Bullshit.
they forgot the ‘I may be lying here’ column
Giuliani’s screwed
what about gaytheists?
They should do combo questions too, like ’72 year old homosexual black catholic’
i’m screwed
what an Islamophobic poll
catholic hispanic woman married for the third time. hello missus president:
ok i kind of want her “shirt”
Beware the Bradley Effect
I am more hated than teh gheys!
I saw a panel on CNN a couple weeks ago where a GWU professor was passionately arguing for civil rights & affirmative action, then she did an about-face and essentially said that atheists need to get out of town.
I’ve been an atheist for 25 years, and this seems like a new attitude? Weird.
atheists have always been widely reviled by America, this is not a “new” thing.
“catholics, blacks, jews, women, hispanics, mormons, serial divorcer, old dudes, gays, atheists”
this is a song in the making
i think randy newman may have already written it.
it’s hard to keep track of his scathing commentaries sung in a folksy oldtyme negro voice though. maybe i’m thinking of david allan coe.
this is not a “new” thing.
New to me. Seems like a lot more out-in-the-open hostility then there used to be. Someone on the CNN panel attributed it to “activist atheists”.
Someone on the CNN panel attributed it to “activist atheists”.
that’s crazy talk.
I don’t think the sentiment against electing atheists is at all new. the pretense in American political discourse that everyone believes in god is longstanding.
Edward do you remember how hated Madeleine Murray O-Hair was in the 70s...? just one example.
I’m talking about distrust of atheists in general, not specifically their electability. The CNN panel was reacting to some poll where atheists were ranked lowest in some other area—trustworthiness? I forget.
(that was xpost to horseshoe)
Actually, never heard of her—but O’Hair is a great name! Better than O’Hare!
In 1980, her son William converted to Christianity and was born again at a Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, where he took up work as a preacher. This led to a permanent estrangement between mother and son. As she put it, “One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times... He is beyond human forgiveness.”
Sounds like she earned some of that hatred—what a biyatch!
you’ve been an atheist since 1980 and you’ve never heard of the founder of the American Atheists...? A notorious and very public figure who was also brutally murdered (ie, in the press all the time)?
(um x-post)
He is beyond human forgiveness
what a completely religious thing to say! what’s “beyond human” for an atheist?
the only current “atheist activist” I can think of is Richard Dawkins—who, like O’Hair, also seems to be a raging asshole. Atheists might wanna get some public spokespersons who are not aggressive jerks.
you should send ’em your resume!
hahaha @ a_p
you’ve been an atheist since 1980 and you’ve never heard of the founder of the American Atheists...?
I imagine there’s a lot of people in blue states who just don’t think about it much.
buh? I’m not an atheist
yeah i really wonder what image that 53% has in their heads. probably a combination of jim morrison and lenin or some shit
“Atheists might wanna get some public spokespersons who are not aggressive jerks.”
Aren’t public spokespersons basically synonymous with aggressive jerks?
lolz @ Jim Morrison as an atheist!!
“let’s start a new religion, worshipping ME—Bozo Dionysus!”
I think the problem is that most atheists don’t really feel a need to further their “cause”, because they don’t see it as a cause, and don’t wish to convert anyone. Though based on those figures maybe they should get some more active spokespersons, at least in the US.
shakey i don’t think the “silent majority” and its heirs really give a fuck about the ins and outs of 60s era counter cultural spirituality.
“Though based on those figures maybe they should get some more active spokespersons, at least in the US.”
I think this would possibly be the worst idea ever.
i really wonder what image that 53% has in their heads
you’ve been an atheist since 1980 and you’ve never heard of the founder of the American Atheists...?
Sorry, not a card-carrying member.
i love the dude when he says “SHUT UP”!! Also any good responses to youtube group.
true nuff
still there are plenty of christians who can tell the difference between a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a pagan, and an atheist.
“Though based on those figures maybe they should get some more active spokespersons, at least in the US.”
I think this would possibly be the worst idea ever.
What else can you do, if you want to get rid of such distrust?
(xpost to geoff)
move to liberal finland?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-jjDLKMswM
Dawkins on it
“What else can you do, if you want to get rid of such distrust?”
Probably nothing.
Maybe they should go for the name “agnostic” instead of “atheist”, because a lot of people read that last one as “anti-theist” and thus feel threatened?
atheism and agnosticism are two different things.
Yeah, I would be offended if someone called me agnostic.
also atheism IS basically threatening to religion. Its an inherently reactionary stance against an existing philosophical structure (like Satanism with Catholicism).
Philosophy is not Religion
Its an inherently reactionary stance against an existing philosophical structure (like Satanism with Catholicism).
For this to be true you’d have to think human beings are born believing in some deity.
Atheism isn’t necessarily against anything. If you’re, say, raised an atheist, where is your “reactionary stance”?
Maybe they should go for the name “agnostic” instead of “atheist”, because a lot of people read that last one as “anti-theist” and thus feel threatened?
That’s like “let’s water you down so you’re more acceptable to the people who baselessly distrust you!”
“What else can you do, if you want to get rid of such distrust?”
Probably nothing.
Defeatist much?
also atheism IS basically threatening to religion. Its an inherently reactionary stance against an existing philosophical structure (like Satanism with Catholicism).
This is nuts. How is not believing in God a reactionary stance? Atheists don’t threaten religion. This is like in-defense-of-marriage thinking.
Second of all Satanists hate Christians, not just Catholics.
Okay, so for y’all, saying you’re an atheist means what exactly? I’m trying to figure out if there are cultural/language differences.
against the world at large and its religious schools and institutions. (unless you were raised in a box by BF Skinner and never exposed to any religious ideas whatsoever). Look at the etymology of the word, its defined by what it is NOT.
geoff the concept of Satan would not exist without Catholicism, nor would you have things like the Black Mass, the Satanic Bible, etc.
atheism’s central tenet is that religion is basically wrong—how could any religious institution not see that as a threat?
“geoff the concept of Satan would not exist without Catholicism, nor would you have things like the Black Mass, the Satanic Bible, etc.”
er Edward (sorry not keeping these different lines of conversation very straight)
against the world at large and its religious schools and institutions.
This is like saying someone who grows up Jewish and converts to Islam is reacting against Judaism. It’s like saying my preference for chocolate is a reaction against vanilla. As far as the etymology of the word, that’s a weakness of the English language, it doesn’t necessarily speak to anything inherent in the philosophy.
Eva, atheist = believes there is no god, agnostic = unsure of whether there is a god or not, or believes proof of either case is impossible.
ok, I am installing killfile
atheism’s central tenet is that religion is basically wrong—how could any religious institution not see that as a threat?
Yeah, but this is different than saying it’s a reactionary stance. Otherwise you could claim that, for example, being a muslim is a reactionary stance against christianity.
(xx-post)
is this mitt romneys campaign slogan?
atheism’s central tenet is that religion is basically wrong—how could any religious institution not see that as a threat?
Atheism’s central tenet is that there is no God. If a religious institution feels “threatened” by that belief, then they are paranoid.
you’ve been an atheist since 1980 and you’ve never heard of the founder of the American Atheists...? A notorious and very public figure who was also brutally murdered (ie, in the press all the time)?
Was it confirmed that she was brutally murdered? I thought that she went the Jimmy Hoffa route.
ACTIVIST ATHEISTS SWARM FORMATION NOW
atheism’s central tenet is that religion is basically wrong—how could any religious institution not see that as a threat?
Atheism’s central tenet is that there is no God. If a religious institution feels “threatened” by that belief, then they are paranoid.
I’d actually take that further and say that if a religious person feels threatened by an atheist, it’s probably a reaction to their own insecurity about their religious beliefs.
“Yeah, but this is different than saying it’s a reactionary stance. Otherwise you could claim that, for example, being a muslim is a reactionary stance against christianity.”
I think its reactionary in the sense that everyone is exposed to religious ideas in some form or another as a child (and even moreso as an adult), and that atheism springs from a rejection of those ideas, whatever form they may take.
He is beyond human forgiveness
what a completely religious thing to say! what’s “beyond human” for an atheist?
— horseshoe (rosalind51...), February 21st, 2007. (later)
Nothing; that’s why the speaker cannot forgive him. It’s not an inherently religious thing to say. He has passed the capacity for human forgiveness and as such cannae be forgave.
“I’d actually take that further and say that if a religious person feels threatened by an atheist, it’s probably a reaction to their own insecurity about their religious beliefs.”
well duh. that doesn’t make it any less threatening.
“Was it confirmed that she was brutally murdered? I thought that she went the Jimmy Hoffa route.”
it went unsolved for a long time, but yes, bodies were found, case was prosecuted, etc.
I think its reactionary in the sense that everyone is exposed to religious ideas in some form or another as a child (and even moreso as an adult), and that atheism springs from a rejection of those ideas, whatever form they may take.
What if you’re raised an atheist? Furthermore, atheism doesn’t necessarily come from active rejection of anything. In my case, for example, it felt pretty much like a logical conclusion. I wasn’t strongly indoctrinated into any religion, so I didn’t feel like I was rejecting anything. Of course you could say that every part of your worldview is a rejection of some other, alternative point of view, but I find that a wrongheaded way of putting things.
I think its reactionary in the sense that everyone is exposed to religious ideas in some form or another as a child (and even moreso as an adult), and that atheism springs from a rejection of those ideas, whatever form they may take.
If choosing a path is reactionary then all paths are reactionary. Is Christianity reactionary in relation to Judiasm?
what about a vegetarian
a buddhist
taoist
asian
Again, you could claim that Christianity is a rejection of atheism, because no doubt most Christians have to face the idea of the nonexistence of god at one point or another.
(xxx-post)
how? when god is omnipresent?
I think its reactionary in the sense that everyone is exposed to religious ideas in some form or another as a child (and even moreso as an adult), and that atheism springs from a rejection of those ideas, whatever form they may take.
Exposed and indoctrinated are two different things.
I was somehow left completely devoid of a religious education as a child (despite both my parents being Christians of a sort, my brother was baptized, and my extended family are all highly religious). It just never happened. Never went to church, never made to pray, nada.
I was, however, exposed to Christianity (as all Americans are) through the culture. But I never reacted against that (aside from joking about Satan-worship in school).
For me atheism isn’t a reaction to anything—God never entered the picture for me to react against.
Ha, we seem to have another form of non-religion: ietsism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism
My take on the “threatening” or “distrustful” bit of atheists is that if you believe that proper ethics/morals/codes of behavior can come from religious systems, you’d see someone as w/o religion as also being amoral, evil, or more likely to commit evil due to lack of moral discipline, etc.
“Is Christianity reactionary in relation to Judiasm?”
haha given the history of Christianity and its roots actually yes, it is.
obviously how “reactionary” something is depends on what came first. I would hope this is a fairly simple concept to grasp. Seeing as how the religious instinct is at the basic, historical root of human culture, I don’t have any problem assigning it a primary role.
what the fuck is Stephen A. Smith doing in that CNN clip?
Wow. Somehow, I had missed Part Two of O’Hair’s disappearance.
xp and yet he’s the sanest one there.
yeah—went from accompanying a diaper-clad Larry Flynt to the Supreme Court to being murdered for some rare coins. crazy shit.
(um more xpost)
obviously how “reactionary” something is depends on what came first.
I think you’re overlooking the pejorative nature of the term “reactionary,” which implies a lack of validity in the viewpoint being espoused.
I didn’t mean to imply any lack of validity, sorry. I assumed an understanding of “reactionary” as meaning characterized by reaction.
That’s probably why all these atheists be fighting wit you.
Fighting? this is a pretty civil conversation for ILE!
a silly argument
My take on the “threatening” or “distrustful” bit of atheists is that if you believe that proper ethics/morals/codes of behavior can come from religious systems, you’d see someone as w/o religion as also being amoral, evil, or more likely to commit evil due to lack of moral discipline, etc.
— they be stealin’ kingfish’s bucket (jdsalmo...), February 21st, 2007. (kingfish) (later)
This is a key point, but I’d say “if you believe that proper ethics/morals/codes of behavior can only come from religious systems.” Atheists can be moral people, and have the same struggles of conscience that religious people have. Apparently that’s a mind-blowing concept for religious people.
If religious people are inherently more moral than atheists why are there so many religious people in jail?
a silly argument
silly for you! my people are being persecuted!
maybe *I* should be the atheist spokesperson.
you’re being persecuted by shakey mo?
to the rack with him
shakey mo pelted me with rocks and garbage
is rachel ray an atheist?
Atheists can be moral people, and have the same struggles of conscience that religious people have. Apparently that’s a mind-blowing concept for religious people.
Except that we’re not talking about “religious people”, we’re talking about a very specific subset(sizeable tho it is). And for this subset, yeah, they see atheists as immoral/amoral folks. This ain’t something they have evidence about or have necessarily reasoned into, but it’s there.
Atheists can be moral people, and have the same struggles of conscience that religious people have. Apparently that’s a mind-blowing concept for 53% of religious people.
okay, corrected
A long time ago, matter gave rise to living beings. These living beings developed many mechanisms for survival. Some of these beings developed a survival mechanism known as fear, or anxiety. Eventually, up rose man, a being of great cognitive ability, who could understand, manipulate, and create abstractions, including “why” and “death”. These abstractions, chief amongst many others, triggered the primary survival mechanism, fear. There was no known way to survive indefinitely, and this caused man pain. In order to stop that fear, man created false ideas that turned off the fear. Some of these false ideas are called god.
God is man’s first cure for anxiety disorder.
Most people are more afraid of their absolute mortality than they are of hell. This is why they hate and distrust atheists.
“Annoying contrarian” aren’t on that poll, so it can’t be accurate.
Just to be clear, are you referring to me as an annoying contrarian?
No, dear, just me, although you’re welcome to join us.
So you let in paranoids, then. Excellent.
this poll demonstrates conclusively that Ayn Rand would lose to Richard Simmons, who would lose to Dennis Hopper, who would lose to Salman Rushdie, who would lose to Glenn Beck, who would lose to Jimmy Smits, who would lose to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who would lose to Chuck Schumer, who would lose to Tavis Smiley, who would lose to the Pope
I’m not really surprised by this poll
the whole thing: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611
2 things:
1. whoops, forgot to turn on killfile! shakey problem fixed.
2. it’s really freaking me the fuck out that mitt romney is running and that maybe people will vote for him. people, he is mormon. i was raised mormon. they are fucking crazy and evil. you don’t know crazy and evil. this isn’t just about personal belief. it’s about an entire, malignant worldview that will fuck everyone over. anyone even remotely connected to the religion will take it as a mandate from god like you wouldn’t even believe and actively work for their armaggeddon fantasies like you wouldn’t believe. mormons are PROFOUNDLY anti-human. people complain about bush using god as justification for his fantasy world—YOU DON’T EVEN FUCKING KNOW. AND THERE WILL BE ARNOLD FRIEBERG PAINTINGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. DON’T DO IT AMERICA, IT WILL DESTROY YOU.
hahaha that anti-mormon screed’s even harsher than mine!
ok sorry shakey i don’t really totally hate you, sometimes i just turn off ‘prolific’ posters for my cowardly lurking reading habits!
