Are Atheists the new outcasts?

[trueblue1234]

Why does it take a president or prime minister to give weight to my argument?

If you notice I included the word "practicing". Maybe I should have used the words "believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and tries to live this everyday" to be more precise.

The majority of actual Christians who might fall into this description are the outcasts.

Sorry - I don't get this at all. In what way are they outcasts? Where (in "the West", anyway) and by whom are they discriminated against or what are they cast out from? Any examples?

I would imagine he means outcast in the way the OP states. Many people voice their disregard at organised religions at any chance they get. It's the "done thing" these days.

[Maguire01]

Why does it take a president or prime minister to give weight to my argument?

If you notice I included the word "practicing". Maybe I should have used the words "believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and tries to live this everyday" to be more precise.

The majority of actual Christians who might fall into this description are the outcasts.

I don't get what you're saying. My point was that to wider society, it's still more acceptable to be a believer than not.

And I don't uinderstand how believers are outcasts. Assuming you're a believer, on what basis do you think you're an outcast?

[J70]

Very elegantly put J70

So you come up with these theories all on your own...

And I'm saying the point is that the arguments that Dawkins uses are so bloody obvious and correct that most people, if they stopped to think about it seriously, should come with them on their own. They are just simple logic and reason.
Just because someone might bring up Russell's teapot or the ludicrousness of arguing first causes while ignoring the obvious problem an omniscient, omnipotent god poses to such a defense

How many times do I need to say it? There is nothing groundbreaking in Dawkins book (or those of the other so-called new atheists). Which is not to say that they don't do a superb job of compiling and presenting the arguments. But we're not talking about quantum physics or advanced mathematics here.  Just simple logic and reason. The world didn't suddenly fill up with atheists just because Richard Dawkins published a book. And no, I do not mean that a random person would come up with the specific, identical details of the celestial teapot on their own!

And you are totally unfamiliar with Dawkins's work...

(I've no idea whether Dawkins went into that...  I'm assuming he did),

Yet, back in a this thread you defended his works...

And the stuff that Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and the rest of the so-called "new atheists" argue is so bleeding obvious that it stuns me that anyone with even a modicum of logic and intelligence and curiosity wouldn't independently come to the same conclusions about gods and religion.

And back in a similar thread in March you defended him again and seem very, very familiar indeed with his works:

...Dawkins...

On the contrary, I think the recent literature by the likes of himself, Hitchens and Sam Harris is very refreshing. About time there were some decent, popular defenses of atheism out there on the shelves.

And fair f**ks to Dawkins for calling it like he sees it. There are a large number of scientists who, despite their own atheism, do not want to rock the boat by speaking out about the implications they personally feel that science has for religion (and many actually wish the likes of Dawkins would just shut the f**k up so their lives would be a little easier!). Which is fine - much of science is publicly funded, so you don't want to piss people off. But given the way Dawkins own scientific discipline is misrepresented and abused by so many religious bodies, I have nothing but admiration for him for fighting his corner. If people are offended by what he says, then they should either make the case that he is wrong or they should shut up.

So its very obvious to me you are a huge Dawkins fan, and im quite the fan of his works himself.

What I cant figure out is why you are being intellectually arrogant in trying to convince us on this thread that you are unfamiliar with the God Delusion?

Er.. yeah... sorry to burst your bubble and apparent excitement after going to the trouble of searching back months to dig up a supposedly contradictory post of mine... nowhere did I claim I was unfamiliar with The God Delusion. What I said was that I did not have a clue whether or not Dawkins addressed a specific point i.e.  if he specifically discussed the "first cause" argument in that book. I read the book when it came out... which was about FIVE YEARS AGO. I've read a lot more books, on many other topics, since then. I don't remember every detail from those either. I am rather amused though that you would go back to a March post I made to try to catch me out!

Why you made a assault on any company I keep in saying that any of my "acquaintances are so intellectually challenged" if they cant come up with similar arguments on their own?

I didn't make any such "assault" on your company. I said "IF" your "acquaintances are so intellectually challenged" and I was referring  to your expressed dissatisfaction with the level of discussion you've been getting from your atheist acquaintances. How the f**k am I supposed to know what company you keep! You're the one complaining about the poor standard of debate your acquaintances apparently offer!

Why you are a closet fan Dawkins and pretend not to be?

I'm a big supporter of Dawkins and have said so here before, as you've kindly highlighted.

[The Iceman]

Why does it take a president or prime minister to give weight to my argument?

If you notice I included the word "practicing". Maybe I should have used the words "believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and tries to live this everyday" to be more precise.

The majority of actual Christians who might fall into this description are the outcasts.

I don't get what you're saying. My point was that to wider society, it's still more acceptable to be a believer than not.

And I don't uinderstand how believers are outcasts. Assuming you're a believer, on what basis do you think you're an outcast?

I think our definition of believer is two different things.

[Maguire01]

Why does it take a president or prime minister to give weight to my argument?

If you notice I included the word "practicing". Maybe I should have used the words "believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and tries to live this everyday" to be more precise.

The majority of actual Christians who might fall into this description are the outcasts.

I don't get what you're saying. My point was that to wider society, it's still more acceptable to be a believer than not.

And I don't uinderstand how believers are outcasts. Assuming you're a believer, on what basis do you think you're an outcast?

I think our definition of believer is two different things.

Regardless, in what way or you an outcast?

[saffron sam2]

From my, admittedly limited, experience the highest concentration of atheists appears to be among the OWC fanbase. Of all the owcers I've encountered here only one appeared to be a practising non-atheist. Strange when you consider the gusto with which they belt out the English national anthem about something they clearly don't believe in. I feel the true figures about owcers, which we'll find out in next year's census (coupled with what I have gleaned from EG et al.) will be something along the lines of.

92% - baptised member of a Protestant church who has become an atheist.
7% - Catholic.
0.99% - baptised member of a Protestant church who still practises that doctrine.
0.01% - self-styled intellectual giant trying to pass himself off as both a Catholic and a nationalist on the gaaboard, when in reality he is neither.

[Evil Genius]

From my, admittedly limited, experience the highest concentration of atheists appears to be among the OWC fanbase. Of all the owcers I've encountered here only one appeared to be a practising non-atheist. Strange when you consider the gusto with which they belt out the English national anthem about something they clearly don't believe in. I feel the true figures about owcers, which we'll find out in next year's census (coupled with what I have gleaned from EG et al.) will be something along the lines of.

92% - baptised member of a Protestant church who has become an atheist.
7% - Catholic.
0.99% - baptised member of a Protestant church who still practises that doctrine.
0.01% - self-styled intellectual giant trying to pass himself off as both a Catholic and a nationalist on the gaaboard, when in reality he is neither.

What do you mean by "the OWC fanbase" and "owcers"?

Do you mean only those people who are members of the ourweecountry website? Or do you also include fans of the NI football team who may not be members of the website (the majority of the fans of the NI football team, btw)?

Or, since there will be no box in the 2011 census for owc website members to tick so that they may identify themselves separately, must we conclude that you extend your definition to mean Unionists in NI generally? (Remember that the majority of NI Unionists have no great interest in the NI football team in particular, or football generally).

For until you define your basic terms somewhat more closely, it is impossible even to start to understand just what the fcuk it is you are trying to say... 

P.S. For all those other posters who are following/contributing to what is an interesting debate (imo), I am sorry for risking dragging this thread off-topic. All I would say in my defence is that it is in response to another poster who originated this particular tangent, indeed who "name-checked" me specifically.

[Nally Stand]

From my, admittedly limited, experience the highest concentration of atheists appears to be among the OWC fanbase. Of all the owcers I've encountered here only one appeared to be a practising non-atheist. Strange when you consider the gusto with which they belt out the English national anthem about something they clearly don't believe in. I feel the true figures about owcers, which we'll find out in next year's census (coupled with what I have gleaned from EG et al.) will be something along the lines of.

92% - baptised member of a Protestant church who has become an atheist.
7% - Catholic.
0.99% - baptised member of a Protestant church who still practises that doctrine.
0.01% - self-styled intellectual giant trying to pass himself off as both a Catholic and a nationalist on the gaaboard, when in reality he is neither.

What do you mean by "the OWC fanbase" and "owcers"?

Do you mean only those people who are members of the ourweecountry website? Or do you also include fans of the NI football team who may not be members of the website (the majority of the fans of the NI football team, btw)?

Or, since there will be no box in the 2011 census for owc website members to tick so that they may identify themselves separately, must we conclude that you extend your definition to mean Unionists in NI generally? (Remember that the majority of NI Unionists have no great interest in the NI football team in particular, or football generally).

For until you define your basic terms somewhat more closely, it is impossible even to start to understand just what the fcuk it is you are trying to say... 

P.S. For all those other posters who are following/contributing to what is an interesting debate (imo), I am sorry for risking dragging this thread off-topic. All I would say in my defence is that it is in response to another poster who originated this particular tangent, indeed who "name-checked" me specifically.

What census did you read that fact from? I thought you said there were no questions about that sort of thing on the census?

[Evil Genius]

From my, admittedly limited, experience the highest concentration of atheists appears to be among the OWC fanbase. Of all the owcers I've encountered here only one appeared to be a practising non-atheist. Strange when you consider the gusto with which they belt out the English national anthem about something they clearly don't believe in. I feel the true figures about owcers, which we'll find out in next year's census (coupled with what I have gleaned from EG et al.) will be something along the lines of.

92% - baptised member of a Protestant church who has become an atheist.
7% - Catholic.
0.99% - baptised member of a Protestant church who still practises that doctrine.
0.01% - self-styled intellectual giant trying to pass himself off as both a Catholic and a nationalist on the gaaboard, when in reality he is neither.

What do you mean by "the OWC fanbase" and "owcers"?

Do you mean only those people who are members of the ourweecountry website? Or do you also include fans of the NI football team who may not be members of the website (the majority of the fans of the NI football team, btw)?

Or, since there will be no box in the 2011 census for owc website members to tick so that they may identify themselves separately, must we conclude that you extend your definition to mean Unionists in NI generally? (Remember that the majority of NI Unionists have no great interest in the NI football team in particular, or football generally).

For until you define your basic terms somewhat more closely, it is impossible even to start to understand just what the fcuk it is you are trying to say... 

P.S. For all those other posters who are following/contributing to what is an interesting debate (imo), I am sorry for risking dragging this thread off-topic. All I would say in my defence is that it is in response to another poster who originated this particular tangent, indeed who "name-checked" me specifically.

What census did you read that fact from? I thought you said there were no questions about that sort of thing on the census?

I don't need any census to come to that conclusion.

Although I personally wish it were different, it is self-evident that the majority of people in NI, including the Unionist population, are not particularly interested in football, including the NI international football team.

Just the same way as the majority of people in NI are not particularly interested eg in rugby, boxing, horse-racing, cricket or (dare I say it) GAA.

P.S. When I make that observation, I am not seeking to make any political point (unlike Saffron Sam)

[The Iceman]

Why does it take a president or prime minister to give weight to my argument?

If you notice I included the word "practicing". Maybe I should have used the words "believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and tries to live this everyday" to be more precise.

The majority of actual Christians who might fall into this description are the outcasts.

I don't get what you're saying. My point was that to wider society, it's still more acceptable to be a believer than not.

And I don't uinderstand how believers are outcasts. Assuming you're a believer, on what basis do you think you're an outcast?

I think our definition of believer is two different things.

Regardless, in what way or you an outcast?

I don't think its 'regardless' at all.
Take any of the threads where you or Myles would choose to post - believers tend to be the outcasts, the butt of your jokes, the target for your attacks.
In a secular world how can believers be anything but outcasts?
I'm certainly not playing the pity card as this all comes with the territory and I would rather be for God and of God.

[Evil Genius]

Take any of the threads where you or Myles would choose to post - believers tend to be the outcasts, the butt of your jokes, the target for your attacks.
In a secular world how can believers be anything but outcasts?

Believers may be teased or criticised, or generally required to account for their beliefs etc, no doubt more so than in the past, but how can you say that makes them "outcasts"? 

When I hear the term "outcast", I think of eg the Roma in Central Europe, or Jews in the Middle East (outside Israel, obviously), or Palestinians or Kurds, or Native Americans in the USA, for example.

I see reservations, ghettos and refugee camps, or locked/demolished churches, temple and synagogues, with pogroms, cleansing [sic] and forced migration.

Or I see laws and Constitutions which specifically outlaw religious practices and traditions, as opposed to existing laws which increasingly protect freedom of conscience, including that of religious believers.

Everything is relative of course. But I suspect that the reason why religious believers like you presently feel "cast out" from regular society is because after hundreds of years when various religious beliefs were held to be sacrosanct (literally), with apostates, iconoclasts and non-believers routinely cast out or otherwise persecuted etc, you are feeling uncomfortable now that non-believers have finally achieved the freedom to demand genuine equality in every sphere of existence, from the Law of the Land to the "Life of Brian".

So as an Atheist, whilst I would never wish believers to suffer the treatment which non-believers or "heretics" have suffered down the millennia at the hands of various religious orthodoxies etc, I can't help feeling it will do you no harm if you are now required to take your place in society on the same terms as the rest of us.


P.S. I believe you post from the United States. Perhaps you are feeling more discriminated against than those of us in Europe? If so, I'd personally blame this bunch of Fundamentalist Atheist B a s tards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate
http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html

[trueblue1234]

As mentioned before I'm assuming Iceman means outcast in the terms of the OP. In which case he is correct.

[Evil Genius]

As mentioned before I'm assuming Iceman means outcast in the terms of the OP. In which case he is correct.

Whereas I assumed he meant "outcast" in these terms:
"I ['Iceman'] find personally the closer I get to God the further I get from society/the norm or whatever we want to call it."

In which case, if he feels that his own particular set of religious beliefs means that he can no longer feel comfortable in general society, even though that society in no way prohibits or prevents anyone from from holding those beliefs, including the President(!), then I can only say that that "exile" from society is entirely voluntary and self-determined.

[The Iceman]

I think it is a bit of both. I definitely don't feel outcast in the terms you referenced: ghettos etc....
I believe that Atheists have not only taken their equal place in society as you put it but in fact pushed into a position of dominance where it is not acceptable to be a "believer" as I understand the term.

Also in a way my becoming an outcast (as I understand the term)  is in some way self determined, as you mentioned E.G.  This however is in response to the above.

As I said before I will take it but I do think I bring a fair point.......

[trueblue1234]

Fair enough. But I notice that nobody decided to quiz the opening poster on how or why he felt like an outcast because he was an Atheist, yet there has been a couple on here to quiz it when Iceman mentions that he feels like an outcast for similar reasons for being a catholic.

To me this kinda backs up Iceman's point.