Aggressive Atheism

[Kaspian]

It might be distasteful for you to see anti-religious memes on Facebook.  My guess, though, is that your average atheist has to wade through a whole lot more religious nonsense on a daily basis.  This morning I saw two of those absurd memes where the poor, persecuted Christians whine about their imaginary "war on Christmas."  I have to ignore tons of posts about "blessings." Lots of posts about the misguided beliefs of Muslims by Christians.  Tons of anti-choice posts because of Jesus.  The list goes on. 

I just absolutely love the War on Christmas.  It gives me a chuckle everytime I'm fortunate enough to catch one of those stories.  Those poor Christians, easily the most persecuted ruling majority in the history of the world.  :)

Isn't that all an absolute load of shit?  Every time a news story comes on about that I shake my head, "Fantastic, this is what we've come to--just a load of bitchy children.  We could be doing great things, but no."

[LennStar]

As Cromacster said, an aggressive atheist doesn't have to be found, they will announce themselves. In other words, if you don't know if you are an aggressive atheist (or have to ask) then you probably aren't... :D


I don't mind aggressive as much as I mind fundamentalist. Aggressive can just mean very assertive in establishing their opinion and pushing it, but may be open to other views and arguments at the same time. Fundamentalist is usually aggressive, but more importantly close-minded, which bothers me much more.

In my whole life I havent seen an "aggressive atheist" where "aggression" started from the atheist.
It was always some religious people said (more or less accusingly or just stating obvious BS) and then a (more or less friendly or just fact-correcting) reply from the atheist, then it starts to spiral down.

Of course, aggressive is what the receiver percieves. I have had several very aggressive religious people knocking at my door saying I should convert. Now, people having me come to the door and say I should get more stupider (aggressive atheist!!!) then I already am, that is aggressive to me. In contrast I dont know of any atheist who does that.

I am very strongly (I might even consider saying aggressivly strong) for seperating churches/religion (2 things) and state. Like not having an old roman torture instrument hanging in a school or court. But that - funnyly - has nothing to do with beeing religious or atheist. Its just that state is government and religion is private. You can elect your government and you can elect your religion, bot they should never come one with the other.

posting memes suggesting that religion is responsible for terrorist attacks by psychos,

well, unfortunately thats basically religion for hundrets of years.


There is a war on christmas?
Really, you Americans make a war on anything. How about making love instead?
What is the war on excatly? The red color of the originally grey-clothed fear-inducing guy?
The commercialising?
The roots of christmas, that were Sol Invictus of the roman empire, who was fiercely fighted by the early christians?
Are these questions aggressive?

[LibrarIan]

This thread reminds of this video just released by Seth Andrews, better known as the creator of the The Thinking Atheist radio podcast. It's all about the roots of Christmas in history and the supposed war on Christmas.

Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kenbgMjRvlY&feature=youtube_gdata

[GuitarStv]

Really, you Americans make a war on anything. How about making love instead?

GuitarStv fully supports making love on Christmas.

[James]

I just absolutely love the War on Christmas.  It gives me a chuckle everytime I'm fortunate enough to catch one of those stories.  Those poor Christians, easily the most persecuted ruling majority in the history of the world.  :)

On a serious note, there is an actual war on Christians, just not here. There are places the wrong religion, whether Christian or a wrong brand of Islam, will get you executed. I am sick of the bullshit "war on Christians" and "war on women" crap. There are places people are getting killed for their religion and gender, that is war. Let's have a nice debate regarding what we want to be in the US without losing perspective of what real war and persecution is.


I think we can all tolerate a little aggression on each side of the issue, since it shows how tolerant of a society we are.

[Gin1984]

I just absolutely love the War on Christmas.  It gives me a chuckle everytime I'm fortunate enough to catch one of those stories.  Those poor Christians, easily the most persecuted ruling majority in the history of the world.  :)

On a serious note, there is an actual war on Christians, just not here. There are places the wrong religion, whether Christian or a wrong brand of Islam, will get you executed. I am sick of the bullshit "war on Christians" and "war on women" crap. There are places people are getting killed for their religion and gender, that is war. Let's have a nice debate regarding what we want to be in the US without losing perspective of what real war and persecution is.


I think we can all tolerate a little aggression on each side of the issue, since it shows how tolerant of a society we are.

More women died in the US because of domestic violence from 2001 to 2012 than Americans who died in US terror attacks, and in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.  That does not include women who die trying to abort fetuses in back alley abortions because they cannot afford or get to safe abortions.  Women are dying here, please don't ignore that.

[arebelspy]

Really, you Americans make a war on anything. How about making love instead?

We do that!  It's just that we make love on war, so it doesn't really help.

[BlueMR2]

Really, you Americans make a war on anything. How about making love instead?

Meh, that's boring.  War is more interesting.

[LennStar]

"When people stop believing in God, it isn't that they then believe in nothing; they believe in everything.' - Umberto Eco"

Now, who is the big believer? lol

[Eric]

Really, you Americans make a war on anything. How about making love instead?

We do that!  It's just that we make love on war, so it doesn't really help.

Ha!

[Eric]

In my whole life I havent seen an "aggressive atheist" where "aggression" started from the atheist.

I guess it depends on your definition, but take this thread about tithing as a mustachian and the 3rd post is someone making fun of people for believing in an imaginary sky friend.  That's aggressive atheism to me.  There's no reason for an atheist to post in that thread at all.  I didn't even open it until it was linked somewhere else.

There is a war on christmas?
Really, you Americans make a war on anything. How about making love instead?
What is the war on excatly? The red color of the originally grey-clothed fear-inducing guy?
The commercialising?

The War on Christmas is a thing promoted by the conservative news media to draw ratings.  The stories typically consist of government sponsored organizations not being allowed to put up baby jesus statues and similar topics.  As if the separation of church and state should not apply for the Christmas season.  It also gives Christians a reason to rally together to "save" their holiday.  Again, it's a ratings thing, which is why it's so entertaining for me to watch how "serious" this is.

[Spork]

In my whole life I havent seen an "aggressive atheist" where "aggression" started from the atheist.

I guess it depends on your definition, but take this thread about tithing as a mustachian and the 3rd post is someone making fun of people for believing in an imaginary sky friend.  That's aggressive atheism to me.  There's no reason for an atheist to post in that thread at all.  I didn't even open it until it was linked somewhere else.

I saw that when it was posted.  Like you said, there was no reason for me to post in that thread.  (Although I almost did, but it was a more "do what it makes you happy as long as you can afford it" type post... but then I kinda had that "why should I post here thing" you mention.)

Personally: I didn't find that as aggressive.  I saw it as friendly tongue in cheek.  But to me, it's a guy preaching to the choir. I know some folks that are deeply religious won't see it that way.  They'll see it exactly as you describe.

It's a little bit of a difficult road -- especially on the internet when you don't know the person, don't see the nod and the wink.  On one hand I think we all need to get over ourselves and not get our feelers all hurt.  On the other, you have to realize there WILL be an emotional reaction -- and maybe an over reaction.

[arebelspy]

I'm a Pastafarian, yet I saw it as aggressive and a bit rude.

/shrug

[Gin1984]

I'm a Pastafarian, yet I saw it as aggressive and a bit rude.

/shrug

I chuckled, possibly because it sounded like Christian parody, which is what pastafarianism is all about. 

[Timmmy]

In my whole life I havent seen an "aggressive atheist" where "aggression" started from the atheist.

I guess it depends on your definition, but take this thread about tithing as a mustachian and the 3rd post is someone making fun of people for believing in an imaginary sky friend.  That's aggressive atheism to me.  There's no reason for an atheist to post in that thread at all.  I didn't even open it until it was linked somewhere else.

I saw that when it was posted.  Like you said, there was no reason for me to post in that thread.  (Although I almost did, but it was a more "do what it makes you happy as long as you can afford it" type post... but then I kinda had that "why should I post here thing" you mention.)

Personally: I didn't find that as aggressive.  I saw it as friendly tongue in cheek.  But to me, it's a guy preaching to the choir. I know some folks that are deeply religious won't see it that way.  They'll see it exactly as you describe.

It's a little bit of a difficult road -- especially on the internet when you don't know the person, don't see the nod and the wink.  On one hand I think we all need to get over ourselves and not get our feelers all hurt.  On the other, you have to realize there WILL be an emotional reaction -- and maybe an over reaction.

Let's not kid ourselves, that was intended as an aggressive insult that the poster intended to disguise with a joke (pastafarianism) that was created to, among other things, mock religion.  What I found interesting was that the person who posted that has libertarian in their name.  I thought that was a "live and let live" group?  I guess they thinks it's "live and let live as long as it's like me"

[Gin1984]

In my whole life I havent seen an "aggressive atheist" where "aggression" started from the atheist.

I guess it depends on your definition, but take this thread about tithing as a mustachian and the 3rd post is someone making fun of people for believing in an imaginary sky friend.  That's aggressive atheism to me.  There's no reason for an atheist to post in that thread at all.  I didn't even open it until it was linked somewhere else.

I saw that when it was posted.  Like you said, there was no reason for me to post in that thread.  (Although I almost did, but it was a more "do what it makes you happy as long as you can afford it" type post... but then I kinda had that "why should I post here thing" you mention.)

Personally: I didn't find that as aggressive.  I saw it as friendly tongue in cheek.  But to me, it's a guy preaching to the choir. I know some folks that are deeply religious won't see it that way.  They'll see it exactly as you describe.

It's a little bit of a difficult road -- especially on the internet when you don't know the person, don't see the nod and the wink.  On one hand I think we all need to get over ourselves and not get our feelers all hurt.  On the other, you have to realize there WILL be an emotional reaction -- and maybe an over reaction.

Let's not kid ourselves, that was intended as an aggressive insult that the poster intended to disguise with a joke (pastafarianism) that was created to, among other things, mock religion.  What I found interesting was that the person who posted that has libertarian in their name.  I thought that was a "live and let live" group?  I guess they thinks it's "live and let live as long as it's like me"

I've actually only met libertarians who were white males.  I wonder if that is happen chance or reality?  Libertarians, to me, are not live and let live but those who say that because they have always been able to come from privilege. 

[GuitarStv]

I'm kinda sad that he decided to drag Pastafarianism down into his dickishness.

[LennStar]

In my whole life I havent seen an "aggressive atheist" where "aggression" started from the atheist.

I guess it depends on your definition, but take this thread about tithing as a mustachian and the 3rd post is someone making fun of people for believing in an imaginary sky friend.  That's aggressive atheism to me.  There's no reason for an atheist to post in that thread at all.  I didn't even open it until it was linked somewhere else.

But that one is openly religious, not atheistic. He talks about his God, tries to get you into his religion and praises the good points of his religion.
It is aggressive (in a mocking-humorous way for my guts), but not aggressive atheistic
And his advice to donate to institutions that have a more effective money usage for helping others isnt bad. I wish charities were required to print on every qestion for donations how many cents of each dollar go to the advertised projects.

[LibrarIan]

I've actually only met libertarians who were white males.  I wonder if that is happen chance or reality?  Libertarians, to me, are not live and let live but those who say that because they have always been able to come from privilege.

I know this is off topic, but I recently saw a bumper sticker that said "Libertarians for Life" referring to not aborting babies. I'm pretty sure that stance makes you not a libertarian...

[lithy]

I've actually only met libertarians who were white males.  I wonder if that is happen chance or reality?  Libertarians, to me, are not live and let live but those who say that because they have always been able to come from privilege.

I know this is off topic, but I recently saw a bumper sticker that said "Libertarians for Life" referring to not aborting babies. I'm pretty sure that stance makes you not a libertarian...

Self-described white male libertarian here.  You can ascribe to a libertarian set of political beliefs and not believe in those things personally.

I believe all drugs should be completely legal, I do not do a single drug with the exception of alcohol.  You can believe that it is not the role of our government to codify and enforce seat belt laws and still wear a seat belt every time you're in a car.

Anyway, my only addition to this thread is a suggestions that aggressive atheists can exist and the best example I can give is something I have actually heard.

Person 1: *sneeze*
Person 2: Gesundheit, you see, I'd say God bless you, but there is no God.
Person 1: Uh, thanks?

Inserting your anti-religion into conversation that did not involve it to acquaintances or random strangers is proselytizing just as if you were to ask passerby if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior. 

If we're choosing labels though, I'll take Apathetic Agnostic.

[Gin1984]

I've actually only met libertarians who were white males.  I wonder if that is happen chance or reality?  Libertarians, to me, are not live and let live but those who say that because they have always been able to come from privilege.

I know this is off topic, but I recently saw a bumper sticker that said "Libertarians for Life" referring to not aborting babies. I'm pretty sure that stance makes you not a libertarian...

Self-described white male libertarian here.  You can ascribe to a libertarian set of political beliefs and not believe in those things personally.

I believe all drugs should be completely legal, I do not do a single drug with the exception of alcohol.  You can believe that it is not the role of our government to codify and enforce seat belt laws and still wear a seat belt every time you're in a car.

Anyway, my only addition to this thread is a suggestions that aggressive atheists can exist and the best example I can give is something I have actually heard.

Person 1: *sneeze*
Person 2: Gesundheit, you see, I'd say God bless you, but there is no God.
Person 1: Uh, thanks?

Inserting your anti-religion into conversation that did not involve it to acquaintances or random strangers is proselytizing just as if you were to ask passerby if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior. 

If we're choosing labels though, I'll take Apathetic Agnostic.

I know it may not have been the point, but you made me laugh, thanks!

[Spork]

In my whole life I havent seen an "aggressive atheist" where "aggression" started from the atheist.

I guess it depends on your definition, but take this thread about tithing as a mustachian and the 3rd post is someone making fun of people for believing in an imaginary sky friend.  That's aggressive atheism to me.  There's no reason for an atheist to post in that thread at all.  I didn't even open it until it was linked somewhere else.

I saw that when it was posted.  Like you said, there was no reason for me to post in that thread.  (Although I almost did, but it was a more "do what it makes you happy as long as you can afford it" type post... but then I kinda had that "why should I post here thing" you mention.)

Personally: I didn't find that as aggressive.  I saw it as friendly tongue in cheek.  But to me, it's a guy preaching to the choir. I know some folks that are deeply religious won't see it that way.  They'll see it exactly as you describe.

It's a little bit of a difficult road -- especially on the internet when you don't know the person, don't see the nod and the wink.  On one hand I think we all need to get over ourselves and not get our feelers all hurt.  On the other, you have to realize there WILL be an emotional reaction -- and maybe an over reaction.

Let's not kid ourselves, that was intended as an aggressive insult that the poster intended to disguise with a joke (pastafarianism) that was created to, among other things, mock religion.  What I found interesting was that the person who posted that has libertarian in their name.  I thought that was a "live and let live" group?  I guess they thinks it's "live and let live as long as it's like me"

I've actually only met libertarians who were white males.  I wonder if that is happen chance or reality?  Libertarians, to me, are not live and let live but those who say that because they have always been able to come from privilege.

LOL.  So we're going to mock libertarians almost in the same paragraph as "you're a dick if you mock religion"?

I'm libertarian.  That doesn't hurt my feelers.  I'm cool with it.  Just notice that it's sort of the same thing, just pointed a different direction.  Someone else might get their emotions all in a bundle over it. 

[Eric]

In my whole life I havent seen an "aggressive atheist" where "aggression" started from the atheist.

I guess it depends on your definition, but take this thread about tithing as a mustachian and the 3rd post is someone making fun of people for believing in an imaginary sky friend.  That's aggressive atheism to me.  There's no reason for an atheist to post in that thread at all.  I didn't even open it until it was linked somewhere else.

But that one is openly religious, not atheistic. He talks about his God, tries to get you into his religion and praises the good points of his religion.
It is aggressive (in a mocking-humorous way for my guts), but not aggressive atheistic

This maybe either a slight language barrier or the fact that sarcasm doesn't always translate well into print, but the post by libertarian4321 is absolutely, without a doubt a post that's mocking religion, dripping in sarcasm, and made by an atheist.  An aggressive atheist if you will, as it was an unprovoked attack that didn't do anything to further the conversation or question at hand.

[LennStar]

but the post by libertarian4321 is absolutely, without a doubt a post that's mocking religion, dripping in sarcasm, and made by an atheist

Yes, that may be - and the funny thing is, that it is 100% the words of a religious person.
In other words, its holding up a mirror - nothing more.

If you say this is aggressive, then you say religious people are aggressive. Everthing you say about that sentences you are saying about religion.

That may be an aggressive atheist, but he is no more aggressive then theists. Thats usually the reason for such remarks, just show the other person how the atheist must feel when he encounters an aggressive theist. Mirror.
If you dont like what you see in the mirror...

[MandalayVA]

Anyway, my only addition to this thread is a suggestions that aggressive atheists can exist and the best example I can give is something I have actually heard.

Person 1: *sneeze*
Person 2: Gesundheit, you see, I'd say God bless you, but there is no God.
Person 1: Uh, thanks?

I remember reading once that the reason people started saying "God bless you" when someone sneezed was because it was believed that a demon's spirit came out with the sneeze. 

So now when someone sneezes I say "Hail Satan!"  :D

 

[Timmmy]

but the post by libertarian4321 is absolutely, without a doubt a post that's mocking religion, dripping in sarcasm, and made by an atheist

Yes, that may be - and the funny thing is, that it is 100% the words of a religious person.
In other words, its holding up a mirror - nothing more.

If you say this is aggressive, then you say religious people are aggressive. Everthing you say about that sentences you are saying about religion.

That may be an aggressive atheist, but he is no more aggressive then theists. Thats usually the reason for such remarks, just show the other person how the atheist must feel when he encounters an aggressive theist. Mirror.
If you dont like what you see in the mirror...

I disagree about the words being a mirror but I'm not going there this morning.  He clicked on a thread that was clearly written by a religious person and then responded.  Not with anything of value but the only goal was to mock.  That's pretty aggressive if you ask me. 

[Gin1984]

but the post by libertarian4321 is absolutely, without a doubt a post that's mocking religion, dripping in sarcasm, and made by an atheist

Yes, that may be - and the funny thing is, that it is 100% the words of a religious person.
In other words, its holding up a mirror - nothing more.

If you say this is aggressive, then you say religious people are aggressive. Everthing you say about that sentences you are saying about religion.

That may be an aggressive atheist, but he is no more aggressive then theists. Thats usually the reason for such remarks, just show the other person how the atheist must feel when he encounters an aggressive theist. Mirror.
If you dont like what you see in the mirror...

I disagree about the words being a mirror but I'm not going there this morning. He clicked on a thread that was clearly written by a religious person and then responded.  Not with anything of value but the only goal was to mock.  That's pretty aggressive if you ask me.

I understand why you don't want to but I would be interested in why you disagree.  Coming from a non-Christian religion, my experiences say he was spot on about it being a mirror.  Do you think that atheists are not mocked/looked down upon by theists (though honestly my only experience has been Christians in USA but I assume other majority religious groups do the same)?

[arebelspy]

but the post by libertarian4321 is absolutely, without a doubt a post that's mocking religion, dripping in sarcasm, and made by an atheist

Yes, that may be - and the funny thing is, that it is 100% the words of a religious person.
In other words, its holding up a mirror - nothing more.

If you say this is aggressive, then you say religious people are aggressive. Everthing you say about that sentences you are saying about religion.

That may be an aggressive atheist, but he is no more aggressive then theists. Thats usually the reason for such remarks, just show the other person how the atheist must feel when he encounters an aggressive theist. Mirror.
If you dont like what you see in the mirror...

The words aren't aggressive, but the manner in which they're done.

If a theist came into an area and shouted that, yes, I'd call them aggressive too.

Not all religious people do that.  And not all atheists do that.

[Eric]

but the post by libertarian4321 is absolutely, without a doubt a post that's mocking religion, dripping in sarcasm, and made by an atheist

Yes, that may be - and the funny thing is, that it is 100% the words of a religious person.
In other words, its holding up a mirror - nothing more.

If you say this is aggressive, then you say religious people are aggressive. Everthing you say about that sentences you are saying about religion.

That may be an aggressive atheist, but he is no more aggressive then theists. Thats usually the reason for such remarks, just show the other person how the atheist must feel when he encounters an aggressive theist. Mirror.
If you dont like what you see in the mirror...

I disagree about the words being a mirror but I'm not going there this morning. He clicked on a thread that was clearly written by a religious person and then responded.  Not with anything of value but the only goal was to mock.  That's pretty aggressive if you ask me.

I understand why you don't want to but I would be interested in why you disagree.  Coming from a non-Christian religion, my experiences say he was spot on about it being a mirror.  Do you think that atheists are not mocked/looked down upon by theists (though honestly my only experience has been Christians in USA but I assume other majority religious groups do the same)?

I'm with Timmmy here.  I don't think it's mirrored behavior either, if only because the religious OP wasn't asking anything in your face, didn't degrade atheism, and the post really had nothing to do with beliefs - other than the recipient of the giving - when the actual question boiled down to "how to give with changing incomes".  It could've easy been related to with charitable giving by the non-religious, which even libertarian4321 mentioned briefly, but was lost because of the tone and unnecessary mocking.

If the post actually was mocking or looking down on atheists, then by all means, unleash the hounds.  I'm down for a good mocking of religion as much as anyone, but there's a time and place and that was not it.  The OP was respectful in his question and even said he understood the opposing views in his very first sentence!  Whether atheists in general are looked down upon isn't really the issue here, as neither of the posts before libertarian4321's had that attitude.

I'm a non-believer as well.  I just happen to think that jumping in with "THERE IS NO GOD!!" everytime anyone mentions god is not really helpful to anyone.  If one of the religious zealots is preaching about how we're all going to hell, well then I have no problem telling him he's an idiot, but again, that wasn't really the case here.  Best to take the libertarian attitude of live and let live.  (the real libertarian attitude, not the libertarian4321 attitude)

[greaper007]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

[Gin1984]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

Except they are and when you are fighting for your rights, you kind of have to be somewhat aggressive. 

[greaper007]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

Except they are and when you are fighting for your rights, you kind of have to be somewhat aggressive.

Absolutely, but there's a way to do it that's both civil and firm.   I was recently watching a documentary on Howard Zinn.    He was sitting on the black audience side of the court room during the Jim Crowe era while several black protestors were sitting on the white side.    The judge ordered everyone to move and he simply said that the supreme court had determined that segregation was illegal in the legal system.    No hyperbole or inflammatory language and the situation was defused.

I'd like to see more prominent atheist or first amendment groups challenge religious tests or an overstep of religion into governmental areas.    That doesn't mean that we as non-believers should belittle other people's beliefs though.    Believe me, I've been aggressive towards religion in my life.   But now I'm starting to think that much of that aggression was misplaced.   A lot of it had to do with my family and childhood trauma, taking care of that has made me more tolerant.    I have a feeling that aggressive religious people probably have some of the same issues that they aren't dealing with.

[LibrarIan]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

To address a few things you said here...

You have to separate ideas from people. Ideas are not people and people are not ideas. I think it is totally fine - necessary even - to criticize ideas. Calling someone's idea stupid or otherwise insulting the idea is not the same as insulting the person. Offending someone by insulting ideas they believe in should not even be relevant. Offending someone in an ad hominem sort of way is definitely a problem. Any idea, no matter if it's religious or not, should be open to insults, critique, etc.

I agree with your second paragraph. People should be free to practice or believe as they see fit (unless it starts harming others or infringing their rights).

I have no problem with Jesus fish or Darwin stickers. Who cares if people are adorning their private property with such things?

Lastly, I agree, we should be nice to each other. Ideas, on the other hand, I don't have to be nice to. I think Christianity is totally wrong and contains a lot of stupidity. However, I do not feel this way about the believers. Sure, some are dumb, but some aren't. Just because you believe in something I think is dumb does not make you dumb.

[Gin1984]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

Except they are and when you are fighting for your rights, you kind of have to be somewhat aggressive.

Absolutely, but there's a way to do it that's both civil and firm.  I was recently watching a documentary on Howard Zinn.    He was sitting on the black audience side of the court room during the Jim Crowe era while several black protestors were sitting on the white side.    The judge ordered everyone to move and he simply said that the supreme court had determined that segregation was illegal in the legal system.    No hyperbole or inflammatory language and the situation was defused.

I'd like to see more prominent atheist or first amendment groups challenge religious tests or an overstep of religion into governmental areas.    That doesn't mean that we as non-believers should belittle other people's beliefs though.    Believe me, I've been aggressive towards religion in my life.   But now I'm starting to think that much of that aggression was misplaced.   A lot of it had to do with my family and childhood trauma, taking care of that has made me more tolerant.    I have a feeling that aggressive religious people probably have some of the same issues that they aren't dealing with.

You don't think that people considered that aggressive for it's time?  Or consider Malcolm X aggressive?  Or called MLK Jr uppity for expecting equality?  I think we can criticizes how people are fighting for their rights when we are in some situation.  Until then, does it not seem a little, I don't have a good word, it just feels wrong.

[greaper007]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

To address a few things you said here...

You have to separate ideas from people. Ideas are not people and people are not ideas. I think it is totally fine - necessary even - to criticize ideas. Calling someone's idea stupid or otherwise insulting the idea is not the same as insulting the person. Offending someone by insulting ideas they believe in should not even be relevant. Offending someone in an ad hominem sort of way is definitely a problem. Any idea, no matter if it's religious or not, should be open to insults, critique, etc.

I agree with your second paragraph. People should be free to practice or believe as they see fit (unless it starts harming others or infringing their rights).

I have no problem with Jesus fish or Darwin stickers. Who cares if people are adorning their private property with such things?

Lastly, I agree, we should be nice to each other. Ideas, on the other hand, I don't have to be nice to. I think Christianity is totally wrong and contains a lot of stupidity. However, I do not feel this way about the believers. Sure, some are dumb, but some aren't. Just because you believe in something I think is dumb does not make you dumb.

Funny, I actually think that Christianity in theory (mostly Jesus) isn't such a bad thing.   As a recovering Catholic, I have a problem with the people that have perpetrated Christianity.     When we start to really examine lost Christian relics like the Gnostic Texts that were considered heretical by the church, I think we see a much different set of ideas than the ones that were implemented in the first century.    Jesus sounds much more like a Buddhist than the blond hunk adorning church walls.

Religion for many people is just another means of control for those in positions of power.    I have more of a problem with those people, and what they've put in the religion than I do with the religion.   

OTOH, my grandma goes to a pentecostal church and speaks in tongues.   However, she never says I should go to church or says anything bad about non-believers in front of me, even if she has strong views internally.   I would never insult her belief system, just like she doesn't insult mine.

[Timmmy]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

Except they are and when you are fighting for your rights, you kind of have to be somewhat aggressive.

Absolutely, but there's a way to do it that's both civil and firm.  I was recently watching a documentary on Howard Zinn.    He was sitting on the black audience side of the court room during the Jim Crowe era while several black protestors were sitting on the white side.    The judge ordered everyone to move and he simply said that the supreme court had determined that segregation was illegal in the legal system.    No hyperbole or inflammatory language and the situation was defused.

I'd like to see more prominent atheist or first amendment groups challenge religious tests or an overstep of religion into governmental areas.    That doesn't mean that we as non-believers should belittle other people's beliefs though.    Believe me, I've been aggressive towards religion in my life.   But now I'm starting to think that much of that aggression was misplaced.   A lot of it had to do with my family and childhood trauma, taking care of that has made me more tolerant.    I have a feeling that aggressive religious people probably have some of the same issues that they aren't dealing with.

You don't think that people considered that aggressive for it's time?  Or consider Malcolm X aggressive?  Or called MLK Jr uppity for expecting equality?  I think we can criticizes how people are fighting for their rights when we are in some situation.  Until then, does it not seem a little, I don't have a good word, it just feels wrong.

Are you comparing the oppression faced by blacks in this country with what atheists are facing?  Admittedly, I'm from a group(white, male and christian) that has had privilege in this country since it's inception but I don't know that having to take an oath on a bible is in the same ballpark as slavery. 

[Gin1984]

but the post by libertarian4321 is absolutely, without a doubt a post that's mocking religion, dripping in sarcasm, and made by an atheist

Yes, that may be - and the funny thing is, that it is 100% the words of a religious person.
In other words, its holding up a mirror - nothing more.

If you say this is aggressive, then you say religious people are aggressive. Everthing you say about that sentences you are saying about religion.

That may be an aggressive atheist, but he is no more aggressive then theists. Thats usually the reason for such remarks, just show the other person how the atheist must feel when he encounters an aggressive theist. Mirror.
If you dont like what you see in the mirror...

I disagree about the words being a mirror but I'm not going there this morning. He clicked on a thread that was clearly written by a religious person and then responded.  Not with anything of value but the only goal was to mock.  That's pretty aggressive if you ask me.

I understand why you don't want to but I would be interested in why you disagree.  Coming from a non-Christian religion, my experiences say he was spot on about it being a mirror.  Do you think that atheists are not mocked/looked down upon by theists (though honestly my only experience has been Christians in USA but I assume other majority religious groups do the same)?

I'm inclined to agree that it's not mirror because the point about having to click on the thread and then denounce the persons religious beliefs (i.e. "Another great reason not to have an imaginary friend, er, God.") followed by proselytizing for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is kind of a step above and beyond someone randomly walking up to you on the street and asking if you have been saved. In other words, do you really have anyone to blame for being offended if you go someplace where you didn't need to be and will most likely be offended?

As for your question about proselytizing, the big four (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) do to one extent or another which accounts for about 71.9% of the worlds population if my memory serves me, but after that anyone in the minority groups tends to keep to themselves (or are a cult and good luck getting rid of them). Plus, even within in the big four there are enough different sects that the a lot of people don't believe in actively proselytizing as part of their faith. In truth though, there is a small number of very vocal people and a lot of people that just want to be left a lone for the most part.

You have to separate ideas from people. Ideas are not people and people are not ideas. I think it is totally fine - necessary even - to criticize ideas. Calling someone's idea stupid or otherwise insulting the idea is not the same as insulting the person. Offending someone by insulting ideas they believe in should not even be relevant. Offending someone in an ad hominem sort of way is definitely a problem. Any idea, no matter if it's religious or not, should be open to insults, critique, etc.

The problem is that the vast majority of people do not think that way. More often than not people see their ideas as part of their self identity and by insulting their ideas you are insulting them as well. Most of the people I've known over the years that were able to decouple their ideas from their personal identity usually had advanced degrees and had to learn how to do that as part of their formal education.

Personally, I'd rather someone make a comment online then come to my house.  Especially when one tried to perform an exorcism on my dog and refused to leave until I called the cops.  Though she did leave a nice incense burner that I still have.  ;)
Or, having someone interfere with my classes by being on a bull horn outside (and being a state school, no removal). 
Or, frankly I have a ton of ORs.  Yes, the guy was a smart ass but we see a lot of those here.  He does not affect my life like much of the dominant religion does.  He does not stop anyone from living their life or spending money or getting married, which has been forced on "non-believers".  I think a lot of you don't notice the issues so when someone makes a big deal, then it bothers you.  Comparatively a comment on a message board is nothing. 

[Gin1984]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

Except they are and when you are fighting for your rights, you kind of have to be somewhat aggressive.

Absolutely, but there's a way to do it that's both civil and firm.  I was recently watching a documentary on Howard Zinn.    He was sitting on the black audience side of the court room during the Jim Crowe era while several black protestors were sitting on the white side.    The judge ordered everyone to move and he simply said that the supreme court had determined that segregation was illegal in the legal system.    No hyperbole or inflammatory language and the situation was defused.

I'd like to see more prominent atheist or first amendment groups challenge religious tests or an overstep of religion into governmental areas.    That doesn't mean that we as non-believers should belittle other people's beliefs though.    Believe me, I've been aggressive towards religion in my life.   But now I'm starting to think that much of that aggression was misplaced.   A lot of it had to do with my family and childhood trauma, taking care of that has made me more tolerant.    I have a feeling that aggressive religious people probably have some of the same issues that they aren't dealing with.

You don't think that people considered that aggressive for it's time?  Or consider Malcolm X aggressive?  Or called MLK Jr uppity for expecting equality?  I think we can criticizes how people are fighting for their rights when we are in some situation.  Until then, does it not seem a little, I don't have a good word, it just feels wrong.

Are you comparing the oppression faced by blacks in this country with what atheists are facing?  Admittedly, I'm from a group(white, male and christian) that has had privilege in this country since it's inception but I don't know that having to take an oath on a bible is in the same ballpark as slavery.

I had a friend kicked out of her house because of her religion (and her parent's religion), I have known people who were attacked and beaten based their religion.  There are certain areas I can't safely go, any more than my husband (who not white can) though those regions are not always the same. 
No it is not the same as slavery, but MLK and Malcolm X were not fighting slavery, were they?

[GuitarStv]

Jesus sounds much more like a Buddhist than the blond hunk adorning church walls.

Serious question . . . why is Jesus always portrayed as non-jewish?  He was a practicing jew from a jewish family and most of his adventures involved other jews.  Shouldn't all the pics of him show black curly hair at the least?

It's always weirded me out.

[sheepstache]

Jesus sounds much more like a Buddhist than the blond hunk adorning church walls.

Serious question . . . why is Jesus always portrayed as non-jewish?  He was a practicing jew from a jewish family and most of his adventures involved other jews.  Shouldn't all the pics of him show black curly hair at the least?

It's always weirded me out.

I know your point is that he doesn't appear to be from the region and people he was born into, but it's hard not to make a joke here about "not looking Jewish." Like, yeah, obviously there are no blond-haired, blue-eyed jews and of course Jesus can't be jewish because his nose isn't nearly big enough!

[Spork]

Jesus sounds much more like a Buddhist than the blond hunk adorning church walls.

Serious question . . . why is Jesus always portrayed as non-jewish?  He was a practicing jew from a jewish family and most of his adventures involved other jews.  Shouldn't all the pics of him show black curly hair at the least?

It's always weirded me out.

I'm not a licensed psychologist.  ;)  But I think the answer in general is "people associate positively with their own kind." 

Does it make sense?  Nope. 

[greaper007]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

Except they are and when you are fighting for your rights, you kind of have to be somewhat aggressive.

Absolutely, but there's a way to do it that's both civil and firm.  I was recently watching a documentary on Howard Zinn.    He was sitting on the black audience side of the court room during the Jim Crowe era while several black protestors were sitting on the white side.    The judge ordered everyone to move and he simply said that the supreme court had determined that segregation was illegal in the legal system.    No hyperbole or inflammatory language and the situation was defused.

I'd like to see more prominent atheist or first amendment groups challenge religious tests or an overstep of religion into governmental areas.    That doesn't mean that we as non-believers should belittle other people's beliefs though.    Believe me, I've been aggressive towards religion in my life.   But now I'm starting to think that much of that aggression was misplaced.   A lot of it had to do with my family and childhood trauma, taking care of that has made me more tolerant.    I have a feeling that aggressive religious people probably have some of the same issues that they aren't dealing with.

You don't think that people considered that aggressive for it's time?  Or consider Malcolm X aggressive?  Or called MLK Jr uppity for expecting equality?  I think we can criticizes how people are fighting for their rights when we are in some situation.  Until then, does it not seem a little, I don't have a good word, it just feels wrong.

Are you comparing the oppression faced by blacks in this country with what atheists are facing?  Admittedly, I'm from a group(white, male and christian) that has had privilege in this country since it's inception but I don't know that having to take an oath on a bible is in the same ballpark as slavery.

Not really, I was comparing the use of the legal system and civil disobedience in the two struggles.   Not the struggles themselves.   

Now that you bring it up though.   There's obviously a line of decency, something like slavery or genocide sit very far from that point.    Religious tests for office (which violate the first amendment of the constitution) also sit on the other side of that line.  Obviously they're not as far, but they are in the same spirit.    Both religious or racial purity tests are used as a means to separate groups, historically, they've also been the first step towards things like genocide or slavery.    It's only by ensuring that we all have equal access under the law regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or religious identification that we stay free.

[greaper007]

Jesus sounds much more like a Buddhist than the blond hunk adorning church walls.

Serious question . . . why is Jesus always portrayed as non-jewish?  He was a practicing jew from a jewish family and most of his adventures involved other jews.  Shouldn't all the pics of him show black curly hair at the least?

It's always weirded me out.

Let me do some more research, but the short answer is that a renaissance painter used a sexy family member as a model in that iconic portrait.   For whatever reason it stuck.

[tmac]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

Except they are and when you are fighting for your rights, you kind of have to be somewhat aggressive.

Absolutely, but there's a way to do it that's both civil and firm.  I was recently watching a documentary on Howard Zinn.    He was sitting on the black audience side of the court room during the Jim Crowe era while several black protestors were sitting on the white side.    The judge ordered everyone to move and he simply said that the supreme court had determined that segregation was illegal in the legal system.    No hyperbole or inflammatory language and the situation was defused.

I'd like to see more prominent atheist or first amendment groups challenge religious tests or an overstep of religion into governmental areas.    That doesn't mean that we as non-believers should belittle other people's beliefs though.    Believe me, I've been aggressive towards religion in my life.   But now I'm starting to think that much of that aggression was misplaced.   A lot of it had to do with my family and childhood trauma, taking care of that has made me more tolerant.    I have a feeling that aggressive religious people probably have some of the same issues that they aren't dealing with.

You don't think that people considered that aggressive for it's time?  Or consider Malcolm X aggressive?  Or called MLK Jr uppity for expecting equality?  I think we can criticizes how people are fighting for their rights when we are in some situation.  Until then, does it not seem a little, I don't have a good word, it just feels wrong.

Are you comparing the oppression faced by blacks in this country with what atheists are facing?  Admittedly, I'm from a group(white, male and christian) that has had privilege in this country since it's inception but I don't know that having to take an oath on a bible is in the same ballpark as slavery.

I think it's absolutely comparable. Not to slavery, no, but to racism, hell yes. Case in point: we have a black man as president, women are getting closer every election cycle. But admit you're an atheist? Absolute nonstarter. A major difference, of course, is that you can't tell I'm in this reviled group unless I tell you. I can lie my way out of it.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Presidential-Candidates.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

[Spork]

Now that you bring it up though.   There's obviously a line of decency, something like slavery or genocide sit very far from that point.    Religious tests for office (which violate the first amendment of the constitution) also sit on the other side of that line.  Obviously they're not as far, but they are in the same spirit.    Both religious or racial purity tests are used as a means to separate groups, historically, they've also been the first step towards things like genocide or slavery.    It's only by ensuring that we all have equal access under the law regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or religious identification that we stay free.

For what it's worth: some states still have them.  Mine does.

Sec. 4.  RELIGIOUS TESTS.  No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

(from Art 1, Sec 4 of Texas Constitution)

In other words: "There are no religious tests allowed.  And here's a religious test."

[GuitarStv]

Not really, I was comparing the use of the legal system and civil disobedience in the two struggles.   Not the struggles themselves.   

Now that you bring it up though.   There's obviously a line of decency, something like slavery or genocide sit very far from that point.    Religious tests for office (which violate the first amendment of the constitution) also sit on the other side of that line.  Obviously they're not as far, but they are in the same spirit.    Both religious or racial purity tests are used as a means to separate groups, historically, they've also been the first step towards things like genocide or slavery.    It's only by ensuring that we all have equal access under the law regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or religious identification that we stay free.

Sometimes the lack of decency is enforced democratically by will of the people.  How many presidents have gone into office without openly declaring their Christianity in the US?  How equal has access to politics really been for atheists?

[Timmmy]

I'm coming into the debate late.   The key is for all of us to live openly and with tolerance.    Atheists shouldn't be forced recite oaths from governmental organizations that are given on bibles or includes words like god.    They also shouldn't tell religious people that their ideas are stupid or retarded.   

Religious people should be free to practice their belief system without condemnation from others.   However, making a cake or renting an apartment to a gay person doesn't constitute religious oppression.    If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't open a friggin bakery that serves the public.

Neither groups should display aggressive iconography at work, school or the public sector that deposes entire groups of people.    So lets all stop with darwin stickers and jesus fish, you have a point of view, we get it.

Lets all just do our thing and be nice to each other.

Except they are and when you are fighting for your rights, you kind of have to be somewhat aggressive.

Absolutely, but there's a way to do it that's both civil and firm.  I was recently watching a documentary on Howard Zinn.    He was sitting on the black audience side of the court room during the Jim Crowe era while several black protestors were sitting on the white side.    The judge ordered everyone to move and he simply said that the supreme court had determined that segregation was illegal in the legal system.    No hyperbole or inflammatory language and the situation was defused.

I'd like to see more prominent atheist or first amendment groups challenge religious tests or an overstep of religion into governmental areas.    That doesn't mean that we as non-believers should belittle other people's beliefs though.    Believe me, I've been aggressive towards religion in my life.   But now I'm starting to think that much of that aggression was misplaced.   A lot of it had to do with my family and childhood trauma, taking care of that has made me more tolerant.    I have a feeling that aggressive religious people probably have some of the same issues that they aren't dealing with.

You don't think that people considered that aggressive for it's time?  Or consider Malcolm X aggressive?  Or called MLK Jr uppity for expecting equality?  I think we can criticizes how people are fighting for their rights when we are in some situation.  Until then, does it not seem a little, I don't have a good word, it just feels wrong.

Are you comparing the oppression faced by blacks in this country with what atheists are facing?  Admittedly, I'm from a group(white, male and christian) that has had privilege in this country since it's inception but I don't know that having to take an oath on a bible is in the same ballpark as slavery.

I had a friend kicked out of her house because of her religion (and her parent's religion), I have known people who were attacked and beaten based their religion.  There are certain areas I can't safely go, any more than my husband (who not white can) though those regions are not always the same. 
No it is not the same as slavery, but MLK and Malcolm X were not fighting slavery, were they?

I thought we were talking about the suffering of atheists?  And the reason they are justified in their aggression?

I'll rephrase...  Are there drinking fountains labeled "religious people only"?  Are there places were atheists are barred by law from going?    Do atheists have to sit on the back of the bus? 

I'm not trying to mock here.  I don't pretend to know the problems being atheist brings (because I'm not) but I'm trying to find the injustices and I'm struggling to find things that really impact their life. 

I don't understand how swearing an oath on a Bible is offensive.  After all, it's just a book.  As a christian, if I had to swear an oath on the Quran or Tanakh it wouldn't bother me.  I'm not offended when someone puts up Hanukkah decorations.  As a US citizen I'm not offended when they sing the Canadian national anthem at NHL games. 

[greaper007]

Not really, I was comparing the use of the legal system and civil disobedience in the two struggles.   Not the struggles themselves.   

Now that you bring it up though.   There's obviously a line of decency, something like slavery or genocide sit very far from that point.    Religious tests for office (which violate the first amendment of the constitution) also sit on the other side of that line.  Obviously they're not as far, but they are in the same spirit.    Both religious or racial purity tests are used as a means to separate groups, historically, they've also been the first step towards things like genocide or slavery.    It's only by ensuring that we all have equal access under the law regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or religious identification that we stay free.

Sometimes the lack of decency is enforced democratically by will of the people.  How many presidents have gone into office without openly declaring their Christianity in the US?  How equal has access to politics really been for atheists?

I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm also a non-believer.    However, I just don't think we have to be jerks when giving our viewpoint.   The best leaders of the civil rights era weren't jerks, they were resolute and polite.

[pzxc]

As a christian, if I had to swear an oath on the Quran or Tanakh it wouldn't bother me.

I suspect the vast majority of Christians *would* be bothered by it, in a major way.

However, the courts allows us to affirm that we will tell the truth, rather than swearing on a work of historical fiction or an imaginary friend.

[sheepstache]

In my whole life I havent seen an "aggressive atheist" where "aggression" started from the atheist.

I guess it depends on your definition, but take this thread about tithing as a mustachian and the 3rd post is someone making fun of people for believing in an imaginary sky friend.  That's aggressive atheism to me.  There's no reason for an atheist to post in that thread at all.  I didn't even open it until it was linked somewhere else.

I saw that when it was posted.  Like you said, there was no reason for me to post in that thread.  (Although I almost did, but it was a more "do what it makes you happy as long as you can afford it" type post... but then I kinda had that "why should I post here thing" you mention.)

Personally: I didn't find that as aggressive.  I saw it as friendly tongue in cheek.  But to me, it's a guy preaching to the choir. I know some folks that are deeply religious won't see it that way.  They'll see it exactly as you describe.

It's a little bit of a difficult road -- especially on the internet when you don't know the person, don't see the nod and the wink.  On one hand I think we all need to get over ourselves and not get our feelers all hurt.  On the other, you have to realize there WILL be an emotional reaction -- and maybe an over reaction.

I thought it was dickish atheism because it was dickish behavior period. It's annoying when someone posts a topic that obviously requires certain assumptions and someone tries to blast it off-topic immediately. It's like if every time someone posted a question about their kids someone tried to derail it by being like, kids are a waste of money and overpopulation is evil!! Like, okay, there's a place for those discussions but maybe not there.