Atheists and gays - the last of the hated minorities?

[_Baker]

Remember the atheist bus ad issue not that long ago? Atheist groups tried local bus ad campaigns with lines like, "Don't believe in God? You're not Alone" and "Millions are good without God" on them

I do remember this event. Which begs the question: Why would atheists find it necessary to buy these ads? So often the mantra from atheist groups is that they just want to be left alone, but their behavior doesn't coincide with that.

Well, apparently some don't follow that mantra.

[_Hoops]

A further consideration might be that atheists, by self proclomation, answer to no one, no belief system, nor any governing philosophy. I would find that difficult to trust, wouldn't you?

That's simply false. Being atheist doesn't mean a person answers to no one, lacks a belief system, or has no governing philosophy. One can have all of those without believing in God.

But that's for being an example of what I'm talking about.

You may CHOOSE to, but there is no moral impetus to do so. Which means at any moment you may unrestrainededly decide otherwise.

[_Buffalo]

Remember the atheist bus ad issue not that long ago? Atheist groups tried local bus ad campaigns with lines like, "Don't believe in God? You're not Alone" and "Millions are good without God" on them

I do remember this event. Which begs the question: Why would atheists find it necessary to buy these ads? So often the mantra from atheist groups is that they just want to be left alone, but their behavior doesn't coincide with that.

When speaking about atheists, it's helpful to remember the behavior of cats.

[Guest]

You may CHOOSE to, but there is no moral impetus to do so. Which means at any moment you may unrestrainededly decide otherwise.

All theories of morality worth taking seriously are secular in nature - and you will find that is the predominate opinion of theist philosophers of ethics just the same as atheists ones. Believing in a deity doesn't create moral impetus. But that misses the point, as people's behavior just isn't generally driven by highly educated analysis of philosophical systems, but rather by more mundane things. And regardless of whether it is rationally coherent or not plenty of atheists answer to people, have beliefs, and and have frameworks they lean on to guide their behavior.

Here we have a situation where I argue that atheists are a heavily distrusted minority in significant part because they are associated with amorality. And what you muster in response, after denying that atheists are discriminated against at all, is, "But, but atheists are amoral!"

[_Buffalo]

Hello Buffalo,

Atheism WILL eventually become the majority position. It seems to be the natural progression of things. As societies advance and become more prosperous and educated, atheism tends to replace theistic beliefs and practices.

This prophecy has been made before and not come to fruition. Atheism seems to actually be waning presently. Atheism isn't in a early blooming position in the battle of thought. In fact, today's four horsemen probably don't measure up rhetorically, intellectually, and in their articulation of sophisticated and entertaining arguments over their predecessors who made the same prediction. Religion whether true or false is inherent in man, atheism whether true or false can't and doesn't touch man in the meaning and purpose needs which don't go away because education or prosperity increases. Your statement also misses the subtlety of history. What your saying can really only substantiate itself loosely based on the last couple centuries or two at best. It has almost no meaning for the rest of history with all of its natural progressions of education and prosperous living relevant for those other times and cultures.

my best, mikwut

The fastest growing group in America (regarding this topic) are people who have no religious affiliation at all.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman ... no-re.html

Nations such as Sweden, Norway and Finland, people are rejecting belief in God en masse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

[_Buffalo]

You may CHOOSE to, but there is no moral impetus to do so. Which means at any moment you may unrestrainededly decide otherwise.

That's a common misconception that believers have about atheists. The truth is, fear of God is a weak motivator for moral behavior. What most strongly motivates us to do good is a desire to conform to social norms and an evolved empathy response.

Certain religious teachings that emphasize a very strong, black and white view of sin and the consequences of it, ironically end up perpetuating bad behavior in some people (the abstinence violation effect). That would apply to Mormonism, but not, say, Unitarianism.

[_EAllusion]

Remember the atheist bus ad issue not that long ago? Atheist groups tried local bus ad campaigns with lines like, "Don't believe in God? You're not Alone" and "Millions are good without God" on them

I do remember this event. Which begs the question: Why would atheists find it necessary to buy these ads? So often the mantra from atheist groups is that they just want to be left alone, but their behavior doesn't coincide with that.

How dare some atheists disagree with some other atheists. Why can't they all agree like Christians?

I'm guessing the reason for those ads are contained straightforwardly in their messages. Lots of people believe that moral behavior requires belief in God, so atheists took out ads saying otherwise. Atheists want it to be acceptable for people to not believe in God and/or for atheists not to feel isolated, so they took out ads saying that. I don't think this is a big mystery. I think the messages were so innocuous because they have to be in order to maximize their chances of being heard.

[_mikwut]

Buffalo,

There is a difference between unaffiliated and 'atheist' in the survey. But, regardless there are more churched individuals by percentage presently then 200 years ago and even more than after the great awakening. Little bumps in a larger historical landscape don't make your point for you. The atheists greatest theistic nemesis pentacostal spirit churches are growing faster in Africa and south america than unbelief is in Europe.

Again, atheism could be true, but if it is and if it is based on the simple truisms and simple arguments of fairies, unicorns, scientism, one less god than the next guy and evolution falsifies a God than I think the last several decades empirically show that atheism will never, even if true, overtake belief because those arguments are so easily understood and followed it would have took by now.

my best, mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Speaking of atheist bus ads, I just caught this entry from Ed Brayton today:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011 ... r.php#more

Here's an interesting case. A group of atheists in Arkansas were working out a deal to put ads on the side of buses through the Central Arkansas Transit Authority, but suddenly the agency -- which is a government agency -- demanded that they pay a huge amount for insurance because of the risk of vandalism of the ads on the buses.

THE Central Arkansas Transit Authority and its advertising agency have been served with a lawsuit after they demanded an outrageous amount of money to allow a local group of atheists to run an ad campaign on a fleet of 18 buses.

The transit agency's ad firm - On The Move Advertising - required the group to pay $36,000 dollars in insurance for a campaign that would ordinarily cost just $5,000.

Because a handful of similar ads had been vandalised in other states, the ad agency required the insurance payment, said attorney Jess Sweere.

And apparently they made no bones about this being the reason:

LeeWood Thomas, a spokesman for the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason which alleges discrimination in its lawsuit, quoted an email from the advertising agency which read:

"Arkansas is the buckle of the Bible Belt and I can easily envision zealots or upstanding citizens with a strong faith acting out."

This is a perfect example of allowing the heckler's veto to police the limits of free speech. And it's unconstitutional. The government cannot charge one group for insurance, or for police protection or the like, and not another just because one group's constitutionally protected speech is likely to create a violent or illegal reaction. The job of the government is to protect free speech, not to make it more expensive.

Imagine if this happened to a Christian group. I especially like the "upstanding citizens with strong faith" comment.

[_mikwut]

Hi EAllusion,

I would agree from a personal and legal perspective that the case you provided shows an example of an improper discrimination against atheists.

I often wonder, are the Christians here their own worst enemies, do you think the ads would have an effect - i.e. convince others of atheism, soften peoples attitudes? I really don't know the answer but a big part of me thinks it could have the opposite effect and the atheists should actually be glad for the nuts that are discriminating against them, which in itself might have the better p.r. than the ads themselves.

my regards, mikwut