|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,384 Year: 3,641/9,624 Month: 512/974 Week: 125/276 Day: 22/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Status of Atheists in America | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't really have an argument with anything you have said so far, just seeking clarification of your wider position. Uhh, okay.
Do you think people should be denied rights or opportunities based on their theistic (or atheistic) beliefs? No.
Do you think George Bush (either of them) thinks that people should be denied rights or opportunities based on their theistic (or atheistic) beliefs? I don't know but I doubt it.
Do you think people actually are denied rights or opportunities based on their theistic (or atheistic) beliefs? If so which rights or opportunities? I'd have to assume that they are somewhere but I don't know any specifically.
Do you think people are denied rights or opportunities based on the distinction (real or perceived) between agnosticism and atheism? What do you mean? How do you deny a right based on a distinction? Like, if your agnostic you get the right but if your atheist you don't?
If yes - Do you personally believe that this situation is right or wrong? I think its wrong, in general, to deny people rights based on their beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think its wrong, in general, to deny people rights based on their beliefs. Fair enough. That clears that up. The question remains, to some extent, as to whether or not you think this actually occurs.
Do you think people are denied rights or opportunities based on the distinction (real or perceived) between agnosticism and atheism? What do you mean? How do you deny a right based on a distinction? Like, if your agnostic you get the right but if your atheist you don't? I was directly thinking of your previous answer -
The fact that people in the modern age still consider an immoral person to be atheist and therefore atheists to be immoral is indicicative of the status of atheists in America, yes? Yes, but it doesn't have to include people who remain unconvinced of god's existence, which would be better described as agnostic. The way people, who are doing the discriminating, use the term "atheists" doesn't really include the agnostics. Given the above - Do you think people (in America) are denied rights or opportunities based on the distinction (real or perceived) between agnosticism and atheism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The question remains, to some extent, as to whether or not you think this actually occurs. I think that it does occur. Lets assume that people discriminate against atheists and by atheist they mean an immoral person. Now comes along an agnostic who identifies himself as an atheist, although not an immoral person. The discrimination against the immoral people doesn't necessarily apply to him just because he goes by the same name. However, it is possible that he is discriminated against because he goes by the same name. I was arguing against that because he goes by the same name, the discimination necessarily also applies to him.
The fact that people in the modern age still consider an immoral person to be atheist and therefore atheists to be immoral is indicicative of the status of atheists in America, yes? Yes, but it doesn't have to include people who remain unconvinced of god's existence, which would be better described as agnostic. The way people, who are doing the discriminating, use the term "atheists" doesn't really include the agnostics. Given the above - Do you think people (in America) are denied rights or opportunities based on the distinction (real or perceived) between agnosticism and atheism?
I still don't think I understand what you are asking.... How is a right denied based on a distinction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yes, but it doesn't have to include people who remain unconvinced of god's existence, which would be better described as agnostic. The way people, who are doing the discriminating, use the term "atheists" doesn't really include the agnostics. For an agnostic to take on the atheist label and then complain about discimination towards atheists as discrimination towards themselves is wrong... and whiny.
You insist that many people who call themselves atheists are actually agnostics and they should abide by your definitions to avoid discrimination doesn't work. If they state that they do not believe in God, they are labelled atheist whether or not they call themselves atheist. What they call themselves is irrelevant. See Sam Harris. Let's call ourselves 'Fibblegrabs'. What is a 'Fibblegrab'? A fibblegrab is a person who does not believe in any supernatural deity: importantly fibblegrabs insist that there is no way to verify or falsify the existence of god and like any entity where this is the case, they do not have a belief that they do. Examples: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jonathan Miller. First thing that will happen: nobody will call them fibblegrabs. People'll just go on calling them atheists no matter what they call themselves. Second thing: People will point out that fibblegrabs are trying to hide the fact that they are atheists because atheists are immoral and this just demonstrates there is an agenda.
But the 10% aren't all included in the term "atheist" in how the people who are discriminating use the word. Yes they are. They mean 'doesn't believe in God'. Ask an American for some living Atheists and I bet that the majority of the answers you get will be for people you term 'agnostic' such as Richard Dawkins. They won't say, for example, Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If you tell them who Rev. Paul Hill or Buford O. Furrow, Jr. is, they would not describe them as atheist.
Its invented when someone takes something that does not discriminate against them and makes it out so that they are being discrinimated against. Which is nothing to do with what I am discussing, is it?
If "not believing in Jesus" resulted in you not getting a job, but then you claimed that you didn't get a job because "you are a Muslim" then I'd say that you were inventing discrimination. No, you're not inventing discrimination, you are lying about the reasoning behind the discrimination. The discrimination is still there. If you said you were Muslim, and the person in the interview thought that Muslim meant 'terrorist' and you didn't get the job it is because the interviewer has a massive prejudice against Muslims since he thinks they are all terrorists. If you say 'I don't believe in God', and the interviewer things 'He is therefore an atheist, and since atheists=immoral people I will not hire him' then you have discrimination.
I'm not really defending it You are defending it in the sense that you are suggesting that if it were true, it is not a problem as far as 'those that do not believe' since Bush was referring to immoral people and not to 'those that do not believe'. When 'those that do not believe' point out that when a word that most people use to refer to them when they identify themselves as 'one who does not belive' is used synonymously with 'immoral person', you called it whining.
I was arguing against the self-martyrdom, the sophistry of the invented discrimination, the 'drama' that was added.
What you were doing isn't really something I'm interested in, it's what you are doing with me that's important. I simply came here to point out that the conflation of 'immoral person' and 'someone who doesn't believe' by using the word 'atheist' to describe both is suggestive of the status of atheists in America. If you agree with that statement and have nothing to add to it, then the discussion is done. Some subsidiary issues have been brought up - like how significant numbers of atheists have not called themselves atheists but have been labelled as such anyway. That they can say over and over again how they cannot say absolutely that god does not exist, but for various reasons they simply do not believe that it does: yet they will still be called militant, absolutist, fundamentalist atheists which should counter your 'but atheists shouldn't call themselves atheists' argument. A few years ago, Richard Dawkins made a talk wherein he called for atheists to stop being so passive about things, to try and 'reclaim' the word much like gay people claimed 'gay' or reclaimed 'queer' etc. Instead of passively sitting around being called atheists, and letting the 'atheists means immoral people' thought go unchallenged - that we should show how one can not believe in god and be moral etc so that people eventually stop thinking that nonbelievers are universally immoral people. You prefer Harris' mode, but as much as I agree with much of his point, it hasn't worked to improve the status of atheism all that much before - it just makes them a sitting duck to the much more active evangelists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
If I may paraphrase in order to clarify for CatholicScientist:
I was directly thinking of your previous answer -
The fact that people in the modern age still consider an immoral person to be atheist and therefore atheists to be immoral is indicicative of the status of atheists in America, yes? Yes, but it doesn't have to include people who remain unconvinced of god's existence, which would be better described as agnostic. The way people, who are doing the discriminating, use the term "atheists" doesn't really include the agnostics. Given the above - Do you think people (in America) are denied rights or opportunities based on the distinction (real or perceived) between agnosticism and atheism? In other words, your recommended remedy is for atheists to use a different label, such as "agnostic". Thus you draw a distinction between atheists and agnostics. The question is whether the people who discriminate against atheists would leave an agnostic well enough alone, or whether they would just dump all atheists and agnostics together into the same pile of undesirables. In yet other words, would the discriminators honor the distinction that you would draw? Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I agree that Atrong Atheism, the claim of positive knowledge that no deities exist, is an illogical position. But then, so is faith of all kinds - and the Constitution doesn't confer citizenship based upon the inherant logic of a person's religious beliefs. The word atheism is a positive affirmation of there being no God. In the Greek, it literally means "No God." "A" (negative) - "theos" (God). "No God." It would have to be a positive declaration that there is no God since the only thing separating agnositcs from atheists is that positive affirmation. Otherwise it is a case of not knowing. Agnosticism is understood for its neutrality on the subject. Theists are known for their affirmation of God, and atheists are known for their affirmation of no God. The so-called "strong or weak" atheism came about when it was pointed out that it is illogical to give positive affirmation for the non-existence of something. That is obviously unprovable. If something does not exist, you can't demonstrate its non-existence. Yet the term is still so highly coveted as a benchmark of "critical thinkers," there is no way any one would get rid of the name. I mean, if you think about it, it makes no sense logically. Are there strong or weak theists? You are either believe there is a God, you don't believe there is a God, or you don't know if there is a God. That is theism, atheism, and agnosticism. “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Lets assume that people discriminate against atheists and by atheist they mean an immoral person. Well that statement in itself seems fairly damning.Why should the term atheist in any way equate with immoral? Given the above - Do you think people (in America) are denied rights or opportunities based on the distinction (real or perceived) between agnosticism and atheism? I still don't think I understand what you are asking.... If someone who is perfectly morally upstanding insists on calling themself an atheist rather than an agnostic will they be discriminated against in ways that they would not if they were to call themselves agnostic? If so why?If so do you agree with this discriminatory position (I guess not from previous answers but I thought I would check anyway)? If so do you understand the position of the discriminator (even if you do not personally adhere to their position)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I cannot disprove the existence of Thor.
I would not say I am agnostic towards Thor. Despite the fact that I cannot verify his non-existence 100% I would say I am atheistic regarding Thor. I cannot disprove the existence of the great God Yabbadoo.I think I just invented Yabbadoo. But Yabbadoo might have revealed himself to me and I might just be too stubborn, unenlightened or atheistic to accept his revelation at this point in time. I cannot disprove Yabbadoo does not exist. I would no call myself agnostic towards Yabbadoo. Despite the fact that I cannot verify his non-existence 100% I would say I am atheistic regarding Yabbadoo. I cannot disprove the existence of God.I would not say I am agnostic towards God. Despite the fact that I cannot verify his non-existence 100% I would say I am atheistic regarding God. To my mind there is no such thing as certainty or proof in the physical world. Nothing can be said with 100% certainty. However I am as sure as I can be that God does not exist. I am as sure of that as I am of the non-existence of Thor or Yabbadoo. I think God, Thor and Yabbadoo are all equally unlikely. Yet I can not prove the non-existence of any of them. Given the above would you really still say that I am agnostic regarding Thor, Yabbadoo or God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: The word atheism is a positive affirmation of there being no God. In the Greek, it literally means "No God." "A" (negative) - "theos" (God). "No God." We're not speaking ancient Greek. We're not even speaking nineteenth century English. Language evolves, as you know, and that doesn't just mean new words coming in, but also, changes in the meanings of existing ones. That point aside, let's consider Gods. Belief in them is active, and requires faith, but disbelief in any given one is the norm, and requires no action. We require no faith to lack belief in Gods we've never heard of, so as small babies we're all atheists - you can't be agnostic about something you've never heard of. Take any God you care to describe, and most people in the world do not believe in that God. They either believe in others, or, in increasing numbers, in none at all. So, the word atheism in modern times is increasingly used to mean lack of faith in any gods. It is the normal relationship of people to gods. Monotheists lack belief in all Gods but one, and polytheists lack belief in all gods but one set or pantheon, and atheists lack belief in the lot. The slight shift in emphasis is probably because people are much more aware of how many different gods are on offer, and therefore it becomes obvious that disbelief is the normal human relationship to gods, even amongst theists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
True, there is no way to positively prove or disprove the existence of any of the gods, or of anything else supernatural, or even of the supernatural itself. It is simply completely outside our human ability to do so.
Agnosticism is the only truly honest position to take here. We do not know. We cannot know anything about the supernatural. After having arrived at that position, anything that we say about the supernatural is speculation. Such speculation can be either theistic or atheistic: our speculations on the supernatural can assume that either the supernatural exists (theistic) or it does not (atheistic). From there, theistic assumptions can become quite intricate and make very specific statements about the supernatural and supernatural entities/forces/whatever, though that will still all be speculation. The theist may believe his speculations and assumptions to be absolutely true, but that would be through a leap of faith devoid of any proof. Similarly, the atheist could absolutely believe that the supernatural does not exist and that would also similarly be through a leap of faith devoid of any proof. Both theists and atheists may make their assumptions about the supernatural to varying degrees. The theist could adhere very dogmatically to a particular theology (which, like all theologies, is ultimately of his own making) or he may take a more open-ended approach, realizing that his theology could have gotten some things wrong and that he needs to seek out the truth, or varying degrees thereof. Similarly, the atheist may take a softer line on the existence of the supernatural, realizing that he cannot say with all certainty that it does not exist but still realizing that the probability is vanishingly small that theists' intricately detailed theologies are correct. Either way, the atheist realizes that the gods are human inventions born out of humans trying to make sense out of the supernatural, that which they cannot study or learn about, and thus atheists realize that they cannot believe in those human inventions.
I mean, if you think about it, it makes no sense logically. Are there strong or weak theists? You are either believe there is a God, you don't believe there is a God, or you don't know if there is a God. That is theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Both theists and atheists have many possible positions to take that can vary widely in degree. There are many different kinds of atheism, not just one kind. There are many different kinds of theism, not just one kind. And there are so many different gods, not just one. Indeed, the point is often made that Christians are very much atheists, because there are thousands of gods in whom they do not believe; atheists merely believe in one fewer. There really is only one position: agnosticism. From there, one makes assumptions, either theistic ones or atheistic ones. Or else one simply gives up and puts ones time and effort into something constructive. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Why should the term atheist in any way equate with immoral? It shouldn't. Atheists have a set of morals... those morals just tend to be flexible.
Given the above - Do you think people (in America) are denied rights or opportunities based on the distinction (real or perceived) between agnosticism and atheism? No. It's not something too many people would know about an individual unless they broadcasted it.
If someone who is perfectly morally upstanding insists on calling themself an atheist rather than an agnostic will they be discriminated against in ways that they would not if they were to call themselves agnostic? This debate has nothing to do with morals. I'm not sure where questions on morality have come in to play for you.
If so do you understand the position of the discriminator (even if you do not personally adhere to their position)? Would I understand someone discriminating another over morals? In rare cases, I suppose. For instance, if I was hiring a nanny or a kindergarten teacher and an applicant stated that they see nothing wrong with groping little kids, they wouldn't get the job. But if I was working in a pizza parlor and someone mentioned offhand that they were an atheist, I would never discriminate against them on that basis. Edit to add: I just realize that I responded to a post directed towards Catholic Scientist. Now I see why your inquiry didn't make much sense to me. But, hey, if it was to me, my response above is how I would have responded. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given. “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
As presented in the Wikipedia article that has been referenced several times in this topic, Discrimination against Atheists, atheists are defamed as, among other moral failings, behaving as if morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; abandoning duty and embracing hedonism; fighting against righteous social mores; and shunning that which is right and good.
The obvious question we must ask is: Where the hell did all that come from? Such accusations are absolutely bizaare. And yet they are generally held without question by most Christians in our society. WTFO? So why do so many Christians believe such nonsense? Is there something in Christian doctrine that explicitly teaches it? Does it come from the Bible? Is there a biblical basis for the Christian view of atheists? Several months ago while visiting an ex-Christian site, one post cited one or two verses that appear as if they could be the basis of those accusations. Unfortunately, I didn't write them down and I could never find that post again. Does anybody know what Bible verses explicitly address atheism and describe the character of atheists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
To my mind there is no such thing as certainty or proof in the physical world. Nothing can be said with 100% certainty. However I am as sure as I can be that God does not exist. I am as sure of that as I am of the non-existence of Thor or Yabbadoo. Well, then there is nothing worth arguing about either if nothing is certain. In which case, why do theists work feverishly to convince people that there is a God, and why do atheists work feverishly to convince people that there is no God? “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As presented in the Wikipedia article that has been referenced several times in this topic, Discrimination against Atheists, atheists are defamed as, among other moral failings, behaving as if morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; abandoning duty and embracing hedonism; fighting against righteous social mores; and shunning that which is right and good. The obvious question we must ask is: Where the hell did all that come from? For morals such as: no sex outside of marriage, no homosexual activity, no drug use, no abortions..... Do atheists behave as if these morals don't exist? Do atheists fight against these "righteous social mores"? uhhhh... yeah, yeah they do. For the atheists, sex outside of marriage, homosexual activity, drug use, and abortions are not immoral. To someone who views these as immoral, an atheist would seem to be immoral, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
We're not speaking ancient Greek. We're not even speaking nineteenth century English. Language evolves, as you know, and that doesn't just mean new words coming in, but also, changes in the meanings of existing ones. Then if it were so evolved then the meanings behind the words would offer conflicting meanings depending upon the person. The fact that the words were borrowed from Greek represents that we understand what it is supposed to mean. Greek is often borrowed in many, many English words. I therefore think it is relevant.
That point aside, let's consider Gods. Belief in them is active, and requires faith, but disbelief in any given one is the norm, and requires no action. We require no faith to lack belief in Gods we've never heard of, so as small babies we're all atheists - you can't be agnostic about something you've never heard of. Take any God you care to describe, and most people in the world do not believe in that God. They either believe in others, or, in increasing numbers, in none at all. So are we all atheists to Amazonian tribes that we are unaware exist? If they exist, our non-belief about their existence is totally irrelevant. You either believe it or you don't, or you just don't know. To add, you just said that not believing in God requires no effort. But it does require effort if what you contend with me is true. I say that atheism is the positive affirmation of denying the existence of God. You say that it is simply a "belief" that God does not exist. That would therefore require faith, no? “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024