Julian Baggini, who as you know has been studying atheism, has a new piece in Financial Times, “Atheism in America” (reprinted in Slate as “In God we must: Why won’t the U.S. accept its atheists?”
It’s largely written for Brits, it seems, who may not realize how deeply religious America is, so it’s full of anecdotes similar to many we’ve heard before. And you’re familiar with the Pew and Gallup statistics showing that atheists are the most reviled “minority group” in America. Still, Baggini’s piece is a good remedy for those who don’t know religious America.
There is one part that might be controversial: the idea that atheists shouldn’t self-identify as such a reviled group.
Data backs up anecdote. A now famous University of Minnesota study concluded that Americans ranked atheists lower than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society”. Nearly 48 per cent said they “would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group” (many more than the next most unpopular category, Muslims, at 33.5 per cent). No wonder atheist groups talk of modelling their campaigns on the civil rights, gay and women’s liberation movements. It is not that they claim their persecution is on the same level but that they suggest the way forward requires a combination of organising and consciousness-raising. “We want people to realise that some of their best friends are atheists, some of their doctors, and lawyers and fire chiefs and all the rest of them are atheists,” says Dennett.
Not everyone agrees that this is the way to go. The neuroscientist Sam Harris is one of America’s best-known atheists; his 2004 book, The End of Faith, sold over half a million copies. He agrees that the situation for atheists is “analogous to being gay and in the closet for many people”, and it is striking that virtually every atheist I spoke to talked the language of being “out” or “in the closet”. Nevertheless, Harris argues “it’s a losing game to trumpet the cause of atheism and try to rally around this variable politically. I’ve supported that in the past, I support those organisations, I understand why they do that. But, in the end, the victim group identity around atheism is the wrong strategy. It’s like calling yourself a non-astrologer. We simply don’t need the term.”
I’m not sure I agree with Sam here, first because I don’t think many atheist organizations (or atheists) portray themselves as victims. Yes, we’re despised, but I think we have the same type of self-empowerment, the sense that we’re right, that infused the civil-rights and gay-rights movements. Also, Baggini belies this view himself when he reports why atheism is on the increase in America:
When it comes to identifying the main cause of atheism’s recent growth, most people agree. “It’s all about the internet,” says Silverman. “The reason that atheism is on the rise is because there is no way that a person who is an atheist can think they’re alone any more. When I was growing up, I was the only atheist I knew. I had to get on my bike, ride to the public library and take out the one atheist book that they had in the whole library: The Case Against God by George Smith. Now any atheist can go on Facebook or Myspace and find literally millions of friends.”
Johnson can testify to the power of the web. “I found the East Texas atheist website, and through that the Fellowship of Freethought, the Dallas atheists, the Plano atheists and all these different other groups and I’m like, ‘oh, I’m not alone’ … Just knowing that there are 400-plus people at least, maybe thousands, an hour and a half from here that have similar beliefs is enough that I don’t feel isolated.”
And what is that but trumpeting the cause and rallying around the variable?
In the end, perhaps the diminution of hatred for atheism will have to await a further expansion of Peter Singer’s “expanding circle.” Or, as Baggini puts it:
Meanwhile, the best hope for America’s atheists is that more people come to understand the message that one man posted on a sign outside his Florida home after he came out as an atheist and all his formerly friendly neighbours, apart from a Muslim family, stopped talking to him: “I’ve been an atheist all my life. Last year I was a nice guy.”
I’ve got no particular problem with “non-astrologer”, but of course it is just too narrow a term to be useful. I’m a non-catholic, non-baptist, non-muslim,… I’m a non-superstitionist.
You do know Sam just uses that as an analogy right? He might equally well have said -and has actually, on occasion- that we do not need a term for a non-believer in an alien Elvis, or a non-believer in faeries.
Of course, I do know know that. It is funny though, one really does see people use “non-catholid”.
The point is that it’s a poor analogy. Belief in astrology and Elvis sightings is nothing like belief in God in our society.
As a Brit (of sorts) living in the US, and an atheist, I have yet to face any hostility, but I hardly talk about my atheism. I think I still feel it is the default position and I don’t need to out myself, but I’m not in any godless closet. I have had a couple of mild debates with people, and most of it ends with, ‘well, you don’t seem to be THAT sort of atheist’, ‘which sort?’, ‘oh, the aggressive, religion-hating sort’. Meh, get a couple of beers in me and I can change all that 🙂
Ditto that – get me a beer or two or make the Catholic rapeocracy the topic and presto! One angry bloody atheist, at your service 🙂
I live in the Bible belt and most people I know understand that I’m an unbeliever and it really doesn’t matter to them. There are only one or two friends of friends that seem a bit hostile towards me that I suspect is due to my non-belief, but I might be wrong about that.
In a similar vein, one of my local Facebook friends had listed “Atheist” as his religious affiliation and one of his female friends only commented “Joe, atheist, really? Wow. Hey, my wedding is next weekend and I hope to see you there. Bye!” And that was the end of it, apparently a non-issue.
You might be lucky so far.
A family I heard of was transferred by their company to the deep south.
When it became known they were atheists, they had their cars and yard vandalized. Someone kidnapped their cat. It was returned a few days later with its neck broken.
The police did nothing. They petitioned the company for a transfer back north.
A female biology professor in east Texas got a lot of death threats and was eventually beaten up. She quit and now lives up north.
I don’t know how common this is, but I’ve heard a lot of atheists down south who say they are deep in the closet because they are afraid. Don’t blame them.
“I don’t know how common this is, but I’ve heard a lot of atheists down south who say they are deep in the closet because they are afraid. Don’t blame them.”
I’d say it was very, very uncommon, at least in the larger cities. I’ve lived here 49 years and have never heard of such a thing. Now, if some atheist were identified as such on the evening news, then all bets are off, but that seems to be true almost no matter where you are in the country.
I think the bolded is the pertinent point. Trying to paint this as a north/south difference, or a Bible belt/non-Bible belt difference, is way too simplistic. Living in metro Atlanta is different than living in a rural part of Georgia. And for that matter living in metro Minneapolis is different than living in rural Minnesota. And there are differences by suburb and even by neighborhood. Even the term “Bible belt” itself is almost too simplistic to be useful.
I think the events surrounding Jessica Alquist in RI kind of squash that idea that the bible belt is the only place where atheists experience hostility.
Just to be clear, have you actually spoken to a specific person who is in that situation? Or have you heard someone tell you about some people they heard about who are in that situation?
Not sure who you are directing that comment to.
But, like a lot of scientists, I’ve been getting death threats from fundie xians for over ten years. One a good day, PZ Myers has gotten over a hundred. Fundies toss off death threats like normal people say hello.
And ended up dealing with the FBI among other things. Death threats are felonies.
I know how they feel about people like me. They want to kill me. They tell me so quite often.
I no longer have an internet presence under my real name and never will again.
I grew up in a mid size town (pop 19K) in central Texas. I ‘came out’ as an atheist in 6th grade. I suddenly became very unpopular with kids who didn’t know me. I even had a few adults tell me I was going to burn in hell forever if I wasn’t saved.
My friends didn’t treat my any differently. I hung out with two groups, the nerdy D&D crowd I met in my smart kid classes. Most of whom were much smarter than me, and also atheists.
The other group was the poor kids In my neighborhood. I had quite a few Texican (TexMex, aka Latino) friends. They were all catholic, but most of them only went to church when their parents dragged them. We were all a bunch of little heathens. They didn’t treat me any differently either. Had quite a few black friends two, served with one of them in Iraq. His dad called us a bunch of little heathens (his sons included) because they and I didn’t want to go to church. But he still cared for them deeply.
I had no problems when I moved to Lubbock, TX for college, as it is a very worldly wise city with 3 colleges and a student population of around 40K drawn from all over the world (total pop then around 235K).
I know live in the DFW metroplex (Dallas/Fort Worth) You can still run into the logically deficit (religious) types here. You might get a few dirty looks, but they generally don’t say anything when they realize you’re not one of them because there are so many different religions here. I’ve got friends and acquaintances who are mormon, muslim, baptist, catholic, wiccan, budhist, agnostic, and atheists. I’ve even met a zoroastrian, lots of sikh, and a few satanists here.
I’d have to agree that its partly the ‘bible belt’ issue, and partly the size of the place you live in. If the majority of people around you agree with you on religion it re-enforces your belief. If you live someplace where you encounter drastically different opinions on belief and personal expression, you will be more open minded, or at least accepting of these differences.
No one has threatened me with anything worse than burning forever in an imaginary hot place. Jokes on them, I only spent 2 years in Iraq. However, I wasn’t trying to change something they held sacred. I can easily imagine someone here in Texas threatening violence, or secretly vandalizing or, committing violence against someone who tried to enforce the separation between state and religion. Heck, the klan is still around in hiding if you know where to look. Its alot better then when I was a kid, but we’ve got a long, long, long way to go.
That is true. But it isn’t that simple.
The other three most hated groups are:
Moslems
Fundie xians
The Tea Party
They should read their magic book more often. “As you sow, so shall you reap.”
I live in central Florida, which is quite religious. I have quite a few very good friends who cover the spectrum from fairly to very religious. Most of my coworkers are quite religious as well.
I’m quite open about my atheism, and I have NEVER had any unpleasant experience because of it.
I guess it comes down, for a great deal, to attitude. You don’t have to become an accommodationist in order to simply be nice to each other: I guess if I’d go around calling my religious friends ‘kooks’, ‘clowns’ and ‘ignorant nutcases’ .. I probably would have had a different story to tell.
Agreed. I was told by a fellow commenter here that my claim of not being an accomodationist rang hollow because I thanked Richard Dawkins for pointing out that some religious people actually make for good company. *gasp*
It’s possible to be civil with someone even when you disagree with them vehemently on a given topic, whether it’s politics, child-rearing, abortion, whatever else, and I don’t see that things should be different if that topic happens to be religious belief.
I like “shrill” atheism blogs and “hitchslaps” and such as much as anyone, but it shouldn’t be necessary to be the atheist equivalent of the obnoxious Westboro Baptist gang in order to avoid the dreaded accomodationism.
Right on, Chris. If you treat folks with courtesy & respect, that’s what you’ll most often get back. I live in a senior citizens complex & kind of off-handedly outed myself to a friend a week or so ago & guess what – we still hug when we meet in the hallway. I don’t go around trying to convert others. I leave the conversion games up to the rabidly religious.
No. The fundie xians created the New Atheists. Their toadlike leaders such as Robertson, Falwell, Hagee, Parsley, Osteen, etc. create more atheists in a day than Dawkins or PZ Myers do in a year.
They were who woke me up and drove me out of xianity.
The internet helps a lot though. I was barely aware that the fundies even existed much less the New Atheists.
And the “New Atheists” aren’t all that new.
Bertrand Russell. Mark Twain.
well, I must admit that the Robertsons, Falwells, etc. make me want to puke, but then, I don’t hang with rabid christians
The village in which my wife and I have lived for 12 years has an abundance of non-believers. This I know because 5 or 6 years ago, having discovered that the Dewey Decimal System, in use in almost every library in the civilised world, has no classification for atheism, I embarked upon a program of donating a book on this topic every month to our local library. My donations have slowed over the years, but my rewards have been most gratifying,in that I have received so many calls thanking me for the donations. Each book contains a book plate with my name. The village is small; consequently the phone book is small and I am easily found. Just thought I’d mention it.
Most libraries use 211.8 for atheism; it’s a bit of a fudge, but rather a lot of Dewey is like that. 212 is ‘Existence, knowability & attributes of God’, I think there should be a strong case for using a division of that.
I thought the Library of Congress system was replacing Dewey in American libraries.
The village in which I live is in Canada so the Library of Congress system does not apply, at least I hope it doesn’t
With statements like this, and his weak arguments for his non-scientific science clamis for “I swear it isn’t Utilitarianism” I think Harris is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
If astrologers made up 75% of the US population and were trying to infuse astrology into government, get it taught as a substitute for science class and claimed that all non-believers are immoral, hateful and angry then I think we might well declare ourselves non-astrologers.
I don’t think of atheists, myself included, as victims. I am an unabashed and vocal atheist, though atheism is but a part, a small part, of my worldview. I am first and foremost a secular humanist in my worldview. I do think the best thing atheists can do is to join the ranks of those who have become vocal about their atheism. Religion and Faith do not deserve the privileged position they claim in our culture, our politics and our national dialogue.
I have many friends in the US and have visited often. I never felt that not having religious beliefs mattered at the personal level. However, I did perceive that the position could be different for US citizens. Yes, there was friendship between atheists and Christians but there was always a slight distancing. It was if someone were a member of a club but was not fully signed up to its aims. The feeling I got was that you were not quite an American if you were an atheist. That disbelief in God was somehow equivalent to disbelief in America. Or as a contributor on another thread neatly put it – “Unamerican”.
You really can’t generalize too much about “America”.
This is a very large and diverse country. It is also highly divided by race, religion, ethnicity, politics, and geography. The wonder is that it hasn’t simply disintegrated. Yet. We fought a bloody civil war not that long ago and it doesn’t seem like it really ever ended.
Out here on the west coast, there really aren’t that many fundies. There are more Pagans and New Agers if anything.
From that perspective, the midwest is a foreign country and the deep south is in another universe.
I entirely agree. I’m referring mainly to Ohio, southern Illinois and Missouri.
No fundies in the West Coast? Have you *been* to Orange County?
Granted, the West Coast is more liberal than the bible belt, but there are plenty of pockets of fundamentalism.
No, I didn’t forget Orange county. Much as I would like to.
I also didn’t say “no fundies”, just not very many.
Most of the fundies are in out of the way places, out in the boonies and deserts or in the central valley. Most of my circle are New Agers and Pagans. Few are xians, none are fundies.
And we don’t have the incessant battles over evolution and abortion like much of the rest of the country. The Tea Party didn’t really do that well on the west coast while they did elsewhere. Oregon even managed to get rid of Senator Gordon Smith.
There’s no shortage of Christian fundamentalists on the west coast, they’re just outnumbered and surrounded in most places by various other folks. But, there are still plenty of places where they’re a force to be reckoned with, and I’ll bet they’re at least 20% of the population overall. Much of the remnant Republican strength in CA is due to them, IMO. If they were all raptured tomorrow, the Republicans would almost cease to exist out here. They’d still have Mormons, libertarians, conservative Catholics and the like but would hardly be able to win an election anywhere.
Lest we forget, a majority of voters in California voted to revoke legal same-sex marriage.
Yes, and sadly a significant fraction of those were Obama voters. Religion is still here and casting its usual irrational and mean-spirited influence. It’s not good yet, but I’d rather be here than, say, Texas. At least progress is being made. Maybe there too. But, rationality and respect for human rights are farther along here. Still lots more to do though.
God,I’m getting wordy, but, Veroxitatis, I truly believe that most people here, anyway, in a small town in upstate NY, character is more important than belief.
Jack van Beverningk
I also live in central Florida (Lakeland). Once they found out I was an atheist many of my co-workers would’nt give me the time of day.
I get internal e-mails with prayer letters and I’m often asked to donate to church groups or faith schools (which I refuse).
I try to be nice and friendly,however I do stand up once in a while to tell them if they are wrong about evolution or science.
Done that too (a few times, in the past) .. standing up and pointing out their errors ..
That never gets across well .. even when tried in a friendly way..
So the question becomes .. those that don’t give you the time of day or simply don’t like you … is that because you’re an atheist, or because you’re telling them they’re all wrong?
(It’s my experience that people don’t react well to being told they’re wrong, especially not when it’s about their deeply held convictions .. not matter what they are!)
To a large extent, it is the particular micro culture in which one finds oneself that get generalized into ‘the Bible belt’ or ‘the South’. People know I am an atheist, but I don’t make a practice of critiquing their beliefs.
The Jessica Alquist issue was beyond simply atheism. She probably could have been an open atheist till she left school with minimal issues. What she did is disrupt a social norm, which subverts group beliefs. Additionally this subversion was accomplished through bringing in a coercive outside agent (the court) to enforce her position. In human group dynamics, that is a major affront, bordering on treason (in the eyes of the community).
Of course she did not do anything actually wrong, but from a human behavior frame of reference, that result is not surprising.
yes!
Dare I say it? … The Internet was a godsend for atheists.
(and subscribing)
As the Internet is a communications medium, would it have been sent by Hermes/Mercury, Iris, Papsukkal, Raja Indainda, or Zaqar?
/@
Popsicle! Dude, I need to worship that guy because it gets fricken hot down here in Texas during the summer.
Yes again
Good on you. My taste is bad, but I love puns
Meanwhile, Gingrich was on (IIRC) CBS this morning whining that Obama had attacked Catholics. I didn’t catch how exactly he thought Obama had attacked Catholics, but it’s surely a sign of how much things have changed in 52yrs, when of course many Republicans were afraid of Kennedy just because he was Catholic.
Gingrich’s wife is often described as a “devout” Catholic. This is odd when you consider that she was in a sexual relationship with a married man (Gingrich) for six years.
…and then she married a divorced man.
yes, yes & yes
The administration has ruled that large Catholic institutions (like universities and hospitals) that take federal money have to provide their employees with standard healthcare features, including contraception.
The fact that a hospital can’t force it’s employees off of contraception is the Xian’s idea of being persecuted.
IIRC, the key point is receiving federal dollars.
IIRC, it has always been the law that religious organizations that receive taxpayer dollars have to obey US laws. This is an old quid pro quo.
If they want to give up federal taxpayer money, then they are free to discrimate and oppress to their twisted hearts content.
It’s really just the priests being slime molds and finding something to whine about. 98% of relevant Catholic women use birth control. 2% didn’t understand the question. While the priests want to whine about being persecuted, chances are the members themselves will go ahead and do what any responsible adult does, plan their families.
Slime molds are interesting and useful.
“It’s really just the priests being slime molds”
Well, no, it isn’t _just_ them. They help mold public policy with this whining. They manage to convince enough people, with various flavors of religious mindset, that this is a matter of conscience and that “believers are being told what to do by the government”. Loads of followers send messages to their congress person complaint about religious intolerance, completely ignorant of the actual issues at stake. Do not minimize the impact of this priestly whining.
It has little effect on the Catholic members. That is just a statistical fact.
Try reading what I wrote again. Once again, according to a survey by the US CDC, 98% of relevant Catholic women use birth control.
98% is a lot. The family size of US Catholics is identical to the national average at 2+.
You should see where this is going. Catholics don’t pay any attention to the priests. They’ve had centuries to learn how to ignore them. It’s all Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
There is another issue which is related. Recently the US RCC has lost 22 million members, 1/3 of the membership. Not only do Catholics not pay any attention to the priests, they are actively fleeing the church.
Yeah, the priests will whine. They will always whine about something no matter what. It’s their job, after all. They aren’t going to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced.
See? Slime molds don’t whine. They’re interesting and useful, and very very quiet.
It’s unfair to say priests are being slime molds.
Raven, I do not need to reread what you wrote. I understood it correctly the first time.
It is irrelevant whether Catholic churchgoers continue to use birth control or not. That’s not my point. My point is that sufficient numbers of them pay enough attention to form politically significant power blocks here in the US to influence our political landscape. Significantly. If you pay attention to the Republican primary you will see this laid out in all its dreadful glory. Half of the surviving contenders are Catholics of the sort you claim don’t matter. One of them openly advocates for outlawing contraception. The other one says the president has declared war on Christians because we don’t let Catholics push their “morality” down everyone’s throat. Two thirds of our Supreme Court are Catholics, five of which would likely overturn Roe v. Wade in a heartbeat.
Yep – in private they use birth control. But in public they might still respond to the bishop’s charge that Catholics are being persecuted.
this is quite different from personal relationships & you’re absolutely right — the government SHOULD promote family planning, as one of the most urgent problems facing the entire human & animal population of the earth is too many humans on board.
I read the MN study when it came out, but now I uderstand it. We-atheists-really don’t “share the smae vision of american society” as most Merkins. We don’t, and I agree with those surveyed who said as much.
A friend of mine and I were interviewed by Baggini for this article as he was traveling across our state. While we were not quoted in the article, it was an interesting interview. I think he was really not sure at first that we were being truthful on how bad it is to be an atheist in a southern state. Obviously as he did more interviews it appears he finally saw that we were not exaggerating.
Writing from the UK where, of course, the problem is far less acute than in the US, I think that what people define themselves as is, alas, important. The point made by Harris (and many others before him) that “atheist” makes as much sense as “a-fairist”, is a valid one, but does not address the question of which name would be appropriate. [Thankfully nobody (I know, anyway) calls him/herself a “bright” these days!] As far as I am concerned, there is a very simple solution, namely, to call oneself “secular”, which, of course, does not capture all the nuances of a lack of belief in various gods/superstitions, but does provide a common platform and a useful starting point for expanding on one’s specific convictions.
I suppose I should declare an interest here, as I am a member of the National Secular Society (www.secularism.org.uk).
I just lump everybody together as No Religions or the Nones.
This would include atheists, agnostics, Deists, and secularists.
The somewhat arbitrarily divided groups have far more in common with each other than with the xians especially the fundie perversion.
I don’t have a problem with Deists. They rarely threaten to kill me in the name of their gods, whose names they don’t know or spout verses from their magic book they don’t have while attempting to set up a theocracy.
I disagree with raven’s suggestion for two reasons: at a substantive level, it still defines people by negation (which is the crux of the “Harris objection”) and, at a practical level (at least in the UK) “Nones” can be easily mis-pronounced either as “Nonces” or “Nuns”, neither of which would really convey the message, would it?
Nobody is going to agree on a labe for Nones.
Whether you call them atheists, agnostics, brights, secularists, humanists, or metaphysical naturalists.
This is BTW, the exact same stupid and pointless game the xians play. There are now 42,000 different One True Sects in an ever expanding cloud of silliness. They frequently hate and occasionally kill themselves over fine points of doctrine.
Humans always seem to find ways to divide themselves up into tribes and fight over intangible things. It’s tribalism
Nones or No Religions sums it up nicely.
Atheism as a term has some serious baggage in this country and I don’t think there will ever be too many. IIRC, atheists count themselves as 2% or some infinitesimial number. The None run around 22% and are growing rapidly as people drop out of xianity. All this only matters if you want to be pure of heart and a tiny and ineffective minority forever.
I prefer to align myself with people who have common goals and a shared vision of the USA as a secular and progressive nation. I do not want to have sectarian battles with those people over basically nothing important.
How about “NOTA,” “None of the Above”
(Also known as “Notables.”)
But, seriously, until you choose to be a Tooth Fairy Believer or whatever. Not believing IS the default value.
I do not want/need a label.
My point exactly, Raven
Frankly, I don’t see why defining oneself as an atheist doesn’t make sense when one is outnumbered/surrounded by theists. Clearly, if nobody believes in fairies, calling oneself an afairist is nonsensical. However, that is not the world we live in.
Secularist works for me too, though, as do naturalist and humanist. We’re not limited to choosing a single label and sticking with it at all times. Some even call themselves apatheists in that they rarely give the whole god thing a passing thought.
I you self-identify as an “apatheist” surely that’s an indication that, even if your conclusion is that you couldn’t care less, you’ve given the whole god thing at least enough thought to determine that that’s an appropriate label … ?
People who really don’t give the whole god thing a passing thought wouldn’t have a clue about what [xxx]theist they were! 😉
/@
But you can be a secularist even if you believe in God or gods…
From your society’s website:
/@
A perfectly reasonable point of view
But there are, of course, religious secularists.
In all this discussion I see no mention of the term “agnostic”. It seems a perfectly appropriate term if used correctly. It is often used wrongly to signify a weak belief in the possibility of there being a God. But, of course, it has nothing whatever to do with belief. It merely signifies that whether or not there is a God, It is unknowable though any known process of acquiring knowledge.
Quite, but then it doesn’t say anything about your belief in God; if you’re an agnostic, are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?!
/@
You entirely miss the point and bastardise the term. Belief is for believers.
Really?
And knowledge is for knowers.
These are orthogonal.
/@
I’m an agnostic because I don’t know what theists are talking about, and I don’t think they do either.
Hard-core agnostic. God talk is apparently meaningless.
irrelevant
Well, no… God talk, combined with the vilification of atheists, is an important tool to control the masses, and nothing new. Plato supported this idea and argued that in order to control the populace, it had to be forced into believing the “vulgar” religion, and dissenters had to be imprisoned or executed. There was his “astral” religion, but that was a privilege for the ruling class. Also in ancient Rome it was believed that the population had to be kept ignorant to be governable. This is why the vilification of atheists has to be viewed as a direct attack on democracy. This is why I cringe when I hear Obama say “God bless,” it is profoundly antidemocratic. And this is why I call myself a “freethinker,” an older term (libre penseur, Freidenker) that includes the idea of democracy.
Well, from the perspective of the xians the agostic will fall under the category of atheists.
Well, leaving aside the fact that you don’t get to choose what words mean all by yourself, the definition of “agnostic” as the belief that the existence of god(s) is unknowable doesn’t solve the problem of identification. Simply being an “agnostic” does not answer the important question: do you believe god(s) exist and behave accordingly? In other words, belief and knowledge are different things.
Many believers will admit that they do not know there is a god, but that they have faith and follow certain practices (or feel guilt for not doing so), making them agnostic believers. Similarly, atheists who admit that a god may exist, though there is no good evidence for one, but do not do anything to worship this possible god and feel fine about it, would be agnostic atheists. You can tell which is which by what they say and do.
It seems yo me that you want agnostic to imply agnostic atheist, i.e., doesn’t know and doesn’t believe.
Just go back to the Greek root and you will avoid confusion.
If we were speaking Greek, perhaps. In general, knowing a word’s etymology doesn’t reliably help you understand its modern, idiomatic meaning: You’d be really confused if you went back to the Classical roots for accent, cauldron, invest, &c., &c., &c.
/@
OK, but the definition perfectly identifies my position (imho, that is) I really don’t care where that leaves me with others. It’s like been castigated for saying “niggardly”!
Ah, I get it now. You’re an asshole.
I’m sorry your acquaintance with the English language is so limited.
@ Allienne — Exactly!
/@
No name-calling, please!
–Mgmt.
I’m watching the Super Bowl. Why I’m watching it, and why I’m interested, is inexplicable within the no-free-will philosophy, because, according to that, the result is determined. The quartebacks, Brady and Manning, have no choice about what play to call or whom to throw to. Laplace’s demon could report the final score, not only right now, but within a nanosecond or less (much less) after the Big Bang.
I’m a little sorry to say this, but you people are crazy.
“I’m a little sorry to say this, but you people are crazy.”
And yet, we’re not the ones posting in the wrong thread.
+1
yeah
I am sorry to say this, but you are clueless. Preditermined by no means indicates predictable.
36 seconds left. No time outs. 4th and 16. First down, made it.
Brady spikes the ball with 17 seconds left.
Now down to nine seconds.
Two hail Mary’s left. Now one.
FAIL. Giants win. Big fucking deal. All pretermined. Yawn, says Laplace’s demon.
Go read up on CHAOS THEORY a little bit, then come back to talk.
“Pre-determined””??
A “reason-free” narrative by you, Stephen.
You might as well said, “Both teams won the SuperBowl, because both had jerseys with white as a color.”
Stick with the sports internet pages.
Atheists may be more reviled than gays. But do atheists suffer as much as gays?
I agree with your point here.
The answer is likely not, but only because people cannot tell that you are an atheist. That is, until you open your mouth like Jessica Ahlquist.
I’m afraid I don’t see your point. Is it that we should just let the religious run the show until gays are treated fairly?
Me, I’m fighting for the gays, also women, and people oppressed by unjust laws, by fighting against religion.
I read a detailed study of this. People were asked to rate their perceptions on several psychological scales.
Homosexual men scored low on a personal distaste level, but not a trust level, atheists did not score so low on personal distaste but scored low on trust levels.
Basically the conclusion was that while the people didn’t care to socialize with gays, they would rather have a gay politician than an atheist one.
Well, the Belgians are lucky, they have a Prime Minister who is openly gay and an atheist (openly as well).
I am new to this blog, so I ask for forgiveness in advance if I have misunderstood the point of Why Evolution Is True.
The brief discussion about naming (secular, agnostic, atheist, etc.) seems to me to miss a crucial point, namely, the fact that if there were people (as inevitably there will always be) who choose to believe in whatever unfounded and irrational “thing” AND did not try to impose their views on the rest of society, there would be no need for a blog such as this. It is the threat to the fundamental separation of religion and civil society that surely motivates most atheists/agnostics/etc. to act in defence of their views.
I agree that the issue of naming is of second-order importance, but I still think that “secular” provides the most inclusive definition of people concerned with the above separation. Of course, one can be both secular and believe in god, but I would want these (in my view deluded) individuals as allies in the fight against the encroachment of irrationality and superstition into civil and political society.
Yeah, that is it. If the fundies would just stay under their rocks and tell their lies and oppress their women, no one would care. Free country and all that.
They won’t do that.
The fundies are either going to take over our society and destroy it or destroy US xianity. Look at their political party the Tea Party/GOP. All their candidates are xian Dominionists of one sort or another with the possible exception of Romney. Gingrich is a obvious sociopath, Satanorum is a broken human, Bachmann is cognitively impaired.
We are one election away from catastrophe.
Dead on, raven.
I’m no longer a xian because of the fundies, but an anti-xian. This was necessary for my survival and continual existence.
Manfredi, this isn’t a game for us.
1. I’ve been getting death threats for over a decade. Most are trivial, a few have been more determined. Two were arrested by the FBY. Eight of my colleagues have been assassinated over the last few decades.
2. Two of my friends are now dead, killed in Iraq.
3. My 401(k) plan (US retirement plan) is also dead. Along with tens of millions of others. Bush managed to damage the economy so much that the Federal Reserve projects the recovery to be in 2018, at the earliest.
4. Our economy also took a hit during our christofascist presidency. It’s not dead but it has been flailing for years and not moving much.
5. Hardly a day goes by in the USA without a xian atrocity or two. Killing kids with faith healing, bombing a family planning clinic, trying to illegally inject religion into public schools, attacking Mosques or synogogues, and on and on.
So Manfredi, I’m sure you mean well. So go ahead and call yourself whatever you want. Call me whatever you want. I routinely get called baby killer, evilutionist, demon ridden, an abomination unto the lord, godless atheist, and anything else they can think of.
The fact is, I’ve got things far more important and immediate to worry about than labels.
Dear raven, I was truly shocked by your personal experiences and truly glad that I live in a country where, in spite of having an established church and lacking a constitution that guarantees the separation between state and religion (at least in theory!), the threats to “ordinary” non-religious people (i.e., not Salman Rushdie) rarely escalate beyond a shrug of disdain.
For the record, I have yet to meet either in person or in writing anyone who is more convinced of the fraud of religion(s) than I am, but, at least from where I am standing, this is not really relevant, as surely one cannot object to people entertaining religious delusions PROVIDED they remain a matter of personal preference and do not spill into civil society. In other words, the enemy, in my humble opinion, is organized religion and in mobilizing a front as wide as possible against it the banner of secularism stands a better chance than any of the alternatives currently on offer. But this may not be true for the US, I just do not know enough.
as a non-believer, myself, i don’t really care for the atheist camp. reminds of that whole silly straight edge thing. i simply loathe having to wear such a title around my neck. love sam harris, though. dude’s usually on point.
A bit of self-loathing here?
probably. far removed from lack of belief, though.
Dude, are you REALLY comparing atheists to the civil rights movement? Really? I realize that people used to be burnt at the stake, but then, people also, rather recently, used to be lynched here in the USA. When your opponents start setting upon your peaceful gatherings with dogs and firehoses, and burn crosses in your yards, then maybe you can make your comparision. Otherwise, get over your horrible hubris already.
Yes and no. Nobody is equating the situation of Atheists in America with the plight of people confronting the lynch rope. But that doesn’t mean that atheist aren’t a reviled group and that working to change this by emulating the civil rights movements (and other social justice movements) is wrongheaded.
And if you think racism and anti-atheism isn’t equivalent in a global sense, then I’d recommend that you open an international newspaper, or get out your Google machine and look around. Here’s an example from the past weekend.
You throw “Hubris” thrown as a slur at people who take this seriously. To my mind that is uninformed, at best.
aarghh. If I could un-type, I’d remove the superfluous “thrown”. Note to self: read again before clicking “Post”!
Superfluous “thrown” aside, very well said!
/@