Do atheists face discrimination?

[skydivingninja]

Yes, you're not accusing all atheists of being immoral, just like you're not saying all Christians or religious people are moral, but your earlier post suggested that you would rather a religious person hold office because of their belief in eternal consequences.  

The part I bolded is the key.  I am NOT accusing all atheists of being immoral or amoral.  Some are.  Some aren't.  By definition, atheism permits any of a broad range of moral positions.  You can be extremely moral, extremely immoral, extremely amoral, or anywhere in between without in any way being inconsistent with being an atheist.  And by definition, belief in God does not allow for immorality or amorality.  Yes, people can lie about that or act in a way that is completely inconsistent with that (examples were given above of people who perhaps professed a belief in a god, but acted very poorly), but that is the case with any job qualification (or political qualification), and the fact that someone can misprepresent themselves or act inconsistently does not in and of itself negate the validity of the qualification.

Exactly!  I know that, you know that.  We're on the same page (except for the part I bolded, which I'm a tad confused on).  So why do you think it would be a good idea to keep Atheists from voting?  Why not let the people decide if atheist candidates have good values or strong morals?

Advocating laws that would take rights away from atheists is where people start to get perturbed.

Two things:
1.  As I said above, I find the belief that running for political office is somehow a "right" and the implications of that belief to be FAR more disturbing than anything else posted by anyone in this thread.  It isn't a right.  
2.  Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone would get so worked up as to be "perturbed" by someone else's political views on a music Internet forum.  When it comes right down to it, who cares what I personally believe when it comes to politics?  Why should it matter to anyone else who posts on this forum?  

How exactly is being able to run for political office not a right?  I'm not sure how it isn't, and I'm not sure why you find that so "disturbing."  Actually, your use of the word "disturbing" is kind of disturbing.  It implies we're deranged or something.  Or do you consider it a privilege?

As for your second point, someone could have a political view that muslims shouldn't run for public office.  I imagine many Muslims would not take kindly to that person, just like the atheists in this thread are not taking too kindly to you right now.  People don't like it when someone says they should be denied something.  

[bosk1]

I've read in it a lot of ignorance and lies about supposed Atheist amorality and consequenceless behaviour.

Really?  Where?  I don't recall any post in the thread accusing all atheists of being amoral.

I never said any posts in this thread accused all atheists of being amoral. But I'd point at posts like yours that question the moral grounding of Atheists, that fundamentally a belief in God is necessary for guiding actions and judgements. (Reply #153)

I think I've addressed that now in subsequent posts.  But if you still want me to explain further, let me know.  But not now.  I've been posting (and not working) for a solid 2 hours now and need to get some stuff done.

Okay sorry, I didn't know that was considered namecalling. I still mean that definition of the word, but not if the word itself has an offensive connotation attached to it.

Yes, calling someone a bigot is offensive and uncalled for.  Aside from the offensive connotation, doing so shifts from attacking and responding to a poster's arguments to attacking and making value judgments about the person posting.  The former is fine, no matter how vigorous.  The latter is not.  Do you understand the difference I am trying to highlight?

discrimination

"Discrimination" is far too broad a word that, nowadays, has far too much of an emotional charge to it.  Not all discrimnation is bad, and not all discrimination is improper for either the government or any private citizen to engage in.

A lot of people would agree with the "not all discrimination is bad" part.  We discriminate against felons for a good reason.  I think our fundamental misunderstanding between you and everyone else here is what kind of discrimination is bad or improper.  You apparently think a law discriminating against atheists would not be improper.  Everyone else strongly disagrees.

Exactly right.  The difference is simply where one draws the line as to where "discrimination" becomes bad or improper.  But no matter what kind of discussion where the word "discrimination" is used, the problem often arises because people subjectively just label anything they personally dislike as "discrimination," which they feel then automatically throws the "bad," "evil," or "immoral" stigma on it.  But, yes, the REAL issue is not whether it is discrimination, but whether it is an improper form of discrimination.  I personally do not feel it is.  Others do.  It would be a lot more helpful to the discussion for people to realize that that is the real issue, and either try to discuss it rationally or sit on the sidelines and watch other people attempt to do so instead of derailing the discussion with rhetoric that ultimately doesn't solve anything.

But I do need to clarify something else at the end of your post.  You say, "You apparently think a law discriminating against atheists would not be improper."  That isn't necessarily true.  I don't think it is okay to discriminate against atheists in ways that are more objectively harmful or hurtful.  Personally, I am mostly okay with the small set of laws we are discussing (which, again, is relatively immaterial since they are not enforceable and would likely be ruled unconstitutional if challenged anyway).  But allowing any sort of persecution or other unpleasant things against ANY group of people because of their beliefs would absolutely NOT be okay with me.

[bosk1]

Okay, LAST post.  This time for sure!  

So why do you think it would be a good idea to keep Atheists from voting?  

Whoa, whoa, WHOA!  For the record, I NEVER advocated denying anyone the right to vote.

How exactly is being able to run for political office not a right?  I'm not sure how it isn't, and I'm not sure why you find that so "disturbing."  Actually, your use of the word "disturbing" is kind of disturbing.  It implies we're deranged or something.  Or do you consider it a privilege?

Yeah, well, I'm disturbed that you are disturbed over my use of the word disturbed.    Your last sentence pretty much gets where I'm coming from.

[Bombardana]

Okay sorry, I didn't know that was considered namecalling. I still mean that definition of the word, but not if the word itself has an offensive connotation attached to it.

Yes, calling someone a bigot is offensive and uncalled for.  Aside from the offensive connotation, doing so shifts from attacking and responding to a poster's arguments to attacking and making value judgments about the person posting.  The former is fine, no matter how vigorous.  The latter is not.  Do you understand the difference I am trying to highlight?

As eric42434224 pointed out, I didn't refer to any person as a bigot, I just said some of views in this thread constituted what I understand the definition of Bigotry to be, and as such it is directed towards those arguments, not the people making the arguments. But I should say I don't mean any offensive connotation that the word may carry.

[skydivingninja]

Ah!  Didn't see that when I proofread my post.  Sorry!  "Voting" should be replaced with "running for office."  But since we're on the subject now, why is it good to let atheists vote, but not run, and why deny a privilege to someone based on what they believe in (or not)?  I seriously don't see why a law like that would be a good idea.

[eric42434224]

Discrimination isnt limited to a denial of a right.  It is about denial of opportunity as well.  Was not Rosa Parks discriminated against?  Is sitting at the front of a bus a "right"?  No, but it was discrimination.
Denial of the opportunity for a person to run for office on the basis of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is 100% pure discrimination.  Dont vote for them if you feel thair lack of afterlife consequenses will affect their earthly morality....that is fine (but silly IMO)....but denial of the opportunity is discrimination.
Not sure why this point is even remotely in question.

[ehra]

I'd also appreciate clarification on this, since it seems to be pretty integral to your belief that only someone who believes in God should hold public office. The Bible is full of people who absolutely believed in God and still did atrocious things.

And by definition, belief in God does not allow for immorality or amorality.

So Cain didn't believe in God?

[73109]

Why is it that every thread in P&R somehow turns into a "bunch of athesist and a theist (mostly Bosk or Tick or epicview) agruing thread."

Now for me, I'd love to see an atheist in office. I'd love to see a dude who is so atheistic, he's like Bush but for atheists. Non-faith-based decisions.

Let Bosk believe what he wants. If you get pissed at someone over the internet, that's kinda fucked to begin with. Just go with the flow, let things happen, let people believe what they believe, and everyone will get what they deserve in the end, and no, that is not religious at all. It just tends to work that way.

[skydivingninja]

I'd also appreciate clarification on this, since it seems to be pretty integral to your belief that only someone who believes in God should hold public office. The Bible is full of people who absolutely believed in God and still did atrocious things.

And by definition, belief in God does not allow for immorality or amorality.

So Cain didn't believe in God?

I think what bosk is getting at is that his definition of believing in God means that this God allows for no immorality in his followers.  Whether his followers follow that or not is up to them.

Unless of course we're talking about people who still worship Greek or Norse Gods, in which case yeah, be as immoral as you please.  Go knock up a few goats and give birth to horrible goat-minotaurs or something.  Zeus is cool with it.

[eric42434224]

I dont get the impression that anyone is pissed at anyone in this thread.

[ehra]

I'd also appreciate clarification on this, since it seems to be pretty integral to your belief that only someone who believes in God should hold public office. The Bible is full of people who absolutely believed in God and still did atrocious things.

And by definition, belief in God does not allow for immorality or amorality.

So Cain didn't believe in God?

I think what bosk is getting at is that his definition of believing in God means that this God allows for no immorality in his followers.  Whether his followers follow that or not is up to them.

Unless of course we're talking about people who still worship Greek or Norse Gods, in which case yeah, be as immoral as you please.  Go knock up a few goats and give birth to horrible goat-minotaurs or something.  Zeus is cool with it.

Belief in God and following His tenants are two completely separate things. Hell, lots of atheists follow His rules just because they're things good people should generally do, and they don't even believe in Him. So if belief in God has no bearing on whether someone does the sort of things God would approve of then why limit the ability to hold public office based on that (lack of) belief?


edit: To clarify, Bosk says he feels that the ability to hold public office should be limited to those who believe because those who believe are incapable of being immoral, which is wrong. Following God's tenants is what's incompatible with being immoral, but that's not what he's suggesting should be what allows or prevents people from holding public office.

[skydivingninja]

I dont get the impression that anyone is pissed at anyone in this thread.

Nobody except 7StringedBeast is pissed at anyone in this thread.

[73109]

Christian atheism seems like a cool thing.

Reject god, follow Christ. Pretty good idea to live a pretty good life.

[King Postwhore]

Well ehra.  Atheists  don't follow God's rules at all.  The just think in their own mind what's right or wrong.

Well all have our slant on one's beliefs.  I don't believe in god anymore but I try to be as good a person as I can.  I don't hold any prejudice on anyone who is religious.  I think it's a sad commentary on people.

[ehra]

Well ehra.  Atheists  don't follow God's rules at all.  The just think in their own mind what's right or wrong.

Which allows people to follow God's rules even if they don't believe in God in the first place.

If an atheist thinks murder is wrong and doesn't murder anyone then they're still following God's "you shall not kill" rule. They're just doing it because that's how they feel, not because it's God's command.

[King Postwhore]

What I'm saying is people who pride themselves as being atheists detach themselves as far away from from anything religious.  It's a badge of honor.  Maybe I'm wrong but from friends I know and what I've read people online.  I get that feeling.

[eric42434224]

Saying an Atheist is more likely to make less moral decisions due to a lack of afterlife consequenses sounds judgemental....and judging someone or group is, from what I have heard, not very Christian.

And my brother doesn not believe in god...but he likes Jesus and many of his teachings.  Perhaps that is what is being discussed.  An Atheist that adopts some of Christs teachings in how to live life.....not in a religious way....more like adopting a parent or mentors values.

[ehra]

What I'm saying is people who pride themselves as being atheists detach themselves as far away from from anything religious.  It's a badge of honor.  Maybe I'm wrong but from friends I know and what I've read people online.  I get that feeling.

I get that. All I'm saying is that a lot of things God would approve of are things that good people do anyway, even if they don't believe in God.

[73109]

What I'm saying is people who pride themselves as being atheists detach themselves as far away from from anything religious.  It's a badge of honor.  Maybe I'm wrong but from friends I know and what I've read people online.  I get that feeling.

I don't think that at all, to be honest with you. Personally, I would not consider myself an atheist. I am part of the "I have no fucking clue" tribe, however, if one, theist or atheist, tries to live a life set out for them by religious figures, they'll probably lead a pretty good life. Aside from all the miracles which I believe never happened, Jesus was a cool cat. Jesus preached peace and love, and we all need a little bit of that.

I pretty much just got ninjad

[King Postwhore]

What I'm saying is people who pride themselves as being atheists detach themselves as far away from from anything religious.  It's a badge of honor.  Maybe I'm wrong but from friends I know and what I've read people online.  I get that feeling.

I get that. All I'm saying is that a lot of things God would approve of are things that good people do anyway, even if they don't believe in God.

Oh yea.  I can see that.

What I'm saying is people who pride themselves as being atheists detach themselves as far away from from anything religious.  It's a badge of honor.  Maybe I'm wrong but from friends I know and what I've read people online.  I get that feeling.

I don't think that at all, to be honest with you. Personally, I would not consider myself an atheist. I am part of the "I have no fucking clue" tribe, however, if one, theist or atheist, tries to live a life set out for them by religious figures, they'll probably lead a pretty good life. Aside from all the miracles which I believe never happened, Jesus was a cool cat. Jesus preached peace and love, and we all need a little bit of that.

I pretty much just got ninjad

Numbers, you are not a atheists then.  You just haven't figured out what you want to do and that's ok too.  I'm saying that people who call themselves atheists don't go by God's rule but like ehra said some things they do would be approved by  people of religion.  If we are talking hardcore beliefs, they are fundamentally different.

[7StringedBeast]

I dont get the impression that anyone is pissed at anyone in this thread.

Nobody except 7StringedBeast is pissed at anyone in this thread.

Hey don't put words in my mouth!  I'm not pissed at Bosk at all.  I have respect for him.  I just find his ideas on this subject baffling.  I'm in no way pissed at anyone.

[Quadrochosis]

An Atheist President or Speaker or Majority Leader would truly be a wonderful thing.

[tjanuranus]

Ok ok as an atheist this idea of gods rules is nonsense. No atheist follows gods rules because they don't believe that they were devinely written they are mans rules posing as divinity. Also someone said thatfirstf a person follows gods rules they can't be immoral. I personally think a ton of shit in the bible is immoral so if you follow the rule of god that lends itself to immorality.

[ehra]

Ok ok as an atheist this idea of gods rules is nonsense. No atheist follows gods rules because they don't believe that they were devinely written they are mans rules posing as divinity.

What I'm saying is people who pride themselves as being atheists detach themselves as far away from from anything religious.  It's a badge of honor.  Maybe I'm wrong but from friends I know and what I've read people online.  I get that feeling.

I get that. All I'm saying is that a lot of things God would approve of are things that good people do anyway, even if they don't believe in God.

Derp.

[King Postwhore]

Herp.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I've only kind of skimmed this thread but here are some thoughts:

- I live in the bible belt and I don't think anyone would care that much if I told them I was an atheist. I'm not saying I am, just a hypothetical. I think there would be a lot of girls who would eliminate me from marriage contention, but they would also do so if I told them I was a muslim, jew, etc.

- Even though I am not an atheist, I live pretty much the same as one: I'm not religious, I don't go to church, I never pray or even think about God. It's basically like God doesn't exist to me, even though I do believe in God. I hope that makes sense.

Anyway... My main point though is that I think I'm a very moral person. I have good relationships with everyone I meet, I have no desire to be with any other girl than with my girlfriend and if even Brooklyn Decker hit on me I'd tell her to screw off, I have had many friends tell me I am like their brother and they trust me with their lives, I try to be kind to people and help those less fortunate than I... I have a lot of flaws as a person but I think I'm a good dude. I've met lots of religious people who make me look like Mother Teresa and lots of religious people who make me look like Hitler (my girlfriend being one of them).

I just think that if someone were to call me amoral because I'm not religious... It just doesn't sit will with me. Maybe by some technical definition I am, but I look around me and 99% of people I meet - religious or not - are totally unreasonable and sneaky and mean, and I try really hard not to be those things and I think I succeed a lot of the time, and so for someone to say I'm amoral because I'm not religious...

It just doesn't sit will with me.

[bosk1]

I hear you, TOX.  And although I am not saying your post was aimed at me, I feel the need to state one more time for the record, even though I have already clarified this:  I did not say or imply that atheists are amoral (or immoral). 

[eric42434224]

I hear you, TOX.  And although I am not saying your post was aimed at me, I feel the need to state one more time for the record, even though I have already clarified this:  I did not say or imply that atheists are amoral (or immoral). 

But you did imply that Atheists' belief system pre-disposes them to immoral behavoir due to lack of afterlife consequenses.

[Scheavo]

No, actually it isn't.  For one thing, a Muslim who doesn't deny the existence of God is likely to understand the concept that there are eternal consequences for his actions and decisions both as a leader and a person, whereas the atheist, by definition, does not believe that to be the case.

This doesn't mean that a person will take very "moral" actions. Eternal consequences can be both good and bad, and someone can do something horribly atrocious in "this life" in the hopes of securing a better "eternal life." Just look at Muslim extremists, and how they're promised rewards in heaven for killing innocent people. I could say that people who don't believe in eternal consequences will be more concerned about the here and now, seeing as how it's all they think they have, making their actions more concerned about the here and now, and not some promise or misconceived promise of rewards in the here-after.

[sonatafanica]

I hear you, TOX.  And although I am not saying your post was aimed at me, I feel the need to state one more time for the record, even though I have already clarified this:  I did not say or imply that atheists are amoral (or immoral). 

But you did imply that Atheists' belief system pre-disposes them to immoral behavoir due to lack of afterlife consequenses.

what atheists need is an elaborate book of some sort that uses the threat of eternal torment to scare them into doing good deeds

[tjanuranus]

I hear you, TOX.  And although I am not saying your post was aimed at me, I feel the need to state one more time for the record, even though I have already clarified this:  I did not say or imply that atheists are amoral (or immoral).  

But you did imply that Atheists' belief system pre-disposes them to immoral behavoir due to lack of afterlife consequenses.

what atheists need is an elaborate book of some sort that uses the threat of eternal torment to scare them into doing good deeds

Yeah i second this. Maybe we should write. Like if you believe in Global warming or social programs you're going to go to a fiery fantasy land forever. The problem is i don't hear voices talking to me so i wouldn't know what to write.

[William Wallace]

I hear you, TOX.  And although I am not saying your post was aimed at me, I feel the need to state one more time for the record, even though I have already clarified this:  I did not say or imply that atheists are amoral (or immoral).  

But you did imply that Atheists' belief system pre-disposes them to immoral behavoir due to lack of afterlife consequenses.

what atheists need is an elaborate book of some sort that uses the threat of eternal torment to scare them into doing good deeds

Yeah i second this. Maybe we should write. Like if you believe in Global warming or social programs you're going to go to a fiery fantasy land forever. The problem is i don't hear voices talking to me so i wouldn't know what to write.

And you guys only reject God because you enjoy porn and binge drinking, right? Perhaps you could learn about Christianity before speaking about it.

[El JoNNo]

I hear you, TOX.  And although I am not saying your post was aimed at me, I feel the need to state one more time for the record, even though I have already clarified this:  I did not say or imply that atheists are amoral (or immoral).  

But you did imply that Atheists' belief system pre-disposes them to immoral behavoir due to lack of afterlife consequenses.

what atheists need is an elaborate book of some sort that uses the threat of eternal torment to scare them into doing good deeds

Yeah i second this. Maybe we should write. Like if you believe in Global warming or social programs you're going to go to a fiery fantasy land forever. The problem is i don't hear voices talking to me so i wouldn't know what to write.

And you guys only reject God because you enjoy porn and binge drinking, right? Perhaps you could learn about Christianity before speaking about it.

The idea of hell/heaven and Jesus' sacrifice is enough to talk about Christianities faults.

[Adami]

I See dark stars on the horizon.

[William Wallace]

I hear you, TOX.  And although I am not saying your post was aimed at me, I feel the need to state one more time for the record, even though I have already clarified this:  I did not say or imply that atheists are amoral (or immoral).  

But you did imply that Atheists' belief system pre-disposes them to immoral behavoir due to lack of afterlife consequenses.

what atheists need is an elaborate book of some sort that uses the threat of eternal torment to scare them into doing good deeds

Yeah i second this. Maybe we should write. Like if you believe in Global warming or social programs you're going to go to a fiery fantasy land forever. The problem is i don't hear voices talking to me so i wouldn't know what to write.

And you guys only reject God because you enjoy porn and binge drinking, right? Perhaps you could learn about Christianity before speaking about it.

The idea of hell/heaven and Jesus' sacrifice is enough to talk about Christianities faults.

Ideas which you know little about, other than the pop versions you've learned about from misinformed Christians and Richard Dawkins.