Discrimination Against Atheists/Agnostics

[Emoni]

Yes, of course, but, Emoni, in your earnestness I think you're missing a key point. Making note of greater and lesser--even minute--differences among things and people is what discrimination in its purest sense is about. To discriminate is a fine human skill. It is to notice, consider, and respond to differences large and small. Discrimination is about examining things that belong to a certain category and then trying, with care, to distinguish among them by noting what distinguishes one type of deciduous tree, or shark, or literary magazine, or sailboat, or computer, from another. In the broader scheme of things, among all plants, say, the differences between a hazelnut tree and a butternut tree may be comparatively minor. But people are keen observers, and we naturally look for differences, even small ones, because those differences often have useful meaning to us. It's how we respond to those small differences that matters.

The word "discrimination," used without an implied modifier like "racial" or "religious," has acquired a negative connotation in this context, but that doesn't make the acknowledgement and recognition of minor differences a bad practice. We will not defeat cruel and unjust discrimination by ignoring or overlooking those minor differences, but by understanding them and accepting them.

Oh don't worry, I'm not going right-wing in regards to not understanding and accepting differences as well. I'm referring to discrimination strictly in the negative fear based sense of the word, not the analytical sense in regards to observation. I didn't mean to imply that differences should be OVERLOOKED and ignored by any means. Especially when there can be much to be learned from such.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

That is interesting. Please do expand on this.

I almost hesitate to respond after such an interim between this and the last time I posted, but...

Religion in Japan is so different than what I knew in America, it's hard to know where to begin.

I think the first place to look is at politics. I remember reading of a recent poll which said that Americans would elect a Muslim before they would elect an atheist to national office. Given the mood in America towards Islam after 9/11, which might be symbolized by the "controversy" of Barack Obama being Muslim during the presidential campaign. Americans demand to know about their leaders' religious leanings. It's very important to them, and when one's religion is out of the mainstream, it is a major hurdle for them to overcome. Just think of Romney, a Mormon.

I have never heard of religion as an issue in modern Japanese politics at all, except as a possible reason why Japanese PMs shouldn't visit Yasukuni.

I can continue if anyone wants me to, but I'll leave it at this for now, as the conversation has moved considerably since my last post here.

 

[Emoni]

I remember reading of a recent poll which said that Americans would elect a Muslim before they would elect an atheist to national office.

To quote an interesting poll referenced in the God Delusion by Dawkins, Atheists were rated lower than Muslims in America on their chance to become the next American president. Considering the borderline hate against Islamic belief in America, that says a LOT.

Sure it wasn't the poll I mentioned on the first page? hehe

Anyway, I am curious about some of your thoughts on what you have mentioned. Such as religion being viewed different in Japan and how atheism might be seen there in your view and such. I'm interested in you expanding.

 

[Uchite]

Has everybody forgotten about the Spanish Inquisition and the tortures that ensued? What about the holocaust of the Aztecs and the Mayans? All in the name of religion! Is that what God wanted?

Are non-Catholics wrong? Are non-Jews wrong? What about Muslims? Are they wrong too? What about different sects? Shiate? Sunni? What about Christians? Protestants and Catholics killing each other in God's name? Is that what Jesus wants? Is that what God wants?

I also would say that a lot of what is messing kids up is religion. Making kids go to confession at 8 years old?! Or any age? Give me a break! Kids are taught that they are "bad" for not doing their homework or not going to church every Sunday!

God, the Afterlife, the History and Evolution of all of Creation has been and will be around for Infinity. For humans to think they can explain it all it is absolutely ludicrous!

 

[Bellevance]

God, the Afterlife, the History and Evolution of all of Creation has been and will be around for Infinity. For humans to think they can explain it all it is absolutely ludicrous!

As far as I know, no rational atheists think they "can explain it all." They simply don't concern themselves with supernatural explanations, because those are plainly absurd.

As Sam Harris has said, "While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society. Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about."

And this from Thomas Jefferson, "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology."

 

[ShadowSpirit]

Has everybody forgotten about the Spanish Inquisition and the tortures that ensued? What about the holocaust of the Aztecs and the Mayans? All in the name of religion! Is that what God wanted?
Are non-Catholics wrong? Are non-Jews wrong? What about Muslims? Are they wrong too? What about different sects? Shiate? Sunni? What about Christians? Protestants and Catholics killing each other in God's name? Is that what Jesus wants? Is that what God wants?
I also would say that a lot of what is messing kids up is religion. Making kids go to confession at 8 years old?! Or any age? Give me a break! Kids are taught that they are "bad" for not doing their homework or not going to church every Sunday!
God, the Afterlife, the History and Evolution of all of Creation has been and will be around for Infinity. For humans to think they can explain it all it is absolutely ludicrous!

Jesus wants whatever the interpretor believes him to want. This is why theism spans to so many different books, ideals, and practices.

To me, "what Jesus wants" is about as silly of a question as asking "what does the Loch Ness Monster want." Except unfortunately for Nessie, we have the means to scour the Loch Ness to discover that she doesn't exist. Despite some people out there being still convinced that she is in there.... perhaps hiding... yeah, that's it. A giant sea creature is disguising itself in the moss. Clever bastard. Meanwhile, we can't search heaven for god. The beauty of theism, is you don't have to prove anything to believe in it.

Oh, and btw. I'm not teasing you for asking what Jesus wants. I know you're asking that question rhetorically. I am discussing the concept behind most bible thumpers.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Jesus wants whatever the interpretor believes him to want. This is why theism spans to so many different books, ideals, and practices.

I think what is interesting to note is that Jesus always follows the individual's morals. Person A doesn't like homosexuals, so therefore Jesus says it is a sin. Person B is more liberal and open-minded, therefore Jesus says to love everyone above all. Jesus never says what the individual believes is wrong; they usually interpret the Bible to fit into their beliefs.

 

[Emoni]

As far as I know, no rational atheists think they "can explain it all." They simply don't concern themselves with supernatural explanations, because those are plainly absurd.
ﾂ"

I have to stress that this is another myth about atheism; that atheists declare that there is absolutely NO God or afterlife. I have met none that say that, as there is simply no current evidence for such. That doesn't mean something beyond the physical observable world doesn't exist. However, that doesn't mean that it may not. Now a big man in the sky shooting thunder bolts, probably not going to exist. However, despite being an "godless heathen Atheist" I do think there may be something beyond or something that might be defined as a spiritual force. Don't have any real evidence though; however, my own personal sense of consciousness and self awareness says to me that there is plenty that is not understood yet and may exist beyond. Even Dawkins considers himself "spiritual" in specific sense of the word as in awe of the universe.

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I have to stress that this is another myth about atheism; that atheists declare that there is absolutely NO God or afterlife. I have met none that say that, as there is simply no current evidence for such. That doesn't mean something beyond the physical observable world doesn't exist. However, that doesn't mean that it may not. Now a big man in the sky shooting thunder bolts, probably not going to exist. However, despite being an "godless heathen Atheist" I do think there may be something beyond or something that might be defined as a spiritual force. Don't have any real evidence though; however, my own personal sense of consciousness and self awareness says to me that there is plenty that is not understood yet and may exist beyond. Even Dawkins considers himself "spiritual" in specific sense of the word as in awe of the universe.

Sounds more to me like you're describing agnosticism.

I fall into the realm of people whom would like to fancy the idea of there being a higher meaning to our existence. Yet I'm not going to believe something made up on the spot just for the sake of believing. No matter how much I might want to say. "Well we had to come from something." I have to face the fact that I might not be special and that no answers may be owed to me as to why I exist.

 

[Yukiko chan]

Sounds more to me like you're describing agnosticism.

No, what Emoni was describing is called "weak atheism" as opposed to "strong atheism" which is a strong belief that there can be no deities whatsoever.

Just for the record, in various references you'll find different terms, that may all mean the same thing:
weak atheism = agnocistic atheism = relative atheism.
strong atheism = atheism = absolute atheism.

But the concept of agnosticism is different. How am I to explain that?

OK. Suppose I ask you the question: is there a god that created the universe?
The answer to this question can only have two possible responses: yes or no, theism or atheism, there's no answer "in between" (the excluded middle principle).
But actually you do have a third option which stems not from a contradiction in the principles of logic, but from the simple fact that when you answer that question by yes or no, you've actually made a tacit choice to answer that question, while you could've simply chosen not to, i.e. you could've suspended your judgment: this is what we call an agnostic position.

Question: Do deities exist?
Choice 1:
I don't answer: Agnosticism
I answer :

Choice 2: Yes: Theism/Deism
No: Atheism

But if course, when it's about such an "important" question, you can't just get by and ignore it. The agnostic has to come up with a justification to their choice of suspending their judgment on the matter. This is why there are many different flavors of agnosticism (which are not always mutually exclusive).

Examples:

- Ignosticism: the question is not well formulated, is too vague, or has no meaning.
- Atheistic agnosticism: there's no proof for the existence of a deity (or deities).
- Theistic agnosticism: there's no proof for the non existence of a deity (or deities).
- Strong agnosticism: the answer in unknowable.

As about the difference between weak and strong atheists, it is that the former, despite their unbelief in the existence of gods, keep in mind the possibility that such gods may somehow exist, while the latter refuse such possibility completely. This is an irrational position that can be only equated with that of hard religious fundamentalists, and which I have only encountered once long ago.
So while weak atheism is an unbelief in deities, strong atheism is a belief that deities do not exist.

All of these concepts could be relativized, so a person may be a strong atheist to monotheistic gods for example, while being a weak atheist to Spinoza's god-universe, and an agnostic to all other gods.

That's my own take on the subject, which is mainly based on my readings and experience. You may find other definitions for the same above cited terms, but those mentioned here were the ones that I've retained as the most logical and clear.

Best, Greg

 

[Emoni]

Wow, interesting post and outline there.

Yes, I guess I would go under what you label as weak atheism. Although, scientifically, you can't actually prove a God doesn't exist (nor can you flying pigs don't either though) so technically you cannot resolutely say that a God absolutely does not exist. Therefore, all that can be said really is there is no scientific proof so far that such a being exists.

 

[Remixer]

Sounds more to me like you're describing agnosticism.

I agree. When I read Emoni's comment, the thought that it strongly resembles the agnostic belief system, struck me first.

Then again, there is no such thing as absolute certainty unless you were to be God himself.

Anyone to claim himself/herself to possess absolute certainty on whether God exists or not, is either foolish or a liar.


Remixer

 

[ShadowSpirit]

Anyone to claim himself/herself to possess absolute certainty on whether God exists or not, is either foolish or a liar.


Remixer

Many of those people claim that god speaks to them. Believers call them divine. I call them schizophrenic.

 

[Remixer]

Many of those people claim that god speaks to them. Believers call them divine. I call them schizophrenic.

Even if God were to have "talked" to them, from their personal perspective they would still not be able to talk with certainty.

My reasoning may be a bit on the extreme side of philosophical argumentation, but I like to stick to it.



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

I agree. A human being will never have the capacity to offer definite proof.

 

[nice gaijin]

Then again, there is no such thing as absolute certainty unless you were to be God himself.

Anyone to claim himself/herself to possess absolute certainty on whether God exists or not, is either foolish or a liar.

So you are also agnostic?

 

[Remixer]

So you are also agnostic?

In a strict sense, everyone would be.

It depends on the decision you make on which way you do believe.

So no, I am not an agnostic, but at the same time I am well aware that my belief lacks certainty I most likely will never attain in my life.

I prefer this awareness above ignorance and narrow-mindedness.



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

So no, I am not an agnostic, but at the same time I am well aware that my belief lacks certainty I most likely will never attain in my life.

Umm, but isn't that an agnostic view?

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I think for purposes of educating and confirming our positions in a proverbial battle, it can be important to establish the precise definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and even spiritualism. In the end, I personally feel all of these groups are members of the same team... or gang. Yeah, that sounds better. Lets take up arms and go off into battle. I want to be appended with a buzzsaw arm that shoot lazers. Cause it is long ranged, noisy, and terribly intimidating. Where is my focus going?

 

[Remixer]

Umm, but isn't that an agnostic view?

I do not believe that to be the case.

Agnosticism lacks in having a firm position in which they believe in. It is complete uncertainty about the existence of any God/gods and truthfulness of any religion.

Atheism and all other theistic belief systems take a clear stance on what they believe to be the reality in regards to God's/gods' existence.

Certainty may not be there, but a position has been taken which one believes to be right.

I am not sure whether I articulated my point well. Please forgive, if I didn't.



Remixer

 

[Haruspex]

I'd love a battle myself. Give me two maces and I'll be happy.

 

[Bellevance]

Fundamentally, an atheist is one without theistic belief

Umm, but isn't that an agnostic view?

To reiterate an earlier post, "atheism" derives from the Greek. In the Greek, "a" means "without" or "not," and "theos" means "god."

Therefore, fundamentally, an atheist is someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. Many atheists do reasonably and logically assert that there is no god, but a fuller sense of the word "atheist" may also may comprise the agnostic point of view. Atheism, at its root, is characterized by the absence of belief in God.

 

[Bellevance]

I do not believe that to be the case.

Agnosticism ... is complete uncertainty about the existence of any God/gods and truthfulness of any religion.

Atheism [takes] a clear stance [as to] reality in regards to God's/gods' existence.

Certainty may not be there, but a position has been taken which one believes to be right.

Not really, Remixer. First, agnosticism is not "complete uncertainty." An agnostic may be nearly certain there are no gods, but if he consciously allows for what he sees as the remote possibility of a god's existence, he may properly deem himself an "agnostic," rather than an atheist, while being, say, 92% sure there is no god.

Second, an atheist need not concern himself assertively with "belief" at all. The matter of any god's existence may simply have no relevance whatsoever to any worldly or spiritual attitude he may hold. It's not that he believes a god does not exist. Rather, it's that he does not believe in the existence of a god. He has no belief, one way or the other.

 

[Haruspex]

The lack of gnosis seems to me to be a lack of spiritual belief.

 

[Bellevance]

The lack of gnosis seems to me to be a lack of spiritual belief.

Sure. Although, again, please let me point out that it is not a "lack" of belief. Instead, it's an absence of belief. The agnostic and the atheist are not in want of something desirable, which the use of "lack" would imply. They are simply without theistic belief.