The Growth of Atheism and What it Means for Our Future

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Not just privilege but power. I guess you could say TPTB could be good, as in a benevolent king, but humans being what they are it's usually about abuse. You don't have to "fight the power" when it's on your side. I just wanted to point out that the cabal that rules the world is just one version of the idea.

Not sure what you meant by christians being privileged.

I am an atheist and I am proud of it. How many wars we fought over religion? How many humans have died?
How much more advanced would we be today without Dark Ages.

Without religion we can open our minds - science is the only way to understand the universe and reason why we are here.


##SNIP##

reply to post by daskakik


In America:

They control large swathes of wealth, a shocking amount tax-free
They make up vast majority of public officials, and any candidate that explicitly says a bad thing about Christianity (regardless of the truth value of that claim) is going to kill his/her own career.
They are the majority (this is always a privilege whether or not you want to admit it)
They are one of the most powerful lobbying interests in America
They are typically exempt from outright criticism of their beliefs and rarely are forced to encounter true opposition

I can keep going on.
Christians have a privilege that they're fighting to hold on to, even though they have no right to it.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


OK, you were pointing them out as an example.

I agree. Big power and an agenda fits the description of TPTB pretty well.

reply to post by nicolee123nd


Well alot of is due to the fact ppl are no longer threatened with death such as Galileo,
for his words on the solar system.

Now you can have thoughts and the catholic church will not kill you for your thoughts.

All though there is another religion out there that will kill you for words, thoughts, etc etc.

So one religion has moderated, the other has a ways to go yet.

With free speech ppl have been able to talk about the absurdity or religion for many
decades and some pretty solid arguments have been built in that time, and
the effects of the brainwashing is diminishing here where the moderate religion is dominate,
thou that is to change in the not too distant future with the rapid rise of the other.

reply to post by martinkb Ah yes, the black and white views of collective christians and whiney atheists. I am a creationist as well as an evolutionist....but that might be too reasonable for our primative thinking...right? athiests are just as blood thirsty as organized religion....or have we forgotten all about the USSR?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Actually they do have right to privileges. America is designed so that any entity can take power without a war. One of the things they wanted because that was a common reason for civil war in Rome. Christians hold power now, but what type of Christian? They have been in contrast to each other. The stoic Christian, the socialist Christian, the catholic, Objectivism etc etc. Some not even Christian really. Just in name . If atheism takes power, it will do the same with the same privileges. Though what kind? Militant? Apathetic? Conservative? Moral atheist?

There's really nothing wrong with it as long as the law of the republic remains true: The majority can do what they want as long as they don't rip off and try to kill the minorities.

Essentially, the idea that minorities deserve equal power, and this is not racial but ideological, is an invention of the modern era. Minority ideologies deserve equal protection under the law, but not equal sway.

Basically, if the people want it, it goes, as long as it's not assaulting the rest. Atheism right now is a growing power, but it probably won't go to a majority of people. I cannot guess how large it will get, but past social developments can give a hint. I'd say anywhere from 30% to 20% by the 2030s-2050s, then a small decrease back to 10% as immigrants with cherished beliefs move in and breed.

Originally posted by applesthateatpeople
reply to post by martinkb

 

athiests are just as blood thirsty as organized religion....or have we forgotten all about the USSR?

Correlation.

Might as well say "men with mustaches are just as blood thirsty as organized religion...or have we forgotten the USSR?"

I was looking for an atheist group in my state when I found this. NSFW.

I found the Oklahoma Atheists. They're a bit far away for a drive, but they do have a nice T-shirt.

reply to post by Gorman91


Nobody deserves those privileges. That's the whole point. The whole of all elected offices in the Federal government have exactly one "out" atheist. While it might be more in the closet, only one is out.

The fact that a group of people have to conceal their views on religion actually violates the Constitution, there are people who create a test of religion in public opinion just to prevent anyone who isn't their religion from gaining power.

Now, this isn't about a minority deserving equal sway, it's also about equal protection. Atheists are often discriminated against and the majority remain closeted. Furthermore, we don't even have proportional representation. The only atheist lobby in Washington has had one meeting in the White House...ever. And it was this year. Atheists are a constituency that's magnitudes larger than Mormons, yet nobody courts the atheist vote. Nobody cares about atheists, and politicians regularly throw atheists under the bus.

Yep, right under it. Politicians are allowed to say things about atheists which would be considered vile hate speech if said about any other group related to religion.

A politician who said this to an atheist:

I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–

Source

Would have gotten a media firestorm if she had said it about any other religion. Atheists? Eh, screw em.

Atheism tends to hamper anyone who is in a child custody case, as many judges think it's better for a child to be raised in a religious home (even though there's no evidence to support this claim).

There are a plethora of cases of public high schools shutting down atheist groups while allowing after-school Bible studies.

If any group was treated the way that atheists are right now, people would be up in arms. Even Islam gets a better deal, because at least it gets press when people say something about it, regardless of what their reaction is. Atheists? No biggie...even though there are more atheists in America than Muslims.

Oh, and the way the government is set up is designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority that you endorse, just so you know. If the system was supposed to work the way you claim it does than we would have a government which consists of New York, Texas, and California.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoulmany judges think it's better for a child to be raised in a religious home

I think one can tell what I call indoctrination of the innocent sponges. However, I don't feel I should say what I call it, as the parents are victims too who know no better.

I think I have come to a conclusion regarding this topic.

Proselytizing atheists are just as annoying as proselytizing theists.

Dawkins and Hitchens are just as annoying to me as the Jehovahs Witness people knocking on my door.

Believe what you want, but shut the hell up and leave the rest of us alone about your belief/lack of belief in a higher power.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


It's their right to hide their views, just as its their right to use them to their advantage. The government is the elected official. The fact that people feel a certain way is no indication to right or wrong. Some times its wrong, as with 1850 democrats, other times its right, like with 1950 democrats. Other times it just doesn't matter, like with religion. There's a Muslim in the senate, and he got elected through his ability to function.

If the government does something and you don't like it, vote on it. But the fact of the matter is, as I mentioned some time ago, a truth is only as true as the people's faith in it. Not that I'm saying don't change it, nor am I saying change it. I am saying it is a process and a system that works.

Now you bring in a straw by saying people hiding their faith violates their rights. This is true. But you are not going to the target at hand, and that is that this is a republic. In a republic, majority rule with minority rights. It's that simple. If you feel compelled to hide your religion, that is you being retarded, not the people being biased.

The only atheist lobby in Washington has had one meeting in the White House...ever. And it was this year. Atheists are a constituency that's magnitudes larger than Mormons, yet nobody courts the atheist vote. Nobody cares about atheists, and politicians regularly throw atheists under the bus.

You are looking at it at a national scale. This is not the way it works. Governments are on a local scale, the federal government is on a national scale. Atheists are not condensed into any location to such a degree that would merit their voice in as a constituency. They are nationally, but not locally. Ergo, nationally the government most answer to their calls, and we see this in the many court cases and other such things. But the locals have the right to defend their ways if its not killing or discriminating. Things like prayer in public schools, a federal institution, are obvious locations of representation. Ergo, there should be no forced prayers, but I wouldn't have any problem with pray time. Simply for the fact that our Muslim friends have it 5 times a day and they have their rights to that time just as much as an atheist has his right to study during those times. Not that there should be 5 times a day allocated for personal beliefs, but the allocation of a right to leave the class and pray for that individual is perfectly his right. Things like this work quite well and everyone gets their rights. Locally, however, if a government wants to have a prayer vigil, it's their right. If a local community wants to erect a cross, Hanukkah candle, or even a gathering of Muslims to pray on the state capital, it is their right to in accordance for the local community's majority rights. As long as there's no westboro bros assulting a funeral or Muslims throwing stones, then they have every right.

Yep, right under it. Politicians are allowed to say things about atheists which would be considered vile hate speech if said about any other group related to religion.

Hate speech is not a constitutional element, and indeed an invention that is not constitutionally defended. Now if you go ahead and gather a crowd to hang an atheist with a naked Jesus statue on his yard, it's time to call up the national guard and fire a few rounds. But if a person calls an atheist an idiot for their beliefs, its his right too. If the people agree, its his right to be reelected with those comments in public knowledge. Once again, people have the right to speak their minds and no matter how much you feel you are being hated, hate is a right. Violence is not.

Would have gotten a media firestorm if she had said it about any other religion. Atheists? Eh, screw em.

His right to say it. Hatred is a right, violence is not.

Atheism tends to hamper anyone who is in a child custody case, as many judges think it's better for a child to be raised in a religious home (even though there's no evidence to support this claim).

Then you appeal. And there's probably a judge out there who would take a child out of a westboro household. I honestly have no problem with that. The judge judges. If you find it wrong, appeal. If the jury feels the same, its their right. Most people, including myself, would raise a rifle to defend an atheist if a westboro dude tried to attack him. It's the simple fact that hatred is a right, violence is not.

There are a plethora of cases of public high schools shutting down atheist groups while allowing after-school Bible studies.

I would disagree with that.

If any group was treated the way that atheists are right now, people would be up in arms. Even Islam gets a better deal, because at least it gets press when people say something about it, regardless of what their reaction is. Atheists? No biggie...even though there are more atheists in America than Muslims.

I really haven't seen much of what you claim. I've seen people ready to shoot Muslims. I've not seen people ready to shoot atheists.

Oh, and the way the government is set up is designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority that you endorse, just so you know. If the system was supposed to work the way you claim it does than we would have a government which consists of New York, Texas, and California.

You name places I like. And yea, they hold the biggest influences. The system is designed to prevent the tyranny of the masses from acting. Not from being a tyranny. The fact is that the claim of your position is shared by NAMBLA, polygamists, KKK, as well as communists, socialists, and fascists. Not all those people are necessarily bad. But do they deserve tyranny against them? Some do I would say. Tyranny is only bad when it actively peruses violence and killing against a group. When you prevent them from having total power, even out of hate, it is the majority's right to. It's the majority's right to stop a communist from deleting money, a socialist from giving to the poor, and a NAMBLA member from raping a boy. Good or bad, it's their right to stop it to the limit of violence and killing.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Dawkins and Hitchens are just as annoying to me as the Jehovahs Witness people knocking on my door.

Really? Because I had a Jehovas Witness knock on my door today and had some Mormons stop by last friday but have never heard of Dawkins and Hitchens. I don't think it is the same thing.

I will say this, I don't even really get into my lack of beliefs with people besides forum threads upon the subject or if someone asks me about it.

reply to post by daskakik


The only time I have ever heard an athiest talk about it, is when a person of religion brings up their religion myself.

IT MEANS ALOT OF MORONS WILL BURN IN HELL NOTHING MORE OR LESS
HAVE A GOOD ONE

reply to post by icecold7

IT MEANS ALOT OF MORONS WILL BURN IN HELL NOTHING MORE OR LESS HAVE A GOOD ONE

What morons are you referring to? Islam,Hinduism,Buddhism,Sikhism,Judaism,Baha'i Faith,Confucianism,Jainism,Zoroastrianism,Shinto,Taoism,Wicca or even none conforming Christians depending on your denomination.
Please do tell

reply to post by flyingfish


You would be surprised, I have a christian aunt who is convinced that anyone not attending her particular congregation is going to hell.

She has been trying to get her mother who is a catholic to switch to her church for years, her church is some crazy christian church.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Dawkins and Hitchens are just as annoying to me as the Jehovahs Witness people knocking on my door.

Really? Because I had a Jehovas Witness knock on my door today and had some Mormons stop by last friday but have never heard of Dawkins and Hitchens. I don't think it is the same thing.

I will say this, I don't even really get into my lack of beliefs with people besides forum threads upon the subject or if someone asks me about it.

Really?

Get on youtube when you have a chance. Look up Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. They proselytize atheism as bad as Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell shout about Christianity.

Believe what you want, and keep it to your self. That's what I think.

reply to post by TKDRL


Not surprised.I'm well aware of the hypocrisy among the many Christian denominations.They can't even agree among themselves who gets out of hell.