O'Hare gave atheism a black eye. Even I didn't want to listen to her. I acknowledge her impact, but the controversy predates her by a long time. Our USA history is full of anti atheist examples. My favorite one is Thomas Paine. His writing got him branded as an atheist and outcast, despite the fact he was actually a deist. I read a quote sometime back in which Theodore Roosevelt called him "that filthy atheist." There is a rhyme, "the devil got Thomas Paine." I believe his grave was desecrated and, without looking it up, I am not sure the whereabouts of his remains is even known.
Richard Dawkins certainly seems to think atheists are largely under counted in the US due to the controversial tag, I think he's been doing work in the US with his book releases etc to rouse feelings. In that 'Beyond Belief' series of lectures he commented on the fact that he was a bit surprised by the strength of reaction to his anti religion speeches by the fans who had gathered. Fans + atheists yes, but still.
I can say with huge personal conviction that for what seems like a big and growing majority, it isn't controversial in the slightest to be an atheist in the UK. I speak from a younger generation perspective of course but my observations include a wide variety of people. If anything, it's more accurate to suggest it's "controversial" (a talking point) to be strongly religious amongst younger people, rather than the opposite.
Shapeless, before I read your essay, let me just note that my experience has been the opposite of Edgar's--probably because I was raised in Los Angeles (the Hollywood and West L.A. areas). Throughtout my adult life the vast majority of my acquaintances, work colleagues and friends have been atheists (some called themselves agnostics but upon reflection confessed to a mild or non-aggressive form of atheism). But this population can be described in terms of a spectrum of perspectives ranging from very spiritual (Buddhists and other forms of non-theistic religious practicioners) to very materialistic atheists. Almost none have been of the aggressive type epitomized by O'Hair.
For a time after my release from the Navy, I lived in Long Beach, CA, which is not far from Los Angeles. Yep. A guy I worked with brought up religion. I told him my feelings after a few times. He brought a friend to visit. They said, "I don't want to argue; just discuss religion." The first time I made a statement, they began hollering at me. Finally had to tell them to bug off. I guess I just go in the wrong circles.
I think it would be hard to "discuss religion" with you edgar. I mean, where would we go with it after the first time you called me delusional?
dlowan wrote:snood wrote:dlowan wrote:Lol! Not at all. That is the opposite of my point.
I am pointing out how unusual the US is this regard.
In what advanced western democracy is atheism not controversial? And just for the record, saying that its true for all democracies except the US is kinda like saying DC is free of crime - except murder.
I spoke of advanced western democracies.
Uh...as to such countries where it isn't, try Australia, Canada, the UK, Germany, France...er struggling to think of another where it IS.
true - this is just one of the things that makes the U.S. such a fascinating country to observe
That is an odd question snood. I can't find one post by edgar that used any form of the word delude.
mesquite wrote:That is an odd question snood. I can't find one post by edgar that used any form of the word delude.
Bet I can. You want to spare me the search by stipulating that you have phrased things that weay, edgar?
dlowan wrote:Shapeless wrote:It's an interesting thought. What would you envision as the march's "cause"? To foster unity among atheists, or to call for "atheist activism," or to exhort atheists to be more vocal in politics, or to protest the treatment of atheists, etc.? Just curious.
We could have "a march about nothing".....I think I could pitch that concept...
we could march under the banner, "March I Do, About Nothing"
there's nothing like a good pun
unfortunately that was nothing like a good pun
snood wrote:mesquite wrote:That is an odd question snood. I can't find one post by edgar that used any form of the word delude.
Bet I can. You want to spare me the search by stipulating that you have phrased things that weay, edgar?
And by the by, I respect and like edgar alot. If he says he's never said religionists are delusional, I'll drop it with no more said.
snood wrote:snood wrote:mesquite wrote:That is an odd question snood. I can't find one post by edgar that used any form of the word delude.
Bet I can. You want to spare me the search by stipulating that you have phrased things that weay, edgar?
And by the by, I respect and like edgar alot. If he says he's never said religionists are delusional, I'll drop it with no more said.
I have recently been calling the religious delusional, yes. But, in the context of the incidents I described on this thread, it was years ago, and I didn't do it then. In my offline life, I rarely discuss religion with people, because they always take it to heart, and then we no longer function as pals, or whatever.
In my defense, I have used such terms only on threads in which certain posters are pretty much just that: delusional.
I would never deny being delusional. I would resent, however, someone saying that HE is not delusional and that I am COMPARED to him. EVERYONE, from my (delusional) perspective is delusional. Our meaningful life experience consists of meanings that we as a species have concocted through culture, language, art and--yes--even science. All is our construction. But be aware that I do not use the term, "delusional", in a derogatory, only a matter of fact epistemological, sense.
Well, there's your delusional, and there's your DELUSIONAL. Speaking from a different context, it changes to a new description.
Point taken. Some delusions are destructive, like the belief in the existence of "races", and some are "normal" and inevitable, like the general man-made belief in "truth", "evil", etc.
What I posted about past experiences could be used to illustrate how, by increments, I came to feel contentious toward overly assertive believers. In the beginning, I was taken by surprise by the way they obsessed over my disbelief. For years I tried to be kind about it. My greatest protest when very young was the refusal to add "under God" when they changed the Pledge. I mouthed those words, however, through fear of retribution. I was in my twenties before I argued with any of them. For a time, I began to pick some on my own. My rationale: They started it. After a time, the thrill of combat faded, and I voiced protest only when they did things to curtail non Christian rights, such as pushing religion in schools, officially sanctioned religion, etc. Today, I mostly only discuss or argue the topic on a2k. My wife, a believer, and I have never had an argument about religion.
Re: Million Atheist March
dlowan wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Shapeless wrote:edgarblythe wrote:...there aren't likely that many in the USA.
If the number hat JLNobody cited is correct, it would put the atheist population at about 6,000,000.
It's my wild guess that atheists are widely undercounted, because many possibly shun controversy.
It still amazes me that there is an advanced western liberal democracy where atheism is seen as controversial.
I agree they're in the west. Thats all.
That's part of what makes you so cool to me, edgar - your live-and-let-live with your partner.
