[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on Dec 27 2008, 04:13 AM, said:

Well speaking as an atheist I would say Im discriminated against. Not in the sense that I cant ride the same busses as religous people but in the sense that most people think I really do believe in god, Im just confused. They honestly seem to think Im playing or just cant comprehend that a person could not believe.. Its expected that I should partcipate in prayers, or the ritual washing of my hands at meals etc out of respect for their beliefs, but than where is the respect for mine? I once lost a girlfriend over the issue. My own mother has stated she is upset by the issue. My mother who has not been to shull in my memmory and who keeps none of the laws or rituals I associate with judaism. I dont want to say Im a victim. Its not like racism or gay bashing but their is definatly a tension that arises from it

Well, Cause, I can certainly relate. Where I live there are certain things I am expected to be a part of in a way, and when I'm not a part of it people look strangely at me or at least differently. Of course not all people are like that, and I'm not sure I'd loose a boyfriend over it or anything, but I can certainly relate to the kind of estrangement you feel when you're 'outside the box' so to speak. All societies have these kind of 'norms', and if you're outside of it, you're seen as not fitting in. I would not for instance say, in an interview for a job, that I believe in God. I might be seen as not fitting in with the company policy.
Neither am I saying that I am a victim; lots of people seem to respect my integrity, but I can certainly feel some may avoid me or see me in a certain way that I don't agree with.

But I am quite used to it, since it has been part of my entire life. I remember I got laughed at in 3rd grade because I said I believed in what the bible said about people getting very old. Even the teacher showed disdain. Ever since those episodes I've learned that certain beliefs are not welcome, and I of course never spoke up very much in school that semester.

I don't want to say I am a victim or anything - I just recognize that there are certain views that accepted by society and that others aren't. It's the way you learn integrity and to fight for your beliefs. Not to say that it was correct to ridicule me, but the way I see it, there's a lot of ignorance where this comes from, as to people that are different from the mainstream, so to speak, in certain social groups.

As a side not, and in retrospect, I think it was healthier for me to actually be criticized for what I believed than not. I wouldn't have wanted to be raised in an environment where everything I believed was the mainstream. It would seriously have messed up my intellectual capabilities. I wouldn't have wanted to be raised in USA - in some ways, the society over there is way too unforgiving of individual thinking and intellectual complexity <-- my view, might not be correct, but it's how I see it (sorry).

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 27 December 2008 - 02:19 PM

[Mezla PigDog]

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?

It is a difficult thing to say where it has directly affected the lives of atheists, but since religion has been all pervading in all aspects of human life for so many centuries, it is impossible to say where it has not affected the atheist!

I would say the social stigma associated with various reproductive and sexual law has a direct affect on everyone. As well as my position in society as a female, since religion has been the main excuse for holding women back for centuries! The fact that the religious always swamp debates about certain aspects of scientific research. There was a recent parliamentary debate and vote about changing the UK embryology act which was prompted by religious views. It was voted down and that wasted time is paid for with my atheist taxes! While I am not averse to ethical debate, the fact that it always boils down to religious view versus non-religious view is a waste of public money when the religious always scurry off to their holy books for guidence rather than attempting original thought.

This post has been edited by Mezla PigDog: 27 December 2008 - 05:40 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Without religion, in many cases, there would be no 'ethical debate', since without some sort of guidance or agreement of origin of thought, there would be no ethos.

Mezla PigDog, on Dec 27 2008, 06:38 PM, said:

the religious always scurry off to their holy books for guidence rather than attempting original thought.

You'd be surprised how much 'original thought' is actually required when interpreting holy books. One of these days I'll start a completely new thread on what literal interpretation and any interpretation actually means, because it seems many here has a skewed image of what it means. Hey, many 'religious' might not know the meaning either. I find the amount of prejudice in this area astounding. And no, I don't give a fly's fart in the wind what kind of 'religious people' you have happened to come across in the past. :Surprise:

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 27 December 2008 - 05:51 PM

[Shinrei]

I have to admit that the poll baffles me. Who are these 50% who veiw athiests unfavorably? Where do they live? I dont dispute that they exist, I just dont know anyone like that...

This post has been edited by The 20th: 27 December 2008 - 11:38 PM

[Illuyankas]

It's probably something to do with the whole 'no religion no morals herp derp' thing a lot of religious people have. It's still almost certainly not that high in real life, though.

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 27 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

Without religion, in many cases, there would be no 'ethical debate', since without some sort of guidance or agreement of origin of thought, there would be no ethos.

I would say this is a perfect example of the no religeon no morals viewpoint. I assure you wthout religeon scientists would still not set people on fire just to time how long they burn. When I told some people from a jewish youth group I hanged out with a while I was an aethiest I kept getting asked why I dont just murder evryone. I found it a frightening question as the unsaid implication is that without religeon theywould seem to want to kill evryone

[Terez]

The 20th, on Dec 27 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

I have to admit that the poll baffles me. Who are these 50% who view atheists unfavorably? Where do they live? I don't dispute that they exist, I just don't know anyone like that...

Pretty much everyone I know is like that. My dad certainly is - he would never vote for an atheist, and he was reluctant to vote for McCain because he's only a casual Christian. I don't think it's much different in Wisconsin, either, even if you are fortunate enough to live in Madison. But I have a good friend in Wisconsin (Madison where he grew up, Milwaukee where he goes to school, and Waukesha where his mom lives now) who is constantly coming into contact with this sort of person and telling me about it, or posting about it on his blog (he's somewhat of an atheist activist). I know another guy from another forum who lives in Wisconsin, and he is definitely that way - some of the rants I've seen him go on about religion have been pretty scary stuff.

Illy said:

It's probably something to do with the whole 'no religion no morals herp derp' thing a lot of religious people have. It's still almost certainly not that high in real life, though.

I see no reason to believe that it is not. These numbers are for the US, by the way, and not the whole world.

[Terez]

Cause, on Dec 27 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 27 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

Without religion, in many cases, there would be no 'ethical debate', since without some sort of guidance or agreement of origin of thought, there would be no ethos.

I would say this is a perfect example of the no religeon no morals viewpoint. I assure you wthout religeon scientists would still not set people on fire just to time how long they burn. When I told some people from a jewish youth group I hanged out with a while I was an aethiest I kept getting asked why I dont just murder evryone. I found it a frightening question as the unsaid implication is that without religeon theywould seem to want to kill evryone

Wow, I can't believe she actually said that...wait, yeah I can...

[HoosierDaddy]

Justice, which can be seen as the penultimate apex of ethics has absolutely no foundation in religion. Treating a person as they deserve goes back way before Christ. I suggest, Plato's "The Republic" for a conversation as such.

[Shinrei]

I must live in a "see no evil" bubble. I don't see anyone in my family saying that, and I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that I think would believe something like that. I have MET people who might, but that's about it.

BTW, I'm from Madison, so that might be part of it.....

[Terez]

The 20th, on Dec 28 2008, 02:40 AM, said:

I must live in a "see no evil" bubble. I don't see anyone in my family saying that, and I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that I think would believe something like that. I have MET people who might, but that's about it.

BTW, I'm from Madison, so that might be part of it.....

Yeah, that probably helps.

It's probably not even close to 50% in Madison (and my friend lived in the suburbs), but it's definitely more than 50% where I live, and I live in one of the most liberal portions of MS (don't be confused by the red and blue, because most of the blue is in the counties with high black populations, and though black folks tend to vote Democrat, they also tend to be very religious, especially in the south).

[Aptorian]

Terez, on Dec 28 2008, 08:22 AM, said:

Illy said:

It's probably something to do with the whole 'no religion no morals herp derp' thing a lot of religious people have. It's still almost certainly not that high in real life, though.

I see no reason to believe that it is not. These numbers are for the US, by the way, and not the whole world.

Like he said, the real world

[Terez]

Aptorian, on Dec 28 2008, 03:14 AM, said:

Terez, on Dec 28 2008, 08:22 AM, said:

Illy said:

It's probably something to do with the whole 'no religion no morals herp derp' thing a lot of religious people have. It's still almost certainly not that high in real life, though.

I see no reason to believe that it is not. These numbers are for the US, by the way, and not the whole world.

Like he said, the real world

Is that like Real America?

[Tapper]

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 26 2008, 09:46 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on Dec 26 2008, 07:19 PM, said:

As to more "how are atheists marginalized...": I've found that it is a much more subtle discrimination that is a very instinctual, make you look twice kind of reaction that religious people have.

The concept of atheists being marginalized is very alien to me, since I live in a country where the religious people are the ones in minority - especially in politics, media and in the public forum.

Really? If so, Sweden is much more atheist than I imagined.

The Christian Democratic Party (admittedly, a conglomerate of reformed, protestant and catholics banding together), is the largest here and has been for the past three to five elections. Admittedly, they are nowhere near a majority (roughly 40 seats out of 150 consistently) but still the largest, and they are formally (they won't turn it back now that it is institutionalized) against abortion and euthanasia, two of Holland's most defining liberties.

With the added two smaller and stricter parties, I'd say around 50 out of 150 parlement seats is occupied more or less permanently by Christians who take the gospel and their private religious thoughts into account when making politics.

Nor are they isolated: both the big one and one of the smaller ones are in the ruling coalition at the moment.

Newspapers is more of the same: several of our larger newspapers were originally meant for a Christian audience. Those roots still show, even though they're buried far deeper nowadays.

And now, I shall flee from the Discussion forum once again.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 28 December 2008 - 10:15 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on Dec 28 2008, 01:59 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 27 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

Without religion, in many cases, there would be no 'ethical debate', since without some sort of guidance or agreement of origin of thought, there would be no ethos.

I would say this is a perfect example of the no religeon no morals viewpoint. I assure you wthout religeon scientists would still not set people on fire just to time how long they burn. When I told some people from a jewish youth group I hanged out with a while I was an aethiest I kept getting asked why I dont just murder evryone. I found it a frightening question as the unsaid implication is that without religeon theywould seem to want to kill evryone

I have reiterate what Terez said here - I can't believe you said that. I can't believe you would think that of me. It' very insulting and you misunderstand me. Morals are not the same as ethos. Morals are what your parents and the rest of society teach you, and what you inherently get because you are a human. Ethos is the discussion of society - the common ground or agreement we use to advance the world.

Also, I used the term 'in many cases' which I you chose to ignore. I in no way mean that people that don't believe in anything automatically don't have any morals. When you apply that kind of thinking on me because that's what you are used to getting, you do exactly what you accuse me of doing. How can you not see that?

Ask me what I mean next time before you assume something. Whoa, guys, I really expected more from you.

Tapper, on Dec 28 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 26 2008, 09:46 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on Dec 26 2008, 07:19 PM, said:

As to more "how are atheists marginalized...": I've found that it is a much more subtle discrimination that is a very instinctual, make you look twice kind of reaction that religious people have.

The concept of atheists being marginalized is very alien to me, since I live in a country where the religious people are the ones in minority - especially in politics, media and in the public forum.

Really? If so, Sweden is much more atheist than I imagined.

The Christian Democratic Party (admittedly, a conglomerate of reformed, protestant and catholics banding together), is the largest here and has been for the past three to five elections. Admittedly, they are nowhere near a majority (roughly 40 seats out of 150 consistently) but still the largest, and they are formally (they won't turn it back now that it is institutionalized) against abortion and euthanasia, two of Holland's most defining liberties.

With the added two smaller and stricter parties, I'd say around 50 out of 150 parlement seats is occupied more or less permanently by Christians who take the gospel and their private religious thoughts into account when making politics.

Nor are they isolated: both the big one and one of the smaller ones are in the ruling coalition at the moment.

Newspapers is more of the same: several of our larger newspapers were originally meant for a Christian audience. Those roots still show, even though they're buried far deeper nowadays.

And now, I shall flee from the Discussion forum once again.

Tapper, the party you're talking about is very far from the right wing in the US for instance - it's not even the same league. And in what the people in that party brings should be taken into account with the fact that most of them are more socialistic in their views than most socialists. And that taken aside that what you say is true, what I say is none the less true, because there is no argument in politics that are based on what the bible says for instance - and you would never hear a swedish politician mention God in a debate. We do have a very atheistic society, and I don't even think it's bad (since you all assume I would think it's bad, I have to be clear), because we're also generally a very tolerant society, or at least we strive to be. But that doesn't mean I can't relate to what Cause is saying his experience is.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 28 December 2008 - 01:46 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

HoosierDaddy, on Dec 28 2008, 08:28 AM, said:

Justice, which can be seen as the penultimate apex of ethics has absolutely no foundation in religion. Treating a person as they deserve goes back way before Christ. I suggest, Plato's "The Republic" for a conversation as such.

Whoa, how can I get so misunderstood - I must have some sort of invisible shield or something. Or I just suck at the English language.

I didn't say only religion is the reason for moral or ethical debate. Please go back and read my post. If you still think my post says that - let me be clear I do not mean that. I have read enough ancient texts and studied history enough to know these things. I guess it's because I think it's so obvious and natural that I forget to mention it or hint at it.

Secondly, I wasn't talking about just Christianity. The fact is that many of humanity's ponderings about morals and ethic has resolved into beliefs and worship of some kind. And it's absolutely correct that the forming of philosophy is an important stepping stone for ethic debates. I know my Plato.

But you're making a mistake in assuming philosophy is that different from religious views. Those guys was metaphysicians, and they asked questions about the metaphysical world as much as the physical world. The images and ideas they used are very similar to religious images in a way.

Would you agree that atheism is a very recent thought in western society? Granted it depends on the definition, but I hope you guys see my point.

I do not mean in any way to say that non-religious people automatically don't have any morals - I have never even heard of any such argument before! It sounds retarded actually.

But my point came from the fact that I saw atheism as a recent thought, and therefore it hasn't (yet) started any ethical debates in society (if you discount the crusade against religion) that has had time to make a mark. It will probably come - what do I know.

[Terez]

Gem said:

I wasn't talking about just Christianity. The fact is that many of humanity's ponderings about morals and ethic has resolved into beliefs and worship of some kind. And it's absolutely correct that the forming of philosophy is an important stepping stone for ethic debates.

Humanity's ponderings about morals and ethic resolved into beliefs and worship because of self-serving motives. Religion wasn't necessary to bring about Ethos - it was only sugar to make the medicine go down, a way to pretend that our motives are not self-serving. If we want to improve our lifestyle, then we are forced to depend on others, and forced in turn to create codes of ethics to regulate our dealings with one another. The delusion that deities are involved brings nothing else to the table beyond a conceit that our actions are sanctioned by higher powers and that our enemies will be punished. And I'm sure your modern enlightened version of theism doesn't tolerate such barbaric principles but this is nevertheless the origin of religious belief.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Dec 28 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

Gem said:

I wasn't talking about just Christianity. The fact is that many of humanity's ponderings about morals and ethic has resolved into beliefs and worship of some kind. And it's absolutely correct that the forming of philosophy is an important stepping stone for ethic debates.

Humanity's ponderings about morals and ethic resolved into beliefs and worship because of self-serving motives. Religion wasn't necessary to bring about Ethos - it was only sugar to make the medicine go down, a way to pretend that our motives are not self-serving. If we want to improve our lifestyle, then we are forced to depend on others, and forced in turn to create codes of ethics to regulate our dealings with one another. The delusion that deities are involved brings nothing else to the table beyond a conceit that our actions are sanctioned by higher powers and that our enemies will be punished. And I'm sure your modern enlightened version of theism doesn't tolerate such barbaric principles but this is nevertheless the origin of religious belief.

Why Terez, I absolutely agree with you. As for what was necessary, it's speculation of course, until such a time when atheists manage to make a mark on ethic discussions (in history). The fact is, though, it did happen how it happened.

I am not for religion for religions sake, I never was and I never will be. (I recognize the fact that humans took a great message (the christian gospel) and made it into something with corners and spikes. The core is still the great news, but I'm not a fan of the corners and spikes. Humanity tend to do that with things. )

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 28 2008, 09:05 AM, said:

Terez, I absolutely agree with you. As for what was necessary, it's speculation of course, until such a time when atheists manage to make a mark on ethic discussions (in history). The fact is, though, it did happen how it happened.

You said it was necessary. I disagree. While it's nice to see you've backed off to calling that line of thought "speculation", you still seem to maintain that religion was necessary for ethics to develop. Why?

[Dolorous Menhir]

Hi Gem. I find your attempts to argue here very amusing. You say something that gets systematically knocked down by several people, and you are forced to explain that you meant 100% the opposite and are totally horrified that anyone could have read your first statement and inferred that you meant what it said. Then we repeat.