Just a little rant:

[The Heff]

I would suggest adopting a simple strategy.

Treat somebody the way they clearly want to be treated, regardless of whether they know you are an atheist or not, because this will achieve two things;

1. Wait, this guy is an atheist and he's nice... Maybe I'm wrong about athiesm.
   or
   
2. Wait, you're an atheist? I thought atheists were all nasty but you're not!
   

Sometimes allowing a person to come to a realisation can be infinitely more powerful than arguing a point (even absurd ones).

It's not always necessary for a non-believer to argue with a believer. If the believer cannot get over their own narrow-minded view of atheism by getting to know you it speaks volumes.

[Chris.Roth]

I would suggest adopting a simple strategy.

Treat somebody the way they clearly want to be treated, regardless of whether they know you are an atheist or not, because this will achieve two things;

1. Wait, this guy is an atheist and he's nice... Maybe I'm wrong about athiesm.
   or
   
2. Wait, you're an atheist? I thought atheists were all nasty but you're not!
   

Sometimes allowing a person to come to a realisation can be infinitely more powerful than arguing a point (even absurd ones).

It's not always necessary for a non-believer to argue with a believer. If the believer cannot get over their own narrow-minded view of atheism by getting to know you it speaks volumes.

My friend, I completely agree with your assertion--and I did just that. By nature, I tend to treat human beings in social interaction equally. I really don't care what a friend believes in, as long as they're a good friend to me. (accept me for who I am.) However, when I am faced with someone who clearly will detest me simply because I say "well, no I happen to think none of the religions are true", I lose a little faith in humanity. Is religion required for us to survive? I think that's a really interesting question, considering we don't have many examples of humanity without religion. (waiting for someone to correct me on this, I wish someone would in a way.)

[Tempus]

Sometimes allowing a person to come to a realisation can be infinitely more powerful than arguing a point (even absurd ones).

I agree with that.

Is religion required for us to survive? I think that's a really interesting question, considering we don't have many examples of humanity without religion.

It's clearly not required for individuals to survive. I don't think it is for society either. I think Japan has about a roughly 60% atheist population (that's from memory, it may be higher or lower) and their society isn't crumbling, so I can't see how it's required. There's plenty of examples of atheism in individuals and in societies, it just seems early societies (which, although linked, are distinct from present day societies) are more (perhaps exclusively) religious. It could be that religion of some kind is a helpful glue for early societies.

[Chris.Roth]

It's clearly not required for individuals to survive. I don't think it is for society either. I think Japan has about a roughly 60% atheist population (that's from memory, it may be higher or lower) and their society isn't crumbling, so I can't see how it's required. There's plenty of examples of atheism in individuals and in societies, it just seems early societies (which, although linked, are distinct from present day societies) are more (perhaps exclusively) religious. It could be that religion of some kind is a helpful glue for early societies.
[/quote]

Sigh, I hate you--and not even for a good reason lol.

The point you bring up is one that I actually believe in. I think you're completely right. However, I do get fairly disappointed when I see how unwilling much of our worldly culture is to accepting the concepts of secularism, I am disappointed. Can Japan and countries like it hold out on their secular viewpoints? Can they hold themselves strong against nations which seem to "require" religion to survive? ("Require", meaning most of the population for some reason believes that a belief in a specific God is necessary to the survival of a nation.) I just can't seem to get my mind around an optomistic aspect of any of this. I'm not saying it's wrong because it's not optomistic, but by all means--if there is any optomism in the position (which I think anyone reading this will agree is "truth") I would be welcome to hear your viewpoint.

[Tempus]

However, I do get fairly disappointed when I see how unwilling much of our worldly culture is to accepting the concepts of secularism, I am disappointed.

I think most people in western countries value secularism, but that's just my impression. The only major exception being the US (which is ironic given that it is secular), which, to me at least, seems like a country run by fear, short term solutions and ignorance.

Can Japan and countries like it hold out on their secular viewpoints? Can they hold themselves strong against nations which seem to "require" religion to survive? ("Require", meaning most of the population for some reason believes that a belief in a specific God is necessary to the survival of a nation.)

It looks like religious belief in Japan has been steadily falling since the end of WWII. Also, many of the countries in Europe which used to be (or still are) officially Christian nations have become much more secular. Again, I think most of the west values secularism, even if they don't call it that or officially adopt it. Still, I'm no expert and I don't pretend to be.

[jess_essential]

I write; I am not a writer. I am along the lines of the Tao Te Ching, while it says that when you need something, use it, after you've used it, put it away. Never become immersed in anything, it breeds confusion and dependence. (Going along with the fact that you need to write to live.) And NietzSche thought that morality was shit, by the way :p I do not, for any reason, think that if a man is an atheist that he will treat me horribly, or a woman for that matter. I would NEVER date a christian or any other creation based believer, we would come to blows.

[Chris.Roth]

I write; I am not a writer. I am along the lines of the Tao Te Ching, while it says that when you need something, use it, after you've used it, put it away. Never become immersed in anything, it breeds confusion and dependence. (Going along with the fact that you need to write to live.) And NietzSche thought that morality was shit, by the way :p I do not, for any reason, think that if a man is an atheist that he will treat me horribly, or a woman for that matter. I would NEVER date a christian or any other creation based believer, we would come to blows.

First of all, you write--which makes you a writer. Wear it proudly, there's not many of us left.
Second of all, I would generally agree with your immersion point--except writing. Sad to say it, almost every influential character in history has been totally fucked up in some way, most likely due to obsession. At the end of the day, those who write for fun will write for fun-those who write to survive will do the same.
As for atheist men, I completely agree with you. (obviously ) I also take your theory on dating. I wouldn't even have a problem with another's beliefs if they didnt' go against my morality or values. However, I have never met a Christian who didn't want to change me. That is exactly (I think) what you mean. Thank you very much for your input. ^_^

[jess_essential]

Well, Anais Nin was a writer. Walt Whitman was a writer. I happen to write. I wish I were a writer. I hold writers to higher standards than most. I consider one person I know to be a writer, and he doesn't even claim to be, thus he is great. I agree that creative minds are bred from obsession of some sort. I write often, so I cannot say I don't immerse myself from time to time. However, to prolong obsession can be dangerous. But what of life without it? Atheist men are great fun, and usually pretty intelligent also. I would never date anyone who believed in a magical creator, ever. I cannot fall for someone who doesn't see the importance of science. We would have nothing in common.

[DeeTee]

"

I've dated 2 atheists, and neither treated me well. Therefore, I can deduct that because they did not believe in my Jewish God, no man who doesn't believe in the Jewish God can possibly know how to treat a woman correctly"

Now, of course, this is absurd. I don't think there's anyone on this forum who could disagree, the shear logic of it is mind bloggling to even some of the most fundamental believers. However, here's where I reach a bit of bitterness:

We work hard, I would imagine, to write and change the world in a good way--no matter what we believe. There are good people fighting for a good cause on all levels of belief. However, Atheists are the only ones that seem to be discounted as inherently evil by the majority

She isn't being absurd and by her experience she is quite correct. Nothing wrong with her perspective.

You are considered evil because A- you have rejected Jesus as your savior thus you live in and contiue topractice sin; B- God said--'You are either for me or against me.' There is no middle ground with God and He sets who is evil or not.

[Jackalope]

She isn't being absurd and by her experience she is quite correct. Nothing wrong with her perspective.

Only if you happen to think that judging an entire group of people who happen to share one single trait based on the behavior of a tiny fraction of that group of individuals is a reasonable thing to do.

Those of us who don't think it's reasonable have a few words for it: Bigotry and prejudice.