Dislike and distrust of atheists?

[mori910]

Human society has long declared high rates of secular phobia the irrational dislike, distrust, fear, or hatred of nonreligious people within America.

I'm an atheist.

It might be worth clarifying your use of "secular", which is often misunderstood. Secular does not mean atheist, it means basically to separate religion (any religion) from the subject being considered. It is used sometimes in relation to the clergy, such as a secular priest. For a society, its context here, secular means to separate the government of the society from religious beliefs (any religion), while protecting the right for any member to believe and practice their own particular religions or lack of religion unhindered (as long as something doesn't break any laws).

A secular society is actually religious people's best friend as it protects them all from finding their society becoming controlled by a particular religion - which might not be their own, or in the US, might not even be Christianity, in the long run.

Atheism is just not having any gods. Atheists just believe in one less god than Christians. It doesn't equate to immorality because in practice there is no difference between the morals and ethics that people follow between the religious and non-religious, and in practice Christians for example only tend to conform to the prevailing morals in the same way that atheists do. If there was a difference, for example Christians would still be practicing slavery in the US, as the New Testament advises slaves not to seek their freedom. At some time in the past people must have decided that that particular principle was outdated. So they were making the same ethical decisions for not having slavery as atheists do, which is to use rational arguments for and against and then making a decision.

In Europe (I'm British) the level of religious beliefs has been decreasing for a long time - in the UK it's around 50:50, with non-religion increasing; while at the same society has been getting more ethical. In the US, approximately 27 people are killed a day by other Americans, which is about 10 times more than most European countries see in a year.

Perhaps the real question is why US Christianity appears so mean spirited and divisive to people outside the US? Is it perhaps that Christians in the US prefer to have someone else to blame for the problems in society?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think you are underestimating theists opinion of atheists in the 21st century. Times have advanced and diversity is not so shocking. Most of us theists are more enlightened than the OP insinuates.

That may be true, but that's not relevant. There are still enough atheophobes around and enough momentum from past marginalizing and demonizing of atheists to sustain a significant and palpable problem for the atheist. It's not about how many don't participate. It's about how many do.

To determine the effect of atheophobia on American society, one has to look at large scales survey data on how Americans view atheists. It's very unflattering to both contingents - the people being thought of that way, and those willing to do it.

Are you interested in seeing any of that data? If you are, you can probably find it yourself using Google. If you prefer, I'll bring links and citations here.

There is no legitimate reason to view atheists as social outsiders. Atheists are predominantly hard working, loving, community serving, law abiding members of their communities. To view them as less is the definition of bigotry, and hardly consistent with the Golden Rule.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I am atheistic, but very religious.

I believe almost everyone makes a mistake in their definition of "religion." If we look at everything that we call a "religion," and ask what is the defining feature of all of them, it is not belief in a god or belief on the basis of faith; it is the adult effort to work on a basic ethical philosophy, i.e., to work on how to be a good person, to do the right thing.

Yes, most religions also try to have an explanatory worldview that makes them feel better, such as that they will exist after death (something I don't believe), and most religions have other functions also, especially helping the disadvantaged and provision of an extended family. But the function of working on how to live a good life is so much a part of the basic aspect of religious activities that it gets overlooked, I believe.

Unitarian Universalism is a good example. Its defining statements are a series of ethical statements, not archaic beliefs or advocacy of the non-rational. And it is accepted as a religion.

I believe that the religions, created by us humans, have the same defects in them that their creators have, but that they are somewhat improving and coming into the modern world. The basic idea of the religions is the possibility and desirability of improvement, and this would apply to religions themselves. Now I agree that most religions do tend to be authoritarian-ethical, some extremely so, but I believe this is improving, even if we do, of course, have a long way to go.

I have a Christian tradition. I have "evolved" into an advocacy for Humanianity. As such, I am committed to the Humanian ultimate ethical principle, and advocate, not for authoritarian-ethics, but for rational-ethics consistent with this ultimate principle. (By "rational" I mean consistent with the rules of logic and the rules of evidence.) I advocate for such commitment. This would be based upon the social contract, not upon obedience to the most powerful.

Incidentally, I have no problem with a person believing that there is a God and/or an afterlife. But to feel okay about it, I have to know what the person believes his/her God wants him/her to do, and what is required to get into the afterlife. We all know of some really unfortunate examples. And also, I would want to know how open that person is to alternative ideas.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

While I don't think its as bad as you state their is a prejudice against atheism. While some of it is caused by religious beliefs some of it is being caused by atheist themselves. Constantly criticizing and challenging even the slightest believed right is making more enemies then friends. The best way to approach it is to build bridges not break down walls. Find common ground between the two. Nothing is 100% bad and Nothing is 100% good.

Bridging the good might actually collapse the negatives of religion faster. People might leave the religious negatives if they could get the positives from atheism.

When you beat an animal it will likely attack. We are humans we can out think and don't have to attack. Using sugar will always work fast and they'll be more willing.

That's an admirable sentiment, but not a practical one. Atheists have never been treated well by the church and never will be. The church is not willing to build bridges. It merely demeans atheists or is silent.

The church will never be our friend, it has no interest in plurality or secular government, and it considers compromise a moral defect.

Do these people seem conciliatory, democratic, or tolerant of atheists and atheism? Shall we wait for them to build bridges to meet us halfway and come together?

[1] "Whenever the civil government forbids the practice of things that God has commanded us to do, or tells us to do things He has commanded us not to do, then we are on solid ground in disobeying the government and rebelling against it." - Pat Robertson

[2] "The inability or unwillingness to hate makes a person worthless. If we do not hate detestable things, the quality of our character is suspect. The Bible commands that we hate." - H. A. (Buster) Dobbs

[3] "I believe this notion of the separation of church and state was the figment of some infidel's imagination." - Rev. W. A. Criswell

[4] "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - former president George H. W. Bush

[5] "We need to do more than win an election or win the House or win the presidency, my friends: we need to make this beloved country of ours God's country once again." - Pat Buchanan

[6] "There is a value in spiritual violence," Hagee declared, "and it is time that you considered the role that you are playing or not playing and whether or not it's time for you to become more aggressive in your beliefs" - Rev. Matthew Hagee

[7] "I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good . . . our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism" - Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue

[8] "The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church's public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." - Dominionist Gary North

[9] "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." - Pat Robertson

[10] "Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the Ten Commandments. No apologies." - Randall Terry

So do you think that reacting to this kind of thing and attempting to defend against the continual incursions against the church-state wall is atheists bringing these opinions onto ourselves?

Here are a couple more thoughts for you that I think size up this social struggle nicely:

"Settle it therefore in your minds, as a maxim never to be effaced or forgotten, that atheism is an inhuman, bloody, ferocious system, equally hostile to every useful restraint and to every virtuous affection; that, leaving nothing above us to excite awe, nor round us to awaken tenderness, it wages war with heaven and with earth: its first object is to dethrone God, its next to destroy man." - Rev. Robert Hall

"Nationwide, the nonreligious population is both the fastest growing, and the most despised. I ask you all, why is that? Why are we hated, when we endorse no violence, incite no racism or hatred, and demand nothing more than equal treatment?"- David Silverman

 

[shmogie]

You know darn well you discriminate against atheists. I can sense it in your post above, and as far as having evidence for my post, just do your own research.

The time that Jesus Christ supposedly existed is one the most heavily documented periods in ancient history. Yet there is virtually zero historical evidence of his supposed existence in any contemporary historical record.

When discussing the alleged existence of Jesus Christ, one piece of "evidence" that frequently gets mentioned is the account of Flavius Josephus.

It has been demonstrated continuously over the centuries that "Testamonium Flavium" was a forgery manufactured by the Catholic Church, and was inserted into Josephus's works. The Testamonium Flavium account is so thoroughly refuted, that biblical scholars since the 19th century have refused to refer to it, unless to mention its false nature.

More drivel. I discriminate against atheists ? How does that work ? When I had the responsibility of screening and hiring employee's did I inquire into their world view ? Uh, no. Before I use a service do I ask the rug cleaner or plumber about their world view, uh, no. Do I quizz my neighbors about their world view before I will speak or socialize with them ? uh, no. Do I care whether someone I come across or know is an atheist ? uh, no. I believe freedom to choose means just that. You have rampant paranoia, I think, focused on a particular faith, you have Christophobia. Here are some suggestions for you. 1. Begin petitioning Congress for affirmative action programs for atheists. 2. Organize an atheist lives matter group, then block traffic and start riots because of the sad, sad plight of atheists. 3. Get some psychological help, today it is Christians that you fear, tomorrow it may be spoons.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Cobol said: ↑ "How can secular folks contend with this disadvantageous position?"

Avoid bringing it up in situations and environments where there is no benefit to talking about it and a risk of it causing you harm, such as at a place of employment. It's rarely necessary for anyone to know, so it's generally avoidable that other people find out unless you want them to.

That's the correct advice, but only from a pragmatic perspective.

You're basically suggesting that the atheist conceal who he is from the Christian, who feels comfortable wearing a visible a crucifix around his neck, and a "Warning! In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned" bumper sticker on his car. An atheist with an analogous bumper sticker should not park his car in a public place. He will be perceived my many as attacking Christianity and attacking God.

That is the way I mostly live. I got a knock on the door from two Catholics in some kind of clerical garb. One looked like a nun, the other like a monk in a loose robe. They invited me to something going on outdoors a block away. Neither of us spoke the other's language too well, but I was able to glean that they were having some kind of what I would call a revival if they were fundamentalist Protestants. They mentioned that a mass would be included, but there there had to be more since this event was three days long, and lasted from 11 AM to 5 PM each day.

I told them, "No, thank you," but would never dream of telling them why. I already know what buttons that pushes in some believers, and though the overwhelming majority of such people would just accept my answer without consequence, some would not.

The point is that they felt very safe walking around as Catholics promoting Catholicism, but as you suggested, it was wiser for me to keep silent about who I was. Nothing good can come from sharing one's atheism with believers in such a setting.

In the meantime, atheists have begun working to achieve social parity, although frankly, they needn't. It's coming without effort. The modern antitheistic reaction to organized, politicized religion probably has much less impact on the American church's declining numbers than either the proclamations of science, the rising numbers of the "nones" in religious self-identification surveys, which tends to demarginalize atheism and lend legitimacy to it as a socially acceptable option, and the church's public performance in the news.

As for such a "disadvantage," it is generally outweighed by the advantage of generally being a more rationally-minded person of higher intelligence than your average religious-minded person. Most things in life are generally a trade-off of some kind.

Let's keep the advantage and resist the disadvantage. There is no legitimate reason to treat atheists as morally unfit, second class citizens, nor to expect atheists to passively accept that status uncontested.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Let's keep the advantage and resist the disadvantage. There is no legitimate reason to treat atheists as morally unfit, second class citizens, nor to expect atheists to passively accept that status uncontested.

Absolutely. Of course, nothing about religious faith, nor the resulting views of its practitioners, is particularly legitimate. At least, probably not in the way that rationalists would apply the word.

At the end of the day, I don't fear the possible reprisals of religious people because they are bad or malicious, but rather because the banality of evil is most readily and unselfconsciously expressed through those who perceive the obvious correctness and normalcy of their own views, and that anything deviant from them is morally inferior, and thus, deserving of retribution or punishment.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Oh, woah is me! I'm an atheist who's demographic has historically been marginalized..."

I do not care about this line of argument because I see no future value from it. I don't think we should want pity or special treatment, for any reason. It's a good thing that we've had to claw for our place in society. I relish the scrutiny - it's what makes us better.

Who's asking for pity or special treatment? Who is saying, "Woe is me"?

This just the latest in a series of social subsets clamoring for social equality in a patriarchal, WASPish culture evolving into something more just and egalitarian. Women, people of color, and gays have had their movements, and now you are seeing the atheists claiming their place in a free pluralistic, society.

Would you characterize the civil rights movement or the push for women's social, political, and economic equality as another example of "Woe is me"? or legitimate responses to examples of structural violence:

"Structural violence refers to systematic ways in which social structures harm or otherwise disadvantage individuals. Structural violence is subtle, often invisible, and often has no one specific person who can (or will) be held responsible (in contrast to behavioral violence)." structural violence | Structural Violence

 

[Underhill]

Human society has long declared high rates of secular phobia the irrational dislike, distrust, fear, or hatred of nonreligious people within America.

Atheist parents have been denied custody rights in the wake of a divorce. It's illegal for an atheist to hold public office in seven states. Charity donations are rejected when offered by secularist organizations.There is no question that atheists, agnostics, secularists, and others who eschew religion are widely disliked.

Americans equate lack of religiosity in general with being immoral and un-American. People simply feel much more comfortable expressing their dislike for atheists than other minority groups.

Insecurity on the part of the religious. Faith believing claims without sufficient evidence, or claiming to know things that you don’t or can’t know is an increasingly shaky endeavor. In order for religions to survive, it requires a lot of social support: the more people who share it, the easier it is to maintain, and anyone who rejects faith, or calls it into question, is a threat. Atheists have no faith in God, and thus theists are threatened by the growing presence of atheists, as they call into question the very thing that is ever so shaky: religious faith.

How can secular folks contend with this disadvantageous position?

2 things. First, I suspect those who are able to come to a place like this and have a reasonable conversation are not the problem. It definitely exist. I've lost a job along with many friends because I left the faithful.

Second, I think things will get better. Our society is moving in the right direction on this. If anything, someone like Trump being in charge is going to simply speed up that process, as it will any number of liberal (and even moderate) positions.

 

[New Age Spiritual Leader]

How can secular folks contend with this disadvantageous position?

There is just another way for a so-called "believer" to qualify their own belief and opinion to their Self.

There are no disadvantages at all - especially when the so-called "believers" are having a problem justifying their own position.

In fact....so-called "non-believers" are in the same boat as so-called "believers".

- They both don't know the final truth of what they supposedly "believe".
- They both are afraid to admit that they don't know what the origins are.
- We are ALL only "Agnostic" and don't know how the Universe or how Life started. We only speculate upon these issues with our own personal beliefs. And when either group is shown evidence that they may not have researched themselves or "believe" - they refute and argue against somethign they really have no knowledge upon.

In truth, without this complete honesty that should be their first priority - as in the truth, they actually can be considered to be misleading others with inaccurate information. Yet they won't ever admit to this.

If they could only delve a little deeper within their own selves to see this "truth and honesty" they refuse to express, maybe we wouldn't have such unfounded disagreements on such unfounded topics.

Self.

Peace and light to all.

 

[George-ananda]

That may be true, but that's not relevant. There are still enough atheophobes around and enough momentum from past marginalizing and demonizing of atheists to sustain a significant and palpable problem for the atheist. It's not about how many don't participate. It's about how many do.

To determine the effect of atheophobia on American society, one has to look at large scales survey data on how Americans view atheists. It's very unflattering to both contingents - the people being thought of that way, and those willing to do it.

Are you interested in seeing any of that data? If you are, you can probably find it yourself using Google. If you prefer, I'll bring links and citations here.

There is no legitimate reason to view atheists as social outsiders. Atheists are predominantly hard working, loving, community serving, law abiding members of their communities. To view them as less is the definition of bigotry, and hardly consistent with the Golden Rule.

I think these things are also a natural part of being in a diverse society. I have seen anti-atheism, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-religion, anti-whatever sentiments all the time particularly on these forums where we discuss this stuff. In fact as a white Hinduish vegetarian I even have had to defend myself against being viewed as a New Age loony type.

I don't see the anti-Atheism attitude as being very strong in modern America. In fact I see all the cutting-edge politically correct types are strongly anti-religion in their comments and attitudes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here in oregon self declared atheism makes up 4% of the population. Interestingly there are a lot of self declared atheists that "believe" that the growing number of not a part of institutional accedemic religion are them!!! Hardly because for them, atheism is a part of the imstitutional, accedemic religion and nothing more. Its interesting in a state that's one of the lowest in religious affiliation also has extremely low percentage of self declared atheists. Maybe they didn't grow up with religion who knows.

There's a difference between saying that the population is 4% atheist and that 4% self-identify as atheists. The term has been stigmatized, and evokes negative reactions that euphemisms like irreligion, skeptic, secularist, humanist, agnostic, freethinker, and unbeliever don't. So, many won't accept the baggage that comes with the word even though they have no god belief and are therefore atheists.

But the number that call themselves atheists doesn't matter to the typical atheist. What matters is that those self-identifying as "Christian" and adopting the values promulgated by the church that are in conflict with a pluralistic, secular society's values lose their cultural hegemony and join the other religions in America like the Muslims, who do not determine cultural mores. Such people free to apply their cultural values too themselves, but are not powerful enough to impose them on others - something that we know the Muslims would do. I don't know if the Hindus would pass laws against eating beef the way Baptists do about forbidding the sale of alcohol.

To accomplish that, we will need to see self-identifying Christians that would impose Christianity on non-Christians fall to minority status. The majority need not all be atheists. We are also allied with groups that self-identify as deists, spiritual but not religious, Wiccans, new-agers, pagans, and even Christians that respect church-state separation.

This is a political movement. Once the Christian church is in the same position as all other religions in America, everybody will finally achieve freedom of and freedom from religion according to his taste, and the atheists will pay Christianity no more attention than they do the other religions whose adherents do whatever they do in way that affects only themselves and others that volunteer to live that way.

These are not unreasonable values or goals, but throughout the process, atheists will continue being demonized as God haters, and the church's posture will remain one of persecution . We will continue to hear that we are hated because of what we do - that we bring it on ourselves - until those voices are too faint to be heard. It's just the way it is and has always been.

 

[David T]

There's a difference between saying that the population is 4% atheist and that 4% self-identify as atheists. The term has been stigmatized, and evokes negative reactions that euphemisms like irreligion, skeptic, secularist, humanist, agnostic, freethinker, and unbeliever don't. So, many won't accept the baggage that comes with the word even though they have no god belief and are therefore atheists.

But the number that call themselves atheists doesn't matter to the typical atheist. What matters is that those self-identifying as "Christian" and adopting the values promulgated by the church that are in conflict with a pluralistic, secular society's values lose their cultural hegemony and join the other religions in America like the Muslims, who do not determine cultural mores. Such people free to apply their cultural values too themselves, but are not powerful enough to impose them on others - something that we know the Muslims would do. I don't know if the Hindus would pass laws against eating beef the way Baptists do about forbidding the sale of alcohol.

To accomplish that, we will need to see self-identifying Christians that would impose Christianity on non-Christians fall to minority status. The majority need not all be atheists. We are also allied with groups that self-identify as deists, spiritual but not religious, Wiccans, new-agers, pagans, and even Christians that respect church-state separation.

This is a political movement. Once the Christian church is in the same position as all other religions in America, everybody will finally achieve freedom of and freedom from religion according to his taste, and the atheists will pay Christianity no more attention than they do the other religions whose adherents do whatever they do in way that affects only themselves and others that volunteer to live that way.

These are not unreasonable values or goals, but throughout the process, atheists will continue being demonized as God haters, and the church's posture will remain one of persecution . We will continue to hear that we are hated because of what we do - that we bring it on ourselves - until those voices are too faint to be heard. It's just the way it is and has always been.

Very southern Baptist without the Jesus ". baggage" i would say. Travel light just me.

 

[paarsurrey]

Dislike and distrust of atheists?

The Atheists should not be hated. But ridiculing and derision is against humanity. One should give good and reasonable arguments, if any. Please
Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

Who's asking for pity or special treatment? Who is saying, "Woe is me"?

This just the latest in a series of social subsets clamoring for social equality in a patriarchal, WASPish culture evolving into something more just and egalitarian. Women, people of color, and gays have had their movements, and now you are seeing the atheists claiming their place in a free pluralistic, society.

Would you characterize the civil rights movement or the push for women's social, political, and economic equality as another example of "Woe is me"? or legitimate responses to examples of structural violence:

"Structural violence refers to systematic ways in which social structures harm or otherwise disadvantage individuals. Structural violence is subtle, often invisible, and often has no one specific person who can (or will) be held responsible (in contrast to behavioral violence)." structural violence | Structural Violence

Kudos on the correction of my word usage.

But to respond, I think they are wholly different things. I've seen several arguments over the years citing the general distrust/disdain that people supposedly have towards atheists. And while I'm not saying that they are necessarily inaccurate, I simply refuse to use them as a crutch or a point or reflection of me or my "plight". I see it as a weak approach of entry into the conversation and I don't have any respect for it.

Others are welcome to disagree, obviously. But that's my take on it.
People will accept me for my arguments on their own merits or not accept me at all - neither of which will have much affect on my life or decisions...

I'm happy to be the underdog.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm an atheist.

It might be worth clarifying your use of "secular", which is often misunderstood. Secular does not mean atheist, it means basically to separate religion (any religion) from the subject being considered. It is used sometimes in relation to the clergy, such as a secular priest. For a society, its context here, secular means to separate the government of the society from religious beliefs (any religion), while protecting the right for any member to believe and practice their own particular religions or lack of religion unhindered (as long as something doesn't break any laws).

A secular society is actually religious people's best friend as it protects them all from finding their society becoming controlled by a particular religion - which might not be their own, or in the US, might not even be Christianity, in the long run.

Atheism is just not having any gods. Atheists just believe in one less god than Christians. It doesn't equate to immorality because in practice there is no difference between the morals and ethics that people follow between the religious and non-religious, and in practice Christians for example only tend to conform to the prevailing morals in the same way that atheists do. If there was a difference, for example Christians would still be practicing slavery in the US, as the New Testament advises slaves not to seek their freedom. At some time in the past people must have decided that that particular principle was outdated. So they were making the same ethical decisions for not having slavery as atheists do, which is to use rational arguments for and against and then making a decision.

In Europe (I'm British) the level of religious beliefs has been decreasing for a long time - in the UK it's around 50:50, with non-religion increasing; while at the same society has been getting more ethical. In the US, approximately 27 people are killed a day by other Americans, which is about 10 times more than most European countries see in a year.

I liked and agreed with most of your comments.One exception was this: "in practice there is no difference between the morals and ethics that people follow between the religious and non-religious, and in practice Christians for example only tend to conform to the prevailing morals in the same way that atheists do."

Humanistic and Christian values are not the same. They are in conflict in several places.

And the way that humanists and zealous Christians come to their moral positions is radically different.

You also wrote, "with non-religion increasing; while at the same society has been getting more ethical." Is that not evidence of something?

And finally, you wrote, "If there was a difference, for example Christians would still be practicing slavery in the US, as the New Testament advises slaves not to seek their freedom. At some time in the past people must have decided that that particular principle was outdated. So they were making the same ethical decisions for not having slavery as atheists do, which is to use rational arguments for and against and then making a decision."

That idea didn't come from Christianity or its manner of determining ethics, which is authoritarian. Ethical values are revealed not worked out using reason applied to compassion. That's the method used in secular humanism: Rational ethics, which was reborn during the Enlightenment.

The Christian method could never have generated the idea that slavery is wrong because it's not in the Bible, a fossilized work. That idea may have been shared by many many Christians, but they didn't get it reading scripture. It was a result of the humanist influence on Western culture superimposed on older Christian ideas and ways. Christianity cannot evolve without outside influences that are not Christian in origin even if some Christians adopt them.

Perhaps the real question is why US Christianity appears so mean spirited and divisive to people outside the US? Is it perhaps that Christians in the US prefer to have someone else to blame for the problems in society?

American Christianity for the most part forged an alliance with the conservatives. Here are a couple of spoofs of what resulted from that:

[1] "You were hungry and thirsty, so I eliminated funding for Meals on Wheels and food banks. You were a stranger, so I vilified you and demanded that you be deported. You were naked, so I called you an evil liberal who hates conservative family values. You were sick, so I repealed your only hope for health care. You were in prison, so I tortured you." - Matthew 25: 42-43 in The Conservative Bible"

And from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/...region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

[2] A woman who had been bleeding for 12 years came up behind Jesus and touched his clothes in hope of a cure. Jesus turned to her and said: “Fear not. Because of your faith, you are now healed.”

Then spoke Pious Paul of Ryan [refers to conservative House Speaker Paul Ryan]: “But teacher, is that wise? When you cure her, she learns dependency. Then the poor won’t take care of themselves, knowing that you’ll always bail them out! You must teach them personal responsibility!”

They were interrupted by 10 lepers who stood at a distance and shouted, “Jesus, have pity on us.”

“NO!” shouted Pious Paul. “Jesus! You don’t have time. We have a cocktail party fund-raiser in the temple. And don’t worry about them — they’ve already got health care access.”

Jesus turned to Pious Paul, puzzled.

“Why, they can pray for a cure,” Pious Paul explained. “I call that universal health care access.”

Jesus turned to the 10 lepers. “Rise and go,” he told them. “Your faith has made you well.” Then he turned back to Pious Paul, saying, “Let me tell you the story of the good Samaritan.

“A man was attacked by robbers who stripped him of clothes, beat him and left him half dead. A minister passed down this same road, and when he saw the injured man, he crossed to the other side and hurried on. So did a rich man who claimed to serve God. But then a despised Samaritan came by and took pity on the injured man. He bandaged his wounds and put the man on his own donkey and paid an innkeeper to nurse him to health. So which of these three should we follow?”

“Those who had mercy on him,” Pious Paul said promptly.

Jesus nodded. “So go ——”

“I mean the first two,” Pious Paul interjected. “For the Samaritan’s work is unsustainable and sends the wrong message. It teaches travelers to take dangerous roads, knowing that others will rescue them from self-destructive behaviors. This Samaritan also seems to think it right to redistribute money from those who are successful and give it to losers. That’s socialism! Meanwhile, if the rich man keeps his money, he can invest it and create jobs. So it’s an act of mercy for the rich man to hurry on and ignore the robbery victim.”

[snip]

******

Humanists would repudiate all of that, which is why I said that humanistic and Christian values are in conflict in several places. Frankly, that cannot even be called moral. I sense from you comments about American Christianity that you tend to agree.

 

[soma]

I am a Christian and the simple answer is the church gives Christians a superiority complex to manipulate them. It is sad and a major fault with the institution. Christianity should be inclusive not exclusive.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am atheistic, but very religious.

I believe almost everyone makes a mistake in their definition of "religion." If we look at everything that we call a "religion," and ask what is the defining feature of all of them, it is not belief in a god or belief on the basis of faith; it is the adult effort to work on a basic ethical philosophy, i.e., to work on how to be a good person, to do the right thing.

Yes, most religions also try to have an explanatory worldview that makes them feel better, such as that they will exist after death (something I don't believe), and most religions have other functions also, especially helping the disadvantaged and provision of an extended family. But the function of working on how to live a good life is so much a part of the basic aspect of religious activities that it gets overlooked, I believe.

I don't find that definition of religion useful.

"Religion" is a polysemic word, that is, one with multiple definitions that aren't necessarily distinct, but form a spectrum of overlapping ideas. We all seem to have a different definition, many defining religion as essentially any worldview.

People with a belief in a deity are different than other kinds of people. Their worldviews are very different from those with a humanistic worldview, for example. I find making the distinction more useful than grouping them together.

I like this definition of religion from The Problem of Defining Religion, Mythology and Philosophy best:

* Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
* A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
* Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
* A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
* Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
* Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
* A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein.
* This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
* A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
* A social group bound together by the above.

That doesn't describe a humanist like me or my worldview at all. Grouping us all together isn't helpful to humanists, who benefit from accentuating the differences, but it is to the church, which benefits from blurring them, as it does by conflating two radically different meanings of faith - one unjustified belief, like religious faith, and one justified belief based on evidence, such as when I say that I have faith that my car will start again the next time I try to start it just like it has the last 200 times I've tried.

That would be another example of two distinct ideas that deserve two distinct words, and, of course, it benefits the church to blur and conflate them as if they are identical, equivalent, or interchangeable.

To avoid ambiguity and make the distinction clearer rather than blurrier, I don't use the word "religion" if there isn't a god belief.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Human society has long declared high rates of secular phobia the irrational dislike, distrust, fear, or hatred of nonreligious people within America.

Atheist parents have been denied custody rights in the wake of a divorce. It's illegal for an atheist to hold public office in seven states. Charity donations are rejected when offered by secularist organizations.There is no question that atheists, agnostics, secularists, and others who eschew religion are widely disliked.

Americans equate lack of religiosity in general with being immoral and un-American. People simply feel much more comfortable expressing their dislike for atheists than other minority groups.

Insecurity on the part of the religious. Faith believing claims without sufficient evidence, or claiming to know things that you don’t or can’t know is an increasingly shaky endeavor. In order for religions to survive, it requires a lot of social support: the more people who share it, the easier it is to maintain, and anyone who rejects faith, or calls it into question, is a threat. Atheists have no faith in God, and thus theists are threatened by the growing presence of atheists, as they call into question the very thing that is ever so shaky: religious faith.

How can secular folks contend with this disadvantageous position?

I'd cast of both ends of the spectrum sometimes. And why such a disclaimer. atheism, early multiple or whatever else or paul side, stop playing three crosses. But I keep Jesus. But then they'll interpret that to mean take your children. Then adults.
What you don't know is that they try to through something new or evolutionary over Jesus himself or worship of angels in places where they screwed up (sometimes) . Anyways but at least the informants know but there is nothing special about knowing.
They usually state that you have to go full blown wacky religion and "angels" spies or zero. All self then they will be like okay no self at all. Its all foreign anyways well some of it Ironically; those not feeling it having a hard time with that and just say they are the crazies. In the suffering oh well you need a "doctor."
Recently Tripoli Egypt and Syria.
Set in motion that idea.
4 dead in bengazi. Represent a new "doctor." Luke I am your father.
And that other stuff man,
4 red cross witch craft and happy to listen to prophecy.
When I first got back went to one who had a picture of Jesus on a cross he's dancing around looking at this. I was like what I never cared for that section of the book really.
But as I looked around there were pretty much lesbians and foreign black people in the prophecy club. I was okay who was it this time.
Then they chased me around. I was like I don't know what foreign or home or joiners did this time. Then of course just like before the Vatican attacks everyone who is not catholic for it I don't know if you get it. If it's atheism they might try do some crazy stuff like Liberia or old Russia.
You know like jerry do they really want to go that way sometimes and they really paid them and then other guys say yes we most do it so that others feel good about themselves.
The point is they know. Sometimes people stop and stare because they don't know what to think.

 

[Jeff Strehlow]

...

How can secular folks contend with this disadvantageous position?

You seem to be equating secular with atheist, but they don't mean exactly the same thing. For example, I'm not secular since I'm Buddhist, but I'm atheist since I don't believe in gods. However I do believe in secular government, since the government should represent everyone--not only those of particular religious beliefs.

I agree with you that there are people who look down at atheists. Some even think that atheists have no basis for morality. I think that it's getting better for atheists in America though. Fifty years ago people were really expected to believe in God. Even today though, I don't think that an atheist can become president of the country.

How do we deal with it? We just have to be strong and know that we can't live up to everyone's expectations. We should believe in whatever makes sense to us, not what other people want us to beleive in.