Atheists - the most hated minority

[_Hoops]

Lol. I just don't understand why Hoops is so touchy about atheism.

Because atheists are many times so condescending.

but there are also obnoxious believers with bad arguments.

Yep.

So why engage in that form of back and forth that never goes anywhere?

It sharpens my skills. :)

And why continually deploy generalizations about atheists and say things like:

So, okay, as a general rule I would distrust an atheist more than one with religious worldview.

I was hopeful my disclaimer would alert those who I do admire that this does not include them. Perhaps it doesn't, then I'll rethink it.

when you know its going to be offensive to people you claim to like and admire?

I apologize to you. I admire you tremendously and wish I was more like you. I find you completely wonderful, charming, talented, and with the sweetest and powerful character.

Hoops, my nonbelief is not exactly the same as gender, but one might be able to point out some similarities in a general way in terms of my ability to quickly change it.

Okay. Then how can one account for when one goes fron non-belief to belief? And the other way? I was an atheist at one time as well - and I am still my original sex (assuming there's only two)

I've never really believed in god and I don't think I could. That could change at some point, but I suspect it would be as result of a slow process or some dramatic supernatural intervention. Either way, I could not just "decide" I believed some morning.

I quite agree here. But the potential remains, no matter how remote it may be.

I could masquerade as a believer, but that would be akin to someone masquerading online about their gender. Does that help you understand, Hoops?

Lol. I love you!! I hope your comparison is not that nefarious.

[_Hoops]

Actually, I'm standing on that grand and glorious mountain called being intolerant of evil. Where do you stand?

I'm looking around the peak and there's nobody else up here with me, Hoops. /Jenn Kamp

Oh, I would never claim to stand on the same ground as you. So if you're there, then, yeah, I'm in a deep dark valley. (sheepish smile)

[_Buffalo]

I just pray that Yahweh will open Hoops' heart and help him to abandon his bigotry. :(

[_Hoops]

Defining good manners is tricky business also.

I don't think so. I think we could go along way to solving a lot of these if folks were just a tad bit more considerate of others.

[_Panopticon]

Defining good manners is tricky business also.

I don't think so. I think we could go along way to solving a lot of these if folks were just a tad bit more considerate of others.

Dear Hoops,

You admit you are a bigot (your words):

"So now the question becomes: is my bigotry against atheists (however that is manifest) somehow worse than yours?"

You claim I am a bigot because I am either bigoted against you (not true) or bigoted against people whom virtually everyone in society is intolerant (rapists, child molesters, etc.) I've never heard of this latter category being referred to as bigotry. You would have to be a person who approves of, or at least doesn't condemn, these behaviors. Perhaps you know some of these people. I do not. It doesn't make any sense to apply the word "bigot" to people who condemn child abuse. I doubt anyone would agree that this is an appropriate term.

With regard to manners, I note that you were the first poster on this thread with a somewhat snarky remark: "and you're wondering why atheists are disliked?" Other posters interpreted your remark as saying that you disliked atheists. After initially denying it, you admitted your prejudice: you don't like them, you don't trust them.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, to state that you are being mannerly in your comments (and suggest by implication I am not) strains credulity.

You are the only person here who has stated that you dislike and distrust a group of people, i.e., atheists. You never responded to my post about atheists being more moral than believers, both from the standpoint of statistics in atheistic countries and based on the fact that an atheist's morality is not compelled by fear or bought by reward.

You never adequately explained why it is okay to express certain things about atheists that would constitute "hate" speech if applied to people of a different race, sexual orientation, etc. Your reason is that I could simply change my mind and become a believer. I will state again: Belief is not under conscious control. See, e.g., http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/ ... elief.html.

It simply makes sense. Could you decide one day that San Francisco is the capital of the United States? Wouldn't you need evidence? In the absence of such evidence, could anything make you believe this, even if people "distrust" and "dislike" you because you fail to acknowledge what they say is true and you have extremely strong evidence to the contrary?

You also never answered me whether it is possible to be bigoted against people of another religion. Using your rationale, people could simply wake up one day and decide they aren't Catholic, Muslim, or Mormon. Can I take from this it is impossible to be bigoted against a Muslim? We can blame and distrust all Muslims for 9/11, because they could simply wake up tomorrow and be Christian (as has been expressed to me by a Muslim friend)?

On the other hand, if you admit that it is possible to be bigoted against a religion or religious people, you must admit that it is possible to be bigoted against people of no religion. As a member of a minority (in this country at least) that is routinely referred to as the most hated, I feel sorry for your lack of empathy. I'm glad not all believers (I assume you are a believer) are like you.

Thanks for a refreshing debate.

Panopticon

[_EAllusion]

The virtue of tolerance isn't in tolerating every conceivable trait or behavior. Rather it is a relatively liberal amount of tolerance for ideas and actions you disagree with to foster peaceful coexistence and generate a diversity of perspectives and choices. It's a fundamental piece of the enlightenment. Its extent isn't infinite.

I'll go ahead and quote a Gadianton post from ZLMB reacting to a dumb Josh McDowell essay that I remember I got a kick out of:

Well now ain't he brilliant? I contemplated self-refuting statements as a child absent any formal instruction like I'm sure many others of average intelligence have. But I can imagine a hayseed chewing acolyte rising off his front lawn parked couch in a bustle of excitement, nearly spilling his moonshine all over chapter 2 of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and reading McDowell's startling discovery aloud by tobbacco stained index finger to cousin Billy Bob with some commentary like, "What er he's sayin is that if you gonna believe in toleratin' everybody, then somebody up and gonna be intolerant but ya'all gotta tolerate them to! Hee Hawww! Those city folk don't think of nuttin!"

The principal of the school McDowell cites, probably not thinking some barefoot God-fearin chirstians who were lookin to exploit their tremendous insight in every and any situation they could force into it, neglected to spell out the fact that tolerance as a virtue does not commit one to believing that everything must be tolerated.

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/reply/19 ... rance-quot

Hoops -

It's quite normal in the context of talking about bigotry and mistreatment of a class of people to refer to attitudes towards them as "hate" even if we don't mean hate in the visceral emotional reaction sense. Saying a black person probably is a criminal because they are black is hate speech even if you say it without feeling hate and genuinely believe it to be the case.

Regarding whether having a natural distrust of atheists is bigoted, it absolutely is. Bigotry refers to obstinate prejudice. In other words, unreasonably adhering to pre-judging a person because they are a member of some class of people. Not trusting a person because they don't believe in God is a classic case of that.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry Hoops, I'm not that different. You're going to have to treat me like you treat other atheists. I pretty much agree with Panopticon that you were the one to introduce snark into the discussion here (I'm assuming you're too reasonable to offer an ldsfaqs type "first blood" argument).

I don't much care for some of the atheist arguments made on this board; though I'm not as conversant in the philosophical arguments as Stak is, you can take his opinion of some contemporary atheist discourse as pretty near my own. So I avoid those threads. This shouldn't necessarily be read as a blanket condemnation of all people who routinely occupy such threads, just that I'm not "in the same place" and able to add anything useful to the discussion.

But the result is that I end up not responding to you a lot on the board. You once asked me why that was and the reason is that this level of discussion doesn't interest me much. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in discussions of religious and spiritual belief---far from it. I'm just not interested in a snarky-back-and forths on the issue from any side.

My "default" position has always pretty much been atheist. Although I was curious about god's reality as a child, I never had the sense that I believed in anything that was really there (though, I should add here that I did believe in other supernatural entities like fairies and Santa Claus at the same early age that I was consciously aware I didn't "believe" in god). It's never been a much of conscious decision for me, nor much of trial. Thus, this has been so long a part of my life (over fifty years) that arguing about belief vs. non-belief is not very urgent to me.

I do, though, appreciate that it is different for others. Though I might find some atheist arguments advanced on this board to be too intellectually unpolished for my interest, I can understand that for someone just testing the waters, that may be the kind of discourse they need to work through. So I stay out of such debates because I don't think I have much to offer.

I am also not interested in advocating that anyone believe or disbelieve, or remain Mormon or leave the faith. I am interested in narratives of belief, especially as articulated by believers on this board. I am also interested in Mormon history and Mormon culture and, as I think anyone who has read my posts for any length of time would grasp, I am both critical of some aspects of the contemporary and historical institution of Mormonism as well as very fond of some of its culture. And I hope the latter informs the former: it is because of my, well, passionate empathy with the historical rank and file membership of the church that I advance my critique. I think the "best" of Mormonism deserves no less. As I've stated before, I sometimes think this makes me a better Mormon than many who currently claim that identifier.

So, Hoops, I hope this fills in the blank about "my" atheism a bit for you, as I once promised to address. It's not a very thorough or complete account, but maybe its enough to encourage you to think about different ways in which the discussion can go forward. I hope so.

[_Blixa]

Regarding whether having a natural distrust of atheists is bigoted, it absolutely is. Bigotry refers to obstinate prejudice. In other words, unreasonably adhering to pre-judging a person because they are a member of some class of people. Not trust a person because they don't believe in God is a classic case of that.

Yep.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Hoops, clean up your act.

[_Hoops]

Dear Hoops,

You admit you are a bigot (your words):

Not quite. I'm admitting to your use of the word being so broad that you are inevitably caught in its net as well.

You claim I am a bigot because I am either bigoted against you (not true) or bigoted against people whom virtually everyone in society is intolerant (rapists, child molesters, etc.) I've never heard of this latter category being referred to as bigotry. You would have to be a person who approves of, or at least doesn't condemn, these behaviors.

you're insistent that bigotry be applied to socially acceptable groups and not others. That, in itself, is intolerance. For you to be so absolved you will have to develop a list of which we all agree. Certainly, the one's I mentioned above are universally condemned. That's the point. For this mythical panacea to have an effect you will have to develop a comprehensive list, which, I'm sure you know, you can't do. Thus, intolerance/tolerance really has no meaning.

Perhaps you know some of these people.

I do.

It doesn't make any sense to apply the word "bigot" to people who condemn child abuse. I doubt anyone would agree that this is an appropriate term.

Agreed. But when one walks back the dog, one must get to a behavior that I condemn and you accept. Does that make me a bigot?

With regard to manners, I note that you were the first poster on this thread with a somewhat snarky remark:

Really? The opening post wasn't? You've made my point.

"and you're wondering why atheists are disliked?" Other posters interpreted your remark as saying that you disliked atheists. After initially denying it, you admitted your prejudice: you don't like them, you don't trust them.

I often dislike their behavior, yes. Just as, given your final statement (apparently) on the matter, it would seem you don't like mine. Puts as fellow oarsmen on the same boat.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, to state that you are being mannerly in your comments (and suggest by implication I am not) strains credulity.

Hmmmm.... I don't recall suggesting you weren't being mannerly. I certainly didn't mean to if I did. I wonder why you went there? I suggested it as a remedy for the untenable position of condemning intolerance.

You are the only person here who has stated that you dislike and distrust a group of people, i.e., atheists.

It was a tad more nuanced than that, wouldn't you say?

You never responded to my post about atheists being more moral than believers, both from the standpoint of statistics in atheistic countries and based on the fact that an atheist's morality

I'll accept your statistics for argument's sake. I'm not sure what this is supposed to tell us. On the one hand, a Christian (particularly me) would recognize that I am at best as immoral as you and at LEAST more so. That's simply because I have an added dimension to my moral framework. A spiritual one.

is not compelled by fear or bought by reward.

You don't know the Christian position on this.

You never adequately explained why it is okay to express certain things about atheists that would constitute "hate" speech if applied to people of a different race, sexual orientation, etc.

I don't recall saying that it's okay to express anything about atheists. In fact, I thought I was pretty clear that any sort of nastiness about any group is unhealthy. And I'll go you a step further. Not just because it may be hurtful to you, but because it is definetely hurtful to me.

Your reason is that I could simply change my mind and become a believer. I will state again: Belief is not under conscious control. See, e.g., http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/ ... elief.html.

I didn't see this at first, so I'll look at it and then comment.

It simply makes sense. Could you decide one day that San Francisco is the capital of the United States? Wouldn't you need evidence? In the absence of such evidence, could anything make you believe this, even if people "distrust" and "dislike" you because you fail to acknowledge what they say is true and you have extremely strong evidence to the contrary?

And this is exactly my point of why I dislike some atheists.

You also never answered me whether it is possible to be bigoted against people of another religion.

Of course it's possible, I think. Given the definition I posted earlier, it certainly is.

Using your rationale, people could simply wake up one day and decide they aren't Catholic, Muslim, or Mormon.

Well, yeah, it's possible. But I was pretty clear that I know that is rare. A decision of this magnitude is rarely arrived at in this way.

Can I take from this it is impossible to be bigoted against a Muslim?

No, it is not impossible.

We can blame and distrust all Muslims for 9/11, because they could simply wake up tomorrow and be Christian (as has been expressed to me by a Muslim friend)?

Just how large is the bigotry tent? What seems to be occurring here is that a Christian is quite likely bigoted against the Muslim religion, because he would see Islamism as being in error on several key doctrinal points. That is a central tenet of Christianity, to correct error. To proclaim truth contrasted with untruth. But that in no way means that a Christian is free to treat any Muslim or Muslims in general in a bad way. That is ALSO a central tenet of Christianity (conveniently forgotten by her accusers quite often)

On the other hand, if you admit that it is possible to be bigoted against a religion or religious people, you must admit that it is possible to be bigoted against people of no religion.

Of course.

As a member of a minority (in this country at least) that is routinely referred to as the most hated, I feel sorry for your lack of empathy.

When there's an occassion that requires empathy, I'm quite confident that I and my like minded brethren will demonstrate it. I just don't see the roving bands of Christians burning your houses down or casting you out into the next county. Just how is this being played out? So far, all I've seen is a survey that, in general, atheists are mistrusted - which conveniently morphed into hatred for some reason. It would seem that atheists, as a practical matter, enjoy all the things I do as a citizen. Can you show me where this is untrue?

I'm glad not all believers (I assume you are a believer) are like you.

I'm not that unique.