Religion Relies on Social Consent

[cleanhippie]

Religion — the hypothesis that the world is the way it is because of supernatural beings or forces acting on the natural world — is a bad idea. At best, it’s almost certainly wrong; at worst, it’s totally incoherent. Religious beliefs are either unfalsifiable — in which case we should reject them on that basis alone — or they’ve been falsified. It has never, ever, ever turned out to be the right answer to anything. It may have made sense thousands of years ago, when we didn’t understand the world as well as we do now. But it makes no sense at all now. I’m not saying we know everything there is to know about the universe — of course we don’t — but given the fact that natural explanations of phenomena have replaced supernatural ones thousands upon thousands of times, and supernatural explanations have replaced natural ones exactly never, assuming that one particular supernatural explanation will turn out to be right is clearly a sucker’s bet.

Religion is a bad idea. It can’t stand up on its own. But it can — and does — perpetuate itself through social consent. It perpetuates itself through people not asking hard questions, or indeed any. It perpetuates itself through dogma saying that asking questions about religion is sinful and will result in punishment, and that trusting religion without evidence is virtuous. It perpetuates itself through dogma saying that joy and meaning and morality can only be found in religion, and that leaving religion will automatically result in a desperate, amoral, pointless life. It perpetuates itself through parents and other authority figures teaching it to children, whose brains are extra-vulnerable to believing whatever they’re taught. It perpetuates itself through social and even legal protections that keep religious leaders and organizations from suffering consequences when they behave despicably. It perpetuates itself through religious communities and support systems that make believing in religion — or pretending to believe in religion — a necessity to function and indeed survive. Etc. Etc. Etc. (More examples are welcomed in the comments.)

Religion perpetuates itself through social consent.

So those of us who think religion is a bad idea — mistaken at best, flat-out harmful at worst — have to deny our consent.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/10/18/religion-relies-on-social-consent/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

[rug]

1. So does atheism.

Earth shattering article.

[Warpy]

2. Wha? Atheists don't agree on anything except not believing a word of it

and we all came to that conclusion surrounded by people in consensus over whatever religion was dominant in the household and general community.

I think you need to reassess what you think you know about atheists because your posts suggest you don't know anything.

Look at the way you and others are treating us. Social consent? You've got to be kidding, considering the condemnation we face whenever we poke our noses out of our closets and the laws that have been passed all over the country denying us public office.

[rug]

4. The point stands.

It's naive to assert atheists are free floating monads lacking organization, community and ideology.

It has as much to do with society and social consent as any other human organization.

And before you complain about how you are being treated, look around the wreckage in here.

[Warpy]

7. Uh, no

Nobody consents to atheists. We just are.

And the only part of your point that stands is because you're propping it up, loath to let it go lest it disappear into a puff of logic.

[rug]

9. Well, here's a logic puzzle for you.

If you don't need social consent, why are you complaining about persecution?

[David Sky]

16. You really don't quite get this "justice" and "equality" under...

the law part of our society, do you?

Haven't quite figured that part out? Still thinking that the religious folks should have the upper hand?

"If you don't need social consent, why are you complaining about persecution?"

Probably because of people like you, with your constant agenda to persecute others who don't "think" the way you do, and feel entitled to make stuff up, lie about atheism and what it is, and feel threatened by folks like us.

I was reading some of the Fox News web site comments to the appearance of Richard Dawkins on the OReilly show.

Christian folks ready to take out their guns and shoot him! That's kind of why we "complain"!

[rug]

20. Put the agenda down and answer the question.

The flip side of society's consent is society's rejection. You cannot have the latter unless the former exists.

You really won't get that until you take your blinders off.

[David Sky]

50. Put the "AGENDA" of equality and justice down? NEVER!...You, on the other.....

hand, seem to want people to give it up so that you can preach your superiority over all other believers on the planet, even those that simply do NOT believe!

Ok, I think you know why I have to put exclamation points in my statements, simply because your foolish assertions are so far from a sense of justice, and so self-serving.

I will refrain from exclamation points, just to make you feel like you actually had something worthy to say......but I will NOT refrain from asking you questions which you seem incapable of answering. So much the pattern among folks whose agenda is to dismiss atheism because it so threatens them.

[rug]

55. in your case, I was referring to the agenda of hyperbole and histrionics.

I did leave out narcissism.

[deacon_sephiroth]

80. That's an "agenda" I'll support every time. N/T

[cleanhippie]

11. The point fails.

Its naive to assert that atheists have anything more in common than a lack of belief in the claims of gods by religion. Anything beyond that is something else entirely.

VOCALIZING our lack of belief is SHAKING UP the social consent, and in the process, some organizations have formed.

And considering how YOU treat people here? Pot, meet kettle.

[rug]

13. There;s a lot of words here for a simple premise.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ought.html

Fortunately, I consider your behavior your own and not emblematic of a larger group.

[cleanhippie]

17. Well goodie for you.

I wish I could feel the same about your behavior, but considering that religion TEACHES it adherents how to think, how to act, what to say...

[NMMNG]

25. You're making words again

But you're not making sense.

[rug]

26. This should help.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

[David Sky]

27. Christians and other religions have had the right to NOT make sense since

the beginning of time! But, it's becoming ever so much more obvious as time and society advances; obvious that they're not making sense.

The religious folks still tie themselves to the same nonsensical fantasies, a man in the sky, a virgin birth, a devine punisher of human beings who stray from the Bible, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

They claim not making sense is their "religious freedom" to believe in any fairy tale they want to, and they will ridicule and attempt to limit the rights of those that don't agree with their fairy tales.

[rug]

44. You have a poorly developed sense of irony.

"they will ridicule and attempt to limit the rights of those that don't agree with their fairy tales"

[David Sky]

47. Since WHEN did a non-believer limit a Christian's right to .......

limit the beliefs of others?

Oh, maybe for the non-historic fairy tale years Christians make up as having happened, without any proof.

To me it look like the whole Christ virgin birth, to modern day Catholic rapes of children......all covered somewhere in their made up history, together with justifications for each and every lie, death, and rape since Jesus Christ himself.

[rug]

48. Ibid.

[cleanhippie]

6. +1

[David Sky]

3. Um NO! That's about 180 degrees (or maybe a few hundred million Christians) away from the facts!

But facts never seem to get in the way of extremely religious people.

There simply is no "social consent" given to people who refuse to believe in a god figure.

[rug]

5. An assertion is not persuasion.

Particularly when it runs through your filter.

[David Sky]

8. Sure, whatever. I'll just ask you to stop asserting things for which you have no

evidence, when the rest of us are looking at the facts, and you are just making your OWN "assertion" up!

Somehow, you come up with blatant falsehoods and give no factual defense of your "assertion", but you're sure to try another personal insult, just to seal the deal as to your indignant righteousness and feelings of being threatened by Atheists.

[rug]

10. And I'll just ask you to stop ending your sentences with an exclamation point.

I know it suits the content of the post but it looks like comic book dialogue.

[cleanhippie]

12. It must be SOME view up there rug.

How does it feel to look down your nose at everyone?

[rug]

14. Tell me.

How does it feel to look down your nose at everyone with a religious belief?

[cleanhippie]

19. I wouldn't know, but you do, so tell me.

What is it like to feel so superior to everyone else?

[rug]

22. Of course you wouldn't.

You ooze humility.

[cleanhippie]

30. Ooze may be a bit of an overstatement.

But it makes up for your underwhelming performance.

[David Sky]

21. Asking people questions for which they have no good answers is

looking one's nose down at them? I would have thought it would be more of an invitation to do some actual thinking.

[David Sky]

18. So now you have retreated to being the punctuation police?

I didn't end THAT sentence with an exclamation point, you will notice.

[rug]

23. Not at all, I'm just tired of brushing them off my sleeve.

[Deep13]

34. So, "I know you are, but what am I?" is your response?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

[rug]

45. You meant this, Francis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8

Monty Python is too sophisticated for R/T.

[saras]

15. That's one of the wierdest, most atypical definitions of religion I've ever seen

[David Sky]

24. I find it rather accurate. Think of all the religions of the world, and

the abundance of mythical figures, gods, goddesses, angels, demons, devils.

Think of how far from an accurate view of the world and universe, for instance, a Greek god that controlled thunder was.

Those were religious figures to the ancient Greeks as much as Satan is to some modern Christians.

[dtexdem]

28. Atheist fundies are as bad as religious fundies ...

and just as boring.

[David Sky]

29. Atheist " fundies"? I have no idea what that looks like.

One is either pregnant or not. Same with an Atheist.

What the concept of "fundamentalism" has to do with non-belief I have no idea. Please explain what you have in mind.

Unless, of course, you are just here to add another personally insulting post on a serious intellectual topic which somehow offends or disquiets you.

[Thats my opinion]

32. Anyone using absolute value statements

is a fundamentalist. Consider the statement just a few posts ago. "WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG." It is evidenced in a hundred other air-tight, no conversation, absolutist declarations that all religion is worthless. It goes on in r/t ad nauseum. Just change a few of the words and you have religious fundamentalism. It is the assertion that those who hold any other position are wrong. Being "open minded" atheists do not want to be called fundamentalists. But if it quacks like a duck...... This is not a criticism of atheism,. It is a legitimate partner in a rational conversation. It is a criticism of those atheists--and there are dozen around here-- who make categorical unchallengeable statements. That's fundamentalism.

[Deep13]

36. 2+2 always = 4

There are no exceptions. By your definition that makes me a mathematical fundy.

You pull out the "atheist fundamentalist" card whenever the facts are squarely on our side.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Or, as I read in the New York Times magazine about a school in Russia

that aims to teach critical thinking, 2+2 does not always equal four.

Two drops of water added to two drops of water equals one large drop of water.

Two wolves plus two sheep equals two wolves.

[Deep13]

49. I was wondering what form the fallacy of equivocation was going to take...

...in response to my fundamentalist post. The drop of water is twice as big as it was. You are changing the basic unit of measurement. If the original drops of water were 2cc each then the resulting merge is 4cc, so 2+2 still = 4. Or if the result drop is the unit size, 0.5drop + 0.5drop = 1drop. The only way 2+2=/=4 is if one changes the definition of the units halfway through the equation.

2W + 2S = (2W + 2S)

Granted the wolves will soon kill and eat the sheep and then the latter will no longer fit the definition of "sheep" unless one includes "dead sheep" in the definition. Still, the material remains the same. It still exists despite being killed and partly eaten. 200lbs. of sheep before and 200lbs. after, although some of it is being digested. Obviously, the simple equation of 2+2=4 is not intended to address processes by which something comes into or goes out of existence, though even that is definitional since the total quantity of matter and energy remains unchanged.

[trotsky]

31. Perhaps you could tell us when the last "atheist fundie" flew an airplane into a building...

or bombed an abortion clinic. I mean, they're "as bad" so the examples must be plentiful, right?

[humblebum]

37. If you exclude all of the atrocities committed by atheist fundies

throughout recent history, then you might have a valid point. But, truth be told, you do not.

[Deep13]

39. Bullshit. Still bullshit.

Again, Stalin's etc. henchmen were not atheist fundies. They were Stalinists. They fully believed in Stalinism (Maoism, etc.) and acted like true believers. They did not doubt or examine evidence. I'll write on this at length when I get a chance because I was just reading about communist mass violence.

Really, this point has been so thoroughly addressed that only willful ignorance or plain dishonesty keeps it in the conversation. In that sense it is no different than creationism. But like creationists, if you only have one arrow left in your quiver--however bent and badly fletched--I guess you have to shoot it.

[humblebum]

40. Then tell me, why did they form groups in the name of atheism,

not communism? And why did they force thousands upon thousands to renounce their religious ways and beliefs or face imprisonment or death, and to accept atheism, NOT Communism? And why did the government require that Scientific Atheism be inculcated at all schools, factories, public squares, etc.? Being atheist - required, being communist - not required. Why did they erect museums in honor of Scientific Atheism? Why did groups like the League of Militant Atheists maintain such close ties with outside atheist and free thought groups?

To arrive at your conclusion you must ignore or reject historical fact. Organized atheism existed before the introduction of Communism and after.

[Deep13]

42. Are you talking about Marxists generally or ...

...Stalin's henchmen specifically? We're talking about mass murder here, not government propaganda, right? I'm not doubting that revolutionary governments pushed their agenda in schools etc. Anyway, even if they called it "scientific atheism" it doesn't mean it was.

I've not read of any atheist death squads. I know religion was suppressed in the USSR, China and Cambodia as agents of imperialism, but that was largely the result of the fact that in China and USSR they were agents of imperials and because of Marxist atheism. Again, part of the whole communist thing. Still my reading indicates that in USSR at least the ground-level henchmen were primarily killing peasants in retaliation for failure to produce expected farm products. The objective evidence clearly showed that the production was impossible, especially because of the "reforms" Stalin had implemented. Since the system had become immune to criticism and turned inward to its own ideology to find all the answers rather than examining facts, they had the mentality of religious zealots. They confiscated seed corn and dairy cows, committed acts of violence against perceived resistors and caused widespread famine that ideological adherence continued to worsen. Stalin went to far as to accuse people of starving to death just to undermine the revolution. (The man was not just cruel, he was loony tunes.)

[David Sky]

46. Atrocities commited by Christian fundamentalists........somehow not relevant?

nly people who are NOT on your campaign to make other ways of thinking among human beings are able to be attacked?


So ALL the Christians get a free pass, because someone somewhere might have not believed in Christ or the God you made up?


OKAY........

you win only in your little circular arguments.....where Christians are always the best, and forget the 5 or 6 million that Hitler killed in the name of your GOD!!!!!!!!!! OK, got it, forget your problems with being nice, only the evil done by 12-20 billion people living before you count, chock up a few hundred million to mistakes of Christians, trying to get the world all right for those Christians left behind.

Any you, dear Christian, can only post on a message board, your real religion is being attacked by reason from all sides, and all you can do is post here!!!

[humblebum]

63. Would be interesting to see where you get your figures.

"chock up a few hundred million to mistakes of Christians" - according to sources I have seen, atheistic dictators and atheists have been responsible for an estimated 100+ million murders in the 20th century alone. Largest mass killings in all of human history.

[darkstar3]

64. We're all fully aware that the Communists were mass murderers. It's beside the point. Move on.

[humblebum]

65. Actually they were not all Communist, but they were all atheists.

that has all ready been documented more than once, here. you just have a constant habit of discounting any sources that don't fit your cozy little paradigm.

[darkstar3]

66. Then why do you have yet to mention an atheist group that was outside of a Communist dictatorship

and committed mass murder?

[humblebum]

67. Have mentioned atheist and freethinking groups and individual atheists

from the outside who aligned themselves with the atheists in Russia several times. Is it that you think there were none?

[darkstar3]

68. Those were not mass murdering atheist groups, so you've moved the goalposts,

and it has already been established that the support they voiced for the Communist Party was revoked immediately once the truth of the mass murders came to light.

[humblebum]

69. Hardly. Atheist groups outside of Russia, China, and the satellite countries

did not have the free rein that the Party might have given them. And no, not all atheists dropped their support once the results of the revolution and purges were known.

[darkstar3]

70. And that right there is hate speech.

You've just stated that if you give atheists free reign to do what they want and the backing of the state, they will most assuredly commit mass murder. And don't try backpeddling, because that is the only implication of this:

"Hardly. Atheist groups outside of Russia, China, and the satellite countries did not have the free rein that the Party might have given them."

[David Sky]

52. Actually, there have been ZERO. in all recorded history!

But Christians are more about lying about their own history over the last 2000 years, so, to them, history is just another set of lies they tell.

[Deep13]

35. Contradiction in terms and an unsupported argument. nt

[NMMNG]

53. Your'e probably bored by "atheist fundamentalists"

Because they don't exist. They're a fiction created by religious people.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

54. Just so you know

Calling atheists "fundamentalists" is a pejorative. It has no meaning outside of its negative insinuation as an attack phrase.

Calling me a "fundamentalist" is akin to calling a black person a n!gger or a gay man a f@ggot. It's a way to degrade, attack, belittle or humiliate another person with words. And like those vile words used to degrade blacks or homosexuals, using "fundamentalist" is highly offensive to atheists.

[darkstar3]

56. I agree that it's a slur, but I don't think it's quite like that.

Bear with me.

"Nigger" is a slur for a black person. It is insulting, degrading, and entirely out of place in the mouth of a liberal, but it is referring specifically to a black person. Similarly, "faggot" is an insulting, degrading, and entirely unacceptable way to refer specifically to homosexuals.

"Fundamentalist" doesn't work like that. It's a word used to refer specifically to a religious person who believes that the fundamental documents and creeds of their religion are clear, concrete, and unquestionable. It simply cannot refer to an atheist, because atheism has no fundamental documents and creeds. So when this word is used to refer to atheists, it is most definitely a slur, but it's also a comedic twisting of the word.

Why?

Because the only way they can think of to insult us as deeply as possible is to compare us to themselves.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

76. "Fundamentalist" doesn't have the same social stigma as those other pejoratives

But it's used in the same manner - not as a proper descriptor, but as a slur.

"Fundamentalist" is not, and probably won't ever reach, the level of degradation provided by the aforementioned slurs. But that doesn't make it appropriate.

[humblebum]

33. And I most certainly give my consent. Though religion, as an institution,

has many faults, it offers far more to the condition of humanity than atheism can ever hope to. The reason? In order to be an atheist one must eliminate certain modes of thinking in order for it to make sense. Free thought is just that - free thought - no boundaries. That is not atheism. Empirical thought is important, useful, and necessary, BUT it has severe limitations, which leave it wanting for more when it is all there is.

[Deep13]

41. I think you misunderstand atheism.

First, as a point of definitions, atheism is a lack of belief, not necessarily an affirmative belief in the absence of gods. Many atheists, of course, do take the latter position, including me. Free thought may lead a person to atheism and often does, but the terms are not synonymous.

Some, it is true, are strictly empiricists. Without verifiable, physical evidence, they will not accept something as true. While I think that is a good starting point and I think that kind of evidence trumps more instinctive or emotional considerations, it is not the whole picture. As the products of evolution we have inherited many subjective, instinctive intuitions. These tend to be very personal, not so good for figuring out complex processes, but very useful in the context of their evolutionary "purpose."

If you get a bad feeling about someone or someplace, it is a good idea to pay attention. You might be wrong, but you might be right. I was sitting in a gun shop (of all places) a few years ago when a young man came in. The whole atmosphere of the place changed. The mood darkened and we ALL felt like he had bad intentions. He was ordinary looking and of the same race as the owners and customers. He just seemed bad. He asked one owner a question and the other owner asked me how business was at the DA's office. He quickly left. On the other hand, everyone who meets my wife instantly feels like she is a wonderful person. Experience has proved them right.

So there are senses beyond the rational. The problem with them is they can be fooled. Just as people can be wrong in logic or examining evidence, they can be wrong in intuition. I have no doubt that religious experiences exist. I only doubt that they have anything to do with god. I think intuition is prone to conclusion-jumping. I think human thinking is prone to filling in missing information with ones preferred mode of thinking. And I think people resist having their preferred explanations discredited and that religion trains people not to consider contrary explanations. As noted by the OP, it is a self-perpetuating cultural norm. Finally, I think that given its track record--look at medicine for example--hard evidence has to trump intuition.

[David Sky]

72. Well stated. n/t

[David Sky]

51. "one must eliminate certain modes of thinking in order for it to make sense"

HuH?

Like fantasies? Made-up gods? Made-up virgins, devils, satan, a man who did the whole universe on his own?

Blood becoming wine? Body becoming bread?

Which "certain modes of thinking" do you want to give up?

[cleanhippie]

73. Oh, just wait. He is gonna tell you about the "other ways of knowing"...

...and "where you see contradiction, I see conformation," along with some other WTF kind of statements.


Strap in, Mr. Sky, because if you engage him, you are in for a WILD, mind-blowing ride. Some of the conversations have made Alice In Wonderland seem like a Sesame Street book.



Mostly its just nonsense, but sometimes there are some true gems that really make you wonder if you are dealing with a sane person or not.


Good luck.

[NMMNG]

77. You say that like it's a bad thing

Empirical thought is important, useful, and necessary, BUT it has severe limitations, which leave it wanting for more when it is all there is.

That's the beauty of science and rationality. There's always more to learn, another discovery out there. Previous assumptions are always open to reinterpretation when new evidence is presented. Everything is dynamic and it's all wonderful.



But if you prefer to remain in one place with a pat answer of "God did it" for everything because it makes you more comfortable that's your prerogative.


BTW, a Freethinker and Freethought aren't what you and your buddies seem to think they are. They have nothing to do with your notion that people are so open to everything that their brains fall right out of their heads.

[Deep13]

38. Reminds me of Eugene Genovese's book Roll, Jordan, Roll...

where he argues that slavery existed with the consent of the enslaved. He was not trying to pretty-up slavery, but only argued that slaves accepted the reality of their condition rather than choose self destruction. They exercised agency in subtle forms of resistance that today would be called passive-aggression.

In Western nations we have more freedom to withhold consent than that, but even still there are social pressures that make it difficult to withhold consent. Everything from career to family dynamics conspire to perpetuate the instruments of oppression and that certainly includes religion. I'm sure my irreligiosity has damaged my law career despite being far more discrete than I am here.

[darkstar3]

57. Not social consent. Groupthink.

Religion clearly perpetuates itself through groupthink. If atheists come out of the closet en masse, they can disturb that groupthink and possibly lead to a break from it.

I agree with what the article is trying to say, but I think it could have been said better.

[NMMNG]

58. Exactly

If atheists come out of the closet en masse, they can disturb that groupthink and possibly lead to a break from it.


Hence the fervent, often hysterical, attempts to denigrate and silence us.

[humblebum]

59. Organized atheism IS group think. When the only way to conform

is to discount so many forms of thinking, and then to use ridicule in an attempt to persuade others to see things your way - it's group think. Fits the New Atheist movement quite well.

[darkstar3]

60. No. Thank you for showing that you do not know what groupthink is.

Moving on...

[humblebum]

61. I am witnessing it every time I converse with you. nt

[darkstar3]

62. You spewing garbage is hardly a conversation.

[David Sky]

71. "discount many forms of thinking"?

What forms of "thinking" do you claim atheists discount?

WISHFUL THINKING?

IMAGINING THINGS THAT CAN'T BE EXPERIENCED?

DREAMING?

Most adult rational forms of "thinking" are common processes, subject to testing and verification.

Wishing something were true, making it up, imagining it or dreaming are all subjective non-verifiable activities, human activities, but wholly subjective. One person's wishful thinking doesn't have to look anything like someone else's. Same with dreams, or imaginative friends. Children do it a lot, adults can also do it.

We acknowledge those OTHER "many forms of thinking" for what they are. We don't base our lives around it, unless we call ourselves "religious" people and claim it is "religious" thinking. It's still make believe and dreams combined with wishful thinking. It's not anything close to a rational adult thought process, it's a habit retained from our childhood, when fantasy and make believe made the world a lot less threatening and easier to live in. Our parents rewarded us for doing that kind of "thinking" back then, some of us continued to do it into adulthood, but now call it "other forms of thinking" i.e. "religious thoughts".

[tortoise1956]

74. No, that's not what you do

You refuse to accept anything that contradicts your personal beliefs. That includes anything tied to religion.

That's not bad, by the way. Its human nature, as is the refusal to accept any criticism of a personal belief set. However, when it's taken to extremes, that usually is indicative of a obsessive-compulsive personality according to the DSM.

Personally, I don't have any problems with the beliefs of others, as long as they don't try to foist it on me, or go out of their way to try to justify something that can't be proved or disproved. That applies to both sides of this debate. No one knows the answer to the whole God thing, no matter how much they bluster.

[David Sky]

75. Self contadict self much? "Personally, I don't have any problems with the beliefs of others"..

except MY beliefs!! Then you are already to diagnose me with your "rational" DSM ...the book where we find out who's sane and who's NOT sane for imagining they hear someone talking to them when there's no one there? That book?

Going on, you state, "You refuse to accept anything that contradicts your personal beliefs"

How would you know what I accept and what I do not?

And with what evidence do you claim "That's not bad, by the way. Its human nature, as is the refusal to accept any criticism of a personal belief set." ?

Then you go way out on your self-congratulatory, self-contradictory limb with "Personally, I don't have any problems with the beliefs of others". Not MUCH, you don't!

[tortoise1956]

78. Have trouble comprehending the written word?

Let's see. We'll start with the human nature thing:
There is a body of historical evidence showing that once a group begins to form a moral code or belief set, the next step is usually the need to convince others to join them. Often this includes coercion, either mental or physical. It is not limited to religion, although in many cases this has been the vehicle by which they have tried to gain and wield power over others.

As far as acceptance:
You insult those who believe in religion of any kind. Reference the following quote from one of your posts:

We acknowledge those OTHER "many forms of thinking" for what they are. We don't base our lives around it, unless we call ourselves "religious" people and claim it is "religious" thinking. It's still make believe and dreams combined with wishful thinking. It's not anything close to a rational adult thought process, it's a habit retained from our childhood, when fantasy and make believe made the world a lot less threatening and easier to live in.

According to this quote, you know that:
a - there is no deity of any kind.
b - anyone who holds these beliefs is irrational.

In the interests of keeping this post short, I won't include other statements you made that seem to demonstrate a small-minded, intolerant mindset.

As for me, if you had looked at my previous posts, you would find that I freely admit that I don't know the answer, unlike your omnipotent self. I don't belittle those who don't agree with me. you, on the other hand, are militant in proclaiming your supreme knowledge on the topic, as well as spewing your contempt for those who follow a different set of beliefs - which from your posts appears to be anyone who has a belief in a higher power.

The sad part is that with a few exceptions, you included, most of the posters in this topic who claim to be atheistic are willing to engage in a debate without resorting to buzz words and character attacks. All you do is help add to the negative perception that atheists already labor under in our society. Great job...

[deacon_sephiroth]

79. Much like the "virgin" Mary, my consent was not asked for

and religion does NOT, nor has it ever had mine.

[rug]

81. I don't know about you but, as to Mary, you're wrong.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_fiat_of_Mary