Persecuted Atheists Around the World

[Michael Hardner]

A fine leap to a conclusion there. I give it an 8.5, the crooked French judge rates it a 6. I hope that decreased reliance on ancient texts as an answer key and moral compass will lead to an increase in evidence based reasoning and humanism; but, you never can tell what will transpire.

Your original quote: I believe religion and its political power is at odds with this and that the situation will only improve with declining enrollment.

It still sounds to me that religion causes disuse of reason according to this logic.

It would be like calling theists a group. There are several very different groups of theists, like Catholics, Sunnis, Jains, Sikhs, etc. but theists aren't a group. Atheists are hard to organize because the only common position the label requires is a lack of belief in deities. There are no atheist beliefs, dogma, rituals, etc. There are groups atheists can join that are dedicated to promoting things like the separation of church and state. I think the American Atheists have a whopping 2,500 members.

You`re just being combative. Of course Theists are a group. Of course they organize. Of course Atheists organize.

As for the rest of your post - you are in a quandry, philosophically. You can't claim religion is a core problem, a root problem and they also claim that religiosity itself doesn't cause problems. To me, religion can be used as a tool so that it feeds on ignorance - in the way any belief system can be used in this way.

People are tribal - it's in their DNA. Religion can be subverted to take advantage of that urge in the same way patriotism and other belief systems can.

Yes I doubt weddings in Indiana make much of a difference. However, preventing stem cell research or access to birth control in Africa probably does.

Work on the issue at hand, then. Address the issue of philosophy vs. harm reduction directly.

[Michael Hardner]

In North Carolina, after an atheist named Cecil Bothwell won a seat on a city council in 2009; some of his defeated opponents complained and cited the state constitution as a reason to have him disqualified. The city recognized the futility of attempting legal action and Bothwell was allowed to serve, however I think the fact that this even happened illustrates a problem.

I agree. We're at a point where religious intolerance is happening both ways. It's a travesty that this could even be considered possible. Luckily, it didn't come close to being considered.

And it's yet another advertisement for tolerance and reason on both sides.

Symbolic or not, it's offensive and wrong.

-k

Absolutely.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not legislative reluctance. It's legislative ignorance. Nobody knows about these laws.

I generally agree with you. However her example shows that people did know about them.

[msj]

Yes, exactly. I'll reiterate: so what. It's not fair but how much of a priority should it be really ?

Sort of. If they PASSED such a law today then I would think it was quite unfair. Just as marriage laws should be cleaned up to remove interracial marriage prohibitions. If they're on the books, they should be removed but the fact that they still exist doesn't mean that they're still enforced.

My point here is that these are old laws, that will be removed when the time comes.

Well, in Indiana why not now?

Oh, right, because it's too "minor."

If the law is unfair then it is unfair and the passing of the law should not be relevant.

I`ll reiterate my point from above:

"the existence of the law says nothing about the power of religion in today's world, which I would argue is waning."

Well, if it is waning then one would expect that the law in Indiana would have allowed for "secular celebrants" rather than maintain the status quo of religious privilege.

Wait a second - what`s going on here ? Why are you personalizing this to me ? It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs - I'm not sure how that slipped in there. If you think that it does, you're just wrong.

It has everything to do with our personal beliefs.

I believe in separation of church and state and, as such, think it sensible for a "secular celebrant" to be the same as a priest/rabbi/pastor for performing marriage ceremonies.

You take religious privilege for granted so it's a "minor" thing and there are more important things that should be done etc etc.

That is, the usual excuses to continue the usual discrimination.

[Mighty AC]

As for the rest of your post - you are in a quandry, philosophically. You can't claim religion is a core problem, a root problem and they also claim that religiosity itself doesn't cause problems.

The political power of religion causes problems. Bug nutty, crazy beliefs themselves do not. I know a Wiccan that believes in the power of crystals, homeopathy, reflexology, Reiki, etc. That community does not have the power to get qi or universal energy into science texts, hence they do not bother me. I will always feel Christian beliefs are silly, but if they were benign politically they would be ignored.

I don't believe religion causes ignorance in the same way I don't believe political parties or sports teams cause ignorance. However, individuals devoted to such groups often display willful ignorance. It seems the devotion itself causes the problem.

Of course Theists are a group. Of course they organize. Of course Atheists organize.[/Quote] Theists are a group like politicians are a group. They organize around specific parties, religions or sects but not as a whole. Since, atheists do not have a belief system they are much harder to organize on a large scale.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, in Indiana why not now?

Oh, right, because it's too "minor."

If the law is unfair then it is unfair and the passing of the law should not be relevant.

Legislation takes a long time to get through ... if they could do it quickly then sure let`s do it. If it`s going to take too much effort then leave it.

Well, if it is waning then one would expect that the law in Indiana would have allowed for "secular celebrants" rather than maintain the status quo of religious privilege.

That would require a NEW law. There`s already a way for secularists in Indiana to get hitched so ...

It has everything to do with our personal beliefs.

No it doesn`t. You are giving me an argument that is quite apart from what you personally want - it`s about rights and fairness. It`s not about you wanting something to the exclusion of everything else.

My position on this has nothing to do with my beliefs, and certainly I`m acting against my own benefit in some of the arguments I`m making here.

I believe in separation of church and state and, as such, think it sensible for a "secular celebrant" to be the same as a priest/rabbi/pastor for performing marriage ceremonies.

Me too, but I don`t think it needs to be a priority.

You take religious privilege for granted so it's a "minor" thing and there are more important things that should be done etc etc.

That is, the usual excuses to continue the usual discrimination.

You are totally missing the point - I have nothing personal at stake in my position here. Again, I will reiterate that I am arguing for things that are against my personal benefit. I have no religious privilege and so I suspect your entire argument is on the wrong footing if you`re finishing on that note.

[Michael Hardner]

The political power of religion causes problems. Bug nutty, crazy beliefs themselves do not.

How about the beliefs that Jews control the media or that vaccines are a government plot ?

I know a Wiccan that believes in the power of crystals, homeopathy, reflexology, Reiki, etc. That community does not have the power to get qi or universal energy into science texts, hence they do not bother me. I will always feel Christian beliefs are silly, but if they were benign politically they would be ignored.

I understand this position. The problem is with the poor thinking, though, not in the fact that many of those who hold superstitious beliefs are religious. Religion is not the core problem - do you see ? There are millions of religious people who believe in evolution, same sex marriage, abortion and so on.

I don't believe religion causes ignorance in the same way I don't believe political parties or sports teams cause ignorance. However, individuals devoted to such groups often display willful ignorance. It seems the devotion itself causes the problem.

I think the problem was there to begin with. You'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

Theists are a group like politicians are a group. They organize around specific parties, religions or sects but not as a whole. Since, atheists do not have a belief system they are much harder to organize on a large scale.

List of Interreligious Organizations

[Shady]

This thread is the athiest pity party.

[Mighty AC]

How about the beliefs that Jews control the media or that vaccines are a government plot ?[/Quote]My brother's, roommate's, cousin's friend, knows a guy that knows a girl who had the flu shot and 6 hours later spontaneously combusted!! They are also crazy beliefs, but not core issues in my opinion.

I understand this position. The problem is with the poor thinking, though, not in the fact that many of those who hold superstitious beliefs are religious. Religion is not the core problem - do you see ? There are millions of religious people who believe in evolution, same sex marriage, abortion and so on.[/Quote]If those people are a part of a religious group using its power to insert superstitious beliefs into policy then they are a part of the problem.

I'm sure there are CPC members that do not believe in weakening environmental protection or subsidizing fossil fuel production, but they still support a group with the power to do harm.

I think the problem was there to begin with. You'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise.[/Quote]I suspect it would be hard to prove that a tendency towards willful ignorance precedes devotion as well.

[Mighty AC]

This thread is the athiest pity party.

We've been discussing ignorance; sounds right up your alley.

[Michael Hardner]

My brother's, roommate's, cousin's friend, knows a guy that knows a girl who had the flu shot and 6 hours later spontaneously combusted!! They are also crazy beliefs, but not core issues in my opinion.

Your quote, again:

"The political power of religion causes problems. Bug nutty, crazy beliefs themselves do not. "

People attach themselves to the dominate culture memes of the day. Madmen blame religion, political personalities, or satan for their madness. None of these things are the actual problem. There are many reasonable and rational people who are also religious.

If those people are a part of a religious group using its power to insert superstitious beliefs into policy then they are a part of the problem.

I'm sure there are CPC members that do not believe in weakening environmental protection or subsidizing fossil fuel production, but they still support a group with the power to do harm.

Right - and this is the key. The grouping isn`t the problem - it's the core attribute.

[Mighty AC]

I fail to see how the anti-vaccine crowd has political power. Please explain.

People attach themselves to the dominate culture memes of the day. Madmen blame religion, political personalities, or satan for their madness. None of these things are the actual problem. There are many reasonable and rational people who are also religious.[/Quote]Just like "rational" CPC members, those "rational" believers are still part of the problem if they lend support to the group doing the damage. If enough people stop supporting the group, the political power is lost and is no longer a problem.

Hence, as I have said it is the political power that I have the problem with, not personal beliefs.

I also don't think religious belief can be deemed rational even if we would characterize the individual believer as a rational person overall.

[Michael Hardner]

I fail to see how the anti-vaccine crowd has political power. Please explain.

Well, I do think that they do - but I don't understand why that is germane to the discussion ? Is it because religious groups provide a focus to those who behave unreasonably ? If so there are lots of examples.

Just like "rational" CPC members, those "rational" believers are still part of the problem if they lend support to the group doing the damage. If enough people stop supporting the group, the political power is lost and is no longer a problem.

Right - so intelligent people should stop being religious because stupid people are also religious, basically.

Hence, as I have said it is the political power that I have the problem with, not personal beliefs.

I also don't think religious belief can be deemed rational even if we would characterize the individual believer as a rational person overall.

Racism, ignorance can always find a way to engender power - or perhaps more commonly, those in power can use ignorance to their advantage.

Why don't we just ban religious thought altogether ? It sure seems dangerous and people would [magically] get smarter if it went away !

[Mighty AC]

Right - so intelligent people should stop being religious because stupid people are also religious, basically.[/Quote]It's not a question of intelligence. Rational people should not support groups committing immoral acts. Though, I'm not sure that most religious belief could be deemed rational.

Why don't we just ban religious thought altogether ? It sure seems dangerous and people would [magically] get smarter if it went away !

What a silly thing to say. I would rather stick to my solution of persuading the people who lend power to these groups to leave them or demand change from them. This can be achieved by removing the protective criticism cocoon our culture has provided religion and rationally discussing religious ideas. You know, like we do with all other ideas.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not a question of intelligence. Rational people should not support groups committing immoral acts. Though, I'm not sure that most religious belief could be deemed rational.

But the groups don't support such acts, just subgroups and individuals.

This is like saying don't vote NDP because... you know... Stalin.

And if you think religion causes ignorance, you should campaign to ban it.

[kimmy]

It's not legislative reluctance. It's legislative ignorance. Nobody knows about these laws.

Oh, BS. This is not some obscure ordinance requiring a hitching-post be provided on the main street in front of business establishments. This is in the state constitutions.

The issue has been raised in petitions and news stories and various controversies. In 2009 Bothwell's opponents petitioned state officials to remove him from office. Groups like American Atheists, Secular Coalition of America, and FFRF have made the issue known to legislators.

In the 1990s, the state of South Carolina spent several years and lots of money fighting to reject Herb Silverman's application to be a notory public due to the his lack of religion. The governor and secretary of state were both defendants in the lawsuit; and when defeated in lower court they appealed to the state supreme court. It took Silverman over 5 years to become a notary, just because he would not affirm the existence of the Supreme Being.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Guess it just sucks to be an atheist. Maybe they should stop preaching their religion in public places !

[The_Squid]

Guess it just sucks to be an atheist. Maybe they should stop preaching their religion in public places !

Do you agree with the state constitution in this matter?

[kimmy]

Do you agree with the state constitution in this matter?

"States Rights! States Rights! We don't need judges in Washington telling us how to run our state!"

-k

[The_Squid]

"States Rights! States Rights! We don't need judges in Washington telling us how to run our state!"

-k

Bc wont even say that.... I was just trying to get a post from BC on the actual topic, rather than his silly little jibes..... I guess he's not really willing to discuss. Not a surprise.

[Mighty AC]

But the groups don't support such acts, just subgroups and individuals.

This is like saying don't vote NDP because... you know... Stalin.

And if you think religion causes ignorance, you should campaign to ban it.

The groups do support immoral and harmful acts. Members of the group lend support to those actions even if they do not personally approve. A catholic who believes in equal rights still lends support to the attack on such rights by their religion.

Religion isn't the cause of ignorance though devotion seems to contribute. Like I mentioned before, those devoted to political parties or sports teams exhibit similar ignorant behaviour.

[Michael Hardner]

The groups do support immoral and harmful acts. Members of the group lend support to those actions even if they do not personally approve.

You're agreeing with what I said - subgroups and individuals.

[Mighty AC]

Yeah...good one Mike.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah...good one Mike.

I can only assume that we're moving on then.

[Mighty AC]

If you want to pretend that a denomination like the catholic church with over a billion members is just a sub-group or individuals then you should probably move on.