How is Atheism a white people thing

[GameChild214]

I would actually figure the opposite is true.

That has to be the most ignorant thing I ever heard. White people are most connected to christianity and judaism than any other race. Keep in mind, I am not anti-christian, or anti-white. Just pointing out the facts.

Who came to the Americas and Africas to shuv Christianity down the indigenous populations throats, not to mention killed many for thinking they were satanist.
-White People

Which race of people started the Spanish Inquisiton, that killed many people out of paranoia that they are satanist or anti-christian
-White people (Spaniards have a tiny bit of Arab in them, but its pretty dwindled)

Which race of people was involved in the crusades and murdred many people in the name of their god.
-White people

Which race started the KKK, which was not only a racist group, but also tried to shuv christianity down people's throats.
-White people

Which race of people still predominately runs conservative/republican politics, which seeks to shuv christianity down people's throats constantly.
-White people

Might I also add I have visited the Southern States, most of the white people I know of are pretty religious, whether redneck or sophisticated. Even if they are casually religious (i,e, claming to be christian but hardly following christian morals) there still religious, not to mention most minorities I know off are pretty casually religious too.

So what exactly makes non-whites think that all or most white people are atheist?

And also, I'm not racist to white people, I don't blame today's white people for what last century's white people did, and I know not every last white people got together and made the KKK, otherwise Abraham Lincoln would have been in it. Also I'm not against Christians either.

If your wondering why I made this thread it's mostly from what I have seen on the internet. Like here and here.

[NightmareWitch]

find an atheist black person

[GameChild214]

At 5/7/13 05:29 PM, NightmareWitch wrote: find an atheist black person

Most blacks vote democrat in America, Obama is a democrat. Democrats tend to support atheist ideals, most of which, Christians are against.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/7/13 04:57 PM, GameChild214 wrote: Who came to the Americas and Africas to shuv Christianity down the indigenous populations throats, not to mention killed many for thinking they were satanist.
-White People

Yes, they fucked up. So?

Which race of people started the Spanish Inquisiton, that killed many people out of paranoia that they are satanist or anti-christian
-White people (Spaniards have a tiny bit of Arab in them, but its pretty dwindled)

Again, terrible thing...what is this proving again?

Which race of people was involved in the crusades and murdred many people in the name of their god.
-White people

This was in response to many non-religious issues, in a couple cases they were actually justified in fearing Muslim and Arab expansion as they clearly had designs to take portions of Eastern Europe for their empire. The example here is flawed.

Which race started the KKK, which was not only a racist group, but also tried to shuv christianity down people's throats.
-White people

Ok, you're a bit misinformed about the KKK. They have historically been a PROTESTANT organization and not a general Christian one. They have persecuted white catholics as well as minorities. Only recently with membership dwindling badly have they dropped the catholic hate. Also there are other groups founded on race hate that persecute whites just as much. Many of them have much more power and organization then the modern Klan.

Which race of people still predominately runs conservative/republican politics, which seeks to shuv christianity down people's throats constantly.
-White people

Oh really? Is that why we have such majorities for Democrats in recent elections? (remember, the actual VOTES were heavily Democratic in this last election, but due to things like jerrymandering it allowed Republicans to maintain control in the House) Is that why we have a black president currently? Yeah, this really does just sound anti-white more and more. Racism sucks, no matter who it's against.

Might I also add I have visited the Southern States, most of the white people I know of are pretty religious, whether redneck or sophisticated. Even if they are casually religious (i,e, claming to be christian but hardly following christian morals) there still religious, not to mention most minorities I know off are pretty casually religious too.

Anecdotal evidence is not a valid kind of evidence for proving a broader point like this.

And also, I'm not racist to white people, I don't blame today's white people for what last century's white people did, and I know not every last white people got together and made the KKK, otherwise Abraham Lincoln would have been in it. Also I'm not against Christians either.

The fact that you have to keep saying this makes me suspicious as fuck...

If your wondering why I made this thread it's mostly from what I have seen on the internet. Like here and here.

Ok, so you took anecdotal evidence and decided that it was good enough to assume that this was a widespread belief....oh boy....

[poxpower]

This is awesomely hilarious.
Bravo.

[Kel-chan]

At 5/7/13 05:29 PM, NightmareWitch wrote: find an atheist black person

i'm an biracial atheist. Do I count?

btw

Atheism is based on logical empircism, reason and evidence. So naturally it is a "white person thing".

because minority people like myself are not logical, reasonable or rational.

./sarcasm

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/7/13 05:38 PM, GameChild214 wrote: Most blacks vote democrat in America, Obama is a democrat. Democrats tend to support atheist ideals, most of which, Christians are against.

As there is no such thing as "atheist ideals" to begin with, how could Democrats even begin to support them? The word "atheist" in the literal sense only refers to one single issue, namely the lack of belief in a god or gods. In a broader sense, the word atheist is an umbrella term that can apply to any number of world views, not all of which are mutually inclusive or coherent.

The word you're looking for is "secular". Democrats tend to be less inclined to impose their religion on others than Republicans are. You don't have to be an atheist to think that keeping the church and the state from meddling in each other's business is a good idea.

[Dawnslayer]

At 5/8/13 01:57 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 5/7/13 05:38 PM, GameChild214 wrote: Most blacks vote democrat in America, Obama is a democrat. Democrats tend to support atheist ideals, most of which, Christians are against.

As there is no such thing as "atheist ideals" to begin with, how could Democrats even begin to support them? The word "atheist" in the literal sense only refers to one single issue, namely the lack of belief in a god or gods...The word you're looking for is "secular".

Agree on the point of "secular" over "atheist," but speaking as an atheist I do not agree that there is no such thing as "atheist ideals." The majority of atheists do uphold a common set of ideals - rational thought, freedom to question, tolerance for other views, etc. There are irrational and intolerant atheists, but by the same token there are spiteful and unforgiving Christians.

Also, atheism can be defined either as absence of belief in god or as belief in absence of god, which although interchangeable in a casual setting are technically different things.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/8/13 02:25 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Agree on the point of "secular" over "atheist," but speaking as an atheist I do not agree that there is no such thing as "atheist ideals." The majority of atheists do uphold a common set of ideals - rational thought, freedom to question, tolerance for other views, etc.

Those aren't ideals that rise out of atheism; they rise out of skepticism and rationalism. Adopting a skeptic and rational mindset tends to result in an atheistic position; not the other way around. Not believing in unicorns doesn't cause you to adopt a rational mindset, it's BECAUSE you have a rational mindset that you don't believe in unicorns.

Also, atheism can be defined either as absence of belief in god or as belief in absence of god, which although interchangeable in a casual setting are technically different things.

Ah, the old "hard atheism" vs "soft atheism". I understand that this is a common interpretation of the word, but I would seriously wish that a word distinguishing the two ideas would become more popular, because I would wager that VERY FEW atheists would say that they know or even believe that there is definitely no god or gods. The belief that there is no god or gods is a belief which cannot be substantiated with evidence, and as such, it is an unjustified belief. Simply withholding belief in a god or gods is the rejection of a claim, which requires no evidence on your part. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

It's unfair to group these two positions together as one is clearly justified while the other one isn't.

[Dawnslayer]

At 5/8/13 03:20 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 5/8/13 02:25 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: The majority of atheists do uphold a common set of ideals - rational thought, freedom to question, tolerance for other views, etc.

Those aren't ideals that rise out of atheism; they rise out of skepticism and rationalism. Adopting a skeptic and rational mindset tends to result in an atheistic position; not the other way around.

It was not clear to me that you were defining ideals in this manner. I concede the point.

Also, atheism can be defined either as absence of belief in god or as belief in absence of god, which although interchangeable in a casual setting are technically different things.

Ah, the old "hard atheism" vs "soft atheism"...It's unfair to group these two positions together as one is clearly justified while the other one isn't.

Actually, I was going for the slightly more literal interpretation of "I meant exactly as I said." One can claim belief in the absence of god (as opposed to absence of belief) and still be open to the possibility that their belief is incorrect. It's more a matter of whether the atheist in question chooses to define their stance as philosophy or religious belief; and there are "hard" and "soft" types on both sides of that equation.

[GameChild214]

Just chill out guys!

We cannot know with certainty if God or Christ exists. They COULD. Then again there COULD be a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. Can we be CERTAIN there isn't? NO, so it's pointless to talk about it.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/8/13 06:04 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Actually, I was going for the slightly more literal interpretation of "I meant exactly as I said." One can claim belief in the absence of god (as opposed to absence of belief) and still be open to the possibility that their belief is incorrect. It's more a matter of whether the atheist in question chooses to define their stance as philosophy or religious belief; and there are "hard" and "soft" types on both sides of that equation.

Certainly, but it is still an unjustified belief as it is based on no evidence. Being open to the possibility of your belief being unjustified makes you no less wrong for having that belief. You may even say that the universe appears to operate as if there was no god interfering in it, but this alone says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of a god as active interaction with the universe is not necessarily a requirement for a god to exist (see Deism).

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/8/13 01:08 PM, GameChild214 wrote: Just chill out guys!

We cannot know with certainty if God or Christ exists. They COULD. Then again there COULD be a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. Can we be CERTAIN there isn't? NO, so it's pointless to talk about it.

It's not a question of determining what exists or what doesn't exist. It's about determining which beliefs are justified, and that is not a pointless conversation.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/8/13 01:51 PM, stevenman36 wrote: Shh he's 16

don't try to reason with his logic

just look at his past posts

No, I think I'll look at your past posts instead.

You're 24, allegedly, so what's your excuse?

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/8/13 03:36 PM, stevenman36 wrote: People on here don't deserve any respect.

That's the reason why your contributions here are all devoid of intelligent thought?

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/8/13 04:37 PM, stevenman36 wrote: Yes.

I still don't know why people take me seriously at all.

There is a place where you can thrive. It's called General.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/8/13 01:08 PM, GameChild214 wrote: We cannot know with certainty if God or Christ exists. They COULD. Then again there COULD be a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. Can we be CERTAIN there isn't? NO, so it's pointless to talk about it.

If this is truly how you believe, you're not an atheist.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/8/13 04:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/8/13 01:08 PM, GameChild214 wrote: We cannot know with certainty if God or Christ exists. They COULD. Then again there COULD be a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. Can we be CERTAIN there isn't? NO, so it's pointless to talk about it.

If this is truly how you believe, you're not an atheist.

Sounds to me as the beginnings of an agnostic argument. I would agree with him as far as the remote possibility for each of these things being true, as well as it being impossible to know the truth regarding these things with absolute certainty (with the exception of the existence of Christ, where I believe there is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that he, as depicted in the Bible, did in fact NOT exist).

I acknowledge that these things COULD be true, yet I am an atheist as I don't BELIEVE that they are true.

[The-General-Public]

At 5/8/13 05:54 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 5/8/13 04:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/8/13 01:08 PM, GameChild214 wrote: We cannot know with certainty if God or Christ exists. They COULD. Then again there COULD be a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. Can we be CERTAIN there isn't? NO, so it's pointless to talk about it.

If this is truly how you believe, you're not an atheist.

Sounds to me as the beginnings of an agnostic argument. I would agree with him as far as the remote possibility for each of these things being true, as well as it being impossible to know the truth regarding these things with absolute certainty (with the exception of the existence of Christ, where I believe there is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that he, as depicted in the Bible, did in fact NOT exist).

I acknowledge that these things COULD be true, yet I am an atheist as I don't BELIEVE that they are true.

What does certainty have to do with anything? Not being 100 percent certain of something is just called being sane. Agnosticism is about understanding that metaphysical claims are beyond human understanding.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/10/13 02:52 AM, The-General-Public wrote: What does certainty have to do with anything? Not being 100 percent certain of something is just called being sane. Agnosticism is about understanding that metaphysical claims are beyond human understanding.

"Metaphysical" or not, a claim is a claim, and it operates under the same set of rules as any other claim: unless and until verifiable evidence has been presented for the claim, there is no justifiable reason for believing it.

I also hope that you realize that saying "metaphysical claims are beyond human understanding" is itself also a claim! Meaning it needs evidence before it can be believed, but since "metaphysical" in this context is something which, by definition, cannot be measured, it is an utterly pointless statement. It's like saying, "you can't measure something you can't measure."