Discrimination Against Atheists/Agnostics

[Bellevance]

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

Maybe you're trying to draw another distinction. Consider this, from the rationalist writer and neuroscientist, Sam Harris:

There is no question that people have ﾂ"spiritualﾂ" experiences (I use words like ﾂ"spiritualﾂ" and ﾂ"mysticalﾂ" in scare quotes, because they come to us trailing a long tail of metaphysical debris). Every culture has produced people who have gone off into caves for months or years and discovered that certain deliberate uses of attentionﾂ―introspection, meditation, prayerﾂ―can radically transform a person's moment to moment perception of the world. I believe contemplative efforts of this sort have a lot to tell us about the nature of the mind.

There are, in fact, several points of convergence between the modern sciences of the mindﾂ―psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, etc.ﾂ―and some of our contemplative traditions. Both lines of inquiry, for instance, give us good reasons to believe that the conventional sense of self is a kind of cognitive illusion. While most of us go through life feeling like we are the thinker of our thoughts and the experiencer of our experience, from the perspective of science we know that this is a false view. There is no discrete self or ego lurking like a minotaur in the labyrinth of the brain. There is no region of cortex or stream of neural processing that occupies a privileged position with respect to our personhood. There is no unchanging ﾂ"center of narrative gravityﾂ"
There are also several neuroscience labs now studying the effects of meditation on the brain. Western interest in meditation has opened a dialogue between scientists and contemplatives about how the data of first-person experience can be brought into the charmed circle of third-person experiment. The goal is to understand the possibilities of human well-being a little bit better than we do at present.

I believe that most people are interested in spiritual life, whether they realize it or not. Every one of us has been born to seek happiness in a condition that is fundamentally unreliable. What you get, you lose. We are all (at least tacitly) interested in discovering just how happy a person can be in such a circumstance. On the question of how to be most happy, the contemplative life has some important insights to offer.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/01/consciousness_without_faith_1.html

 

[Emoni]

Two very interesting proposals I thought fit partly in this conversation; teach of knowledge of all major religions in schools and their fundamental precepts, and good doesn't need to be following the words of a god. For those who know of Dan Dennett I thought this was an interesting "middle ground" attempt.

P.S. these mid thread ads are getting F'ing ANNOYING

 

[bertiefink]

I'm not an atheist, but the state I live in (California), atheism could easily be seen as the norm.

 

[Bellevance]

I'm not an atheist, but the state I live in (California), atheism could easily be seen as the norm.

The norm? That would be stretching it quite a bit, I suspect. The percentage of nonbelievers among Americans is generally put at around 10% (30 million). Some suggest it may be as high as 18%, but accuracy on this score is hard to come by. Because of the inevitable stigma attached to declaring one's atheism in most parts of the country, many nonbelievers keep themselves closeted.

Still, California is a state of many contrasts, and there are portions of the state where the nonbeliever population may well approach 40% or more.

If atheists do constitute about 10% of the population, then Congress should comprise some 50 atheists at least (and perhaps it does). But the only self-declared atheist in Congress is Pete Stark, of California.

"Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America. Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Herb Silverman, president of the Secular Coalition for America, attributes these attitudes to the demonization of people who don't believe in God. "The truth is," says Silverman, "the vast majority of us follow the Golden Rule and are as likely to be good citizens, just like Rep. Stark with over 30 years of exemplary public service. The only way to counter the prejudice against nontheists is for more people to publicly identify as nontheists. Rep. Stark shows remarkable courage in being the first member of Congress to do so."

http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html

 

[Bellevance]

Emoni--

Thanks for the Dennett video. Have you read his book? This is one of his theses, and I agree with him, but, however sensible it seems, in this climate in this country it's just not ever going to happen. Too bad. I'd like to see the textbook, in any event--World Religions for fifth graders.

Even if a fair, neutral, entertaining text were written and such a course of study adopted, you and I both know that the class would be colored a great deal by the sort of spin the teacher might put on the "objective" material. There is simply no way that fervent believers can be objective about other incompatible systems of belief. As Dennett says, people are threatened by other creeds, and they regard them as potentially seductive and satanic. So I doubt that schooling is the way to an answer, not in our age, anyway.

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I'm not an atheist, but the state I live in (California), atheism could easily be seen as the norm.

Whereabouts in California? I'm a native Californian myself (Sacramento) and atheism is not the norm. I would say it is a more religiously relaxed environment. Most churches are typically setup as rooms rented in plazas or small buildings. They don't stand out as dominantly as they would in some southern states where you see a church adorned on almost every city block.

 

[bertiefink]

The norm? That would be stretching it quite a bit, I suspect.

It was somewhat of a generalizing statement on my part. As I believe you stated, California as a whole has many contrasts. When the nation thinks of California from the perspective of media influence, they would more than likely think the San Francisco Bay Area (the Northern California metropolitan representation), and the Los Angeles metropolitan area (Southern California). Of course, if one visited California on a vacation and went through cities like Fresno, Modesto, Merced, Redding, etc., there wouldn't be any particular taste of California from what they've seen in the media. Of course by media, I'm referring more to things like movies and TV shows, where a lot of filming has taken place in these areas.
The San Francisco area is somewhat of a hot bed for not so much atheism perhaps, but anything non-Christian. This being the case, atheism fits well here. LA being more the hot bed for entertainment, can be more taken for granted as a non-Christian area simply because of the Hollywood scene which tends to paint a picture of worldly pleasure. In reality, there are a lot of Christians in the LA area. In fact, Orange County is considered something akin to a Bible Belt.
I think there's different perspectives of atheism, because particularly to Born-Again Christians, I think there's a tendency to not necessarily see an atheist as one who doesn't believe in any God. I would guess that the majority of people in California don't particularly commit to any particular belief in God. So someone who is merely casual on the subject (maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't) would to some be the equivalent of being an atheist. So, it doesn't matter too much whether someone says they don't believe there's a God, they're not sure, or they think there is some sort of divine force.
In the political arena, to claim to be an atheist probably does have a more profound significance. Since politics involves winning different demography's over, to commit to being an atheist in it's most technical term would probably be more risky.

 

[bertiefink]

Whereabouts in California? I'm a native Californian myself (Sacramento) and atheism is not the norm. I would say it is a more religiously relaxed environment. Most churches are typically setup as rooms rented in plazas or small buildings. They don't stand out as dominantly as they would in some southern states where you see a church adorned on almost every city block.

I live near San Jose. The Bay Area, being a fairly high profile representation of California across the country, can give an impression of an atheistic type of society to some. They say there are some people, particularly in the American Mid West who see California as a whole as a modern day Sodom & Gomorah. Even though Sacramento is a major metropolitan area, many people who've never been to California will probably tend to think San Francisco and Los Angeles. If they're conservative fundamentalist Christians, atheism would probably be seen as equivalent to Paganism, the practice of Eastern Religion, Scientology, Occult/Satanism, etc. All of these are often associated with the 2 metropolitan areas.

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I live near San Jose. The Bay Area, being a fairly high profile representation of California across the country, can give an impression of an atheistic type of society to some. They say there are some people, particularly in the American Mid West who see California as a whole as a modern day Sodom & Gomorah. Even though Sacramento is a major metropolitan area, many people who've never been to California will probably tend to think San Francisco and Los Angeles. If they're conservative fundamentalist Christians, atheism would probably be seen as equivalent to Paganism, the practice of Eastern Religion, Scientology, Occult/Satanism, etc. All of these are often associated with the 2 metropolitan areas.

I can see the approach you're taking. I'm not trying to debunk this outlook. Though I insist that there are a lot more religious people in these metropolitan areas than you might give it credit for. A hypocritical theist is still a theist nonetheless. This goes into my suggestion of California being more of a relaxed environment when it comes to the theme of religion. California is also a front-runner for new age religions. I'll agree that in California you're less likely to get a bible crammed down your throat for being an atheist. Still the hand of religion grips the neck of America even in California. With less than 23% non-religious (cited from Wikipedia) in California, that's still approximately a 3vs1 ratio in favor of god mongers.

 

[bertiefink]

I can see the approach you're taking. I'm not trying to debunk this outlook. Though I insist that there are a lot more religious people in these metropolitan areas than you might give it credit for. A hypocritical theist is still a theist nonetheless. This goes into my suggestion of California being more of a relaxed environment when it comes to the theme of religion. California is also a front-runner for new age religions. I'll agree that in California you're less likely to get a bible crammed down your throat for being an atheist. Still the hand of religion grips the neck of America even in California. With less than 23% non-religious (cited from Wikipedia) in California, that's still approximately a 3vs1 ratio in favor of god mongers.

There's undoubtedly a lot of religious people in these areas. As far as point blank statistics, I agree that generally speaking, atheists are far outnumbered. However, stats (as in a poll of some sort) could be deceiving. For instance, what sometimes can be taken as a belief that God doesn't exist, after further probing, could actually mean an anger towards God. The reasons for this could be more superficial (why does God allow suffering?, etc.), or something more personal. It can get more confused when looking at different religions. Where I live, there is a lot of eastern religious belief. Either do to immigration, New Age philosophy which intermingles with eastern religion, or westerners practicing or converting to eastern religions. When one looks at Hinduism, not all factions are monotheistic. So one has to consider whether or not believing in deities alone constitutes theism. Or depending on the type of Buddhism practiced may depend on whether or not they even believe in spiritual beings outside of human beings, like as in Theravada Buddhism. Typically, westerners will embrace the factions that deal less with gods or deities (from what I've detected so far).
As far as the whole issue of discrimination, because the issue of God/religion is such a political issue (right-wing fundamentalists vs. left-wing liberals); and California being fairly liberal, I think atheism is fairly acceptable. If one says they're an atheist, that's tolerable. If one says they're a Born Again Christian, it's "oh no, it's one of them"!

 

[ShadowSpirit]

There's undoubtedly a lot of religious people in these areas. As far as point blank statistics, I agree that generally speaking, atheists are far outnumbered. However, stats (as in a poll of some sort) could be deceiving. For instance, what sometimes can be taken as a belief that God doesn't exist, after further probing, could actually mean an anger towards God. The reasons for this could be more superficial (why does God allow suffering?, etc.), or something more personal. It can get more confused when looking at different religions. Where I live, there is a lot of eastern religious belief. Either do to immigration, New Age philosophy which intermingles with eastern religion, or westerners practicing or converting to eastern religions. When one looks at Hinduism, not all factions are monotheistic. So one has to consider whether or not believing in deities alone constitutes theism. Or depending on the type of Buddhism practiced may depend on whether or not they even believe in spiritual beings outside of human beings, like as in Theravada Buddhism. Typically, westerners will embrace the factions that deal less with gods or deities (from what I've detected so far).
As far as the whole issue of discrimination, because the issue of God/religion is such a political issue (right-wing fundamentalists vs. left-wing liberals); and California being fairly liberal, I think atheism is fairly acceptable. If one says they're an atheist, that's tolerable. If one says they're a Born Again Christian, it's "oh no, it's one of them"!

haha. Fair enough. I like the. "Oh no, it's one of them!" line. It's a generalization about Californians that I hate to contribute to. Yet being from there myself, I can see a lot of that mindset going around.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

nontheists

Is it worth noting that Silverman uses the word nontheist rather than atheist?

Even if a fair, neutral, entertaining text were written and such a course of study adopted, you and I both know that the class would be colored a great deal by the sort of spin the teacher might put on the "objective" material.

I agree, which is why I consider myself fortunate to have been taught Religious Studies by an atheist

 

[Bellevance]

Is it worth noting that Silverman uses the word nontheist rather than atheist?

It probably is worth noting. Good point. I suspect he may consider "nontheist" a somewhat softer term than "atheist." Sam Harris has proposed that atheists stop referring to themselves as atheists, because the very term strikes such a discordant note in so many ears. The word has become hopelessly contaminated by its many ineradicable, if erroneous, associations. It inspires instant hatred and revulsion in lots of people who do not know and do not want to know anything about what atheists really think or how they behave. Harris contends we shouldn't call ourselves anything, not even rationalists. After all, Harris says, there's no term for those who don't buy into astrology.

Here's a vile sentiment by Daniel Joseph Min that illustrates the point:

Seriously, does anybody ever cry at an Atheist's funeral?

I mean, since Atheists have no value whatsoever as human
beings (they're not even human, but only inhuman animals),
since Atheists are nothing but miserable Liars, Cowards
and Murderers, after all, why would anybody in their
right mind weep over the dead rotting corpse, or bone
chips and ashes (that get mixed together with those of
others from the crematory) of a worthless dead Atheist?

And what epitaph do you engrave on an Atheist's grave
marker? "Here lies the only good Atheist, which is a
dead Atheist". What else is there say? Nothing at all.
No last words, no last rites, no flowers, no anything.

Every time an Atheist dies, the world is better off as
a result of that dead Atheist being dead, & its damned
God-forsaken soul burning in the fiery pits of Hades.

Which begs another related question, do Atheists cry at
funerals? If so, why? Since Atheists hate God, and they
hate Family, and they hate Country, who are they crying
for? It is true: The only good Atheist is a dead Atheist.

Daniel Joseph Min

 

[Tsuyoiko]

It probably is worth noting. Good point. I suspect he may consider "nontheist" a somewhat softer term than "atheist." Sam Harris has proposed that atheists stop referring to themselves as atheists, because the very term strikes such a discordant note in so many ears.

Richard Dawkins has an even softer term: Bright. Nice article.

Here's a vile sentiment by Daniel Joseph Min that illustrates the point:

Now that's what I call prejudice against Brights

 

[Bellevance]

Richard Dawkins has an even softer term: Bright. Nice article.

Right you are. I remember reading that piece some time ago. Dan Dennett favors "bright," as well, I believe. I'm with Sam Harris, though. In the broader culture, I don't think we need any invidious label.

Anyway, to me, "bright" carries a whiff of self-congratulatory smugness that makes me cringe.

 

[Emoni]

Dawkins usually makes some good arguments... but this "bright" one I have to say sounds rather retarded to me. Sounds very arrogant and as if it is a misuse of a word, or either a cult name.

 

[Bellevance]

Dawkins usually makes some good arguments... but this "bright" one I have to say sounds rather retarded to me. Sounds very arrogant and as if it is a misuse of a word, or either a cult name.

Exactly. It's a little dismaying that the great Dawkins would attach himself to it. This use of the word strikes me as a rather too deliberate (and self-flattering) appropriation of an otherwise neutral noun/adjective. The obvious comparison is to "gay," but that particular evolution was much more organic than calculated.

 

[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.

As I mentioned before, it is impossible to have absolute certainty. In your explanation of an agnostic belief, it would seem that you are insinuating theists as well as atheists to have certainty in God's existence/nonexistence.

If we plunge too deeply into semantics, we just end up with everyone being an agnostic. I will maintain, that agnostics have zero certainty and are in many cases too overwhelmed by the amount of information on both sides to take a clear stance on God's existence, or avoid doing so.

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.

I disagree.

A person always has a belief. And yes, if a person collects information regarding a God's possible existence, evaluates it and then decides that there is no such being as God, then that is his very belief.

The same applies vice versa.

The second you were to ask an Atheist about his thoughts on a God and he/she were to reply "I do not _believe_ there is a God." or "There is no such thing as a God.", then this is his/her irrefutably existent belief.

Also, as I pointed out some time earlier, a personal belief has nothing to do with being spiritual or not.

Cheers



Remixer

 

[Bellevance]

As I mentioned before, it is impossible to have absolute certainty. I will maintain, that agnostics have zero certainty and are in many cases too overwhelmed by the amount of information.

Of course it's possible to have absolute certainty. I am completely certain about a thousand things. So are you. So are religious people. Many religious people--my mother-in-law, for instance--are is absolutely certain God answers their prayers and is ministered to by winged angels in gossamer gowns. You can maintain what you want, naturally, but please realize that it's possible to have degrees of certainty, too. I will maintain that agnostics are anywhere from, say, 50% to 95% certain that no god exists, no invigilating god, in any case. Nor are they "overwhelmed" with information. They simply do not have enough evidence to help them make up their minds with greater certainty.

A person always has a belief.

You're missing a key distinction. There is a subtle but significant difference between believing that a god does not exist and not believing in the existence of a god. Atheism in this primary sense is defined in the negative. I would not describe myself as a person who denies the existence of a god. Rather, I hold no belief either way.

 

[Remixer]

Of course it's possible to have absolute certainty. I am completely certain about a thousand things. So are you. So are religious people. Many religious people--my mother-in-law, for instance--are is absolutely certain God answers their prayers and is ministered to by winged angels in gossamer gowns. You can maintain what you want, naturally, but please realize that it's possible to have degrees of certainty, too. I will maintain that agnostics are anywhere from, say, 50% to 95% certain that no god exists, no invigilating god, in any case. Nor are they "overwhelmed" with information. They simply do not have enough evidence to help them make up their minds with greater certainty.

I am trying not to come across as arrogant, but nonetheless, it is a dominant feature of mine to be mistaken as such. Please pardon anything I will say that may appear as sheer arrogance.


You are mistaking certainty for belief. Your mother believes, quite fervently, that God answers her prayers. She has no certainty he does.

I realize that my reasoning stems from an extremely existentialist train of thought, but we have no certainty except for one, and only one, thing. Our existence as an individual.

I cannot ever be certain that you exist, even if I were to meet with you in person and spend years and years in intense friendship with you.

It may be out of place, but as a little side note, I believe that one of teachings of Islam is that certainty does not exist and no Muslim can be absolutely certain of God's existence.

One can only believe. And believe everyone in the world does.

And mistake a stern belief as certainty many people do as well.

You're missing a key distinction. There is a subtle but significant difference between believing that a god does not exist and not believing in the existence of a god. Atheism in this primary sense is defined in the negative. I would not describe myself as a person who denies the existence of a god. Rather, I hold no belief either way.

Please excuse me not comprehending the logic behind what you stated.

As far as I have gathered so far, you are an Atheist. As an Atheist, you would have a clear stance in the negative regarding God's existence.

If you were to hold no belief on God's existence whatsoever, you are, however, an Agnostic.

To manifest my point, I will quote the dictionary.com Website:


An Atheist:

a⋅the⋅ist
/ˈeɪﾆ津?ɪst/ –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.



An Agnostic:

ag⋅nos⋅tic
/ægˈnɒstɪk/ –noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.



Me quoting a website may appear childish, but it is the quickest way for me to illustrate my point.

You cannot be an Atheist with no belief on God's existence.

Cheers


Remixer

 

[Bellevance]

One can only believe. And believe everyone in the world does.

And mistake a stern belief as certainty many people do as well.

In conventional terms--and these must suffice for this discussion--a person cannot "mistake" a firm belief as certainty. One's firm beliefs are identical with one's certainties. Not only do I believe the earth is round, but I am certain of it. Certainty, in any event, is a subjective matter. When someone tells someone else that he feels very cold, the second person can't fairly say, "Nah, you don't really feel cold." In the same way, one person cannot tell a second person who claims to be certain about something that the second person isn't really certain. Such a contrary assertion has no useful meaning.

As far as I have gathered so far, you are an Atheist. As an Atheist, you would have a clear stance in the negative regarding God's existence.

If you were to hold no belief on God's existence whatsoever, you are, however, an Agnostic.

Your notion of the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is too rigid, and in this way it is mistaken.

Common dictionary definitions, by the way, cannot be cited as proofs for a discussion like this one. They are merely evidence. Dictionaries often conflict; what's more, they are descriptive resources rather than prescriptive. That is, they do not necessarily reflect correct usage; instead they reflect a range of common meanings, from current to substandard to archaic.

"Atheism" derives from the Greek; "a" meaning "without" or "not," and "theism" meaning "god." In its purest sense, "a-theism" means "without" + "god." Or without [belief in] god. In that pure sense the word's meaning encompasses the essential attitude of atheists and the attitude of most agnostics as well.

Some atheists do assert their belief that no gods exist. That position, however, is a subset of atheism, as I have just explained. In its purest form, atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of belief.