The Status of Atheists in America

OK. Why? As far as I can see that makes no sense. If I were to say "Everyone in China is ugly and stupid.", is that really more offensive than saying "Everyone in Lichtenstein is ugly and stupid.", just because I'm insulting fewer people?I can see that more individuals might be offended by the first statement, but why should a single individual judge the first statement as more offensive, in their own judgement?As I see it, both statements express the same form of bigotry and both are equally offensive. Offending fewer people does not make a comment more acceptable. Maybe, maybe not. Given that your definition of "atheist" is a minority one, the odds are against you. But even if we accept your definition of "atheist", that is not what he was saying. He did not only say that atheists were unpatriotic, but said that he didn't know if they should be considered citizens. That means that he would at least consider robbing American citizens of their birthright on the basis of their philosophical beliefs, a clearly unacceptable and disgraceful comment.Why defend him at all, when he comes out with crap of that magnitude?

---

Mutate and Survive

Exactly the point. If morals are left to the whims of man, then nothing is truly moral or immoral, in which case they would only utilitarian or pragmatic purposes. Ripping a two-year old's entrails out would not be immoral in an absolute sense. Well, the whole history about what slavery used to mean back then and what it meant in the 1800's is vastly different. Not everything depicted in "Roots" serves to accurately portray the vast majority of slavery since its inception. What we consider "slaves," often times were workers who sold themselves in to slavery as a means of survival. It was only considered an affront when it went against the will of another human being, and even then there were some who tried to find ways of justifying the abberation. Such actions did of course happen, but the whole of what we call "slavery" was also often no different than working for a company. In that sense, we are all slaves.In fact, being a slave was considered the second best alternative to being a slave owner. The dregs of society used to be day workers, who didn't belong to anyone. A slave at least had some assurance to job security, where as the day laborers struggled every day until a master was interested in having him. The greater overarching question seems to be why there are morals at all, when, what we would refer to as our closest ancestors have nothing of the sort. The point of the inquiry is to get people to think deeper than what good things come of morality. That is a question not worth asking. The philosophical question of why they are is far more intriguing to me. Why is it then that humans who have no interaction or understanding of different cultures generally come to the same inescapable conclusions? Why not, when by all accounts looking at sex in the animal kingdom could be construed as rape. Not according to her testimony. You suspect that, but you don't know that empirically. And since you said that society dictates culture, whatever you rail against IS what society chose. So which is it?You borrow from one ethic to denounce another, only to come full circle using the denounced moral to explain the other. That's a contradiction.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Who is this feminist you guys keep harping about? I've tried tracing back through the posts and haven't found any links. Some hypothetical person? A real person? Anywhere that we could actually see what she really said?Or are you two haggling over semantics? I can most certainly see a conversation in which a proselytizer would be insisting that I must worship their god and I would respond that I will not accept their god, none of which would ever require me to actually accept the existence of their god.AFWIW, in the absense of any other information, I would interpret her act neither as specifically rejected "God", nor as rejecting Scripture, but rather as rejecting a religion that is being imposed on her. That that religion includes "God" and Scripture means that she very likely rejects those as well (well, other religions also include "God" and Scripture albeit with different teachings concerning them, but apparently her rejection of that religion extends to other related religions as well). But I would think that it is that religion being imposed on her that she's explicitly rejecting. Uh, didn't anybody notice that Scripture was written for an ancient and foreign culture a few millennia ago? Hello?How is rejecting the imposition of an ancient and foreign culture's standards upon our own culture supposed to constitute rejection of our own culture's standards?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Maybe because they're humans trying to function with neighbors? And that we all find that, say, stealing from your neighbor causes ill feelings and friction? This ain't rocket science, Nem.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

It was in one of my first posts. It was a woman asking a question about women in relation to God. Aren't we always?!?! I'll repost it. This is what they are arguing me on. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Can you please expound?

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

You are taking it for granted. Why or how would such a thing even be understood in the first place? Morals have to exist first before a worldview can form.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

With suggestions? He says "Maybe" and ends his phrases with question marks. Observation and experience. See what I mean. We would find this out quickly if our ancestors hadn't already, which is why we grow up with the idea. Every time you start harping on about these eternal morals, someone eventually asks you why you don't stone people to death for working on the Sabbath, and we never get a satisfactory answer.Why don't you? And should it be against the law to do so in predominately Christian America when Moses was clearly so much in favour of the idea that it could be considered practically his 11th commandment?Get out there and show us that morals are not relative to differing cultures by stoning a few of the Sunday cashiers in your local convenience stores to death.Hypocrisy is frowned on in the modern world. As the topic title is about the status of atheists in America, which of the following do you think is true:1) Moral definitions will change as atheism increases in the United States.2) Moral standards will decline as atheism increases in the United States.3) Moral standards will improve as atheism increases in the United States4) Some moral standards will improve and some will decline as atheism increases in the United States.5) God will not allow atheism to further increase in the United States.

Oh, you have got to be kidding! An anecdotal "well, this woman I know said this"? How the hell is anybody supposed to know just what that anecdotal feminist had actually said and was thinking when she said it?And it still looks like it was the religion that harbored that belief that she was referring to, as in how could she believe in a religion that doesn't believe in her.And now that I've heard Ravi, I have to agree that he's full of shit.

quote:

---

Exactly the point. If morals are left to the whims of man, then nothing is truly moral or immoral, in which case they would only utilitarian or pragmatic purposes. Ripping a two-year old's entrails out would not be immoral in an absolute sense.

---

It is hardly better if morals are based on the whim of some alien super-being, which is essentially what you are insisting we must assume to be the case Even utilitarianism is better than what you are proposing. Indeed if we had to indulge in wishful thinking it would be far better to assume that there is an objective morality - something that you utterly reject..
And if we consider practical issues your view comes off even worse. There are many arguments over whether there are such alien super-beings, even if it were assumed that one exists there are arguments over which one and of a particular one is accepted there are still arguments over what it's whims (YOUR view) actually are.Your view has nothing to offer philosophically, nor practically - unless you consider a repressive religious dictatorship desirable.

quote:

---

The greater overarching question seems to be why there are morals at all, when, what we would refer to as our closest ancestors have nothing of the sort.

---

Assuming that you refer to evolution, I think that you mean "closest relatives". Or are you making assumptions about extinct species ? Nevertheless even if you mean "closest relatives your flat assertion indicates a complete ignorance of the actual situation: Psychological Realism, Morality, and Chimpanzees (abstract)Or this New Yprk TImes report on the work of Franz De Waal
Even monkeys seem to have some basic version of morality this article on de Waal in Emory Magazine comments: There have been enough reports in the popular press of work like this that a basic assumption that chimps have nothing like morality can only be ascribed to a complete ignorance of the subject.

If you are attributing some sense of "absolute morality" to some source of religious belief (e.g. the Holy Bible), well, I'm sorry, but history (even as "reported" in the Bible) is full of examples where this resolute source of absolute morality has been subject to a vast range of "whimsical" interpretations and uses. And these have even included saying "okay" when it comes to ripping out a two-year-old's entrails.There is nothing inherently wrong or deficient about a sense of morality that is founded solely on human experience. The "golden rule" does not really derive from any single religion: it is something that people -- individuals and cultures -- have "discovered" again and again through experience and practice.There are some important benefits of experience-based morality that tend not to be shared by dogmatic morality. First and foremost, you can count on being able to demonstrate the truth and value of these morals in real-life situations or easily explained and plausible hypothetical situations, with fully connected logical steps to the moral conclusion, because that is how these morals were derived in the first place. Contrast that with how dogmatic morals (e.g. sinfulness of homosexuality and masturbation) must be conferred on children in a given religion -- not a pretty sight.Second, experience-based morality will be open, and will readily trend, to an expansion of the scope of inclusion and "coverage": we will ultimately realize that it is bad as individuals and as nations to consume too much for personal gain and gratification, when this is done at the expense of other people and other species. Failure to understand how we should limit our consumption can ultimately lead to the extinction of our own species -- how many other species we take out with us won't really matter... some life forms will continue and new ones will develop, just as it happened after the dinosaurs lost out. This broader understanding of our "moral imperative" amounts to expanding our sense of who benefits when we act morally: at its logical conclusion, moral behavior benefits all life.Contrast that with dogmatic morality, which is firmly grounded, and tends to remain stuck, in an "us-not-them" mentality that only seeks to benefit a specific "in-group" of believers. Because of the quantity, breadth and depth of what all humans share. There's no need for a supernatural source to dictate these conclusions -- they are a natural outcome of the physical, mental, emotional and social realities that are common to all human existence. The golden rule really does work for everybody, because it just makes sense; the frequency which people violate it is simply a measure of human fallibility, limited intelligence, and general lack of appropriate control (both self-control and control of environment/events/other people).

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

I would have to pretty much agree with the president on this one. I trust his knowledge to run the country, and pretty much the world, and so I'm sure he knows his stuff.Besides I agree with him! Our country was founded by believers! And these were the smartest people the world has ever seen, just look around you... they started this great nation. No Atheist is capable of doing that. They founded it on morals and values!I know of another person who started a nation, Hitler! And he was an atheist. Just look back at the trouble he caused around the world. Massacring millions of people in the name of atheism!Real patriots believe in God, love their family, and hold tight to their guns and religion! This is the foundation of America, and atheists represent everythign America is not about! No morals, values, no greater cause.I saw the South Park episode where all the Atheists leagues were just going to war over which Name is better for their alliances, because they all disaggreed over the logic of their names. How logical is that! to start wars over names! And yet they did!This is what I see happening to our country and the world if we don't stop this kind of thing now! So join together my friends! Our president really hit the nail on the head!American stands for morals, and justic, and freedom, and God. And you don't have any of that without God and faith. That's why I agree with our president. And dislike atheism as a disease. Kind of a like a fungus. Or maybe smallpox. Either works for me.

---

"Give me Jonas, or give me death!"

with this banning, I think EvC's average IQ has just recovered by double digits. We certainly are in the days of the nutjob...

Hillbillies think Hitler started a nation? I wonder how long Christians will continue to lie to each other and the world about Hitler. Is the commandment "thou shalt lie"?

quote:

---

From Adolf
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

---

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922 I suppose the fact that they get their serious information about the world from cartoons is an indication of the intelligence levels of Christian fundamentalist Bush supporters.I'm sure that the creation museum in Kentucky owes its existence as much to the Flintstones as it does to the Bible.(Actually, I'm not sure if the post I'm replying to isn't meant to be a parody).