Atheism in the USA
 

This reads like something out of The Onion! I'm horrified

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28616115

No wonder my daughter has reported some odd reactions when she says she's atheist -I had no idea there was such a taboo, that people had to "come out" as atheist and many choose not to. Guess I had my head in the sand here in my little college town

Pew says That seems awfully low to me, even if they define adult as over 21. And made me wonder, if that's true how do they come up with the money for a TV channel. Turns out it's a streaming feed from NJ on Roku, which explains it.

I had fitters, laborers, and Operating Engineers we hired in Washington tell me, "If you're not Mormon, you don't work, unless they're desperate". It's not right but it's near impossible to prove the person hiring, awarding scholarships, or handing out supermarket samples, is discriminating unless they say so... in front of witnesses. Anyone who has ability to make choices will probably be influenced by personal prejudices.

It's lower than 2%, here are the "official" stats from Pew

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

ya see that's where my sheltered existence here comes in to play. I had no idea it was so few. Most of my friends are atheists. Not ardent, campaigning ones, but don't make a secret of it. Some are members of churches/temples for social/network reasons. but now I wonder...

Try being Orthodox Christian or ANY religion in any US public school system, any college/university paradigm. Atheists rule in every mainstream college and university.

Maybe you're trying to break into private colleges with publicized biases, but otherwise, monster ... what do you expect? If 'odd reactions' at this point in your kids' scholastic careers are freaking you out, you have it good.

I had the opposite experience. My kids had a religious identity and that was NOT okay in the sports world. Atheism was all that passed muster. Everyone has a different pass through the sports mill; personally, I don't think the whole show is worth a damn.

OK, this makes more sense.

Really?

Or this does: people call themselves an affiliate, but when pressed...

http://cellar.org/2014/believein.png

Here's the other thing: militant atheists are at least as annoying as militant evangelicals, usually moreso because they're angry about it. So even if someone doesn't believe, they usually don't want to be associated with those assholes on the internet.

I once accidentally made a coworker think I was a devout Christian, because he was ranting about something to do with religion and I was just nodding my head and trying to change the subject. He thought I was uncomfortable because my beliefs were being challenged; the truth was I was just uncomfortable because he was being an asshole. The rule is, you don't talk about politics or religion in polite company--and anyone who breaks that rule risks being ostracized as socially inept, even if everyone in the room agrees with him. Atheists are more likely to break that rule, is all.

My atheism rarely comes up in conversation, but when it does I usually get shit thrown my way.

I never try to defend myself (got no reason to) but I always end up distancing myself from folks like Dawkins who I think is "militant" (as described by Clodfobble).

I say, 'I'm indifferent to your *[fill in the blank]...I got no call to insult your religion but I also got no reason to adhere to it...you go be the best [fill in the blank] you can be and leave me alone to not be [fill in the blank]'.

Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.

When it doesn't, all a sane body can do is walk away.









*christianity, judaism, islam, wicca, agnosticism, "militant' atheism, democratism, republicanism, and on and on and on...

Very well said, henry quirk. I agree completely.

I question the self-reporting of "absolutely certain."

I think people who consider themselves religious are going to under-report their struggles with faith. If you check a box that says you aren't "absolutely certain," that's a very official act and God's gonna know. It's not some secret thought nagging you in the back of your mind. You are standing up and being counted, and if God really exists, you will burn in Hell for your lack of faith. So I think the only people who will check that box are the ones who are fairly confident that there is no God to send them to Hell. The people who are on the fence are going to be afraid of pissing God off, so they won't check that box, just to be on the safe side.

So I think the number of secret doubters is way higher than what's reported.

The flaw in your reasoning is, you assume everyone who believes God exists, believe God monitors every thought, and every action, of every person.

It's true. I did assume that.

God only does that with atheists.

If it was just a matter of personal belief I'd agree with that. But it isn't. Christianity (in my country and yours) is a very powerful lobby. In the US you have a theoretical separation of church and state - yet a large amount of policy and law gets made on the basis of religious lobbying.

In Britain we have no theoretical separation of church and state. Our upper house (the House of Lords) is made up of the Lords Temporal and the Lords Spiritual. Christian leaders (bishops and archbishops) get seats in our legislature. They are a powerful voice. State funded schools in Britain must, by law, be run according to a 'broadly Christian ethos' and schools are supposed, again by law, to have a daily act of worship (though this has been interpreted in looser and looser ways to basically mean an 'assembly' for many schools). Terrestrial broadcasting licences carry with them an obligation to include a minimum quota of religious programming. And we still have anti-blasphemy laws.

As in the US, the main lobby for changes to abortion laws to make them much stricter, and the main lobby against changes in law to allow assisted suicide for the terminally ill come from religious groups - primarily Christian.

On an individual level each person's faith is their own. But as long as they get to shape the world I live in, and have a constitutional power beyond anything I have in my lack of faith - then the 'live and let live' ethos has already been fundamentally compromised.

"the 'live and let live' ethos has already been fundamentally compromised"

Oh, I agree.

And when Joe or Joanne refuses to let me be (by way of waving a pamphlet in my face, or blocking my exit, or legislating against me) I do what any self-respecting anarchistic sociopath does: I break the law.

If I can't walk away, I'll make it so you'll want to let me walk away.

And -- no -- I won't do it through organized efforts within the system...that's the chump's way.

Wave that pamphlet in my face and I may make you eat it.

Block my exit and I may hit you in the head.

Legislate against me and *I will certainly break those laws.









*speaking of: how’s the ACA goin’ for you folks?

ACA?

Affordable Care Act: sumthin' I'm not complying with.

Ahhhh. Gotcha :)

Directly related to this thread:

AC/DC's album "Highway To Hell" was released 35 years ago this month.

Just sayin'.

:cool:

fify

This is an interesting debate to me, only because so many people seem interested. I am pretty sure no one in australia (except maybe immigrants) care much what anyone else does religiously. In fact, our PM cops a truckload of shit for his religious leanings. Most Australians are very anti-religionintheworkplace type beliefs. Of course, if you want your kid to go to a catholic school, they have to be catholic and baptised etc.

This is very true and one of the reasons they hold disproportionate power is they are fighting for the status quo.

The states were usually made up of one or two religious sects who'd learned to get along, but they didn't trust the other states(sects), so resisted uniting. They liked the idea of splitting from England but saw no reason the couldn't be a small country, like in Europe.

Everyone from constitutional scholars to school children have at least a rough idea how the documents were written and rewritten to get everyone to support the idea of a United States. They had to guaranty the Federal government would not interfere with the religious practices already in place, no official religion, complete separation of church and state.

However, the Federal government was tiny and had little effect on day to day life. The state and local laws, which actually controlled life, were enacted by groups which were far from diverse. So when the law says you must attend church on Sunday and carry a gun to protect your family, nobody bats an eye. Same for a law saying you must be a God fearing man to hold public office.

In days of olde the people lived their religion, and made damn sure their neighbors did too, or they would be invited out of town. So all this theoretical blather about maintaining the lifestyle declared by the founding fathers is a bullshit diversion. That never existed except in history classes that lied. What they really want is to go back to when everybody in town was the same color/religion/education.

Uh-oh, some of y'all are going to burn. I am going to tell 9-6 on all of you.

"some of y'all are going to burn"

I live in south Louisiana...it's summer...already burnin'.

We have had a cooler than normal summer so far in MS. Weather patterns seem to be changing

I am going to step up on a soap box. I have struggled with issues of faith most of my life. I finally decided to make a concerted effort because it gives me support and helps guide me to being a better man within the community.

I am a Messianic Jew studying Buddhism. I guess you could say I am trying to hedge my bets. I hope you all realize I am teasing when I make comments about as in "some of y'all are going to burn".

Well, we've talked before in here about the way Britain, though Church and state are intimately linked at every level, is actually pretty irreligious in the main. There is no stigma attached to atheism. far more likely to be seen as odd if you profess a strongly evangelical faith than if you profess atheism. Most Christians tend towards the tea and jam social kind of faith.

But Christianity is protected in a way atheism (or indeed most other religions) is not.

I tend to assume you're teasing most of the time :p

I wonder if this is precisely why the British population as a whole has been able to settle into being only socially religious: no underlying fear of oppression, no bogeyman for the more aggressive individuals to use to motivate the masses at the polls. God's already protected by the government, so he doesn't need the average person evangelizing for Him.

Am I the only Dwellar that's singing "A-the-ism in the U.S.A." to the tune of "R.O.C.K in the U.S.A." by Camp John Cougarmellen?

Just wonderin'...

I've been singing it to the tune of Born in the USA

I've been singing it to Anarchy in the UK.

Atheism for the USA! It's coming sometime and maybe...

I don't know nuttin'. I'm a fence sitter extraordinaire, and not proud of that fact. And I don't think having faith 'just in case' constitutes having any kind of faith at all...so that's not where I'm coming from.

BUT, I went to an outdoor big churchy concert tonight and it was a beautiful evening and the musicians and singers were fantabulous and kids were playing and people were be-boppin' along and it was very peaceful and yet very rockful and I needed that.

On the way home, just as I left, my radio station played Spirit in the Sky. That was one of the songs mom chose for her funeral and it was fitting.

So, real or not, I sometimes find comfort in the joy religion CAN bring, when it's not all about sinning and hellfire and 20 Hail Marys and ten Our Fathers.

Do you think that could change during your lifetime?

DEI GRATIA REGINA FIDEI DEFENSOR [By the grace of God, Queen, Defender of the Faith]

... Charles, Prince of Wales, the present heir apparent, expressed a preference to change the style and the spirit should he succeed to the throne as expected. He commented in 1994, "I personally would rather see [my future role] as Defender of Faith, not the Faith". ...

"real or not, I sometimes find comfort in the joy religion CAN bring"

If every one, on both (any) side, could embrace this... ;)

"We have had a cooler than normal summer so far in MS."

Runnin' consistently in the mid 90s here.

Couple that with the still-lingering effects of heat exhaustion from a few years back and I'm one miserable Quirk.

I think it is time to revive this thread.

You know - when \i announced to anyone who would listen, about the age of 13 or 14 or so it was received with mostly muted disinterest, occasional mild interest and not much else. It wasn't a big deal. The only people who cared were Gran - because she was a devout Catholic, and Dad - because he knew it would break Gran's heart. Even then Gran treated it as teenage rebellion that I would grow out of and Dad just didn;t want me to say anything to Gran.

So, it's been a revelation to me just how difficult it is for some people to break away from their church - and how deeply indoctrinating some people's religious background is.

I know the situation is more fraught in the US where atheism is sometimes viewed with suspicion as a kind of anti-Americanism - but it also affects a lot of people in the UK too (Jehovas Witnesses are just as separatist and just as likely to shun apostate family members in the UK as in the US).

I'v been watching a lot of really interesting atheist youtubers - and have become a lot more aware of the levels of indoctrination at play in some of the more extreme sects of Christianity and the damage it can do to people and families - and it has also made me reassess some of my own assumptions of Christ as a primarily benevolent and loving figure and Christianity as a source of a great deal of good. Much of which stems from my own vaguely Christian schooling (childhood prayers and bible story colouring books etc).

Some of what I am seeing is quite concerning. We notice it when it comes from Islam, but when it's a fundamentalist Christian homeschooling their child to disbelieve science and accept that the first loyalty of anybody is to their Lord over and above any family member, or that women were created for the sexual pleasure of their husband, somehow that doesn't feel the same as the power of Allah and the misogyny of the Qu'ran.

I just watched a youtube video in which a Mom (clearly a loving mother) explains why she decided to home school her children. In this video she says at one point that the purpose of homeschooling is not to raise smarter kids (though she hopes that will be outcome) - the primary reason to homeschool is: 'the world is loud and it completely drowns out the voice of the Lord. It sidetracks, it distracts, it silences the spirit of the Lord [...] '

She lists various benefits, some of which I think any parent would relate to (not having evening conflicts over homework and being able to squeeze the entire school day into 8-2pm leaving more time for family things) but she then explains that her intention when planning out her school year and lessons is not that they master so many types of mathematical skills, or be able to memorise the constitution (though she hopes they will achieve that) - instead when she consults God for guidance and reassurance for the decision she has made, she ' kept hearing through the spirit that she was to 'help her children become disciples of Jesus Christ'

Watching the video I was struck by a number of things - 1st is that she is a deeply committed parent making huge sacrifices and engaging in really difficult stuff to do right by her children. 2nd is that she is setting her children up to face the world with a moral code derived from the writings of Iron Age men and most likely in ignorance of scientific facts.

One of my favourite atheists on Youtube:

Theramin Trees was raised Jehovah's Witness and then broke away from the church.

He makes videos about indoctrination and rationality and targets both religious and political dogma. But he does them so beautifully




This is a 2 part essay 'Debunking Prophets'

We are tangential to some social circles where I am occasionally required to defend why I don't homeschool the kids. In my experience, the lack of evolutionary knowledge and misogynistic moral code are not actually the most pressing problems for homeschooled-for-church-reasons kids. It's the lack of socialization cues from people who don't love you as much as mommy does. Plenty of these parents never tell their kids that their jokes aren't funny, or that their armpits stink, or that they are just being annoying and need to stop talking now, and the benignly narcissistic self-image they develop is way harder to fix than a few knowledge gaps.

Their parents taught them the church was a solid sanctuary and comfort no matter what. Like any placebo, if you believe it then it works for you.

Now their kids are parents in a world were the news will give you the heebie-jeebies, and the technical changes leave you befuddled but suspicious. The only thing they have that's solidly unchanged is their stand byplacebo. So being loving parents they want to pass that to the kids.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc, are all fine in themselves. The problem is religion, like government, labor unions, or any organization, even an un-organization like Lord of the Flies island, are all susceptible to power grabs by
bad people for personal gain. To work properly everyone involved has to actually be involved and not passive to this constant danger.

The following was written by Diana Athill late in life. A smart broad. :thumb:

I don't believe in atheism.

Ya--ya see what it is that I did there?:D

If the idea of God is just a representation of the sum total of all human potential through all time, the top of the hierarchy of values, and a word for the (mostly Darwinian) forces that guide us, that we cannot hope to completely understand, I believe in all of that.

It looks like everybody just made a human mistake and over-personified that concept, and now God is "Sky Daddy Who Controls Everything And Judges Us". If instead of that, God is everything above, then we are the judges all along, and what is Godlike is what best serves our potential.

We have doubled life expectancy, answered a lot of the problem of pain, managed to harness the creation of life, describe the physical rules that govern the world... from the perspective of someone 1000 years ago, WE are God. We answered our own prayers. We don't have the cures for all of our own ills -- after centuries of the Enlightenment, we are still extremely confused. (Which is very interesting!)

But we try to advance humanity's future. Even as we won't be there to experience it. That is service towards God, the representation of humanity over time.

I agree very heartily with the general shape of your take on what God is.

One idea that I wish that more religious organizations would embrace, and make a real effort to encourage in their devotees, is that reconciling scientific knowledge with religious concepts doesn't devalue the moral and practical applications of religion; and if we are genuinely interested in religion being a tool of betterment for the world, we should embrace anything which makes it stronger and more resonant with people who were born in the 20th/21st century.

The Iron Age was a long time ago, we should stop trying to live in that mindset. Let religion be a strong force for moral leadership in the world-- TODAY'S world, the world WE live in.

I like that, Undertoad. It's a nice thought.

An examination of childhood indoctrination:

Yessir. If they are just stories, and we recognize them as stories, we can learn from them, even if they are scientifically inaccurate. (We have learned almost everything from stories based in fiction!) The problem is as Dana points out, the indoctrination is to the Sky Daddy format, which is way more useful for the indoctrinatin' part.

It's like, I am down to call myself Christian, if it just means figuring that the Christ story is to the good, and calls you to act like the dude. But Christians won't have it, they need you to believe in the physical resurrection, before they let you in the club. JFC, wouldn't it be an even better story if Christ could not rely on supernatural magic powers? That's why we like Batman...

UT just won the thread.

and Joan of Arc. ;)

God finished speaking long before mankind even existed. George Burns (as God) got it right. He had defined the rules, principle, concept, and reality. We do with it what we want. God says nothing more. Everything is already defined. It is up to us to learn it, make of it what we want, and either advance mankind or 'wreck shit'.

God does not care. Otherwise he would be a corporal being - not a god. Gods do not have silly things such as emotions (ie love hate contempt, anger). Only false idols have and do that.

One who ignores things such as science and math is ignoring what God said long ago. They who foolishly stop searching for more of what God said long ago are drowning out God's words. George Burns accurately parodied what God really is.