<p>
Umm… even christians see that the only good way is a separation of church and state. Hahaha, I just supported atheists? I’m christian anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The plural of anecdote is not statistic. Given that Christians outnumber atheists by some 7 times, for the numbers of annoying dogmatic ones to be the same as you say almost every atheist would have to be annoying and dogmatic. Are you suggesting that? If so, where’s your proof or numbers to back that idea up?</p>
<p>And for the record, dogmatic annoying atheists chap my hide too. A little bit less than Christians because at least if someone engages the atheist in debate they will often have a debate on fair terms (i.e. terms other than "the Bible said it therefore I am right therefore you lose, as I have seen many fundamentalist Christians say), but they still annoy me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Man, you’re just not getting it. Like really, stop trying to interpret what I’m saying, because you’re doing it wrong.</p>
<p>The issue with these numbers is not that people wouldn’t readily vote for atheists; that is completely obvious. In case you didn’t notice, every non-white, non-Protestant, non-male has some kind of negative voting association due to their various minority statuses. No, it’s not surprising that atheists are voted for less.</p>
<p>What is surprising is that being atheist is the single biggest factor here for negative voting association. Stop typing out your response for a minute and re-read that sentence. Then, realize the significance of that fact given that issues like being Muslim or being gay are less negative than being atheist. Think about that for a second. If simple ease of relating were the issue, being gay would be by far the most negative; most modern estimates have shown gay people to constitute about 1% of each gender (though this may be under-estimated). With atheists constituting 14 times more of the population, shouldn’t they be less negatively thought of? Well, no. They’re thought of as worse.</p>
<p>Really, what does this tell you? You keep saying “it’s not that bad” or “it doesn’t matter that much to me”, or you bring up straw men “You’re basically saying religious people should get over their views so Atheists can stop feeling left out.”. I never said anything except that atheists are, by these measures, the most discriminated minority in contemporary political America, even relative to their numbers. Unless you’re prepared to bring up some numbers that show something different, that’s the end of the discussion right there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, giving government money to religious organizations is illegal. Read the Constitution lately by any chance?</p>
<p>The fact that people can’t write their religions into the law is secular in nature - as it should be, since America’s government is expressly not specifically religious insofar as its official practices go.</p>
<p>I never said atheists not being electable was proof of the country being a theocracy. Did you just make that up, by any chance? No, America is not a theocracy - but there are those who wish it was. Huckabee would be the most recent, though Romney was trying to carry that torch as well.</p>
<p>But seriously, this is a matter of relative badness and perspective. Atheists in this country have to contend with constant pressure upon them for their beliefs (I know a number of atheists in the south through online boards whose siblings - or themselves - were beat up or otherwise bullied in school for being atheist - no, I’m not joking - tell me when the atheist lynch mob starts going after Christians), both from other citizens and from the government. </p>
<p>Do you not remember the famous exchange where George Bush Sr. said that he did not think atheists could be American citizens?</p>
<p>The whole issue with your post is not that you’re wrong. Atheists are indeed becoming more vocal. The problem is that you act like that new-found tendency to be vocal is somehow over the top and out of proportion to the way atheists are treated by the Christian majority. I have posted statistics, and all kinds of other stuff to substantiate what I’m saying; all you have done in return is spout variations of “yeah but I’ve met lots of annoying vocal atheists - as much or more as vocal Christians”</p>
<p>That is insufficient. Ball’s in your court to provide some substantive data here.</p>
<p>1of42: I applaud your post and everything you have said. I agree wholeheartedly. In the spirit of full disclosure, though, this statement is wrong:
Giving government money to religious organizations is not illegal. It would, at first glance, violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment and does generally do so, but not always. The Supreme Court has ruled in cases such as [Lemon</a> v. Kurtzman](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman]Lemon”>Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia) that there are instances in which it is acceptable to give money to religious organizations.</p>
<p>Ah yes, my bad. The majority of my point stands, though. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re still trying to make this about numbers. You can’t compare the presence of benign Christians with overtly bigoted Atheists, and then just assume there are more Christians that are that way because there are more of them. I’d say about 7% of Atheists fit the mold here, and probably around 7% of Christians fit the mold. The difference is, Christians don’t sit around defending crazy people who turn people off, while Atheists like you sit around making excuses about why it’s acceptable since you’re not the majority. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s obvious you haven’t been in enough debates with Christians. People always say Christians hide behind the Bible to make a point, but then, what is that in response to? Some Atheists love to say that, but then the only question they ever seem to ask is some variation on, “explain and make me believe the Christian faith in three minutes…go” and when they do, they fall back on the whole "oh you’re just using the Bible to explain yourself and that’s off base!’ </p>
<p>It depends on what you’re asking and why.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…or you could stop trying to bait me into an argument because you hate religion and sympathize with Atheists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s kind of interesting that gays do better in those polls than Atheists. I’m just saying. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said, I don’t buy that. A lot of people may not think an Atheist should run things, because they figure Atheists aren’t bound by any sort of moral order…other than the one they create for themselves. People, for whatever reason, don’t trust that. It’s not the same as being gay, Muslim, Black, or anything else, because those things, at best, dictate your lifestyle and/or racial or cultural group. That said, I don’t think a Muslim would have an easy go of it, either.</p>
<p>I don’t have to keep throwing out one statistic to prove that. You’re trying to equate this to some de jure discrimination, all while not acknowledging WHY people might not want to vote for an Atheist. Politically, I think everybody who isn’t a white man is at something of a disadvantage. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How did Huckabee want to turn this country into a theocracy? Did he turn Arkansas into one? No. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt they were beat up or bullied because they were Atheists. I know you’re going to say I’m lying, and I don’t know them, and all that…but that sounds bogus to me. Kids don’t beat up kids for their religious views. Not generally. And people love to paint the South as this harshly conservative, Christian place and, some of the more rural parts may be, people down here vary just like anywhere else. </p>
<p>No, I don’t remember that exchange, but I’m sure I’m going to have to take responsibility for it since we’re probably of the same faith, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do think it’s over the top and out of proportion. I don’t have a problem with Atheists being vocal. I like activism and people who aren’t afraid of being booed over their beliefs. That said, from what I’ve seen, Atheists want to play both sides of the fence. They want to be able to sling mud and separate themselves from the Christian majority in every way, then use their minority status to show how oppressed they are and how discriminated they are.</p>
<p>All I’ve seen you show is that Atheists are not the majority. That’s all “we’re 14%” means. People may not vote for Atheists…so? There are people who wont vote for a woman, a Black man, Hispanic, Muslim, gay, etc. I don’t know that you can conclusively say that Atheists are the most discriminated against. There may be a statistic that supports that, but I think you can say that for certain.</p>
<p>The problem is, you have a fundamental problem with religion and zealotry from religious people. Since there’s been a lot of that, and still is some of that in certain areas, that sticks in your craw. The fact that “vocal” Atheists might be making Christians feel the same way you feel seems to fly over your head because you’re so content with that 14% stat that you don’t stop and think about the whole picture.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060187724-post85.html]#85[/url]”>quote</a> A lot of people may not think an Atheist should run things, because they figure Atheists aren’t bound by any sort of moral order…other than the one they create for themselves…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Science, independent of ‘testament’, is revealing the morality we all share:[‘Generous</a> players: game theory explores the Golden Rule’s place in biology’](<a href=“http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_4_166/ai_n6151880]'Generous”>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_4_166/ai_n6151880):
</p>
<p>Here’s some additional food for thought: The scientific research referred to in the paper provides evidence that outcomes are maximized by the Golden Rule strategy even when rationality and reasoning are not factored in at all:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, applying the Golden Rule is not only supported using rationality, but it appears to be a superior strategy even when it is implemented by organism that don’t possess human levels of reasoning.</p>
<p>I think Atheists are reacting to 3 decades of a very well funded and organized attempted societal overtake by the Religious Right. It has failed and is collapsing, but I think that’s where the recent rise in rebellion emerges.</p>
<p>I think all atheists and religious zealots should stand toe to toe with a true mystic of any spiritual or non-spiritual tradition who has shattered the perceived boundaries of human reality (Sufism, Christian mysticism, Kabbalah, Shamanism). Atheists I know only seem to attack religious fundamentalists. </p>
<p>Fish, meet your barrel.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More excuses. I have provided you the numbers to show that unless there is a wildly different population rate, evangelical Christians (small ‘e’, because I don’t mean the Christian denomination but rather the group from all denominations who are very in-your-face about their religion) will be much, much more prevalent than loud annoying atheists. You say it is otherwise. Fine. But the responsibility is yours to substantiate your claim, and saying “well I’ve seen lots of annoying atheists” just doesn’t cut it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You misinterpreted what I said - no surprise. What I was talking about was the worst atheists and Christians I have ever debated. The worst atheists always go on blathering about God being schizphrenic and a delusion etc., without much evidence. But they will always at least attempt to debate rationally. On the other hand, the most fundamental Christians I’ve ever debated respond along the lines of “I’m right, you’re wrong, and I know because the Bible said so, end of discussion.” I find that more annoying. Maybe you don’t. That’s all I was saying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Trying to bait you? Never tried, but didn’t have to - you’re already arguing with me. 
And I don’t’ sympathize with atheists, I am atheist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you’re damn right it’s interesting! It’s very interesting because it shows that atheists are incredibly discriminated against politically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And a lot of people used to not think blacks were people, much less people capable of being government officials, and look where we are now. I don’t care why people don’t think atheists are fit for government - the poll showed that an otherwise electable candidate would become unelectable if he said he was atheist. And that is to say unelectable with voters who otherwise would’ve voted for him! Not changing any policies or anything, stances on any policies, whatever. That is pure discrimination. In fact, it is basically the definition of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You must not follow the news. Huckabee announced in a speech that he thought the Constitution should be changed to be “consistent with God’s words.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re welcome to think that it sounds bogus, but it’s just more of your propensity to judge wide-ranging phenomena based on how you have observed them personally, and only on that criterion. It’s happened already, with your insistence upon judging atheists as a whole upon the ones you know, and it’s happening again when you think I’m wrong merely because you have no personal experience with the issue. People get beaten up for all sorts of things. Religious (non) faith among them. That’s just life, and your denying it because your head’s in the sand won’t make it less of a reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you don’t have to take responsibility for it, you have to read it and acknowledge my point that outright discrimination against atheists has reached to the highest levels of American government in the past, if not the present.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well then I’m up one piece of valid evidence on you, because you’ve provided no evidence whatsoever of your claims, and have only verified what you’re saying through basically anecdotal claims. If you disagree with me, find a valid source that says otherwise. That’s the way debate works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incorrect. I find overly vocal atheists extremely annoying. I find Christian fundamentalists more annoying because they won’t have a legitimate debate about their views, which almost any atheist will. But I carry on all sorts of arguments with stupid atheists, just not here because there are very few of the truly stupid ones here (they tend to populate Digg and Youtube videos). No, they annoy me plenty. You’re just incapable of debating my actual reasoning (because your entire argument is based on personal anecdotal observation) and so you try to pigeonhole me away as a militant atheist to explain my views. Sorry, not happening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you’re stretching that number beyond it’s limits. Atheists may be 15% of the population overall, but that doesn’t mean all Atheists everywhere can claim persecution. It might 5% of some small, rural town in Kansas, and it might be 25-30% in liberal San Francisco. Location also plays a part. I don’t have any invested interest in trying to define religious people for no reason, or persecute Atheists for no reason…but I’ve seen more loudmouth Atheists in my life than loudmouth, annoying Christians. And I live in the South, so one might expect I’d see more of the latter than the former. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right, I don’t. It’s funny how you parse certain issues and not others. I don’t know why you figure it’s rational debate if someone assumes to know God is schizophrenic, but they’re whole position is they don’t believe in God. Nonetheless, I’d take someone assuming they know the nature of God even though they don’t believe in him as being just as annoying as someone who just tells me I’m wrong because the Bible says so. And once again, I’d really need full disclosure on the Christian extremist argument. What are you exactly trying to debate? Why? What arguments do you use to make your point? Smugness can be annoying, but it also depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. I’m responding to you, but I’m not that into it. That’s why I’m just going to build off my first point and not try and out-Google you for statistics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still don’t buy it, but OK.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the rub with politics. People can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reason they want. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, you know, in God’s standards. Not the same thing. And even if he said that, uh, what are the odds that would’ve ever happened? Seriously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the story sounds too open for interpretation, and it sounds like something either somebody made up or something someone picked out because it sounds better than “they beat me up because they don’t like me”. At any rate, terrible if it did happen, but it sounds bogus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t take that as being discrimination, though. Distinguish between rhetoric and discrimination. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hooray for you. What if I said that maybe people wouldn’t vote for an Atheist because, if you look back through the 20th century, more people have been killed in the name of Atheism more than they ever have in the name of Christianity? Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kym Jong-Il…just to name a few. Maybe people figure a godless nation isn’t ideal after all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re not getting it. You agree with Atheists, so as long as the “G” word doesn’t come up, you’re fine having annoying discussions with them…because really all you’re doing is looking to make issue out of the 2% you disagree with. You don’t believe in the Christian faith, so if people start explaining it and throwing out God this and God that, you think they’re hiding behind it. But, like I’ve asked before: what do you expect? A godless discussion about a monotheistic religion? Get real, man. You want Christians to explain their beliefs, fine. Just don’t get all upset when they mention religious terminology. </p>
<p>And then you mention “Christian views”…Christian views about what? Why? Are you trying to understand them as a group of people to grow as a person, or are you looking for an “in” to insult their beliefs? I don’t get your motivation here. But I’m calling foul on this idea that Christians wont discuss their beliefs without alienating you. I think it’s you that needs to elevate your level of understanding BEFORE trying to engage them, or just stick to discussing them with fellow Atheists.</p>
<p>I’m one of those rare breeds of atheists who was basically raised from childhood to be an atheist. I have absolutely no real conception of spirituality or religion in my life nor do I care. It wasn’t until the age of 14 when someone tried to convert me that I even had any idea of what an atheist really was. If there was a word to describe just how apathetic I am towards issues of religion and spirituality, I would be that. Short of insulting my parents for their role in raising me without religion, I am rarely roped into these types of debates, they’re an excercise in futility. </p>
<p>I’m just glad I live in a country where religious views don’t play much of a role in shaping policy.</p>
<p>
Is that supposed to be a joke? Two of the people that are on that list aren’t even atheists (Hitler - Christian, Kim Jong-Il - thinks that he himself is God) and the rest did not kill in the name of Atheism.</p>
<p>yep. and it’s a really dubious statement to say that more people have died in the hands of Atheists. get real. go read some medieval history.</p>
<p>They killed in the name of a distinctly Atheist ideology: Communism.</p>
<p>And Hitler wasn’t a Christian, at least, not in the way most people are, or ever were, Christian. He believed in racial divinity, not “Christ”.</p>
<p>It’s always fascinating to me how Christians have embraced Capitalism yet scorned Communism as atheistic. Perhaps it is just the uncomfortable alignment with Republicanism and social conservatism that has forced it. I realize that some Communist leaders aligned their particular version of atheism with government, but the concept in general seems far more aligned with Christ’s teachings of caring for the poor and allowing others their journey without judgment, even if they contribute nothing.</p>
<p>I guess I just find it hard to imagine Christ telling people, “Come on, you’re not wealthy because you’re lazy and are waiting for a handout! There are no handouts! Get to work!”</p>
<p>Anyway - I guess that’s a little askew of topic.</p>
<p>Being religious must be nice. If someone rapes, pillages and/or steals in the name of your magic cloud man, you can convieniently make up the excuse that he didn’t REALLY believe in your magic cloud man.</p>
<p>If someone rapes, pillages and steals and follows a political ideology - you can just pull something out of the air and say he did it because he was an atheist. But! Have you ever noticed that history’s worst leaders have all had facial hair? How do we know that it wasn’t facial hair that drove them to insanity and not the lack of magic cloud men?</p>
<p>LOL 10char</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol nice rhetoric… live in the same world? Zomg, i live in the same world as Osama bin Laden, i’m probably becoming like him as i type this.</p>
<p>OP was very anti-religion anyway, implying it’s a bad thing that the atheists are evangelizing as much as the christians these days. 1) Very few people are affected by bloodless evangelizing, so it doesn’t really matter who is doing it more, and 2) it’s a huge stereotype… stereotypes are rooted in truth but everyone knows it’s the christians who feel the need to “spread the word”, less so the atheists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For all the starry-eyed religious crazy people caricatures, this one ranks pretty low.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, it’s actually a really good rhetorical technique to have many falsehoods in the same few words, so that the reader is overwhelmed and can’t identify them. I commend you, but i still see them… watching Expelled honed my skills. So:</p>
<p>1) 75% of USAns are Christian. You think christians think like that? Obviously not… so no, “people” (as in the general populous) do not think that atheism is the “height of logic”.
2) You basically just described a part of the Atheist platform—that all religions are BS until proven otherwise (“fairytales” or just folklore that can teach us about human nature)
3) “It’s not true.” Okay then, why don’t you tell us what makes it false? Nobody trusts you that much, Jason. You have to actually give reasons to back up your vast statements ^_^</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ehh… if you want to know why you’re wrong here, just look at the campaign trails Hilary, Obama and McCain are leaving. Each one goes through a religious phase, trying to put God on their side so that the American public will know that their beliefs are the same. I mean, look how controversial it is that there’s even a <em>tiny possibility</em> that Obama is Muslim. OMG, HOW HORRIBLE WOULD THAT BE…! It would be horrible because USAns tend to be xenophobic christians, lol. But whatever.</p>
<p>I think you’re right that atheism is gaining traction and becoming more well-known as an ideology. I certainly don’t see them evangelizing or putting down Christians, however.</p>