At 8/15/14 07:18 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/15/14 07:11 PM, Scarface wrote: Might I ask why? Agnostics, believing nothing for certain and having no real reason to deny anyone else's beliefs, are generally extremely non-confrontational and avoid most arguments concerning religion.

I wouldn't say that as much as they're pretty much Atheists but don't want to piss anyone off so they just retreat from any religious debate believing in nothing at all.

While there are agnostics like that, there are many like myself who just feel like they can't possibly know whether there is or isn't a god, so they won't try to take a definitive standpoint. This is simply to not offend anyone, but it just makes the most sense to them.

They also don't want to seem pretentious and "above" the squabbles of Atheism and Christianity. Not that everyone's like that, but many strike me as such.

True, there are quite a few like that.

People are afraid of change that's all, America has been mostly Christian since the begining. I'm sure as science and economy progresses we will be more accepted.

At 8/24/14 07:14 PM, Kyoshinji wrote: People are afraid of change that's all, America has been mostly Christian since the begining. I'm sure as science and economy progresses we will be more accepted.

I think a more accurate term is mostly Protestant since the beginning. America didn't treat them Catholics so nicely for awhile.......

We must all be excellent to eachother

It's best to assume that this is your only life, so make the best of it!

Even if there isnt an after life, all humans should focus on how they'll be remembered

Do good deeds, be nice and cool and all that because I seriously doubt that if you're a douche like a war criminal, corporate lawyer, congressman etc then all of a sudden pray @ your death bed for acceptance that you'll automatically get into a heavenly plane of existence ya know

The meaning of life - all life exists to pass on it's seed. But we're a intelligent species (well except in the south or while you're high) so the meaning of all our lives should be to be the uhh .. to be the best you can be!

Party on dudes

*guitar solo*

Too nihilistic, too condescending, and too seemingly "one sided." Richard Dawson(assclown) makes them look a lot worse than they really are.

In response to the original question: Why do people not like atheists? Because people are mirror images of the microorganisms that they're made of. They're a bunch of water inside a membrane with a small brain that attacks anything that it does not recognize as 'self.'

Organized religion exists because people believe what they want to hear. They want to believe that a divine purpose exists so that they continue to be motivated. They want to believe in right and wrong so they are alleviated from the responsibility of choosing their own actions. They want to believe that their neighbors are friends that they can depend on rather than selfish competition. They want to be a part of a community so that they will be accepted even if they lack intelligence, productivity, empathy, or any other positive human trait. They want to believe that people help each other because of some idea of 'good' rather than understand the underlying nature of cynicism, human nature, and natural selection. People want to believe that they are special and valuable. Ultimately, peoples' dependence on having an invisible safety net as well as their insecurities cause them to attack anyone that they see as alien, especially when Abrahamic beliefs insist that there is only one God and way of life.

Finally and most importantly, people dislike atheists because they are a gateway to a mindset that could wipe out our species. A society of people that do not believe in a greater purpose are more likely to understand the selfishness of human nature. If people lost trust in authority, cooperation would not exist and the human race would lose its greatest advantage (that being that we are a social species).

That being said, plenty of non-religious people fall victim to these same insecurities. We're weak motherfuckers, and most atheists and agnostics that I know follow similar behaviors with similar motivations. The vast majority of people that denounce religion want to believe that they have in some way transcended slave morality and a primitive desire to receive gratification from their peers when in truth this is practically impossible to accomplish.

At 8/25/14 11:49 AM, WallofYawn wrote: Richard Dawson(assclown)

Okay, good answer, good answer. Survey says!

I don't tell many people I'm an atheist because I don't feel like explaining myself or being judged .It's pretty much the same reason a lot of bisexual/gay people stay in the closet. Similar.

At 8/26/14 03:26 AM, divinorum wrote: I don't tell many people I'm an atheist because I don't feel like explaining myself or being judged

I don't tell cause there's no reason to tell. It's my business what I believe in and not anyone else's.

At 8/9/14 08:48 PM, Light wrote: I'm denouncing the stereotyping of atheists, and stereotyping in general.

Good luck with that.

At 8/14/14 12:19 AM, Light wrote: If you can't realize that stereotyping groups of people has never been and never will be a good idea, you might not be very intelligent.

Well, as soon as you've grouped people, you're ALREADY begun stereotyping. If you cannot understand the obvious utility of stereotypes and why they're so prevalent (or, why human beings are not the only creatures to "stereotype"), then you might not be very intelligent.

At 8/14/14 04:20 PM, Light wrote: How exactly do you justify stereotyping?

This is how:

ster·e·o·type (str--tp, stîr-)
n.
1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image

Conventions and formulas, along with personal conceptions and images are used to classify/categorize/demarcate "group X" from "group Y" or maintain some semblance of consistency when dividing things into various groups and sub-groups. Our sensory organs are bombarded with massive amounts of data every millisecond, and it is only by grouping phenomena and objects together through generalizations and inferences based on past information, that we are able to make internal sense of an external world without becoming completely paralyzed by all the possible information that there is to process and sort-through. Furthermore, organization by groups and the hierarchical division of social frameworks occur throughout the natural world and are not limited to mere human thought and opinion.

Frankly, stereotyping groups of people is the mentally lazy approach to interacting with other groups in society. It's a lot more convenient than actually keeping in mind that every person is an individual whose behavior, appearance, abilities, and interests are not necessarily dictated by the group(s) to which they belong. That isn't my opinion. It's fact.

The opposite to what you call the "mentally lazy approach" is to treat any and every past interaction you've had with any person, object, phenomena, etc. as an outlier that would not be representative of any other persons/objects/phenomena of the same apparent type in present or future experiences. This approach is impractical, and clearly stupid. What you call stereotyping is also called "pattern recognition" or "learning by example". If people, let alone any other creature with awareness of its environment, did not exercise SOME level of prejudice in their day-to-day activities and interactions with other creatures, then they would not be long for this world. Prejudice and the act of stereotyping is an adaptive response and likewise an evolutionarily beneficial trait.

... ... ...

Now, if you want to argue that intentionally insulting/demeaning stereotypes that are caricatures of people or behaviors that don't actually apply to individuals within the group... if you want to argue that those things are mean and bad and people shouldn't use them, especially in a malicious attempt to assault another person's or group's emotions or feelings of self-worth... then I'm right there with you. That a stereotype does not and can not represent an individual person to a perfectly accurate degree is overwhelmingly obvious. Enjoining people to exercise more conscientiousness and understanding and to not be so judgmental of others is a good thing -- keep at it.

However, suggesting that stereotypes or prejudgements are universally bad without exception, or that they exist for no reason at all (or at most, for entirely-spurious reasons), is plain stupid. Everyone knows that not ALL atheists are obnoxious condescending nihilistic jerky-jerks... but a whole bunch of them ARE, and they're loud-enough and visible-enough to give scores of other people the lasting impression that that's what their ilk is representative of. This shit is not rocket science.

At 8/26/14 10:16 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't tell cause there's no reason to tell. It's my business what I believe in and not anyone else's.

Bullshit. This is a cop-out.

You don't tell -- not because there's no reason to tell -- but because that would leave you open to criticism and probably feeling obligated to field responses and provide defenses for any belief that you may express. You aren't interested in doing that, which is perfectly fine.

But, don't say "there's no reason to tell", because that's patently false. Your beliefs, opinions and views on politics, policies, world news events, et cetera -- those are also "[your] business and not anyone else's" but that doesn't prevent you from coming here to share them anyway. Open dialog, discussion, and debate are all very valid reasons for a person to express their beliefs. To avoid having to defend those beliefs -- that's a reason not to tell.

At 8/28/14 02:18 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Bullshit. This is a cop-out.

You mistake apathy for laziness. Sometimes trying to sound smart makes one (in this case, you) sound quite ignorant.