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

Have you ever been discriminated against for being an atheist? Have you ever seen someone get discriminated against for being an atheist?
I would like to know some of your stories on this matter. Im not saying or implying anything, i would just like to know.

The majority of atheists/"non-believers" are growing these days, but imo most people claim a religion and/or believe in (a) god.

Ive had people yell at me and tell me im going to hell, curse at me, and call me an idiot. I have a good friend that, once he found out i was an atheist, i just heard him talking about it to other people in dissapointment/utter shock. It just felt like he couldnt look at me the same.

Atheism is not a coherent group of people with common believes and experiences. Yet people call themselves atheists, and go on to an internet forum and complain about being discriminated against because they are atheists. Are you hopping to gain some insight from someone you have a common bond with? If that is the case, then maybe a common disbelief is good enough. Do you think that Atheism is your religion?

I might suggest that this discussion go here instead:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t533188.html
...only because it will be under the relative safety of a "general" thread about atheism. Framed as it is, your thread here has the increased possibility of inciting backlash against your views or experiences.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Atheism is not a coherent group of people with common believes and experiences. Yet people call themselves atheists, and go on to an internet forum and complain about being discriminated against because they are atheists. Are you hopping to gain some insight from someone you have a common bond with? If that is the case, then maybe a common disbelief is good enough. Do you think that Atheism is your religion?

"Atheism" need not be a coherent group of people with identical beliefs to be discriminated against.

---

I had hoped to address this topic fully some time ago in my thread, but have been busy, and pulling together sources and ideas often takes me more time than I would like. If this thread remains open, I will make it a point to post at some point.

not something I've ever encountered

EDIT: I'd also say that people disagreeing with you or saying you have "lost your way" or being disapointed is really not discrimination.

George H.W. Bush implied that atheists shouldn't be counted as americans.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Atheism is not a coherent group of people with common believes and experiences. Yet people call themselves atheists, and go on to an internet forum and complain about being discriminated against because they are atheists. Are you hopping to gain some insight from someone you have a common bond with? If that is the case, then maybe a common disbelief is good enough. Do you think that Atheism is your religion?
You know, for someone who claims they're fed up with all the "what counts as religion" semantics arguments, you sure do go out of your way to steer any topic you enter towards that issue.

I have some friends who are Atheist and I don't say anything to them about who they are.If it comes up I just say I don't argee with what you are but I am still your friend no matter what.

I've seen it before. It usually is holier than thou jerks talking down to a certain employee suggesting that they're unsaved, or lost, or even evil, and bombarding them with scripture and church invites that are unwelcome. It's embarrassing to me but it does exist.

Nope, but then again I rarely mention being atheist going with "not religious" unless it's especially relevant to the conversation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Atheism is not a coherent group of people with common believes and experiences.

Neither are Jews, black people or women (or, for that matter, Christians, white people and men).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Neither are Jews, black people or women (or, for that matter, Christians, white people and men).

OK, then there is no reason you can't call Atheism a religion, a minority or something. You see, the statement above is derived from what Atheists have told me, and has no barring on my own opinion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, then there is no reason you can't call Atheism a religion, a minority or something. You see, the statement above is derived from what Atheists have told me, and has no barring on my own opinion.

I'm thinking that you need a banning to make you knock off this sort of behavior. It's really damned close to trolling.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm thinking that you need a banning to make you knock off this sort of behavior. It's really damned close to trolling.

I am not trolling. I have been bash for making this point, and here we are someone making a threat that illustrates my point. You must keep in mind that I did not just, and only make the statement that you quoted. You only took my first sentence and did not post the rest.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not trolling. I have been bash for making this point, and here we are someone making a threat that illustrates my point. You must keep in mind that I did not just, and only make the statement that you quoted. You only took my first sentence and did not post the rest.

You have been "bash" for trying very hard to pull the thread off topic, which, yeah is really close to trolling when you do it so much.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You have been "bash" for trying very hard to pull the thread off topic, which, yeah is really close to trolling when you do it so much.

I asked a question to someone who thinks they are being discriminated against because they are an atheist. I think you missed that part. The topic is discrimination toward atheists. If you can be discriminated against, that means you are part of some group that deserves protection. If atheism is a lack of believe in a god, then how can you have a group of atheist that are being discriminated against?

On a personal level, I would tell the person to stop calling themselves an atheist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, then there is no reason you can't call Atheism a religion, a minority or something. You see, the statement above is derived from what Atheists have told me, and has no barring on my own opinion.

I assume you are referring to the discussion you had in this forum before. Which was specifically about calling atheism a Religion or Belief System, to try to now somehow get back on that topic you were so obviously wrong about by using the term "minority", which was never part of the discussion, is low.

Originally posted by inimalist
not something I've ever encountered

EDIT: I'd also say that people disagreeing with you or saying you have "lost your way" or being disapointed is really not discrimination.

I have not ever encountered discrimination for my atheistic tendencies. However I imagine that people in more religious countries may face problems because of it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I asked a question to someone who thinks they are being discriminated against because they are an atheist. I think you missed that part. The topic is discrimination toward atheists. If you can be discriminated against, that means you are part of some group that deserves protection. If atheism is a lack of believe in a god, then how can you have a group of atheist that are being discriminated against?

On a personal level, I would tell the person to stop calling themselves an atheist.

Your logic is flawed. Atheists are of course a group. Like people with blonde hair are a group. They may have nothing else in common and may not feel in any way connected, but they are. Perhaps you'd understand it if you consider that instead of "group" you could say "category".

Your "stop calling yourself atheist" comes awfully close to your previous "victim blaming" ideas. You may be right that they wouldn't face discrimination, however I assume you'd not think that a black person putting on white make up should be necessary (if it was possible)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Atheism is not a coherent group of people with common believes and experiences. Yet people call themselves atheists, and go on to an internet forum and complain about being discriminated against because they are atheists. Are you hopping to gain some insight from someone you have a common bond with? If that is the case, then maybe a common disbelief is good enough. Do you think that Atheism is your religion?
honestly, you get my point. i dont know what is wrong with you. i put in the op SPECIFICALLY that i dont mean anything other than what i was asking BECAUSE i knew this was going to happen. dont nitpick at my posts like that please. you know exactly what i mean.

so please, anyone else got any stories?Originally posted by The MISTER
I've seen it before. It usually is holier than thou jerks talking down to a certain employee suggesting that they're unsaved, or lost, or even evil, and bombarding them with scripture and church invites that are unwelcome. It's embarrassing to me but it does exist.
it is embarassing. especially when you can just tell they're looking down on you.

Originally posted by inimalist
not something I've ever encountered

EDIT: I'd also say that people disagreeing with you or saying you have "lost your way" or being disapointed is really not discrimination.
just a question but where do you live? maybe thats the reason why

edit: i just checked you live in canada. i live in southern california (u.s). i dont think its as bad out there as it is out here. there are a LOT of biased/ignorant christians at the school i go too.

My parents use the term "atheist" to describe someone who acts unethically and they are always surprised when I act ethically.

Of course my parents are hardcore Evangelicals.

That being said, the area in which I live is fairly Red, so atheism isn't that popular.

someone who acts unethically? thats funny. like in your case, its usually the other way around. what part of the u.s do you live in?

Alright, Christ, here goes:

I. Severity vs. Prevalence
- First we need to make a distinction between what I will term Severity and Prevalence. Discrimination against atheists is NOT more severe than against most other antagonized groups. What it is, however, is more prevalent than many.
- I'd argue that if you conducted a nationwide survey (in the US, this is) with the question "Do you trust {____}?" for various cultural groups, atheists would be trusted by less people than traditionally discriminated groups such as blacks or Jews. I am not guessing at this theory either, there are numerous studies to support this conclusion. I will discuss them further in future posts when I have the time.

II. Cultural Anecdotes
- Several states still have laws on the books preventing atheists from holding public office. And to put it into context, consider the state of voting and political rights for literally ANY other group of people...no parallel exists. It's doubtful these laws would be upheld if challenged, as many are simply old and not changed. But their existence is telling enough.
- Fox News recently ran a long piece on a man they villainized and linked to numerous scams and injustices throughout Washington and the world (Glen Beck actually made news because of the story recently for some inflammatory comments contained in it). By the end of the segment, the man was reduced to a level normally reserved for Hitler-level evil. And the very, very first thing we learn about this man in the segment was that he was an atheist. His atheism wasn't related to anything in the piece. Yet it was mentioned at the forefront. I wonder why?
...most will read that and say "Well, consider the source!" But that's my point. Fox News reflects and influences a huge chunk of the popular zeitgeist. It's an indication of a much larger sentiment.

III. Personal Anecdotes
- I've lost friends over my leaving religion, had girls break up with me upon finding out (no further than a month or so into the relationship, but still), and am on numerous prayer lists for me to find God again so that I'm not damned to Hell. The first and third of those don't bother me...such "friends" aren't worth having, and prayer lists are harmless, much like the attempted re-conversions that often accompany them. The second is a bit troubling, however. "Non-religious" make up roughly 12-20% of the population (depending on your source and definition of nonreligious). Atheism is considered at the extreme end of even that spectrum, and often associated with the aforementioned mistrust and misunderstanding. Many "spiritual but nonreligious" people will shun atheism as wholly as a Christian might, and certainly more than would be rebuffed by, say, an agnostic. Frankly, it's f*cking hard to date, and is an unfortunate consequence of my lack of religion. Hardships between different beliefs is nothing new in the world, but the stark contrast in terms of the percentages and perceptions means that atheist + {anything else} is about as difficult a pairing to make work as could exist in the country right now.

- Holidays are uncomfortable, as are things like my mother stressing 'God' in God Bless You when I sneeze, but only when she says it to me. I can't rag on my mom much, because for her very strict upbringing, she's been cool about the whole thing. But it's not easy on her, and it's a strain on me as a result because it's always something in the background of our relationship that I know she'll never be comfortable with.

....

Take from that what you will. Almost anyone can claim some sort of discriminatory status and have a chip on their shoulder as a result. I don't list any of this to pretend like my plight, or atheists' plight, is worse than that of any other. My financial, physical, and social well-being are much more intrinsic to my overall contentedness than anything having to do with religion. But it exists for many, and to pretend otherwise is laughably false.

Originally posted by Digi
Alright, Christ, here goes:

I. Severity vs. Prevalence
- First we need to make a distinction between what I will term Severity and Prevalence. Discrimination against atheists is NOT more severe than against most other antagonized groups. What it is, however, is more prevalent than many.
- I'd argue that if you conducted a nationwide survey (in the US, this is) with the question "Do you trust {____}?" for various cultural groups, atheists would be trusted by less people than traditionally discriminated groups such as blacks or Jews. I am not guessing at this theory either, there are numerous studies to support this conclusion. I will discuss them further in future posts when I have the time.


That is sad. I didnt know that. Its extremely irritating to actually know that if you dont believe in god that your trusted by less people.

Originally posted by Digi
II. Cultural Anecdotes
- Several states still have laws on the books preventing atheists from holding public office. And to put it into context, consider the state of voting and political rights for literally ANY other group of people...no parallel exists. It's doubtful these laws would be upheld if challenged, as many are simply old and not changed. But their existence is telling enough.
- Fox News recently ran a long piece on a man they villainized and linked to numerous scams and injustices throughout Washington and the world (Glen Beck actually made news because of the story recently for some inflammatory comments contained in it). By the end of the segment, the man was reduced to a level normally reserved for Hitler-level evil. And the very, very first thing we learn about this man in the segment was that he was an atheist. His atheism wasn't related to anything in the piece. Yet it was mentioned at the forefront. I wonder why?
...most will read that and say "Well, consider the source!" But that's my point. Fox News reflects and influences a huge chunk of the popular zeitgeist. It's an indication of a much larger sentiment.

Being old and unchanged, imo, has more influence on keeping these (laws) than what people think. And to think that if an election came up, one of the people running for democrat/republican/third party candidate be an atheist, thats like an automatic knockout. i can gaurantee anyone that.

Originally posted by Digi
III. Personal Anecdotes
- I've lost friends over my leaving religion, had girls break up with me upon finding out (no further than a month or so into the relationship, but still), and am on numerous prayer lists for me to find God again so that I'm not damned to Hell. The first and third of those don't bother me...such "friends" aren't worth having, and prayer lists are harmless, much like the attempted re-conversions that often accompany them. The second is a bit troubling, however. "Non-religious" make up roughly 12-20% of the population (depending on your source and definition of nonreligious). Atheism is considered at the extreme end of even that spectrum, and often associated with the aforementioned mistrust and misunderstanding. Many "spiritual but nonreligious" people will shun atheism as wholly as a Christian might, and certainly more than would be rebuffed by, say, an agnostic. Frankly, it's f*cking hard to date, and is an unfortunate consequence of my lack of religion.

- Holidays are uncomfortable, as are things like my mother stressing 'God' in God Bless You when I sneeze. I can't rag on my mom much, because for her very strict upbringing, she's been cool about the whole thing. But it's not easy on her, and it's a strain on me as a result because it's always something in the background of our relationship that I know she'll never be comfortable with.

Those friends arent worth having, but it still pisses me off. Just the other day this chick said i have my "head in the books" too much and that i was going crazy. And about the mom thing, was it awkward when you told her? I keep my atheism from my parents, and idk if thats exactly a good thing. If they find out, which will most likely happen sometime in the future, i dont think it will be pretty. Im absolutely sure my mom would break down into tears, and i have a feeling my dad has hints that i am but doesnt know for sure.

Originally posted by Digi
....

Take from that what you will. Almost anyone can claim some sort of discriminatory status and have a chip on their shoulder as a result. I don't list any of this to pretend like my plight, or atheists' plight, is worse than that of any other. My financial, physical, and social well-being are much more intrinsic to my overall contentedness than anything having to do with religion. But it exists for many, and to pretend otherwise is laughably false.
exactly.

I wouldn't advise you one way another on whether or not to tell your family. Every situation is different. You can always just "leave" religion without realigning yourself, however. Being lapsed is far less a crime in some peoples' eyes than becoming an atheist, which can induce shock at the very mention of the word (which, I will admit, is a guilty pleasure occasionally when I want to mess with hardcore religious people).

And probably the most awkward part was having to explain my reasoning to my mom without actually explaining it. A lot of people are insulated. She wouldn't know how to deal with the rebuttals to Christianity and religion that I'm aware of. It's not a lack of intelligence, just a lack of exposure. And I'm not in the business of trying to pull people away from their faith if it's a source of strength for them, which it is for my mom. So it was a delicate dance, because I also couldn't make her aware of the fact that I was trying to shield her...quite a bit of planning went into it, much more so than with anyone else.

...

My sister was much more amusing. I sat her down all seriously and such and she was like "so, are you gay?" And I was like "No, I'm atheist. Wait, you thought I could be gay?" And she was like "Well, no, but I couldn't think of anything else you'd sit me down for. I figured you were either gay or had cancer." So I lol'd and that was that.

so far ive told my parents that i strongly dislike some views in the bible and thats about it. my dad told me once before that i "better believe in god" which, frankly, pissed me off, but for the sake of my mom i didnt mention it.

tbh, i get pleasure when i see a religious person who talks and argues with me, calls ME stupid, says i dont know what im talking about, yet i argue circles around them. i dont try to, and in fact i actually try to stay away from arguing with people because i hate that image and they probably do get hope and strength from that- just a few that come around and really ask for it. delicate dance is a perfect way to put it. maybe i should use that with my mom...

and thats funny haha. gay? if i thought my sister/brother had cancer id be scared, but if it was the either way around and they thought i was gay? id start asking questions lol.

Originally posted by Digi
My sister was much more amusing. I sat her down all seriously and such and she was like "so, are you gay?" And I was like "No, I'm atheist. Wait, you thought I could be gay?" And she was like "Well, no, but I couldn't think of anything else you'd sit me down for. I figured you were either gay or had cancer."
Gold, Jerry. Gold.

Originally posted by Digi

II. Cultural Anecdotes
- Several states still have laws on the books preventing atheists from holding public office. And to put it into context, consider the state of voting and political rights for literally ANY other group of people...no parallel exists. It's doubtful these laws would be upheld if challenged, as many are simply old and not changed. But their existence is telling enough.

Yeah, its also unlawful for a woman to wear shorts in Tucson, AZ.

There's a lot of laws still on the books like the ones you and I just listed that no one really cares about: they're called blue laws.

Originally posted by King Kandy
George H.W. Bush implied that atheists shouldn't be counted as americans.


You know, for someone who claims they're fed up with all the "what counts as religion" semantics arguments, you sure do go out of your way to steer any topic you enter towards that issue. He's right.

Bush, I mean.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah, its also unlawful for a woman to wear shorts in Tucson, AZ.

There's a lot of laws still on the books like the ones you and I just listed that no one really cares about: they're called blue laws.

Agreed. Did I not say that they likely wouldn't be upheld if challenged? That was not my point.

So answer me this follow-up question: in those states (I don't have the list offhand, but could easily look it up if needed), do you think an atheist could be elected to any political position if his religious beliefs were known publicly?

Your post amounts to sweeping my point under the rug and telling someone it's not there anymore. Go ahead and address the rest of my earlier post, I'd love to hear your justifications.

Originally posted by Mindship

Gold, Jerry. Gold.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah, its also unlawful for a woman to wear shorts in Tucson, AZ.

There's a lot of laws still on the books like the ones you and I just listed that no one really cares about: they're called blue laws.
even then, it shouldnt have been there at all in the first place.

Originally posted by Sappho
even then, it shouldnt have been there at all in the first place.

Why? Perhaps they had good reasons.

good reasons to keep an atheist from holding office? not really.... name one.

Originally posted by Sappho
good reasons to keep an atheist from holding office? not really.... name one.

I was asking you why should these laws have not been on the book in the past. I did not ask you any question about today.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was asking you why should these laws have not been on the book in the past. I did not ask you any question about today.

There was no point in the past when such a law would have held up to reasonable analysis.

I have met many people who have been discriminated against for being religious.

Especially online.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There was no point in the past when such a law would have held up to reasonable analysis.

Can you reword that?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you reword that?

Even in the past when laws forbidding atheists to take office would have been based on unsound logic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Even in the past when laws forbidding atheists to take office would have been based on unsound logic.

What was their unsound logic?

Originally posted by JacopeX
I have met many people who have been discriminated against for being religious.

Especially online.


Can you give some examples?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What was their unsound logic?

Generally something along the lines of "atheists are evil".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Generally something along the lines of "atheists are evil".

Really? That doesn't sound right. Why would have sensible people come to that conclusion, in the past?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really? That doesn't sound right. Why would have sensible people come to that conclusion, in the past?

Sensible people often become convinced of irrational things.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sensible people often become convinced of irrational things.

Are you saying "shit happens"?

What was an atheist like 100 or 200 years ago?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really? That doesn't sound right. Why would have sensible people come to that conclusion, in the past?
Religious people still sometimes come to that conclusion. It's logical, too, to them morality comes from God and believing in God , therefore someone not believing in God can not be moral and would be evil. Of course the basis of their argument is insane....

Here's a recent example of a movie where the bad guy is bad cause he's an atheist (what other reason might one need)

http://stupidevilbastard.com/2010/09/new-christian-movie-about-christmas-shows-how-evil-us-atheists-really-are/

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What was an atheist like 100 or 200 years ago?

atheist would have been an "outgrouping" term, much like the way it is used prejudicially today.

Calling someone an atheist was never, and still largely isn't, a statement about their philosophy about god, but rather a statement to try and convince others that this person is no good.

and, as a literal response, the Marquis de Sade.

Originally posted by inimalist
atheist would have been an "outgrouping" term, much like the way it is used prejudicially today.

Calling someone an atheist was never, and still largely isn't, a statement about their philosophy about god, but rather a statement to try and convince others that this person is no good.

and, as a literal response, the Marquis de Sade.

So, these blue laws where not there to stop an atheist from serving the public, but were meant to stop "no good" people from serving?

That doesn't make any sense. I think that it might be more logical to think that the Christians of the past considered an atheist to be a threat to their way of life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, these blue laws where not there to stop an atheist from serving the public, but were meant to stop "no good" people from serving?

That doesn't make any sense. I think that it might be more logical to think that the Christians of the past considered an atheist to be a threat to their way of life.

ok, I see what you mean, in terms of those laws, yes, they probably saw atheists as being morally unfit to hold office

there were similar restrictions on jews and other minorities, yes? or was that just practice?

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, I see what you mean, in terms of those laws, yes, they probably saw atheists as being morally unfit to hold office

there were similar restrictions on jews and other minorities, yes? or was that just practice?

Yes, if you read back, I was talking about the past only. Of course, I don't think there should be such laws today.

What do you mean by "practice"?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, if you read back, I was talking about the past only. Of course, I don't think there should be such laws today.

no, you did make refrence to how people viewed atheists in the past, I thought you were approaching it in a different way though

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you mean by "practice"?

discrimination can come by law or by practice. So, even when women were considered free citizens, the practice was still to not give them the same wage or hire them for important jobs

Originally posted by inimalist
...discrimination can come by law or by practice. So, even when women were considered free citizens, the practice was still to not give them the same wage or hire them for important jobs

I see what you mean.

thats not funny at all...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That doesn't make any sense. I think that it might be more logical to think that the Christians of the past considered an atheist to be a threat to their way of life.

That still isn't sound reasoning. Valid, maybe, but not based on accurate premises.

Originally posted by Digi
Agreed. Did I not say that they likely wouldn't be upheld if challenged? That was not my point.

So answer me this follow-up question: in those states (I don't have the list offhand, but could easily look it up if needed), do you think an atheist could be elected to any political position if his religious beliefs were known publicly?

Your post amounts to sweeping my point under the rug and telling someone it's not there anymore. Go ahead and address the rest of my earlier post, I'd love to hear your justifications.


Well, define what you mean by "those" states. As far as I'm aware, every single state in the union has blue laws of some kind.

Perhaps you've never heard of Pete Stark, he's a California Congressman who's openly atheist. http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/08_nov_dec/Stark.html

^So you see, an atheist can be elected depending on where they're running. Some backwater county in WV? Not likely. But in Hippieville, CA? Definitely.


Oh, and I'll get back to the earlier posts once I can gather the will to sift through them. (Dame tiempo, guey.)

Originally posted by inimalist
thats not funny at all...

Yes, it is. I'm a musician, and practice means something different to me. That is what I was laughing about.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, define what you mean by "those" states. As far as I'm aware, every single state in the union has blue laws of some kind.

Perhaps you've never heard of Pete Stark, he's a California Congressman who's openly atheist. http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/08_nov_dec/Stark.html

^So you see, an atheist can be elected depending on where they're running. Some backwater county in WV? Not likely. But in Hippieville, CA? Definitely.


Oh, and I'll get back to the earlier posts once I can gather the will to sift through them. (Dame tiempo, guey.)

My very point was that discrimination exists to an extent that it would prevent an atheist from being elected in a lot of states. You confirmed that with your comments. And there probably doesn't exist a state where their atheism doesn't hurt them somewhat, and if they're elected it's in spite of it.

Because yes, I'm aware that atheists have been elected to various offices. Hell, Jesse Ventura is a famous example. It doesn't refute my point.

Also, you had to have read my post if you picked out that quote from the middle of it. What's this sifting back through stuff?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Religious people still sometimes come to that conclusion. It's logical, too, to them morality comes from God and believing in God , therefore someone not believing in God can not be moral and would be evil. Of course the basis of their argument is insane....

Here's a recent example of a movie where the bad guy is bad cause he's an atheist (what other reason might one need)

http://stupidevilbastard.com/2010/09/new-christian-movie-about-christmas-shows-how-evil-us-atheists-really-are/

Christ. Literally. That's disturbing. I squirmed as I laughed at it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Religious people still sometimes come to that conclusion. It's logical, too, to them morality comes from God and believing in God , therefore someone not believing in God can not be moral and would be evil. Of course the basis of their argument is insane....

Here's a recent example of a movie where the bad guy is bad cause he's an atheist (what other reason might one need)

http://stupidevilbastard.com/2010/09/new-christian-movie-about-christmas-shows-how-evil-us-atheists-really-are/

Best line: "Our rights don't matter, Christmas is what matters."

I've been legitimately asked, numerous times, how or why I'm moral. And not from "crazy" Christians either....just your run-of-the-mill ones. It's really a hard concept for many to grasp, how one can be moral without God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, it is. I'm a musician, and practice means something different to me. That is what I was laughing about.

are you trying to imply something?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was asking you why should these laws have not been on the book in the past. I did not ask you any question about today.
S.C pretty much answered this for me...

regardless of when it was, deeming an atheist unfit to hold office is, at the very least, judgemental and wrong.

even if they thought an atheist was out to no good, no actions of any sort would prove them that. I really doubt all atheists back in the day were out to get christians, or did shit to them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Here's a recent example of a movie where the bad guy is bad cause he's an atheist (what other reason might one need)

http://stupidevilbastard.com/2010/09/new-christian-movie-about-christmas-shows-how-evil-us-atheists-really-are/

best. movie. ever.

Never seen it. I am not an atheist and I can't say I was ever discriminated against, although I had been told that the way I lead my life is inappropriate and that God will send me to hell.

Equally, I have had some ridiculous comments from Atheists too who believe that they are by default smarter and more intelligent on the sole bases that they don't believe in God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, it is. I'm a musician, and practice means something different to me. That is what I was laughing about.

What you mean to say is "I am a musician and therefore I only know of one definition of practice" ... which I don't think is true for most musicians anyways.Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Never seen it. I am not an atheist and I can't say I was ever discriminated against, although I had been told that the way I lead my life is inappropriate and that God will send me to hell.

Equally, I have had some ridiculous comments from Atheists too who believe that they are by default smarter and more intelligent on the sole bases that they don't believe in God.

What is your belief?

Originally posted by Sappho
S.C pretty much answered this for me...

regardless of when it was, deeming an atheist unfit to hold office is, at the very least, judgemental and wrong.

even if they thought an atheist was out to no good, no actions of any sort would prove them that. I really doubt all atheists back in the day were out to get christians, or did shit to them.

Well, I don't know what atheists were like back in the past, but I know what some atheist are like today. If they were, in the past, like some atheists are today, then I could understand why Christians of the past would have taken drastic actions against them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What is your belief?

She's a Buddhist.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Never seen it. I am not an atheist and I can't say I was ever discriminated against, although I had been told that the way I lead my life is inappropriate and that God will send me to hell.

Equally, I have had some ridiculous comments from Atheists too who believe that they are by default smarter and more intelligent on the sole bases that they don't believe in God.
Richard Dawkins may not say it out right, but you can tell he's always thinking it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, I don't know what atheists were like back in the past, but I know what some atheist are like today. If they were, in the past, like some atheists are today, then I could understand why Christians of the past would have taken drastic actions against them.
What? what do atheists "do" to christians these days that make them unfit to hold office? I cant think of anything. if an atheist did do something, its probably not because they were an atheist, just a bad person.

Originally posted by Sappho
What? what do atheists "do" to christians these days that make them unfit to hold office? I cant think of anything. if an atheist did do something, its probably not because they were an atheist, just a bad person.

What? You have never hear an atheist say something like if they had their way they would get rid of all religions in the world. There are a bunch of threads on this forum saying stuff just like that.

Originally posted by Sappho
What? what do atheists "do" to christians these days that make them unfit to hold office? I cant think of anything. if an atheist did do something, its probably not because they were an atheist, just a bad person.

Shakey has weird ideas about personal responsibility

if being yourself would make people hate you, Shakey feels you are doing something to bring their wrath upon yourself. For instance, he thinks someone getting beaten over their political views "had it comming". It is logical, from that perspective of course, that an atheist living in a theocratic society is practically begging to be oppressed

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? You have never hear an atheist say something like if they had their way they would get rid of all religions in the world. There are a bunch of threads on this forum saying stuff just like that.

That shouldn't make them ineligible to hold office. It's even less rational to say that all atheists should be prevented from holding office based on a few of them being assholes. If that were our standard no one would be able to hold office.

Originally posted by inimalist
Shakey has weird ideas about personal responsibility

if being yourself would make people hate you, Shakey feels you are doing something to bring their wrath upon yourself. For instance, he thinks someone getting beaten over their political views "had it comming". It is logical, from that perspective of course, that an atheist living in a theocratic society is practically begging to be oppressed

That is bullshit and you know it. I should report you for such trolling.

ha, ya, report me

I should report you for extortion!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That shouldn't make them ineligible to hold office. It's even less rational to say that all atheists should be prevented from holding office based on a few of them being assholes. If that were our standard no one would be able to hold office.

What does that have to do with what I was talking about? I simple said this:

"Well, I don't know what atheists were like back in the past, but I know what some atheist are like today. If they were, in the past, like some atheists are today, then I could understand why Christians of the past would have taken drastic actions against them."

I never said atheists should be prevented from holding office based on anything.

Originally posted by inimalist
ha, ya, report me

I should report you for extortion!

Are you on drugs or something?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you on drugs or something?

no

lol, we can disagree about what the moral implications of your view of Karma are, and you can believe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I hardly see where you get the notion that I've done anything worth reporting, hence, you are using a strong arm tactic to attempt to get me to rephrase what I see. maybe not "text-book" extortion, but the analogy holds much more water than your "threat" of appealing to moderators because you don't like how I phrased an argument you made in another thread.

so have at thee, NOW I'm going to do some drugs

Originally posted by inimalist
no

lol, we can disagree about what the moral implications of your view of Karma are, and you can believe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I hardly see where you get the notion that I've done anything worth reporting, hence, you are using a strong arm tactic to attempt to get me to rephrase what I see. maybe not "text-book" extortion, but the analogy holds much more water than your "threat" of appealing to moderators because you don't like how I phrased an argument you made in another thread.

so have at thee, NOW I'm going to do some drugs

That is just pathetic.

who's trolling now?

Originally posted by inimalist
who's trolling now?

All you are doing is causeing trouble.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have not ever encountered discrimination for my atheistic tendencies. However I imagine that people in more religious countries may face problems because of it.

no, I totally agree, even when I was in "small town" canada, extreme religiosity was looked down upon, so like, we had a protestor who pushed a priest during an anti-gay marriage protest, and it was a big deal.

That being said, I think as you go West in Canada, at least until you hit the rockies, I think religion does pick up. One of the kids in my stats class grew up in rural Manitoba, and he talks as if religion was a way bigger deal than it was for me.

I don't think it is as bad as America though, even our conservative politicians get grilled when "strange" Christian beliefs come up.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Never seen it.

Well, if this happened to you:

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
...although I had been told that the way I lead my life is inappropriate and that God will send me to hell.

...then you have seen it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Equally, I have had some ridiculous comments from Atheists too who believe that they are by default smarter and more intelligent on the sole bases that they don't believe in God.

That's not quite discrimination, just misplaced elitism. There are studies that support the idea that increased intelligence increases your likelihood of being non-religious, but to assume it a priori for individual cases is indeed erroneous.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All you are doing is causeing trouble.

Shaky you do behave like a troll. Considering you're supposed to be a buddhist you should know better.

Originally posted by Digi
There are studies that support the idea that increased intelligence increases your likelihood of being non-religious Is that non-religious in the 'organized religion' sense? I ask because often I've got the impression that 'atheist', as typically used on these forums, refers to disbelief in the God of the Bible. Or does non-religious here mean disbelief of any transcendent reality?

As an adjunct, it's been my experience that, generally, more 'intelligent' people tend to reject pretty much any/most feeling-based input, eg, 'hunches'.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I totally agree, even when I was in "small town" canada, extreme religiosity was looked down upon, so like, we had a protestor who pushed a priest during an anti-gay marriage protest, and it was a big deal.

That being said, I think as you go West in Canada, at least until you hit the rockies, I think religion does pick up. One of the kids in my stats class grew up in rural Manitoba, and he talks as if religion was a way bigger deal than it was for me.

I don't think it is as bad as America though, even our conservative politicians get grilled when "strange" Christian beliefs come up.

Well, there are strong historical reasons why religion is not as prevalent and important in Europe as in the US, I am not sure about Canada's development (cause it's just too unimportant )

I think discrimination is hard to evaluate in this circumstance anyways, certain parts of society certainly have a distaste for atheists (an unreasonable one) but whether that is so severe to call it what is commonly understood as discrimination, I don't know. I'm sure it does happen, but I can't say that from personal experience or anything I read or watched I could say that it's prevalent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think discrimination is hard to evaluate in this circumstance anyways, certain parts of society certainly have a distaste for atheists (an unreasonable one) but whether that is so severe to call it what is commonly understood as discrimination, I don't know. I'm sure it does happen, but I can't say that from personal experience or anything I read or watched I could say that it's prevalent.

We might divide severity and extend. The dislike of atheists seems to be very extensive based on surveys but it's severity is mitigated by the difficulty of determining if someone is an atheist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We might divide severity and extend. The dislike of atheists seems to be very extensive based on surveys but it's severity is mitigated by the difficulty of determining if someone is an atheist.

I think the severity is also limited by people very rarely hating atheists as extremely as other groups. I don't think many people have a hatred for atheists more often than not they are somewhat weirded out by them.

Originally posted by Mindship
Is that non-religious in the 'organized religion' sense? I ask because often I've got the impression that 'atheist', as typically used on these forums, refers to disbelief in the God of the Bible. Or does non-religious here mean disbelief of any transcendent reality?

As an adjunct, it's been my experience that, generally, more 'intelligent' people tend to reject pretty much any/most feeling-based input, eg, 'hunches'.

I dislike personal experiences, even my own. That may be true, but without data to support it, it's just an anecdote.

And I'm speaking about atheism specifically with the earlier comments. I don't know what the data tells us about those who simply aren't affiliated with an identifiable organization. Whether the correlation is incidental or indicative remains up for debate, but there is reason to believe that increased levels of intelligence leads to an increased likelihood of being an atheist. It's hard to mention this without seeming elitist, but I'm actually just a messenger of the data. I don't claim any kind of intellectual superiority personally.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think the severity is also limited by people very rarely hating atheists as extremely as other groups. I don't think many people have a hatred for atheists more often than not they are somewhat weirded out by them.

Ta-da!

Originally posted by Digi
I. Severity vs. Prevalence
- First we need to make a distinction between what I will term Severity and Prevalence. Discrimination against atheists is NOT more severe than against most other antagonized groups. What it is, however, is more prevalent than many.
- I'd argue that if you conducted a nationwide survey (in the US, this is) with the question "Do you trust {____}?" for various cultural groups, atheists would be trusted by less people than traditionally discriminated groups such as blacks or Jews. I am not guessing at this theory either, there are numerous studies to support this conclusion. I will discuss them further in future posts when I have the time.

Seriously, my genius is undervalued on this forum.

dgrin

Originally posted by Digi
I dislike personal experiences, even my own. That may be true, but without data to support it, it's just an anecdote.

And I'm speaking about atheism specifically with the earlier comments. I don't know what the data tells us about those who simply aren't affiliated with an identifiable organization. Whether the correlation is incidental or indicative remains up for debate, but there is reason to believe that increased levels of intelligence leads to an increased likelihood of being an atheist. It's hard to mention this without seeming elitist, but I'm actually just a messenger of the data. I don't claim any kind of intellectual superiority personally.

it is hard to mention that without seeming elitist. ive told that too people before as modest as i can yet i still get insults for it.

It's not something to bring up in casual conversation, pretty much ever. Being an atheism leads to increased sexiness....that's about as much bragging as I'll reliably commit to in a debate.

Originally posted by Digi
I dislike personal experiences, even my own. That may be true, but without data to support it, it's just an anecdote.

And I'm speaking about atheism specifically with the earlier comments. I don't know what the data tells us about those who simply aren't affiliated with an identifiable organization. Whether the correlation is incidental or indicative remains up for debate, but there is reason to believe that increased levels of intelligence leads to an increased likelihood of being an atheist. It's hard to mention this without seeming elitist, but I'm actually just a messenger of the data. I don't claim any kind of intellectual superiority personally.



Ta-da!



Seriously, my genius is undervalued on this forum.

dgrin

lol, well I was referencing you, but my point was more that the severity might be so low as to not be commonly described as discrimination anymore.

Originally posted by Digi
I dislike personal experiences, even my own. That may be true, but without data to support it, it's just an anecdote.Interesting though that your own response would seem to support it.

And I'm speaking about atheism specifically with the earlier comments. I don't know what the data tells us about those who simply aren't affiliated with an identifiable organization. Whether the correlation is incidental or indicative remains up for debate, but there is reason to believe that increased levels of intelligence leads to an increased likelihood of being an atheist. It's hard to mention this without seeming elitist, but I'm actually just a messenger of the data. I don't claim any kind of intellectual superiority personally. IMO, you've never come across as elitist. Just someone who knows his stuff and tries to present it as objectively as possible. In fact, no one on this board really strikes me that way. Wise-asses, yeah. But basically, I see intelligent people presenting good reason for believing what they do.

Originally posted by Mindship
Interesting though that your own response would seem to support it.

IMO, you've never come across as elitist. Just someone who knows his stuff and tries to present it as objectively as possible. In fact, no one on this board really strikes me that way. Wise-asses, yeah. But basically, I see intelligent people presenting good reason for believing what they do.

heh, thanks. I didn't mean to discredit your opinion though. It's just hard to make any kind of convincing case based on observations, however accurate they may or may not be.

Originally posted by Digi
Hell, Jesse Ventura is a famous example. It doesn't refute my point.


He's also an out-there conspiracy nut who's probably a schizo, and who has a show about his whacked out theories (on 'Tru' TV, ironically). So he's probably not a shining example or the best reference point for would-be aspiring atheist politicians.

----

To be honest, I would vote for an atheist if I liked him or her.

Originally posted by Digi
It's not something to bring up in casual conversation, pretty much ever. Being an atheism leads to increased sexiness....that's about as much bragging as I'll reliably commit to in a debate.
I cant tell naughty

Originally posted by Mindship

IMO, you've never come across as elitist.

I strongly disagree, in particular his last post to me was disgraceful but I let it lie.

Originally posted by Deadline
I strongly disagree, in particular his last post to me was disgraceful but I let it lie.

Way to take a veiled stab at me without reinforcing it with an actual example. I don't even remember my last post to you. In any case, bringing it up in a way that is not relevant to the discussion, and is only as an insult, is not "letting it lie."

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He's also an out-there conspiracy nut who's probably a schizo, and who has a show about his whacked out theories (on 'Tru' TV, ironically). So he's probably not a shining example or the best reference point for would-be aspiring atheist politicians.

Which was kinda my point. I didn't use him as a shining example of anything.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
To be honest, I would vote for an atheist if I liked him or her.

You're still dodging the issue here. Does a politician's atheist tendencies hurt him/her in pretty much any election? The answer is yes. If they're elected, it's in spite of it, not because of it.

Originally posted by Digi
Way to take a veiled stab at me without reinforcing it with an actual example.

Hey don't take yourself too serioulsy, I don't need to take a veiled stab at you. I was skimming through the thread and decided to add my opinion.

Originally posted by Digi
I don't even remember my last post to you. In any case, bringing it up in a way that is not relevant to the discussion, and is only as an insult, is not "letting it lie."


I said I let it lie, I may respond to the post or I may not. You insulted me as well in your last post but I'm not complaining either.

Anyway I was going to edit the post but it was too late. At any rate I don't want to talk about it right now but not because im afraid that I can't make my case. Too many other more important posts to respond to.

If you have an issue with any of my posts, PM me and we can sort it out. If all you're going to do is bad-mouth me, or any poster for that matter, while remaining off-topic, it will become a warnable offense very quickly. PM me with any further concerns, and stay on topic. Thanks.

Originally posted by Deadline
Shaky you do behave like a troll. Considering you're supposed to be a buddhist you should know better.

So, a Buddhist cannot defend themselves? I bet you think I wear a red robe a shaved head. I am a normal person, and if someone trolls me by miss-characterizing my belief in order to discredit me, I will fight back. Would you do any different? Don't answer that question. I already know that answer. You would throw an absolute fit.