Atheists and gays - the last of the hated minorities?

[_Hoops]

I think that religious adherents don't necessarily dislike atheists

True.

but dislike the idea of atheism gaining a majority position,

True.

thus replacing Christianity as the major ideology that informs people about the creation of the world. Atheists might not be disliked on a person to person basis, but atheism as an ideal threatens the majority status quo of religious thinking as the default position for society because it's held by the majority. Or to rift on a quote from Men in Black:

Um, no, it's not that philosophical. If atheism becomes the majority opinion it would mean that we are failing at our great commission even more than we had thought. We are not so much concerned with the political implications as we are with the eternal ones.

[_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.

[_Hoops]

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.

That may be. But that has nothing to do with its truth.

[_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.

That may be. But that has nothing to do with its truth.

It has to do with what appears to be the normal developmental path of first world societies.

[_EAllusion]

I simply have no idea of what you're talking about. I have not witnessed, been a part of, nor know of anyone who would treat an atheist any different than anyone else. If anything, we would treat you with MORE kindness, not less, as our "great commission" dictates that we do so. Certainly there are exceptions - like the Westboro Baptist Church folks - who self identify as democrats, by the way.

I've seen billboards out and out attacking atheists. And I live in an area of the country where that isn't common. (When I drove cross country a few years ago, I was shocked at how common that is.) Atheists continually show up on polls as the least trusted minority by a sizable margin because they are associated with amorality. (e.g. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigo ... sHated.htm) And that's not because they are amoral, as Mikwut's posts would suggest, but because of believers disparaging them as such. Open atheists are at a disadvantage in custody battles because they are atheists, are generally unelectable, can easily be declared "spiritually unfit" by the military, run risk of being discriminated against in the workplace and in schools, are more susceptible to being ostracized by families , etc. It's generally a social error for atheists to even discuss their views on religion while public discourse is replete with religious proselytizing. Why do you think so many atheists choose to be "in the closet" if it weren't potentially damaging to be open about atheism?

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. Those are entirely innocuous claims that mostly just announce that atheists exist. It was repeatedly blocked local governments, resulted in boycotts, and resulted in counter-ads that openly attacked atheists. Mind you, the initial attempts in Boston, Des Moines, Bloomington, etc. to block the ads were unconstitutional. Government agencies established a public forum by selling ads buses. That means they cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination. But, more to the point, this doesn't happen when dime a dozen Church advertisements take the same space.

It's stuff like this that is so prevalent in our nation that it just makes up the background noise of our existence. So it's easy to take for granted.

Dude -

Not an example of what I was talking about, but this is hilarious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_I5Z5q8A68

[_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?

[_zeezrom]

A further consideration might be that atheists, by self proclomation, answer to no one, no belief system, nor any governing philosophy.

See the bold phrase.

WTH?

[_EAllusion]

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.

[_Hoops]

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.

[_mikwut]

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