quote:

---

Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/20/2006) -- American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

The study is co-authored by assistant professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Doug Hartmann. It’s the first in a series of national studies conducted the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States. The study will appear in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.

---

quote:

---

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

---

quote:

---

but I cannot understand aethists at all.

---

I myself don't see enough evidence to believe that there is a supernatural creator. See? Simple
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Maybe I am in the minority but I have not seen this to be the case at all. While it is true that atheists are in the minority, I'll use an example out of my own life to explain my disagreement. I game with a group of 40+ men and women on an MMORPG. Somebody brought up the topic of religion, and we had a very light hearted spirited conversation about it. Most people said they did not really have any religious beliefs, VERY few people, (I was in this group) said they had strong beliefs, and finally a sizeable chunk of the group were atheists. The only comments the atheists made the whole time were "I dont see how anyone believes in any religion." "People who believe in religion are crazy and should be locked up." etc. Every BUT the atheists was willing to joke around, and not take our differences seriously. I personally have found that atheists tend to enjoy picking fights with those who are religious.

Not to say there are no religious people who persecute those they see as godless, but I really believe it is those who are religious that are rediculed in the media today and not vice versa. It hit me pretty hard when I watched "King Arthur" (not the best movie). Arthur is deeply religious (the movie does not explain why other than for traditional reasons) and Lancelot, Arthur's best friend, is an atheist who does nothing but ridicule Arthur's trust in God the entire movie.

In my opinion the reason people distrust true atheists is that it is difficult for an atheist to explain what moral foundation he/she has for doing what believers agree is acceptable and correct. This is not to say it is impossible, I know atheists who are VERY pleasent people, (even the pleasant ones often ridicule those who believe) it is just very difficult to articulate the moral grounding they posess. Perhaps it is because no grounding can be established, or then again it may just take time for people to understand it.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kaioshin00:
Its always been my opinion that people dont need a religion to tell them whats moral or not -- everyone has a sense of right and wrong. I think its fairly clear that killing people/theft/adultery/etc are all immoral things. In fact I even remember a study that said that very religious countries do NOT have less crime. (ah here's the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html )

quote:

---

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

---

So if this is indeed what drives the distrust to disbelievers (you like the alliteration) then it's wrong.

quote:

---

but I cannot understand aethists at all.

---

I myself don't see enough evidence to believe that there is a supernatural creator. See? Simple

---

Who are these non religious democracies they speak of? I guess I should read the article other than ask. I guess the most famous example of mass atheism that I can think of is France in the wake of the French Revolution. Ill be kind and say it was a step in the wrong direction.

Edit: I read the article, I was not impressed with it at all. Maybe the article does not do the report justice, but I would be happy to hear less about the conclusions and hear more about the data.

You know icecream has been directly linked to boat deaths. A study has shown that those involved in summer boat accidents are more likely to have ingested icecream that same day. While conversely in the winter when icecream is ingested less boat accidents drop dramatically!

Not only that just because people say they are religious does not mean they in fact are. I know many people who for fear of what others around them will think claim to be religious. Again, maybe its the article doing a terrible job of presenting the report, but the report looks like absolute garbage. The thing that I was most unimpressed with though is the statement that religious belief may actually contribute to higher murder rates, younger mortality rates, abortion, etc. What exactly about religion causes people to have those problems? How is religion CAUSING the problem? Its almost like saying "Because you require people to not kill each other, this CAUSES them to kill each other."
Anyway its late and I am never very good at posting my opinions this late at night, my apologies.

[ March 24, 2006, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
I distrust opinion survey results.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
BlackBlade:

quote:

---

I personally have found that atheists tend to enjoy picking fights with those who are religious.

---

quote:

---

So think about it, if everything is contained within the presense of God, EVERYTHING, then how can rational discussion be had?

---

I'm not sure why God's presence, or the belief that everything is within God's presence, destroys the capacity for rational discussion about religion. Can you expand on this idea?

I think we've had some extremely rational discussions about religion between believers and non-believers here on Hatrack.

Of course, this might depend on your interpretation of the word 'rational.'

It is rational for me to believe in God; I have evidence of His existence in my life. It would be irrational for me to not believe, given the evidences that I believe to have found.

Orincoro, I find that folks with dismissive attitudes such as you've presented ("Religions create shallow thinking") are more culpable of disabling discussion than religions themselves.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Scott - I think Orincoro is talking, for instance, about a rational discussion of the existence of God when one side takes as a premise that God exists. This can also be extrapolated to any discussion where one side takes as a premise the issue under discussion itself.

I agree that what Orincoro means is unclear, but this is what I surmised.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I dunno, Karl. He used what seemed to me to be a theological statement as the foundation for his conclusion: "From this experience I learned that Catholics deny the ability of humans to truly question their beleifs."

So... I guess I'll wait for Orincoro to clarify.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Wow, I'm not an atheist myself, but I'm close enough that the results of this study (and many of the comments made on this thread) are very hurtful to me.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Tangent warning . . . "Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."

Do some people really think that they have veto power over who their adult children can marry? I could see "would be disapointed if their children married" but allow???

</tangent>
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teshi:

quote:

---

Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population

---

Wow. I thought that that number would be way higher.

---

quote:

---

I went to Catholic Highschool, and I remember one day the teacher in my religious studies class actually putting a handy little diagram on the board. It was a big circle that said: "THE UNIVERSE." And outside the circle he wrote "GOD." And he said, "because the universe is contained within the presence of God, every thought, action, or life is contained in his presence."

From this experience I learned that Catholics deny the ability of humans to truly question their beleifs. This is not a tyranny as much as it is a necessity of all religions.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I personally have found that atheists tend to enjoy picking fights with those who are religious.

---

I, personally, have known many more religious people who enjoy picking fights with other religious people over religion.

---

And I've noticed that people just enjoy picking fights, no matter what the reason - even if it is over why Coke is better than Pepsi.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
I think lots of people don't trust aethists because they lack a fear of God which religious people consider something invaluable to your being. As a Catholic, I ask myself, "How can anyone believe that there is not such thing as God?"
I can almost understand those who believe that whether there be a god or not, there just has to be something out there, but I cannot understand aethists at all.

---

I can understand agnostics. Atheists, though... a believe in something not existing? I don't even get that.
 

---

Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
 
Well, I personally don't trust atheist because everybody knows they eat babies. Oh wait, that's Mormons.
 

---

Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
 
See, I understand atheism better than agnosticism. Agnosticism is both different and the same as the most fideistic believers. One may assert God's undeniable existence while the other doesn't care at all, but they both refuse to ask rational questions of the subject. I may not consider myself bound to any one particular religion, but it doesn't stop me from asking questions and pursuing some possibility of truth.

This isn't to say that anosticism or fideists are bad as I was once borderline agnostic and fideism has its benefits...but the philosophy major in me doesn't understand how someone could not question the world around them even if only to strengthen their position.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shanna:


This isn't to say that anosticism or fideists are bad as I was once borderline agnostic and fideism has its benefits...but the philosophy major in me doesn't understand how someone could not question the world around them even if only to strengthen their position.

---

quote:

---

I label myself agnostic because I haven't come to any conclusions yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
I can understand agnostics. Atheists, though... a believe in something not existing? I don't even get that.

---

quote:

---

I label myself agnostic because I haven't come to any conclusions yet.

---

quote:

---

Agnostic:

An agnostic is someone who holds that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or not.

n. one who denies that there can be any knowledge of God or of supernatural things

"Gnosis" means "knowledge" so add the "a" and you have "negation of knowledge"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xaposert:

quote:

---

I label myself agnostic because I haven't come to any conclusions yet.

---

Neither has many people, but that doesn't stop them from believing things that aren't yet proven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharpie:
Uh. If a person doesn't understand why Pepsi is better than Coke, then what use is it to even try to talk to that person? Some things are just TRUE.

---

quote:

---

Heck, I'm even skeptical about the theory of relativity as I understand it. (I'm not sure I buy the whole time dialation thing...)

---

Time dilation has been tested experimentally, and actually continues to be tested today. At the very least, it works as a model of whatever's actually happening.

quote:

---

If you believe there is the possibility that anything can be known of the unknown, you aren't really agnostic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
I can understand agnostics. Atheists, though... a believe in something not existing? I don't even get that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I game with a group of 40+ men and women on an MMORPG. (Anecdote)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Who are these non religious democracies they speak of?

---

quote:

---

even if it is over why Coke is better than Pepsi. [Wink]

---

Only in fountain drinks. EVERYONE knows pepsi is better out of a can or bottle. And I will wallbash anyone who disagrees!
 

---

Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
 
I've found that it's mostly the atheists who are willing to joke around about religion, morals (not that we're inherently immoral, it's just that we understand the larger picture, because we've actually had to put some thought to it), the (alleged) afterlife, adultery, cereationism/evolution, etc., while the devoutly religious get pretty up-tight about it all.


Puffy Treat, it's been found that, when asked, most people distrust opinion survey results.

--Steve
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kaioshin00:
Milk doesn't go good with pizza.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
I can understand agnostics. Atheists, though... a believe in something not existing? I don't even get that.

---

That's very interesting coming from someone who, for example, does not believe that the Norse gods exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
I distrust opinion survey results.

---

quote:

---

, it's just that we [Athiests] understand the larger picture, because we've actually had to put some thought to it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
There's a big difference between not believing that X exists and believing that X does not exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boothby171:
I've found that it's mostly the atheists who are willing to joke around about religion, morals (not that we're inherently immoral, it's just that we understand the larger picture, because we've actually had to put some thought to it), the (alleged) afterlife, adultery, cereationism/evolution, etc., while the devoutly religious get pretty up-tight about it all.


Puffy Treat, it's been found that, when asked, most people distrust opinion survey results.

--Steve

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Sigh... so where does your complex creator come from? Arises by chance, does it?

Milk goes with everything, except orange juice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharpie:
Uh. If a person doesn't understand why Pepsi is better than Coke, then what use is it to even try to talk to that person? Some things are just TRUE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
This makes me really sad. =(

I don't want to fight with those who believe. I wish I COULD believe. But I can't. I have to see some evidence before I believe. Heck, I'm even skeptical about the theory of relativity as I understand it. (I'm not sure I buy the whole time dialation thing...)

I have a firm moral base because I've thought it through. Just don't harm anyone else. It's pretty simple and pretty easy. There are some grey areas but they don't come up much and they're usually easy to figure out.

I think most people WANT to be good people. There's a warm glow that comes from being Good that you just don't get from being Evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
I can understand agnostics. Atheists, though... a believe in something not existing? I don't even get that.

---

That's very interesting coming from someone who, for example, does not believe that the Norse gods exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:
SC Carver, I think his point was that while you can't believe something so mind-boggling as our universe arising without the help of a creator, you have no problem believing in something so mind-boggling as an omnipotent, everlasting spirit in the sky.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
There's a big difference between not believing that X exists and believing that X does not exist.

---

Grammatically, yes. I don't think there is a philosophical difference. At most, it expresses a difference in the degree of nonbelief.

---

quote:

---

Read it again. If you were actually paying attention, you would have written "That's very interesting coming from someone who, for example, believes that the Norse gods do not exist."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:
Just for the record (re: last page), sL, do you believe in the Norse gods?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:
SC Carver, I think his point was that while you can't believe something so mind-boggling as our universe arising without the help of a creator, you have no problem believing in something so mind-boggling as an omnipotent, everlasting spirit in the sky.

---

Oh, I can believe it. I just choose to believe in something more.

---

quote:

---

So I've learned something from this thread. That is, that someone who labels themselves atheist does not necessarily believe in the non-existence of God. Such a person may simply not have belief in God. I trust the latter. I distrust the former.

---

quote:

---

If God exists and the Torah is true, then the Norse gods cannot exist. If they do exist, then the Torah cannot be true, and God, if He exists, cannot be who or what He claims to be (or is claimed to be) in that context). But even though they cannot both be true, it's possible, in theory, that both propositions are false.

---

quote:

---

So I'd say that I'm more convinced of the non-existence of the Norse gods than I am convinced of the existence of God and the truth of the Torah. Both are pretty high, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:

quote:

---

So I've learned something from this thread. That is, that someone who labels themselves atheist does not necessarily believe in the non-existence of God. Such a person may simply not have belief in God. I trust the latter. I distrust the former.

---

Why is that? Do you believe in the existence of god? Why is it such an untrustworthy position to be sure of what you believe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:
I fall into a category with Xavier. I don't think we're born with belief, and since I've never been convinced that there is a god, I don't believe in one. I call myself an Atheist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:

quote:

---

If God exists and the Torah is true, then the Norse gods cannot exist. If they do exist, then the Torah cannot be true, and God, if He exists, cannot be who or what He claims to be (or is claimed to be) in that context). But even though they cannot both be true, it's possible, in theory, that both propositions are false.

---

They can certainly both be true. Could an omnipotent being not just be screwing around? Would the world implode if he were dishonest?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:

quote:

---

So I'd say that I'm more convinced of the non-existence of the Norse gods than I am convinced of the existence of God and the truth of the Torah. Both are pretty high, though.

---

That's great that you point out that you're only, what, 99% convinced that you're right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:
You know what? That's just semantics. I don't think you'll find anyone who will say, flat-out, that there's a 100% chance of a god or gods existing or not existing. You're basing your trust on wording differences?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:
Would you trust KoM more if he admitted to being only 99.9% sure, for example?

---

quote:

---

But I have a lot more respect for people who claim a 100% belief that God does exist than I do for people who claim a 100% belief that God doesn't exist. At least there's evidence for the former.

---

quote:

---

Some people here consider themselves atheists because they are not convinced that God exists. And then there are people like you, O King, who are convinced that God does not exist. Who, I would say, probably believe devoutly that God does not exist. I lack respect for the latter. The former would be what I consider agnostic.

So I've learned something from this thread. That is, that someone who labels themselves atheist does not necessarily believe in the non-existence of God. Such a person may simply not have belief in God. I trust the latter. I distrust the former.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mean Old Frisco:

quote:

---

But I have a lot more respect for people who claim a 100% belief that God does exist than I do for people who claim a 100% belief that God doesn't exist. At least there's evidence for the former.

---

The mere fact that I have *never* been struck by lightning, or even simply smitten, is at least as convincing as all the evidence for god. I mean, what have you got? A few people who got hit by frogs and a guy who talked to a bush.

---

quote:

---

My daughter is sure that milk even goes with orange juice. Which is really disgusting and makes my stomach hurt just thinking about it. But she likes them at the same time. Yuck.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
There's a big difference between not believing that X exists and believing that X does not exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
I hear the question. But since you aren't actually asking it as a question, but instead using it as a rhetorical club with which to smack me, I'm going to ignore it. Other than to say that it's amazingly ignorant.

---

quote:

---

I've never understood why people say that they are different. It has always seemed to me that not believing that something exists necessitates believing that it doesn't exist. The example of "not believing in unicorns" as an example of the difference also never made any sense to me. I can't come up with any way of understanding "I don't believe in unicorns" that does not imply "I believe that unicorns don't exist."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
I see the difference:

I don't believe in unicorns could either mean
I am not sure that unicorns exist, and I have to be sure in order to believe.

- or -

I absolutely have evidence that the whole unicorn thing is a scam so I am sure they don't exist anad therefore do not believe in them.

---

quote:

---

Thing is, there are different sects in atheist. Naturalism, existentialism, nihilism, and possibly others.

---

 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
Will B you make a good point.

Of course if I'm presented with the question: "Which government would you be inherently less trusting of? Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Monarchy, Anarchy"

Of course I'm going to answer Anarchy, because for all the rest I at least have some concept of what they are and how they behave wheras an Anarchy composed of entirely good and rational people might actually be better than a very corrupt form of any of the others.

the same is true for that "gut reaction" first answer to: "of these groups, which are you least likely to trust"

"Statistics is the worst form of lying." ~Samuel Clemens
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kaioshin00:
So whether or not you trust/respect someone hinges on the extent of their belief/disbelief in God? What's up with that? IMO, there is so much more to a person than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
For any given proposition X, the following are possible:

1.) I believe X.
2.) I believe not X.
3.) I am unsure if X is true.

To me, "I do not believe X" puts X in category 2 or 3, whereas "I believe not X" puts X only in category 2.

---

quote:

---

Well, I personally don't trust atheist because everybody knows they eat babies. Oh wait, that's Mormons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KarlEd:
BlackBlade:

quote:

---

I personally have found that atheists tend to enjoy picking fights with those who are religious.

---

I, personally, have known many more religious people who enjoy picking fights with other religious people over religion.

One probable flaw in your observation is that you seem to take the set of "athiests you know" and extrapolate from that how "athiests are". The difficulty in this is that you probably don't know someone is an atheist until they speak up about it and speaking up about it is likely to get the person labled in your mind as "picking a fight". You have no way of knowing how many other dozens of quiet atheists you know who aren't interested in arguing religion.

I find it interesting that your post is very illustrative of the point of the originally posted article. If you replaced "atheist" with any other minority label, some of the bigotry in your statements would be more readily apparent.

---

quote:

---

For any given proposition X, the following are possible:

1.) I believe X.
2.) I believe not X.
3.) I am unsure if X is true.

To me, "I do not believe X" puts X in category 2 or 3, whereas "I believe not X" puts X only in category 2.

---

quote:

---

What study are you using to show that Norway has lower levels of all of your mentioned evils? You know negative population growth probably contributes quite significantly to lower and lower murder rates, crimes, and just about any social ill. You can't rape anybody if you were never born.

---

Come now, that's rather silly. Murder rates are per capita; teen pregnancy rates are per teenaged woman; divorce rates are per marriage. The absolute number of people is completely irrelevant.

As for sources, this is a nice one. You have to scroll down a bit to get to the statistics I quoted above, so let me extract some nicely relevant ones :


Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers:

United States 98.0
United Kingdom 46.6
Norway 40.2
Canada 38.6
Finland 32.1
Sweden 28.3
Denmark 27.9
Netherlands 12.1
Japan 10.5

Total teen abortions per 1,000 teenagers:

United States 44.4
Norway 21.1
Sweden 19.6
Denmark 18.2
Finland 17.9
United Kingdom 16.9
Canada 16.2
Japan 5.9
Netherlands 5.5
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
What a dumb survey. Seems like the article was written just to tick some people off, or something similar.

I'd say that religious values have nothing to do with how much I trust people - and I'm a self-professed Bible thumper. My parents are even more conservative than I am, and they'd agree with me.

Well, I guess I'd be less likely to trust a Darkfriend. Can't be holding with those chaos-bringers.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Atheists are pretty much like religious people, in my experience, except they aren't religious. Lots of really smart cool people in history have been atheists. Same is true for religious.

Atheists have Richard P. Feynman (a personal hero), Percy Shelley, A.E.Housman, plus a whole lot more.

Religious have Albert Einstein (another personal hero), Isaac Newton, J.R.R. Tolkien, and of course many more.

Judging by which list I like and admire more, it would be pretty hard to pick. I do respect the beliefs of atheists and people of nearly all religions. Certainly morality is something that can exist outside of religion.
 

---

Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Certainly morality is something that can exist outside of religion.

---

If more people saw things this way that article would have never been written.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Albert Einstein Quotes:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair."

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."

"...an attempt to find an out where there is no door." -- Einstein's description of conventional religious thought, from "Einstein: The Life and Times", by Ronald W. Clark
 

---

Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 

quote:

---

Certainly morality is something that can exist outside of religion.

[Smile]

If more people saw things this way that article would have never been written.

---

Many very moral atheists don't like to advertise the fact that they are atheists to other people (I feel online is a totally different story), because it's rude. I don't like to admit I am one, it's a personal thing, and not all my relatives would enjoy knowing that. So I bet that everyone on this board probably knows someone whom they respect and find to be a very moral person, but that person hasn't revealed to the Hatracker that they do not believe in any gods.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Wait, what? Why is it rude to 'admit' you are an atheist?
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
I think the idea is that it is rude to tell people that you think their religion is wrong.

But if that were true then I'd have to wonder why it wouldn't be rude for anyone to admit to any religious beliefs whatsoever to anyone...
 

---

Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
 
I've never thought it rude to tell people I'm an atheist, in the same way that I've never thought it was rude when people tell me they're a Christian.

If a discussion came up and I mentioned I was an atheist and someone told me it was rude to admit that, I'd probably chuckle and stop having a conversaion with that person.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Glenn Arnold, oops! I totally thought he was! He claimed God didn't play dice with the universe!

Thanks for correcting me on that. The point I was making is unchanged, though. Many brilliant people have been religious, including Isaac Newton and many others. And many have been atheists and agnostics too.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
I've recently discovered I fall pretty well into the secular humanism category.

I don't see that as a religion, but more as a way of perceiving and addressing the world. I'm pretty firmly areligious, in that I don't have dogma, scripture or canon that I follow religiously.

Whether or not this makes me atheist or agnostic in the minds of others, I really don't care so much. Whether or not there is some sort of deity doesn't play into my daily life, so I don't concern myself with it, really.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 

quote:

---

Glenn Arnold, oops! I totally thought he was! He claimed God didn't play dice with the universe!

---

quote:

---

I don't see that as a religion, but more as a way of perceiving and addressing the world. I'm pretty firmly areligious, in that I don't have dogma, scripture or canon that I follow religiously.

---

quote:

---

Wait, what? Why is it rude to 'admit' you are an atheist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharpie:
Uh. If a person doesn't understand why Pepsi is better than Coke, then what use is it to even try to talk to that person? Some things are just TRUE.

---

quote:

---

Wait, what? Why is it rude to 'admit' you are an atheist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juxtapose:

quote:

---

Wait, what? Why is it rude to 'admit' you are an atheist?

---

I can't speak for others, but I sometimes dodge the question, not in fear of being rude, but a desire to avoid an akward situation. Sometimes, I'm just not into a mood to get into a religious argument and I can tell that that's where the conversation will end up going. Of course, sometimes I am in the mood, but enough of these situations have ended poorly that it makes me wary of face-to-face religious conversation.

But rude? That's a new one to me. It's no more rude than it is for a Jewish person to speak about God to a Christian.

---

quote:

---

But you can see why I don't like having that conversation with people I hardly know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Many very moral atheists don't like to advertise the fact that they are atheists to other people (I feel online is a totally different story), because it's rude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celaeno:
There have been a few times when people (friends, even) thought that my being an atheist meant that I thought they were dumb for having their beliefs. That couldn't be further frm the truth.

But you can see why I don't like having that conversation with people I hardly know.

---

I can see how that must be uncomfortable. In all fairness, there are some atheists like that--even on this board. No doubt they are a minority, but I can see how that would make Christians or other theists who have encountered them likely to expect ridicule from all atheists--especially if the only vocal ones are the rude ones--and, in turn, polite atheists a bit gun shy.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Glenn Arnold, I never thought Einstein was appealing to religious authority as a way to trump scientific evidence, of course! I can see why he would be appalled if his words were taken that way.

But what I think he was saying was that he had a deep basic "feel" for how the universe must work (something that all good physicists have), a feeling akin to the mathematician's sense of elegance or mathematical beauty that puts them onto the scent of a new important proof or line of inquiry. I gathered Einstein was saying that the probabilistic explanation being given for the results of experiments in quantum electrodynamics violated his deepest sense of what felt true and right. So he said this very succinctly as "God does not play dice with the universe".

This is very much a scientific thing, because it's what's going on at the border of where science meets the unknown. The things that guide our exploration into the vast realms of our ignorance are just such nebulous, irrational, and unexplained forces of the mind as these. Science tells us how to test our theories against nature. It doesn't tell us where to go to find the right new theories to test, or where those come from. Einstein used the metaphor of God to describe these nebulous things. That's exactly what I, as a religious person, would do, except I would also mean God literally.

As a religious person, I happen to think God (the personal God) is involved somehow in all these vague processes. Up to now I had thought Einstein thought the same thing. There's no contradiction between being an excellent scientist and a believer, contrary to what some atheistic scientists seem to think. In fact, all good scientists recognize the very same phenomena as religious people, and feel the same awe we feel. They just don't call it God. They don't focus on these things or study them because they're outside the domain of science.

I'm all for scientists studying science. Everything true is part of my religion. We need to know everything about everything in order to progress, and science is an incredibly powerful tool that has catapulted the human species levels and levels ahead of where we were.

Sometimes, as in the case of Richard Feynman, I think it may even be helpful for scientists to be atheists. They are in love with science, and dedicate their lives to finding things out. To them science becomes the thing of supreme importance. They don't even care why we have to know the truth about things. It's not even about doing good or benefiting society or anything like that. They just have to know. I understand that impulse. It's just for the sake of knowing.

If they got all caught up in the fervor of religion, it might detract somehow from their fervor for science. Or maybe it's just that the awe and joy they find in science satisfies them enough that they never feel an urge to look deeper. God has impersonal as well as personal aspects, and they rejoice in the impersonal ones, and find fulfillment there. In any case, atheists may be wonderful, delightful, humble, brilliant, (and highly moral) people who contribute great things to humanity as a whole, and who have a whole lot of fun doing it. I have great admiration for quite a number of atheists.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I also think it's cool that these sure feelings we have (as scientists or as believers) of what absolutely positively must be right, aren't at all infallible.

I think most everyone in science now would say that Einstein was mistaken about God's dice games.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, there are still some hidden-variable theories around, skulking in back alleys. The problem is that they have to be non-local, what Einstein referred to as 'spooky action at a distance', so they tend to be ignored.
 

---

Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
 
YES!!! Finally we Atheists get some recognition!

And I take offence, we are not a minority anymore. We're a Faction.

I'm kidding, but the truth is that the longer the wait gets for all these religions saviours to arrive the more our numbers grow.

So I am glad to be amongst those who are the least trusted, because in the end we'll be right.

EDIT: edited for typing my idea's when I should just shut up

[ March 27, 2006, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Advent 115 ]
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
that's a really annoying, snotty thing to say, Advent.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Having read the original post, I don't see what was so annoying about it, apart from the atorcious spelling.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Having read the original post, I don't see what was so annoying about it, apart from the atorcious spelling.

---

quote:

---

So I am glad to be amongst those who are the least trusted, because in the end we'll be right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Having read the original post, I don't see what was so annoying about it, apart from the atorcious spelling.

---

Deliberate irony?

---

quote:

---

So I am glad to be amongst those who are the least trusted, because in the end we'll be right.

---

quote:

---

isn't that a law?

---

Davidson's Law, in fact.
 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
Is that like the next-door-neighbor to Murphey's Law?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No. It's closer to Godwin's.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
There is a passage in "The Silver Chair" in the Narnia Chronicles I am trying to remember. When the witch has Puddleglum? and Jill and Eustace trapped underground and she is drugging them with smoke, she has them almost convinced that they just imagined Narnia and the world above ground. That the sun was just a lamp and Aslan just a cat that their imaginations had made bigger. One them (Puddleglum? I think) says that it was a funny thing that the made-up world was so much better than the reality and that he would rather live as a Narnian even if Narnia didn't exist.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yep. That's one of those times when Lewis pulls out his big Allegory Stick and gets to thumpin'. Of course, we don't get to see the scene where Puddleglum describes the world he'd REALLY rather live in, in which he's Supreme and Only Somewhat Melancholy Ruler of a planet made entirely out of spongecake, but that's because the publisher could only fit so many pages in.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
That's probably the one portion of the CoN that I did a double take and thought, "No, I don't agree AT ALL. I'd much rather know the truth and act it than pretend."
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Not me. Guess I'm just a Shavian Idealist at heart. But at least I know it!
 

---

Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
 
About the whole "I don't believe in God" vs. "I believe that there is no 'God' " thing.

Let's say that you totally believe in God. I, on the other hand, am an atheist. If I should say that "I don't believe in God," then from your point of view, I am admitting ignorance. "Of course God exists," you think, "it's just that Steve doesn't believe in Him. Steve is (of course), wrong."

Meanwhile, what I mean to say is that I firmly believe that the thing you (and all other religious people) describe as or think of as God does not exist. In other words, I think that you're wrong.

That's also why proclaiming atheism in a country that is strongly and now in many areas almost "fundamentally" religious can be seen as being rude.


And regarding my earlier statement about atheists having to think about morality more: IN GENERAL, we do. Sure, there will be some religious people who think it through, but I would bet that far more of them get their morality from their preacher/pastor/whatever. Atheists have no such benefits available to them. If you're an atheist (well, at least my kind of atheist, you are so because you've thought your way there (including, perhaps, from agnosticism). It's a positive choice. It's not some catechism that's been drilled into you since you were a kid.
 

---

Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
 
Treso,

quote:

---

quote:

---

So I am glad to be amongst those who are the least trusted, because in the end we'll be right.

---

The trouble with atheism is that being right in the end really isn't a good thing...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:

---

So I am glad to be amongst those who are the least trusted, because in the end we'll be right.

---

The trouble with atheism is that being right in the end really isn't a good thing...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boothby171:

I'd hate to be a celibate monk, holed away in some crumbling monastery somewhere, beating myself with flails and nailed boards and walking on rough stone floors on my knees, only to be proven wrong... [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telperion the Silver:
I would rather, for the sake of law and order, have the uneducated and poor as believers...that way they remain civilized, even if they don't respect/understand the ideals of being nice to your fellow man. Often without some form of social control the uneducated and needy become barbarians.

---

quote:

---

I would rather, for the sake of law and order, have the uneducated and poor as believers...that way they remain civilized, even if they don't respect/understand the ideals of being nice to your fellow man. Often without some form of social control the uneducated and needy become barbarians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheGrimace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telperion the Silver:
I would rather, for the sake of law and order, have the uneducated and poor as believers...that way they remain civilized, even if they don't respect/understand the ideals of being nice to your fellow man. Often without some form of social control the uneducated and needy become barbarians.

---

This is exactly my point as to why on a first blush approach people in general might be less trusting of an atheist versus someone claiming some other established religion.

Part of it is unfortunately tied to the realization that keeps hitting me more and more, that a large portion of the general populus is pretty dumb. If I don't know that you're reasonably intelligent and well schooled/read then I'm going to be doubtful that your self-formed "religion" is going to mesh with mine in terms of morality and/or basic outlook on life. Now the same is also true of certain religions, where my initial reaction to say... fundamentalist evangelical Christians, may also be skewed to the non-trusting side of things because of preconcieved stereotypes.

I personally find it more likely that an average or below-average joe would have a decent moral foundation as a part of a church (or at least established philosophy) than as if he was pretty much just deciding on each issue entirely for himself.

---

quote:

---

...denied myself the joy of knowing that God created the world...

---

You actually "know" no such thing. You believe it to be true. Yes, there is a world, but you have absolutely no idea how it got here (through the actions of what God, I might say...). I would imagine that the proofs for your claim are pretty threadbare.

But I'm sure that many would say the same things about "science's" claims.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Well, Boothby171, there's knowing and there's knowing. You know?
 

---

Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
 
BQT,

I, for one, do not find Telp's statement as bigoted. Heck, kmb even seems to agree with it. She doesn't like the truth behind it, but recognizes the truth nonetheless.

Whether the statements are bigoted or not, do you believe that they are true?

I find them to be unfortunate, but true.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Well, not really. I don't think religion (as we have used it) as either a good or an effective way of "civilizing" people. Perhaps oppressing them. Raising people up is a good way of civilizing them - we just don't use it often enough.
 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
BQT, what exactly do you find bigoted about what I am saying?

I can see parts of it as jaded, which I fully agree with.

And I am pointing out that whether we like it or not our first impressions of people are going to be based on preconcieved notions/stereotypes, even if we try to avoid them.

I'll admit that I'm saying that I personally feel more initially comfortable with the philosophy of random Joe if he claims some affiliation to an established religion than if he claims to be an atheist, because I don't necessarily trust that he has taken the time and thought to establish a "non-belief" system for himself.

All that being said, I am perfectly comfortable trusting an Atheist who I feel has put the time/thought/intelligence into his convictions, just as I'm MORE comfortable with a religious person who has done the same thing.

If a 22 year old comes up to me saying he's self-taught and intelligent but never went to Highschool, I'd definitively going to be less trusting of his abilities in a subject such as basic chemistry than I am of someone who has graduated highschool. Now once the first one shows me his GED, proving that he really has put some time and work into it I'm not necessarily gonna prefer one to the other based on very similar logic.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
It does seem to me that atheists are still rare enough that you can safely make the basic assumption that they have, indeed, thought about it. In America, at least, second-generation atheists who inherited it from their parents are going to be rather unusual. This is not true of the mainstream Christian sects.
 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
addendum: in terms of creating a valid moral code:

Most formal religions have had theologians and scholars (highly trained and intelligent individuals) spending lifetimes developing complex moral codes, attempting to cover most bases and eliminate areas of confusion/loopholes.

Would you be more confident of the general moral standing of:
a)a 19-year-old who hasn't fully studied these precepts, but in principle tries to follow them
OR
b)a 19-year-old who has decided to develop their own because they do not believe that God/gods exist.

and remember that this is all based on a first-blush reaction to these people. If one or the other turns out on closer inspection to be a psychopath, or have the intellect of a child, or be a tremendous intellectual/moral genious it will skew things.

basically my personal opinion is that those following established religions have a little bit better starting position, if potentially the same maximum level of trustability.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Honestly, given the state of organized religion, I am as likely to want to be around the second of the two 19-year-olds. Too often religion is used as an excuse for appalling behavior.
 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
KoM,
I guess the problem is I'm coming from this background:
All the atheists I've known have been of 2 types:
1) The fairly well-educated/thought-out kind that I don't really have an issue with (as long as we agree to disagree as it were)
2) Confused highschool/college students who hadn't really thought about it but were mostly just rebelling at authority.


and kmb, I'm going on the basic assumption that "some system, even a flawed one" > "no system" which is a personal choice I suppose.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I guess my assumption is that a bad system that is unexamined is considerably worse than an earnest attempt at coming up with one's own system.

[ March 27, 2006, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 

---

Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
 
I've noticed there are a lot of confused high school/college students who haven't really thought about it but were mostly just listening to their parents.

I'm trying not to get worked up right now, but I completely reject the notion that my "ethical code" should be examined more thoroughly than a Christian's on the basis that I don't believe in God or have the the Bible to "guide" me.
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
I considered the comments bigoted because it appears as though they are saying that a person's morality is dependent on their educational level and class status. I could elaborate, but I think that's what it would all boil down to.

The second thing that bothered me (however I don't view it as bigoted) was the underlying assumption that adopting a religion means you've thought less about your own moral code than an atheist.

To almost quote Chungwa:

I'm trying not to get worked up right now, but I completely reject the notion that my "ethical code" should be examined more thoroughly than a atheist's on the basis that I do believe in God or have the the Bible to "guide" me.

It really goes both ways.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Chungwa, (edited to add "and BQT")

You misunderstand me. I think that everyone should examine their moral code. Whether they tailor their own or buy one off the rack. Or somewhere in between.
 

---

Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
 
I think I understood what you were saying. My post was in response to TheGrimace.

I agree that everyone should examine their moral code.

I also hope that my post didn't come off as suggesting that religious people don't question morals as much as atheists. When I was talking about people just listening to their parents, that was in response to the idea that many atheists are only atheists because they are rebelling and haven't actually thought things through.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Say, could we please stop talking about sub-average Joes?

-o-

[derail]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheGrimace:
If a 22 year old comes up to me saying he's self-taught and intelligent but never went to Highschool, I'd definitively going to be less trusting of his abilities in a subject such as basic chemistry than I am of someone who has graduated highschool. Now once the first one shows me his GED, proving that he really has put some time and work into it I'm not necessarily gonna prefer one to the other based on very similar logic.

---

erm, are you familiar with the GED? I am. It's a reading comprehension test. You could pass it with no more than an eighth grade understanding of chemistry, if that.

[/derail]
 

---

Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
 
I might point out, at the risk of being hated here, that many people follow the religions of their parents. I'm not saying that these people don't believe in their religion, but if their parents were Buddhist as opposed to Chrisitian, they would be Buddhist too. There are the odd people that honestly don't believe in the religion their parents passed down to them, but come on, how many people do you know that don't have the same religion as their parents? So if someone had atheist parents, they're most likely going to be atheist. Does that make them bad people? Does that make their parents bad people? In my opinion, no.


Edit: Has some of this already been said? I apologize if so.
 

---

Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
 
"Why is it rude to admit you're an atheist?"

What I think is rude is assuming people are Christian and when you find out they aren't, thinking differently of them. (Not pointing fingers, don't worry)

I'm certainly showing myself to be an past-topic poster here.

[ March 27, 2006, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: The Fae-Ray ]
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Fae-Ray:
I might point out, at the risk of being hated here

---

Fae, you have to work pretty hard to be hated here. You express your opinion well, which is a trait I both admire and envy, regardless of what it is you are expressing. Keep at it, I'm enjoying reading what you have to say.
 

---

Posted by The Fae-Ray (Member # 9260) on :
 
Well, thanks, Dr. I've been kicked out of many a forum for my views. It's nice to find one where they're accepted like this.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
TheGrimace- You'll recall my post on the first page, that friend is being kicked out of her house by her Catholic parents. One of my friend's girlfriend is being beaten by her strongly protestant parents. According to my former pastor, my boyfriend is raping me everytime he has sex with me because I don't have the right to give consent for myself- my father must give that consent for me. I've sat at a dinner table while another former pastor dominated the conversation by humiliating his wife, for the whole dinner. Why? Because while following him somewhere she'd had the temerity to switch lanes.

Humans are humans, regardless of what faith they follow, they do great things, and they do horrible things. For many, religion brings out the best in them. But for just as many religion has no effect. And for a small but significant number, religion brings out the worst in them. To believe that just because someone is religious they will behave in a way that is good is naive and dangerous.
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by blacwolve:
According to my former pastor, my boyfriend is raping me everytime he has sex with me because I don't have the right to give consent for myself- my father must give that consent for me.

---

How....in the world...what is this, Mesopotamia? Seriously.

-pH
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
I dunno, Karl. He used what seemed to me to be a theological statement as the foundation for his conclusion: "From this experience I learned that Catholics deny the ability of humans to truly question their beleifs."

So... I guess I'll wait for Orincoro to clarify.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by blacwolve:
According to my former pastor, my boyfriend is raping me everytime he has sex with me because I don't have the right to give consent for myself- my father must give that consent for me.

---

How....in the world...what is this, Mesopotamia? Seriously.

-pH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
Arranged marriage ≠ lack of independence for women

---

quote:

---

Could you elaborate a bit on this? Because off the top of my head, I don't see how a person whose spouse is chosen for them by someone else can reasonably claim to be independent. Am I missing something?

---

quote:

---

I have no problem with arranged marriage; I think that Americans find it strange because we are raised in a culture that emphasizes that you have one true love, and only you can find him/her, etc. But the thing is, we romanticize marriage so much that people become incredibly disappointed when they realize that their marriages are going to require actual work. Would I, personally, be okay with an arranged marriage? No. But I had some classmates in high school who were, and I can understand that.

---

quote:

---

Arranged marriage ? lack of independence for women

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove:
pH, I'm a Southern Baptist, or at least I go to a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, and that aint quite the way we roll. Without a doubt my church is quite different then most, what with the rock band, regular Halo 2 parties, and other stuff. But the point is that not all Southern Baptists deserve your contempt.

---

I do realize that not all Southern Baptists are the same...but it seems like the ones I've encountered are more the sort that won't let you watch Jumanji because it promotes mysticism than the sort that play Halo 2.

I wish my church had been into Halo 2.

-pH
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Avatar, as for personal freedom and whatnot, I really think the bigger problem is romanticizing partnerships. I don't think people realize how much WORK it is to be married; I'm sure I don't. So I think, at least in the US, a lot people get married thinking that everything will be rainbows and unicorns, and then all of a sudden, they're like, "?!?! I have to WORK at this?! Divorce time!"

So I think in our culture, the concept of an arranged marriage is foreign to a lot of people because it seems to me that one would DEFINLTEY have to work at making an arranged marriage work. And we don't think we have to work at relationships.

-pH
 

---

Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
 
pH,

"And we don't think we have to work at relationships"

Please, no generalizations there, either. I'm working like a...whatever.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
Arranged marriage ≠ lack of independence for women

---

Could you elaborate a bit on this? Because off the top of my head, I don't see how a person whose spouse is chosen for them by someone else can reasonably claim to be independent. Am I missing something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
Arranged marriage ≠ lack of independence for women

And she's right -- you don't understand her culture. And apparently YOU don't think she has the right to make her own decisions. At least not without condescension.

---

According to your logic, I am not allowed to have an opinion. Way to be, Rivka.

Your wrong though, since you assume facts NOT in evidence: mainly that I believe she shouldn't have a right to do whatever the hell she feels like doing, including following her culture.

I failed to mention that the girl is an American, from my town, and that I was not a visitor in her country, rather we were both visiting England.

It disturbs me that you drew the harshest conclusion possible from the facts I provided. You assumed that YOU knew the situation better that I do, and you turned out to be wrong about that, and wrong about me.

So apparently I'm not qualified to feel that some things are wrong, and some things aren't. I can't make my own decisions, at least not without condescension from YOU.

Edit: I wouldn't go this far normally, but how dare you try to shut me down for giving an honest opinion, you really don't know the context of the conversation, or how condescending I am. I shouldn't be required to present everything I've said to others in the most generous light possible. Just try and imagine that I actually have a few social skills and didn't look up from my bagel one morning and tell someone how their culture sucks so much.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xaposert:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I personally have found that atheists tend to enjoy picking fights with those who are religious.

---

I, personally, have known many more religious people who enjoy picking fights with other religious people over religion.

---

And I've noticed that people just enjoy picking fights, no matter what the reason - even if it is over why Coke is better than Pepsi.

---

But as we all know, Coke is better.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I feel that religious people apologizing to KoM for what religion has 'inflicted' on him to be more than a little...misguided. Others have suffered much worse and not come out one-tenth as...rude.

Furthermore, KoM, do you have any statistics on the types of birth control available in your nationalistically-loved Norway, perchance?

quote:

---

In America, at least, second-generation atheists who inherited it from their parents are going to be rather unusual. This is not true of the mainstream Christian sects.

---

quote:

---

I met a girl over summer session in 2005 who was a about to enter into an arranged marriage (she is muslim). After getting to know her a little, I commented that I felt this was unfair. She responded, althought I beleive she agreed with me, that this was "her culture." The idea being: how dare I question her culture. Seems to me that some things are just backward, and the belief that a woman is never really independent and free is a prime candidate for being one of those mistakes that civilazations make. It is never right, just a very common mistake.

---

quote:

---

if there is a lack of independence inherent in arranged marriages (and I don't agree that this is necessarily the case, but certainly it can be), surely that is just as true for the men involved? So there is not a correlation with "lack of independence for women."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Karl Ed:
Way to classify a broad group of people such as "gamers" and call them all 14 year olds. There isnt a single person under the age of 18 in the group I play with and the oldest is in his 30's.

What study are you using to show that Norway has lower levels of all of your mentioned evils? You know negative population growth probably contributes quite significantly to lower and lower murder rates, crimes, and just about any social ill. You can't rape anybody if you were never born.

---

This is really late in the game (since I basically stopped reading this thread) but I just noticed that you are misattributing your objection to me. I'd still let it slide, except that I went back and found out that the post you are attributing to me was actually posted by King of Men. I'm horrified by the possibility that anyone could confuse me with KoM and I feel a need to clarify that you have made a mistake here. I am not King of Men, and I never made the comments you are objecting to.

And incidentally, I would never classify all gamers as 14-year olds. I'm a gamer myself and I'm pushing 40. If I can still push buttons by the time I'm 90 I'll probably be a gamer then, too.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB] I feel that religious people apologizing to KoM for what religion has 'inflicted' on him to be more than a little...misguided. Others have suffered much worse and not come out one-tenth as...rude.

---

Why is that? I have seen an awful lot of harm done in the name of religion. I assume that his vehemence is, at least in part, by that kind of hurt. Maybe not.

But his rudeness should have no bearing on my attitude toward him. Why don't you think that I should take, "bless those who curse you," seriously?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
IIRC, KoM is also a gamer.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Thanks, Rakeesh.




Karl, are you doing anything in particular that much make you unable to push buttons at some later point in your life?

On second thought, I don't want to know the answer to that question . . .
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Unfortunately, I'm probably less likely to make it to 90 than to not be able to press buttons at that age.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
rivka, X, thanks for the clarifications.

Added: Karl, we'll probably be able to control games with our minds by then. Who needs buttons?

[ March 30, 2006, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Edit: I wouldn't go this far normally, but how dare you try to shut me down for giving an honest opinion, you really don't know the context of the conversation,

---

quote:

---

or how condescending I am.

---

quote:

---

Just try and imagine that I actually have a few social skills

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:
Avatar, as for personal freedom and whatnot, I really think the bigger problem is romanticizing partnerships. I don't think people realize how much WORK it is to be married; I'm sure I don't. So I think, at least in the US, a lot people get married thinking that everything will be rainbows and unicorns, and then all of a sudden, they're like, "?!?! I have to WORK at this?! Divorce time!"

So I think in our culture, the concept of an arranged marriage is foreign to a lot of people because it seems to me that one would DEFINLTEY have to work at making an arranged marriage work. And we don't think we have to work at relationships.

-pH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Furthermore, KoM, do you have any statistics on the types of birth control available in your nationalistically-loved Norway, perchance?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

In America, at least, second-generation atheists who inherited it from their parents are going to be rather unusual. This is not true of the mainstream Christian sects.

---

I'd be delighted to hear about your rigorous statistical analysis that led you to this conclusion.

---

quote:

---

As for IPU and FSM, well depending on the context it's frankly as condescending, rude, and eye-rolling inducing as any fundamentalist getting up a good rant.

---

quote:

---

It's not my fault if people insist on believing in beings as ridiculous as the FSM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
My point in bringing up birth-control methods in Norway is to mostly point out that the availability of the day-after pill (for instance) might have a major impact on the abortion rate.

---

quote:

---

As for what is "obvious" and what isn't, well, correlation and causation and all that. I know it's obvious that's the conclusion you'd like to be proven true, due to your bigoted attachment to your own set of beliefs.

---

quote:

---

I know the point you generally use IPU and FSM to make, which is to express as frequently as possible your sneering disdain for anyone religious. Which is ironic due to your oft-stated aim of deconverting people. Recently you made a hypocrite of yourself on that score again by pointing out that 'deconversion' is probably more likely when someone the listener does not regard as an enemy hears a troubling or unconsidered viewpoint.

---

quote:

---

And incidentally, the average age of first intercourse in Norway is 17 for girls; what is it in the US?

---

quote:

---

Well, there are three points to be made here : First,deconversion is against the forum rules; second, it is not likely to happen on a board where the majority are theists, so their delusions reinforce; and third, just because I know the most effective tactics doesn't mean I'm good at being patient enough to apply them. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

---

quote:

---

I'd be delighted to hear where 'deconversion'-more accurately, conversion-is against forum rules.

---

quote:

---

I'd be delighted to hear where 'deconversion'-more accurately, conversion-is against forum rules.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

The assumption that the other party really agrees with you but is restrained from expressing that agreement is smug, short-sighted, and offensive. That you somehow arrived at her only response being, "How dare you question my culture?" is another.

It reduces her to the ignorant, culturally inferior savage resorting to defensive emotion when faced with your superior, civilized calm statements of rationality. It does not treat this woman with much respect at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:


Because if she is an American and going to college, then she knows she does not have to do what her parents are instructing her to do. Surely you must be aware of that? So it's myopic as well.

---

On a seperate note, this is plainly too much for you to assume. Her parents (her father actually), control her life by terrorizing her with threatening to quit paying tuition, etc. She has an incredibly controlling father who called her every day and demanded control over her daily activities (he forbade her from using the underground in London), though she is 23 years old. Just because she doesn't physically HAVE to do what her parents say, doesn't mean they don't have control.
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
::Enters thread where I could get myself in so much trouble::

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheGrimace:
KoM,
I have to say I'm dissapointed with the disdain you show towards those who do not share your viewpoint.

---

::Leaves thread where I could get myself in so much trouble::
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Okay, I am finding myself currently unable to research the age thing because every site contains STD statistics, which are making me feel icky and setting off my need for obsessive-compulsive rituals.

I'm going to go wash my hands a few times.

-pH
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
pH- Are you sure this is the "average" age for sex? This would mean that a great number have sex at 13-14-15, since so many wait till after age 16. It just seems young to me, although I suppose it could be accurate.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm pretty sure it's accurate, Orinoco.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I can't find an actual average age, but according to my textbook (and they got the numbers from Centers for Disease Control) in 2001 34.4% of high school freshman reported having had sex, 40.8% of sophomores, 51.9% of juniors, and 60.5% of seniors. So yea, I'd say sixteen sounds about right. I'll keep looking and see if I can find something more definate.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Well, KoM, I understand that you believe this, but you are wrong.

The underlying flaw in the IPU/FSM/Invisible Dragon/teapot analogies is that we know their authors made them up.

Therefore it would be ridiculous to believe in them, just as it's ridiculous to believe that Darth Vader ever existed. We know who created him, we know when, and the guy admits it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
pH- Are you sure this is the "average" age for sex? This would mean that a great number have sex at 13-14-15, since so many wait till after age 16. It just seems young to me, although I suppose it could be accurate.

---

I'm fairly certain. And if you think teens having sex at 13-15 is extremely rare, you are unfortunately mistaken.

But as I said, I am presently unable to Google the statistics because of my contamination problem; if someone else can find it, that would be cool. It probably wasn't even something from the Web, considering the apparent content of most of the sites that may have such information.

-pH
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
pH- Are you sure this is the "average" age for sex? This would mean that a great number have sex at 13-14-15, since so many wait till after age 16. It just seems young to me, although I suppose it could be accurate.

---

I'm fairly certain. And if you think teens having sex at 13-15 is extremely rare, you are unfortunately mistaken.
-pH

---

Just a function of my experience- Catholuc school The stats are probably a somewhat different for that group. (although who knows)
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Around here, the students who went to Catholic school are the worst of 'em all.

-pH
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:
Around here, the students who went to Catholic school are the worst of 'em all.

-pH

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:Her parents (her father actually), control her life by terrorizing her with threatening to quit paying tuition, etc. She has an incredibly controlling father who called her every day and demanded control over her daily activities (he forbade her from using the underground in London), though she is 23 years old. Just because she doesn't physically HAVE to do what her parents say, doesn't mean they don't have control.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quidscribis:

Same as her accepting arranged marriage.

---

Well you've just turned around and made my original argument all over again. I think you make the mistake of believing once again that just because someone doesn't physically HAVE to do something, doesn't mean they can't be manipulated, pushed, threatened or terrorized into doing it. If a person grows up in a family like that, it only makes it easier for the family to maintain control later on. I think its entirely possible that this person simply can't defy her father because its something he has always made impossible for her. Imagine the consequences of denying the control of such a strong influence: it would mean the seperation from your family, friends, loved ones, your childhood home, your parents.

Even your rationalization, that is is "possible" to not accept arranged marriage makes it quite obvious that you see the tyranny involved. If not accepting an arranged marriage means a sacrifice of your family and your relationship with your parents, then it must really be a great thing.

I think that's the heart of the issue for me. The girl defended her culture to me from one side of her mouth, and told me horror stories about her controlling father from the other side. The inane American unspoken rule "don't judge," makes it uncomfortable for people to hear me say: I think this is just wrong, no matter the culture, it can't be a good thing. But that is what I think, I doubt I could feel differently about no matter the situation. And YES, though there are a million stories about this or that arranged marriage working out oh so well, and though YES there are obvious benefits I don't deny, there is one fatal flaw. Arranged marriage is a form of tyranny, whether it forces someone into a marriage, or out of their family, this is an obvious subjugation of free people.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Orincoro,

quote:

---

Let's back up Rackeesh. I didn't have this conversation on paper, I didn't have it theoretically, this was is a friend I was talking to. I knew her and I expressed my opinion to her, you don't know how I did that or what her reaction told me.

---

quote:

---

The only thing your post tells me is that like Rivka, YOU don't mind condescending to others, and you DO believe that you are somehow better than me, or your opinion is somehow more relevant than mine just because it is "politically correct." Not that it isn't condescending to construct this whole reality (which is your imagining, not mine) where I believe I'm talking to cave people and primitives.

---

quote:

---

Its interesting that you jumped all over this imagery, and I never did. It tells me what kinds of ideas are swimming around in your head when you talk about other cultures. The girl I was talking about is actually 3/4 Irish, and one of her grandparents was from Jordan. Given all that, she would be the first person in two generations of her family to marry that way, and that seemed unfair to me.

---

quote:

---

On a seperate note, this is plainly too much for you to assume. Her parents (her father actually), control her life by terrorizing her with threatening to quit paying tuition, etc. She has an incredibly controlling father who called her every day and demanded control over her daily activities (he forbade her from using the underground in London), though she is 23 years old. Just because she doesn't physically HAVE to do what her parents say, doesn't mean they don't have control.

---

quote:

---

I think you make the mistake of believing once again that just because someone doesn't physically HAVE to do something, doesn't mean they can't be manipulated, pushed, threatened or terrorized into doing it.

---

quote:

---

I think its entirely possible that this person simply can't defy her father because its something he has always made impossible for her. Imagine the consequences of denying the control of such a strong influence: it would mean the seperation from your family, friends, loved ones, your childhood home, your parents.

---

quote:

---

I think that's the heart of the issue for me. The girl defended her culture to me from one side of her mouth, and told me horror stories about her controlling father from the other side. The inane American unspoken rule "don't judge," makes it uncomfortable for people to hear me say: I think this is just wrong, no matter the culture, it can't be a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Arranged marriage is a form of tyranny, whether it forces someone into a marriage, or out of their family, this is an obvious subjugation of free people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
About the user agreement, it does seem to me that it is not being enforced with all the rigour one would usually expect.

---

Lack of enforcement is not a licence to violate it. You may wish to keep that in mind.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

You likewise do not experience the daily resurrection of crucified people, so it is ridiculous to believe that, also.

---

quote:

---

But if it comes to that, you can by all means substitute 'the Norse pantheon' for the IPU; the argument remains just as forceful, and you absolutely do not know that Odin and the rest were made up by their authors. Unless, of course, you're going to accept that I know that your god was made up by its authors.

---

quote:

---

But I don't think you really appreciate the power which manipulative family leaders can weild over their children, it can be very extreme, it can feel like real control; and if it feels real, then in a sense it is as good as real.

---

quote:

---

quidscribis is right - the girl DOES have a choice. It might be the hardest choice in her life, and might entail sacrifice on her part, such as cutting herself off from her father/family, but it is still a choice. Many people have made that choice, I believe some on this very board.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
Dagonee's right. While I myself wouldn't include atheism and agnosticism under the "religious beliefs" umbrella (nor would I use "convert" in this context), I didn't write the user agreement, and I both requested and appreciated Pop's clarification.

Edit: "And nor" is redundant. Fixed.

---