Maybe we should just start a The World Has Gone Mad thread

[MechAg94]

I have never heard of a "stigma of atheism".  Maybe back in the 1980's in some cases, but not now or the last couple decades. 

[dogmush]

I guess that kind of depends on where fistful was drawing the "far left" line.

It would absolutely shock me if there was any truth whatsoever to the idea that only 6% of the population of the US are atheist or agnostic.

 shrug, could be.  I said it was from wiki.  The article references this Pew Study

Also, a whole bunch of "religious" people of all flavors are socially religious but by any measure of observance or belief are entirely irreligious.  As the social stigma of atheism has declined more people are willing to admit to their lack of belief both publicly and to pollsters.  That doesn't even get into the "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual" crowd whose beliefs are almost completely indefinable.

At the risk of starting a fight, that could be reworded as "Far right theologists dismiss the religious doctrine of anyone they disagree with as wrong or not a religion." by someone like a staunch Presbyterian.  Compared to the more evangelical flavor that is common on this board I'm sure a lot of those branches labeled "mainline" in the graphic are sinful and loose, but I routinely get told by them (in other settings) that a good portion of American Christianity has fallen to backwards psuedo-theocratic facisim.   Pays your money, takes your choice.


I would caution against backhand dismissal of many peoples religion though.  Even if it seems wrong to you, often it is very serious to them, and they will act as such.

[cordex]

At the risk of starting a fight, that could be reworded as "Far right theologists dismiss the religious doctrine of anyone they disagree with as wrong or not a religion." by someone like a staunch Presbyterian.

Sorry, sometimes I'm slow on the uptake, but I'm honestly not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate here.  Are you under the impression that I was trying to say that people who disagree with me religiously are "wrong or not a religion"?  Or was this a clumsy rephrasing of Perd's point from the opposite perspective?  An accurate non-sequitur?  I just can't get it to make sense in context.

To be clear, I was not talking about people any particular doctrine or faith - hence "of all flavors".  Nor am I trying to claim that people who don't believe exactly what I do aren't really religious.  There are a whole lot of people who publicly self-describe as believing something (whatever that something is) but who do not actually believe that thing.  I'm saying there are a lot of people who claim to be Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, Communist, whatever, who publicly profess adherence to a faith despite not actually believing in the literal truth or accuracy of the doctrine of the group they belong to.  Often that false profession is to maintain a place in a community they have come to value, regardless of whether they still believe in the same things.

I have never heard of a "stigma of atheism".  Maybe back in the 1980's in some cases, but not now or the last couple decades. 

I absolutely think there is a stigma of atheism within religious communities.  Especially when a believer rejects their previous faith.  That doesn't mean that adherents to those religions hate atheists or anything, but they definitely look at someone differently when they are in an outgroup instead of the ingroup.

It was not so very many years ago that publicly claiming to be atheist was a pretty edgy thing to do.  Not anymore, of course.  I'd attribute at least some of that shift to the impact of the internet and the ability for people to express themselves more anonymously and build their own communities.  Once those replacement communities are built, the need for a local community (which was historically often built within the context of faith) seems less valuable.

I would caution against backhand dismissal of many peoples religion though.  Even if it seems wrong to you, often it is very serious to them, and they will act as such.

Did you think I was backhandedly dismissing someone's religion?  The only group I intentionally backhanded were the people who claim to be spiritual but not religious, but I can't dismiss their religion because they aren't religious.

[dogmush]

Sorry, sometimes I'm slow on the uptake, but I'm honestly not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate here.  Are you under the impression that I was trying to say that people who disagree with me religiously are "wrong or not a religion"?  Or was this a clumsy rephrasing of Perd's point from the opposite perspective?  An accurate non-sequitur?  I just can't get it to make sense in context.

I was responding to your statement "Also, a whole bunch of "religious" people of all flavors are socially religious but by any measure of observance or belief are entirely irreligious" with the kind of response that I have gotten in the past from folks in the leftist branches of Christianity (Mostly Presbyterian, as that's what my in-laws are in , but also some folks I know in )when I have this conversation with them.  Certainly there are plenty of "bad" practitioners of all faiths, I've gotten drunk with enough Muslims to understand that, but I think dismissing many of them as bearing a "false profession" is inaccurate.

Did you think I was backhandedly dismissing someone's religion?  The only group I intentionally backhanded were the people who claim to be spiritual but not religious, but I can't dismiss their religion because they aren't religious.

Yes.  Between your deeming a bunch of folks professing faith as "entirely irreligious" and Perd's "Left-wing religion tends to disbelieve [in hell]" I was cautioning against such backhanded dismissal of other's beliefs.

[RoadKingLarry]

 
Something I've witnessed over the years is that the overwhelming majority of "religions" believe that they are the one true path. That every other faith is wrong and that everyone but them is going straight to hell.  Being an atheist I know that if I am wrong I will be able to take some small comfort in the number of horribly surprised mother *expletive deleted*ers with me in hell.

As an atheist I find it all pretty amusing. And, even here I have held my tongue on many more than one occasion where one or more of the boards more fervently religious members denigrate atheists.
Someone mentioned a stigma associated with atheists, I can assure you it exists and is alive and well here on APS.

[K Frame]

"As an atheist I find it all pretty amusing."

Why? Atheism is, in its own way, its own religion whose adherents are just as sure that their path is the one true path.

[RoadKingLarry]

"As an atheist I find it all pretty amusing."

Why? Atheism is, in its own way, its own religion whose adherents are just as sure that their path is the one true path.

Pretty broad brush there.
I don't recall ever having denigrated any religion or religious practice here unless it was a practice that might infringe on my right not to practice any religion.
I haven't called Baptists out for not believing the exact same way I do nor have I claimed that Presbyterians are all wrong and going to hell because they use the wrong translation of the bible. I see that sort of thing here all the time.
Not all atheists are anti-religion. Most don't care what you do so long as you leave them the heck alone.
Instead of ignoring it and just moving on I'll make a point of calling out the atheist bashing in the future when it comes up here.
 

[K Frame]

I didn't accuse you of anything, any more so than you accused various religious adherents of their own something, or painted with any less broad a brush that you used in painting your picture.

I made an observation, and in your response you've categorically shown the larger problem with discussing issues of faith (and yes, an inherent lack of faith is still a faith)... Everyone believes that they're right, any any comment that isn't anything other than 100% in lockstep is an OUTRAGEOUS PERSONAL ATTACK AGAINST MY PERSON AND MY BELIEFS AND IT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED YOU INTOLERANT BASTARD!

Look again at what I said...

I never said YOU believe such, or YOU denigrated so and so...

You assumed that's what I meant because your personal beliefs have already charged your fight response.

Can you categorically deny that every atheist is 100% free of that kind of belief and reaction pattern?

If you can, why I think that would be... a miracle. :)
 

[cordex]

I was responding to your statement "Also, a whole bunch of "religious" people of all flavors are socially religious but by any measure of observance or belief are entirely irreligious" with the kind of response that I have gotten in the past from folks in the leftist branches of Christianity (Mostly Presbyterian, as that's what my in-laws are in , but also some folks I know in )when I have this conversation with them.  Certainly there are plenty of "bad" practitioners of all faiths, I've gotten drunk with enough Muslims to understand that, but I think dismissing many of them as bearing a "false profession" is inaccurate.

We're still not connecting here.  You keep trying to impute some sort of judgmental self-righteousness into my position.  I'm not talking about people who fail to live up to what they believe they should or should not do - that describes most adherents to most faiths with any sort of standards of behavior.  There's a big difference between a Muslim who believes that drinking alcohol is wrong but succumbs to temptation and a Muslim who doesn't believe drinking alcohol is wrong but pretends to when he's around coreligionists.  Or, to take it a step further, a Muslim who doesn't really believe the Shahada at all, even if he repeats it.

There are a number of people whose professed religion is to a greater or lesser degree disconnected from their actual beliefs.  I'm specifically talking about people whose internal beliefs about core issues - say, the existence of a god - are at odds with the belief of the faith they profess.  Very few are malicious about it - as might be a priest who insinuates himself into a position where he can abuse children.  Most are people whose family historically practiced a faith, maybe who have family that continue to attend at a given congregation, who like their fellow churchgoers, and don't particularly want to leave or lose the support of that ingroup.  The draw of a local religious community used to be much stronger than it is today, and so there is less pressure for such people to stay associated with a group, but it is still there.  The more closely knit a given congregation is, the more pronounced that pressure might be.

Again, I'm not trying to belittle people like this, simply pointing out that they tend to inflate the numbers of adherents beyond the people who actually believe the doctrine of various faiths.

Yes.  Between your deeming a bunch of folks professing faith as "entirely irreligious" and Perd's "Left-wing religion tends to disbelieve [in hell]" I was cautioning against such backhanded dismissal of other's beliefs.

1. My point wasn't backhanding people's beliefs.  I was pointing out that there are people who do not really believe what they tell other people they believe.  I'm surprised that's even a contentious position.  It's not like I'm the first person to notice that not all churchgoers even believe in a god or that there is a difference between claimed preference and revealed preference.  It was part of addressing your utterly ridiculous claim that 6% of the US were nonreligious.  (I know, "But, but, but, two minutes on Wikipedia said so!")
2. I don't take Perd as dismissing other people's beliefs either.  Depending on how you interpret "far left" he might be factually wrong, but what he actually claimed (subject to correction) was: "most people on the far left do not believe in hell".  Whether your Presbyterian in-laws qualify as far left or not I don't know.  For that matter, I don't have any idea what they personally believe regarding hell - as not all Christians do believe in a literal hell.

This is another snapshot from that old survey from 2014 that comes closer to answering the question.  There does appear to be a slight correlation between belief in hell and party affiliation as Perd postulated.  It would not surprise me if the party extremes (i.e. "far left") were to have an even tighter correlation.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/belief-in-hell#party-affiliation

That said, from a practical perspective and independent of my apparent inability to clearly communicate to you, you aren't wrong about people reacting to perceived attacks.  Even people who don't share belief in a given doctrine might become defensive over that doctrine if they feel that the group they associate with has been attacked.

[dogmush]

I'm going to let this go after this, because I'm not all that invested in it.

Cordex, I believe that you really think you aren't being judgmental, but you can see how telling someone that they don't believe what they say they believe, and you know better what is in their hearts could be perceived that way, right?

[cordex]

Cordex, I believe that you really think you aren't being judgmental, but you can see how telling someone that they don't believe what they say they believe, and you know better what is in their hearts could be perceived that way, right?

If I were doing that, sure, but I'm not. 

I'm not assigning a label to any unwilling individual, or chalking up a list for the inquisition.  I personally know people for whom their religion is a matter of familial expedience, cultural habit, social reliance, or simply a musical outlet ... all despite not believing the doctrine of their church.  I'm saying I've had conversations with people who describe themselves as nonbelievers despite attending with varying regularity.  I'm not sure how you're getting from that that I'm telling people I know better what is in their hearts.  I'm saying that what is in people's hearts is not always what they tell a pollster, or even someone in their church.

If you dig around that Pew survey, there are varying but not insignificant percentages within most of the major religious groups of people who tell the researchers that they do not believe in god.  That alone should be an indicator that religious belief and religious affiliation are not the same thing, and I'm not at all convinced that the percentage who admit it in the poll are the full measure of that group.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/belief-in-god/

By way of analogy, let's say there was a survey indicating a certain number of gun owners.  Using those numbers we could discuss the fact that there are some of those gun owners who own a gun or two but never actually shoot - some who have in fact never shot their gun at all, some who own guns but don't want others to own guns and might vote for politicians hostile to firearms.  We might also discuss the fact that some people will lie to a polltaker about whether they own guns out of concern that the information might be abused.  There will be some who own guns but are not proud of it so they won't admit it, and so on.  Discussing that those groups exist is not judgmentally accusing any particular individual of having those opinions.

[MechAg94]

I absolutely think there is a stigma of atheism within religious communities.  Especially when a believer rejects their previous faith.  That doesn't mean that adherents to those religions hate atheists or anything, but they definitely look at someone differently when they are in an outgroup instead of the ingroup.

It was not so very many years ago that publicly claiming to be atheist was a pretty edgy thing to do.  Not anymore, of course.  I'd attribute at least some of that shift to the impact of the internet and the ability for people to express themselves more anonymously and build their own communities.  Once those replacement communities are built, the need for a local community (which was historically often built within the context of faith) seems less valuable.

This part was in response to my quote.  IMO, narrowing the "stigma" to just religious communities is watering is down to the point such that is doesn't exist.  If you are an outsider in a group, you are an outsider.  I don't see that as a stigma.  You are just the outsider.  That probably only applies to small communities these days at most.  Those sorts of communities have been dwindling for decades.  In or around larger cities or even hours away from large cities, the mix of people is such that I doubt that matters outside of fairly close relationships. 

On the second part, if you are publicly proclaiming yourself to be anything, then claiming a "stigma" seems odd to me.  You might as well walk into a Catholic Church, proclaim yourself a Baptist, and wonder why everyone doesn't cheer for you.  Maybe get a "I am and Atheist, Change my Mind" T-shirt. 

IMO, the mixing that occurs  these days puts a damper on stigmas for those reasons.  Of course, if you are argumentative or confrontational, you might see a stigma for that.   

[cordex]

This part was in response to my quote.  IMO, narrowing the "stigma" to just religious communities is watering is down to the point such that is doesn't exist.  If you are an outsider in a group, you are an outsider.  I don't see that as a stigma.  You are just the outsider.

Whether you want to call it a stigma or something else, do you not think that 20 or 30 years ago it was more controversial to be known to be atheist?  Do you disagree that in the intervening years it has become less controversial? 

That's all I was trying to say.  It has become easier to admit to being an atheist than it used to be.

[Perd Hapley]

I guess that kind of depends on where fistful was drawing the "far left" line.

I was thinking chiefly of those leftists who try to punish people, just because they won't toe whatever line is put in front of them. And those who agree with it. For example, the type of people that were happy to see Gina Carano fired from The Mandalorian. Or the millionaire "gay rights" activist who said he would "punish the wicked."

But I did say "most people on the far left do not believe in hell." Is that too sweeping of a statement? Probably. I guess it would be more accurate to say something like, "those furthest left in American politics are less likely to believe in hell than those to the right of them." The latter is vague enough, I think it would be hard to disagree with.

The Pew Research isn't exactly a smoking gun to prove my point, but it does suggest I'm not entirely off-base. Nearly a third of Americans do not believe in hell. Non-GOP and lefties are definitely less likely to believe, if Pew's polling is at all accurate.

As for disbelief in hell among left-leaning Christians, I don't think it's controversial to say that "left-wing religion tends to disbelieve." Just a couple of cites:

In recent times, a significant split has emerged  between the more conservative and more liberal wings of many Protestant denominations. Conservatives maintain their belief in an afterlife spent in a literal place, either heaven or hell. More liberal Protestants tend to downplay hell...

https://www.patheos.com/library/protestantism/beliefs/afterlife-and-salvation

As with so many things, progressive Christianity doesn’t have any official stance about this, but it does seem to be the case that most progressive Christians do not have a concept of hell as part of their faith and practice. I cannot speak for all of progressive Christianity, but I can share how this progressive Christian understands things – hell isn’t even part of the Bible and shouldn’t be a part of Christianity.

https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/progressive-christianity-on-the-concept-of-hell/

Between your deeming a bunch of folks professing faith as "entirely irreligious" and Perd's "Left-wing religion tends to disbelieve [in hell]" I was cautioning against such backhanded dismissal of other's beliefs.

There was no "backhanded dismissal of other's beliefs," at least on my end. I'm pretty sure that people's beliefs (whether they believe there is a hell, or not; or whether they believe in God, or not) are legitimate grounds for discussion. There are plenty of people in various Christian or quasi-Christian denominations that reject the doctrine of hell. Some clearly have a problem with Christianity's description of God. They have a right to their point of view; and we have a right to discuss them, their beliefs, and the implications of their beliefs. To ignore what people believe would be dismissive, I think.


Another counter to the whole framework I've suggested is that Islamic terrorists, inquisitive Catholics, and others who fervently believed the dissenters were bound for hell; still sought to punish them on earth. So there's that.

[WLJ]

This guy's screws aren't loose they fell out

Police in Peru have seized a mummified human between 600 and 800 years old from the portable cool bag of a man who claimed it was his 'girlfriend'.

Julio Cesar Bermejo, 26, a former food delivery man, claimed to have had the mummy at his home for three decades – and even slept with it in his bed.

'At home, she's in my room, she sleeps with me. I take care of her,' he said in a video that went viral on social media

Police in Peru seize an 800-year-old mummified HUMAN from a former delivery man who claimed it was his 'girlfriend' and even slept with it in his BED
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11807009/Police-Peru-seize-800-year-old-MUMMY-rom-man-claimed-girlfriend.html

[Perd Hapley]

Even if it's Democrats doing it, always blame GOP:

https://hotair.com/karen-townsend/2023/03/01/hot-take-on-new-orleans-mayor-recall-efforts-its-voter-suppression-n534049

[WLJ]

 

Man Regrets Transitioning To Woman After Seeing Line For Restroom
https://babylonbee.com/news/man-regrets-transitioning-to-woman-after-seeing-line-for-restroom

[WLJ]

I need more than coffee this morning but I have s strict rule against drinking before noon.

Now with more NUTS: Hershey’s Canada featuring TRANS woman for #InternationalWomensDay goes SO wrong
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2023/03/02/now-with-more-nuts-hersheys-canada-featuring-trans-woman-for-internationalwomensday-goes-so-wrong/

Direct twitter link

https://twitter.com/FaeJohnstone/status/1630960853192445952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[WLJ]

An Arizona school board member wearing cat ears during a meeting said she would oppose having a contract with a Christian university over the religious and Biblical beliefs they espouse, Fox News Digital found.

"Part of their values is... [to] ‘transform the culture with truth by promoting the Biblically-informed values that are foundational to Western civilization, including the centrality of family, traditional sexual morality, and lifelong marriage between one man and one woman,'" she said.

What horrible people

Arizona school board member says district should reject hiring teachers with Christian values: 'Not...safe'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/arizona-school-board-member-district-should-reject-hiring-teachers-with-christian-values-not-safe

[RoadKingLarry]

If that isn't a shrieking call to home school your kids nothing is.

[Pb]

There are plenty of people in various Christian or quasi-Christian denominations that reject the doctrine of hell.

I am an annihilationist.  After the final judgement, lake of fire completely destroys anyone in it.  They cease to exist in any form.  I believe this view is well attested by the Bible, including direct statements by Christ.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.  Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:28

The Old Testament explicitly teaching the total destruction of the wicked, not eternal torment:

4 [a]“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. 3 Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty.
Malachi 4

22 “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the Lord, “so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the Lord. 24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”
Isaiah 66
This passage is especially interesting, because Christ directly refers to it in the NT:
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.’
Mark 9:48
Oddly enough, Mark 9:48 is usually used to support the notion of eternal torment, despite the fact that the source text from the OT clearly refers to worms and fire destroying corpses, not living people being tormented.

The case for eternal torment in the bible is actually very poor, and much weaker than the case for annihilation.

[WLJ]

I've got nothing

A silicone sex toy in the shape of an infant, formerly referred to as "butt baby," is currently being sold online by the adult website Toys From Tim.

The Toys From Tim website refers to the 13-inch baby shaped sex toy as a "Bundle of Joy," according to the product description. The item costs $299.95 and is sold out online.

"The Bundle of Joy - formerly known as the *Butt*Baby*, is a fully insertable, anatomically correct, platinum silicone toy, made for fans of big insertions," the description reads. "Available in two sizes (9" and the bigger brother in 13") when the Bundle of Joy is inserted feet first, he will crown just like a real birthing baby."

"Experience first-hand the joy and agony of childbirth," the product description continues. "Surprise your parents with the grandson they've always wanted. Bestow your husband with an heir."

Silicone 'baby' sold as a sex toy online horrifies Twitter: 'So sick and demented'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/silicone-baby-sold-sex-toy-online-horrifies-twitter-sick-demented

[WLJ]

[MillCreek]

So exactly which orifice are you supposed to insert this device?

[RoadKingLarry]

I've got nothing

Silicone 'baby' sold as a sex toy online horrifies Twitter: 'So sick and demented'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/silicone-baby-sold-sex-toy-online-horrifies-twitter-sick-demented