Atheist groups cater to a captive audience: Prisoners

[Max Rockatansky]

I've been on a few Atheist (they like to use the term "secular") forums. Consistent claims were "Atheism isn't a religion" and "we don't have a church". Well, this article seems to indicate otherwise.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/25/atheists-prison-outreach/4797469/

Leslie Zukor was a 19-year-old student at Reed College studying prison rehabilitation programs when something jumped out at her.

While there were programs tackling drug abuse, physical and sexual abuse, technical training and more, all of them were offered by faith-based organizations. Where were the options for those behind bars who are atheists, like her?


"Not all prisoners are religious, and I wanted them to know that to turn your life around and be a good and productive member of society does not require a belief in God," she said. "I just thought, wow, it is time to see about getting other perspectives in there."


So Zukor launched the Freethought Books Project, collecting books about atheism, humanism and science and sending them to interested prisoners. She estimates that since her first book drive in 2005, she has given out 2,300 books, magazines and newspapers to perhaps hundreds of prisoners across the country.


Now, the program is experiencing a mass expansion. Late last year, Zukor, now a 28-year-old Seattle-based photographer and artist, handed it over to the Center for Inquiry, a national organization of humanists based in Amherst, N.Y. Since then, hundreds of books have poured in, including entire cartons sent by publishers and authors.


With the growth comes attention, not all of it positive. A number of Christian and conservative pundits have decried the project as seeking to "battle the Bible" and "turn inmates against God." But Zukor and other non-believers — the "freethinkers" of the project's name — say they have no such motives.


"Christianity has a mandate to convert people, but free thought does not have any such mandate," said Sarah Kaiser, one of the project's two new coordinators. "We just want everyone to have the freedom to express doubts and ask questions, and that is what these books represent."


The Freethought Books Project has always been a small operation. While Zukor collected and sent out reading material from the Pacific Northwest, Joel Justiss, a San Antonio-based software developer, helped her identify interested readers through a secular newsletter he sent to prisoners. Justiss is a member of the Brights, a national organization of non-theists with a naturalistic worldview.


"The Brights have no resources to send books to people, so when I found out what Leslie was doing I said this is just what my people are asking for," Justiss said. He sent each interested inmate a packet of material that included a page about the Freethought Books Project and forwarded their book requests to Zukor.


Justiss, who became a non-believer after 40 years as a Christian, said the need for non-religious reading matter is high. The prisoners who write to him often describe being treated differently because they are not Christian, he said.


"Lots of times they complain, (that) we are excluded from the special benefits that religious prisoners have and we take a lot of flack from other prisoners as well as guards for being unconventional," he said. "They say things like prisoners are some of the most religious people on earth."


Under CFI, project organizers will still work with the Brights, but they will also seek additional ways to identify and contact prisoners, Kaiser said. The Bureau of Justice Statistics counted 6.9 million adults in the correctional system nationwide in 2012. The estimated number of incarcerated atheists ranges from .07% to .2% of all inmates.


"This means that atheists in prison are even more of a minority" than they are on the outside, Kaiser said, and therefore have a greater need for support. A 2012 Pew Research Center study found atheists and agnostics make up 5.7% of the general population.


So what's on the Freethought Books Project's reading list? When prisoners ask for basic information, Kaiser sends them What Is Secular Humanism? by the late Paul Kurtz, the founder of CFI and a major interpreter of contemporary humanism, or Faitheist by Chris Stedman, assistant humanist chaplain at Harvard University.


Other donations include Trusting Doubt by Valerie Tarico, A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian and The Skeptic's Annotated Bible by Steve Wells.


Not all those who request the books are non-believers. Kaiser said she received a letter from one inmate that read "God bless the Freethought Books Project" and contained a pledge to pray for more books to be donated. "There is definitely a contingent of prisoners who are religious but interested in knowing what freethinkers are all about," she said.


The project will also expand to include a pen pal program, pairing inmates with non-believers on the outside. And while conservatives condemn the program, it's drawn praise from prisoners.


"I thank you again for your infusion of sense into an environment that is, at best, utterly nonsensical," one inmate recipient wrote. "It is heartening to see an alternative point of view represented in such a place and the books you've sent will be read and re-read many times over."

[Germanicus]

"This means that atheists in prison are even more of a minority" than they are on the outside,

I would probably believe that.



The project will also expand to include a pen pal program, pairing inmates with non-believers on the outside. And while conservatives condemn the program, it's drawn praise from prisoners.


"I thank you again for your infusion of sense into an environment that is, at best, utterly nonsensical," one inmate recipient wrote. "It is heartening to see an alternative point of view represented in such a place and the books you've sent will be read and re-read many times over."

If that is not special then I dont know what is.Did Sideshow Bob write that? (:

5605

[Contrails]

I've been on a few Atheist (they like to use the term "secular") forums. Consistent claims were "Atheism isn't a religion" and "we don't have a church". Well, this article seems to indicate otherwise.
How is offering books on atheism, humanism and science to prisoners that specifically request them a "religion"?

[Spookycolt]

How is offering books on atheism, humanism and science to prisoners that specifically request them a "religion"?

I think he means it is activism on the part of atheism, and although not a direct religion, it could fit many parameters of that. Actively recruiting members to join a group or share a belief is very much a tenant of religion.

[Mister D]

When atheism is a worldview it is exactly that: a religion.

[patrickt]

As an atheist for over 60 years I started to actually respond and changed my mind. If it makes Christians feel a little better to think atheism is a religion, what difference does it make? Even Christians are aware that atheists are simply people who don't believe in a god. Not a big deal for an atheist.

The only body legally appointed to determine what is and isn't a religion might be the IRS. According to the IRS, atheism isn't a religion.

Perhaps a better thread title would be "One Atheist Threatens Christian Monopoly in Jails".

[jillian]

How is offering books on atheism, humanism and science to prisoners that specifically request them a "religion"?

ir isn't

[Max Rockatansky]

How is offering books on atheism, humanism and science to prisoners that specifically request them a "religion"?

It's a form of proselytizing. Preaching a particular religious point of view. Specifically, there is no God or gods, no afterlife, nothing. WYSIWYG. When you're dead, you're dead.

Like belief in God, it's a spiritual belief since it cannot be proved or disproved. It's a matter of faith. Atheists have faith that there is no God. The OP article is one example of the Atheist faithful preaching their religious beliefs....or, as they like to say, disbelief.

[Contrails]

I think he means it is activism on the part of atheism, and although not a direct religion, it could fit many parameters of that. Actively recruiting members to join a group or share a belief is very much a tenant of religion.

But they're not recruiting members, are they? They are only sending the materials to people who specifically request them. And if activism and recruiting members are the main tenants of religion, then just about anything could be called a religion.

[Contrails]

It's a form of proselytizing. Preaching a particular religious point of view. Specifically, there is no God or gods, no afterlife, nothing. WYSIWYG. When you're dead, you're dead.

Like belief in God, it's a spiritual belief since it cannot be proved or disproved. It's a matter of faith. Atheists have faith that there is no God. The OP article is one example of the Atheist faithful preaching their religious beliefs....or, as they like to say, disbelief.

Proselytizing involves preaching to a person of a different point of view. When the people requesting the reading material share the same viewpoint, how is this even close?

[Max Rockatansky]

I think he means it is activism on the part of atheism, and although not a direct religion, it could fit many parameters of that. Actively recruiting members to join a group or share a belief is very much a tenant of religion.

Agreed. Proselytizing is another word for it, but "recruiting" is a good word too.

[Chris]

As usual, this thread displays confusion between antitheism and atheism.

[Max Rockatansky]

Proselytizing involves preaching to a person of a different point of view. When the people requesting the reading material share the same viewpoint, how is this even close?

That's not what Leslie Zukor is doing. The article mentions it was a thought that occurred to her and she collects the materials to send to prisons. It mentions she sends it to "interested" prisoners, not all of whom are atheists. "Not all those who request the books are non-believers."

[Contrails]

That's not what Leslie Zukor is doing. The article mentions it was a thought that occurred to her and she collects the materials to send to prisons. It mentions she sends it to "interested" prisoners, not all of whom are atheists. "Not all those who request the books are non-believers."

The key word being "interested" prisoners. It's not proselytizing when you invite Mormons into your house, is it? They're not sending material to the general population or people who didn't request it.

[Max Rockatansky]

The key word being "interested" prisoners. It's not proselytizing when you invite Mormons into your house, is it? They're not sending material to the general population or people who didn't request it.

Her efforts to "spread the word" is a "preaching the faith". If Atheism isn't a religion, why does anyone need a book on it? Isn't it simply disbelief? Do I really need instructions on "How not to drive a car" or "How not to do math"?

[Chris]

Isn't it simply disbelief?

No, that's apostatism.


Atheism is nonbelief. It is nothing more.

[kilgram]

It's a form of proselytizing. Preaching a particular religious point of view. Specifically, there is no God or gods, no afterlife, nothing. WYSIWYG. When you're dead, you're dead.

Like belief in God, it's a spiritual belief since it cannot be proved or disproved. It's a matter of faith. Atheists have faith that there is no God. The OP article is one example of the Atheist faithful preaching their religious beliefs....or, as they like to say, disbelief.
No. Disbelief in nonsense is not creating it a religion.

And yes, god is pure bullshit for adults to keep them submissive to authorities.

[Contrails]

Her efforts to "spread the word" is a "preaching the faith". If Atheism isn't a religion, why does anyone need a book on it? Isn't it simply disbelief? Do I really need instructions on "How not to drive a car" or "How not to do math"?

You don't live in the United States, do you?

[kilgram]

No, that's apostatism.


Atheism is nonbelief. It is nothing more.
What is the difference between nonbelief and disbelief? I would have translated to Spanish as synonims. I never thought that there was difference.

[Max Rockatansky]

You don't live in the United States, do you?

What makes you think so, Contrails ?

[Chris]

What is the difference between nonbelief and disbelief? I would have translated to Spanish as synonims. I never thought that there was difference.

Disbelief implies you once believed and then rejected that belief.

Nonbelief implies you are just without belief. The a- in atheism means "without".

[Max Rockatansky]

Neither of which require teaching, proselytizing or other forms of religious education.

[Contrails]

What makes you think so, @Contrails (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=855) ?
In a country where you cannot go a day without being reminded that nearly 80% call themselves Christian, you have to ask why someone needs to write a book about their lack of belief?

[Chris]

Neither of which require teaching, proselytizing or other forms of religious education.



Since nonbelief entails nothing more than that, there is nothing to teach, proselytize, or educate.

Disbelief, antitheism, does. It is no different than religion.

[kilgram]

Disbelief implies you once believed and then rejected that belief.

Nonbelief implies you are just without belief. The a- in atheism means "without".
But I can disbelieve you in sth and never believed that, no?

[Max Rockatansky]

In a country where you cannot go a day without being reminded that nearly 80% call themselves Christian, you have to ask why someone needs to write a book about their lack of belief?

Despite you very large broad brush and lame insults, please explain why someone needs instructions to disbelieve or hold non-beliefs.

[Chris]

But I can disbelieve you in sth and never believed that, no?

"sth"? Sorry, not enough context.

But say I believe X. If you never believed X (nonbelief) what would you be disbelieving?

Perhaps I make too fine a distinction. But the one is active, you advertise it, you try to convince others of it. The other is not.

The only issue I will argue is that belief and disbelief are not logical, not provable, but matters of faith. As a nonbeliever, I lack faith. --In religious matters.

[kilgram]

"sth"? Sorry, not enough context.

But say I believe X. If you never believed X (nonbelief) what would you be disbelieving?

Perhaps I make too fine a distinction. But the one is active, you advertise it, you try to convince others of it. The other is not.

The only issue I will argue is that belief and disbelief are not logical, not provable, but matters of faith. As a nonbeliever, I lack faith. --In religious matters.
It is just asking because I want to know better English. And I focused it to grammar.

sth: something, whatever. I didn't have interest in concreting the thing, just I wanted to focus in the usage of the word desbelieve.

I am going to say a nonsense as example:

- If you say me: I got married, yesterday.
- I cannot answer you: I disbelieve it. It is not true.

I am asking it because I never thought about it, and I want to use English correctly. And from dictionaries I don't get it.

PS: What I find in dictionaries is that there is no verb as such nonbelieve. But there are disbelievers and nonbelievers. And according to dictionary:

disbelieve (ˌdɪsbɪˈliːv)vb1. (tr) to reject as false or lying; refuse to accept as true or truthful
2. (usually foll by: in) to have no faith (in): disbelieve in God.

ˌdisbeˈliever n ˌdisbeˈlieving adj ˌdisbeˈlievingly advCollins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003



non·be·liev·er



(nŏn′bĕ-lē′vər)n.One who does not believe or have faith, as in God or a philosophy.




The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.
nonbeliever (ˌnɒnbɪˈliːvə)n1. a person who does not believe, esp in God and religion

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003



Noun
1.
http://img.tfd.com/wn/99/68EB5-disbeliever.jpgdisbeliever - someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)nonbeliever (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonbeliever), unbeliever (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unbeliever)

[patrickt]

Despite you very large broad brush and lame insults, please explain why someone needs instructions to disbelieve or hold non-beliefs.

They don't. If you're referring to someone writing a book, there are a lot of reasons for writing a book beyond instructing someone. A significant percentage of drunks who quit drinking write a book. Very few get them published.

I'm an atheist and have been for over 60 years but I don't proselytize. In fact, I don't want to interfere with people beliefs. A good friend of mine is older than I am and he's terrified of death. He tells me often he couldn't continue if he didn't know for a fact that he'll go straight to heaven to be with Jesus. I didn't even point out that there was no fact involved in his belief.

If his belief gives in comfort in facing life and death, that's fine with me. I would be ashamed of myself if I caused him to be frightened. I would encourage him to stay in a church that charges reasonable fees but that's his decision, too.

My friend has asked me repeatedly why I don't believe. He tells me he's praying for me. Perhaps if someone wrote a book about their not believing he would read it.

The only thing I questioned was his being in heaven with his wife. It is his second wife. His first wife died. I asked him what his first wife would think of sharing him with the second wife in heaven. He said he'd get back to me on that. We both know wife number one would rip someone's throat out. He hasn't got back to me yet.

[Chris]

It is just asking because I want to know better English. And I focused it to grammar.

sth: something, whatever. I didn't have interest in concreting the thing, just I wanted to focus in the usage of the word desbelieve.

I am going to say a nonsense as example:

- If you say me: I got married, yesterday.
- I cannot answer you: I disbelieve it. It is not true.

I am asking it because I never thought about it, and I want to use English correctly. And from dictionaries I don't get it.

PS: What I find in dictionaries is that there is no verb as such nonbelieve. But there are disbelievers and nonbelievers. And according to dictionary:

disbelieve (ˌdɪsbɪˈliːv)vb1. (tr) to reject as false or lying; refuse to accept as true or truthful
2. (usually foll by: in) to have no faith (in): disbelieve in God.

ˌdisbeˈliever n ˌdisbeˈlieving adj ˌdisbeˈlievingly advCollins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003



non·be·liev·er



(nŏn′bĕ-lē′vər)n.One who does not believe or have faith, as in God or a philosophy.




The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.
nonbeliever (ˌnɒnbɪˈliːvə)n1. a person who does not believe, esp in God and religion

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003



Noun
1.
http://img.tfd.com/wn/99/68EB5-disbeliever.jpgdisbeliever - someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)nonbeliever (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonbeliever), unbeliever (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unbeliever)










Yea, that looks right.

As I said it's perhaps too fine a distinction. Most people probably wouldn't make it. But the difference does exist and there are words for ir.

[Max Rockatansky]

They don't. If you're referring to someone writing a book, there are a lot of reasons for writing a book beyond instructing someone. A significant percentage of drunks who quit drinking write a book. Very few get them published.

I'm an atheist and have been for over 60 years but I don't proselytize. In fact, I don't want to interfere with people beliefs. A good friend of mine is older than I am and he's terrified of death. He tells me often he couldn't continue if he didn't know for a fact that he'll go straight to heaven to be with Jesus. I didn't even point out that there was no fact involved in his belief.

People turn to religion for different reasons. Some are like your friend. It's like the old story of W.C. Fields in an old folks home flipping through a Bible. When asked why, he responded "Looking for loopholes".

I'm not religious in terms of dogma, but I think human beings have three major components; physical, emotional and spiritual. The first one is the easiest to understand. The second much more challenging, but still understandable to a point. The last almost impossible to pin down, verify or even study scientifically yet most people recognize that there is something, however intangible, there.

[Heyduke]

Despite you very large broad brush and lame insults, please explain why someone needs instructions to disbelieve or hold non-beliefs.

There's "positive" and "negative" atheisms. Positive atheism asserts positively that there is no god. It is a belief, and not a non-belief. And, it informs action and is accompanied by explanations for issues of purpose and cause, and sometimes aggressively contends with theism.

“There can be no progress without head-on confrontation.” -- Christopher Hitchens

Inmates tend to be very strident in their beliefs, one way or another, and are fertile soil for every sort of missionary.

[Max Rockatansky]

There's "positive" and "negative" atheisms. Positive atheism asserts positively that there is no god. It is a belief, and not a non-belief. And, it informs action and is accompanied by explanations for issues of purpose and cause, and sometimes aggressively contends with theism.


I've seen self-declared atheists do all kinds of dances around the term. Some even claim to have spiritual beliefs of life after death but are "atheist" because they believe there is no entity as God. Fine, but when they condemn others for believing in God yet unable to prove their beliefs, it crosses the line into silliness.

[Contrails]

Despite you very large broad brush and lame insults, please explain why someone needs instructions to disbelieve or hold non-beliefs.

It's not about instructions, it's about confirmation that other share your lack of belief. And I'm sorry if you think that my simple statement of fact about American religious beliefs is insulting.

[Heyduke]

I've seen self-declared atheists do all kinds of dances around the term. Some even claim to have spiritual beliefs of life after death but are "atheist" because they believe there is no entity as God. Fine, but when they condemn others for believing in God yet unable to prove their beliefs, it crosses the line into silliness.

I was just trying to define positive and negative atheism. For the record, I'm not an atheist. I really don't know how prevalent atheist missionaries are in prison. Maybe they're proselytizing, or maybe like Contrails suggests, people are just joining secular support groups. I haven't researched the issue.

[Max Rockatansky]

I was just trying to define positive and negative atheism. For the record, I'm not an atheist. I really don't know how prevalent atheist missionaries are in prison. Maybe they're proselytizing, or maybe like Contrails suggests, people are just joining secular support groups. I haven't researched the issue.

1. Understood.

2. Understood.

3. Those who read the OP article saw this: "The estimated number of incarcerated atheists ranges from .07% to .2% of all inmates."

4. IMO it's proselytizing. You, Contrails and anyone else are free to say as you please.

5. Understood.

[Mainecoons]

Atheists are like religious believers. You must accept their dogma on faith. They can't any more prove there is no God than the religious can prove there is one.

I'm keeping my nose clean just in case. :grin:

[Chris]

Atheists are like religious believers. You must accept their dogma on faith. They can't any more prove there is no God than the religious can prove there is one.

I'm keeping my nose clean just in case. :grin:



Pascal's Wager.

[darroll]

Can we agree that nothing is impossible?
Then someone/something had to light the wick that caused the big bang.

[Chris]

Can we agree that nothing is impossible?
Then someone/something had to light the wick that caused the big bang.


Ah, the cosmological argument. So who or what lit someone/something's match?

[Max Rockatansky]

Can we agree that nothing is impossible?
Then someone/something had to light the wick that caused the big bang.

Always an interesting question. Made even more interesting since science has proven our Universe is expanding and won't end in a cyclical Big Crunch/Big Bang. The Universe will probably end in the Big Chill. A one shot Universe. Spice for the philosophical debate!

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-fate_of_the_universe.php

Evidence has ruled out the Big Crunch. The Big Chill is probably the least that will happen. Whether or not the universe goes all the way to a Big Rip depends on what dark energy really is, and whether it will stay constant forever or fade away as suddenly as it appears to have arisen. And that we do not yet know.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/521/bigbangmystery.jpg

[Contrails]

Atheists are like religious believers. You must accept their dogma on faith. They can't any more prove there is no God than the religious can prove there is one.

I'm keeping my nose clean just in case. :grin:
Before an atheist has to prove there is no God, the theist has to offer a rational definition of what God is.

[Max Rockatansky]

Before an atheist has to prove there is no God, the theist has to offer a rational definition of what God is.

Both are impossible requests. It's a matter of faith, not physical evidence.

[darroll]

Ah, the cosmological argument. So who or what lit someone/something's match?
The vast nothingness of our universe had one molecule.
It had to be excited to start the big bang.
Maybe some good looking naked babe fired it up.

[Chris]

The vast nothingness of our universe had one molecule.
It had to be excited to start the big bang.
Maybe some good looking naked babe fired it up.


And who fired her up?

http://i.snag.gy/d7bLr.jpg


And according to big bang it wasn't a molecule but quantum fluctuations.

[Blackrook]

I don't see how preaching atheism to convicted felons will make them into better people, and it might make them worse.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think he means it is activism on the part of atheism, and although not a direct religion, it could fit many parameters of that. Actively recruiting members to join a group or share a belief is very much a tenant of religion.

The way the anti-Christers and anti-theists are so upset about Nativity displays is just like some fanatical sect seeking to stamp out the heresies of all other denominations. I remember Lutherans purposely in-your-face wearing Protestant orange on the Catholic holiday of St. Patrick's day. The New Age authoritarian pseudo-atheists remind me of that going out of the way intolerance.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Can we agree that nothing is impossible?
Then someone/something had to light the wick that caused the big bang.

If you believe that God had no beginning, why can't you believe that a non-theist universe had no beginning? The Big Bang was an eruption from another universe. How did that universe get started? It had no start; it has always been there.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The vast nothingness of our universe had one molecule.
It had to be excited to start the big bang.
Maybe some good looking naked babe fired it up.

The Big Woodie? Maybe it was a Wookie who had the Woodie. Chewbacca on that for awhile.

[darroll]

Whatever caused the big bang had to live in another universe, all hell was going to break loose.
This mean we have two universes?
I don't see a way to count out Buddha, God, Allah, etc.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't see how preaching atheism to convicted felons will make them into better people, and it might make them worse.

Obviously you're missing the point, it makes Leslie Zukor, the "19-year-old student at Reed College " feel good! :D

[Contrails]

I don't see how preaching atheism to convicted felons will make them into better people, and it might make them worse.

I don't see how any of this can be considered "preaching atheism". But when atheists are incarcerated at a rate far lower than the general population, wouldn't that indicate they may be generally better people?

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't see how any of this can be considered "preaching atheism". But when atheists are incarcerated at a rate far lower than the general population, wouldn't that indicate they may be generally better people?

If Atheism is simply non-belief, why must it be taught? That's like saying I need to be taught not to leap over the Moon. It's stupid.

Now, if Atheism is a "religion" in terms of people banding together to make it a force, a "belief" system, then, yes, books, brochures, teachers and such would be necessary.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Whatever caused the big bang had to live in another universe; all hell was going to break loose.
This mean we have two universes?
I don't see a way to count out Buddha, God, Allah, etc.

You're begging the question by assuming that a living being had to create the Big Bang instead of an impersonal force like gravity. The second Creationist fallacy is the assumption that even if it was a personal agent, that initiator had to be a good person. He wasn't even competent; he was only a Beginner.

[Max Rockatansky]

You're begging the question by assuming that a living being had to create the Big Bang instead of an impersonal force like gravity. The second Creationist fallacy is the assumption that even if it was a personal agent, that initiator had to be a good person. He wasn't even competent; he was only a Beginner.

If there is an all power entity, then it's everything. Good, like Evil, is a relative term. It only applies in the Natural Universe along with other limits like Cold and Hot, Up and Down.

There is no limit to such an entity so tagging it with human limits is silly.

[truthmatters]

there is no he or it.


everything is everything huh

[Chris]

there is no he or it.


everything is everything huh


"What was the use of my having come from Oakland it was not natural to have come from there yes write about if I like or anything if I like but not there, there is no there there."
~Gertrude Stein, Everybody's Autobiography

[Contrails]

If Atheism is simply non-belief, why must it be taught? That's like saying I need to be taught not to leap over the Moon. It's stupid.

Now, if Atheism is a "religion" in terms of people banding together to make it a force, a "belief" system, then, yes, books, brochures, teachers and such would be necessary.
As I said before, it's not about instruction, it's about confirmation. People like to know that there are other people out there that share their beliefs (or lack thereof). The only thing these books teach is how to respond to inane arguments about what atheism is or is not.

[Mister D]

As I said before, it's not about instruction, it's about confirmation. People like to know that there are other people out there that share their beliefs (or lack thereof). The only thing these books teach is how to respond to inane arguments about what atheism is or is not.

There are? That's weird. I don't like the NY Yankees or baseball but I don't need confirmation that other people exist who don't like the Yankees or baseball either. I don't identify as "not a Yankees fan". I never think about the Yankees because the Yankees and baseball are truly meaningless to me. Obviously, this supposed mere lack of belief is quite an important part of the identity of some individuals.

[Max Rockatansky]

As I said before, it's not about instruction, it's about confirmation. People like to know that there are other people out there that share their beliefs (or lack thereof). The only thing these books teach is how to respond to inane arguments about what atheism is or is not.

Confirmation? Like a church? Yes, that's what I'm saying. If it acts like a religion, walks like a religion and quacks like a religion, the odds are it's a religion. Especially since they are advocating a spiritual point of view which, like religion, cannot be proven.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/641/duck11.jpg

[Contrails]

Confirmation? Like a church? Yes, that's what I'm saying. If it acts like a religion, walks like a religion and quacks like a religion, the odds are it's a religion. Especially since they are advocating a spiritual point of view which, like religion, cannot be proven.

Because religion has nothing to do with an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods. Using this definition, just about anything that's important to a group of people could be called a religion.

[Contrails]

There are? That's weird. I don't like the NY Yankees or baseball but I don't need confirmation that other people exist who don't like the Yankees or baseball either. I don't identify as "not a Yankees fan". I never think about the Yankees because the Yankees and baseball are truly meaningless to me. Obviously, this supposed mere lack of belief is quite an important part of the identity of some individuals.

I agree it is weird, but has anyone ever called you immoral, un-American or fired you because you are "not a Yankees fan"? If it wasn't for the behavior of some Christians in this country, atheists would feel the need to seek confirmation of their beliefs.

[Mister D]

Because religion has nothing to do with an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods. Using this definition, just about anything that's important to a group of people could be called a religion.

You're starting to get it. It's matter of function. At least some sociologists of religion don't define religion the way many of us do (i.e. as strictly theism and church going). Frankly, I think it's patently ridiculous to suggest that communism, for example, was not religious.

[Mister D]

I agree it is weird, but has anyone ever called you immoral, un-American or fired you because you are "not a Yankees fan"? If it wasn't for the behavior of some Christians in this country, atheists would feel the need to seek confirmation of their beliefs.

Who was fired for their atheism?

[Contrails]

Who was fired for their atheism?

Well, there's Carletta Sims (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/atheist_fired.htm), Amanda Donaldson (http://www.examiner.com/article/religion-the-workplace-an-atheist-s-battle-against-discrimination-pt-1), Richard Mullens (http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/02/12/richard-mullens-teacher-fired-for-being-an-atheist.htm), and Cacy Cantwell (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/NEWS/70504015), to name just a few.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well, there's Carletta Sims (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/atheist_fired.htm), Amanda Donaldson (http://www.examiner.com/article/religion-the-workplace-an-atheist-s-battle-against-discrimination-pt-1), Richard Mullens (http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/02/12/richard-mullens-teacher-fired-for-being-an-atheist.htm), and Cacy Cantwell (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/NEWS/70504015), to name just a few.

I'm not saying there isn't wrong going on, but people who pick fights and piss up ropes usually find themselves facing trouble.

Why did Sims show her "Director of American Atheists Inc" business card to coworkers at CitiGroup? It's unprofessional to bring up religion in the workplace unless that work place is a religious institution.

In the case of Donaldson, she had a blog with "anti-Christian opinions expressed". She's free to say them, but her employer isn't required to agree nor retain her employment. What if it was a White Supremacist website? Would you agree the employer was within their rights to let that employee go or would you be supporting rights for "different beliefs"?

Mullens was railroaded, but he never confirmed nor otherwise stated he was an atheist. Suspicion of his atheism is mentioned, but his termination was for being "too liberal".

Cantwell declared his atheism to his boss at work, but was also open about "living in sin" (unmarried) with his partner and five children.

I'm not saying religious assholes don't exist, but this often cuts both ways. Contrails , are you advocating that people should be able to discuss religion in the workplace and be protected by Federal law in doing so? Do you really want to open that can of worms?

[Gerrard Winstanley]

You're starting to get it. It's matter of function. At least some sociologists of religion don't define religion the way many of us do (i.e. as strictly theism and church going). Frankly, I think it's patently ridiculous to suggest that communism, for example, was not religious.
Communism itself isn't religious. The personality cults that grew up around the Soviet and Chinese leaderships definitely were.

[Max Rockatansky]

Communism itself isn't religious. The personality cults that grew up around the Soviet and Chinese leaderships definitely were.

Yet the world's largest communist nations actively sought to destroy religions within their realm of influence since "there is no god" in their opinion.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Yet the world's largest communist nations actively sought to destroy religions within their realm of influence since "there is no god" in their opinion.
Yet they elevated Mao, Stalin and Kim Il-Sung to God-like positions of ideological authority, complete with their own, supernatural folklores and legions of devoted minions around them. It was religion in all but name.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yet they elevated Mao, Stalin and Kim Il-Sung to God-like positions of ideological authority, complete with their own, supernatural folklores and legions of devoted minions around them. It was religion in all but name.

I think "they elevated" is the same as saying the Germans elevated Hitler to become the architect of "the Final Solution". Despite the fact Hitler was elected to Chancellor, dictators take their position, they are not "elevated" to it.

I don't know about supernatural myths surrounding commie dictators.

[Contrails]

I'm not saying there isn't wrong going on, but people who pick fights and piss up ropes usually find themselves facing trouble.

Why did Sims show her "Director of American Atheists Inc" business card to coworkers at CitiGroup? It's unprofessional to bring up religion in the workplace unless that work place is a religious institution.
Showing someone an atheist business card is unprofessional but posting a picture of Jesus on someone's computer is not?


In the case of Donaldson, she had a blog with "anti-Christian opinions expressed". She's free to say them, but her employer isn't required to agree nor retain her employment. What if it was a White Supremacist website? Would you agree the employer was within their rights to let that employee go or would you be supporting rights for "different beliefs"?
The blog was about her battle with cancer and even after the anti-Christian comments were removed she was terminated.


Mullens was railroaded, but he never confirmed nor otherwise stated he was an atheist. Suspicion of his atheism is mentioned, but his termination was for being "too liberal".
Even in Texas, being liberal shouldn't bar one from being a teacher. But do you think a history and government teacher could go two years without their political beliefs being know? Whether or not he was an atheist, the complaining parent said he shouldn't be teaching because he "didn't believe in God".


Cantwell declared his atheism to his boss at work, but was also open about "living in sin" (unmarried) with his partner and five children.
Cantwell only declared his atheism after his boss brought up God in a conversation.


I'm not saying religious assholes don't exist, but this often cuts both ways. @Contrails (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=855) , are you advocating that people should be able to discuss religion in the workplace and be protected by Federal law in doing so? Do you really want to open that can of worms?
I'm not arguing for any federal protection for assholes, religious or not. I'm just pointing out the disparity in their treatment. Do you really think any of these people would have lost their jobs had they been mainstream Protestant?

[Contrails]

Yet the world's largest communist nations actively sought to destroy religions within their realm of influence since "there is no god" in their opinion.

The first rule of those in power, destroy the competition.

[undine]

Yet they elevated Mao, Stalin and Kim Il-Sung to God-like positions of ideological authority, complete with their own, supernatural folklores and legions of devoted minions around them. It was religion in all but name.

Didn't Stalin forbid religion because HE wanted to be God? And kill people that disagreed with him? I don't think the people elevated him, he just didn't give them any other choice.

[Mister D]

Well, there's Carletta Sims (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/atheist_fired.htm), Amanda Donaldson (http://www.examiner.com/article/religion-the-workplace-an-atheist-s-battle-against-discrimination-pt-1), Richard Mullens (http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/02/12/richard-mullens-teacher-fired-for-being-an-atheist.htm), and Cacy Cantwell (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/NEWS/70504015), to name just a few.

All claims. Have any of these people won their suits?

[Mister D]

Communism itself isn't religious. The personality cults that grew up around the Soviet and Chinese leaderships definitely were.

Yes, it is. It performs exactly the same function as a traditional religion. It orients the individual in the world and serves as the ultimate backdrop of reality.

[Mister D]

Yet they elevated Mao, Stalin and Kim Il-Sung to God-like positions of ideological authority, complete with their own, supernatural folklores and legions of devoted minions around them. It was religion in all but name.

Amazing how often that seems to have happened where communism reared its ugly head.

[Mister D]

Didn't Stalin forbid religion because HE wanted to be God? And kill people that disagreed with him? I don't think the people elevated him, he just didn't give them any other choice.

Anti-theism and the ultimate abolition of 'religion' is part and parcel of communist ideology.

[undine]

Anti-theism and the ultimate abolition of 'religion' is part and parcel of communist ideology.

That may be true, I really don't know. But "anti-theism" isn't exactly what Stalin engaged in. He elevated himself to a god-like dictator. And demanded fealty. I image a lot of people in the country were not inwardly pleased with the situation.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Yes, it is. It performs exactly the same function as a traditional religion. It orients the individual in the world and serves as the ultimate backdrop of reality.
All ideologies do that to some extent.

[Mister D]

All ideologies do that to some extent.

Yes, I agree. They do.

[Mister D]

That may be true, I really don't know. But "anti-theism" isn't exactly what Stalin engaged in. He elevated himself to a god-like dictator. And demanded fealty. I image a lot of people in the country were not inwardly pleased with the situation.

It is if we define religion as church going theism.

[Max Rockatansky]

The first rule of those in power, destroy the competition.

At least in dictatorships. Another one is to take away the means of the masses to revolt. Guess what that means, Contrails :D



Amazing how often that seems to have happened where communism reared its ugly head.Agreed. It follows the line of absolute power corrupts absolutely. Centrally controlled systems may have the appearance of more efficiency, but that efficiency can be turned to nasty ends and often does.
Better to have a representative democracy. It's messier and much less efficient, but safer for all involved.

[truthmatters]

wow there are people at this site who still love our form of government.

cool

[Max Rockatansky]

wow there are people at this site who still love our form of government.

cool

"Democracy is messy" but it's the best alternative available.

[Contrails]

All claims. Have any of these people won their suits?

For each of these who actually had cause for suing, how many people in right-to-work states do you think have been dismissed for similar reasons? Can you point to even one case where a theist was fired for their belief?

[Mister D]

For each of these who actually had cause for suing, how many people in right-to-work states do you think have been dismissed for similar reasons? Can you point to even one case where a theist was fired for their belief?

That would be no, right?

[Contrails]

That would be no, right?
If you insist, here's one that won.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/shaaj/for_what_its_worth_i_won/

[Mister D]

If you insist, here's one that won.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/shaaj/for_what_its_worth_i_won/

I asked a question. I've never heard of any such thing. Even if this is true it appears to be extremely rare.

Blocked by my admin. Could you paste the appropriate parts?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yet they elevated Mao, Stalin and Kim Il-Sung to God-like positions of ideological authority, complete with their own, supernatural folklores and legions of devoted minions around them. It was religion in all but name.

Communism was started by and led by the spoiled-rotten spawn of the rich. These Heirheads are told from childhood on that they are special and that everyone should love them. So it easy for an opportunist to join their silly aristocratic-fantasy movement and convince them they should trust him, even though a true working-class person would see through his malignant flattery.

This first happened with the rich-kid revolutionary, President Francisco Madero, in Mexico in 1910. Madero naively let a fascist general, Victoriano Huerta, convince him that he was on the revolution's side. Because Pancho Villa, who knew better about what kind of ambitious bully Huerta was, had the peasant's illusion that spoiled trash like Madero could ever be on the people's side, he let Madero make his own decision. The general wound up taking over and executing Madero. Snob Mob socialists have always followed that same pattern.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Didn't Stalin forbid religion because HE wanted to be God? And kill people who disagreed with him? I don't think the people elevated him; he just didn't give them any other choice.

No, the Russian people worshipped Stalin. Their fathers had been either killed off in war or were poor male role models, so just like our working-class Republicans, they needed an infallible and omnipotent father figure, just like the pathetic Bible Bangers need God. Stalin knew how to play on the Russian people's psychological disability.

Contrary to ignorant Russian Studies propaganda, such as Robert Duvall's Stalin, the Commie-Czar killed many of his fellow Communists because he wanted the people to think that he would save them from their local tyrants, believing that those commissars weren't following Stalin's "benevolent" orders.

[The Sage of Main Street]

wow there are people at this site who still love our form of government.

cool

What is even more amazing is that they tolerate the unelected corporate dictatorship we are subjected to in the workplace. A company is a collectivist entity where a selfish parasite Right-Wing commissar has absolute power over the fratboy Animal House's Animal Farm. The drooling and sniveling cowards under him cover up their shame by pretending to be tough-guy rebels against the GUBMINT.

[Contrails]

I asked a question. I've never heard of any such thing. Even if this is true it appears to be extremely rare.
Since nearly 90% of working Americans are at-will employees, who can be dismissed for any reason, that any make it to court in the first place is surprising. The question is not did they win, but would they have been fired if they were mainstream Protestant.


Blocked by my admin. Could you paste the appropriate parts?
Here you go.

I'll try to make this as short as possible. For the past 11 years, beginning two months after I graduated high school, I've worked for the same company. I busted my ass and worked my way up the proverbial ladder. Not so much to a powerful position, but to a more than just good paying position.
I worked a sales position for a fairly large company, but one that also dealt with a very narrow vertical market. Throughout the 7 years in this position, I busted my ass. 100+ hour work weeks were common. I never made it back home to visit family during holidays during these years either. I was always too busy working. The only thing that padded this was the nice bonuses and commission that I regularly got, even though I was too busy to actually use it. Fast forward to a little less than a year ago. I was requested to drop everything during a sales integration project and head back to corp HQ. Thinking that I was about to close this project, they were lining up another one and hopefully giving me another raise/promotion.
It was a Tuesday morning. Upon arriving to the office, I was ushered into the CEO's office. There waiting was the CEO, COO and CHRO (which I didn't even know existed. They sat me down and plopped a fairly thick binder in front of me. Inside of it were about 500 printed pages of miscellanious screenshots from my facebook, /r/atheism, misc atheism blogs etc etc. Basically anything atheistic was highlighted and notated.
I was informed that "several" of my fellow employees, including my few superiors, did not feel safe or confident working with me any longer after they found out I was a "threatening" atheist. My employment with the company ended after about a half hour of discussion and me just being floored with everyones level of ignorance. There was no use battling stupidity here. Even worse, there was no severance.
I spoke with a close lawyer friend back where I lived (Los Angeles) and ended up discussing my situation with all of the partners in his law firm. They thankfully took my discrimination and wrongful termination case.
Turns out that one of my co-works who I was friends with on Facebook discovered my religious status as "Atheist" on facebook and started spreading the word. At some point (probably when my LCD died) IT installed "SpectorSoft" on my laptop which supposedly took screenshots based on keywords or specific times, catching all my pro-atheism related viewings.
My then ex-company tried to settle outside of court. Most likely because they realized they uber-fucked up. They tried to play it off as my co-workers not feeling "safe" around me. I refused to settle and began burning up my savings on lawyer and court fees. 11 months later, after tons of deliberations, court dates, conference calls, recordings, etc. The court ruled in favor of me. I will be compensated very nicely and all my lawyer fees will be paid for by my ex company. Just in the nick of time for my birthday tomorrow.

[Mister D]

Since nearly 90% of working Americans are at-will employees, who can be dismissed for any reason, that any make it to court in the first place is surprising. The question is not did they win, but would they have been fired if they were mainstream Protestant.


Here you go.

Actually, you appear to have virtually no idea what you're talking about. American companies like mine, for example, take many precautions when terminating protected classes. That means blacks, gays, females, older folks...pretty much anyone who isn't a white person with a penis under 50. You know what HR does, right? One of their primary functions is to protect the co. IOW, at-will employment does not protect employers from claims of discrimination.

OK thanks. So an atheist won a discrimination case. lol

[Max Rockatansky]

Actually, you appear to have virtually no idea what you're talking about. American companies like mine, for example, take many precautions when terminating protected classes. That means blacks, gays, females, older folks...pretty much anyone who isn't a white person with a penis under 50. You know what HR does, right? One of their primary functions is to protect the co. IOW, at-will employment does not protect employers from claims of discrimination.

OK thanks. So an atheist won a discrimination case. lol

While I give an anonymous posting on the Internet it's due regardless of how many times it's been cut and pasted onto forum (Due meaning the same value as a Birther ranter), I'd venture to say a lot more +50 year old white males have been canned than atheists.

[Contrails]

Actually, you appear to have virtually no idea what you're talking about. American companies like mine, for example, take many precautions when terminating protected classes. That means blacks, gays, females, older folks...pretty much anyone who isn't a white person with a penis under 50. You know what HR does, right? One of their primary functions is to protect the co. IOW, at-will employment does not protect employers from claims of discrimination.

OK thanks. So an atheist won a discrimination case. lol
How naïve are you? If having an HR department prevents people for being wrongfully terminated, then why are there so many wrongful termination lawsuits?


While I give an anonymous posting on the Internet it's due regardless of how many times it's been cut and pasted onto forum (Due meaning the same value as a Birther ranter), I'd venture to say a lot more +50 year old white males have been canned than atheists.

So as long as someone else is experiencing more discrimination, discrimination against atheists is okay with you?

[jillian]

Actually, you appear to have virtually no idea what you're talking about. American companies like mine, for example, take many precautions when terminating protected classes. That means blacks, gays, females, older folks...pretty much anyone who isn't a white person with a penis under 50. You know what HR does, right? One of their primary functions is to protect the co. IOW, at-will employment does not protect employers from claims of discrimination.

OK thanks. So an atheist won a discrimination case. lol

actually, HR departments don't protect people from discrimination. that is silly.

they do cover corporate butt. but the reality is that an employee in most places can be fired for no reason or any reason, so long as it's not an "illegal" reason. part of making the record for no reason or any reason is HR… which acts for the company, not the employee.

[Max Rockatansky]

You know what HR does, right? One of their primary functions is to protect the co. IOW, at-will employment does not protect employers from claims of discrimination.
actually, HR departments don't protect people from discrimination. that is silly.

they do cover corporate butt. but the reality is that an employee in most places can be fired for no reason or any reason, so long as it's not an "illegal" reason. part of making the record for no reason or any reason is HR… which acts for the company, not the employee.

You two appear to be in agreement and I agree with both of you. HR covers the company's ass on liability. Few are immune.

[Max Rockatansky]

How naïve are you? If having an HR department prevents people for being wrongfully terminated, then why are there so many wrongful termination lawsuits?Obviously your anger and personal religious agenda must literally be blinding you since that isn't what Mister D said:

You know what HR does, right? One of their primary functions is to protect the co. IOW, at-will employment does not protect employers from claims of discrimination.


So as long as someone else is experiencing more discrimination, discrimination against atheists is okay with you?Nice twist of my post, but understandable given your emotional blindness on this issue. No, I think it's wrong. The difference between us is that you seem to believe Atheists should be protected from discrimination and I disagree with all special protected classes of people. I think passing discrimination laws protecting atheists and blacks, for example, discriminates against people of other religions and races.

Do you also believe in atheists being added to the Hate Crime list? That if some Aryan Assholes beat you and me up, that they'd serve longer sentences for beating up you, an atheist, and but not me, a nobody? That's fucked up, Contrails

[Contrails]

Obviously your anger and personal religious agenda must literally be blinding you since that isn't what Mister D said:

Nice twist of my post, but understandable given your emotional blindness on this issue. No, I think it's wrong. The difference between us is that you seem to believe Atheists should be protected from discrimination and I disagree with all special protected classes of people. I think passing discrimination laws protecting atheists and blacks, for example, discriminates against people of other religions and races.

Do you also believe in atheists being added to the Hate Crime list? That if some Aryan Assholes beat you and me up, that they'd serve longer sentences for beating up you, an atheist, and but not me, a nobody? That's fucked up, @Contrails (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=855)

I answered that back in Post #71. But protected or not, atheists do not get treated the same as atheists in this country. That you think writing a book about atheism or giving atheist prisoners books they request constitutes proselytizing just proves how little you know about the subject.

[Max Rockatansky]

I answered that back in Post #71. But protected or not, atheists do not get treated the same as atheists in this country. That you think writing a book about atheism or giving atheist prisoners books they request constitutes proselytizing just proves how little you know about the subject.

Dude, neither does anything else. (I'm presuming you meant atheist vs. theist treatment).

Are you proposing a law that makes everyone like and treat atheists the same so that, if an atheist doesn't feel he's getting his due, he can have the offender arrested? Is that the path you want our country to take?

What we can do is make sure justice is blind. People should be treated the same in accordance with the law and our government. Who people vote for or support is totally up to them even if their attitude is to distrust atheists.

Which is pretty common since the one's I've seen are pretty shady! I'm only partially kidding.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/bigotry_pres.gif

[sotmfs]

I don't see how preaching atheism to convicted felons will make them into better people, and it might make them worse.

If they were raised as Christians and prayed in school and read the ten commandments ,I would say religion did not help them.
I would also say religion is not to be blamed for their actions.

[sotmfs]

When my son(an eagle scout) was in boy scouts I participated in most of the troops activities.My wife at the time and mother to my son wanted me to join and become a leader.I told her I could not because to be officially involved in scouting you have to believe in a supreme being and sign the form stating you do.I reminded her that being an atheist I could not do that.She got angry and said"just say you do,no one will know otherwise"
Ya,I will lie,why not,after all I am an atheist .I have no morals . I did not join.
Religion comes up in conversation ,I tell people I am an atheist.They ask why and I tell them.Now I am told I don't respect their religion.

[Contrails]

Dude, neither does anything else. (I'm presuming you meant atheist vs. theist treatment).
And yet despite the multitude of religious materials and programs available to prisoners, you think it is unnecessary for atheists to have their own books and share them with others.


Are you proposing a law that makes everyone like and treat atheists the same so that, if an atheist doesn't feel he's getting his due, he can have the offender arrested? Is that the path you want our country to take?

What we can do is make sure justice is blind. People should be treated the same in accordance with the law and our government. Who people vote for or support is totally up to them even if their attitude is to distrust atheists.
Why do you think just because I'm pointing out the disparity in our society that must be advocating for more laws? Maybe I believe educating the uninformed is the best approach.


Which is pretty common since the one's I've seen are pretty shady! I'm only partially kidding.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/bigotry_pres.gif

Thanks for making my point.

[Max Rockatansky]

If they were raised as Christians and prayed in school and read the ten commandments ,I would say religion did not help them.
I would also say religion is not to be blamed for their actions.

Ergo, if religion didn't help them, then why would atheism? As it is, I'd say they either weren't raised in a strong, caring Christian household (as opposed to a lip-service one) or other factors are at work.

Christianity is but one form of faith. I think all people have a spiritual nature and most benefit from some form of spiritual fulfillment.

I see little benefit in preaching Atheism. From what I've seen it's mostly militant such as Richard Dawkin's advocacy to "Mock them. Ridicule them." when speaking to theists about their rituals.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/26/149310560/atheist-firebrand-richard-dawkins-unrepentant-for-harsh-words-targeting-faith

I admire many aspects of Dawkins' work. His embrace and explication of evolutionary theory, and the workings of the natural world, are beautiful and necessary.

So are his efforts on behalf of secular humanism and the separation of church and state.As the world's alpha atheist, he takes up for people who are often treated with shock, suspicion and prejudice when they share their atheism with others. Recently, a friend I've known for 23 years told me it made her "shiver" to realize that I'm an atheist. So I personally appreciate Dawkins' willingness to speak publicly in support of people who do not believe in a supernatural world.

My steadfast disagreement with Dawkins emerges from his refusal to see that the expression of faith isn't inevitably a simple-minded approach to living. I'm a big fan of reason. I'm just no fan of the stereotype, embodied by Dawkins, that we atheists equate others' religious faith with a lack of intelligence or courage, or both.

FWIW, the "Reason Rally" is a highly inappropriate name since there is little reason in anger and attack on people for their faith.

[Max Rockatansky]

And yet despite the multitude of religious materials and programs available to prisoners, you think it is unnecessary for atheists to have their own books and share them with others.Close, but not correct. I question why those who believe in nothing need something to teach them about nothing. I believe prisoners have a right to their religion, even if that religion is atheism. Yes, atheism is a religious faith and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment.


Thanks for making my point.Your point was that you want people to be forced to accept atheists and that atheists should be a protected class. My point is that such laws are stupid because they are impossible to enforce. We can force our government to treat everyone equally, as in the First Amendment issue above. Forcing people to accept your religious beliefs is silly.

[sotmfs]

I don't preach atheism.I was raised in a christian environment.My Grandfather was a Lutheran Minister in Germany.I attended bible school and did very well.I am very familiar with the christian religion.
I taught my children the fundamentals of Christianity.I also told them why I am an atheist.They are intelligent people and they can decide what their beliefs on life and the universe will be.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't preach atheism.I was raised in a christian environment.My Grandfather was a Lutheran Minister in Germany.I attended bible school and did very well.I am very familiar with the christian religion.

I taught my children the fundamentals of Christianity.I also told them why I am an atheist.They are intelligent people and they can decide what their beliefs on life and the universe will be.

Teaching people to think for themselves is a key part of being a good parent. My point was that preaching disbelief is silly. If someone wants to believe we're all meat computers who popped into existence, moved around a bit then disappear completely upon expiration, that's fine. I don't agree, but it's their choice.

[sotmfs]

Teaching people to think for themselves is a key part of being a good parent. My point was that preaching disbelief is silly. If someone wants to believe we're all meat computers who popped into existence, moved around a bit then disappear completely upon expiration, that's fine. I don't agree, but it's their choice.

I do not think of it in that manner.Life is a beautiful gift ,the wonder of it is amazing.To see,hear,feel,think,question,love,have children,etc .

[Max Rockatansky]

I do not think of it in that manner.Life is a beautiful gift ,the wonder of it is amazing.To see,hear,feel,think,question,love,have children,etc .

I completely agree Life is to be lived. What does that have to do with it?

[sotmfs]

I completely agree Life is to be lived. What does that have to do with it?
It has to do with I am not one who
wants to believe we're all meat computers who popped into existence, moved around a bit then disappear completely upon expiration.

[Chris]

I offer this for your reading interest and pleasure: Is Atheism Irrational? (https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/atheism-irrational). It gets into the "new science of religious belief" and turns those insights on atheism.


...Atheism, however, has not received much attention. I suspect this is due to the following: the vast majority of those who work on these topics are atheists or agnostics who view religious belief as false and even bizarre. Given this assumption, the project of psychological explanations of religion is to explain how otherwise rational people could hold obviously false beliefs. Unlike religious belief, their own beliefs (agnosticism or atheism), so the narrative goes, are products of coolly rational reflection—the triumph of reason over superstition. The project then is to seek out the malfunction that produces religious belief; atheism gets a free pass.

But if there are primal urges, neuronal impulses, or psychological drives that influence and even cause belief in God, couldn’t there be similar causes of unbelief? Or are only theists neurotic?

...If atheism, on the other hand, were the product of a fiction generating mechanism and one were made aware of this fact, one would be irrational in maintaining one’s atheism. Interestingly, recent studies suggest just such an irrationality contraption....

...With respect to the rationality of atheism and agnosticism, Norenzayan, Gervais, and Trzeniewski offer wise counsel: “We emphasize that our data do not suggest that disbelief solely arises through mentalizing deficits; multiple psychological and socio-cultural pathways likely lead to a complex and overdetermined phenomenon such as disbelief in God.”

Is atheism’s connection with autism the silver bullet that proves once and for all that atheists are irrational? Given the complexities of both the human mind and human culture, it is impossible to tell....

[Max Rockatansky]

It has to do with I am not one who
wants to believe we're all meat computers who popped into existence, moved around a bit then disappear completely upon expiration.

What does that matter? My dog thinks I'm the world's greatest person on the planet, but in a couple years she'll be dead so, right or wrong, it won't matter.

[sotmfs]

What does that matter? My dog thinks I'm the world's greatest person on the planet, but in a couple years she'll be dead so, right or wrong, it won't matter.

It matters at the moment.It is the ride that matters,the quality of the ride,not the destination.

[Max Rockatansky]

It matters at the moment.It is the ride that matters,the quality of the ride,not the destination.

It matters to every living creature since we're all genetically programmed to survive. Well, at least the normal functioning ones. The Abby Normal ones do all kinds of funny things.

[Contrails]

Close, but not correct. I question why those who believe in nothing need something to teach them about nothing. I believe prisoners have a right to their religion, even if that religion is atheism. Yes, atheism is a religious faith and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment.
If you think books on atheism are about either teaching or nothing, then you obviously haven't ready any.


Your point was that you want people to be forced to accept atheists and that atheists should be a protected class. My point is that such laws are stupid because they are impossible to enforce. We can force our government to treat everyone equally, as in the First Amendment issue above. Forcing people to accept your religious beliefs is silly.
Once again, you are wide of the mark. My point is not about forcing anyone to accept anything. I am simply pointing out the challenges atheists face in this country and the need to know that others share their beliefs. Are you going to tell me the Gallup poll you referenced doesn't represent an unfounded distrust of atheism?


Teaching people to think for themselves is a key part of being a good parent. My point was that preaching disbelief is silly. If someone wants to believe we're all meat computers who popped into existence, moved around a bit then disappear completely upon expiration, that's fine. I don't agree, but it's their choice.

If that is what you think atheists believe, then you know even less about it than I thought.

[Mister D]

How naïve are you? If having an HR department prevents people for being wrongfully terminated, then why are there so many wrongful termination lawsuits?



So as long as someone else is experiencing more discrimination, discrimination against atheists is okay with you?

I didn't sayit prevented anything. I said that companies go to great lengths to protect themselves. I also helped you understand what at will employment is not (i.e. a free pass to fire at will).

no, it's just that you are obviously FOS when you claim there is widespread discrimination against atheists.

[Mister D]

actually, HR departments don't protect people from discrimination. that is silly.

they do cover corporate butt. but the reality is that an employee in most places can be fired for no reason or any reason, so long as it's not an "illegal" reason. part of making the record for no reason or any reason is HR… which acts for the company, not the employee.

Sigh...
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) I sometimes wonder if you even read the posts you respond to. no one said HR departments protect from discrimination. You say my comment was silly and then repeat precisely what I just fucking said! :laugh:

[Max Rockatansky]

If you think books on atheism are about either teaching or nothing, then you obviously haven't ready any.

Wrong again. I used to be an atheist, but didn't need a book to teach me to disbelieve. You? I'm sure you do. When I was young, atheism was simply someone who didn't believe in fairy tales, angels with wings and such. Now it needs High Priesst like Richard Dawkins to tell them what to think, what to say and, of course, what to read (...for his own profit):

http://thevoiceofreason.de/user_files/book_cover/338.jpg

http://c0508042.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/100822RD.jpg

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/authors/richard-dawkins-net-worth/

Richard Dawkins net worth: Richard Dawkins is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author who has an estimated net worth of $135 million ($100 euro) according to the Sunday Times in 2012. He has earned his net worth due to book sales, science career and his television and film appearances.

[Dr. Who]

You're starting to get it. It's matter of function. At least some sociologists of religion don't define religion the way many of us do (i.e. as strictly theism and church going). Frankly, I think it's patently ridiculous to suggest that communism, for example, was not religious.

A religion is anything that you do on a daily basis, so communism could be a religion by definition, but so then could be capitalism.

[Chris]

A religion is anything that you do on a daily basis, so communism could be a religion by definition, but so then could be capitalism.

Thus statism is a religion.

But not capitalism. As Marx defined it, yes, but that's better called corporatism. Just not as Smith described it, the free market, an emergent social order.

[Max Rockatansky]

A religion is anything that you do on a daily basis, so communism could be a religion by definition, but so then could be capitalism.

Disagreed. It's spiritual in nature. If you add that to your definition I think it would be closer to the truth.

[Contrails]

Wrong again. I used to be an atheist, but didn't need a book to teach me to disbelieve. You? I'm sure you do.
You might want to reevaluate what you think you know about other people.

[Contrails]

I didn't sayit prevented anything. I said that companies go to great lengths to protect themselves. I also helped you understand what at will employment is not (i.e. a free pass to fire at will).
Unless you are covered under a labor contract, you are an at-will employee and may be terminated for any reason that doesn't violate statutory laws like the Civil Rights Act. And you're correct that HR departments only protect the company, which is why someone can be dismissed for being "too liberal" as opposed to being an atheist. Unless the company is dumb enough to give you a folder documenting their desire to fire you for being an atheist, you probably don't have much legal recourse.

[Max Rockatansky]

You might want to reevaluate what you think you know about other people.

I'm constantly reevaluating, acquiring information, updating and refiling. At the moment I've refiled you to a lower drawer. :)

[Mister D]

Unless you are covered under a labor contract, you are an at-will employee and may be terminated for any reason that doesn't violate statutory laws like the Civil Rights Act. And you're correct that HR departments only protect the company, which is why someone can be dismissed for being "too liberal" as opposed to being an atheist. Unless the company is dumb enough to give you a folder documenting their desire to fire you for being an atheist, you probably don't have much legal recourse.

That may help explain why you had so much trouble documenting this supposed wave of discrimination. Then again, it might be because it simply doesn't exist. :wink:

[Contrails]

That may help explain why you had so much trouble documenting this supposed wave of discrimination. Then again, it might be because it simply doesn't exist. :wink:
Apparently the significance of the Gallup poll Max posted was lost on you. I suppose you don't think that a candidate for President of the United States said they "don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots" either? Why don't you count all of the times in one day that you see or hear something religious, then tell me again how atheists are being too vocal.

[Max Rockatansky]

So what you really want is your own Atheist channel on cable? What's stopping you from buying one or making one?

I'm reminded of the ethnic minorities complaining Hollywood doesn't feature enough movies or television shows with minorities in the lead. The problem is bias; a bias to make money, not lose it. If minorities want more movies about minorities they are free to make their own, but they can't force people to buy tickets to see it.

You can't make people like each other. You can only make them follow the law. To make a law especially for atheists is both stupid and unconstitutional.

[Mister D]

Apparently the significance of the Gallup poll Max posted was lost on you. I suppose you don't think that a candidate for President of the United States said they "don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots" either? Why don't you count all of the times in one day that you see or hear something religious, then tell me again how atheists are being too vocal.

If it is mere disbelief what's there to talk about? :grin:

[Max Rockatansky]

If it is mere disbelief what's there to talk about? :grin:

According to Richard Dawkins, there's how to mock theists, how to create faux anger over being disliked and, my favorite, Being an Asshole 101 through 404. The last one is a Master's program.

[Mister D]

According to Richard Dawkins, there's how to mock theists, how to create faux anger over being disliked and, my favorite, Being an Asshole 101 through 404. The last one is a Master's program.

Exactly. What's there to talk about? What is there to say?

[Max Rockatansky]

Exactly. What's there to talk about? What is there to say?

It's not religious, it's political, IMO, because you are absolutely correct. There's nothing to talk about when it comes to disbelief. One just does it.

Should we start organizing programs to teach prisoners disbelief in UFOs? Teaching disbelief in vampires and werewolves?

[Mister D]

It's not religious, it's political, IMO, because you are absolutely correct. There's nothing to talk about when it comes to disbelief. One just does it.

Should we start organizing programs to teach prisoners disbelief in UFOs? Teaching disbelief in vampires and werewolves?

This is so obvious only a self-interested party wouldn't get it.

[Common]

Its ok that they disbelieve and their being atheists is not a problem for me. The problem is they want it to be all their way and thats just not going to happen.

Gallup poll today says they number of religious people in the USA is unchanged since 2008, you can construe that as atheism has stagnated

[Contrails]

So what you really want is your own Atheist channel on cable? What's stopping you from buying one or making one?


If it is mere disbelief what's there to talk about? :grin:


Its ok that they disbelieve and their being atheists is not a problem for me. The problem is they want it to be all their way and thats just not going to happen.
You still don't get it. It's not about having their own cable channel, teaching disbelief, or having it all their way. It's about dispelling the straw man concept most people have about atheism and letting others know that despite what society says, there's nothing wrong with disbelief.


Gallup poll today says they number of religious people in the USA is unchanged since 2008, you can construe that as atheism has stagnated
Gallup shows that the number of people who answered "none" when asked their religious preference has increased from 12% in 2008 to 15% in 2013. That is neither unchanged nor stagnated.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/Religion.aspx

[Max Rockatansky]

You still don't get it. It's not about having their own cable channel, teaching disbelief, or having it all their way. It's about dispelling the straw man concept most people have about atheism and letting others know that despite what society says, there's nothing wrong with disbelief.You've made it very clear for all to see what being an atheist is all about.


If you think books on atheism are about either teaching or nothing, then you obviously haven't ready any.

If that is what you think atheists believe, then you know even less about it than I thought.
The first rule of those in power, destroy the competition.
You don't live in the United States, do you?
How naïve are you?
That you think writing a book about atheism or giving atheist prisoners books they request constitutes proselytizing just proves how little you know about the subject.

[Max Rockatansky]

As this report notes, even those who label themselves "atheists" have spiritual beliefs aka believing in orbiting teapots.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/)

Estimating the number of atheists in the U.S. is complex. Some adults who describe themselves as atheists also say they do believe in God or a universal spirit, according to Pew Research Center surveys. At the same time, some people who identify with a religion (e.g., say they are Protestant, Catholic or Jewish) say they do not believe in God. The debate over the definition and identity of atheists came up recently during Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Diana Nyad, a self-identified atheist who recently gained attention for her Cuba-to-Florida open swim.

Here’s what we know about self-described atheists and their beliefs:


1 The number of people who identify themselves as atheists in the United States has been rising, modestly but steadily, in recent years. Our aggregated data from 2012 show that 2.4% of American adults say they are atheists when asked about their religious identity, up from 1.6% in 2007.


2 Atheists, in general, are more likely to be male and younger than the overall population; 67% are men, and 38% are ages 18-29 (compared with 22% of all U.S. adults). About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 29% of the general public.


3 Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who believes that God does not exist,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 14% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit. That includes 5% who say they are “absolutely certain” about the existence of God or a universal spirit. Alternatively, there are many people who fit the dictionary definition of “atheist” but do not call themselves atheists. More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%).


4 Not all atheists see a contradiction between atheism and spirituality. A quarter (26%) say they think of themselves as spiritual people, and 3% consider themselves religious people. Four-in-ten atheists (41%) say they often think about the meaning and purpose of life.


5 Among atheists, 82% say they either often (52%) or sometimes (30%) feel a deep connection with nature and the earth; among all American adults, 85% either often (58%) or sometimes (26%) feel such a connection.http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/10/FT_5-facts-atheists.png

[Mister D]

You've made it very clear for all to see what being an atheist is all about.

To be fair, there are plenty of athiests for whom such a discussion would seem inane because there really isn't much to say.

[Mister D]

As this report notes, even those who label themselves "atheists" have spiritual beliefs aka believing in orbiting teapots.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/)
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/10/FT_5-facts-atheists.png

Some self professed atheists play a game. Some don't.

[Max Rockatansky]

Some self professed atheists play a game. Some don't.

I think it's like some self-named Christians, political extremists and others who choose a cause just to express their inner anger.

There's no doubt in my mind that no one would be able to pick out the majority of atheists, agnostics and various religious believers on the street or in the office simply because most people recognize this as a personal issue. Not many people discussing fucking their wife at work, and some feel talking about personal beliefs is on that same level of intimacy.

OTOH, there are those who do want to push themselves on others. Some pick religion, some pick politics, some pick another topic, but they all act the same: pushy assholes.

[Mister D]

I think it's like some self-named Christians, political extremists and others who choose a cause just to express their inner anger.

There's no doubt in my mind that no one would be able to pick out the majority of atheists, agnostics and various religious believers on the street or in the office simply because most people recognize this as a personal issue. Not many people discussing fucking their wife at work, and some feel talking about personal beliefs is on that same level of intimacy.

OTOH, there are those who do want to push themselves on others. Some pick religion, some pick politics, some pick another topic, but they all act the same: pushy assholes.

I'm reminded of how one former Christian fundie turned atheist was described after he began to aggressively circulate atheist material: 'he gave up the faith but not the form'.

[Contrails]

As this report notes, even those who label themselves "atheists" have spiritual beliefs aka believing in orbiting teapots.

Nobody said atheists couldn't be spiritual, after all being an atheist only tells you what they don't believe in, not what they do believe in. But I seriously doubt anyone actually believes in orbiting teapots.

[Max Rockatansky]

Nobody said atheists couldn't be spiritual, after all being an atheist only tells you what they don't believe in, not what they do believe in. But I seriously doubt anyone actually believes in orbiting teapots.

Thanks for admitting that atheists can believe in the spiritual equivalent of orbiting teapots. Now we're talking about people who believe in intangible, unproven supernatural phenomena.

Although a person who believes in life after death and a spiritual existence beyond or within the natural universe is technically an atheist, I think most people, including myself, don't associate them with atheism and those who believe "when you're dead, you're dead" and others who believe we are soulless meat computers only reacting to our biochemical and genetic programming with the illusion of being sentient.

[Contrails]

Thanks for admitting that atheists can believe in the spiritual equivalent of orbiting teapots. Now we're talking about people who believe in intangible, unproven supernatural phenomena.

Although a person who believes in life after death and a spiritual existence beyond or within the natural universe is technically an atheist, I think most people, including myself, don't associate them with atheism and those who believe "when you're dead, you're dead" and others who believe we are soulless meat computers only reacting to our biochemical and genetic programming with the illusion of being sentient.

Half a billion Buddhists might disagree that belief in life after death and a spiritual existence beyond the natural universe makes them a theist. Atheism, while generally associated with disbelief in the supernatural, is only defined by one's disbelief in a God or gods. As for associating atheists with soulless meat computers, one doesn't need the supernatural to believe that sentience can arise from our biochemistry.

[Max Rockatansky]

Half a billion Buddhists might disagree that belief in life after death and a spiritual existence beyond the natural universe makes them a theist.

Yes, Buddhists believe in an existence beyond death and some even believe in reincarnation. That doesn't make them "when you'r dead, your dead"-type Atheists like the Four Horseman of New Atheism: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.

You can quibble about atheism all you like, Contrails. Since you are claiming there as so many variations of atheism, which one are you?

[Contrails]

You can quibble about atheism all you like, Contrails. Since you are claiming there as so many variations of atheism, which one are you?

There are many types of atheists, but only one type of atheism, the lack of belief in a God or gods. Personally, I identify as a humanist. So why don't you explain why the idea of "when you're dead, you're dead" seem to bother you so much?

[Dr. Who]

Hmm...while I have a different idea of God, insofar as I believe that we are all integral parts of a universal oneness, and I suppose that might disqualify me as a theist, it certainly does not mean that I believe that we are soulless meat computers or intelligent rocks.

[Max Rockatansky]

Hmm...while I have a different idea of God, insofar as I believe that we are all integral parts of a universal oneness, and I suppose that might disqualify me as a theist, it certainly does not mean that I believe that we are soulless meat computers or intelligent rocks.

A person can believe we are all part of the same cosmic force both in life and the afterlife as opposed to always remaining separate from an individual force labeled "God". In that sense, yes, you might be an "atheist", but I'd disagree. Atheists are quick to come up with all kinds of variations on atheism, weak or strong atheists, atheists who believe in an afterlife (Pantheists), etc yet they don't recognize the same for Theists. I think the reason is so they can inflate their numbers for political purposes.

[Max Rockatansky]

There are many types of atheists, but only one type of atheism, the lack of belief in a God or gods. Personally, I identify as a humanist. So why don't you explain why the idea of "when you're dead, you're dead" seem to bother you so much?

It doesn't bother me. I simply disagree with it. What bothers me are unscrupulous atheists who bend the truth in order to inflate their numbers. According to them, the global percentage of Atheists is 23.4% because they include the 7.1% Buddhists and 16.3% Unaffiliated. This isn't true for a few reasons as noted in the link.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/12/01_groups.png

[Contrails]

It doesn't bother me. I simply disagree with it. What bothers me are unscrupulous atheists who bend the truth in order to inflate their numbers. According to them, the global percentage of Atheists is 23.4% because they include the 7.1% Buddhists and 16.3% Unaffiliated. This isn't true for a few reasons as noted in the link.
My problem is people trying to pigeon hole atheists as something they are not for their own personal reasons. Your link asks about people's religious beliefs, not their belief in God. Having religious or spiritual beliefs is not the same as believing in God. From your link:

The religiously unaffiliated population includes atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion in surveys. However, many of the religiously unaffiliated do hold religious or spiritual beliefs.
When you ask people about their belief in God or a supreme being, the numbers are quite different.
5820
http://www.statista.com/statistics/273004/global-belief-in-god-or-a-supreme-being/

In a Canadian poll from 2011 (http://wwrn.org/articles/36135/?place=canada), 28% of Protestants and 33% of Catholics also stated they did not believe in God. Now do you see why it is so hard to count the number of atheists?

[Max Rockatansky]

In a Canadian poll from 2011 (http://wwrn.org/articles/36135/?place=canada), 28% of Protestants and 33% of Catholics also stated they did not believe in God. Now do you see why it is so hard to count the number of atheists?

Thanks for the polls. How many of those polled believe they cease to exist upon expiration? "When you'r dead, you're dead"? That question will separate out those who are atheists and those who have other spiritual points of view.

[Contrails]

Thanks for the polls. How many of those polled believe they cease to exist upon expiration? "When you'r dead, you're dead"? That question will separate out those who are atheists and those who have other spiritual points of view.

What about people who believe in a God but also believe "when you're dead, you're dead"? It's not how one feels about the after-life or whether their religious that makes them an atheist.

[Max Rockatansky]

What about people who believe in a God but also believe "when you're dead, you're dead"? It's not how one feels about the after-life or whether their religious that makes them an atheist.

That would be interesting, albeit nonsensical. Do you have any examples of people who believe this way?

[Contrails]

That would be interesting, albeit nonsensical. Do you have any examples of people who believe this way?
Granted, it's rare, but not unheard of, and far from nonsensical.

Beliefs about immortality of the soul[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deism&action=edit&section=7)]Deists hold a variety of beliefs about the soul. Some, such as Lord Herbert of Cherbury and William Wollaston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wollaston),[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-32) held that souls exist, survive death, and in the afterlife are rewarded or punished by God for their behavior in life. Some, such as Benjamin Franklin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin), believed in reincarnation or resurrection. Others, such as Thomas Paine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine), had definitive beliefs about the immortality of the soul:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
—Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason), Part I

I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it, in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body; and it appears more probable to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have had existence, as I now have, before that existence began.
—Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason), Part I, Recapitulation
Still others such as Anthony Collins,[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-33) Bolingbroke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_St_John,_1st_Viscount_Bolingbroke), Thomas Chubb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Chubb), and Peter Annet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Annet) were materialists and either denied or doubted the immortality of the soul.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-34)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

[Dr. Who]

When atheism is a worldview it is exactly that: a religion.

Atheism only defines what you don't believe in, not what you do believe in, so it can't actually be a religion. Perhaps a club, like people who are against "X". If you don't believe in a God or gods as defined in specific religions, you are not a theist. It does not necessarily follow that you believe in nothing.

[Mister D]

Atheism only defines what you don't believe in, not what you do believe in, so it can't actually be a religion. Perhaps a club, like people who are against "X". If you don't believe in a God or gods as defined in specific religions, you are not a theist. It does not necessarily follow that you believe in nothing.

Then there wouldn't be anything for atheists to talk about yet some of them can't stop talking about their atheism. It's worldview. Please stop playing this silly game.

[Max Rockatansky]

Atheism only defines what you don't believe in, not what you do believe in, so it can't actually be a religion. Perhaps a club, like people who are against "X". If you don't believe in a God or gods as defined in specific religions, you are not a theist. It does not necessarily follow that you believe in nothing.

Which, again, begs the question of why it needs to be taught.

[Contrails]

Then there wouldn't be anything for atheists to talk about yet some of them can't stop talking about their atheism. It's worldview. Please stop playing this silly game.

What part of the last sentence did you not understand?

[Max Rockatansky]

Granted, it's rare, but not unheard of, and far from nonsensical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Deism is a belief in God, but not a personal god. The watchmaker theory is the most common analogy.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Deism
Deism has come to denote the theological belief (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Belief) that God (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/God) created the universe according to scientific laws, but does not interfere in its daily operation. Voltaire first articulated this argument in his Traité de Métaphysique (1734). God is like a watchmaker who designed the universe and set it in motion. He does not interfere with its operation (especially through historical figures like Jesus or churches), yet his presence is still visible in the grain of all creation.

[Mister D]

What part of the last sentence did you not understand?

I understood just fine.

[Contrails]

Which, again, begs the question of why it needs to be taught.

Plurium Interrogationum

[Mister D]

Which, again, begs the question of why it needs to be taught.

Exactly.

[Contrails]

I understood just fine.

Then why did you ask what atheists have to talk about? Enough misconceptions about atheism have been demonstrated here to fill a few chapters.

[Mister D]

Then why did you ask what atheists have to talk about? Enough misconceptions about atheism have been demonstrated here to fill a few chapters.

Yeah, like what?

[Dr. Who]

Then there wouldn't be anything for atheists to talk about yet some of them can't stop talking about their atheism. It's worldview. Please stop playing this silly game.

People on this forum talk endlessly about hating liberals. People write books on the subject. Is that a religion? People who hate minorities talk endlessly about that subject, is that a religion? I might qualify as an atheist since I am not a theist. I talk endlessly with no one on the subject. I don't give a rat's behind what other non theists don't believe in. I'm far more interested in what people do believe in.

[Max Rockatansky]

What part of the last sentence did you not understand?

Do you think snark and/or insults are the best way to persuade people to trust you and other atheists?

[Max Rockatansky]

People on this forum talk endlessly about hating liberals. People write books on the subject. Is that a religion? People who hate minorities talk endlessly about that subject, is that a religion? I might qualify as an atheist since I am not a theist. I talk endlessly with no one on the subject. I don't give a rat's behind what other non theists don't believe in. I'm far more interested in what people do believe in.

An interesting question. It's certainly a belief system. We have people on both sides of the political divide who express hatred toward the opposite despite all reasonable efforts to persuade them otherwise. Is that a "religion"? No. A sign of mental illness? IMO, yes. The same can be said of religious fanatics, but that neither proves nor disproves anything about political parties nor religions themselves.

[Dr. Who]

Which, again, begs the question of why it needs to be taught.

It doesn't need to be taught. It is a human trait to gather in likeminded groups. Religious types, conformist types, insecure types, political extremist types - pick a category. If there is a subject that can inflame emotion, there is a group of devotees who appear to require moral support from others. People who join such groups tend to believe in their own righteousness and naturally try to persuade others to their own opinion. Finding followers makes them feel more "right". *shrug*

[Contrails]

Yeah, like what?

For one, that atheists believe in nothing, and that books on atheism are about teaching people how to be atheists.

[Mister D]

People on this forum talk endlessly about hating liberals. People write books on the subject. Is that a religion? People who hate minorities talk endlessly about that subject, is that a religion? I might qualify as an atheist since I am not a theist. I talk endlessly with no one on the subject. I don't give a rat's behind what other non theists don't believe in. I'm far more interested in what people do believe in.

They talk endlessly about hating liberals because they are conservatives trying to influence others to adopt their perspective, worldview etc. That analogy only hurts your argument.

Yes, so am I. The problem is that many atheists come up short when it comes time to properly articulate a worldview of their own. I wonder why that is...

[Mister D]

For one, that atheists believe in nothing, and that books on atheism are about teaching people how to be atheists.

What do you believe?

[Contrails]

The problem is that many atheists come up short when it comes time to properly articulate a worldview of their own. I wonder why that is...

It couldn't be because atheism itself is not a worldview, could it?

[Contrails]

What do you believe?

I have a lot of beliefs about a lot of subjects. To which are you referring?

[Mister D]

It couldn't be because atheism itself is not a worldview, could it?

Oh, it is.


I have a lot of beliefs about a lot of subjects. To which are you referring?

The problem is that so many of you are terribly unthoughtful. :grin: When you figure out what you believe let us know.

[Dr. Who]

For one, that atheists believe in nothing, and that books on atheism are about teaching people how to be atheists.


the·ism [thee-iz-uhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] [/URL] Show IPA
noun1.the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) ).

2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism) ).

[URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism?s=t

By definition, not being a theist does not imply that you don't believe in anything. It means that you do not believe in God or gods as defined by the various religions. Athiests may believe in many things or nothing.

A theist simply believes in a deity. Those who do not believe in a deity, may well believe in any number of spiritual, supernatural or other philosophies.

[Max Rockatansky]

It doesn't need to be taught. It is a human trait to gather in likeminded groups. Religious types, conformist types, insecure types, political extremist types - pick a category. If there is a subject that can inflame emotion, there is a group of devotees who appear to require moral support from others. People who join such groups tend to believe in their own righteousness and naturally try to persuade others to their own opinion. Finding followers makes them feel more "right". *shrug*

Ah, so the reason to start prison programs and send books to prisoners on Atheism is to teach them nothing. Kinda like Seinfeld, a show about nothing. Prisoners just sit around talk about nothing?

I'm thinking most would sit around and beotch about how the Theists are oppressing them. How Theists suck and need to be mocked. After all, what else would there be to talk about? "Say Joe, are you believing any less in God today?" "Nope, Sam. Same level of disbelief. You?" "Same as last week. And the week before that and the week before that."

[Max Rockatansky]

For one, that atheists believe in nothing, and that books on atheism are about teaching people how to be atheists.

Books on how to believe in nothing. Verrrry Interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qf6Sv3A9zs

[Dr. Who]

Ah, so the reason to start prison programs and send books to prisoners on Atheism is to teach them nothing. Kinda like Seinfeld, a show about nothing. Prisoners just sit around talk about nothing?

I'm thinking most would sit around and beotch about how the Theists are oppressing them. How Theists suck and need to be mocked. After all, what else would there be to talk about? "Say Joe, are you believing any less in God today?" "Nope, Sam. Same level of disbelief. You?" "Same as last week. And the week before that and the week before that."

I can see why it might happen in prison, since finding God and being saved often goes a long way to making prisoners more worthy in the eyes of parole boards. Presumably, those who are not theists may feel that this is a somewhat biased approach to worthiness and might stimulate an opposing movement to make atheism equally credible.

[Max Rockatansky]

I can see why it might happen in prison, since finding God and being saved often goes a long way to making prisoners more worthy in the eyes of parole boards. Presumably, those who are not theists may feel that this is a somewhat biased approach to worthiness and might stimulate an opposing movement to make atheism equally credible.

How do you make a belief about nothing more credible? What does it matter? BTW, just so all the cards are on the table, those assholes, atheists and theists alike, are in prison for a reason.

[Dr. Who]

How do you make a belief about nothing more credible? What does it matter? BTW, just so all the cards are on the table, those assholes, atheists and theists alike, are in prison for a reason.Of course, but all things being equal, parole boards are generally sucked in by religiosity, even if it most probably is a charade to demonstrate a change in character. A criminal might have some principles that won't allow him or her to pretend to be something that they are not. I know it's a stretch.

[Max Rockatansky]

Of course, but all things being equal, parole boards are generally sucked in by religiosity, even if it most probably is a charade to demonstrate a change in character. A criminal might have some principles that won't allow him or her to pretend to be something that they are not. I know it's a stretch.

Me thinks you're watching too much television. In Texas, you'll note religion isn't even mentioned:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/parole_guidelines/parole_guidelines.html

COMPONENTS OF THE GUIDELINES

The revised parole guidelines consist of two major components that interact to provide a single score. The first is a Risk Assessment Instrument that weighs both static and dynamic factors associated with the offender’s record. The other component is Offense Severity class.
Risk Assessment Instrument

Static factors are those associated with the offender's prior criminal record. They do not change. Dynamic factors reflect characteristics the offender has shown since being incarcerated and can change over time.Static factors include:



Age at first admission to a juvenile or adult correctional facility
History of supervisory release revocations for felony offenses
Prior incarcerations
Employment history
The commitment offense.

Dynamic factors include:



Offender’s current age
Whether the offender is a confirmed security threat group (gang) member
Education, vocational and certified on-the-job training programs completed during the present incarceration
Prison disciplinary conduct
Current prison custody level.

[Dr. Who]

Me thinks you're watching too much television. In Texas, you'll note religion isn't even mentioned:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/parole_guidelines/parole_guidelines.html Prison disciplinary conduct and education could be a catch all for entertaining Christian salvation, for the board member who wants to apply it that way.

[Contrails]

Me thinks you're watching too much television. In Texas, you'll note religion isn't even mentioned:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/parole_guidelines/parole_guidelines.html

But it Florida they have a whole correctional program based around it.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/faith/index.html

[patrickt]

For decades, Christians have been in the jails and prison systems--and sometimes even do some sectarian good--and now they have to share an itty-bit with atheists. Disaster strikes.

[Max Rockatansky]

But it Florida they have a whole correctional program based around it.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/faith/index.html
I think many prisons in most states offer such programs but they are allowed, not funded, by the state. As noted in your link "Without additional cost to the state, this program employs residential clustering to encourage a sense of community among enrolled inmates."

Like religion in the military, there is a key difference between allowing religious programs and favoring support for a specific religion.