The Status of Atheists in America

Well according to CS the use of the term atheist is often equated with immorality by the American population at large. Is that not true in your opinion? He seemed to be arguing that there would be some sort of distinction made, in terms of moral "worthiness" between those who are described by the term agnostic as opposed to those who are described by the term atheist. See earlier posts in this thread. I think it is perfectly valid to personally differentiate and even discriminate against people based on their "morality". Inevitable in fact. And I have just realised why your response seemed to be completely out of the blue and ignorant of my discussion with CS so far. However I would be interested in your view - Would someone who called themself an atheist be discriminated against in ways that the exact same person who called themself an agnostic not be in the US? Could an openly agnostic person realistically run for president? Could an openly atheistic person realistically run for president? Would the atheistic person get less votes than the agnostic?

I agree. Yes, that very well could be the case. But then we are also running the risk of a deep unending philosophical debate on the reality of reality and the truth of truth. We may end up resorting to total solipsism or nihilism as a result of the maybes. Maybe, but we would also be arguing what constitutes proof. If I said prove to me that you exist, even in person, I may rebut that with questioning what it means to exist. It is very possible that theists and atheists are really arguing what constitutes existence. If matter constitutes existence, then perhaps God does not exist. If the ephemeral does not merely incorporate existence, then corporeal may. I like your spin on it. Very intricate in itself. Well, not withstanding the Dawkins allegory, it does make sense that only one God is the qualifier for monotheists, and any mention of unbelief in others is merely a suppositional, rather than a propositional one. I agree totally, which is why I started out the quest as an agnostic leaning towards atheism, but ended up an agnostic leaning towards theism. I agree though that agnosticism is the most honest. There is nothing heroic about it, and there needn't be anything heroic about it. But it is brutally honest, not to mention open-minded... Well, I suppose it could be considered theological laziness too.There are agnostics who don't make a decision because they choose to either believe or disbelieve, but that they just don't care either way.That said, would you say that it is possible to know (in the broadest philosophical sense of knowing) that God exists? Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add tidbit

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

From my previous message:

quote:

---

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?

---

I think they would, but I don't really know.Saying that you don't know if god exists isn't as "bad" to the discriminators as saying that you do know that he doesn't. Whether or not that's what atheism really means, that what the discriminator is going to take it as. I don't agree with it but I can understand it.

What this debate does have to do with is that atheists are being prejudged as being immoral solely on the basis of their not believing in one particular purported supernatural being, not on the basis of their actual moral character. That means that people practicing that prejudice immediately assume a morally upstanding atheist to be immoral and nothing that he says or does will ever convince them otherwise.Do you understand that so far?
Does Straggler's question make sense to you yet? If not, then what part don't you understand? You're comparing apples and lugnuts there. In order to do a comparison, you need to put the same person in the position of being hired for either job.In the case of the person who sees nothing wrong with groping little kids, then they should not be allowed to work closely with little kids. Nannyship/kinder-teacher would not be a good idea, but the pizza parlor probably shouldn't be a problem (I assume we're not talking Chuckie Cheeze here).What do you say in the case of the atheist? You've already stated that you'd have no problem with him/her working in a pizza parlor. What about as a nanny or Kindergarten teacher? What do you say? After all, you did bring up the example.

Well, yes, to some degree. But you'd have to consider your source! If you ask an ignorant theist, they will say that atheists have no morals. That's obviously not the case. Everyone has a set of morals, some are simply more defined and unyielding than others.They could say that someone is immoral, and that would at least make some sense from a logical point of view (not that they arbitrate those morals). But to say that atheists have no morals is obviously not true. Those morals just may not line up with the narrow vision of the one purporting it. Well, yes, to some degree everyone does this. But I think context is really important. Like I said, if someone applying as a school teacher said that they don't see anything wrong with fondling kids, chances are you are going to discriminate against them on that basis.But if you owned a book store and your applicant was wearing an "Atheists Rock!" t-shirt, denying the otherwise qualified person simply on that trite basis is wrong in my opinion. I think that is the kind of discrimination we should worry about as a society. Well, then it seems we're back on the same page! You know that's kind of hard to answer. It really depends on the person. In general, I would say, no, but it seems like that would vary. I can say that atheists have it better now than ever before. I mean, I work with countless self-professed atheists, and we're good friends. No one cares that I believe in God, and I don't care that they don't. BUT, I think that is the case only because it is a seldom discussed issue at work. And we all generally speak respectfully even if we have some fundamental differences in opinion. I think that goes a long way.I reserve my rantings and ravings for you fine people! Whew! That's a tough question. I can tell you that in no time in American history has there ever been an overtly atheist president. I think every president in some capacity believed in the supernatural. There are cases of deists, such as Thomas Jefferson, but no atheists to my knowledge.I could make an educated guess though. The reception to an overtly atheist presidential candidate would not go over well. For instance, it is my opinion that Hillary Clinton is an atheist. I think she hams it up for the cameras in hopes she can get the "religious vote." She does that out of necessity because, as I said, the reception would not be met all that well.Now, would an agnostic be met with better reception? Probably, albeit slightly. And that is only because there is a sense of open-mindedness ascribed to agnostics -- a willingness to examine all the evidence until a determination is made.But I guess that brings this discussion full circle back to my question about the state of atheism and agnosticism. Atheism seems to me to be a declaration that there is no God. Theism seems to be a declaration that there is a God. And agnosticism seems to be riding the fence -- I don't know if there is a God.So in my mind, I don't see much use for using descriptions like "soft atheism" or "hard atheism." Soft atheism seems to me like agnosticism leaning towards atheism, just as a "soft theist" would seem like an agnostic leaning towards theism. Consider what a "hard theist" would like? You either believe or you don't believe. It seems nonsensical.Hope that answers your question. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Typo

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Whilst atheists are, I would think, much more likely to be more liberal this seem to be a bit of sweeping generalisation.Hoot Mons anti gay stance is fairly well established but so it seems is his fairly anti-theistic stance. For example.As for sex before marriage........well if everyone practising that is an atheist the world would be a very very different and unreligious place. Likewise with drug use.The idea that everyone who believes in God is a virgin until married, has never taken any drugs, is opposed to homosexuality and opposes abortion is a silly and wrong as the idea that all those who are atheists are free thinking liberals on all these subjects.How many Catholic priests are gay?
How many gay bashers don't believe in God?Maybe it's a cultural thing. Here in the UK (and I thik Europe at large) you would be skating on thin ice to take peoples general views regardin god as a definite indicator as to their views on the subjects you list.

Well I apprecaite your reasoned response. I agree. Context is everything. Whilst personal prejudice against those who do not share your moral outlook is to some extent inevitable an open minded approach is obviously desireable. I also utterly object to any particular narrow view of morality being imposed on society via the law, the state, religious bodies or whatever else. Having said that there do have to be wider laws based on assumed common morality against acts that harm others. The whole thing is a potential mine field of exceptions, justifications and personal beliefs. Your answers are interesting but also largely conform to my own less knowledgeable view of the views of the American public. I think, and hope, that things would be less judgemental here in terms of the importance of religiosity in our potential leaders. In fact Tony Blair was often lambasted as a bit of a twit for his overtly religious proclamations. HoweverI think it was his pulic pronouncements of religiosity that were derided rather than his actual beliefs. A sort of "keep it to yourself" attitude.

I gotta get going, so I can't answer the rest right now. But I wanted to answer this one question before I head out. Absolutely, so long as they weren't proselytizing to kids their rhetoric and propaganda. That goes standard for theists and atheists across the board without exception. It is not the place of school teachers to heap on kids their political, (ir)religious, or social agendas, no matter whether I personally agree with their stance or not. Agendas in schools infuriate me... absolutely infuriate me!A good friend of mine, and also my long time bassist, is an atheist who teaches kindergarten. What matters most to me is whether or not he is a good teacher who inspires the children in general matters. And from what I can tell, he is an excellent one.If you can't tell by now, my biggest problem is not atheists -- it's extremists of any color. I'm sure I come off as if I hate atheists. I really don't. I just have an aversion to the crazy ones. That goes without saying for the theists as well.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

NJ writesI usually enjoy your comments and your perspectives on issues, you seem an objective person on matters. I would caution however, your aversion to extremists or atleast that which yiu title as "extremeists". If the New Testament can be trusted and there is no good "reason" to believe it should not, then Jesus was one of the most outlandish extremeist, with his beliefs on hell, his claims to deity and placing himslef as bread of life, the "I AM" and the only way to God the Father. He was either what he claimed to be or an "extreme" lunatic.Isnt it ironic that this extremeist (Christ) is mans only hope for eternal life.The problem ofcourse with the word "extremeist", is that it to often times, is relative and everyone is extreme from someone elses perspective. An atheist, activist or not, is extreme from my perspective and I am sure that a fundamentalist is extreme to thier thinking. Terms dont really apply, its what can be demonstrated.Sorry for the intrusion in your post, just wanted to throw that in about fundamentalists or as you call them "extremeists"ThanksD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

No more than "good Christians" do. Belief in the supernatural doesn't make any difference.Sex outside of marriage? My ex-wife is the only woman I've ever been with. We waited until we were married and we remained married for 28 years. Since I became an atheist at least 10 years before we married and I have remained an atheist ever since, that means that I was an atheist throughout the duration of my marriage. So what's with this trash that you're talking?Do you honestly think that Christians don't have sex outside of marriage? Word on the streets is that the single women in two local megachurches are just about the easiest lays around. Oh, they'll put up a good talk laying down the rules at first, but a guy can usually get them into the sack by the third date -- as reported by a guy who has had that experience with them, repeatedly.So who's actually behaving as if that moral doesn't exist? Looks to me like it's the Christians, not the atheists. Just where did you get your nonsensical view from? Was that how you had behaved when {you say} you were an atheist? Hmm. Were you one of those Christian atheists who just pretend to be an atheist in order to behave as if morals don't exist? You see, that's why I have serious misgivings about Christian misteachings about morality and about atheism; it misleads so many Christians into bad and risky behavior. Absolutely false! Those all present moral issues which need to be considered and worked out. Moral issues which atheists are aware of -- at least actual atheists and not those pretend Christian atheists who just want to act as if morality doesn't exist. All our actions have consequences and we are well aware of the need to consider those consequences, far more so, apparently, than theists are.The thing is that we do think about moral issues and try to reason them through, not blindly accept what a priest tells us and then think no more about it. You have it easy; you don't have to think and you don't have to be responsible for your actions, whereas we do. Actually, since Christians engage in such things and worse, and do those worse things unrepentently (eg, lying and deceiving via "creation science"), it turns out that Christians are more immoral than atheists. And even worse about it, since they claim to abide by different standards, supposedly absolute standards that become relativistic at their whim.All you did was to regurgitate blind bigotted prejudice against atheists. Instead of coming up with nonsense, how's about presenting Bible verses to support the defamation of atheists' character?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Your point is very well taken. I guess the term "extremist" leaves a lot open to interpretation. I wouldn't know how to split hairs on what constitutes extremism at this point, but suffice it to say that radical ideas, such as Jesus espoused, are not a sole qualifier. Again, your point is well taken. Hey, this is a public forum. You are free to interject at any time and to voice your opinions. I wouldn't necessarily refer to a fundamentalist Christian as an extremist. The word "fundamentalist" has essentially been hijacked and then manipulated. The fundamentals about fundamentalism (pun intended) is that they fundamentally agree with the descriptions of the Bible. That of course does not equate to extremism by itself.I wouldn't call anyone who believes in the fundamentals of Christianity an extremist. In my mind, what is referred to as a "fundy" is someone who makes false parallels even in the face of clear contradiction. A "fundy" in their effort to debunk the myth of evolution might connect the dots to erroneous pieces of evidence. In that case, they have departed from the realm of science, which simply follows the evidence wherever it leaves, and instead tries to force evidence to conform with their traditional beliefs.Likewise, a "fundy" can be an atheist too who, in the interest of debunking the myth of God, will go to great lengths to undermine anything that would even hint of truth when it comes to God. They will deliberately choose false evidence, make erroneous claims, all under the guise of objectivism.To me, a fundy atheist would be Nietzsche. A fundy Christian would be Ron Wyatt. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

We lack belief in their Gods. We're only atheists if we lack belief in all Gods. Lacking belief in 99.99 % of them, as you do, isn't good enough to qualify for this elite group. How much effort do you expend on not believing in Ganesh? I assure you, I do it effortlessly. Lack of faith in any or all of the Gods is not active. It requires active faith to believe in Ganesh or any other supernatural proposition for which there is no evidence. That's what believers in specific Gods often say. I think someone else in the thread has already given the example of the Romans regarding the Christians as atheists because they "denied" the "true" gods. I don't walk around denying the Nemesis version of the Jewish tribal god, do I? I don't know much about it, other than that it disapproves of same sex relationships, which other gods don't. There may be as many gods as there are theists, when you think about it. I say that it is lack of faith. It is what you have in respect to 99.99+ of all the Gods our species has ever invented, and it's what I have in respect to 100% of them. It is, as I said, the normal human reaction to Gods. Pick a god at random and a human at random and you can almost always be sure that the particular human doesn't believe in the particular god. e.g. Nemesis + Pan.

I wasn't saying that Christians don't do thaose things, we all sin. I was saying that they consider them immoral whereas, generally speaking, atheists do not.The questions was why do theists think that theists are immoral.The answer was that atheist don't consider immoral the same things that theists do.Sure there's exceptions, but there's also a general trend.

So then it's just blind, ignorant prejudice and stereotyping. Like the belief (hopefully no longer held) that Jews kidnap and slaughter Christian babies and drink their blood at the Seder (the Passover dinner).And actually, the question was what the biblical basis of that defamatory stereotype is.Context:
I have experienced something frequently over the decades that I've discussed creation/evolution on-line and in emails, as well as in encounters with fundamentalists in general. They will express somewhat the same extreme beliefs (eg, if any part of the Bible is wrong, then the whole thing is wrong and should be thrown away and we should then become hedonistic atheists). They will also insist that they don't believe any human teachings, but rather only "The Word of God", by which they mean the Bible. But then when I ask where in the Bible their various specific beliefs come from, they suddenly have extremely urgent business to attend elsewhere, anywhere else.So there's a much more fundamental question here: where exactly do these beliefs come from?Catholicism is a prime example, primarily since it formed so early in Christian history and has developed over a longer period of time. While Scripture is a major source of its teachings, a lot of teachings instead come from early church Fathers, notably St. Augustine. In addition, as the Church spread into pagan regions, it frequently assimilated those pagan deities and holy sites.Protestantism was an attempt to reform Christianity, to return it to its original form. In reality, it took Catholicism and changed some things, but ended up keeping a lot of the non-Scriptural teachings. In addition, each Protestant church's founder and perpetuators have added to their church's teachings.So, as one is learning the teachings of his particular church, he may be taught that they only believe what's in the Bible while at the same time he's also being taught all this extra-biblical stuff thinking that it's in the Bible too. Which is why I believe that everybody should learn or at least try to discover just where their beliefs come from.That would include examining the definition of terms, such as "morality". Basically, morality is doing what is right, but if religionists artificially define morality as only coming from their god and as only being what's in their sacred texts (regardless of whether it actually is; ie, had been added in later as described above), then they are also artificially excluding non-believers from being considered as moral regardless of how moral they actually are.So, is the stereotyping of atheists based on actual Scriptural doctrine or is it the result of added-on beliefs and redefining of the term "morality"?As I said, I did once see one or two Bible verses cited which seemed to be the source of that stereotype, but I lost track of that {other} forum post. It may prove useful to find them again. Anyone here ever read the Bible?Edited by dwise1, : Added context.

CS writes, CS, I think the point that is being made is that that type of thinking, (that atheist differ in what they consider moral when compared to theist), is wrong. Many atheist would agree with theist on certain points, many of those points, and in some cases all those points.So perhaps theres a misconception of atheist from the theistic POV. Unless we can say for sure that theist and atheist are divided completely on these issues then a statement such as "atheist don't consider immoral the same things that theists do", is just a generalized POV to support, perhaps, a personal prejudice towards people who don't share the belief in your God of choice. Thats when the 'difference in morality' point is thrown in so that it doesn't seem like one is being prejudice for personal reasons.It seems like a self-satisfying POV. You can be prejudice towards a certain group of people, having generalized their opinions on certain issues, and all the while professing that its not your opinions they differ with but those of the Bible. Seems like some awesome scape-goating Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky