What's new

Discrimination Against Atheists/Agnostics

So far I like the way the thread is going. I see Remixer's point about discrimination against atheists in Muslim/Arab countries. While it strictly isn't a personal experience for you, and it also targets other groups, I'm still happy you posted it.

Emoni & Remixer:
I know you two have had a history together, but could we keep it to a minimum please? No point in turning this thread into a giant lover's spat 😊
 
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.

Oh absolutely. I am not offended that you explained your point. I understand that it is important to assure atheists that they aren't lacking anything by being an atheist.

I apologize. I should have been more accepting of you taking the opportunity to educate the situation. Cause yes, you are correct. There is nothing lacking in being an atheist.
 
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.

Wow. The level of pedantry in this thread is through the roof. I never said atheism was a religious belief and a simple glance at Wikipedia will reveal that the term has a wide range of meanings, the most common and oldest being the active belief that no god exists. That chapter you directed me to said essentially the same thing.

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.

Thank you for that elucidation. In return I will inform you that the statement "2 plus 2 does not equal 5" does not mean that 2 plus 2 now equals 5.:p
 
You're mistaking precision of language in a proper context for pedantry. I suggest you go back and read George Smith's exacting explanation of the term "atheism," if you would like to have a fuller and better sense of the word's essential meaning.
 
You're mistaking precision of language in a proper context for pedantry. I suggest you go back and read George Smith's exacting explanation of the term "atheism," if you would like to have a fuller and better sense of the word's essential meaning.

Ah, the first time I read through the quotation I hadn't realized that George Smith was the world's ultimate authority on the English language. All cleared up now. Thanks.
 
a simple glance at Wikipedia will reveal that the term has a wide range of meanings, the most common and oldest being the active belief that no god exists.

I suspect you're right that when most people use the term atheism nowadays they mean an active denial of the existence of god. However, I disagree that this is the oldest meaning. The Wiki article actually suggests that atheism/atheist originally referred to "any person or belief in conflict with established religion", and it was originally a pejorative term that no-one would apply to himself.
 
Ah, the first time I read through the quotation I hadn't realized that George Smith was the world's ultimate authority on the English language. All cleared up now. Thanks.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

-- Lewis Carroll
 
Just for fun, I'm going to compare the first comment in this thread to the post preceding this one.

Well, if you don't count hearing how you are going to hell all the time (which I consider quite offensive in the first place), then most of the situations I've run into are more angering rather than discrimination. My mom was not happy initially when she found out I didn't believe in any "divine super friend" and my grandmother has decided I'm going to burn in hell.
I haven't yet run into any discrimination yet. I've run into a lot of assumptions when I was in Japan that I'm Christian just because I'm American, but no problems when I was there when they found out I was Atheist. Then again, I live in California so... things tend to be a bit less close minded here. A bit less that is.
However, at the same time I don't openly go around saying I don't believe in any "religion" either. So it might simply not be a topic. I'm not sure if that is simply a precaution or it just doesn't come up.
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.

Bellevance; said:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

-- Lewis Carroll

Are we getting pedantic about being pedantic?
 
Are we getting pedantic about being pedantic?

Nah. Seems to me it's all in the mix.

Discrimination against atheists runs wide and deep. This grim social condition will not soon change. The post-theological age is a long way off. So, here perhaps before our time, we have to make our way as best we can in an age of suffocating superstition, where we must either keep our silence or be obliged, over and over, to defend and explain ourselves in the flushed face of misunderstanding, disrespect, contempt, ridicule, and loathing.

The best tool we have for combatting personal discrimination is language, and the more effectively and incisively we can use our words in our defense, the less wounding and righteous such attacks against our character will prove to be.
 
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.

So... what does this prove? There still remains discrimination, and a strong amount.

Am I to believe now that Atheism is now simply seen as "just another so-called belief that we don't agree with" inside collection of opposing "beliefs?" (to clarify I'm using the word belief as it has been twisted recently to include religious belief and as it tends to be seen from a religious side) Atheists are non-religion, and often the strongest arguments have already been stated such as assumptions of a lack of moral basis. This has in the past led to specific arguments based on these assumptions that would only be amplified in a theocracy.
Part of the basis for discrimination is opposition to those who are not like yourself. This will include a vast collection and scheme to identify what is inferior and what is to be kept separate. Imagining discrimination as some single simplified idea of "just keeping those out that are not like us" is a dangerous misconception of discrimination. Moreover, to implying that this mythical form of discrimination that somehow lacks the identifying aspects that are inherent in the process somehow puts it in a "special category" is somewhat disturbing and akin to grasping for excusing akin to a twinky defense.

If you have laws, rules, and beyond that are based on religious practices then this is a form of discrimination on those who do not follow those practices. Furthermore, those who "do not even have religious practices" will be under this form of discrimination even to a stronger degree due to the greater discontent.

The devil isn't in the details, the devil is in oversimplification....

"God forbid that you think beyond the surface." You know, like researching and questioning narratives of creation and existence spread with 100% certainty despite existing evidence.
 
So... what does this prove? There still remains discrimination, and a strong amount.

Of course, Emoni. All I think Remixer is trying to say is that, in some Islamic cultures, the discrimination that must be suffered by atheists is not based on their atheism. This kind of discrimination is no less repressive and offensive for its aloof inspecificity, but the distinction is worth recognizing.

In most cultures, atheists are condemned for what they think and for what they say in support of their convictions. In contrast, in certain Islamic countries, no one in the dominant culture cares about what an atheist thinks any more than he cares about what a Baptist or a witch thinks. All that matters is Islam. The discrimination is there, no question about it, but in the eye of the dominant culture an atheist is no different from a Jehovah's Witness.
 
... and I understand that. However, Christianity based religion and Islam can both be said to do this. It does not mean that there is not another layer beyond just the initial "you are not like us" sort of discrimination. It always, always goes deeper than this. It is the motivation behind discrimination itself, to identify and separate based on ultimately minute differences.

To claim that Islam and Islamic based theocracies do not "selectively" discriminate just because they discriminate against everyone seems to be an exceptionally naive claim. It might as well be said that Christan organizations that don't explicitly say "we discriminate against atheists" means that they simply keep out religions that do not follow their belief system and will burn in hell. There is a gap in the logic, and a lacking of information here.
 
Do you not like it that theists conduct their lives strictly according to their arbitrary rules, and in the end it serves no purpose? They labour for their fictional rewards in the afterlife.
Now let us call this "The Ultimate Fail." Do you really think that having to put up with discrimination is half as tedious as trying to play a role so well as to fool oneself into believing in an interactive story? Nah. You seriously can't beat a pen and paper RPG. To be honest, I think a theists life contains elements of three systems. Dungeons & Dragons (past), World of Darkness, especially Vampire (present), and finally Shadowrun (as you have guessed, future).
It is somewhat like live RPG, and anyone who ever played that probably knows or have heard of how amazing it is like to have a bunch of policemen send you back home when you have made your expensive costume, prepared your best acting, and were all fired up to play. Yes, theism is very similar, in the end the same question awaits "what was the whole thing for?"

If you interpret it this way, at least you can have a nice laugh, and hell, why wouldn't someone want a nice laugh?
 
There is a gap in the logic, and a lacking of information here.

For the purposes of this meager discussion, that may be what it comes down to, a lack of information. I've never visited an Islamic country. But I do think that, on the surface anyway, Remixer's distinction is worth acknowledging.

I also think that, wherever it occurs, religious discrimination against the godless is in no way based on "ultimately minute differences." Talk about naive claims. The differences in outlook and in consequent treatment of others are profoundly divisive and incompatible.
 
It is nice to know that when you cannot count on most "intelligent" people in here to understand a point made, Bellevance will.

Hail Bellevance!


Remixer

EDIT: Oh yes, and Half-n-Half. :)
 
For the purposes of this meager discussion, that may be what it comes down to, a lack of information. I've never visited an Islamic country. But I do think that, on the surface anyway, Remixer's distinction is worth acknowledging.

I also think that, wherever it occurs, religious discrimination against the godless is in no way based on "ultimately minute differences." Talk about naive claims. The differences in outlook and in consequent treatment of others are profoundly divisive and incompatible.

Yes, there is only a limited amount we can go into on that forum. I guess the point is worth acknowledging, at least of myself in regards to pointing out what I felt to be careless logic that leads to faulty justification of discrimination.

I do want to clarify something though, which I glanced over on my previous post a tad fast which has resulted in misinterpretation.

When I say that discrimination is based on "ultimately minute differences" this looking at the issue of discrimination as a whole. While the result, and damage from discrimination can be massive and devastating, the aspects and differences that such discrimination is ultimately very small when comparing too human beings in comparison to similarities. Looking at human's and their life as a whole you will find massive similarities, all down to even the genetic level. Change someone's skin color, have them follow a slightly different life style, religious belief, and you end up with relatively small differences that discrimination is based off of in comparison to the whole of a human being. That is what my statement is referring to, and it isn't avoiding acknowledgment of the drastic affects that such discrimination can lead to. I could take this into an entire research paper because of the matter it concerns, but I believe this summary should clear up my statement and the context.

It is nice to know that when you cannot count on most "intelligent" people in here to understand a point made, Bellevance will.

Hail Bellevance!

Glad you found a friend to worship, but I hope you at least realize that I and others did understand your point, we just didn't agree with the dangerously flawed logic as stated previously numerous times via explanation.

I had typed a response to your snide comment about "intelligence" being based off of your posts being agreed with, but figured that I've wasted enough time on that sort behavior and deleted it. So I guess have fun.
 
Pleasure to have made your acquaintance for as long as it lasted, Emoni. :)

Good luck on your future endeavours.



Remixer
 
All I think Remixer is trying to say is that, in some Islamic cultures, the discrimination that must be suffered by atheists is not based on their atheism. ... in certain Islamic countries, no one in the dominant culture cares about what an atheist thinks any more than he cares about what a Baptist or a witch thinks.

I understand the point and it's probably true at an official level. But I'm not sure if it's true on a personal level. I have a good friend in Malaysia, which I think is just about the most liberal Muslim country. He is a Catholic, and I guess more open-minded than average. He's quite adamant that I mustn't let on to being an atheist, particularly should I bump into his Muslim friends. The government categories of religion are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or lain-lain (other, including Atheism), so Atheists aren't singled out as such. But if my friend is to be believed, you are ill-advised to admit to being an atheist. To quote him, "everyone here must have a religion".
 
I understand the point and it's probably true at an official level. But I'm not sure if it's true on a personal level. To quote him, "everyone here must have a religion".

I'm sure it differs from person to person and country to country in some regard naturally, but as you stated, there are massive gaps between the "official" and "personal" area in regards to an issue like this. I don't think you will find any official discrimination really listed against atheists as in regards to directed laws against them. Ultimately that point is somewhat mute in my opinion anyway as I have stated.

A majority of what we are looking at is human to human interaction, not state to man relationships. I believe that is most likely related closer to the original post anyway, as personal situations in regards to discrimination due to being atheist is highly unlikely to be related to a federal law slammed against your choice to specifically chose to not see there to be enough evidence to believe the existence of a supreme super-friend.
 
When I say that discrimination is based on "ultimately minute differences" this looking at the issue of discrimination as a whole. While the result, and damage from discrimination can be massive and devastating, the aspects and differences that such discrimination is ultimately very small when comparing too human beings in comparison to similarities.

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.
 
I'm sure it differs from person to person and country to country in some regard naturally, but as you stated, there are massive gaps between the "official" and "personal" area in regards to an issue like this. I don't think you will find any official discrimination really listed against atheists as in regards to directed laws against them. Ultimately that point is somewhat mute in my opinion anyway as I have stated.

Precisely. In Morocco for instance, the government could be considered as rather progressive regarding minority issues, compared to governments in other Islamic countries. The constitution states that every citizen has the right to choose their own religion; Moroccan Jews live here without any fear of discrimination... officially. Same goes for people with other affiliations; this contrasts with the vox populi which is mostly based on the cultural superiority of Islam, from which stem various other positions and behavior, such as antisemitism, anti homosexuality, anti freedom of thought (outside of the boundaries of their religion that is), etc.

I should add that the constitution contradicts itself in many points though, as it states, perhaps in a trial to satisfy the large class of conservatives, that Morocco is an Islamic country and that every person holding the Moroccan nationality should "abide by" and "respect" the Islamic tenets and traditions.
Although no Shari'a law is applied here, the Moroccan law is mostly inspired from it, in a way that all "crimes", in the Islamic sense, are considered so, but sentenced with milder punishments (imprisonment instead of death penalty for apostasy for example). If you eat publicly in Ramadan for example you'd go to prison for 3 months. But as long as you keep your anti systemic ideas and behavior personal or in a tight circle of friends/acquaintances you'd probably not face any juridical problems, but the more that circle expands the worse your situation would become, as far as job opportunities and human relations are concerned.
The main problem here actually is that you can't be yourself most of the time. It's not like we publicize our atheism, or tell any person we meet about our ideas; but society demands a certain commitment to social habits/traditions which, I think, is a totally overboard. For example, any person here may give themselves the right to ask "why don't do the prayers?", "why don't you go to the mosque?", "you should say "thanks Allah" for this or that. Say it now, say it now!!", etc. Actually, most of the occasions where my stance have been discovered by someone were through a similar situation: I have a principle not to lie about my ideas to anyone, if asked directly, as long as it doesn't cause a direct damage to my life.
For some it's also a family problem. There are families with all spectrum colors here, from the hardcore fundamentalist to the hardcore liberal (the average ones being much closer to former than to the later unfortunately); so some atheists/agnostics may have it easier than others in their own household, but all are equal once they enter the social pool...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom