U.S. trust lowest for atheists




Posted by sniper

The article's almost a year old, but I doubt much has changed over the year.

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686

Information about the samples used, if you're interested:

http://www2.asanet.org/journals/asr/2006/050sup1.pdf


This really surprised me. Even with the recent Muslim scare, atheists are still trusted less. I really can't think of anything besides extreme irrational religious loyalty to explain the results. I don't think I've heard of a case of assault/murder that was committed for the sake of atheism, and even if such cases existed, they may as well be infinitesimal next to the number of such cases performed for the sake of religion. Anyone who agrees with the general consensus of the results (though I'd rather see none) care to explain the reasoning behind it?




Posted by S

Yeah, I've seen this quite awhile ago. It was on TV as well I believe. I think, for the most part, people are just uneducated fools. They don't fully understand the concept of atheism, and even if they did, I doubt that they'd hear it out without a closed mind. Blind hatred.

I bet they'd group in Agnostics with Atheists. People fear the unknown, it's as simple as that. Atheism and Agnosticism just represent that in its purest form.




Posted by Fate

I guess that some kind of religous ties are the end-all to "save your soul", whether or not you believe in a different higher power, are gay, or have sinned. But no, they're untrusted. Their sins and such will never be forgiven and they will continue to keep sinning so long as they can get away with it; nothing will get them.

If anything, I trust those guys the most.




Posted by Tyler Durden

Being Agnostic, myself. I have only come into the embrace of a slight few with open minds. And opposed greatly by a great deal of close minded fools. But, that's what I get I suppose, for choosing to live in the "Bible Crotch" of America..




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

I went to a Catholic school. Turns out, most people thought Atheism was a synonym for Satanism or at least something akin to that. Which might explain the results.




Posted by Tyler Durden

The mythos behind Satanism and Atheism are so skewed, and obtuse. A real Satanist doesn't even believe in animal/ritualistic sacrifice. Athiest.. just don't care what goes on around them. I was once considered one for years, because I simply did not follow a path and denied a "God" existing within my own perceptions. Christianity is real bad for being misunderstood, alot of them believe they can actually live without sin. When all they do is pass judgement, commit murder and violent acts against "inferiors" in the name of God.. Almost comparable to Islamic belief, eh?




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: Almost comparable to Islamic belief, eh?


prolly cuz they're both semitic



Posted by Tyler Durden

True, true.. I think I might convert to Judaism, just to **** off a few people in my family.




Posted by Bebop

Alot of religious people tend to think that if someone is atheist that dont share any morals at all. That is to say athiests dont feel bad about say adultery, crime, sex and all the things deemed immoral by religion. I'm sure that's got a factor to do with it.




Posted by Lord of Spam

I dont thinkthat there is anything beyond this life. therefor it makes much more sense to me to make this life as good as possible, whereas the "lola fterlife" seems to me to be a free pass to do whatever the **** you want now since wahts coming will eb better.

lol dinner time done feel liek fixing typos




Posted by Bebop

I have no idea what you just said but I think it was about abortion.




Posted by Raptor

Atheists deny the existence of a supreme being or presence so vehemently that they aren't even open to the possibility of a higher power. Somehow, that bothers me. Agnosticism, on the other hand, I am more comfortable with. It at least recognises the possibility of a ***, but is neither comfirming nor denying of a ***'s existence. After all, it should be fairly obvious to any educated person that no one really knows **** outside of what is strictly proven and what they can experience for themselves.

I would still rather live by a toxic waste dump than by the bible. One pollutes your water supply, but the other pollutes your mind.




Posted by nich

Despite going to a very large catholic school, the subject of religion never really comes up in conversation. But, from what has come up in classes it seems that it is as Vampiro says. Practicing and, more prominently, non-practicing Catholics seem to view it almost in the same light as Satanism, which is a whole other issue. Blasphemy I suppose. I'm sure it's hard to be accepting of someone that denies everything you supposedly believe in. I find it's mostly older folks who think this way, though. I'd ballpark it and say 90% of the student population couldn't care less about religion and go to a catholic school because their friends do.

[Quote=Raptor]Atheists deny the existence of a supreme being or presence so vehemently that they aren't even open to the possibility of a higher power.

That's true, and it's probably one of the reasons for the negativity towards it. I still think it has more to do with the fact that it goes against the grain of society, though.




Posted by Tyler Durden

[quote=Raptor;533177]Atheists deny the existence of a supreme being or presence so vehemently that they aren't even open to the possibility of a higher power. Somehow, that bothers me. Agnosticism, on the other hand, I am more comfortable with. It at least recognises the possibility of a ***, but is neither comfirming nor denying of a ***'s existence. After all, it should be fairly obvious to any educated person that no one really knows **** outside of what is strictly proven and what they can experience for themselves.

I would still rather live by a toxic waste dump than by the bible. One pollutes your water supply, but the other pollutes your mind.
Spoken like a true wizard..




Posted by Arwon


Quoting Raptor: Non-believers in invisible faeries deny the existence of an invisible faerie or invisible faerie-like presence so vehemently that they aren't even open to the possibility of invisible faeries. Somehow, that bothers me. Agnosticism, on the other hand, I am more comfortable with. It at least recognises the possibility of faeries, but is neither comfirming nor denying of faerie's existence. After all, it should be fairly obvious to any educated person that no one really knows **** outside of what is strictly proven and what they can experience for themselves. Therefore, faeries.


Yeah, that's how that argument comes across to someone who simply doesn't see "higher powers" in this world.

Besides which, with sh*t like [url=http://www.asylumeclectica.com/asylum/malady/archives/harlequin.htm]Harlequin Fetus[/url] in the world, I'd hate to think what kind of sick motherf*cker of a "higher being" could be at work here. Better, and more beautiful, if it's random chance and blind luck that we're here at all.



Posted by sniper


Quoting Raptor: Atheists deny the existence of a supreme being or presence so vehemently that they aren't even open to the possibility of a higher power. Somehow, that bothers me. Agnosticism, on the other hand, I am more comfortable with. It at least recognises the possibility of a ***, but is neither comfirming nor denying of a ***'s existence. After all, it should be fairly obvious to any educated person that no one really knows **** outside of what is strictly proven and what they can experience for themselves.

I would still rather live by a toxic waste dump than by the bible. One pollutes your water supply, but the other pollutes your mind.


I feel entirely opposite on the issue of agnosticism and atheism. I find it ridiculous that someone would give equal standing to the status of a ***'s existance and non-existance. Though neither can have evidence for it, we have nothing besides word of mouth to suggest that a *** exists, while we have the entire absence of a ***'s presence to suggest there isn't one. Agnosticism is by no means the most logical choice, and as Arwon pointed out, suddenly seems much less logical when applied to any other unknowable claim.



Posted by Skitzo Control

"G[COLOR=white]o[/COLOR]d" is the greatest creation of man.

Oh, and who cares about the atheists? "Atheism is like a group of people getting together for the soul pupose of not dancing."

If anybody could tell me who said that, originally, I'd appreciate it.




Posted by S


Quoting sniper: I feel entirely opposite on the issue of agnosticism and atheism. I find it ridiculous that someone would give equal standing to the status of a ***'s existance and non-existance. Though neither can have evidence for it, we have nothing besides word of mouth to suggest that a *** exists, while we have the entire absence of a ***'s presence to suggest there isn't one. Agnosticism is by no means the most logical choice, and as Arwon pointed out, suddenly seems much less logical when applied to any other unknowable claim.


From a probability stand point, its a logical process of thought. There is equal probability of a *** existing as there is non-existance. There's billions upon billions, upon billions, of possibilities for how this universe's mechanics flow, and each could either have a *** or could not. Agnostic claims since both are possible, and denying/accepting the concept of either would be a mere assumption, that they will not make a choice requiring "faith". And correct me if I'm wrong, but the lack of evidense is not equivalent to proof.

And I agree with you in a way Skitzo, although not as brashly. I don't know who said it but I'll meet it with another quote: "Atheism requires more faith than any other religion."




Posted by sniper

Since when is atheism an organization? Since when is faith involved? A true atheist comes to conclusions based on evidence, and will change their minds on issues if new evidence arises which contradicts their former conclusions. I do not believe that neutrons exist because of faith, I believe that neutrons exists because of a large amount of measurement and experiment pointing to their likely existance. Faith is believing in something with no logical reasons. Believing in *** is an example of faith, as there is nothing logical about it. Not believing in *** is not an example of faith because the conclusion is made on the lack of evidence of ***'s existance. If evidence were given that ***'s existance was very likely, atheists would revise their conclusions, while if ***'s existance were proven impossible, theists would continue to believe. THAT is faith.

Just because there are two unprovable possiblities does not mean they have an equal chance of being true. See: teapot theory, flying spaghetti monster, etc. There is nothing logical in believing that anything that can be conjured by the mind has an equal chance of existing and not existing.




Posted by S


Quoting sniper: Since when is atheism an organization? Since when is faith involved? A true atheist comes to conclusions based on evidence, and will change their minds on issues if new evidence arises which contradicts their former conclusions. I do not believe that neutrons exist because of faith, I believe that neutrons exists because of a large amount of measurement and experiment pointing to their likely existance. Faith is believing in something with no logical reasons. Believing in *** is an example of faith, as there is nothing logical about it. Not believing in *** is not an example of faith because the conclusion is made on the lack of evidence of ***'s existance. If evidence were given that ***'s existance was very likely, atheists would revise their conclusions, while if ***'s existance were proven impossible, theists would continue to believe. THAT is faith.

Just because there are two unprovable possiblities does not mean they have an equal chance of being true. See: teapot theory, flying spaghetti monster, etc. There is nothing logical in believing that anything that can be conjured by the mind has an equal chance of existing and not existing.


That's a large assumption, saying that atheists would change their mind based on proof. It's negotiable, really but that's besides the point. I'd argue quite a few would deny it, just as many of the main stream religions deny the existence of evolution.

In the end, you cannot prove there is no God. Because of that, you're under a belief, or massive assumption that claims there is no such thing as a sentient/non-sentient being that controls existance. There is no logic behind this belief, besides your own percieved judgement. No experiment can be conducted, nothing can be verified through repeated tests, and therefor you are having a belief. Religion is a set structure of beliefs, and although Atheism is not a religion, it is a belief. It is said Atheism requires more faith than any religion because of the bleakness of said structure. There is no afterlife or optimisim, just realism. That's where that statement comes from.

[quote]
Just because there are two unprovable possiblities does not mean they have an equal chance of being true. See: teapot theory, flying spaghetti monster, etc. There is nothing logical in believing that anything that can be conjured by the mind has an equal chance of existing and not existing.

EDIT: There are far more than two unprovable possibilities. There are an innumerable amount, but in the long run they've all got the same probability of occuring as the other(Within reason, things that haven't already been disproven.). Polytheistic, monotheistic, no ***, everyone is a ***, blar blar blar. You concieve it, its probably possible. And that's the brilliance of it, everyone reduces things down to a mere few questions but in the long run it could be Christianity with minor changes than the current belief. Or it could be Judaism, but Moses was a racist, biggoted, rapist.




Posted by sniper


Quoted post: That's a large assumption, saying that atheists would change their mind based on proof. It's negotiable, really but that's besides the point. I'd argue quite a few would deny it, just as many of the main stream religions deny the existence of evolution.
[quote=sniper]A true atheist comes to conclusions based on evidence, and will change their minds on issues if new evidence arises which contradicts their former conclusions.
When I say "atheist," I'm going on this definition.

[quote]In the end, you cannot prove there is no God. Because of that, you're under a belief, or massive assumption that claims there is no such thing as a sentient/non-sentient being that controls existance. There is no logic behind this belief, besides your own percieved judgement. No experiment can be conducted, nothing can be verified through repeated tests, and therefor you are having a belief.
Say a murder case arose, where there is zero evidence that Suspect A committed it. However, Suspect A was capable of reaching the person, no one can account for Suspect A's whereabouts at the time of the murder, and no one saw the murder take place. Would you still say that there is a 50/50 chance that Suspect A committed the murder? Don't you think the logical conclusion would be, since there is zero evidence pointing to him being the murder, that it is not reasonable to split the odds 50/50? Or would this just be an illogical leap of faith, since I can't really know how the murder took place?

[quote]Religion is a set structure of beliefs, and although Atheism is not a religion, it is a belief. It is said Atheism requires more faith than any religion because of the bleakness of said structure. There is no afterlife or optimisim, just realism. That's where that statement comes from.
Atheism isn't capitalized. Subjective "bleakness" doesn't make something abundant in faith. You are using the term faith too loosely. You may as well say it takes faith to believe that 2+2=4. Arguing this is fruitless.

[quote]EDIT: There are far more than two unprovable possibilities. There are an innumerable amount, but in the long run they've all got the same probability of occuring as the other(Within reason, things that haven't already been disproven.). Polytheistic, monotheistic, no ***, everyone is a ***, blar blar blar. You concieve it, its probably possible. And that's the brilliance of it, everyone reduces things down to a mere few questions but in the long run it could be Christianity with minor changes than the current belief. Or it could be Judaism, but Moses was a racist, biggoted, rapist.

Do you understand the implications of this? Since there is only one option which completely excludes ***s, and infinite possible variations where ***(s) exist, and you claim that they all have an equal chance of occurring, you have given the odds of there being som form of ***(s) at being infinitesimally lower than 100%, while giving the odds of there being no ***(s) at infinitesimally above 0%, effectively disproving agnosticism as a viable option.



Posted by S


Quoting sniper: When I say "atheist," I'm going on this definition.

Understood then.

[quote]Say a murder case arose, where there is zero evidence that Suspect A committed it. However, Suspect A was capable of reaching the person, no one can account for Suspect A's whereabouts at the time of the murder, and no one saw the murder take place. Would you still say that there is a 50/50 chance that Suspect A committed the murder? Don't you think the logical conclusion would be, since there is zero evidence pointing to him being the murder, that it is not reasonable to split the odds 50/50? Or would this just be an illogical leap of faith, since I can't really know how the murder took place?

A court of law is based on circumstantial evidense, and a court of law is never 100% correct. Innocent men and women go to jail, and are executed. In the end, it is merely someone's guess based on evidense to the best of their conclusion. That, however, is still their belief. That doesn't make it correct. Both are leaps of faith when its not dead-on evidense, and no matter the issue, we just do the best we can. That's society, in fact that's humanity. We aren't omnipresent, so we can never know. If its 50/50, I'd say its beyond a reasonable doubt and the person would be set free. Would that be correct? I don't know.


[quote]Atheism isn't capitalized. Subjective "bleakness" doesn't make something abundant in faith. You are using the term faith too loosely. You may as well say it takes faith to believe that 2+2=4. Arguing this is fruitless.

Eh, I type how I type. It's just a saying, don't look too deeply into it. You don't agree, that's fine.

[quote]Do you understand the implications of this? Since there is only one option which completely excludes ***s, and infinite possible variations where ***(s) exist, and you claim that they all have an equal chance of occurring, you have given the odds of there being som form of ***(s) at being infinitesimally lower than 100%, while giving the odds of there being no ***(s) at infinitesimally above 0%, effectively disproving agnosticism as a viable option.


I do, and excuse my examples if they were one-sided. I'm not actually privvy to any of the major religions, so I didn't mean to implicate so. In fact, I'm a partial atheist in those respects, I don't believe many of the main-stream religions can exist as is based on logical conclusions. There are ultimately thousands of equal conditions the world could exist in without a God as well. Everything that exists with a *** in it, has a counterpart that could be equally as probable. A heavan without intelligent design, a universe with no *** but a multitude of aliens. A universe that has no *** but has the possibility of ascension. Multiple dimensions that could be percieved as ***s but are not. Multiple universes like the move The One. The concepts aren't as well developed because our cultures tend to leave those to the way side, but the possibilities are there. Intelligent design, as far as we know, has just as many possibilities as non-intelligent. There has been no break down of concepts in order to fully articulate it, no one has transgressed that plethora of thoughts and concepts. It gives me a headache just thinking about it.



Posted by Arwon


Quoting Lunairetic: And I agree with you in a way Skitzo, although not as brashly. I don't know who said it but I'll meet it with another quote: "Atheism requires more faith than any other religion."


That's insane. Non-belief is not an act of faith or belief. A billion people in China don't believe in any diety and that's just because they don't, not because it's a conscious act of belief. I didn't CHOOSE to not believe, it just never occurred to me that I might be expected to. I can recall arguing with Christian kids at age 6 about the fact that G*d is a silly fantasy.

If it's an act of belief or faith for me to not believe in a higher power, is it an act of belief or faith for you not to believe in Zoroaster, Kali, Quetzalcoatl or Athena?

When you have so many contradictory religions making competing, mutually exclusive claims, the obvious conclusion, for my mind, is that there's some quirk in human and psychology and physiology that promotes belief in higher powers. Rather than, you know, any of them actually being divinely inspired truth. It strikes me as a bit absurd to think that one just happened to be born into the correct faith out of the hundreds that exist.

[quote]Atheism is not a religion, it is a belief. It is said Atheism requires more faith than any religion because of the bleakness of said structure. There is no afterlife or optimisim, just realism. That's where that statement comes from.

Bollocks. Clinging to False Hope is infinitely bleaker and more depressing, to my mind, than simply not having much Real Hope.



Posted by S


Quoting Arwon: That's insane. Non-belief is not an act of faith or belief. A billion people in China don't believe in any diety and that's just because they don't, not because it's a conscious act of belief. I didn't CHOOSE to not believe, it just never occurred to me that I might be expected to. I can recall arguing with Christian kids at age 6 about the fact that G*d is a silly fantasy.

Coming to a conclusion based surely and only on circumstantial evidense is a belief. I never said it was a belief to be ignorant of something, you must consciously refute it.

[quote]If it's an act of belief or faith for me to not believe in a higher power, is it an act of belief or faith for you not to believe in Zoroaster, Kali, Quetzalcoatl or Athena?

It is an act of faith if I were to deny their existence. Simply unknowing is not an act of faith, but to deny is.

[quote]When you have so many contradictory religions making competing, mutually exclusive claims, the obvious conclusion, for my mind, is that there's some quirk in human and psychology and physiology that promotes belief in higher powers. Rather than, you know, any of them actually being divinely inspired truth. It strikes me as a bit absurd to think that one just happened to be born into the correct faith out of the hundreds that exist.

I agree, there is a lofty trend and an underlying latent fear that resonates in the human persona, or at least those I see as weaker. It seems logical but I don't know that is true, there is no evidense, at our current state, to verify such a thing exists. Until then, it will only be a theory.
[quote]

Bollocks. Clinging to False Hope is infinitely bleaker and more depressing, to my mind, than simply not having much Real Hope.


You don't change perspective when you say this, empathy is a valuable thing. I'd suggest changing your frame of reference before making a claim like this. Objectively, would you not say it seems a darker approach to assume everyone dies and fades into nothingness rather than believing one's soul is ultimately saved and goes to heavan to be with "***" and their relatives? We are talking belief here, not "false" or "true" because you honestly don't know which is which.

And that's the beauty of religion in all its insanity, its completely unprovable... as of now, anyway. And for the past three-thousand years or more.




Posted by Arwon

[quote]You don't change perspective when you say this, empathy is a valuable thing. I'd suggest changing your frame of reference before making a claim like this. Objectively, would you not say it seems a darker approach to assume everyone dies and fades into nothingness rather than believing one's soul is ultimately saved and goes to heavan to be with "***" and their relatives? We are talking belief here, not "false" or "true" because you honestly don't know which is which.

And that's the beauty of religion in all its insanity, its completely unprovable... as of now, anyway. And for the past three-thousand years or more.

Well see that's just it. Talking about logic here is utterly futile because we all start from gut-instincts and feelings and work from there to reach our conclusions. Sure I can understand the appeal of religious belief and comfort and so forth on an intellectual level and why atheism might be depressing for people of that frame of mind, but it's still going to strike me as pretty sad. The focus on the eternal devalues the present and the everyday, and I think that's tragic. How can one be expected to come to terms with mortality and loss and other existential crises, if things are being all clouded up by these shallow promises and delusions?

Likewise, the contention that "atheists can't be moral" reflects the idea that people only behave ourselves because of an imagined posthumous reward/punishment mechanism (some sort of great Parole Officer in the sky, keeping us in line) and that line of thought seems very shallow and depressing to me.

As for the disprovability of religion... that's not quite true. Plenty of religion is disprovable. Norse mythology, for example, is demonstrably false. We're fairly certain the universe wasn't created in seven days, nor did it emerge from a sea of milk (Hinduism). People probably never lived to be 900. Frost Giants aren't coming to destroy the world. Etcetera. Clever religions have survived inquiry and rationality only by disowning this stuff, formerly central and important, as "allegory" and retreating into abstractions and metaphysics... stuff that isn't disprovable by any amount of evidence. Religion has the home-field advantage in that regard.




Posted by S


Quoting Arwon: Well see that's just it. Talking about logic here is utterly futile because we all start from gut-instincts and feelings and work from there to reach our conclusions. Sure I can understand the appeal of religious belief and comfort and so forth on an intellectual level and why atheism might be depressing for people of that frame of mind, but it's still going to strike me as pretty sad. The focus on the eternal devalues the present and the everyday, and I think that's tragic. How can one be expected to come to terms with mortality and loss and other existential crises, if things are being all clouded up by these shallow promises and delusions?

Likewise, the contention that "atheists can't be moral" reflects the idea that people only behave ourselves because of an imagined posthumous reward/punishment mechanism (some sort of great Parole Officer in the sky, keeping us in line) and that line of thought seems very shallow and depressing to me.

As for the disprovability of religion... that's not quite true. Plenty of religion is disprovable. Norse mythology, for example, is demonstrably false. We're fairly certain the universe wasn't created in seven days, nor did it emerge from a sea of milk (Hinduism). People probably never lived to be 900. Frost Giants aren't coming to destroy the world. Etcetera. Clever religions have survived inquiry and rationality only by disowning this stuff, formerly central and important, as "allegory" and retreating into abstractions and metaphysics... stuff that isn't disprovable by any amount of evidence. Religion has the home-field advantage in that regard.


/clap. Bravo. I disagree with absolutely nothing.




Posted by Lord of Spam

Positive existential claims require the burden of proof. If I say "I have a large red dragon living in my house" the default answer is "shut up matt, you're a looney". Likewise anyone making a claim of extraordinary magnitude is thus shouldered with the burden of proof. Since there has been no evidence given on the side of there being a ***, it is thus logical to assume that no such *** exists until proof is given.




Posted by mis0

[QUOTE=Raptor;533177]Atheists deny the existence of a supreme being or presence so vehemently that they aren't even open to the possibility of a higher power. Somehow, that bothers me. Agnosticism, on the other hand, I am more comfortable with. It at least recognises the possibility of a ***, but is neither comfirming nor denying of a ***'s existence. After all, it should be fairly obvious to any educated person that no one really knows **** outside of what is strictly proven and what they can experience for themselves.
I basically feel the same way. Athiests are just as fanatical as "religious" peoples in their adamant belief that a superior power does not and cannot exist. While they haven't necessarily killed for these beliefs yet, one would be an idiot to assume conflict would disappear if all religion was gone. Agnosticism is really the only thing that makes sense - nobody can prove a diety does / does not exist, period. You have to believe that it does or doesn't.

The best policy? Not trusting anyone based on their affilations or beliefs, but rather their personal character.

and los: Negative existential claims require proof too! Like "I don't have 300 pounds of columbian crack in my car". Obviously, you're gonna need to prove that by somehow backing the claim up.In the case of a deity, I'm not sure how you would go about disproving one, but you can't just say its not there because nobody has proven it is.




Posted by Lord of Spam

Atheism isnt just saying "I know for sure that *** doest exist and nothing you can say can change that." Atheism for me is "I refuse to structure my like around the belief that some being that hasnt been proven to exist may or may not like what I do". If there were concrete evidence out there for some sort of religious belief, I would be forced to accede the point and change my belief. In this way, atheism is more like science, wherein proof for a belief must be supplied before it can be reasonably held, and must be changed accordingly if contradicotry data is presented. To continue the previous example, lets pretend that dragon I have living in my house is ***. I say it exists, but you say it doesnt because you're fairly sure that would have been international news. you're now atheist in this analogy. However, if it were to fly by and breathe fire on you, you would be forced to reconsider.

I'm still waiting for the dragon to swoop out of the sky, so to speak. Until then, anyone who tells me that theyve got a dragon in the house is a looney.
[spoiler]if you cant follow simple analogies, dont bother trying to reply[/spoiler]




Posted by Arwon

And that's to say nothing of the people who say it's the wrong dragon.




Posted by Tiptoegecko

[quote=Karl Marx]Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
That's all I'm going to say on this.



Quoting Raptor: I would still rather live by a toxic waste dump than by the bible. One pollutes your water supply, but the other pollutes your mind.


I love you. That has to be a famous quote.



Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

Yeah, because history has proven Karl Marx to be a flawless expert on social and political systems and has not once have any of his ideas been utilized unsuccessfully. Thank Ford I have the sagelike wisdom of the prophet of the people, Karl Marx, to guide my footsteps through this world. If only some powerful political parties in say, Asia and South America, could somehow create marvelous revolutions in which religion was suppressed (as advised by his Fordship, Karl Marx) and the government took control of all resources and manufacturing sources, and allowed the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to take control, and then (as per the Prophet Karl Marx's wisdom, peace be with him) relinquish control to the people, so that said parts of Asia would be truly free, living in a utopiatic peace and freedom that would hopefully not eat itself alive and fall into ruin after seventy some-odd years (and counting) of mass murder, oppression, and tight-fisted, militaristic hegemony, until it spread to the rest of the world, uniting said world under its umbrella of flowery happy joy! Thank you for giving us the gift of infallible theoretical insight, Comrade Karl Marx, and even moreso for your philosophical brain droppings that we may regurgitate at will and apply to situations a hundred years later and out of context, all the while happily ignoring the contradictions contained therein!

So (according to one survey in Minnesota that SOMEHOW, in the secular media and education systems, didn't warrant enough attention to make it past some newspaper's front page and onto any other news page worth reading) the United States doesn't trust atheists? Big deal. The South doesn't trust blacks or jews or free thinkers, the North doesn't trust the media or the South, the northeast doesn't trust the government, and california doesn't trust anyone who isn't moderate to liberal. Big freakin whoop. When the majority of a country's morality, expressed thoroughly throughout its constitution and code of laws, are judeo-christian based, do you honestly expect said majority, who is untrusting as is, to make an exception for people who don't believe in any higher being, any commandments, or any scriptures? It's not surprisng to me, but then again I'm not as prone to overreaction as you guys are. Who cares? Additionally, most Americans, sheltered as they are, probably know a great deal more religious people of some type than not. It's not like good natured Atheists, or any Atheists for that matter, are really open about it. But when so many immigrants are Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, etc, they tend to make it known, through dress, color of skin, or casual conversation. But what do I know, obviously a study conducted with a couple of thousand people in Minnesota applies to ME, right? I'm SURE in the deep South atheists are untrusted as much as say, oh, those "rag-head camel jockeys," "******s" and "long-nosed Jews" etc. I can't remember the last time I heard a slur about an atheist.




Posted by Arwon

Well, that was silly.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: Thank Ford I have the sagelike wisdom of the prophet of the people


I lol'd at the reference, especially considering the topic. Well played.



Posted by Tiptoegecko


Quoting Bj Blaskowitz: Yeah, because history has proven Karl Marx to be a flawless expert on social and political systems and has not once have any of his ideas been utilized unsuccessfully. Thank Ford I have the sagelike wisdom of the prophet of the people, Karl Marx, to guide my footsteps through this world. If only some powerful political parties in say, Asia and South America, could somehow create marvelous revolutions in which religion was suppressed (as advised by his Fordship, Karl Marx) and the government took control of all resources and manufacturing sources, and allowed the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to take control, and then (as per the Prophet Karl Marx's wisdom, peace be with him) relinquish control to the people, so that said parts of Asia would be truly free, living in a utopiatic peace and freedom that would hopefully not eat itself alive and fall into ruin after seventy some-odd years (and counting) of mass murder, oppression, and tight-fisted, militaristic hegemony, until it spread to the rest of the world, uniting said world under its umbrella of flowery happy joy! Thank you for giving us the gift of infallible theoretical insight, Comrade Karl Marx, and even moreso for your philosophical brain droppings that we may regurgitate at will and apply to situations a hundred years later and out of context, all the while happily ignoring the contradictions contained therein!


The idea of communism is meant for good intentions, but no one yet could do it right because everyone with some sort of power only wants more. And, why the hell did you get on a topic of Communism? I was only quoting one quote from his book. Sure it is about communism, but I was only refering to what he said about religion, which is pretty **** true no matter how you look at it.



Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

Hah. "good intentions". That's hilarious. Yeah, the Bolsheviks were there for the best intentions. Right. Well, don't use a contradictory quote out of context without expecting me to blast the hairbrain who shat it out originally. Fancy quotes are never the end-all in any discussion, so quit using them like a crutch. I hate it when people do that.




Posted by Tiptoegecko

Out of context? who the **** started talking about Communism out of nowhere? The quote was a way of stating how I feel about religion, but atleast my quote had to do more with the topic than you ****ing pathetic rant on communism.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

Out of nowhere? You started talking about Karl Marx, using some trite quote he (and Stalin) used ad nauseum about religion (when the quote was about religious suffering, note the difference). So I showed you how Karl Marx OBVIOUSLY isn't some kind of prophet whose cute little philosophies (I FUCKING E MARXISM, AFTER WHICH MARXIST LENINISM IS PATTERNED) aren't always true and NEVER withstand the test of time. Are you so slobbering stupid that you can't see the OBVIOUS tie I made by showing that Karl Marx has been WRONG about other things which GREATLY affected the world, and therefore maybe, just MAYBE, might be wrong about his one-liner on religion? I don't know why I keep coming back here. The intelligent people are dropping like flies and being replaced by you thirteen year olds with your half-wit views on politics (I bet you wear a Che Guevara shirt, you tool) and political figures. Quoting Karl Marx is like quoting his counterpart, Adam Smith, they were great thinkers whose ideals don't apply to the modern world. They're old. They're dead. Their ideals are abused and distorted and quoted out of context to attack everyone and everything (like you did thar with religion, cute), and I'm willing to bet all of your views on socialism, marxism, or any -isms for that matter, are just the crap you and your buddies talk about after a rompous game of mario party and a gravity bong. I read at least six books on Marxism, seven on Marxist Leninism/Stalinism, and four on Leninism, before I started working on my thesis, so it bugs me when people who obviously have no clue what they're talking about suck up to people like Karl Marx. If he were alive right now he'd punch you in the face for being so ill-informed and playing the syncophant to him.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz


Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: I lol'd at the reference, especially considering the topic. Well played.


I'm glad somebody got it. The ironic part is that Aldous Huxley fluctuated on his views on religion and/or spirituality, that depending on how versed on is on his writings, it's hard to determine whether a quote by him even applies to this discussion. I figure I'll risk it. People here don't read anything of worth anyways.

Arwon, my typical source of intelligent debate, really disappointed me today. He knows I'm right, but rather than make an effort to disprove me he says it was "silly". Nicely played there. See, whenever I say something like that, it gets pruned for being "spam". Maybe I'm being oppressed. Maybe I should overthrow the atheist heirarchy on vgc who are oppressing me based off my religious views! Oh noez!



Posted by Tiptoegecko


Quoting Bj Blaskowitz: Out of nowhere? You started talking about Karl Marx, using some trite quote he (and Stalin) used ad nauseum about religion (when the quote was about religious suffering, note the difference). So I showed you how Karl Marx OBVIOUSLY isn't some kind of prophet whose cute little philosophies (I FUCKING E MARXISM, AFTER WHICH MARXIST LENINISM IS PATTERNED) aren't always true and NEVER withstand the test of time. Are you so slobbering stupid that you can't see the OBVIOUS tie I made by showing that Karl Marx has been WRONG about other things which GREATLY affected the world, and therefore maybe, just MAYBE, might be wrong about his one-liner on religion? I don't know why I keep coming back here. The intelligent people are dropping like flies and being replaced by you thirteen year olds with your half-wit views on politics (I bet you wear a Che Guevara shirt, you tool) and political figures. Quoting Karl Marx is like quoting his counterpart, Adam Smith, they were great thinkers whose ideals don't apply to the modern world. They're old. They're dead. Their ideals are abused and distorted and quoted out of context to attack everyone and everything (like you did thar with religion, cute), and I'm willing to bet all of your views on socialism, marxism, or any -isms for that matter, are just the crap you and your buddies talk about after a rompous game of mario party and a gravity bong. I read at least six books on Marxism, seven on Marxist Leninism/Stalinism, and four on Leninism, before I started working on my thesis, so it bugs me when people who obviously have no clue what they're talking about suck up to people like Karl Marx. If he were alive right now he'd punch you in the face for being so ill-informed and playing the syncophant to him.


You remind me of the Ultimate Warrior, you keep ranting about **** that doesnt make sense. You have completely changed the topic from me using one quote from Karl Marx to state my opinion of religion to how you dont like Karl Marx and the theory he created. You created this fight as if I supported the man and I am a communist. You need to lighten up. *** forbid anyone can post an opinion without getting flamed at by some ****ing retarded video game nerd who uses his own ****ty opinion to cause unnecessary trouble. Please spare me of it, though it is a little late. Im sick and tired of fights of two people who have 2 diffrent opinions on a subject. And if it will make you happy, I will fix the quote so it is in conext:

[quote= Karl Marx]Religion is the opium of the people.

Thats what I should of put in the 1st place.


Now kindly shut the living **** up



Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

you used a quote by Karl Marx. I elaborately pointed out that Karl Marx is wrong. You asked why I did that. I explained it. I provided a basis for my explanation. You continued to ask why I explained it. I explained why I explained it. You yet again accused me of bringing up stuff "out of nowhere". You accused me of being some stupid wrestler you are probably too young to even remember. You said more stupid stuff, and I posted this reply and thereafter ignored you. Oh yeah, and called you an idiot. Idiot.




Posted by Lord of Spam

I'm sure that those countires were already (mostly) run down european colonies had nothing to do with their eventual fail, nor did all those silly wars america kept fighting in southeast asia help them.;)

But yeah, marx doesnt have too much to do with this, so I'm going to leave it at that. this is an argument for a while nother thread.




Posted by sniper

Well that was interesting. It is never said that only Minnesotans are interviewed, the newspaper got the story from the American Sociological Review, and its point is not to show that atheists are mistrusted, but are the MOST mistrusted. Funny of you to speak of overreaction in the midst of a rant full of errors and assumptions brought on by a single Marx quote, though.




Posted by Arwon


Quoting Bj Blaskowitz: Arwon, my typical source of intelligent debate, really disappointed me today. He knows I'm right, but rather than make an effort to disprove me he says it was "silly". Nicely played there. See, whenever I say something like that, it gets pruned for being "spam". Maybe I'm being oppressed. Maybe I should overthrow the atheist heirarchy on vgc who are oppressing me based off my religious views! Oh noez!


Well, since you didn't exactly engage with anything I said, why the hell should I respond with something other than flippant dismissal? I mean, COULD have pointed out that your argument that "Marx = Stalinist death camps" is, well, ****ing stupid and a student of actual history you should know better than to fall into such McCarthyist "anything associated with communism is the devil" style traps. Honestly dude, modern social democracy, the 8 hour day and civilised working conditions, owes as much to Marx as communism does, as does pretty much anything else associated with the labor movement. Socialism, even back in the day, was a very broad tent. you know that. Consider, for example, Orwell's hatred of Soviet communism, the Stalinist purges of the popular front in the Spanish Civil War, consider the fabian socialists, Alexander Dubcek, anarchism, etcetera. So yes, I could have explicitly stated that responding to a quote by Marx by acting as though Marx personally ordered the liquidation of millions is, well, ****ing stupid and double-so for someone who should know better, but it was hardly worth the effort now, was it?

This was all, of course, implied in my previous response to you. It's not my fault you can't read between the lines.



Posted by Tiptoegecko


Quoting Bj Blaskowitz: you used a quote by Karl Marx. I elaborately pointed out that Karl Marx is wrong. You asked why I did that. I explained it. I provided a basis for my explanation. You continued to ask why I explained it. I explained why I explained it. You yet again accused me of bringing up stuff "out of nowhere". You accused me of being some stupid wrestler you are probably too young to even remember. You said more stupid stuff, and I posted this reply and thereafter ignored you. Oh yeah, and called you an idiot. Idiot.


[IMG]http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/9304/ofacetl1.gif[/IMG]


And you should listen to Arwon, because he is with his right mind. I wish I knew Arwon in real life, I would hug him.



Posted by S

Well this discussion took a nice little turn.

Bj, keep it civil or just shut up. Your attempt at being witty and intelligent failed you. You lost the argument the moment you made it personal - let alone your claim of superior knowledge on said manner based on nothing but presumption and spewing your own "credentials", as if they had some sort of relevance.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz


Quoting Lord of Spam: I'm sure that those countires were already (mostly) run down european colonies had nothing to do with their eventual fail, nor did all those silly wars america kept fighting in southeast asia help them.;)

But yeah, marx doesnt have too much to do with this, so I'm going to leave it at that. this is an argument for a while nother thread.


Yeah, wars that America lost or stalemated, which said Asian Communist countries didn't HAVE to play a role in. But they did, didn't they? I mean, isn't the final stage in the Marxist idea of socialism world revolution?



Posted by Bj Blaskowitz


Quoting sniper: Well that was interesting. It is never said that only Minnesotans are interviewed, the newspaper got the story from the American Sociological Review, and its point is not to show that atheists are mistrusted, but are the MOST mistrusted. Funny of you to speak of overreaction in the midst of a rant full of errors and assumptions brought on by a single Marx quote, though.



you got me on the "Minnesotans" part, but to still take an interview of 2,000 people and smack it as a "national" survey is still illustrating my point, that atheists are NOT the most distrusted people everywhere. Apparently you selectively missed that whole part where I named bigger red-herrings in different parts of the nation. I dare you to come down to Alabama/Georgia/Mississippi/Texas/or Arkansas, and survey a mere 500 hundred people. It'd skip around between "blacks" "them **** mexicans" "white folk" and "niggars!" But what do I know. 2000 people and 140 interviews obviously applies to the country as a whole, right? And. . . I didn't speak of "overreaction". More selective reading?

edit: ah, that "prone to overreaction" remark. Well you are. Something pops up about some small group somewhere not catering to anyone who's an atheist, or in Arwon's case, a minority or Asian (go figure the last part, just an observation), and you guys act like it's a horrible atrocity commited by all. Sheesh.



Posted by Arwon

Who, exactly, is acting like it's a "horrible atrocity" in this thread? Seriously. Quote them for me. Please. One tangent, mainly evolving Lunairetic, Sniper and myself, evolved into a discussion of atheism vs theism in the abstract, what I might call a tepid rather than heated argument, and that's about it.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

I don't think it warranted a thread, frankly. Everytime anything that doesn't cater to atheism happens, there's a thread here on it. And every single time, my initial reaction is "who cares?" I don't see why big deals are made just because *gasp* people may not agree with atheism. It gets old. I mean, it's pretty sad, really, how you guys (you know who you are) search out these stories that put religion in a negative light and broadcast them. The same goes for conservatism, capitalism, and anything else with which you don't agree. I mean. . . wouldn't you rather be bolstering your support OF something rather than just looking for ****-poor excuses of the opposition? You don't see me going around digging up stuff about christians being persecuted, holocaust denial, or anything else that I find wrong. Rather than educate, you guys seem hell-bent on finding easily criticizable examples of crap you don't agree with, time and time again, and "discuss" it. It's kind of annoying, frankly. That's the "atrocity". That you seem to be so one-sided. I got a neato idea, Arwon! Check this shot out of left field. . . out. You're all "progressive" and stuff, k? So like. . . how about you post some really cool stuff about Australian Socialism!!! Or something really cool about ya know. . . Asians and Aboriginals. you know, the things that you like, yet. . . have never really praised or educated anyone on! What a nifty idea! It's positive reinforcement!




Posted by Fate

I like reading the "bad" news from both sides. Like athiests that go nuts whenever the idea of a higher power is mentioned and they start suing for no reason. I'm not religious, but I believe religion is entirely necessary.

Stop making your posts personal attacks, Bj. Seriously. There's really no need for that.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz





Posted by Arwon

I've started the following threads here.

[url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=15321]A discussion of economic growth[/url] which got a handful of posts.

[url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=15736]A thread about legal vs illegal prostitution[/url], where I asked "Are there any valid arguments for keeping prostitution illegal?" which is a question which clearly advocates harm-minimisation approaches to moral issues, not to mention sex-positive feminism.

[url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=15801]OK, you're right, this one is pretty pure negative criticism.[/url] Of f*cking agricultural trade policies and the failure of the Doha round to make any breakthroughs.

[url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=17248]An entirely open topic about banning advertising to children[/url], a debate in which I took no firm position. At least some people responded.

[url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=17563]This thread about how terrorism isn't that big a threat[/url].

[url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=18877]And this[/url] which was basically just me being happy about the outcome of the 06 midterms.

You'll note that the more constructive and less incendiary the topic, the less debate it got. The trade stuff? Really important stuff I feel strongly about it... end agricultural protectionism in the first world! No f*cking discussion. Economic growth? Nothing. Prostitution? Not much discussion.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't confuse me with other people here. Here's a hint: I've never started a thread about black people.




Posted by Arwon

And meanwhile, what have you started, BJ?

[quote]You don't see me going around digging up stuff about christians being persecuted, holocaust denial, or anything else that I find wrong.

No, just [url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=17621]neoconservatives[/url], [url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=16993]Islam and evolutionists[/url] (I think), and [url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=11379]"atheists and anti-christians"[/url] and their inability to explain miracles(?).




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

I guess that's what happens when you work for a living :P

And in my defense, the 2nd thread you posted was done to poke fun at people going ape-**** over Christians not teaching evolution in the classroom (I take it you didn't. . . actually read what I posted). While I think your stalking me thing is kind of cute, truth be known, the majority of my rant was directed at people aside from you. The reason I was so ****y when I first replied was because I thought "my ***, yet ANOTHER ****ing and moaning about religion thread (re-read it, it had turned into one)." You just annoy me because you seem whiney as phuck, so I figured I'd tie it off with you actually showing me what you DO support, since what you don't support could fill a library.

The economic growth thread was pretty stupid to begin with, so I don't think anybody replied due to that. (I would be a cheeky *** like you and not elaborate, but...) I guess you haven't really consorted with history much recently, but the hours of the workweek have gotten consistently shorter since the the hunter-gatherer tribes, and work has gotten easier and easier. And yes, before you take up your **** soapbox, we can thank socialism for that happening in the past 100 years. I think it's pretty dumb to ask "what's the end result" to people consuming so much, as if we all have a major plan in mind and once we meet that plan will just STOP. But then again, that question to me rang of "what's the meaning of life, you guys?"

The second thread was alright, though people who get to ****y when someone has one of those icky "moral" qualms with something really grind my gears. So I guess I can't touch on that one.

Yeah, the third one was just whiney to me. I mean, I thought it was . . . sorta interesting, but whomever made you champion for the poor in the third world is somebody I'd like to meet...and punch in the dick.


The rest I suppose pass my inspection! I commend you on your. . . constructive attempts to educate us all. I now expect everybody else in this thread with retarded amounts of free time to start picking apart the threads that they have started for my close inspection.




Posted by Arwon

Yeah, I kinda work in an internet cafe (5 or 6 days a week right now, need to save money). This is part of how I pass the time and how I got the spare 2 minutes to go use the search function.

Incidentally, how you feel about religion threads is how I feel about all the race-relations threads. So f*cking boring and dumb.

Oh, and I *still* don't get how you're linking f*cked up jihad-indoctrinating Saudi schools to evolution, given that it wasn't mentioned at all on that page. Regardless, here's a thing:





Posted by The Judge


Quoting sniper: This really surprised me. Even with the recent Muslim scare, atheists are still trusted less. I really can't think of anything besides extreme irrational religious loyalty to explain the results. I don't think I've heard of a case of assault/murder that was committed for the sake of atheism, and even if such cases existed, they may as well be infinitesimal next to the number of such cases performed for the sake of religion. Anyone who agrees with the general consensus of the results (though I'd rather see none) care to explain the reasoning behind it?

Faithless swine are prone to turn on you at any moment. They should be killed mercilessly.



Posted by sniper

[quote]Apparently you selectively missed that whole part where I named bigger red-herrings in different parts of the nation. I dare you to come down to Alabama/Georgia/Mississippi/Texas/or Arkansas, and survey a mere 500 hundred people. It'd skip around between "blacks" "them **** mexicans" "white folk" and "niggars!"
Of course there are parts of America where other groups are more mistrusted, but this poll was for America as a whole. A poll of 2000 people can be quite accurate when population density, gender, education, etc are taken into consideration.

If you're trying to say I dug this up to further my cause (Why would that be an issue anyway? Simply because you don't agree with it?), you're wrong.

If you're going to continue calling threads stupid and saying they have no reason to be made, I would consider deleting that thread on miracles, the epitome of stupid and pointless threads.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz


Quoting sniper: Of course there are parts of America where other groups are more mistrusted, but this poll was for America as a whole. A poll of 2000 people can be quite accurate when population density, gender, education, etc are taken into consideration.

If you're trying to say I dug this up to further my cause (Why would that be an issue anyway? Simply because you don't agree with it?), you're wrong.

If you're going to continue calling threads stupid and saying they have no reason to be made, I would consider deleting that thread on miracles, the epitome of stupid and pointless threads.


I'm not saying you dug it up to advance your "cause" as I think you have no cause to begin with. I just think you guys sure like to **** and moan about the opposition rather than bolster support for your OWN sides. It's aggravating.

Arwon, I didn't know you worked at an internet cafe.. . I was under the impression that you didn't work at all (no offense), so . . . disregard prior insults.

You hurt my feewings by calling my thread stupid, sniper. but I understand that your inability to explain something through precious scientific means can be frustrating. I remember when I was a little kid, I was unable to do crossword puzzles for some reason. I called them "stupid" all the time. It's okay, you're just a late maturer :)

I'll look back over that thread on education later, Arwon. I remember at the time it was about the education system in the middle east or something. But I have to run off and work 10 hours at a place WITHOUT the luxury of an internet connection, you lucky turd, so laterz



Posted by sniper

Not being able to think of an explanation for something and assuming it must be the work of *** is what makes it stupid. But by the way you mock logical thinking, I doubt you care. Something that truly can't be solved through scientific means tends to greatly interest me, actually. Unlike you, I don't gnash my teeth when something contrary to my current view of the world shows up.




Posted by Arwon

On the original topic. The poll results don't surprise me, but I think they're more a bizzare quirk of faithful America's assumptions about *** and politics, and the negative connotations of the word "atheist" (we REALLY need a more positive descriptor word), and the nature of surveys and polling, than any overtly malicious intent. The "not wanting their kids to marry atheists" thing, though, is bizzare and I don't get it.

Hey, if nothing else, atheist weddings can be cheaper! Well, except for with ex-Catholics with Catholic familes.

That all said, I have read that there's higher conviction rates in courts, when people affirm an oath, rather than swear on a bible. And lawyers vetting juries tend not to want atheists on the jury for some reason.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

it's probably two-fold. If I were a prosecuting attorney, I'd want to get atheists out because I'd want the typical granny-christian in there to want to bring the punishment due upon the defendant, and then the defense attorney would theoretically want to get atheists out because he/she can't appeal to their christian ideals of forgiveness that I (If i were a DA) would beat into their heads. Then again, I didn't think religion was a question you could poll the jury on.




Posted by The Judge

If you'll care to notice, the most zealous of the Christians have an absolutely wretched idea of what "forgiveness" is.




Posted by Arwon

I went back and re-read where I thought I read that, and it looks like it was simply that jurors who opt to affirm rather than swear to *** tend to be less wanted on juries.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz


Quoting The Judge: If you'll care to notice, the most zealous of the Christians have an absolutely wretched idea of what "forgiveness" is.



if you'll care to notice, I was trying to make sense of it from an attorney's perspective.



Posted by Arwon

Given that it's actually about oaths and affirmations, my guess is a person who decides not to swear on a bible is probably demonstrating free thought to an unsatisfactory extent for the average lawyer in the average case to want them on the jury.