Why Atheists can never equal the numbers of Christianity nor Islam and would eventually be assimilated to Islam itself

curiousjorge050476
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Why Atheists can never equal the numbers of Christianity nor Islam and would eventually be assimilated to Islam itself

Though i'm impressed with the passion and vigor i see in the posts of atheists, in the end atheists are fighting a losing battle (in my opinion).

 1.)  Religion is based mainly on faith and emotion and not really much on logic.  When atheists try to fight that with reason and logic they may succeed in converting some, but that would be a pithy few when compared to the thousands or even millions of converts of other major religions.

2 .)  In trying to convince the believer of the logical impossibility with God, many atheists only end up insulting the individual and turning them off.  It also doesn't help that many atheists (not all mind you!) give off an air of superiority and intellectual elitism.

3.)  Given the current trends and assuming it remains constant, Islam will eventually conquer the whole world.  How you say?

    a)  Whenever a christian or individual of a different faith moves in a country dominated by those of the Islamic faith, most of the time, he/she is not allowed to convert others.

    b)  Whenever a Muslim enters and lives in a christian or other faith dominated country, they demand their right to worship and convert others to their faith.  Translation?  More chritians are converting to Islam than those of Islam converting to Christianity.

    c)  Unlike most faiths, Islam allows up to 4 wives per husband.  With more wives, means more children.  Osama bin Laden was the 17th of 55 children.  His father married 22 times although having 4 wives at a time per Sharia law.  Now how many couples do you know have even 5 children? How many atheists do you know even have 5 children?  While christian dominated countries such as Europe and America have declining birth rates, countries where most are adherents to Islam have very high birth rates.  Europe is now sometimes described as Eurabia in fact.

    d)  Though politically, Islam is not as influential as the christian conservative block, they are gaining much ground and already have considerable influence in other parts of the world.  For example, in britain, some schools had to withdraw the Holocaust from their history textbook in order to avoid offending their muslim students. And to think.  They accomplished that while they are still the minority.  Just imagine what they can accomplish when they evetually become the majority.

So what is my point?  Simple.  You are fighting the wrong battle.  You should try to convert those of the Islamic faiths.  Now i may be wrong on some, possibly all points, so i wish to know your opinions on this.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
One thing overlooked in

One thing overlooked in this scenario: Islam's big weakness is that it's a behavior-based religion. If you want to go to heaven, you have to follow a bunch of rules.

Many of these rules are no fun to follow.  Getting up that early to pray, fasting all day for a month, never having a beer: it's no picnic.  Compared to American Protestantism, it's a really challenging religion to stay pious in.  It's human nature to drift away from this stuff because it's difficult and you're not necessarily seeing much payoff.

So what you get in practice is that some large portion of Moslems living in non-Moslem countries de-convert or loosen up their standards.  Some portion of Moslems living in Moslem countries become basically secular (like most of Iran and Iraq).  Unless a fundie minority manages to clamp down (like in Iran) there's a liberalization countercurrent in Islam just like there is in all restrictive religions.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Spirax
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
I don't think it matters

I don't think it matters how many wives a man can have in relation to population increase.  Assuming the sex ratio is even, the only difference is that one man will have more wives at the expense of other men who will have none.

Even though Osama was one of fifty-five children, when you divide the number of children into 

the number of wives, it is only 2.5 children per wife,

which is not much more than the average.

 

And there are other considerations re. the birth rate

besides religion.  For example, economic conditions.  Many

Africans are Muslim but they are also very poor and

while the birth rate is high, so is the infant mortality

rate.  And then there is a correlation between education

and birth rate.  The more educated a woman is, the 

less children she is likely to have.  A culture that promotes education for women has as much to do with social mores as it does with religious beliefs.

(Please excuse the typing.  I'm having trouble with 

the wraparound.  Sometimes it works and sometimes

it doesn't.  Like right now) 


curiousjorge050476
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: One thing

Textom wrote:

One thing overlooked in this scenario: Islam's big weakness is that it's a behavior-based religion. If you want to go to heaven, you have to follow a bunch of rules.

Many of these rules are no fun to follow. Getting up that early to pray, fasting all day for a month, never having a beer: it's no picnic. Compared to American Protestantism, it's a really challenging religion to stay pious in. It's human nature to drift away from this stuff because it's difficult and you're not necessarily seeing much payoff.

So what you get in practice is that some large portion of Moslems living in non-Moslem countries de-convert or loosen up their standards. Some portion of Moslems living in Moslem countries become basically secular (like most of Iran and Iraq). Unless a fundie minority manages to clamp down (like in Iran) there's a liberalization countercurrent in Islam just like there is in all restrictive religions.

I cannot honestly say up to what extent that is true since i don't have the data to prove/disprove it but for all our sakes, i hope that you are right and that i'm wrong!

Although basing on reports from the news, it seems that those of Islam do not particularly assimilate as easily to other cultures as other faiths. 


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
curiousjorge050476

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

Though i'm impressed with the passion and vigor i see in the posts of atheists, in the end atheists are fighting a losing battle (in my opinion).

1.) Religion is based mainly on faith and emotion and not really much on logic. When atheists try to fight that with reason and logic they may succeed in converting some, but that would be a pithy few when compared to the thousands or even millions of converts of other major religions.

When atheists bring up logical arguments, they are most often a reply to a logical argument given by a theist. So it is not the atheist who first induces logic into arguments; it is the theist who usually makes the first argument using logic to argue for the "logical necessity" of God.

 

Quote:
2 .) In trying to convince the believer of the logical impossibility with God, many atheists only end up insulting the individual and turning them off. It also doesn't help that many atheists (not all mind you!) give off an air of superiority and intellectual elitism.

They usually seem to insult them because they throw the logical "book" at them after a theist tries to use logic in their arguments to justify the need for God. Most often, theists who use logic haven't studied logic in depth. So when a theist encounters a logician, who knows all kinds of logical method, they are in for a rude awakening.

 

Quote:
3.) Given the current trends and assuming it remains constant, Islam will eventually conquer the whole world. How you say?

The R.R.S. is skeptical of all Gods and fight against all religion; bringing up Islam is only focusing on a specific religion among many.

Quote:
a) Whenever a christian or individual of a different faith moves in a country dominated by those of the Islamic faith, most of the time, he/she is not allowed to convert others.

b) Whenever a Muslim enters and lives in a christian or other faith dominated country, they demand their right to worship and convert others to their faith. Translation? More chritians are converting to Islam than those of Islam converting to Christianity.

c) Unlike most faiths, Islam allows up to 4 wives per husband. With more wives, means more children. Osama bin Laden was the 17th of 55 children. His father married 22 times although having 4 wives at a time per Sharia law. Now how many couples do you know have even 5 children? How many atheists do you know even have 5 children? While christian dominated countries such as Europe and America have declining birth rates, countries where most are adherents to Islam have very high birth rates. Europe is now sometimes described as Eurabia in fact.

d) Though politically, Islam is not as influential as the christian conservative block, they are gaining much ground and already have considerable influence in other parts of the world. For example, in britain, some schools had to withdraw the Holocaust from their history textbook in order to avoid offending their muslim students. And to think. They accomplished that while they are still the minority. Just imagine what they can accomplish when they evetually become the majority.

Scary...

Quote:
So what is my point? Simple. You are fighting the wrong battle. You should try to convert those of the Islamic faiths. Now i may be wrong on some, possibly all points, so i wish to know your opinions on this.

Well, the R.R.S., being atheists, are not trying to convert anyone. Atheism is not a religion, it's a reaction. I think the R.R.S. is open to debating and opposing all religions. It just so happens, that more often than not, there are Christians who the R.R.S. has the opportunity to argue with. If there were Muslims who wanted to argue, I'm sure they'd get the same treatment from the R.R.S. like Christians who want to argue are getting now.

Oh and as I am a theist, if I presented the R.R.S. position inaccurately in some way, please feel free to correct my slip-up.

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


curiousjorge050476
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
jread

jread wrote:
curiousjorge050476 wrote:

Oh and as I am a theist, if I presented the R.R.S. position inaccurately in some way, please feel free to correct my slip-up.

 

 

Will do. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think anyone seeking

I think anyone seeking global dominance is fighting a losing battle. I hope you dont think atheists live in fantacy land.

It is however reasonable for us to give others an alturnitive oportunity.  

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
curiousjorge050476

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

Though i'm impressed with the passion and vigor i see in the posts of atheists, in the end atheists are fighting a losing battle (in my opinion).

That does not mean that it is not worth fighting. As a matter of fact, it makes it all the more vital that we do fight it. If not me then who and all that jazz.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
1.) Religion is based mainly on faith and emotion and not really much on logic. When atheists try to fight that with reason and logic they may succeed in converting some, but that would be a pithy few when compared to the thousands or even millions of converts of other major religions.

This is a two way street. When most theists try to convert us they end up apealing to our emotions. Not the best way to succeed when dealing with a rational position. Please notice I said MOST. We have a few wonderful theists here that are the exception to the rule.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
2 .) In trying to convince the believer of the logical impossibility with God, many atheists only end up insulting the individual and turning them off. It also doesn't help that many atheists (not all mind you!) give off an air of superiority and intellectual elitism.

Read some of the posts in trollville if you want to see airs of superiority and elitism. And most of the time, we don't start it.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
3.) Given the current trends and assuming it remains constant, Islam will eventually conquer the whole world. How you say?

a) Whenever a christian or individual of a different faith moves in a country dominated by those of the Islamic faith, most of the time, he/she is not allowed to convert others.

b) Whenever a Muslim enters and lives in a christian or other faith dominated country, they demand their right to worship and convert others to their faith. Translation? More chritians are converting to Islam than those of Islam converting to Christianity.

There is some validity here in theocratic areas. Apostasy is spoken about extensively in the Quar'an and the Prophet didn't have much nice to say about it.

 

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
c) Unlike most faiths, Islam allows up to 4 wives per husband. With more wives, means more children. Osama bin Laden was the 17th of 55 children. His father married 22 times although having 4 wives at a time per Sharia law. Now how many couples do you know have even 5 children? How many atheists do you know even have 5 children? While christian dominated countries such as Europe and America have declining birth rates, countries where most are adherents to Islam have very high birth rates. Europe is now sometimes described as Eurabia in fact.

Number of children has more to do with economic status then with ability. The cost of 55 children is prohibitive enough to ensure that that is not the norm.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
d) Though politically, Islam is not as influential as the christian conservative block, they are gaining much ground and already have considerable influence in other parts of the world. For example, in britain, some schools had to withdraw the Holocaust from their history textbook in order to avoid offending their muslim students. And to think. They accomplished that while they are still the minority. Just imagine what they can accomplish when they evetually become the majority.

In the US the percentage of non-theists is growing faster then the percentage of Muslims. Hopefully, we can help continue that trend.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
So what is my point? Simple. You are fighting the wrong battle. You should try to convert those of the Islamic faiths. Now i may be wrong on some, possibly all points, so i wish to know your opinions on this.

Right now Christianity is the windmill is front of us. We will tilt at Islam when the opportunity arises.

 

(edit to fix a mixed metaphor)

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Spirax wrote: I don't

Spirax wrote:

I don't think it matters how many wives a man can have in relation to population increase. Assuming the sex ratio is even, the only difference is that one man will have more wives at the expense of other men who will have none.

The data on the effects of polygamy on birth rates is inconclusive.  It appears to depend at least partly on exactly how the society manifests polygamy.  In Somalia, for instance, there's lots of remarriage allowed, and remarried women have lower fertility rates there.

But the key to understanding polygamy from an evolutionary standpoint is to recognize that the common factor in animals (including social primates) who use a "harem" strategy is that it's the *high-status* male or males who are the father(s) of the majority of the offspring in the group. So it's not just that your father is the biggest and strongest monkey, it's also that the fact that he's your father contributes to your status in the group, and therefore your survival odds, even after you are born.

And this is the pattern that carries in human polygamy too.  It's only established, senior males with some economic stability and social status who start taking more wives.  Nobody will even consider letting their daughter be the second wife for Ahmed the street vendor--he can barely afford one wife.  But Ahmed the electrician who has an onion farm on the side, he's good marriage material.  The Koran even specifies that you can only have more than one wife if you can treat them all the same--meaning that you can financially support them all.  These social and economic assets then contribute perhaps more efficiently to the survival and prosperity of his offspring than would happen for an equivalent number of man-woman pairs.

Anthropological studies do show that the polygamous high-status male with several wives pattern is the most widespread and common throughout known human history as a whole (this one-man-one-woman thing is relatively new). So if nothing else, it is at least a reproductive strategy that got us to our current prodigious heights of overpopulation.

By the way--the disclaimer.  I personally have just one wife and that's plenty for me. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


curiousjorge050476
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Heheheh... I just

Heheheh... I just realized.  While the Atheists and Christian theists are busy trying to convert each other, Islam would assimilate the Christians and eventually assimilate the Atheists.

If and that is a big, big BIG, IF that would really happen, it would make Islam sound like the Borg.

(for those who watch star trekk that isLaughing)


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
curiousjorge050476

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

Though i'm impressed with the passion and vigor i see in the posts of atheists, in the end atheists are fighting a losing battle (in my opinion).

1.) Religion is based mainly on faith and emotion and not really much on logic. When atheists try to fight that with reason and logic they may succeed in converting some, but that would be a pithy few when compared to the thousands or even millions of converts of other major religions.

Give us time. A thousand years ago the whole idea of model of consciousness and reason that most people in the world today take for granted didn't even exist. As humanity continues to reap ever larger benefits from that model, it will catch in in more and more places. 

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

2 .) In trying to convince the believer of the logical impossibility with God, many atheists only end up insulting the individual and turning them off. It also doesn't help that many atheists (not all mind you!) give off an air of superiority and intellectual elitism.

Insulting someone isn't as bad a tactic as you think. It often gets their attention and forces them to apply their intelligence to the "threat."

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

3.) Given the current trends and assuming it remains constant, Islam will eventually conquer the whole world. How you say?

a) Whenever a christian or individual of a different faith moves in a country dominated by those of the Islamic faith, most of the time, he/she is not allowed to convert others.

b) Whenever a Muslim enters and lives in a christian or other faith dominated country, they demand their right to worship and convert others to their faith. Translation? More chritians are converting to Islam than those of Islam converting to Christianity.

It's pretty irrelevant to me what religion people convert to. The goal is to discredit the whole idea of holding beliefs on faith.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

c) Unlike most faiths, Islam allows up to 4 wives per husband. With more wives, means more children. Osama bin Laden was the 17th of 55 children. His father married 22 times although having 4 wives at a time per Sharia law. Now how many couples do you know have even 5 children? How many atheists do you know even have 5 children? While christian dominated countries such as Europe and America have declining birth rates, countries where most are adherents to Islam have very high birth rates. Europe is now sometimes described as Eurabia in fact.

Memes (like God and reason) can propagate in any human's brain. Yes, it's going to be harder to get through to someone who was raised religious. But as the movement for atheism gains strength (we hope) all these religious kids will just become more soldiers in the cause.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

d) Though politically, Islam is not as influential as the christian conservative block, they are gaining much ground and already have considerable influence in other parts of the world. For example, in britain, some schools had to withdraw the Holocaust from their history textbook in order to avoid offending their muslim students. And to think. They accomplished that while they are still the minority. Just imagine what they can accomplish when they evetually become the majority.

Islam will never become a global political block - it will fracture internally and tear itself into warring factions just as every other religion has done. You say why yourself in another post on this thread: as the experience of Muslims in the developed world diverges from the experience of Muslims elsewhere, they will start to get different ideas about the practice of Islam (including, hopefully, atheism).

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

So what is my point? Simple. You are fighting the wrong battle. You should try to convert those of the Islamic faiths. Now i may be wrong on some, possibly all points, so i wish to know your opinions on this.

The RRS is opposed to Islam and does seek to get Muslims to think rationally about their faith. We just get few Muslims on these boards because it's an American site.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
curiousjorge050476

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

Though i'm impressed with the passion and vigor i see in the posts of atheists, in the end atheists are fighting a losing battle (in my opinion).

The title of your topic suggests your opinions aren't worth mentioning to anyone.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

 1.)  Religion is based mainly on faith and emotion and not really much on logic.  When atheists try to fight that with reason and logic they may succeed in converting some, but that would be a pithy few when compared to the thousands or even millions of converts of other major religions.

False dichotomy. Some of us use other tactics as well as reason and logic. Sometimes using the irrational arguments of the theist against them is the way to go. Therefore the theist can never win. They are restricted to emotion and irrational arguments, while the atheist can use all factors.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

2 .)  In trying to convince the believer of the logical impossibility with God, many atheists only end up insulting the individual and turning them off.  It also doesn't help that many atheists (not all mind you!) give off an air of superiority and intellectual elitism.

It certainly helps when theists have the same attitudes and are provably wrong.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

3.)  Given the current trends and assuming it remains constant, Islam will eventually conquer the whole world.

I'm sure they'd like to think so. It's not going to happen though.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
a)  Whenever a christian or individual of a different faith moves in a country dominated by those of the Islamic faith, most of the time, he/she is not allowed to convert others.

The number of fundamentalist islamic nations is far too low for this to be a factor of any significance. Fundamentalist christians outnumber them even.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
b)  Whenever a Muslim enters and lives in a christian or other faith dominated country, they demand their right to worship and convert others to their faith.  Translation?  More chritians are converting to Islam than those of Islam converting to Christianity.

No. You're taking factors of religion without factoring the equally influencial politics of a region. This makes your argument invalid.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
c)  Unlike most faiths, Islam allows up to 4 wives per husband.

Atheism doesn't have an opinion. We can have 50 wives. 20 kids apiece. Islam is screwed. Literally.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
  With more wives, means more children.  Osama bin Laden was the 17th of 55 children.  His father married 22 times although having 4 wives at a time per Sharia law.  Now how many couples do you know have even 5 children?

Enough. It doesn't matter. You aren't factoring social, health, and economic concerns with this statement.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
How many atheists do you know even have 5 children?  While christian dominated countries such as Europe and America have declining birth rates, countries where most are adherents to Islam have very high birth rates.

And higher death rates, mitigating the situation. Also, take a glance at China. Most populated nation on the planet. Atheist. You think a couple small Islamic countries will be able to take China on when they can't even squash the miniscule Israel? Think again.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
  Europe is now sometimes described as Eurabia in fact.

Fear mongering. First I've heard the term.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
d)  Though politically, Islam is not as influential as the christian conservative block, they are gaining much ground and already have considerable influence in other parts of the world.  For example, in britain, some schools had to withdraw the Holocaust from their history textbook in order to avoid offending their muslim students.

That's not completely accurate. The fact that you worded it this way suggests you don't even know what did or did not happen yourself. You probably heard word of mouth from someone with a biased view.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:

And to think.  They accomplished that while they are still the minority.  Just imagine what they can accomplish when they evetually become the majority.

As christians keep learning, having a majority doesn't mean you can do what you want.

curiousjorge050476 wrote:
So what is my point?  Simple.  You are fighting the wrong battle.  You should try to convert those of the Islamic faiths.  Now i may be wrong on some, possibly all points, so i wish to know your opinions on this.

If Islam were present, I'd attack it. I'm not going to ignore christians just because some of them think another religion is even worse than theirs. They all suck equally.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm always disappointed

I'm always disappointed when someone says atheists should give up.

Here's a fancy little essay I wrote a few weeks ago, addressing the question of why atheists fight.  It's not a direct answer to your post, but think for a second about the rationale.  I think you'll understand what I'm getting at.  While I agree with you that Islam is a very powerful force, and will likely overshadow Christianity in the near future, I don't see how that changes the fact that I believe strongly in my own cause, and would like to see both religions lose power.  If I do nothing, nothing will happen.  If I fight, any gain is gain.  Anyway, here's my essay.

 

"Why are all atheists so angry?"

I hear this question all the time. In fact, my Rambo-Kitty avatar is partially inspired by the question. Anyway, today I was reading an article about the debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren, and was struck by Warren's statement, "I've never met an atheist who wasn't angry."

My first reaction was denial. Many atheists, myself included, are happy most of the time. My atheist friends are great fun to hang out with. We laugh and joke and drink beer, and hardly ever mention religion.

My second reaction, I confess, was anger. How dishonest of him to try to discount atheism by labeling us all as angry malcontents! This is exactly why people like him make me angry!

That's when it hit me, square in the forehead. He's not being dishonest. I don't doubt that every atheist he's met has been angry. If I met him, he'd almost certainly make me angry, too. That's just it! HE makes atheists angry, so they're all angry around him. So, I forgive him for thinking that all atheists are angry. I understand how he made the mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to reflect on "Atheist Anger" for a few minutes, and ask a couple of questions.

First, why is it a bad thing to be angry? The suffragists were quite angry, and for good reason. New Zealand had granted women equal voting rights in 1893, and America, supposedly the land of equality, was violently opposed to the idea twenty years later. There are still plenty of women who are angry because women make less money doing the same jobs as men in many industries, and women are often not even considered for promotions when they're equally (or better) qualified for the position. Are they wrong for being angry? Should they just sit quietly and wait for men to realize the error of their ways? Some people think so. I've noticed that the majority of them are men.

Am I making a valid comparison? Is it reasonable to compare life as an atheist in America in 2007 to life as a woman in the early 20th century? Clearly there are significant differences. Atheists can vote. They can, in theory, hold public office. They can get married, sign contracts, work wherever they're qualified. So, do we atheists have a right to be angry in the same way suffragists had?

To answer that question, I'll recall some more history. In Mosaic law, as we all know, women were slightly better than slaves. They had no property rights. In Roman law, women were completely dependent on male relations for all legal matters, and when they were married, it was a matter of purchase between two families.

Here, we can ask a pointed question. Do women have the right to be angry that they're not making as much as men in the workplace? After all, they can vote, own property, divorce their husband, sue him for child support and alimony, and live quite happily on their own. This country is one of the best places in the world to be a woman! What right do women have to be angry?

If your skin prickled a little bit when you read the previous paragraph, good for you. You're halfway to understanding why atheists have a right to be mad. The reason women still have a right to be mad is that things are still not equal. They have no obligation to remain silent simply because they have it better than someone who lived a hundred, or a thousand years ago. The reason women have it better now is that people were angry all through history, and made small gains here and there over many generations. Without the fuel of anger, women would still be property, and wouldn't even have the opportunity to be mad about making less money in the workplace.

So, what about us atheists? Do we have a right to be mad? Actually, yes. Did you know we've had atheist presidents? We have. I'll let you do your own homework on this, but it might surprise you to learn that many of the leaders of the U.S. throughout history have been openly atheist. Is this possible today? One congressman in California recently admitted to being atheist, and it caused a nationwide stir! It remains to be seen whether he'll be reelected. To be sure, he'll be attacked for being godless and amoral when election time comes around.

Until the McCarthy Era, the pledge of allegiance didn't have the word "God." Money didn't have "In God We Trust." Until the 70s, Christians were not actively involved in politics for the purpose of legislating religious values. Clearly, America is more theist than it used to be, at least politically. So, are things getting better for atheists? I dare say they're not. Unlike women, our situation is not improving. We are not being afforded more respect. Rather, we are being legislatively pushed farther into the margins where we have been quietly lurking for sixty years since the Red Scare.

To bring things back around, recall my comment about my atheist friends and I sitting around having beers and laughs. This is a good picture for you to hold in your mind's eye when you think of me, or any other atheist. This is what we want. We don't like being angry any more than women who'd like to be paid more. I'm sure all the angry feminists would rather things were better for women so they wouldn't have to be angry anymore. It's the same with atheists. If we were a bit less hated, vilified, and marginalized, it would be a lot easier for us to be in the presence of theists and not get angry.

Why are atheists so angry? Because things could be better, and we don't like being marginalized.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Adnihilo
Adnihilo's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
I was going to respond to

I was going to respond to curious george here, at least till reading Vastet response that hit every point I was going to make right on target...

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
I don’t think it’s a

I don’t think it’s a matter of deconverting everyone individually; that really would be impossible. While we may be able to deconvert some, as a whole the goal is to erode the foundation of religion… this means making it acceptable to put religion in the line of direct criticism and so on. It’ll take a long time but eventually (i.e. decades and decades) if all goes well people will become less superstitious, more rational and critical in their thinking and more prograssive, willing to reject things instead of holding view just because of tradition.

I personally think philosophy should be taught in school so that children and teenagers learn about logical and rational thinking. The result of this would be that people actually thinking about their views of reality and as a consequence religion will take a hit.

In the end I think religion will be disrupted, not purely by external means such as criticism (although it helps) but rather internally, by people actually thinking and not passing on their confident delusions.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan