Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Let's say there is a family of atheists. Do they, generally speaking, bury their relatives in the same way?

I'm sure they don't just put them in the fridge to look at later but I'm really not sure how they go about this.

as an atheist I intend to have my body butchered and torn apart for organs and science.

What is done after that is of no consequence to me...

Though I don't know if that addresses your questions, and my family isn't atheist, so obviously they will have a real funeral service.

I guess my answer would be "whatever the dead person wants done with their body". If they didn't say, I'd probably send them to be butchered for organs and science.

Originally posted by chithappens
Let's say there is a family of atheists. Do they, generally speaking, bury their relatives in the same way?

I'm sure they don't just put them in the fridge to look at later but I'm really not sure how they go about this.

It all depends on where in the world these people live. Most people follow the customs of their society.

Originally posted by inimalist
as an atheist I intend to have my body butchered and torn apart for organs and science.

What is done after that is of no consequence to me...

Though I don't know if that addresses your questions, and my family isn't atheist, so obviously they will have a real funeral service.

I guess my answer would be "whatever the dead person wants done with their body". If they didn't say, I'd probably send them to be butchered for organs and science.

It does answer my question. I just wasn't sure if there was a conclusive understanding that the general Atheist came to that I was unaware of.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on where in the world these people live. Most people follow the customs of their society.

That's about all I know also. Just hit me while writing a poem about death.

Originally posted by chithappens
It does answer my question. I just wasn't sure if there was a conclusive understanding that the general Atheist came to that I was unaware of.



That's about all I know also. Just hit me while writing a poem about death.

I think a sky burial to really cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial

its an interesting question

I mean, just because people don't believe in God or an afterlife doesn't mean that there isn't a strong emotional response or that, pragmatically, something needs to be done with the body.

I don't really know. Thinking about it now, the only real things I can say for sure about my own death are how I don't want it to take place. I'd be offended (i guess i wouldn't be, I'd be dead) were I buried on church grounds in a formal ceremony.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think a sky burial to really cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial

The only reason I'm opposed to this is because I used to be scared that when I cut the Thanksgiving turkey, that the turkey would still feel it while he was dead.

I was a weird kid...

Originally posted by inimalist
its an interesting question

I mean, just because people don't believe in God or an afterlife doesn't mean that there isn't a strong emotional response or that, pragmatically, something needs to be done with the body.

I don't really know. Thinking about it now, the only real things I can say for sure about my own death are how I don't want it to take place. I'd be offended (i guess i wouldn't be, I'd be dead) were I buried on church grounds in a formal ceremony.

Hmmm, well you might want to talk to them about that . Perhaps I should start calling people also

Originally posted by chithappens
The only reason I'm opposed to this is because I used to be scared that when I cut the Thanksgiving turkey, that the turkey would still feel it while he was dead.

I was a weird kid...

And what has changed. jk

Cremation. Over here, Christians object to the practice. It is assumed that if a body has been destroyed by fire, it is impossible for it to be resurrected later and reunited to the soul and spirit.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on where in the world these people live. Most people follow the customs of their society.

I'll co-sign this. It's not so much a religious thing as it is a cultural one.

Personally, I'm of the mind that funerals are for the closure of the living, not the deceased. I'll probably have a few options, but let my family (provided I have one) decide what to do...I'd rather do what's most comfortable for them. So it won't be something I don't want, but it also won't be principally about me but about those closest to me.

Originally posted by chithappens
Let's say there is a family of atheists. Do they, generally speaking, bury their relatives in the same way?

I'm sure they don't just put them in the fridge to look at later but I'm really not sure how they go about this.


Pretty much


Anyone would want to show respect for thier deceased loved ones.

God bless the souless, for they will inherit ..........Umm.........Ahhh..........

Is it Wake time yet? Hear it's a great buffet.

In the mean time let us pray for those lost brothers and sisters that god will grant them peace.

*passes chicken*

Originally posted by Storm
Cremation. Over here, Christians object to the practice. It is assumed that if a body has been destroyed by fire, it is impossible for it to be resurrected later and reunited to the soul and spirit. Seriously? Haha, you belgian weirdos.

Originally posted by Storm
Cremation. Over here, Christians object to the practice. It is assumed that if a body has been destroyed by fire, it is impossible for it to be resurrected later and reunited to the soul and spirit.

But having it turn into a rotting husk, laying in a pool of it's own putrescence in a sealed box is okay for the soul?

Drifting, drifting slowly down to the whips of winds. Deeply incensed with everything around me.
Nothing cumbersome, but infusing lightness.



Like that?

I want to have a memorial when I die, but I want my body to be absent. I want my body to have already been cremated, and then I want my family and friends to have a big after party with BBQ and beer and games. I don't want everyone to mope around and cry when I die.

I could care less what happens with my ashes. Maybe mix a sprinkle into a shot glass and let everyone drink my ashes with a shot of their favorite liquor.

Originally posted by Impediment
I want to have a memorial when I die, but I want my body to be absent. I want my body to have already been cremated, and then I want my family and friends to have a big after party with BBQ and beer and games. I don't want everyone to mope around and cry when I die.

I could care less what happens with my ashes. Maybe mix a sprinkle into a shot glass and let everyone drink my ashes with a shot of their favorite liquor. I read somewhere that did happen Could be an urban legend

I think it is likely that there are millions of atheist on Church owned graveyards. Society as it is just sets a ceremonial burial as standard. And many atheists have griefing religious family. Obviously that was addressed in the initial post with the "atheist family"....just sayin'

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Funerals are for the living, anyways. Damn selfish bastards pitt_fist

Originally posted by Impediment
I want to have a memorial when I die, but I want my body to be absent. I want my body to have already been cremated, and then I want my family and friends to have a big after party with BBQ and beer and games. I don't want everyone to mope around and cry when I die.

I could care less what happens with my ashes. Maybe mix a sprinkle into a shot glass and let everyone drink my ashes with a shot of their favorite liquor.

I like it, but I would invite all the people I don't like and not tell them until after they had finished me off..

Here lies dear ol Fred
A great big rock fell on his head.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I like it, but I would invite all the people I don't like and not tell them until after they had finished me off.. After that many drinks I don't think they would care

Originally posted by Da Pittman
After that many drinks I don't think they would care

Was that a fat joke?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Was that a fat joke? Yes and no

You know how many drinks you would have to server so that the drinks are not mud with the ashes? Unless you have a lot of enemies

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Yes and no

You know how many drinks you would have to server so that the drinks are not mud with the ashes? Unless you have a lot of enemies

Good point.

I'd probably offer my body to science or (assuming I died bloated with disease) be loaded into a catapult and launched into a city.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'd rather do what's most comfortable for them.

What would Dawkins say?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What would Dawkins say?



I dunno...what do you think he'd say? I find he's often mischaracterized as far more angry than his writing and speaking suggests.

And I did say I'd have a few options, and my family could decide between them.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


I dunno...what do you think he'd say? I find he's often mischaracterized as far more angry than his writing and speaking suggests.

And I did say I'd have a few options, and my family could decide between them.

Wait . . . what else could possibly be used to judge him? Telepathy?

I was reading an article in the NewYorker and it quoted him as rejecting the idea of doing something simply because one might take comfort in it.

My experience with funerals is that they were planned and arranged how the deceased would have wanted it. A funeral is in their memory and honour. If the deceased categorically was against a burial/cremation, then the family should respect those wishes.

Imo, a funeral should reflect the life of the person being remembered. It would give me more comfort to know that the funeral arrangements met my loved ones' wishes rather than mine.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wait . . . what else could possibly be used to judge him? Telepathy?

I was reading an article in the NewYorker and it quoted him as rejecting the idea of doing something simply because one might take comfort in it.

No, you misunderstood. I'm saying his writing isn't as angry as he is often portrayed by his opponents and the media. Having read a fair amount of his stuff (including The God Delusion) I keep waiting for the angry tirades and faulty logic brought about by vindictiveness. I have yet to find it, and often find that he's one of the more poetic proponents of science and can inspire sublime awe in his reader through his descriptions, metaphors, and humility in the face of reason.

Didn't read the article you mentioned, and I'm not familiar with the quote. I'd need to see the quote in its original context to really comment on it. Sounds bites and quotes are easy to selectively pick in order to create a falsely polarized image of a person, and that's largely the problem with the media's protrayal of him...he isn't quoted or video clipped unless it's to say something incendiary, and it's usually in a larger context that is lost.

...

And if you're right about his opinion in this case, meh. I don't have an obligation to agree with Dawkins just because he's an atheist (though I usually do). I also, again, said that I'd have a few options pre-selected for them to choose from, so I wouldn't be relinquishing total control just to appease my family/friends. A perfect example of the dangers of extracting the point from its context.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, you misunderstood. I'm saying his writing isn't as angry as he is often portrayed by his opponents and the media. Having read a fair amount of his stuff (including The God Delusion) I keep waiting for the angry tirades and faulty logic brought about by vindictiveness. I have yet to find it, and often find that he's one of the more poetic proponents of science and can inspire sublime awe in his reader through his descriptions, metaphors, and humility in the face of reason.

Then you haven't looked at them from the other side in even the slightest way. I have read some of his stuff, clearly he's intelligent and logical but he's also and ******* that has a very poor understanding of what he's talking about and seems unable to admit it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Didn't read the article you mentioned, and I'm not familiar with the quote. I'd need to see the quote in its original context to really comment on it. Sounds bites and quotes are easy to selectively pick in order to create a falsely polarized image of a person, and that's largely the problem with the media's protrayal of him...he isn't quoted or video clipped unless it's to say something incendiary, and it's usually in a larger context that is lost.

I believe it was along the lines of:

A member of the audience mentioned that God brings a measure of comfort to some people.
"Just because it's comforting doesn't make it true," replied Dawkins.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And if you're right about his opinion in this case, meh. I don't have an obligation to agree with Dawkins just because he's an atheist (though I usually do). I also, again, said that I'd have a few options pre-selected for them to choose from, so I wouldn't be relinquishing total control just to appease my family/friends. A perfect example of the dangers of extracting the point from its context.

. . . or making a joke . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then you haven't looked at them from the other side in even the slightest way. I have read some of his stuff, clearly he's intelligent and logical but he's also and ******* that has a very poor understanding of what he's talking about and seems unable to admit it.

This is very general. I can't refute it if I don't even know what issues you think he's uninformed about, let alone specific instances. The few times he rails heavily against religion are usually against extremist versions of it that are potentially dangerous. Most people, even religious people, would concur with these statements.

Secondly, he pulls no punches when it comes to speaking against religious belief, and is very adamant in his beliefs, but most see this as an affront to religious people. There is a distinction between the belief and the believer, and it's very possible to attack one but not the other. The fact that what he's saying is so distasteful to many religious people causes them to see it as a personal affront, rather than what it is: a frank but respectful challenge to their beliefs. I see no problem with being angry at religion in debate, but it is an entirely different matter to attack those who are religious...in this I agree with him, and don't think he crosses that line except in the earlier cases of extremism that I mentioned.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe it was along the lines of:

A member of the audience mentioned that God brings a measure of comfort to some people.
"Just because it's comforting doesn't make it true," replied Dawkins.

That doesn't even apply to my point. Nowhere in my response did I mention religion. I merely said that I felt like funerals were for the living, and I'd rather do something that made the comfortable. I didn't say "Well, I'll concede and do the religious stuff." so you're reading into it too much. Again...I'd have a few choices, all of which are acceptable to me, and they could choose from them.

So please, how does this clash with Dawkins' statement? There's nothing true or false about a funeral...I'm talking about closure for the living, not the validity of a belief. He wasn't saying not to do something if it's comforting, only that comfort doesn't make something any more false...two different matters entirely.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
. . . or making a joke . . .

So wait. This was all a joke?

How far have they gotten on the whole cryogenics science?

Being frozen doesn't sound half bad.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is very general. I can't refute it if I don't even know what issues you think he's uninformed about, let alone specific instances. The few times he rails heavily against religion are usually against extremist versions of it that are potentially dangerous. Most people, even religious people, would concur with these statements.

Secondly, he pulls no punches when it comes to speaking against religious belief, and is very adamant in his beliefs, but most see this as an affront to religious people. There is a distinction between the belief and the believer, and it's very possible to attack one but not the other. The fact that what he's saying is so distasteful to many religious people causes them to see it as a personal affront, rather than what it is: a frank but respectful challenge to their beliefs. I see no problem with being angry at religion in debate, but it is an entirely different matter to attack those who are religious...in this I agree with him, and don't think he crosses that line except in the earlier cases of extremism that I mentioned.

My problem in simplest terms is that in what I have read he comes across entirely as an absolutist. I think I've had this argument with you before.

In the work of his that I've read he doesn't talk about something being wrong with extremist, radical, fundamentalist types; it's nothing but a general assault on what people believe. Perhaps you miss the fact that some people define themselves by their faith, it is not always possible to separate the individual and the faith no matter how much you might want to. That's the same trap that people who "hate homosexuality but have nothing against gays" fall into.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That doesn't even apply to my point. Nowhere in my response did I mention religion. I merely said that I felt like funerals were for the living, and I'd rather do something that made the comfortable. I didn't say "Well, I'll concede and do the religious stuff." so you're reading into it too much. Again...I'd have a few choices, all of which are acceptable to me, and they could choose from them.

So please, how does this clash with Dawkins' statement? There's nothing true or false about a funeral...I'm talking about closure for the living, not the validity of a belief.

My initial recollection was incorrect. I was sitting in a dentists office passing time. You've taken what was meant to simply be an off hand joke and blown it out of proportion.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
He wasn't saying not to do something if it's comforting, only that comfort doesn't make something any more false...two different matters entirely.

More comically he seemed to completely miss the point of the comment. But nevermind.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So wait. This was all a joke?

The initial: "What would Dawkins think?" was meant to be humorous.

Originally posted by llagrok
How far have they gotten on the whole cryogenics science?

Being frozen doesn't sound half bad.

they are still unable to prevent a cell from being destroyed by the freezing process, given that solids take up more space than liquids, and many of the membranes are destroyed

I remember hearing something about them possibly accomplishing thawing at a cellular level.. but don't quote me...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My problem in simplest terms is that in what I have read he comes across entirely as an absolutist. I think I've had this argument with you before.

In the work of his that I've read he doesn't talk about something being wrong with extremist, radical, fundamentalist types; it's nothing but a general assault on what people believe. Perhaps you miss the fact that some people define themselves by their faith, it is not always possible to separate the individual and the faith no matter how much you might want to. That's the same trap that people who "hate homosexuality but have nothing against gays" fall into.

But the flip side of that is not speaking out against something that you see as a potential evil, simply to be respectful to others. I realize that sometimes you can't separate the belief from the believer. Those people will be insulted when someone speaks against religious belief. It's an unavoidable but necessary evil. They need to realize it's not a personal attack, but just another side to a debate.

As for the homosexuality thing, such tendencies to separate the two can indeed become a slippery slope, but only if the emphasis is in the wrong place. Before anything though, I'd clarify that I don't hate anything, especially not a person. Where the problem comes is that people who hate the belief (or the practice, in homosexuality's case) usually do allow themselves to take it out on the people as well. I know of no one who is intellectually opposed to homosexuality but fully respects homosexuals for their life choices. It's possible, but generally doesn't happen because people don't bother to make the distinction...and not just give lip service to it but actually live it out. Religion walks the same fine line....and again, if we don't make the distinction and simply give in to "well, what if this happens...?" then we will limit our own ability to express our opinion.

If I speak against religion, it's because I see it as a negative influence on some aspect of a person or society. The goal is an improvement through reason, not a condemnation or attack. Same with Dawkins, who sees religion as a net negative. Therefore, I think it's not just his privilege but almost his duty to speak his mind, however virulent, so long as the same distinctions are made. Maybe he doesn't always do that...I'm not here to paint him as infallible. But I feel like he does it more often than not, and if he seems absolutist, it's because his opinions against religion (not people) are so vehement that people cannot separate the man from his message, nor realize that his goal isn't mindless intellectual flame wars but to engender positive change in the world.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The initial: "What would Dawkins think?" was meant to be humorous.

Eh. Sorry then. His name generally doesn't trigger my humor sensors, so I have a tendency to jump into defense mode when he's mentioned.

Originally posted by inimalist
they are still unable to prevent a cell from being destroyed by the freezing process, given that solids take up more space than liquids, and many of the membranes are destroyed

I remember hearing something about them possibly accomplishing thawing at a cellular level.. but don't quote me...

Stole my response. Most organs and brain tissue are not recoverable at this point, and the technology is still far enough away that we can't look forward to it anytime soon.

I'm a Christian so I want a traditional funeral....y'know the one where my coffin is loaded with springs so that at a random point during the funeral service, my flailing corpse will pop out of the coffin

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I like it, but I would invite all the people I don't like and not tell them until after they had finished me off.. You want them to eat you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


I believe it was along the lines of:

A member of the audience mentioned that God brings a measure of comfort to some people.
"Just because it's comforting doesn't make it true," replied Dawkins.



I don't see the problem with this. You can flower this statement up to sound less blunt but what's the issue?

This raises a question that I have: when an Atheist is inevitably elected to be President of the United States, and when they die, what will their state funeral be like? It certainly won't be held at the Washington National Cathedral which was the case with past presidents. And when the sitting president and former presidents give eulogies, will use of the word "God" be banned? Just something I wonder.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This raises a question that I have: when an Atheist is inevitably elected to be President of the United States, and when they die, what will their state funeral be like? It certainly won't be held at the Washington National Cathedral which was the case with past presidents. And when the sitting president and former presidents give eulogies, will use of the word "God" be banned? Just something I wonder. I think eulogies are the personal decision of the speaker.

Also, not every president has their funeral at the Washington National Cathedral.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This raises a question that I have: when an Atheist is inevitably elected to be President of the United States, and when they die, what will their state funeral be like? It certainly won't be held at the Washington National Cathedral which was the case with past presidents. And when the sitting president and former presidents give eulogies, will use of the word "God" be banned? Just something I wonder.

Not every Athiest is as petty as the ones you meet online. I'm sure anyone with the capacity to be elected President would have the basic level of empathy needed to not forbid people from expressing themselves at his/her funeral. Moreover by the time a professed Athiest is elected to the US Presidency I would think that religious differences would have long ceased to be any sort of issue.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not every Athiest is as petty as the ones you meet online. I'm sure anyone with the capacity to be elected President would have the basic level of empathy needed to not forbid people from expressing themselves at his/her funeral. Moreover by the time a professed Athiest is elected to the US Presidency I would think that religious differences would have long ceased to be any sort of issue.

how is it petty for an atheist to not want religious propagandizing at their funeral?

is it petty for Christians not to want Muslim funeral services?

Buried directly in the ground. More eco friendly.

Alternatively, I could donate my body to science, not really bothered which one.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think eulogies are the personal decision of the speaker.

Also, not every president has their funeral at the Washington National Cathedral.

Of course its the speaker's decision, but it would be a little awkward to say "He is with God now" if the person was an Atheist. Don't you think?

All presidential funerals were of a religious nature; at a church, with a choir, presided over by a religious official of some kind, and so on.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not every Athiest is as petty as the ones you meet online. I'm sure anyone with the capacity to be elected President would have the basic level of empathy needed to not forbid people from expressing themselves at his/her funeral. Moreover by the time a professed Athiest is elected to the US Presidency I would think that religious differences would have long ceased to be any sort of issue.

I'm not talking about ones online.

It won't be too far in the future when it happens. And I pity him/her because the media will make a big deal out of their beliefs.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Of course its the speaker's decision, but it would be a little awkward to say "He is with God now" if the person was an Atheist. Don't you think?

All presidential funerals were of a religious nature; at a church, with a choir, presided over by a religious official of some kind, and so on.



Yeah, so I doubt they will do it. But it won't be banned, I'd assume.

Yeah, but not a set one. So I assume an atheist president would get the service, he or she would want.

Originally posted by inimalist
how is it petty for an atheist to not want religious propagandizing at their funeral?

is it petty for Christians not to want Muslim funeral services?

To forbid the simple mention of Allah's name would be petty. Turning one's own death into a soapbox for religious proselytizing is petty no matter who does it or how.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It won't be too far in the future when it happens. And I pity him/her because the media will make a big deal out of their beliefs.

As long as we're at a point where Americans are a) more concerned with religion than issues and b) many define their morals via religion I simply do not see a professed Atheist being elected to such a high office.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To forbid the simple mention of Allah's name would be petty. Turning one's own death into a soapbox for religious proselytizing is petty no matter who does it or how.

ok, I'm in total agreement

I must have misunderstood

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As long as we're at a point where Americans are a) more concerned with religion than issues and b) many define their morals via religion I simply do not see a professed Atheist being elected to such a high office.

If you haven't noticed, we have a woman and a black guy running for President. So why is an Atheist so far-fetched?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If you haven't noticed, we have a woman and a black guy running for President. So why is an Atheist so far-fetched?

According to official polls there are 50% women in the US. 13% Blacks plus a big ass guilt trip in their favour. But only 5% Atheists.

That could be a reason. Though, I don't disagree with you. It is possible that one becomes president in the near future.

Originally posted by Bardock42
According to official polls there are 50% women in the US. 13% Blacks plus a big ass guilt trip in their favour. But only 5% Atheists.

Essentially my reasoning.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Essentially my reasoning.

That's also my reasoning; its 2008 and people are starting to get over 50's era preconcieved notions. At one time Blacks were 3/5th's of a person, women had no job besides being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, and Athiest were seen as tools of the devil. Thngs change.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's also my reasoning; its 2008 and people are starting to get over 50's era preconcieved notions. At one time Blacks were 3/5th's of a person, women had no job besides being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, and Athiest were seen as tools of the devil. Thngs change. Well considering that 4/5 of the world population believes in religion I think that it will be a long time before you see an Atheist in the White House.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's also my reasoning; its 2008 and people are starting to get over 50's era preconcieved notions. At one time Blacks were 3/5th's of a person, women had no job besides being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, and Athiest were seen as tools of the devil. Thngs change.

Glass ceiling
This

We're not going to have an Atheist president for a long time.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Thngs change.

Which is a good thing. I mean, of course, change in general toward a more tolerant society. Atheism is but one group that is occasionally feared or misunderstood. There are many others, so any form of eliminating hatred, suspicion, and bigotry is a good thing.

Though I concur with the majority here. There won't be an atheist president in our lifetime. Even an agnostic or secular humanist or somesuch would have a hard time of it, though it's much more conceivable.

Funerals are for those who others think they will be lost., Its not a big thing as much as it is love. If someone would not like a reference to a fable then they must make it known....End of story.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Funerals are for those who others think they will be lost.

As people have said before: funerals are really for the living not the dead.

Yes....but not without loving intentions.,.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Yes....but not without loving intentions.,.

So atheists don't feel love?

No, people feel that they are doing a loving thing for them...

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Though I concur with the majority here. There won't be an atheist president in our lifetime. Even an agnostic or secular humanist or somesuch would have a hard time of it, though it's much more conceivable.

Ten years ago people said exactly the same about a woman or a Black person, so I know it won't be a long time. There will atleast be an Atheist candidate that gets as far as Hillary and Barrack are now in the next 10-20 years.

Originally posted by Bardock42
According to official polls there are 50% women in the US. 13% Blacks plus a big ass guilt trip in their favour. But only 5% Atheists.


Actually 15% of Americans have no religious preference; that's more than Blacks. It's also more than Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. So an Atheist/Agnostic/Apatheist has more people to appeal to than any member of the religions I named.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Actually 15% of Americans have no religious preference; that's more than Blacks. It's also more than Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. So an Atheist/Agnostic/Apatheist has more people to appeal to than any member of the religions I named.

Haha, yeah, I took the statistics mostly related to my point. But it is still less approved of, I would say. Also, the question in "Not-Religious" is how many of those are actually atheists.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, the question in "Not-Religious" is how many of those are actually atheists.

Does it really matter?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Does it really matter? Yeah.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ten years ago people said exactly the same about a woman or a Black person, so I know it won't be a long time. There will atleast be an Atheist candidate that gets as far as Hillary and Barrack are now in the next 10-20 years.

Not every historical event is repeated. You're basing the future societal opinion for a group off of another's, when the two might not be analogous. Women and blacks have come a long way in a few decades, yes. But what about all the other groups that haven't, whose numbers are too great to count? I could equate atheists with them and say atheists won't fare any better. Yet it would be just as flawed as your assessment, just in the opposite direction.

That said, I hope you're right. But there aren't atheist movements to the extent that women and blacks have had in the past (and still do). I can't see it happening.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Does it really matter?

Absolutely. "Non-religious" covers so many different ideologies that it's almost an insult to labels that they're grouped together.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Absolutely. "Non-religious" covers so many different ideologies that it's almost an insult to labels that they're grouped together.

Ijole guey.

The differences between Atheists, Agnostics, Apatheists, Skeptics, and (my personal favorite) "Free thinkers" are superficial. They all have one vital thing in common: the do not believe in or adhere to any religion. So at the end of the day, they all live their lives as if religions are nonexistent.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ijole guey.

The differences between Atheists, Agnostics, Apatheists, Skeptics, and (my personal favorite) "Free thinkers" are superficial. They all have one vital thing in common: the do not believe in or adhere to any religion. So at the end of the day, they all live their lives as if religions are nonexistent.

That's some nonsense. The differences are quite large. Also, they don't live their lives as if Religion didn't exist. Your comments on atheists and agnostics are once again tainted with ignorance.

A fair number of people consider themselves non-religious who have specific beliefs including, but not limited to, a God or gods, reincarnation, karma, sins, heaven and hell, etc. etc.

One need not be Christian or Muslim to be a theist, and to have personal conceptions of what God is like. Yet those people are non-religious, because they do not subscribe to any recognized sect. But wouldn't you consider that closer to mainstream theism than atheism? I would.

Like I said, horrible label. Your bland dismissal of such diverse groups shows an intellectual contempt for them.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ijole guey.

The differences between Atheists, Agnostics, Apatheists, Skeptics, and (my personal favorite) "Free thinkers" are superficial. They all have one vital thing in common: the do not believe in or adhere to any religion. So at the end of the day, they all live their lives as if religions are nonexistent.

Not only is that inaccurate but it leaves out a huge number of groups.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

One need not be Christian or Muslim to be a theist, and to have personal conceptions of what God is like. Yet those people are non-religious, because they do not subscribe to any recognized sect. But wouldn't you consider that closer to mainstream theism than atheism? I would.


I see. You're talking about those people who have no religious affiliation, but still believe that there's "something out there". Yeah, I know a few of them.

That aside, the "Nones" (Atheist, Agnostics, Apatheists) lead their lives as if god doesn't exist, so the end result is the same (are you denying that?). You ever stop and wonder why the U.S. Census Bureau puts them all under the same category? It's because the sociologists who create the census want to avoid unnecessary euphemisms. They prefer to call a spade a spade. So do I.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I see. You're talking about those people who have no religious affiliation, but still believe that there's "something out there". Yeah, I know a few of them.

That aside, the "Nones" (Atheist, Agnostics, Apatheists) lead their lives as if god doesn't exist, so the end result is the same (are you denying that?). You ever stop and wonder why the U.S. Census Bureau puts them all under the same category? It's because the sociologists who create the census want to avoid unnecessary euphemisms. They prefer to call a spade a spade. So do I.

You're re-defining categories. We're not talking about "nones" we're talking about non-religious.

And make your appeal to authority and call whatever you want a spade, but nothing you said invalidates my earlier appraisal and distinctions between a large variety of people and beliefs that are arbitrarily (make no mistake, it is arbitrary) assigned to various groups.

Calling 14% of the population (or whatever the number is) the same doesn't make them the same simply because you decree it. It's like you're more concerned with dismissing those wo aren't your belief system, rather than understanding societal diversity. Is your mind really so regimented that you have to see everything in such stark distinctions?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They prefer to call a spade a spade. So do I.

I would avoid doing that actually.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're re-defining categories. We're not talking about "nones" we're talking about non-religious.

And make your appeal to authority and call whatever you want a spade, but nothing you said invalidates my earlier appraisal and distinctions between a large variety of people and beliefs that are arbitrarily (make no mistake, it is arbitrary) assigned to various groups.

Calling 14% of the population (or whatever the number is) the same doesn't make them the same simply because you decree it. It's like you're more concerned with dismissing those wo aren't your belief system, rather than understanding societal diversity. Is your mind really so regimented that you have to see everything in such stark distinctions?

This is my attempt to summarize categories (feel free to correct):

- "Religious" are of a particular organized religion

- "Spiritual" are those who believe there is something out there BUT they are not of a particular organized religion

- "Agnostic" are not concerned with the metaphysical in 'this life'

- "Atheist" are those who believe there is no god/God

I think QM is getting "spiritual" confused with "atheist" for some reason

Labels in general are arbitrary. There are as many belief systems as there are people, and that includes same denominations. They're only useful to quickly summarize your beliefs, or for census purposes, not in protracted discussions where they can and should be avoided.

Of course you are right.

I only meant to use it as a way to give a quick synopsis. To have a proper discussion using general labels would be arbitrary.

Originally posted by chithappens
Of course you are right.

I only meant to use it as a way to give a quick synopsis. To have a proper discussion using general labels would be arbitrary.

Then that's fine. QM takes an entirely different approach, blandly grouping together numerous belief systems together simply because he doesn't consider them to be legitimate....not just for synopses but for anything. I'd be interested to see how thoroughly he breaks down various Christian sects, if only to see how far the double standard in his mind reaches. My issue is primarily with him, not with your (generally) usable and logical distinctions earlier.

Understood. I saw how that was going earlier. If he responds properly, it will be interesting

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'd be interested to see how thoroughly he breaks down various Christian sects, if only to see how far the double standard in his mind reaches. My issue is primarily with him, not with your (generally) usable and logical distinctions earlier.

I generally don't try to to segregate the Christian denominations. So I try to avoid using terms like Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, United Methodist, Southern Baptist and so on. To me, the world's two billion Christians are Christians as far as I'm concerned.