Are atheists discriminated against in the US?

Aside from one teacher who was kind of a jerk after I wrote a not-so-rosy essay on religion in general, I've never felt personally discriminated against for my lack of religious belief.

I wouldn't call myself atheistic, though - I've often said I'm more pagan than anything, and the FSM has just enraptured me lately. I'm solidly agnostic - I don't live my life around any higher being, but I would probably not be (too) surprised to discover the existence of one. Actually, that's not true, I'd probably be surprised enough to shit myself, but I still don't like the idea of ruling it out completely without any data in one direction in another.

EDIT for spelling ::sigh::

 

the thing about taking a position in this debate is that others with opposing beliefs will challenge it. this goes for society in general. you mention how you don't think there is a god, someone somewhere will feel it is their moral obligation to challenge you.

i prefer to not claim to know anything. just because god isn't speaking to me doesn't mean god doesn't exist. maybe he/she/it isn't interested in human affairs. who knows?

you can't exclude the possibility of the presence of a god, and you can't exclude the lack thereof. there is no earthly way to tell either way. all you can say is "maybe, maybe not."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ May 17 2006, 02:08 PM) [snapback]256948[/snapback]</div>

Hmm..... atheist is by definition "not theistic". That is, has not accepted that there is a god. That is, the a-theist hasn't been persuaded, with OBJECTIVE (i.e., factual) evidence, that a god exists. Absence of belief is hard to portray as scary. The SCARY extremists, to whom you refer, are the "activist" atheist; crusaders who denigrate theists. A true atheist has no belief in a god, and no interest in limiting others' expression of their belief. My wife is a committed Chritain. I am not. We've done fine for 42 yrs. I don't make it an issue, nor does she.

Only doubters grow stronger? What branch of philosophy is that from? There are many facts of which most humans can be certain. There are many unknowns. Doubting the unknown seems to be your position. One either knows something (objectively), or does not.

Example: I don't know that a god exists. I have no "doubt" that I DON'T KNOW. I can't say objectively that god does not exist. I can say that I've seen no objective evidence to support such existence. :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 17 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]257047[/snapback]</div>

Using the logic of proof I was able to "convert" an atheist to the agnostic camp. He had never really thought of it as essentially faith based point of view. When I pointed that out to him he rejected atheism. At the same, his fundamental view point was largely unchanged.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 17 2006, 03:04 PM) [snapback]257050[/snapback]</div>

my main point was that if you take a solid stance on anything in this country, there's someone who will challenge you. then i started musing/rambling. sorry bout that.

i guess i should have also pointed out that there are probably more people who believe in a god than who don't in this country, and atheists probably get questioned for their beliefs much more than people who believe in god. also, it seems at this time that if you don't believe in god you're not in the majority, and following the majority seems to now be the american way.

i think socially, there could be some discrimination, but i've never seen anyone denied employment because of their opinion on the existence of a god.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 17 2006, 12:14 PM) [snapback]256907[/snapback]</div>

Yes, and by of all people, by my family. They do not let go of the religion i am "supposed to be."

The legality behing "lack of religion" being protected the same way as religion has laways been an issue. Our elected representatives are always so egar to protect the hint of religion in law, while not favoring a particular religion. For example, the pledge of alegance thing.

BUT for a moment, consiter how differant the legal proceedings would have been if Newdow v. United States Congress (the thing in 2002 in california) was about a polythestic religion and "under god" did not fit and the fight became about the US favoring a perticular religion instead of religion in general.

 

well said... it seems like the agnosts of the thread completely ignored our arguments mentioned in the thread (that counter this "logic of proof" argument). Also, saying how one used a logic of proof to convert an atheist to an agnost isn't a very compelling argument either... people are always converting from one religion to the other and vice versa.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 17 2006, 03:26 PM) [snapback]257074[/snapback]</div>