Do Athiests have a neurological disorder?

[podnoi]

(Of course not)

Come on guys! Time to end the religious bigotry we are seeing so much of here. The Soviet Union was committed to atheism. Look at Stalin.

There is not a single culture or belief/non belief system that has to date been entirely peaceful.

Right wing zealots in our country are more "Darwinian" in their beliefs than they are "Christian". They use the name of Christ (who was extremely peaceful) to promote an agenda that places them on the top of the pyramid. But their actions in few ways reflect Christ's teachings.

Half of the problems in our system are related to the undercurrent of "Social Darwinism" that leads us to struggle against each other. So shall we blame Darwinism?

The answers are more complex than entertaining one set of bigotries over another.

[Fridays Child]

1. The archeological/artifactual evidence suggests an absence...

...of violence in the agrarian goddess-worshipping societies of prehistory.

[H2O Man]

10. Not quite true.

Agrarian societies are associated with far more violence than the hunting & gathering cultures they replaced. The reasons are fairly obvious: agrarian society creates far more of an identification of tribal/clan ownership of specific territory, as opposed to the far more loose-knit riverbasin parochialism of hunter-gatherers or pasoral nomadic groups. Second, agriculture creates accumulation of wealth, the single key to causing social stratification within the tribe/clan.

What is true is that agrarian cultures did not have true warfare. They had battles and raids, but there were constraints that limited the amount of violence. The relationship between agrarian society and the early industrial societies (marked by "cities" which were unable to produce enough food for all inhabitants, thus were dependent upon trade of mass-produced goods with rural groups) would result in a form of violence known as "blood feuds."

True warfare was brought to us by the city/industrial/empire cultures. If you combine the different forms of social stressors from most all of these, you find today's modern world. Warfare, battles, raids, and blood feuds, which threaten everything from the state to the family.

[semillama]

26. depends on how you define 'warfare'

as an archaeologist, I would say that warfare has been around for a while, if you define warfare as intergroup conflict coordinated to expand territory or expand influence, then you have warfare going well back in time. I would also say that the early cities were NOT industrial, as there is a big difference between industry and craft production.

The peaceful mother goddess worshipping agrarian societies are a popular myth, as far as I know. There's a good chance that mother goddess cults might have been displaced by the advent of agriculture and how that affected society. In fact, without an agrarian society to supply soldiers with food, typical warfare doesn't usually get above the raid level.

[H2O Man]

28. As an archaeologist,

I go by the definitions of words as commonly accepted in the field. For example, all archaeologists should know what "industry" means. It is the organized production of goods on a large scale, with the goods produced used in trade. Any archaeologist in North America, for example, would know exactly what this means in terms of something as basic as flint.

Warfare likewise has a specific meaning in anthropology, of which archaeology is one branch. That meaning is well-known, and I think it would be fairly difficult to apply it to, say, the archaic cultural phases in North America.

[semillama]

60. I have to disagree

All archaeologists should know the difference between the term "industry" as related to craft production and "industrial" in terms of an economy. You certainly wouldn't describe the folks who quarried at Flint Ridge or Silver Mound as "industrial laborers" but that seems to be what you are saying. While the term "industry" has been used to describe the craft production of artifacts from the Paleolithic on, the term "industrial" is generally reserved for the change from a craft mode of production to an organized industrial version. This involved the gradual substitution of machines for manual labor, inanimate for animate power sources, and mineral for vegetable fuel. These substitutions end up requiring that labor become more centralized and specialized. As an industrial archaeologist, I recognize the utility of the term "industry" in applied to prehistoric artifact production, but I think that there probably should be a better term for it that distinguishes one person making a biface from a factory worker in a nineteenth-century copper smelter.

As an archaeologist, surely you realize that old terms, while useful, can be misleading in their application? I mean, just take "reverse stratigraphy" as an example.

anyway, that's neither here nor there and not germane to the overall topic.

[H2O Man]

64. Craft production

can indeed be a specific part of an economy, and can clearly be an "industry." Craft production in cultures that have the social stratification that agriculture (and hence accumulated wealth) is as different from a person chipping projectile points for personal use, and the factory worker you speak of. These are not old or somehow outdated terms: surely you are familiar with what is known as a cottage industry?

[The Magistrate]

46. A Small Point, Mr. Waterman

Genuine warfare associates with agricultural societies fairly early, at least from the point of sizeable cities sustained by a hinterland, and for two reasons. First, there needs to be a substantial surplus of foodstuffs to support a body of men employed in sustained fashion at violence to the exclusion of other activities, even on a seasonal basis, and such societies were the first able to sustain such specialists. Second, the easiest way to increase a surplus is the acquisition of new land and enslaved populations; this is much easier than increasing the efficiency of agricultural practices, particularly in the earlier stages of the art. This having been said, it is worth pointing out that the supreme practitioners of war-fare prior to the general application of gun-powder, were pastoral nomad societies, in which the whole body of the mobile society doubles as an armed force. The necessity to protect a highly mobile form of wealth, and to secure precedence at water supplies and grass lands, demands such an organization. Where such societies in developed form, with horses available, came into contact with agcricultural societies, the sedentary farmers invariably were the losers.

[H2O Man]

54. Look closely:

You associate warfare with agriculture, but add that it is related to sizeable cities. These are two distinct things. While agriculture makes cities possible, cities are not agricultural. There simply isn't enough space in a city to grow enough crops and herd enough animals to feed the city population.

A city is dependent on the outlying areas for its food and for the natural resources it needs for its industry. Another person mistook "industry" for the "indistrial age," which is a common misconception, but a misconception nevertheless. In the northeastern United States, for but one example, every archaeologist who deals with prehistoric occupations knows what a "flint factory" is. It is not a building with large, well-oiled machines and a foreman making sure you punched in on a time clock.

To continue with a northeastern example, there were no doubt conflicts, likely raids, and even battles, before the influence of the city/state. But it was only after the extensive trade networks of the Mississippi and Ohio River Valley Empires (Adena & Hopwellian) that true warfare was to be found in the northeast.

This holds true around the globe.

[ultraist]

51. Yes, the violence increased with land "ownership"

agrarian society creates far more of an identification of tribal/clan ownership of specific territory, as opposed to ...

Nice post!

[H2O Man]

55. Thank you. n/t

[Juan Martinez]

2. I could not agree more.

I couldn't agree more. I'm a Christian, and I am disgusted at the way the Robertsons, the Falwells, and the Dobsons of this world poison my religion.

[sendero]

17. And how many times..

... have you spoken up about this to your pastor, or your pastor to his congregation?

That's what I thought.

Everyone says they hate the way the fundies have co-opted their religion, but I never hear word one about it.

While it is totally true that you are not responsible for what others who claim to be Christians do any more than I'm responsible for what those who claim not to be do, the "majority" of real Christians are oddly silent about the hikacking of their religion.

[cornermouse]

3. You're right in that they don't reflect Christ's teachings.

As you say, they use the name of Christ to promote an agenda that places them on top of the pyramid. In short, they've either lost their way or discarded the reason for their existence. And as long as they continue to seek power rather than a relationship with the God that they claim to worship and represent they will continue to be bashed, as they should be.

[xpat]

4. That's what religion is for! Duh!

"They use the name of Christ (who was extremely peaceful) to promote an agenda that places them on the top of the pyramid."

What good is a religion that doesn't keep the peons in their place? Why bother to invent a whole infrastructure of fear, superstition and magic if not to baffle the impressionable multitudes?

Let me recommend Upton Sinclair's "The Profits of Religion":
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/upton_sinclair/profits_of_religion.html

[The Minus World]

5. niwraD

Are you suggesting that, historically speaking, no society has attained peace, therefore criticism of hypocrisy from within the status quo is unhealthy?

Hypocrisy is hard-wired into the Christian faith, as well as many other faiths. As you have claimed, it can be manipulated, just as the original texts were, to promote a skewed array of unethical values which may lead its followers to believe that it's perfectly alright to lie, cheat or steal - as long as it is to further the reach and scope of the Christian faith.

Darwinism is a concept, not a chosen philosophy - it is not to be blamed for the world's problems. The privileged showing preference to their peers, and rigging the political system in order to maintain their privileged status may be considered "Darwinism" insomuch as the cunning survive while the weak allow themselves to be eaten. When those who take party to such behaviours claim to be ethical, law-abiding individuals, it's more of a matter of "hypocrisy": a trait, among many, which qualifies its subjects for Darwin's scythe.

Civil society was created in order to curb such individuals from wresting control and, ultimately, Darwin's Law will oversee their self-destruction from hubris and overindulgence.

That flaw of the human ego which drove the Romans to imperialism is the very same flaw that is driving the neo-conservatives and the religious right forward.

Upon understanding that fact, one will see that criticism of hypocrisy is not intolerance or bigotry, but just the opposite.

[rsch13]

6. Communism and Atheism

Have you read the Communist Manifesto (English Version)? Check it out, the Soviet Union had freedom of religion just like the U.S.A.

According to the Communist Manifesto, the Soviet Union was not committed to Atheism.

[Richard Steele]

7. Uh,,,yeah...okay....sure. Whatever you say.

[Darranar]

11. But the Soviet Union never followed the Communist Manifesto. n/t

[H2O Man]

12. Sure they did.

They followed it about as closely as the United States follows the Constitution. Clearly, real life is going to be different than theory, and the c.m. is another theory of how society could be. But human nature is human nature.

[Zynx]

13. The Soviet Union had freedom of religion?

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! Maybe in private! Stalin worked very hard to destroy religion in the USSR until WWII when he temeporarily let the Russian Orthodox Church conduct services.

[Vladimir]

19. Actually they lost the fight with the church

a long time before that, when it forced the re-introduction of marriages in the 20s...

[blondeatlast]

18. Interesting profile, indeed.

Member since Jul 17th 2003???

[Dorian Gray]

34. That is why churches were chased out of the state, right?

That's why Jews were constantly sent to gulags in Siberia.

Look, there is bad in Christianity. There is bad in Atheism. There is bad in all of us. We are human beings, and we are all capable of great good and great evil (or bad, if you don't believe in evil).

No system, whether it be based on religious tenets or secular tenets will be perfect. I'm not a fan of Soviet-style Communism, but I recognize that there was some potential good that could have come out of it if the USSR wasn't run by the murdering thug, Stalin. Freedom of religion, however, was not one of those things that had the potential to exist.

[American Tragedy]

66. It wasn't just Stalin.

Throughout its existence the USSR was an authoritarian empire. Long after Stalin's demise, the Soviet Union continued to exploit and violently assimilate weaker countries.

[podnoi]

45. Did you notice my screen name? It is russian for a reason

Surely you don't believe what you just wrote..

[0007]

56. Your 100% correct. The Russian Orthodox Religion is very powerful

[American Tragedy]

65. I have friends from Russia who would beg to differ

They were forced to take courses that indoctrinated them in atheism and had to write essays praising it, even though they were secretly Christians.

[Tux]

8. Why?

Why stop the fighting when we have to defend our beliefs from Evangelicals? I'll stop bashing Christians if the real ones (ones that follow Jesus' teachings of peace, love, understanding, and having god as a homie), if they will stand up to these people and set them straight. I have yet to hear of even one doing that other than Jim Wallis. I think they all turned to the Evnagleicals when gay marriage was brought up last year.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. the problem is

that believers are standing up to fundamentalists every day, but the media doesn't cover it. I have read and seen Christian ministers who condemn what Bush and the Religious Right are doing. I have Sufi brothers and sisters who have ecumenical meetings with people of other faiths and who, every day, fight to keep mosques from being taken over by fundamentalists. But one has to dig on the internet to find out about these actions, or be on some email list that sends the information.

About a week ago, there was a wonderful article about supporting Sufis in countries because they are moderate and tolerant. The article went into detail about Muslim nations where there were Sufi majorities and how they weren't like Saudi Arabia. It was posted twice on DU, and both times got very few responses, which made me sad. It seems that none of the people who post here saying that believers aren't doing enough to stop fundamentalists felt that the article was important enough to comment upon.

[mainer]

14. No, we were just born without the restraining bolt

to quote Luke Skywalker.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Yeah, we think too much, and when we do, it's critical thinking.

That makes us malcontented miscreants, out of step with the majority.

However, I don't think this is bad.

[Nimrod]

16. Atheism is a faith

faith n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

If you specifically believe there is no such thing as God, that is a belief that does not rest on logical proof - ergo a faith. If I decide my sock-monkey is The One True God, that's a faith too. The Christian Mafia doesn't like this idea.

Anytime you see someone use the words "religion" or "Christianity" in a sentence, you need to insert the words "my" or "their" as appropriate to properly read what is being said.

(The last time I said something to this effect I had some linguistics major try to pick this argument apart based on usages of the term Atheist that nobody's used for centuries. I humbly request that not happen this time.)

[Az]

20. Asmurfism is a faith

faith n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

If you specifically believe there is no such thing as Smurfs, that is a belief that does not rest on logical proof - ergo a faith. If I decide my sock-monkey is The One True Smurf, that's a faith too. The Christian Mafia doesn't like this idea.

Etc.


Oooh and here's one more. Atheism is a faith like baldness is a hair color.

[Nimrod]

21. Nope

Absence of faith is entirely different. A genuine lack of faith would indicate you have no opinion one way or the other.

[Az]

22. It always amazes me

Its really quite a simple word. 'a' meaning without and theism meaning a belief in god or gods. Atheism: A person without a belief in god or gods. Instead the word people keep trying to conjure up when describing an atheist (and this includes many modern dictionaries) is antitheist.

There is a word for someone that simply does not believe in god. And that word is atheist. Just as someone that sort of believes in god without any serious convictions is still a theist a person with no particular belief in gods is an atheist.

When a person is not a theist they are something else. A lack of belief in god is covered by the term atheist. Agnostic simply does not cover a distinct lack of belief. It merely posits that they don't believe they can know. This covers belief of an entirely different matter. Belief concerning what you can know is different than belief or lack of belief in god. Its a different question entirely.

Faith throws an entirely different loop into the mix. Faith is what some learn they are supposed to believe. Lack of faith merely means you have no preconcieved notion about what you are supposed to believe and instead simply express the things you do or do not believe. As such an atheist is not defined by their faith. For the most part the typical atheist arrives at their position on their own. No model or pressure is applied for them to form an opinion based on a static position. Thus there is no source for faith.

[Nimrod]

24. Amazes me too

But I won't bother to go into why. :)

[Az]

25. Then we shall have to remain amazed together

I would rather our differences be a source of humor than anger. So I shall stare slackjawed at you while you stare slackjawed at me. Maybe we can make some faces at each other every once in a while. :freak:

[Pepperbelly]

63. amazed is good ...

very good.

Beats the shit out of outraged. Better on the old blood pressure.

[kwassa]

57. This point will never be resolved

AZ:
"A lack of belief in god is covered by the term atheist. Agnostic simply does not cover a distinct lack of belief. It merely posits that they don't believe they can know. This covers belief of an entirely different matter. Belief concerning what you can know is different than belief or lack of belief in god. Its a different question entirely."

A distinct lack of belief is a faith, in my book. It is a belief in "lack of belief", and is a type of religious faith.

[Modem Butterfly]

27. Tell me more about this One True Smurf and how I may worship Him

And build churches in His honor. Or something.

[H2O Man]

29. Be careful.

Smurfism is a rapidly growing cult that the Right Reverend Jerry Farwell has warned us about. Each year, it is estimated that the Smurfistical forces of Darkness kidnap over 200 million infants, to be programed as CIA killer robots. Don't let the cuddily package fool you.

[Deep13]

32. Where does Smuffette...

...fit into the Smurf pantheon?

[Az]

36. Do the math

A Gazillions smurfs... one Smurffette.

[Goldmund]

48. Hey! Can we start an Asmurfist forum?

[Deep13]

37. False

:argh:
Atheism is not faith. It is a decision not to be a part of that debate. It is illogical to frame the debate in terms of the existence or non-existence of god when there is no reason to believe there is one. You may as well say that my disbelief in bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster is based on faith. When someone claims that something exists, it is incumbent on him to demonstrate it with evidence (not just logic). Failure of proof is not a question of belief or disbelief. Further, a decision not to decide the existence of a divine being who has no practical or observable consequences to the world is merely a decision not to waste nuerons on an irrelevant issue.

Critical thinking means requiring proof, especially for extraordinary claims like the existence of unseen supernatural beings. Critical thinking cannot assume that just because a lot of people believe it that it must be true. It requires evidence. Granted, critical thinking does not always lead to the right result. It often does, however, and wrong results are often corrected or modified later in the face of new evidence. Religion on the other hand is entirely introspective and does not require proof of anything. Far from it, religion often insists on belief in the face of disproof.

History shows that the advancement of the human conditions walks hand-in-hand with the destruction of religion (Communism notwithstanding).

[AllegroRondo]

41. Not exactly

Lets say you were raised on an island with no contact with the outside world. You have never heard of God or Religion before. Does this mean you have 'faith' that there is no God? NO - it is a completely foreign concept and requires no faith to NOT believe it.

[H2O Man]

23. What do progressive democrats,

be they atheists, theists, black, brown, red, yellow, white, tall, short, thin, fat, short- or long-haired, rich or poor, etc etc have in common?

I can think of two general areas: We all live here on planet earth; love our families, friends, and SOs; try to make ends meet so that we have a warm home, food on the table, and a vehicle that doesn't break-down; we prefer social justice to injustice; we tend to feel a sense of awe when we look up on a clear night with a star-filled sky; we prefer to drink sparkling clean water rather than TCE-contaminated water; we oppose violence; and want to enjoy our lives.

The other area is easily defined: We have a common enemy. There is a group of people who represent the "far side" of the human potential who are greedy, vain, and violent. A small percentage are incarcerated in our prisons, often on death row. The majority are found in the republican party, with a thick concentration in the Bush administration & Halliburton-type business.

Perhaps we could agree to not use words that divide us, making it easier for our common enemies to capitalize off of the stupidity of argueing over silly things. We have a choice, right here, today, now: will we invest our energy in stupid debates that divide us, or might we agree to focus our enegy on more worthwhile projects?

[ConcernedNonpartisan]

30. I was going to reply but (oops)

I guess I do not fall into a religious group nor a non-religious group. Saying that I must be one or the other would be like saying that everyone needs to be either for or against Sponge Bob Square Pants. Some of us do not care. To me, religion is a non-starter!

About the only time that the "existence of god" or the "non-existence of god" ever enters my mind is when someone else brings up the subject.

[Deep13]

31. Sick of being compared to Stalin.

"The Soviet Union was committed to atheism. Look at Stalin."

Every time I suggest to someone that the state should do more for some problem, I get compared to socialism and the Soviet Union. Now, it seems I am getting it from the other side too. This is a straw man argument and, therefore, logically false. You are dangerously close to violating the 9th Commandment.

While I agree that Yeshua of Nazareth would not recognize his teachings in modern Christianity; what matters is how it is practiced and not its theoretical underpinnings. The simple fact is that for the most part modern Christianity teaches bigotry and hate. It ostracizes gays, degrades women, promotes blind obedience of authority and a culture of guilt and self loathing. The whole concept of original sin and redemption sounds like a pitch from a snake oil salesman. Here's a problem you didn't know you had and you can only get the solution from us. It is really quite neurotic.

What has Christianity ever done for anyone? I mean besides the Inquisition, the Crusades, the European religious wars and a justification for imperialism and slavery.

I am an atheist because I want to know the truth and not just have my own wishful thinking reinforced. That is why I will not pretend Christianity makes sense. Now, I believe in religious freedom and will not push my views on anyone. I someone asks, however, or tries to push his or her views on me, then I tell them what I think.

[H2O Man]

35. Good point.

You start with a good point: atheists should not be lumped with Stalin etc. However, to be consistent, let's not lump all Christians with Hitler, etc.

There are, of course, numerous examples of what "good" Christianity has done .... Martin Luther King, Jr is an obvious one. And there are numerous examples of atheists doing similar "good."

In fact, there are enough examples of people from a wide range of backgrounds doing good deeds on a daily basis that the "religious wars" on DU should cease.

[Deep13]

42. Agreed

I try not to judge the individual by his or her religion. Yes, there are good Christians including many that post on this site. Many of the local D officials around here who somehow stay in office are very religious and have my enthusiastic support. I also took it as a positive sign when the Episcopal Church decided to put prejudice aside and install a gay bishop. They were also among the first to install a woman bishop in the 1980s. I also remember the tongue-lashing the presiding bishop gave Dubya about his anti-environmental policies shortly after he stole office. Also, recent efforts by the United Ch. of Christ to reach out to underrepresented groups like gays are encouraging.

Nevertheless, on balance institutional Christianity has been a destructive force in history as have most religions. People do best when they think for themselves and do not rely on priests. In America, churches continue to buy into the right wing agenda to the point of threatening parishoners with excommunication if they support pro-choice candidates. It is largely suburban churches that are pushing people's cultural panic buttons on gay and abortion issues and keeping the Rs in power. As far as the other examples I mentioned, those things happened. Atheists did not conduct witch-hunts.

Communism (as practiced) was a religion, or at least an artificial replacement for it. While it officially espoused atheism, it did so as part of an idelogically driven state agenda to consolidate power. It did not encourage critical thinking or a scientific search for the truth. Rather it required unquestioning obedience and a surrended of personal freedom, just as theocratic societies do.

[podnoi]

47. Actually, you are arguing my point for me ;)

Most athiests are surely peaceful. But you get offended because you thought I was saying that Stalin represents Atheism (which I wasn't if you read the post again).

Yet that is exactly what happens so often in this forum. I was simply pointing out that religion is indeed a non-issue and using a group of people to stereotype and express bigotry toward anyone that has a religious system (or doesn't have one) is wrong.

By the way, have you lived there (Russia?). There has been so much propaganda I am not sure if it is possible to understand Soviet Society without doing so. There is even a lot of propaganda now in terms of the reality of life there.

"Atheists did not conduct witch-hunts". Once again, you need to talk to Russians who were there. Not true.

[ultraist]

53. Communism...not all violence is in the name of religion

Just most of it! lol

[Deep13]

59. Communism was the religion...

... or a functional substitute. I commented on that at length in a different rely to this post.

[Pepperbelly]

44. Okay but please don't tell me ...

that you're a history major.

[kwassa]

58. Speaking of bigotry and hate

Deep13:
"The simple fact is that for the most part modern Christianity teaches bigotry and hate."

Nope. One subset of people who call themselves Christians do that. The majority of Christians in America certainly do not, and never have. The fundamentalist movement is a historically recent phenomenon, and is limited to a minority of Christians. You smear with a very broad brush.

"What has Christianity ever done for anyone? I mean besides the Inquisition, the Crusades, the European religious wars and a justification for imperialism and slavery."

Provide a basis for Western culture, of moral example in the life of Christ, of charity and good works, of study, scholarship and reflection, and most importantly of inspiration to live a better life.

[KittyWampus]

33. The Inability To Differentiate Between Matter & Information

or to accept that both exist and play equally important roles in Reality may very well result from some sort of neurological disorder.

I suspect it's more a matter of habit.

[kypper]

38. Social Darwinism verses Darwinism

They aren't the same. Many athiests accomplish great things, and you do them an injustice by comparing the two.

Social darwinism is the abuse of classes by the elite due to the belief in both moral and biological superiority, but is only firmly rooted in financial superiority. Many elitist groups in history have participated in this.

Darwinism is, through in some part natural selection (the idea that a given trait may be more useful to a given situation than another, and thus an advantage), the evolution of a lineage. It has nothing to do with squandering or killing others for personal gain.

[Az]

40. Don't get me started on Social Darwinism

A Sophmoric notion that is based entirely on a short understanding of evolution and natural selection. It is a better model of Corporate Culture rather than human culture.

[Runcible Spoon]

67. I also rankle at the term "social Darwinism"...

we should not even use it...it is on par with "Feminazi" IMHO

[podnoi]

49. Interesting..

I simply put forth that atheist societies conduct war and acts against humanity as well. I did not single them out (if folks read my post).

This has been a very interesting topic. Interesting how zealously some are reacting when they feel they are unjustly stereotyped. Goes to show we are all human, whatever our religion or lack of.

[dolo amber]

39. Well, I *do* have ADD....

not sure how they're related, though... :shrug:

;)

[Deep13]

43. I'm sorry, what was that?

I wasn't paying attention.
:)

[depakid]

50. It's not religious bigotry to state FACTS

and the FACTS ARE (if you care to read them) that fundamentalists often are suffering from what can be called, ipso facto- mental illness.

Pointing that out is no more bigotry than my saying that people of color have greater rates of melonin production- or that women on average are shorter than men.

[ultraist]

52. I agree

Reputable psychiatrists, psychologists and sociologists that draw conclusions are not merely being bigots. This is where our notion comes from, that fundies are mentally ill. We didn't just make it up so we could name call.

It's no different than saying, people who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer.

[Deja Q]

61. Welcome to DU, and an excellent post. Now if we can only

get some of the MSM to point out the reich-wing as being the phonies they are. So many take * at face falue without bothering to read Jesus' teachings and for this I refuse to turn the other cheek unless there's a good reason for doing so.

[porphyrian]

62. Atheism isn't a religion. It's the lack of a religion.

From an atheist point of view, people who believe in a religion usually do seem to be crazy, just like people who believe that squirrels subvocalize secrets to the FBI. I think they have a valid position. People who make claims of believing in a magical benefactor in the sky should be prepared to present evidence or an argument for such a claim, just as someone claiming that the earth is square should do the same. It's not bigotry, it's a call for rationality.

That said, I'm personally an agnostic, and I don't automatically disregard the possibility that religious claims may be correct in some degree. I just don't believe that there is any way to prove them either way at the moment, so the point is moot.

People can believe whatever they want. That's one of the founding principles of our country. However, anyone who chooses to wear those beliefs on their sleeve should be prepared to hear the opinion of those around them. Tolerance does not mean acceptance, it means allowance. Voicing disagreement with another's claims is not bigotry.