Religion
Related: About this forumI don't believe in God, so why is it that I don't want to be labelled an atheist?
As a definition, atheism belongs to the same dull category as non-driver or ex-smoker; an inadequate guide to self
Ian Jack
guardian.co.uk
Friday 23 December 2011 14.30 EST
A couple of weeks ago, a nurse stood beside my hospital bed with a pen and a clipboard. After the questions about allergies and next of kin came the one about religion. None, I said, when she asked which one. Her English was hesitant. "You are
what do you call it
an atheist, then? Shall I write that?" "Please just write 'none', or 'no religion'," I said.
I don't know why I jibbed at the word atheist. It may have been Jonathan Miller's argument that non-belief in God is a narrow and entirely negative self-description that ignores all the other things you might either believe in or not, from homeopathy through necromancy to the Gaia theory. As a definition it belongs to the same dull category as "non-driver" or "ex-smoker"; not driving or no longer smoking, just like not believing in God, is an inadequate guide to the self. There are so many richer and more positive ways, or so you hope, to summarise your behaviour and beliefs and what you might add up to when the counting is done.
But after the nurse left with her questionnaire, I wondered about other motives for denying a truth about myself. Had it to do with social cowardice, or some ridiculous notion of politeness on my part? Three other men shared my bay in the ward, and who knew what beliefs they held? "Atheism" has such a scorning ring to it. I wouldn't have wanted them to think (though, of course, they wouldn't have cared less) that, as I lay beside them, I was quietly cackling at their misplaced faith in the other life to come. As it turned out, two of them may have declared at least the name of such a faith to the nurse, because the next day a visitor came into the ward and made a beeline for their beds, and talked briefly and earnestly to each man in a low voice.
The men were originally from Mayo and Dublin (I wrote about Joseph last week), and I can say only that their visitor seemed like a missionary woman, or my idea of one. She had cropped grey hair, a blue cardigan and flat shoes, and she looked like someone who ate sparingly and cared for God very much.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/23/ian-jack-not-an-atheist
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Thanks for posting it.
Atheism and prejudice, atheism and bravery, atheism and a basic desire to be honest with one's self.
MineralMan
(151,278 posts)about that individual's disbelief in deities. One can learn nothing about a person's character or personality from that label - only that the person disbelieves in supernatural entities.
It is a label for nothing more than that.
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)That tells you a LOT.
IMO
tama
(9,137 posts)AFAIK there can be atheists that believe in reincarnation and that sort of concept of Karma.
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)Doesn't mean to say there aren't any that
would classify themselves as such.
tama
(9,137 posts)PassingFair
(22,451 posts)I don't tell people I'm a "christian atheist".
I DO hear some people say that they are
buddhist atheists, but they don't mean
that they believe in reincarnation, just
that they hove to certain philosophies.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)PassingFair
(22,451 posts)If they did, they would probably be just "hindu".
Do you call yourself a "christian atheist"?
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)I've never been a Christian, so I'm certainly not a Christian atheist.
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)No atheist that I know believes that he/she will be rewarded or punished
in an "afterlife".
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)They post occasionally in this very forum.
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)PassingFair
(22,451 posts)BELIEVES in reincarnation. Whether they are "hindu atheists",
"christian atheists", "muslim atheists" or just plain "atheists".
Every atheist I know holds no "beliefs" about an afterlife.
They may hold "possibilities" beyond what we know.
But not "beliefs".
So, when a person tells me that they are an atheist,
I take it they neither WORSHIP any gods, nor do they
claim to hold "truths" about an afterlife.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)10?
20?
50?
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)Why the third degree?
I seriously have never met an atheist (admittedly, I don't live in India)
who believes that they will be rewarded in an afterlife.
So when someone tells me that they are an atheist, I make
the assumption that their behavior is not driven by fear of
punishment or reward in that afterlife.
I may, on occasion, be incorrect in my inference,
but it's a safer inference than not.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)PassingFair
(22,451 posts)No
Just
Vehl
(1,915 posts)please check my post #83
--------------------
[IMG]
[/IMG]
kwassa
(23,340 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)I had read the Wiki and a couple of other articles. Nothing about millions
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Vehl
(1,915 posts)Check my post #83 for a fuller explanation.
Unlike in the west where "Atheism" is a separate school of thought, Hinduism has Atheistic philosophies which go by various Indian/Hindu names.
Some philosophical schools of Hinduism which are either atheistic or have sub-schools which are atheistic
Advaita Vedanta (which means "not-two"...roughly translated as "non dualism" )
Samkhya: a strongly dualist theoretical exposition of mind and matter, that denies the existence of God.
Yoga: a school emphasizing meditation closely based on Samkhya
Nyaya or logics
Vaisheshika: an empiricist school of atomism
Advaita Vedanta is one of the largest Hindu schools of thought and has tens of millions of followers.
hope this helps
--------------------
[IMG]
[/IMG]
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Thanks for the specifics.
Vehl
(1,915 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)that atheism equals with belief in materialism of whatever belief that excludes possibility of reincarnation? Atheists have been saying that it's just about disbelief in god, now you are saying there's an atheist belief system?
If one gets into Buddhism, reincarnation is big part of the whole package. And there was a thread while a go on RT where some poster talked about hindu atheism.
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)Which god are we talking about?
tama
(9,137 posts)who is hero of many atheists, believed in Spinoza's God.
As for Mammon, atheism is hardly a vaccination against worship of Mammon any more than Christianity is. And in it's way, Mammon is quite supernatural... (ie. money and property as control over (lat. 'super') nature).
Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)Of course, by Spinoza's God, he merely meant the laws of the Universe, rendering the statement meaningless.
Einstein was an atheist and a freethinker, by any reasonable definition of those terms, i.e. a non-believer in supernatural deities, and one who doesn't believe any area of knowledge is a-priori off-limits to investigation.
Expanding the definitions of atheist and freethinker beyond that is rather meaningless as far as I'm concerned.
tama
(9,137 posts)"Einstein firmly rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)I'd like to have some of them explain to us Einstein's "theory" and proofs of general and special relativity.
The concept of space/time, and the concept of mass/energy and the big bang, I'd like to hear how believers can explain that with a god in the middle of it.
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)Is nature.
NOT a "god" who rewards or punishes on the
basis of behavior.
Vehl
(1,915 posts)The reason most people in the west, or even outside the Dharmic religions/philosophies(Hinduism,Buddhism, Jainism) have not heard a lot about Hindu Atheists is usually due to one (or more) of the following reasons
1 We never called ourselves Hindu's in the first place...let alone Hindu Atheists (the term "Hindu" is hardly used by Hindus, and even when used, it's almost always only used when speaking to a non-Hindu)..add the fact that we still use the names of the Hindu schools of philosophy instead of the English term "atheist" and one can see why you don't see Hindu's going about claiming they are "hindu atheists". In fact every-time I look at my signature on DU, i mentally cringe...because imo its redundant, because for us Hindus Atheism has always been a part of Hinduism..at least in our neck of the woods. So claiming Hindu Atheist is like claiming Human man..or something to that effect.
2 Atheism was not called "Atheism" in India. It was found in many of the Hindu philosophies and usually go by the particular name of the philosophy. In my case, I usually refer to myself as a practitioner of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy. ( "Advaita" roughly translates to English as "non-dualist" ) . For someone well versed in Hindu/Buddhist philosophy, the term "Advaita Vedantin' (Which btw has no exclusive claim to Atheism within Hinduism..cos many other Hindu Philosophies also have Atheism in them) is more than enough. Even online debates and discussions are done using these terminologies. So it is understandable most people will not be aware of this unless they know the terminology.
3 What most Westerners(I hasten to add that I hate to generalize) know about Hinduism is usually rephrased and reworded books and views on that "way of life" (not exactly a "religion" ) by outsiders, who often enough tend to be not only followers of the Abrahamic religions, but missionaries as well. They could not comprehend a system that was so very different from the Abrahamic "religious" worldview that they knowingly or unknowingly translated/confused Hinduism with what they thought were similar ideas/notions found in their own religions. This leads to some hilarious pieces of "common knowledge" about Hinduism.
A good example of this would be the oft repeated claim that Hindus have 330 Million gods.
This piece of "info" has been so overused in the Western media that its taken for granted. For anyone well versed in Hindu philosophy the answer makes perfect sense. The "correct" answer to the 330 million gods statement is only to be found when one looks at India's population(at the time this question was asked). it was 330 million. The Hindu philosopher who answered 330 million when asked "how many gods does Hinduism have", gave a very profound answer.... 330 Million gods, 330 million Indians. In other words, one god per Indian...in the more philosophical Hindu schools...it means each person is a god. Not only does this zen koan-like answer contain the highest form of Hindu philosophy (There is no "god"..if there is ..then everyone is god (which btw would devalue the notion of "god' to such an extent that it does not mater anymore)) but it also underscores the Atheistic views which are core to Hinduism.
sadly the person who listened to this answer(an answer which most Hindu/Buddhist scholars would have no problem understanding) took it at face value and wrote down that Hindus have 330 million gods
anyways, here are some samples of Atheistic ideas in Hinduism
Fate or divine dispensation is merely a convention which has come to be regarded as truth by being repeatedly declared to be true. If this god is truly the ordainer of everything in this world, of what meaning is any action, and whom should one teach at all?
The Concise Yoga Vasistha, Translated by Swami Venkatesananda State University of New York Press, 1984
Fortune or God is merely a convention which has come to be regarded as truth by being repeatedly declared to be true. If this God or fate is truly the ordainer of everything in this world, of what meaning is any action? The simpleminded who believe in God might well jump into a fire, trusting in God's grace to keep them safe. God will make us bathe, give to the poor and do our spiritual practices. What is the use of the exhortations of the scriptures if God will do everything? In this world, excepting a corpse, everything is active and such activity yields its appropriate result. In this world no one sees God, but we do see mind and intelligence. There are not two things, intelligence and God. Only intelligence is. If between two people of the same intelligence one fails and the other succeeds, God is not the cause, but laziness and effort are. If one thinks God is the director and doer of all things, let this whole world sleep, God will do everything. This may be a consoling outlook, but in truth, there is no God. It was foolish ones who created God. The followers of God will perish. The sages became so by individual effort. Please tell me why the heroic men of valor, the wise and the learned should wait for God? If astrologers predict that a certain man will become wise and he does so without ever studying - - then I will accept that God is great.
Rama, this sage Vishvamitra became a Brahma-Rishi by self-effort; all of us Rishis have attained self-knowledge by self-effort alone. Hence, renounce the chimera of God's providence and apply yourself to self-effort.
Sanskrit had a larger atheistic literature than what exists in any other classical language. Madhava Acharya, the remarkable 14th century philosopher, wrote this rather great book called Sarvadarshansamgraha, which discussed all the religious schools of thought within the Hindu structure. The first chapter is "Atheism" a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism.
I have posted a few threads, posts on DU about Atheism in Hinduism. I'll post the links here.
The God Project: Hinduism as Open-Source Software/Faith
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x285480
Quick heads up, Atheism has always been/is an accepted philosophical tradition in Hinduism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=314847&mesg_id=315308
Are there any practicing Hindus on DU?
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x270091
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism
Some contemporary examples of Hindu Atheists
1 Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India
2 Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the president of Hindu Mahasabha, described himself as a Hindu atheist. He is credited for developing a Hindu nationalist political ideology he termed as Hindutva ("Hinduness" ) . All the Hindu nationalists in India Consider him to be their founding father.
3 Amartya Sen - The Nobel laureate and a self proclaimed Hindu Atheist.
Hinduism is a collection of philosophies so diverse that its hard to define.It is a way of life. Hindus themselves call it by many names, the most common being "Sanatana Dharma" which means "The Eternal way".
"I think I have understood Hinduism correctly when I say that it is eternal, all-embracing and flexible enough to suit all situations."
~Mahatma Gandhi, as quoted in Relentless Brush Strokes : A Memoir
Even one of the most ardent of Missionaries, one who wanted to convert all of Asia, Monier Williams had this to say about Hinduism
"has something to offer which is suited to all minds. Its very strength lies in its infinite adaptability to the infinite diversity of human characters and human tendencies"
~ Monier Williams
I DO hear some people say that they are
buddhist atheists, but they don't mean
that they believe in reincarnation, just
that they hove to certain philosophies.
Belief in Reincarnation and/or karma are not required to be considered a Hindu/Buddhist. And btw Reincarnation and Karma do not require deities.
Furthermore the Hindu and Buddhist philosophies apply "Two Truth's doctrine"
the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
In the highest form of "Truth" in Hinduism/Buddhism there is
1 No God
2 No karma
3 No reincarnation
all the "karma" and 'reincarnation" go out the window the moment one becomes enlightened, as the aforementioned concepts are crutches for those in the path to enlightenment.
hope this helps
----------------------------------
[IMG]
[/IMG]
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)and I have met "Gora's" son:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/gora12.htm
I also admire Rabindranath Tagore and, although
technically he converted to Buddhism, my all-time favorite
Indian political hero is Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.
Do YOU believe in reincarnation?
Vehl
(1,915 posts)At least according to the Hindu school of philosophy I agree with. I do not believe in anything without evidence to back it up. Amongst the 4 "paths" (not the same as philosophies) in Hinduism I use the Jnana-Yoga(Jnana = knowledge). Knowledge is what i seek.
I do not know much about Gora,Thank you for the link. I'm pretty sure Rabindranath Tagore was a Hindu. Ironically Buddha was also a Hindu and considered as such by Hindu's to this day. It was his followers, especially a few generations later made "Buddhism" into a religion. There were many philosophers in Hinduism who created new philosophies and reform movements, and Buddha was one of the excellent ones of his era. This might not go down that well with some Buddhists who crave a separate identity, but I'm yet to see any evidence that he wanted to start a new religion/way.
A few weeks ago I posted my take on the difference (or lack thereof) between Buddhism and certain Hindu philosophies. Check it out if interested
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=2291
Ps: On a related note, I once started a thread on Tagore, commemorating his 150th anniversary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1061541
I like Ambedkar for the excellent constitution he wrote, and for speaking up for the downtrodden classes. However I do find his association of caste with Hinduism rather misleading. It is my opinion, along with most Hindus that Caste is a social construct (similar to the feudal system in Europe) and not a religious one. As all systems of social stratification around the world, it will be used by those in power to keep those under them in check. The kings and lords of europe used the church to prop up their divine right to rule, and those who held power in the subcontinent used their local religious leaders(cos Hinduism is not a "organized" religion) to do the same.
Good examples of caste crossing religious boundaries can be found in Srilanka, a Buddhist majority country. The Srilankan Buddhists are very caste-oriented and have a caste system that exists to this day. In fact its so ingrained that even Mahanayaka's(chief priest of Buddhist sect's/monasteries) have to be the same caste as the dominant cast in the region. Thus Ambedkar was incorrect to assume that by converting to Buddhism he will be leaving caste behind. He could have done more by siding with many progressive Hindu's of that era to eradicate caste instead.
regards
--------------------
[IMG]
[/IMG]
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)"McCabe calls Tagore an atheist, the Unitarians claim he was a Unitarian, and some say he was a unitarian atheist, a category not uncommon among Unitarians. The Tagore Center in Urbana, Illinois, holds annual festivals in Tagores honor. When Tagore visited Urbana in 1912, he addressed the Unitarian congregation and returned several times to lecture. "
And I think that Ambedkar was a hero for leading the dalits to drink in Mahad and for standing up to Gandhi.
I don't know how he could have done more for his people.
Thanks for all the info!
opiate69
(10,129 posts)It's good to see you again, Vehl!
Its good to see you again too Opiate!
--------------------
[IMG]
[/IMG]
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2011, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)
I think most Buddhists are atheists, and believe in reincarnation.
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)All I am saying, and I'm not saying that I have polled everyone
in the world, as one poster seems to think I should, is that
here in AMERICA, where I live, or in Scotland or England, where
most of my relatives are, when someone tells me they are an
ATHEIST, I can PRETTY MUCH assume that they don't have
"beliefs" about an after life that includes reward or punishment.
As strongly as the assumption that a "catholic" believes in the
divinity of Jesus. I realize that some catholics might NOT.
Jeez.
Sorry, not rolling my eyes at you.
MineralMan
(151,278 posts)I'm curious. What does that "tell" you?
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)At least I do.
Not from a place of fear or hope of future profit or punishment.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to identify himself as a vegetarian? That's as much a narrow and negative self-description as the label atheist, and also has the potential to engender the same discomfort among meat-eaters that he was afraid of causing in religious believers. Fear of social stigma may be closest to the truth.
tinrobot
(12,063 posts)With the rise of "new atheists' or whatever you want to call Hitchens, Dawkins, etc, there is an outspoken group of people who have become activists about their beliefs/non-beliefs. They draw a lot of attention to themselves, both positive and negative.
Perhaps not wanting to call oneself an "atheist" is simply a desire not to be labeled as such an activist. Some people simply don't care one way or the other about religious matters and feel no need to be associated with activists who are outspoken for atheism and/or against religion.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)tinrobot
(12,063 posts)Are you still upset about women's suffrage and prohibition as well?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Damn right I am still upset about them. That's why so many "outspoken" non-believers choose to be confrontational: never again will they allow oppressive religious beliefs to be forced upon everyone.
I would think you would be against that, too, no?
tinrobot
(12,063 posts)Others can claim the right not to be associated with outspoken and confrontational people.
I think trying to force the label of "atheist" on someone who chooses not to accept the label is just as bad as forcing a religious belief on someone who also doesn't want it.
Just as long as they are tolerant of others, people should be free to believe whatever they want and label themselves however they want. It's a pretty simple concept.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Or is it not, like atheist, simply an accurate descriptor of a group which lacks a certain attribute?. THAT is a VERY "simple concept" - words mean things, whether anybody in particular or general likes it or not.
tinrobot
(12,063 posts)Baldness is a physical attribute, atheism is a subjective viewpoint.
People are free to label themselves as atheists if they think the label fits.
If they don't like that label, they can freely choose another label that fits better, or choose no label at all.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If they choose not to refer to themselves as "bald", that's their business, but it doesn't mean they aren't bald, as the term is commonly used. Similarly, someone who doesn't believe in any gods is an atheist, whether they choose to apply that label to themselves or not. Not applying the label in no way changes the meaning of the word.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Bald is a word. It has a meaning in standard English. Atheist is a word. It also has a meaning in standard English. Like the millions of other words in standard English, describing anything from colors to opinions to objects, their meaning does not depend on an individual's opinion of what they should mean. You can no more change what "atheist" means than a bald man can change the word "bald" means. Red is red, bald is bald, atheist is atheist. Individual atheists can hide behind "agnostic" or "not religious" or "not interested in the question" all they want but they are like every single bald man hiding behind wigs and caps and "shaved" heads - merely trying to pretend a word they do not like does not apply to them. If they don't believe in any gods they are atheists. What silly machinations they try to avoid admitting it changes nothing.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Many words change meaning over time. The "absence of belief" definition is relatively new; the general understanding of the word "atheist" among the public has been that an atheist is someone who actively disbelieves in God.
I would suggest that much of the conflict between believers and non-believers is that they are arguing over two different interpretations of the same word.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)People who aren't idiots know how to use references however, and understand that multiple meanings still apply even when new ones are grafted on. Or does the word "green" no longer refer to a color as well as its neologistic meaning as environmentally conscious?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The so-called new atheist definition is different than the one much of the world understands as being THE definition of the word atheist. All I am pointing out is that the argument might be about different understandings of the word's meaning. Two sides talking past each other. I am not saying that either definition is invalid.
tama
(9,137 posts)It's not so simple to define "bald"...
dmallind
(10,437 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)If not you're blind.90 by the way. And the law was only abolished in 2008.
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)The person is an atheist and that is that. The label merely lets us know that the person lacks belief in God(s). Any assumption about collective attitude of those who share the label comes from the mind of the person who holds prejudice against them.
An atheist who hides from the atheist label just because other people cannot deal with their own prejudices and because other people will use the broad brush to categorize the individual atheist with other atheists they view in a negative light, is only enabling prejudice.
LARED
(11,735 posts)Is a perception of his own making.
It's simply a word, like thousands of other words that are used to describe ourselves.
tinrobot
(12,063 posts)There are words we used historically to describe people of various ethnicity that we simply cannot use anymore.
The word "liberal" kind of lost its power in the 1980's and was replaced with "progressive" by many.
The word "Santorum" was only used as a surname until Dan Savage managed to create an additional meaning.
On the surface, "atheism" is simply not believing in god. However, if the word becomes politically or emotionally charged through the actions of some, then the connotations and meaning of that word can change.
LARED
(11,735 posts)the author was in one hand provoking an emotional and negative connotation of the word atheist and complaining about a negative label that as far as I can tell is largely of his own making. As far as I can tell scornful is not a attribute normally associated with atheism.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and that one might not want to associate with the label for fear of said bad treatment?
LARED
(11,735 posts)No more than any other reason that people get treated badly.
Fat people something get treated badly
Chrisitans sometimes get treated badly
Lawyers sometimes get treated badly
Trash men sometimes get treated badly
African americans sometimes get treated badly
Blond people sometimes get treated badly
Skinny people sometimes get treated badly
Short people sometimes get treated badly
Smart people sometimes get treated badly
Dim people sometimes get treated badly
Old people sometimes get treated badly
Young people sometimes get treated badly
Atheists sometimes get treated badly
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)the surveys that put atheists on the bottom of minority groups. People would rather vote for a Muslim in the US than an atheist. They would rather their children marry any other minority than an atheist.
So say that "young people" and "atheists" are equal in their "sometimes get treated badly" is a gross understatement born of ignorance or deliberate obtuseness.
LARED
(11,735 posts)Like not wanting to vote for athesits, or not wanting their children to marry an athesit.
That does not equate to being treated badly.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)He doesn't want to see that he's an atheist in that he denies any god because he sees the question as pointless. He lacks a belief in any god and there is no point to assign a label to this.
LARED
(11,735 posts)that is seen in the more vocal atheists. They tend to have a zeal and passion for spreading the news about their lack of belief or "belief in reason alone" that is quite similar to even the most evangelistic Christian. Christians at least have a scriptural command to spread the news. The atheist has no doctrines inherent in Atheism to provoke what would be a discussion about something that does not exist in their minds.
They even tend to mimic the Christian in desiring people to believe there is significant overt persecution for their beliefs.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Atheists tend to have very little "zeal and passion" when religion leaves them and the laws of their society the fuck alone.
Isn't being the most despised and least accepted minority in America "overt" enough for you?
LARED
(11,735 posts)Sorry, I don't want to diminish the prospect that your holding of unpopular views could cause you some grief, but we live in a world of secular laws where religious views have very minimal influence on our laws; where people are allowed to voice opinions contrary to your POV.
When theists start breaking laws, interfering with your rights, let me know, because so far I see very little evidence atheists are treated with discrimination.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)What to the following laws in the US have in common:
Anti-abortion laws (which are making a comeback)
Laws against gay marriage
Anti-sodomy laws
Blue laws
You are just being silly if you don't think religion pokes its nose into the everyday life of even those that aren't religious.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)specifically from patriarchal religions, which include all three major monotheisms currently in practice in the world.
the perceived need by politicians to pass laws that put god into our secular govt that occurred in the 1950s (the pledge, our currency, our motto) stemmed from an association of communism with atheism as well.
preachers got a lot of mileage off the Soviets. ka-ching. and American politicians used the USSR's adoption of atheism, rather than the monarchy's alignment with the Orthodox church, as a way to arouse fear in voters.
Religion also interferes with the teaching of science in the U.S.
with political decisions about issues such as stem cell research and thus treatments for diabetes and other diseases.
with Americans' ability to make informed political decisions...
and don't forget that the south used religion as a way to justify slavery and then segregation - as late as the 1960s.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)laws requiring the teaching of creationism, or "alternate theories" in public school science classrooms, laws providing "conscience exceptions" to medical providers..the list goes on. Not to mention that our Middle Eastern policy is largely driven by Christian Zionism, and that we refuse as a country to provide any foreign aid that might conceivable be used for contraception or family planning of any sort.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)as to the NUMEROUS laws in our country that are clearly the result of religion pushing into the political realm?
LARED
(11,735 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Or feminist. Or any other minority.
Read your post again, and imagine you were doing just that.
Would you be proud of your response?
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Where exactly do you think discrimination in marriage, limits on reproductive choice, Blue laws and the like come from? Where are the secular causes for them?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2011, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)
Let me add another case in point.
There are a great many local ordinances banning liquor sales within some proximity to a church. If you own a restaurant within the proscribed distance, you can't be the local beer and pizza place for the Monday night football crowd; you can't serve wine with the steak. By law, you are not eligible for a liquor license. Religion does not leave the laws "the fuck alone." Not at all.
I also believe that religious thinking shapes policy in more subtle, more dangerous ways. Armageddonists should be forbidden by law to hold public office.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I did notice my mistake earlier. Will edit now.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The discussion that the atheists you refer to intend to provoke is about rampant belief in things for which there is no good evidence and the effects of that belief on society. Such belief absolutely does exist. And it is the world views of rationality (of which atheism is only one facet, not the reverse) and of anti-theism which lead them to it, not the "doctrines" of atheism (which do not exist, except as a straw man in failed arguments such as this).
And if you can cite any claims from atheists for "significant overt persecution" for their "beliefs", please do so. Claims of discrimination do not qualify, btw.
LARED
(11,735 posts)The only quibble I have is that it is quite common to hear from atheists on this board that those holding atheist views are the most despised and unaccepted minority in America.
Some that believe they are a despised minority surely must also feel persecuted.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"Surely"? "Must"? Based on what? Your need for your contention to be true? I asked for specific quotes from atheists alleging (as you claimed) "significant overt persecution". If you can't supply any such thing to actually support your claim, then just say so. I told you right off the bat that discrimination and persecution are not the same, nor does a contention of one necessarily imply a contention of the other.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)because I am in a college town with people from 39 diff. nations and all sorts of cultures and belief systems.
however, if I lived in the south, as I did when I was younger, I would most definitely feel like christians were an oppressive majority. I wouldn't feel persecuted, however, because I think fundies are too stupid to care what they think.
here's how I see those people I knew when I was younger. the woman in the pink shirt is a total bitch. I would love to slap the shit out of her just because she deserves it. these sorts of people, who are like sooooooooooo many white people I knew in the south, are idiotic and worthless imo. I detest them.
If you don't recognize this bitchy attitude from fundies - you haven't spent much time around them.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)I'm fat. I'm an atheist. I'm not scared of, ashamed of or sensitive about either - for the same reason: both are simply accurate descriptors.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)of my system of beliefs. Realist would also be acceptable.
Atheist accurately describes what I do not believe. I don't believe in astrology, either, but I don't think anyone would attempt to define me by that particular absence of belief.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)as Christian either. Particularly since the rise of the fundamentalist, religious right.
Whenever a "tag" may lead others to draw some conclusions about what kind of person you may be, you may be inclined to avoid having that tag attached to you.
onion belt
(37 posts)who cannot see the One in Divinity!
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)Lots of people say they're progressive, explicitly and implicitly choosing that word over liberal for the same reason.