That pretty much sums it up...

[Masked Dude]

Let's put it this way. Most atheists don't.   The activist groups are like NAACP, ACLU, and various religious groups. They don't always speak for the majority of the people they claim to represent.

But what's the difference between someone posting prayers every day versus someone posting secular words of wisdom? And considering most religious people are quick to tell me I'm serving their evil one, why can't I defend myself?

[amogorilla77]

The story of the world. You have those of us who abide and those people who say they abide with us stirring sh@# up. In the end it all comes down to the same old human flaws we all suffer. I accept and move on as much as I can, but every once and awhile a little Walter seeps out as is only natural. So I understand were you are coming from. Good thing we all get the choice to say F%^& it and move on enjoying the people who accept us for who we are and abiding the ones that don't. And on the few occasions we find out we are the very people we are fuming about I am grateful for mirrors were I can look myself in the eye and say chill out dude it is just a moment not a life unless you make it that way.
Aint no wrong to self defense if there was then they wouldn't have given the Dude Walter. I am of the mind of you have no need for defense because we all have the right to be who we are just as long as we are not dragging other people with us against their will. It is what makes the world such an interesting place, of course, it is also why we have the fanatics that we have to put up with.  In my little real estate of reality I would like to believe that all my spiritual and religious peoples would offer up an apology with feelings of embarrassment for our crazy family members. The thing that gets my Walter on every time is how easily these so called pious people forget that religion was meant to save by uniting the self with divine and recognizing that divinity in the world and others not to condemn and deny, but look how easily they do. I think I am going to leave it here and as a wise Italian once said forged about id because I can feel my ire arising over the travesties of the world and that is just way to much work in the wrong direction. I was wrong I will end it with the words of Tupac and Spock Keep your head up. Live long and prosper.

[Masked Dude]

As for me and you, we just abide. Let them fight & argue.

I'll buy you your beverage of choice.

[amogorilla77]

Exactly. Rum is my beverage of choice for prohibition drinks which means white Russians are up my alley they are damned good. Dave and buster also has something I enjoy called a Scooby snack it is also mouth watering delicious. I mean if you weren't a drinker and they gave you a shot you would think you were drinking a milk shake and of course I hit a beer up once I find myself reaching the limit, but lately I have just been drinking tea and water. Drinks only come when the party is in the mix which I have only attended one this past year. Although I do have a wedding to attend and my friend said something about a party bus being involved. I tried the whole unwind with a delicious adult beverage once or twice a week, but have found it really doesn't fit me all to well. Didn't mean to be long worded, but it's a lot less when spoken then written.  I guess I will end this one in the immortal words of the Gladiator. "Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?" No particular reason other than it popped in my head.

[The Daryl]

I suspect this whole thread is some kind of weird hipster prank

[amogorilla77]

This is the first time I have ever been called a  hipster. On the other side of that weird has followed me the whole of my existence, and no one can explain exactly why they just say that I am. So well played sir, very well played indeed.

[BikerDude]

I don't think that is entirely true about people loving to tell atheist what atheist think. I will give you their are some fanatics out there who do regurgitate things true and false about atheist, but lets face facts Atheist love to tell people what they think all on their own. I remember when no one bothered with atheist at all, it was something that just was like every other religion, but then atheist started taking everybody to court and now here we are.

Get used to it.
And a real press to strike down the Tax free status of religion.
But that all pales compared to the court of public opinion.
It is no longer off limits to "offend" people by criticizing religion.
Atheism has never been off limits.
It is actually Illegal for atheists to hold public office in parts of the USA.

[amogorilla77]

Get used to it.
And a real press to strike down the Tax free status of religion.
But that all pales compared to the court of public opinion.
It is no longer off limits to "offend" people by criticizing religion.
Atheism has never been off limits.
It is actually Illegal for atheists to hold public office in parts of the USA.

Which parts would it be illegal to hold public office for atheist because that just sounds like propaganda. I never really knew much about atheist until they made it illegal for people on television to say Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kwanza, Rosh Hashanah, and fought over the pledge of allegiance. The question, am I serious yes. the answer, yes, I remember when they would acknowledge the holidays individually on their specific day or days, and then one day someone said something about atheist fighting in court about the offence of such acknowledgements and the following year came Happy Holidays. so as far as that never been off limits thing goes when was atheism ever within limits anymore than any other religion. To the statement about it is no longer off limits to Offend people by criticizing religion I say when has religion ever not been criticized. What is offensive about the criticizing of religion is not the criticism, it is the unruly disrespect and lack of manners which is used to voice ones opinions. In closing, I feel no need to get used to disrespect and ill manners. Blatant snarkitude does not equal intelligent conversation nor does it equivocate to truth. It just reeks of undudelyness and you might as well be sitting on the other side of the desk in a wheel chair as the real Mr. Lebowski as for me I will be soaking with my tunes letting go and living life. The pressing religion for taxes that had to come out of that special they did on televangelist in which some of the most well known evangelist have accrued so major shadiness points. I mean ridiculous amounts of shadiness points.
P.S.
seriously if your first statement is true I would really like to know what states made it illegal for atheist to hold public office because I find that really outrageous and am struck dumb founded about how they think that would ever hold up in a court of law. It is an illegal act in itself.

[BikerDude]

Get used to it.
And a real press to strike down the Tax free status of religion.
But that all pales compared to the court of public opinion.
It is no longer off limits to "offend" people by criticizing religion.
Atheism has never been off limits.
It is actually Illegal for atheists to hold public office in parts of the USA.

Which parts would it be illegal to hold public office for atheist because that just sounds like propaganda. I never really knew much about atheist until they made it illegal for people on television to say Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kwanza, Rosh Hashanah, and fought over the pledge of allegiance. The question, am I serious yes. the answer, yes, I remember when they would acknowledge the holidays individually on their specific day or days, and then one day someone said something about atheist fighting in court about the offence of such acknowledgements and the following year came Happy Holidays. so as far as that never been off limits thing goes when was atheism ever within limits anymore than any other religion. To the statement about it is no longer off limits to Offend people by criticizing religion I say when has religion ever not been criticized. What is offensive about the criticizing of religion is not the criticism, it is the unruly disrespect and lack of manners which is used to voice ones opinions. In closing, I feel no need to get used to disrespect and ill manners. Blatant snarkitude does not equal intelligent conversation nor does it equivocate to truth. It just reeks of undudelyness and you might as well be sitting on the other side of the desk in a wheel chair as the real Mr. Lebowski as for me I will be soaking with my tunes letting go and living life. The pressing religion for taxes that had to come out of that special they did on televangelist in which some of the most well known evangelist have accrued so major shadiness points. I mean ridiculous amounts of shadiness points.
P.S.
seriously if your first statement is true I would really like to know what states made it illegal for atheist to hold public office because I find that really outrageous and am struck dumb founded about how they think that would ever hold up in a court of law. It is an illegal act in itself.

I have no problem in being "disrespectful" for things a person doesn't respect.

States with anti Atheist statutes.

    Arkansas:

        Article 19, Section 1
        "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[87]

    Maryland:

        Article 37
        "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."[88]

    Mississippi:

        Article 14, Section 265
        "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[89]

    North Carolina:

        Article 6, Section 8
        "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."[90]

    South Carolina:

        Article 17, Section 4
        "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[91]

    Tennessee:

        Article 9, Section 2
        "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[92]

    Texas:

        Article 1, Section 4
        "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[93]

An eighth state constitution affords special protection to theists.

    Pennsylvania:

        Article 1, Section 4
        "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."[94]

[BikerDude]

Also as to the legality or constitutionality of the above it's really a moot point to people who hold other laws higher.

Anti-atheist discrimination is against the law; in the United States, anyway. But people still sometimes discriminate against atheists.

It's illegal for public schools to prevent students from viewing atheist Web sites, while allowing them to look at religious ones. But the San Antonio Independent School District did it anyway.

It's illegal to make atheists swear religious oaths when they testify in court. But the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Fort Myers did it anyway.

It's illegal for the U.S. military to spend money evangelizing to U.S. soldiers, to demand that U.S. soldiers attend chapel, or to order U.S. soldiers to take a "spiritual fitness" test and order them to visit evangelizing chaplains when they fail it. But the U.S. military did it anyway.

It's illegal for businesses to give church-goers discounts they don't give to non-believers. But the Fisherman's Quarters II restaurant in Asheville, N.C. did it anyway.

It's illegal to deny atheist organizations the right to advertise in venues where religious groups advertise regularly. But when American Atheists and the NEPA Freethought Society tried to place a bus ad in Pennsylvania that simply had the word, "atheists," with the names and URLs of the organizations in smaller type, the transit system rejected the ad because it was "too controversial."

It's illegal to deny atheist students in public high schools the right to organize clubs. But it happens all the time. Talk to Secular Student Alliance high school specialist JT Eberhard. He spends a ridiculous amount of his working day pushing high school administrations to stop throwing up illegal roadblocks to atheist students, and to let them have the clubs they're legally allowed to have.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/20/6_outrageous_incidents_of_discrimination_against_nonbelievers/

In some countries, this anti-atheist discrimination is severe. It doesn?t take the form of government proselytizing or being denied the right to organize clubs. It takes the form of being arrested. It takes the form of being imprisoned, for years. It takes the form of being targeted by a mob screaming for your blood ? and when the police who should be there to protect you show up, instead they throw you in jail.

Sanal Edamaruku, India. A humanist organizer and a renowned skeptical debunker of supernatural claims ? sort of a James Randi of India ? Sanal Edamaruku is the president of the Indian Rationalist Association. He?s also the guy who, in March 2012, profoundly embarrassed the Catholic Church on national television, when he debunked a supposed ?miracle? believed in by thousands by proving that a weeping Jesus on the cross was actually the result of a leaky drain. The Catholic Church, naturally, was profoundly grateful for this information, as it cares passionately about the truth and wants to be sure that any ?miracles? it promotes are truly the hand of God?

?No, wait, That?s not what happened at all. In April 2012, a group called the Association of Concerned Catholics filed a complaint against Edamaruku with the Mumbai police under Section 295 of the country?s penal code? a complaint the Catholic Church didn?t officially support but also didn?t speak out against or try to stop in any way. The police, recognizing this complaint for the blatant absurdity that it was, laughed them out of the room?

?No, wait. That?s not what happened at all. The Mumbai police actually took this seriously. They issued an arrest, charging Edamaruku with ?hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community.? The police haven?t dropped it, either: they have since gone to Edamaruku?s home in Delhi to serve the arrest warrant, and to demand information on his whereabouts. What?s more, they are denying him ?anticipatory bail,? so if he submitted to the arrest he could do months of jail time before his trial. Edamaruku, unwilling to do months of jail time for first-degree debunking of fraudulent miracles, has fled the country, and is currently in hiding in Finland. (More information at the A Friendly Atheist blog.)

[Masked Dude]

I was going to explain NC laws about that, but Biker did. Although Torcaso v Watkins made it moot, the laws are still on the books and often states try to enforce it.

[BikerDude]

I was going to explain NC laws about that, but Biker did. Although Torcaso v Watkins made it moot, the laws are still on the books and often states try to enforce it.

Yeah the fact that the laws are still on the books really speaks to the functional reality.
The fact that our rights are all protected by a secular constitution that makes no mention of God tells you everything. Wanna see what a country "founded on Christian principles" would look like?
Look at laws like this. All below the bible belt.

[Hominid]

I blame the lowering of educational standards for this seeming dominance of conservative values that prefer faith over evidence.  We're being dumbed down.....  So, it's easier to convince sheeple of a biblical god rather than employing critical thinking.  My opinion, not yours...

As to the definition of atheism, each person claiming to be one should define their own terms and not be labelled by anyone else's.  Hence, no one should (as others have said) tell others what their beliefs are.

And - you know - VAGINA.

[amogorilla77]

First point> You must be looking for the religious fanatics, that is why you see them popping up everywhere, and maybe I am looking for the Atheistic fanatics because I have noticed more of a decline in religion and more of an uptake on who gives a crap as long as I get mine. I don't believe that there are more conservatives, but I do agree that they have bullied their way onto center stage and will do whatever it takes to stay there even promoting and creating the sensational and fanatical. As for the education system I blame big business. as long as the educational system cranks out a nation of idiots then they can keep what is theirs and take what is yours while telling you it is the man who did you wrong, and we would believe it because of crapucation backed by supposedly upstanding and God fearing conservatives sprinkled in with the double agent democrat both of whom are big business reps..(sounds a little to much like a conspiracy theorist now that I read it..)

second point>If you deviated from the definition of atheism which is the disbelief of God or gods then are you still an atheist, and if so is this a situation like when a vegan says I am vegan not vegetarian or, are you promoting an Atheistic schism?

Indubitably. It does divert the brains much needed blood supply.

[BikerDude]

I'll try voice the frustration at the tendency for the religious to marginalize fundamentalists as fanatics. As though they were not "real" Christians or Muslims or whatever. If I can speak for atheists I'd say that we find that frustrating and in fact disingenuous. A "nuanced" reading of anything (the Bible and Koran for instance) is only legitimate if it was written with the nuance intended. To introduce nuance later is just to gloss over the unsavory outcomes of a strict adherence to the words and seems very slippery and smacks of apologetics. The so called fanatics look to me (us) to be exactly what is intended by the words. It is only in the context of secular values that this become unacceptable. The truth is that one can easily see that the Bible and Christianity clearly does support the sort of intolerance toward atheism and in fact other faiths that we see in the southern states with statutes against atheism. There are plenty of passages in the bible to that effect. To suggest that they should be either ignored or read with some type of nuance IMO is just an attempt to reinvent things after the fact, in the context of a world much improved by the triumphs of secular values over religious intolerance.

As for an atheist fanatic, I can't imagine what that could possibly be. A person who really really really doubts the existence of god? Disbelief does not motivate actions. Beliefs motivate actions.
Many if not most atheists also believe that most religions are full of intolerance. To me it seems undeniable with even a very basic reading of any of the holy books. How could we be surprised at the outcomes?