USA's view on athiesm is rather startling

[Aardvark]

Atheists are generally more vocal about their religion than Xtians, Muslims, Druids...

 

When i watch the tv i see half a dozen religious channels preaching their creeds. Yet to see an atheist one. On the news i see mullahs and priests and bishops pronouncing, denouncing and pontificating.

 

 

Where are these 'vocal' atheists? Perhaps you are prefering to the rather lonely Richard Dawkins?

 

 

I'm not surprised by the survey. After all, did not "God Bless America"

 

On the contrary, everyone knows that God is an Englishman:-p

[insane_alien]

a sample size of 2000 might be good enough for a small town but its no where near large enough to draw conclusions from for a whole country.even 2 million would be a bit on the small side imo for a country the size of the USA but would be a lot more accurate than this one.

[lucaspa]

i dunno.

i actually think it's a good thing that athiests are getting the religious hate.

athiests aren't exactly likely to start a war over it. if a war happens to start, most will try to stay out of it anyway.

 

There aren't enough atheists to have a war. Nor are they really associated with a nation-state. The greater danger, IMO, is that atheists would end up like the gypsies and Jews in Nazi Germany or Christians in the Soviet Union: subjected to extreme discrimination or killed.

 

A war where one side can't fight back effectively is called a "massacre".

 

However, if the Fundies have their way, IMO the atheists will be followed by the agnostics and then Christians.

[In My Memory]

Rebiu,

Three percent sounds a bit low. Atheist is and absolute and the slightest doubt excludes one from the classification. Many are functionally atheist in their thinking and call themselves agnostic.

Not to derail the thread in semantic debate, but atheism and agnosticism have different academic and non-academic meanings (kinda like the way "theory" in science and "theory" in informal discussions with your friends have two totally different meanings). Academically speaking, certainty has nothing to do with being an atheist. Atheism and theism have to do with what you believe, whether the number of gods you believe in is greater than zero; agnosticism has to do with what you think you can know, such as whether you think the nature of God is fundamentally knowable through logic or science.

 

People can be agnostic atheists (those who dont believe in any gods, but also say that concepts of gods arent subject to rational discourse), or gnostic atheists (those who dont believe in any gods, and believe that gods existence can be examined by philosophical arguments or scientific evidence), or agnostic theists (usually deists who believe in a god who has no other definable attributes), or gnostic theists (which make up the majority of theists, those who believe God is knowable through philosophy, science, or revelation).

 

Talking about certainty is totally different, its a concept seperate from a/theism and a/gnosticism. A person can be a weakly agnostic atheist (apathetic to god questions), or a strongly gnostic theist (fundies), or any other mix. So there are 3 axes of belief:

1) atheism / theism axis

2) agnosticism / gnosticism axis

3) certainty / doubt

 

A lot of websites like to say "there are no such things as atheists, because they cant be absolutely certain without being god themselves, so they are agnostics", which is pretty absurd because even if it were true, all of those agnostics can count the number of gods they worship on no hands.

[lucaspa]

When i watch the tv i see half a dozen religious channels preaching their creeds. Yet to see an atheist one. On the news i see mullahs and priests and bishops pronouncing, denouncing and pontificating.

 

True, but that isn't where the theists are looking. Instead, they are looking at the cases the atheists bring in court. The case to have a monument of the 10 Commandments removed from a courthouse, to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge, and to remove a cross from public land.

 

The perceived attack by atheists doesn't come open in the media or public discourse, but thru the backdoor of the courts under the aegis of the First Amendment. Therefore the massive amount of public support for theism doesn't count. Theists perceive that their beliefs are being persecuted by the minority.

 

Where are these 'vocal' atheists? Perhaps you are prefering to the rather lonely Richard Dawkins?

 

He's not that lonely. Add Peter Atkins, PZ Meyer ("best" science blog according to Nature), William Provine, Daniel Dennett, EO Wilson, etc. All of these have launched very public (in the media) attacks on theism in the wake of the decision in the Dover PA trial on ID. PZ Meyer attacked Kenneth Miller, of all people, for even daring to suggest that science and religion can co-exist. I'll get the blog site for you.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060116/cm_usatoday/letsacceptthefaultlinebetweenfaithandscience

 

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/01/29/supernatural_selection/

[doG]

True, but that isn't where the theists are looking. Instead, they are looking at the cases the atheists bring in court. The case to have a monument of the 10 Commandments removed from a courthouse, to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge, and to remove a cross from public land.

 

The perceived attack by atheists doesn't come open in the media or public discourse, but thru the backdoor of the courts under the aegis of the First Amendment. Therefore the massive amount of public support for theism doesn't count. Theists perceive that their beliefs are being persecuted by the minority.

 

That's a two way street there. Consider the theists that are spreading religious endorsement by amending things like the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" or religious judges trying to adorn the courthouse yard with a lone monument to the 10 commandments. I seem to remember one judge that even had his robe embroidered with the 10 commandments.

 

These are not acts of a secular government. Then again, I've met very few Christians that actually want a secular government. Many actually endorse a touch of theocracy. Can you blame atheists for opposing this? A coin that says nothing of any God is secular, not atheist, but any action to simply remove the term is considered by theists to endorse atheism when that is false. To endorse atheism you would have to actually deny a belief in God on our coins. Why are efforts to enforce secularism considered atheist?

[lucaspa]

Rebiu,

 

Not to derail the thread in semantic debate, but atheism and agnosticism have different academic and non-academic meanings (kinda like the way "theory" in science and "theory" in informal discussions with your friends have two totally different meanings). Academically speaking, certainty has nothing to do with being an atheist. Atheism and theism have to do with what you believe, whether the number of gods you believe in is greater than zero; agnosticism has to do with what you think you can know, such as whether you think the nature of God is fundamentally knowable through logic or science.

 

I agree that theism and atheism is about belief. And that agnosticism is about knowledge. However, to do a bit of semantics, when you say that "the nature of God is fundamentally unknowable through logic or science" you are stating a belief.

 

Agnosticism, as used originally by Huxley, was simply an "I don't know whether deity exists or not". Somewhere since, some people have tried to tack the idea that the existence of deity is unknowable. I don't see how you can speak for all the future of what science and logic can do. Based on what we know now, science does not know whether deity exists or not. But to extrapolate that to unknowable is also a form of belief.

 

People can be agnostic atheists (those who dont believe in any gods, but also say that concepts of gods arent subject to rational discourse),

 

That is not tenable. Because theists do have rational discourse on the subject. Also, "don't believe" is logically not tenable. What you have to have are some positive beliefs in order to be atheistic.

 

gnostic atheists

 

Semantically, I would dispute your use of the term "gnostic". According to Webster's "gnostic" has only one meaning:

 

" an adherent of gnosticism"

 

Gnosticism is a particular form of theism. Therefore to attempt to use "gnostic" as any description of atheism or of theism in general is semantically invalid.

 

So there are 3 axes of belief:

1) atheism / theism axis

2) agnosticism / gnosticism axis

3) certainty / doubt

 

That second axis doesn't exist. It is semantically invalid because agnostic and gnostic don't mean what you are trying to use them for.

 

Your atheism/theism axis includes the middle ground of agnosticism. What you are trying to do with the agnosticism/gnosticism axis is delineate the ways people justify atheism or theism. I submit that this isn't necessary the way you are doing it. The justification within the atheism/theism axis boils down to one thing: evidence. What people consider valid evidence and what evidence they personally have.

 

A lot of websites like to say "there are no such things as atheists, because they cant be absolutely certain without being god themselves, so they are agnostics", which is pretty absurd because even if it were true, all of those agnostics can count the number of gods they worship on no hands.

 

Of couse it is absurd, because they are equating atheism with certainty when it is a belief. However, they do have a point because many atheists mistakenly ascribe certainty to atheism.

[lucaspa]

That's a two way street there. Consider the theists that are spreading religious endorsement by amending things like the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" or religious judges trying to adorn the courthouse yard with a lone monument to the 10 commandments. I seem to remember one judge that even had his robe embroidered with the 10 commandments.

 

Actually, it's not the same street. What you had with the Pledge was the Congress inserting the words. As representatives of the majority -- theists. What you have with the actions of judges you mention are not their rulings from the bench, but expression of their personal beliefs. Which are then suppressed by rulings from the bench.

 

These are not acts of a secular government.

 

Yes, they are when taken in historical context. Altho most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, they established a secular government. However, before 1858, atheism simply wasn't a rational faith. It was an irrational position and thus was safely ignored.

 

Therefore we could have saying like "in God we trust" on our currency because it did not support a particular form of theism -- and thus is "secular".

 

After 1858, atheism was a rational faith. But atheists didn't advocate for consideration of their beliefs under the First Amendment until Madeleine O'Hare in the 1960s. And then atheists didn't go thru the Executive or Legislative branches of the government. IOW, they didn't try to convince the majority of the population that atheism was a rational belief and that phrases like "in God we trust" represented an endorsement by government of the general religion of theism as opposed to the general religoin of atheism.

 

Instead, they had the courts enforce their views. The key here is "enforce". They didn't "convince" or get consensus, but used force.

 

Then again, I've met very few Christians that actually want a secular government.

 

Then you haven't met many Christians. The major opposition to teaching creationism in public schools has come from Christians. There are very few, or no, Fundamentalists that want a secular government. They actually want a theocracy.

 

Can you blame atheists for opposing this?

 

No. Applying "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", I as a Christian understand how theists have unintentionally but thoughtlessly endorsed a religion: theism. They didn't mean to, because they weren't thinking in terms of theism vs atheism, but instead of endorsing particular forms of theism (Christianity) over others.

 

Why are efforts to enforce secularism considered atheist?

 

1. We simply haven't caught up to the reality that atheism is a rational faith and, therefore, must be respected as such in the First Amendment.

2. Atheists have generally not been sensitive to the feelings of theists on the matter. They have used force in the form of the courts instead of trying to engage theists in dialogue and explain their position. IOW, atheists have often been arrogant.

3. Atheists have generally been reluctant to acknowledge, or resistant to the fact, that atheism is a faith. Therefore they have not availed themselves of the argument of protection under the Establishment Clause. Instead, the arguments have been an attack on theism as the "only" religion involved.

4. In their arrogance, atheists have failed to make use of the "do unto others ..." argument that would have helped theists understand the atheist position and given theists an argument within theism to agree with the atheist position.

5. There is the, IMO, minor problem that there are demagogues within theism that want to misrepresent the issue. However, IMO these demagogues could be marginalized if atheists would have pursued 2-4 more agressively.

 

For instance, my parents have sometimes gotten upset with some of the removals. My father wondered why the 10 Commandments couldn't be displayed outside a courthouse. Certainly we could all agree on "Thou shalt not commit murder", "Thou shalt not steal" etc. as a basis for justice. And we can. But as soon as I pointed out the first 2 Commandments and the effect on Hindus, Native Americans, and atheists, then he immediately understood that those Commandments promoted a particular deity and religion and not rules for justice.

[-Demosthenes-]

I find that quite surprising. Many of our founding fathers were atheists, deists, and the like, and now it's un-American? The America of today certainly isn't the America we read about in our history books. Additionally, I wouldn't compare atheists with recent immigrants, or gays, as that has nothing to do with religion.

 

How many were atheists?

[Sisyphus]

How many were atheists?

 

It's hard to say, since there wasn't really any explicit public discussion about it. Jefferson and Franklin can safely be said to be at least non-Christian, or "Christian" in a very unorthodox way (that is, not believing in the divinity of Jesus). Pretty much all of them were Freemasons, an organization dedicated to benevolent and naturalistic search for truth. More relevantly, they were Deists, meaning they believed in some kind of supreme, governing power, but not in miracles or any kind of divine revelation.

 

From the Wikipedia article on Deism:

 

"In America, Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution. American Deists include John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and (by most accounts) George Washington. Thomas Paine published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe."

[ecoli]

Pretty much all of them were Freemasons, an organization dedicated to benevolent and naturalistic search for truth.

 

I think that anybody who is essentially monotheistic can be a freemason though.

[doG]

Actually, it's not the same street. What you had with the Pledge was the Congress inserting the words. As representatives of the majority -- theists.

It doesn't matter that they represent the majority or that the majority are theists. The 1st amendment explicitly states:

Congress shall make no law[/b'] respecting an establishment of religion...

Both USC 4 § 4:

Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

 

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America' date=' and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God...[/quote'] and USC 31 § 5112 (d)(1):

United States coins shall have the inscription “In God We Trust”....

are laws of the United States passed by Congress that show a preference for theist belief and effectively declare a government belief for God. It's basically a moot point though because you'll never get a court full of theist judges to interpret the constitutionality of these congressional actions. They will simply find one legal particular or another to avoid the issue as they have thus far.

After 1858, atheism was a rational faith.

Ummmm, no. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). It is not a faith or religion. It is not a belief system.

1. We simply haven't caught up to the reality that atheism is a rational faith and, therefore, must be respected as such in the First Amendment.

See above...

2. Atheists have generally not been sensitive to the feelings of theists on the matter. They have used force in the form of the courts instead of trying to engage theists in dialogue and explain their position. IOW, atheists have often been arrogant.

So. What has that got to do with the government declaring a belief in God. I'm not asking the government to declare that God doesn't exist of to deny any God. I simply want the government to remain officially neutral with no claim that God does or does not exist. The fact that theists argue so strongly that our government should keep these declarations that God exists is what is arrogant.

3. Atheists have generally been reluctant to acknowledge, or resistant to the fact, that atheism is a faith. Therefore they have not availed themselves of the argument of protection under the Establishment Clause. Instead, the arguments have been an attack on theism as the "only" religion involved.

See above....

4. In their arrogance, atheists have failed to make use of the "do unto others ..." argument that would have helped theists understand the atheist position and given theists an argument within theism to agree with the atheist position.

Atheists are arrogant because they want the government to remain neutral? Don't you think that claim is arrogant?

5. There is the, IMO, minor problem that there are demagogues within theism that want to misrepresent the issue. However, IMO these demagogues could be marginalized if atheists would have pursued 2-4 more agressively.

Why is there some burden on atheists to do anything to achieve a government for all that makes no declarations of some supernatural belief?

[Sisyphus]

I think that anybody who is essentially monotheistic can be a freemason though.

 

True, though that's kind of the point. It's very adamantly nonspecific, i.e. most definitely not a specifically Christian organization. It's inherently inclusive, and the common denominator, as it were, is basically Deism. In other words, someone who didn't believe in a kind of unity of monotheism wouldn't be a member.

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: Actually, it's not the same street. What you had with the Pledge was the Congress inserting the words. As representatives of the majority -- theists.

 

Both USC 4 § 4:

and USC 31 § 5112 (d)(1):

are laws of the United States passed by Congress

 

Just what I said! Therefore they are not the courts pronouncing, but the majority stating their belief. Remember the claims! Your original claim was that the court decisions obtained by atheists were equivalent to the Pledge and the actions of judges (in their personal lives) wanting the 10 Commandments displayed in courtrooms or on their judicial robes.

 

Try to remember that we are not discussing whether the prejudice against atheists is correct or rational, just WHY there is such prejudice. Whether those reasons are ethical or rational is a separate issue.

 

It doesn't matter that they represent the majority or that the majority are theists. The 1st amendment explicitly states:

 

I know what the 1st Amendment states. But it does matter what the majority thinks when we are trying to find the reasons for prejudice or resentment of court decisions. Let's take this out of the theism vs atheism discussion for a minute and look at 2 other recent Supreme Court decisions. One is Bush v Gore in 2000 that stopped the Florida recount. You weren't angered by that? Didn't you feel that your beliefs in justice, accurate elections, and the choice of the American people was violated by the Supreme Court? I was and many other people were also.

 

Or take the recent decision regarding eminent domain. That private property could be taken by the state so that private developers could put up shopping malls, etc. that would then profit the developers. By far the majority thought that decision was not right, even tho the Supreme Court said it was constitutional!

 

The fact you have to come to grips with is that some theists feel the same way about Supreme Court decisions removing organized prayer from public schools, trying to remove "under God" from the Pledge, etc. Yes, it is justified by the Constitution, but they still feel it is wrong. Therefore there is resentment because they feel the courts are forcing -- in their opinion -- theism out and atheism in.

 

Also remember that, in other cases where people thought the Constitution was wrong, the Constitution was amended! The Constitution had slavery as legal and kept women from voting. Both changed by amendments. So, if enough Americans feel that the attempt to remove theism in general is wrong, they will eventually ammend the Constitution and then you won't even have the argument of unconstitutionality.

 

Atheists must convince theists that they should keep the Establishment Clause and that atheists should be protected by it against the establishment of generic theism as a religion. If they continue to alienate the vast majority, then the protection will be removed.

 

I emphatically think such a removal would be very wrong. Which makes my emphasis more on 1) why theists would see such a removal as a "good" thing and 2) the tactics that would convince theists that atheism deserves protection by the Establishment Clause.

 

It's basically a moot point though because you'll never get a court full of theist judges to interpret the constitutionality of these congressional actions. They will simply find one legal particular or another to avoid the issue as they have thus far.

 

I disagree. Altho I think that, right now, you should be happy the Supreme Court is not judging the constitutionality. You could easily get a judgement you don't like (and that I would regard as wrong). As I said, since we have a lag in the perception of atheism as a rational faith, the judges could decide that "under God" is permissable as long as you don't say WHICH god. Display of the 10 Commandments would be out as they specify a particular god.

 

[qutoe]Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). It is not a faith or religion. It is not a belief system.

 

The about.com definition is flawed and is selective data. It is designed to hide that atheism is a faith. Which is what I was talking about as one of the reasons for the prejudice against atheists: many dishonestly try to deny atheism is a faith.

 

"Atheism (Greek a, "not"; theos, "god"), doctrine that denies the existence of deity. Atheism differs distinctly from agnosticism, the doctrine that the existence of deity can be neither proved nor disproved. Many people have incorrectly been called atheists merely because they rejected some popular belief in divinity.1"

1"Atheism," Microsoft® Encarta® 96 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. © Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

"Atheism«AY thee ihz uhm», is the belief that there is no God. Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief that God exists." Ivan Soll, "Atheism," World Book Online Americas Edition, http://www.aolsvc.worldbook.aol.com/wbol/wbPage/na/ar/co/035360,November 4, 2001.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#WHATISPOSATH "since no gods exist"

 

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html "Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any."

 

"Atheism -- the belief that there are no gods." Douglas A. Krueger, What Is Atheism? A Short Introductory Course, pg 19.

 

What's worse, the about.com position is untenable. You can't simply have a "lack of belief" as atheism uses the term. In order to continue to be an atheist, you MUST make positive statements of faith. In particular, you must make the positive statement of faith that "natural" = "without God". That is part of the statement at the atheist.org site.

 

"lack of belief" is semantically = to "believe the opposite". To say "I lack belief that deity exists" is the same as saying "I believe deity does not exist." The only reason to use "lack of belief" is to try to hide that atheism is a belief/faith.

 

Think about this: one reason evolutionists have such dislike and prejudice against IDers is that they try to say their belief is not a belief. Same thing here.

 

You ignored that, before 1858, atheism was not a rational faith. Therefore, the faith aspect was more clearly visible.

 

I'm not asking the government to declare that God doesn't exist of to deny any God.

 

Of course not. After all, you say atheism isn't saying that.

 

I simply want the government to remain officially neutral with no claim that God does or does not exist.

 

If atheism is "lack of belief", then why would the government ever declare "Gopd does not exist"? You betrayed the true nature of atheism in these quotes. If your side is "God does not exist", then that is a positive faith, not simply "lack of belief"!

 

The fact that theists argue so strongly that our government should keep these declarations that God exists is what is arrogant.

 

It's defensive, not arrogant. Defensive because they are being forced by the courts to give up declarations that they think are true. They are not being given any rational arguments -- from within the premises of theism -- why they should take the statements out.

 

Atheists are arrogant because they want the government to remain neutral? Don't you think that claim is arrogant?

 

Read what I wrote: "4. In their arrogance, atheists have failed to make use of the "do unto others ..." argument that would have helped theists understand the atheist position and given theists an argument within theism to agree with the atheist position."

 

The arrogance comes from 2: "2. Atheists have generally not been sensitive to the feelings of theists on the matter. They have used force in the form of the courts instead of trying to engage theists in dialogue and explain their position. IOW, atheists have often been arrogant."

 

The arrogance comes from

1. using the courts to enforce the atheist position instead of engaging in dialogue with theists and trying to convince them. So yes, atheists have displayed arrogance because they went directly to the courts instead of trying politics and trying to get people to agree voluntarily to their position and what constitutes "neutrality". From the position of your opponents, "under God" IS neutral, because it doesn't advance a particular religion. Instead of arrogantly using ONLY the courts, atheists should have tried using dialogue.

 

2. Failing to use a powerful argument that would appeal to theists because it comes from theism. The arrogance involved is in thinking that theism has no merit and deserves no respect, therefore using arguments from within theism is beneath atheists.

 

3. Failing to reach out to theists like myself that agree with them. Instead of finding common ground and listening, all theists are rejected because the arrogance says "we don't need you or your arguments".

 

Why is there some burden on atheists to do anything to achieve a government for all that makes no declarations of some supernatural belief?

 

For the same reason there was a burden on abolitionists to do something to achieve a government where liberty was a right for everyone or for feminists to achieve a government where the right to vote applied to women.

 

One problem you are facing is that theists have evidence for belief in the supernatural. Either their personal experience of deity or accounts of experience that the theists trusts is true. So you have a burden to show 1) that atheism is a rational position and 2) generic expressions of an entity for which theists have (personally) convincing evidence should not be stated in public.

 

Now, if you insist that atheism is simply "lack of belief", then all you have done is say that you don't agree with theism. So what? The Pledge doesn't require you to AGREE that the US is "under God", anymore than it requires you to AGREE that the US is "one nation". You could be an unreconstructed Southerner that still thinks the South should be independent. The Southerner would have a "lack of belief" that the US should be one nation.

 

The argument of proponents of organized school prayer would say that you are not required to recite a prayer. If you only have a "lack of belief", then other people saying a generic prayer doesn't establish any particular religion. Religion being, in your own argument, a particular version of theism. Theism in general would NOT be a religion, but rather an established "fact".

 

As I think on this, ONLY if atheism is a faith would the Establishment Clause apply. Then the government would be attempting to establish a religion that is different from the faith ("religion") of atheism. But as long as it is maintained that atheism is simply "lack of belief", then as long as the government doesn't endorse a particular belief (religion), then it is fine. You could get the 10 Commandments from being displayed, but couldn't stop the hanging of pictures of Buddha, Jesus, and Vishnu in public schools (as long as it was all of them) or the organized generic prayer to deity. There would be no establishment of "religion".

 

Yeah, as I think about this, as long as atheism is maintained as "lack of belief", then it has no standing in regard to the establishment of "religion".

 

OTOH, if atheism is a positive belief (as it is), then any expression of theism, no matter how generic, would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

[Severian]

Then again, I've met very few Christians that actually want a secular government.

 

I am a Christian and I have stated many times on these forums that I prefer a secular government. And I know many Christians with the same view.

[Severian]

In other words, someone who didn't believe in a kind of unity of monotheism wouldn't be a member.

 

That isn't true. My grandfather was a very devout Christian, while simultaneously being a 'Grand Worshipful Master' (or somesuch) of the Freemasons.

[-Demosthenes-]

It's hard to say, since there wasn't really any explicit public discussion about it. Jefferson and Franklin can safely be said to be at least non-Christian, or "Christian" in a very unorthodox way (that is, not believing in the divinity of Jesus). Pretty much all of them were Freemasons, an organization dedicated to benevolent and naturalistic search for truth. More relevantly, they were Deists, meaning they believed in some kind of supreme, governing power, but not in miracles or any kind of divine revelation.

 

From the Wikipedia article on Deism:

 

"In America, Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution. American Deists include John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and (by most accounts) George Washington. Thomas Paine published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe."

 

I don't know if Atheists would like being confused with Deists

[Martin]

I don't know if Atheists would like being confused with Deists

 

Speaking for myself, and simply to dispell a possible misconception, I am very proud to be associated with the Founding Toms (Jefferson and Paine) and other Luminaries of the Englightenment.

 

In their case, Deist could simply be a polite euphemism for a certain kind of Atheism (reverence for the Laws of Nature)

[doG]

Try to remember that we are not discussing whether the prejudice against atheists is correct or rational, just WHY there is such prejudice.

 

True, but that isn't where the theists are looking. Instead, they are looking at the cases the atheists bring in court. The case to have a monument of the 10 Commandments removed from a courthouse, to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge, and to remove a cross from public land.

 

The perceived attack by atheists doesn't come open in the media or public discourse, but thru the backdoor of the courts under the aegis of the First Amendment. Therefore the massive amount of public support for theism doesn't count. Theists perceive that their beliefs are being persecuted by the minority.

What about the perceived attack on the minority, the efforts by theists to achieve a government endorsement of a belief in God. It was theists that campaigned to have the words "Under God" added to the Pledge. It was religious sentiment that resulted in the term "In God We Trust" to be placed on our currency. Theist judges like Roy Moore of Alabama wish to present the 10 commandments in an isolated context. It is theists over and over again that seek a government that endorse their beliefs and as soon as an atheist says "hold on" you want to say it's the atheists that are attacking. We are not attacking, we simply want back the neutral government this country was founded on! These cases you speak of are simply the results of attacks by theists, don't blame atheists for fighting back.

[john5746]

What about the perceived attack on the minority, the efforts by theists to achieve a government endorsement of a belief in God. It was theists that campaigned to have the words "Under God" added to the Pledge. It was religious sentiment that resulted in the term "In God We Trust" to be placed on our currency. Theist judges like Roy Moore of Alabama wish to present the 10 commandments in an isolated context. It is theists over and over again that seek a government that endorse their beliefs and as soon as an atheist says "hold on" you want to say it's the atheists that are attacking. We are not attacking, we simply want back the neutral government this country was founded on! These cases you speak of are simply the results of attacks by theists, don't blame atheists for fighting back.

 

To me atheism suffers from the same bad press that the extremists create as the religions do. I am an atheist, but have no problem with In God We Trust on money, prayer in school, 10 commandments, etc. I am tolerant enought to accept the term God, but I dislike Jesus, Mohammed, Buddah, etc used because this is a specific religion.

 

So, just as the militant islamists, or the abortion clinic bombers, so we have the whiny atheists that spend all their time trying to remove God from everywhere so their feelings aren't hurt. I understand the bigotry towards atheism, but we don't need to respond to the nth degree because of that. Minorities should be at least as tolerant of the majority as they expect to be tolerated.

 

Edit - OOps, not trying to flame, doG. Not calling you whiny, just the pursuit at all costs approach of some atheists.

[doG]

Edit - OOps, not trying to flame, doG. Not calling you whiny, just the pursuit at all costs approach of some atheists.

 

Yeah I know, I can't say they really bother me so much either. It's just the claim that it's the atheists that are attacking. I don't see them attacking anything and it's certainly not like they're attempting to get the government to outright deny God, they're just trying to stop the endorsements.

[-Demosthenes-]

Speaking for myself, and simply to dispell a possible misconception, I am very proud to be associated with the Founding Toms (Jefferson and Paine) and other Luminaries of the Englightenment.

 

In their case, Deist could simply be a polite euphemism for a certain kind of Atheism (reverence for the Laws of Nature)

 

I realize the value in the association between Atheism and Deism -- it can "validate" Atheism. But I don't think Atheism needs to be validated, it's valid enough on it's own.

 

Not to mention the illogical "similarities" between Deism (for which the main belief is that there IS a God) and Atheism (for which the main belief is that there IS NOT a God). A Deist (from the word "Deity" or God) believes that there is a God. How can a believer in God be an Atheist?

[doG]

and Atheism (for which the main belief is that there IS NOT a God).

 

Not necessarily true. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. There are atheists that claim outright that there is no God but not all of them.

[Severian]

So what is your position? Do you just have a lack of belief, or do you believe that there is no God?

[doG]

I lack belief. The claim that there is or is not a God cannot be proven. That being the case, you could call me an agnostic atheist.