M. Berlinerblau:

If this is a parody of the stupidity and hypocrisy of the new wave of militant atheists, then I'm laughing along with you.

If not, I hope writing the article helped to assuage your spiritual insecurities. Harris and the rest of the atheists of the northeastern academy are wrestling disparately for a voice in the public sphere, but I find them just as repulsive and the Christian right.

Brian trust+

My name is Jay Baker, a young man from Coeurd'Alene, ID. I've been asking people for a great many of years to find the many unique inhierante, maybee inate qualitys about each other. Without the referencen of indoctrinated theology. I may still be an erratic 26 years of age, but I understand it to be an american kinship to not souly judge the quality of a spirt based only on the great religious bodys. I've been in a serious quest for the majority of my life to establish my own spirtual identity. Then after much, discovery, joy, homage, struggle or communion. I've come too notice that part of the american instituition is to be aforded the privalage of exploring all of gods heeping toy chest, and sometimes to even role around in it for a while tell you have had your own every pleasure dilightfully accomedated. In my opinion no matter what your relious orrientation, we all still have at least the littlest contribution to Gods spirtual playground of a treasure cheast. And when I encountier such people that have never recognized any ends or dementions to that new world saveings account, I celebrate in thare innocent visits to the lovely human condition of haveing thair affections recongnized. Athiests if that is how you would like to discriminate. Are as much an americian vote as anybody else, Let them reserve the, proportions of that metephorical tikic to the public office. My self, hope people will find the relitives of an enjoyable eternity with out just the redundent intimidations of side taken.

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

Vicious circle

At loggerheads

Evangelicals would vote for a black, muslum, lesbian woman before they dared to even consider voting for an atheist. Oh, the horror [giggle].

How about Warren Buffet as Mike Bloomberg's running mate for VP. That would tie the Republicans in knots. How could they go against their Billionaire Idols?

What about Richard Dawkins and Jon Stewart?

man made god in his own image not the other way round god is another of mans inventions stop teaching little kids there is a god and you stop the cycle religeon relys on gullible little children for its existance

Hey - how about Ralph Nader? I think he might be an atheist. And then there would be only one spoiler in the race on the left, and we can hope that the evangelicals stay home so it won't be a complete disaster.

Seriously, this idea needs to be deep sixed. You're better off voting for an atheist on American Idol than for president.

You seem to be impressed with yourself for stating the obvious. Of course we atheists are out numbered in this country. Your religious brethren have done a wonderful job of supressing free thought and an even better job of perpetuating the fear that is the cornerstone of ALL religions. I would submit to you that there are many, many more of us than you realize. What you are failing to realize is that it is often painful for us to antagonize believers, because we count among them many (if not most) of the people we love. We, unlike the religious, are not so quick to persecute those who do not think as we do. I would say that this gives non-believers the high ground, wouldn't you?

You seem to be impressed with yourself for stating the obvious. Of course we atheists are out numbered in this country. Your religious brethren have done a wonderful job of supressing free thought and an even better job of perpetuating the fear that is the cornerstone of ALL religions. I would submit to you that there are many, many more of us than you realize. What you are failing to realize is that it is often painful for us to antagonize believers, because we count among them many (if not most) of the people we love. We, unlike the religious, are not so quick to persecute those who do not think as we do. I would say that this gives non-believers the high ground, wouldn't you?

EHKZU: "As far as I can tell the only participants in this thread are religion-free folk, arguing about what to call ourselves."

We're the only ones LEFT at this point. Stick around on other threads and you'll see plenty of believer/atheist dialogue.

(I like your ideas,btw)

As far as I can tell the only participants in this thread are religion-free folk, arguing about what to call ourselves.

This means we're not talking with religious people here. Which is fine, except that people in general tend to only talk with people they already agree with. And we're not going to get ourselves a country where any of us could be even elected dogcatcher unless we get out and engage constructively with the religious majority.

And as Socrates proved several millenia ago, the best way to do that is to be approachable without letting the other side fall into their comfortable categories.

Often the best way to do that is by querying them about their own beliefs. Without laughing or even cocking one eyebrow (I'd so love to be able to do that). Socrates never attacked or lorded it over his interlocutors. He just expressed confusion about their beliefs, finding the internal inconsistencies to drive his slender wedges into.

Remember, people love to talk about themselves. We can exploit that. And leave them with a more favorable impression of we empiricists/secular humanists/atheists/Bob worshippers...

On the subject of atheists, here's an interesting take on the debate.

http://www.audienceoftwo.com/mag.php?art_id=750

The 95 A-Theses, the atheist rebuttal to Martin Luther?

"I also do not think, as I said earlier, that atheism fully describes the philosophy or “worldview” of people who don’t believe in gods. Atheism is just about religion."

Except when one's religion does not include a god or gods, such as certain forms of Buddhism. Or those wacky Raelians.

E Favorite
you're correct,normal makes the other guy abnormal,
so atheist is the only way to go.
What makes atheist such a dirty word,of course,
is the religious culture we live in.
In the UK and the rest of Europe
atheism is quite acceptable.

Gerry: "Let's hope more socially high-ranking persons will just say "I am an atheist", then the word will change its hue."

Yep - and we can start with ourselves. I may try saying I'm an aTHEist - that is, emphasizing the second syllable – and see what happens. It’s the same word, but doesn’t sound so bad, I bet. Worth a try, even though a bit contrived. Right now, I think Atheist sounds like “against God,” rather than non-God. For instance, it’s OK to say, “I’m not at all religious,” or “I don’t have a religion” but not “I’m an atheist” which is pretty much the same thing. In fact, the latter is the more assertive statement.

I also do not think, as I said earlier, that atheism fully describes the philosophy or “worldview” of people who don’t believe in gods. Atheism is just about religion.

Here’s something else I might try (and encourage others to try, as well). when asked about my religion, I’ll say something like: “Regarding religion, I’m an aTHEist. In terms of worldview, I’m a humanist. How about you?” It would be interesting to see how religious people respond to my statement and how/if they make a distinction for themselves between religion and worldview or philosophy.

Like E Fav said, I feel that atheist is the most succinct and accurate term, and I also feel that the best way to combat bigotry and stigma is to face it head on, not by doing an end-around with semantics. Atheism doesn't describe my philosophy or the methodology of my reasoning, and if someone asks me why I'm an atheist I'm happy to elaborate, but when simply asked what my religious belief is, if I say that I'm an agnostic, or an empiricist, or a naturalist then I haven't actually answered their question.

This really is one of my biggest pet peeves, mostly caused by the sad state of affairs created by self-described agnostics who honestly believe that it's an entirely separate intellectual position from atheism, when in reality they hold exactly the same position as the majority of atheists and are themselves atheists. I think that's tragic, when we're already such a minority, to be divided even further by misuse and misunderstanding of language, often directly motivated by a desire to avoid the stigma attached to the word atheist. Avoiding it doesn't do anything to address it. I want the stigma, because I want to fight against it.

People are free to describe themselves however they wish. It isn't my place to tell anyone how they should do it. I just wish people would think about the bigger picture and the long term consequences of their choices, on all of us, not just for themselves.

E Favorite,

possibly I "feel" this "a" a bit too strong (the greek "alpha privativum"), more than others, maybe also from my German upbringing.

A word, besides its semantic "field", also has a completely non-semantic, subconsciously processed "sound", stemming from its social use, and I remember from my youth that it simply didn't sound well, the same that also happens to names. (Nobody in his clear senses would give his son the name "Adolf", although there are many Adolfs of the highest moral rank in German cultural history.)

Of course you are right, the epithet "atheist" actually only refers to a certain part of a human mind. As long as the majority of people thinks that too, it is alright, no harm done. But when the total social "value" of a person is described by such a word (the same could be said for the word "communist", remember McCarthy!), it may become a matter if not of life and death, at least of mobbing and acceptance, as has been described by quite a few posters here.

I think, as I said in my last post, that we will finally settle with "atheist" for lack of a better common description of our world view. Let's hope more socially high-ranking persons will just say "I am an atheist", then the word will change its hue.

Gerry - and I will disagree a bit with you. Atheism might not have started out as a negative term, meaning, as it does, the absence of something. (A-gnosticism isn’t inherently bad; nor is a-pathy, etc.). Let’s say, the term atheism became negative because the absence of theism is considered bad by theists, who are the majority in our culture.

Atheism says what you’re not, ONLY in terms of religion. And just how much does a person’s religion say about them? Good question, worth thinking about. I don’t have an answer off hand. I suspect it’s quite complex and variable and something a lot of people haven’t thought much about, even though they may confidently proclaim their religious affiliation, as if it were very meaningful and descriptive.

Chip,

allow me to disagree with you on this point, that an atheist who mulls about the semantics of this expression is demeaning his fellow atheists. I have never shunned the word "atheist" as applying to me, I use it all the times, and still I feel that negative expressions carry negative connotations, regardless of their perfect logic.

We probably arrive at calling ourselves "atheists" in the long run, accepting the originally pejorative expression and turning it into a positive term.

In England already in the late 19th century, German products had to carry the epithet "made in Germany" to keep Britons from buying them. Soon, the epithet turned to be a recommendation, since the products were good.

Yoyo - regarding the term "normal" - I like it, except that it implies that non-atheists are abnormal. They won't go for it, and I can understand why. Many of them are normal, in my view, except in their belief in the supernatural - which is a small part of their lives.

That's why I like Dennett's "Super" for believers. It's accurate and sounds positive, while making it very clear that being a Super means believing in things for which there is no evidence.

I’m feeling good, having worked out for myself that atheist is the most accurate description of my position on RELIGION, while not completely describing my philosophical stance. I think it would be good for religious people of various types, to think about what their philosophical stance is. I’m intensely interested in hearing about it – wondering how much their religion would enter into it.

“Doubt” doesn’t do it for me, anymore than “agnostic” does. It mainly sounds good to believers. It implies continued seeking and questioning, instead of having carefully considered the evidence and finding it quite lacking. I doubt religion the way I doubt my car will run without gas.

Bertrand Russell

Fear,the Foundation of Religion

Religion is based,I think,primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.
Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious,fear of defeat,fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty,
and therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand in hand.It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things,and a little to master them by help of science,
which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion,against the churches,and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us,and I think our own hearts can teach us,no longer to look around for imaginary supports,no longer to invent allies in the sky,but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in,instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

Why I Am Not A Christian..page22

Read a great book recently called 'Doubt;a History',
by Jennifer Michael Hecht. She traces doubt's lineage
from Socrates to Sartre and all stops along the very interesting way.
She likes the word 'doubter',it has a nice thoughtful-philosophical,ring to it,I guess,
suggesting a thinker rather than the thuggish atheist.
But atheist suits me better,even though I'm no thug.
Sometimes on these threads,I've called myself a 'normal',
meaning I have no weird beliefs about the supernatural and the hereafter.
But then,maybe in North American culture,normal is to believe in Gods,and UFO's,
and the big golf course in the sky.
So I'm an atheist.

Do any of you know any atheists that aren't naturalists, empiricists, humanists, and agnostic? I don't. Personally I see people who shun the word atheist even though they are one as akin pointing to their fellow atheists and saying "I'm not with those people." You could just carry around a little card with the word "atheist" printed on it and when someone asks you what religion you are you can point behind the questioner and yell "Holy crap, is that a Yeti?!" and hold up the card while they're not looking.

I prefer describing myself as a naturalist. Most think that means I like to wander in the woods and identify birds and trees (which I do), but I point out there is also a philosophy of naturalism. Atheism is just a byproduct of philosophical naturalism, it is not the cornerstone.

Calling yourself an atheist is like saying "I'm an a-conservative." It only describes what you are not or what you don't believe, but doesn't describe what your philosophy is. It's like an Episcopalian saying: I'm a gentile.

Secular humanist is okay also. I despise the term "bright".

I guess what I "am" in terms of a philosophical outlook, is a humanist. However, what I am in terms of religion, is an atheist,or any variation thereof - non-theist, non-believer -- because I "am" non-religious.

I wonder how some religious people would define themselves in terms of philosophical outlook.

EHKZU

Great post.But why not say "I'm not religious"
and take it from there?
Being a Brit,one didn't have to "come out".
I'm a brash kind of atheist,and enjoy ruffling feathers sometimes,and getting a discussion going.
Same in Canada.Religion is not a big thing,like it is in the US,or Muslim countries,and one can chat about it.
I have a work colleague who told me a year or two ago,that he was a born again christian,and had been speaking in tongues the night before. He's a nice teddy bear of a guy,and I didn't mention my nonbelief to him,but said something like "O,no kidding.Cool". If he asks me about my religion,I'll tell him.But only if he asks.

"'Speak to each in accordance with their understanding.' That's what I try to do."

No, if you did you wouldn't have to explain what you mean by "empiricist." Atheist they understand. No wonder atheists remain such a marginalized minority. We're all a bunch of mealy-mouthed cowards (no offense EHKZU).

re: the issue of what you say when people ask "What are you?" or "What do you believe?"

I struggled with this for many years. In high school I remember telling one parent of a friend that I was an agnostic, and he informed me that I was stupid.

Basically, most people have a few boxes for categorizing you, along with some sub-boxes. As in relgious--Protestant--Episocopalian--low church, or
nonreligious--agnostic or atheist. Each box comes with definitions they've already got.

I've found that "empiricist" fits no existing boxes in most minds. Sorry it's got four syllables, but that's only one more than "atheist," after all. And it does give you a few seconds opportunity for a Teaching Moment.

In my experience people generally ask "What's that?" when I say I'm an empiricist. (They won't say that if you say "atheist.") Here's a typical dialog:

Me: It means I get my beliefs from what I observe--from facts and experiments.

Thee: Does that mean you're an atheist?

Me: What's that?

Thee: You know what I mean.

Me: People often disagree about what even common words mean. Please--tell me what you mean by that word. (I keep it polite--"Rude" and "Teaching Moment": are incompatible moments)

Thee: Someone who denies the existence of God.

Me: Excuse me, I didn't understand something you said. What do you mean by 'God'?"

Thee: You know what I mean.

Me: Honest to Pete, I don't. I used to think I did, but I've realized that I really don't. People have tried to describe it to me, but you might as well try to describe the word "green" to Stevie Wonder. And I can't answer a question I don't understand. Suppose I asked you "Do you believe in Glick?" What would you say?

---------------------------

There's nothing to be gained by getting into a tiff with religious people. A moment of catharthis, maybe. But I think it's more satisfying in the long run if you can pry their minds open a tad. And that's better for empiricists/humanists as a group

The problem I have with "humanist" is that to the religious right that just means "secular humanist," for which they have a definition already in their minds, and it's not a nice one.

Plus I'm not sure I'm a humanist. I prefer being a human to being any other kind of being I know, but to a religious person "humanist" sounds suspiciously like "self-worshipper." Plus I have respect for ecosystems, and I'm sure there are intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe--I'd like a term that's less narrow, even if religious people didn't already think they knew what it means.

"Empiricist" is fundamental. It describes how rational people acquire knowledge. You can become a humanist via empiricism, but it's lower in the stack.

And "bright" and suchlike are just silly. I'm not going to use an existing term that I have to redefine.

The prophet Muhammed said "Speak to each in accordance with their understanding." That's what I try to do.

There will always be a great many people who strongly dislike anyone who doesn't adhere to their religious belief, and who will attach negative connotations to whatever word is popularly used to describe them. If we keep trying to find new words every time that happens then we'll have to come up with a new one every year. There's nothing wrong with the word atheist and people should stop trying to pretend they can dodge the bigotry of others through semantics. It's disingenuous. It does nothing but dilute the language and divide us into ever smaller camps. It's that kind of thinking that's precisely why atheists continue to allow our lives and freedoms to be defined by others.

To all - thanks for the support in coming out. It has been liberating. I'm very out among friends - and even some business associates, but this was the first attempt with family.

Ekzhu and Dr RP - I'm all for finding better names that say what we are, but am also for sanitizing the word "atheist" so it loses its former evil connotation. For believers, I like "Supers" (short for supernatural) - it's Dan Dennett's idea. It points out the main important difference, I think, between the religious and non-religious. I haven't heard anyone use it in conversation yet. Maybe I'll start. I’ve heard Bill Maher use “rationalists” for non-believers. Descriptive, but not catchy. Too many syllables.

Dr RP – saying “none of your business” is pretty gutsy, I think – definitely would put some people off and make them wonder if you’re a non-believer. So, it looks like you’re not staying under cover as much as I thought.

Dear Dr RP -

Re: the term atheist.

As much as I don't like being defined through a negative term, I think that atheists are stuck with the term. We'd be better off working to give the word a positive connotation, rather than looking for a new word to define ourselves (like the god-awful term "Brights"!).

I prefer to call myself an anti-theist, a la C Hitchens. I prefer to call the faith-based community the fantasy-based community. Does it matter? Only to me. To everyone else, I'm an atheist and believers are...whatever.

EHKZU,

I agree completely. In some former post, I mentioned that our brains are not wired for negatives. If you ask someone to BY NO MEANS imagine a pink elephant - yes, that is exactly what happens!

Thus, a-theist or non-believer, even a-gnostic, however logical it may be, somehow posits what it wants to get rid of.

For us, I think (not very original, but to the point) humanist is what we are. For the other side, your "realityphobe" for religionists seems to hit it on the head!

E Fav, that's great! So glad to hear that you took that step. It must have felt very liberating. Congrats.

YOYO

I think you nailed it in very few words,we have to interrupt the groupthink by constantly letting others know where we stand.If we say nothing,others may get the impression that atheists don't exist.

E Favorite

I admire your openess and courage to be who you are,despite the fallout.I suspect that there are more atheists than we think,because they dont all come out of the closet. Especially politicians.
There are more atheists and agnostics in politics than we can ever know,but they keep quiet about it,otherwise they'd never get elected.

Hey EHKZU, I am with you. This is a case of a name for something that does not exist. And I agree that the work 'atheist' has become so derogatory that I prefer not to use it.

But I still like my term "flat earthers" for those realityphobes that you mention.

Oh, and you may not want to use the term 'antiflatulist' ; someone might get mixed up and think you are against passing gas ;)

E FAVORITE, there have been occasions where I am asked about what I believe (the last time was at an organisational meeting when my son was interested in cub scouts ). I found that "none of your business" works great! It's not clear what people think I am after that, and it doesn't really matter to me as long as the drop the subject.

What is an atheist?
Someone who doesn't believe in God?
That's what he's not.
So what is he?
I'm stumped, honestly. Because the word has no actual definition. All it tells you is what someone isn't--which is of interest only to religious people. For the rest of us, our so-called "lack of religion" is completely irrelevant to our lives. It means nothing, nada, zip. I also don't believe the world is flat. But I don't go around saying I'm an, say, "antiflatulist." If someone asks me what I believe, I simply say I'm an empiricist. Now that actually says something about me. A lot, actually.
The word "atheist" was coined by religious people. It's a loaded term. Calling me an "atheist" is pretty much the same as calling a black person the N word.

How about if we start calling religious people "antiempiricists?" Or "realityphobes?"

I'm not seriously proposing that, because it would be as unfair as it is for religious people to call those who aren't atheists.

Personally I define people as interesting or not, as jerks or OK people--stuff like that. Now those terms are actually useful.

E-fav,

congrats! Usually people overestimate the danger coming from the others when showing some gut! (The courage is no less for that! Respect!)

I can easily picture a constellation within a group of people where everybody is an atheist in their heart, but everybody is so afraid of the others equally afraid members of that group that the balance of fake belief is maintained, until, of course, one member outs himself.

It is the classical Anderson syndrome: The emperor has no clothes on!

Jay S: "It worked and continues to work for gays, it can work for atheists/agnostics."

And for women and Blacks too. Gays are like atheists in that they can often "pass" - but women and Blacks - well, they were supposed to "know their place."

DR R.P. - So taking advantage of it means passing for Christian so they won't bother you with more questions. I do a lot of that at family occasions. I was Christian until about 2 years ago - a lazy Christian. I didn't care much about it, except for the music and ritual, but still believed, at a low, unthinking level.

Spurred on by Chip, I recently showed a little leg at a family occasion. The result – no comment. No one said anything. Without going into detail, I said (in context) “I don’t believe in God.” I said it twice - the second time, to be sure they heard me. No reaction. I think it stunned them into silence -- but otherwise, they treated me just the same. In another conversation about getting signs from deceased family members, one former in-law commented that he was a “skeptic,” so we got to talking. Then later, as a bunch of us (including the skeptic, with a few drinks in him,) were singing hymns in lovely harmony, he pointed at me, saying “atheist!” atheist!” I laughed and said “A song is a song.” A new family friend crooning next to me edged away and was somewhat distant after that.

Quite an interesting experiment. I’m so glad, in that case, that I didn’t just blend in as usual. But it did take a lot of guts. Mainly, I didn’t want to spoil a pleasant occasion and bring attention to myself when the focus was meant to be elsewehere. I needn’t have worried.

Hi, ARMINIUS – I suggest you give the atheists a break (or some Christian compassion). When they say you’re deluded, they probably just mean about the God thing.

YOYO: "All it takes for religion to take over the world,
is that atheists and agnostics do nothing.
Only we can disrupt the groupthink madness of religion just by speaking up, so that they know, that not everybody buys the fairy tale."

Yes, well said. The quickest way to groupthink and "acceptable" prejudice is to never hear an opposing opinion. Just by reminding the theist that his/her worldview is not shared by every neighbor, co-worker, or relative is enough for me. It worked and continues to work for gays, it can work for atheists/agnostics.

E FAVORITE, by "take advantage of it" , I mean that christians don't usually go up to other christians and ask "so exactly what do you believe?" If they assume you are christian, they also assume you believe in the same things they believe in, and don't bother to bring it up. That is what I take advnatage of. As for discussing this stuff, I used to discuss it quite a bit im my college days, and realized that discussions with (what I like to call) flat earthers are really pointless. You don't learn anything from them (I was raised catholic, so know all I need to know about the bible, etc..) and they don't want to learn anything from you. So I save myself the frustration these days and avoid it.

I can't talk about this with my family; they are in general all flat earthers too (not my wife and kids, I mean all the others), and I would prefer to get along with them. I am mature enough to leave it be (but am shaking my head on the inside quite a bit). I do have a couple of friend that know the truth. They either understand or at least know they are not going to win any debates with me.

Fummy, my anti evolutionary friends STILL use that tired old "but how could an eyeball have evolved from a random process..." arguement. I feel like numbering the 10 or so bebunked arguements they use and just hold up a card with a "5" on it when that one comes up.
(I have developed a rather odd sense of humor concerning this over the years.)

And personally, I don't see any difference between a kid's belief in the Easter Bunny and and adult believing in gods. It is just acceptance of what you have been told all your life. You don't question, you don't grow.

Well, now. Here I am, a believer among the atheists. Hinted at being borderline demented, by several.

I am pretty old, and was an atheist/agnostic (depending on how I felt that day) for over 30 years. During that time, I raised two kids, best things I ever did. They knew I was no believer, we never went to church. I taught them to be tolerant and to make up their own minds about religion. The tolerance teaching succeeded. They are still working out their beliefs.

In my mid-fifties, I came back to belief, from the spiritual side. I am there firmly. My kids accept it, but are puzzled. They will find their own way.

I am Christian. I would never, never tell an atheist that I will pray for him. But if he tells me I am demented/deluded/sheepish, well then, my hard-earned Army swearing will come into play!

Thank you YOYO!!!!!!!!

Ron Reagon Jr. !!!

As an atheist I'm impressed with the
sensible comments from other nonbelievers on these threads.
It shows we are here.And we aint going away.

All it takes for religion to take over the world,
is that atheists and agnostics do nothing.
Only we can disrupt the groupthink madness of religion
just by speaking up,so that they know, that not everybody buys the fairy tale.
As far as we know,there is no supernatural world,
no white bearded old timer named God,and no fairyland
paradise to go to when we are dead.
Like all other creatures we die and become dust.
Its ugly and pathetic,but its the truth.And we gotta get over it.

Yes, Mr. Berlinerblau is a funny guy! I'm a non-believer, but have felt for a long time that the business of espousing atheism is a strange business indeed. Sometimes I listen to my fellow secularists, those who preach atheism, and think that they are as much engaged in a fantasy as were the Marxist students of the 60's and 70's, who thought they saw a proletarian revolution building in the USA.

But Berlinerblau is being satirical, isn't he?

Dr RP - Glad to see you're continuing the conversation.

I'm not sure what you mean (but would like to know) when you say " I have found that people in general assume I and my kids are christian; I let them believe what they want (they do that quite well with their "faith", so why not take advantage of it?)." Specifically, "take advantage" of what?

Also, sounds like you think that mentioning your lack of belief, (even, let's say, in the context of the discussion) would result in a debate that you'd like to avoid. Is that right?

Regarding the easter bunny, it's a little different, I think, because, unlike religion, this is a belief that you know the child is going to give up.

One other thing, I'm just curious, is your non-belief something you've discussed much, in whatever context, with family or friends?

Thanks

Sorry if I came across as ticked in that last note. With regard to the religious training of my kids (or lack thereof), I have found that people in general assume I and my kids are christian; I let them believe what they want (they do that quite well with their "faith", so why not take advantage of it?). My kids don't seem to get into religious discussions with other kids (except for the occational "so and so said I was going to hell because.." from them. I just tell them that so and so doesn't know what he's is talking about, so don't worry about it. They DO get a firm understanding of how the world works from me (at least how we think it works) which is far more important than the angels on the head of a pin discussion).My science background has taught me not to bother with questions that don't have answers, and I try to emphasize that with the kids. Also, I don't believe in debating this with people because it IS a form a delusion; it's not up to me to rock someone elses boat ( and I wouldn't debate a little kid on the existence of the Easter Bunny either.).

Dr, I'd just like to see the United States become a country where people like you don't feel that you have to hide who and what you are. That won't ever happen until enough people stand up and sacrifice a bit of comfort for the sake of those who'll come after them. If later in life your kids become atheists do you want them to have to hide as you have? How about your grandkids? Nothing will ever change until somewhere along the way people start standing up. I don't think that's being judgmental. I think it's being a realist.

Dr RP
Talking to your children about your atheism, and having meaningful discussions about how atheists differ from theists, is a wonderful opportunity to connect with them on this important issue. They can certainly be taught that atheism is not the position of the majority of people they will come into contact with and how to respect the beliefs of others. No one, atheist or theist, needs to go broadcasting their belief or non-belief on the school playground and hurting others' feelings, but a parent can make sure his/her child is prepared to deal with that situation if it were to happen. I am speaking from experience as an atheist parent of three sons, now grown, who were raised in a totally secular family environment.

Chip, Dr. RP, E-fav,

I might add my observation from the European perspective: Here it does not require any courage to out yourself as an atheist, should the question arise (probably with the exception of Muslims within the group). People aren't even interested.

I had a vivid semi-public discussion about original sin with a member of our Rotary Club, a high protestant office holder. He acknowledged my points without accepting them of course, and we still are friends with completely different opinions.

An hour ago one of the biggest German radio stations (Deutschlandfunk) broadcasted an enthused feature about Christopher Hitchens' new book, translated into German. Here, it is just another book.

It seems to me, that in the US there are strong differences in this respect, depending on the surrounding. In principle, of course, I think the more people out themselves the better for the cause. On the other hand, I cannot ask anybody to be courageous and swim against a given mainstream. I can only be courageous myself and serve as an example.

Dr RP - - people expressing ideas that are different from yours is just the nature of a discussion board like this.

I'm very interested in hearing your point of view and experience and hope you stick around a while.

No pressure to join anything or to change your mind about anything.

Have you ever had a woman ask you if the dress she's wearing makes her look fat?

If you're both going to a party or some social event of some kind and she's keep you from leaving, the answer is No, of course not.

If you can see that she's actually suffering from low self-esteem, and for you to answer "Yes, it does make you look fat", it would just crush her, the answer is of course, no.

White lies I suppose. How are you going to tell her that it does make her look fat if it is the truth?

Another option is the Al Bundy option, who said: Ladies, it isn't the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat.

Now it's true, we don't have large armies of ladies in fattening dresses strapping bombs to themselves, or blowing up abortion clinics, or voting your favorite vice into a life sentence ... so it seems safe to give them these little white lies.

I think we need to use the Al Bundy method on the believers though.