Funerals for Atheists?

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?

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.