Are Atheists the new outcasts?

[The Iceman]

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.

I agree that the course of the thread does in a way back up my point.

I am not limiting this to Catholics however. Even though the majority of the comments from the Maguire's and Myles of the world are directed towards this denomination when hundreds of other religions take the same stance on many issues discussed.

[Evil Genius]

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.

How on earth can anyone who lives in the USA, of all places, claim that Atheists have "pushed into a position of dominance", so that it is no longer "acceptable to be a believer"?

From the evidence I supplied earlier (see Links in post #57), 85% of the US population professes belief in one Faith or another. So unless they are in  some way stepping aside for Atheists in public life , that alone would suggest that it is entirely acceptable to hold religious beliefs in the USA.

Indeed, I would actually go further and contend that in order to achieve high political office, at least, it is essential that candidates profess to belonging to one religious faith or another.

Otherwise, how would you account for the clear statistical anomaly of 100% of elected US political representatives claiming to be believers?

There can only be two possible explanations. The first is that candidates feel they will not be elected should they admit to being Atheists (or because Atheists do not seek high elected office, which itself can only be explained by their knowing that they would be wasting their time trying).

Alternatively, the ranks of elected representatives must include some Atheists (or Agnostics, at least), who nonetheless feel obliged to conceal this - again because to reveal it would make them unelectable.

Therefore having now seen a Black Christian with a Muslim heritage elected to the White House, I confidently predict that a Jew or a Gay or a Woman or a Complete F**king Moron (aka Sarah Palin) will succeed Obama before any openly secular Atheist ever makes it.

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.

I fear you misunderstand the term then, since no sane person would choose to be an "outcast". In fact, nobody could even choose such a status, since being outcast is something which is forced upon someone:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Out-cast

I think it fairer to say that you may be (verging on being?) an "opt-out", which further refutes your case, since if Atheism were to be so influential and intolerant as you claim, such "apostacy" on religious grounds would surely be outlawed.

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

Spoken like a true martyr - I hadn't realised it was quite so difficult being a Christian in the USA...

[Evil Genius]

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.

Sorry but how is it that that "backs up" Iceman's point? It is a complete non-sequitur.

To take a slightly less contentious example, if eg an Aborigine were to claim that he is treated like an outcast in Australia, it would not detract from his argument if a White Australian were to claim on the basis of Equality Legislation for instance, that it is actually he (White Australian) who is being discriminated against on acount of his Race/Colour.

It would simply make the White Australian wrong.

Like Iceman.

[trueblue1234]

As mentioned my points are in reference to the OP. The opening post was in regards to an atheist getting his views attacked by a couple of fellow employees. He then moved on from this to take this to mean that atheists are now viewed as outcasts.
My point is that similar has happened iceman on this thread so he too could claim to be an outcast in the context of the OP. Indeed I have to say on this board more so than anywere else people who support organised religion have come "under attack" for their beliefs.

So no I don't believe it would make iceman incorrect. Much the same as I don't believe it makes you correct.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Indeed, I would actually go further and contend that in order to achieve high political office, at least, it is essential that candidates profess to belonging to one religious faith or another.

Having a military record, especially having active duty record in a War also does wonders for your electability.

Basically a modern day Crusader and your quids in.

You would nearly think that a soldier in Cromwell's model army, a Coventer, a Crusader, a Conquistador or a soldier of the Inquisition would have the right stuff to sit in the Oval Office.

[The Iceman]

E.G the majority of your arguments and mine hinge on our own definitions of "believer".

Believer for me is not a casual or flippant term I throw out there...it defines who I am.

The statistics you throw out there for believers that exist in America certainly do not line up with my understanding of the term and this is where my points are lost.

Yes lets argue over the definitions of the words as listed in the dictionary rather than addressing what I suggested:

A true believer does not belong in this world. A true believer is set apart from this world and not of this world. For me that can mean outcast...... For you maybe it doesn't and that's okay too.  Yes some of it can be self imposed but the majority of it (for me) comes as a direct response to the world and the direction we are going as people.

Where I live has no bearing (for me) on how I understand the terms and how I feel. I have the same experiences and feelings whether I am at home in Ireland or at home in America.

[Puckoon]

Yes lets argue over the definitions of the words as listed in the dictionary rather than addressing what I suggested:

A true believer does not belong in this world. A true believer is set apart from this world and not of this world. For me that can mean outcast...... For you maybe it doesn't and that's okay too.  Yes some of it can be self imposed but the majority of it (for me) comes as a direct response to the world and the direction we are going as people.

Whoa there! What?

[ONeill]

Just don't know what to believe any more.

[The Iceman]

Yes lets argue over the definitions of the words as listed in the dictionary rather than addressing what I suggested:

A true believer does not belong in this world. A true believer is set apart from this world and not of this world. For me that can mean outcast...... For you maybe it doesn't and that's okay too.  Yes some of it can be self imposed but the majority of it (for me) comes as a direct response to the world and the direction we are going as people.

Whoa there! What?

I would assume your shock or concern is based again on your definition of "believer" Puck?
Believer, again, for me, is not just someone who believes there is a God somewhere......

My views on this are nothing out of the ordinary, in fact come directly from John's Gospel: 15:19
"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."

[Puckoon]

I'm not trying to sound like a smart alec - although thre is no other way to phrase this. Nor am I laughing at you, nor hating you - but then again I am not "the world", but...

Do you suggest there are two groups of people on this earth (world) - people who are of this world (non believers), and people who are not of this world (believers)? If so - what are the people "not of this world" doing here? Also - what is all this nonsense (as it must be nonsense) about God loving all equally, and everyone belonging to God - if we are two different groups of people?

I can't believe that even in the times of John, there was such blatant propaganda - 'That is why the world hates you'. Are you sure John wasn't a replublican fundamentalist?

[The Iceman]

Puck I don't think the concept of two types of people living here should be anything knew to you (knowing you went to Catholic School).
These words from John's Gospel are Jesus' not Johns' or mine by the way.

The concept of two different types of people has been scattered throughout Jesus' parables. Sheep and the goats, the wheat and the chaff......

Christian Morality used to be prevalent in culture but has recently collapsed.  There has been a fundamental change from the Word of God to the word of man. This could be described as Christianity vrs Humanism perhaps.

[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?

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.

Any of the threads I choose to post on? I'd imagine 99% of them have nothing to do with religion or faith. But of those that do, I suspect I am consistent in my position, just as you are. You seem to suggest that by taking one side of the debate, the other side is outcast - how does that work? How are you defining 'outcast'?

Also, can you tell me some of the jokes that I have made that believers have been the butt of?
And can you list the 'attacks' that believers have been the target of? Assuming of course by 'attack', you don't simply mean debate or difference of opinion.

[Maguire01]

E.G the majority of your arguments and mine hinge on our own definitions of "believer".

Believer for me is not a casual or flippant term I throw out there...it defines who I am.

The statistics you throw out there for believers that exist in America certainly do not line up with my understanding of the term and this is where my points are lost.

Yes lets argue over the definitions of the words as listed in the dictionary rather than addressing what I suggested:

A true believer does not belong in this world. A true believer is set apart from this world and not of this world. For me that can mean outcast...... For you maybe it doesn't and that's okay too.  Yes some of it can be self imposed but the majority of it (for me) comes as a direct response to the world and the direction we are going as people.

Where I live has no bearing (for me) on how I understand the terms and how I feel. I have the same experiences and feelings whether I am at home in Ireland or at home in America.

So am I right in thinking that you're essentially positioning yourself as a fundamentalist?

[The Iceman]

Maguire we have butted heads before on several topics and yes your stance is consistent but so also is your attitude and tone. I cannot go back and pull up specific instances, no, I have more to be doing with my time.
I am not positioning myself as a "fundamentalist" as I understand the term, I am positioning myself as I have from the outset of this discussion, as a believer, as I understand the term.

[Maguire01]

Maguire we have butted heads before on several topics and yes your stance is consistent but so also is your attitude and tone. I cannot go back and pull up specific instances, no, I have more to be doing with my time.

Well if you can't back it up, i'd suggest you don't accuse me of making jokes or attacking people because of their religious belief. I respect everyone's right to their beliefs, I just don't agree that it's above challenge any more than say political beliefs.

I am not positioning myself as a "fundamentalist" as I understand the term, I am positioning myself as I have from the outset of this discussion, as a believer, as I understand the term.

I was using the following wikipedia definition: Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to specific set of theological doctrines typically in reaction against what are perceived as modern heresies of secularism
It's a pretty standard definition and seems to sum up what you were saying.

But if you've got unique definitions for things, then there's not much point in having a debate.