Nope, am not. And proudly stand tall in a nation where saying so has almost 0 to lose by doing so.

We are fortunate in the USA. Recalling when I saw a teen wearing a T-shirt stating boldly and standing up tall, that he is a "Military free zone". Yeah! Next he will proudly state that he prefers Blue Grass over Green.

I dislike religious zealots in USA, however I will defend them on one very important point. They will stand tall where they do have something to lose. They will go to country like Iran (is ISIS a Nation State yet?) and North Korea... and face a firing squad or worse. Aren't China and North Korea Atheist Nation States? Hmmm.
Jarlaxle Jarlaxle
51-55, M
15 Responses Aug 23, 2014

I like how you are so against the attitude in numerous responses but you are nothing more than sardonic. Get a life, I feel like I wasted a more than negligible amount of mine trying to understand this pseudo intellectual babble

I only return attitude when it is given. Sardonic is entirely correct and 'pseudo intellectual babble' is an ironic choice of words for choosing not to understand what is said.

Well it's completely undignified and unbefitting of an intellectual, so it may be ironic, but it is also accurate.
I refer to it as babble because I didn't choose not to understand it, it was presented in a format and context in which the vast majority of the responses' authors either chose not to understand it or could not understand it. Occam's razor (or perhaps common sense) suggests it was not their fault, but the original posters. So

What is the point of any of what you've said here? Some of it seems like intentional provoking, some of it sounds like strangely worded patriotism, and some of it is weirdly addressing militarization, and all of it seems very unguided.

Though I don't have to, I would like to answer your last question, since the topic is interesting to me. Yes, officially, the Chinese and North Korean governments are officially atheist, technically. However, there are some intricacies you're missing. In the Chinese case, the government is still intimately bound in Leninism and Maoism. Lenin established the Soviet Union, and he quintessentially established his government and class system as the supreme authority of the land. Mao had a similar problem; he basically set himself up to be a god without the title. Point is, both of those historically failed systems are still heavily ingrained in modern China. It's a system of government supremacy that sets itself up as the ultimate authority. For me, being a successful atheist and anti-theist involves not just disbelieving in gods, but rejecting the messianic impulse altogether. Being forced to worship the government is no better than being forced to worship God. That is why I would rather live in an officially religious pluralist society rather than officially atheist, as the latter implies totalitarianism just as much as an officially Islamic state.

North Korea is the ultimate combination of all these evils. It isn't exactly atheist, however. The Kim succession leading the country are gods. They are actively worshiped day in and day out. All media is devoted to them, and to question them is to die. They have turned their government into a forced religion, literally, this time.

After I saw Frostflower make fun of my learning disability then I wanted to bully her so bad because she was hurting my feelings. Posting my url up to poke fun at me. Jeditrunk and xstarlight thought it was fun to poke at me so they copied and pasted what put on there to mock me. Please grow up. God bless you. Thank you. Seeya. I am done with this drama.

Stop coming back, you're an *******.

You are so full of such wonderful advice.

Ikt

Ikr

1 More Response

It seems like you all have no lives because you are constantly online. Go enjoy your life without the Internet. Constantly being online you are missing out on life. I pray for you all. God bless you. Enjoy the day. Talk to you later.

You're skipping the domestic terrorists anti choicers who bomb women's clinics in the name of God and get a free pass.Why do you suppose China is clobbering us economically?Because of corrupt Christian RW TPers.

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

Why are you trolling this girl?

There's a nice I Have Severe Mental Retardation section were you can go post this kind of stuff. You know, to people who might actually care.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

Np m8

Religious zealots will also go to Africa and encourage violent persecution of atheists and gay people.

Uganda is a current case in point… proselytising theists are subverting the government and unravelling the social fabric

True both. Zealots will do anything. Where did you see me deny this?

And your case in point is... that contradicts what I said above?

No but you only focused on how they stand up for their beliefs no matter what and I am saying that can be a really bad thing

Uh... NO. Reread. Again. If I must...

"I dislike religious zealots in USA, ..." It is part of the paragraph. It is there in black and white. It did not disappear from sight. It has been there from the beginning and until the end of eternity or when ever the web dies.

Where did you find No matter what? Find it please. Did possibly with a made up mind... you inferred a 'no matter what'?

"I dislike religious zealots in the USA but I will defend them" hmmm. I paraphrased the part where you said they would stand up tall when they something to loose and travel to china and get killed. You are debating the English language not what I said. There is something admirable about standing up for what you believe in. Atheists do this all the time, so do people of all religions. You're ignoring the other side where people bully others because of their beliefs. Do theists break into North Korea occasionally to do good, yes. Do theists encourage the murder of gay people in poor countries, yes. They are zealots, they are both extremely dangerous and heroic.

Correct on point.

Incorrect that I am debating the English language. I am using the language in precise fashion to make a narrow point. That is the way to communicate. Reading with imprecision is the path to misunderstanding, distrust, hate and blood. By paraphrasing you leave out key qualifier and create the above.

I start the statement with zealots. I did make an imprecision that you have pointed out and aught have stated religious missionaries and not left the zealots qualifier hanging. Thus I am in error here. I do NOT admire zealots. I admire people willing to stand for their pacifistic belief system in the face of tyranny and death. To include Atheists and yes there are many. As there are also many religious belief systems not so pacifistic.

Where did i say that they are zealots? They describe themselves as christian missionaries, and that seems an accurate-enough epithet.
Their influence (and their influence alone) led the Ugandan government to introduce the death penalty for homosexual activity. Is this an example of what you described in a comment below as 'those who will actually go and risk their health, wealth, life and all except Sacred Honor, just to share their belief system with other'?

No it is not an example of my admiration.

You did say "Uganda is a current case in point…" in response to "Religious zealots will also go to Africa and encourage violent persecution of atheists and gay people." posted by Base4ever.... did... you.... not?

Here is my question for you... since I have answer your thoroughly.

Why are implying to all here that somehow I approve of death penalty for homosexual activity. Is that because you are Atheist or because you hate Christians (an accurate-enough epithet)? Do you wish to imply my approval of some is approval of crimes of all? Are you really that cut and dried? Should I hold your approval of Atheism as approval of every crime ever committed by an Atheist? Or are you implying Atheists are without crime?

"Why are implying to all here that somehow I approve of death penalty for homosexual activity" (and all that follows)
How on Earth are you taking that, or any of the rest, from my comment?

Actually, that is a perfect question that represents nearly all the responses here.

Nearly everyone here is insulted by what aught be a straight forward blandly acceptable point.

To answer your question, I don't, but it may certainly be inferred by tone.

So, a baseless accusation defended by an inference.
What is it that you feel we atheists find insulting?
We seem to have established that the concept of 'atheist nation states' doesn't stand up to examination… i don't feel in the least insulted by that.
Some theists go to other people's countries to promote their own interests… i don't feel in the least insulted by that (nor do i find it heroic).
Frankly, i'm struggling to find a point at all, let alone one that i would find insulting.

Completely correct on first. It has been what I have faced here... inferred insult, intent, ghastly agenda and many far beyond what I was getting at. So I just reversed the flow to see the result. Thank you.

Disagree on Atheist Nation States not standing up to examination but that's my point of view.

Fine that you don't perceive my point, it may be much shallower than I thought. Happy though that you are not insulted.

Actually, thank you I just had a good laugh. The amusement being absurd of course.

The point is all about no point, pointless and 0. We here in the USA suffer relatively so little for our beliefs compared to where we would in other places. This point is so shallow as to be invisible. Yet is caused all the below posts of insult.

For those prepared to be insulted... the word "relatively" does have meaning and that meaning does not include 0. And yes, that IS and insult, but only to those looking to be so.

10 More Responses

"They will go and face a firing squad or worse"

I'm calling BS on that.
Source please.

I won't even bother at this point. Unless you choose to accept that all media resources are lies to control our minds and we should rely on some other resource... then no mountain of news stories, magazines, web news, wikipedia, history books will ever convince you.

Be prepared for atheists to face a firing squad or worse...

just, fyi...

This is my feeling exactly to my point. They aught.

Just as I feel Snowden aught come back to the USA and face trial. I would have so much more respect for him standing up for his purported patriotism. If more people stood for their rightly held beliefs rather than putting OTHERS in front of the firing squad, the world might change for the better... or not.

Of course, now the readers here will open mindlessly infer that I want them to face a firing squad. Haters are the same, Atheist, Christian, Confederate or Octogenarian.

I just didn't think it was fair to assume that only religious people have enough conviction to stand up for their beliefs in life and death situations. Atheists do the same thing over much more important issues.

I choose to accept that religion is lies.

2 More Responses

Yet another theist whose only purpose is to come to this group to provoke. You say you will defend religious zealots, but will you defend a non-believer's right to not adhere to a religion? And why are you attempting to project another country's situation onto the United States? To provoke, I suppose, and proclaim to anonymous persons who don't know you, that you are not atheist.
--
Yawn.

Come armed with understanding, not attitude and name calling. Try reading too, sometimes it helps.

Snarky, aren't we? Name calling? The only name I used was "theist." Was I incorrect, or did you consider that term perjorative? And as far as attitude, your's could use some tempering.
--
I do read-I spent precious seconds of my life reading your post. And from your manner of writing, and how you turn phrases, I have quite a bit of understanding.
--
So, continue… or better, leave.

First thing then, your reading did not understand you... is I am not a Theist, but you called me one. Not a pejorative, it is a name... or in current lingo, a label. I label myself then as a Monotheist, even before that I am a HUMANIST. You came with such closed mind that you KNOW what I am without knowing anything.

What have I labeled you? Hmmm? Waiting for the answer..... ever....

Second, your mind is sealed and air tight. I came here to discuss a problem in our society. Reading aught have revealed that to you. People who group... name call... oh... LABEL them selves, separate themselves from the rest of society. Christian, Atheist, Deist, Communist, VEGAN, what ever, they set themselves apart from HUMANITY. I am a Octogenarian... ah... I am different from those OTHER people! So many come here to declare their Atheism or Christianity as to separate them self from others. Those Hated others.

And the second point... in a society where is costs almost zero to say so. The pathetically little some risk here in the USA where they will not be crucified, shot, starved, hanged racked drawn and quartered as in other places on earth... maybe this point is too deep for you? I admire those who will actually go and risk their health, wealth, life and all except Sacred Honor, just to share their belief system with other.

... or better do I leave...

Yes, ever the best way to maintain a closed mind. Get rid of anyone who would try to pry it open with reason, manner or turn of phrase.

Your life precious seconds are yours to expend how ever you wish...

you....


you...

Well if you are not a Human, then what are you? Atheist?

I did ask if I was in error in calling you a theist, in that you wrote as if you are one, but a monotheist is a theist nevertheless. At least I now know that you want to define yourself more tightly than I was willing to.
--
Without knowing me you make many assumptions, a closed-minded approach, and because I didn't state a list of labels for myself you find that problematic. Because my mind is quite open I find myself an atheist, not by plan, but following with an open mind where my path led. For me it was religion, especially theistic religion that separated humans from one another, and atheism is a way to drop that barrier while not acquiring another.
--
I have been many things, a soldier in foreign service, a chef, professor, and the list continues to go on, but these are merely labels. That I find myself casting off a significant barrier to a united humanity, religion, I am quite happy about it.
--
We may never find ourselves devoid of labels, but then labels don't tell the whole story, and you in particular need to look beyond the label of atheism. You need to stop believing that you are the only one present with ideals and thoughts. You coming to this group with your insinuations only serves to separate, not unite. That alone is reason enough for me to suggest that you leave.

Congratulations on the first well thought out and reasoned response here.


Incorrect, I define myself more broadly than you are wont. I am a Humanist first. That is all inclusive and I always delve into subject that divide us against ourselves. As for my Monotheistic Christianity, I also refuse to follow any dogma that divides humanity and keep my religion to myself.

Also incorrect, religion was created/discovered/invented to unite people, not divide. Division was automatic, by family, group, tribe and geographic location. Those are all anthropological factors of environment. Religion united peoples beyond those factors. It also divided peoples, us vs them, ie those who did not have the corresponding religion. Division is a human condition that needs to be addressed. You were a professor? Congratulations. Was this professorship in History or Anthropology? Religion also pacified peoples to their form of government, thus uniting them to that government, good AND ill.

Close minded ness. To the point and beginning:

"Yet another theist whose only purpose is to come to this group to provoke. You say you will defend religious zealots, but will you defend a non-believer's right to not adhere to a religion? And why are you attempting to project another country's situation onto the United States? To provoke, I suppose, and proclaim to anonymous persons who don't know you, that you are not atheist."

Sentence ONE.

What was my only purpose you determined? Evidence of a closed mind quite made up, you cannot deny your own words.

Sentence TWO.

Good question. If you read here, you would have the answer, or was you mind made up?

Sentence THREE

I suppose it only my opinion that it would require an open mind to understand my point... "Nope, am not. And proudly stand tall in a nation where saying so has almost 0 to lose by doing so." Clearly you don't see me poking fun at myself in second phrase. You did say professor... was it in the English language?

"We are fortunate in the USA. Recalling when I saw a teen wearing a T-shirt stating boldly and standing up tall, that he is a "Military free zone". Yeah! Next he will proudly state that he prefers Blue Grass over Green." Is the point here that vague?

Where exactly do I insinuate that I am " the only one present with ideals and thoughts."? If i thought I that were the case, I would not post and look for answer's and answer those in detail. If I were the close minded person, I would keep my thoughts to my self, knowing anything else is in-correct and not seek useless response from the likes of you. CORRECT?????

"I dislike religious zealots in USA, however I will defend them on one very important point. They will stand tall where they do have something to lose. They will go to country like Iran (is ISIS a Nation State yet?) and North Korea... and face a firing squad or worse. Aren't China and North Korea Atheist Nation States? Hmmm."

How close minded of my to dislike religious zealots yet admire their will to risk all simply to share their faith... or abuse their faith as zealots are wont. How close minded of me to see by comparison, we here in the USA risk so pathetically little than we would elsewhere on the planet.... that even spouting off here... I risk 0.

Yes, I must be the close minded one, and you open having made such conclusion of my.

Thank you.

Separation sir, is in your mind. I cannot infer, only YOU can infer. Above I have presented your own words as evidence of a closed mind with conclusions to my character and intent.

Must I make my point so bald that even a a 5 year old can understand? Or is that so disrespectful of 5 year old phenoms?

We here in the USA risk 0 little with labels like Atheist, Christian, etc., which serve only to divide us.

Need more evidence? Just read the posts here by Atheists (label), clearly Non-atheists opinions are not welcome here, in your group, with a closely held label. OUTSIDERS NOT WELCOME!

You have felt the need to degrade this discussion. You have a much higher opinion of your knowledge than may be warranted. That you feel the need to repeat and explain each line of your original post is most revealing, and comparing your readers (I guess just me) to a 5 year old intellectual ability is-well-extreme and disrespectful.
--
You are fixated on this label phenomena you continually mention and that constricts your ability to understand and communicate. I sense much hostility from your writing at this point and further discussion is going to be mere useless speech.
--
You may in the future open your mind to someone who may know more than you and listen rather than accuse. To answer your question, my professorship is in anthropology. Anthropology as relates to religious practice was a sub-field causing me to travel extensively around the world observing and participating in various religious practices. North Korea was one part of my field work for a short period of time.
--
No matter. I'll sit back, open another beer and enjoy the show from this point on. No need to reply. Now where is that bottle opener?

Very well. I will let your inference be you own. Infer hostility and insulting comparison to a 5 year old as you wish. It does say much and loudly. Even in the face of open admission for need of discourse and response.

Enjoy your bear what ever brand you prefer. The bottle opener is where you left it. Infer insult here if you wish but it was not implied.

"Must I make my point so bald that even a a 5 year old can understand? Or is that so disrespectful of 5 year old phenoms? "

To all here, this was a point all by itself. The point that it seems one cannot write something more complex than a 5 year old can understand without many feeling insulted or inferring some ghastly intent or agenda. Then with even further ludicrous turn of phrase... 5 year-olds may also derive insult.

A monotheist is still a theist.

He never said you labeled him anything.

"People who group... name call... oh... LABEL them selves, separate themselves from the rest of society. Christian, Atheist, Deist, Communist, VEGAN, what ever, they set themselves apart from HUMANITY."
Do you hear yourself talk? You labeled yourself a ~Monotheist~ in the previous paragraph.

And so what if it "costs almost zero" to declare yourself something here? Does that mean we shouldn't have the right to do it? If you don't want to label yourself, fine, but some people like being able to identify with like-minded individuals, especially over something as controversial as religion. Nobody ever changes their minds about what or who they believe in. And I would risk my health, wealth, and life if I had to. Thankfully I don't.

Um, what name calling? He literally called you a theist only.

7 More Responses

Why are even posting here other than to make trouble?

Open your mind and you might see.

Might see that you're here to stir the pot?

Certainly a closed mind would.

No, a realist would.
Why else would you go specifically to an atheist group and pretty much insinuate that dictator and socialist countries are ran the way they are because of Atheism?

Read upward... or don't. It is your choice and your mind to maintain. Try reading down too... I specifically state defending the right of the Atheist to be so. I even honor the name with capitals as it aught.

Or not read down. Your mind, your truth.

Ah yes. Act like you haven't said anything offensive. So classic. Thanks for wasting all of our time.

Yes, there is a set if humanity who are very easily offended, especially over their pet subject.

I DARE discuss an unneeded barrier some have set between humans to divide us.

Go ahead, be offended. Your choice, your mind.

I agree with ErracticallyGrey, you're only coming here so you can say we're "closed-minded", and because you want to argue with people. It's pretty pathetic.

Believe what ever you like. No argument.

6 More Responses

Wth is your profile picture

Sorry, while I do recognize Atheists, I do not recognize vulgarity.

No man i couldnt figure out what it was

Corn Snake.

The Chinese state recognizes five official religions… Taoism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam

True with defined limits.

China is a Marx-Lenin derived Socials country that specifically deny faith with it own social agrarian twist (Maoist). China does 'tolerate' limited 'faith' so long as the faith doesn't lack faith in the government, and the faith follows the governments accepted scripture what ever that may be at the time.

In other words, why is China now demolishing Baptist church's and banning their congregations? Its not on your list of course. China also appointed its own Panchen Lama Gyancain Norbu and refuses to recognize Tenzin Gyatso the 14th Dalai Lama who of course is a criminal in the Peoples Republic. China also threatens to appoint its own Pope if Rome refuses to recognize China appointed Archbishops and Bishops.

I guess its not so safe to be a Catholic or Buddhist... or even a Falun Gong... if you lack faith in the government.

The North Korean constitution allows freedom of religion, and that alone negates the claim that it is an 'atheist state'. In practice, the worship of gods is seen as being in opposition to the cult of personality that is centred on the Kim dictatorship (my Jesus is better than your Jesus).
Religion is also seen as allowing foreign influences to enter the country, which would also undermine the cult of personality.
To characterise either China or North Korea as what you have called 'atheist states' is, therefore, factually incorrect, and somewhat simplistic.

Hahahahahaaaaa!!!! Pedantry never bows to reality. Please come armed to the discussion and lose the Google search.

I am perfectly aware of Soviet Socialist "CONSTITUTIONAL Guarantee's" of Right to Vote, and Right to Freedom of Expression, Right to Fair Trial, Etc, etc. That's why no one was ever summary executed by Stalin, the Cultural Revolution was just Mao excising foreign influence, China is "Protecting" the Panchen Lama from "Foreign" influences in Tibet and no missionaries are ever arrested in North Korea.

True though... Foreign influence is the greatest threat to the Military Atheist State because if the people of the "Democratic People's Republic" ever learn the truth there might be a revolution. True also that Religion is one of those foreign influences. True also that the Atheist state denies religion in practice as it would be a threat. China could be said to be more enlightened as to use religion in their Atheist state to pacify the minds of the people, the original intent of religion in the history of humanity to begin with.

Thus to say they are Atheist states is true in practice, factually and correct. They FACT that North Korea relies on a cult of personality in itself contradicts your statement. The Asian cult of personality is based on ancestral worship such as Mao and in this case the Kim dynasty. Long should he live as the military decides he is useful.

"to say they are Atheist states is true in practice, factually and correct"
How so? A state that is anti-religion is not, de facto, what you call an 'atheist state'.
In fact, the bulk of your comment shows that to be so

What then is the definition of Atheist? Isn't it the denial of any influence over the human condition outside of scientifically provable forces? Doesn't Marx deny any theology on this basis? Are not the current supposedly communist states derived from Marx? If such a state accepts religion only on the basis of how it may be useful to pacify the people without accepting that religion faith in forces not scientifically provable.... what then is the nature of that state?

One thing I do concede is that these states are actually communist. They are not and have not been for a long time, Marx would roll over in his grave. China is the Military Industrial Complex that communists ever railed against and ever the definition of Kleptocracy, N Korea just has flavors of dynastic rule thrown in.

"What then is the definition of Atheist? Isn't it the denial of any influence over the human condition outside of scientifically provable forces?"
Well, i will speak only for myself as an agnostic atheist…
there's no proof that gods exist
there's no proof that gods don't exist
gods are unnecessary, and the postulate explains nothing (it merely explains everything away)
therefore i have no gods.
So the answer to your question is… no

Funny. Essentially you are saying your belief system is a matter of choice and faith and not science.

"your belief system"
where in what i wrote can you find a 'belief system'?

Are you nit picking?

A belief system is what ever you choose to believe. Or do I need to invent a new word to avoid insult... a dis-belief system?

Ah. I am done here, much to the relief of many. Have a good day/evening/night everyone. Ah... no insult intended, have what ever kind of day you all choose to have.

Nit-picking? No, not at all. You referred to my 'belief system', and claimed that i was, essentially, making a statement about it… surely you can therefore show that this belief system exists. Where, in what i wrote about my agnostic atheism, do i fall back onto belief?
In like vein, if you wish to claim that i have what you call a 'disbelief system', then you will need to show how you draw that from what i wrote. What am i holding in disbelief?
Incidentally, why are you constantly assuming that i take insult from what you write? Do not be concerned… such is not the case.

That doesn't mean that any of those are legit....

8 More Responses

Atheists have very much to lose, recent polls state that Atheists are one of the most hated people in the U.S., below rapists. Imagine how that affects people from Christian families that come out as Atheists, they are usually disowned and/or beaten. We are also people, and if we were to go to these countries (with the exception of North Korea) we would be put to the same firing squad that Christians would. Yes, China and North Korea are Atheist states, and for some dumbass religious zealot to try and push their ideology, it is understandable why they would be treated badly. The moral of the story is, being an atheist in any country that has a recognized religion IS WORSE than being a Christian in the same country, for we are looked upon as faithless monsters with no Morals, and are prime goal is to harm others.

And in regards to your Iran statement, you CAN actually be christian in that country, just hated by the majority population, while an atheist in Iran WOULD BE HUNG for being vocal of his ideology

Really? Name your Polls.

I name Wikipedia. "Discrimination against atheists", "Irreligion in the United States", "Religious New Service", even Patheos.com shows that 54% vs 43% of 'Americans' would vote FOR and Atheist for President.

Or is that glass half empty? Hmmm... I wonder how many people can be elected with 54% of the vote?

Or... is it that an Atheist would have to show that he/she/it is MORE than just an Atheist? Q: Sir.... whats your position on raising taxes on the import of luxury goods to the United States? A: I an an Atheist!

Even our current glorious President who does not name his religion had to show that he is MORE than just half Black who 99% of 'Americans' say they are willing to vote for according to that same poll. Apparently he also had to also speak well and be a community organizer.

You use Wikipedia as a reliable source? Get the **** out of here.

Fall back on curses. Very good. Amazing those sources are not limited to Wikipedia. Whoa.

Am I supposed to care that you're offended by my language? The sources aren't limited to Wikipedia, but there are far better websites for that information. You do realize how Wikipedia works, right?

I complemented you on your language. Should I be offended?

Hmmm.. interesting last question... "Amazing those sources are not limited to Wikipedia." That could not possibly mean than... oh... Patheos.com was not Wikipedia... or.... Religious News Service was not from Wikipedia... or that sources from three differing points of view must be hide bound to Wikipedia.... Not that looking at other points of view doesn't mean I am hide bound to Wikipedia or that I dont know how Wikipedia works... or even how a Boolean search works on the web.


Is there where you insult my by saying I will believe in anything posted on the web?

Falling back on insults rather than reason. Very good.

People who focus on "name calling" and "curse words" as an argument technique do so because their actual argument is weak.

'Americans' in quotes. LOL
--
You've made your point and established your stance sir, now move along quietly.

Move along quietly... in other words, do not discuss our human problems reasonably? What do you suggest beside silence.... deep feeling festering??

We suggest GTFO

Thank you for your open minded response. You have made it clear.

I am so glad

O ya. I purposely use 'Americans' due to long experience of those who are also Americans taking deep offense. Those Americans who are South-American and Meso-American are offended when we call ourselves 'Americans' there by implying that they are excluded.

See how infernally easy it is to insult?

Thus I used quotes to highlight our incidental offense to the rest of America and acknowledge my fault. It is just so clumsy to say United States Citizen.

"Hated" by religious people? Oh the irony.

I fall back on my favorite religious joke.

"America is obsessed with God, God-bless, God this, God that..." said the Atheist Blogger.

My response: America certainly is obsessed, the Atheists can't stop talking about the subject.

"the Atheists can't stop talking about the subject"
In contrast to the silent acquiescence of the religious?

I mistake using humor to make a point, some don't have it.

1 John 4:20 ESV

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

I'm not religious, but I will exit quietly now.

Too Late, you have opened your mouth amongst the pit of vipers!

I am not an Atheist and defend their right to be so.

I think everyone should mind their own business. Religion is a choice - everyone should make their own.

The 44% that wouldnt vote for an atheist president are called republicans.

Yeah... Judging people you don't know, way to go.

And if god controls everybody's lifestyle, then he certainly made us become atheists right? Its all part of his 'plan'.

The plan to do what??? Create war, disease, and starvation?

Terrible blueprint. I would have made humans less ignorant.

I would have made humans more ignorant or more wise. Our learned people have far exceeded our wisdom.

And what does this bloviation have anything to do with the subject stated? Steady your knee and think of what is stated.

Yup... some of those are exactly the pols I quoted. Compare them. Are the numbers wrong?

So, you are not disagreeing with me that their is a heavy distrust and hatred for atheists? Much greater than christians?

No.. where do you even read this in the Article post?

If I must be terribly straight forward... my whole point in this whole thread is rise above it.

Again. 54% of 'American's' are willing to vote for an Atheist for President. You only need see responses from xfstarlight to see that being a single issue person will forever keep you distrusted and hated.

Just like 90%of america WOULD vote for a Mexican, but more than half want illegal immigrants thrown out of America. Like how more than 90% of America wouldn't mind voting for black man/woman, but they are constantly gunned down by law enforcement, and it actually takes written law for a workplace to be required to have a percentage of blacks/latinos. Should i talk about the woman also? Who are still payed less than men but most americans don't mind a female elected official? Voting is irrelevant, it shows nothing in terms of groups being discriminated against, but if you still feel the need to fall back in that argument, let me tell you that possible atheists in government make up LESS than 0.5. Funny how 54% of Americans are willing to vote for an Atheist, but their is NOT ONE confirmed atheist in government. Grow a ******* brain. Your argument is invalid, and illogical. The sad thing is is that you want to debate against multiple studies that show that Atheists are discriminated throughout the Us, and the world.

My argument has as much validity as yours which reveal by needing to fall back on cursing and insults. It is Sad that you need to debate relative oppression where the debate doesn't even deny that Atheists are oppressed.


How absurd are your arguements?
Show me the studies where Atheists are gunned down in the streets by law enforcement. I will show you 10000s of African 'Americans' gunned down in Chicago for each ONE, and 1000s for each African American killed by law enforcement. Show me the difference between a Legal Resident and an IL-legal resident. The USA Latino population is majority Legal Resident, Natural Born Citizen and Citizen residing here before the USA was here. You're argument is based on a fallacious straw man. Well I guess a straw-man cant fight back, so take the easy cop out. If you sir choose to vote for an IL-legal alien over a US Citizen of Latino Descent that is well and truly a problem. However, this is the USA and you are free to embrace you fallacious belief that there is not difference.

Your still avoid my question revealing the shallowness of your argument. Show me where in this thread I deny heavy distrust and hate of Atheists, anywhere... on this planet, this solar sytem, this fractal multiverse? You are so far beyond the point, it reveals how consumed with hate you are. Atheist is all you are, all you ever will be and oppression of Atheism the nucleus of your existence.

You choose infer insult, that is your right, clearly you are in good company here. You choose to be all and nothing but Atheist and curse me for pointing out it takes more than that to get along, more power to you.

And yes I WOULD vote for an Atheist if that person did not closely embrace hate of anyone else who does not completely agree with you. Did not need to throw out curses and insults over relative terms. Did not need to wallow in fallacious arguments... but that's normal for any politician so I wont vote for them either.

No need to answer who Jesse Ventura and Barney Frank are, two avowed Atheists. So much for NO Atheists in Government. But you will ignore this and throw out more circular hostility. You cant even point out where in this thread I debate against studies which I posted! That will not stop you though.

Convo over.

My friend, this conversation was over from the moment it started. While i do agree with most of what you are saying, with the exception of a few statements, you seemed vulnerable and easy to irritate. The only thing one thing that i disagree with you on is your stereotypical breathe, eat, sleep atheist statement, this can be applied only to a small minority, which we both know about, the rather aggressive atheists. Other than that, what you have to say is completely reasonable, i was hoping you would come to the conclusion on why my argument was so shallow, perhaps if we continued you would have noticed that i was repeating the same thing over and over again to you, and, as you said, putting that fallacy argument on a loop, disregarding what ever you had to say and making it as if you refused to acknowledge that Atheists are discriminated ( and greatly persecuted) against. Do not be irritated any longer, for i have had my fun, good day sir.

My actual sincere point which i stated in the beginning had nothing to do with who would vote for who. I was just stating that like religious zealots, atheists are often put to death and physically harmed ( cancel out death when speaking in regards to the US.) The rest was troll material.

Not only the voting issue, but the question of whether or not atheists are discriminated against, as stated in the SAME polls you have posted, it is clear we both have good knowledge that atheists are in fact one of the most hated groups in the United States. I apologize for the other.... Commenters that joined into this conversation...

Thank you for the above and accepted. The only thing that irritated me was when I figured its trolling. Hence, concluded the convo... as with another responder. My intent is to have reasoned discussion. As we are all time limited regardless of belief or dis-belief, I don't like wasting precious seconds. I could keel over tomorrow and could have been enjoying my stir-fry rather than responding to trolling.

Thank you for the sincerity.

When did this become a contest about which groups are discriminated against "the most"? Also you can't compare atheism to race anyway, since one can belong to the other.

And - "Atheist is all you are, all you ever will be and oppression of Atheism the nucleus of your existence." - Okay, so as is debating with Atheists all you are, all you ever will be, and the nucleus of your existence? Because that's what my limited knowledge of you from only this thread tells me. You preach about having an open mind and coming to the table with knowledge but you're willing to size someone up and make snap judgments about their entire life based on one discussion of one topic?

Your use of Americans in quotes here is not appropriate even in accordance with your previous logic that it excludes South and Meso Americans, since they ARE excluded from voting for President of the US.

38 More Responses