Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

Absolutely!

The One Drop Rule is a good reference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Being religious is self-defined. The largest criminal gang in Mexico is religious.

Mexican Gang Leader Preaches Religious Virtues

Additionally, being an atheist does not free you from guilt for doing wrong. But religion can free you from guilt for doing wrong when religion says certain wrong actions are OK.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Guilt by association, in this case with racists. Shame on both of you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Americans dislike atheists for, presumably, the same reason that all nations dislike atheists: religion is a major portion of the "glue" used to erect and maintain coherent identity groups at that large of a scale, so anybody who's opting out of that represents a threat to said coherence. This situation will persist until some identity group comes up with a way of doing nation-scale (or larger) political organization without relying on religion (and I'm not holding my breath, on that one).

 

Silly Americans, Silly Humans.

 

No it doesn't. While that is a common trait of most religions, it is not required in the definition. For example, the entry at dictionary.com :

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "

Note that such is explicit that belief in the supernatural, while typical, is not required.

The reason atheism isn't a religion is that it doesn't amount to any positive set of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, nor does it have any of the rest (devotional or ritual observances, moral code). "Atheism" is simply a catch-all term for people who do not believe in god(s). It says nothing about whether those people are religious or not.

Moreover, "atheism" doesn't require any rejection of the supernatural, as such. Only the belief in deities. You can still go in for ancestor worship, or believe in Leprechauns, or whatever, as long as there are no Gods in the picture. While rejection of the supernatural in general is typical of atheists (just as belief in the supernatural is typical of the religious), there is no hard requirement there.

And does this warning apply to you as well, since you are yourself advancing assertions that have been peer-reviewed and falsified? Since you, indeed, make a habit of doing so with several different assertions, repeatedly and in the face of clear, good-faith correction, can we go so far as to outright label you a troll?

Or is there perhaps some salient distinction between adherence to a position in the face of opposition, and trolling? Every coherent definition of "trolling" that I've encountered had as its primary component something about a desire to elicit certain emotional responses from an audience (and nothing about being "wrong," or rejecting consensus, as such).

Does it? It's not clear to me that a one-world religion, with a single nationality based thereupon, is impossible. It's also not clear to me that the process of handling bigger jobs requires replacing religion, rather than grafting something new on top of it (the same was religion works on top of smaller-scale group loyalties in doing the same trick at a smaller scale).

That was always the case - and it's a feature, not a bug. Religion is only supposed to create harmony and solidarity inside the in-group - and thereby empower them to better resist and displace competing groups. Antipathy towards Others is simply the other side of the group-coherence coin. Surely you don't imagine that inter-religious conflict is some new phenomenon that wasn't an issue until the populations got this large? The empowerment of said competition is exactly what led to the proliferation of religion to begin with.

Exactly. That's a testament to the power of these modes of organization - they can mobilize large populations and resources, with sufficient backing to pursue very high stakes conflicts against other very powerful groups. Less powerful modes of organization don't stand a chance, against that - and so, the more capable modes proliferate.

We'd need to see the scale of political organization reverting to that of the Stone Age. Since (organized) religion is still producing ever-more-powerful and competitive political organizations, it seems that its usefulness is not at any sort of end.

Rather, it seems that the Age of Global Enlightenment that you seem to be speaking to, has not yet seen its dawn. It will have to produce some identity politic capable of subsuming religion, ethnicity and nationalism, before it exists in any positive sense.

 

Here's an accepted definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, ....

 

Bertrand Russell often referred to Marxism as a religion. With out seemingly innate craving for certainty, our impulse for dogmatism has some curious results sometimes. Peer review, and incontrovertible evidence can still take time to dismantle scientific orthodoxies that have built up when people have become comfortable with a certain accepted view, and are very reluctant to change.

Fraggle, I'd like to read some of these Dawkins excerpts that make you cringe. This interview seems completely unobjectionable to me, and is typical of what I've read of him.

 

lol fair enough.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

roger that smokey. . .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, please expand on the word 'superhuman'. I think that is the crux of the matter, and establishes Fraggle's claim that the SUPERnatural is always invoked as part of religion.

 

Re Dawkins:

The common condition, expressed or exhibited.

And another clue as to why Americans hate atheists.

But in general, religion does focus community and organize sacrifice for the common good. If someone thinks that deity is central to that organization for the common good, the notion that atheism is a personal betrayal of community is easy to imagine coming 'round.

 

Well, it seems then the solution to making religious people more sympathetic to atheists in America is elementary. What you need is for an Atheist to die for your "perceived sins", and now you have a perfect candidate. This is a way to remodel the whole image of Atheism in America, and do away with it's greatest curse in one fell swoop.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you can somehow conspire to act as Judas and deliver Dawkins into the hands of that wacko that burned the Koran and caused all that trouble in the middle east, Pastor Terry Jones and all his followers, your crusade to change the hearts and minds of Americans about atheists will truley take off. And really, WWDD? (What Would Dawkins Do?) Isn't this the best most rational, logical thing to do to tug at the emotional heart strings at those fruity symbolic loving spiritualists? Having your leader perish for your cause?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nah, as a non-group, we need a non-stamp collector to not do that.

 

You can believe yourself to be a "non-group" all you want. However, Fox News, the OP, Politicians, the institutions, etc. and the religious groups of America all beg to differ.

 

This hatred is a throwback to the 1950s which were not that long ago. Atheism and communism were deemed inseparable, which is why they put god in the pledge and on the money.

 

Being an atheist, I think my opinion counts more than a bunch of hacks and religious loonies take on the situation.

 

.. and generally raped the constitution.

 

The easiest answer is that Americans dislike atheists because Americans are religious. Religion makes people hate atheists.