I talked about this on the air (http://flamingfreedom.com/2014/05/14/episode-2014-may-13th/) recently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16/atheists-discrimination_n_4413593.html
QuoteHere are 11 things atheists couldn't -- and in many cases still can't -- do because they didn't believe in God.
Quick summary:
1. Live
2. Run for office
3. Be trusted by their peers
4. Be respected by their leaders or neighbors
5. Have a job
6. Get custody of their children
7. Volunteer in their communities
8. Advertise their beliefs, or lack thereof
9. Participate in life without violating their beliefs
10. Create an organization
11. Become a Boy Scout
BS! i was a boy scout (at least i liked the hiking ;) and i was an atheist at the time!
Quote from: dalebert on May 16, 2014, 01:58:13 PM
I talked about this on the air (http://flamingfreedom.com/2014/05/14/episode-2014-may-13th/) recently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16/atheists-discrimination_n_4413593.html
:o
After reading that list I think that the best thing about the USA is the 3,500 miles of ocean between me and it......
Yup. Can't trust those Godless bastards.
Quote from: vukapg on May 16, 2014, 02:09:42 PM
After reading that list I think that the best thing about the USA is the 3,500 miles of ocean between me and it......
Intolerance is a universal human condition. If the situation were reversed, the religious would be bitchin' about being discriminated against instead. And they would be right.
Quote from: Umiko Liliana on May 16, 2014, 01:59:47 PM
BS! i was a boy scout (at least i liked the hiking ;) and i was an atheist at the time!
Maybe your troop decided not to enforce the ban, but there is a ban on policy. Did you actually read the article or at least that part?
Quote from: vukapg on May 16, 2014, 02:09:42 PM
After reading that list I think that the best thing about the USA is the 3,500 miles of ocean between me and it......
The list isn't about the U.S. in particular. Some of those points address other parts of the world more so.
Hey dalebert, that radio show you cohost, is it on SiriusXM or is it something local in your area. From reading some of your post it sounds like it would be an interesting show.
BTW I never wanted to be in the boyscouts anyway.
Quote from: dalebert on May 16, 2014, 02:13:50 PM
Maybe your troop decided not to enforce the ban, but there is a ban on policy. Did you actually read the article or at least that part?
The list isn't about the U.S. in particular. Some of those points address other parts of the world more so.
never told the troop. the council had actually asked me to take over my old troop since the scoutmaster had retired
If you never told them you were never an atheist. Ignorance being bliss and perception being reality.
Quote from: JamesG on May 16, 2014, 02:35:45 PM
If you never told them you were never an atheist. Ignorance being bliss and perception being reality.
i see it as none of their business what my belief is or not. i in act the "don't ask, don't tell" system in my everyday life as well as "if its not my problem, i'm not getting involved" type of deal
Strange how that works out eh?
Quote from: JamesG on May 16, 2014, 02:40:56 PM
Strange how that works out eh?
its works well if your master ninja like myself. i can do some major defection that the subject is just tossed and we just move on with our lives. if i have to, i just say yes i do and i get what i need accomplished than move on with my life. like i went to a christian school. i was atheist but i still went and no one asked me or i gave off the persona that i was atheist. pretending could really help sometimes unless it irritates you to the point you need to speak up.
Quote from: dalebert on May 16, 2014, 02:13:50 PM
The list isn't about the U.S. in particular. Some of those points address other parts of the world more so.
Point #1 did not apply to the US, but all the rest of them did. All the examples were USA based although #8 mentioned British Columbia after the US example.
Quote from: Jess42 on May 16, 2014, 02:24:28 PM
Hey dalebert, that radio show you cohost, is it on SiriusXM or is it something local in your area.
It's replayed by lrn.fm and they apparently have a satellite option (http://lrn.fm/listen/sat/). Other than that, it's available in the normal podcast ways, either downloaded directly from my website (linked in my sig) or through the RSS feed or iTunes. I'm experimenting with posting episodes to YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/FlamingFreedomDotCom) soon actually. The first episode is rendering right now. Cross your fingers.
Quote from: dalebert on May 16, 2014, 03:30:05 PM
It's replayed by lrn.fm and they apparently have a satellite option (http://lrn.fm/listen/sat/). Other than that, it's available in the normal podcast ways, either downloaded directly from my website or through an RSS feed or iTunes. I'm experimenting with posting episodes to YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/FlamingFreedomDotCom) soon actually. Cross your fingers.
Oh yeah the youtube deal would be nice. I am definately gonna try to find it on the SiriusXM. Do you have any idea what category or station and times your show is on if it is on XM? My fingers are crossed.
Quote from: Jess42 on May 16, 2014, 03:56:46 PM
Oh yeah the youtube deal would be nice. I am definately gonna try to find it on the SiriusXM. Do you have any idea what category or station and times your show is on if it is on XM? My fingers are crossed.
It's not a consistent time anymore. We're part of a line-up of shows that play in between live shows. We used to do a live show on LRN but then we needed to change times and they didn't have any time slots available that we wanted to be on. We're still live via UStream right now but are considering switching to Google Hangouts.
Well I'll definately start checking, with a face like that in your avatar, who could resist listening. :)
Quote from: Jess42 on May 16, 2014, 04:39:04 PM
Well I'll definately start checking, with a face like that in your avatar, who could resist listening. :)
You have no idea how much I just needed to laugh a bit right now.
Quote from: Jill F on May 16, 2014, 04:44:04 PM
You have no idea how much I just needed to laugh a bit right now.
Now now Jill. I definately didn't mean anything bad, but I love that expression, kind of like controlled insanity. So I can only imagine the show.
Quote from: Jess42 on May 16, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
Now now Jill. I definately didn't mean anything bad, but I love that expression, kind of like controlled insanity. So I can only imagine the show.
Sorry, I used to do some radio in college and joked about how I had a face for it.
Quote from: Jill F on May 16, 2014, 05:09:37 PM
Sorry, I used to do some radio in college and joked about how I had a face for it.
Ah there isn't anything wrong with your face now and I bet back then either. But I gotta love the edge of insanity whether its facial expression, voices, actions and so on. I guess that's why I am a fan of Ozzy, Jim Morrison and now dalebert.
Quote from: Jess42 on May 16, 2014, 05:18:08 PM
Ah there isn't anything wrong with your face now and I bet back then either. But I gotta love the edge of insanity whether its facial expression, voices, actions and so on. I guess that's why I am a fan of Ozzy, Jim Morrison and now dalebert.
I was thinking about getting a grocery bag, printing out a picture of Angelina Jolie on it and cutting out eyeholes.
Quote from: Jill F on May 16, 2014, 05:20:39 PM
I was thinking about getting a grocery bag, printing out a picture of Angelina Jolie on it and cutting out eyeholes.
That is one helluvan idea for Halloween. Angelina Jolie isn't that pretty anyway, or at least not in my opinion. I really have no idea why all the guys go ga ga over her anyway. That may just be the woman in me being jealous though. :P
Quote from: Jess42 on May 16, 2014, 05:25:32 PM
That is one helluvan idea for Halloween. Angelina Jolie isn't that pretty anyway, or at least not in my opinion. I really have no idea why all the guys go ga ga over her anyway. That may just be the woman in me being jealous though. :P
Hell, I'd probably settle for Lara Flynn Boyle... after. *le sigh*
Quote from: Jill F on May 16, 2014, 05:28:57 PM
Hell, I'd probably settle for Lara Flynn Boyle... after. *le sigh*
Why settle? Shoot for the stars since we are just wishing anyway. I don't want to look like anyone but the most beautiful woman ever. ;D But we know that'll never happen but a girl can dream, can't she?
Quote from: Jess42 on May 16, 2014, 05:54:33 PM
Why settle? Shoot for the stars since we are just wishing anyway. I don't want to look like anyone but the most beautiful woman ever. ;D But we know that'll never happen but a girl can dream, can't she?
Sorry, self-deprecating and sarcastic humor is my specialty. I'm actually OK with the face I have.
Quote from: Jess42 on May 16, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
Now now Jill. I definately didn't mean anything bad, but I love that expression, kind of like controlled insanity. So I can only imagine the show.
That face is probably a fair representation of the tone of the show, often times.
Quote from: dalebert on May 16, 2014, 07:14:28 PM
That face is probably a fair representation of the tone of the show, often times.
Yes, the expression on your face in the avatar reminds me of an old college roommate when he discovered that he indeed had one bindle of coke left.
Bad Jill.
Quote from: Jill F on May 16, 2014, 07:11:11 PM
Sorry, self-deprecating and sarcastic humor is my specialty. I'm actually OK with the face I have.
I know but I am an over acheiver, or at least dream about being an over achiever. ;)
Quote from: dalebert on May 16, 2014, 07:14:28 PM
That face is probably a fair representation of the tone of the show, often times.
I am definately in. Like I said I love sanely insane, controlled insanity and insane sanity. But I'm just crazy anyway. I would love to know what you were talking about when tha picture was taken.
Quote from: Jill F on May 16, 2014, 07:24:51 PM
Yes, the expression on your face in the avatar reminds me of an old college roommate when he discovered that he indeed had one bindle of coke left.
Bad Jill.
Why Bad Jill? Some people like Coke others like Pepsi, I prefer Mountain Dew though. ;)
Quote from: dalebert on May 16, 2014, 01:58:13 PM
I talked about this on the air (http://flamingfreedom.com/2014/05/14/episode-2014-may-13th/) recently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16/atheists-discrimination_n_4413593.html
Quick summary:
1. Live
2. Run for office
3. Be trusted by their peers
4. Be respected by their leaders or neighbors
5. Have a job
6. Get custody of their children
7. Volunteer in their communities
8. Advertise their beliefs, or lack thereof
9. Participate in life without violating their beliefs
10. Create an organization
11. Become a Boy Scout
I don't know, I'm an agnostic-atheist and don't believe this holds true for me. I have a job where I am openly an atheist, I've volunteered in my community, I've been trusted/respected by neighbors and leaders (including politicians), and there other things here that do apply as well. When you say you are atheist, people are taken aback, but if you are generally a good person, they usually will go away a little more open minded. Then again, it depends on where you live and what type of people you deal with. And it's true that there are roadblocks and (legal/social) difficulties created when you are an atheist, but honestly, if you are a good person and live in an understanding area, it may not ruin your life. Personally, I don't pretend to have different beliefs than I do, but I'm always open minded and willing to hear someone in turn. Maybe the fact that I'm open to spirituality to a degree makes me more accepted, I don't know. It's hard to be an atheist and near impossible in some communities, but it's getting better.
Well it should be clarified that its "11 things you can't do if you are an obnoxious, in-your-face, offended at every turn, always out to prove a point, evangelical Atheist".
Quote from: JamesG on May 17, 2014, 01:17:33 PM
Well it should be clarified that its "11 things you can't do if you are an obnoxious, in-your-face, offended at every turn, always out to prove a point, evangelical Atheist".
Or just not be closeted all the time. Atheists ain't got nothin' on religious folk as far as evangelizing. We've only just started speaking up recently to express a variant point of view, so relatively speaking compared to how dim our voices have been historically, yes, we're "obnoxious", but we're not really. When I was a kid, the only thing on TV all morning on a Sunday morning was fundamentalist preachers shouting from their soap boxes. It hasn't changed that much. The criteria for judging an atheist to be loud is skewed.
Quote from: dalebert on May 17, 2014, 01:37:06 PM
Or just not be closeted all the time. Atheists ain't got nothin' on religious folk as far as evangelizing. We've only just started speaking up recently to express a variant point of view, so relatively speaking compared to how dim our voices have been historically, yes, we're "obnoxious", but we're not really. When I was a kid, the only thing on TV all morning on a Sunday morning was fundamentalist preachers shouting from their soap boxes. It hasn't changed that much. The criteria for judging an atheist to be loud is skewed.
I understand where you are coming from, but you can be open about your beliefs as an atheist and survive. I'm a testament to that. Maybe it's cause I'm younger and live in NY, but the world isn't all bad. The only thing is when I talk to someone religious, I try to hear them rather than mock them. Usually, things go pretty well and it's a mutual disagreement at best. If there can be a healthy debate that is respectful, I'm all for that; however, I've ran into the sort of atheists that like to call everyone a moron who doesn't agree with them. As though they need to be angry that someone doesn't think the same way. Sure, that's also a problem for religious people (and general society) but the atheist community can be too condescending at times and it's counter productive in trying to prove one's point. Satire and humor and strong disagreement of ideas are all fine, but outright calling people idiots and antagonizing them to their face is just impolite and ill mannered. I don't want to be lumped with them.
But as for the main topic, I'm sure if I lived in Arkansas or something, I would have a different opinion. There is still alot of discrimination that needs to be lessened and we should be part of the social conversation without being accused of being evil. And whatever the minority of our community does, never excuses some of the behavior of fundamentalists out there nor does it justify our treatment at times. It's just I've never really had a hard time with my religious views. My political or social views have caused issues with others, but not really religion alone. However, I am stiffled from talking about it in the family. My mother's boyfriend was an acolyte for the Catholic Church and she doesn't want me bothering people with my "alternative beliefs". Outside of family, I really haven't had an issue, but I guess I don't advertise it either.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 17, 2014, 02:03:51 PM
I've ran into the sort of atheists that like to call everyone a moron who doesn't agree with them. As though they need to be angry that someone doesn't think the same way. Sure, that's also a problem for religious people (and general society) but the atheist community can be too condescending at times and it's counter productive in trying to prove one's point. Satire and humor and strong disagreement of ideas are all fine, but outright calling people idiots and antagonizing them to their face is just impolite and ill mannered.
It depends who you're talking to, or about. I'm a fan of The Amazing Atheist on YouTube. He can be very mocking and angry, but usually it's in response to something ridiculous enough to justify it. I wouldn't act that way to just anyone for not having the exact same views as me, but if religious people are up on their soap box evangelizing, and depending on what absurdities they're pushing, I think it's totally appropriate to evangelize back proportionately.
It's common for religious people to see open debate about beliefs as some kind of aggressive attack. It's not. It's just how we vet ideas for their merit and everyone progresses. We're not obnoxious or rude for just expressing what we believe like everyone else. The guilt-tripping is a silencing tactic by people with fragile ideas on shaky ground and we mustn't give in to it.
Quote from: dalebert on May 17, 2014, 03:04:10 PM
It depends who you're talking to, or about. I'm a fan of The Amazing Atheist on YouTube. He can be very mocking and angry, but usually it's in response to something ridiculous enough to justify it. I wouldn't act that way to just anyone for not having the exact same views as me, but if religious people are up on their soap box evangelizing, and depending on what absurdities they're pushing, I think it's totally appropriate to evangelize back proportionately.
It's common for religious people to see open debate about beliefs as some kind of aggressive attack. It's not. It's just how we vet ideas for their merit and everyone progresses. We're not obnoxious or rude for just expressing what we believe like everyone else. The guilt-tripping is a silencing tactic by people with fragile ideas on shaky ground and we mustn't give in to it.
I can agree with this as well. Most of us don't conduct ourselves poorly and it's possible to disagree or debate someone while being polite and respectiful. However, the fact is there are many obnoxious and rude people that are both theists and atheists alike. It's a problem within humanity, not just our community. But it exists and sometimes it's celebrated. It's bad either way. We don't like the judgemental street preachers, right? Then we should do our best not to avoid acting that way as well. Some celebrate their disdain for theists and would openly admit that.
Still, the actions of a few is no excuse for the discrimination shown against atheists and this is more of a side issue.
Quote from: dalebert on May 17, 2014, 01:37:06 PM
When I was a kid, the only thing on TV all morning on a Sunday morning was fundamentalist preachers shouting from their soap boxes. It hasn't changed that much. The criteria for judging an atheist to be loud is skewed.
The difference is that you can turn it off or tell the kid at the door "no thank you". That's not the same as some jackass with nothing better to do serving you with a lawsuit (or paying for it thru your taxes) because he feels his civil liberties were bruised.
One, I call shenanigans (sorry) one the binary concept of religion being required for life or limiting it. I think a healthier alternative is moderation, in religion being a part of one's life or in lack of religion also being only a facet of one's identity. Just my own views though
Quote from: JamesG on May 17, 2014, 08:42:33 PM
The difference is that you can turn it off or tell the kid at the door "no thank you". That's not the same as some jackass with nothing better to do serving you with a lawsuit (or paying for it thru your taxes) because he feels his civil liberties were bruised.
I don't know what you're referring to. The implication is that there are a lot of atheists suing people for trivial things and I don't know this to be a thing so I need something specific. Meanwhile, I can find plenty of examples of religious people actually trying to get their religion pushed onto other people, cases like banning books from curriculums or trying to get creationism taught alongside science in public schools.
Quote from: dalebert on May 22, 2014, 06:26:26 AM
I don't know what you're referring to. The implication is that there are a lot of atheists suing people for trivial things and I don't know this to be a thing so I need something specific. Meanwhile, I can find plenty of examples of religious people actually trying to get their religion pushed onto other people, cases like banning books from curriculums or trying to get creationism taught alongside science in public schools.
Well I know quite a few people, some athiest, some christian, some just mutted up like myself, some satanist and so on. Frivoulous lawsuits aren't limited to athiests and pushing things down people's thoats aren't limited to evangelicals. I am bombarded with advertisements on TV all the time about how this product can do this or that and someone can come into my yard to steal something and cut their little finger and sue me for medical bills. I think it's all crazy and the insanity is in no way limted to believers and athiests.
As for the creationism and being taught along science, I think it is a good idea in a generalized non specific limited to one set of beliefs ciriculum because it really shouldn't be a battle. Even theroetical physicist see an order to the chaos and claim it is possible there is plan. But not in the old man with a long beard saying let there be light sort of way. This is my opinion but I believe creationism is so far above our comprehension level that we cannot even begin to undersand it. Pretty much the way I percieve God. The Big Bang could be considered a possible creation because our universe came from seemingly nothing or something smaller than an atom. It all boils down to we really just don't know if one or the other are reality or both are actually a reality. But I also believe in the multiverse thoeries and all existing together but at different resonances, sort of like what some theoretical physicist think is possible. But even with my beliefs, I definately acknowledge that we may be nothing more than a tiny anomoly in the universe and when our bodies die our consciousness just snuffs out like a candle that burns down and can't keep a flame anymore. Snuffs out in a cloud of smoke or particles and disipates back into all the sub atomic matter from which it came. The big TRUTH is that no one really knows for sure.
I don't know but I have never understood the levels of hate and animosity from either side, not from everyone though because much like your post dalebert, I found "11 Things an Atheist Can't Do" comical And we are in bad shape as a species, especially intellectually, if we can't poke fun at ourselves. I am the first to claim insanity on behalf of my beliefs but I'm Spiritual and if you call my beliefs insane and crazy, I will laugh at that and actually agree with you but I still believe it though. Like the Billy Joel song says, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, The sinners are much more fun and only the good die young". I guess I'm gonna live forever 'cause I sure ain't no saint. I can be an angel though but one with more leathery wings than feathered. >:-) I find all belief systems even Atheism extrememly interesting If I can talk to someone without the animosity and air superiority that often times comes with belief systems from both sides. God how many times Iv'e been told that I'm going to hell. At least with an Athiest, they can't condemn me to hell. ;) Just a little humor so don't anyone get angry please, because like I said earlier if we can't laugh at ourselves, maybe we aren't quite as high on the evolutionary ladder as we would like to think. ???
I think over the next few decades, there will be much less discrimination against Atheists (here in the USA). From statistics I've seen and IRL experience in both the South and North USA, more and more young people (teens into thirties) identify as Atheists, agnostics, or other forms of non-establishment religions (like the somewhat vague "I am Spiritual").
Also, I am always kind of doubtful about studies that give the percentage of people who identify themselves as various religions, since I know MANY people who claim to be Catholic, Jewish, etc. but who don't actually practice the religion, go to services, read the holy book at home, etc. For some reason, maybe it's cultural or some leftovers of ingrained beliefs, they just mark X next to that religion on forms. So, overall, I think the amount of people who actually practice religion in the USA is somewhat lower than it appears in surveys.
I feel very confident that within my lifetime, assuming I live an average lifespan, there will be a sizable number of out-and-proud atheists in Congress, and at least a serious Presidential contender. Once the older and more conservative folks start dying out and the younger generations start voting (including NON-presidential elections and in local elections), you'll probably see religion playing less of a role, especially in states outside of the Bible Belt.
I also really wouldn't be surprised if within the next few decades that there's some sort of active movement among Atheists to elect non-religious politicians (kind of like how some people are actively trying to get Hilary into office through making the pac Ready for Hilary, because some really want a woman president), since given the general sentiment I've picked up on this board that quite a few atheists think that all non-Atheists are stupid and purposely ignorant, so why would you want a President who you think is stupid. I do think Atheists should be more vocal politically, ultra-Christian groups are powerful because they have high concentrations within certain areas and they're LOUD (and, who are the most reliable voters? Old white people. So for now, yeah, politicans are going to try to please this demographics, since young people (more likely to be Atheist) don't vote regularly). Maybe if all the Atheists in Boston, Silicon Valley, and other places where many Atheists live would form more political organizations that back Atheist candidates, and
actually vote, there'd be more willingness among politicians to not feel the need to lie to the public by claiming to be religious.
Onto the article, this part kind of caught my attention more:
QuoteOver the past few decades, there have been many documented cases of judges either denying parents custody rights because of their apparent disinterest in organized religion, or in other cases, of atheist parents being ordered to attend church so that their children can undergo "systematic spiritual training."
In 2006, an atheist father emailed The Dish columnist Andrew Sullivan to describe a custody battle that had seen his Sunday visitation rights revoked so that his son could receive "religious instruction" under his ex-wife's supervision. The case took place in Mississippi, and the father said that he feared he would only lose more ground if he challenged the religious judge's ruling.
While I certainly do not think it's right to force people to attend church, I don't have a problem with making parents drop kids off at church as part of a custody arrangement. For younger kids, you may need to actually go inside which I do see as being more problematic. Part of the problem I had with the above quote, is that the statements are quite vague and don't present the full picture. Custody battles are extremely difficult since the judge needs to look at the "best interest of the child" (and yes, I actually did read the entire law review article the quote linked to, which I doubt many readers of the article actually did). I don't think an Atheist parent should be penalized or discriminated against for lack of belief, but the whole thing about having a custody order where one parent needs to bring their kid to services applies to even religious parents (like the law review article cited a case where a mother wasn't allowed to bring her kid to Catholic Mass since the custody arrangement said the child was to be raised Jewish).
I have seen cases which I do agree with the judge making a parent bring kids to services, since you do need to balance the interests and rights of both parents to have a say in their children's lives. You also need to consider what a child wants as well, like if a child identifies as and likes being a member of Religion X, I think it would be a little unfair to the child if s/he cannot attend services and being part of a community that they enjoy while they're living with one of their parents over summer vacation (or whenever) because one of their parents doesn't want to drop them off once a week or so for a few hours. I do agree with the law review article that telling a parent that s/he cannot make certain statements against the religion the children are being raised as is likely a Constitutional issue, but I don't see much problem with a parent dropping their kid off at a church or temple, and then saying "yeah, I am atheist which means
blank ."
Judges often look to the conduct of the marriage, so if you've been married and during that time one spouse always took the kids to church and you allowed it, then the judge is more likely to allow the tradition of bringing the kids to church to continue.
Anyways, while there can be a lot of room for discrimination when doing custody agreements, custody agreements are way too complex to sum up in just three sentences like the article did (or a few short paragraphs like I did here).
NSFW due to some language. Is this guy too "loud"? I hope you'll watch the whole thing if you're going to comment on it. It's not that long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYchB7Kxuvs
Quote from: dalebert on May 22, 2014, 06:26:26 AM
I don't know what you're referring to. The implication is that there are a lot of atheists suing people for trivial things and I don't know this to be a thing so I need something specific. Meanwhile, I can find plenty of examples of religious people actually trying to get their religion pushed onto other people, cases like banning books from curriculums or trying to get creationism taught alongside science in public schools.
A prime example would be David Silverman's style of running American Atheists. I agree with his views on religion, but let's not act like he can't be condescending to others in his presentation and sometimes sues for the purpose of getting attention. This is coming from someone who is a stanch believer of the separation of church and state. But suing a locality for something like having a Christmas tree outside of townhall seems a bit frivolous. I'd argue that the christmas tree is used in such a widespread way that it hardly presents a spiritual endorsement of Christianity. The same can be said about the "9/11 cross". It was part of the rubble and the fact that it signified a spiritual importance to some people, doesn't make it a state endorsement of Christianity. However, I do think they fight some good battles as well and help advance a more secular society. It's just those small things that I think are either frivolous or a waste of time compared to the more important issues we face in the atheist community.
That being said, the religious cases exist as well. Both are equally problematic, though it's more rampent in the religious community as they have much more power and influence compared to atheist groups.
Quote from: dalebert on May 23, 2014, 02:01:17 PM
NSFW due to some language. Is this guy too "loud"? I hope you'll watch the whole thing if you're going to comment on it. It's not that long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYchB7Kxuvs
As for this video, it's going for humor while trying to make a point through entertainment. I don't have a problem with it at all, probably because I agree with the sentiment, but I can see some people getting upset with the tone he uses. For me, it would be a problem if he spoke one on one to another person calling them those names. However, doing a form of stand up is a bit different than saying those things directly aimed at them in conversation. I suppose I give comedy some room because it's striving to make people laugh and entertain.
*Edit. I'd like to note that by agreeing with his sentiment I mean that I agree with his point, but don't agree with the name calling. Though I try to excuse stand ups as mockery is part of humor and a comedian's job. However, that shouldn't be the tone of an in person civil debate and how we speak to and view one another in general society. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but that's just my own opinion on the subject.
Quote from: dalebert on May 23, 2014, 02:01:17 PM
NSFW due to some language. Is this guy too "loud"? I hope you'll watch the whole thing if you're going to comment on it. It's not that long.
I don't think he's too loud. Though, I am not too sure what you'd like commented on, the what makes a book sacred thing or the language/tone LTL commented on.
I think the measure of what's "too loud" should depend on what you're responding to. For instance, I completely understand someone responding in a "very loud" way to acts by the very loudly hateful Westboro Baptist Church. On the other end, I have some religious friends myself who aren't hateful at all and my tone is obviously going to be very different with them. Without context, I think it's rather ridiculous to sweepingly call atheists "too loud" or "obnoxious". It is an attempt to silence them and de-legitimatize their anger which in some cases is actually very legitimate and valid. There are plenty of religious people who get up on soap boxes and spew hateful thoughts. That's their free speech and I won't deny them that. On the other hand, I won't criticize a comparative response by an atheist or agnostic who wants to get up on their soap box and respond in kind.
Quote from: dalebert on May 24, 2014, 11:23:44 AM
I think the measure of what's "too loud" should depend on what you're responding to. For instance, I completely understand someone responding in a "very loud" way to acts by the very loudly hateful Westboro Baptist Church. On the other end, I have some religious friends myself who aren't hateful at all and my tone is obviously going to be very different with them. Without context, I think it's rather ridiculous to sweepingly call atheists "too loud" or "obnoxious". It is an attempt to silence them and de-legitimatize their anger which in some cases is actually very legitimate and valid. There are plenty of religious people who get up on soap boxes and spew hateful thoughts. That's their free speech and I won't deny them that. On the other hand, I won't criticize a comparative response by an atheist or agnostic who wants to get up on their soap box and respond in kind.
Your brilliance is scary. I definately agree dalebert. Kind of like all the stink that was made becuaus Satanists at Harvard, I believe, were wanting to have a Black Mass. Freedom of religion as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone should never be critisized. Me personally, I think the founding Fathers should have worded it differenty to Freedom of Beliefs. Even Atheism is a belief system because you have to believe that there is no God. Still though I can't see why so much animosoty from both sides.
Quote from: dalebert on May 24, 2014, 11:23:44 AM
I think the measure of what's "too loud" should depend on what you're responding to. For instance, I completely understand someone responding in a "very loud" way to acts by the very loudly hateful Westboro Baptist Church. On the other end, I have some religious friends myself who aren't hateful at all and my tone is obviously going to be very different with them. Without context, I think it's rather ridiculous to sweepingly call atheists "too loud" or "obnoxious". It is an attempt to silence them and de-legitimatize their anger which in some cases is actually very legitimate and valid. There are plenty of religious people who get up on soap boxes and spew hateful thoughts. That's their free speech and I won't deny them that. On the other hand, I won't criticize a comparative response by an atheist or agnostic who wants to get up on their soap box and respond in kind.
I agree with most of what you say here. Often there are many atheists that are accused of being obnoxious and impolite when they aren't being that way. Even though I feel it happens, I think the "rude atheist" is a minority that happens to be vocal and is no way reflective on the majority of us. And yeah, I have noticed that it's often a strawman used to silence debate. Sadly, people sometimes take disagreement or diversity to be a personal affront. In any case, I just wish the overall conversation about religion was more polite and constructive. I'm sure you like I have talked to a theist about these things in a civil manner only to be told we deserve to rot in hell for simply not agreeing with them. Charming, right? I just try to be careful in not becoming the equivalent of that on the other side, even if it can be insanely frustrating at times.
As for the Westboro Baptist Church, I feel the best strategy is to ignore them. Those people feed off of the attention they get, though I certainly understand the strong reactions against them. They don't deserve civility to be extended to them and no one would be obnoxious for verbally putting them in their place after all that they've done.
Quote from: Jess42 on May 24, 2014, 11:45:57 AM
Your brilliance is scary. I definately agree dalebert. Kind of like all the stink that was made becuaus Satanists at Harvard, I believe, were wanting to have a Black Mass. Freedom of religion as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone should never be critisized. Me personally, I think the founding Fathers should have worded it differenty to Freedom of Beliefs. Even Atheism is a belief system because you have to believe that there is no God. Still though I can't see why so much animosoty from both sides.
I see what you mean, but a lack of a belief isn't really a belief system.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 24, 2014, 12:01:29 PM
As for the Westboro Baptist Church, I feel the best strategy is to ignore them.
I agree. I just used them as the most obvious example. I find it difficult to even be angry with them because they seem so completely insane to me.
Quote from: learningtolive on May 24, 2014, 12:03:17 PM
I see what you mean, but a lack of a belief isn't really a belief system.
Exactly. Some make a distinction with two different terms--strong atheist and weak atheist. A strong atheist is less common. That is someone who has a positive belief that there is no god. Most, myself included, would be called a weak atheist, i.e. lack of belief due to lack of any particular reason to believe. A weak atheist is open to a change in beliefs upon the discovery of new evidence.
Sometimes, the mere mention of a person's atheism is treated as a loud and obnoxious pronouncement. The same thing often happens when a gay man keeps a "couples" picture on his desk at work or when a lesbian mentions that she and her partner want to adopt a baby. Such people can experience aggressive accusations that they are shoving their "lifestyle" down everyone else's throats. Actually, they are just living their lives--the way everyone else does, with an occasional quiet reference to how they live. Most atheists aren't on a soapbox; they are just living their lives. And they sometimes get a disproportionate response from non-atheists.
Quote from: dalebert on May 24, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
Exactly. Some make a distinction with two different terms--strong atheist and weak atheist. A strong atheist is less common. That is someone who has a positive belief that there is no god. Most, myself included, would be called a weak atheist, i.e. lack of belief due to lack of any particular reason to believe. A weak atheist is open to a change in beliefs upon the discovery of new evidence.
Yeah, I would fall in the weak atheist category as well; however, I usually say I'm an agnostic-atheist or a secular humanist when identifying myself. I probably should stop doing that because it tends to confuse the hell out of people, lol. But the fact is there most likely will never be a way to fully disprove or prove a god exists. Carl Sagan's "Dragon in the garage" argument illustrates this pretty well. I can't see how anyone could claim definitive knowledge either way, so I can't understand strong atheism.
Quote from: Arch on May 24, 2014, 01:06:53 PM
Sometimes, the mere mention of a person's atheism is treated as a loud and obnoxious pronouncement. The same thing often happens when a gay man keeps a "couples" picture on his desk at work or when a lesbian mentions that she and her partner want to adopt a baby. Such people can experience aggressive accusations that they are shoving their "lifestyle" down everyone else's throats. Actually, they are just living their lives--the way everyone else does, with an occasional quiet reference to how they live. Most atheists aren't on a soapbox; they are just living their lives. And they sometimes get a disproportionate response from non-atheists.
That's true. I've experienced that when opening up my mouth in my own family about these things. Everyone else is allowed an opinion, but I'm a bitch if I just say how I feel and it happens to disagree with their stance.
I would certainly say at least those who were referred to as "strong" Atheists do indeed have a belief system, the belief is in a lack of a god, and usually the supremacy of science, which is most certainly a belief. There is even a certain dogma attached to the absolute resolute belief that there is no god, where there really isn't on the idea that god is unlikely, I daresay it even requires a certain amount of faith to absolutely refute the existence of god.
I think one would have to classify my thinking as some sort of belief because not only do I not believe in divinity, I also actively do not want to believe, I am not some impartial person upon which evidence would have any effect. I am not the sort that needs Dawkins like arguments to refute god, I don't want to believe, therefore I don't, it is a much more emotional choice, and one that requires a certain amount of blind faith since I am not really looking for or at any evidence that runs counter to what I want to believe.
I am also weary of the idea that lack of a belief does not constitute a belief in it's own right due to the fact this line of thinking could be used as a justification to discriminate against atheists of all type.
Quote from: dalebert on May 24, 2014, 11:23:44 AM
I think the measure of what's "too loud" should depend on what you're responding to. For instance, I completely understand someone responding in a "very loud" way to acts by the very loudly hateful Westboro Baptist Church. On the other end, I have some religious friends myself who aren't hateful at all and my tone is obviously going to be very different with them. Without context, I think it's rather ridiculous to sweepingly call atheists "too loud" or "obnoxious". It is an attempt to silence them and de-legitimatize their anger which in some cases is actually very legitimate and valid. There are plenty of religious people who get up on soap boxes and spew hateful thoughts. That's their free speech and I won't deny them that. On the other hand, I won't criticize a comparative response by an atheist or agnostic who wants to get up on their soap box and respond in kind.
Yeah tone should always depend on context. Everyone of all beliefs (or non-beliefs) has the potential to be an a-hole.
Uninvited, unprovoked discussion can be "too loud" -- I was at Starbucks a few months ago sitting near two men talking about Christianity, where I just happened to look like a Muslim woman to most people. We were all minding our own business when in the two men's discussion one man said "[. . . ] earth was created in seven days [. . .]" to which a person nearby putting cream in his coffee turned towards them and said loudly (most people looked up from what they were doing) "you actually believe that the earth was made in seven days!" the man replied "no, I said
some people believe it was made in seven days". The man then looked directly at me and said "good, only idiots would believe such a thing. I can't understand how anyone could believe that," then he left. Idk, I have no problem with discussions about things, but I wonder what the man would've done if the reply was "yes I do think it was made in seven days," got into an argument about how stupid he is to his face? I don't like how he made presumptions about me and looked directly in my eyes as he said "only idiots would believe such a thing". Anyways, Christians, Jews, etc. do the same thing, so it's impossible to says that all members of such a group is "too loud". WBC I'd say is definitely "too loud" for my taste, but they're not all Christians.
I think the definition of "too loud" would be something like being unduly argumentative in a time and place and with people that its not suited for? I think the level of aggressiveness can be a big factor on if something is too loud --WBC uses horrible language and tactics which makes it very aggressive, the man saying "idiots" was aggressive. I think those interfaith debates are pretty interesting, and are not too loud even if they can get quite tense since it's in an invited manner where all participants knew what they were getting into.
I do think Atheists should speak up more, but just be nice about it. :) Everyone (theist or non-theist) should be nice unless there's a valid reason to not be.
Quote from: Hikari on May 24, 2014, 02:27:26 PM
I would certainly say at least those who were referred to as "strong" Atheists do indeed have a belief system, the belief is in a lack of a god, and usually the supremacy of science, which is most certainly a belief. There is even a certain dogma attached to the absolute resolute belief that there is no god, where there really isn't on the idea that god is unlikely, I daresay it even requires a certain amount of faith to absolutely refute the existence of god.
I think one would have to classify my thinking as some sort of belief because not only do I not believe in divinity, I also actively do not want to believe, I am not some impartial person upon which evidence would have any effect. I am not the sort that needs Dawkins like arguments to refute god, I don't want to believe, therefore I don't, it is a much more emotional choice, and one that requires a certain amount of blind faith since I am not really looking for or at any evidence that runs counter to what I want to believe.
I am also weary of the idea that lack of a belief does not constitute a belief in it's own right due to the fact this line of thinking could be used as a justification to discriminate against atheists of all type.
Well, I'd say Atheism is a belief, but some, from what I've gathered (maybe just the "strong Atheists"), seem to say it's more of a
fact than a belief due to their being no scientific proof of a god.
Good point. I would feel ridiculous starting an argument with a stranger in a coffee shop. On the other hand, I do a show where I pointedly discuss controversial issues and express my opinions. I often do so without much tact. I feel like that's a completely appropriate time and place for it. No one is being forced to listen and they can always just click it off if they're enjoying it.
I remember when 2 years ago i lied to my tech ed teacher that i wasn't atheist so i could be apart of a club for building machines and program designing.
Bad joke i found on FB.
Muslims terrorist kill people.
Christian terrorist kill people.
Atheist terrorist post science articles online.