[Dark Helmet]

"From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rele...&ID=2816&-Find

[Dakar]

No wonder I stay out of religious discussions IRL. That and general feeling of pity you get thrown your way.

Edit: Nevermind the fact that people automatically group agnostics with atheists anyway...

[Nai no Kami]

I was about to post this.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Nevermind the fact that people automatically group agnostics with atheists anyway...

Exactly, they are both evil aprerently.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

"From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rele...&ID=2816&-Find

Here is another itneresting quote.

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

Doesn't this correspond as well to levels of religious practice in this country? There are more heavily religious in the heartland than there are on the coasts. So, the geographic spread of attitudes towards atheism is not all that surprising.

But hey, atheists are now a "minority group". When can we start lobbying for Atheists Rights? ::dons flame-proof suit and scurries way::

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Exactly, they are both evil aprerently.

More of a if you're not with us you must be against us mentality.

[Spliffdaddy]

I think atheists tend to be lumped together with the socialist hippies - since a good portion of socialist hippies seem to despise religion.

America is a religious nation. Even if we don't always practice our beliefs.

[Dark Helmet]

Considering recent events I can't believe Atheists are BELLOW Muslims and gays.

Question... why are Atheists allowed to marry then?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Considering recent events I can't believe Atheists are BELLOW Muslims and gays.

Question... why are Atheists allowed to marry then?

A true athiest would never get "married".

[Dakar]

I suppose the million dollar question is, how many people here distrust atheists?

Edit: Or agnostics for that matter. Poor agnostics, always forgotten.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

A true athiest would never get "married".

A true atheist would never have a religious marriage, certainly, but they can have civil marriages all they want. Right now there are two types of marriages individuals can get.

Unfortunately, I think it will be a long time before the state gets out of the marriage business but that is a topic--state-provided marriages being replaced by civil unions--for an other day when we are bored and need another dead horse to beat.

[Rumor]

I'm agnostic, but those aethiests people scare the dickens out of me.

Most people have no idea there is a difference between the two.

[BRussell]

According to this, 50-55% of Christians approve of torture, while 35% of secular people do. And it's the religious people who don't trust the atheists?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

A true atheist would never have a religious marriage, certainly, but they can have civil marriages all they want.

I don't understand that. All 'atheist' means is that you don't believe in God. How does that preclude getting married?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I suppose the million dollar question is, how many people here distrust atheists?

Edit: Or agnostics for that matter. Poor agnostics, always forgotten.

I've never been sure about the agnostics.





C'mon, you made that too easy.

[Chuckit]

I'm glad to hear people are finally realizing how shifty and untrustworthy those atheists are. Now we just need to alert them to the Yellow Peril and the dangers of Negroes stealing our women.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego

I've never been sure about the agnostics.





C'mon, you made that too easy.

Volley, set, spike.

[hyteckit]

Hmm... divorce rates are much higher for Christians than Atheist. Maybe Christians get married for sex and Atheist get married for love. Or maybe Christians trust each other too much, but then later found out how unfaithful the their partner is.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

A true athiest would never get "married".

Fine Civil Union then.

Funny how an Atheist can but a gay person cannot.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

A true atheist would never have a religious marriage, certainly, but they can have civil marriages all they want.

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't understand that. All 'atheist' means is that you don't believe in God. How does that preclude getting married?

Umm, I'm sorta working on the assumption that if you don't believe in a God you are not likely to want to have a religious wedding. That's why I drew a distinction between religious and civil marriages and further went on to lament that fact we still have civil marriages when I don't think the state should be involved with marriages at all.

[lurkalot]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

A true athiest would never get "married".

There is nothing inherently religious about marriage.

In many countries, marriage does still hold certain benefits for spouses that are not bestowed even on couples in long time relationships/partnerships. There are many reasons for someone to get married. For a lot of people, myself included, religion had nothing to do with any of it.

Lurkalot, (a married man who does not believe in the existence of any gods).

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Here is another itneresting quote.

Doesn't this correspond as well to levels of religious practice in this country? There are more heavily religious in the heartland than there are on the coasts. So, the geographic spread of attitudes towards atheism is not all that surprising.

But hey, atheists are now a "minority group". When can we start lobbying for Atheists Rights? ::dons flame-proof suit and scurries way::

Atheists are Terrorists of the Spirit.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I'm glad to hear people are finally realizing how shifty and untrustworthy those atheists are. Now we just need to alert them to the Yellow Peril and the dangers of Negroes stealing our women.

I can see atheists entering Churches with dynamite strapped on them and yell:

"There is no God and I will prove it!"

Boom!

Splat!

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

America is a religious nation. Even if we don't always practice our beliefs.

@whoever, (some random questions)

so it's better to be religious yet amoral wrt that religion, yet bad to be areligious, yet be moral?

do they make atheists swear on the bible in a court of law? what about muslims?

and if a person swears on something he/she doesn't believe in, do they have to tell the truth?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Umm, I'm sorta working on the assumption that if you don't believe in a God you are not likely to want to have a religious wedding. That's why I drew a distinction between religious and civil marriages and further went on to lament that fact we still have civil marriages when I don't think the state should be involved with marriages at all.

But the mistake I think is that atheists are like vampires who can't set foot in church without withering into dust. Most atheists I bet just wouldn't care one way or the other about it. Marriage in a church is the social convention, and I doubt most atheists would want to make some big point about not getting married in a church.

I guess the reason it jumped out at me is the same reason that this survey bothers me. Many people apparently think of atheists not just as "quiet non-believers," but as obnoxious activists who challenge the pledge and refuse to set foot into a church. But most atheists are quiet non-believers rather than activists. So I think to say that atheists wouldn't get married in a church just perpetuates that false stereotype.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell

But the mistake I think is that atheists are like vampires who can't set foot in church without withering into dust. Most atheists I bet just wouldn't care one way or the other about it. Marriage in a church is the social convention, and I doubt most atheists would want to make some big point about not getting married in a church

I think it would bother more people than you think.

You're proclaiming a permanent commitment to someone. If at the same time you're just "going along" with some social convention you don't believe in, it shows a lack of respect for that commitment.

Why would you want to start off something so important under false pretenses?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by subego

I think it would bother more people than you think.

You're proclaiming a permanent commitment to someone. If at the same time you're just "going along" with some social convention you don't believe in, it shows a lack of respect for that commitment.

Why would you want to start off something so important under false pretenses?

Btw, the institution of mariage came before its sacralisation.

Mariage has always been an economic transaction, for a longer period than its integration as a sacrament.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego

I think it would bother more people than you think.

You're proclaiming a permanent commitment to someone. If at the same time you're just "going along" with some social convention you don't believe in, it shows a lack of respect for that commitment.

Why would you want to start off something so important under false pretenses?

We go along with social convention all the time. Constantly. To think you don't is to fool yourself.

If I'm wrong, and most atheists would refuse to get married in a church, then perhaps atheists are the uptight assholes that people think they are.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell

We go along with social convention all the time. Constantly. To think you don't is to fool yourself.

Go along with social convention, or go along with social convention one doesn't believe in.

What you say applies to the former. I was explicitly discussing the latter, for which I would say it applies not so much.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I think atheists tend to be lumped together with the socialist hippies - since a good portion of socialist hippies seem to despise religion.

America is a religious nation. Even if we don't always practice our beliefs.

It's not atheists themselves that people are complaining about. It's the anti-God zealots.

Most atheists don't even discuss religion, or give a hoot about it.

Anti-God zealots however have a chip on their shoulders because they are still trying to convince themselves.

But hey, atleast we aren't saying being an atheist is punishable by the death penalty. You'd think certain people would be more outraged about that.

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

I can see atheists entering Churches with dynamite strapped on them and yell:

"There is no God and I will prove it!"

Boom!

Splat!

Happens every day in this forum

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Btw, the institution of mariage came before its sacralisation.

Mariage has always been an economic transaction, for a longer period than its integration as a sacrament.

Actually no one knows when such practices started. Saying so is dishonest.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually no one knows when such practices started. Saying so is dishonest.

It has been documented. The fact that YOU don't know DOESN'T mean it is not so.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

It has been documented. The fact that YOU don't know DOESN'T mean it is not so.

Ok then FeLiZe, show us the documentation of the very first wedding.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually no one knows when such practices started. Saying so is dishonest.

Actually, you don't know what everyone else in the world knows. Saying so is dishonest.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ok then FeLiZe, show us the documentation of the very first wedding.

Wow, somebody pull out the "You just turned what I said into a bizarre exaggeration" cartoon.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego

Go along with social convention, or go along with social convention one doesn't believe in.

What you say applies to the former. I was explicitly discussing the latter, for which I would say it applies not so much.

Does one ever "believe in" social convention? There's a term for people who make a big deal out of not believing in or following social convention: assholes. It's the difference between the atheist who refuses to say the pledge because it has God in it and the atheist who says it because it really doesn't matter.

If it's true that I'm wrong and atheists are mostly the former rather than the latter, then atheists should be a hated group. But I'm quite certain that they're not. I'd guess that the majority of people I know are bona fide atheists, and they're all married, and none of them stridently refuse to participate in activities that involve God or religion.

Do your atheists refuse to use currency too?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Wow, somebody pull out the "You just turned what I said into a bizarre exaggeration" cartoon.

[Kr0nos]

Well, I'm an atheist (agnostic actually) and I used to be married. Given the choice, I don't think I'd do it over again (and this has nothing to do whith the person I was married to).

I was also going to write: "Why buy the cow...", when I came across this little masterpiece http://www.christianpatriot.com/cow.htm.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Actually, you don't know what everyone else in the world knows. Saying so is dishonest.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Actually, you don't know what everyone else in the world knows. Saying so is dishonest.

I never said I knew what everyone else in the world knows. That's a general statement.

I however DO KNOW no one knows when the first marriage was, or for what reason it was made.

Unless you'd like to prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Wow, somebody pull out the "You just turned what I said into a bizarre exaggeration" cartoon.

How was that an bizarre exaggeration? It wasn't. He made a claim, I asked him to back up said claim.

In other words, in order to know what Marriage was ORIGINALLY about, one would have to have knowledge of what the first marriage detailed.

And since we don't have such knowledge, making any statement as to what Marriage was first about, or the signifigance of it is mearly as guess. And NOT a factual statement.

Dig?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

premature pwned image removed

Not even close.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Actually, you don't know what everyone else in the world knows. Saying so is dishonest.

I guess you mised the memo about Kevin being the smartest person in the world. Makes you wonder why everyone wouldn't want to hire him for his vast knowledge in everything.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I however DO KNOW no one knows when the first marriage was, or for what reason it was made.

And, yet, isn't the most common argument against gay marriage based on the premise that the arguers know the reason for which marriage was made?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I guess you mised the memo about Kevin being the smartest person in the world. Makes you wonder why everyone wouldn't want to hire him for his vast knowledge in everything.

And here you go again sticking your foot in your mouth after said post he made was smacked down..

You do this a lot

Sorry that didn't work out the way you thought it would.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

And, yet, isn't the most common argument against gay marriage based on the premise that the arguers know the reason for which marriage was made?

No, it's based on what marriage originally came from "in our society"

We do BELIEVE that it originally was from God's intentions however.

There is a difference between believing something however, and treating it as solid fact.

And I agree, both sides do this.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There is a difference between believing something however, and treating it as solid fact.

Agreed. Unfortunately, few people are able to separate their beliefs from solid fact.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Agreed. Unfortunately, few people are able to separate their beliefs from solid fact.

Agreed

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Dimph

…I however DO KNOW no one knows when the first marriage was, or for what reason it was made.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

…Unfortunately, few people are able to separate their beliefs from solid fact.

Originally Posted by Dimph

Agreed.

[NYCFarmboy]

here is a fresh link which perhaps shows partly why athiests are viewed so negatively:

http://www.startribune.com/484/story/327850.html

St. Paul City Office Boots Easter Bunny
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians.
Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians.
The display - a cloth Easter bunny, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter'' - was put up by a City Council secretary. They were not purchased with city money.

Tyrone Terrill, the city's human rights director, asked that the decorations be removed. Terrill said no citizen had complained to him.

Council Member Dave Thune called it a shame.

"This has just gone too far,'' he said. "We can't celebrate spring with bunnies and fake grass?''

The council president, Kathy Lantry, said the removal wasn't about political correctness.

"As government, we have a different responsibility about advancing the cause of religion, which we are not going to do,'' she said.

It's not the first time a holiday symbol has been removed from City Hall. In 2001, red poinsettias were briefly banned from a holiday display because they were associated with Christmas.


......

I love the "we can't celebrate spring with bunnies and fake grass" quote.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KrAnus

Um, no one knowing when the first marriage took place, or it's reasoning isn't a personal belief. It's a fact.

Sorry yet another one of your posts didn't work out the way you planned it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

here is a fresh link which perhaps shows partly why athiests are viewed so negatively:

http://www.startribune.com/484/story/327850.html

St. Paul City Office Boots Easter Bunny
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians.
Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians.
The display - a cloth Easter bunny, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter'' - was put up by a City Council secretary. They were not purchased with city money.

Tyrone Terrill, the city's human rights director, asked that the decorations be removed. Terrill said no citizen had complained to him.

Council Member Dave Thune called it a shame.

"This has just gone too far,'' he said. "We can't celebrate spring with bunnies and fake grass?''

The council president, Kathy Lantry, said the removal wasn't about political correctness.

"As government, we have a different responsibility about advancing the cause of religion, which we are not going to do,'' she said.

It's not the first time a holiday symbol has been removed from City Hall. In 2001, red poinsettias were briefly banned from a holiday display because they were associated with Christmas.

To be honest. These aren't atheists. Most atheists care less either way.

These are anti-Christian zealots.

They have a chip on their shoulder. And reminders make them feel insecure. That is why they want to get rid of the bunny, even though it has really nothing to do with Christianity. Because it REMINDS them of Christianity.

Classic case.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

here is a fresh link which perhaps shows partly why athiests are viewed so negatively:

http://www.startribune.com/484/story/327850.html

St. Paul City Office Boots Easter Bunny
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians.
Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians.
The display - a cloth Easter bunny, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter'' - was put up by a City Council secretary. They were not purchased with city money.

Tyrone Terrill, the city's human rights director, asked that the decorations be removed. Terrill said no citizen had complained to him.

Council Member Dave Thune called it a shame.

"This has just gone too far,'' he said. "We can't celebrate spring with bunnies and fake grass?''

The council president, Kathy Lantry, said the removal wasn't about political correctness.

"As government, we have a different responsibility about advancing the cause of religion, which we are not going to do,'' she said.

It's not the first time a holiday symbol has been removed from City Hall. In 2001, red poinsettias were briefly banned from a holiday display because they were associated with Christmas.


......

I love the "we can't celebrate spring with bunnies and fake grass" quote.

Where does it say athiests are to blame?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

here is a fresh link which perhaps shows partly why athiests are viewed so negatively...

As Kevin and Dakar pointed out, this has nothing to do with atheism, it very much has to do with anti-Christianity.

Most atheists I know still openly celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas and Easter.