Why Are Americans Still Uncomfortable with Atheism? | Hacker News Reader

Why Are Americans Still Uncomfortable with Atheism?

newyorker.com

50 pointsjs280 comments

I once had a long conversation with a religious relative, and I think it boils down to her not believing that someone can be "moral" without believing that god is watching.

Somewhat relevant:

Why Did God Create Atheists?

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson. One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.” “This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’” —Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 (1991)

https://randysrandom.com/god-create-atheists/

i'd like to upvote you about twenty more times, because you correctly nailed down: 1) The disconnect between American Christians and Atheists 2) How (many) atheists approach moral relativism 3) How (in my atheist mind) Christians should approach the world, akin to the way Jesus did.

Reading the article, I started thinking of how to put my thoughts as clear as possible.

But your quote is exactly that !

If history showed a long list of bad things made only by atheists while believers were only virtuous and kind, well, I could eventually understand.

Sadly it’s not the case.

More happily, neither is the reverse.

This passage and the article really spoke to me. I was raised in a strongly Catholic family in the US. I have since apostized from the Catholic church, but I still exist in that community. I know many people who are good solely because of their faith and that scares me. I am uncomfortable with individuals who offshore morality.

Okay, this was rambly, but my point is agree with your post, and I feel the effects of cultural Christianity in the US.

> and I think it boils down to her not believing that someone can be "moral"

its interesting to note, that the concept of morality, is in fact, moored as a consensual hallucination as to what is good.

therefore, as an atheist, you might mimic a "cultural" sense of goodness; but since the intent is not from the same source -- you may not pretend to share it. Logically, you are immoral simply because you do not share the same inspiration. This is a direct consequence of "assuredness".

if you want it in mathematical format ;)

you have to look deeper than the act. Which is what, you are missing. It is not enough to be 'good' (as if some objective standard can be said to exist!); it is also important to be able to enunciate the impulse to 'goodness'; and further to assure the reliability of that impulse.

This is why atheism, is and always will be, a minority religion. You lack the one characteristic, that all other religions share. A framework.

That is not to say, btw, that organized religion is "better". As with everything, the intent and education/erudition of the practitioner, makes the difference in real effect.

> so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.

... or self-interest/greed.

> its interesting to note, that the concept of morality, is in fact, moored as a consensual hallucination as to what is good.

Says who? You?

> therefore, as an atheist, you might mimic a "cultural" sense of goodness; but since the intent is not from the same source -- you may not pretend to share it. Logically, you are immoral simply because you do not share the same inspiration. This is a direct consequence of "assuredness".

if you want it in mathematical format ;)

Again, your entire argument here is hinged on the assumption that all morality originates from religion and everyone else is just faking it. What you believe is right and everyone else is, by definition, wrong. Give me a break with this "mathematical format" nonsense and condescending smiley faces.

> Says who? You?

Yup. Your idea of good, is not my idea of good. That we can reach an agreement (compromise), the consensual portion.

That good, is often a matter of perspective, and subject to change in hindsight (i.e. a value judgement distorted heavily by the sensorium/ego) is where it is a hallucination.

> Again, your entire argument here is hinged on the assumption that all morality originates from religion

no, it doesn't. in point of fact, religion arises as a consequence, of the argument. So do gangs/police/armies/nations. Welcome to the morass, of humanity. :)

;)

or if you prefer "the road to hell, is paved with "good" intentions".

or more succinctly, "hell is other people".

> Give me a break with this "mathematical format" nonsense

Not a fan of logic?

> and condescending smiley faces.

condescending? not really. simply commenting on an alternate pathway to arrive at the conclusion, as a consequence rather than a posit. as I am not privy to your actual conversation with said "religious" person, I chose to demonstrate the line of reasoning.

But by all means, continue to stick your head up your ass and think its "religion is the only source of goodness" statement, rather than a logical argument, predicated on human psychology and its biases.

Mildly hilarious how Japan is a ridiculously safe place crime-wise and has pretty high moral standards and is pretty much entirely atheist. They visit temples because they visit temples and it's just expected that that's what you do because everyone does it ala being Japanese circular logic. The same circular logic is responsible for their moral standards.

Turns out it's not God thats responsible for morality, it's the existence and enforcement of norms by members of the community that is.

Japan...has pretty high moral standards

Well.... that depends on your morals, Japanese pop culture still sexualizes young girls... and the trains have dedicated "female cars" so woman can avoid groping in the regular cars. Women are distinctly in a lower class than men.

Japan is a very clean and safe country, but I wouldn't hold it up as a beacon of morality.

And Americas full of drug addicts, school shootings and cops killing black teenagers. And that's despite all those Christians, their morals and their prayers.

And as it turns out women and black people were distinctly lower class than men until a few decades ago. Religion didn't change in that time. But the social norms that various communities enforce on each other did.

And that's my whole point. Religion has nothing to do with it. It's the same dynamics that exist in every group that are what cause the phenomenon of people behaving themselves according to a set of rules.

My one and only point with my example was not the absolute morality of one place vs another but the fact that a place basically devoid of all religious belief doesn't automatically devolve into debauchery, chaos and total amorality. They seem to think that's what will happen. It doesn't but that doesn't stop them believing that.

People arguing the point completely miss the fact that humans don't care at all what's true. They care who's side your on and that's all they try to figure out.

The people you describe are a ridiculously tiny minority.. It hardly reflects on their society as a whole.

What you bring up, I think, is just a common trope about Japan.

People have misleading ideas like this about countries they haven't experienced much of.

For example, I've met a few people who think every inch of the US is a lawless bullet storm.

I believe churches also explicitly teach people that atheism is dangerous.

I grew up in a Christian family, went to church and/or bible school every Sunday, but was never taught that atheism is dangerous. I was taught though that atheists are going to hell and that I should try to help them to come to believe in god, but I wasn't taught to fear them or feel that their belief is dangerous.

Do you church hop? Many protestant pastors will denounce the behavior, but I think it's quite interesting.

Also, did you never study apologetics in Bible School?

I don't even know what that means. My family went to 3 different churches while I was growing up, changes were all due to moves but we stuck with one church once we were in an area. I don't know how they chose a church, friends/family/coworkers, I suppose.

Apologetics is a field of Christian discourse involving reactions to and study of cultural, intellectual and scientific movements from the Christian perspective.

Hopping around to different churches is an interesting experience many don't have, so I'd encourage it, especially if you attend more days than Sunday (the most boring day to go), and especially if your family has been deciding what church you attend your whole life.

Oh, I haven't been to a regular church service in decades, not since I left home for college.

On morality and atheism, I'm reminded of this dialogue from the show "True Detective", Season 1 Episode 3 (emphasized part of it) [1]:

Rust Cohle: "If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of shit. And I’d like to get as many of them out in the open as possible. You gotta get together and tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe just to get through the goddamn day? What’s that say about your reality?""

[1]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/True_Detective#The_Locked_Room...

This story is good. The people should learn such thing. My opinion is to learn all of the religion, rather than just one or two. That way, you can learn more. (Of course, religion is not the only thing to learn, but here it is only mention the religion.)

Also, there are good people, and also bad people, and also good+bad people, and also bad+good people, and also other people, regardless of your religion (or if you are atheist). Religion isn't bad, but some people use religion to do bad thing (although people who are not religious will also do bad thing), and also, churches, like other organizations, can be corrupted, but it can also be changed over time.

And then, there is the case that some things can be unclear what is best and what is not good (and sometimes what is good for something is otherwise no good, making it more complicated), and that sometimes is consider based on circumstances which is not in effect, which can sometimes makes it wrong instead of good. (Different philosophers also have different ideas how to do morals/ethics. My own idea does not quite match the stuff I read elsewhere, but I think it is not necessary for me to elaborate on that right here at this time.)

As someone from the UK, where atheism is so uncontroversial that people barely talk about it, it is kindof baffling how much everyone in the USA seems to go on about god, and atheists in the USA seem to have some sort of uphill battle to be recognised as people who could be vaguely competent at anything.

Even here on the left coast, I find it surprising how many people are unwilling to admit their atheism, out of some sense of social threat. I was talking to someone from the UK last week who I thought put it really well - what's happening in the US right now is the final throes of a generation who desperately wants to return to their mental image of the past, unwilling to see their own racist, xenophobic, self-absorbsion. I throw religion in that same bucket, as they've (by which I mean the baby boomers) have convinced themselves that association with Christianity == good / holy / right / just / White / American, making it challenging to move forward socially / politically. Bet in 2020 we'll continue to hear the same trope as every other election that sure, we let that black guy get elected, maybe a woman could get reelected, but there's no way we'll let some atheist get elected.

The weirdest part about all this is that Obama was deeply religious (though the black church is scary or something), but Trump is obviously an atheist.

Yet they’re treated exactly the opposite by the evangelicals. It’s a bit of a mindfuck until you realize it’s not really about religion at all.

You nailed it.

> The weirdest part about all this is that Obama was deeply religious

I really did not get that impression at all from his book Dreams From My Father. A quick Google suggests that both his father and mother were atheists at points in their life. I do know that Obama did attend church more often as he started to move into politics.

> but Trump is obviously an atheist.

I doubt this: he rather either believes that he is personally chosen by God or God himself. :-)

There is only one god that trump worships, himself.

The difference between God and Donald Trump is that God doesn't believe he is Donald Trump.

> Trump is obviously an atheist

Huh, I didn't realize Presbyterians were atheist...

> left coast

I take it you never look south.

I'm not the one who coined the phrase, but I used it here deliberately because of the connotations regarding the demographics of the western US coast: politically and socially progressive, as well as historically reporting lower rates of church membership.

atheists here are "theistic" atheists. they are militantly anti-religion, anti-god, claim this as a "neutral" position.

in reality, its just another religion.

true atheists, are like true feminists; god/gender, simply doesn't enter into the mix.

I enjoy the company of both; but not, their intellectual progeny. And neither, do they.

I've yet to meet anyone militantly anti-religion here in the UK despite pretty much everyone I know being life long atheist or formerly religious. What would that even look like? I see no anti church demos, marches or anything. Just the odd individual going off on one on some Facebook post or other net forum from time to time. Just as some believers can.

The only thing I have seen is a wish to have bureaucracy and officialdom recognise "no belief in god" as an equally valid box to tick as CofE. For decades half of those ticking CofE or any of the non-conformist options were a vote for atheism. There's no box, tick what my family grandparents would have.

If I had to summarise UK views, most simply don't seem to care, or see the point of a supernatural being, a god, or some ancient human rules that restrict what you can eat or if you may control your reproduction. If you need tobacco or some deity to get through life have at it.

Humanism, some sort of earth centred belief, or Buddhism thanks to its philosophy and lack of creator have all risen as religion has become increasingly irrelevant for most.

yeah its different here in the US. :) Everything is more polarized/political. Everything.

> Just the odd individual going off on one on some Facebook post or other net forum from time to time.

I discuss theology on a fairly regular basis ;) and philosophy. ;) lets just say there's a fair amount of "ex-Christians" who are looking for something new to latch on. Same old shit (hate/misanthropy), just wrapped in new cloth.

> "no belief in god" as an equally valid box to tick as CofE

Just leave it blank. What to your mind, is the purpose of having an explicit box? I'm curious.

> Humanism, some sort of earth centred belief, or Buddhism thanks to its philosophy and lack of creator have all risen as religion has become increasingly irrelevant for most.

Eh. I know Buddhist philosophy well. Few people get it. My friend who is an atheist (in the truest sense) is a humanist. So am I. Thats why we're friends. :) But he respects my choice to follow a religion; same as I respect his choice, to follow none.

> lets just say there's a fair amount of "ex-Christians" who are looking for something new to latch on

OK, that makes some sense. I don't think many have "committed" to religion and church in the UK for a century or more, compared to the enthusiasm that appears to exist in the US. Even many of those who openly believed rarely actually went regularly.

One formerly quite religious friend who lost faith in his mid or late 40s seemed quite apathetic for a while after. From my perspective looking on that was more that he lost the community, and group activities that he once regularly attended. Perhaps joining a new group or replacing the missing sense family would appeal. Thankfully atheist evangelists and militancy aren't a thing here outside of Dawkins. :)

> What to your mind, is the purpose of having an explicit box? I'm curious.

Hospitals might want to dispose of me in an appropriate manner if the risky operation fails. Passport applications insist on it (I think. It's been 8 years or so since my last). The clerk filling in the screen doesn't get much choice if it's a mandatory field they can't skip. It's sometimes gathered to try and ensure a lack of discrimination across large organisations.

> But he respects my choice to follow a religion; same as I respect his choice, to follow none.

This seems to nail it. Religion, belief, spirituality and atheism has become a personal thing separate and unrelated to organised religions in the UK.

> OK, that makes some sense.

wink.

> One formerly quite religious friend who lost faith in his mid or late 40s seemed quite apathetic for a while after.

runs deeper than that. people who are religious, usually are religious because it made sense. but the corruption in organized religion in the west, is difficult to reconcile with the actual tenets of a faith. so when they abandon their church; they still have the same needs that drew them - but now their is no path forward for fulfillment. Religion (in the purest sense), does have a purpose.

> Thankfully atheist evangelists and militancy aren't a thing here outside of Dawkins. :)

Indeed, you are somewhat blessed in this respect. I've always preferred a good conversation.

> Passport applications insist on it (I think. It's been 8 years or so since my last)

that would seem to be the thing to rectify. Unless your legal system is based on religious code; mandatory religious disclosure would seem to be a bit "impolitic".

> This seems to nail it.

He's a good person. So am I. Good people, prefer the company, of good people. Thus, has it always been.

> Religion, belief, spirituality and atheism has become a personal thing separate and unrelated to organised religions in the UK.

You guys have had a rough time of it. Speaking from a historical/religious perspective.

I'm not surprised by Western Christians jettisoning their "faiths". But it would be nice if they didn't impute the Western failures, say on Eastern or Middle-Eastern Christianity (which are vastly different creatures).

It distorts the mind, to project local problems, on all of humanity. Each culture is different; each takes a different path.

> and atheists in the USA seem to have some sort of uphill battle to be recognised as people who could be vaguely competent at anything.

If you are from the UK, what could you possibly know about the US? I'm atheist and have been since 12 or so. My parents are christian. Never had any issues like you described in my entire life.

Stop believing exaggerated nonsense from for-profit companies like the new yorker as truths. It's more clickbait fiction than anything.

Sure the US may be more religious than other countries. But there are plenty of atheists and agnostics and every other religion and non-religions around. And people get along fine.

Frankly, my perception of the UK ( which I've never visited but I've read about so that makes an exper ) is that the atheists in the UK are far more zealous and militant than the religious in the US. But I'm guessing I know as much about the UK as you do about the US.

I feel like I know a bit about the USA because about 70% of the internet and social media is taken up with discussions of your politics and society.

But yes I might have overreached a bit.

I'm glad to hear that your (un)religious opinion hasn't affected your life, but I'm thinking specifically about the political arena: The fact that Bernie Sanders has to deny being an atheist, and that Zuckerberg has to suddenly pretend to be religious because he has political ambitions. Things like that just dont happen over here. No-one is particularly interested in the religion or lack thereof of politicians, and it really doesn't get discussed much. (edit: Northern Ireland is a very complicated exception to this)

Perhaps quoting Chomsky here isn't a great idea but according to him, the United States is a very fundamentalist, religious country – one of the most extreme in the world. https://chomsky.info/01312016/

re: Zealous Atheists in the UK - well we did produce Dawkins but generally atheists over here dont have much to complain about because we are a genuinely secular society. People like Dawkins tend to turn their attention to other countries. And because we're secular, most people don't really have to spend much time thinking what they 'are' at all, in that sense.

I've lived in the US for my entire life, I've live in both the north and south. Traveled large portions of the country. I've also traveled internationally numerous times. To say that Atheists in the US are hated is putting it mildly. There have been research studies into it, and the results were Atheists were one of the most distrusted groups in America and rated lower than Muslims and actual rapists. You can look up the Pew study, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Study, The University of Minnesota study and there's more. Every single one disproves your point. If you've been an Atheist in America and haven't seen this, then you're putting on blinders or live in a liberal city.

Edit: Typo. Also real billboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheist...

Maybe it's because Americans like to be alive and atheists have an alarming tendency to kill themselves. I don't know why, but humans are hard wired for religion.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.16...

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/5/413.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26661826

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26110867

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25862549

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25863908

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24115346

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24908151

Maybe it’s because they feel isolated and socially rejected ?

In France, there is a lot of atheists or agnostics, but they live as well as any

In the uk its a non thing. 50% of my friends are atheists. Its such a non issue that it hardly ever comes up. The first time i had a problem is when i couldnt have a church wedding because I couldnt morally profess a belief in a christian god. My mum in law was very very unhappy. In fact ive felt socially threatened amongst my developer friends when I have been inable to say that I am atheist (I think in a certain sense God is the world and in another sense it also silly to make a claim for or against god, since I believe its impossible to say anything for certain). That opinion gets me ridiculed!

So you're agnostic.

As an American, I honestly haven't run into this. I am religious, and most of my coworkers are religious, but we have had an atheist and an agnostic in our group (we're all developers) and it really didn't seem to matter. Religion rarely comes up in a professional setting, and it didn't come up when we did things outside of work as friends.

As long as you aren't aggressive against that which you don't believe, there really shouldn't be any problems. Most of the problems I run into are from atheists and agnostics picking a fight with theists. Treat others with respect and you'll get it in return.

Are you saying that the most reviled, despised, and shamed group in America "picks fights" against the juggernaut of believers? The mere act of stating we're a non-believer is considered militant. Attending a gathering of other non-believers is considered aggressive and obnoxious. Why would that be?

Treat others with respect? Do atheists get any respect from the religious? From our own government? Is it respectful to get religion (theistic or not) and god shoved down my throat everywhere I turn?

Where do you live? Not the US, surely. I don't recognize the America you're describing at all. Christianity is probably one of the most tolerant religions on the planet. Christians regularly turn the other cheek and love to "live and let live". They only get aggressive when people try to interfere with their ability to practice their religion.

If you haven't noticed, there's a war against christianity in the US. Nativity scenes being shut down. Not being able to pray in school. The constant attacks from popular culture and the media. Atheists tend to be especially vocal about the fact that they shouldn't have to see, think or hear anything even tangentially related to Christianity (although they have no problem with Islam. Go figure.) Christians see this as an attack on their ability to practice their religion.

Oh you...Where are atheists lining up to protest nativity scenes at churches? No one gives a fart about Christianity being practiced, until it infringes on other rights. Nativity scenes? Nothing wrong with them as long as other religions can partake as well. Christians don't tend to like Satanist scenes though.

Christians in America are however attacking abortion rights. They also attack marriage rights, gay rights, transgender rights, help for the poor, human rights, and basically everything that Jesus was for. To claim that the majority of Americans are practicing anything Jesus stood for is quite frankly silly. No one has said kids can't pray in school, what's been said is that you can't force prayer in school unless it's a religious school,in which case religion rules.

This silly "Attack on Christianity" ginned up by Fox News and the religious right is absurd in a country where the vast majority of the country proclaims to be Christian.

Regarding the tolerance to Christianity check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation

Honestly interesting sources! I feel like you shouldn't be downvoted. I don't agree with how you phrased what you wrote but I understand you're just expressing your view. I'm sort of on the side of well atheists are not treated well in society compared to the majority being religious and makes the statistics that way.

My personal experience of myself is contrary to the study. I'm both agnostic & transgender. I suffer daily from my gender dysphoria and how society treated me in life because of my gender dysphoria. I was conditioned growing up in the anti-gay era of time and I wasn't able to transition young. I'm not in the financial situation to really do anything to help myself and approaching my 30s. I've been seeking suicide by the legal process of going to Switzerland & in my birth country Canada (I grew up in the USA). The main drive for suicide has been acknowledging the possibility of how a lot of the bad experiences in my life, maybe influenced by a higher power, is wanting me to die and so my sex can be corrected. Society isn't really getting better for people like me with the trump administration and with the recent news showing to limit people like me further. I sort of come to conclusion the atmosphere now of things are getting better isn't really true but just a moment in time where things were more positive but can easily be reversed. I don't even know what to really trust anymore but the point is that maybe my life has been so poor because I should die because an all loving God would correct my problem; which made me miss out on a lot in life.

So much for me to process here, but I’ll give it a try. First let me say I respect and acknowledge you as a human being FIRST. I don’t know which gender you were born into and to which you do desperately want to transition. What I’m confused by is why does it matter? Better said: why does something you know to be the truth (your gender) become real only if those around you acknowledge it?

Maybe im missing something. I’m female and the last thing on my mind at any given second of the day is obsessing whether those around me find me “female“ enough. I’ve had suicidal thoughts but it’s never involved anything having to do with how others perceived me.

Again, trying to understand here and trying not to preach. If you do have a maker, He loves the being you are. The beautiful being He made. You have to be more - much more - than your genitalia or physical appearance. Your comment was highly intelligent and caught my attention. You are someone I’d love to have a conversation with at a party.

So why so much emphasis on how people perceive you if you know, to your core, the truth? Why bring up Trump at all when he’s a tiny, close-minded moron? You have to think you’re something more than a physical body on a rock barreling through black space. I don’t even know you and I’m convinced you are.

Your physical body doesn’t need to be “corrected”. What would it fix? Seriously, you are an intelligent soul in a temporary meat uniform and are probably gorgeous the way you are.

> Maybe it's because Americans like to be alive and atheists have an alarming tendency to kill themselves.

If a religious belief is preventing suicide then it sounds like theists are afraid of punishment more than having a stronger desire to live than atheists.

Personally I think condemning someone to hell for eternity just for being unable to cope in this life is one of the most morally reprehensible things imaginable.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Why did Christianity gain acceptance in the first place? People believe in Christianity not out of fear, but out of hope. Atheism doesn't provide any hope, comfort or love. Just the brutal reality that this life is all there is and that there's no point to the pain suffered in this life. Atheists kill themselves because they have no hope that things will ever improve. That they're utterly alone and always will be. Christians know they are never alone and that at least one person will always love them, even if nobody else ever does.

You're thinking about Christianity like it's something evil. You might have a better time of it if you think of Christianity as the firmware that runs western civilization.

> I don't know why, but humans are hard wired for religion.

As Richard Feynman once said, in order to answer a "why" you need to be in a framework where you allow things to be true.

I'm not sure we're hardwired for religion, but it's pretty clear were hardwired for semiotics. Try to look at something without your brain picking out symbols to assign to everything. This is the thing we do all the time but can't seem to teach computers how to do.

So there is a certain seductive logic in viewing God as just another attempt the brain makes to sort things out on the symbolic level.

Persecuted people tend to kill themselves more often, yes. That's not the evidence that humans are hardwired to be straight white cis Christian males.

Atheists aren't persecuted. They aren't being executed for their beliefs. Christians still are, though, in China, Africa and the Middle East.

Atheists are killed in Africa and the Middle East as well to also include some places in the South Pacific. Basically all the places Christians are persecuted, Atheists are too.

Atheists are also banned from serving in government in 7 US states as part of their state Constitutions, though the laws are unenforceable. Atheists also can't be Freemasons or Boy Scouts. So yeah you're wrong again.

You can't be serious. There are countries where there's literally death penalty for atheism.

Let's explore religion for a moment and why it tends to hate atheism so much.

1. People who believe are threatened by those who do not. It is disconcerting to have belief systems attacked or ripped out from under you. "Those who are not us can't be trusted." Groups tend to passionately hate individuals who don't want to be members.

2. Non-belief has definite consequences in most religions. Conformism is a trait of religious people. Leaving is unacceptable to many. Muslim extremists have definite opinions about apostasy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy

3. Santa Claus is a good example. A kid is told about Santa. Presents appear. One day the older brother figures it out. He is told, do you want presents or is Santa not real? I think this is a microcosm of multiple belief systems. Remove the possibility of presents/rewards and multiple religions vanish in a puff of smoke.

4. It's an amazing coincidence that people tend to have the same religion as their parents and community. And this saves them from eternal damnation. What about the people who existed before the religion was created?

5. Religion has no monopoly on morality or virtue. Evidence has shown that religious people are quite capable of breaking rules. Multiple religions cite divorce as "a bad thing" yet plenty of religious people do it. Murder, theft and cursing still exist.

6. Validity of religion in general can be exposed by getting a religious person to explain why they would not convert to another. Their reasons increasingly become more difficult to defend. Remember that it is likely only one belief system is true and all others are false. And your religion was likely chosen before you were born. This is an awkward truth many don't want to discuss.

7. If you've read this far, please know that I'm not atheist.

Atheism also seems to wrongly be a catch-all for things like Agnosticism which is nothing like Atheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. An agnostic can also be one who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic."

Atheism is the "lack of a belief in God". It's not the belief that there is no God, it's the lack of a belief that there is one. All agnostics are also atheists.

It seems to depend on the definition you use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

You're conflating belief and knowledge. Agnosticism has to do with epistemic access to God – that is, knowability. One can deny knowability while having a belief in God, and therefore being a theist. It just requires acknowledging that one's belief is and always will be unfounded – a matter of faith.

Just so. If you're give a postulate with no evidence for or against it - do you believe it?

(Implying that you meant to write "given" instead of "give".)

Of course not. Absence of belief is not belief in absence. If "not believing in something" were an active task, I'd be busy all day not-believing in trillions of bizarre things.

I basically assume that when someone makes a statement about atheism, they're actually talking about agnosticism. Those who claim to be atheists are hostile to being told their beliefs actually represent agnosticism, and when providing them a link to this article[1], they have claimed the author is wrong. That is an indicator that most participants in discussions of atheism have not spent a lot of time studying the subject formally (which is probably the rational choice).

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

I'm not sure what kind of agenda that author has, but that's a pretty bogus argument.

Using his argument, the two very different words "amoral" and "immoral" would mean the same thing.

The majority of self-described athiests that I know are global athiests under some variation of the Ockham's Razor argument of section 5 of that.

The particular example of intelligent life in another galaxy is rather odd, since we actually do have reasons to believe such life exists inasmuch as we have pretty good ideas about how life came about on earth and a lot of evidence that similar conditions should exist elsewhere.

I would get annoyed because of all the labeling. It is unnecessary.

There is no name for lack of belief in invisible aliens in my garage.

"hostile" - Again, with the attempt to paint atheists as ignorant and violent simply by insisting that they themselves know their own beliefs or lack of belief in a higher power.

You can call it whatever you want if it makes you feel better. It won't change that person's belief (or lack thereof) though.

"The reason that atheists were not allowed to testify in court for so long was the certainty that witnesses who were unwilling to swear an oath to God had no reason to be truthful, since they did not fear divine judgment."

Just a consideration: What if you believe in a God that has much more important things to do than punishing believers who break an oath in His/Her/Its name? I mean: being of such supreme intelligence, how can he/she/it not rather deal with things that are so far away from our intellectual understanding as it is for, say, a polyp to think about string theory?!

To my particle physics professor of many springtimes past, God was the creator of the puzzles to be solved by people like himself.

Becoming satisfied with that has nicely simplified my life.

That's like asking why atheists are still uncomfortable with religious faith and spirituality.

In what way do you think the two questions are alike, aside from one being the syntactic reverse of the other? What is the implication of that similarity that made you point it out?

[edited for clarity - original post was "why is that?"]

> That's like asking why atheists are still uncomfortable with religious faith and spirituality.

Because if you accept religious arguments, you can also perfectly argue using similar arguments that also the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) exists.

And that's fine.

As long as you don't use religious arguments in an academic or professional context, it doesn't matter what unprovable thing you believe in.

I'm religious, but if we met in an academic or professional context, you'd likely think I'm agnostic because I try to limit myself to arguments that can be proven using observable and repeatable evidence.

If you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, then have at it. Just don't try to justify a bunch of colanders as a business expense as insurance against an angry FSM, but feel free to wear one as a religious symbol on your own dime.

It could be that atheism is less passive. Someone who describes themselves as atheist has evaluated the situation and come to a conclusion.

I know a number of people, including in my family, that describe themselves as religious one way or another, despite the fact they don't actively participate in any religious practice even down to going to church at all.

We celebrate Christmas and Easter because tradition, and that seems to contribute to this passive religious-ness.

I personally don't care what other people believe in, because it rarely affects how I interact with them on a daily basis. Good luck to them. However, as an atheist I'm not really discomforted with religion and spirituality, it's more I find it an interesting phenomena; the blatant hypocrisy 'they' often display in claiming something is wrong or crazy in comparison to their chosen position (passively or otherwise). It points to a mental processing flaw; an inability to see logic when it threatens their world view. The human condition.

> spirituality

What exactly is “spirituality”?

Dictionary says it’s “related to soul or spirit” - to paraphrase.

But if you don’t believe in souls/spirits ...

Edit: Nice. No retort. Just downvote.

I’m more interested in why so many Christians quote the Old Testament to justify their non-Christian attitudes and actions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com