Previous 1
Topic: More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops
ThomasJB's photo
Fri 05/01/09 10:46 PM

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: April 26, 2009

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Two months after the local atheist organization here put up a billboard saying “Don’t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone,” the group’s 13 board members met in Laura and Alex Kasman’s living room to grapple with the fallout.

Loretta Haskell, a board member of the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, is also a church musician. “I am not one of the humanists who feels that religion is a bad thing,” she said.

The problem was not that the group, the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, had attracted an outpouring of hostility. It was the opposite. An overflow audience of more than 100 had showed up for their most recent public symposium, and the board members discussed whether it was time to find a larger place.

And now parents were coming out of the woodwork asking for family-oriented programs where they could meet like-minded nonbelievers.

“Is everyone in favor of sponsoring a picnic for humanists with families?” asked the board president, Jonathan Lamb, a 27-year-old meteorologist, eliciting a chorus of “ayes.”

More than ever, America’s atheists are linking up and speaking out — even here in South Carolina, home to Bob Jones University, blue laws and a legislature that last year unanimously approved a Christian license plate embossed with a cross, a stained glass window and the words “I Believe” (a move blocked by a judge and now headed for trial).

They are connecting on the Internet, holding meet-ups in bars, advertising on billboards and buses, volunteering at food pantries and picking up roadside trash, earning atheist groups recognition on adopt-a-highway signs.

They liken their strategy to that of the gay-rights movement, which lifted off when closeted members of a scorned minority decided to go public.

“It’s not about carrying banners or protesting,” said Herb Silverman, a math professor at the College of Charleston who founded the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, which has about 150 members on the coast of the Carolinas. “The most important thing is coming out of the closet.”

Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.

Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the “nones” are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters.

Local and national atheist organizations have flourished in recent years, fed by outrage over the Bush administration’s embrace of the religious right. A spate of best-selling books on atheism also popularized the notion that nonbelief is not just an argument but a cause, like environmentalism or muscular dystrophy.

Ten national organizations that variously identify themselves as atheists, humanists, freethinkers and others who go without God have recently united to form the Secular Coalition for America, of which Mr. Silverman is president. These groups, once rivals, are now pooling resources to lobby in Washington for separation of church and state.

A wave of donations, some in the millions of dollars, has enabled the hiring of more paid professional organizers, said Fred Edwords, a longtime atheist leader who just started his own umbrella group, the United Coalition of Reason, which plans to spawn 20 local groups around the country in the next year.

Despite changing attitudes, polls continue to show that atheists are ranked lower than any other minority or religious group when Americans are asked whether they would vote for or approve of their child marrying a member of that group.

Over lunch with some new atheist joiners at a downtown Charleston restaurant serving shrimp and grits, one young mother said that her husband was afraid to allow her to go public as an atheist because employers would refuse to hire him.

But another member, Beverly Long, a retired school administrator who now teaches education at the Citadel, said that when she first moved to Charleston from Toronto in 2001, “the first question people asked me was, What church do you belong to?” Ms. Long attended Wednesday dinners at a Methodist church, for the social interaction, but never felt at home. Since her youth, she had doubted the existence of God but did not discuss her views with others.

Ms. Long found the secular humanists through a newspaper advertisement and attended a meeting. Now, she is ready to go public, she said, especially after doing some genealogical research recently. “I had ancestors who fought in the American Revolution so I could speak my mind,” she said.

Until recent years, the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry were local pariahs. Mr. Silverman — whose specialty license plate, one of many offered by the state, says “In Reason We Trust” — was invited to give the invocation at the Charleston City Council once, but half the council members walked out. The local chapter of Habitat for Humanity would not let the Secular Humanists volunteer to build houses wearing T-shirts that said “Non Prophet Organization,” he said.

When their billboard went up in January, with their Web site address displayed prominently, they expected hate mail.

“But most of the e-mails were grateful,” said Laura Kasman, an assistant professor of microbiology and immunology at the Medical University of South Carolina.

The board members meeting in the Kasmans’ living room were an unlikely mix that included a gift store owner, a builder, a grandmother, a retired nursing professor, a retired Navy officer, an administrator at a primate sanctuary and a church musician. They are also diverse in their attitudes toward religion.

Loretta Haskell, the church musician, said: “I did struggle at one point as to whether or not I should be making music in churches, given my position on things. But at the same time I like using my music to move people, to give them comfort. And what I’ve found is, I am not one of the humanists who feels that religion is a bad thing.”

The group has had mixed reactions to President Obama, who acknowledged nonbelievers in his inauguration speech. “I sent him a thank-you note,” Ms. Kasman said. But Sharon Fratepietro, who is married to Mr. Silverman, said, “It seemed like one long religious ceremony, with a moment of lip service.”

Part of what is giving the movement momentum is the proliferation of groups on college campuses. The Secular Student Alliance now has 146 chapters, up from 42 in 2003.

At the University of South Carolina, in Columbia, 19 students showed up for a recent evening meeting of the “Pastafarians,” named for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster — a popular spoof on religion dreamed up by an opponent of intelligent design, the idea that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them.

Andrew Cederdahl, the group’s co-founder, asked for volunteers for the local food bank and for a coming debate with a nearby Christian college. Then Mr. Cederdahl opened the floor to members to tell their “coming out stories.”

Andrew Morency, who attended a Christian high school, said that when he got to college and studied evolutionary biology he decided that “creationists lie.”

Josh Streetman, who once attended the very Christian college that the Pastafarians were about to debate, said he knew the Bible too well to be sure that Scripture is true. Like Mr. Streetman, many of the other students at the meeting were highly literate in the Bible and religious history.

In keeping with the new generation of atheist evangelists, the Pastafarian leaders say that their goal is not confrontation, or even winning converts, but changing the public’s stereotype of atheists. A favorite Pastafarian activity is to gather at a busy crossroads on campus with a sign offering “Free Hugs” from “Your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html?_r=3&em

mark5222's photo
Fri 05/01/09 11:06 PM
i will pray for them

no photo
Fri 05/01/09 11:15 PM

i will pray for them


you're just silly

Foliel's photo
Fri 05/01/09 11:29 PM
Edited by Foliel on Fri 05/01/09 11:37 PM
I can't see praying for an atheist, as we don't believe in God. I imagine if people got full 100% without a doubt proof in his existance, they'd believe but since religion is based on faith that probly isn't gonna happen.

ThomasJB's photo
Fri 05/01/09 11:59 PM

i will pray for them

We don't want them. You can have them back.

JasmineInglewood's photo
Sat 05/02/09 12:25 AM

ThomasJB's photo
Sat 05/02/09 12:27 AM


scared shocked rofl

ThomasJB's photo
Sat 05/02/09 12:31 AM



creativesoul's photo
Sat 05/02/09 01:07 AM
laugh

drinker

Abracadabra's photo
Sat 05/02/09 08:16 AM
Edited by Abracadabra on Sat 05/02/09 08:17 AM

i will pray for them


This is truly the stillist notion that has ever gained a foothold in the human consciouness.

This suggests that God is less compassionate and understanding than his worshipers.

God needs humands to ask him to help people? That just implies that God is either intellecutally inept or compassionately bankrupt in his own right.

This even comes over in the crucifixion when Jesus was supposed to have said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do!"

Jesus has to explain something to God? ohwell

God couldn't figure that out on his own?

Or are we supposed to believe that Jesus was simply more compassionate than God, and if left in God's hands there would be no mercy?

None of these conclusions make any sense.

Also, isn't the very premise of the whole religion that God knowningly sent his only begotten son via a virgin birth for the express purpose of becoming a sacrificial lamb of God?

If that's true, then the crucifixion was not only God's will but God's plan. The men who nailed Jesus to the pole would have been doing God's will. Not to mention that God actually commanded them to murder heathens anyway so they were just obeying God's commandments. They would all need to be classified as saints according to this story as they were only carrying out God's instructions with absolute conviction.

There's a serious paradox associated with a God who sends his son to be crucified as a sacrifical lamb to pay for the sins of man.

Either this was God's WILL or it wasn't? Christians seem to be thoroughly confused about this. They want Jesus to be the sacrificial lamb of God and they demand that everyone must accept that this sacfice was a gift from God to pay for the sins of man.

Yet, at the same time, they want to reject the crucifixion and act like they would have stopped it or prevented it had they been there.

The problem is that the very act of accepting the crucifixion as having been done to pay for our sins is the to condone the crucifixion!

We can't very well accept that this was done for our sake, and then then turn around and denounce it!

To accept that the crucifixion was purposefully done by Jesus as a sacrifice for us demands that we be willing to nail him to the pole ourselves! Otherwise we would be rejecting the very notion of the act!

I personally do indeed reject the notion.

I would not nail Jesus to the pole.

Therefore I could never claim to accept the crucifixion as having been done in my name to pay for my sins. That would imply that I'm cool with it, which I'm not.

Had I been there I would have denounced the crucifixion and stopped it if I could. Therefore it would be utterly false and pretentious of me to pretend that I would accept such a sacrifice in my name.

It would be impossible for me to accept this. I would reject the notion. I'd rather go to hell than to condone nailing Jesus to a pole for my sake.

And I personally feel that any God who would have designed that as his plan to save mankind is thoroughly dispicable. Not to mention being weak, inept, extremely limited in his power and capablities, and truly desperate.

If there is any truth to this story Satan would have had God really pinned against the ropes to force God to have lowered himself to such a desperate hopeless act.

This would be a picture of a God who is truly at the end of his rope with no sane options left.

Of course the story is so absurd we can rest assured that there cannot possibly be one grain of truth to it.

I don't think we need to worry that our creator is this helpless or that he could be bullied into such a horrific desperate act by some stupid rebelious satantic angel.

Let's just face the truth. The story is as absurd as Greek Mythology and all the other ancient mythologies that were made up by unwise men.

If there is some supreme consciousness in charge of creation we can rest assured that she didn't have any of her sons nailed to any poles to appease any satantic angels. Such a God would be next to helpless and most certainly not all-powerful nor all-wise.

And people think they need to pray to this God to ask him to have mercy on other people?

If you feel that you need to ask your God to have mercy on people you must think that your God has far less compassion and understanding than even yourself. You must believe that your God needs your help just to wise up. ohwell

Of course, in the case of the Biblical God I can see why people would think this. Clearly this God is in dire need of advice and wisdom from outside sources as he clearly can't make good decisions on his own.

So yes, if the Biblical God is real we all need to pray to him and give him advice on how to be compassionate.



metalwing's photo
Sat 05/02/09 08:37 AM

I can't see praying for an atheist, as we don't believe in God. I imagine if people got full 100% without a doubt proof in his existance, they'd believe but since religion is based on faith that probly isn't gonna happen.


All the people who have posted to this thread may be right ... or they may be wrong, regardless of belief.

However, when someone offers to pray for others, he/she is merely wishing for something good that has come into their life to come into the life of others.

This situation is somewhat like offering someone outside on a hot day a drink of water. One could always say, "No Thanks, I'm not thirsty".

It is perhaps more alike throwing a life preserver to someone swimming in the ocean. The person doing the throwing is making an offer that may, to them, save a life. Instead of saving "Why would someone do such a silly thing?" it might be more human to say "No Thanks, I need the exercise."

Abracadabra's photo
Sat 05/02/09 08:51 AM
Edited by Abracadabra on Sat 05/02/09 08:52 AM
However, when someone offers to pray for others, he/she is merely wishing for something good that has come into their life to come into the life of others.


Yes, but the whole thing implies that God needs some human to ask him to do what's right.

The whole idea implies that the people who are offering to pray simply don't trust God to do the right things on his own.

Why should God need anyone to point anything out to him, or to ask him to help someone?

That just implies that God is either clueless or doesn't care.

The very idea that some human would need to ask God to act implies that God would not act otherwise.

In fact, the whole evangelical thing implies the same thing. If some human could be responsible for bringing anotehr human to salvation that implies that God himself would have let those GOOD people go tell hell otherwise.

The very idea that any human needs to be involved in the salvation of other human is oxymoronic to begin with. That whole concept implies that God doesn't care.

If I'm a good person and God would let me to go hell if you don't pray for me, then what does that say about God? huh

That would imply that you are more interested in my welfare than God is!

The whole idea of praying for other people is silly and is actually an insult to any God that might actaully exist.

It just assumes that God wouldn't do the right thing unless some human asks him to.

ThomasJB's photo
Sat 05/02/09 09:33 AM

I'll just ask the flying spaghetti monster to touch all you believers with his noodly appendage.

metalwing's photo
Sat 05/02/09 09:43 AM

However, when someone offers to pray for others, he/she is merely wishing for something good that has come into their life to come into the life of others.


Yes, but the whole thing implies that God needs some human to ask him to do what's right.

The whole idea implies that the people who are offering to pray simply don't trust God to do the right things on his own.

Why should God need anyone to point anything out to him, or to ask him to help someone?

That just implies that God is either clueless or doesn't care.

The very idea that some human would need to ask God to act implies that God would not act otherwise.

In fact, the whole evangelical thing implies the same thing. If some human could be responsible for bringing anotehr human to salvation that implies that God himself would have let those GOOD people go tell hell otherwise.

The very idea that any human needs to be involved in the salvation of other human is oxymoronic to begin with. That whole concept implies that God doesn't care.

If I'm a good person and God would let me to go hell if you don't pray for me, then what does that say about God? huh

That would imply that you are more interested in my welfare than God is!

The whole idea of praying for other people is silly and is actually an insult to any God that might actaully exist.

It just assumes that God wouldn't do the right thing unless some human asks him to.


I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said and I wasn't discussing God.

I was discussing a human making a kind gesture, regardless of the existence of God.

Abracadabra's photo
Sat 05/02/09 10:41 AM

I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said and I wasn't discussing God.

I was discussing a human making a kind gesture, regardless of the existence of God.


I understand what you are saying.

And I'm sure that many people mean well when they do this.

I still think that it implies that God can't be trusted to do the right thing without human guidance (i.e. prayers from people asking God to help others).

It just doesn't make any sense to me no matter how well-intended it might be.

I'm really just commenting on the validity of the concept, not so much on whether or not it is well-intentioned.

An arguement could be made that atheists are well-intentioned when they try to remove the "oppresssion of religion" from people. After all, they clearly don't believe that the religion has any validity. If they believed that I'm sure they would never purposefully rebel against their very creator.

If they view the religion to be totally ungodly and clearly a construct of men who are attempting to control the masses via guilt trips and accusations that some God will be upset with people, when no such angry God actually exists, THEN, they are actually being very well-intentioned to denounce this ungodly practice called "religion".

So, good-intentions can be on either side of the isle.

The question I'm asking is why should humans have to ask God to be compassionate? Shouldn't God already be compassionate on his own?

It's just a totally unbiased question really.

But YES, I agree with you.

Most people who pray for others do indeed mean well for others. I'm just asking how they can justify the idea that God needs their requests to be compassionate?

Doesn't that suggest that God would not be compassionate if it were not for these requests of compassionate humans?

It's just a question.

And I suppose I have suggested that I've already answered this question in my own way. (i.e. a God that would need to be asked to be nice to people would be unlikely, so therefore I just see this as yet another reason why the atheists are right to reject this religion as being nothing more than a construct of man)

So both the people who are offering to pray, and the atheists who are trying to help people see the absurdities of religion are BOTH trying to do the RIGHT thing.

flowerforyou

no photo
Sun 05/03/09 12:47 PM
Abracadabra, right on.

metalwing, your compassion does you credit.


Personally, I'd like to go back and time and meet Jesus. And blow him up w/ a handgrenade so that christians would be wearing little pinnapples instead of crosses and Catholic churches would have a big splatter pattern on the wall instead of a nailed up white guy.

I'm just funny that way...

Inkracer's photo
Mon 05/04/09 04:46 PM

Abracadabra, right on.

metalwing, your compassion does you credit.


Personally, I'd like to go back and time and meet Jesus. And blow him up w/ a handgrenade so that christians would be wearing little pinnapples instead of crosses and Catholic churches would have a big splatter pattern on the wall instead of a nailed up white guy.

I'm just funny that way...


Of course, the irony there is, IF the biblical Jesus did exist, there is no way in hell he was white...

dlawson12's photo
Mon 05/04/09 04:57 PM
Another point of view.

Of course they can be thankful and be against it.

Your on a bus, someone tosses a grenade, someone dives on it and saves everyone else on the bus....

Are you telling me you wouldnt be thankful for that mans sacrifice to save your life and not abhor the actions of the one that threw the grenade?

Also... the part about Jesus asking for forgiveness for people.

There is power in the spoken word, dont forget that God was ready to forgive us.. hes the one that sent his son in the first place. Praying for it reflected on Jesus's state of mind, not on God's. Maybe Im not saying this clearly enough. Been a while since I talked religion.

Believe in god or not, the above two things make sense from a certain perspective, logically you cant dismiss it as not making sense. The two opposing points of view on the crucifixion has two different targets, just like the people that got saved on the bus...

Dragoness's photo
Mon 05/04/09 04:57 PM


I can't see praying for an atheist, as we don't believe in God. I imagine if people got full 100% without a doubt proof in his existance, they'd believe but since religion is based on faith that probly isn't gonna happen.


All the people who have posted to this thread may be right ... or they may be wrong, regardless of belief.

However, when someone offers to pray for others, he/she is merely wishing for something good that has come into their life to come into the life of others.

This situation is somewhat like offering someone outside on a hot day a drink of water. One could always say, "No Thanks, I'm not thirsty".

It is perhaps more alike throwing a life preserver to someone swimming in the ocean. The person doing the throwing is making an offer that may, to them, save a life. Instead of saving "Why would someone do such a silly thing?" it might be more human to say "No Thanks, I need the exercise."


This is on the assumption that all religious "prayers" are good. I consider it a wish of doom of sorts to be prayed over. Because I know part of the prayer if not all of the prayer is to guide me to religion because that would be what is best for me. Which is not so, I have been there and done that for most of my life. It is not healthy for me and I do not want an unhealthy spirit.

Dragoness's photo
Mon 05/04/09 04:59 PM


Abracadabra, right on.

metalwing, your compassion does you credit.


Personally, I'd like to go back and time and meet Jesus. And blow him up w/ a handgrenade so that christians would be wearing little pinnapples instead of crosses and Catholic churches would have a big splatter pattern on the wall instead of a nailed up white guy.

I'm just funny that way...


Of course, the irony there is, IF the biblical Jesus did exist, there is no way in hell he was white...


Nor is the hanging on the cross accurate for the times and what a body can withstand.

Nor would a son of god have to die to save human kind.

Etc...

Previous 1