There's always a sliver of doubt whether you are a Christian, Hindu, Muslim,
Atheist, Whatever.
Not always. I see no reason to have any doubt in something I know to be true.

Not always. I see no reason to have any doubt in something I know to be true.

How do you know it to be true? KNOW. Not "have faith" that it's true, but know?
Because the bible tells you so?

Every person of faith points to their holy book as "proof" of their position. But they don't know. Nobody does. To say anything else would certify you as a complete crank or give you the Nobel Prize.

Southwest Baptist, where I went as a teenager, does this also. You can find them in Bricktown with a bullhorn on any given Friday night passing out "chick tracts."

Yep, Southwest Baptist here as well, and Heartland Baptist Bible College. Oh man.... =/

How do you know it to be true? KNOW. Not "have faith" that it's true, but know?
Because the bible tells you so?

Every person of faith points to their holy book as "proof" of their position. But they don't know. Nobody does. To say anything else would certify you as a complete crank or give you the Nobel Prize.

Because there are epistemic frameworks that function thusly.

How do you know it to be true? KNOW. Not "have faith" that it's true, but know?
The fact that nobody has produced sufficient evidence to show otherwise.

The fact that nobody has produced sufficient evidence to show otherwise.

I try to explain that's exactly why I believe advanced mice from another galaxy created our planet. But people laugh.

I try to explain that's exactly why I believe advanced mice from another galaxy created our planet. But people laugh.

No one has proven otherwise. Seems to be a good enough standard for others.

To address the main point of this thread, I think that a lot of young people and moderates leave the church due to most churches holding onto antiquated views on science and social issues, at odds with empirical evidence and modernity.

Some will probably return, later in life, for the social aspects or due to a revival of their faith, but overall, I see this as a positive trend.

The Daily Oklahoman published an editorial on the subject that I find ridiculous and blatantly offensive.

Declining Christian numbers in Oklahoma, elsewhere no cause for celebration | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/declining-christian-numbers-in-oklahoma-elsewhere-no-cause-for-celebration/article/5419515)

It blows my mind that this is our newspaper now (along with Clickbait articles galore), but I guess there's a reason it was determined to be the worst newspaper in America, huh?

The Daily Oklahoman published an editorial on the subject that I find ridiculous and blatantly offensive.

Declining Christian numbers in Oklahoma, elsewhere no cause for celebration | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/declining-christian-numbers-in-oklahoma-elsewhere-no-cause-for-celebration/article/5419515)

It blows my mind that this is our newspaper now (along with Clickbait articles galore), but I guess there's a reason it was determined to be the worst newspaper in America, huh?

I don't understand being offended at these type of things. It obviously comes from an ignorant and uneducated point of view so why let it offend? There comes a point at which the voices of those not in directly speaking into your life need to lose their ability to offend, or it stunts societal progress.

The author is clearly concerned about a variety of things and in part because the author has been fed misinformation that isn't necessarily true, has obscured vision about what's really going on, and doesn't understand the bigger picture. There are many things she said in the article that have maybe been true in certain circumstances "But atheism’s track record at motiving constructive responses to such woes is negligible; in some cases, atheism even provides a ready excuse for engaging in acts that fuel social problems." Certainly that's anywhere from completely wrong to simply misguided, but there are points on which the point is actually true (see the history of states [non-US] who uphold a no-religion policy and how good lacking their human rights are.)

But none of that actually means that Atheists are bad people, and none of that means that they are incapable of systematically creating ethical systems that advance society in a unanimously agreed upon "good" direction. It's an ignorant writer simply afraid of the "other" and voicing that fear. But it's really not much different than an atheist ignorantly saying that "Religion is the cause of most wars" as if the root cause of bad things in the world were something other than our humanity, and bad tropes (usually couched as sins in religion) which transcend religion…as if we wouldn't (and haven't) come up with other reasons to steal, kill, and destroy the "other".

I'm not by any means defending the writer, but it's simply not worthy of offense.

The fact that this position is being promoted through publishing it is what's offensive and disturbing. This was issued as a collectively agreed upon stance by the Oklahoman Editorial Board. This is not simply the opinion of a single person, it is the considered opinion of a group of supposedly educated folks capable of critical thought, yet it officially includes the faults you point out. That to me is quite offensive.

The fact that this position is being promoted through publishing it is what's offensive and disturbing. This was issued as a collectively agreed upon stance by the Oklahoman Editorial Board. This is not simply the opinion of a single person, it is the considered opinion of a group of supposedly educated folks capable of critical thought, yet it officially includes the faults you point out. That to me is quite offensive.

This -- you said it much better than I could have. I'm not losing sleep over it, but I find it embarrassing and troubling that the official newspaper of a major city publishes stuff like this on behalf of the newspaper.

This -- you said it much better than I could have. I'm not losing sleep over it, but I find it embarrassing and troubling that the official newspaper of a major city publishes stuff like this on behalf of the newspaper.

They run a prayer on the front page every day. And they Tweet it first thing every morning.

And remember, OPUBCO was purchased in 2011by Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz who has personally funded tons of Christian causes as well as anti-gay rights legislation.

They run a prayer on the front page every day. And they Tweet it first thing every morning.

And remember, OPUBCO was purchased in 2011by Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz who has personally funded tons of Christian causes as well as anti-gay rights legislation.

I've heard about the prayer but don't get paper copies and have never seen it on Twitter for some reason. It's still super strange to me, honestly. I just can't imagine anything like that back home. As to the rest of it -- didn't know that, but I can't say I'm surprised. Sigh. :rolleyes: Articles like Steve's about local developments are just about the only reason I ever read it. Political/religious issues aside, this article the other day was the final straw for me in terms of taking them even remotely seriously:

https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11193274_10152941045099200_8655748533607548111_n.j pg?oh=09c8a9387b733461c683bd587918d68f&oe=55C046ED

They started running the front-page prayer sometime in the mid-80's:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/opubcoprayer.jpg

Pray and donate away! But to print unsubstantiated drivel as fact? I don't know how society escapes the downfall of real journalism. The DOK is just awful. Making Oklahomans dumber by the day.

I try to explain that's exactly why I believe advanced mice from another galaxy created our planet. But people laugh.

At least we now know the answer is 42.

The Daily Oklahoman published an editorial on the subject that I find ridiculous and blatantly offensive.

Declining Christian numbers in Oklahoma, elsewhere no cause for celebration | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/declining-christian-numbers-in-oklahoma-elsewhere-no-cause-for-celebration/article/5419515)

It blows my mind that this is our newspaper now (along with Clickbait articles galore), but I guess there's a reason it was determined to be the worst newspaper in America, huh?

Wow. That may be, and this is saying a lot, the dumbest, most intellectually dishonest and thoughtless article I've ever read in the DOK. Just wow.

The Daily Oklahoman published an editorial on the subject that I find ridiculous and
blatantly offensive.
I just read the article. What did you find that was ridiculous and blatantly offensive?

I just read the article. What did you find that was ridiculous and blatantly offensive?

1. there’s no denying that people genuinely devoted to a religion emphasizing love for others, denial of self, and belief that one answers to a higher power have generated far more societal improvement than what’s been rendered by those pursuing a self-directed “do whatever makes you feel good” ethos.
I know of no aeheists who live by that ethos.

2. Our nation is undoubtedly a better place when there are more of the former than the latter.
A statement offered without evidence can be discarded without evidence.

3. think society has reached a level of enlightenment where the “ancient” solutions no longer apply is the height of folly. And in Oklahoma, citizens certainly struggle with challenges inherent to the human condition. The state ranks high in violent crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and similar societal ills.
This statement alone disproves their thesis, as Oklahoma is a pretty religious state in a fairly religious country.

4. A classroom full of pregnant teenage atheists would still be a sign of societal decay.
Does aethism cause pregnancy? No.

5. But atheism’s track record at motiving constructive responses to such woes is negligible; in some cases, atheism even provides a ready excuse for engaging in acts that fuel social problems.
Another statement offered without evidence.

6. Internationally, Christians are among the few traveling to Ebola hot zones and similar trouble spots to render aid. There is not an atheist equivalent to those efforts
While there may not be many specifically aethist organizations that do outreach. There are countless organizations that are not religious in nature that do. For example, after the Nepal earthquake, Team RWB was there digging people out of rubble and missionaries were handing out bibles. Who did the real work there? Doctors without borders is a secular organization that does amazing work worldwide.

So, basically, the whole article is junk.

Great topic, and glad to see it's maintained a civil tone.

Over the past few years, as I have broken out of the mold, traveled more (even though it has all been domestic), opened up to new ideas and such. I have found religion to have taken a very distant backseat. It's not that I don't have time -- it's that I feel it has lost its purpose.

Growing up, I always believed if I stopped praying, I would surely die soon thereafter. I don't mean a literal fear of my heart stopping, but I always thought something would happen. My guardian angels would turn away and something bad would happen.

It's been years since I have been in a church, and probably several years since I have actually prayed. And life is still going on.

I can't properly explain how I feel about it all. I'm not an atheist, but I struggle to call myself a Christian, either.

The idea that there is a being capable of reading every persons thoughts, building a universe out of nothing, setting life in motion, and governing the laws of man -- sounds just as far fetched to me as the big bang theory -- it to me just seems equally as improbable that life could form out of pure chance from some rocks banging together in space.

So, I don't know what I believe is true. And I'm not in any real hurry to find out. And I think a lot of my fellow Earthlings in their 20-30's feel the same as I.

I do know that the Bible, as well as other religious books are not BAD. The Bible teaches many excellent life principles. It's good to treat others how you want to be treated, to not lie or steal. To help those who have fallen down. To save your resources in the good times to withstand the bad. To not cheat on your wife and family. But there are also some things in the Bible I can't agree with.

It's a touchy topic, but I wanted to present my perspective from my demographic.

Great topic, and glad to see it's maintained a civil tone.

Over the past few years, as I have broken out of the mold, traveled more (even though it has all been domestic), opened up to new ideas and such. I have found religion to have taken a very distant backseat. It's not that I don't have time -- it's that I feel it has lost its purpose.

Growing up, I always believed if I stopped praying, I would surely die soon thereafter. I don't mean a literal fear of my heart stopping, but I always thought something would happen. My guardian angels would turn away and something bad would happen.

It's been years since I have been in a church, and probably several years since I have actually prayed. And life is still going on.

I can't properly explain how I feel about it all. I'm not an atheist, but I struggle to call myself a Christian, either.

The idea that there is a being capable of reading every persons thoughts, building a universe out of nothing, setting life in motion, and governing the laws of man -- sounds just as far fetched to me as the big bang theory -- it to me just seems equally as improbable that life could form out of pure chance from some rocks banging together in space.

So, I don't know what I believe is true. And I'm not in any real hurry to find out. And I think a lot of my fellow Earthlings in their 20-30's feel the same as I.

I do know that the Bible, as well as other religious books are not BAD. The Bible teaches many excellent life principles. It's good to treat others how you want to be treated, to not lie or steal. To help those who have fallen down. To save your resources in the good times to withstand the bad. To not cheat on your wife and family. But there are also some things in the Bible I can't agree with.

It's a touchy topic, but I wanted to present my perspective from my demographic.

I have to say this sums me up pretty well. I'm a 27 year old male from a family of Baptist preachers, I got out on my own and started trying to figure out my own way. I'm pretty sure I'm in that same spot where I don't really call myself a Christian or an Atheist, just a young guy figuring out life and right now in this time of my life church doesn't really have that much influence on me. Who knows in 20 years I might fall back to what I was taught all my life or may I pave a new direction for myself and my family. Like Catch22 said, I'm in no hurry to figure it all out.

This -- you said it much better than I could have. I'm not losing sleep over it, but I find it embarrassing and troubling that the official newspaper of a major city publishes stuff like this on behalf of the newspaper.

Did I miss something or did the DOK become a state-sponsored newspaper?

Nearly all positions about all things are promoted through publishing. And nearly all positions about all things are offensive to some people.

Where did the premise that these are "supposedly educated folks capable of critical thought" come from?

In case you all don't know this, the position articulated in the article is the position that very likely the MAJORITY of Oklahomans agree with. If you are offended by the article, you are likely offended by the beliefs of a vast majority of the state in which the topic of this internet forum resides.

The Oklahoman is the #1 newspaper in Oklahoma City because it represents the vantage point, the care, and quality of thought of the average Central Oklahoman and citizen of OKC.

To be quite blunt, it reflects just as poorly on the individual offended by this than those writing it.

Did I miss something or did the DOK become a state-sponsored newspaper?

Nearly all positions about all things are promoted through publishing. And nearly all positions about all things are offensive to some people.

Where did the premise that these are "supposedly educated folks capable of critical thought" come from?

In case you all don't know this, the position articulated in the article is the position that very likely the MAJORITY of Oklahomans agree with. If you are offended by the article, you are likely offended by the beliefs of a vast majority of the state in which the topic of this internet forum resides.

The Oklahoman is the #1 newspaper in Oklahoma City because it represents the vantage point, the care, and quality of thought of the average Central Oklahoman and citizen of OKC.

If the vast majority of Oklahomans think Christians are better people than atheists and that there is little/no charity work done by atheists who are living by a "do whatever makes you feel good" mantra, then yeah, I disagree with most people in this area (and don't feel the least bit bad about doing so). As an atheist, it is an offensive notion.

You're right that the Oklahoman isn't state-sponsored and they are allowed to publish whatever they like, so that's fair. It is still disappointing to me to see such a divisive article pushed by the staff, though. As the city's main newspaper not [explicitly?] geared toward a particular focus area/demographic, you'd think their goal would be to report the news while maintaining respectful opinions of the range of readers. Maybe not? This wasn't one editorial written by a single reader and submitted under their name -- it was published by the entire editorial board.

And I don't recall ever referring to these folks as "supposedly educated people capable of critical thought", but as to that notion, it isn't crazy to think that the board for the state's largest city's newspaper would fit that bill, is it? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Plenty of people in this thread have chimed in as to why this article is offensive (with particular thanks to Chadanth, so I'm not sure why you're only addressing me.



To be quite blunt, it reflects just as poorly on the individual offended by this than those writing it.

How?

This article reminds me somwhat of Joe Klein's cover story article in TIME after the 2013 Moore tornado. (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/20/can-service-save-us/#comments). You can look in the comments to see what most readers thought of his dig on "secular humanists" and their supposed lack of volunteering/charity work.

Anyway, you're clearly determined to defend the paper's editorial and don't seem particularly willing to understand why it would be offensive to anyone except Christians, so we may have to just agree to disagree.

If the vast majority of Oklahomans think Christians are better people than atheists and that there is little/no charity work done by atheists who are living by a "do whatever makes you feel good" mantra, then yeah, I disagree with most people in this area (and don't feel the least bit bad about doing so). As an atheist, it is an offensive notion.

You're right that the Oklahoman isn't state-sponsored and they are allowed to publish whatever they like, so that's fair. It is still disappointing to me to see such a divisive article pushed by the staff, though. As the city's main newspaper not [explicitly?] geared toward a particular focus area/demographic, you'd think their goal would be to report the news while maintaining respectful opinions of the range of readers. Maybe not? This wasn't one editorial written by a single reader and submitted under their name -- it was published by the entire editorial board.

And I don't recall ever referring to these folks as "supposedly educated people capable of critical thought", but as to that notion, it isn't crazy to think that the board for the state's largest city's newspaper would fit that bill, is it? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Plenty of people in this thread have chimed in as to why this article is offensive (with particular thanks to Chadanth, so I'm not sure why you're only addressing me.

I'm not addressing just you, I just happened to quote your post because it was the starting point. Sorry that I wasn't clear there.


How?

This article reminds me somwhat of Joe Klein's cover story article in TIME after the 2013 Moore tornado. (Can Service Save Us? | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/20/can-service-save-us/#comments)). You can look in the comments to see what most readers thought of his dig on "secular humanists" and their supposed lack of volunteering/charity work.

Anyway, you're clearly determined to defend the paper's editorial and don't seem particularly willing to understand why it would be offensive to anyone except Christians, so we may have to just agree to disagree.

I'm not defending the article and never have. I dismissed it as soon as I saw "Daily Oklahoman" let alone the content.

Choosing to be offended by something that is entirely dismissible reflects poorly because it demonstrates the following:

1. The lack of willingness to understand how someone could arrive to such conclusions regardless of how senseless they might be. This is the most sure way to hinder progress through conversation. Is the other side just as guilty. Absolutely, maybe even more so. But if neither side is in the same house, how can they sit down at the same table and even start a conversation?

2. A lack of understanding about the severity of the article vis-a-vis ideas that are far more dangerous. The article was pontificating and lacked any sense of coherence. It's quality was at about a 10th grade level. Being offended by a 10th grade level article is myopic. There is plenty of ignorance worth taking exception to, and fighting against. This article was worthy of a "LOL!" and nothing more.

3. A lack of foresight: About 3 years ago I was talking with some LGBT&Allied friends and they were convinced we were 15-20+ years away from gay marriage being legalized. They didn't understand how I could be apathetic about being a voice calling for equal rights: Aside from my personal political beliefs, it was also more than apparent that we were 5-10 years away from becoming legal at the national level, and it is well on its way to being a closed case within the next 5 years.

The very statistics that prompted that article show that atheists and unaffiliated are growing, which means their voice and normalcy are growing, which makes the article increasingly in the minority and completely inconsequential.

4. It shows a disposition toward expending energy in places that aren't worthy of that energy, even if it's just slight. If someone writes an article on why more cops should shoot more young black kids, that would be worthy of offense. If someone writes an article about why black people are out of favor with God because they have the mark of Cain…well that's just ridiculous. Both articles have "offensive" material, but only one is actually worthy of taking offense to given the nature of today's socio-political landscape.

..., So, basically, the whole article is junk.
In other words there was nothing ridiculous or blatantly offensive.

In other words there was nothing ridiculous or blatantly offensive.

Nope, everything Chadanth listed showed it was ridiculous or blatantly offensive.

Nope, everything Chadanth listed showed it was ridiculous or blatantly offensive.

You know what? I don't really give a damn if someone is offended.

The article isn't very good. But saying "I'm offended" just tells me that you have thin skin and you probably need to toughen up. You don't have a right to have people tiptoe around your opinions in fear of saying something you might get upset by.

You know what? I don't really give a damn if someone is offended.

The article isn't very good. But saying "I'm offended" just tells me that you have thin skin and you probably need to toughen up. You don't have a right to have people tiptoe around your opinions in fear of saying something you might get upset by.

Really? That's what you gathered from my post?

I specifically cleared up that I'm not losing sleep over this. And also stated my general view of the newspaper based on all of their publishings (spoiler alert: not very good), so I don't care too much. Just saying I took offense to the way things were presented doesn't mean I'm crying into my empty tub of Ben & Jerry's. I find the Westboro Baptist Church extremely offensive but I barely give them any thought and mostly laugh it off. Perhaps I have a different opinion on what constitutes finding something offensive?

Maybe it was a poor word choice, but the outcry over the use of the word "offensive" is easily the most ridiculous part of this discussion at this point. It seems there's a bigger deal about that than I even made about the original editorial. Nevermind the fact that dictating what other people should or shouldn't be offended by is a crappy hobby and likely a fruitless endeavor. Perhaps I should've said it "disappointed" me?

Really? That's what you gathered from my post?

I specifically cleared up that I'm not losing sleep over this. And also stated my general view of the newspaper based on all of their publishings (spoiler alert: not very good), so I don't care too much. Just saying I took offense to the way things were presented doesn't mean I'm crying into my empty tub of Ben & Jerry's. I find the Westboro Baptist Church extremely offensive but I barely give them any thought and mostly laugh it off. Perhaps I have a different opinion on what constitutes finding something offensive?

Maybe it was a poor word choice, but the outcry over the use of the word "offensive" is easily the most ridiculous part of this discussion at this point. It seems there's a bigger deal about that than I even made about the original editorial. Nevermind the fact that dictating what other people should or shouldn't be offended by is a crappy hobby and likely a fruitless endeavor. Perhaps I should've said it "disappointed" me?

Actually I was responding to kelroy55's post. I'll try and respond more in depth when I have a bit more time. Can't go fully into it now.

Let's stop addressing each other personally and get back to discussing the subject.

Thanks.

You know what? I don't really give a damn if someone is offended.

The article isn't very good. But saying "I'm offended" just tells me that you have thin skin and you probably need to toughen up. You don't have a right to have people tiptoe around your opinions in fear of saying something you might get upset by.

People do have a right to express their opinions regarding someone else's opinion. Your post, indeed, could very easily be simplified to "I'm offended." If someone, like the DOK editorial board, puts something out there it becomes open to criticism and commentary from any angle including regarding its offensiveness or lack thereof.

In other words there was nothing ridiculous or blatantly offensive.

It was all ridiculous. Offensive, not so much. Nothing there was substantiated by anything other than biased conjecture and misinformation.

You know what? I don't really give a damn if someone is offended.

The article isn't very good. But saying "I'm offended" just tells me that you have thin skin and you probably need to toughen up. You don't have a right to have people tiptoe around your opinions in fear of saying something you might get upset by.

Maybe I could have been clear, I didn't find it offensive any more than I would find it offensive when a child says something foolish. That's the level of thought that went into the article, for what it's worth.

It was all ridiculous. Offensive, not so much. Nothing there was substantiated by anything other than biased conjecture and misinformation.

This.

At the end of the day, we all think that our own beliefs are correct. That's why they are our beliefs. If we didn't think they were correct, we would believe something else.

I think what we are seeing here is the conflict between those who believe that the specifics of our spiritual beliefs are important, and those who think our spiritual beliefs don't matter. The article is written from the first perspective. And I think we can all agree that it is written poorly. This doesn't mean that the position the article takes is invalid, however. And I certainly don't think the position is offensive -- it's just poorly delivered in this case.

At the end of the day, we all think that our own beliefs are correct. That's why they are our beliefs. If we didn't think they were correct, we would believe something else.

I think what we are seeing here is the conflict between those who believe that the specifics of our spiritual beliefs are important, and those who think our spiritual beliefs don't matter. The article is written from the first perspective. And I think we can all agree that it is written poorly. This doesn't mean that the position the article takes is invalid, however. And I certainly don't think the position is offensive -- it's just poorly delivered in this case.

It's more than simply poorly delivered, it's full of negative opinions and naked conjecture, none of which is supported by fact. It's a fantasy. It's one thing if the article would have stayed on the community and social value of religion, which most atheists will concede, but veered off into some stupid point about atheist teen pregnancies and atheists providing no community service.

It's more than simply poorly delivered, it's full of negative opinions and naked conjecture, none of which is supported by fact. It's a fantasy. It's one thing if the article would have stayed on the community and social value of religion, which most atheists will concede, but veered off into some stupid point about atheist teen pregnancies and atheists providing no community service.

Yeah that atheist teen pregnancy thing was pretty out there. :D

Yeah that atheist teen pregnancy thing was pretty out there. :D

I disagree. The statement was simply that a classroom full of pregnant teenage atheists vs a classroom full of pregnant teenage Christians are both equally a sign of societal decay. I'm not sure I can disagree.

Stating that regardless of religion societal decay is societal decay seems like something that would be uncontroversial.

I disagree. The statement was simply that a classroom full of pregnant teenage atheists vs a classroom full of pregnant teenage Christians are both equally a sign of societal decay. I'm not sure I can disagree.

Stating that regardless of religion societal decay is societal decay seems like something that would be uncontroversial.

But teen pregnancy is on the decline, significantly, so that's not a real example of anything. The article was clearly trying to paint a correlation between lack of morals and atheism, which is patently false.

Trends in Teen Pregnancy and Childbearing - The Office of Adolescent Health (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html)

Then you have stuff like this:
Phil Robertson Of 'Duck Dynasty' Reveals Bizarre Atheist Rape And Murder Fantasy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/phil-robertson-atheist-rape_n_6936662.html)

Or the movie "God's Not Dead", which paints atheists as cruel and angry people. It's all fantasy and confirmation bias, not borne in fact.

But teen pregnancy is on the decline, significantly, so that's not a real example of anything. The article was clearly trying to paint a correlation between lack of morals and atheism, which is patently false.

Trends in Teen Pregnancy and Childbearing - The Office of Adolescent Health (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html)

Then you have stuff like this:
Phil Robertson Of 'Duck Dynasty' Reveals Bizarre Atheist Rape And Murder Fantasy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/phil-robertson-atheist-rape_n_6936662.html)

Or the movie "God's Not Dead", which paints atheists as cruel and angry people. It's all fantasy and confirmation bias, not borne in fact.

I guess I read it differently.


Critics will counter that Oklahoma typically ranks among the top states for church attendance, yet ranks worse on the aforementioned measures than states with lower levels of religious observance. This may suggest some people are hypocrites, but it doesn’t mean Oklahoma would be better off if fewer people adhered to a religion that advocates against murder, adultery and theft. A classroom full of pregnant teenage atheists would still be a sign of societal decay.

They seem to be saying that you can't use the high teen pregnancy rate to attack religion in Oklahoma. Moral decay is moral decay.

I guess I read it differently.



They seem to be saying that you can't use the high teen pregnancy rate to attack religion in Oklahoma. Moral decay is moral decay.

Perhaps I read it wrong, but the overall tone is accusatory. I still attribute the high teen pregnancy rate in OK to poor sex education, anyway. I blame the bad sex ed on religious conservatives, too. If the overall rate is down, dramatically so, but it's still high in one of the more religious states, that's pretty damning evidence that we're doing it wrong.

It's more than simply poorly delivered, it's full of negative opinions and naked conjecture, none of which is supported by fact. It's a fantasy. It's one thing if the article would have stayed on the community and social value of religion, which most atheists will concede, but veered off into some stupid point about atheist teen pregnancies and atheists providing no community service.
This editorial is probably something that would have been written about gay people 20 years ago. Because back then, with so many in the closet (for appropriate reasons), most people thought they didnt know any gay people. Therefore regualr folks had negative opinions of gay people because they really didnt know who they were or anything about them. Fast forward to today and everyone knows gay people and realizes they are good and normal people. Its the same with atheists. Most atheists are afraid to be open about because of possible negative repercussions. Therefore people think they dont know atheists, even though they do, and dont know that they are good and normal people. This is probably why the recent Openly Secular Day is very important to educate the religious about atheists. They arent as the editors say "do what feels good" people.



I disagree. The statement was simply that a classroom full of pregnant teenage atheists vs a classroom full of pregnant teenage Christians are both equally a sign of societal decay. I'm not sure I can disagree.

Stating that regardless of religion societal decay is societal decay seems like something that would be uncontroversial.


I guess I read it differently.



They seem to be saying that you can't use the high teen pregnancy rate to attack religion in Oklahoma. Moral decay is moral decay.

Picking out teen pregnancy to make a point was incredibly foolish. Seeing how its religious people and their advancement of abstinence only sex education has contributed to more teen pregnancies. It has been shown that it has no effect on rates while fact based sex education has. So why cant you use the teen pregnancy rate to attack religion in Oklahoma when it has contributed to higher rates? Just as across the country the more religious states have higher teen pregnancy rates than less religious states. We should criticize religion when they dont acknowledge real numbers and statistics only because they dont like the alternative methods.

Sure, societal decay is societal decay regardless of religion or no religion. But the worst part of the editorial is how it ignores the fact that you usually see more of it in more religious areas. This is even true across the world.

Oh geeze... are we really comparing the plight of gay people to atheism?

As far as I know, gay people don't set up booths and try to convert people to homosexuality, nor do they buy billboards, and hold events meant to mock straight people. And I'm not sure the last time an atheist was tied to the back of a truck and dragged to death.

Oh geeze... are we really comparing the plight of gay people to atheism?

As far as I know, gay people don't set up booths and try to convert people to homosexuality, nor do they buy billboards, and hold events meant to mock straight people. And I'm not sure the last time an atheist was tied to the back of a truck and dragged to death.

Dude, nothing was said about the plight of atheists. Im comparing how people seem to be ignorant, frightened or leery of a group of people simply because they dont know them or that they dont realize they know them. Im saying that the more you spend time with someone thats apart of a certain group, whether it be religious, sexual orientation, or socio-economic, you become more understanding and trustworthy of them when you interact with them and come to know them.

Oh geeze... are we really comparing the plight of gay people to atheism?

As far as I know, gay people don't set up booths and try to convert people to homosexuality, nor do they buy billboards, and hold events meant to mock straight people. And I'm not sure the last time an atheist was tied to the back of a truck and dragged to death.

I also think it's overkill to make a direct comparison, but people in general do have strong feelings about atheists.

Americans More Likely to Vote for a Cheating, Pot-Smoking or Gay President Over an Atheist One in 2016, Says Study (http://www.christianpost.com/news/americans-more-likely-to-vote-for-a-cheating-pot-smoking-or-gay-president-over-an-atheist-one-in-2016-says-study-120038/)

I also think it's overkill to make a direct comparison, but people in general do have strong feelings about atheists.

Americans More Likely to Vote for a Cheating, Pot-Smoking or Gay President Over an Atheist One in 2016, Says Study (http://www.christianpost.com/news/americans-more-likely-to-vote-for-a-cheating-pot-smoking-or-gay-president-over-an-atheist-one-in-2016-says-study-120038/)

Fair enough. I may have been a little "knee jerk" in that reaction, but it certainly irks me. Not being trusted or voted is a far way from the suppression and the violence that other groups have seen.

And it would help if there weren't so many smug and arrogant atheists. They're as bad as the over-evangelical Christians.

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Fair enough. I may have been a little "knee jerk" in that reaction, but it certainly irks me. Not being trusted or voted is a far way from the suppression and the violence that other groups have seen.

And it would help if there weren't so many smug and arrogant atheists. They're as bad as the over-evangelical Christians.

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

I would be fine with that, so long as the other side of the matter keeps itself out of schools and government policy, but they're not content with that.

I would be fine with that, so long as the other side of the matter keeps itself out of schools and government policy, but they're not content with that.

Both "sides" represent the minority on their "side".

I would be fine with that, so long as the other side of the matter keeps itself out of schools and government policy, but they're not content with that.

Also, if there is smug backlash it's fueled by a lifetime of being subjected to inescapable religious dogma and being told over and over again that if you didn't believe in a very specific way, you are going to burn in hell and are essentially an inferior human being.

That sort of thing tends to have an effect on people.

Both "sides" represent the minority on their "side".

This very well could be true Jerry, and I won't dispute it. But one minority side has oversized influence with those who pass laws and set policy.

I know. I mean, in just recent times that side was able to force Edmond to remove the cross from the city seal, despite the wishes of the overwhelming majority.

Oh wait, you meant the other side... :P

I know. I mean, in just recent times that side was able to force Edmond to remove the cross from the city seal, despite the wishes of the overwhelming majority.

Hey, when the majority or an outsized minority is imposing an unconstitutional agenda, I stand with the constitution. It seems that the legislature with the blessing of the governor supports passing unconstitutional legislation that is endorsed by the amen crowd.

Honestly, I was just being a smart Alec.

I know. I mean, in just recent times that side was able to force Edmond to remove the cross from the city seal, despite the wishes of the overwhelming majority.

Yeah, I don't know where the line should be. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with suing to remove every religious symbol from public property, and I fail to see how anyone is injured by a cross on the city seal. Of course, I don't want religion pushed in public schools, and I don't want bibles handed out at schools. I don't mind prayer at city council meetings. I don't want my tax dollars funding nativity scenes on the town square, but I'm fine with some religious group leasing the land to have their own display, as long as it's open to any group. I think both sides take it too far at times.

Yeah, I don't know where the line should be. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with suing to remove every religious symbol from public property, and I fail to see how anyone is injured by a cross on the city seal. Of course, I don't want religion pushed in public schools, and I don't want bibles handed out at schools. I don't mind prayer at city council meetings. I don't want my tax dollars funding nativity scenes on the town square, but I'm fine with some religious group leasing the land to have their own display, as long as it's open to any group. I think both sides take it too far at times.

I think the line is pretty easy to define.

If the religious symbolism is part of the history of a place or has some cultural significance, it should be allowed. If it's for proselytizing or to make a political statement ala the Ten Commandments monument at the OK state capital, it should not be allowed.

What's the saying? Complex problems resist simple solutions?

Also, if there is smug backlash it's fueled by a lifetime of being subjected to inescapable religious dogma and being told over and over again that if you didn't believe in a very specific way, you are going to burn in hell and are essentially an inferior human being.

That sort of thing tends to have an effect on people.

This. Funny enough, it reminds me of a time I was in LB's Centennial Plaza when I was 17. I was hanging with some friends outside of Sonic after a movie when we were approached by another group of teens our age. They basically surrounded us and sat at our table. Within moments of exchanging handshakes and hello's, we were all being preached at. Not only were we being preached to, and they had apparently been out there all night doing this, but one of the kids had the audacity to tell me, "That if one more person tells him they don't believe in God, he was going to punch them in the face." Well he didn't realize he was speaking to an agnostic... Across the table another teen is telling my two Southern Baptist friends that their version of Christianity is wrong and encouraging them to find the right path! Well you can only imagine how livid we all were, basically being mission-jumped while we're out enjoying our Friday, and told that the way we believe is WRONG, and apparently if we didn't agree we were either incompetent, or would be "punched in the face". Needless to say we not-so-kindly told them to leave us alone... That night I saw first-hand how intolerant and SMUG some religious people are. Not only to non-believers but to people that don't share the same denomination as them!

When I was at Southeast High school at about 18, my AP US History teacher asked us how many of us were Agnostic/Athiest. Out of a group of about 25 students, about 7-9 of us rose our hands. She was also surprised by the amount of non-believers, although for a while I had already assumed that was the case among my generation.

I find it intriguing that a larger percentage of the population, especially the younger generations, are leaning towards no affiliation or athiest. I had always wondered what may cause such a shift. Obviously technology and Science is a huge part of it, but I wonder how much? Obviously my memories aren't 100% but I've always detested church, even as a very young child before I was exposed to the logic of Science. Maybe in our early childhoods before we have a concept of 'self', our life experiences dictate how we view this world. With kids exposed to computers, cell phones, TV, music, popular culture before they can develop a sense of self or sense of spirituality, it's no wonder that a lot of them identify with a more "modern" approach towards religion.

Honestly, I was just being a smart Alec.

Nod & a smile.