Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It is worth noting that many Buddhists are also atheists. Executing a bunch of Buddhists isn't exactly part of the "atheists agenda..."

I really feel like you are confusing communism with atheism. Those were all actions made by pseudo-communist countries where people weren't supposed to recognize any higher authority than the state and religion was considered a subversive tool. That was the reason that they were being executed, not because they believed in anything.

A historian or a political scientist might suggest that Communist states supplant traditional religion with the "religion" of the party. The simplest example is that of Lenin/Stalin and the religious tones their cultural depictions took in the 1920's and 1930's. So while Communism is in a sense an atheist system, it also works in a manner akin to a religion of the politic. As a result the party is willing to 'remove' anyone who believes in any power other than itself (This was certainly the goal of Hitler and Stalin in their times, and Mussolini wanted to do it too) which is parallel to cases of religion on religion violence.

I just see a prententious image and a group of pretentious people trying to think that they are "controversial". Nothing of great value was lost. Also, people think quoting Controversial Bible Quotes on this sugject makes them a intelligent, that is not the case.

LoH, that's very like what is shaping up in these new atheist movements. It's not that atheism is a religion. It's that there's a group of people with definite political goals and a whole set of values banding together to accomplish things, usually amounting to attacking religion. But they don't get together and stick together simply because they don't believe in God or gods. You and I might both agree that the world is not flat but we don't start a club over it.

PhantomViper wrote:
Numbers and sources for Europe and US please?

American Religious Identification Survey: 7% increase over 10 years in no organized religion, of which 33% reported to be theist (believing in a deity but not an organized religion) 33% agnostic (neither believing nor disbelieving) and 10% atheist. The same study declared Wicca the fastest growing spiritual identification in the US, with a 143% average annual growth in the same 10 year period, though having lower absolute numbers than the big three. Deism was also a big winner, with a growth of 700% in the same period (it should be noted, however, that theism, which was lumped in with atheism, and deism are fairly similar.)

Fastest growing Christian group appears to be Pentecostalism, (I'll admit to being unfamiliar with them).

Islam and Buddhism continue to make strides among the incarcerated.

While Western Europe has seen a decrease in faith (some suggesting this being due to a combination of church scandal, and the fact that faith is actually taxed in some European countries) the Pew Report suggests Eastern Europe has seen a boom in religion, as formerly suppressed faiths are allowed to practice freely again (Eastern Orthodox reports 70% of Russia currently follows their faith). Islam appears to be the big winner here overall though, with Eastern Orthodox hot on it's heels. Unfortunately, the Pew Report observes that this is largely supposition, as there are not yet any concrete numbers due to the current state of Eastern Europe.

Really I think its just that people draw a line between Religion and other forms of ideology when practically the behavioral results don't differ that much. An atheist society/group/individual inherently has the same basic needs as a religious one. Behavior can only shift so much.

LordofHats wrote:Really I think its just that people draw a line between Religion and other forms of ideology when practically the behavioral results don't differ that much. An atheist society/group/individual inherently has the same basic needs as a religious one. Behavior can only shift so much.

Agreed. One interesting thing about humans is they all seem driven to put their faith in something.

That's a good point, LoH. I think that is exactly why a fair few see these sorts of atheist groups as not too dissimilar from their religious counterparts. The "atheism is a religion" business is a poor sideshow.

BaronIveagh wrote:
American Religious Identification Survey: 7% increase over 10 years in no organized religion, of which 33% reported to be theist (believing in a deity but not an organized religion) 33% agnostic (neither believing nor disbelieving) and 10% atheist. The same study declared Wicca the fastest growing spiritual identification in the US, with a 143% average annual growth in the same 10 year period, though having lower absolute numbers than the big three. Deism was also a big winner, with a growth of 700% in the same period (it should be noted, however, that theism, which was lumped in with atheism, and deism are fairly similar.)

Fastest growing Christian group appears to be Pentecostalism, (I'll admit to being unfamiliar with them).

The U. S. population continues to show
signs of becoming less religious, with
one out of every five Americans failing to
indicate a religious identity in 2008.

The “Nones” (no stated religious
preference, atheist, or agnostic)
continue to grow, though at a much
slower pace than in the 1990s, from
8.2% in 1990, to 14.1% in 2001, to
15.0% in 2008.

So, the report that you are using for data states that atheists in the US are growing but you say otherwise?

BaronIveagh wrote:
While Western Europe has seen a decrease in faith (some suggesting this being due to a combination of church scandal, and the fact that faith is actually taxed in some European countries) the Pew Report suggests Eastern Europe has seen a boom in religion, as formerly suppressed faiths are allowed to practice freely again (Eastern Orthodox reports 70% of Russia currently follows their faith). Islam appears to be the big winner here overall though, with Eastern Orthodox hot on it's heels. Unfortunately, the Pew Report observes that this is largely supposition, as there are not yet any concrete numbers due to the current state of Eastern Europe.

You can't "suggest" anything about former Soviet Bloc countries because religion was forbidden under the communist regime, so there aren't any numbers available to either confirm or deny these "suggestions". On the Western Europe countries the average of atheists is about 18% which is only slightly bigger than the US, though in particularly backwards and ignorant countries like my own, the average drops to below 10%, while in modern countries like Sweden and Norway it rises to above 20%.

Religion was not "forbidden" in the USSR. It was simply persecuted.

Manchu wrote:Religion was not "forbidden" in the USSR. It was simply persecuted.

Now you are just arguing semantics, but keep going you seem to be really good at it.

Manchu wrote:Religion was not "forbidden" in the USSR. It was simply persecuted.

Exactly. You could be religious...in the gulag.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Check the first paragraph...."In the aftermath if the struggle for racial justice, who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing the homosexual activist agenda?"

Fair enough, but the point wasn't that the word bigot isn't used correctly regarding opposition to gay marriage, the point was that gay rights aren't the same as black rights. At least that's my reading of it.

If the real point was that "bigot" cannot be used correctly to describe people opposed to homosexual marriage because homosexuality isn't an intrinsic characteristic of a person in the same way that being black is, then it was both bigoted (now on two levels) and poorly conceived.
.

Wrong....

Being black and of African descent is an obvious characteristic, and there is a legacy of slavery(400 years) to contend with. The scientific idea that people are born with a gay gene is a relatively new thing and people in good conscience can choose to not believe in shaky science. That does not make them a bigot.

dogma wrote:

There are gay people who are opposed to gay marriage, so he/she may have been sympathetic to Blake's position.

Blake may have wanted to characterize his position as being not bigoted by bringing in said minister. Basically the "I have tons of black friends!" argument.

Then, of course, it could have been a case of wanting his flock to see the heathen speech of a homosexual.

I could go on.

And you would continue to go on being wrong. Peter Gomes married homosexuals before it was legalized..

http://www.atoast2wealth.com/2011/03/02/gay-minister-of-harvard-supported-by-cogic-bishop-charles-blake-died/

dogma wrote:
Whether or not you view yourself as a good person is irrelevant to whether or not you are. I can be very happy and secure in my belief that black people aren't human, and that homosexual should be burned at the stake, but that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me, or that my views shouldn't be demonized.

It is a problem when words like "bigot" get throw around freely, but its just as much of a problem when people assume they aren't a bigot, or in possession of bigoted beliefs, simply because that is their belief.

Missed the point again....the word bigot is such a "firebrand" and so full of stigmatic baggage for Americans that no one wants to be labeled a bigot..so it's an emotional tactic to throw that at people to get them realing back on their heals... Whoooaa whooaaa am I really a bigot?

It's what I would call a "low blow". In the context of homosexual marriage, and religious beliefs thereof, It's not fair to the people that get bombarded with it and it cheapens the usage. This is why African Americans like Blake are offended by it's usage in this context.

GG

PhantomViper wrote:

Manchu wrote:Religion was not "forbidden" in the USSR. It was simply persecuted.

Now you are just arguing semantics, but keep going you seem to be really good at it.

It's really not a matter of semantics. People in the USSR openly went to church all through that nation's existence. You might have been monitored, harassed, or even arrested but the charges were never "going to church, which is forbidden." There have been places where that was the case and there is a difference.

generalgrog wrote:The scientific idea that people are born with a gay gene is a relatively new thing and people in good conscience can choose to not believe in shaky science.

... it's not shaky. You refuse to understand the science, but it's actually quite good. In fact the very term "gay gene" itself shows your ignorance, because something so complicated as sexual attraction is not decided by a single gene. Indeed, science actually proposes sexuality exists on a scale rather than a yes/no/other, a sort of scale hetween heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality, and everyone falls somewhere on the scale (tendinbg closer towards bisexuality than many people would readily admit).

Melissia wrote:

generalgrog wrote:The scientific idea that people are born with a gay gene is a relatively new thing and people in good conscience can choose to not believe in shaky science.

... it's not shaky. You refuse to understand the science, but it's actually quite good. In fact the very term "gay gene" itself shows your ignorance, because something so complicated as sexual attraction is not decided by a single gene.

Be careful what you wish for. In the future parents could just eliminate fetuses (fetai?) that have that genetic sequence/predisposition.

They already are, favoring male children over females.

It's considered a humanitarian crisis in fact, even backwards authoritarian governments resistant to change like China's government are having to do something about it. Even in the US, it is something like 1.012 males to females at birth (don't have easy access to the data from my class here)

I am pretty convinced by the notion of that scale. To me, the implication is that there isn't really a set position called gay. I guess I find it plausible that someone who is overwhelmingly sexually attracted to one sex rather than the other can still be sexually attracted to the other sex in certain cases/situations. "Gay" and "straight" are useful terms for bigots, activists, and politicians. Not so useful, I think, for people trying to make sense of their sexuality.

Melissia wrote:They already are, favoring male children over females.

It's considered a humanitarian crisis in fact, even backwards authoritarian governments resistant to change like China's government are having to do something about it. Even in the US, it is something like 1.12 males to females at birth.

Thats gender, not preference. What happens when they determine preference and then eliminate the little bags of cells if preferred criteria are not met?

That's right.

Even a "purely heterosexual" man can still say "that man is handsomer than I", judging their appearance based off of what he likes.

Manchu wrote: I guess I find it plausible that someone who is overwhelmingly sexually attracted to one sex rather than the other can still be sexually attracted to the other sex in certain cases/situations.

True dat. I mean, look at Joseph Gordon-Levitt. How can you not be?

Melissia wrote:Even a "purely heterosexual" man can still say "that man is handsomer than I", judging their appearance based off of what he likes.

It's even more than that. I don't just mean registering whether another man is attractive in a hypothetical sense but actually finding that man attractive. It's one thing to say "I understand why chicks think Mel Gibson was hot" and another thing to say "oops, David Bowie just gave me a bit of a chubby." (Those statements taken from the 70s, of course.) I think one of the most terrible side affects of homophobia is that it has all but obliterated a coherent concept of male friendship in our society.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:Even a "purely heterosexual" man can still say "that man is handsomer than I", judging their appearance based off of what he likes.

It's even more than that. I don't just mean registering whether another man is attractive in a hypothetical sense but actually finding that man attractive. It's one thing to say "I understand why chicks think Mel Gibson was hot" and another thing to say "oops, David Bowie just gave me a bit of a chubby." (Those statements taken from the 70s, of course.) I think one of the most terrible side affects of homophobia is that his all but obliterated a coherent concept of male friendship in our society.

its justy a bromance yo.

Reminds me of the "I would be gay for [name here]" statements heh.

Fafnir wrote:True dat. I mean, look at Joseph Gordon-Levitt. How can you not be?

That's a great example. When I was a teenager watching 3rd Rock From The Sun, I knew that he was much hotter than Kisten Johnston. Not that I would have dared to tell anybody! One awesome incidental benefit for greater tolerance of homosexual relationships is that nominally "straight" men can be a less defensive all the time.

And who said David Bowie's sexiness was exclusive to the 70's?

And Cillian Murphy... dem eyes.

Straight man coming out party GO!

Heh, I knew people who said the same thing about Hawkeye's character in mash.

I'm getting two of my ribs removed....Guess why.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Check the first paragraph...."In the aftermath if the struggle for racial justice, who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing the homosexual activist agenda?"

Fair enough, but the point wasn't that the word bigot isn't used correctly regarding opposition to gay marriage, the point was that gay rights aren't the same as black rights. At least that's my reading of it.

If the real point was that "bigot" cannot be used correctly to describe people opposed to homosexual marriage because homosexuality isn't an intrinsic characteristic of a person in the same way that being black is, then it was both bigoted (now on two levels) and poorly conceived.
.

Wrong....

Being black and of African descent is an obvious characteristic, and there is a legacy of slavery(400 years) to contend with. The scientific idea that people are born with a gay gene is a relatively new thing and people in good conscience can choose to not believe in shaky science. That does not make them a bigot.

You reject perfectly good science like evolution, so aren't really proven to be qualified to comment on what is or isn't 'shaky science'. The fact is that you have a stance on homosexuality based on your upbringing and personal interpretation of scripture and make various excuses to fit science into that in a way that suits you. Don't pretend that you actually approach this issue with an open mind.

Basically you can 'obviously' see a person is black by looking at them, but you can't see if they are gay. That somehow means that you have difficultly accepting the fact that it is an intrinsic characteristic. This is just ridiculous. Are you able to choose who you find attractive out of interest? If you like blonds more than brunettes, can you choose one day to find girls with brown hair more sexually attractive? Can you choose who you fall in love with?