Discrimination Against Atheists/Agnostics

[Haruspex]

Not much discrimination in Hungary either. Such a pessimistic country that any thought of a better afterworld is discarded immediately. Joking of course, but you get the point. Most people just can't be arsed to put effort into believing things that are in fact false.

 

[Remixer]

Not so much a fact that it is false, rather than a belief.

Regardless of evidence, whether one believes in God/Religion or not never changes the very fact that it is nothing more than a personal belief.

Cheers


Remixer

 

[ShadowSpirit]

Atheism isn't a belief. It's the lack thereof.

 

[nice gaijin]

Re: remixer
Forgive me but sharia law is based on the Koran, something doesn't ring true about forcing religious laws on people that don't follow that religion...

 

[Bellevance]

Atheism is not a lack of belief

Atheism isn't a belief. It's the lack thereof.

Shadow, consider this:

In Greek, "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist is someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist, and not someone who is lacking anything. According to its Greek roots, atheism is characterized by the absence of belief in God.

George Smith, in Atheism: The Case Against God, writes:

"Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as 'the belief that there is no God of any kind,' or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism--and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist, rather he does not believe in the existence of a god."

The problem with defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is that the word "lack" suggests a fault or deficiency on the part of the atheist. Indeed, the first definition of "lack" offered in Webster's Third Unabridged is "the fact or state of being wanting or deficient." Synonyms offered are "want" and "need," the clear implication being that what is missing is to be desired.

As George Smith succinctly states, "Atheism...is the absence of theistic belief." Smith's more appropriate and accurate definition also encompasses the position of agnostics as well.

▶

 

[ShadowSpirit]

Shadow, consider this:

In Greek, "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist is someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist, and not someone who is lacking anything. According to its Greek roots, atheism is characterized by the absence of belief in God.

George Smith, in Atheism: The Case Against God, writes:

"Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as 'the belief that there is no God of any kind,' or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism--and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist, rather he does not believe in the existence of a god."

The problem with defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is that the word "lack" suggests a fault or deficiency on the part of the atheist. Indeed, the first definition of "lack" offered in Webster's Third Unabridged is "the fact or state of being wanting or deficient." Synonyms offered are "want" and "need," the clear implication being that what is missing is to be desired.

As George Smith succinctly states, "Atheism...is the absence of theistic belief." Smith's more appropriate and accurate definition also encompasses the position of agnostics as well.

▶

True. I am inclined to agree with you. However this is a rather elaborate lecture to define something that I feel I had implied in context. I wasn't concerned with the detailed semantics behind how I was saying it.

 

[Bellevance]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be pedantic or to sound lecture-ish, but, in fairness, you did say, very simply, "Atheism isn't a belief. It's the lack thereof."

This definition is mistaken. It comes at "atheism" from the denigrating point of view of the believer, who tends to regard "atheism" as a deficiency, as a lack of what any person would be better off having. That, I think we agree, is not the case.

This is an important issue for every atheist. If it were not, I would not have elaborated on it in such detail. From an accurate definition of atheism comes an accurate understanding of atheism. Those who will accept a poor definiton of atheism will possess a poor understanding.

 

[Emoni]

I reside in the Middle East most of the time.
As it probably is to be expected of Arab countries, if someone belongs outside the three accepted religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam, one is unable to receive an official position within the respective Government.
Some countries restrict it to Islam only.
Other than that, as long as Atheists do not break Sharia Law, which applies to everyone, the very most of the people here could not care less.
I have yet to experience or witness discrimination against Atheists in my life.
Cheers
Remixer

... wow, just wow. 90% of what you stated is literally a shining example of explicit discrimination.

Is this another one of your semi-troll posts where you switch around to the opposite side of the argument when you are shown up, or do you LITERALLY not see a problem with the logic behind what you just stated?

 

[JimmySeal]

Shadow, consider this:

Wow, you said all that to expound on the connotational difference between "lack" and "absence" ☝
Atheism is a belief. An atheist is someone who actively holds the notion that no gods exist. Agnosticism is the absence[/lack ] of belief.

 

[Remixer]

... wow, just wow. 90% of what you stated is literally a shining example of explicit discrimination.

Is this another one of your semi-troll posts where you switch around to the opposite side of the argument when you are shown up, or do you LITERALLY not see a problem with the logic behind what you just stated?

Ah, you again. Welcome back.

No, I understand the level of discrimination that exists here.

However, the question in this Thread is about explicit discrimination against Atheists.

While Arab countries discriminate against Atheists, they also do against Hindus, Buddhists and all other non-abrahamic religions.

I hope you see my point.



Remixer

 

[Remixer]

Re: remixer
Forgive me but sharia law is based on the Koran, something doesn't ring true about forcing religious laws on people that don't follow that religion...

I do not see your point, to be frank.

There is no reason why an independent Government should not take a set of laws, incorporate it as their own and apply it to its citizen.
In the case of most Arab countries, it is Sharia Law that has been incorporated.

Sharia Law does not force people to pray five times a day to a God they do not believe in. As far as I am aware, religious freedom is not compromised by it.

Furthermore, laws represent the philosophical approach taken by a people/Government in regards to criminal activity. When it is the Government itself and backed by the majority of the population, there is no reason to oppose the implementation of a set of rules they see fit.

EDIT: I should note, that of course laws backed by the majority of a population can be quite wrong ethically and logically. These laws definitely should be opposed. Opposing a set of laws was my concern in this comment.



Remixer

 

[Emoni]

Ah, you again. Welcome back.
I hope you see my point.
Remixer

... um, no I don't. What point? I don't see any. You also seemed to have missed NiceGaijin's point as well.

An atheist is someone who actively holds the notion that no gods exist. Agnosticism is the absence[/lack ] of belief.

Read "The God Delusion" if you can. Very good book that explains this misunderstanding very well. I believe it is in the first or second chapter if I remember right. The scale of certainty that Dawkins states is what your statement would best be answered by I feel.

The best way I can explain this, is point out we are NOT talking about "belief" in the sense of a way of thinking rather than "religious belief." Atheists are without religious belief. They are "without theism." It does NOT mean that they have determined there is no God, even though some may state that to be their opinion. Atheism is not a religious belief.

If something has not been shown or proven to exist, one cannot say that the very statement that it does not exist means that now physically exists. (Disclaimer, don't start going into abstract existence philosophy please... that is a different subject and will make a big mess.) There is NOT a cupcake there does not equal proof that a cupcake does in fact exist. It is flawed logic.

 

[Remixer]

... um, no I don't. What point? I don't see any. You also seemed to have missed NiceGaijin's point as well.

Simply put:

The Thread is about discrimination solely against Atheists.

Arabs discriminate against Atheists, true, but they also discriminate against a variety of ideologies and races. [In regards to holding a public office.]

That does not make it any less bad, but it also negates the question posed by the Thread Starter.

I hope that was helpful.

Cheers



Remixer

 

[Remixer]

It is quite funny to see the discussion about semantics that I have started.

Whether a personal belief is religious or not, it is irrelevant.

A belief is a belief. Simple as that. Whether it incorporates an acknowledgment of God's existence or whether it states that there is no God, really, it doesn't change anything.



Remixer

 

[Yukiko chan]

No, I understand the level of discrimination that exists here.
However, the question in this Thread is about explicit discrimination against Atheists.
While Arab countries discriminate against Atheists, they also do against Hindus, Buddhists and all other non-abrahamic religions.

Still, the majority of Arabs, as far as I know, hold more respect to people with (some form of) religion, than those without. They even consider deism as a religion (which is completely false, deism in its core is a rejection of all forms of revelation), thus leaving agnostics and atheists as "the most evil guys out there".

 

[Remixer]

Still, the majority of Arabs, as far as I know, hold more respect to people with (some form of) religion, than those without. They even consider deism as a religion (which is completely false, deism in its core is a rejection of all forms of revelation), thus leaving agnostics and atheists as "the most evil guys out there".

I have to disagree.

Respect is a completely different issue.

Arabs only respect other Arabs.

Everyone else has to beware when dealing with them.



Remixer

 

[Emoni]

Simply put:

The Thread is about discrimination solely against Atheists.

Arabs discriminate against Atheists, true, but they also discriminate against a variety of ideologies and races. [In regards to holding a public office.]

That does not make it any less bad, but it also negates the question posed by the Thread Starter.


Remixer

Step 1: Thread purpose = discrimination against Atheist
Step 2: Labeled Ethnic group of "Arabs" discriminate against many groups.
Step 3: ????????????? (Massive unexplained leap of reasoning)
Result: Main question negated while seeming to imply mass discrimination of outside groups negates the existence of discrimination.

What on earth happened? Do I really want to ask what was reasoning is going on in your mind and how it explains this? Not sure I do, but I do know one thing. Extremist religious groups, the KKK, Neo-nazis, and any group that is involved in massive discrimination on a wide scale is going to want in on that golden reasoning.

It is quite funny to see the discussion about semantics that I have started.

As much as I hate to burst your ego bubble again, the misinterpretation of "atheism as a religious belief" has been around long before you popped into an internet forum and dragged in this dead horse to beat. If that was your purpose, that is called trolling.

I think I'm done for now. I'm getting the feeling I'm just feeding into some kid who gets off on posting random things.

 

[Remixer]

I do not yet know how to quote several times within a reply, so please pardon me.


Regarding the subject of discrimination against Atheists:

The topic here is not to discuss who or what discriminates against which ethnic/ideological groups.

As far as I have understood the topic and the first comment, it is about personal experiences one may have encountered where Atheists have been singled out for their belief and discriminated against.

I perfectly well understand your position, Emoni, thank you very much for explaining it for the billionth time.

Please discern between the topic at hand and a mass-discrimination against multiple ethnic and ideological groups by the Arabs.




Regarding me being a troll:

I have the vague understanding that being a troll implies that I have intentionally tried to start a fight for no good reason.

I am perplexed as to how quickly you resort to put a label in place in order to categorize someone in your mind. I will not go into which personality features this would likely boil down to.

I implore you to read my first comment on top of this page. I clearly said the following:

"Regardless of evidence, whether one believes in God/Religion or not never changes the very fact that it is nothing more than a personal belief."

For one reason or another it started a "debate" on whether Atheism is a religious belief or not.

Please read again and first attain a deeper understanding of what is going on rather than barging into things with your heavily-biased opinion.

EDIT: Also, feel free to point out to me how my comment is troll-like.

EDIT2: Ah yes, IF it was my purpose... regardless, an aggressive comment you made. I will abstain from changing my comment to properly address yours.

Cheers



Remixer

 

[Bellevance]

Wow, you said all that to expound on the connotational difference between "lack" and "absence" ☝
Atheism is a belief. An atheist is someone who actively holds the notion that no gods exist. Agnosticism is the absence[/lack ] of belief.

Yep. I said all that because an accurate definition of any word is crucial to an accurate understanding not only of its connotations but of its essential meaning. Even the most careful explanations, however, will not satisfy those people with a perverse need to be contrary. And wrong.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

The Thread is about discrimination solely against Atheists.

Arabs discriminate against Atheists, true, but they also discriminate against a variety of ideologies and races. [In regards to holding a public office.]

By that logic we would be forced to say that Hitler didn't discriminate specifically against Jews, since he also discriminated against JWs, gays, communists etc. ☝

 

[Remixer]

By that logic we would be forced to say that Hitler didn't discriminate specifically against Jews, since he also discriminated against JWs, gays, communists etc. ☝

Not comparable.

With Hitler there is a tremendous amount of evidence that he singled out Jews in his reign.

Please do tell me how the Arab mass discrimination against all followers of non-abrahamic religions/belief systems is comparable to Hitler's doing in relation to Atheists being discriminated against specifically.

Or in other words: How do Arabs single out Atheists, as opposed to other religions and belief systems?



Remixer

 

[Bellevance]

In Free Inquiry magazine, Margaret Downey has written a brief but substantive essay called "Discrimination Against Atheists." She offers several flagrant examples of incidents in the US and discusses why this form of discrimination frequently gets short shrift in the national media.

Search | Free Inquiry

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Please do tell me how the Arab mass discrimination against all followers of non-abrahamic religions/belief systems is comparable to Hitler's doing in relation to Atheists being discriminated against specifically.

I'm an atheist living in a Muslim country. My ambition is to be an official in the government. I am prevented from fulfilling my ambition because I do not follow one of the Abrahamic religions. I therefore feel that I have been personally discriminated against, because I am prevented from fulfilling my personal ambitions by a government that employs mass discrimination.

Plausible?

Even if atheists aren't singled out as such, it wouldn't make this kind of discrimination any less personal to the individual involved.

 

[Remixer]

Tsuyoiko, there is nothing in your comment that I would refute.

Yes, muslim countries in general prevent people with a non-abrahamic ideology from holding a public office.

I am very aware of this and did state that somewhere within this Topic as well.


Remixer

 

[Bellevance]

Even if atheists aren't singled out as such, it wouldn't make this kind of discrimination any less personal to the individual involved.

True, Tsuyoiko. But I think I can see Remixer's point. If the dominant culture in a country oppresses and disdains all subcultures equally, then no one subculture--atheism, for example--is being singled out as different from, or less privileged than, the others. In this sense, atheists wouldn't experience any particular discrimination based on their distinct position with respect to religious belief. Instead, their diminished standing within the dominant culture would be based on their rejection of mainstream ways of thinking and worshipping--rather than on their own convictions, which would simply be irrelevant.