Constructive Things For Atheists To Do

[Dunstan]

I confess that I've grown frustrated, perhaps unduly, with the "I'm an atheist, but..." crowd. As I said earlier today in a Community Thread, it seems to me that these "nice atheists" just seem to want outspoken atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. to shut up.

So I've started this thread to hear the alternative methods, tactics, whatever. I'd ask people to keep it "positive" in the sense of "here's what we should do" rather than "don't be obnoxious, don't say [xyz], don't do what [so-and-so] does"

Also, specifics are good. Just saying "be nice to moderate theists and respect their views" doesn't help me; tell me what you think is involved in being "nice" and "respecting their views."

[slingblade]

"Do?" About what? I'm not interested in conversion, if that's what you mean.

[Hokulele]

In terms of "should do", I generally react to religious pressure from non-atheists, rather than taking any initiative. Basically, I am a live and let live type of person. So in a sense, I agree with slingblade, I am not sure what I am supposed to be "doing".

[Dunstan]

I'm not saying anyone has to do anything.

I'm just saying, for those who criticize certain atheists for having the "wrong" approach, what would the "right" approach look like, other than "not doing the wrong approach."

[The Atheist]

I confess that I've grown frustrated, perhaps unduly, with the "I'm an atheist, but..." crowd. As I said earlier today in a Community Thread, it seems to me that these "nice atheists" just seem to want outspoken atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. to shut up.

So I've started this thread to hear the alternative methods, tactics, whatever. I'd ask people to keep it "positive" in the sense of "here's what we should do" rather than "don't be obnoxious, don't say [xyz], don't do what [so-and-so] does"

Also, specifics are good. Just saying "be nice to moderate theists and respect their views" doesn't help me; tell me what you think is involved in being "nice" and "respecting their views."

Goodo! I'll play.

I accept the comments of Hokulele & Slingblade above that "atheists aren't an anything", but I feel that's the problem, not the solution.

To me, atheism should be akin to humanism - given that there's no supernatural, preservation and respect for humans comes first and last.

If we're serious about religion's deconstruction, there needs to be an alternative system for people to replace their sky-daddy with. Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are respected by most atheists. How much more respect could they engender if they proposed a philosophy where the social support systems of religions are replaced by a purely humanist agenda?

[AZAtheist]

In terms of "should do", I generally react to religious pressure from non-atheists, rather than taking any initiative. Basically, I am a live and let live type of person. So in a sense, I agree with slingblade, I am not sure what I am supposed to be "doing".

It's tough question. Atheists are often labeled "militant" for just expressing an opinion. I've chosen to join atheist and secular organizations and support all expression of atheism, soft and hard. We have an individual that hangs out on the corner with a "God is Fake" sign. Not my idea of a good time but I support his right to do so. I buy the books and donate to secular lobbying efforts. Sometimes I write letters to elected representatives. I try to keep up with the current secular actions and read about atheists in the news.

I like what the American Atheist Alabama representative does. He's active as you might guess but he tries to be a positive influence in his community...helping people that run out of gas, etc...and makes it a point that he's helping them as a their friendly neighborhood atheist. good stuff.

[Hokulele]

<snip>

If we're serious about religion's deconstruction, there needs to be an alternative system for people to replace their sky-daddy with. Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are respected by most atheists. How much more respect could they engender if they proposed a philosophy where the social support systems of religions are replaced by a purely humanist agenda?


I don't really see that. There are many other social support systems out there that do not rely on the supernatural ("sky-daddy"). I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but not all religions require theism. In addition, many people find the social connections from activities (such as surfing, quilting, music, etc.) more than adequate. Is activism really required for a moral/ethical/social balance?

[Dunstan]

To me, atheism should be akin to humanism - given that there's no supernatural, preservation and respect for humans comes first and last.

If we're serious about religion's deconstruction, there needs to be an alternative system for people to replace their sky-daddy with. Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are respected by most atheists. How much more respect could they engender if they proposed a philosophy where the social support systems of religions are replaced by a purely humanist agenda?

Can you give me or link to a good definition/explanation of humanism? It's one of those terms I hear a lot, but still don't really know what it's supposed to mean.

[Hokulele]

It's tough question. Atheists are often labeled "militant" for just expressing an opinion. I've chosen to join atheist and secular organizations and support all expression of atheism, soft and hard. We have an individual that hangs out on the corner with a "God is Fake" sign. Not my idea of a good time but I support his right to do so. I buy the books and donate to secular lobbying efforts. Sometimes I write letters to elected representatives. I try to keep up with the current secular actions and read about atheists in the news.


Whoops, sorry I missed this in the cross posting. Part of my issue is that I live in an area where this isn't so much of a big deal (Hawaii). It is already the least theistic state in the US, and any confrontations tend to be on a personal level, rather than legislative. The only recent issue that had any religious connotations was a gay marriage bill. I did lobby against it, but not for any atheistic purpose.

I like what the American Atheist Alabama representative does. He's active as you might guess but he tries to be a positive influence in his community...helping people that run out of gas, etc...and makes it a point that he's helping them as a their friendly neighborhood atheist. good stuff.


I agree, the actions of the Alabama rep seem like a good thing. I just don't know if I would personally associate that with atheism. Again, I realize the the area in which I live is more the exception than the norm.

Now, crystal woo on the other hand . . .

[qayak]

I think each atheist should fight their battles the way they see fit just like Dawkins does. That way others may reach people that he can't just like he reaches many they can't.

Dawkins gave an interesting interview on CBC television where he addressed all these issues. It is hard to argue with his points and he does admit that there are drawbacks and fallouts. But, it seems to be the best course in his opinion so he follows it.

[The Atheist]

Ilike what the American Atheist Alabama representative does. He's active as you might guess but he tries to be a positive influence in his community...helping people that run out of gas, etc...and makes it a point that he's helping them as a their friendly neighborhood atheist. good stuff.

Yep. I try to be as proactive as possible myself, although I don't publicly tie it to my atheism, but it is why I act as I do. I figure that if I were happy for the sky-daddy to sort it out when I croak, no problemo. But I don't think like that and injustice sickens me, so I try to work on it in this life, because it's the only chance I'll get.

The other thing is that christians quite rightly point out that their altruism is greater than non-christians and suggesting that atheism, by its very nature, must contain an element of selfishness in it.

Now, I don't know whether I agree with that, but I do see awfully selfish behaviour by many atheists I know or converse with. To be honest, if that's the genuine face of atheism - a "this is me, this is my life why should I care about others?" attitude - I'd hand back my Atheist Handbook, details of the Seekrit Atheist Handshake and all Satanic Ritual paraphenalia at once and become a Buddhist, or a unitarian, or some other wussy "secular sect" and remove myself from atheism entirely.

Meanwhile, I'm with your Alabama bloke 100%, give him a pat on the back (or a big, sloppy kiss) from me.

I don't really see that. There are many other social support systems out there that do not rely on the supernatural ("sky-daddy"). I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but not all religions require theism. In addition, many people find the social connections from activities (such as surfing, quilting, music, etc.) more than adequate. Is activism really required for a moral/ethical/social balance?

I don't get this "not all religions are theists" argument at all. To me, there is no difference at all in believing the christian god YHWH runs the entire universe, or that the "soul" is some supernatural thingy which is endlessly recycled, a la Buddhism - supernatural is supernatural.

I get what you're saying about social support, but you've missed the point. Lots of people go to church to gain inspiration, because without it, they'd be empty husks. Those are the people a humanist agenda may be able to tempt away from religion.

Can you give me or link to a good definition/explanation of humanism? It's one of those terms I hear a lot, but still don't really know what it's supposed to mean.

Try the British Humanist Association or PM SusanB-M1, she's a member there. Humanists are easily identifiable as the good guys.

[Hokulele]

I don't get this "not all religions are theists" argument at all. To me, there is no difference at all in believing the christian god YHWH runs the entire universe, or that the "soul" is some supernatural thingy which is endlessly recycled, a la Buddhism - supernatural is supernatural.


Like I said, I know this has all been hashed out before, but where I live, there are many more Buddhists who do not believe in a literal soul than there are Christians who do not believe in a literal god. They often practice elements of the 8-fold path without worrying too much about nirvana or reincarnation. To them, attending the services at the local Hongwanji, participating in a dance during obon season, enjoying a sense of community fostered by the above, and many more of the rituals that are normally associated with a religion are of greater importance than worrying about attaining any enlightenment.

(And by the way, the quote should be "not all religions are theistic" not "theists". Heh, some Grammar Stalin you are.)

I get what you're saying about social support, but you've missed the point. Lots of people go to church to gain inspiration, because without it, they'd be empty husks. Those are the people a humanist agenda may be able to tempt away from religion.


See above. And if you do not think surfing has replaced religion for some people, I recommend a trip to Oahu's North Shore. ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Atheists should present logical arguments when the opportunity arises. And while I'm not ready to start proselytizing, it might be worth considering the dangers of the Evangelical marketing schemes. These mega churches are into big stage productions and a number of other things because it draws in the crowds. So on the one hand it's sort of logical to live and let live, so to speak, on the other hand that might mean the next Kitzmiller Dover trial does not have the same outcome.

We at least should be considering actively opposing all the anti-science movements that are being spawned by the current religious revival. And I think that is what we do through JREF and all the related groups in the skeptic and science networks.

[The Atheist]

(And by the way, the quote should be "not all religions are theistic" not "theists". Heh, some Grammar Stalin you are.)

Some premier checking skills in evidence there! Good pick, I shall go and self-flagellate for 10 minutes. Pay per view available.

As to the non-supernatural Buddhists, let's just leave them out of the equation meanwhile, then. I have no issue at all with Buddhists anyway, if you're going to have a supernatural belief, reincarnation is probably the least harmful of them all and I wouldn't ever argue the toss with a Buddhist about his/her beliefs. They take responsibility for themselves, which is more than good enough, in my book.

Easy answer here, let's settle on "theistic religions".

I shall try to qualify it like that in future. We have a major Buddhist temple just down the road and I take the kids there frequently. I agree with pretty much all of their worldly beliefs anyway, although the vegetarian ones would concern me.

:bgrin:

See above. And if you do not think surfing has replaced religion for some people, I recommend a trip to Oahu's North Shore. ;)

NZ is no Hawaii, but it's an island nation and nobody's too far from a surf beach.

Some of them are not too bad, with this probably the best - about an hour from my house:

Raglan Beach:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1037746b6cee201b16.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7465)

[SezMe]

Can you give me or link to a good definition/explanation of humanism? It's one of those terms I hear a lot, but still don't really know what it's supposed to mean.
American Humanist Association (http://www.americanhumanist.org/)

Atheist Ethicist (http://www.atheistethicist.blogspot.com/)

Institute for Humanist Studies (http://www.humaniststudies.org/)

Positive Atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/) (basically a humanist site)

Center for Inquiry International (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) (parent organization of Council for Secular Humanism)

Or just google Humanism - I just got 6,670,000 hits.

Enjoy

==============

ETA: To your OP, I periodically cook at a homeless shelter and wear my Humanist polo shirt when I do. When they pray before the meal, I stand to the side quietly. If someone asks me about Humanism, I tell them. If not, the shirt goes into the laundry basket at the end of the day.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Interpersonal outreach to friends and co-workers as well as on the Net.

[ThatSoundAgain]

The other thing is that christians quite rightly point out that their altruism is greater than non-christians and suggesting that atheism, by its very nature, must contain an element of selfishness in it.

Now, I don't know whether I agree with that, but I do see awfully selfish behaviour by many atheists I know or converse with. To be honest, if that's the genuine face of atheism - a "this is me, this is my life why should I care about others?" attitude - I'd hand back my Atheist Handbook, details of the Seekrit Atheist Handshake and all Satanic Ritual paraphenalia at once and become a Buddhist, or a unitarian, or some other wussy "secular sect" and remove myself from atheism entirely.


This is one thing I don't see at all. Maybe I am just lucky enough to move in circles that are predominantly non-religious and consequently get to pick my close friends from the cream of the crop, so to speak. But the people I consider my friends are mostly non-religious and without exception quite altruistic and giving.

I don't let preaching get to me that much, but one thing that really grates me is when the local majority (lukewarm Lutheran) and their spiritual leaders claim the golden rule as their invention. No, your ancient co-believers didn't suddenly invent being nice to your fellow man from whole cloth, and being nice won't go away if people stop reading your holy book.

I don't get this "not all religions are theists" argument at all. To me, there is no difference at all in believing the christian god YHWH runs the entire universe, or that the "soul" is some supernatural thingy which is endlessly recycled, a la Buddhism - supernatural is supernatural.

Then wouldn't a more encompassing description of your philosophy be "materialist"?

[Hokulele]

Some premier checking skills in evidence there! Good pick, I shall go and self-flagellate for 10 minutes. Pay per view available.

As to the non-supernatural Buddhists, let's just leave them out of the equation meanwhile, then. I have no issue at all with Buddhists anyway, if you're going to have a supernatural belief, reincarnation is probably the least harmful of them all and I wouldn't ever argue the toss with a Buddhist about his/her beliefs. They take responsibility for themselves, which is more than good enough, in my book.

Easy answer here, let's settle on "theistic religions".


Fair enough for discussion purposes. I would just like to note that to the practitioners, Buddhism is just as "religious" as any theistic religion.

I shall try to qualify it like that in future. We have a major Buddhist temple just down the road and I take the kids there frequently. I agree with pretty much all of their worldly beliefs anyway, although the vegetarian ones would concern me.


One funny thing about the Buddhist temples in Japan, many of them have barrels of sacred sake piled up outside. Alcohol is vegetarian!

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/japan/tokyo-sensoji.htm


NZ is no Hawaii, but it's an island nation and nobody's too far from a surf beach.

Some of them are not too bad, with this probably the best - about an hour from my house:

Raglan Beach:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1037746b6cee201b16.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7465)


I would love to go to Raglan someday. One of the people I surf with said the waves are fantastic there. Isn't that the one where you can only drive out at low tide?

[The Atheist]

This is one thing I don't see at all. Maybe I am just lucky enough to move in circles that are predominantly non-religious and consequently get to pick my close friends from the cream of the crop, so to speak. But the people I consider my friends are mostly non-religious and without exception quite altruistic and giving.

I have no doubt there are plenty of altruistic atheists, but the fact is that religious people are more altruistic in general.

I don't let preaching get to me that much, but one thing that really grates me is when the local majority (lukewarm Lutheran) and their spiritual leaders claim the golden rule as their invention. No, your ancient co-believers didn't suddenly invent being nice to your fellow man from whole cloth, and being nice won't go away if people stop reading your holy book.

Yes, that's exactly my point - I think there's a chance for atheists to display that we don't need the sky-daddy to show us the way. Given that religious people have a stand-by claim that atheism is selfish, we need to overcome that first. The only way to show that is to display the opposite.

Then wouldn't a more encompassing description of your philosophy be "materialist"?

Materialism is a two-edged sword and removes too many parts of the equation. While I'm 100% materialist myself, materialism doesn't gel well with humanism, which contains esoteric principles like kindness, compassion and love for fellow man which doesn't really follow materialistic lines at all. Not to mention the alternate meaning of "materialist", which almost demands selfishness.

Fair enough for discussion purposes. I would just like to note that to the practitioners, Buddhism is just as "religious" as any theistic religion.

Certainly, but I think the sky-daddy makes an important difference, which is why I consider all Buddhist beliefs (other than vegetarianism) harmless.

"Theistic religions" definitely fits the way I see it.

One funny thing about the Buddhist temples in Japan, many of them have barrels of sacred sake piled up outside. Alcohol is vegetarian!

Ah yes, but since my alcohol of choice is red wine, it goes really badly with tofu!

I would love to go to Raglan someday. One of the people I surf with said the waves are fantastic there. Isn't that the one where you can only drive out at low tide?

No, that sounds more like Muriwai or Ninety-Mile Beach (actually only 90 km long), where the beach is actually a listed road, but not too flash for driving on at high tide!

Raglan is amazing - but it's become a hangout for yuppies with big boards (poofters!) over the past 20 years and it's no longer the unspoilt paradise it was in the 1970s. There are other places almost as good, but without the losers:

Managwahai Heads is superb, although very popular, as you see

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1037746b79e32a9eea.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7485)

Even the South Island has great surf - St Kilda Beach (wear wetsuit all year round - winter the water is about 11 deg C, summer maybe 14 on a good day)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1037746b79e4b4b1cb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7486)

[JunoJim]

If you love this Earth, and help people, maybe God will put you in charge of "water and it's various forms and influences" or something like that.

On the other hand, if you continue to deny God, and His creations, you will probably be treading in sewage.

Eternity is a long time - are you ready to risk the odds ???

[qayak]

As to the non-supernatural Buddhists, let's just leave them out of the equation meanwhile, then. I have no issue at all with Buddhists anyway, if you're going to have a supernatural belief, reincarnation is probably the least harmful of them all and I wouldn't ever argue the toss with a Buddhist about his/her beliefs. They take responsibility for themselves, which is more than good enough, in my book.

Ummmmmmmm . . . Buddhists believe in gods.

http://www.lava.net/tribalartifacts/qunynex.htm

Quan Yin is the Buddhist goddess of mercy and the Dalai Lama is believed to be the living incarnate of Quan Yin.

[qayak]

If you love this Earth, and help people, maybe God will put you in charge of "water and it's various forms and influences" or something like that.

On the other hand, if you continue to deny God, and His creations, you will probably be treading in sewage.

Eternity is a long time - are you ready to risk the odds ???

:dl:

In the good old days when religions were in charge, the threat would have been torture followed by burning at the stake. We would have been scared.

But this walking in pooh for eternity is just, well . . . funny!

[ThatSoundAgain]

If you love this Earth, and help people, maybe God will put you in charge of "water and it's various forms and influences" or something like that.

On the other hand, if you continue to deny God, and His creations, you will probably be treading in sewage.

Eternity is a long time - are you ready to risk the odds ???

Well, having carefully evaluated the odds, I think it's a safer bet to wish for a penny each time someone trotted out Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager) or otherwise tried to threaten and bully me into adopting their way of thinking. Or just wish for a pony, that'd be nice.

Or maybe I should be wishing for a world where threads entitled "Constructive Things For Atheists To Do" wouldn't contain C-grade proselytizing.

Yeah. That's what I'll wish for!

[TTLer]

Children's brainwashing session video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aef_1186421103

After watching this video, can you honestly say you don't feel some kind of motivation to do something, anything, to stop this inbred sickness from spreading amongst our future leaders?

[Jekyll]

I have no doubt there are plenty of altruistic atheists, but the fact is that religious people are more altruistic in general.

Really?

If I had to guess, I'd say that atheists would be, on average, better educated, better paid, with more disposable income and consequently give more to charity than the religious.

Is there any evidence either way?

[Beanbag]

If you love this Earth, and help people, maybe God will put you in charge of "water and it's various forms and influences" or something like that.

On the other hand, if you continue to deny God, and His creations, you will probably be treading in sewage.

Eternity is a long time - are you ready to risk the odds ???
You'll have to do better than that, sonny boy.

Life is short -- are you willing to squander what time you have in existence, pandering to the notion that you'll get a free pass to heaven where you'll spend eternity whanging on a harp?

Either of our positions is viable and just as likely. Both have the same amount of proof backing them up.

Beanbag

[triadboy]

If you love this Earth, and help people, maybe God will put you in charge of "water and it's various forms and influences" or something like that.

The only image I'm getting with this is the "piss boy" in Mel Brooks' History Of The World. So you're saying if I do good, I'll be God's Piss Boy? ("Wait for the omnipotent shake...")

On the other hand, if you continue to deny God, and His creations, you will probably be treading in sewage.

What religion are you?!?

Eternity is a long time

Eternity is overrated.

[ThatSoundAgain]

I have no doubt there are plenty of altruistic atheists, but the fact is that religious people are more altruistic in general.


All right, that's the point of yours that I initially reacted to. While I agree that that is certainly a common view on atheists, I'm not sure what the facts are. Do you know if there's any reliable data on this?


Yes, that's exactly my point - I think there's a chance for atheists to display that we don't need the sky-daddy to show us the way. Given that religious people have a stand-by claim that atheism is selfish, we need to overcome that first. The only way to show that is to display the opposite.


My personal philosophy leans more towards doing what I believe is right because I believe it to be the right thing, rather than do it to show off the merits of any (arbitrary) group I belong to. But it would be neat to stamp out this particular misconception, and the course of action you suggest is a good way of doing that. (As a bonus, it's what I'm trying to do anyway.)


Materialism is a two-edged sword and removes too many parts of the equation. While I'm 100% materialist myself, materialism doesn't gel well with humanism, which contains esoteric principles like kindness, compassion and love for fellow man which doesn't really follow materialistic lines at all. Not to mention the alternate meaning of "materialist", which almost demands selfishness.


It is indeed an unfortunate word. My suggestion was due to the whole sidetrack on whether or not to use the word "theistic" to mean "religious", but all that is another debate entirely.

All right, nits picked, I still would like to hear from anyone with data on the altruism of non-religious people versus religious.

ETA: I see that Jekyll beat me to the punch.

[qayak]

Children's brainwashing session video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aef_1186421103

After watching this video, can you honestly say you don't feel some kind of motivation to do something, anything, to stop this inbred sickness from spreading amongst our future leaders?

Apparent;y we are not allowed to say this is wrong. It might offend someone.

[Hokulele]

If you love this Earth, and help people, maybe God will put you in charge of "water and it's various forms and influences" or something like that.


I am not seeing how altruism and conservation has anything to do with a belief in god. :confused:

On the other hand, if you continue to deny God, and His creations, you will probably be treading in sewage.


This has nothing to do with your first sentence. Is hating this earth and ignoring people "denying god"? :confused:

Eternity is a long time - are you ready to risk the odds ???


What odds? This is a very confusing post to parse.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you love this Earth, and help people, maybe God will put you in charge of "water and it's various forms and influences" or something like that.

On the other hand, if you continue to deny God, and His creations, you will probably be treading in sewage.

Eternity is a long time - are you ready to risk the odds ???Interesting that you miss a couple points here. One is Christians are no better or worse off in terms of quality of life than non-Christians. Being a good Christian is not going to stop your child from dying of cancer or being hit by a car or being born with a horrible skin disorder. It won't stop you from being wrongly jailed on murder charges or raise you out of the lower caste in India or save you from back breaking labor in a sweat shop in Asia.

So why do you make the foolish comment about God putting his followers in better jobs.

The second thing you don't seem to think about here is how ludicrous to claim you believe in a "loving" god and at the same time admit one thing you think should motivate others to believe in the same "loving" god is fear.

I am not afraid of myths.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Really?

If I had to guess, I'd say that atheists would be, on average, better educated, better paid, with more disposable income and consequently give more to charity than the religious.

Is there any evidence either way?

I don't have it handy but there was a recent survey that showed religious people, even after accounting for tithing were more charitable. I'm sure someone will have a link handy.

[VulcanWay]

So why do you make the foolish comment about God putting his followers in better jobs.
I think he's actually referring to a duty in the afterlife in heaven, if I'm reading his post correctly. I know that doesn't make the post make more sense, but there you have it...

[TTLer]

Apparent;y we are not allowed to say this is wrong. It might offend someone.

What you say is facetious, kayak, but I see you understand: no reasonable person could watch this infection of innocent children without a feeling of outrage. It's like we're witnessing a terrible disease being purposely spread by adults to their children. How could anyone who knows this kind of child abuse is going on every day NOT feel some motivation to contribute somehow to ending it?

Certainly, there are constructive things atheists can do. But first you have to either poop or get off the pot. Decide there's no more free ride.

[The Atheist]

Really?

If I had to guess, I'd say that atheists would be, on average, better educated, better paid, with more disposable income and consequently give more to charity than the religious.

Is there any evidence either way?

You'd be right about everything but the charity bit. Given that atheists probably do have higher diposable income, the fact that religious people win the altruism race is fairly bad for the image of atheists.

All right, that's the point of yours that I initially reacted to. While I agree that that is certainly a common view on atheists, I'm not sure what the facts are. Do you know if there's any reliable data on this?

Lots of info in this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71711)

Apparent;y we are not allowed to say this is wrong. It might offend someone.

No. Now you're being deliberately disingenuous - that's exactly the type of thing which is crying out to be attacked.

As I keep repeating and you keep ignoring - it is only a very small percentage of christians who are stupid enough to believe that rubbish.

Nobody at any stage has denied that some religions/sects are outright insanity. It's when you attack them all equally for sins of the few that you miss the point.

This really amuses me. You're clearly smart enough not to be making these stupid comments, but you keep doing it. Is there a new prize for best strawman each month?

[The Atheist]

Good grief, you've almost made an intelligible post!

What you say is facetious, kayak, but I see you understand: no reasonable person could watch this infection of innocent children without a feeling of outrage. It's like we're witnessing a terrible disease being purposely spread by adults to their children. How could anyone who knows this kind of child abuse is going on every day NOT feel some motivation to contribute somehow to ending it?

Now maybe you could explain how pouring scorn on Catholicism helps remove pieces of filth like the [Australian!] one in the video? Or that classing all religious teaching as abuse has anything to do with that video?

And then you might explain how your jumping up and down and having hysterics about the video is going to end it, or even begin to contribute to ending it.

You keep pulling it with the "free rides", yet you seem to think atheists' criticism of religion is a free ride yourself. Anyone can find a video at You Tube to support their positions, but can you back it up constructive ideas?

I'm betting not. (maybe read the OP again first)

[hilliag]

I'd like some facts to back up the assertion about believers being more giving than atheists. I'm fairly altruistic myself, and I know that's only anecdotal evidence, but I sure see a lot of hypocrites among the believers when it comes to helping the poor. (My wife calls me the most Christian person she knows -- she means it in a nice way. That's because I frequently stop to help others, especially those whom others won't stoop to help, including an out-of-gas Hispanic laborer and a drunken injured man in the past couple of years. [I could use some help myself now, since I sprained my arm patting myself on the back...]).

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'd like some facts to back up the assertion about believers being more giving than atheists.

Here you go (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html).

[six7s]

These mega churches are into big stage productions
The need for collective focus at significant cultural events has been not been lost on organised theism, which has capitali$ed on this to the extent that the architecture of performing arts theatres often bear an uncanny similarity with neighbouring temples, synagogues, cathedrals etc

One thing I think we atheists can do is reclaim/reinvent rituals (without simply relying on Eris or pagan-woo etc), and train/employ professional (forget altruism/charity in this instance - TANSTAAFL) atheist birth/marriage celebrants, funeral directors, musicians, poets, venues, caterers, etc to fill the god-shaped-hole in our celebrations and commemorations

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Convert :p .

[six7s]

Children's brainwashing session video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aef_1186421103

After watching this video, can you honestly say you don't feel some kind of motivation to do something, anything, to stop this inbred sickness from spreading amongst our future leaders?

Thanks for the link

I'm motivated to highlight the apparent inconsistencies and tenuous links that are being peddled in the Answers in Genesis Children's Workshop ("a Christian Patriot Missile... a powerful weapon in the spiritual war") by Buddy Davis
and all too many of the 818,000 web pages returned from a Google search for bible Job 40 15 dinosaur (http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=bible+Job+40+15+dinosaur&btnG=Search) :(

The
New International Version of Job:40 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Job+40&book_id=22&version1=31&tp=42&c=40)

Notes:
[664] Possibly the hippopotamus or the elephant
[665] Possibly trunk
[666] Possibly psilocybin or psilocin mushrooms ??????????????
[667] Or by a water hole

15 Look at the behemoth, [664]
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail [665] sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses [666] conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should
surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [667]
or trap him and pierce his nose?
Buddy Davis' sing-a-long
Let's look at the Bible
Let's look in the Book of Job
Turn to chapter 40
in verse 15, we're told
of a mighty creature
that Job must have known,
in the jungle of the reeds and ferns
Behemoth made his home
CHORUS
Behemoth is a DINOSAUR
a DINOSAUR is he
He eateth grass as an ox
His tails like a cedar tree
His bones are strong as bars of iron
He's chief, in the ways of God
Could BEHEMOTH be a DINOSAUR?
a mighty sauropod?


It's times like this I wish the truthers' chem-trails were possible

[UnrepentantSinner]

One quibble with your Behemoth commentary - it says the tail "sways" like a cedar, not "is" like a cedar. It's referring to movement, not appearance and as such is more evidence they're referring to a hippo.

[six7s]

indeed

I suspect there are more inaccuracies too

[autumn1971]

"He ranks first among the works of God"

So, if it is a dinosaur, a pea-brained idiot that went extinct (quite quickly, if the world is only a few thousand years old) ranks FIRST among God's works.

God is looney.

[Jekyll]

Here you go (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html).

Thanks. I am curious what difference it made to group the apathetic (those that claim religion but do not attend church) in with the explicitly no religion group. I'll take the time to read it properly later. :D

[ponderingturtle]

I don't really see that. There are many other social support systems out there that do not rely on the supernatural ("sky-daddy"). I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but not all religions require theism. In addition, many people find the social connections from activities (such as surfing, quilting, music, etc.) more than adequate. Is activism really required for a moral/ethical/social balance?

If it is not theistic is it really a religion though? If you redefine religion to be any group organized around similar philosophical principles, then you have defined religion such that science qualifies.

So if theism is not required for religion what is?

[Hokulele]

If it is not theistic is it really a religion though? If you redefine religion to be any group organized around similar philosophical principles, then you have defined religion such that science qualifies.

So if theism is not required for religion what is?


I know you are not going to like my answer, but I do not believe in static definitions of words, particularly those like "religion". Any word has a context, and should be defined within the context. Part of the reason for my post you quoted is to come to a mutually agreed upon definition for the purposes of this discussion (in this case, theistic). In another discussion, I might use a different definition (such as the list of institutions defined by the U.S. government as "religion" for tax purposes). I believe that without a proper definition of terms up front, many discussions devolve into semantic nit-picking without any benefit to any of the participants (see the whole "random"/"non-random" thread regarding evolution).

So to throw the ball back in your court, give me a context, and I'll give you a definition. :)

[ponderingturtle]

I know you are not going to like my answer, but I do not believe in static definitions of words, particularly those like "religion". Any word has a context, and should be defined within the context. Part of the reason for my post you quoted is to come to a mutually agreed upon definition for the purposes of this discussion (in this case, theistic). In another discussion, I might use a different definition (such as the list of institutions defined by the U.S. government as "religion" for tax purposes). I believe that without a proper definition of terms up front, many discussions devolve into semantic nit-picking without any benefit to any of the participants (see the whole "random"/"non-random" thread regarding evolution).

So to throw the ball back in your court, give me a context, and I'll give you a definition. :)

So how do you differentiate a non-theistic budist from say a gamist, with the regular meetings to play games and regular pylgrimiages to Gencon and the like? So are RPG's a Religion? It has many of the social functions you mentioned.

I started a thread precisely about what the definition of religion is, to try to determine it for saying "but X is not a religion".

Hmm, is this Board a religion? Or does it need more anual celibrations and holy days to be a religion?

[Hokulele]

So how do you differentiate a non-theistic budist from say a gamist, with the regular meetings to play games and regular pylgrimiages to Gencon and the like? So are RPG's a Religion? It has many of the social functions you mentioned.


If we are discussing the differences between RPG's and pure strategy games, we can use "religious" to describe the RPG'ers, mainly due to the factors that you describe. If you would prefer to discuss the differences between Buddhists and RPG'ers, then I would use a definition that excludes the RPG'ers (for example, I would bring in the role of tradition in religion). Like I said, it is all about context. To me, there is no one definition of "religion".

I started a thread precisely about what the definition of religion is, to try to determine it for saying "but X is not a religion".


I would see that as being an exercise in frustration, but YMMV.

Hmm, is this Board a religion? Or does it need more anual celibrations and holy days to be a religion?


With that starting point, I would say this board is a religion. I mean, some people believe that there is a spiritual leader, there are certain practices and traditions unique to this board, as well as schisms between members. ;) See? Context is fun!

[ponderingturtle]

If we are discussing the differences between RPG's and pure strategy games, we can use "religious" to describe the RPG'ers, mainly due to the factors that you describe. If you would prefer to discuss the differences between Buddhists and RPG'ers, then I would use a definition that excludes the RPG'ers (for example, I would bring in the role of tradition in religion). Like I said, it is all about context. To me, there is no one definition of "religion".

Ah many forms of modern paganism are not religions because they lack the traditions of true religions.

Sure any definition of religion will include things or exclude things that people want to call a religion. Theistic works.

Otherwise you have problems distinguishing the religion if you are say comparing Buddhists to the Royal Society. Which one is the religion there?


I would see that as being an exercise in frustration, but YMMV.




With that starting point, I would say this board is a religion. I mean, some people believe that there is a spiritual leader, there are certain practices and traditions unique to this board, as well as schisms between members. ;) See? Context is fun!

The problem with this lack of definition is that you loose your ability to rebut arguments that science is just a religion, and its proponents are just blindly following their faith.

[SusanB-M1]

Positive action is so very much needed. It is only by becoming a member of a humanist/atheist group or association that influence can be exerted on Government thinking and legislation. As TA says, I am a member of the BHA and the following link gives a statement of Humanist thinking.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=309

Even if one chooses not to attend local group meetings, being a paid-up member gives such associations the numerical support they need. I wish I had done this earlier, but better late than never.

[Hokulele]

Ah many forms of modern paganism are not religions because they lack the traditions of true religions.

Sure any definition of religion will include things or exclude things that people want to call a religion. Theistic works.

Otherwise you have problems distinguishing the religion if you are say comparing Buddhists to the Royal Society. Which one is the religion there?


I am not suggesting that theistic doesn't work, but also that it would be inappropriate in certain discussions. For example, discussing tax-exempt status in American jurisprudence would require a definition that does not require theism.

The problem with this lack of definition is that you loose your ability to rebut arguments that science is just a religion, and its proponents are just blindly following their faith.


On the contrary, you can use this as an opportunity to have your debate partner define what they mean by religion and faith and how their definition would or would not apply to science. For me personally, the sticking point in this type of discussion has never been the definition of "religion", but "faith".



SusanB-M1, I hadn't thought of the numerical support aspect. That is an excellent point.

[SusanB-M1]

Hokulele
Like I said, I know this has all been hashed out before, but where I live, there are many more Buddhists who do not believe in a literal soul than there are Christians who do not believe in a literal god. They often practice elements of the 8-fold path without worrying too much about nirvana or reincarnation. To them, attending the services at the local Hongwanji, participating in a dance during obon season, enjoying a sense of community fostered by the above, and many more of the rituals that are normally associated with a religion are of greater importance than worrying about attaining any enlightenment.

Are they worshipping anything? Or deferring to a higher power or something?

[JunoJim]

:dl:

In the good old days when religions were in charge, the threat would have been torture followed by burning at the stake. We would have been scared.

But this walking in pooh for eternity is just, well . . . funny!

Think about it - DOLT !!!

BTW I wish I had some hash or better yet opium right now... got a "line" on any ???

[Hokulele]

Hokulele


Are they worshipping anything? Or deferring to a higher power or something?


There is a bit of a sense of ancestor worship, but I am not sure how much of it is paying respects, and how much of it is similar to Confucianism, where ancestor spirits can return to guide you. The Wiki on Bon Festival is a pretty good summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Festival

The floating lantern ceremony is probably my favorite of the Buddhist rites out here.

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/29/news/story04.html

[JunoJim]

Wow !!! YOU must be really up there - could you get me a good seat ???

[ThatSoundAgain]

You'd be right about everything but the charity bit. Given that atheists probably do have higher diposable income, the fact that religious people win the altruism race is fairly bad for the image of atheists.

Lots of info in this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71711)


Thanks for the link. Now I have a bit of reading to do, and I may and may not have something on this later. My perception that atheists are not generally less altruistic stands, for now, but that may change. I see this in the statistic that says atheists are under-represented in (US) prisons (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm), and that the Nordic countries (which are some of the least religious (http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____15193.aspx) in the world) have the highest levels of trust (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_tru_peo-lifestyle-trust-people) between citizens.

Like I said, I agree that the perception has to go. If there's a reality behind it, naturally that has to go first.

[Darth Rotor]

Constructive Things For Atheists To Do


A clenched fist and a :goat come to mind -- wait, did you say constrictive or constructive?

*Looks at Thread Title*

Sorry, my bad.

DR

[The Atheist]

Positive action is so very much needed....

...I wish I had done this earlier, but better late than never.

My fault for being a slacker, I should have PMed you as soon as the question came up, but at least you're here now!

I think I might have to vote you World Leader of Atheism, Humanism and Rationality. If you were our sole spokesperson, the religious would be quitting their churches in droves - you are the complete Humanist: thoughtful, respectful, understanding.

Hail SusanB-M1 !!!! You're an outstanding example to all.

Thanks for the link. Now I have a bit of reading to do, and I may and may not have something on this later. My perception that atheists are not generally less altruistic stands, for now, but that may change. I see this in the statistic that says atheists are under-represented in (US) prisons (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm), and that the Nordic countries (which are some of the least religious (http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____15193.aspx) in the world) have the highest levels of trust (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_tru_peo-lifestyle-trust-people) between citizens.

Like I said, I agree that the perception has to go. If there's a reality behind it, naturally that has to go first.

Well put.

I'd be a little wary of reading too much into a link with Scandinavian countries and trust as I suspect it's more about their own culture than atheism. France, Aussie and UK all rate below USA in the trust stakes and they also have very high levels of no-religiosity.

If you come up with more info, though, please do post it as the more evidence we can get to show what the actual picture is, the better.

the one I'd like to see is a separation of "apathetic atheists" out of the non-religious figures, because I do think that "considered atheists" would probably show up as being more altruistic than apatheists.

A clenched fist and a :goat come to mind -- wait, did you say constrictive or constructive?

*Looks at Thread Title*

Sorry, my bad.

DR

:dl:

Naughty DR!

Now that you're here though, do you have an opinion on how atheists could show a more constructive face? Perhaps more importantly, do you think religious people would either notice or care?

[six7s]

I'd be a little wary of reading too much into a link with Scandinavian countries and trust as I suspect it's more about their own culture than atheism.

Freedom of thought ⇔ Freedom of expression

Maybe... Maybe not

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

D: Democracy Rank
P: Press Freedom Rank
C: Corruption Rank


D P C
1 1 1 Finland
2 2 3 Denmark
3 7 1 New Zealand

4 2 5 Sweden
5 6 6 Switzerland
6 2 7 Norway
7 7 8 Netherlands

8 15 12 Canada
9 18 10 United Kingdom
10 23 8 Australia

D P C

140 131 139 Congo, Republic of the
141 146 55 Cuba
142 133 139 Sudan

143 141 134 Somalia
144 145 78 Eritrea
145 142 113 Zimbabwe
146 142 134 Belarus
147 146 90 Libya

148 144 134 Uzbekistan
149 146 124 Turkmenistan
150 146 143 Myanmar

D P C

[Hourglassmemory]

The only thing I've done because of me being an atheist was putting the book "The God Delusion", three books were there, I picked one up from the Science shelf and put it in the spirituality/religion/ section.

Funny, when I got two days later only one book remained!
Two possible explanations, they were bought or they were taken away to be hidden.

[SusanB-M1]

My fault for being a slacker, I should have PMed you as soon as the question came up, but at least you're here now!
Actually, I meant I should have joined the BHA earlier. Thank you for making me laugh as usual!

[ThatSoundAgain]

Well put.
Thank you.

I'd be a little wary of reading too much into a link with Scandinavian countries and trust as I suspect it's more about their own culture than atheism. France, Aussie and UK all rate below USA in the trust stakes and they also have very high levels of no-religiosity.

Well, I only put that out there to show you where I'm coming from. Full disclosure: I'm in Scandinavia (Denmark), and I can only relate to you what I see here. Much of that is personal experience with something as intangible as the atmosphere here and the fact that atheism is less of a social stigma, hardly at all, than what I hear described from the US. But as far as showing my perception to be correct with hard numbers, I'm at a loss.

Like I said, my perception might change. I'll let you know if it does, along with what caused it.

BTW, I find the French trust figure alarmingly low. I'd hate to live in a society where I'd be more likely to be met with distrust from people.

the one I'd like to see is a separation of "apathetic atheists" out of the non-religious figures, because I do think that "considered atheists" would probably show up as being more altruistic than apatheists.

Interesting idea. I think that the ones who have given this matter some thought, and arrived at a self-identification as atheists, are more likely to have pondered ethics, as well. They're the ones who have a coherent answer when they're asked: "Where do you get your morals if not from god?"

I guess in a society where religious attendance is a larger part of social life, you're likely to get some people in the non-religious (or non-attending) group who are just not very sociable. If going to church is the norm, those people will stick out and perhaps help entrench the perception of atheists as antisocial weirdos, even if they don't self-identify as atheists.

[The Atheist]

BTW, I find the French trust figure alarmingly low. I'd hate to live in a society where I'd be more likely to be met with distrust from people.

Yes, well living in Europe you'd be aware that that figure just shows the old Froggies' distrust of everyone. I'm sure you know how much they like the English! ;)

Interesting idea. I think that the ones who have given this matter some thought, and arrived at a self-identification as atheists, are more likely to have pondered ethics, as well. They're the ones who have a coherent answer when they're asked: "Where do you get your morals if not from god?"

Bingo! That's exactly what I would expect to find and I think members here give an insight into that. The membership is almost entirely in considered positions, be they atheist, agnostic or theist and far above average intelligence and I'd lay very good odds that they're much more altruistic than most. Not something anyone's likely to do research into, which is a pity.

I guess in a society where religious attendance is a larger part of social life, you're likely to get some people in the non-religious (or non-attending) group who are just not very sociable. If going to church is the norm, those people will stick out and perhaps help entrench the perception of atheists as antisocial weirdos, even if they don't self-identify as atheists.

Right again, plus anti-theists like to crowd under the atheist banner, which is the real problem, because atheism isn't a group and anyone can stand up and claim to be an atheist without censure. Because they're generally strident, while achievers as have been mentioned in this thread are quiet achievers, anti-theists get heard while the altruistic atheist doesn't get seen.

Then, there is that horrible truth within the stereotype; that many atheists are anti-social weirdos.

[ponderingturtle]

Right again, plus anti-theists like to crowd under the atheist banner, which is the real problem, because atheism isn't a group and anyone can stand up and claim to be an atheist without censure. Because they're generally strident, while achievers as have been mentioned in this thread are quiet achievers, anti-theists get heard while the altruistic atheist doesn't get seen.


Same is true of the theists. Look at who the best known theists are, people like Jerry Falwell and such. So why is Falwell so much less ridiculed than the more active atheists?

[The Atheist]

Same is true of the theists. Look at who the best known theists are, people like Jerry Falwell and such. So why is Falwell so much less ridiculed than the more active atheists?

Possibly being dead may account for that, but I can tell you (as Unrepentant mentioned recently) that Fred Phelps and Benny Hinn piss christians off just as much as they piss us off; possibly even more.

If we can show a more humanistic face than the anti-theistic one so often on disply at the moment, we could end up with a situation where a concerted two-pronged attack can be made on these mutations like Phelps and Hinn. It comes down to whether you want to attack all of christianity at once or not. I think that's a futile task, and ultimately pointless, because I cannot think of one rational reason to attack some moderate parts of christianity. Accordingly, let's set the sights on something which is evil - fundamentalism.

Once that battle has been won, then we can turn to moderate christians and exhort them to apply critical thinking to their beliefs. Many will retain those beliefs, but as long as the religion is harmless, I can't see that it demands deconstruction.

Once any person can explain to me why Rowan Williams is such an evil person, I shall happily become as rabidly anti-theist as some of my forum compadres in the "Religion is all bad" poll.

The other and probably far more important part comes back to how I see atheism:

There is no god, so it's up to all humans to work together to create the best possible existence for all. Whether one arrives at that position via the WWJD and the golden rule, whether from Groucho Marx's "To each, according to his needs; from each, according to his means.", or whether it's a considered rational position, that's where I want people to arrive at.

Another viewpoint is that "I'm only here for a short time, why shouldn't I be as selfish as I like?" That's probably a more logical position, but I think it's very short-sighted.

Neither one of those approaches can be considered "right". (apart from mine, because I say so)

Religious people have a lot in common with the first group and little in common with the second, that being the face of atheist strawman christians like to construct. Unfortunately, there are a hell of a lot more of them than us, so their strawman's a little better-constructed and more popular.

[SusanB-M1]

Once any person can explain to me why Rowan Williams is such an evil person, I shall happily become as rabidly anti-theist as some of my forum compadres in the "Religion is all bad" poll.
I find it very hard indeed to believe that a man with such high intelligence as Rowan Williams, a man who has studied theology and religions all his life and whose career has been totally involved with the church, can really and truly, deep-down believe in The resurrection and a supernatural deity. However, if he decided to become a humanist then his job would immediately be taken by someone else.

When he was interviewed by John Humphrys earlier this year, he sounded very far from convinced about what he was saying about God.

If only he would just step across to led world humanism .... I cannot think of a more constructive thing that could be done.

[ImaginalDisc]

Thanks for the link. Now I have a bit of reading to do, and I may and may not have something on this later. My perception that atheists are not generally less altruistic stands, for now, but that may change. I see this in the statistic that says atheists are under-represented in (US) prisons (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm), and that the Nordic countries (which are some of the least religious (http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____15193.aspx) in the world) have the highest levels of trust (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_tru_peo-lifestyle-trust-people) between citizens.

Like I said, I agree that the perception has to go. If there's a reality behind it, naturally that has to go first.

Does that silly study count tithing as charity?

[ThatSoundAgain]

The links I posted (more polls than studies) say nothing of charity.

[ImaginalDisc]

The links I posted (more polls than studies) say nothing of charity.

I meant TheIdiot's link.

[ponderingturtle]

Possibly being dead may account for that, but I can tell you (as Unrepentant mentioned recently) that Fred Phelps and Benny Hinn piss christians off just as much as they piss us off; possibly even more.

Sure, if you are mind numbingly greeding and a total sharlitan you can get christians pissed at you. But Falwell was general respected, and you really claim that Dawkins is so much more rude to his opponents?

Atheists are held to much much higher public standards than theists.

They start with 2.75 strikes against them.

[Dunstan]

But Falwell was general respected,

I don't know that that's true. He may have been generally respected in the evangelical community,* but I think the rest of America -- which means a lot of Christians -- thought he was a scumbag and an embarassment. Plenty of people criticized him during his lifetime, and they weren't all atheists.

*-Around the time of his death, I recall reading a few articles that questioned whether he was really that influential even in the evangelical community. He was good at publicizing himself, and the media likes to have "go-to guys" for particular issues and viewpoints, so once you start getting on CNN, etc. to present the "religious right's point of view," you keep getting called back whether you really represented those people or not.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Freedom of thought ⇔ Freedom of expression

Maybe... Maybe not

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

D: Democracy Rank
P: Press Freedom Rank
C: Corruption Rank


D P C
1 1 1 Finland
2 2 3 Denmark
3 7 1 New Zealand

4 2 5 Sweden
5 6 6 Switzerland
6 2 7 Norway
7 7 8 Netherlands

8 15 12 Canada
9 18 10 United Kingdom
10 23 8 Australia

D P C

140 131 139 Congo, Republic of the
141 146 55 Cuba
142 133 139 Sudan

143 141 134 Somalia
144 145 78 Eritrea
145 142 113 Zimbabwe
146 142 134 Belarus
147 146 90 Libya

148 144 134 Uzbekistan
149 146 124 Turkmenistan
150 146 143 Myanmar

D P C Didn't see the US up there do I added it.

United States D-15 P-11 C-17

United States 15
France 16
Portugal 17
Estonia 18
Spain 19
Chile 20
Slovenia 20 (tied)
Uruguay 22
Hungary 23
Lithuania 24
Czech Republic 24 (tied)
Latvia 26
Slovakia 27
Costa Rica 28
Italy 29
Poland 30

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure, if you are mind numbingly greeding and a total sharlitan you can get christians pissed at you. But Falwell was general respected, and you really claim that Dawkins is so much more rude to his opponents?

Atheists are held to much much higher public standards than theists.

They start with 2.75 strikes against them.I'm not sure it has to do with atheism as much as it has to do with who the media have adopted as spokespeople. Why did we hear from Falwell more than Graham? And why Jackson and Sharpe? The news media like noisy controversial people.

And Falwell was not respected by a lot of Christians, especially when he made comments like God was punishing people with HIV, hurricanes and 9/11.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I say we steal Christmas!! :D

Another way to look at Christmas is to consider the fact the Christians in a sense stole the holiday from the Pagans. The supposed birth of Jesus was during some kind of census taking which required Joseph and Mary to travel. That wouldn't have been in winter. And shepherds weren't in their fields in December.

Christmas today for most people really has almost nothing to do with the Christian religion. Christmas is only religious in thought with some remnants of religion remaining. Bill O'Reilly's claim there is a war on Christmas is laughable for that reason alone. Actual Christmas is quite different from the claims of what Christmas should be.

So I celebrate Christmas for what is has become today. It's the biggest holiday of the year celebrating capitalism and consumerism. Seems pretty atheistic to me. I say we steal Christmas as our holiday the way the Christians stole it from the Pagans.

Calculation of real date of Jesus's birth from Biblical accounts. (http://www.ucg.org/booklets/JC/prophecy_jesusborn.htm)First, we know that shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at night at the time of Jesus' birth (Luke 2:7-8). However, shepherds did not remain in the fields of Judea at night during December due to lack of forage and the bad weather....

Jesus' parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Luke 2:1-4). The Romans would have known better than to have taken such a census in the dead of winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition for traveling....

Since Elizabeth (John's mother) was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Jesus was conceived (Luke 1:24-36), we can determine the approximate time of year Jesus was born if we know when John was born. John's father, Zacharias, was a priest serving in the Jerusalem temple during the course of Abijah (Luke 1:5). Historical calculations indicate this course of service corresponded to June 13-19 in that year...

It was during this time of temple service that Zacharias learned that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would have a child (Luke 1:8-13). After he completed his service and traveled home, Elizabeth conceived (verses 23-24). Assuming John's conception took place near the end of June, adding nine months brings us to the end of March as the most likely time for John's birth. Adding another six months (the difference in ages between John and Jesus) brings us to the end of September as the likely time of Jesus' birth.

Although it is difficult to determine the first time anyone celebrated Dec. 25 as Christmas, historians are in general agreement that it was sometime during the fourth century.

This is an amazingly late date. Christmas was not observed in Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, until about 300 years after Christ's death. Its origins cannot be traced back to either the teachings or practices of the earliest Christians.

This also happens to be one of the reasons the Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas. (http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1998/12/15/article_02.htm)

How Did Christmas Come to Be Celebrated on December 25? (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm)

A. Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

B. The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season). [Oh my goodness, Gingerbread cookies are symbols of human sacrifice!]

C. In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]

D. The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.

E. Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia. As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.” The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc.

F. The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.”[3] Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681.[4] However, Christmas was and still is celebrated by most Christians.

G. Some of the most depraved customs of the Saturnalia carnival were intentionally revived by the Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city. An eyewitness account reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators. They ran… amid Rome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.”[5]

H. As part of the Saturnalia carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition in1836 to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.”[6] On December 25, 1881, Christian leaders whipped the Polish masses into Antisemitic frenzies that led to riots across the country. In Warsaw 12 Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed, and many Jewish women were raped. Two million rubles worth of property was destroyed.Christmas is already morphing, we could encourage it a bit. Remind people who claim Christmas is supposed to be a celebration of Christ's birth that they have the dates wrong. Remind them of the fact Christmas has these horrendous beginnings. Discourage nativity scenes on public property but encourage trees and Santa by reminding the cities, etc., that spending is good for the economy. (You can still protest overconsumption with alternative gifts if you want.) Send Bill O'Reilly emails declaring war. [Chuckles to self.]

[The Atheist]

I find it very hard indeed to believe that a man with such high intelligence as Rowan Williams, a man who has studied theology and religions all his life and whose career has been totally involved with the church, can really and truly, deep-down believe in The resurrection and a supernatural deity. However, if he decided to become a humanist then his job would immediately be taken by someone else.

When he was interviewed by John Humphrys earlier this year, he sounded very far from convinced about what he was saying about God.

If only he would just step across to led world humanism .... I cannot think of a more constructive thing that could be done.

I agree - I think his charisma would attract more people in that role than he ever could in the church. I find the man an enigma - I agree with him on every aspect of life, bar one and it's hard to balance the respect I have for him against my distaste of the fairytales he supports/ Still, the CoE is clearly the least-dogmatic and liberal church and the closest to deism, which I'm sure is where it will end up in the near future.

I've tried to converse with him, and while he's unfailing polite, he really doesn't have much time to devote debating theology and humanism with an atheist from NZ!

But Falwell was general respected, and you really claim that Dawkins is so much more rude to his opponents?

Nope, I've certainly never said that at any stage. I don't believe I've ever said anything good about Falwell and really know very little about him apart from the fact that David Lange carved him up in an Oxford debate.

I have said several times that I like a lot of what Dawkins says and does, I just think he goes too far over the boundaries of taste to do anything but piss off moderate christianity, which I happen to think is a really stupid idea.

Why would anyone be against moderate liberalism?

Dawkins doesn't make any attempt to exclude moderates with comments like this:

"Moderate religion makes the world safe for fundamentalism"

Why?

The man is a legendary genius, but he needs to learn a little about reality.

Hint: religion is not going to go away in a hurry.

I can trace back a few years and remember talking about the death of religion as long ago as the late 1970s. At that time, congregations were declining and growing older - there were few new members of any churches. Now, despite NZ's continuing decline in religiosity overall, by far the fastest-growing philosophy is in idiotic, fundamental churches.

I don't know how many times you'd need to talk to a fundy to realise that Dawkins' brand of atheism is music to their ears. At least moderate christianity can offer them a face-saving means of ex-communicating themselves from their palaces of ignorance.

Here (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_2003_04_29_dawkins.shtml) is Dawkins quite rightly attacking a school which teaches creationism. That's where he should be. In this, he could probably garner the support of the immensely-respected Rowan Williams, if Dawins weren't such a twat about his hatred of all religion.

Now THAT would be constructive.

I say we steal Christmas!! :D

Uh, we already did! Christmas has become a self-fulfilling monster, drowning the children of the wealthy in unnecessary garbage, generally made very poorly, from non-renewable resources, while the drowning the children of the desperately-needy in the agony of the death-throes of malnutrition.

If you don't think that's as far as possible from the way JC himself would design Christmas, then you need to read the bible.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Uh, we already did! Christmas has become a self-fulfilling monster, drowning the children of the wealthy in unnecessary garbage, generally made very poorly, from non-renewable resources, while the drowning the children of the desperately-needy in the agony of the death-throes of malnutrition.

If you don't think that's as far as possible from the way JC himself would design Christmas, then you need to read the bible.I said it was morphing its way there. We need to finish the job.

[UnrepentantSinner]

We could donate to David Croft's legal fund.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/carrollton/stories/031406dnmetprayer.214283e6.html

[SomeGuy]

I think that in order for the Hoover study to be meaningful.

Tithing and volunteering for church functions should not be considered and they probably are (most x-ians would consider that giving to charity and volunteering, and since the study was merely a poll, I don't think they filtered for this).

Also they shouldn't count people to lazy to go to church as non-religious, what a surprise that those people also don't volunteer or donate to charity.

All in all, this study appears to be biased.

[SomeGuy]

Think about it - DOLT !!!

BTW I wish I had some hash or better yet opium right now... got a "line" on any ???

You are the DOLT, believing in an all-loving god, that threatens with eternal damnation.

All abrahamic religions christianity, islam and judaism are not only at odds with reality they are not even internally logically consistent.

The odds on risking an eternity in torment boil down to:

You either risk an highly unlikely eternity by not believing in something that is totally devoid of any sense, or you waste precious time from a very limited supply of time on said nonsense in a life here on earth(which 100% certainly exists).

YES I will take the odds, HELL YES I will.

-=-=

I can't help you with you search for drugs. You best chance is probably with your theistic buddies who are a plague on the justice system.

Atheist have the lowest number of convicted criminals per 1000 people of any 'religion'. Your accusation that you have a better chance of getting drugs from an atheist is thus completely unfounded.

Sorry you lose on both account.

Did I mention you were a DOLT yet?

[The Atheist]

I think that in order for the Hoover study to be meaningful.

Tithing and volunteering for church functions should not be considered and they probably are (most x-ians would consider that giving to charity and volunteering, and since the study was merely a poll, I don't think they filtered for this).

Also they shouldn't count people to lazy to go to church as non-religious, what a surprise that those people also don't volunteer or donate to charity.

All in all, this study appears to be biased.

Well, if you check carefully, tithing is counted separately and christians still wipe atheists' up in atruism. Even more damning than the money, is the lack of interest shown by atheists in getting involved in community work, in comparison to religious people.

The study may well be biased, but there don't seem to be any counter-examples and it certainly fits with what I see in the world. And I would dearly love to find evidence to the contrary, so no confirmation bias is involved - I started looking into this because I was confident atheists would come out better than they do. I ate humble pie for a week at the Ship.

[SomeGuy]

Well, if you check carefully, tithing is counted separately and christians still wipe atheists' up in atruism. Even more damning than the money, is the lack of interest shown by atheists in getting involved in community work, in comparison to religious people.

The study may well be biased, but there don't seem to be any counter-examples and it certainly fits with what I see in the world. And I would dearly love to find evidence to the contrary, so no confirmation bias is involved - I started looking into this because I was confident atheists would come out better than they do. I ate humble pie for a week at the Ship.

Well let's first of all get one thing out of the way:

We have a cultural barrier.

I'm from Europe, what I see in day to day society almost by necessity does not correspond with what you see.
-=-=
I stand corrected on the tithing issue, I had not read careful enough for which I apologize.

I still have a couple of issues, it is very possible that it's partially because I'm still in denial, but if that's simply the case it should be easy to correct.

I know a lot of x-ians donate to charities that combine evangelization with aid, while I don't want to argue here (but might in another thread) that these shouldn't be considered charities, there are not altruism in the sense that it's done without a self-interest.

Also I think the group selection is weird. They seem to only include the most active members of x-ianity as religious, while merely showing up only three times or less per year in church is enough to get tossed in with the non-religious ones.

What I would really like to see is statistics for everyone identifying themselves as christian to everyone identifying themselves as non-religious.

Maybe I am just in denial, but in that case please explain how these two groups are both fair representations of religious and non-religious people..

[The Atheist]

I know a lot of x-ians donate to charities that combine evangelization with aid, while I don't want to argue here (but might in another thread) that these shouldn't be considered charities, there are not altruism in the sense that it's done without a self-interest.

They certainly do, but if they give starving kids bible lessons along with the food, water, education and vaccinations, I'm not too worried.

What I would really like to see is statistics for everyone identifying themselves as christian to everyone identifying themselves as non-religious.

Maybe I am just in denial, but in that case please explain how these two groups are both fair representations of religious and non-religious people..

They probably aren't perfectly representative, but it does show a fair disparity. As I said above, it's a pity there isn't more research to look at.

[SomeGuy]

They certainly do, but if they give starving kids bible lessons along with the food, water, education and vaccinations, I'm not too worried.



They probably aren't perfectly representative, but it does show a fair disparity. As I said above, it's a pity there isn't more research to look at.


Is it really a fair disparity?

By default in this setup everyone who can't be arsed in general is lumped in with the non-religious.

That can only reflect badly upon us.

With a little bit of ill will, I could claim this is deliberately so.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure it has to do with atheism as much as it has to do with who the media have adopted as spokespeople. Why did we hear from Falwell more than Graham? And why Jackson and Sharpe? The news media like noisy controversial people.

And Falwell was not respected by a lot of Christians, especially when he made comments like God was punishing people with HIV, hurricanes and 9/11.

But that is the point, he was a lot more of a rude obnoxious jerk, but it hurt his popularity less, because he was not atheist.

[ponderingturtle]

Dawkins doesn't make any attempt to exclude moderates with comments like this:

"Moderate religion makes the world safe for fundamentalism"

Why?


Look at the reaction differences to offensive statements between him an theists. That would seem to demonstrate the effect he is pointing out.

[six7s]

There is currently a poll running on Answers in Action that asks "Is there rational justification for atheistic altruism?"

So far, there are 111 replies and, although it is (I think) a site primarily run for and by christians, we atheists are doing ok

http://www.answers.org/news/pollbooth.php?qid=atheistvalues&aid=-1

29 26.13% Yes, atheistic altruism is more rationally justified because it is not based on fear of God's judgment.
8 7.21% Yes, atheists help others because it is good for the survival of the human race.
7 6.31% Yes, atheism can justify its altruism because all people know it's good to help others.
3 2.70% Yes, atheism can justify its altruism because it doesn't make sense not to.
3 2.70% Yes, atheists are kind to others because they want others to be kind to them.

24 21.62% No, atheism has no rational justification for any morality, aesthetics, or charity.
16 14.41% No, atheism cannot justify its charity, but some atheists are charitable anyway.
13 11.71% No, atheism cannot justify its altruism rationally, but most atheists do so emotionally.
6 5.41% No, atheism cannot justify altruism & historically does not openly promote altruism.
2 1.80% No, atheism cannot justify altruism & most atheists are self-centered.

50 45.05% Sub-total: The Yes votes
61 54.95% Sub-total: The No Votes

111 100.00% Total


Answers In Action is a dynamic non-profit, evangelical, Christian organization based in Costa Mesa, California, which trains individuals to think logically and reasonably about all things <snip/> committed to helping individuals, both Christians and non-Christians, seek and find Truth . Answers In Action equips Christians to be effective and successful witnesses, evangelists, and apologists for the Christian faith and to adopt sound reasoning and solid critical thinking.

Source (http://www.answers.org/aia_intro.html)

[The Atheist]

Is it really a fair disparity?

By default in this setup everyone who can't be arsed in general is lumped in with the non-religious.

That can only reflect badly upon us.

With a little bit of ill will, I could claim this is deliberately so.

That may well be the case. If so, whose responsibility is it to change that opinion? Us? The apatheists? Christians?

This is my point entirely - we can choose to be positive and display the positive face of atheism, or we can sit back and snipe at religion

There is currently a poll running on Answers in Action that asks "Is there rational justification for atheistic altruism?"

So far, there are 111 replies and, although it is (I think) a site primarily run for and by christians, we atheists are doing ok

Cheers, that's very interesting stuff and as you say, surprisingly positive for where it is.

[six7s]

More stuff I found interesting, this time re providing healthcare to the 'underserved' (not, as my eyes read a few times, the 'undeserved')

(bolding &c: mine)

Atheist doctors more likely to care for the poor than religious ones (http://pressesc.com/news/80931072007/atheist-doctors-more-likely-care-poor-religious-ones)

Submitted by Vidura Panditaratne on Tue, 2007-07-31 12:32.

Atheist doctors are <insertBySix7s> MORE </insertBySix7s> likely to practice medicine among the underprivileged than religious physicians, even though most religions call on the faithful to serve the poor, according to the results of large cross-sectional survey of US medical practitioners published in Annals of Family Medicine (http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/353).

Researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital report that 31 percent of physicians who were more religious—as measured by "intrinsic religiosity" as well as frequency of attendance at religious services—practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none.

Source: http://pressesc.com/news/80931072007/atheist-doctors-more-likely-care-poor-religious-ones (http://pressesc.com/news/80931072007/atheist-doctors-more-likely-care-poor-religious-ones)

So far I have yet to find any documented evidence (on the net) of atheists being less caring, altruistic, benevloent, philanthropical, etc. than any other 'group'

Is it simply the right-wing rumour mill in action?