How Are Atheists or Secularists Harming You, Your Kids or Your Country?

[Quintessence]

(1) In what ways are the actions of atheists or secularists threatening you, family, or the country?

"Threatening" is, with a few exceptions, far too strong of a word to be using here. The problems stem from specific individuals, not the group as a whole. Extremism, regardless of whether or not it is (a)theistic or (ir)religious, is "threatening" to me as someone who embraces pluralism. I have as much of a problem with secularists trying to banish all religion from the public sphere as I do with the exclusivist monotheists trying to require prayer to their god, and no other gods, before public meetings.

(2) Are atheists trying to convert people in the same way that religious people do?

Some of them, yes. Perhaps not precisely in "the same way" but their behavior is certainly analogous to attempting to get others to question their current path and walk theirs instead. Many of them even spew rhetoric along the lines of claiming to have the one true truth just like the certain theistic fundamentalists.

(3) If atheists are trying to convert people, Is it better or worse than when people of other religions try to do the same?

Better? Worse? I have no idea how I'm supposed to assess that. A failure to respect someone else's way of life is problematic regardless of who or what is doing it. Whenever anyone tries to strip away a source of deep meaning, value, and positive influence from someone else's life, that strikes me as... well... at best, ignorant or misguided, and at worst malevolent and destructive.

(4) would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?

Depends on what you mean by secularism, and how you see that as manifesting. I don't want to see a rise in secularism, I want to see a rise of pluralism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

These questions go out to theists, atheists, agnostics and pretty much any dairy product you can think of.

(1) In what ways are the actions of atheists or secularists threatening you, family, or the country?
For example, just off the top of my head I can imagine someone saying that teaching evolution is harmful to their children, or that it is important that the people running this country believe in God.

There are secularists who have bad ideas but there are secularists that have good ideas. The inherent "secularism" of it isn't good or bad. Secular Humanism is my prefered way of thinking and I think that does the most good.

(2) Are atheists trying to convert people in the same way that religious people do?

Not in the same way but some do.

(3) If atheists are trying to convert people, Is it better or worse than when people of other religions try to do the same?

I typically think it is better in most cases simply because it is usually an argument for reason rather than anything else. Or if it is a truly anti-theistic position they are fighting something that they see as objectively wrong (or subjectively in some cases). Good examples of this would be the movement to end the protection granted to Catholic Priests in confessions.

(4) would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?

It is on a slight incline right now. I think it would be a good thing. Mainly because we would probably put more stock into education (hopefully) and trust empirical data more than other things. Hopefully we would see warnings from scientists taken seriously rather than thinking god will take care of it or worse that its a GOOD thing and the rapture is coming.

 

[icehorse]

These questions go out to theists, atheists, agnostics and pretty much any dairy product you can think of.

(1) In what ways are the actions of atheists or secularists threatening you, family, or the country?
For example, just off the top of my head I can imagine someone saying that teaching evolution is harmful to their children, or that it is important that the people running this country believe in God.

>>> I've met lots of people who get to a certain age and decide they've learned everything they need to know to ride out the rest of their lives. Secularism makes this path harder to achieve.

(2) Are atheists trying to convert people in the same way that religious people do?

>>> Activist atheists are trying to convert people to the use of critical thinking.

(3) If atheists are trying to convert people, Is it better or worse than when people of other religions try to do the same?

>>> It's better, critical thinking is a good universal skill.

(4) would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?

>>> No, it would be awesome. If people put more critical thinking into their decisions, we would have (for example), better decisions coming out of Washington.

 

[Willamena]

...would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?

It's already secular. How it would it "rise"?

 

[Paradox22]

It goes much deeper than "who to bite," but to bite at all. While atheists dive right in and gorge themselves on infant blood an agnostic will often hang back trying to decide whether or not to go to the bother.

To bite or not to bite; that is the question agnostic vampires struggle with

 

[icehorse]

It's already secular. How it would it "rise"?

A couple of data points:

- About 1/3 of high school biology teachers have given up trying to teach evolution. Not because they think evolution is wrong, but because they think it isn't worth the hassle to deal with religious fundamentalists. So my kids don't get to learn evolution because of religion.

- Stem cell research in the US has been reduced and/or curtailed because of religious fundamentalism. The US - whose chief advantage in the world is our ability to invent and innovate - is now falling way behind the rest of the modern world in terms of stem cell research.

- If a politician happens to be agnostic or an atheist, they must lie about that in order to get elected.

There are many others. So it's fine with me what the faithful do behind closed doors. But it's not fine with me when they inject their faith into important world affairs. That's what the separation of church and state *ought* to mean.

 

[Quintessence]

There are many others. So it's fine with me what the faithful do behind closed doors. But it's not fine with me when they inject their faith into important world affairs. That's what the separation of church and state *ought* to mean.

If I were to trap everything related to my religion behind closed doors, I would have to abdicate any and all participation in society. Supporting education, science, sustainability, and environmentalism are all directly related to my religion. Should I shut up and not support these things because my motives are connected to my religion and the gods that I worship?

 

[icehorse]

If I were to trap everything related to my religion behind closed doors, I would have to abdicate any and all participation in society. Supporting education, science, sustainability, and environmentalism are all directly related to my religion. Should I shut up and not support these things because my motives are connected to my religion and the gods that I worship?

As I try to peel the layers of the onion I suspect the reason that the US's founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state was to keep dogma and "unfalsifiable" supernatural authority out of government. From that perspective, and what you said in this single post, I'd say your "religion" is based more on critical thinking than it is on dogma. If I'm correct, then from my perspective, what you value sounds more like a philosophy than a religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

These questions go out to theists, atheists, agnostics and pretty much any dairy product you can think of.

(1) In what ways are the actions of atheists or secularists threatening you, family, or the country?
For example, just off the top of my head I can imagine someone saying that teaching evolution is harmful to their children, or that it is important that the people running this country believe in God.

(2) Are atheists trying to convert people in the same way that religious people do?

(3) If atheists are trying to convert people, Is it better or worse than when people of other religions try to do the same?

(4) would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?

1) They're a bunch of baby eaters!
2) Haven't you seen those dark robes, the fiery torches, and blood sacrifices?
3) It's much worse because atheists are grumpy old goats.
4) Depends on what they do with it.

2) Although moderates are usually fine, militant atheists always try to convert others to a secular, non-theistic point of view. I mean, sure, militant atheists don't go door to door and say "Did you hear the good news?! There is no God!!" but they subscribe to the same colonialist, proselytizing practices, preaching Atheism as the "only true" rationality (sound familiar? just replace "rationality" with "god" or "way").

What exactly do you consider proselytizing? Myself, I don't actively try to convert people, but I tend to ask alot of questions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

These questions go out to theists, atheists, agnostics and pretty much any dairy product you can think of.

(1) In what ways are the actions of atheists or secularists threatening you, family, or the country?
For example, just off the top of my head I can imagine someone saying that teaching evolution is harmful to their children, or that it is important that the people running this country believe in God.

(2) Are atheists trying to convert people in the same way that religious people do?

(3) If atheists are trying to convert people, Is it better or worse than when people of other religions try to do the same?

(4) would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?

Atheism would kill the American spirit. Generally what would happen more with secularism, is that an optimal solution is calculated for every issue, and everybody will be forced to behave in this optimal way. Generally the focus will shift from the spirit in which a decision is made (called superstition by atheists), towards the (supposedly optimal) result of a decision.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheism would kill the American spirit. Generally what would happen more with secularism, is that an optimal solution is calculated for every issue, and everybody will be forced to behave in this optimal way. Generally the focus will shift from the spirit in which a decision is made (called superstition by atheists), towards the (supposedly optimal) result of a decision.

What the heck are you basing THAT supposition on?
To be clear, secularism<>atheism.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What the heck are you basing THAT supposition on?
To be clear, secularism<>atheism.

Uh ever seen an atheist accept the human spirit is real? It is logical that atheism would diminish the American spirit, and the spirit of people in general, for the reason that they generally do not believe it is real.

For example the kind of thing that would happen with atheism: highschool achievements will increase (focus on optimal results), as students will be forced to learn more maths and such, which they hate (spirit is ignored)

 

[dgirl1986]

(1) In what ways are the actions of atheists or secularists threatening you, family, or the country?
For example, just off the top of my head I can imagine someone saying that teaching evolution is harmful to their children, or that it is important that the people running this country believe in God.
They are not threatening in any way , shape, or form. In fact, they are helping with progress. Which is more than can be said for our religious leader.

(2) Are atheists trying to convert people in the same way that religious people do?
I think atheists encourage people to think for themselves and consider things in a new light rather than convert them, for the most part anyway

(3) If atheists are trying to convert people, Is it better or worse than when people of other religions try to do the same?
I would object at trying to convert people to atheism for the same reason I object to the religious trying to covert me.

(4) would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?
I do not live in America so I am not sure, I think it could be good for them, especially for those having to deal with being a non believer in believer families/areas and being gay in those settings as well.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Uh ever seen an atheist accept the human spirit is real? It is logical that atheism would diminish the American spirit, and the spirit of people in general, for the reason that they generally do not believe it is real.

Sure. Let's assume your comment is true for a moment, although it relies on a literal definition of 'spirit'...
Atheism is not secularism. There are plenty of highly religious folks who agree with the tenets of secularism. Secularism is about even-handed treatment, not pushing atheist agendas (whatever THEY are...assuming you mean anti-theism, which is quite different).

 

[Paradox22]

[QUOTE="lewisnotmiller, post: 4026101, member: 43857"...atheist agendas (whatever THEY are...assuming you mean anti-theism, which is quite different).[/QUOTE]

I know this is going off topic, but if you don't mind, can you briefly explain the distinction between atheism and anti-theism? Perhaps I'm not what I thought I was?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I know this is going off topic, but if you don't mind, can you briefly explain the distinction between atheism and anti-theism? Perhaps I'm not what I thought I was?

Sure, I can give my take on it. For any lurkers, I'm more interested in providing Paradox a workable definition than covering every possible technical instance.

Atheist : Lacks theism. Essentially, an atheist doesn't believe in God(s). Atheism in and of itself is not any more informative than that, so you can get superstitious atheists, for example. Or religious atheists. Atheists can have varied philosophies on life, ranging from warm and fuzzy (eg. secular humanism) through to more empirical ideals (eg. David Hume), or any other flavour you can point to, really.
Generalising about atheism is okay, and unavoidable (people generalise about everything) but atheism in and of itself is only a negative statement.

Anti-theist : I would suspect most anti-theists are also atheists, but I guess that's not necessarily universal. Suffice to say, anti-theists see theism as a negative. They believe, to some degree, that the world would be a better place without theism. This can range from extreme views (eg. all religious teaching is child abuse) through to more pragmatic views, where theism is okay in private, but I'm not sure I've ever met an anti-theist who would say their ideal world included believers.

-------------------------------------------------

I'm an atheist, and bordering on a strong atheist, I guess, depending on definition. But just like a think a range of political opinions is useful for society, I see value in a range of religious and spiritual beliefs and approaches. I could easily find myself in opposition to anti-theists on some issues because of this. Equally, I would be very much on their side on other issues, such as keeping education secular, and keeping creationism out of the science class.

Key point for me in relation to this thread is that secularists can be both theists and atheists, and these groups would share a common view in terms of the place of religion in society, regardless of their differing beliefs. Anti-theists would probably be secularists as well, I guess, but would ideally remove religion from society. It should be noted that being an anti-theist generally involves stringent argument against religion...it's not some sort of Soviet-style eradication program, nor support for such a thing.

 

[Willamena]

A couple of data points:

- About 1/3 of high school biology teachers have given up trying to teach evolution. Not because they think evolution is wrong, but because they think it isn't worth the hassle to deal with religious fundamentalists. So my kids don't get to learn evolution because of religion.

- Stem cell research in the US has been reduced and/or curtailed because of religious fundamentalism. The US - whose chief advantage in the world is our ability to invent and innovate - is now falling way behind the rest of the modern world in terms of stem cell research.

- If a politician happens to be agnostic or an atheist, they must lie about that in order to get elected.

There are many others. So it's fine with me what the faithful do behind closed doors. But it's not fine with me when they inject their faith into important world affairs. That's what the separation of church and state *ought* to mean.

I'm not clear what any of this has to do with a secular government. Fundamentalist beliefs have to be held with the same respect as other beliefs.

 

[psychoslice]

I am greatly saddened that you feel religion to be so stiffeling , however many have a very different oppinion , ..to my mind religion very much helps us to live better and happier lives here and now , it is not just about securing a better afterlife , it is also about sharing .

Yes I agree that there is some good in religion, but there is good in every ideology, people can feel better believing in anything that makes them feel better. All I am saying is that religion needs to grow, and not keep us in the past, with beliefs that are far out of date, and in many cases has no relevance to todays way of thinking.

 

[Thruve]

No more Christmas trees at the mall or nativity scenes on public city parks or town centers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not clear what any of this has to do with a secular government. Fundamentalist beliefs have to be held with the same respect as other beliefs.

In the specific case of education, it has plenty to do with secular government, as they are involved in the setting of curriculum.
Your comment about fundamentalist beliefs being held with the same respect as other beliefs is interesting to me. Respecting beliefs is a simple enough thing to do, right up until the point that different belief systems come into conflict with one another. If we work to key tenets that apply to all in equal fashion, then I would think you're actually talking about secularism.