Yes, I remember. Not sure how that’s relevant to the topic at hand, but I may be missing something.
[/quote]
OK. This seems to be an area that I need to flush out a bit for you to understand what I’m thinking. It comes under “How might a religion begin” or “How might an early religion look.”
When a leader is given God-like attributes and can do no wrong, we might think he’s just a man, but some close to him may think he’s more. Given a sufficient amount of time, the legends may grow; his followers may write and rewrite his story.
The current population of North Korea is about 23 million. I’m guessing that, as backward as the country is, most can read and write. I think most of these modern people have been fooled. I hear about 80 percent of the world is now literate, and being functionally literate in the modern world may mean being able to read train schedules, simple maps, read and write using everyday language etc. At one time, a literate person was one who could sign his name. Wasn’t paper invented in China, 100 AD? So, your average citizen of Jerusalem probably read about zero point something books in his life.
Today, the average 5th grader, has a better understanding of how the world works (germ theory, climate, planets, stars, anatomy) than most anyone in early AD times. And yet modern man gets fooled All The Time. I’m guessing it was easier to fool people 2000 years ago.
Now pretend that Kim Il-sung had been around 2000 years ago OR instead of Kim, think of (semi-devine) King Bumibol of Thailand, or Sai Baba remember him?
Virgin birth. God person. Changed water into other liquids.
Multiplied food. Levitated. Helped the poor and cured the sick.
(If I were a football coach, I’d say he’d read Jesus’ playbook.)
First Century AD had a lot of (let’s be generous and say) unsophisticated people around.
You say a lot of things, make some predictions (the bad can be forgotten). You get a following and things take off. Or they don’t.
The time element for Christianity is something that I’m not really clear on, so if I say something that is way off, please correct me.
So, maybe you say you are a reincarnation of a God or a son of God. Maybe other people make up stories about you. You live your God-life, (or at least your really good life), and nobody around writes anything down. Remember for these people, paper and stirrups were the high tech of the FUTURE. But, anyway people talk. Especially in a small town, people talk. I guess Nazareth had around a thousand people, Bethlehem was tiny. Jerusalem had 15,000 people back in 1844; maybe at the time of Jesus it was even 4X bigger.
I’ve been to all of these places as well as say the place where Aramaic is still spoken in the south of Syria (Maaloula), and the place where Jonah swallowed the whale (or was it the other way?). I spent Holy week in Jerusalem, and highly recommend it. I tried to imagine what things were like long ago. Now, YOU try to picture how small, and unsophisticated these places were 2000 years ago. It’s hard to imagine what life was like, but think of something closer to Ringo Starr in “Caveman” than Harrison Ford in “Blade Runner.”
So anyway, after you die, people talk. Maybe 150 years later the first Gospels are written. Weren’t there a lot of gospels (forged etc.) that didn’t make it into the good book? So the picking and choosing begins (It began long ago).
These gospels are copied. The copies are copied. Maybe they were copied honestly and accurately, but maybe not. Between the early Gospels and the oldest New Testament there’s another 300 years? Then over the next millennium+, people learn more about the world and pick and choose and interpret some more.
Anyway, I think what may be a mere cult of personality in 2008, could change into something people would call a religion. It might be one that changes and gets reinterpreted. Maybe Sai Baba, Kim Il-sung or King Bumibol will be remembered or even worshipped 2000 years from now. Probably not.
As far as that Big Brother world of North Korea, where Dear Leader is everywhere watching over you, it sounds a lot like the religion I was taught (where God watches over your every move).
Kim Il-sung is still the president, even though he’s dead. This sounds again like the religion I was taught about a man who died, yet lived on. The personality cult of North Korea sounds like a (terrible) religion, or a possible early stage of one to me.
It’s just propaganda and maybe a little hero worship. Do you think anyone in Korea honesty thinks that smelly wrinkly old man is some kind of demi-god? Do you think they’re even close to believing that?
Which is not the case in Korea, but let’s keep going.
Yes, all true. But I see no evidence of this in Korea.
You mean you think most of the North Koreans really do think that Kim is some kind of demi-god?
Incredible as it may seem, people were happily writing on materials other than paper from around 3,000 BC. I have a scholarly article here on literacy in Iron Age Israel, and in 1st century Jerusalem the Jewish population was considerably more literate than the average literacy level in the Roman Empire as a whole, due to their religion. But let’s keep going and see where this gets us.
I suggest you try reading ‘Doubt: A History’, and you may revise your opinion. There’s not an atheist or skeptical argument currently aired which wasn’t aired at least 2,000 years ago.
Yes I remember Sai Baba. At this point we’re getting to the ‘Imagine-if-everything-was-totally-different-to-the-way-it-is-now’ stage, which means what we’re discussing is no longer relevant to the current situation in Korea.
[quote]Virgin birth God person. Changed water into other liquids.
Multiplied food. Levitated Helped the poor and cured the sick.
(If I were a football coach, I’d say he’d read Jesus’ playbook.)[/quote]
Of course he did, copycatting is the easiest way to start a new religion.
[quote]First Century AD had a lot of (let’s be generous and say) unsophisticated people around.
You say a lot of things, make some predictions (the bad can be forgotten). You get a following and things take off. Or they don’t. Maybe Sai Baba, Kim Il-sung or King Bumibol will be remembered or even worshipped 2000 years from now.[/quote]
Yes, all possible. But not particularly relevant to explaining how North Korean atheism isn’t really atheism, it’s a kind of religion or proto-religion.
You have three to five years after Jesus’ death before the earliest creeds are drawn up, during which time followers of Jesus spread from Jerusalem right through to Rome.
Papyrus was a thing of the present. The stirrup had been invented 500 years earlier. The earliest Christian writings about Jesus were penned within 5 years of his death. Five years. They were being distributed widely from that point on.
In the 1st century the population of Jerusalem was around 25,000, which expanded by up to four times that amount in festival seaons.
[quote]---------------------------------
I’ve been to all of these places as well as say the place where Aramaic is still spoken in the south of Syria (Maaloula), and the place where Jonah swallowed the whale (or was it the other way?). I spent Holy week in Jerusalem, and highly recommend it. But try to picture how small, and unsophisticated these places were 2000 years ago. It’s hard to imagine what life was like, but think of something closer to Ringo Starr in “Caveman” than Harrison Ford in “Blade Runner.”[/quote]
Yes, brown people are dumb, especially those who lived 2,000 years ago, I get it.
[quote]--------------------------------
So anyway, after you die, people talk. Maybe 150 years later the first Gospels are written.[/quote]
The gospels were written in the 1st century.
The non-canonical gospels don’t date until well into the 2nd century. Since they claim to be written by people who lived over 150 years before the date that the books were written, they were rejected for good reason. It wasn’t difficult to spot the forgeries. If you say ‘Hey, I just found the gospel of Thomas, all evidence points to an authorship date of 170 AD, do you think it’s genuine?’, my simple answer will be ‘You do realise that Thomas died no later than around 70 AD, over 100 years before this book was written?’. In addition, the fraudulent gospels are heavily dependent on the canonical gospels (which they frequently quote), indicating that they postdate them.
Well let’s see:
[quote]'The Alexandrian text is found in manuscripts produced by scribes trained in Alexandrian scribal practices, the best of its kind in Greco-Roman times. Such scribes were schooled in producing well-crafted, accurate copies. The proto-Alexandrian manuscripts are usually purer than the later ones in that the earlier are less polished and closer to the ruggedness of the original writings. In short, these manuscripts display the work of scribes who had the least creative interaction with the text—they stayed with their task of making good copies.
Quite significantly, several of the earlier or proto-Alexandrian manuscripts display a text that was transmitted quite faithfully, as demonstrated in later Alexandrian manuscripts that bear great resemblance to earlier manuscripts. This is exemplified in the high percentage of textual agreement between several of the early papyri and Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as is noted throughout this volume.’
Comfort, P. W., & Barrett, D. P. (2001). The text of the earliest New Testament Greek manuscripts (A corrected, enlarged ed. of The complete text of the earliest New Testament manuscripts) (28). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House[/quote]
[quote]‘The most reliable texts are P1, P4/P64/P67, P23, P27, P30, P32, P35, P39, P49/P65, P70, P75, P86, P87, P90, P91, P100, P101, P104, P106, P108, P111, P114, and P115. These manuscripts, produced with acumen, display a standard of excellence. The scribes’ motivation for accuracy could have come from their respect for the sacredness of the text or from their scribal training, or both. In any event, they produced reliable copies that largely preserve the original wording of the New Testament writings. It is to these manuscripts that we look for the preservation of the original wording of the various writings of the New Testament.’
Comfort, P. W., & Barrett, D. P. (2001). The text of the earliest New Testament Greek manuscripts (A corrected, enlarged ed. of The complete text of the earliest New Testament manuscripts) (29). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House[/quote]
The content of the original gospels is ascertainable with a degree of accuracy higher than any analogous ancient text. The current authoritative Greek New Testament critical text (Nestle/Aland 27th edition), determines the content of the original gospels with almost complete certainty. Uncertainties are usually at the level of a word or two, or the odd phrase. There is no evidence for the sweeping textual revisions of the hopeful conspiracy theorist.
Between the early gospels and the oldest complete New Testament text there’s around 300 years. But copies of the gospels predate this considerably, and they were already being quoted in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries.
[quote]'The earliest known New Testament manuscript is P52, a fragment of John’s Gospel. This papyrus fragment was dated by various paleographers to the first half of the second century—even to the first quarter (see discussion under P52). Adolf Deissmann was convinced that P52 was written at least during the reign of Hadrian (a.d. 117–138) and perhaps even during the reign of Trajan (a.d. 98–117), but no one would commit to a date earlier than a.d. 125. In the end, C. H. Roberts dated it to “the first half of the second century.”
This conservative dating allows for a larger time gap between the autograph and copy, but there is nothing unreasonable about assigning a date of a.d. 100–125 for P52. If the Fourth Gospel was written in the 70s or 80s, then we have a manuscript fragment twenty years removed from the autograph.’
Comfort, P. W., & Barrett, D. P. (2001). The text of the earliest New Testament Greek manuscripts (A corrected, enlarged ed. of The complete text of the earliest New Testament manuscripts) (23). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House[/quote]
More detail could be added.
[quote]Then over the next millennium+, people learn more about the world and pick and choose and interpret some more.
Anyway, I think what may be a mere cult of personality in 2008, could change into something people would call a religion. I might be one that changes and gets reinterpreted.[/quote]
Well North Korea has had a good long time to do this already, and they haven’t.
[quote]------------------------------------
As far as that Big Brother world of North Korea, where Dear Leader is everywhere watching over you, it sounds a lot like the religion I was taught (where God watches over your every move).[/quote]
But in North Korea ‘Dear Leader’ does not see everything you do. He is never credited with omniscience.
[quote]-----------------------------------
Kim Il-sung is still the president, even though he’s dead. This sounds again like the religion I was taught about a man who died, yet lived on. The personality cult of North Korea sounds like a (terrible) religion, or a possible early stage of one to me.[/quote]
So ‘guy is dead’ sounds to you like ‘guy lives on’?
I do honestly believe that the vast majority of the world’s population in AD 30
was less educated than your average 5th grader today.
I said the average 5th grader (today) has a better understanding of how the world works
(germ theory, climate, planets, stars, anatomy) than most anyone in early AD times.
I am still often amazed at how easily people are fooled today.
Remember Uri Geller and his spoon bending tricks?
The guy sold millions of books, and millions of
modern people believed that he (and they) had some
special powers until James Randi exposed him for the faker he is.
I guess I have a low threshold for what constitutes a religion.
One man’s cult is another man’s religion.
I give plenty of them the benefit of the doubt, and I say,
“Yeah, OK it’s another religion. I just don’t believe.”
[quote=“zender”][quote=“Fortigurn”]
Yes, brown people are dumb, especially those who lived 2,000 years ago, I get it.
[/quote]
Fortigurn, thanks for responding.
Please,
I never said brown people are dumb.[/quote]
You’re right, that was unfairly facetious of me, I apologise.
[quote]I do honestly believe that the vast majority of the world’s population in AD 30
was less educated than your average 5th grader today.[/quote]
That’s a very complex statement, by which I mean that as it stands it’s totally wrong (it’s an oversimplification). The people you’re talking about were typically bilingual or trilingual. Can you card wool? Can you spin? Can you herd? Raise crops? Weave clothing? You’re comparing two completely different eras, with two completely different skill sets. To make a comparison which is even more dramatic, how about we drop you into the middle of Australia and see just how educated you are? I can guarantee you’ll be dead in a week because you’re so poorly educated. You don’t even know how to find water, or which plants to eat. See the point?
[quote]I said the average 5th grader (today) has a better understanding of how the world works
(germ theory, climate, planets, stars, anatomy) than most anyone in early AD times.[/quote]
And?
Exactly. People today are as fooled easily as they were 10,000 years ago. You just have to find the right buttons to push. People haven’t changed. People in the 1st century were no more easy to fool than they are today.
It would help if you had a threshold which was based on sound sociological research.
Indeed, but in this case one man’s cult is your religion, but you claim it’s their religion.
[quote]I give plenty of them the benefit of the doubt, and I say,
“Yeah, OK it’s another religion. I just don’t believe.”[/quote]
We were discussing North Korea. They don’t say ‘It’s a religion’.
Well, that’s taking it a bit too far. People are still gullible. People are naive. People will fall for some pretty tall tales.
But, your average 5th grader has a breadth of experience and knowledge of the world that is amazing.
They can watch sleight of hand “magic” on TV every day. They know it is a trick. My 8-year-old daughter has read thousands of books/stories (Well, mostly me reading TO her).
I bet that would mean she has read more words than 99.999 percent of the population in AD30. Sure, I think she’s special, but she’s just 8, and she’s outread virtually everyone BC. I’m guessing the median number of “book eqivualents” read in ancient times was very low.
Think about this. I have probably (there’s that word again) traveled more than anyone in the world before the 16th Century. Me! And I’m nobody. Really! You, my daughter, and I would probably be better at spotting some faker than anyone on earth 10,000 years ago.
Carding wool? Milking animals? Fetching water from a well? Raising a garden? Hunting animals? I’ve done it. I’m guessing that’s about ALL some folk did 10,000 years ago.
But your average 5th grader can still be fooled. Strange but true. In fact 5th graders tend to be extremely gullible.
Because you told them so, not because they detected it for themselves. Someone living 400 years ago would be in exactly the same position.
I bet that would mean she has read more words than 99.999 percent of the population in AD30. Sure, I think she’s special, but she’s just 8, and she’s outread virtually everyone BC. I’m guessing the median number of “book eqivualents” read in ancient times was very low[/quote]
Relevance?
That depends entirely on what they’re faking.
No, I don’t think you have. I’m not talking about visiting someone’s hobby farm, tending to a tiny veggie patch in the backyard with modern conveniences, or shooting deer, I’m talking about living your life using the skills which were common to the average agricultural dweller thousands of years ago. I note you did change the list somewhat.
FYI I lived on a farm for ten years. Did I say it was boring? It was for me.
Reading and being read/talked to a lot will surely help a child’s language skills, critical thinking, and problem solving ability. I’m guessing that there were some great story tellers 2000 years ago (10000 years ago I’m guessing survival was about it). But it wasn’t like everybody had access to check out 20 scrolls at a time from the library at Alexandria. It wasn’t even like most people had grandparents telling them the wisdom of the ages, as life expectancy back then was probably in the 20s.
Of course people are still gullible; kids even more so. The first times my girl saw magicians, I told her, “These are tricks.” I don’t want her to lose her lunch money playing Three-card Monte. I also don’t want her following any false prophets just because they can levitate. Now when she sees these tricks on TV, she can go to Youtube and see how the tricks are done. When a fakir levitates, she might say, “Oh, I’ve seen this trick before. It looks like a miracle, but it’s a trick that David Blaine likes to do; and here’s how you do it.”
When I see slight of hand presented (or regarded) as something more, it’s my duty to point out the truth to my child. Kids don’t detect it for themselves the first time, but after they have seen hundreds of tricks, they catch on.
I also understand that most religious people want to point out the truth as they see it to their children and friends. If you think you know the way to heaven, you want to share it with those you love.
As an atheist, I’m grateful for campaigns like these, for Richard Dawkings’ books and public appearances, for Sam Harris, Bill Maher and others who are active on behalf of rational thinking, who dare to criticize religion. It’s hard being an atheist while living in a Christian society. I’d had forgotten just how hard until I came back home. Taiwan was neutral ground - easy breazy, Holland was quite secular, amazingly so if you consider its religious past, so coming back to a Catholic stronghold like Croatia is quite a shock.
Campaigns such as this one and activism by known atheists make it a little bit easier for us to stand our ground and not feel alone.
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“Chris”]“So stop worrying and enjoy your life”?
What doubts can one have about a friendly reminder to enjoy life?[/quote]
That’s not the context in which it’s placed. The context in which it’s placed is that as long as there’s no God, you have nothing to worry about.[/quote]
No, that’s not what it means. It means you don’t have to worry about making a misstep and being sent to hell by an angry god, or waste time and energy praying or attending church in an attempt to win enough piety points to get into heaven.
Instead, you can live your life.[/quote]
I guess this is a good example of how two people will read the same thing and interpret it in two very different ways, based on their personal context, background, belief system, etc.
As an atheist myself, I read the slogan exactly the way Chris explains it.
But I can see how it can be read differently if one’s sense of responsibility comes from fear of higher power.
“Don’t worry” doesn’t equal “go out and rob a bank”
Athests who behave ethically and maturely, who are responsible and law-obiding, do so because of their own personaly belief system and because of their sense of belonging to a civilized society. Not because they fear god and church. That’s the main difference.
The slogan is also humorous, so lighten the f&ck up, everybody
I like the atheists like tash! I can’t stand those boring militant evangelittle ones who go around pushing their silly beliefs onto people who aren’t interested.
Well, that’s good if you’ve found it helpful, Tash. I’m not sure that there’s much “daring” involved for the group behind the message, though. In London, it would have been considerably more revolutionary 150 years ago.
Anyway, I’m sure we can all agree with the Methodists who hope that it will get people to think about bigger issues.[quote=“Maoman”][quote][color=#FF0080][b]However the Methodist Church said it thanked Professor Dawkins for encouraging a “continued interest in God”.
Spirituality and discipleship officer Rev Jenny Ellis said: “This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life.”
She added: “Christianity is for people who aren’t afraid to think about life and meaning.”[/b][/color][/quote]
Yeah, I’m with the Methodist Church on this one. It’s a good campaign, and people should be encouraged to think about “big picture” issues.[/quote]
[quote=“Buttercup”]I like the atheists like tash! I can’t stand those boring militant evangelittle ones who go around pushing their silly beliefs onto people who aren’t interested.[/quote]Absolutely!
I think the best way to evangelize atheism and secular humanism is not by criticizing religion or plastering lame slogans on buses, but by being kind to strangers, performing acts of charity, sharing positive stories about the humanist experience, and living normal, healthy lives. That’s what Christians do to spread their faith, and it’s worked wonderfully for them.
[quote=“Gao Bohan”]I think the best way to evangelize atheism and secular humanism is not by criticizing religion or plastering lame slogans on buses, but by being kind to strangers, performing acts of charity, sharing positive stories about the humanist experience, and living normal, healthy lives. That’s what Christians do to spread their faith, and it’s worked wonderfully for them.[/quote]That and military subjugation and worldwide colonialism.
[quote=“Ah Q”]Great. Everyone go out and enjoy your life! Responsibility? Ha! I laugh. Let’s all stop worrying about stuff and do whatever we please. Life has no purpose so might as well, ne?
Some fucking slogan. Since when is a bit of worrying a bad thing?[/quote]
Why, you can’t understand how someone can behave responsibly unless they are a theist? You can’t understand how someone can feel life has a purpose unless they believe one of the various religions on offer? :loco: I have no problem with the fact that some people find their purpose, their sense of responsibility, and their morals in their particular religion. I’m glad that they have found those things, and I wouldn’t attempt to take them away. But it’s bloody ASININE that some religious people do attempt to deny that people can have those things without religion, or in a religion different than their own. It’s incredibly arrogant and terribly insulting.
It’s implicit. It doesn’t matter what is meant, it matters what people will interpret it as. It’s like taking a fat kid to McDonalds. Hey, you’re not forcing him to eat anything! But he probably will. Does that put you in the clear?[/quote]
It is most certainly not implicit. That’s merely your biased misinterpretation of it. It most certainly does matter what is meant. And your analogy doesn’t make any sense.
No one’s trying to make you feel guilty. You’re being ridiculous. In America, it is some of the Christians who have gone about forcing their beliefs down others’ throats, and not the other way around. So yes, it’s completely different. Someone’s assertion that there are no gods is an affirmation of their own belief, not an attempt to make you feel guilty. Just as a religious person’s assertion that there are one or more deities is an affirmation of their own belief, not necessarily an attempt to make non-believers feel guilty. Both sides need to be able to respect each others’ beliefs as well as the freedom to state those beliefs. Stating one’s beliefs is not inherently a condemnation of those who believe otherwise.
[quote=“Chris”]No, that’s not what it means. It means you don’t have to worry about making a misstep and being sent to hell by an angry god, or waste time and energy praying or attending church in an attempt to win enough piety points to get into heaven.
Instead, you can live your life.[/quote]
Exactly.
Sure, some people choose to believe in a religion, and live their lives accordingly. But many do not: they may have doubts, but it’s the only life they know because of family or school environment. In other words, they were born into their religion; they didn’t choose it. The sign lets people know there’s an alternative, and that not believing in God is OK.[/quote]
That is exactly the point of speaking openly about atheism. Atheism is frowned upon in many places, and atheists don’t feel free to speak openly about their lack of belief in religion. Those who have doubts don’t feel free to express them. In such an oppressive climate, it’s a GOOD thing for people to stand up and talk about why they are not theists.
It is an affirmation of freedom of speech and freedom of belief. Why that would offend anyone is beyond me.
I agree with this, though there’s an immense gulf between encouraging people to think and succeeding in prompting real thought.[/quote]
So true.
Well, hang on a minute. What you say is not unreasonable (except that the word ‘unavoidable’ fails to allow for the many exceptions), but remember that in some places, atheists are oppressed. There are places where if you don’t believe in God, you’re not allowed to say so, for fear of being ostracized, losing votes, or even being stoned to death. I know this from first-hand experience. The grief I got from my own relatives for standing up and saying so was something I would not wish on another person.
So someone standing up and saying that they don’t believe in God isn’t necessarily an attempt to convert. It can also merely be an affirmation of freedom of belief.
Look at how hard it is for atheists to get elected in the U.S., for instance. McCain said he doesn’t go to church as often as he should. In the U.S., if you’re an atheist, chances are that’s what you have to say if you want any chance of still being elected. Imagine if he’d said he doesn’t believe in God. It would have been the end of his political career, and some of his friendships. In such a climate of oppression, atheists and agnostics need to start standing up and asserting their right to be treated fairly and equally. Converting others is not a necessary part of that assertiveness.
You asked for evidence on the extent to which atheists are held in low regard in the U.S., and not just in the Bible Belt, right? Here’s a Gallup poll, reflecting the national average:
So across America (U.S. of), atheists are held in the lowest regard of any of these groups. And lest you insist that all that prejudice is attributable to just the Bible Belt or just conservatives, have a look at how atheists rank with supposedly ‘liberal’ Americans:
Would you vote for an atheist?
ONLY 67% of liberals say yes
ONLY 48% of moderates say yes.
Conservatives, 29%.
I think you greatly underestimate the depth of the bias in the U.S. against people who are not religious. The U.S. is NOT a place where freedom of thought is genuinely and widely encouraged. It’s a bassackwards, royally screwed up place.
And it is equally rude to infer that people without faith are somehow experiencing some kind of diminished quality of life due to their belief, but atheists get that shit all the time, so some of them get pissed off, and hit back. You wanna know why there are some religion bashers on the forum? That’s why. I try not to be one of them. Look, I’m sure many religious people are experiencing better lives, and I wouldn’t want to take that away from them. But atheists still have a right to push back against the encroachment of some manifestations of some religions on their own lives and their rights.
The ones who start threads for no purpose other than to bash the faith of others are IMO being quite rude. However, there is still a place for arguments about and even sometimes against religion, or at least some of its more intrusive and oppressive aspects.
Whatever, Kahna.
That’s ridiculous. Society already labels people according to their faith, and labels exist for those without faith too. Why such vitriol for people to whom one and not another label happens to apply? Why assume that that label involves any conscious daily reminding in any of those cases?
The proper analogy would be if one did not have any citizenship, and then in the course of daily necessity to identify one’s nationality, spoke about not having one. Why would that be stupid? It would merely be a fact.
In the extremes of the Bible Belt perhaps, or Way Down South. Generally, I think people in North America couldn’t care less about what others believe.[/quote]
Fortigurn, your perceptions are probably accurate only for the most liberal and well educated areas of North America. For the majority of the continent, atheism is a dirty word. That’s not just in the deep south. I grew up in large part in Illinois, which is not in the bible belt, and I still learned that atheism was a dirty word. I knew by primary school that atheists were bad people (seriously, that is what my parents told me), even though I didn’t yet know what the word meant. Zender is right, IMO. Seriously. Have a look at this article for some perspective: economist.com/daily/news/dis … op_story=1
Sounds heavenly.
No, it is merely a response of ‘none’ when asked which religion you believe in.
I’ll explain my basis for making such a statement, but I’m still interested in the grounds on which you’re disputing it. My basis for making such a statement is the considerable historical evidence for it. Religions and other ideological groups only survive through conversion, conversion only takes place through evangelism, and evangelism requires conviction.[/quote]
I’ll jump in and join the dispute if you don’t mind. I also disagree with the word ‘unavoidable’ in this case. Religions don’t ‘only’ survive through conversion via evangelism. Some survive through procreation, some survive by preventing marrying out of the group, some convert at sword-point, and some survive through attracting new followers through the attractiveness of their ideas and practices. Some fail to survive because they don’t convert and don’t evangelize. Some disappear. So there is not a necessary connection between conviction and evangelism. Furthermore, standing up and affirming one’s faith or lack thereof in a public manner can have more than one possible goal. Evangelism is one possibility, but assertion of one’s right to believe or refuse to believe, in an attempt to cast off a cloak of oppression, is another.
I would love to have grown up in a society so open and free that not only Christians and Jews could get elected but also Muslims and Mormons and atheists, a society where people could stand up and say ‘this is why Islam is important to me’ or ‘this is why I am not a Christian’, without risking any kind of hostility. But I grew up in the U.S. (outside the Bible Belt) and Mexico, and in neither of those places were such things consistently possible. This is why those outside of the mainstream faiths NEED to stand up and assert themselves – to promote such an open and free society, not to deny to anyone else the right to celebrate their own faith.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]You asked for evidence on the extent to which atheists are held in low regard in the U.S., and not just in the Bible Belt, right? Here’s a Gallup poll, reflecting the national average:
So across America (U.S. of), atheists are held in the lowest regard of any of these groups. And lest you insist that all that prejudice is attributable to just the Bible Belt or just conservatives, have a look at how atheists rank with supposedly ‘liberal’ Americans:
Would you vote for an atheist?
ONLY 67% of liberals say yes
ONLY 48% of moderates say yes.
Conservatives, 29%.[/quote]
But DB, the bizarre thing about all that is that it suggests that even atheists in the US would rather vote for a Catholic than for an atheist. :eh:
Ouch! I don’t know how you get away with comments like that on Forumosa.
This is not exactly stunningly revolutionary. Neither Dawkins, Harris, Maher or others are saying anything new. They aren’t saying anything which hasn’t already been said by generations of Christian doubters and pious Christians over the last 2,000 years.
Fixed.
Fixed. Some atheists don’t suffer from such insecurities, even in Christian countries.
But I don’t think that’s how it was intended to be read. The authors are far more intelligent than to think that belief in God necessarily means having to worrya bout making a misstep and being sent to hell by an angry god or wasting time and energy praying or attending church in an attempt to win enough piety points to get into heaven.
But I can see how it can be read differently if one’s sense of responsibility comes from fear of higher power.[/quote]
I don’t know how it would read to someone whose sense of responsibility comes from fear of a higher power, since I don’t share that view.
I agree. I didn’t suggest it does. What it says is ‘If there’s no God you have nothing to worry about’. That’s exactly how it is being read on another discussion forum of which I’m a member, where the participants are overwhelmingly atheists (it’s an Australian forum, so no surprise there).
It’s a difference between those atheists and those Christians who ‘fear god and church’, yes.
Well said.
But this campaign is not being carried out in a country where atheists are oppressed. Quite the opposite. You can join the state church even if you don’t believe Jesus was raised. How good is that?
In this context, the message is not aimed at fellow atheists, so it’s not simply an affirmation of freedom of belief (which has been protected and enjoyed in England for a very long time).
Oooh, that means the majority of the continent is neither liberal or well educated?
Putting this into context, your parents are by your own description quite extreme Catholics, so this is hardly surprising.
It says that the number of people in the US professing no religion doubled in a mere 10 years (1991-2001). I’d say atheism is alive and thriving in the US. I also found this interesting:
So there’s plenty of support for atheists, even from ‘conservative columnists’. You can’t get away with making attacks on atheists in the US. Even the conservatives will bash you.
As for this:
I think this is just a matter of politicians deciding how best to market themselves to the electorate. That’s their choice, and that’s what politics is all about. I also found this very telling:
I think that’s a far more significant issue, because if you remove the religious opposition to atheism, these issues still remain. I think a key problem for atheists is that saying ‘I’m an atheist’ doesn’t actually identify you with anything concrete, any meaningful cause to which others can relate, and even sounds nihilistic to the uninformed. That’s hardly surprising given that atheism is not an ideological position.
But people like ideological positions. They like to know that someone stands for something. Saying ‘I’m an atheist’ means you’re identifying yourself as someone who doesn’t believe in God. There’s no a lot there which is particularly attractive, especially in contrast to ‘I’m a Christian’, which at least evokes concepts of charity and good will.
This was also interesting:
[quote]But another failing of the irreligious movement has been its tendency, frequently, to pick the wrong fights. Keeping the Ten Commandments out of an Alabama courthouse is one thing. But attacking a Christmas nativity scene on public property does more harm than good. Such secular crusades allow Christians—after all, the overwhelming majority of the country—to feel under attack, and even to declare that they are on the defensive in a “War on Christmas”. When a liberal federal court in California struck the words “under God” from the pledge of allegiance, religious conservatives rallied. Atheists might be tactically wise to accept the overwhelming majority’s comfort with such “ceremonial deism”.
If atheists, agnostics and secularists could polish their image they might prove powerful, and increasingly so. If the number of people declaring “no religion” can double over the ten years to 2001 who know how many more there are now or might be in years to come. Polls have shown that eight years of Mr Bush’s mix of piety, divisiveness and incompetence have pushed young people towards the secular in higher numbers than before.[/quote]
I think the article does a good job of demonstrating that atheists in the US are their own worst enemy. Atheists elsewhere in the world don’t have it nearly so hard, even in places like England (with a state religion), and Australia (where around 50% of the population is still religious, and Christianity still has a very high profile).
The last sentence of the article places your statistics in a very different perspective:
Do you have any statistics on how many religious Americans vote as opposed to how many non-religious Americans? That would be interesting.
Really? You lost me. Where did you get that? As I understand it, the figures are for Americans overall, broken down by faith of the politician in question, not by the faith of the poll respondent. So it has little bearing on whom an atheist would vote for, since few of the respondents were atheists, and their answers were not tallied separately.
Ouch! I don’t know how you get away with comments like that on Forumosa. [/quote]
Countries aren’t a protected species.
But this campaign is not being carried out in a country where atheists are oppressed.[/quote]
But the comments about atheists, spurred by the bus campaign, are relevant to atheists everywhere, thus the broader discussion.
Oooh, that means the majority of the continent is neither liberal or well educated?[/quote]
IMO, that is correct.
[quote][quote]Have a look at this article for some perspective: economist.com/daily/news/dis … op_story=1[/quote]
It says that the number of people in the US professing no religion doubled in a mere 10 years (1991-2001). I’d say atheism is alive and thriving in the US.[/quote]
How can atheists thrive if they are excluded from public office and looked down upon?
That doesn’t jive with my perceptions based upon living there. Support from one or two conservatives doesn’t equate with ‘plenty of support’. The poll I linked to gives a much better indication of where atheists stand in the eyes of the majority than does an isolated anecdote.
[quote]As for this:
I think this is just a matter of politicians deciding how best to market themselves to the electorate. That’s their choice, and that’s what politics is all about.[/quote]
You say that as if they had much of a choice. No, it’s the result of the extreme prejudice in America against atheists, such that politicians who are atheists are forced to be closet atheists. They do not feel that they have the freedom to publicly declare their atheism, as that would be political suicide. This is why I say that bus slogans like that are needed in America, and why we need more like Dawkins out and about.
[quote] I also found this very telling:
I think that’s a far more significant issue, because if you remove the religious opposition to atheism, these issues still remain. I think a key problem for atheists is that saying ‘I’m an atheist’ doesn’t actually identify you with anything concrete, any meaningful cause to which others can relate, and even sounds nihilistic to the uninformed. That’s hardly surprising given that atheism is not an ideological position. [/quote]
If you removed the religious opposition to atheism, then the atheists wouldn’t have much need to organize, though.
Saying ‘I’m an atheist’, in America, implies that you’re not the type to push creationism in the classroom as opposed to science. That’s pretty damned attractive in my book.
Atheists in the U.S. might not be properly organized, but their worst enemy is the intolerant right-wing Christianity in America, not themselves. It’s not just the atheists on the receiving end. When Obama was accused by some shitferbrains GOP types of being Muslim, the response was ‘no, he’s Christian’, rather than ‘no, he’s Christian, but so what if he were?’. The intolerant form of Christianity in the U.S. is the enemy of atheists, and Muslims, and Mormons, other faiths, science, and reason.
[quote]The last sentence of the article places your statistics in a very different perspective:
Only? Only? That’s more than enough to guarantee political defeat for 99% of atheist candidates. So atheists are still shut out of politics. In essence, in American politics, if you’re not Judeo-Christian, you’re not welcome around here. Pack up your bags and leave, please. :s
One unfortunate result of all this is that American atheists are sometimes very hostile toward all religion (instead of being, more properly, hostile to the intolerant form of religion in particular which they find oppressive), and I think that is quite likely the driving force behind some of the religion-bashing that we see on this forum.
All nations have their nation-building mythology. One of the biggest myths that we’re taught in American history is that our founders came here for religious freedom. Well, that’s half true. The Pilgrims and such sailed to America to escape religious oppression - and swiftly became harsh religious oppressors themselves. The second major colony in New England was Rhode Island, which consisted of refugees from the brutal Puritan theocracy of the Massachussetts colony.
I think that’s one element that’s overlooked in American demography - that we were settled to a great degree by religious refugees, who in turn became religious fanatics. Like I said upthread, the vast majority of people all over the world are indifferent agnostics. Europe in the 16th to 19th centuries had a safety valve for releasing all their cult leaders and weirdos and misfits and religious fanatics, and that was the New World. It’s by no coincidence that the majority of the Protestant (i.e., non-Catholic/Eastern Orthodox) sects flourished in the Americas as they never could have in Europe. Thus American politics is much more dominated by religion than European nations’ politics are. Many American communities were settled as theocracratic communities - Maryland (Roman Catholics), Massachussetts (Puritans), Pennsylvania (Quakers), Utah (Mormons). American atheists and agnostics were all raised (unless they lived in extremely liberal places) in the Bible Belt. It’s an uphill battle for us. Judging by my highschool and college friends that I keep up with via Facebook, 95% of them are in their 30s born-again Christians. In that kind of environment, it’s very easy to feel alienated for being a Doubting Thomas.
[quote=“Quentin”]All nations have their nation-building mythology. One of the biggest myths that we’re taught in American history is that our founders came here for religious freedom. Well, that’s half true. The Pilgrims and such sailed to America to escape religious oppression - and swiftly became harsh religious oppressors themselves. The second major colony in New England was Rhode Island, which consisted of refugees from the brutal Puritan theocracy of the Massachussetts colony.
I think that’s one element that’s overlooked in American demography - that we were settled to a great degree by religious refugees, who in turn became religious fanatics. Like I said upthread, the vast majority of people all over the world are indifferent agnostics. Europe in the 16th to 19th centuries had a safety valve for releasing all their cult leaders and weirdos and misfits and religious fanatics, and that was the New World. It’s by no coincidence that the majority of the Protestant (i.e., non-Catholic/Eastern Orthodox) sects flourished in the Americas as they never could have in Europe. Thus American politics is much more dominated by religion than European nations’ politics are. Many American communities were settled as theocracratic communities - Maryland (Roman Catholics), Massachussetts (Puritans), Pennsylvania (Quakers), Utah (Mormons). American atheists and agnostics were all raised (unless they lived in extremely liberal places) in the Bible Belt. It’s an uphill battle for us. Judging by my highschool and college friends that I keep up with via Facebook, 95% of them are in their 30s born-again Christians. In that kind of environment, it’s very easy to feel alienated for being a Doubting Thomas.[/quote]
An excellent post. I have made most of these same comments previously.
[quote](Nov. 11) - You better watch out. There is a new combatant in the Christmas wars.
Ads proclaiming, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December. The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday.[/quote]
Hopefully this new campaign will result in some proper dialog between atheists and Christians, so that more American atheists can reach a better understanding of Christians and why this particular campaign isn’t going to mean anything to many of them. The message as it stands suggests that people only believe in God because they think without it there’s no point in being good. Aside from the logical fallacy involved, this conflates two separate issues.
However, as with all ideological and epistemological movements, we can expect fledgling atheist evangelism in America to make a few mistakes before it really starts to understand its intended audience and engage them constructively. Fortunately it looks like the first wave of aggressive evangelists is already giving way to a more moderate approach (which is the typical pattern when groups begin to evangelize), which should prove more useful to all concerned. Though you’re always going to have the old war horses like Dawkins and Hitchens baying for the annihilation of religion and insisting that moderate religious people are even more dangerous than the Fundamentalists.
So true.
