Mar 24

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...rty-in-capital

http://www.reasonrally.org/about/

Proves atheism is just another religion.

True, everyone knows rallies can only be held by religious groups.

And that holding a rally for a cause immediately causes that cause to become a religion.

Say two people hold a rally for having a grandma... now having a grandma will automatically make you religious, as it is proven that having a grandma is just another religion.

Ofcourse that is reason talking, and we have just proven that reason is just another religion... so it is not certain we're trusthworthy. Holy mother of mother

Hold on, you may have something here. In the religion of grandma not only is there no tithing, you actually get 20 dollars each time you go to church (and 50 on your birthday)

sounds good to me.

Don't forget about the cookies.

I'm very concerned that one of these atheist rally events is going to be a target for terrorist attacks. We all know how much atheists are tolerated in this country.

Expect FSM to make an appearance?

I think the likelyhood of a terrorist attack is pretty low. I'd be more concerned about police brutality. I wouldn't be surpised if we see more than a couple of instances of this happening.

Actually, given the nature of the movie and this scene in it - I think you just double-levelled and ended up making fun of yourself. This is not the Stu we have all come to know.

I think it is good for the people on the fence to see and realize that it is okay to be an atheist, and there are an increasingly large number of them in the USA and the world.

Wow, I think I might go to this! Show some support for all the rational thinkers in this country, ya know? People who don't have invisible imaginary friends stand up and be counted!

Not a "double-level" as you suggest. I thought about exactly what you're talking about before I hit the submit button. I did because what I see happening parallels the imagary and story of the movie pretty closely.

The apes had their revolution, came to power, shutted the voices of the humans, fell prey to all the same vices and corruptions as the humans, and in the end the world certainly didn't become a better place(if anything it was worse of then before). Further, the humans were not guilt free....they had it coming to them.

I expect the Planet of the Atheists story to take a similar arc.

Odds that an atheist tries to shake a Christian's hand during a rally, only to be rebuffed by, "Get your paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"?

I think the idea that atheism is some kind of cause that you need to hold rallies to support is stupid.

I think the idea is that staging a large-scale, well attended demo will raise awareness of the prevalence of atheism. Polling indicates Americans perceive atheists as among the least trustworthy groups. If it comes to be seen as less rare than it perhaps currently is, maybe that will change.

I would expect there to be a fair odour of self-satisfaction permeating the air, that said. But I can hardly blame them.

proves you are a ****** no matter if u were joking in that post or not

On a more serious note, it is hard for me to grasp the necessity of such a rally. I understand it of course, but I can't relate to it.

I live in a country where 72% of the population does not believe in a personal God and which has the lowest attendance for religious sermons in Europe. Still, 85% of the populace is a member of an organized religion.

In one of our recent cabinets the prime minister was a former priest and a liberal , while the minister of finance was homosexual and politically conservative. I don't know of any state politician or mainstream media which was concerned about that, took note of it... or even cared about it for that matter.

In short; Religion is such a personal issue here, that political affiliation (heck, not even church membership) is not going to be a solid indicator about you being an atheist or a theist. Preaching religious morals here is like... well... swearing in church... if a politician did it, it would pretty guarantee that he/she never got elected/re-elected. I am not joking when I say that even my religious friends greatly distrust public figures with a strong "religious" image.


I can but hope that maybe someday this will also be the order of the day for you guys on the other side of the pond.

Yeah, definitely the opposite here. I would advise any atheist running for political office in the U.S., even here in Manhattan, to become a member of a church before doing so. While it isn't an absolute requirement, it would definitely be a drag on your campaign to be unaffiliated, let alone a public atheist. This is not just a matter of prejudice against atheists, but because churches are such an important part of civil society here. Sigh. I should move to Scandinavia.

We only have one open atheist in congress Pete Stark (D-CA). He is the first openly atheist member of congress.

I think there’s a strong tendency in the U.S. to identify atheism with naturalism, which is probably due to the more vocal proponents of atheism, like Dawkins et al, who are de facto atheists due to their naturalism. Personally, I usually check the spiritual/non-religious box and I think a lot of Americans of the religious ilk are okay with that, probably because they think I’m at least looking and hence at least open to their belief(s). What I think most are against (or find suspect) is the naturalist arm of atheism that treats, in a belittling manner, anything other than the sort of random, mechanistically driven depiction of existence and life as the equivalence of believing in fairies.

I doubt it.

Maybe so, maybe no. I'm not overly concerned with whatever fine distinctions people are making in deciding what groups to regard as morally bankrupt on a large scale. FWIW I suspect even if you're right, most people who feel that way wouldn't be able to articulate it as such.

Educated believers often remind me of the lawyer at the barbecue making excuses for his redneck cousin who showed up drunk in a wifebeater and started hitting on the hostess.

Well, personally I think the issue is that people who don't believe in fairies are being held as immoral and unfit for public office by people who do believe in fairies.

Also, why is it worse to point out that believing in fairies is irrational than claiming fairies has the power to grant you life after death?

Why is me asking these questions somehow belittling, while claiming me to be zealous naturalist and a drone of some arbitrarily chosen author completely okay? It makes NO sense. I am not belittling anyone, I'm pointing out something I find to be completely absurd.

Exceptionally few people would be willing to grant the level of tolerance that is demanded here to all groups holding beliefs with comparative levels of material proof to that of mainstream religion. Essentially what is demanded is special treatment as "more true" and "simply better".

If two candidates were equal in every respect except that one was an atheist and the other was a theist. I would vote for the theist.

If you would snap vote for the atheist instead of flipping a coin to determine who you would vote for then you are a hypocrite.