Great news, number of "Godless" increases
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Since it appears you may not have taken time to read the thread in its entirety before posting, I'll just reiterate Señor Pumpkin's advisory from Post #6 here:
(emphasis mine)
I read that after I posted what I did. I apologize and will delete it. It is hard to just bring facts when I see this thread title and someone even posting "Great News Indeed" though.
Bear in mind, tomalak, that the attitude you're referring to is representative of a small percentage of atheists, not the majority. Using that attitude to define atheists is like using the attitude of any fundie to define the followers of their religion. Clearly, some atheists are rude and condescending about religion, but most just don't care, I think.
Yep. The "you believe in god? You're stupid" gang is no different from the "you don't believe in god? You're evil" gang.
I'm an atheist, and I always enjoy a heated debate on different theological position, but there's disagreeing, and there's shooting down the discussion with generalizations. Beside, I've met too many incredibly smart believers, and so many utterly idiotic atheists to ever hold that view.
I'm an atheist, and I always enjoy a heated debate on different theological position, but there's disagreeing, and there's shooting down the discussion with generalizations. Beside, I've met too many incredibly smart believers, and so many utterly idiotic atheists to ever hold that view.
While I view an upsurge in atheism positively, what concerns me more is how the numbers of Christian fundmentalists in the US changes over time. A quick check tells me that about 1/3 of Americans still take the Bible as literal fact--Biblical inerrants, basically. That's about the most stringent definition of "fundamentalist" I can muster so as not to get bogged down in details of what a "fundamentalist" is.
So, while 1 in 5 Americans is atheist, 1 in 3 believes the Bible is literal fact. I think the latter number going down is a lot more important than the former number going up, although both would be good news as far as I'm concerned. Note that around 80% of all Americans identify as Christian to begin with, which means that the number of Christian Americans who take the Bible literally is a bit over 40%. For every one American who is an atheist, there are two who believe in an inerrant, literal Bible. To me, that is the real problem.
I'm okay with the number of Christians (and other religious persuasions) staying just the same, as long as we manage to weed out the fundamentalists who try to control public policy, and through that mechanism try to control the lives of people who don't share their beliefs.
So, while 1 in 5 Americans is atheist, 1 in 3 believes the Bible is literal fact. I think the latter number going down is a lot more important than the former number going up, although both would be good news as far as I'm concerned. Note that around 80% of all Americans identify as Christian to begin with, which means that the number of Christian Americans who take the Bible literally is a bit over 40%. For every one American who is an atheist, there are two who believe in an inerrant, literal Bible. To me, that is the real problem.
I'm okay with the number of Christians (and other religious persuasions) staying just the same, as long as we manage to weed out the fundamentalists who try to control public policy, and through that mechanism try to control the lives of people who don't share their beliefs.
As a Christian who is not a fundamentalist... the increase in atheism doesn't particularly worry me, but the increase in fundamentalism (in all religions, not just Christianity) sure does.
I'm glad to hear that mainly because I've encountered many people who are atheists (Online or in real life) who do have that attitude and it comes across as just disrespectful. It's as if Atheism has form it's own religion and you have those who are so extreme that they will feel like it's their way, or the highway, much the same way as the fundamentalist Christians who have taken over the Church in the eyes of the media and what you hear on the news.
Suffice it to say, I've always held that we're all here for a reason and everyone has a purpose in life. Whether that is through religion or not, that's your prerogative. If we were all the same, life would be incredibly boring. Also, I respect the point of view that atheism holds, but I do wish (And this is for everyone) there was a lot more tolerance then there currently is.
Probably. Although there was an interesting article in the Vancouver Sun this past summer saying that 6 out of every 10 immigrants coming into Canada is Christian. So while there may be a movement of younger Canadian-born Christians rejecting their family's religion, there are apparently quite a few UK, Filippino, Italian, American, German, Jamaican and South Korean born Christians coming in.
I think often those individuals who decide to speak for a group, by their very nature, are the last people who should do so. Vocal minorities are common in any group of people, are usually extremist, and are very bad examples of the majority of individuals. A further complication with atheism is that people (at least in my experience, and so generally Americans) tend to hugely misunderstand what is meant by atheism. There is no belief structure, agenda, school of thought, politics, ethics, or attitude that is a part of atheism (except, maybe, a greater tendency towards empiricism and critical thinking); the only truly universal quality of atheists is not believing in god(s).
I consider myself to be an athiest, and I live in a relatively conservative part of the country. And I don't think I'd have a problem at all telling non-family members. I grew up Catholic, so I don't mention it to my parents, but it's more to keep them happy, because I think it would hurt them if they knew I still wasn't (they would feel it was a failure of their parenting). Actually I am pretty sure they suspect, but don't say anything about it to avoid an argument. Sort of a stalemate there.
I don't go around advertising it at work - not because I believe I'd be fired, but just because I think it's best to avoid controversial subjects - especially religion and politics - to maintain good, working relationships with my co-workers.
I don't think I'd have any reservations about telling someone if they asked - even if it were a co-worker. I certainly wouldn't lie about it; I might just tell them politely that it's none of their business.
I don't go around advertising it at work - not because I believe I'd be fired, but just because I think it's best to avoid controversial subjects - especially religion and politics - to maintain good, working relationships with my co-workers.
I don't think I'd have any reservations about telling someone if they asked - even if it were a co-worker. I certainly wouldn't lie about it; I might just tell them politely that it's none of their business.
You're glad to hear the same thing that has been explained to you multiple times in the past after you made almost identical complaints about atheists as you did here? I'd be glad if it actually sunk in with you one of these times. I mean, you deleted your previous comments in this thread (which was pointless), but then said essentially the same thing above again anyway, though nicer.
This is your comment from Madbaggins' stupid joke thread that you took seriously, and which your were corrected on by multiple people but obviously didn't learn anything from:
And here's the comments that you deleted above, making many of the same points:
All based on the OP's comments which other atheists (including myself) have already said were phrased provocatively and rudely, and yet, we still get the "many atheists are..." label. At least you downgraded it from "most atheists are...", so I'll give you that much. If you're so apologetic about stereotyping and being judgmental, I would suggest a good solution would be to stop stereotyping and being judgmental!
This isn't even the worst thing an atheist has said here by a long shot (it's rude at most), but would you appreciate it if the wealth of Christian posters on this board were judged by conduct of the worst of them? Because there have been some pretty horrifying things said by some Christians here, things that have far exceeded even the most assholish comments of the most annoying atheists (and believe me, as an atheist I find annoying atheists probably more irritating than even you do, because unfortunately, as this thread demonstrates, they make us all look bad), who at worst ridicule people for their beliefs. There are idiots and aholes in any group; atheists are no exception. Try not to draw conclusions about the whole batch based on finding one bad apple.
Ask yourself honestly, would you have been annoyed at this study being posted even if the OP (who did a drive-by and never returned too, which pisses me off) hadn't phrased it in a crude manner? Given your other comments in the past when the subject has come up, I think you would have. And frankly, that indicates that you have some bitterness toward atheists that you need to resolve before you can participate in these threads objectively. Otherwise you're going to keep running into the same issue over and over again.
Actually, according to the guy who did the study, the category "nones" doesn't just include atheists and agnostics; it also includes people who are "unaffiliated," that is, people who are religious, but who don't affiliate with any particular organized religion or denomination.
From NPR's All Things Considered broadcast, Oct 9:
From NPR's All Things Considered broadcast, Oct 9:
You're right, I do have issues with some of the things "athiests" say, and if it takes a while for those walls to be broken down just to make you happy, well, I'm damn sorry. I'm trying to be respectful here, I'm trying to voice my concerns and yes I did post it before (And heaven forbid a joke thread that I wasn't laughing at and I confused, which I said at the time by the way, as being a joke thread), but it almost seems like you're taking this personally like I'm attacking you. Locutus, I'm not attacking you, and I'm not trying to attack anyone on this board. Yes I know there are idiots on both side of the spectrum, and I'm annoyed either way. I'm annoyed when I read things either here or online that come across as saying if you believe in god, what the hell is wrong with you. I'm also annoyed at the other end, especially during the whole Chick-Fill-A nonsense and what is currently going on with the BSA. As a Catholic, it's almost like I'm being told if I don't agree with these agencies, than I'm a bad catholic. Well, bull shit on that because I don't agree with how these agencies are right now. I don't agree with persecution and I hate it, I hate it, that the right wing christian folks are so passionate to hold a part of the population down.
Again, coming back around, I don't know what your issue is with me, and maybe it's better that I don't know, but you're right in that I do have issues with the attitude thing. It was actually nice to discuss it civilly, but then you came and seemed to attack me again for making the same point when TSQ and I were having a conversation civilly about this issue. I wasn't attacking you, and I was trying not to attack anyone else. If you think I was, than I'm sorry and don't know what to tell you.
As for the whole commenting on the thread title thing, No, I probably wouldn't have commented at all, but I felt it was an attack on my religion, so I did address it. Then I had two mods (One of which not even of this forum) tell me to dial it back and I did for some reason. You know how I felt last night after reading that? Angry. Angry that I was criticized for not reading the whole thread when I was giving my opinion (Again, trying to be respectful but walking a tight line I admit) but then almost feeling like I would have been warned for not reading the thread and having someone tell me basically to hold your opinions to yourself. However, until now I didn't say anything and decided to delete it (agreed it was pointless but basically so what the post itself now) and here we are. If the thread was titled differently and I didn't feel it was an attack on what I choose to believe, I would have reacted differently, but it wasn't. I do agree with you on one other thing though, it was damn rude.
Last edited:
I thought I explained my issue with you on this subject fairly well. Which part were you confused about? If you keep having to apologize for making judgmental stereotypes, then stop saying them. Apologizing for them up front and then saying them anyway isn't really worth a whole hell of a lot, since clearly you know what you're saying is wrong but you do it anyway. Also, maybe you should stop being so pleasantly surprised that not all atheists are judgmental jerks who constantly put down Christians if the contrary examples themselves keep telling you that each time you bring it up, because after a while it just looks like it's falling on deaf ears.
I don't feel like you're attacking me personally, by the way. What someone says about atheists in general doesn't really offend or hurt me as an individual (which doesn't mean I won't speak up about it if I disagree, though). I get more bothered by the things that auntihill said, like how she was treated as persona non grata when trying to adopt because she's an atheist. That angers me not only on behalf of the atheists denied children but on behalf of the children denied loving families for such petty, misguided reasons. Which is why I always find it a bit amusing when some Christians act all persecuted by atheists when hardly any of them (and I doubt anyone here) have ever had to face that kind of situation in reverse with atheists in positions of power (there's barely even any openly atheist politicians in the US to be in the higher positions of power, for that matter, because being open about it makes you unelectable). So, yeah, you might have to deal with an asshole atheist being rude every once in a while, but maybe lay off the stereotyping and judgmentalism a bit since you don't often have to deal with actual persecution for your beliefs or lack thereof in a country that's a Christian majority.
No one told you not to have an opinion, and M'Sharak has as much right to talk to you in this forum as you do to talk to people in any other forum. Just because he's a mod doesn't mean he's not allowed to comment on controversial issues or tell someone to pay attention to what's being said in the thread. I was hoping we could just discuss the article on its own merits without being distracted by the OPs drive-by, but alas, it's not meant to be. It's not a personal attack on you, though, it was an attempt to rein in the inevitable arguments. Obviously, a complete success.
I was a little irate, yes. I'm calming down though.
I still take an issue with this. There's a difference between talking to me, and talking down to me.
What he wrote, did make me angry because my first thought was, there you go on your mod high horse telling me to shut up and dial it back. It wasn't to address the issue I brought up. It was to warn me that I hadn't read the thread and that my comment was out of line. Because his name was green made it all the more troublesome. You're right, he does have a right to an opinion, but he didn't give an opinion and that's what I have an issue with.
A
Amaris
Guest
Buh? All M'Sharak did was ask you to dial it back, and he did so rather politely, considering Locutus had already repeated himself in his desire for the thread not to head in that direction. Why would you get angry over that?
Regardless of how you felt about it, it wasn't a mod action and you were never in danger or under threat of receiving a warning from M, myself, or anyone else. He was just recapping what had already been said, as posters do all the time.
Tomalak, I know you think you're being civil but everytime you make that generalization about atheists it probably feels like an attack. Or at the least, it's upsetting because you're dealing with a group of people who might have to deal with actual discrimination, stigma, and just generally being misunderstood. If you know what that feels like, maybe try to be more sensitive? Look at the overwhelming number of reasonable atheists on TBBS and don't open with statements about how you dislike some of them?
Locutus doesn't have a personal grudge against you. He's probably just frustrated and he can be intense. No one likes being on the receiving end of a Locutus scolding.
Locutus doesn't have a personal grudge against you. He's probably just frustrated and he can be intense. No one likes being on the receiving end of a Locutus scolding.
