[Terez]

The 20th, on Dec 7 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

Me? <blushes>

If not me. <frowns>

lol, no not you! Dolorous Menhir! He usually antagonizes other people, not me. Though I have to admit you haven't been antagonizing me much lately...didn't we reach some sort of agreement a while back on the religion mess?

[Traveller]

Lost Marine, on Dec 5 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

Why is it that when the other side of the argument does something like this it's a terrible thing that brainwashes people, but when your side does it it's just opening people's eyes to the possibilities?

If you want to put ads about being an atheist on a bus or pretend to believe in a giant spaghetti monster to point out just how stupid I am then have fun, but don't think it makes you better then anyone else. Both sides of this little spat have ignorant people who will go out of their way to belittle folks on the other side and it's just as shameful coming out of the mouth of a Christian as it is an atheist. (Before anyone jumps in and points out the many degrees that alot of these folks have, you can be a brilliant person and still be ignorant.)

Both sides have their points, while religion involves a leap of faith that some people aren't inclined to take and has been used to perpetuate some atrocious acts throughout history, in its pure form without the influences of human nature it is a nice set of guidelines on how to treat your fellow man in a respectable manner. Of course nothing good in this world can go for too long without being jacked up by selfish and greedy people.

Atheism can encourage people to engage in free thinking and all that jazz, which is a great thing also. The absence of religion in politics is also something that should be worked for. Of course when you start lumping all religious people into the trying to convert you camp and go on the attack then you are just as bad as the folks who are trying to convert. Which is by no means all of us or even most of us, cause frankly the majority of us have enough problems without worrying about what you do or do not believe.

Yeah, well said. As an atheist, I get just as annoyed with people trying to 'promote' atheism as I do with people telling me I should believe in god because my life would be better.

I haven't read Dawkins, and I don't really want to now, either. He's not speaking for all atheists; just as I don't believe that individual outspoken christians are speaking for everyone who shares their faith.

[Aleksandrov]

Quote

I'm influencing you right now by simply talking to you... [Words]

I have to concede the point on maximalism, perhaps certain elements of speech can be ignored, actively or just mentally erased. That's why there are literally prizes and the like to "differentiate" between the different ranks of the stuff being spewed out by the mouths of philosophers and writers.
But I have to say every individual literary piece have it's importance to certain readers and subscribers. The Daily Mail I believe you used, probably has a greater effect on people today than Nietzsche. Something that no doubt the man anticipated but still would be saddened by the seeming irony of it.

EDIT: Sorry for the extreme lateness but Silencer killed my computer and I can't come online that much anymore.
And I hate using IE 6, can't even spell check.

This post has been edited by Aleksandrov: 16 December 2008 - 10:01 PM

[D Man]

Bottom line: its an ad on a few buses.

A: If you can pay for the ad space you can say whatever the hell you want
B: If you see one with it on, you can ignore it, agree with it or let it upset you, no one controls your reaction but you

And dawkins et al arent trying to make atheism a religion. They're tryint to de-marginalise atheists, who in the social and political arena have little to no voice to represent humanist interests and resist theologically based ways of life being forced on everyone, regardless of whether they share the founding theological beliefs.

[Shinrei]

Serious question, I'm seeking information, not trying to be cheeky:

How are athiests marginalized? Has someone found themselves discriminated against or discovered a lack of some privilage because they were an athiest?

I can see gay marriage as a possible example, but what else?

[Dolorous Menhir]

The 20th, on Dec 21 2008, 03:06 AM, said:

Serious question, I'm seeking information, not trying to be cheeky:

How are athiests marginalized? Has someone found themselves discriminated against or discovered a lack of some privilage because they were an athiest?

I can see gay marriage as a possible example, but what else?

Here is a dated example, from President Bush I

"Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

It's safe to say the current administration does not diverge from this much.

[Shinrei]

No doubt religious people in power say dumb shit all the time. I don't deny that strict bible/koran/etc bangers are assholes to anyone not like them. But my question is, where has this actually affected your life in some way?

[Terez]

The 20th, on Dec 21 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

No doubt religious people in power say dumb shit all the time. I don't deny that strict bible/koran/etc bangers are assholes to anyone not like them. But my question is, where has this actually affected your life in some way?

It has affected my life because there is a stigma against atheism. In many circles, it is something that you are expected to keep quiet about, especially in the circles of elected officials in the US (yes, this would seem to be the will of the people at work, but there are probably plenty of districts like Stark's that would have no problem with a non-theist legislator - it's just seen as too risky to run for office without religion, and of course religions other than Christianity are risky as well, if not so risky as atheism).

The social stigma against atheism is something that negatively affects not only atheists, but theists as well. Depending on which poll you look at, somewhere between 80-90% of Americans claims to be a Christian, and to a great percentage of that group, it doesn't mean much. Many probably don't even believe it, but pretend because it is expected among the mid-elite of the business world, or expected in small town Real America. There are all sorts of motives for being Christian outside its basic tenets. Thus, the image of Christianity is often muddied, at best.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to compare discrimination against atheists to some of the more severe issues the US has had with civil rights over the last couple of centuries. In some cases, there are violent acts against atheists and in many cases there are unofficial religious tests for jobs, but it's more of a subtle thing in general, and I'm fairly confident that the tables will turn soon, not because of any legislation on the part of atheists, but because it's the inevitable course of the Information Age. Theism probably won't go away, but it will likely evolve a good bit (more).

In any case, here are some examples of atheist marginalization:

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?_r=...amp;oref=slogin

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:XTNXy0..._Somin_OpEd.pdf

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/30/athe...stody-cases.htm

http://www.religious...e.org/texas.htm

[Dolorous Menhir]

The 20th, on Dec 22 2008, 01:11 AM, said:

No doubt religious people in power say dumb shit all the time. I don't deny that strict bible/koran/etc bangers are assholes to anyone not like them. But my question is, where has this actually affected your life in some way?

I can't say it has negatively affected my life. I don't live in the US, and the last UK census showed this country had (almost, I think) a non-religious majority. I had a non-religious upbringing and a scientific education. Religion doesn't play a part in my life, and it hasn't got much of a role in my society.

But it still annoys me when people in power say dumb shit at religion.

I'd like to turn this around. The President of the United States is, by definition, a successful politician who has won elective office many times. Such a person would have learned very early in their career to never make insensitive remarks about minority groups as they would pay a high political price. And yet they feel free to openly diminish and demonise the non-religious. What does that tell you?

[Cold Iron]

Dolorous Menhir, on Dec 23 2008, 03:54 AM, said:

I'd like to turn this around. The President of the United States is, by definition, a successful politician who has won elective office many times. Such a person would have learned very early in their career to never make insensitive remarks about minority groups as they would pay a high political price. And yet they feel free to openly diminish and demonise the non-religious. What does that tell you?

Mostly it tells me that you can't have a true community made up of individuals that don't believe in something. Even if you are non-religious, that's not really enough to tie you to other non-religious people to make you feel associated with them.

That and non-religious people don't give a shit about religiously oriented political commentary.

IMO however, politicians who are openly religiously affiliated are abhorrant.

[Cause]

Cold Iron, on Dec 23 2008, 04:40 AM, said:

Mostly it tells me that you can't have a true community made up of individuals that don't believe in something. Even if you are non-religious, that's not really enough to tie you to other non-religious people to make you feel associated with them.

What an odd thing to say. Athiests dont believe in god. That does not exclude them believing in the process of law, right and wrong, America, patriotism, that they hate black people. Their are all sorts of reasons for people to form communities beside god.

Quote

That and non-religious people don't give a shit about religiously oriented political commentary.

Should they? SHould anyone? What is religiously oriented political commentary

Quote

IMO however, politicians who are openly religiously affiliated are abhorrant.

Agreed

Edit: Oops, seems I might have misunderstood. You were saying he need not fear insulting them because they wont band toghetehr o respond? Well than I guess that goes directly to what dawkins is trying to accomplish.

This post has been edited by Cause: 23 December 2008 - 06:10 AM

[Shinrei]

Quote

IMO however, politicians who are openly religiously affiliated are abhorrant.

But isn't this just as intolerant as the intolerance Terez pointed out towards athiests?

[Terez]

The 20th, on Dec 23 2008, 04:27 AM, said:

Quote

IMO however, politicians who are openly religiously affiliated are abhorrant.

But isn't this just as intolerant as the intolerance Terez pointed out towards athiests?

Yes, but it's a minority opinion in the US that isn't likely to create any comparable amount of discrimination any time soon. The social stigma works against atheists, in general.

All of my politicians are openly religious. There aren't any other options. It's okay though, cause I like some of them, despite the fact that they're openly religious. I disagree with my politicians a lot and sometimes those disagreements can be directly attributed to their religious beliefs. But in this past election, I preferred Obama, a person who takes his religion pretty seriously, over McCain, who was only casually religious, and I made that choice long before Palin was recruited.

[Gimli's love child]

'But isn't this just as intolerant as the intolerance Terez pointed out towards athiests?'

Just to qualify a statement by Tony Blair reminded me of this:

Tony Blair said that before he thought long and hard about the invasion of Iraq and asked for Gods help in prayer..

Does this mean that he thought God supported the invasion then?

Fair enough I obviosuly cant point the finger at religion here but the fact that our leader took god into consideration before making his move shakes me.

Oh and the UK actually has a reglious majority at the moment.

@dolorous

Sorry man just becuase something hasn't effected your life directly doesn't mean its still not a bad thing

[Terez]

You could easily say that it has affected your lives, that our most recent president and his dad are so heavily religious, because it has influenced our international policy while they have been president.

[Shinrei]

But Terez, intolerance is intolerance. If a group is a minority or not in power, that doesn't somehow lend justification.

[Terez]

The 20th, on Dec 23 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

But Terez, intolerance is intolerance.

Somehow I knew you would miss the fact that I did not claim otherwise.

[caladanbrood]

Terez, on Dec 23 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

Yes, but it's a minority opinion in the US that isn't likely to create any comparable amount of discrimination any time soon. The social stigma works against atheists, in general.

Clearly the opposite of what we have over here. Generally, it's pretty tolerant both ways, but it's pretty cool to be athiest...

[Terez]

Yes, the forum religious views reflect the European tilt to this forum. Or perhaps the tilt of epic fantasy readers.

[Shinrei]

Common Terez, dont play games. You applied what sounded like justification. "They're a small minority that isn't in power, so their intolerance won't create discrimination." Why even say that unless you intended to "soften" my charge of intolerance to those guys who said they found religious politicians "abhorrent".