Why Coming Out as an Atheist May Be the Most Powerful Way to Combat Religion

[MellowDem]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/04/16/why-coming-out-as-an-atheist-may-be-the-most-powerful-way-to-combat-religion/

"Coming out atheist is not evangelizing. I’m going to say that right off the bat. If it is, than it’s evangelizing to simply say, “I’m a Christian,” or “I’m a Hindu.” If it is, then it’s evangelizing to say anything at all about what we think about the world, ever. And I don’t think that’s a particularly useful definition of the word. Simply disclosing that you’re an atheist doesn’t make you an irritating proselytizer knocking on people’s doors asking if they’ve heard the good news about Charles Darwin.

But it is true that coming out doesn’t just make you happier, and it doesn’t just make other atheists happier. Coming out actually helps create other atheists. Even if you never argue with anyone about their religion, even if you never once try to persuade anyone that their religious beliefs are mistaken, the simple act of telling people “I’m an atheist” puts cracks in people’s faith, or widens cracks that are already there. If you ask atheists what made them become an atheist, many will tell you that simply seeing other atheists, or hearing about them, is part of what made them question their beliefs.

You may not care whether there are more atheists in the world. And that’s fine. If you’re unconcerned about other people’s beliefs, if you’d be totally okay with religion if it weren’t for faith healing and homophobia and stoning adulterers and so on — that’s fine. You can skip this chapter.

But if you think religion is a harmful idea, or simply an incorrect one, and you’d like to see fewer people think it (as you would with any other harmful and/or false idea), then coming out is a powerful way to help make that happen. Maybe even the most powerful way.

Here’s why..."

Good, thought provoking article. I'm not sure it's the most effective way, but it's up there IMHO.

[rug]

1. It's conflatng atheism with an intent to "Combat Religion".

Sloppy.

[MellowDem]

3. Where?

It even explicitly says:

You may not care whether there are more atheists in the world. And that’s fine. If you’re unconcerned about other people’s beliefs, if you’d be totally okay with religion if it weren’t for faith healing and homophobia and stoning adulterers and so on — that’s fine. You can skip this chapter.

All she is doing is saying that coming out atheist does combat religion as an idea.

And she is saying, very explicitly from the title of her book, that this is a good idea. Nowhere does she conflate atheism with an inherent intent to combat religion.

[rug]

5. "Coming Out as an Atheist May Be the Most Powerful Way to Combat Religion"

And the next paragraph:

But if you think religion is a harmful idea, or simply an incorrect one, and you’d like to see fewer people think it (as you would with any other harmful and/or false idea), then coming out is a powerful way to help make that happen. Maybe even the most powerful way.

You don't even need to be an atheist to think religion is harmful or incorrect. She's conflating when she's better off promoting secularism.

[MellowDem]

6. Nowhere does that conflate atheism with an intent to combat religion...

She's just saying if you already want to combat religion because you think it's harmful or incorrect, then coming out is one way to do so. Not that it's the only way, not that only atheists can combat religion.

Though, if you're religious and think religion in general is a harmful idea or simply incorrect, then that's some dissonance right there. Not saying it's not possible.

[rug]

8. "The Most Powerful Way to Combat Religion May Be Coming Out as an Atheist."

Passive aggressiveness removed.

Never confuse the subordinate with the principal clause.

[MellowDem]

10. And it still doesn't conflate atheism...

with an inherent desire to combat religion, whatever your intuitions about the author's "passive aggressiveness" are.

[rug]

13. Of course it does. You "combat" religion with secularism, not atheism.

If atheism makes no claims, and thereby has no duty to defend them, then it is mute on the virtue, or vice, of "combatting religion".

You can't have it both ways.

[MellowDem]

20. It does make no claims...

but just the fact atheists exist is enough to challenge something as pervasive as religion. Atheism has been vilified forever. More people coming out makes it less scary and more acceptable.

[rug]

22. Then a claim that atheism combats religion is nonsense.

[MellowDem]

23. The claim is that coming out as atheist combats religion

[rug]

24. Because . . . .

[MellowDem]

28. because...

"Religion perpetuates itself through social consent. And coming out atheist denies it that consent."

Not because atheism means you want to combat religion.

[rug]

29. Except announcing one's atheism does not deny "social consent" to relgion.

It means the person does not believe in god(s). Nothing more.

It's a silly, self-important book.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Have you read the book?

Having the strongest sense of deja-vu here.


Demonstrating to people who trust you that you are actually an atheist can combat this:

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study/

[rug]

48. No, it camw out last month. Have you?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/03/07/coming-out-atheist-ordering-info/

[AtheistCrusader]

50. I have not.

But where I don't have a problem with dismissing content based on an excerpt that didn't pass personal muster, you seem to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=121116

[rug]

52. That must still sting.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Not at all. There is simplicity in consistency that appeals to me.

I highly recommend it.

[rug]

56. There is a difference. I pointed out a problem with its premise. Whereas you posted:

Haha ha what a pile of shit in text format. Impressive, rug.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=120544

[AtheistCrusader]

61. When you objected, I clarified.

Please don't pretend I, and several other posters didn't detail the logical fallacies in play.

[chervilant]

59. I would have said

"...something as pernicious as religion." (But, I doubt that this would appease the pedantic and patronizing among us...)

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Um no.

Allow me to paraphrase:

The most effective way to combat religion may be telling people (that are religious) that know you, that you are in fact, an atheist.


Goes back to the 'atheists are trusted about as much as rapists' social surveys. Most likely because atheists tend to be closeted, and most religious people don't KNOW any good examples of atheists that aren't maybe anti-theist talking heads, that they might see in the news, like Dawkins.

Secularism might be the goal, or antithesis, but revealing yourself as a straight-up atheist, not some softer, middle ground, with people who trust you, can be very eye-opening.

Just by setting an example that even though you might be an atheist, you are not a baby-raping/eating monster. It shows people there may be a non-religious path to morality that they haven't considered.

[rug]

49. That assumes that atheism, per se, "combats religion". It doesn't.

As there are atheists who revile religion, there are others who don't.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. By 'combats religion' I read that to mean

possibly de-converting people from religion, as a byproduct of showing them that there are other paths.

An effect I have observed first hand, but have no data on-hand to prove it.

[rug]

54. Again, there's nothing about atheism that compels "de-converting people from religion".

In fact, there's nothing about it that holds that to be either desirable or deplorable.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Of course.

Did I suggest there was?

I have been consistent in describing atheism as a Boolean yes/no proposition, that carries no additional baggage. My preference for a secular society over a mixed or religious society comes from more than a decade of defensively working to enforce the firewall between state and religion, and combating religiously-sourced political ideas (right or wrongly sourced according to various dogma/interpretations/whatever).

[rug]

57. Therefore, the premise of the book is false.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Is it?

Have you read it?

[Lordquinton]

130. In your, NSHO

[Niceguy1]

2. so spreading the atheist word is ok

But spreading the religous word is bad? Arent they both equal?

[MellowDem]

4. They aren't equal...

Religion is belief in an unfalsifiable claim. Atheism is a lack of belief in an unfalsiafiable claim. Atheism makes no claim of its own, much less an unfalsifiable one.

Unfalsifiable claims are bad, as pointed out in the article, for a number of reasons. They encourage false beliefs. False beliefs are bad. They can cause all sorts of harm, and the good they can provide can be provided just as well through true beliefs.

[Niceguy1]

7. they are both persnal beliefs

And neither is inherently evil...unless the individual choose to be that way..on both sides. I dont buy this effort to claim some superiority. .... I twnd to go with live and let live... and support the right to choose whether to believe or not and accept whatever choice the person makes.

[MellowDem]

9. Who said it was inherently evil to believe a certain way?

Atheism doesn't. Religion, on the other hand... well it often does say just that. In fact, the major religions condemn people to eternal torture for believing the wrong way.

The article wasn't saying people shouldn't have the right to choose their beliefs either. I'm not sure why you brought that up.

If you don't understand the effort to claim that one position is better than another, then compare it to politics in general, what this website is based on. Much of politics is saying that one position is better than another, that one policy or claim or etc. The religious debate is a form of politics. Just because you don't care about this topic or don't have a position on it doesn't mean others don't, and won't take up a position.

[Niceguy1]

14. faith iant politics

It is interpersonal belief. And without those who do believe. ...we would never win elections. Ever... of course there are bad on both sides..but we dont label all for what a few do...just like all Muslims arent terrorists

I dont think atheists are better or worse than those who believe. .I believe in equality.... do you?

[skepticscott]

16. Faith informs politics

and even when it doesn't, it tries to. It presumes to trump reason and logical argument in the crafting of public policy. It presumes to speak from an authority it doesn't have. I don't consider that a positive.

[Niceguy1]

25. decilas advocate. ....

There are lots of groups of people that form opinions and advocate for what they believe in.... should we allow only those that agree with us and prohibit those who dont?

[skepticscott]

26. It's not about allowing people to form opinions

or to advocate things, and you know that perfectly well, so I have to wonder why you're being so disingenuous. It's about allowing those opinions, when they have no support in fact or reason, or in anything but "the buybull says so" to be translated into public policy that affects people who don't share them.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

35. What skepticscott is apparently trying to say

Is that having the religion of public officials form their policy is a bad thing. If he is not saying that, then what is he saying?

[skepticscott]

39. Don't hurt yourself, Stretch. Best let me explain.

I'm saying that public policy and civil law should always be justifiable solely on grounds that have nothing to do with the tenets of anyone's religion, the strictures of anyone's sacred text or the dictates of anyone's "god". If they can't be justified without invoking "god says so" or "I believe it cuz the buybull tells me", then no one has any business trying to apply them to anyone who doesn't share those beliefs.

There now...was that so hard?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

72. In other words, as I said

You believe that having the religious views of a public official inform his or her policy is wrong. Thank you for confirming that I called it correctly.

[skepticscott]

92. As I said, don't hurt yourself thinking about it too much

I know you love to put words on other people's mouths, based on your misbegotten interpretation of what they said, instead of what they actually said, but that's getting old and tired. If someone needs their religious views to "inform" or justify their policy because they can't justify it any other way, then their policy is fucked.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

141. I asked you if I had stated what you said correctly, and you repeated it in slightly different words

You said -- twice -- that the religious beliefs of a public official should not inform his or her policy. As I asked previously, if that's not what you meant, then what did you mean.

I put NO words in your mouth that you didn't put there yourself; that would be lying and I do not lie (despite you falsely accusing me of doing exactly that). If you cannot express what you mean, that's not my problem.

[skepticscott]

143. My exact words were right there

that you needed to try to contort them to meet some emotional need of yours says lots about you, Stretch.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

149. Yes, they were

And you said that having a public official's religious beliefs inform their policy is A Bad Thing.

Sneering at me does not change the fact that I correctly reported what you said.

[MellowDem]

21. Religion engages in politics...

Politics, in the general sense, is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. Religion definitely does that. Everything is political to some extent or other.

I don't think atheists are better than believers. Just that they hold a better position on one very specific question.

I don't think Republicans are worse than liberals. Just that they hold worse positions on a lot of issues.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

36. So believing in God is bad?

How so?

[MellowDem]

64. Not "bad"...

As in evil. Just wrong, and harmful IMHO. God can't be falsified. So if a person believes in god, and their version of god wants them to kill others in his name, it's a little tough to reason with a belief system based on something other than reason.

Or people don't take care of the world because they think it's going to end soon anyways. Or don't help but pray instead. Etc. etc. There is a lot of potential harms in believing false things, and we see real examples of that all the time.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

68. In other words, "bad"

Unless in some bizarre way, "wrong and harmful" means something other than "bad".

[MellowDem]

71. As in not "evil"

I think it's an important distinction.

[cbayer]

79. I agree that there is a lot of potential harm in believing false things,

like, for example, believing that religion is only a negative force.

We see real examples of that all the time.

[MellowDem]

83. Whether religion is only a negative force...

Isn't a true/false claim until you establish what a "negative force" is, and everyone agrees on it.

No, it's just a preference. So stating it is "false" is non-sensical. The way you are stating it makes it sound like there is some objective truth somewhere on the question posed. There isn't. There's right or wrong answers depending entirely on preferences.

[cbayer]

88. I've read this post half a dozen times and I still have no idea what it means.

[MellowDem]

90. Your conflating opinions on questions with no objective answer...

With facts on questions with objective answers.

[skepticscott]

12. Some of us think that the truth should be superior

to lies, false beliefs and delusions. Would you agree or disagree?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

37. But we believers think that we hold to the truth

So how is your truth superior to my truth?

[skepticscott]

40. When someone's "truth" involves demonstrable falsehoods and nonsense

then it's perfectly acceptable to call them a dumbass, as certain other posters here have attested.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Because you can't demonstrate any evidence for your incredible claims.

My default position of atheism is NON BELIEF. It is not a positive claim.

Example; my five year old has no concept of god. Doesn't know about it/one/many/he/she whatever. He is, by default, an atheist. He doesn't know what an atheist is. But he is one.

That is the default position of humans. All humans. Day one. As soon as you hit atmosphere in the delivery room. Scratch that, from conception. You are an atheist. All of us are. ADDING a theistic claim/worldview is adding an extraordinary claim. Exceptions to the natural world, to the known laws of physics, to things that cannot be tested, measured, reproduced on demand.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not believing your claims of religious whatever, isn't a faith-based position. Not collecting stamps isn't a form of stamp collecting.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

70. But "God does not exist" is also an extraordinary claim

For many, atheism is a positive claim: God does not exist. Atheists keep trying to pretend otherwise; but IN FACT, it is just as much a statement of religious faith as saying that God does exist.

[immoderate]

76. Is saying "Unicorns don't exist" an extraordinary claim?

If so, how is it different?

--imm

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Ah, but I say 'I do not believe god exists.'

Which is the same as stating 'I don't believe your claim.'

I'm fully aware of positive/negative statements.

[JNelson6563]

106. Zeus does not exist.

Now there's a religious statement for ya.

Julie

[Warren Stupidity]

113. silence -- apparently only claiming that the christian deity does not exist

is an extraordinary claim. Other gods, well ya know, those are all bullshit.

[AlbertCat]

136. apparently only claiming that the christian deity does not exist

No....

the religion that believed in Zeus is not practiced anymore and does not effect society except as a long debunked myth.

The Christian god, as well as the Muslim and Jewish versions, and all the Hindu gods still, for some reason, claim (undeserved) authority.

The "Zeus" claim has already been determined.

Apples and oranges, y'know.

Poor poor, put upon Christians!

[skepticscott]

117. I assume you either still believe that Santa Claus exists

Or will be providing evidence for the extraordinary claim that he doesn't.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

142. That's the sort of thing that gets you atheists disliked by believers:

Pretending that there is no essential difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Claus or unicorns.

No, you want me to stop believing in God, give me actual reasons to do so. Sneers on your part are counterproductive.

[skepticscott]

144. You're right, actually

There is far more evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than for the existence of any "god". But I assume you figured out before you were old enough to drink that Santa Claus doesn't really exist. Still clinging tight to the other one, apparently.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

148. Thank you for that unabashed piece of atheist bigotry

I knew I could count on you to be a jerk, scott. And as always, you do not fail to disappoint.

[skepticscott]

157. And I can always count on you

to play the "bigotry" card when you have nothing else. And to spout playground insults.

But despite your juvenile name-calling, you can't answer a single point I've raised. As always.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

167. Well, when you say bigoted things,

Then it is ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE for me to call you on it. No further response is necessary.

You want me to stop saying you are a bigot? The solution is simple and entirely in your hands: Stop spouting bigotry.

[trotsky]

169. Do you honestly think that comparing your god to Santa Claus is "bigotry"?

Really?

[rug]

172. It's more stupidity than bigotry.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

174. Really

It's saying only children believe in God. Either very young or very naïve or very immature children. No one with any sense or knowledge would believe.

Directly comparing believers with silly children is, in fact, bigoted.

[trotsky]

176. That comparison is happening in your own mind only, FA.

You are adding on the baggage of being compared to a "silly child." No one is saying that.

But it does explain why having any kind of conversation with you about religious beliefs inevitably leads to you screaming "BIGOTRY" when you encounter someone who dares to disagree with you.

You might also want to review the definition of bigotry:
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own

Even if someone was calling you childish for believing in a god, that does not meet the standard of "stubborn and complete intolerance" of your belief. So when it comes to you using the word bigotry, I'll defer to Inigo Montoya:

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

179. Skepticscott was the one making the comparison between God and Santa Claus, not me

Thus, your blathering is meaningless.

Tell me, does any rational adult believe in Santa Claus? No. Thus, it is quite reasonable of me to say that skepticscott was saying that believers are on exactly the same level as naïve children. And that, sir, is bigotry.

[AtheistCrusader]

185. That would be falsely framing Skeptiscott's statement/claim.

Because, as you can clearly see in plain English text, Skeptiscott was addressing the EVIDENCE FOR the existence (or specifically, requiring evidence against) of a god, or by way of comparison, Santa Claus.

Skeptiscott made NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the credulity or incredulity of the believer, and instead, focused on EVIDENCE.



Your diversion is dishonest, and clearly an attempt to falsely smear Skeptiscott as a 'bigot'.

[trotsky]

187. Bingo. n/t

[skepticscott]

189. Sorry if you don't like the fact

that there is more evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than there is for the existence of your god. And that you were able to give up belief only in the one with far more evidence.

I know how frustrating it must be to have no intelligent response to this, and I know calling everyone in earshot a bigot is your only Christian coping mechanism, so I'm going to enjoy a good chuckle at your discomfort and leave it at that.

[AtheistCrusader]

193. And the best part is

that poster expresses outrage at the idea of comparing his religion to belief in something that few/no adults anywhere take seriously, when his or her own faith implies disbelief at TENS OF THOUSANDS of other gods proposed by humans worldwide throughout history.

Disbelief in gods put forward by billions of humans today, right now, around the world.

Logic just isn't welcome around these parts, I see.

[xfundy]

204. Perhaps a better example than Santa Clause

(or the easter bunny, leprechauns, etc) would be Global Climate Change. There's actual evidence for that.

[cleanhippie]

210. Well, it seems our friend crashed and burned. AGAIN!

[skepticscott]

212. It's hard not to

when all you can do is call other people bigots.

Still waiting for any of the self-appointed scolds and civility police in the Group to express their profound disapproval.

[cleanhippie]

213. How many hides is that now for him?

Not in 90 days, but in all? Maybe a ban is finally in order for such a continual disruptor?

[skepticscott]

214. Not likely

Too many of the self-righteous here secretly like what he does.

[rug]

215. Wow, he now has as many hidden posts as you.

[AtheistCrusader]

216. My hide count is equal to the actual number of supernatural gods that exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

265. That would be super-convenient for you, wouldn't it?

No, I say 'I do not believe your god does not exist'.

If I said 'God does not exist' the burden would be upon me to prove it. A rather impossible task, ESPECIALLY if it doesn't exist.

[LTX]

262. The notion that humans are "born atheists"

is at odds with observed inclinations towards teleology and agency in developmental thinking. Children, it seems, are default magical thinkers (and have a rather well-established preference for magical story-telling). Justin Barrett (with whom I suspect you disagree), stated it thusly in the March 2012 issue of New Scientist:

The vast majority of humans are “born believers”, naturally inclined to find religious claims and explanations attractive and easily acquired, and to attain fluency in using them. This attraction to religion is an evolutionary by-product of our ordinary cognitive equipment, and while it tells us nothing about the truth or otherwise of religious claims it does help us see religion in an interesting new light.

I haven't seen much evidence to support the notion that children default to empirical analysis when faced with an inexplicable phenomenon. Indeed, were that the case, science as a methodology would, it seems, have developed much earlier in the human timescale, and science as a dedicated pursuit would seem to be relatively easy, rather than notoriously difficult, to encourage in children.

[AtheistCrusader]

264. Attractive and EASILY ACQUIRED.

I think Justin just completely agreed with me.

We are not born WITH faith. We may be born predisposed to belief, but we are not born with it in hand. We have to acquire it somewhere. For instance, you will not find a 3 year old Christian in a muslim family deep in the middle east, having never been exposed to a Christian, or a Christian bible/material. They do not spontaneously erupt.

I fully agree, most humans are predisposed to belief, but they have to be exposed to it to acquire it. Self-generated 'natural' supernatural bits like thunder gods, and other such unrecognizable to the general populace 'gods' can arise in isolated individuals, but actual Theism(TM) is socially transmitted, not self-generated.

[LTX]

266. That's actually a good way to succinctly put it --

"We may be born predisposed to belief, but we are not born with it in hand," although I will add that you would likely find agency-explanation and magical thinking as a fairly uniform childhood thought process across cultures. That said, I would also agree that liturgical rigidity is a social transmission.

I enjoyed reading Jesse Bering's book The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life, and I have on my (now almost ridiculous) "to-read" list Pascal Boyer's and Scott Atran's books Religion Explained and In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion.

What is particularly interesting to me is group and individual developmental evolution from agency-explanation to empirical and analytic explanation.

[LTX]

32. Your conclusory propositions about "unfalsifiable claims" being bad is scientism on steroids.

Please falsify the claim that I love my wife. Or that I like the color blue. Or that mathematics is "discovered" rather than "invented." Or that Jackson Pollack's Pasiphae is beautiful (or ugly). Etc., etc. Science has a crucial role to play, but it is not a methodology for determining subjective "truths," and it can be insidious when it is deployed as an ostensibly objective arbiter of "good" and "bad."

[AtheistCrusader]

44. I would be FUCKING THRILLED

if religious people limited themselves to acknowledging their faith is a SUBJECTIVE TRUTH.


THRILLED.

[LTX]

63. Most do, in my (strictly anecdotal) experience.

It is the Ken Ham's of the world, however, that vie for, and get, public attention. And, as an inverse to your comment, I would be relieved (I can't really say it would be "thrilling&quot if atheists acknowledged the subjective nature of the "truths" that govern the vast majority of all human lives, their own included, and stopped deploying misapprehensions of science as the alleged basis for their beliefs.

[MellowDem]

66. No they don't...

The major religion's own texts and dogma very explicitly claim absolute, objective truths. Whether the believers are intellectually honest enough to actually believe what they claim to is irrelevant to that point.

Where are you getting that atheists don't understand subjectivity? Or that they deploy misapprehensions of science? Some might, but not the vast majority that I've seen.

[LTX]

74. In response to your questions,

your own post #4 is rather classic example of my point. As for your "they" generalization of religious adherents and the objective of religious texts, my own religious traditions (and my own interactions with people of different faiths) belie your stereotyping. Perhaps you only interact with the adherents to fundamentalist literalism, in which case, your "set" would explain your conclusion.

[MellowDem]

78. The Bible, Torah, and Koran

All very explicitly claim objective truths. No stereotyping there, it's right in the text. Whether people who claim these texts as their beliefs acknowledge that or not really makes no difference.

[LTX]

86. Your literalism and definitional parameters are noted.

As is the fact that there is always more to learn.

[MellowDem]

89. Literalism? You mean reasoning and logic?

I would have to say your intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance are noted. You can make anything say what you want it to when those are your foundations.

[LTX]

94. No, I mean literalism. It's not a particularly difficult concept.

[Brettongarcia]

132. So you defend the Bible and religion, by saying it is not literally true?

[LTX]

146. My interest is in the nature, persistence, and role of religious thinking

as an integral and seemingly inevitable aspect of human consciousness. As an inverse to your question, are allegories, metaphors, and affixed symbolic representations false?

[Brettongarcia]

170. Generally allegories etc. might be said to be half true; but inaccurate in any literal way, usually.

If religion is inevitably within human consciousness, then how can there be atheists?

[LTX]

171. Humans are metaphor machines.

Metaphoric reasoning tends to be covert, however, with the influence of metaphorical framing only rarely at the recognizable forefront. "Half true" is, in my view, a misnomer here. The very purpose of metaphorical framing is explanation, with a view to capturing and conveying as close an approximation to a "true" explanation as individually possible.

As for your last question, I don't think any human, atheists included, is free from the religious-thinking process.

[Brettongarcia]

199. Sure; George Lackoff wrote Metaphors We Live By; I used that in my PhD dissertation

But what is said, is that what we see as real facts are "dead metaphors"; former analogies or metaphors that however were so accurate for a given situation, that they became identified with that - note factual - scenario, often solely.

Still, we have forgotten the metaphor; which actually wasted away, because it was so accurate.

In effect? We can learn to see a kind of fact, aside from the metaphor. Which wastes away after all.

There has been much talk about a religious gene, and so forth. But ... all very speculative. And clearly this plays into the hands of religionists.

While on Democratic Underground, many atheists are explicitly opposing church-like atheist organizations; just because they might resemble churches.

Personally I suppose a high degree of religion-like devotion and organization will be needed by atheists, to counter the massive institutional force and organization of Religion. Though this time? The difference is that any emotion is in the service of reason; rather than vice-versa.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Well, this must explain why the Catholic Church spends millions lobbying

to prevent ME from having legal access to life-ending options if and when my body or mind begins to fail as I age.

Because it's subjective and they keep their beliefs to themselves. Wait. No... Hold on.



1.2bn adherents. Where is this 'most' that don't engage in such things? I'd be fine with it if the RCC simply kept it's dogma about suicide to itself, to it's voluntary members. They don't. The spend millions on political campaigns trying to limit MY choices, and I am not a catholic.

[LTX]

96. I don't know anything at all about the Catholic church's spending

on opposition to assisted suicide laws (although I do rather doubt that the Catholic church is alone in opposition). But on the larger point, are you against "beliefs" in general being the basis for proposed law (or for support or opposition to a given law)?

[AtheistCrusader]

99. They were the top 6 donors for the opposition to I-1000 in Washington State.

At the entity level, top 6. Something like top 9 out of 10.

At the personal level, not all are publicly known/disclosed as to their faith, but several of the top donors, including their 'high profile' media mouthpiece, were all Catholics at the individual donor level.



"But on the larger point, are you against "beliefs" in general being the basis for proposed law (or for support or opposition to a given law)?"

Their belief in this case, is that suicide is a sin. That MUST NEEDS be a subjective truth, limited only to their faith, and possibly shared with like-minded faiths. It is not objectively true. They BELIEVE it is objectively true and therefore want to force me by law to obey their beliefs, however, which brings us into conflict.

I-1000 was a hell of a fight, and I'm to-this-day amazed we won it. But that's just Washington. There are only three states in the union where it is a legal option, and the fight continues. The RCC is at the head, and forms the bulk of the opposition.

[LTX]

103. Interesting.

I wonder how this gets around 501(c)(3) restrictions?

I asked the latter question because I have a somewhat difficult time squaring my own political "belief" advocacy (which tends to the humanist) with my not infrequent reaction that theological "belief" advocacy should not be permitted in the political arena. I assuage myself with the thought of the dire consequences of theocratic governance, but that kind of logical-extremism doesn't resolve the underlying inconsistency of my own position.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. Churches and charities are allowed to advocate on issues.

Not on individuals, but yes on issues. (That's my understanding)


The way I view the physician assisted suicide issue, or choosing sides in it is, one side only wishes it to be available as an option. The other side wishes to deny it as an option for everyone, when it has the option to simply deny it for members of their belief structure.

To flip the roles and be logically consistent, I would have to advocate for EVERYONE to utilize the option of physician assisted suicide, against a group that wants it to be voluntary-only.

The positions are not equal. One allows for subjective individual choice, the other an absolute universal objective rule.

[skepticscott]

114. Sheesh, where have we seen this before?

More professing ignorance about the RCC's ongoing and vigorous attempts to prevent anyone, including non-Catholics, from doing the things that the Catholic religion prohibits? And attempts to spin it with endless sophistry. On a progressive web site.

And yes, any decent, thinking person should be against any law or public policy that can't be justified without resort to "god says so" or "I believe it cuz the buybull tells me".

Disgusting.

[LTX]

121. Actually, I simply did not know anything

about the Catholic church's lobbying expenditures on assisted suicide issues. I'm sorry you found that disgusting.

[skepticscott]

158. I found your claim that you knew nothing about it

lacking in credibility. At the very least, you were speaking arrogantly, without knowledge.

[LTX]

163. Well, I didn't.

And I had no intention of speaking arrogantly. Certainly the person with whom I was speaking didn't interpret it in that way. Which should count for something.

[AtheistCrusader]

196. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you said you didn't know.

I'm not going to berate you for it, but what I left unsaid was both outrage and shock that someone might not know that. The RCC alone is central to a whole host of lobbying efforts that attack specific progressive and liberal issues. They take the lead on, for instance, restricting access to contraceptives and abortion access in Washington. Fortunately, it's a fight they are losing state-wide.

I do think it is frustrating that that isn't made clear enough in our media, WHO the opposition and the bankroll is that funds it. The Koch brothers get pointed out often enough for their political lobbying efforts, in the areas where they are relevant, why does the RCC get a pass for its efforts in other areas?


I believe you when you say you didn't know. My frustration at that fact is vented in directions such as the media, because it shouldn't be possible for you to not know that, being a politically active person. That info should be readily available to you. There's only two sites that still enumerate the opposition spending to WA's I-1000 fight. That data should be more readily available.

[LTX]

198. Interesting you should say that.

After our discussion, I went back and searched both "news" and the general web, and (while I confess to not spending hours in the research) I could find only one article that even attempted to quantify the RCC's lobbying expenditures. (And you were quite right about the scope of 501(c)(3) restrictions.)

In addition, due to my somewhat parochial reading habits, I can become woefully ill-informed about recent political issues (which is probably not something that should be said out loud on an otherwise political website). Consequently, I am always grateful to encounter someone who does not equate ignorance with stupidity.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

180. AtheistCrusader is against people having a code of morals

And thinking that others should live by them.

Jack Kervorkian was seen as a villain by more than just Catholics. Indeed, I daresay that even some atheists were appalled by him.

[AtheistCrusader]

182. My life is mine. Not yours.

Do not presume you can tell me that I MUST live when I choose not to suffer any longer.


And we won, Washington State now has LEGAL physician-assisted suicide.

Their 'moral code' is predicated on what happens to the soul after death. I don't have a soul, and you don't get to pretend I do, to mortgage my choices and my life against your made-up bullshit, for a time when I won't even exist.

[trotsky]

192. Kervorkian was hailed as a hero by many people of all faiths, and by those with no faith.

Human dignity issues transcend limited theological minds.

[MellowDem]

65. That has nothing to do with falsifiability...

Falsifiability is the ability of a theory - a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena - to be disproved by experimentation or observation.

Falsifiability and unfalsifiability don't apply to things that aren't theories.

None of your examples have anything to do with falsifiability. They're all preferences, not theories.

Also, my "conclusory proposition" about unfalsifiable claims being bad? That's a preference too. I think I have good reasoning and logic to support it, but it's a preference none-the-less. As soon as you used the terms "like", "love", "is beautiful", etc., you left the world of theories (in the scientific sense).

So you asking me to falsify preferences is non-sensical.

And nowhere did I say that science determines what is good or bad, so you can drop the strawmen and hyperbole.

[LTX]

75. Your statement, in case you've forgotten:

"Unfalsifiable claims are bad, as pointed out in the article, for a number of reasons. They encourage false beliefs. False beliefs are bad. They can cause all sorts of harm, and the good they can provide can be provided just as well through true beliefs."

You were the one who referred to falsifiability as the sine qua non of false and true "beliefs." Not me.

[MellowDem]

81. No, that was indeed you...

I said unfalsifiable claims (theories in this context) encourage false beliefs. You don't seem to understand falsifiability, theories, or even sine qua non, or you have trouble with reading comprehension.

[LTX]

93. Sorry, I must have missed the word "theory" in your post.

So are you now disavowing your (rather curious) position that:

"my 'conclusory proposition' about unfalsifiable claims being bad? That's a preference too."

[MellowDem]

97. You've misconstrued a lot...

I never referred to unfalsifiable claims as an indispensable ingredient of false beliefs. That was indeed your misconstruction.

And I never disavowed that my opinion of unfalsifiable claims was a preference.

[LTX]

98. So be it. I'll accept my own misconstruction as sufficient reason for initial disagreement.

[Brettongarcia]

135. LTX? It is easy to disprove your claims, and religious claims, with science

By observing your visible behavior for example.

You claim to like the color blue. But you own no blue things; you look at a blue sky with a scowl. In college, you blogged that you hate blue. We give you a color-blindness test, and discover that you cannot see blue at all. Or, alternately: you can see blue. But brain scans on you when observing blue, correspond to "dislike" patterns.

At a certain point it seems reasonable to say that the vast preponderance of the evidence points to your claim being false.

Many people hold on to religion because they claim, it cannot be proven to be false. But? If you know enough, it can be.

[LTX]

147. Gibberish. n/t

[AlbertCat]

137. scientism on steroids.

Since "scientism" is a made up idea that doesn't really exist, it's still nonsense even on steroids.

[cbayer]

145. How is scientism a made up word?

How is it any different than religionism or religionist?

[AlbertCat]

150. How is it any different than religionism or religionist?

Well religionist is like scientist.... "-ist" denotes an individual that practices...whatever the "-ist" is attached to.

But "religionism" is not a word either and I don't know what it's supposed to mean. "-ism" is a suffix that makes words into nouns that denote a state or a quality... but in these instances it's used, I think, to denote an ideological movement. Applied to the word "science" it's supposed to infer there's some kind of religion that is science.... which there isn't.

[cbayer]

151. Well, they are words with definitions.

You may object to them in principle, but they are words that exist.

Definition of SCIENTISM

1
: methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2
: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism

I think the "exaggerated trust" definition is apt in some cases. It doesn't imply at all that there is some kind of religion that is science, but may imply that there is some kind of "science" that is religion.

Makes sense to me.

[AlbertCat]

152. I think the "exaggerated trust" definition is apt in some cases.

Of course you do.

It's nonsense tho'. "exaggerated trust"...what does that even mean? In terms of science....nothing.

[cbayer]

153. It means exactly what the definition says it means.

It means trying to apply scientific method in areas that it is not applicable and believing it is the end all and be all to all questions.

No need to make this personal, AlbertCat. We are only having a discussion.

[AlbertCat]

154. It means trying to apply scientific method in areas that it is not applicable

Like religion and woo do all the time.


"believing it is the end all and be all to all questions. "

No one who understands science would claim such a thing.


So..."Scientism" is something people who hate or don't understand science do then.

[cbayer]

156. No one said it was a one way street or only applicable to science being misapplied.

I agree that no one that understands science would claim such a thing. Thus the utility of having a word to describe those who do.

I don't think it applies to those who "hate" science. I think it applies to those that "love" it just a bit too much.

[skepticscott]

159. And who are those people?

I defy you to name even one.

[cbayer]

177. Why did you feel the need to drag this into another group and call me out in the process?

I thought we were having a pretty good conversation about this, even if we saw it differently.

Why would you take it into a group in which I can not participate and then call me "the usual suspect" just because I posted an apparently widely accepted definition of a word?

I really don't get it.

[LTX]

155. When science is removed from its parameters,

it most definitely becomes religion (although I really like your succinct portrait of "ism" as a suffix). You may deny that there exists a "science answers all" mindset, but you need only read the comments by ostensible atheists across the comment boards to see the "religionism" in the professions of scientific "faith."

[skepticscott]

160. Oh, please...give us some examples of the "science answers all" mindset..if you can.

Show us some expressions of your so-called "scientific faith"

And btw, the weaselly attempt to conflate completely different meanings of the word "faith" will be called out for what it is, so don't waste our time by going there. It's been tried by other religionistas here, and exposed as bogus crap.

[LTX]

164. There are examples in this thread, if you choose to read them. n/t

[skepticscott]

165. Bullshit

Give us the post numbers.

Waving your hand and saying "the evidence is out there, go find it" is a lame dodge, and a sure sign of someone who has nothing else.

[LTX]

168. See post numbers

4 and 135. Science asks and responds methodologically to "how" questions about material phenomena. When it is touted as an alleged arbiter of "true" and "false" beliefs (whether by Ken Ham or Atheist X), I am rather quickly skeptical of the motivations. Allegedly "scientific socialism," calls for prophylactic bans on religion (advocated by one of the above posters on another thread), eugenics, Taylorism, "scientific management," conclusory personality testing, pop and "just so" characterizations of human nature (often under the guise of evolutionary psychology), are examples of the conflation of science with religious thinking. Science is an indispensable tool, but a saw makes a poor hammer.

[Act_of_Reparation]

175. Non-overlapping magisteria would be fantastic...

...but the problem with that is religion's inability to keep its "answers" relegated to its own side of the fence.

Science asks and responds methodologically to "how" questions about material phenomena. When it is touted as an alleged arbiter of "true" and "false" beliefs (whether by Ken Ham or Atheist X), I am rather quickly skeptical of the motivations.

Religion also tries to answer "how". Or, it presumes to.

Origin of the universe? God did it.
Earthquakes? God did it.
Volcanoes? God did it.
Lightning? God did it.
Sunrise? God did it.
Sunset? God did it.
The coming and going of the seasons? God did it.
Man's mortality? God did it.
Dying of disease? God did it.
Not dying of disease because you got better? God did it.

These are religious beliefs, but also claims that, through science, can be shown to be false. Or do you think we have not thoroughly discounted Zeus as the source of lightning?

Allegedly "scientific socialism," calls for prophylactic bans on religion (advocated by one of the above posters on another thread), eugenics, Taylorism, "scientific management," conclusory personality testing, pop and "just so" characterizations of human nature (often under the guise of evolutionary psychology), are examples of the conflation of science with religious thinking. Science is an indispensable tool, but a saw makes a poor hammer.

What a spectacular Gish gallop of cask strength malarkey.

Pulling up a bunch of batshit Victorian-era and popular pseudosciences hardly makes a sound argument against empiricism or, least of all, scientific skepticism. Our philosophy isn't about swallowing anything coated in a thin veneer of sciencey-sounding lingo, but being able to tell the difference between established science, contested science, and abject woo-woo.

And it is worth pointing out here that it wasn't religion that discredited eugenics, but science. And it wasn't religion that discredited Taylorism and personality testing, but social science. And, finally, it is not religion that is discrediting evo psych, but evolutionary biologists and psychologists... ya know, scientists.

[LTX]

183. Oh brother. I'm not making an argument against empiricism.

I thought that was obvious. And I'm not "anti-science." I am a scientist by training, in particular evolutionary botany. I had the misfortune to be re-directed in life into the family business, but I have nevertheless continued drilling down on the issue of symbiotic fluctuations in lichen populations, and I have the good fortune of retaining many friendships and associations with practitioners in the area, with whom I share field collections and samples.

My issue is precisely with the passing off of "woo" (to use the currently popular term), and I am particularly irritated when I see otherwise educated people claiming validation of non-scientific beliefs under the rubric of science. It is not a "Victorian-era" phenomena, and it is not an attribute that belongs exclusively to "ignorant religionistas." When religion attempts to answer how questions about material phenomena, it is preposterously out of its element. And when erstwhile science-devotees speak of science "proving" the "truth" of this subjective belief or that, they are preposterously out of their element.

But apparently, one dare not mention that science is a specific methodology with specific usage parameters. To do so, apparently, automatically triggers "condescending lecture # 4 (b)" from the fundamentalist-rebuttal catalog.

[Act_of_Reparation]

191. My mistake. So, you're straw-manning it, then?

My issue is precisely with the passing off of "woo" (to use the currently popular term), and I am particularly irritated when I see otherwise educated people claiming validation of non-scientific beliefs under the rubric of science. It is not a "Victorian-era" phenomena, and it is not an attribute that belongs exclusively to "ignorant religionistas."

When, and by whom, was such a claim made?

When religion attempts to answer how questions about material phenomena, it is preposterously out of its element. And when erstwhile science-devotees speak of science "proving" the "truth" of this subjective belief or that, they are preposterously out of their element.

First, I have to question the relevance of such statements. Who, pray tell, is arguing that science should be applied to subjective belief? Certainly not MadDem, to whom you initially responded.

Secondly, I take issue with your attempts to analogize. Whether or not you like the color blue, Jackson Pollack, or your wife are questions of personal preference. Ultimately irrelevant personal preferences, at that. Granted, it has been some time since I last set foot in a church, but I can't think of a single religious belief that is analogous to the examples you provided.

[LTX]

194. Having read the posts in the many forums here

as well as other forums, I not infrequently encounter loose and murky applications of allegedly scientific reasoning to otherwise patently subjective and non-scientifically amenable issues. If you have neither seen nor perceived such, you are fortunate.

As for religious belief, there is quite a bit of personal preference involved, preferences that find reinforcement in comforting homilies, allegories, liturgies and beliefs.

[LTX]

195. Oh, and a rather fun examination of peculiarly modern "woo,"

Last edited Wed Apr 23, 2014, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

seemingly endorsed with little question by otherwise well-educated patrons, is discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218123624

[skepticscott]

188. More bullshit...is that really all you have?

Neither of the posts you cite says anything that could be even remotely construed as implying that "science answers all". I'd ask you to try again, but I sense that would just bring on more babble, and not a shred of evidence to back up your claim about rampant "scientism".

And if your feathers are ruffled by science's use of terms like "true" and "false", tough. They are meaningful terms as they are used, for those who understand. It's true that life on earth has evolved. It's false that the earth is a perfect sphere. Etc., etc.

[LTX]

190. Well, that settles it then.

Rude and blinkered certainty invariably wins the day. I'll bury my head in shame now.

[skepticscott]

201. Ah, yes..playing the poor victim of bullying now

To cover up the fact that you made a completely false and dishonest claim, were asked to provide actual evidence (the horror) to back up said claim, and were not allowed to weasel out of your miserable failure to do so.

Some people might have just admitted they were wrong and moved on, instead of doubling down on intellectual dishonesty and lame, transparent diversions.

[LTX]

203. You should be happy, skepticscott.

You got to use your entire repertoire of pejoratives in just two, pointlessly fire-belching posts. Have a beer and relax.

[stone space]

218. What is your favorite color?

Or that I like the color blue.

[stone space]

219. As a mathematician, I will say that sometimes it feels like Discovery, and sometimes like...

...an Act of Creation.

Or that mathematics is "discovered" rather than "invented."

[Politicalboi]

27. Atheist don't threaten you with damnation

If you don't go their way. We're not here to "save" them, we're just here letting others know it's okay not to believe. To show how uneven this is, when do you think an Atheist President will be elected? I'm tired of the gasps when that idea is even mentioned. How dare I want someone in office who doesn't run the country at ALL within the bible.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

38. I would just remind you that there have been atheists with political power

Who have oppressed believers for being believers. Stalin and Hoxha are the two obvious examples.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Stalin replaced religion with The State/The Party.

That's all. It was a 1:1 substitution. A theocracy by any other name, still a theocracy.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

69. Stalin also attacked believers

For being believers. As did Hoxha.

I have brought this up before, and several atheists jumped through the most amazing hoops rather than admit that there have been atheists who have tried to forcibly convert people to atheism.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Stalin didn't like competition.

I am not aware that it is POSSIBLE to force someone to become an atheist, any more than it is possible to force someone to become a believer.

I suppose you can threaten someone enough they might pretend, but that's not the same thing.

[skepticscott]

116. This is an old schtick from this poster

He's been challenged before to show how anyone could be forced to be an atheist and, not surprisingly, failed miserably. People of all stripes were scared to death and did all sorts of lying and pretending in what they said and did openly in Stalinist Russia, but that has nothing to do with what they actually believed in the privacy of their own thoughts.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

140. Yes, it is. And you atheists jumped through the most incredible hoops trying to deny what I said

What I said is that there have been atheists in positions of power who attempted to force their subjects to be atheists. Whether or not they were successful is wholly irrelevant. They tried to force atheism on others. You keep trying to pretend that no atheist would ever try to force others to be atheists. Why is it so important for you to deny the facts of history? Is it because you want to pretend that atheists are better than everyone else? Or is it for some other reason? (Of course, you being who you are, I do not really expect an honest debate from you. And if you go whining to the hosts because I point out that you are a dishonest debater, it only proves me right.)

It's like saying that the Denver Broncos didn't try to win the Superbowl last February. They didn't succeed, but it was not for lack of trying.

[LostOne4Ever]

161. I would not use that game as an example

Cause I saw it and I am thoroughly convinced they phoned it in.



*This post has been made for the sake of humor. Any resemblance to any actual argument alive or dead is purely coincidental.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

166. You didn't like that example? Fine.

The example I gave when I originally brought this up was Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, who tried to force all non-Catholics in their kingdoms to become Catholic. And then the Spanish Inquisition spent the next couple of centuries trying to make sure that the forced conversions "took".

[rug]

173. Lol.

Thanks for the humor. It's like penicillin in this petri dish of a thread.

[AtheistCrusader]

186. Except Stalin did not just 'force others to be atheists'.

Try being a Russian in Stalin-era Russia without also positively expressing support/belief in The Party.

It wasn't 'imposition' of atheism on Russians, it was substitution of one theocracy for another. This is elementary political science, actually.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

206. The fact remains that Stalin DID at least try to force others to be atheists.

So did Hoxha. Why is there such denial among at least some atheists of that simple historical fact?

[trotsky]

207. Because he didn't force atheism, he forced people to drop their loyalty to their church...

to be loyal to his totalitarian state. Forcing people to be atheists = so what? What does that accomplish? But forcing people to worship him and his state = power. Very simple historical fact, indeed.

[cleanhippie]

211. This sounds an awful lot like what Humblebum used to say.

Coincidence?

[AtheistCrusader]

208. Because you are misconstruing it.

Willfully so, it seems.

[okasha]

258. "one theocracy for another"

implies that atheism is a religion. I thought it was pretty well established in this group that it is not.

A non-theist theocracy sounds rather self-contradictory to me. Why not just acknowledge that there have in fact been atheist totalitarians who have attempted to force atheism on the populations they governed both by persecuting religious people and by making atheism a prerequisite for social benefits.

[AtheistCrusader]

261. No, as I said upthread, it substituted The Party for former religious trappings.

The political structure of which is not dissimilar from WWII-Japan with it's god-emperor.

Stalin simply substituted similar control/model without claiming godhood himself. His desire to destructively displace existing forms of faith (whatever the source, political or religious) is simply a reflection of his nature as a 'jealous god'.

[AlbertCat]

178. when do you think an Atheist President will be elected?

Right after the Hindu one?


Of course the odds are good we've already had an atheist president.... he just couldn't be "out".

[cbayer]

181. I think it will happen and that it won't be that long.

Things are moving in that direction, albeit slowly as these things tend to do.

[Warpy]

184. No, atheists have not been engaged in repression

for thousands of years. To say religion and atheism are equal is a false equivalence. After all, atheism lacks dogma or holy writ. It's hard to preach on street corners, knock on doorways at the crack of dawn on weekends, or build mega non churches in its honor. There is no "there" there.

Only newly minted atheists proselytize, unlike the religious. Most of us are content to tend our own gardens but sick of being dissed all over the place by good religious people who could stand to read their own holy book and modify their behavior considerably by what they find in it.

The only thing that is changing is that we're coming out of that "I'm not religious" closet that seemed to lull religious people into thinking atheists either didn't exist or certainly didn't exist among their reasonable peers.

That doesn't mean we're threatening you. It just means that we are here, we are different only in that we sleep in on Sunday.

[AtheistCrusader]

209. There is no 'atheist word'.

Not advancing positive belief in XYZ deity is not a philosophy.

A-theism. Without theism.


Now, advancing something like Secular Humanism, yes, that would be 'equal', as that is much more equal to the idea of a 'religion'.

[DanTex]

227. I was under the impression that atheism means advancing the belief that there is no deity.

This is different (and stronger) than just not advancing the belief in any deity.

If just not advancing the belief in any specific deity qualifies as atheism, that would probably make me atheist, but I usually think of myself as agnostic -- basically my view is "I don't know, but nothing I've heard sounds convincing".

[skepticscott]

228. You were under a false impression

just like many of the religionistsas here.

And yes, you are an atheist.

[skepticscott]

11. There are a lot of people out there, I think

who participate in organized religion only out of habit, and out of fear of the stigma of not doing it, while not really believing in it at all. The more people acknowledge that they're in that situation, the more the stigma is lifted, the more the phony veneer of "liberal" and "progressive" faith will be stripped away.

On another topic, the Ignore feature really does cure a world of dickishness, doesn't it?

[rug]

15. "the phony veneer of "liberal" and "progressive" faith will be stripped away"

You have just called every person of faith a conservative.

Ignore feature or not, dickishness remains. Not to mention the hokey language of melodrama.

[hrmjustin]

17. It does. I used ignore today for the first time.

[skepticscott]

18. Irony still escapes you

Every time.

[hrmjustin]

19. No I get irony.

[LTX]

33. I think one of the most interesting (and historically important) roles of "churches"

has been their use as (for want of a better descriptor) social clubs. I think you are correct that habit can be a predominant factor in religious belief, but the nature of the "habit" often seems to be the simple need for social interaction. I think (based only on anecdotal evidence) that liberal or progressive churches often provide like-minded liberals with a social network and glue that is associated with the titular theology only by the thinnest veneer. Just such a church (Lutheran by title) is in my neighborhood. I have been invited to many overtly political and simply social neighborhood events there, and I honestly could not tell you what the religious beliefs of any of the attendees was. Other than the traditional trappings of the nave, it could just as well be the church of the Spaghetti Monster.

[goldent]

30. She's right - but it doesn't just apply to Atheism

Not hiding the fact that you are religious, but not pushing it either, influence peoples. I've seen it with different age groups throughout my life. I think it also applies to hobbies, etc.

[Prophet 451]

31. I'm actually all for atheists proselytizing

I'm not an atheist (I'm a Luciferian Satanist) but I believe in the free market of ideas. If the religious get to go out and try to make more people religious, then atheists have an equal right to try and make people not be religious. I tend to get on with atheists better than believers. The believers persist in trying to tell me what I believe (helpful hint: What a Satanist means by "Satan" is probably not what a Christian means) and get all antsy about what they think I believe. The atheists just treat us as one more faith. Only problem I've ever had with them is that some have this smug superiority, like you can't hold a faith and be intelligent.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. One of these days... I'm going to go to the mormons at the end of the street

knock on the door during their meal time, freak out their dogs, and then inform them their imaginary friend doesn't exist.

Turnabout is fair play, so I'm told.

[bravenak]

58. I thought satanists were atheists.

Is that not true? http://www.churchofsatan.com/faq-fundamental-beliefs.php
Is a luciferian satnists different? Actually believing in Lucifer? Did not know that.

[Prophet 451]

120. Different kind of Satanist

The CoS are LaVeyans, their belief system is essentialy Objectivism with neo-mystical bolts on.
Luciferian Satanism means we actually worship Lucifer whom we see as justified rebel against a tyrannical god.

[bravenak]

124. I have a friend who is the other kind of satanist.

We argue constantly. and yes, god is a tyrant if he exists. A crazy one.

[AlbertCat]

138. I thought satanists were atheists.

Believing in the demigod, Satan, makes you as ridiculous as believing in the Easter Bunny, Rainbow Bright, or god.

Exactly how do you "fight" a tyrannical god if you know he doesn't exist?


Never mind....
I really don't care about it. The supernatural is simply not worth spending too much time on.

[bravenak]

139. I swear a guy told me that they don't believe in satan, that they like to mess with people.

He says its just that if they have to choose, they pick satan. I don't understand it. I never will.

[AtheistCrusader]

197. Based on the contents of the bible, if I was forced to choose

I would pick Lucifer.

It would be under duress, because I don't believe in either, but, if I could be forced to choose, that's the one I would pick. By the materials in the bible, Lucifer gives humans a hell of a lot fairer shake than god does.

[bravenak]

200. If i had to choose, i'd make the same choice.

It seems like the bad one is not that bad, and the good one is evil.
If i had to choose between kicking it with god or lucifer, i'm going to the barbeque.
After what god did to Job, i would not want to number among his faithful and receive any attention.
Have you ever watched a God and Jeffrey video? Funny stuff, i should post one up so we can all discuss the book of job and Dark Matter's quite literal interpretation.

[AtheistCrusader]

202. Yeah, i've seen Dark Matter's videos.

It's pretty funny stuff. But thought provoking too.

There are variations on the Job interpretation, whether it is that god gave job over to screw with, whether god ordered satan to screw with him, or whether god did it himself.

But it all kind of amounts to the same thing, since god must needs have the power to prevent it, if he/she/it is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent thing he/she/it claims to be. At the very least god sanctions it, if not directs or does it by god's own hand.

[cbayer]

34. I think that "coming out" will decrease prejudice, increase understanding and

lead to greater overall normalization and acceptance….

That is, of course, unless by coming out the person actually means that they want to "combat" religion and are on a crusade to eradicate it as some kind of evil force.

Then, it's probably not likely to do any of those things.

Too bad that's the author's position. And, BTW, she is voicing the exact definition of proselytization and evangelizing, despite what she says.

[Leontius]

41. Name the first 5 people you think of when you hear the term atheist.

Not friends and relatives but from the general public domain. Sorry meant this for the OP

[MellowDem]

67. The author's position is that religion is an evil force?

Seriously, the straw manning and demonization of opinions as a tactic gets old.

[cbayer]

77. Er, did you read the article you posted, MD?

In the excerpted text, the bulk of it is devoted to talking about how realign is a really bad idea and how she thinks it should be eliminated.

Ok, she doesn't use the word evil, but I never said she did.

Sorry, that's not a straw man and I am not demonizing her.

You, on the other hand, might be doing both.

[MellowDem]

87. Then you're misconstruing her argument....

You think there is no distinction between thinking something is a bad idea and that it is evil? Is that how you view the world? Quite a few people, many atheists included, don't even believe in the concept of evil. It's assumes objective morality in most references to it from religion.

[cbayer]

91. Oh, please. Don't believe in evil?

What term would you apply to people that kill others for no apparent reason? Molest children? Commit genocide?

If you have another name for it, great, but to most people that represents evil. It's not just bad.

And when someone talks about the need to eliminate something, it's generally not just because they think it's a rather benign form of "bad".

So, perhaps we just read what she is saying differently and your interpretation is no more valid than mine.

[MellowDem]

100. Yes

You've never heard anyone criticize the concept of "good and evil"? Of objective morality? Calling something evil usually precludes having to understand or even explain what makes it "evil". It's intellectually lazy and dangerous.

Everyone does things for a reason. Just because it's not "apparent" doesn't mean throwing the word "evil" on it means there was no reason.

Now, just to let you know, the god of the Bible commits genocide, and while he doesn't molest children, he does condone their slavery and rape. And while he does kill people rather liberally, sometimes for no readily apparent reason, few of the same believers that tell you genocide is evil would refer to god as evil. Because the concept of objective morality is bullshit. And it makes the term "evil" as used by certain religions to be absolutely meaningless, as it is simply whatever god is not.

Evil generally means that someone/something is inherently bad, and there is some objective truth of what is good or evil. And I don't believe in that concept at all. There are reasons behind why we think some things are right or wrong, and it's all based on our preferences.

[cbayer]

101. Yet, you and the author both seem to see religion as something

inherently bad. As you say, there is not objective truth to support that and it is all based on your preferences.

[MellowDem]

107. It's bad based on my preferences...

Which can change and which I can be persuaded on. It's scary when someone claims their preferences are objective.

[cbayer]

119. So do you think religious people are less able to change their

opinion or less open to persuasion? If so, what do you base that on?

Or perhaps, like me, you are not fully convinced that religiosity is necessarily a choice.

[MellowDem]

122. When their religion says...

that there are objective truths and the believer actually believes what they say they do, then it's impossible for them to even have an opinion in certain subjects. It's just god's opinion, and his opinion is what is defined as objectively good.

Without giving up the idea that there are objective truths that their religious text gives them knowledge of, they'll not be able to change their opinion.

[cbayer]

123. But what if their religion doesn't say that

or what if they don't interpret their religion that way.

I was never taught anything about "objective truths" and I think many people are never presented with that concept.

Many are taught to question and their religion is provided to them as guidance.

I think your view of what religious people are taught and given is very rigid. When applied in the way you define it, I can see why you reach such rigid conclusions.

But it you allow for the variability that actually exists, your arguments begin to fall apart.

[skepticscott]

126. Oh, so since YOU were never taught about "objective truths"

that's supposed to be some sort of evidence that a bunch of other religionists weren't either? Same old clanthink, and argument from personal experience that you spout all the time.

But if you were being honest, you'd acknowledge the simple and demonstrable fact that virtually all religions have "objective truths" that they profess and confess to. Look at the web sites for the Christian denominations in this country, for example. They all have sections entitled "what we believe" or something similar, which lay out in detail what that religion regards as unquestionably true.

Your claim that "many are taught to question and their religion is provided to them as guidance" is simply your invented nonsense and nothing more. I defy you to back that up with any evidence that passes the laugh test.

[trotsky]

108. Er, did you?

She defines religion in this statement:

Religion — the hypothesis that the world is the way it is because of supernatural beings or forces acting on the natural world — is a bad idea.

She goes on to explain what exactly makes that a bad idea. Honest discussions, cbayer. Let's try them?

[Arugula Latte]

62. Thus the drop in religious affiliation as the Internet helps spread the good news about Atheism.

[rug]

73. Since the internet, the porn industry is also booming.

[Arugula Latte]

102. So?

[rug]

109. The internet spreads all sorts of things.

[Arugula Latte]

111. My point was that when people talk about the emperor of religion being naked,

they are less inclined to pretend they see clothes. The Internet facilitates this discussion. And this drop has been documented.

[cbayer]

80. Though both events are occurring, there is absolutely no evidence that there

is any kind of correlation, let alone causation.

That would require some kind of scientific inquiry instead of just beliefs based on the way one wants things to be!

[Arugula Latte]

104. MIT is science-y.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/526111/how-the-internet-is-taking-away-americas-religion/

[rug]

110. That's from Olin College.

[cleanhippie]

112. Published in the MIT Technology Review.

[rug]

115. Researched at Olin College, not MIT. Not as science-y.

[cbayer]

118. Yes, this "study" has been posted here and is deeply flawed.

I wouldn't use it to conclude anything.

Correlation can not be used to conclude causation. In addition, the study they quote correlates daily internet use with religious affiliation (negative correlation).

There is no surprise there based on the demographics of those who report they are not religious.

Also note that this study was submitted, never published and not peer reviewed.

[Brettongarcia]

133. I'd say it presents an interesting hypothesis.

Hi to all my friends at MIT.

[callous taoboy]

95. In my religiously fervent community, I have probably been outed as an atheist.

It was my intention upon moving here 14 years ago to continue living, as I always have, as a private citizen. I have always held to a "to-each-his-own" philosophy. My employers and most of my colleagues are quite religious. I have no problem with that.

A few years ago religion began creeping into our school staff meetings, and though I wasn't comfortable with it I didn't protest. But, I also didn't partake in recent things like writing my name on the prayer card so that the members of the Methodist church that has partnered with our elementary school could pray for we teachers during the year. I also didn't attend the church luncheons for teachers the Methodist church has hosted at the church down the street.

It became obvious, I guess, that I wasn't particularly "churchy," and since then I have gotten a vibe from certain colleagues that I am, for lack of a better description, "different," and I am not treated as warmly as I had been. Other colleagues now treat me like I have a problem and am to be avoided, despite the fact that I am a highly requested and very productive teacher. And you know what? Though I wish I worked in a more tolerant environment, I could care less how I'm perceived.

[cbayer]

125. Is there an opportunity for discussion and education here?

It sounds like a situation where everyone, including yourself, are just pretending that there isn't an issue, but you perceive that there is.

If you are well liked and respected among your colleagues and students, maybe there is a real opportunity to "come out" in a way that increases tolerance and understanding.

That might be a wonderful thing for your non-believing students as well.

Just curious.

[callous taoboy]

127. I just don't see what good it would do.

I've never been one to carry any kind of banner. Also, I kind of enjoy letting people guess what I'm about. My attitude is, "What business is it of theirs, anyway?"

I once spent an evening with Ken Kesey, Hunter S. Thompson and about 10 other folks in Kesey's house in Oregon. Kesey told many great stories, but the one that stuck with me the most concerned what the whole bus thing was about. He was relating it to the protests happening in Eugene at the time which was during the first Gulf War. He brought out a large stop sign and told us that he'd been spending his evenings lately driving in his old convertible around the block near the federal building where the protests were going on. He said he'd drive by the anti-war group holding up the stop sign, then circle around and drive by the pro-war group holding up the stop sign. He said that, really, that was what the whole bus thing was about, that they'd drive through these little towns in the psychedelic bus, waving the American flag and people didn't know what to think. He said that nobody should let themselves be a target of the government by exposing their beliefs, that that was the message he was trying to convey to the protesters. I've sort of tried to adopt that stance as much as possible in my life, no bumper stickers, no American flag decals, no political signs in my yard etc. I think it would turn a lot of people off here if I wore my atheism on my sleeve.

[cbayer]

128. I'm not one to easily share my personal details in this area either.

But I do think that there is a lot to be gained by "coming out" when it's comfortable to do so.

What a fascinating evening that must of been! The stuff fantasies are made of. I love the Kesey stop sign story.

[callous taoboy]

129. Yeah, that was a great evening on so many levels.

When I moved to Oregon Kesey was one of my idols, and somehow I knew I'd get to meet him. Had no idea I'd get to ride the bus out to his place and hang. Irony is, the following morning I had to go student-teach a 7th grade class that was doing a drug unit, doing research projects about drugs and the mornings topic was LSD. Heh.

On coming out- I suppose if my colleagues ever really cared to get to know me and if they asked me about my spiritual views, I'd offer them up.

[cbayer]

131. I just spent the evening with someone who had some great Kesey stories.

I am in a small town in Mexico called Ajijic.

Apparently Kesey spent time here and was known locally as a member of the "ipes" (hippies). They wanted to buy some MJ and ended up trading some blotter acid.

Much fun ensued.

Also saw where Jerry Garcia and his gang hung out for a time.

[Brettongarcia]

134. Great article. The big difference in the New Atheism is that it is more visible. And more acceptable

Visibility helped the massively more popular New Atheism. Largely thanks to atheism coming out in various places. This visibility made it more acceptable.

Most of all, recently, when British physicists and so forth started coming out, that was a great influence on America.

The success of rational science and technology also helped a great deal.

[stone space]

217. I can't remember ever "coming out" as an atheist. It's never been a secret.

I also don't see how being openly atheist somehow "combats religion", either.

It might work to counter the beliefs of somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of atheists, I suppose, but that's about it, and I don't personally know anybody with that particular belief, anyway.

[cbayer]

220. Combats the beliefs of somebody who doesn't believe in atheists!

Well, done.

[MellowDem]

223. There are people who don't believe in atheists....

But your snark and making light of the bigotry and ignorance surrounding perceptions of atheists is what makes you.... you.

http://christiantheology.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/atheists-dont-exist/

http://www.amazon.com/God-Doesnt-Believe-Atheists-Atheist/dp/0882709224

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2013/04/05/atheists-dont-exist/

http://www.prlog.org/10894944-proof-atheists-dont-exist.html

http://polemos.net/Do%20Atheists%20Exist.html

http://www.letusreason.org/apolo7.htm

And from our FR friends:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3106070/posts

Maybe this will give the person your replying to an understanding of why coming out atheist is a threat in and of itself to some religious people and their faith, especially when people start asking scary questions like "why do atheists exist?"

[MellowDem]

221. Your experience is not the only one...

Many, if not the majority of atheists in the US were indoctrinated into religion, hence the "coming out", and are surrounded by communities that view atheism very negatively.

You come across as incredibly naive about what many atheists in this country have to deal with, and the perception of atheists in general.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1

By coming out, people become more accustomed to atheism not being this terribly negative thing as they see more people they know acknowledge it. That makes accepting the label easier down the line.

[stone space]

226. I've been "out" as an atheist for half a century now, but no, I don't know...

...anything about it.

Nope.

Not me.

[MellowDem]

229. You're certainly showing you know little...

If you disagree with the OP based on your sole experience, then you're already engaging in a logical fallacy.

[stone space]

230. What exactly is it that I said that has you in such a tizzy that you feel the need...

..to be insulting?

[MellowDem]

231. I'm not insulting you...

You're using a logical fallacy, it's a critique of your argument, not an insult.

Anecdotal evidence isn't good evidence. Saying "Well that's never happened to me, so I disagree" as a form of reasoning is just another way of dismissing every other person's experiences and claims, or denying them completely. Some people do find that insulting, because it seems like you don't have an open mind or consider your experiences to somehow trump those of others. I just assumed you were naive about what many atheists experience in the US.

You can google "coming out atheist", it's a thing, with all sorts of support groups and forums for people thinking about coming out. It can result in social isolation in many communities, and in some cases parents stop supporting children who come out as atheist. It certainly can cause all sorts of family strife.

For teens who are atheist but hiding it because of very religious parents, it's a real struggle as they go through the motions.

I know there are communities in the US where it's no big deal, and I'm happy they exist, but they aren't the norm in many areas of the US.

And a big part of coming out atheist is simply admitting to yourself that you are an atheist, it's a huge step for many people who were indoctrinated and true believers for years and years. Some of them still have very real fears of going to hell etc. It's sad what years of indoctrination in such toxic shit can do.

There's even a program called the Clergy Project for clergy in various faiths who are atheists but are hiding it because of the turmoil it would cause to come out.

In many communities, everyone is assumed to be religious until they say otherwise. Such is the power and privilege of religion. And, there is widespread ignorance concerning atheism, it's why atheists are among the least trusted groups in the US.

And yes, there are people who seriously believe atheists don't exist, even if you don't know any personally. It's a common argument from the religious right, and a book has even been written about it.

While it's not an exact analogy, a good one is how homosexuals coming out combatted bigotry and homophobia. There was so much ignorance surrounding homosexuality that simply coming out and giving others a real life example of what it means was very effective.

[stone space]

233. What arguement of mine are you critiquing?

You're using a logical fallacy, it's a critique of your argument, not an insult.

I wasn't aware that I'd made any arguments for anything at all.

But I am a Mathematical Logician by profession, so I'd be interesting in learning what arguments you believe I have made and what specific logical fallacies I have used in making those arguments.

So far as I know, I've simply been conversing, and haven't really made any arguments for anything.

Now, admittedly, I don't have the whole thread on my screen at the moment to verify this while I type into the edit box, but I don't recall making any arguments for anything.

So again, I ask you.

What specific arguments do you believe that I have made, and what specific logical fallacies do you believe I have used in making those arguments?

[MellowDem]

235. The argument that coming out atheist doesn't combat religion...

"I can't remember ever "coming out" as an atheist. It's never been a secret.

I also don't see how being openly atheist somehow "combats religion", either.

It might work to counter the beliefs of somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of atheists, I suppose, but that's about it, and I don't personally know anybody with that particular belief, anyway."

The bold is the claim I was addressing, the "argument". Everything surrounding it looked like reasoning to support it. All of it was was anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes are the logical fallacy here.

If that's not your reasoning, that's fine, it just certainly came across that way, and makes the most sense in that context. But your opinion is that the only thing coming out may do is counter the beliefs of someone who doesn't believe in atheists, and that it doesn't combat religion. I was addressing that it can, and that your anecdotes don't hold true for many other people.

[stone space]

236. Ok, now I'm really confused. I came to this thread, obstensibly about folks...

...coming out as atheists.

In my very first sentence, I came out in this thread as an atheist:

I can't remember ever "coming out" as an atheist. It's never been a secret.

Then, I made a simple statement of fact, about my own state of mind and perspective deriving from my lived experiences as an atheist.

I also don't see how being openly atheist somehow "combats religion", either.

Do you really see a statement about my own state of mind as an "argument" that needs defending? I mean, let's face it, unless you are prepared to strap me up to a polygraph machine, you pretty much have to take my word on this one. It's not really a debatable proposition, absent such extreme measures.

Now, you can certainly call me naïve or whatever in an effort to dismiss and invalidate my own lived experience, and accuse me of making "logical fallacies" by coming out here and sharing my own lived experiences and perspectives, but I really don't see the point of that unless your goal is to discourage your fellow atheists from coming out in the first place by discounting their lived experiences as "anecdotes" and "logical fallacies".

And since you make an analogy with gays, I will point out that I know many gay folks who don't consider coming out as gay as somehow combating heterosexuality, either. Would you call them naïve, also?

I do remember all of those dire warnings about how gay couples marrying was somehow going to destroy straight marriages, but that vast tsunami of straight divorces just didn't pan out as some expected, at least not here in Iowa.

[MellowDem]

237. You said an opinion...

I don't see why you're pretending otherwise. The bold part. That's a claim you made, not a state of mind. That's what I was addressing. Do you want to discuss it or not? This is a discussion board, so I'm not sure why you're shocked that when you post an opinion, people that disagree will counter that opinion and address any reasoning or points you made. If you don't think coming out as atheist combats religion, as you've stated, say why. I've already provided several points for why I think it does. Address those or come up with new ones of your own.

I didn't dismiss or invalidate your experiences. I didn't claim coming out as homosexual combats heterosexuality. Attacking arguments I never made is another logical fallacy, called a strawman.

People use logical fallacies all the time, myself included, it's hard to watch out for and takes very careful reading comprehension.

You can read up on the basics here:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Don't take critiques of your claim and reasoning personally. They're not personal attacks. It's a discussion. You refine your reasoning to make better points, or you concede some points, etc. etc. and hopefully can learn and take away something for the give and take.

[stone space]

239. The "opinion" that I stated was this:

I also don't see how being openly atheist somehow "combats religion", either.

Do you disagree with this "opinion"?

Is it your assertion that I do indeed see how being openly atheist combats religion?

[MellowDem]

243. You keep leaving a part out, why is that?

I also don't see how being openly atheist somehow "combats religion", either. It might work to counter the beliefs of somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of atheists, I suppose, but that's about it

Notice where you say "I suppose?" That's the opinion. You think coming out atheist might work for dispelling the notion that atheists don't exist, "but that's about it". You are asserting that coming out atheist doesn't combat religion. It's not a state of mind. It's a belief, a position.

If you don't think that, that's fine, but it sure came across that way the way it was written.

[stone space]

240. Please don't do that.

You can read up on the basics here:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Do you commonly post links to

https://yourplumbingfallacyis.com

when having a conversation with a professional Plumber?

I'll bet that professional Plumbers find such behavior by lay people every bit as annoying as professional Logicians do.

[MellowDem]

241. Your claims to titles...

Aren't an argument. If you find it annoying that your logical fallacies are being pointed out, then maybe you need to mature a bit? I really don't care that you're annoyed by discussion. I'm sure if you were actually serious about discussion, you'd point out why your points are good, or aren't fallacies.

I find it annoying when people use their title as an argument. But alas, that doesn't make me right.

The fact that you still aren't addressing the OP at all makes you come across as a troll. Not a personal insult, just an observation. If you come to a discussion board and do nothing but disrupt instead of address the topics, that's how it looks.

[stone space]

242. Of course not.

you come across as a troll. Not a personal insult

[cbayer]

245. You are most certainly not a troll.

And being called one here is neither mellow nor very dem.

[stone space]

248. I keep going back to my original post and rereading it, trying to figure out...

...just what it was that I said that got him into such a tizzy.

All I can find is single statement and a somewhat lame joke.

In all these years, it never occurred to me that my mere existence as an atheist could be reasonably perceived as a threat to anybody.

Of course, I could never see why phobes saw gay marriage as a threat to straight marriage, either, so perhaps I'm just blind to the "logic" involved in such perceptions.

There's so much that I just don't understand.

Just leaves me scratching my head in wonder.

[cbayer]

250. It's not you.

Welcome to the religion group where it is sometimes best to choose who one engages with.

There are some great people who post in here - both believers and non-believers and everything in between.

I hope you will stick around and not let a single negative interaction chase you away.

[Heddi]

247. Someone alerted on your post, FYI

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sun Apr 27, 2014, 11:03 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Your claims to titles...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=126084

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling another member a troll is a personal attack. There is absolutely nothing this relatively new member is doing that would give any indication of trolling. This is just an uncalled for attack on a new member.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 27, 2014, 11:14 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with mellow dem. this poster is acting like a troll and religion forum is an odd place to just start posting on your first visit to DU. I have a feeling this poster has been here before, is already here under another name, or is a close friend or relative of one of our 'I'm an atheist but...' posters

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rug]

249. I wonder who #7 is.

[Heddi]

251. I wonder who the alerter is?

Maybe you can be the 10,000th person to petition skinner for mandatory naming of alerter and jurists

[rug]

252. I'm sure it couldn't have been you. #7 doesn't sound a bit like you.

[Heddi]

253. What if I was? What if I wasn't? Do we all have to run our comments by you before hitting "submit?"

You should be the 10,001st person to petition Skinner to change the jury rules to meet your exacting standards.

[rug]

254. If you posted your jury results (for whatever purpose), you should stand behind your vote.

It's okay, though. The question's been answered.

[Heddi]

256. Who says I don't stand behind my vote?

I posted the results. You are the one making the absolutely astounding leap that you know which juror I was (based on not a single shred of evidence, might I add).

BTW, a friendly hint: if you moonlight as a psychic, you may want to 1) refine your skills or 2) find another job that you are better at. Your DU Jury Divination skills lack any sort of, um, precision or correctness.

[rug]

257. Oh, then you must be the one who didn't post a comment.

[trotsky]

259. Fascinating.

I wonder who the alerter was?

Haha, just kidding, it's obvious.

[rug]

260. And, as usual, you'd be wrong.

[muriel_volestrangler]

263. Dunno - I would have alerted on that if I saw it

Calling people a troll for disagreeing with their OP is out of line. MellowDem is far from mellow in this thread.

[rug]

255. Lol!

[rug]

222. Welcom to DU.

I've been close, from high school on, to many people who are atheists. Not one hid their opinion from anyone else whenever the topic of religion and belief came up. And it came up infrequently.

[MellowDem]

224. If only your school...

was how the entire US was.

[rug]

225. Maybe but it was hardly unique.

It was Power Memorial, a Catholic High School in Manhattan, that's now closed.

[Jim__]

232. Were you in Power Memorial when Lew Alcindor was there?

I had a couple of cousins that went there. I watched some of his high school games. He was unstoppable then. Of course, he did have an advantage.

[rug]

234. He graduated two years ahead of me.

When he announced he was going to UCLA, the school was closed for half a day there were so many cameras.

We might have been at the same games. I caught a few when he was a junior and senior. What I remember most is how he just loped downcourt after scoring.

When did your cousins graduate?

[Jim__]

238. IIRC, the older one graduated in '64, the younger one in '66.

I think that's the year before and the year after Alcindor.

I saw him play in the Garden when he was in high school. It was in some type of cahtolic high school city championship. Power Memorial won the whole thing.

[rug]

244. Alcindor graduated in 65. I graduated in 67. Small world.

Next time you see them ask them what they thought of Bro. Boyle.

[Jim__]

246. I'll do that.