are atheists really treated that bad in the usa or is that just people making a big deal out of it ?
if you mention here that you are an atheist most people will just shrug and wonder why you mention it at all.
Marceline2000 Marceline2000
18-21, F
31 Responses Aug 20, 2014

If people stop talking about people then I will leave them alone

Thank you for taking those posts about me in I Am An Atheist room.

Why are you trolling this girl?

How are you treated in different than any other Atheist?

Just be positive here.

View a Flash presentation: What is cyberbullying?

what is it? :: how it works :: why cyberbully? :: prevention :: take action :: what's the law?

What is cyberbullying, exactly?

"Cyberbullying" is when a child, preteen or teen is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen or teen using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile phones. It has to have a minor on both sides, or at least have been instigated by a minor against another minor. Once adults become involved, it is plain and simple cyber-harassment or cyberstalking. Adult cyber-harassment or cyberstalking is NEVER called cyberbullying.

It isn't when adult are trying to lure children into offline meetings, that is called sexual exploitation or luring by a sexual predator. But sometimes when a minor starts a cyberbullying campaign it involves sexual predators who are intrigued by the sexual harassment or even ads posted by the cyberbullying offering up the victim for sex.

The methods used are limited only by the child's imagination and access to technology. And the cyberbully one moment may become the victim the next. The kids often change roles, going from victim to bully and back again.

Children have killed each other and committed suicide after having been involved in a cyberbullying incident.

Cyberbullying is usually not a one time communication, unless it involves a death threat or a credible threat of serious bodily harm. Kids usually know it when they see it, while parents may be more worried about the lewd language used by the kids than the hurtful effect of rude and embarrassing posts.

Cyberbullying may rise to the level of a misdemeanor cyberharassment charge, or if the child is young enough may result in the charge of juvenile delinquency. Most of the time the cyberbullying does not go that far, although parents often try and pursue criminal charges. It typically can result in a child losing their ISP or IM accounts as a terms of service violation. And in some cases, if hacking or password and identity theft is involved, can be a serious criminal matter under state and federal law.

When schools try and get involved by disciplining the student for cyberbullying actions that took place off-campus and outside of school hours, they are often sued for exceeding their authority and violating the student's free speech right. They also, often lose. Schools can be very effective brokers in working with the parents to stop and remedy cyberbullying situations. They can also educate the students on cyberethics and the law. If schools are creative, they can sometimes avoid the claim that their actions exceeded their legal authority for off-campus cyberbullying actions. We recommend that a provision is added to the school's acceptable use policy reserving the right to discipline the student for actions taken off-campus if they are intended to have an effect on a student or they adversely affect the safety and well-being of student while in school. This makes it a contractual, not a constitutional, issue.


Most atheists in America will just say "I'm not religious." There's more of a stigma against the word 'atheist' probably because of an old association with Communism.

This is amazinggod here. Is this what you all do is sit here and bash people on here because they called you out on something. Is that all you do is make fun of people's learning disability. You are telling me that I am forteen year old and three old acting like this, but you are making posts about me tehat is not right and you are making fun of me. You are making fun of my learning disability and that is not right. You are bullying me because I see you trying to humiliate me in here by posting about me and making me look bad. I would never say I hate gays. I would never bash anybody on here. The urls are put down about me and I didn't want to see them anymore. You people are truly cool, when you know I got kicked off here and you are trash talking me while I am seeing this all on here and that is true cruel to do someone. I am get banned.

wut ?

No, in fact atheist in America tend to be more aggressive then Christians. At least in the area I live in. If they don't like it so much then they should try moving to the other side of the world where there are plenty of cultures with a "chop off head ask later attitude".

wow a quippy response....totally didn't see that coming. I meant it to say that compared to other cultures lots of places in America are more willing to live alongside atheist. Unfortunetly I do have some issues atheist due to my experiences but I try not to let it interfere in my opinion of them when Im just meeting them.

I've found it to be the exact opposite; atheists I know all have this almost instinctual need to interject their views into a conversation. If people want to believe in a big invisible man in the sky or dragons scorching the sky, why do they care so much?

Creationism and evolution should both be taught without hidden agendas from either side. I think there are blind people on both sides of this particular fence too, people that refuse to see truth regardless of its source. The tax exemptions thing is certainly a point, but that doesn't explain why some atheists sound just as one-dimensional as Bible thumpers.

The Bible has nothing to do with scientific classes to be sure. I think that if the bible is taught, it would have to be in classes with a more philosophical leanings, and be taught respectfully alongside other "world views". The way you added "(fiction)" is what puzzles me. Arguing from the atheists "camp", I assumed you considered the Bible a work of fiction. Adding the extra flourish you did is a toned-down version of what I encounter dealing with vaguely hostile atheists.

That's all you've got? You've been ranting about how atheists are "oppressed" and this is the best you can do? I was expecting you to come up w/"atheists are being denied jobs", "atheists are being hoarded into concentration camps", "atheists are being shot by police for being atheists"... Don't hold back on us! Let's hear about the real oppression.

State sanctioned oppression is one thing. Someone claiming to believe in something to appeal to their voters is an indictment of the system and the candidate's personal convictions, not really atheists vs. Invisible Man in the Sky (hereby designated IMITS in future posts)

So its okay to teach the big bang theory and evolution but not creationism...dosent that seem biased?

Really? There is? Fine then explain why the big bang theory goes against several laws of physics and why there isn't any actual proof of humanities development from evolution. Yes I did my research and the old "We come from apes" response wont cut it im afraid.

Why Evolution is False

We continue our review of Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True.

Last month, we began our review of a recently published book that has been getting rave reviews from prominent evolutionists. We gave a general overview, observing that the predominant theme is basically that evolution must be true because Christianity is false. That, of course, is as logically invalid as saying that Buddhism is true because Christianity is false. In the course of making his argument, he distorts the creationist position in an attempt to prove Christianity is false.

This month we are going to examine the specific arguments Coyne presents in favor of evolution.

What Are We Talking About?

Here is Coyne’s definition of evolution:

In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection. 1

Notice that he intentionally excludes the origin of life. He postulates the existence of a single kind of living thing, “perhaps a self-replicating molecule,” upon which all subsequent changes build. Because of this definition, he avoids all discussion of how a lifeless Earth produced that first living thing.

According to Coyne, evolution begins with a living thing that already contains a mechanism for obtaining energy from the environment, a mechanism for storing that energy, converting the energy to other forms, using that energy for useful purposes, the ability to grow, the ability to reproduce itself, intrinsic genetic information, and has a method for expressing that genetic information as physical features. This living thing came about by some natural process which we can’t even begin to imagine, but isn’t of any real importance to answering the question of how we came to be on this Earth.

Clearly, the origin of that first living thing is vital to the theory of evolution. Why doesn’t Coyne include the origin of life in his definition of evolution? You know the answer. He can’t begin to explain it. Defining evolution as he did gives him an excuse to not even try.


If you are expecting a book with the title, Why Evolution is True to contain proof for the theory of evolution, you will be disappointed. What it really contains is excuses why evolutionists can’t prove evolution is true, why it is unreasonable to expect evolutionists to provide proof, and why you should believe in evolution anyway. Let the excuses begin!

Why We’ve Never Seen It

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature. Here is his excuse for why we have not.

Further, we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species—what is known as microevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it. Remember that the issue is not whether macroevolutionary change happens—we already know from the fossil record that it does—but whether it was caused by natural selection, and whether natural selection can build complex features and organisms. [italics his] 2

There is a process known as “microevolution” that really does occur. Microevolution is the variation within a species that occurs because of loss of genetic information. But he is talking about “macroevolution,” which is the creation of a new kind of living thing resulting from genetic information that previously did not exist.

He asserts, without proof, that macroevolution is occurring today, while admitting that one can’t see it happening. That is, genetic information is supposedly arising spontaneously that will create a new kind of creature. He just knows it, even though nobody can actually see it. The alleged reason nobody can see it is because it happens so slowly.

For one thing, natural selection in the wild is often incredibly slow. The evolution of feathers, for example, probably took hundreds of thousands of years. Even if feathers were evolving today, it would simply be impossible to watch this happening in real time, much less to measure whatever type of selection was acting to make feathers larger. 3

The real reason why nobody has ever seen it is because it hasn’t happened! Genetic information doesn’t just magically appear.

He thinks he sees macroevolution in the fossil record. This is remarkable because he spends so many pages trying to explain why there are no missing links in the fossil record!

Why There Are No Missing Links

We don’t find any missing links in the fossil record but, according to Coyne, we should not expect to find any.

Taking into account all of these requirements, it’s clear that the fossil record must be incomplete. … we can estimate that we have fossil evidence of only 0.1 percent to 1 percent of all species—hardly a good sample of the history of life! [italics his] 4

What should our “missing link” with apes look like? Remember that the “missing link” is the single ancestral species that gave rise to modern humans on the one hand and chimpanzees on the other. It’s not reasonable to expect the discovery of that critical single species, for its identification would require a complete series of ancestor-descendant fossils on both the chimp and human lineages, series that we could trace back until they intersect at the ancestor. Except for a few marine microorganisms, such complete fossil sequences don’t exist. And our early human ancestors were large, relatively few in number compared to grazers like antelopes, and inhabited a small part of Africa under dry conditions not conducive to fossilization. Their fossils, like those of all apes and monkeys, are scarce. This resembles our problem with the evolution of birds from feathered reptiles, for whom transitional fossils are also rare. We can certainly trace the evolution of birds from feathered reptiles, but we’re not sure exactly which fossil species were the direct ancestors of modern birds.

Given all this, we can’t expect to find the single particular species that represents the “missing link” between humans and other apes. We can hope only to find its evolutionary cousins. Remember also that this common ancestor was not a chimpanzee, and probably didn’t look like either modern chimps or humans. Nevertheless, it’s likely that the “missing link” was closer in appearance to modern chimps than to modern humans. We are the odd man out in the evolution of modern apes, who all resemble one another far more than they resemble us. 5 [italics his]

We will return to this issue of humans being so different from modern apes later; but let’s stick to the impossibility of finding missing links for the moment.

Clearly, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says that complete fossils sequences don’t exist, except for a few microscopic marine organisms. Microscopic fossils are controversial because scientists don’t always agree that they even are fossils. But, let’s suppose they really are fossils. Just because they look similar doesn’t necessarily mean that they are biologically descended from one another. Even if they are descended from one another, they are all still just microorganisms which demonstrate variation—not evolution. So, actually, the alleged microscopic fossils don’t really show evolution.

Human and bird fossils allegedly provide the best (although incomplete) sequence of fossils, but even they don’t really show a clear pattern of evolution, so Coyne remains in full-blown excuse mode.

Although far from complete, the record of human evolution is one of the best confirmations we have of an evolutionary prediction, and is especially gratifying because the prediction was Darwin’s.

But a few caveats. We don’t (and can’t expect to) have a continuous fossil record of human ancestry. Instead, we see a tangled bush of many different species. Most of them went extinct without leaving descendants, and only one genetic lineage threaded its way through time to become modern humans. We’re not sure yet which fossil species lie along that particular thread, and which were evolutionary dead ends. The most surprising thing we’ve learned about our history is that we’ve had many close evolutionary cousins who died out without leaving descendants. It’s even possible that as many as four humanlike species lived in Africa at the same time, and maybe in the same place. Imagine the encounters that might have taken place! Did they kill one another, or try to interbreed? 6

After saying they unable to tell how the different fossils are related, he next admits they aren’t even able to classify the fossils with any degree of certainty.

And the names of ancestral human fossils can’t be taken too seriously. Like theology, paleontology is a field in which the students far outnumber the objects of study. There are lively—and sometimes acrimonious—debates about whether a given fossil is really something new, or merely a variant of an already named species. These arguments about scientific names often mean very little. Whether a humanlike fossil is named as one species or another can turn on matters as small as half a millimeter in the diameter of a tooth, or slight differences in the shape of the thighbone. 7

It is important to remember that when paleontologists talk about “human fossils” they generally aren’t talking about complete skeletons. Often they are talking about one or two bones, a partial skull, or a few teeth. One can’t even be sure that the teeth and bones go together. This is why there are so many arguments. The models of our “human ancestors” that are displayed in museums are based on a few bones and a lot of speculation based on the presumption of evolution.

Here is his self-contradictory summary.

Looking at the whole array of bones, then what do we have? Clearly, indisputable evidence for human evolution from apelike ancestors. Granted, we can’t yet trace out a continuous lineage from an apelike early hominid to modern Homo sapiens. The fossils are scattered in time and space, a series of dots yet to be genealogically connected. And we may never have enough fossils to join them. 8

It is indisputable and yet unproven. How can you argue with “logic” like that?

For the Birds

Coyne makes general claims that the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, and the origin of flight, is well documented in the fossil record. But when he gets to specifics, he just makes excuses for why they don’t really know anything at all about the evolution of birds.

Because reptiles appear in the fossil record before birds, we can guess that the common ancestor of birds and reptiles was an ancient reptile, and would have looked like one. We now know that this common ancestor was a dinosaur. 9 [italics his]

Coyne so easily goes from “guess” to “know.” Even if the fossil record showed that a particular reptile died before a particular bird, it doesn’t prove that the bird is a biological descendant of the reptile. It is an indisputable fact that Big Brown (the horse that won the 2008 Kentucky Derby) died in 2008, and President George Washington died in 1799. Does that prove that Big Brown was a biological descendant of George Washington? Of course not!

We want you to get the full impact of Coyne’s explanation about bird evolution, so here is a long passage. As always, colored highlights are ours, but the italics for emphasis in the quote are his.

But if feathers didn’t arise as adaptations for flying, what on earth were they for? Again, we don’t know. They could have been used for ornamentation or display—perhaps to attract mates. It seems more likely, though, that they were used for insulation. Unlike modern reptiles, theropods may have been partially warm-blooded; and even if they weren’t, feathers would have helped maintain body temperature. And what feathers evolved from is even more mysterious. The best guess is that they derive from the same cells that give rise to reptilian scales, but not everyone agrees.

Despite the unknowns, we can make some guesses about how natural selection fashioned modern birds. Early carnivorous dinosaurs evolved longer forelimbs and hands, which probably helped them grab and handle their prey. That kind of grabbing would favor evolution of muscles that would quickly extend the front legs and pull them inward: exactly the motion used for the downward stroke in true flight. Then followed the feathery covering, probably for insulation. Given these innovations, there are at least two ways flight could have evolved. The first is called the “trees down” scenario. There is evidence that some theropods lived at least partly in trees. Feathery forelimbs would help these reptiles glide from tree to tree, or from tree to ground, which would help them escape predators, find food more readily, or cushion their falls.

A different—and more likely—scenario is called the “ground up” theory, which sees flight evolving as an outgrowth of open-armed runs and leaps that feathered dinosaurs might have made to catch their prey. Longer wings could also have evolved as running aids. The chukar partridge, a game bird studied by Kenneth Dial at the University of Montana, represents a living example of this step. These partridges almost never fly, and flap their wings mainly to help them run uphill. The flapping gives them not only extra propulsion, but also more traction against the ground. Newborn chicks can run up 45-degree slopes, and adults can ascent 105-degree slopes—overhangs more than vertical!—solely by running and flapping their wings. The obvious advantage is that uphill scrambling helps these birds escape predators. The next step in evolving flight would be very short airborne hops, like those made by turkeys and quail fleeing from danger.

In either the “trees down” or “ground up” scenario, natural selection could begin to favor individuals who could fly farther instead of merely gliding, leaping, or flying for short bursts. Then would come the other innovations shared by modern birds, including hollow bones for lightness and that large breastbone.

While we may speculate about the details, the existence of transitional fossils—and the evolution of birds from reptiles—is fact. 10

The only real science here is the study showing that wings can help birds run uphill. All the rest is, as Coyne admits, speculation—and therefore an undeniable fact!

We don’t have space this month to point out all the times Coyne makes bold general claims about the fossils, and then makes excuses for why the fossil data doesn’t support the general claim. We hope we have given you enough examples to prove our point, and hope that you read his book to find more examples for yourself.

Not Like Apes

Earlier in this essay we did promise, however, to examine Coyne’s statement about humans being so different from apes. This is important because evolutionists are stuck in the middle. On the one hand, they need to prove that we are so close genetically to apes that we must be biologically related to them. One the other hand, they need to explain how such a small genetic difference can produce such obvious, significant differences between men and apes.

That oft-quoted 1.5 percent difference between ourselves and chimps, then is really larger than it looks … More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps. … Despite our general resemblance to our primate cousins, then, evolving a human from an apelike ancestor probably required substantial genetic change. 11 [italics his]

He is pretty close to the truth here. We’ve shown before that the allegedly small genetic difference between apes and man is a fictitious result of some artful mathematics. 12 There really is a substantial genetic difference between apes and humans which evolutionists don’t like to admit because it weakens their argument that we share a common biological ancestor.

The Discontinuity Problem

The most basic problem with the theory of evolution is staring us right in the face, but it is so obvious that it is often overlooked.

Indeed, perhaps the most striking fact about nature is that it is discontinuous. When you look at animals and plants, each individual almost always falls into one of many discrete groups. When we look at a single wild cat, for example, we are immediately able to identify it as either a lion, a cougar, a snow leopard, and so on. All cats do not blur insensibly into one another through a series of feline intermediates. And although there is a variation among individuals within a cluster (as all lion researchers know, each lion looks different from every other), the clusters nevertheless remain discrete in “organism space.” We see clusters in all organisms that reproduce sexually.

These discrete clusters are known as species. And at first sight, their existence looks like a problem for evolutionary theory. Evolution is, after all, a continuous process, so how can it produce groups of animals and plants that are discrete and discontinuous, separated from others by gaps in appearance and behavior? How these groups arise is the problem of speciation—or the origin of species.

That, of course, is the title of Darwin’s most famous book, a title implying that he had a lot to say about speciation. … Yet Darwin’s magnum opus was largely silent on the “mystery of mysteries.” And what little he did say on this topic is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled. 13 [italics his]

If the theory of evolution were true, then plants and animals really would blur together without clear distinctions. It really is a problem for which Coyne has no good answer.

No Excuse for Sex

The origin of sex is one of the hardest things for evolutionists to explain. Coyne doesn’t have an answer. As usual, he just punts.

The question of the number of sexes is a messy theoretical issue that needn’t detain us, except to note that theory shows that two sexes will evolutionarily replace mating systems involving three or more sexes: two sexes is the most robust and stable strategy.

The theory of why the two sexes have different numbers and sizes of gametes is equally messy. This condition presumably evolved from that in earlier sexually reproducing species in which the two sexes had gametes of equal size. 14

False Claims

On those rare occasions when Coyne isn’t attacking creationists or making excuses for why there isn’t any real proof for evolution, he makes false claims about evidence for evolution. Here are just a few.

If we know the half-life, how much of the radioisotope was there when the rock was formed (something that geologists can accurately determine), and how much remains now, it’s relatively simple to estimate the age of the rock. 15

Geologists have no possible way of knowing how much radioactive material was in the rock when it formed.

Several radio-isotopes usually occur together, so the dates can be cross-checked, and the ages invariable agree. 16

No, they don’t invariably agree, unless you throw out the ages that don’t agree! The discordant dates of the Apollo 11 moon rocks are typical. (Only 10 of 116 measurements agreed with the “accepted” age of the moon. 17)

The fossil record documents the gradual loss of toes over time, so that in modern horses only the middle one—the hoof—remains. 18

This story about horse evolution has been debunked by evolutionists themselves for years! Even the Chicago Field Museum admits it. 19 20 How could Coyne not know that?

Getting His Haeckels Up

Coyne even goes so far as to try to defend Ernst Haeckel’s biogenetic law, sort of.

Noting this principle, Ernst Haeckel, a German evolutionist and Darwin’s contemporary, formulated a “biogenetic law” in 1866, famously summarized as “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” This means the development of an organism simply replays its evolutionary history. But this notion is true in only a limited sense. Embryonic stages don’t look like the adult forms of their ancestors, as Haeckel claimed, but like the embryonic forms of ancestors. Human fetuses, for example, never resemble adult fish or reptiles, but in certain ways they do resemble embryonic fish and reptiles. Also the recapitulation is neither strict nor inevitable: not every feature of an ancestor’s embryo appears in its descendants, nor do all stages of development unfold in a strict evolutionary order. Further, some species, like plants, have dispensed with nearly all traces of their ancestry during development. Haeckel’s law has fallen into disrepute not only because it wasn’t strictly true, but also because Haeckel was accused, largely unjustly, of fudging some drawings of early embryos to make them look more similar than they really are. Yet we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Embryos still show a form of recapitulation: features that arose earlier in evolution often appear earlier in development. And this makes sense only if species have an evolutionary history.

Now, we’re not absolutely sure why some species retain much of their evolutionary history during development. The “adding new stuff onto old” principle is just a hypothesis—an explanation for the facts of embryology. 21 [italics his]

In summary, embryos look similar during development, except when they don’t; and this only makes sense to evolutionists. They don’t know why this happens. They don’t know why it only happens in some species. But it explains the facts of embryology!

We don’t know why Coyne thinks Haeckel was “unjustly” accused of faking the drawings. There is no question that he did fake them. His guilt has been known for decades.

Ignore the Contradictions

The theory of evolution is full of contradictions, resulting in debates and arguments among evolutionists. Coyne says these controversies prove how strong the theory is.

Critics of evolution seize upon these controversies, arguing that they show something is wrong with the theory of evolution itself. But this is specious. There is no dissent among serious biologists about the major claims of evolutionary theory—only about the details of how evolution occurred, and about the relative roles of various evolutionary mechanisms. Far from discrediting evolution, the “controversies” are in fact the sign of a vibrant, thriving field. What moves science forward is [sic] ignorance, debate, and the testing of alternative theories with observations and experiments. A science without controversy is a science without progress. 22

wow....Sorry about the size I thought the scrolling thing would take care of that.

I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone who has stated that the atheist are way to aggressive and force themselves into conversations. They are also very condescending and act like all believers are stupid for believing. BTW I am not a believer but I do feel religion is generally a good thing and far outweighs any of the things that atheist hate about them. I will never call myself an atheist simply because they are so hateful.

You hang with the wrong people then. Are we discussing religion or churches? It makes a difference you know.

7 More Responses

They just make a big deal about it.

It really depends where you are. There are places where you could probably die if you told someone you're an atheist. I think in a lot of areas, nobody would mind. I guess the tough part would be dealing with your family once they find out. Religious prejudice is SO immature.

"Religious prejudice is so immature" I hope you mean that on both sides.

I mean ALL religious prejudice.

Online it isn't so bad, in real life, coming out as atheist in a town like mine equals everybody who once saw you as just another good person suddenly thinks you worship satan. It is taught from childhood around here that atheists are terrible people who are the reason america is in turmoil.

Do you support all five of those as harmless? I can assure you that more than one of those things, if given total power, would indeed be the downfall of America.

Just don't say anything bad about other people's religion and they won't go off on your *** about yours. The majority of USA are Christians and some of them are like superrrrr crazy and way to committed in a bad way. Try to avoid that kind and you'll survive. If you mention it most won't care but if your in the crazy christian zone they will most probably say "You will die in Hell if you don't support!!" which honestly is so stupid to say to an Atheist because like come on we don't even believe in God or Satan or Hell existing. But almost all won't really care.

Meh, whether you go to hell or not isn't really their problem. your choices are yours so do with them what you will.

Two comments on this.

The common 'Atheist' view that they are oppressed due to how the 'religious' react to them reflects ignorance of religion. A Catholic will get the same reaction from a hard core Baptist and vis-a-vis. This is true not only of all 'hard core' Christian religions (Lutheran, etc, etc) it is true between the Muslims and Jewish. Why do you think there is so much hate and war going on in the middle east.. or even Ireland? So the the Atheists here... its not just you but you do personalize it as shown below. Every group has its haters and you do not have to be religious to have them.

An Atheist friend of mine posted that America is obsessed with God. I responded that America must be obsessed, the Atheists cant stop talking about the subject.

To my knowledge none. Thomas Jefferson was purportedly a Diest.

What does your question have anything to do at all with my above post?

So you are quantifying oppression? You may be correct but my point is still correct in all facets.

If you wiki it, the USA has had Atheists in office but not presidential, the most recent being Barney Frank and Jesse Ventura. I liked Jesse and despise Barney Frank. Since no President has openly declared to be Atheist but many are thought to be something other than Christian, you may be correct on point.... please point out a Muslim, Jewish or... Mormon president for me. Are they more oppressed than Atheists then?

My point is concluded above last sentence first paragraph and does not need to be repeated. Taking a cold eyed look at human history, it is correct.

No its just that no one cares what an atheist has to say. O so you believe in nothing? That's cool. Next

I live in Los Angeles, nobody is religious in this city and its great.

i am a atheists don't belive in any gods

From personal experience, I find it is best/easiest/safest to not openly advertise my lack of belief. But yes. The religious in the US outnumber the non-religious.

Proselytizing is technically protected as free speech, and Jehovah witnesses and Mormons will come to your door and other groups will stop you in parking lots, and be pushy about sharing "the love of Jesus" with you. It feels like you're under attack.

And then, as soon as an atheist is vocal, or a scientist says something against religion or in favor of evolution, the conversation degrades to the Christian minority crying wolf over being "oppressed." They don't know the meaning of the word.

My friend took my daughter to the playground a few weeks ago. While there, some adults set up a "kid's club" with prizes at the end. A few minutes later she realized, they were talking about Christ as the only savior, "and don't you let anyone tell you anything else," to a group of 4 to 9 year olds that were not given parental consent to be proselytized to. I call Bull$hit.

Meanwhile, Christians have entire channels dedicated to sharing their faith, but they post complaints with the press and "demand their fair share of air time" when Neil deGrasse Tyson on COSMOS talked about evolution.

If people want pray to a religion they can do but force other poeple to it

Unfortunately, they are very politically active. I a not forced to pray, but I am forced to abide by laws created because of their beliefs, that should have no control over "free" people in a nation that boasts freedom and equality for all.

I think you'll find there's a world of difference between people who *say* they are mistreated and people who *are* mistreated. Reactions to this post highlight that rather well.
What country are you from?

i am from czech

I have to say you people have better things do the just bash Christians here. You mocked me for saying when Christians turn away from Christ they act like Atheists. Then you bash Christian Atheism. Christian Atheism is Christian that loves God by denies Christianity. Then you say I bash gays. Get a life. Stop bashing people. You are so evil in here.

No evil here friend. The only evil that exists is the evil that you allow inside your heart.

The fact of the matter is, atheists usually don't believe in god because they see flaws with religion. Instead of trying to find god themselves, in their own unique way. I'm going to quote southpark now but this is serious "Maybe just believing in god, makes god exist." You obviously are entitled to your own opinion. No i am not religious but am very spiritual, and have taken all religions and ancient texts into account. I can assure you there are beings who exist either in another realm or world who know of our existence and are very intelligent. Do your research instead of just thinking "oh religion cant be real because evolution is". FYI evolution is a theory all the same, and no religion even disagrees with it. What if god created us through evolution and this is just us getting closer to understanding the complex way in which he created everything. Fact of the matter is, whether you are in the USA, or any other place in the world everyone sees things in a different way and they are all entitled to their vision.

"everyone sees things in a different way and they are all entitled to their vision."

You would be a fool to accept it as fact merely because i stated it. However the fact of the matter is you should take it in as a contributing factor, instead of finding what you thought was wrong with my statement. Good day my cut and dry thinking friend.

Maybe just believing there's a pile of hundred dollar bills under my bed, will make a pile of hundred dollar bills under my bed exist.

Checks under bed.........**** no pile of hundred dollar bills. No money at all.

Well screw that theory.

LOL. Is that required donation tax-deductable?

This hasn't come up anywhere but religion is a business, they take money and sell people instant emotional gratification? I'm not entirely sure what it is people think they are paying for.

Put something about how those who do not treat women as equals to men will one day have their genitalia turn black and fall off, I'll tithe double.

This is why atheists get treated differently. You criticize something you don't even understand and get off on it. It's not violent religious people, or the fear surrounding the hell topic, oh no. It's someone actually finding peace with something you can't find that bothers you isn't it? Know what, don't respond I'm sure it'll be a lie.

3 More Responses

**** you

not right now.. maybe later.

in the u.s most people look at atheist as enemy's of god(i don't) although just ignore those people. they will sometimes just try to ignore u. but forget abut but there r people like that don't really care what people believe and would love to be friends. so don't let it bother you(:

Cyberbullying is the use of information technology to harm or harass other people in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner.[1] According to U.S. Legal Definitions, Cyber-bullying could be limited to posting rumors or gossips about a person in the internet bringing about hatred in other’s minds; or it may go to the extent of personally identifying victims and publishing materials severely defaming and humiliating them.[2]

With the increase in use of these technologies, cyberbullying has become increasingly common, especially among teenagers.[3] Awareness has also risen, due in part to high-profile cases like the suicide of Tyler Clementi.[4]

Stop spam-trolling.

People overreact so much about their beliefs no matter who's side it is. I am an atheist and some Catholics act like I am satan. It's just people.

Depends where you are, big cities and places with young and/or liberal populations seem to be pretty tolerant of it (if not even swinging in the other direction, and being dismissive of religion). But there still seems to be plenty of prejudice against it in rural, conservative & Christian areas.

america will bullsh*t about anything it wants to, and religion is something that america takes too seriously. Even though we were founded on religious freedom, we don't take it seriously anymore. What a disgrace that america has become :(((

Where I am in the us most people don't care, but some do. My personal experience has been that those who care ask me what religion I am and then give me the stink-eye for not being catholic.

How do Atheist treats are they mean to others too?

anyone that feels the need to mention he is a catholic or muslim or atheist in one of his first introductory sentences would be considered weird.

peoples worldview is something private and may only be discussed with good friends. if you wear a headwrap or a huge cross around your head people will be suspicious. same applies to people that would run with a shield around their neck "hi, i am an atheist"

Do you view all Christians like this?

chrisitians that make a big deal out of being a christian = bad.
atheists that make a big deal out of being an atheist = bad.

people that live their religion like a hobby like collecting stamps or working in the garden is perfectly cool

Are you saying all Christians are doing that so why are you judging a Christians?

hmm... i guess i cant express myself properly in english so you cant or dont want to understand, sorry.

Why do you not want to understand

This is what i mean... you answer in a way that makes no sense at all... like you not even reading what i wrote. Totally making up things i did not write.

I keep wondering if this person is just a troll...

I think Atheism is seen badly when a cultural or social option (maybe a nativity scene displayed on state-owned property, or a compulsory religiously inclined even in secular schools etc.) is pointed out by Atheists, mostly because it doesn't acknowledge their denomination as part of the whole. Most American Atheists I personally know are willing to tolerate respectfully some religious content as part of the history of their nation, but things are different when their lives, and the upbringing of their children, are affected by unwanted religious messages.
I believe that many American institutions don't grasp the concept of separation of state and religion as they should.

An example is the existence of secular summer camps, created as an alternative to scout groups, which are deeply ingrained in judeo-Christian values, despite whatever they may claim. I know for a fact that such summer camps, where ecology, respect, and awareness are central themes, are often considered the product of 'whiny atheists', or are even inflated into places where children might be brainwashed into whatever some assume secularism means, like materialism and survival of the fittest.

The ignorance is the source of most of the bad treatment, and this naturally would frustrate an atheist merely trying to find his or her place within their nation of birth.

5 More Responses