# Interesting thing I was told today...



## Propaganda (Oct 26, 2010)

"I can't tell when a person is an atheist but when I find out they are an atheist I find I don't like them."

"When I find out someone is an atheist it makes sense that I did not like them" 

OK, this was told to me by my new friend (not for long), she was talking my ear off and I could not get more than a monosyllabic reply out before she continued her blinded rambles.

How would you reply to this?


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

I would just keep my mouth shout and think to myself this girl is a crazy *****
Sounds like she is finding an excuse to hate people.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

Propaganda said:


> How would reply to this?


"So I guess you have a problem with me then?" in a downtrodden voice. :yes


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

"FALCON PUUUUUUUNCH"

And then run for the hills.


----------



## obsidianavenger (Sep 1, 2011)

i would ask why... and then ask more questions contingent on her answer, etc.... eventually trying to get her to admit that her position made no sense. unless she said "i dunno i just do" in which case i would be annoyed and try to find someone else to talk to >.>


----------



## regimes (Aug 24, 2011)

find some clever way to compare her baseless hate to something like racism or homophobia or something. 

i really dislike when people do this, i don't see why not being religious has anything to do with our personality or what kind of people we are. :|


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

Editsss: OK, no more posting today.

What I mean to say is that you are implying that he acted in an anxious way because of the subject's gender. This is a social anxiety forum. It was probably because of HIS ANXIETY. He has given you no indication that this is a gendered problem. It is a weird and potentially insulting assumption.


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

Uh, but yeah, you should probably tell this person what your religious orientation is. Especially if it is important to you. Or your friend. Maybe you can have a long and arduous debate afterwards. Fun.


----------



## Propaganda (Oct 26, 2010)

She knows I am a free thinker, her assumption from that IDK, she stated "There's something about you I figure out about yet" after she said those above statements. My assumption is that I am a nice guy and not eating babies.

It has nothing to do with anxiety, gender plays a role mostly because I don't enjoy arguing with women, when debates turn into insults of character or person I become extremely hostile, animated, bombastic and generally frighten women. My male friends on the other hand, when we argue, which is extremely rare, when it turns physical we usually just end up laughing about it a week later thus creating a strong bond, with a women it's a bit different.

But to the greater point, yes, even though the statements were mostly fluff and dribble, it still portrays a person of bigotry and a deeper unappreciation of what is unknown. Not one person I call my friend puts their fingers in their ears and yells "la la la la!". When encountering a person of this nature I don't care to make a counterpoint or subtly expose other peoples ignorance; I just pack my bags and move on. Two questions I need to ask are if I want to keep this person as friend then if so would she be willing to listen to my viewpoints and possibly learn. A person with a refusal to learn and critically think I have no compunction leaving them to hang on their own ignorance.

Basically the first steps to creating a crafty position for the exposure of ignorance will be to fact find and inquiry what factors does she find distasteful of atheists in general. This generally leads to morals, mockery, or just being afraid of the dark. From there, if I can get her to stop talking, I can begin a form a structured argument. If that does not work I will "FALCON PUUUUUUUNCH" And then run for the hills, lol. =P


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

danberado said:


> I've been here long enough to know that sexual tension plays a huge role in anxiety. If not, OP probably wouldn't have a reason to specify gender in the first place.


In the original post, he uses the word "she" and "her". How is this specifying gender (as in making gender an relevant aspect of the issue)? These are normal conventions of conversation. If it was a male the post would have been exactly the same, except she replaced with he. Am I wrong?

Apparently it is not anxiety at any rate. And it is only related to sex because he feels uncomfortable being violent with women.


----------



## Innamorata (Sep 20, 2011)

I would say "bye then!" and leave.


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

Umm, she could just be ignorant or immature. If she is young, young people are not so set in their ways that they are always incapable of change.

If I were you, the next time it comes up, I would say "I'm an atheist, does that mean you dislike me." If she has a conscious, she will apologize and perhaps change her stereotyping behavior. If she doesn't have a conscious, she will say something vitriolic/attack you and then it's time to say "bye-bye"

Funny that I'm saying this - some of my messages on here have gotten misinterpreted that I hate atheists or something where is weird because I don't even believe in god. I should be more careful myself about making generalizations, I guess.


----------



## anonymous soul (Sep 8, 2011)

if she was actually a friend that I cared about and I knew she was a good person I would be very confused and would want to discuss it with her until I understood her viewpoint ( and I would ultimately try to open her mind more).

and if its someone I don't know well and I have no reason to believe theres anything worthwhile under that judgmental crap I would probably "attack" her intellectually with the intent to shake her faith until she either got the point or got mad and defensive(at which point I would enjoy a hearty chuckle at the feeble minded human's expense) :evil


----------



## poepoe (Aug 23, 2011)

"I can't tell when a person is close minded but when I find out they are, I don't like them."

"When I find out someone is close minded it makes sense that I did not like them." 

then I would peace out.


----------



## anonymous soul (Sep 8, 2011)

poepoe said:


> "I can't tell when a person is close minded but when I find out they are, I don't like them."
> 
> "When I find out someone is close minded it makes sense that I did not like them."
> 
> then I would peace out.


:haha

very nice.


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

Yeah, I misread the original post a tad, and I apologize for making assumptions.


----------



## LittlePhantomBlue (Sep 23, 2011)

Propaganda said:


> How would you reply to this?


Happily, I don't get those comments a lot (benefit of not talking!) On the odd occasion I hear things like that, I usually respond with "That's not very Christian of you."

Half the time, they miss the joke. The other half, they derp.


----------



## bul8tt (Apr 18, 2011)

I'd reply: "I'd love to continue this discourse but I've got a United Atheist Alliance meeting in 10 minutes."
Lol messing with people can be fun.


----------



## WhoAmIToday (Jul 29, 2011)

Tell her you're a Muslim.


----------



## Propaganda (Oct 26, 2010)

WhoAmIToday said:


> Tell her you're a Muslim.


Based on statistical data she would be more receptive towards a Muslim than an atheist.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/1...eists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Yeah, it's time to give her the peace out.... I normally give people the benefit of the doubt but I simply don't like her enough to take the time, I guess it's because I sense she is a theist. See what I did there! Just kidding BTW. =| lmao


----------



## WhoAmIToday (Jul 29, 2011)

Propaganda said:


> Based on statistical data she would be more receptive towards a Muslim than an atheist.
> 
> http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/1...eists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/
> 
> Yeah, it's time to give her the peace out.... I normally give people the benefit of the doubt but I simply don't like her enough to take the time, I guess it's because I sense she is a theist. See what I did there! Just kidding BTW. =| lmao


Ouch, I must admit that I wasn't expecting that! You did see what I was doing there though, right? 

Also:



> I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group&#8230;.
> Atheist: 47.6%
> Muslim: 33.5%
> *African-American 27.2%*
> ...


Seriously? Just because of their ethnicity?

Also:



> Considering that atheist nations are more peaceful, it seems particularly odd that there would be a predilection towards animosity towards atheists.


I'd have to pick him up on this. It doesn't seem at all odd to me - and I doubt that I'm the only one - that the groups that are statistically more aggressive have a predisposition to unjustified bigotry.


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

> Considering that atheist nations are more peaceful, it seems particularly odd that there would be a predilection towards animosity towards atheists.


I have a strong feeling that the correlation between atheist countries and peacefulness would be lost if education and wealth of the population was controlled for.

It is pretty hard to be an educated and well-rounded person who has had time to consider atheism in Somalia. They are too busy dying of starvation. Why do atheist pretend that class doesn't exist?

tl;dr: if you want more atheists, support education and become a socialist 

Also: these countries are not _atheist nations_. New Zealand, for example, is 55% Christian.


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

Atheists pretend class doesn't exist?


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

If they think that Somalia is violent because it is religious, then yes?


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

That is what I got from the linked comment section.

What the poster here said was particularly funny (but unrelated):

"that the groups that are statistically more aggressive have a predisposition to unjustified bigotry." 

That is not at all what this data is saying. Well, not unless you think practicing religion is automatically unjustified bigotry, which seems a little bit ironic to me.


----------



## Pennywise (Aug 18, 2011)

She sounds like an idiot to me. If she doesn't like someone just because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), she's not worth being friends with.


----------



## WhoAmIToday (Jul 29, 2011)

stillirise said:


> That is what I got from the linked comment section.
> 
> What the poster here said was particularly funny (but unrelated):
> 
> ...


If you quote someone in your post, they will be notified via their inbox. It would be a shame if I had not seen this post and could not respond to it.

I at no point suggested that practicing religion was unjustified bigotry. I am quite acutely aware of the fact that there are a large number of very tolerant and progressive theists in the U.S, which I go to great pains to avoid tarnishing with the same brush. If you read my post in the context in which it was intended, I think this is clear.

The author of the article expressed surprise at the overture of mistrust Atheists seem to have gained within the United States, considering that countries which are more peaceful have a large proportion of Atheists. The author reflects in the article - and in my opinion quite obviously - that the mistrust of our demographic is unjustified and uses the available statistics to show that Atheists do not threaten/damage/corrode (etc) society.

What I meant to say, for anyone that misinterpreted what I wrote, is that groups (in this case the NATION) that are generally more belligerent in nature are more likely to develop irrational beliefs about minorities/social groups/ethnicity/sexual orientations. I think that the statistics reflect this and in fact highlighted my surprise at the racism shown by the survey. I di not at any point equate this with religion, YOU did that.


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

WhoAmIToday said:


> What I meant to say, for anyone that misinterpreted what I wrote, is that groups (in this case the NATION) that are generally more belligerent in nature are more likely to develop irrational beliefs about minorities/social groups/ethnicity/sexual orientations. I think that the statistics reflect this and in fact highlighted my surprise at the racism shown by the survey. I di not at any point equate this with religion, YOU did that.


The subject of the study you quoted here was about religious participation and violence. It is not about minorities or ethnicities or sexual orientations. I don't understand how you could possibly not be talking about religion here.


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

OK, I think I understand better now.

1: You have a stat posted that says people in the US are intolerant of particular ethnicities/atheists/ political orientations (measure of bigotry in the US)
2: You have another stat that says that violence and religiosity of the population of nations are correlated. (correlation between violent countries and religious countries)
-
3: you make the conclusion that "belligerent[violent, as defined by our statistic] groups are more likely to develop [bigoted ideas]".

This conclusion does not follow. The first statistic and the second one are not related at all. How did you make the jump that violent nations=bigotry when you only have a statistic on the bigotry of the US and a statistic on religious nations and their violence? It would make a little sense if America was a particularly violent nation, but the source statistic has them pretty much exactly in the middle (82 out of 153).

Also: I did not mean to imply that you held the belief that I stated above. I just thought you read the data wrong.

800th edit: I should also state that I agree with the idea you are trying to espouse here. Violent countries are probably more likely to develop bigoted ideas. I just don't see how you came to that conclusion from the information presented here.


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

stillirise said:


> Violent countries are probably more likely to develop bigoted ideas.


Could be the other way around. Either way the formulation is useless.


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

Krikorian said:


> Could be the other way around. Either way the formulation is useless.


Well, some theories of global politics are based around these kinds of conceptions, with the idea that preventing the causal factor from occurring will also lead to the demise of the other problem that is caused by it. It definitely could go the other way around though .


----------



## WhoAmIToday (Jul 29, 2011)

stillirise said:


> OK, I think I understand better now.
> 
> 1: You have a stat posted that says people in the US are intolerant of particular ethnicities/atheists/ political orientations (measure of bigotry in the US)
> 2: You have another stat that says that violence and religiosity of the population of nations are correlated. (correlation between violent countries and religious countries)
> ...


*
Research Finds that Atheists are Most Hated and Distrusted Minority*

Ok. The author expressed surprise that Atheists were so disliked and mistrusted in the US, considering that countries with high populations of Atheists exist and clearly evidence that Atheists are not a detriment to society. The author contrasts this with the US which is largely religious, to show that it's clearly not a sound conclusion as the US is more violent than these Nations (or some of them).

I wasn't trying to equate religiosity with violence. I didn't mean to imply that religion was the *causation *of this violence, and neither does the author of the second article.

From the article (conclusion):



> "Now, there are several possible reasons for this. It could be that people living in turbulent countries turn to religion, or it could be that religion is not a good way to structure modern society. Or it could be that some other factor or combination of factors (democracy? free speech? education? government welfare?) generates citizens who are both peaceful and non-religious.
> 
> Whatever, it's another *blow to the idea that secularization leads to social meltdown*. Atheist countries are, in fact more peaceful."


I think the authors of both articles are being rather strident (or vain?) when they call these _Atheist _countries. People in these countries are, however, more peaceful, whatever the reason. The US is not one of those countries.

Oh crap, it's 2am... I think I conveyed my point... Night night!


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

That is a good summary of the article, but it doesn't explain to me why you think that "that the groups that are statistically more aggressive have a predisposition to unjustified bigotry", which was my problem in the first place.



> I wasn't trying to equate religiosity with violence. I didn't mean to imply that religion was the causation of this violence, and neither does the author of the second article.


I have no problem with the article(s). I specifically stated above that I got my impression about violence and religion causality from the _comments_ section of the article.


----------



## WhoAmIToday (Jul 29, 2011)

stillirise said:


> That is a good summary of the article, but it doesn't explain to me why you think that "that the groups that are statistically more aggressive have a predisposition to unjustified bigotry", which was my problem in the first place.
> 
> I have no problem with the article(s). I specifically stated above that I got my impression about violence and religion causality from the _comments_ section of the article.





stillirise said:


> That is a good summary of the article, but it doesn't explain to me why you think that "that the groups that are statistically more aggressive have a predisposition to unjustified bigotry", which was my problem in the first place.
> 
> I have no problem with the article(s). I specifically stated above that I got my impression about violence and religion causality from the _comments_ section of the article.


I see. In fact it did occur to me that I should have explained this more thoroughly after I posted, but went to bed...

I was responding to the author's comment on the basis of his article, in which he stated that the Atheists in the more peaceful countries enjoyed a better relationship with their religious cohabitants. I can assure you that this is most certainly true for the UK. The article is of course about the negative attitudes towards Atheists in the US. I meant that it does not surprise me that the US, which is generally more violent than these countries, has a predisposition to unjustified bigotry (on reflection the unjustified is rather redundant). I think that the first lot of data reflects that the US has some serious issues with bigotry.

The point is that I'm contrasting the countries where people enjoy a more tolerant and understanding existence with the US which has some serious issues. Equating ATHEISM to the causation of social ills (such as violence) is unjustified and the data in the article does well to reflect this.

Perhaps if I better articulate what I meant to convey:

It would appear to me that the relationship that he has described in the article between religious and non-religious adherents, which is* the point of the entire article, *could be correlated with the violence (or non-violence) of their particular group. The more violent(I prefer belligerent) a group is, the more likely it is to develop irrational beliefs about minorities or people of greatly differing beliefs. The US is *not *one of the _more _peaceful countries and exhibits a significant amount of bigotry. It is *not surprising *that the US has this problem if it has this social issue (is more violent).


----------



## WhoAmIToday (Jul 29, 2011)

Furthermore.



stillirise said:


> That is a good summary of the article, but it doesn't explain to me why you think that "that the groups that are statistically more aggressive have a predisposition to unjustified bigotry", which was my problem in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

> Yes, you have. You said:
> 
> "2: You have another stat that says that violence and religiosity of the population of nations are correlated. (correlation between violent countries and religious countries)"
> 
> This is not true, it does not say that, and it was right of me to correct it. I'm surprised that it's not obvious when reading the article. You misunderstood the article.


The second articles _does_ say that there is a correlation between violence and religiosity. That is the whole point of the article. Note: there is a difference between correlation and causation.



> WHAT COMMENTS? No one else seems to have commented on it.


There are 147 comments on the page. I don't know what the **** you are talking about there being no other comments.

This is a complete waste of time. I have real papers to write.


----------



## WhoAmIToday (Jul 29, 2011)

stillirise said:


> The second articles _does_ say that there is a correlation between violence and religiosity. That is the whole point of the article. Note: there is a difference between correlation and causation.
> 
> There are 147 comments on the page. I don't know what the **** you are talking about there being no other comments.
> 
> This is a complete waste of time. I have real papers to write.


It would appear that I misunderstood that, I apologize. I was under the impression that you were talking about the thread, which I understand is not the case.

In fact on reflection, it would seem that it is I that have been wrong, at least in part. I apologize. I won't take up any more of this thread.


----------



## Brett81 (Aug 31, 2011)

True friends accept you for who you are. Assuming you aren't a raging lunatic or serial killer, of course.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

stillirise said:


> If they think that Somalia is violent because it is religious, then yes?


Uh, what?


----------



## stillirise (Aug 4, 2011)

Dark Alchemist said:


> Uh, what?


I hope you understand why I cannot respond to that


----------



## candiedsky (Aug 7, 2011)

Talk about judging someone... I am agnostic, and I'm not a preachy one either. People have a real issue with generalizing.


----------



## ambergris (Oct 15, 2010)

'Doesn't God tell you whether they're an atheist or not?'


----------



## Hamster (Sep 3, 2009)

what's wrong with her statement?


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

Hamster said:


> what's wrong with her statement?


Lol, I kind of agree. She is just stating her personal experiences. If you want to change her mind, show her that atheists aren't always dicks. Lol, I don't mean to cause controversy, but let's be logical here. Some atheists are completely full of themselves. I realize this mostly has to do with upbringing. The angriest atheists from what I have seen were taught Christianity or Catholicism or whatever growing up, and I can understand the pain and anger. But if atheists truly want to get people on their side (which it seems like they do) I don't think attacking is the way to go about it.

I'm rambling somewhat. The girl may be shallow, I really don't know, but on the other hand, she may just be giving her personal experiences of encounters with atheists... who knows.

By the way, I am agnostic, so don't accuse me of trolling or anything. Agnostics are included in this forum.


----------



## Hamster (Sep 3, 2009)

kev said:


> Lol, I kind of agree. She is just stating her personal experiences. If you want to change her mind, show her that atheists aren't always dicks. Lol, I don't mean to cause controversy, but let's be logical here. Some atheists are completely full of themselves. I realize this mostly has to do with upbringing. The angriest atheists from what I have seen were taught Christianity or Catholicism or whatever growing up, and I can understand the pain and anger. But if atheists truly want to get people on their side (which it seems like they do) I don't think attacking is the way to go about it.
> 
> I'm rambling somewhat. The girl may be shallow, I really don't know, but on the other hand, she may just be giving her personal experiences of encounters with atheists... who knows.
> 
> By the way, I am agnostic, so don't accuse me of trolling or anything. Agnostics are included in this forum.


well, when i read it, i thought she was just stating what she realized: that the people that she dislikes tend to be atheists. which i don't see anything wrong with noticing that.


----------



## amene (Mar 28, 2010)

Someone on this forum a month or so ago said people who get cancer are bad people and that's why God gave it to them D:

I was like what about little kids or babies..


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

Hamster said:


> well, when i read it, i thought she was just stating what she realized: that the people that she dislikes tend to be atheists. which i don't see anything wrong with noticing that.


And if she said people she dislikes tend to be a certain race, or religion?

Part of what makes people dislike people is prejudice. In this case, it is feeling vindicated for not liking them because the atheist label somehow "explains it".


----------



## dixiedelite31 (Oct 18, 2011)

Where's the like button? Lol


----------

