Atheist!

[Goldie Munro]

Cause our money says: In God We Trust

I think that says it all

 

[izabella]

Don't mess with me, iz. My distant-but-not-distant-enough ancestor is Cotton Mather, the baddest bad-ass Puritan in the Massachusetts Colony, famous for his fire-and-brimstone sermons, his cheerleading for the Salem witch trials, his hair-raising suggestions on child-raising, and his green bean casserole.

I shall give proper weight to all spectral evidence and green bean casseroles.

All hail Magnalia Christi Americana!

 

[Guest]

good god joe!
how the hell's it hangin?

 

[shereads]

Oops. Wrong post, right thread.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Why is "atheist" a pejorative term to most Americans?

Because an atheist is entirely too close to being a free thinker, and that makes the organized religions nervous. They depend on people letting others think for them.

 

[shereads]

Oops. Mispost.

 

[matriarch]

Oops. Mispost.

Two misposs in one thread?!
Are you losing it, woman??

As an afternote to Pure, no, an atheist could not be King/Queen of England, because, thanks to Henry VIII and his new 'Church of England', the Head of State, i.e. Queen/King, is automatically titled, 'Defender of the Faith', and is the - on paper - head of the Church of England.

Every single member of parliament has to pledge their allegiance to the King/Queen (and by default, to the church) when they take up their place in the House of Parliament. And with their hand on the Bible. That was the problem with the members elected from the IRA. They wouldn't take the pledge of allegiance.

Thank goodness there is an alternative when being sworn in for Jury duty. I was thankfully allowed to make the alternative declaration, and not use the bible to swear my oath. I did get some very strange looks from the other members of the Jury, but at least I was being honest.

We do not, thankfully, force our children to make a daily pledge to flag and country in school. We like to think they're there to learn. *ironic lift of eyebrow, waiting to be shot down.*

 

[Huckleman2000]

Maybe. But only if she was arguing against the legalization of pornography.

As I understood her response, she seemed to be defending sex crimes as a side benefit benefit of living in a pornography-hating theocracy.

Strange how they never realize that sort of thing, isn't it?

 

[amicus]

Pure]the founding fathers recognized the dangers of atheism, which is why they left states the power and authority to keep their laws against atheists holding office. at the federal level, there is no law, only custom.

incidentally, Joe, England and France were not much different; you must go a long way toward the present day when someone labels himself 'atheist' (Meslier, 17th cen, though it was a secret). Indeed Voltaire declined the label. i don't think an atheist could be King of England (?).

the reason atheists cannot be trusted--except for Objectivists who endorse the Pope's stand on most issues-- is because there is no moral sanction, ultimately, without God.

Here's what the David Roylance,director of a play about Meslier said:

Jean Meslier (1664-1729) was a Catholic priest in the poor country parish of Etripigny in the Ardennes, where he remained until his death. He was a dutiful priest, beloved by his flock, living in virtual poverty through his entire working life - and secretly was the most ardent atheist.

He did not believe a word of the book he preached from. He wrote his own book, a Testament that he left us on his deathbed, having hastened his own death after finishing his work. His Testament is a vicious and uncompromising attack on all forms of organised religion and the divine right of kings and the aristocracy.

By his own admission, within the Testament, Meslier was a coward. Since the punishment for preaching atheism was burning alive at the stake this is perhaps something we can understand and empathise with. As the director of the play I find it interesting that we are bringing this story to Edinburgh, the home of Thomas Aikenhead, the last man in the United Kingdom to be hanged for preaching atheism.

Meslier died so his Testament could live. He spoke to us from beyond the grave, despite not believing in any afterlife at all. Eventually his work reached Voltaire, who was very impressed with its passionate fervour and sentiment (despite his criticism of the writing style). Voltaire bowdlerised Meslier's Testament, turning it into a deist document rather than an atheist one

[/I]


~~~~~~~~~~~~

Y'Know, ya, gotta love Pure...he/she/it....argues with everything, no matter what...I guess one needs to accept that...


amicus...

 

[NoJo]

Well, I'm an atheist, and proud of it.

A common misunderstanding about us atheists is that we "know" there is no God. We don't. It's just that we think the likelihood that God, as described in the bible, exists, is extremely small.

What about morality? Well that comes, I think, literally, from common sense. Richard Dawkins has a good argument about this:

He makes the point that nearly all Christian believers are selective in deciding which part of the bible is to be taken literally, and which parts are merely symbolic. The Old Testament in particular is full of embarrasing and repulsive behaviour, which not even the most rabid Christian fundamentalist would advocate.

So, if most Christians (and Jews and Moslems) use some kind of moral judgement in deciding which parts of the bible to take literally, and which, in effect, to ignore, when constructing a code of behaviour, then, they're obviously employing a set of morals whose origin is outside of the bible to make those judgements.

Dawkins' argument, which I hope is as simple to follow for believers as it is for me, completely undermines the role of the bible as a rule-book for behaviour.

 

[hmmnmm]

Why is "atheist" a pejorative term to most Americans?

Good question.
I've always felt that words and things just have a 'look' or a way - those aren't the right words, but it's late here.
Just the way the word is constructed and the way it sounds when it is pronounced. Something about that -ist at the end. The word itself could be easily be felt as somewhat threatening.
If you were just bopping along one day and you saw some strange birds sitting on a fence line, and you asked someone what they were and they said, 'Those are atheists, you may go, "ooh, they sound like an aggressive species of bird."
If you were told they were atheas, you might go, "oh, and what beautiful birds they are, and they must sing wonderfully."
These are just some preiminary thoughts on the matter.

I'll be back with more.
This is an interesting question.
Thanks, joe.

 

[hmmnmm]

It's no coincidence that the fear mongers in charge of protecting the free world these days uses the word 'terrorist' instead of, say, 'horrorist'. The T at the beginning and the t at the end... while horrorist sounds more like a movie or novel. A genre.

 

[Liar]

Every single member of parliament has to pledge their allegiance to the King/Queen (and by default, to the church) when they take up their place in the House of Parliament. And with their hand on the Bible. That was the problem with the members elected from the IRA. They wouldn't take the pledge of allegiance.

Thank goodness there is an alternative when being sworn in for Jury duty. I was thankfully allowed to make the alternative declaration, and not use the bible to swear my oath. I did get some very strange looks from the other members of the Jury, but at least I was being honest.

We do not, thankfully, force our children to make a daily pledge to flag and country in school. We like to think they're there to learn. *ironic lift of eyebrow, waiting to be shot down.*

All this pledging and swearing of oaths looks really weird to a citizen of the most secular place on earth (where there's still people). There is already code regulating your duties as a member of the parlament, or as the head of any government office, or on the witness stand (we don't have jurys) and so on. By taking the position, you are by default bound by those. No need to say "I solemnly swear to tell the truth, cross mah heart, no fingers crossed, or else Santa will see I've been bad."

I mean, if I don't take the pledge, am I free to lie in court? Or is it just spectacle?

"I Liar, solemnly swear to end this threadjack right about now."

"Unless someone replies."

 

[hmmnmm]

So I speculate that it is the word itself rather than the definition that catches minds off guard.
But let me think a bit more on this.
Thanks again, joe.

 

[NoJo]

So I speculate that it is the word itself rather than the definition that catches minds off guard.
But let me think a bit more on this.
Thanks again, joe.

Your onomatopaeic argument about "-ist" makes me think of the Sherlock Holmes story, where the blustering, no-nonsense chief insector Althelney Jones says "Ah, here is Mr Sherlock Holmes, the Theorist."

 

[hmmnmm]

Your onomatopaeic argument about "-ist" makes me think of the Sherlock Holmes story, where the blustering, no-nonsense chief insector Althelney Jones says "Ah, here is Mr Sherlock Holmes, the Theorist."

What if he was an Atheorist?

And I was compelled to crack open the '73 Webster's at this late hour, Joe.
That's a good word, too.

 

[NoJo]

All this pledging and swearing of oaths looks really weird to a citizen of the most secular place on earth..

Do you mean "secular", or "atheistic"?

I think the big problem with "atheist" is that there's an association of the word with former Soviet regime.

Like the word "Aryan", whose true meaning has been irrevocably obliterated from common usage, the word "Atheist" is now besmirched with images of oppression.

 

[hmmnmm]

Of course it should be obvious that therrorist is not near threatening as the other.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It's a good question why religion exerts such a powerful influence in America, especially in politics, given that we pride ourselves on religious freedom and tolerance.

One theory is that our very diversity makes people cling more tightly to their religious roots and defend them more vigorously. We're not a melting pot but a stew, and carrots don't want to be onions.

Another thing to remember is that the US wasn't founded by people looking to escape religion, but by and large by religious zealots looking to escape persecution. We got the True Believers.

Then, in Europe, religion was associated with royalty and was organized in a top-down power structure. As the royalty system withered, so did the influence of state-sponsored religion. That never happened here. Here the churches were organized bottom-up, and their social-organizing functions filled many roles that had been filled by the royalty system in the Old World in terms of bringing a sense of social order and stability and setting social norms. People used their churches as community centers and made them parts of their lives.

Most important for the question at hand though, is the fact that America's most notable contribution to religion has been Evangelical Christianity, and most American religious campaigners are Evangelical Christians. EC is essentially Messianic Puritanism with a lot of hell and brimstone in it, a very morally stiff and judgmental brand of Christianity that believes that God is judging the entire nation based on the actions of all of its citizens. Therefore, what you and I do is not just our business, but theirs as well. The Religious Right is not going to leave you alone. They cannot and will not just "live and let live". It's their job to build the New Jerusalem here in the USA, and that's what their religion teaches.

So when you call yourself an atheist, to these people, you're declaring yourself the enemy.

 

[S-Des]

Most important for the question at hand though, is the fact that America's most notable contribution to religion has been Evangelical Christianity, and most American religious campaigners are Evangelical Christians. EC is essentially Messianic Puritanism with a lot of hell and brimstone in it, a very morally stiff and judgmental brand of Christianity that believes that God is judging the entire nation based on the actions of all of its citizens. Therefore, what you and I do is not just our business, but theirs as well. The Religious Right is not going to leave you alone. They cannot and will not just "live and let live". It's their job to build the New Jerusalem here in the USA, and that's what their religion teaches.

So when you call yourself an atheist, to these people, you're declaring yourself the enemy.

Interesting that you make a claim that American's most notable contribution is Evangelical, then define EC as judgemental, then justify the argument by saying they are obviously the enemy. It's funny, in 40 years of being involved in EC, I've never met anyone like you're describing and don't know a soul who believes we are "supposed" to build a New Jerusalem here. Maybe the reason you feel that religious people judge Atheists is because you are just seeing a reflection of what you are putting out. I noticed quite a lot of judging in your post. Funny, I never bothered to judge what an Atheist thought in any way (other than being annoyed by the countless lawsuits that get publicized with people trying to eliminate public displays of religion or getting a word removed off the dollar). The fact is, what someone does or doesn't believe has no effect on my day to day life whatsoever. Obviously, you've worried about it a lot.

Guess I must not be religious enough.

 

[Guest]

I agree with every word dr_mabeuse said, and I wish I could have said it as well!

Now, my confession: I find atheism and evangelical christianity equally unappealing. I would never try to argue either extreme away from their beliefs, but, to me, that's what they are--extremes.


A little off the point, but to reply to a particular posting:

There was a comment about educated Americans being more likely to be atheists, whether or not they profess it. I wouldn't count on that as a truth. I am educated; I hold a couple of degrees. I believe in God (if not religion.) I've yet to meet a doctor who is an atheist; I only know one who is agnostic. If you listen to or read interviews with some of the world's leading scientists, you are more likely to hear them say they just don't know.

A Jewish friend of mine recently reminded me of the old saying, "There are no atheists in a fox hole." I do think there is some truth in that.

 

[NoJo]

our very diversity makes people cling more tightly to their religious roots and defend them more vigorously. We're not a melting pot but a stew, and carrots don't want to be onions.

I buy that argument. Basically you're saying you're a bunch of immigrants.

What I still don't understand is how the influence of the Evangelical church has got to be so powerful? There are religious nuts everywhere, but thankfully they weild power only in a few countries. And they don't normally get to weild power in countries where the level of education and affluence is as high as it is in the US.

Perhaps Israel is another exception, where for a number of reasons (one of which is their proportional representation voting system) the religious right are disproportionately powerful.

 

[NoJo]

A Jewish friend of mine recently reminded me of the old saying, "There are no atheists in a fox hole." I do think there is some truth in that.

How many people do you know who are actually in foxholes right now?

Why do some people persist in having a foxhole attitude to life?

 

[Guest]

How many people do you know who are actually in foxholes right now?

Why do some people persist in having a foxhole attitude to life?

Hmm, well, there is that whole pesky war going on right now...and, like it or not, there are lots of "foxhole moments" in life. Feel blessed if you haven't experienced them.

And, now, putting reason aside, I will tell you how I really feel:

I'm sure we live very different lives. I deal with life and death everytime I go to work, and, no, that's not an exaggeration. Sorry, but if I were doing the chest compressions on your kid, I doubt you'd be so "logical." In fact, you might wish you were in that literal foxhole instead. And, I can promise you'd be praying to God. I've been doing this for a long time, and I've yet to hear a parent say, "Well, death is inevitable." If you are a parent who has held onto atheism in a moment like this, please feel free to correct me.

So there; I'm done now.

 

[Alessia Brio]

The very idea of non-belief is a threat to those whose belief lacks any empirical basis.

Concise.