Do atheists face discrimination?

[El JoNNo]

As I said above agnostism is a subcatagory of atheism.

That's not true. Atheism deal with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge. A person can be a theist (believing in a god or gods) while being agnostic (not having direct proof/knowledge of their existence).

Right, I should have said it's like a subcategory. My post above explains this, my mistake. I should start proof reading more 

[William Wallace]

I was reconsidering my view on this topic, but this thread and more reading have more or less solidified my position. I think it comes down to this: you can't expect everybody to accept your world view, and the fact that they don't doesn't make you a victim of discrimination.

An atheist cannot win an election. That alone is more discrimination than racism and sexism because people off all colors and sexes win American elections. The only people i think face similar discrimination are muslims.

Nor could a libertarian win an election. I guess that means libertarians are the victims of discrimination as well?

Meanwhile atheist are the largest minority group in the united states but can't really say anything. Christians run this country and then act like they are persecuted. They have a good scam going to milk people into giving money.

I don't think this is true for several reasons. You have a number of very prominent spokesmen, atheists apologetics books are available in every bookstore around the country, and atheists haven't been prevented from organizing, see events like Skepticon. So clearly atheists can say a lot of things, they just aren't widely embraced.

Related to politics, why is it important to have open nonbelievers elected to office? And I don't mean that as an argument. Are there specific policies that atheists would enact that otherwise won't be enacted? Every issue I can think of has been co-opted by some other constituency.

To say that Christians run things is inaccurate, too. Barack Obama is a Christian, as am I. But I disagree with almost everything the man says and does. People can have the same religious views and disagree vehemently about other topics.

[Adami]

Lovely. Atheists say yes, theists say no.


Unfortunately, white's have no say as to whether or not blacks face discrimination. Thus theists should have no say as to whether or not atheists face discrimination.

[GuineaPig]

More than 2,000 randomly selected people were interviewed by researchers from the University of Minnesota.

Asked whether they would disapprove of a child's wish to marry an atheist, 47.6 percent of those interviewed said yes. Asked the same question about Muslims and African-Americans, the yes responses fell to 33.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively. The yes responses for Asian-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians were 18.5 percent, 18.5 percent, 11.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively.

When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively. For Hispanics, Jews, Asian-Americans and African-Americans, they fell further to 7.6 percent, 7.4 percent, 7.0 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively.

The study contains other results, but these are sufficient to underline its gist: Atheists are seen by many Americans (especially conservative Christians) as alien and are, in the words of sociologist Penny Edgell, the study's lead researcher, "a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years."

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1

From a study conducted by the University of Minnesota in 2006.

How is this not discrimination?

[robwebster]

As I said above agnostism is a subcatagory of atheism.

That's not true. Atheism deal with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge. A person can be a theist (believing in a god or gods) while being agnostic (not having direct proof/knowledge of their existence).

Right, I should have said it's like a subcategory. My post above explains this, my mistake. I should start proof reading more 

I dunno. I'd consider myself agnostic but not atheist.

I firmly believe that if there were a god, we would never know. The universe makes a lot more sense with a god, but I'm not sure if it fits my philsophies. I'm sure there's something, but no idea if it's a god in the conventional sense.

That's not atheism - I accept the possibility - but it sure as hell ain't religion.

Not discrimination. Atheists encounter some people who think their beliefs are ridiculous and will dismiss them offhand on that basis, but everyone's going to encounter an infinity of people who, between them, will think their everything is ridiculous. Hairstyle, shoes, moral code, facial features, accent...

I think people who are offended by swear words are bell-ends. So do many other people. Everyone's got pet peeves, and for some that'll be a belief system that they think is impossibly silly. Discrimination goes beyond dislike, though. It's not like there's a major movement against it. Heck, there are people who really don't like the British. I don't feel discriminated against. Occasionally someone will call me a "tea-drinking pansy" or what-ever. I, in turn, think of them as a "bigoted twat," but it'd be very churlish of me to pretend that that in any way counts as a real problem on anything like the same level as real discrimination.

The president thing's a little scary, and the one thing I've heard of that closest resembles actual discrimination (although of course there are more things in heaven and earth, etc.) - but on the other hand, has that recently been a problem? Has there been a viable presidential candidate who's been turned away, lately, because of their beliefs?

This sounds like one of those things where Britain and America are different.  Virtually every politician in America says they're Christian because they know they'll be screwed if they don't.  Part of me wonders how many people didn't vote for Mitt Romney because he's Mormon.  I think to some degree complaints of religious discrimination are overblown and not put into context, but it does exist.

Very plausibly! I think I'm quite lucky to live in a country where religion doesn't carry much currency. I'm happy to admit to being a little ignorant - but blissful in my ignorance.

[tjanuranus]

I was reconsidering my view on this topic, but this thread and more reading have more or less solidified my position. I think it comes down to this: you can't expect everybody to accept your world view, and the fact that they don't doesn't make you a victim of discrimination.

An atheist cannot win an election. That alone is more discrimination than racism and sexism because people off all colors and sexes win American elections. The only people i think face similar discrimination are muslims.

Nor could a libertarian win an election. I guess that means libertarians are the victims of discrimination as well?

Meanwhile atheist are the largest minority group in the united states but can't really say anything. Christians run this country and then act like they are persecuted. They have a good scam going to milk people into giving money.

I don't think this is true for several reasons. You have a number of very prominent spokesmen, atheists apologetics books are available in every bookstore around the country, and atheists haven't been prevented from organizing, see events like Skepticon. So clearly atheists can say a lot of things, they just aren't widely embraced.

Related to politics, why is it important to have open nonbelievers elected to office? And I don't mean that as an argument. Are there specific policies that atheists would enact that otherwise won't be enacted? Every issue I can think of has been co-opted by some other constituency.

To say that Christians run things is inaccurate, too. Barack Obama is a Christian, as am I. But I disagree with almost everything the man says and does. People can have the same religious views and disagree vehemently about other topics.

No libertarians share a political belief so it would make sense that people would or would not vote for someone based on politics but religion is supposed to be private. People should not have to worry about being elected because of what race, religion or sex they are. Politic leanings are completely different.

[El JoNNo]

I dunno. I'd consider myself agnostic but not atheist.

I firmly believe that if there were a god, we would never know. The universe makes a lot more sense with a god, but I'm not sure if it fits my philsophies. I'm sure there's something, but no idea if it's a god in the conventional sense.

That's not atheism - I accept the possibility - but it sure as hell ain't religion.

Not believing in a god(s) is still atheism. So your agnostic and not gnostic about your atheism.

[Zook]

Being an Atheist i think i can speak on this one...

An atheist cannot win an election. That alone is more discrimination than racism and sexism because people off all colors and sexes win American elections. The only people i think face similar discrimination are muslims.

I know personally that i cannot share my views with my family. Here is what i mean. My family talks about their beliefs ALL THE TIME. They are christian. I never say anything because they have a right to believe that but as soon as i say ANYTHING about my belief it turns into an argument. The double standard is so ridiculous and that is discrimination. It's the same as how a politician cannot claim to be atheist, they have to pretend not to be. It's fucking ridiculous. Meanwhile atheist are the largest minority group in the united states but can't really say anything. It's such bullshit. Christians run this country and then act like they are persecuted. They have a good scam going to milk people into giving money.

Excellent post.

[Bombardana]

"Do Atheists face discimination?"
Not where I live. This is mainly because we don't talk about our religious beliefs very often, it's not a big issue at all.

It concerns me how many people don't seem to understand the definitions of agnosticism and atheism.

[William Wallace]

More than 2,000 randomly selected people were interviewed by researchers from the University of Minnesota.

Asked whether they would disapprove of a child's wish to marry an atheist, 47.6 percent of those interviewed said yes. Asked the same question about Muslims and African-Americans, the yes responses fell to 33.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively. The yes responses for Asian-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians were 18.5 percent, 18.5 percent, 11.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively.

When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively. For Hispanics, Jews, Asian-Americans and African-Americans, they fell further to 7.6 percent, 7.4 percent, 7.0 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively.

The study contains other results, but these are sufficient to underline its gist: Atheists are seen by many Americans (especially conservative Christians) as alien and are, in the words of sociologist Penny Edgell, the study's lead researcher, "a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years."

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1

From a study conducted by the University of Minnesota in 2006.

How is this not discrimination?

Do you have a link to the study itself? I'm very curious to read it.

[GuineaPig]

Atheists as "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society
Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038986

[Quadrochosis]

To say that atheists aren't discriminated against is to say that black people weren't discriminated against in 1900.

[GuineaPig]

I wouldn't go that far.  I think there's two major differences; obviously, the level of prejudice is nowhere near the same.  Secondly, it was a lot more evident in everyday society because the victims could be easily identifiable.  It's a lot tougher to pick an atheist out of a crowd.

[El JoNNo]

I wouldn't go that far.  I think there's two major differences; obviously, the level of prejudice is nowhere near the same.  Secondly, it was a lot more evident in everyday society because the victims could be easily identifiable.  It's a lot tougher to pick an atheist out of a crowd.

You mean atheists don't have a giant red A on there foreheads?!?!? Oh shit i have to go to the hospital NAO!

[Quadrochosis]

I wouldn't go that far.  I think there's two major differences; obviously, the level of prejudice is nowhere near the same.  Secondly, it was a lot more evident in everyday society because the victims could be easily identifiable.  It's a lot tougher to pick an atheist out of a crowd.

I wasn't comparing the two, but merely saying it's silly to even say that there isn't a prejudice.

[William Wallace]

Atheists as "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society
Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038986

I want to look at the methodology of the study but I'm not about to pay $14 to read it. Does anybody's university have access to the journal at the above link?

And does anyone care to take a swing at this?

Related to politics, why is it important to have open nonbelievers elected to office? And I don't mean that as an argument. Are there specific policies that atheists would enact that otherwise won't be enacted? Every issue I can think of has been co-opted by some other constituency.

To answer my own question, I don't care if a candidate is a dedicated Christian. Of course I would prefer they be, but if they were going to enact policies I approve of, I'd vote for them no matter their religious views.

[GuineaPig]

Atheists as "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society
Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038986

I want to look at the methodology of the study but I'm not about to pay $14 to read it. Does anybody's university have access to the journal at the above link?

And does anyone care to take a swing at this?

Are there journal sites you do have access too?  Because there are about a dozen different places I can link you to.  I just figured you'd have jstor if you had anything.

[William Wallace]

Atheists as "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society
Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038986

I want to look at the methodology of the study but I'm not about to pay $14 to read it. Does anybody's university have access to the journal at the above link?

And does anyone care to take a swing at this?

Are there journal sites you do have access too?  Because there are about a dozen different places I can link you to.  I just figured you'd have jstor if you had anything.

I have to be on campus to access jstor, and I'm not. Can you pm me a copy?

[robwebster]

I dunno. I'd consider myself agnostic but not atheist.

I firmly believe that if there were a god, we would never know. The universe makes a lot more sense with a god, but I'm not sure if it fits my philsophies. I'm sure there's something, but no idea if it's a god in the conventional sense.

That's not atheism - I accept the possibility - but it sure as hell ain't religion.

Not believing in a god(s) is still atheism. So your agnostic and not gnostic about your atheism.

Thing is, though, I think a creator figure makes a lot of sense. More sense, in fact, than the abject lack of one. I'm not sure if I believe in the classical definition of a god, but that's an issue more with the form religion takes than the notion of a universal creator.

I wouldn't say that I don't believe in a god - rather than I don't think that a god would take the form that any organised religion posits. Which I'd argue is abjectly not atheist, as I don't think this is likely to be a godless universe. I've got a silly human mind that needs a beginning and an end, and while I don't think any organised religion has it "right," I think that there's surely got to be something going on up there. I'd argue that atheism is the act of rejection - the belief that "no, there is no god," and I think that to include myself in that category would be plain inaccurate.

I'm closer to atheism than to organised religion, but I'm not convinced that the universe makes sense without some sort of higher force. Which, as a sentence, is one that I'm barfing at, but I think sentience in particular is something that's absolutely boggling. I don't "get" why the universe should be seen subjectively. I can understand a chemical formula for life, and for survival - the right atoms in the right places can create a living machine - but for subjectivity? I'm struggling.

[Tick]

The bottom line is, you can place any word in place of Atheist and the answer is yes.
Christian, Muslim, Jew, Black, White, young, old, women, men. It all depends on the situation.

No one group is devoid of discrimination.

[Portrucci]

We're getting a bit stuck on definitions of 'atheism' here. Is it just lacking a belief in God/s or is it believing that there are definitely no Gods. Even though it's often made out to be the latter, I doubt that's really what most atheists would define themselves as. God, by definition something that can't be proven or dis-proven. It's a concept, that either works with a persons mind-set or it doesn't. That mind-set can change of course, depending on experience, but some people will always be more inclined to the concept than others. It should follow then that any discrimination based on receptivity to this abstract concept would be quite unfair. But the question was, do Atheists face discrimination? Well, of course they do. Who can deny that. Just as theists face discrimination as well; but in different contexts. From an outsiders perspective, the US especially seems to have a very strong attachment to the notion of God, seemingly regardless of any particular modern reasoning I'm aware of. I gather it's just something ingrained in society. It's a whole different topic whether that's good or not, but I don't think you can deny that it exists and where it's particularly prevalent there will be discrimination against those who don't believe.

[as a sort of side note]: Rob, you were starting to hit on some interesting ground there about why people believe. I'd say It has a lot to do with explanation. It comes down to whether you're the kind of person whose prepared to say "I don't know the answer" or do you need to find an answer that will fill that void. The later option definitely offers welcome peace-of-mind and a certain steadfastness....though, that isn't an option I'm able to accept. For one reason or another, I'm quite happy just being open to possibility...or being open to whatever is the best explanation of what is presented to me, in life. And indeed, in regards to these spiritual questions, it's doubtful you'll ever find another persons answer that will completely agree with all your logic & experience. In my mind, the best thing to do then is to formulate your own hypothesis, irregardless of what other people think (something I think you were getting at). Some self-constructed set of beliefs, which by their very nature you don't have to compromise on (as you might have to when conforming to a religion). It just seems that as soon as you decide that one answer is correct for everyone or correct for all time I think you've given up something. You've gained a bit of satisfaction for sure....but you've also given up a curiosity, that I think is quite important, even though I'm exactly not sure why.

[antigoon]

I suppose so, in the sense that I regularly lie about my (lack of) faith for fear of being judged.

"Who? Me? Oh, yes, I'm Catholic." *gag*

[robwebster]

[as a sort of side note]: Rob, you were starting to hit on some interesting ground there about why people believe. I'd say It has a lot to do with explanation. It comes down to whether you're the kind of person whose prepared to say "I don't know the answer" or do you need to find an answer that will fill that void. The later option definitely offers welcome peace-of-mind and a certain steadfastness....though, that isn't an option I'm able to accept. For one reason or another, I'm quite happy just being open to possibility...or being open to whatever is the best explanation of what is presented to me, in life. And indeed, in regards to these spiritual questions, it's doubtful you'll ever find another persons answer that will completely agree with all your logic & experience. In my mind, the best thing to do then is to formulate your own hypothesis, irregardless of what other people think (something I think you were getting at). Some self-constructed set of beliefs, which by their very nature you don't have to compromise on (as you might have to when conforming to a religion). It just seems that as soon as you decide that one answer is correct for everyone or correct for all time I think you've given up something. You've gained a bit of satisfaction for sure....but you've also given up a curiosity, that I think is quite important, even though I'm exactly not sure why.

Fanks.

In a bit of a hurry (plus, lazy) so this won't be a particularly well-thought-out response to what was a wonderful little musing, but I think organised religion and atheism would both argue that a question like sentience has an answer. Organised religion knows the answer, and atheism intends to find out. I'd probably say, as an agnostic, that the answer is so far removed from our philosophies that we couldn't possibly fathom it even if it was right in front of us.

I don't know how nearly that ties into what you're postulating, but I need to be quick 'cause my laptop's almost drained. Just a stray thought, felt like cataloguing it.

[El JoNNo]

I dunno. I'd consider myself agnostic but not atheist.

I firmly believe that if there were a god, we would never know. The universe makes a lot more sense with a god, but I'm not sure if it fits my philsophies. I'm sure there's something, but no idea if it's a god in the conventional sense.

That's not atheism - I accept the possibility - but it sure as hell ain't religion.

Not believing in a god(s) is still atheism. So your agnostic and not gnostic about your atheism.

Thing is, though, I think a creator figure makes a lot of sense. More sense, in fact, than the abject lack of one. I'm not sure if I believe in the classical definition of a god, but that's an issue more with the form religion takes than the notion of a universal creator.

I wouldn't say that I don't believe in a god - rather than I don't think that a god would take the form that any organised religion posits. Which I'd argue is abjectly not atheist, as I don't think this is likely to be a godless universe. I've got a silly human mind that needs a beginning and an end, and while I don't think any organised religion has it "right," I think that there's surely got to be something going on up there. I'd argue that atheism is the act of rejection - the belief that "no, there is no god," and I think that to include myself in that category would be plain inaccurate.

I'm closer to atheism than to organised religion, but I'm not convinced that the universe makes sense without some sort of higher force. Which, as a sentence, is one that I'm barfing at, but I think sentience in particular is something that's absolutely boggling. I don't "get" why the universe should be seen subjectively. I can understand a chemical formula for life, and for survival - the right atoms in the right places can create a living machine - but for subjectivity? I'm struggling.

You navigate to the deist position. This state of our universe did have a beginning it was the big bang and it will as we now know it die of heat death. Regarding the creator; why? It just regresses to who created the creator. If the creator is eternal, then why presume there is one. Why not presume the universe is eternal. It makes more sense that a natural lack of conscience exist then a super natural conscience does.

[El JoNNo]

[as a sort of side note]: Rob, you were starting to hit on some interesting ground there about why people believe. I'd say It has a lot to do with explanation. It comes down to whether you're the kind of person whose prepared to say "I don't know the answer" or do you need to find an answer that will fill that void. The later option definitely offers welcome peace-of-mind and a certain steadfastness....though, that isn't an option I'm able to accept. For one reason or another, I'm quite happy just being open to possibility...or being open to whatever is the best explanation of what is presented to me, in life. And indeed, in regards to these spiritual questions, it's doubtful you'll ever find another persons answer that will completely agree with all your logic & experience. In my mind, the best thing to do then is to formulate your own hypothesis, irregardless of what other people think (something I think you were getting at). Some self-constructed set of beliefs, which by their very nature you don't have to compromise on (as you might have to when conforming to a religion). It just seems that as soon as you decide that one answer is correct for everyone or correct for all time I think you've given up something. You've gained a bit of satisfaction for sure....but you've also given up a curiosity, that I think is quite important, even though I'm exactly not sure why.

Fanks.

In a bit of a hurry (plus, lazy) so this won't be a particularly well-thought-out response to what was a wonderful little musing, but I think organised religion and atheism would both argue that a question like sentience has an answer. Organised religion knows the answer, and atheism intends to find out. I'd probably say, as an agnostic, that the answer is so far removed from our philosophies that we couldn't possibly fathom it even if it was right in front of us.

I don't know how nearly that ties into what you're postulating, but I need to be quick 'cause my laptop's almost drained. Just a stray thought, felt like cataloguing it.

Atheism inherently knows or seeks nothing. The only commonality between atheists are the lack of a belief in a god. You should assert that atheists intend to find out the answers. This just serves to imply a dissidence among atheists. 

[Nick]

For the love of science...

If atheists would not be allowed to vote or not be allowed to run for public office THAT is discrimination. Simply not voting for someone because of their beliefs is in no way, shape, or form discrimination. Sure there are racists who won't vote for black candidates and sexists who won't vote for female candidates, but we are all free to vote for whomever we choose for whatever reason we choose, and even those idiots aren't discriminating when they vote.

Atheists may be discriminated against in other ways, but when it comes to running for office it's simply not the case. Atheism is simply unpopular in the eyes of the electorate just like the policy ideas many candidates hold but would never openly admit to. Choosing to hide your true feelings on god is nothing more than a political decision for those people.

[rumborak]

It is really rather noticeable that the believers in this thread are heavily downplaying any kind of discrimination against atheists. I can only guess at the motivation.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Atheists are hard to lump together into a single category, since they are so disorganized.  But yeah, atheists are definitely still discriminated against in America.  It's gotten better though...in the past, you had to be totally silent about it or you and your beliefs would be spat on (i.e. Thomas Jefferson).  But you still have to put on a theistic face if you want to run for any elected position.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins cites a poll from 1999 with results that 95% would vote for a woman, 94% for a Ropman Catholic, 92% for a Jew, 92% for a black, 79% for a Mormon, 79% for a homosexual, and 49% for an atheist.  He also cites an interview of George W. Bush, who stated "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."  So yeah, I'd say that atheists have a ways to go, at least in America.  Apparently it's pretty good in the UK, though.

[Tick]

It is really rather noticeable that the believers in this thread are heavily downplaying any kind of discrimination against atheists. I can only guess at the motivation.

rumborak

What a joke.
Every group of people gets discriminated by someone. You think atheists have it worse?
Not.

How insulting that you think your a victim any more than a believer , or any other group for that matter.

[bosk1]

Personally, I weep more for a society in which any perceived sleight, no matter how small, is labeled "discrimination" than for a society in which actual discrimination might happen on a relativey sporadic basis.

[Ħ]

It is really rather noticeable that the believers in this thread are heavily downplaying any kind of discrimination against atheists. I can only guess at the motivation.

rumborak

What a joke.
Every group of people gets discriminated by someone. You think atheists have it worse?
Not.

How insulting that you think your a victim any more than a believer , or any other group for that matter.

This is true that any individual is subject to another's preconcieved judgment (or discrimination), but I think we are talking about human rights and political power issues, rather than offensive judgments, preconcieved notions, etc.

[eric42434224]

It is really rather noticeable that the believers in this thread are heavily downplaying any kind of discrimination against atheists. I can only guess at the motivation.

rumborak

What a joke.
Every group of people gets discriminated by someone. You think atheists have it worse?
Not.

How insulting that you think your a victim any more than a believer , or any other group for that matter.

Why do you seem so agitated in your posts?  I read the post you quoted from Rumborak, and he didn't say anything about Atheists having it worse, or that he (or any other group) have it worse.  He merely commented on what he percieves as a downplaying of discrimination of Atheists by some.

[Tick]

It is really rather noticeable that the believers in this thread are heavily downplaying any kind of discrimination against atheists. I can only guess at the motivation.

rumborak

What a joke.
Every group of people gets discriminated by someone. You think atheists have it worse?
Not.

How insulting that you think your a victim any more than a believer , or any other group for that matter.

Why do you seem so agitated in your posts?  I read the post you quoted from Rumborak, and he didn't say anything about Atheists having it worse, or that he (or any other group) have it worse.  He merely commented on what he percieves as a downplaying of discrimination of Atheists by some.

Can you hear something is my inflection through the way I type?
I'm calm. I just think if your going to make assumptions, you should back it up with more than that weak statement.

Whats the matter Eric, you have a problem with me?
I can call someone on a post if I deem it silly.

[bosk1]

Eric, you don't need to call someone out on what you perceive to be their tone.  All that does is create further tension and take the thread further off topic (which is where it was destined to go once rumborak unfortunately decided to call personal motivations into question rather than discuss the topic at hand).  If you believe a post crosses the line, you can report it.  Otherwise, please leave well enough alone.  I'm sure you meant well, but let's keep the thread on topic and leave the speculation about others' tones and motivations out of the equation, please.  And that goes for everyone in the thread.  Thanks.

[eric42434224]

It is really rather noticeable that the believers in this thread are heavily downplaying any kind of discrimination against atheists. I can only guess at the motivation.

rumborak

What a joke.
Every group of people gets discriminated by someone. You think atheists have it worse?
Not.

How insulting that you think your a victim any more than a believer , or any other group for that matter.

Why do you seem so agitated in your posts?  I read the post you quoted from Rumborak, and he didn't say anything about Atheists having it worse, or that he (or any other group) have it worse.  He merely commented on what he percieves as a downplaying of discrimination of Atheists by some.

Can you hear something is my inflection through the way I type?
I'm calm. I just think if your going to make assumptions, you should back it up with more than that weak statement.

Whats the matter Eric, you have a problem with me?
I can call someone on a post if I deem it silly.

Fair enough on the agitated tone comment.  But my other comments still stand.  You went after Rumborak and made assumptions of your own, in a manner that seemed to me as if you didnt even read his post.  You called it a joke.  He never said Atheists have it worse, or that he himself has it worse.  Only that some are downplaying it.  Perhaps you can address that, as my comments about tone have been withdrawn.