts the nonexistence of God. I am only a weak atheist because, as PianoManGidley said, there's no strong evidence against the existence of God.

I do still think that science favors the nonexistence of God because "you can't prove a negative". If God does exist, theoretically, you can prove it by pointing to him and saying "Hey! There he is! See? Told ya!" On the other hand, if God doesn't exist, you can't point at empty space and say "Look, there's no God there! Wow! I guess he just doesn't exist, huh?" From our point of view, there's always the possibility that God does exist but is hiding himself, whereas if God existed and we "saw" him, all doubt is removed. When you have this sort of situation in science, where there are two possibilities, one provable and the other unprovable, and there isn't sufficient evidence for the provable case, the usual practice is to assume the unprovable position until the other position is proven.

Of course, that's not a reason to assert that there is no God.

- Kef

It ain't just you. Didymus might remember the project (And I'm still working on it), but observing the behavior of atheists, and given the definitions of belief, knowledge, and faith, I've concluded they're just another religious belief, in a sense. It's just that it's a religion of denial or disbelief in God.

From a purely logical, scientific standpoint, nothing can be said about the existence or nonexistence of God (no matter how much Richard Dawkins claims otherwise). That leaves the question open to philosophy and faith. That's probably what irks me the most about atheist evangelists like Dawkins, claiming science has proven God's nonexistance. Weren't these same guys calling the Big Bang theory religious dogma a century ago? (EDIT: People like Furrykef who claim that science favors God's nonexistence fall into this category too, just not as forceful)

You can even argue that atheism is an organized religion. Sure, there's not as many organizations out there, but they exist, and in the most unlikely places. You'd think atheism wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Strong Mad's armpits as far as organizing in the Bible Belt goes. Yet from what I understand, American Atheists is headquartered here in Texas. There is a "North Texas Church of Freethought" network that caters to atheism, but also to agnostics. Heck, I've heard of organized atheist "churches" in the Deep South, too. Even Georgia.

By contrast, there's a lot of people who believe in God or believe a certain way, but may not be involved in organized religion. I'd be one of them, as I've pretty much never been to a church service and yet to be baptized.

And because it needs to be said in light of Furrykef posting right before me:

Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. That's something a lot of atheists need to learn. =_=;

_________________

Agreed, but it's still what science prefers until there is evidence one way or another.

- Kef

I think you're more than a bit biased when you say that. I'm pretty sure that when all human opinion is removed from an objective scientific viewpoint, they don't assume anything until it's tested. This is something I've observed with various highly debatable theories, such as the Big Rip or black matter. I see more "honestly we don't know" than "no it probably doesn't exist/won't happen" when you are not considering the scientist's individual opinion.

Individual scientists may indeed assume or believe one way or another. But science isn't founded on skepticism and pessimism, it's founded on methodical observation. Otherwise, what would drive scientific progress?

_________________

Trev, it almost sounds like Kef is saying that athiests have as much "scientific" ground to stand on as Christians here. He doesn't seem to think that just because he hasn't seen "proof" of God that it is proof God doesn't exist.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I don't think Trev's arguing on that point. I think he's just saying that it's not true that science "prefers" one perspective to another, when it's supposed to be impartial. I'd agree with him there.

That make sense.

Kef, if you keep on your with your whole "not calling religious people stupid" thing, I may just have to not hate athiests.

Props to people who are actually keeping this mature.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Bingo.

I totally agree that there is no, or little, scientific support for atheism or theism. However, when someone says science prefers (or has proven) atheism (or theism), that's when we get snakes on the plane.

Science is a method and a concept by which humans observe the universe to better understand the mechanics of nature. It is not a person, it is not some sort of oracle that already knows or can assume what is and what isn't when it can't observe something. It has very human limitations because it is only as good as our own senses and abilities. And sometimes what we observe and conclude is wrong, once we're able to see a bigger picture than before. And that too could also be wrong, when our horizons broaden.

Hence I get irked when someone says "science teaches us [x]" or "science prefers [x]."

_________________