Why do Americans still dislike atheists?
- Thread starter Fraggle Rocker
- Start date
Being religious is self-defined. The largest criminal gang in Mexico is religious.
Mexican Gang Leader Preaches Religious Virtues
Additionally, being an atheist does not free you from guilt for doing wrong. But religion can free you from guilt for doing wrong when religion says certain wrong actions are OK.
Mexican Gang Leader Preaches Religious Virtues
Additionally, being an atheist does not free you from guilt for doing wrong. But religion can free you from guilt for doing wrong when religion says certain wrong actions are OK.
Guilt by association, in this case with racists. Shame on both of you.
Americans dislike atheists for, presumably, the same reason that all nations dislike atheists: religion is a major portion of the "glue" used to erect and maintain coherent identity groups at that large of a scale, so anybody who's opting out of that represents a threat to said coherence. This situation will persist until some identity group comes up with a way of doing nation-scale (or larger) political organization without relying on religion (and I'm not holding my breath, on that one).
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I hate that motherfucker. He has somehow gotten himself acknowledged as our spokesman, and he sure doesn't speak for me or most of the people I know. He doesn't understand that supernaturalism is (almost certainly) an instinct, and you can't reason people out of an instinct. "Knowledge" you are born with feels more true than knowledge you acquire later through reasoning and learning. I haven't read his stuff, but the excerpts I've seen make me cringe. His characterizations of the motives of religious people are inflammatory and not even entirely correct. He seems more interested in encouraging the believers to hate us or even fear us, than in finding a peaceful way to coexist.
Only the ones you encounter here and in other scholarly and academic circles like universities. My mother was neither scientific or rational. She was an atheist simply because her family were atheists. By the time she found out that some people believe in the supernatural, she had the same reaction I did: laughter and cynicism.
I don't know whose smoke and mirrors you're referring to, but certainly not mine. I attribute many if not most of the high-body-count wars to religion, at least Abrahamic religion, because it reinforces our atavistic tribal instinct in an era when tribalism is a threat to civilization. But not crime. Crime is simply our Inner Caveman taking control for a little while, reverting back to the behavior of the Paleolithic Era, when anyone outside your extended family was a hated and feared competitor for scarce resources. That can happen to any modern human who is living in a world that has evolved faster than his psychology has.
"Animal standards?" Atheism relies on what makes us human: our ability to feel empathy toward each other without being threatened by eternal damnation.
Are you the one who blamed Stalinism on atheism? You overlooked the fact that communism is an offshoot of Christianity. "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability," was Karl Marx's elaboration of his favorite quote from the Book of Acts. No self-respecting Jew, Hindu or Confucian would try to build a functioning economy on the principle that what a man takes from it does not have to correlate with what he gives back. That is pure Christian fairytale logic: "Don't worry, God will take care of you."
At this point I'm going to put on my Moderator hat, invoke the scientific method, peer-review that hypothesis, and ask you to provide the evidence that supports it. Atheists are no more egocentric than anyone else. The ones I know donate to charity, help our brethren, perform community service, and try our best to make civilization better.
Now I'll have to put on my Linguistics Moderator hat. The definition of "religion" requires belief in a supernatural universe, and the first five definitions in most dictionaries specifically require belief in one or more gods. This is specifically what we reject.
Your assertion has been peer-reviewed and falsified. Do not repeat it on SciForums, ever again, on any thread, in any subforum, or you will be guilty of trolling.
The problem is that this particular glue only works up to a certain size job. Now that the "coherent identity groups" number in the billions, the religious differences between them work to create antipathy rather than harmony. The nation-scale political organizations that actually do rely on religion are proudly and energetically planning to engage in nuclear war.
What more evidence do we need that religion--at least the popular monotheistic variety--is an artifact of the Stone Age that has long outlived its usefulness?
No it doesn't. While that is a common trait of most religions, it is not required in the definition. For example, the entry at dictionary.com :
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "
Note that such is explicit that belief in the supernatural, while typical, is not required.
The reason atheism isn't a religion is that it doesn't amount to any positive set of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, nor does it have any of the rest (devotional or ritual observances, moral code). "Atheism" is simply a catch-all term for people who do not believe in god(s). It says nothing about whether those people are religious or not.
Moreover, "atheism" doesn't require any rejection of the supernatural, as such. Only the belief in deities. You can still go in for ancestor worship, or believe in Leprechauns, or whatever, as long as there are no Gods in the picture. While rejection of the supernatural in general is typical of atheists (just as belief in the supernatural is typical of the religious), there is no hard requirement there.
And does this warning apply to you as well, since you are yourself advancing assertions that have been peer-reviewed and falsified? Since you, indeed, make a habit of doing so with several different assertions, repeatedly and in the face of clear, good-faith correction, can we go so far as to outright label you a troll?
Or is there perhaps some salient distinction between adherence to a position in the face of opposition, and trolling? Every coherent definition of "trolling" that I've encountered had as its primary component something about a desire to elicit certain emotional responses from an audience (and nothing about being "wrong," or rejecting consensus, as such).
Does it? It's not clear to me that a one-world religion, with a single nationality based thereupon, is impossible. It's also not clear to me that the process of handling bigger jobs requires replacing religion, rather than grafting something new on top of it (the same was religion works on top of smaller-scale group loyalties in doing the same trick at a smaller scale).
That was always the case - and it's a feature, not a bug. Religion is only supposed to create harmony and solidarity inside the in-group - and thereby empower them to better resist and displace competing groups. Antipathy towards Others is simply the other side of the group-coherence coin. Surely you don't imagine that inter-religious conflict is some new phenomenon that wasn't an issue until the populations got this large? The empowerment of said competition is exactly what led to the proliferation of religion to begin with.
Exactly. That's a testament to the power of these modes of organization - they can mobilize large populations and resources, with sufficient backing to pursue very high stakes conflicts against other very powerful groups. Less powerful modes of organization don't stand a chance, against that - and so, the more capable modes proliferate.
We'd need to see the scale of political organization reverting to that of the Stone Age. Since (organized) religion is still producing ever-more-powerful and competitive political organizations, it seems that its usefulness is not at any sort of end.
Rather, it seems that the Age of Global Enlightenment that you seem to be speaking to, has not yet seen its dawn. It will have to produce some identity politic capable of subsuming religion, ethnicity and nationalism, before it exists in any positive sense.
Here's an accepted definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, ....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, ....
Bertrand Russell often referred to Marxism as a religion. With out seemingly innate craving for certainty, our impulse for dogmatism has some curious results sometimes. Peer review, and incontrovertible evidence can still take time to dismantle scientific orthodoxies that have built up when people have become comfortable with a certain accepted view, and are very reluctant to change.
Fraggle, I'd like to read some of these Dawkins excerpts that make you cringe. This interview seems completely unobjectionable to me, and is typical of what I've read of him.
Fraggle, I'd like to read some of these Dawkins excerpts that make you cringe. This interview seems completely unobjectionable to me, and is typical of what I've read of him.
lol fair enough.
So, please expand on the word 'superhuman'. I think that is the crux of the matter, and establishes Fraggle's claim that the SUPERnatural is always invoked as part of religion.
Re Dawkins:
And another clue as to why Americans hate atheists.
But in general, religion does focus community and organize sacrifice for the common good. If someone thinks that deity is central to that organization for the common good, the notion that atheism is a personal betrayal of community is easy to imagine coming 'round.
The common condition, expressed or exhibited.
And another clue as to why Americans hate atheists.
But in general, religion does focus community and organize sacrifice for the common good. If someone thinks that deity is central to that organization for the common good, the notion that atheism is a personal betrayal of community is easy to imagine coming 'round.
Well, it seems then the solution to making religious people more sympathetic to atheists in America is elementary. What you need is for an Atheist to die for your "perceived sins", and now you have a perfect candidate. This is a way to remodel the whole image of Atheism in America, and do away with it's greatest curse in one fell swoop.
If you can somehow conspire to act as Judas and deliver Dawkins into the hands of that wacko that burned the Koran and caused all that trouble in the middle east, Pastor Terry Jones and all his followers, your crusade to change the hearts and minds of Americans about atheists will truley take off. And really, WWDD? (What Would Dawkins Do?) Isn't this the best most rational, logical thing to do to tug at the emotional heart strings at those fruity symbolic loving spiritualists? Having your leader perish for your cause?
Nah, as a non-group, we need a non-stamp collector to not do that.
You can believe yourself to be a "non-group" all you want. However, Fox News, the OP, Politicians, the institutions, etc. and the religious groups of America all beg to differ.
This hatred is a throwback to the 1950s which were not that long ago. Atheism and communism were deemed inseparable, which is why they put god in the pledge and on the money.
Being an atheist, I think my opinion counts more than a bunch of hacks and religious loonies take on the situation.
.. and generally raped the constitution.
The easiest answer is that Americans dislike atheists because Americans are religious. Religion makes people hate atheists.