War on Atheism

[Formaldehyde]

But of course. After all, if you're not of the same belief, that makes you the "other" - the enemy, and enemies don't deserve the same consideration as your own people, right? [/sarcasm]

Or to borrow a thought from another recent thread, they think their lives are worth more than ours.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Or to borrow a thought from another recent thread, they think their lives are worth more than ours.

No matter how odd that may appeal to our usual way of thinking I believe that in Gods vision there is nothing or nobody more important than anything else. God is not partial becouse he is not weak and since everything exist inside Its existence It doesnt even need to be.

 

[BvBPL]

This is the kind of story that makes people want to war on atheists.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

This is the kind of story that makes people want to war on atheists.

Not realy. The problem here is stupidity and disrespect to others beliefs not belief that there is no God.
I claim that every socalled believer has atheist in him as his faith in God is not perfect. If there is to be sincere war on atheism it has to start as mass suicide.

 

[Grisu]

This is the kind of story that makes people want to war on atheists.

people wanting to war on atheists because of the actions of some random, looney man who happens too be an atheist?

That actually says more about those people than it does about atheists

 

[Formaldehyde]

There is likely no better rationalization for the war on atheists than the war on Christmas.

Fox News: The war on Christmas continues, Charlie Brown

In his book, “Culture Warrior,” Bill O’Reilly refers to those who are hostile to Christianity and traditional American values as “secular progressives.” Going on to say they are “the committed forces of the secular-progressive movement that want to change America dramatically; mold it in the image of Western Europe.”

The Atheist Empire doesn’t shy away from it, claiming, “Atheism is part of the Communist and Socialist doctrines…There is a strong belief in the values of freedom brought by a secular government.”

The problem here is that America is a predominantly Christian nation founded on biblical principals. In fact, 27 of our 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees.

Biblical scholar David Barton shoots down the atheist argument in his book “The Myth of Separation.” He notes “the words separation of church and state don't appear in any official government documents authored by the founding fathers.” Adding, “this concept and these particular words were invented by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947.”

Link to video.

Catholic priest:

You guys are so angry about this "war on Christmas".

Bill O'Reilly:

A "holiday tree"? A "holiday tree", Governor?

You are in the minority. You are imposing your will. And you are making people unhappy in a season of joy.

You can't get much more "fair and balanced" than that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This is the kind of story that makes people want to war on atheists.

Only very daft people who already have prejudices towards atheists and who use these kind of stories to justify them, don't you agree?

 

[BvBPL]

Maybe, but there's plenty of daft people out there.

The logical exercises that others have floated in this thread, that Dawkins isn't representative of atheists and therefore shouldn't be held as an example or that atheists shouldn't be concerned about their public image because no one person should be held as a representative of others, ignore the fact that people do not make decisions about others based upon critically examining the individual but based upon stereotypes.

While we all wish that stereotyping would be used less frequently to make snap judgements about people, it is a fact that people, in general, apply their understanding of the general to the particular. As long as that is the case, then it would behoove individual atheists to make an effort to be tolerant and understanding of others and to promote themselves as nice, rather than rude, because that is the best way for atheists to make inroads into a society that may have a negative view of atheists. Acting contrary to this only reinforces the existing stereotype that atheists are meanies.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The kind of people we're talking about already have an opinion based on prejudice and they're not looking to change that because it makes them feel superior.

Me being extraspecial nice and it won't matter one bit to them. If idiots judge me based on me being an atheist, ef em. I don't care about the opinion of idiots.

I have the good fortune to live in the Netherlands though. I feel sympathy for atheists living in America who may be confronted with this nonsense more often.

 

[warpus]

BvBPL that's all very nice, but perhaps you personally should try to stop generalizing and stereotyping so much?

I did not sign up to be an atheist; I just happen to be one. Judging me based on what another atheist might have done is childish, offensive, and idiotic. You could set a good example by refusing to participate in such idiocy.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is the kind of story that makes people want to war on atheists.

This is the type of story that makes people want to war on hockey fans.

Mine's greater evidence of immoral and anti-social behaviour.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm an atheist and a hockey fan

A Bruins fan though

 

[Formaldehyde]

While we all wish that stereotyping would be used less frequently to make snap judgements about people, it is a fact that people, in general, apply their understanding of the general to the particular. As long as that is the case, then it would behoove individual atheists to make an effort to be tolerant and understanding of others and to promote themselves as nice, rather than rude, because that is the best way for atheists to make inroads into a society that may have a negative view of atheists. Acting contrary to this only reinforces the existing stereotype that atheists are meanies.

I suggest you try substituting the word "Christian" wherever the word "atheist" appears in this paragraph, while remembering that European "society" has a very dim view of many American Christians, especially those who discriminate against others.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't see why he wouldn't agree?

 

[peter grimes]

I suggest you try substituting the word "Christian" wherever the word "atheist" appears in this paragraph, while remembering that European "society" has a very dim view of many American Christians, especially those who discriminate against others.

I have nothing to add.

 

[BvBPL]

The kind of people we're talking about already have an opinion based on prejudice and they're not looking to change that because it makes them feel superior.

Me being extraspecial nice and it won't matter one bit to them. If idiots judge me based on me being an atheist, ef em. I don't care about the opinion of idiots.

Failing to engage others because you assume that doing so will not change their opinion is just as prejudiced as the views you assume others have of atheists. Your decision not to engage them does not challenge the negative views they may have of atheists, a decision that arguably perpetuates those negative views.

Which isn't to say that there aren't good reasons not to engage others on this topic. You may feel that your energies are better used in other ways. However, citing the perceived prejudices of others as a reason to perpetuate your own prejudices strikes me as hypocritical and non-constructive, assuming it is your goal to have atheists be seen in a more positive light by society in general.

I suggest you try substituting the word "Christian" wherever the word "atheist" appears in this paragraph, while remembering that European "society" has a very dim view of many American Christians, especially those who discriminate against others.

If you want to start a thread about how American Christians can improve their image in European society then go for it. I'll probably end up giving them the same direction I provided to atheists in this one.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Failing to engage others because you assume that doing so will not change their opinion is just as prejudiced as the views you assume others have of atheists. Your decision not to engage them does not challenge the negative views they may have of atheists, a decision that arguably perpetuates those negative views.

Which isn't to say that there aren't good reasons not to engage others on this topic. You may feel that your energies are better used in other ways. However, citing the perceived prejudices of others as a reason to perpetuate your own prejudices strikes me as hypocritical and non-constructive, assuming it is your goal to have atheists be seen in a more positive light by society in general.

Again, I would contend that "society in general" has no real problem at all any more with atheists (or homosexuals, blacks, Muslims, or Hispanics for that matter). It is really only a segment of the US which does so to any great extent in most any advanced country. That they themselves are perceived by much of that "society in general" in far less than a "more positive light" due to their own prejudices.

The light bulb has to want to change.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@BvBPL. Nice try.

I base my judgement not on some stereotype but on the actions of those I'm judging. And I also never said anything about not engaging. I just said I care little for their opinion of me if it's based on prejudice.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

While we all wish that stereotyping would be used less frequently to make snap judgements about people, it is a fact that people, in general, apply their understanding of the general to the particular.

Actualy this is more acute problem than whatever individuals belief is. I mean what good is your belief if it doesnt help to remove your ignorance?

 

[BvBPL]

Again, I would contend that "society in general" has no real problem at all any more with atheists (or homosexuals, blacks, Muslims, or Hispanics for that matter). It is really only a segment of the US which does so to any great extent in most any advanced country. That they themselves are perceived by much of that "society in general" in far less than a "more positive light" due to their own prejudices.

The light bulb has to want to change.

My use of "society in general" is an oversimplification. Most likely most people in liberal democracies have no per se problem with atheists. But the existence of the laws previously cited in Iran and in the United States demonstrate that this is not a universal truth. You can probably replace most of my use of "society in general," or the like, with "cultures that have a per se problem with atheism" and still get my general intent. It wasn't my goal to imply that the societies of liberal democracies in general have any per se problem with atheism, although plenty of cultures within those societies do, and in some nations those cultures are dominant socially, legally, or politically.

To suggest that the "light bulb has to want to change," that is that those cultures who have a problem with atheism need to change their view points internally, diminishes the value of individual agency to effect those changes. I believe that everyone has the power to effect change in the views of others for the better if they put their minds to it. You may think otherwise.