# What is it like to be atheist where you are?



## etornudo

What is it like to be an atheist where you live?


----------



## invictaspirit

England: completely acceptable.


----------



## badgrammar

No problemo, none at all in France.  People almost never talk about religion in France, atleast not the people I know.  It is, I think, considered a very private matter...


----------



## Lombard Beige

etornudo said:


> What is it like to be an atheist where you live?



Here in Italy, for a long time after World War II, a large part of the population claimed to be Marxists and many of them also atheists ... An equally large part of the population claimed to be Catholics. The situation  was described in the Don Camillo books and films. However, on both sides many people were genuinely atheist and others genuinely Catholic. As far as I can tell, there is no open discrimination against either position. (For completeness, there are other religions here too, but the two largest are Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims. I'm not sure how they would treat the atheists if they were the majority). Concluding, in Italy, one can be an atheist with no (or very few) problems.

regards


----------



## TRG

It never comes up except in discussions within my immediate family.  Even if it did, it would not be a big deal.


----------



## invictaspirit

badgrammar said:


> No problemo, none at all in France. People almost never talk about religion in France, atleast not the people I know. It is, I think, considered a very private matter...


 
Ditto for the UK.  Bringing up one's religious views too often, or worse, pushing yours down someone's throat when your opinion was not invited, is seen as weirdo behaviour in most social settings here.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Down here, nobody would care.

Catholicism is the official religion, but religious minorities are very 'large' as well. Except for muslims, orthodoxes, buddhists and shintoists, I think.

Since this is a country where contrasts and all kinds of crazy mingles cohabit somewhat peacefully, people would not give a dang about your being whatever you want to be.

At least, that has been my experience, so far... 

Oh, and since everybody believes what has chosen to believe (most times, people choose a mix-up of catholicism with evolutionism, witchcraft and gospel), it's OK to talk about your beliefs. Again, so I think...


----------



## fenixpollo

TRG said:


> It never comes up except in discussions within my immediate family.  Even if it did, it would not be a big deal.


 This is not true of most places in the U.S.  In a country where over 80% of the people claim to be Protestant and only 3% admit to being Atheist, those three percent are considered to be slightly deviant/abnormal. In a typical work or public setting, people do not openly come out to be Atheists until/unless they get to know the people around them.  The reason is that a frequent reaction from people is to assume that you are an Atheist only because you don't know enough about God... so they proceed to tell you about their religion.  When you are repeatedly judged negatively for sharing your (lack of) religious beliefs, one of the common reactions is to stop sharing and live in the closet, as it were.

The "Foxhole Atheists" campaign is a direct reaction to that stigmatizing of Atheists. Its adherents have a more outspoken approach to the matter. I'm not sure that I agree with all of their tactics, but I definitely hate the old expression that "there are no atheists in foxholes" -- which is typical of the denigration (albeit mild) that atheists are subjected to in the U.S.


----------



## cuchuflete

Fenixpollo,

I agree with the thrust of your post, but I think you have a statistical error.  The data I've seen say that
some 80% of US residents claim to be Christian.  There is a very large Catholic population included in that number.

In the Bible belt and elsewhere in the US, open declarations of atheism can cause great discomfort for the declarer.  Where I live, there are at least a dozen different religions quite visible, and also a great many people who participate in none of them, and it's no big deal.  The religious people, the atheists, the agnostics and the indifferent all co-exist comfortably.


----------



## Outsider

It's lonely.


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:


> I agree with the thrust of your post, but I think you have a statistical error.  The data I've seen say that some 80% of US residents claim to be Christian.  There is a very large Catholic population included in that number.


You're right, of course, Cuchu. Thanks for pointing out my error.  Here are some more statistics about the numbers of atheists in the world. http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html 

Take them for what they're worth. 


Outsider said:


> It's lonely.


 I'll second that.


----------



## palomnik

To add to what Fenix and Cuchu have to say, I've never met an American yet who admitted to me point blank that he/she was an atheist.  I know that they're out there, because every now and then you run into them in the press, but very few will talk about it.

However, the fact is that I think very little people here think about it enough to form a decided opinion.  Maybe it's different elsewhere.


----------



## Jana337

Outsider said:


> It's lonely.





fenixpollo said:


> Take them for what they're worth.  I'll second that.


Move here, guys. You will be a part of the majority (two thirds of the population, roughly).
So it feels quite normal here, unsurprisingly.

Jana


----------



## faranji

palomnik said:


> To add to what Fenix and Cuchu have to say, I've never met an American yet who admitted to me point blank that he/she was an atheist. I know that they're out there, because every now and then you run into them in the press, but very few will talk about it.


 
This reminded me of an interview I read a few days ago (from wired.com):

'[Richard] Dawkins looks forward to the day when the first US politician is honest about being an atheist. "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says. "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they've got a motive! Everybody knows that an atheist can't get elected."'


----------



## francophone

Religion in Egypt is a matter of life or death unfortunately, you can be either christian or muslim, the government doesn't admit any other. Moreover it has to be specified in your ID... If you are a foreigner people don't expect anything from you, but egyptians must have a religion, rarely jewish, only the oldies or the remains of families that didn't leave when things were hard. Specially in Alexandria.

When bahais who had no IDs because they were not muslims or christians claimed the right to admit Bahaism as a religion, it was like hell doors broke open, because muslims consider Bahaism as a religion founded to distract muslim people, one college mate kept trying to convince me that Bahaism is a conspiracy from Israel. 

There's no tolerance, and the funny thing is that when they started to admit that there is a problem between the muslim and the copts, they thought that they finally broke that religion tabous. 

When you are born in Egypt, you get your family's religion, and grow up with it, even if you are an atheist, you still have to pretend that you have a religion. And if you tried to switch religions, omg...don't let me start with that.


----------



## Bettie

It's getting better but it really wasn't, when I was a kid and said that I didn't have my First Communion and that my dad didn't believe in God everybody used to be shocked, until I stopped saying anything.
One of my brothers studied in a school were half of the people were Catholics and the other half Jewish, and they used to fight against each other, with the excepcion when they joined forces to fight against my atheist brother.
That was in Mexico city, and my experience was in Merida.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Honestly, I think you'd get bothered more if you admit to being a Christian than an atheist here. The majority of the population doesn't believe in a god, but even so, religion is considered a private matter, and isn't something you really talk about (not even the Christian People's Party will mention God, usually).


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


etornudo said:


> What is it like to be an atheist where you live?



Over here, in Belgium, it's totally acceptable to be an atheist. I guess most people find it a private matter and hence hardly anybody talk about it. Most people over here react amused and nothing but amused when I say I was raised a catholic, officially converted to islam, but still a 3rd generation atheist . However, because of the very specific (political) situation in Belgium, there are some sectors which still require people to be overtly Catholic, or at least religious, e.g. catholic schools and (some) other catholic organisations. I am not sure, but if I were to apply for a job in a catholic school, I'd better keep my mouth shut about that topic.
The only persons that do look surprised when I say I am an atheist are my muslim and Polish students.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Kajjo

It is completely accepted to be an atheist in Germany. East-German, the former communistic part, has an atheist rate of approx. 80%, West-Germany of about 30-50% (varying statistics). South Germany (Bavaria) is a little different as it tends to be strongly catholic.

Anyway, religion can be discussed in Germany and no one will be excluded or looked down upon because he is atheistic -- at least that is my experience. Very many of the formal church members are actually atheistic or agnostic -- or do not think about it enough, i.e. do not actively believe anyway. The rate of active and convinced church members is very low in Northern Germany and only low-to-moderate in South-West. 

Kajjo


----------



## Victoria32

Jana337 said:


> Move here, guys. You will be a part of the majority (two thirds of the population, roughly).
> So it feels quite normal here, unsurprisingly.
> 
> Jana


In New Zealand too, probably most people are atheist/agnostic (I am not among them!) statistics notwithstanding... 

Our PM has declared this to be a secular country, which is good and right, there should not be any pressure to believe (or not as the case may be). However, the opposition party hypocritically slammed her for saying so, because they think it'll earn them  brownie points come the election - it won't. People here don't consider religion while voting. 

We Christians are the oddballs here... but that's okay, because neither side gives the other side any problems.
Muslims have problems because New Zealanders are by and large all twitchy about terrorism and prone to jump to conclusions... 
Vicky


----------



## winklepicker

invictaspirit said:


> England: completely acceptable.


 
I'd add to that that it is socially more acceptable in many circumstances than it is to be an adherent - of whatever religion. Religionists tend to be met with suspicion or incredulity.

Can we distinguish please between Dawkins-style atheism = the belief that there is no God, and agnosticism = a determination in the absence of any evidence not to commit either way? To me Richard Dawkins is as daft as any Bible Belt telly evangelist, with his blind belief in the non-existence of something.  

Two quotes from Robert Heinlein:

'There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will _know_. So why fret about it?'

'Like dandruff, most people have a religion, and spend time and money on it, and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.'


----------



## ireney

I suppose in some villages there might be a problem, but in cities and towns it is not a problem. Even the minority of those ranting and storming that if you are not an Orthodox Christian you are not Greek will just energetically pamphlet and humph at you when you kindly ask them to stop trying to convince you.

What is irksome is that you are considered a follower of a religion by default (mainly Christian if you are Greek) and since we don't talk about religion all that much I personally have surprised (neither in a negative nor in a positive way) quite a few acquaintances.


----------



## jess oh seven

invictaspirit said:


> England: completely acceptable.


Same in Scotland... if I had to adhere to a label, it'd be agnostic.

Here it's quite rare to meet anyone within my age group, at least, who would consider themselves to be religious.

However, I do have lots of American friends who class themselves as religious and attend church regularly.

I don't know why there's such a great disparity.


----------



## fenixpollo

winklepicker said:


> Can we distinguish please between Dawkins-style atheism = the belief that there is no God, and agnosticism = a determination in the absence of any evidence not to commit either way?


 There's no need to distinguish between these two concepts. Agnosticism is not Atheism.  The thread is about Atheism.


----------



## winklepicker

fenixpollo said:


> There's no need to distinguish between these two concepts. Agnosticism is not Atheism. The thread is about Atheism.


 
Then, my dear fenixpollo, don't post a link to a page headed _The Largest Atheist / Agnostic Populations_!


----------



## Mate

_"The religious people, the atheists, the agnostics and the indifferent all co-exist comfortably"_ Cuchuflete dixit.

I can say the same about Argentina.

Mate


----------



## TRG

fenixpollo said:


> This is not true of most places in the U.S. In a country where over 80% of the people claim to be Protestant and only 3% admit to being Atheist, those three percent are considered to be slightly deviant/abnormal. In a typical work or public setting, people do not openly come out to be Atheists until/unless they get to know the people around them. The reason is that a frequent reaction from people is to assume that you are an Atheist only because you don't know enough about God... so they proceed to tell you about their religion. When you are repeatedly judged negatively for sharing your (lack of) religious beliefs, one of the common reactions is to stop sharing and live in the closet, as it were.
> 
> The "Foxhole Atheists" campaign is a direct reaction to that stigmatizing of Atheists. Its adherents have a more outspoken approach to the matter. I'm not sure that I agree with all of their tactics, but I definitely hate the old expression that "there are no atheists in foxholes" -- which is typical of the denigration (albeit mild) that atheists are subjected to in the U.S.


I am not familiar with anywhere in the U.S. where it would be common for the subject of your religion or non-religion to come up in routine conversation. People in this country do not wear their religion on their shirtsleeve, so to speak. There are probably more than the 3% who are atheists, but chose to remain silent since the vast majority of people claim to believe in something. Take politicians, there is no point in a politician advertising his/her atheism since most of the potential consitituents are religious. So, they all pretend to be religious too, even if they're not. It is also not a subject that a lot of people are going to want to engage in because quite literally, there is nothing in it for you unless you just happen to like discussing religion and philosophy. I do, but most people don't. As for being judged one way or the other, the people I do discuss it with have never reacted negatively. All I can say is, my experience is different than yours. 




palomnik said:


> To add to what Fenix and Cuchu have to say, I've never met an American yet who admitted to me point blank that he/she was an atheist. I know that they're out there, because every now and then you run into them in the press, but very few will talk about it.
> 
> However, the fact is that I think very little people here think about it enough to form a decided opinion. Maybe it's different elsewhere.


 
Hi Palomnik . I'm an atheist. This is something I'm happy to admit to anyplace or anytime because I'm sure I can do it in a non-confrontational way that would offend no one. I never attack people for their religion or religious beliefs and I do not condemn or look down on people who are religious. There are too many people who I respect who believe in a god for me to be arrogant in my own convictions.


----------



## ernest_

Here is alright to be an atheist. I don't have the figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if we atheists outnumber believers ten thousand to one. It may sound far-fetched, but in fifty years time it may well be that the Christian Religion will be completely wiped out from this part of the planet. Not that I regret it.

When someone in a conversation makes clear that he or she believes in God, two things can happen. Either everybody tries to avoid religious topics, or a furious discusion begins. The latter is more amusing, although sometimes you feel sorry for the poor man whose deepest beliefs can't stand up to simple logic. But anyway, they seem to accept criticism pretty well, I mean religion or no religion we must be able to talk about anything, ain't we?


----------



## panjabigator

I feel like some of these are sweeping statements?  How do you know the percentages?

Maybe it just feels weird because I know practically few atheists...a marginalized population.  I live in a very conservative state, so if you are not part of the crowd you stand out (and are approached to conform!).


----------



## djchak

It's fine. No one really cares.

Even out in the sticks.. (rural U.S.A) no one cares. Just don't expect to get invited to many church related social functions.

Basically, athesist move to more urban areas, and make fun of the places they grew up in. Sweet revenge.


----------



## danielfranco

Well, here in Texas it's okay for anyone to be ahteist.
Just keep it to your damned self, ya hear? 

See, it's like this: whereas you might worry everywhere else in the USA that if you admit to atheism you might get somehow "branded" in a figurative manner of speaking, down here in the South the "branding" might be a little more literal!!

No, but seriously, folks... This is a country where even before televised sporting events (like Mixed Martial Arts, where two men pummel each other bloody and senseless with fists, knees, elbows, and the kitchen sink) someone will insist on "taking a knee" and "raise your voice in prayer to the Lord". So, I think (in a very general manner of speaking) this country might not be to "nice" to atheists proclaiming their atheism.


----------



## Brioche

Atheism, in the sense of actively denying the existence of God, is not very common in Australia. 

In the Census, there is a non-compulsory question about religious belief. Only 0.04% say "atheist", and around 74% claim a religious belief. The rest say either "no religion" or don't answer the question.

However, most the people are pretty nominal in their belief. Only about 9% of the population are regular church-goers.

People in Australia, generally, don't care whether you have a religion or not.


----------



## GEmatt

I found a link on the different sorts of atheism, as I wasn't really sure of the terms. Atheism and agnosticism, as cited by winklepicker, both entail active positions with respect to God, don't they? That is, they both have to deal with the "God-question" in order to arrive at their respective conclusions. I'm personally indifferent (more of an _apatheist_, but don't know if this is a tongue-in-cheek definition), and wonder what percentage of people classified as atheists or agnostics simply don't care, because they see God as being irrelevant to their lives.

Here, it seems to be the norm, among people of a certain age group (perhaps up to the 35/40 threshold, or a little more). Those below that age either fit the atheist/agnostic/apatheist bill, or are so discreet in their beliefs that you would never know the difference.


----------



## Etcetera

In Russia, atheism was sort of an official "religion" for more than 7 decades. 
Since the mid-1980s, many people have become interested in religion. Nowadays it may seem that most people are religious (mostly Orthodox), but I suspect that in fact, many remain atheists. 

In my family, we're all Orthodox, but we're very strange Orthodox. I like Catholicism much more, so does my Mum.


----------



## Outsider

TRG said:


> Take politicians, there is no point in a politician advertising his/her atheism since most of the potential consitituents are religious. So, they all pretend to be religious too, even if they're not.


Portugal has more or less the same percentage of atheism/agnosticism as the U.S.A., yet the previous Portuguese president was openly atheist.


----------



## fenixpollo

GEmatt said:


> I found a link on the different sorts of atheism, as I wasn't really sure of the terms. Atheism and agnosticism, as cited by winklepicker, both entail active positions with respect to God, don't they? That is, they both have to deal with the "God-question" in order to arrive at their respective conclusions.


 Many people arrive at their religious beliefs by dealing with the "God-question", as you put it. A Baptist and an Atheist may ask themselves the same question -- Is there a god? -- but they arrive at different answers. Those two "religions" are not variations of the same thing; just as atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing.


winklepicker said:


> Then, my dear fenixpollo, don't post a link to a page headed _The Largest Atheist / Agnostic Populations_!


 I don't believe that atheism and agnosticism are the same thing, but the link that I posted lumps them all together. I chose that link because the adherents.com data is recognized, even by the U.S. Census Bureau, as fairly accurate -- as far as statistics go.   There was some debate about the distinction between the two terms in this thread.


panjabigator said:


> I feel like some of these are sweeping statements?  How do you know the percentages?.


The Census Bureau gives a list of links (here) to religious data, and they have the actual results of their own data-gathering (raw data at the bottom of this page, but you have to interpret the data). I prefer adherents (here is a breakdown of US religions) because it's already interpreted for me and I don't have to think. 


djchak said:


> It's fine. No one really cares.  Even out in the sticks.. (rural U.S.A) no one cares.


Talk about sweeping statements.  It's probably not the case that nobody cares, but that nobody talks about religion, so you never realize what a complete nutjob your neighbor is.... and vice-versa. 


TRG said:


> I am not familiar with anywhere in the U.S. where it would be common for the subject of your religion or non-religion to come up in routine conversation. People in this country do not wear their religion on their shirtsleeve, so to speak. There are probably more than the 3% who are atheists, but chose to remain silent since the vast majority of people claim to believe in something.


 Thanks for clarifying/correcting my comments about religious conversations. You're right that it doesn't often come up.


----------



## etornudo

Thanks for all of the answers.

I used the term "atheist" because, sadly, it's the most reconizable term. I suspect that religious people would be more comfortable with dealing with an agnostic than an atheist because the agnostic doesn't deny the existence of the supernatural but just isn't sure. That's why I did not include that word in my original question.

I wasn't really interested in how people who don't believe in a god or a religion but play along with the rituals are treated. What I wanted to know was how people who don't believe in a supreme supernatural being are looked upon; how life was like in different places for people who are not only non-religious but non-believers.


----------



## InMotion

Here in Argentina the two main religious groups are catholics and jews but if you say you´re either an atheist or an agnostic not many will really care. Besides many people who claim to have a religious belief are not really into it, many just say they have a particular religion because of tradition, because their parents had one. For example one of my parents is a catholic and the other one is jewish but neither of them ever goes to church or to the synagoge. They only identify themselves as such because their families used to practice those religions.
Even so, lately there´s been an increasing number of people attending evangelist churchs. This started during a financial crisis in 2001.


----------



## youtin

I think it'll be generally viewed as weird or even unacceptable in the mostly Catholic/Christian country where I live. In the liberal university where I go to now, people are open minded and accepting but I don't think I can say the same for the rest of the country. I could imagine some 'superstitious' people shunning them or being generally scandalized. Being an atheist is almost unheard of beyond the capital.


----------



## sound shift

Sometimes it can be frustrating to be an atheist here. In some areas, the best state schools have a religious ethos and will admit only those children whose parents show a commitment to the faith - so we get the unedifying spectacle of people with a secular past suddenly currying favour with the vicar of the local church. The trouble is that the religious have plenty of vocal spokespeople, so that the government can justly say, "We have found that there is a demand for more faith schools", whereas the non-religious find it more difficult to lobby because they tend not to organise.


----------



## palomnik

To add to my earlier comments and to elaborate on some things that Winklepicker said, I think that many people that would define themselves as atheist in other countries would call themselves "agnostics" in the USA.  To me, anyway, atheism implies a particular stand and determination, whereas agnosticism just means that you never made your mind up, and probably don't really care a whole lot.


----------



## nanel

IMO in Spain no one really cares, and usually people don't really mind talking about religion, it's like politics or any other thing. I'd say it's more uncommon saying you're religious than saying you're not among the people under 40 y.o. A lot of people would tell you they believe in 'something superior' but very very few would tell you they go to church (not because they have to hide it, but because they don't go). If you say you're atheist people would tell you "okay" and then probably tell you what they believe or don't believe in, but no one will treat you differently because of it, it's like saying "I like chocolate". And only grandmas will tell you "God bless you" and similar things.


----------



## tvdxer

Most people here are Christians (predominantly Lutherans and Catholics).  Religious practice varies greatly.  Many young people are very involved in their churches, programs, and religious charities, and others aren't really religious in any serious sense of the term.  The majority seems to fall into the middle; they believe in God, fall back upon Him in hard times, and attend church weekly or monthly, but don't talk much about their faith and probably don't think about it too often either.  Nonetheless, unlike the youth in European countries, who mostly have abandoned this inheritance, it remains quite strong in the U.S.

That said, I would have to say atheism is probably looked down upon, but atheists aren't likely to face much discrimination or problems.  Most people don't bring up religion before they get to know others.  I would consider myself a very religious person, but I've had a few atheist friends before.  Generally I think the best thing to do is pray for them.


----------



## emma42

faranji said:


> This reminded me of an interview I read a few days ago (from wired.com):
> 
> '[Richard] Dawkins looks forward to the day when the first US politician is honest about being an atheist. "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says. "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they've got a motive! Everybody knows that an atheist can't get elected."'



This reminds me of a quote from Spartacus:  A senator remarks to a colleague, in relation to the gods:  "Publicly, I believe in all of them; privately, I believe in none".

I agree with the English forer@s who have said it's considered normal/more than acceptable to be an atheist in England.  In fact, if one declares oneself to be Christian, people tend to be a bit suspicious and expect proselytising to follow (I do realise that Christianity is not the only religion in this country, however, but I limit my remarks to Christianity for the time being).  However, research has shown (I can't quote, but will try to if there is huge disagreement with the following) that, even though many will not consider themselves Christian (who probably would have done so forty years ago), they will still say they believe in "God", if pressed.


----------



## Binapesi

In Turkiye, at least, in where I live, Being an atheist is something odd, unusual. "Why not believe in God?" .. But it is not questioned "why?". I mean, I am muslim, but i could easily have an atheist friend. I would like to tell him or her that there is God, Allah, because as to my belief those who dont believe will not come into Heaven. But if she or he doesnt want to believe me I wouldnt insist on that "you will believe!" ..
If we summarize; if you're known that you are atheist where I live, you would be behaved as somebody strange, but nobody would insist on you. I mean, you would be free. They would see it as a joke. For example in friday at noon one would ask you, "come on let's go to the mosque." (for namaz if you know). And you would say "I dont pray, dont believe in God." .. He would look at you in an disunderstanding way, "Ha? You dont believe in God? What does this mean? Everybody believes in God. Come on friend, lets go to pray, even you wont be able to believe yourself how you will have believed after namaz."
If you dont try to instill atheism to people where you are, nobody will touch you in Turkey ..


----------



## invictaspirit

emma42 said:


> This reminds me of a quote from Spartacus: A senator remarks to a colleague, in relation to the gods: "Publicly, I believe in all of them; privately, I believe in none".
> 
> I agree with the English forer@s who have said it's considered normal/more than acceptable to be an atheist in England. In fact, if one declares oneself to be Christian, people tend to be a bit suspicious and expect proselytising to follow (I do realise that Christianity is not the only religion in this country, however, but I limit my remarks to Christianity for the time being). However, research has shown (I can't quote, but will try to if there is huge disagreement with the following) that, even though many will not consider themselves Christian (who probably would have done so forty years ago), they will still say they believe in "God", if pressed.


 
If the Census is to be believed (71% adhere, in some way, to Christianity, even if they never go to church), the deal in England is that you probably expect most people to be very vaguely and extremely privately Christian, and most of those to be Anglican. But that you would seldom, if ever, ask or make a big deal about it. Fair?

The English are more likely to ask what your favourite sex position is than ask what your religious beliefs are.  It hardly ever gets discussed.  To buck the trend, I'll say that I'm a Catholic.  My favourite sex position, you will be relieved to hear, will remain my business!


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

In Ireland you can be whatever you want, but some older people would probably look at you a bit differently if you said you didn't believe. I don't know about Northern Ireland though, large swaths of up there are probably more fundamentalist than the Bible Belt.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

In Spain catholicism has the religious monopoy de facto, but regardless how many people declare to be an atheist, 90% of the people live as atheists 100% of the time and the remaining 10% live as atheist 90% of the time... Religion is a rare matter of discussion beyond some folklorical customs and is not normal to hear someone talk about his/her faith out of circumstancial occasions.

I think if there was a wider religion spectrum people would pay more attention to them.


----------



## TRG

palomnik said:


> To add to my earlier comments and to elaborate on some things that Winklepicker said, I think that many people that would define themselves as atheist in other countries would call themselves "agnostics" in the USA. To me, anyway, atheism implies a particular stand and determination, whereas agnosticism just means that you never made your mind up, and probably don't really care a whole lot.


 
I agree with this. When atheists begin to proselytize they are viewed differently and I think many atheists are not content just to have their own beliefs; they want to stamp out religion everywhere in public life. The most famous American atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, was an example of this type of person. People who vigorously proselytize for the religious beliefs or their non-belief make me very uncomfortable. It is possible to be an atheist and not be contemptuous of religion. Some would say this means I'm really an agnostic. Perhaps, but when all is said and done, what do any of us really know for sure?


----------



## TrentinaNE

Being an atheist (at least admitting it) in the USA means that you'll never be elected president.


----------



## Etcetera

TrentinaNE said:


> Being an atheist (at least admitting it) in the USA means that you'll never be elected president.


Curious. 
In Russia, being religious isn't customary for candidates, but it's something of an advantage. I don't think many Russian politicians are really believers, but on majoк holidays, such as Christmas and Easter, you can see in news numerous politicians standing the Holy Service in churches. What they're doing that for?


----------



## etornudo

TrentinaNE said:


> Being an atheist (at least admitting it) in the USA means that you'll never be elected president.



It would be awkward for an atheist to say "So help me God." as he or she is sworn in. It would also be weird to hear a presidential speech without the customary "God Bless America and nobody else." I don't think we even have an admitted atheist in the Senate.

Another area where atheists feel...isolated...is in Sports. God regularly watches sports and picks sides. This year it was the Colts. At the end of the game the winning coach mentionned that the other coach was not only a fellow African American but a fellow Christian. He also talked about how he was giving the trophy back to God. I wonder if ### delivers.

In those two areas of public life God is omnipresent. One nation under God indeed.


----------



## Joca

Even though Brazil is often referred to as the largest Catholic country in the world, Catholicism is in a crisis. Very few people actually profess it, although it's usual for most of them to declare themselves as being Catholics. On the other hand, new evangelical Churches appear "on the market" every day, and many young people are joining them. That's to say that atheism is rather frowned upon here. I am one, or rather, I'm an agnostic, but often when I'm forced to talk about it, many people will look at me in dismay. Many will ask me: "Then, who made the world?" etc... Many will even feel sorry for me and will try to talk me out of it. Indeed, it takes courage for you to say you are an atheist, because there's usually a lot of confrontation or disdain against you. You'd be better to avoid the subject, if you can.


----------



## TRG

etornudo said:


> It would be awkward for an atheist to say "So help me God." as he or she is sworn in. It would also be weird to hear a presidential speech without the customary "God Bless America and nobody else." I don't think we even have an admitted atheist in the Senate.
> 
> Another area where atheists feel...isolated...is in Sports. God regularly watches sports and picks sides. This year it was the Colts. At the end of the game the winning coach mentionned that the other coach was not only a fellow African American but a fellow Christian. He also talked about how he was giving the trophy back to God. I wonder if ### delivers.
> 
> In those two areas of public life God is omnipresent. One nation under God indeed.


 
LOL. That would truly be an interesting moment. They don't really say "and nobody else" but it's easy to get the impression that's what they mean. I rather wish they wouldn't say it, but at the moment, it's a cultural imperative for presidnets.


----------



## tvdxer

TrentinaNE said:


> Being an atheist (at least admitting it) in the USA means that you'll never be elected president.



True (and my opinion that's probably a good sign).  However, I don't think that's necessarily just because Americans are religious...it's also because we tend to care a lot about the personal lives of our leaders (though "religion" is ideally not just a personal matter).


----------



## Lugubert

Lemminkäinen said:


> Honestly, I think you'd get bothered more if you admit to being a Christian than an atheist here. The majority of the population doesn't believe in a god, but even so, religion is considered a private matter, and isn't something you really talk about (not even the Christian People's Party will mention God, usually).


Describes Sweden as well.


----------



## Kajjo

tvdxer said:


> True (and my opinion that's probably a good sign).


I take this statement to mean you do not like and respect your constitution. Is religious liberty not one of the important foundations?

Kajjo


----------



## fenixpollo

TRG said:


> I think many atheists are not content just to have their own beliefs; they want to stamp out religion everywhere in public life.


 I disagree. Just as there are Baptists who are content to leave others to their (mistaken) beliefs, I think most atheists are content to leave others to their misconceptions. I agree that proselytizing is wrong, no matter what corner it comes from; but I think you are wrong if you believe that most atheists are missionaries. In fact, I think the opposite is true.  





etornudo said:


> It would be awkward for an atheist to say "So help me God." as he or she is sworn in.


 It is awkward to have to swear on the name of God in order to take an oath, but atheists do it all the time. I don't think that it would actually be an issue for an atheist President.


----------



## Kajjo

fenixpollo said:


> I disagree. Just as there are Baptists who are content to leave others to their (mistaken) beliefs, I think most atheists are content to leave others to their misconceptions. I agree that proselytizing is wrong, no matter what corner it comes from; but I think you are wrong if you believe that most atheists are missionaries. In fact, I think the opposite is true.


I agree. I think proselytizing atheists are very rare. Usually they just do not believe in God. In many countries this attitude is very common and nothing special. 



> It is awkward to have to swear on the name of God in order to take an oath, but atheists do it all the time. I don't think that it would actually be an issue for an atheist President.


I think it should be an issue for an atheist president. In Germany, the chancellor and ministers can freely choose between a phrase with or without mention of God when being sworn into their office. Both choices are made and there is almost no public discussion about this choice. It reflects freedom of belief as it should be.

Kajjo


----------



## panjabigator

So in your countries, would it be acceptable to have an atheist president?

I would actually prefer it for both the USA and India.  It would ensure some sort of secularism.


----------



## Lombard Beige

If I am not mistaken the current President of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano, is an atheist. He is or was a professed Marxist.

regards


----------



## Kajjo

panjabigator said:


> So in your countries, would it be acceptable to have an atheist president?


Absolutely, yes. Both as president and chancellor.

Kajjo


----------



## Athaulf

TRG said:


> I agree with this. When atheists begin to proselytize they are viewed differently and I think many atheists are not content just to have their own beliefs; they want to stamp out religion everywhere in public life. The most famous American atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, was an example of this type of person. People who vigorously proselytize for the religious beliefs or their non-belief make me very uncomfortable.



I would also add that atheists of this zealous kind tend to be extremely opinionated  and equally zealous on a wide range of non-religious political and social issues. When I find myself in disagreement with this sort of people about some issue unrelated to religion, I often feel that if they were given the power, they would shove their agenda down my throat with as much vigor and stringency as any religious fundamentalists. Hence they end up making most religious people look generally more tolerant and sensible, which certainly doesn't help their cause. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who sometimes gets this impression.


----------



## Victoria32

Athaulf said:


> I would also add that atheists of this zealous kind tend to be extremely opinionated and equally zealous on a wide range of non-religious political and social issues. When I find myself in disagreement with this sort of people about some issue unrelated to religion, I often feel that if they were given the power, they would shove their agenda down my throat with as much vigor and stringency as any religious fundamentalists. Hence they end up making most religious people look generally more tolerant and sensible, which certainly doesn't help their cause. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who sometimes gets this impression.


I fully agree, I have encountered a lot of people like that... 

Vicky


----------



## Athaulf

fenixpollo said:


> I disagree _[that there are many atheists bent on stamping out religion everywhere in public life -- A.]_. Just as there are Baptists who are content to leave others to their (mistaken) beliefs, I think most atheists are content to leave others to their misconceptions.



That's certainly true, but notice that TRG said _many_, not _most_. I have no idea what percentage of declared atheists are of this zealous kind, but there is certainly a large number of them and unfortunately, they manage to raise a lot of publicity with their efforts, which invariably ends up generating the best possible propaganda for religious leaders and politicians catering to the more religious parts of the electorate.  In fact, when I read about some of their silliest legal efforts, I sometimes wonder if they're in fact being secretly paid by people like Pat Robertson to give life to their favorite propaganda straw men. 



> I agree that proselytizing is wrong, no matter what corner it comes from; but I think you are wrong if you believe that most atheists are missionaries. In fact, I think the opposite is true.


Proselytizing is certainly annoying and often damaging for those who practice it (and even more for those who inadvertently end up being lumped together with the proselytizers in the public opinion!), but I don't see why it should be considered as _wrong_ in any way. These days, people are trumpeting all kinds of ideas loudly and publicly by whatever means are available, and I don't see why ideas about religion should be any different. 

(Or did you perhaps mean to say that proselytizing is "wrong" as in "wrong tactic," i.e. in the sense that it doesn't produce the desired results?)


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Athaulf said:


> I would also add that atheists of this zealous kind tend to be extremely opinionated  and equally zealous on a wide range of non-religious political and social issues. When I find myself in disagreement with this sort of people about some issue unrelated to religion, I often feel that if they were given the power, they would shove their agenda down my throat with as much vigor and stringency as any religious fundamentalists. Hence they end up making most religious people look generally more tolerant and sensible, which certainly doesn't help their cause. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who sometimes gets this impression.


Any X "of the zealous kind tend(s) to be extremely opinionated". I don't have the feeling that this kind of clichés is helping the debate in this thread. I thought this thread was about atheists in other countries in general, not about how some people like or dislike 'special cases'. 
Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Athaulf

Frank06 said:


> Any X "of the zealous kind tend(s) to be extremely opinionated". I don't have the feeling that this kind of clichés is helping the debate in this thread. I thought this thread was about atheists in other countries in general, not about how some people like or dislike 'special cases'.



You seem to have misunderstood the point of my post. I pointed out the fact that atheists of this zealous kind tend to generate a lot of bad publicity that unfortunately influences the public opinion about all atheists.  This has a lot of relevance for what the average person will think about atheists in general, regardless of how mistaken this opinion might be.


----------



## I.C.

panjabigator said:


> So in your countries, would it be acceptable to have an atheist president?


In Germany, the president more or less is a figure head. Head of government (akin to a prime minister) is the Chancellor.
For his oath on the constitution, former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder chose not to add the phrase “so help me god”. To my knowledge, he so far has been the only one to do so. 
The phrase is optional, but of course this doesn’t mean no one would possibly resent him for his stance. I know people who do resent him for not being Christian enough. Yet to the best of my knowledge, the big conservative parties who were in opposition back then did not use this against him in subsequent election campaigns, at least not on a large scale (I haven't heard of anything, but then again I wouldn't rule out someone somewhere said something). 

Outside of the context of elections, there of course are voices which proclaim atheism to be the root of all evil. I can hear them loud and clear. Still, those who believe in the bible as literally true would be a slim minority and as of now there are no heated debates about the teaching of evolution or alike. (A while ago there were some reports that groups from abroad have financially backed attempts to sneak creationism into schools here and at least in some cases apparently have succeeded. One such report on arte TV, I believe.)

In 2006 Infratest Dimap undertook a survey for the magazine Spiegel, in which according to the figures I just looked up 64% of those polled answered “yes” to the question whether they believe in God, 33% said they do not. 
Even including agnostics who are not agnostic atheists, I’d nevertheless be reluctant to conclude the remaining 33% are atheists. I wouldn’t rule out some of those polled thought they were asked whether they believed in the god of Christianity or in a personified god, I know some  pantheists who faced with “yes”, “no” and “not sure” as the only options would have chosen “no”. I don’t know what the question was exactly, I'd have to look it up, but I think it was something like “Do you believe in God?” If it was, then I also wouldn’t  rule out some, many or most Hindus or Muslims asked might have answered with "no".
Source for the figures mentioned (in German): http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=15471

I don’t expect liberal Christians to excuse themselves for Jerry Falwell, so I see no reason why atheists should apologise for some shrill voices of proclaimed atheists. 
My experience has been that privately proselytising atheists not so rarely are converts who were raised religious. I guess some are fuming with rage and hurt about what they perceive has been their deception or emotional abuse and they may need to work this out, may also believe they have to help others to break their chains.


----------



## cuchuflete

I repeat what I wrote earlier.  In this small corner of the universe, one can be a theist or atheist, and nobody will bother you for it.  A few visible or audible loudmouths of either persuasion have little if any effect on local tolerance.  Local people recognize zealots for what they are, and have enough sense not to ascribe to others the overstated opinions and behavior of a few extremists.

What are troubling are the strawmen!  They cause such a ruckus both when getting set up and when being knocked down.


----------



## fenixpollo

Athaulf said:


> when I read about some of their silliest legal efforts,


 Which part was silliest to you... the part where the person suggested that the word "God" on U.S. currency was a violation of the 1st amendment? Or the part where the judge said that the word was not a religious reference? 





			
				Athaulf's article said:
			
		

> [US District Judge Frank] Damrell ... cited a 1970 ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Aronow v. United States, rendering "In God We Trust" a "patriotic or ceremonial character" with no government establishment or endorsement of religion.


Personally, I find this illogical conclusion even more ridiculous than the original suit.


Athaulf said:


> (Or did you perhaps mean to say that proselytizing is "wrong" as in "wrong tactic," i.e. in the sense that it doesn't produce the desired results?)


 Perhaps you're right that _that's_ what I meant, when I responded to TRG's post in which he said he was offended by other people's proselytizing.  However, in a more general sense, I think that proselytizing is inherently disrespectful of other people's beliefs, is too confrontational and intrusive.


----------



## Athaulf

fenixpollo said:


> Which part was silliest to you... the part where the person suggested that the word "God" on U.S. currency was a violation of the 1st amendment? Or the part where the judge said that the word was not a religious reference?



Even ignoring the insurmountable technical issues, the words on the currency are such a firmly established tradition that there's no way they will be gone in the foreseeable future. They are one of those things that no legal argument is able to change; this is clear to everyone. They are also an empty symbol without any practical importance for anyone's life. Now, when a fundamentalist preacher paints a picture of a conspiracy of atheists hell-bent on eradicating and suppressing every public symbol of God and faith, no matter  how insignificant in practice and how firmly entrenched in tradition,  it doesn't help the atheist cause that he can actually point out concrete examples like this one that fit the description pretty well. As an atheist blogger put it well, "If Michael Newdow, radical atheist litigant, did not exist, Christian conservatives would need to invent him."

Even when it comes to the non-fundamentalist, and even non-religious parts of the population, I'm sure that many people view it as foolish zealotry to protest against such an innocuous and well-entrenched custom. Note that in virtually all decidedly secular societies, in which the U.S. religion-related controversies are altogether non-issues, there are many such traditional symbols that don't bother anyone -- from the _Dei Gratia Regina_ on the Canadian money to the established state churches and flags with Christian crosses in Scandinavian countries. 



> *[Quoted from the article]:*
> _[US District Judge Frank] Damrell ... cited a 1970 ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Aronow v. United States, rendering "In God We Trust" a "patriotic or ceremonial character" with no government establishment or endorsement of religion._
> 
> Personally, I find this illogical conclusion even more ridiculous than the original suit.


The conclusion is certainly absurd, although it would probably rate only around #10 on the list of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in U.S. judicial opinions (and I'm not even a lawyer). The legal precedents in every jurisdiction are full of such outright absurdities, and there is a good reason for that. 

What determines whether the government can or cannot do something in practice is the popular attitude towards it, not the words on some centuries old piece of paper; if the popular opinion approves of something (let alone demands it), a legal theory will easily be found that "proves" that the said piece of paper in fact says the exact opposite of what the words written on it say in plain English, if necessary. There have always been tons of things routinely done by the government that contradict one part of the constitution or another, but would be impossible to stop in practice, and opinions such as this one are the standard way of dealing with these situations. The whole system has been working like that ever since 1787, and it doesn't make much sense to point out this single example of such a legal theory out of a great multitude as particularly noteworthy (especially since it's fairly mild by usual standards).


----------



## fenixpollo

Athaulf said:


> Note that in virtually all *decidedly secular societies*, in which the U.S. religion-related controversies are altogether non-issues, there are many such traditional symbols that don't bother anyone -- from the _Dei Gratia Regina_ on the *Canadian* money to the established state churches and flags with Christian crosses in *Scandinavian* countries.


 Returning from your well-argued post to the topic of the thread, it's hard to be an atheist here because the U.S. is not what I would call a "decidedly secular society" like Canada and Scandanavian countries.  I would call it an ostensibly secular society.


----------



## JamesM

fenixpollo said:


> Returning from your well-argued post to the topic of the thread, it's hard to be an atheist here because the U.S. is not what I would call a "decidedly secular society" like Canada and Scandanavian countries. I would call it an ostensibly secular society.


 
I'm not quite sure what "society" refers to here, whether it's the day-to-day social fabric or the organized government, but taking it as the day-to-day social fabric I'd say that the U.S. is a decidedly _non_-secular society with a government working towards a more secular approach to issues (which is in line with our constitution, as I see it.)


----------



## Lugubert

Accdording to the Swedish constitution, our regent has to encompass the "pure evangelical faith". I suppose that few Swedes are aware of this, and fewer still would care. The only time this fact is mentioned is when there is a tentative move to have that paragraph stricken from the law.

Our prime ministers, like most all politicians, don't refer to their faith. As far as I know, PM's don't have to be members of the Church of Sweden. Some members of the Christian democrats refer to their faith, nobody else does.

There are crosses in all the Nordic flags, probably influenced by crusaders' banners, but nobody regards them as Christian symbols.


----------



## sinedeo

Although we have a very strong Catholic tradition in Spain, being atheist is nowadays absolutely accepted. Many politicians, specially but not only in the left, admit or even exhibit their atheism.
If you were born, for example, in a very conservative and traditional Catholic family, and when adult you were atheist, your mother would probably get really upset; but nobody apart from your very close family would worry about it.
However, our Catholic tradition is still very present, so most people perform rites such as baptisme, first comunion or religious marriage even if they are atheists or agnostics.


----------



## Kajjo

sinedeo said:


> However, our Catholic tradition is still very present, so most people perform rites such as baptisme, first comunion or religious marriage even if they are atheists or agnostics.


Yes, that is probably the same everywhere. People use Christian behaviour as personal decoration, as valuable event to celebrate a little bit, as things done "because of tradition". Church is attended if people are born, marry, or die, maybe also for Christmas. It's show, it enjoying the moment, it's belonging to a group, but most certainly it has almost nothing to do with real Christianity and actual belief in a god who can do miracles or who is mightier than natural laws.

Most people are more atheistic in their foundations than they dare to admit, not even to themselves. Evolution, genetics, relativity, natural laws ... they are all so unambigiously, so certain, so real that no much doubt is left. We understand more of the world than ever before. And religion has only place where questions, doubt, and uncertainty rules. Religion used to provide answers where there were none.

Kajjo


----------



## sinedeo

Kajjo said:


> Yes, that is probably the same everywhere. People use Christian behaviour as personal decoration, as valuable event to celebrate a little bit, as things done "because of tradition".



There are a couple of funny modisms in Spain. "Civil marriage" is "Matrimonio por lo civil", but some years ago, by the 1970's, when it was frowned upon, people used to say "matrimonio por lo crimilan", "criminal marriage", as a legal play on words. Nowadays, however, many people say "matrimonio por lo bonito", that is, "beautiful marriage", instead of "matrimonio por la iglesia", "religious marriage", referring to the fact that a wedding in a church is usually more beautiful than in a Town Hall.


----------



## Outsider

panjabigator said:


> So in your countries, would it be acceptable to have an atheist president?


Portugal recently had an agnostic president. I never even knew about it until I happened to read it in Wikipedia, of all places. Although Portugal is very much a Catholic country, people do tend to regard religion as a personal, rather than public matter.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

cuchuflete said:


> Local people recognize zealots for what they are, and have enough sense not to ascribe to others the overstated opinions and behavior of a few extremists.



Northern Ireland, although it is rather unique, is nevertheless one case where I would say the opposite is true. One of the main party leaders (Ian Paisley) is a notorious bigot and I think the same can be said for the majority of his party.

In fact, NI was recently rated as the most bigoted and homophobic society in the western world.
*
*http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2245817.ece
*http://www.youtube.com/user/Brookers*


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> Evolution, genetics, relativity, natural laws ... they are all so unambigiously, so certain, so real that no much doubt is left. We understand more of the world than ever before. And religion has only place where questions, doubt, and uncertainty rules. Religion used to provide answers where there were none.
> 
> Kajjo


 
This idea that "as science advances, religion recedes" is overly simplistic, in my opinion.  Science is concerned with "how".  It does not tackle questions of "why."   It is not a competition; they are separate fields, as far as I'm concerned.  It would be as improper a comparison as to say "as science advances, philosophy recedes."


----------



## Kajjo

JamesM said:


> This idea that "as science advances, religion recedes" is overly simplistic, in my opinion.  Science is concerned with "how".  It does not tackle questions of "why."   It is not a competition [...]


I disagree entirely, James. Science and religion are mutually exclusive. What man know, they do not need to believe in. As science advances, religious beliefs change to new unknowns.

If you look at the multitude of religions and start with very early, primitive religious beliefs you will easily recognise that people took religion to give answers to questions like "Why does it rain?", "Why do we suffer by natural catastrophes?", "What does the total eclipse of the sun mean?". Religion gave answers which sometimes even led to animal and human sacrifices, to entirely wrong beliefs about which god is accountable for weather, draught, harvest, love or death. Today, nobody would argue about how wrong these religious beliefs of our ancestors have been, because we know the real reasons and are able to prove them beyond doubt.

There is no difference in how eagerly in faith and how absolutely convinced people believed in such superstitions of which we know the correct answers nowadays. Our modern religions focus on questions to which _we_ do not know the correct answers, i.e. life after death, the reason for life and so on. But I see no point whatsoever that our religious beliefs are any better or more real than those of our ancestors. Religion is man-made, nature is not.

Kajjo


----------



## Papalote

Hi, y'all
Here in Quebec, you're taking for a nut if you say you believe in anything, specially Catholicism. They are quite polite about showing their disbelief and sending ironic comments your way if you say you are a practicing (more or less) RC. So one finds the totally ignorant about their parents', or should I say, grandparents`, religion, afraid of any other religion that makes more noise than RCs, and ready to believe in any superstitious fad that comes around. Very sad situation, because after all, human beings are made not only of flesh and blood and intelligence and other human tangible factors, but also of a third dimension, which is a spiritual one, and which most people tend to fulfill with material things.

Dear Kajjo, I respect your opinion as you seem to be highly educated, but must disagree with your comment below. My comments are in green.



Kajjo said:


> I disagree entirely, James. *Science and religion are mutually exclusive.* _What man know, they do not need to believe in_. As science advances, religious beliefs change to new unknowns.
> 
> There have been many scientists, and unfortunately I can`t remember the titles or their authors, but do a search on the internet and I am sure you will find what I am talking about, who although they have fathom many of our natural mysteries are still in awe of the spiritual side of our existence.
> 
> If you look at the multitude of religions and start with very early, primitive religious beliefs you will easily recognise that people took religion to give answers to questions like "Why does it rain?", "Why do we suffer by natural catastrophes?", "What does the total eclipse of the sun mean?". Religion gave answers which sometimes even led to animal and human sacrifices, to entirely wrong beliefs about which god is accountable for weather, draught, harvest, love or death. Today, nobody would argue about how wrong these religious beliefs of our ancestors have been, because we know the real reasons and are able to prove them beyond doubt.
> 
> Have you ever studied primitive societies? If you answer yes, then here you are just showing your egocentric cultural point of view of not only the world you live in but history as well. Please study this subject before you write such foolish things as the questions you wrote above.
> 
> 
> There is no difference in how eagerly in faith and how absolutely convinced people believed in such *superstitions (Above, you had referedd to them as relilgions, all of a sudden they are superstitions? Please, again, study the difference between religion and superstition and then with magic, before you make outrageous comments like these.) *of which we know the correct answers nowadays. Our modern religions focus on questions to which _we_ do not know the correct answers, i.e. life after death, the reason for life and so on. *Excuse me, but I beg to differ, religons do not question these points. They aleady have the answers. And each one has its own answer.* But I see no point whatsoever that our religious beliefs are any better or more real than those of our ancestors. *I have a hard time understanding this sentence. Are you trying to say that modern beliefs, because they are modern, should be better than those of `primitive`societies. Don`t base your comparisons on data for which there is no real knowledge, except our modern interpretation of archeological findings, and results given my our modern technology. There is always a very real danger for interpreting the past, or foreign societies (like many anthropologists do) based on your own world-view, culture, political allegieances and lacks in education.* Religion is man-made, nature is not. *That`s your belief. I believe in the spirituality of man, the for a third dimension which belongs to each oen of us in our own particular way, and which religions show us one of the many ways to achieve it. This is the main difference with science, which only seeks to understand how or why our two-dimensional world is as it is.*
> Kajjo


 
At his point I am having a hard time with my own writings. I can`t make up my mind if I am trying to defend `primitive` (how I hate that word) societies or spiritual beliefs. Well, we are all entitled to our ways of thinking. But I maintain that thinking should be based on thorough reading (at the least) of all points of view.

Sorry for going on and on.

Papalote


----------



## Kajjo

> There have been many scientists, and unfortunately I can`t remember the titles or their authors, but do a search on the internet and I am sure you will find what I am talking about, who although they have fathom many of our natural mysteries are still in awe of the spiritual side of our existence.


Yes, many people appear to be able to separate "daily life" from "spiritual life". They actually use relativity, genetics and evolution on a daily basis but still believe. It's not the topic at hand, though.



> Please study this subject before you write such foolish things as the questions you wrote above.


Do you really think that the sun (and like my example also solar eclipses), the weather or the harvest have not played important roles in the spiritual life of our early ancestors or maybe still play in some natural religions? Those issues are not trivial and listing them is not foolish. 



> There is no difference in how eagerly in faith and how absolutely convinced people believed in such *superstitions (Above, you had referedd to them as relilgions, all of a sudden they are superstitions? *


Not "all of a sudden". I called them religions when I wanted to emphasise their quality to be comparable with today's religions. I call them superstitions when mentioning that nowadays everyone accepts they were unfounded beliefs. I know you understood. Just play fair, please.



> Please, again, study the difference between religion and superstition and then with magic, before you make outrageous comments like these.)


My comments were not outrageous. The difference between superstition and religion is very, very small. Mostly it depends on ones own faith.



> Our modern religions focus on questions to which _we_ do not know the correct answers, i.e. life after death, the reason for life and so on. *Excuse me, but I beg to differ, religons do not question these points. They aleady have the answers. And each one has its own answer.*


Again, concentrate and you will understand. I said "focus on questions <noun>", not that religions question <verb> these points. Religions give answers. Different religions give different answers. In most cases only one or few answers can be correct. The other are supposedly wrong.



> But I see no point whatsoever that our religious beliefs are any better or more real than those of our ancestors. *I have a hard time understanding this sentence. Are you trying to say that modern beliefs, because they are modern, should be better than those of `primitive`societies.*


No, not at all. To the contrary, I say that modern religions and their answers will most probably be as wrong as our ancestors have been with their respective religions. 



> except our modern interpretation of archeological findings, and results given my our modern technology. There is always a very real danger for interpreting the past, or foreign societies


You are right. But many ancient religions are known well enough, e.g. those of ancient egypt. Many contemporary natural tribes in Africa or South America still practice natural religions which most of us would call at least partly superstitions and which are obviously wrong as measured against scientific evidence or as compared to Christian beliefs as well.

Kajjo


----------



## Victoria32

Kajjo said:


> I disagree entirely, James. Science and religion are mutually exclusive.
> Kajjo


I find that statement rather odd... As someone said below, there are hundreds of scientists with religious faith, be it Christian or otherwise. Professor John Morton, the geologist (here in New Zealand) is an example! 
Religion is not only about explaining lightning and thunder!  

Vicky


----------



## cuchuflete

Now that the definitions of religion and superstition are all so nicely resolved, in so many different and conflicting ways, would anyone care to address the thread topic?  If we have exhausted that subject.....


----------



## ernest_

I agree with Kajjo, both religion and science aim to provide answers.  The difference is not that they address different questions, but that explanations religion has to offer are purely made up, pulled out of someone's hat (someone who just “knows better”), while science follows a well-known, systematic method to find out the truth by means of processing actual real-world data. Science has made religion obsolete, face it.


----------



## Tegs

In Northern Ireland, we have a joke whereby if someone says 'I'm an atheist', people reply with 'Yes, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant one?' - this pretty much sums up people's response to atheism here


----------



## olivinha

I think there are a lot of people who just cannot accept atheism: "But you have to believe in something?" So, for a long time, wherever I was (Europe, US, Latin America), whenever people started talking about religion, I always found myself having to justify why I was an atheist. Well, that is over. Now, whenever the topic comes up, I just say: 
- Thank God I´m an atheist.
- Soy atea, gracias a Diós.
- Sou atéia, graças a Deus.
And it seems to be working for me. 

O


----------



## CrazyArcher

Most people in Israel are secular, but it's generally expected from everyone to believe in god. If you say that you're an atheist, you'll surely recieve a portion of odd stares. Some people are polite enough not to express anything, others start asking and stuff... Is religion forced on an individual? To a certain extent, yes. There's no such a thing as a secular marriage for Jews, for instance, and children study the Old Testament at school...


----------



## Poetic Device

In my area of New Jersey and where i lived in Brooklyn, it is a lot easier to be athiest than religious--especially Jewish.  If you express what your beliefs are you might as well just ask people to lynch you.


----------



## maxiogee

CrazyArcher said:


> and children study the Old Testament at school...


Yes, but is it taught as 'History' or as 'Religion'?


----------



## Papalote

Kajjo said:


> Yes, many people appear to be able to separate "daily life" from "spiritual life". They actually use relativity, genetics and evolution on a daily basis but still believe. It's not the topic at hand, though.
> 
> Do you really think that the sun (and like my example also solar eclipses), the weather or the harvest have not played important roles in the spiritual life of our early ancestors or maybe still play in some natural religions? Those issues are not trivial and listing them is not foolish.
> 
> Not "all of a sudden". I called them religions when I wanted to emphasise their quality to be comparable with today's religions. I call them superstitions when mentioning that nowadays everyone accepts they were unfounded beliefs. I know you understood. Just play fair, please.
> 
> My comments were not outrageous. The difference between superstition and religion is very, very small. Mostly it depends on ones own faith.
> 
> Again, concentrate and you will understand. I said "focus on questions <noun>", not that religions question <verb> these points. Religions give answers. Different religions give different answers. In most cases only one or few answers can be correct. The other are supposedly wrong.
> 
> No, not at all. To the contrary, I say that modern religions and their answers will most probably be as wrong as our ancestors have been with their respective religions.
> 
> You are right. But many ancient religions are known well enough, e.g. those of ancient egypt. Many contemporary natural tribes in Africa or South America still practice natural religions which most of us would call at least partly superstitions and which are obviously wrong as measured against scientific evidence or as compared to Christian beliefs as well.
> 
> Kajjo


 

Kajjo, please study some anthropology, religious studies and then discuss the difference between superstition and religion. Throw in a little magic, no pun intended, and then we might discuss what religion is really.

I am sorry I have no time to go on with this, I have a huge translation job and between looking up terminology I take a quick glance at my favourite internet spot, but right now I really can´t afford it. If you want to send me a PM, I´ll be very happy to keep exchanging ideas with you, but I don´t promise to do it this week. So sorry, as I am enjoying this discussion. 

Catch you later,

P


----------



## cuchuflete

I just looked at the first post again, to remind myself that the topic is not the differences between science and religion, or the relative merits of either.  Here is what I found:



> *What is it like to be atheist where you are?*
> What is it like to be an atheist where you live?


----------



## CrazyArcher

maxiogee said:


> Yes, but is it taught as 'History' or as 'Religion'?


It's a hard question... As neither, I would say. The sudents don't have to believe in everything written there, and everyone makes his own conclusions (mine led me to atheism), but it _is_ a kind of religious compulsion IMO...


----------



## Poetic Device

CrazyArcher said:


> It's a hard question... As neither, I would say. The sudents don't have to believe in everything written there, and everyone makes his own conclusions (mine led me to atheism), but it _is_ a kind of religious compulsion IMO...


 
So, then, what subject category do they consider it to be in when teaching it?


----------



## Bonjules

To address the original question:

Why would the the matter of your personal beliefs ever
have to come up (at least in states that do not define themselves by religious affiliation)?
The problem is that even in places that have 'official'
separation of church/religion and state it is often not really taken seriously. I would go to great lengths to defend everybodys right to believe whatever they please, but I resent having beliefs or religious acts foisted on me. That includes public expressions of faith, even on the airways. There is a great hesitancy to not want to 'offend' peolples reigious feelings (on WR too, while 'regular chat' is mercilessly marked, religious chat, like folks going on about
their relationship with God, is given a wide berth).
Example:I once attended an academic celebration in the (public) Universty of Massachussetts and the speaker had invited a pastor(he din't make that clear beforehand). Before you knew it, there was a prayer; the only choice you had if you wanted not to be part of it was to walk out in front of everybody during the act- I felt it was an outrageous imposition.
As far as I'm concerned, religion, like other intimate activities belong in the privacy of your own home or places/churches/mosques/temples where you can seek out like minded folks. I am not interested in hearing any more about your religious beliefs than you are in hearing why Burly(not his real name) is my favorite dog.
saludos


----------



## .   1

In Australia it feels logical to be (an) athiest.

.,,


----------



## mirx

When I was in high school I answered a question, What do you think of god?

I expressed my believes, the response:

People got angry at me, some stopped talking to me after they said prayers and persignated in front of me as if I were some sort of bad ommen. This all happened at a very tender age and few people had questioned their own religiousness, I am talking about a 14-16 year old group.
(I got similar responses in Michigan when I said I wanted to be sent to Cuba for laboral matters)

You can say you´re atheist in México with no problem at all, just make sure you're locked up in an isolated place with sound proof walls.

If an atheist presedent were ever elected in México, one of the principles of our contituton would be achieved, since our country is religiousless. The former president was hardly critized, when after being sworn, he went to the Basilic and thanked the virgin for his triumph.

Mexican poeple are very uptight about religion, you have to be catholic no matter what you're beliefs are, as long as you say it is alright, whether you're a practiccing one or not that is no one´s concern.

There is a lot of religious discrimination specially among kids, everything not catholic is looked down upon, laughed at and sometimes ridiculed. People are much more reserved as they grow up, but doesn't mean their attitudes have changed.

I haven't found much difficulty wiht my beliefs, everyone assumes you're catholic so no one even asks what you believe.


----------



## Pando

Lemminkäinen said:


> Honestly, I think you'd get bothered more if you admit to being a Christian than an atheist here. The majority of the population doesn't believe in a god, but even so, religion is considered a private matter, and isn't something you really talk about (not even the Christian People's Party will mention God, usually).





ernest_ said:


> When someone in a conversation makes clear that he or she believes in God, two things can happen. Either everybody tries to avoid religious topics, or a furious discusion begins. The latter is more amusing, although sometimes you feel sorry for the poor man whose deepest beliefs can't stand up to simple logic. But anyway, they seem to accept criticism pretty well, I mean religion or no religion we must be able to talk about anything, ain't we?


I agree with both of you, in Finland the situation is the same, among young people atheism is seen as the logical choice. It also seems like the lower the education level the higher the possibility of the person not being atheist. If an educated person admits to being religious, debate might follow - but not every time as such debates usually lead to hurt feelings which Finns generally try to avoid.


tvdxer said:


> The majority seems to fall into the middle; they believe in God, fall back upon Him in hard times, and attend church weekly or monthly, but don't talk much about their faith and probably don't think about it too often either.


It's peculiar how a person like that would be viewed as very religious here. Here a middle faller would be a person officially belongs to the church, may or may not believe in God and attend the church yearly at most (and never alone or without a good reason).


invictaspirit said:


> the deal in England is that you probably expect most people to be very vaguely and extremely privately Christian, and most of those to be Anglican. But that you would seldom, if ever, ask or make a big deal about it. Fair?


It's quite interesting that (in my opinion) this is the assumption in Finland as well, although Lutheran instead of Anglican. Especially the older the person gets the higher the probability, people between 16-30 I assume to be atheist. I don't have any facts to back this up, it's just my own opinion.


Etcetera said:


> Curious.
> In Russia, being religious isn't customary for candidates, but it's something of an advantage. I don't think many Russian politicians are really believers, but on majoк holidays, such as Christmas and Easter, you can see in news numerous politicians standing the Holy Service in churches. What they're doing that for?


I think mainly two reasons.

1) I'm not sure about Russia, but in many of eastern Europe's former communist nations the church have strong support even among young people. This leads back to the time when religion was banned or discouraged under the communist rule. Since communism was anti-church, the church became anti-communism. For anti-communists, nationalists and other oppressed people the church was a place of unity and (silent) resistance. They truly felt like the church was on the side of the people. I can only imagine people living through that period still have much respect for the church and religion for playing their part.

2) It's hard to see such publicity as bad publicity. Religious people love it and atheists can't be bothered as long as they don't start talking about it in public. In many countries a win win situation for the politicians.


panjabigator said:


> So in your countries, would it be acceptable to have an atheist president?
> 
> I would actually prefer it for both the USA and India.  It would ensure some sort of secularism.


In my opinion it would be broadly accepted, I have to say I've never heard about the religious stance of any of our presidents. Also, in my opinion the world would be far better off if *every* country had an atheist leader. When the leaders of both sides of a conflict think they have "god" on their side it can only lead to disaster.


Lugubert said:


> Our prime ministers, like most all politicians, don't refer to their faith. As far as I know, PM's don't have to be members of the Church of Sweden. Some members of the Christian democrats refer to their faith, nobody else does.


It's pretty much the same in Finland.


Athaulf said:


> there are many such traditional symbols that don't bother anyone -- from the _Dei Gratia Regina_ on the Canadian money to the established state churches and flags with Christian crosses in Scandinavian countries.





Lugubert said:


> There are crosses in all the Nordic flags, probably influenced by crusaders' banners, but nobody regards them as Christian symbols.


I've actually thought about the flags quite recently in regard of the future of the church in the Nordic countries. As Lugubert said, they are not viewed as Christian symbols and let's face it changing them would be impossible.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if Sweden would change their flag in another naive attempt to please everyone and be as politically correct as possible, with guilt from the past once again leading to minorities being more equal than others. 

The flag issue made me think, how are (originally) religious symbols other countries flags (for instance Islamic symbols) viewed in their home countries? Does anyone have first hand experience?


Kajjo said:


> Today, nobody would argue about how wrong these religious beliefs of our ancestors have been, because we know the real reasons and are able to prove them beyond doubt.


Actually, you'd be surprised. Especially on a global scale. There are always people who tend to disregard all objectivity and fact when it comes to something near and dear to them. If I've learned one thing from religious debates, that would be it.


Papalote said:


> Very sad situation, because after all, human beings are made not only of flesh and blood and intelligence and other human tangible factors, but also of a* third dimension*, which is a spiritual one, and which most people tend to fulfill with material things.


Just a slight correction, humans exist in three dimensions by default and adding time to the equation, four. Since the number of additional dimensions is unclear (if there are any), I wouldn't number them to begin with. If you insist on using the word _dimension _in this contextperhaps _another dimension_ would be suitable.


----------



## fenixpollo

I think it's overdramatic to talk about humans living in various dimensions. Yes, spirituality is a part of the human experience, as is human physicality, sexuality, intelligence, and any other aspect of humanity that you want to discuss. These characteristics of humans are not the same as the dimensions of space and time. 





Papalote said:


> Very sad situation, because after all, human beings are made not only of flesh and blood and intelligence and other human tangible factors, but also of a third dimension, which is a spiritual one, and which most people tend to fulfill with material things.


 Even if we accept your paradigm of "living in various dimensions", the act of rejecting an organized religion does not make a person unspiritual. Atheists are just as spiritual as the next person, but find their spirituality in places other than having faith in a Creator.


----------



## Dandee

Hi all:

Here (in Chile) It's like to be the president.


----------



## gabrigabri

I think it's hard to be atheist in a country where the Pope has (too much) power and where he can actively influnce political decisions.


----------



## maxiogee

gabrigabri said:


> I think it's hard to be atheist in a country where the Pope has (too much) power and where he can actively influnce political decisions.



I grew up in one of those 
I agree!


----------



## CrazyArcher

Poetic Device said:


> So, then, what subject category do they consider it to be in when teaching it?



It is a distinct subject.


----------



## Poetic Device

Dandee said:


> Hi all:
> 
> Here (in Chile) It's like to be the president.


 
In what or which way?


----------



## Poetic Device

. said:


> In Australia it feels logical to be (an) athiest.
> 
> .,,


 
...As opposed to it feels illogical to be religious?   I'm sorry I'm not understanding.


----------



## Dandee

Poetic Device said:


> In what or which way?


 
In Chile approx. the 90 % are believer in God, Catholics and protestants. The president says she is agnostic. In my opinion that afirmation is only a way to soften the truth, her atheism. To recognize It (as a naked truth) wouldn't be very convenient for her political career.


----------



## Sallyb36

it feels ungodly.


----------



## maxiogee

Sallyb36 said:


> it feels ungodly.


 
Which 'ungodly' do you mean 

*1 *impious, *ungodly*
_lacking piety and reverence for a god _
*2 *iniquitous, sinful, *ungodly*
_characterized by iniquity; wicked because it is believed to be a sin; "iniquitous deeds"; "he said it was sinful to wear lipstick"; "ungodly acts" _


----------



## Dandee

Sallyb36 said:


> it feels ungodly.


 
I am worried. What do you mean by That?


----------



## Sallyb36

Maxiogee, I mean version 1!!  Why worried Dandee?  There is a large Catholic population in Liverpool, but not many of them appear to be practising ones!  Church attendances are quite low.


----------



## Dandee

Sallyb36 said:


> Maxiogee, I mean version 1!! Why worried Dandee? There is a large Catholic population in Liverpool, but not many of them appear to be practising ones! Church attendances are quite low.


 
I am not either, but that doesn't make me either an atheist or an agnostic. The political advantage is that the second gives the idea of proximity to the believers (and confuses the people), and the first is the total opposite of them.


----------



## maxiogee

Sallyb36 said:


> Maxiogee, I mean version 1!!  Why worried Dandee?  There is a large Catholic population in Liverpool, but not many of them appear to be practising ones!  Church attendances are quite low.



Straight question - as someone who used to be a Catholic I feel compelled to ask: Can one really _be_ a Catholic while not being a practising one?
Doesn't Catholicism require on-going obedience to the rules, and observance of the rituals, of the Church?

The Catholic Church in many places is experiencing a trend which the Church of England is well familiar with - people who only attend at Christmas and in rites-of-passage moments - baptisms, weddings and funerals.


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> Straight question - as someone who used to be a Catholic I feel compelled to ask: Can one really _be_ a Catholic while not being a practising one?
> Doesn't Catholicism require on-going obedience to the rules, and observance of the rituals, of the Church?
> 
> The Catholic Church in many places is experiencing a trend which the Church of England is well familiar with - people who only attend at Christmas and in rites-of-passage moments - baptisms, weddings and funerals.


In Germany the following aphorism is quite popular:

_Catholicism: Even if you loose faith, the guilt stays.
(Selbst wenn man den Glauben verliert, die Schuld bleibt.)

_I think that being a "proper catholic" requires practising. But even people who distanced themselves quite well from catholicism, still fairly often have these concepts of guilt present, they remain somewhat catholic.

Kajjo


----------



## fenixpollo

Poetic Device said:


> ...As opposed to it feels illogical to be religious? I'm sorry I'm not understanding.


 If one does not have faith in God, then one's worldview is based on logic. If one has faith in God, then one's worldview is based on that faith.  Many people are of the opinion that faith and logic are mutually exclusive. By definition, one has faith in something because it cannot be explained or proven using logic.  So... yes, faith is illogical when seen from this paradigm.  

I would also add that it feels rational (as opposed to the irrational nature of faith).


----------



## Kajjo

fenixpollo said:


> If one does not have faith in God, then one's worldview is based on logic. If one has faith in God, then one's worldview is based on that faith.  Many people are of the opinion that faith and logic are mutually exclusive. By definition, one has faith in something because it cannot be explained or proven using logic.  So... yes, faith is illogical when seen from this paradigm.  I would also add that it feels rational (as opposed to the irrational nature of faith).


Thanks for this clear statement. I believe that reason, logic, insight and knowledge play together to form a world where faith is neither necessary nor possible. Since the mentioned properties are limited, outside their boundaries there is still some room for believings. The space get narrower nowadays, though.

Kajjo


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> I believe that reason, logic, insight and knowledge play together to form a world where faith is neither necessary nor possible.


 
Where do ethics fall in this pictured world, or altruism? Altruism is inherently illogical. How is there room for being in love in such a world? It is definitely not a rational state.  There is an inherent "faith=superstition and knowledge destroys superstition, therefore knowledge destroys faith" in what you've said, here and in previous posts. There is a great deal more to a person's faith than superstition; it includes ethics, values, the placing of other over self (altruism), and other aspects. I think it is a very simplistic view to think that faith is only superstition, or that people who live by reason do not have their own superstitions as well. 

I do not think that reason, logic, insight, and knowledge will ever completely encompass all aspects of human beings. There are other aspects that are beyond (or separate from) these realms.


----------



## Kajjo

JamesM said:


> Where do ethics fall in this pictured world, or altruism?  Altruism is inherently illogical.  How is there room for being in love in such a world?  It is definitely not a rational state.


Love and emotions are surely natural reactions of our body. Anyway, you are right that only four words will never encompass all aspects of our life -- there is an almost unlimited number of concepts and consequences linked to that four words and I have no doubt that the four words are just a placeholder with limited power and scope.

For example, I believe that the urge to help others, to care for children, to belong to a community is very natural. It is unfair of religion to claim such noble attitudes, when in truth these are direct consequences of what the human species evolved to.

Kajjo


----------



## Athaulf

maxiogee said:


> Straight question - as someone who used to be a Catholic I feel compelled to ask: Can one really _be_ a Catholic while not being a practising one?
> Doesn't Catholicism require on-going obedience to the rules, and observance of the rituals, of the Church?



The Church does require obedience and observance in the sense that it's a sin (potentially a mortal one) to behave in a contrary manner. However, except for some very narrow exceptions, a sinner doesn't cease to be a Catholic in the sense of being officially recognized as a member of the Church, regardless of  how grave his sins are.

To cease being a member of the Church, one hast to either explicitly renounce it or incur excommunication. There are very few sins that incur automatic excommunication; abortion is probably the only relatively common one. But if one doesn't commit any of those specific sins, one can spend an arbitrary period of time as a totally lapsed Catholic without losing the official status.

Therefore, unless you've explicitly renounced your Catholic faith or incurred excommunication, you're still officially a Catholic as far as the Church is concerned.


----------



## mirx

JamesM said:


> Where do ethics fall in this pictured world, or altruism? Altruism is inherently illogical. How is there room for being in love in such a world? It is definitely not a rational state.  There is an inherent "faith=superstition and knowledge destroys superstition, therefore knowledge destroys faith" in what you've said, here and in previous posts. There is a great deal more to a person's faith than superstition; it includes ethics, values, the placing of other over self (altruism), and other aspects. It is a very simplistic view to think that faith is only superstition, or that people who live by reason do not have their own superstitions as well.
> 
> I do not think that reason, logic, insight, and knowledge will ever completely encompass all aspects of human beings. There are other aspects that are beyond (or separate from) these realms.


 
How can altruism be illogical? If there are people who do bad things to others, why can't there be people who like to help others?


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> For example, I believe that the urge to help others, to care for children, to belong to a community is very natural. It is unfair of religion to claim such noble attitudes, when in truth these are direct consequences of what the human species evolved to.
> 
> Kajjo


 
I don't think religion "claims" these attitudes, and I'm certainly not. What I'm saying is that "rational" does not displace "natural", and I contend that "rational" does not displace "faith", and yet you continue to speak as if it does. If it is "natural" to have an urge to help others or to care for children and these are components of all human societies, why is religion (or perhaps I should say faith), which is also a component of all human societies and also "natural", something that will be displaced by reason?


----------



## Outsider

Athaulf said:


> Therefore, unless you've explicitly renounced your Catholic faith or incurred excommunication, you're still officially a Catholic as far as the Church is concerned.


A great way to boost their numbers.


----------



## Kajjo

> If it is "natural" to have an urge to help others or to care for children and these are components of all human societies, why is religion (or perhaps I should say faith), which is also a component of all human societies and also "natural", something that will be displaced by reason?


You raise a very valid point here. Apparently, faith is part of the human species. We want to explain things, to have hope for a better tomorrow, to do something rather than just let things happen. We employ all our reason, insight and knowledge to acquire our goals, but where that fails we imagine solutions and answers and call that faith or believings.

In this context it is important to clearly distinguish between faith (what we think) and the aim or content of our faith (the object or entity we believe in). While the former obviously is existent, the latter is just our thought. 

I believe that the more modern a world or society becomes, the more abstract and trancendental the religious beliefs are. We cannot believe in things that are obviously wrong. We need to believe in things we have no answer to. Religions evolve as mankind evolves. Our religions will seem as unbelievable and ridiculous to future generations as bloody sacrifices and raindances seem to us. Religions are products of human civilisation. Nothing more and nothing less.

Kajjo


----------



## fenixpollo

JamesM said:


> Where do ethics fall in this pictured world, or altruism? Altruism is inherently illogical. How is there room for being in love in such a world? It is definitely not a rational state.


 You're assuming that the natural state of man is to seek selfish competition for self-benefit. If that were true, than altruism and collaboration would be illogical.  However, humans seek both competition and collaboration, self-benefit and the benefit of others. 

Ethics are not dependent on religion. They fall outside faith and logic, although they can be arrived at by means of faith or logic (or both).

Faith may be part of human existence, but religion is not.


----------



## JamesM

So how does this:



			
				Kajjo said:
			
		

> I believe that reason, logic, insight and knowledge play together to form a world where faith is neither necessary nor possible.


 
jive with this:



> I believe that the more modern a world or society becomes, the more abstract and trancendental the religious beliefs are.


----------



## cuchuflete

> *What is it like to be atheist where you are?*







 I have full faith that any thread with the words religion or atheist or God in its title will inevitably degenerate into an off-topic discussion.  Or two, or three, or four....


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> I have full faith that any thread with the words religion or atheist or God in its title will inevitably degenerate into an off-topic discussion. Or two, or three, or four....


 
There will come a time, cuchuflete, when you will have sufficient knowledge that you won't need to have faith in this. 

Alright, I'm one of the offenders, so I will try to pull it back on-topic to atone...

I'm not an atheist so I think it would be presumptuous to say what it is like for an atheist where I live. I can only say that my experience in the L.A. area in the arts community there is often a presumption that if I'm intelligent and rational I will probably not be a churchgoer.... and vice versa.  Since I am a churchgoer, you can imagine what the assumptions often are about me. I don't think I'm completely stupid and irrational, but then if I'm much of either I am probably in no position to judge.  

The further you get from the city, the less this seems to apply, so I imagine that it's fairly comfortable to be an atheist within the metropolitan area and probably less so as you move towards the rural areas.


----------



## cuchuflete

JamesM said:
			
		

> ...it's fairly comfortable to be an atheist within the metropolitan area and probably less so as you move towards the rural areas.



Interesting point James.  I posted in this thread a long time ago to describe my very rural area as one in which
there are all sorts of flavors...devout churchgoers, perfunctory churchgoers, atheists, agnostics,  the indifferent...all co-existing comfortably.  Is this corner of the earth an anomaly?  It is certainly not like the rural Bible belt, where conformity seems to be a requirement for acceptance as a non-subversive 'normal' human.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> Interesting point James. I posted in this thread a long time ago to describe my very rural area as one in which
> there are all sorts of flavors...devout churchgoers, perfunctory churchgoers, atheists, agnostics, the indifferent...all co-existing comfortably. Is this corner of the earth an anomaly? It is certainly not like the rural Bible belt, where conformity seems to be a requirement for acceptance as a non-subversive 'normal' human.


 
I don't know, but I did notice on a brief trip to Vermont that the same tolerance you note here was apparent there. There was a "live and let live" attitude towards pretty much everyone, as far as I could see (we were thinking of moving there), although it was strange to see such a homogeneously white community after living in Southern California most of our lives. On the intellectual level, though, and on the level of belief, I got the distinct impression that everybody's business was considered their own, no matter how small the town or no matter what the belief or opinion. I don't know if that's a feature of New England or not, but it was very attractive to us as potential newcomers.


----------



## Kajjo

Dear James!



			
				Kajjo said:
			
		

> I believe that reason, logic, insight and knowledge play together to form a world where faith is neither necessary nor possible.





> I believe that the more modern a world or society becomes, the more abstract and trancendental the religious beliefs are.


You wanted to know how these two statements "jive together". I believe I already explained that. Let's see it pragmatic. We live in a world where logic and reason can explain very many things, and all those things are taken away from the scope of belief, faith, religion, because if we _know _something and are able to understand cause and consequence, we do not have to _believe_.

Since we know more and more, there remains less and less to believe in. Thus, our modern religions do not try to tell us something about why it rains, why someone has many children or whether the sun rotates around the earth -- it would be useless and ridiculous. Instead our religions now focus on the remaining mysteries like "What is life for?", "Life after death" etc.

With my first quoted statement I did not mean to say our world can be described purely with reason and logic _now_ but those properties _build up a growing picture of the world_ where faith has no ground anymore. 

With my second quoted statement I tried to convey the observation that very early religions or "primitive tribal religious beliefs" (sorry for no better word here, you know I mean raindances, bloody sacrifices etc.) focus on very natural issues which we nowadays fully understand. From our knowing point of view, we see that those religions were pointless with regards to what they believed in. Religion is man-made, whatever we believe in are our thoughts and religion might be valuable to provide hope, to regulate power, to control people, but it is all about _human existence_ not about real gods or whatever transcendental entities one might conceive.

Kajjo


----------



## beersy

I don't know if the people respect my views, but they appear quite at ease with my atheism. In a region where every other person is called either Salvatore or Maria, that's pretty impressive.


----------



## JanWillem

It sucked to be an atheist, because it wasn't anything better than the christianity I followed before that. Agnosticism now pleases me perfectly, although in practice it's all quite the same of course.
In the NL many people actively and consciously lost their religion, it's not because some mighty person 'installed' atheism or something. Having a religion rather than not having one is seen as 'special' here. And it should be, otherwise someone's profile would say 'not following religion X'. Then the list of properties would be kilometres long, I for example don't have a purple nose


----------



## Etcetera

JamesM said:


> The further you get from the city, the less this seems to apply, so I imagine that it's fairly comfortable to be an atheist within the metropolitan area and probably less so as you move towards the rural areas.


It seems to be so in Russia.
In big cities, no one really cares about your confession. But in villages traditions are stronger.


----------



## coconutpalm

We're supposed to be atheists, but we really don't find it wrong with people if they believe in God, any God. To tell the truth, we rarely throw any thought upon this question, except when communicating with foreigners, provided that we know that foreigners are different from us. Ah, and with 回族Chinese Muslims, and Tibetans too. However, you might find it a "problem" if you work for the government or are in a state-owned company.
And I suspect nearlly all of us have some superstitious ideas in mind, especially when we have met some difficulties.


----------



## Moogle

I know that in the USA it's quite horrible to be an atheist and it's much harder. However, I know that in Europe it's very acceptable and a huge percentage of people are Atheist.

I am extremely atheist and I spend most of my time studying religion / God and this personality works "OK" in today's society.

I live in Canada, and it's accepted. Not because they accept your views, but they know that they have to accept other opinions. The younger generations are mostly Atheistic but the adults of today are mostly religious . I used to always get into discussions / debates with teachers etc in front of applauding students.

Overall: It's accepted but people also tend to treat you a bit differently after they learn about your religious views. Most especially when you're an atheist in front of "really" religious people.


----------



## Hotu Matua

JamesM said:


> I'm not an atheist so I think it would be presumptuous to say what it is like for an atheist where I live. I can only say that my experience in the L.A. area in the arts community there is often a presumption that if I'm intelligent and rational I will probably not be a churchgoer.... and vice versa.  Since I am a churchgoer, you can imagine what the assumptions often are about me. I don't think I'm completely stupid and irrational, but then if I'm much of either I am probably in no position to judge.


 
How would those prejudices change if a person who is a churchgoer and reads devoutly a sacred book, does not believe in an afterlife, thinks that men evolved from other species through natural selection, and supports abortion and assisted suicide? How all those prejudices behave if these beliefs are all part of hie/her religious faith, and not a mere deviation from an orthodox view or secularization?


----------



## Lusitania

Well, we do co-exist but still people are more likely to accept agnostic than Atheists. I believe that we are having many people quiting religion, although it's nothing like during the 74 revolution.

When I say that I'm not Catholic people ask me why.

A very positive thing is that we have here an excellent interreligious dialogue. The spiritual leaders of every religions gather many times and even the Dalai Lama visited holy places in Portugal along with other Religious liders. 
When we got many people coming to live here that we Ortodox, the Catholic Church offered them a Church for their religious practices.

Still, I agree with Outsider that it can be very lonely, although some groups dedicated to the spread of laicism are coming up.


----------



## ColdomadeusX

Unless the rest of your family is deeply religious I doubt that much notice is given to Atheists (because there are so many around). In fact, in many schools there is a "Non- RE" or "Non-Scripture" group for children who don't want to be involved in Christian, God-based classes. You are also free to join if you just can't be bothered to come because you think it's an excuse for a nap or if you are of a different denomination other than the scripture taught.

NOTE: It is compulsory in Primary schools and High Schools to year 9 that students attend scripture classes. This is a very old law set in the constitution that no one has bothered to change because despite the fact that these classes are a bother to a lot of students who feel that their scripture teachers are just trying to convert them or could use the period to study for something that they feel is more important (I'm talking about the many Atheists in schools), all the Prime Ministers so far have been Christians/ Catholics and most people in Parliament have never heard the complains of students because the matter is too "trivial" for attention. Luckily though, Non-RE was invented and many students don't have to suffer endless hours of boredom and the annoyance of teachers trying to convert them all lesson.

P.S. This was not meant to be chatty or offensive to anybody who has strong belief in God.


----------



## PrincessLyka

I second frank06. I am also from Belgium, born and raised in Brussels. In elementary school, we were 5 kids out of 25 who didn't do our communion, but then when I moved to high school, there were only 5 out of 25 kids who attended religious (catholic for that matter) instruction. Can't speak for recent years, it was long ago (see my age). 

But living in both the States and in South Africa, it is not well received to be atheist. What amazes me most are the constant reference to a Higher Being in the day-to-day greetings and conversation: praise the Lord, God bless, etc... Strangely enough, South Africa which endured racist laws, was very open for religious freedom, therefore, many different religions coexist quite pacifically here, and hopefully are tolerant of one another. My impression is that as long as one believes in something, it does not matter what faith it is. But I might be mistaken.


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

My experience as an American atheist is this: I just don't talk about it much because there is so much religiosity here, and I don't want to give offense. I am not particularly interested in "converting" others to my viewpoint.

When it does come up, it is usually because I am asked, and I usually say that I am a nonbeliever or an atheist. On occasion, people will try to convert me, and I just try to be non confrontational about it.

I am not anti-religious, just nonreligious. I went to Catholic schools as a boy in the 1950s, and although there were some things about the experience I think were not good, overall, I feel gratitude from the priests for having given me a good education. One of those priests whom I particularly liked met me after I had fallen away from Catholicism, and he was very nonjudgmental and respectful of me.

However, there does seem to be a rather large minority of Christian extremists in the country, and unfortunately, they hold political power in many local regions and on local school boards. Public education policy is set mostly by local school boards.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## Harry Batt

Since the U. S. govenment is only an inch away from being a theocracy more people north of the Southern Bible Belt are raising questions about religion in general. Several groups are openly atheistic in the Midwest and the sobriquet "free thinker" has become a veil for open identity as an atheist for a lot of people.  It seems that more disillusioned people opt for Bible thumping religion than opt for atheism. I often receive unsolicited "our pal Jesus" emails from several friends. That ilk, I fear, considers atheism a sickness at best and a sin [apparently to be punished] otherwise. Three of my kids went the evangelical route.  They carry on a subtle form of shunning. I've heard other atheist parents express the same observation.


----------



## TRG

Harry Batt said:


> Since the U. S. govenment is only an inch away from being a theocracy more people north of the Southern Bible Belt are raising questions about religion in general. Several groups are openly atheistic in the Midwest and the sobriquet "free thinker" has become a veil for open identity as an atheist for a lot of people.  It seems that more disillusioned people opt for Bible thumping religion than opt for atheism. I often receive unsolicited "our pal Jesus" emails from several friends. That ilk, I fear, considers atheism a sickness at best and a sin [apparently to be punished] otherwise. Three of my kids went the evangelical route.  They carry on a subtle form of shunning. I've heard other atheist parents express the same observation.



It has become part of popular political culture for people with left leaning politics to make this hoary claim.  It is really an expression of disdain for the current president who is identified with the Christian right.  We have never had a president who disavowed their Christian heritage or religion in general and it does not appear that we are about to have one any time soon.  All politicians here tend to claim that their beliefs are to some extend formed by or based on their religion.  This does not constitute a theocracy; if it does, then we have always had one.  As an a-theist who voted for the current president twice, I find no reason to be concerned about the USA becoming a theocracy nor do people treat me differently because of my atheism.  However, I am not anti-religious as many atheists are and this makes all the difference in one's perspective on this matter.


----------



## Harry Batt

TRG    Please don't confuse criticism of religion in politics as being anti-religion. The criticism is aimed at religious blocs that would abrogate the Separation Clause of the Constitution. That is the inch. It is not anti-religion  but efforts to preserve the Contitutional form of government. Freedom of Religion does not mean that everyone in the nation must have a religious beliefl. What is the Hoary Claim that was made in my post?


----------



## TRG

Harry Batt said:


> TRG    Please don't confuse criticism of religion in politics as being anti-religion. The criticism is aimed at religious blocs that would abrogate the Separation Clause of the Constitution. That is the inch. It is not anti-religion  but efforts to preserve the Contitutional form of government. Freedom of Religion does not mean that everyone in the nation must have a religious beliefl. What is the Hoary Claim that was made in my post?



That the U.S. is or is a borderline theocracy.  This gets repeated over and over by people who do so as a political tactic in an attempt to whip up opposition to whatever is on the agenda of the Christian right, or more likely to conflate all conservative policies as having a religious purpose.  The line between religious criticism and being anti-religion is obvious very fuzzy and perhaps only the person rendering the criticism knows on which side of it they stand.


----------



## Harry Batt

Oh, that hoary claim. Of course, it is the  same type of claim that there is no Civil War going on in Iraq. Well, I hope that the claim continues to be repeated over and over again or we won't have a Separation Clause in our Constitution. My complaint is neither criticism of religion  nor anti-religion. I am concerned that we are losing a nation to a bunch or zealots who worship a book instead of god.


----------



## TRG

Trying to stay in the spirit of the thread, it is my impression that you, presumably  atheist, feel your constitutional rights and freedoms are  endangered by some zealots who worship a book rather than a god.  It would be helpful if you could be more specific as to which zealots, which book, and which of your rights and freedoms you feel you are in danger of losing. The world wants to know.


----------



## 4everlearning

*Yup, I agree with Fenixpollo. Most people in my cirle of friends and acquaintances belong to some religion. I'll say that I was brought up as a catholic, but then made up my own mind as an adult. Here in the U.S. people do not respect you religous privacy so much. Once they are a bit friendly with you, they will ask about your religious belief. I used to feel uncomfortable about that. But now I figure if they have the audacity to interrogate me, then I'll have the gumption to declare what I believe - and you know when one states his own belief with confidence, it is rare that the offending party will go more than a few more words on the subject!*


----------



## Harry Batt

Very evasive  TRG. I'm afraid that the spirit of the thread is not to advance religious nor political agendas. If you are getting along just dandy as an atheist, and it sounds like you can swallow the Religious Right administration, then I'll have to congratulate you. For myself it is as stated above;viz., evangelism is an obvious alternative segment of American society compared to atheism.


----------



## TRG

As luck would have it there is an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal today which is entitled

*The New New Atheism* 
Attacking "God" has become a lucrative book business. But there's not much substance behind the latest atheist tracts.


You can read it here (free subscription required).  I think I agree with the subtitle assertions although I I've only read part of Hitchens' book and am familiar with Dawkins only from interviews.  They are both brilliant people.


----------



## Outsider

WSJ said:


> Attacking "God" has become a lucrative book business.


And atacking "heathens" has _always_ been one. So what?


----------



## TRG

Outsider said:


> And atacking "heathens" has _always_ been one. So what?



Attacking heathens has always been a lucrative... book business?  If you consider holy books such as the Bible and Koran as "attacking heathens" then I suppose you are right since there have certainly been a lot of them sold.  I only referenced this to demonstrate that there is active and open atheism which, if book sales are any indication, has fairly wide acceptance.  We are, after all, discussing attitudes towards atheists.  There is little friction between religious people and atheists/nonbelievers in the U.S on the matter of religion.   There is some friction on matters of public policy and in this vein, the atheists are more often the attackers than they are being attacked, IMO.  When I was younger I was much more intolerant towards people with strong Christian beliefs.  Time has taught me to temper my views and be more tolerant, especially of individuals.  That someone's world view is based on Christian philosophy is not a sufficient reason to silent their voice on matters of public policy.  I think some atheists wish to do this.


----------



## Outsider

TRG said:


> Attacking heathens has always been a lucrative... book business?  If you consider holy books such as the Bible and Koran as "attacking heathens" then I suppose you are right since there have certainly been a lot of them sold.


Those are the (only) books where heathens are attacked, are they?
Nor are such attacks limited to the printed word.


----------



## TRG

Outsider said:


> Those are the (only) books where heathens are attacked, are they?
> Nor are such attacks limited to the printed word.



You are hinting at something but I'm not quite sure what it is.  Could it be you are beating around the Bush?


----------



## Stiannu

I'm Italian, brought up in a Catholic family, received religious training during my free time (parish youth groups) but - luckily - also attended public school and public university, so I could live and develop friendships in different contexts. From my experience, the answer (to "*What is it like to be atheist where you are*?") is: it depends on what kind of people you stay with and what kind of _milieu_ you live in. 
Catholic associations or groups for young people, like Scouts but also parish groups and church camps, although regarding only a minority of people, still mantain an influence which has disappeared in other European countries. This kind of people are of course used to getting in contact (and being friends and mates) with atheists, but since they are believers they'll tend to consider religious faith a normal thing (or even necessary, for the more fundamentalists). On the opposite, in mainstream youth groups (even among people who do not declare themselves atheist with convinction), an active religious faith is often considered old-fashioned, a kind of "nerd" thing and sometimes associated with sexual repression. 
Among more intellectual people (I'm in a Ph.D and I attend university departments) the Catholic church is often criticized (with reason sometimes!) and religious belief is often considered a synonim for political conservatism, and therefore frowned upon; or even a form of superstiction, as if all believers were naive and less intelligent (cfr. Dawkins?).
So basically: it depends on the subculture you're considering!

Of course these are just the impressions of a believer with many doubts, very critical about his church, and who has been many times on the edge of atheism...  I couldn't really define myself but that's all right.


----------

