Quote:It rocks their world.

They've got rocks in their heads.

Handy place to keep them, never know when you'll have to stone someone.

Quote:Can you list a few? I'd love to see what specifics you would point to because here's where I think it gets complicated.

I was simply referring to all the harm religion has done in the past and continues to do in the present in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. For example the insane bills currently pending in different states which would allow refusal of service based on religious beliefs, even to the point where a doctor could refuse treatment or life-saving medicine(House Bill 178/Senate Bill 46 in Alabama). To learn more go to the motherjones site under Politics and read article 5 Scary Religious Refusal Bills. Most bills are titled and worded in such a way as to appear it is not only religious when it actually is. Presumptuous arrogance for them to think all are fooled.

It is the irrationality which causes the religious belief then leads to harmful things such as these bills. I'm left wondering where the line will be drawn. These bills are prime examples of when religious belief goes too far. I also wonder when the (non-fundie)religious themselves will realize it. Also an example of when religious ideology mixes with politics it is only for power, control, and the ability to spread a twisted ideology on a much larger scale(fundies being the worst).

Quote:Your statement here has two different targets, the PC wing and the subjugation wing. If you can be said to represent the rational thought wing, and the fundies can be said to represent the irrational wing, where does the PC wing fit in? Are saying that it isn't a rational? Ok, but if it isn't, is it a different kind of irrationality? After all, if the fundie folk are seeking to subjugate and the PC folks are seeking to tolerate, that's two different brands right there, each coming from a different direction. What do you think that's about?

PC is part of the problem in that it is a subtler form of irrationality because it allows the larger irrationality to continue rather than "hurt someone's feelings." I would say anyone who would draft or vote positively on a bill that could harm or cause the death of people based on religious belief is a good example of lunacy and should be called as such. People like that need to be in rubber rooms, not in positions of power. A milder example would be getting chastised for saying something negative about someone even though it is true. Which is more important, short-term hurt feelings or the long-term negative impact?

We've reached a point in existance where there is simply too much evidence against a god belief. As we know, the only reason religion continues is because the evidence is deliberately ignored by those who do not want to lose whatever power, control, and money it provides or by the masses who continue to allow fear and ignorance to control them. They need to wake up and realize they are selling their rationality, dignity, and self-respect for an empty dream. The sooner the better.

Now I'm dreaming...

Ahh, why do we get singled out... I've given this a lot of thought recently.

1) We point out that the thing they've believed in for their whole lives is wrong. Some people simply cannot accept that what they've been believing their whole lives has been proven wrong. You can show them that 2+2=4 and they'll disagree somehow.

2) They've decided that because they learned their morals through god, and everyone they hold close to them has as well, that it must be the only way to keep people in line.

3) Lack of religious education. Atheists are generally more educated on various religions than the average religious person.

Everyone knows what it's like to be an atheist, because each religion has a story that seems as patently ridiculous to all other religions.

(September 13, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Fred Wrote: University of Minnesota Study on American Attitudes Towards Atheists & Atheism
Research Finds that Atheists are Most Despised, Most Distrusted Minority

The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear. . . . atheists ranked lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.'

Lead researcher Penny Edgell said that she was surprised by this . . . Nevertheless, the numbers are so extreme that she was led to conclude that they are "a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years. . . Our analysis shows that attitudes about atheists have not followed the same historical pattern as that for previously marginalized religious groups. . . ."

Some respondents associated atheism with "immoral people who threaten respectable community from the lower end of the social hierarchy." Others saw atheists as "rampant materialists and cultural elitists" who "threaten common values from above -- the ostentatiously wealthy who make a lifestyle out of consumption or the cultural elites who think they know better than everyone else."

Furthermore, dislike of atheists doesn’t correlate very highly with dislike of gays, immigrants, or Muslims. This means that dislike of atheists isn't simply part of a larger dislike of people who are "different." Why are atheists being singled out for special hatred and distrust?

To briefly answer your question, we get singled out because religiion, god, and deeply religious people are associated with (either on a concious or subconcious level with most people) love, respect, family, friends, and tradition.
We have been demonized in addition to being viewed as the opposite of all that. We hate god (according to them) therefore, we are depraved and amoral.

Not entirely logical, but hate and intolerance rarely are.

[quote='ArmchairAtheist' pid='179377' dateline='1316135703'
PC is part of the problem in that it is a subtler form of irrationality because it allows the larger irrationality to continue rather than "hurt someone's feelings." I would say anyone who would draft or vote positively on a bill that could harm or cause the death of people based on religious belief is a good example of lunacy and should be called as such. People like that need to be in rubber rooms, not in positions of power. A milder example would be getting chastised for saying something negative about someone even though it is true. Which is more important, short-term hurt feelings or the long-term negative impact?[/quote]

You've said it's part of the problem, but I'm wondering why you think it developed in the first place. It didn't just pop out of the sky unbidden. It developed as a historical reaction. Why do you think it did so?

(September 15, 2011 at 1:08 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Beliefs are quite high up the level of what we take to be true.
For example I believe that there are no elephants in my fridge, I can back up this belief with photographs if needed.

Yeah, right. You'll just take a picture while the elephant is out for a walk.

There is such a lot of bollocks being talked on this thread. Atheism is unpopular because a lot of its proponents/ or the vocal minority are aggressive know it alls. It's a negative position and negativism is naturally unpopular.

(September 16, 2011 at 3:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It's a negative position and negativism is naturally unpopular.

Translation:

The truth hurts.

If you came to Europe, particularly UK and Scandinavia and did the same research, the results would be very different. The main reasons are, we (generally) grew out of religion and credulity a while back (especially Denmark). Then again we are a much older culture. The USA is still a pubescent teen, albeit one that doesnt seems to be maturing.

---

(September 16, 2011 at 3:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote: There is such a lot of bollocks being talked on this thread. Atheism is unpopular because a lot of its proponents/ or the vocal minority are aggressive know it alls. It's a negative position and negativism is naturally unpopular.

How the fuck are we negative? Because we choose not to have blind faith, not believe in the unbelievable that is a god? Or is it because we don't believe that in a universe that has 1 billion galaxies with a billion stars in each that your sky daddy (not mummy (typical religious sexism)) picked this one for life.

Then after 10's of thousands of years of watching his 'children' die in childbirth, die very young, from droughts famines etc, he chose to put his 'son' (translates as liar or schizophrenic person of unprovable existence) here to save the world, and then kill him.

The only negativity we have is to the bullshit stories that eminate from crap books like the Bible Torah and Koran, and the people who push this horseshit down other people's throats.

Except for that we are no different to anyone else.