Are there any other Atheists that live in the Bible Belt and face discrimination?

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by monster

When it comes to killing, it doesn't have to be in wars. How many were killed by the atheistic German, Soviet, and Chinese regimes in the 1900s?

The thing your referring to was more related to social reform for poor countries, plus you have to take into account the population density of said country,doing a pure numbers game isn't very good comparison and Germany was a catholic Regime, supported by the Vatican, also you would have to take into account the total population on specifics eras to do a real accurate number.

Originally Posted by monster

Considering various religions have been around for a long time, it would not be surprising that it would have an impact in the world, both positively and negatively. And I think that's the key thing. Religion, like any other ideological framework, can be used to motivate both peaceful actions and violent actions. I think the important thing is to see whether those actions are reasonably in line with the framework.

What you say speak well for the past, but for the present would it truly be necessary now. Of course we'll have different opinions on this, but whats works in the past might not be good for the future.

Originally Posted by monster

As a Christian, I would say that the name callings that averygamerdude experienced would not be in line with what is taught in the Bible.

That depends where you live and what preacher your following, your only 1 of many different factions, if your in the U.S. LOL those guy are notorious.Most Christians DO NOT read thier bible, they just listen to the preacher and go with it, and that's only if you going NT or OT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8 for the lols

Originally Posted by monster

As such, it's probably easier to think that the world would be better without religion. Maybe so, or maybe we'll rally behind other things to commit violence against each other. And then, the next think you know, there'll be someone like Ultron (from Marvel Comics) who thinks the world would be better without humanity.

True but for now alot of them are rallying under religion for it, I blame their leaders and stupidity of people though rather then religion, but right now it easy to use it as an excuse an lead people astray.

Also atm we use the happiness index to measure happiness in a country, if you compare the index to the religious % in the country you can find interesting results.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by monster

Also, a religion is centered on some truth claims, which would contradict other truth claims made by other religions or atheism. So your river analogy is misleading because, at most, only one, or maybe even none, of the bridges would actually take you across. (I'm including agnosticism/atheism as one bridge as well.)

In other words, in the face of differing truth claims, none of them may be true, or only one of them may be true, but not more than one of them (let alone all of them) can be true at the same time.

The analogy works because what is "true" and what not is different from person to person. You pick the bridge that is closest to the "truth" that you want to believe. Even if you pick a bridge and it takes you across that doesn't mean that the other bridges will not do the same for someone else.

[monster]

Originally Posted by sasoras

Most Christians DO NOT read thier bible, they just listen to the preacher and go with it,

...

I blame their leaders and stupidity of people though rather then religion

I think I would come to a similar conclusion there, that the fault lies not with the religion if people would rather follow certain leaders rather than what the religion claims to be the source of its teachings. And that could lead to some of the things averygamerdude experienced.

Then again, certain religions do claim certain people to be the source of authority in its teachings. It just goes to show that each religion is different from one another in some very fundamental ways.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

The analogy works because what is "true" and what not is different from person to person. You pick the bridge that is closest to the "truth" that you want to believe. Even if you pick a bridge and it takes you across that doesn't mean that the other bridges will not do the same for someone else.

Nevertheless, one would be expected to behave according to what they believe to be the truth.

To continue with the analogy, would you not try to warn people that a certain bridge would collapse if they walk on it if that's what you think to be the truth or would you think it's ok as long as those people believe the bridge would hold?

[Kafriel]

It doesn't matter if you read the holy scriptures of your religion or not, as much as to have the capacity to realize that they are not to be taken as they are, but instead fo be used as guidelines to a peaceful (and better) life. To examplify, did you know that, strictly speaking, committing adultery required two married people, in which case having sex with women who were not married was not actually cheating? That may have been the case a few millenia ago, but you can't seriously expect anyone to conform to such a principle now.

To continue with the analogy, would you not try to warn people that a certain bridge would collapse if they walk on it if that's what you think to be the truth or would you think it's ok as long as those people believe the bridge would hold?

Having found myself in a similar situation last week, all it took was a leap of faith...in my own ability, but still, it was an educated guess. Also note, there is a difference between a friendly warning out of concern and a passionate prohibition out of egoism.

At the end of the day, every person can do whatever they want to, as long as they are prepared for the consequences. Those who think they will be exempt for whatever reason are the ones that truly stain society with their existence.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

It doesn't matter if you read the holy scriptures of your religion or not, as much as to have the capacity to realize that they are not to be taken as they are, but instead fo be used as guidelines to a peaceful (and better) life.

I think that's presuming something that's not necessarily the case.

To examplify, did you know that, strictly speaking, committing adultery required two married people, in which case having sex with women who were not married was not actually cheating? That may have been the case a few millenia ago, but you can't seriously expect anyone to conform to such a principle now.

What's your source on this?

Having found myself in a similar situation last week, all it took was a leap of faith...in my own ability, but still, it was an educated guess. Also note, there is a difference between a friendly warning out of concern and a passionate prohibition out of egoism.

At the end of the day, every person can do whatever they want to, as long as they are prepared for the consequences. Those who think they will be exempt for whatever reason are the ones that truly stain society with their existence.

I think passionate prohibition has more to do strictly with one's moral and ethical views of what is right and wrong. But as far as trying to convert someone to a particular view, there is indeed a difference between a sincere sharing of (and sometimes arguing for) one's view and either a forced conversion or an intentional scam.

Name-calling, for example, does not seem to be a thoughtful attempt at converting someone.

As for consequences, they will happen for every action regardless of whether anyone is prepared for them or not. It's just that, sometimes, the consequences may not be in the form that may be expected.

[Jazzrat]

I don't think anyone should compare kill counts for atheist vs non-atheist to determine which is the greater evil. There's way too many factor at work to simply single out religion and say it was the cause for so many historical death.

Heck, compare to the Great Leap Forward, Mongolian Invasion, Joseph Stalin and the two World Wars, the Crusade was a picnic to the charnel house that those events had wrought upon people.

To the OP, don't despair and look into moving out of your area when you're able to. It's a good thing our hobbies can be done from the privacy of our room and there's plenty of internet communities that we can lose ourselves in. Also, the world is a big place, there's tons of places where you can find a solace for yourself. The scorn and discrimination never really goes away completely but atleast in metropolitan and multi-cultural area, there's too many other things for people to worry about than to single out people for their hobbies.

[Kafriel]

What's your source on this?

It's in the Deuteronomy, 22, you can look up anything else as well here.

I think that's presuming something that's not necessarily the case.

You lost me there.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

You lost me there.

Essentially, you're grouping all religions together and presuming they all have only that one purpose, which is not necessarily the case.

Spoiler for Not really relevant to the thread:

It's in the Deuteronomy, 22, you can look up anything else as well here.

Oh, ok. Strictly speaking, the man's marital status is not stated while the woman is either engaged or married to another man. There is nothing there that says both have to be married, just that at least one of them has to be involved with someone else.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by averygamerdude

I'm an 18 year old agnostic-atheist young man that lives in the Bible Belt region of the United States

Wait, how can you be both Agnostic and Atheist?
Those are mutually exclusive.

[Kotohono]

Originally Posted by aohige

Wait, how can you be both Agnostic and Atheist?
Those are mutually exclusive.

Not really, see the wiki article on it.

[aohige]

I know the claim exists, I think it's logically defunct.
You cannot be both simultaneously convinced in a belief and say "well we can't really know either way" at the same time.

It's practically self conflicting.
At best it should be "agonist, who's is leaning towards atheism". Rationally speaking.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by sasoras

Also atm we use the happiness index to measure happiness in a country, if you compare the index to the religious % in the country you can find interesting results.

Strange you would say this since Bhutan, the country to popularize national happiness, is heavily religious.


Besides, correlation =/= causation

[Wolfe La Piroko]

Our statistics professor once gave us this anecdote:

"If you draw a graph of CO2 levels and Piracy in the Caribbean, you will see a very strong correlation between global warming and fall of piracy."

So yes, looking at such numbers is pointless. Look at Estonia which is 90% Atheist and extremely depressed. Similar with Finland.

[don_Durandal]

Originally Posted by aohige

I know the claim exists, I think it's logically defunct.
You cannot be both simultaneously convinced in a belief and say "well we can't really know either way" at the same time.

It's practically self conflicting.
At best it should be "agonist, who's is leaning towards atheism". Rationally speaking.

Belief and knowledge are two separate things.

Theism / atheism : belief (and lack thereof) in the existence of divine beings
Gnosticism / agnosticism : knowledge (and lack thereof) of the existence of the divine

The majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. They don't believe in god, but recognise that they can't know for sure. That also covers most people who self-identify as "agnostic".

[Draco Spirit]

You tend to find the exact nature of peoples beliefs can be all sorts of complicated, with most labels just being sticks in the roughly right part of the sands of opinion.

[Archon_Wing]

Atheism can be compatible with Agnosticism simply because the former is defined by a lack of belief, not a denial. Skepticism is the theme here.

The only reason why Atheism is even a thing is because Theism exists and is a dominant world view held by many, atheism is just a relative stance marked by the lack of belief in it.

If you were defined by the list of things you didn't believe in, then that list would be infinitely long. You could be an ahjkrtdhmftkjktfjtrist due to your lack of belief in hjkrtdhmftkjktfjtr. But I have no interest to deny whether hjkrtdhmftkjktfjtr exists or not, nor should that be a defining feature of any belief system I hold regardless of how you claim hjkrtdhmftkjktfjtr is important to the world.

On the other hand, if I say, hold Christian beliefs, then there are certainly concrete grounds to define my beliefs in; namely, the Bible. I can definitely say that people that hold Christian beliefs have various things in common more than people that don't believe in hjkrtdhmftkjktfjtr.