Are all atheist antireligious?

[AnimatedDirt]

HAF isn't a religion because religion has a very specific meaning....you could call HAF a community or perhaps even a philosophy but we don't have dogma or a set of spiritual beliefs one must follow/have in order to participate here (other than the can't be a troll/jerk/preaching house rules...in which case my physical home is a religion too as the same rules apply).

It's true that HAF would not need to exist if the concept of god didn't exist...but that doesn't make it a religion.  The phrase "Atheist is a religion like bald is a hair color" comes to mind.

If you want "religion" to also mean community then we might as well just get rid of the word religion and instead refer to "religions" as "faith communities"...and that just seems unnecessary to me since I'm not big on changing the English language for no good reason.

While I said, "HAF is a 'religion' of sorts."  I didn't mean to imply HAF IS a religion.  I hope that is clear.  No, HAF has no dogma or set of spiritual beliefs.  BUT there are rules to abide by as there are in Christianity...it is a haven for some as church/God is a haven for others.

Disagree with the comparison...you can't deny the similarities is all I'm saying...loose as they may be.

[Crow]

I'm not anti-religious. I dislike certain religions but that doesn't mean I am anti-religious, nor does it mean I dislike a person because they associate their beliefs with that dogma. Do I think religion has a role in society? Yeah I guess it does, even though there have been some of the worst atrocities committed in the name of religion doesn't mean they haven't had a positive impact on society throughout history and in modern times. However I think the crucial question is can any of those positives be repeated without a religious belief? I would have to answer with a resounding yes and that they are, possibly to a better extent and inclusive not exclusive.

[Whitney]

Disagree with the comparison...you can't deny the similarities is all I'm saying...loose as they may be.

But the similarities don't coincide with the key things that make something a religion instead of a philosophy, club, community etc....so, I still don't get why even a loose comparison was made.

[Xjeepguy]

I'm anti-religious. Religious people made me that way. If they would just leave me alone, I would do the same. Tired of catching hell from family/friends because I don't believe in an invisible sky fairy.

[Sandra Craft]

BUT there are rules to abide by as there are in Christianity...it is a haven for some as church/God is a haven for others.

Disagree with the comparison...you can't deny the similarities is all I'm saying...loose as they may be.

There are lots of not-religious things that have rules to abide by, and that can function as a haven for some (depending on ones state of mind, just about anything can be a haven).  I think the very looseness of the comparison destroys it.

To answer the original question:

I am curious to know how many of those who consider themselves atheists feel very strongly towards religious freedom and who sees religion as a very viable component of human society without associating themselves with a particular religious group.

I see religion as an inevitable component of most societies (regrettable as it might be), and as such it's a good idea to "de-fang" religion as much as possible, which to me means discouraging fundamentalism.  And since, from what I can see, nothing encourages fundamentalism as much as oppression I think a liberal society that protects the religious freedom of all individuals is essential.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I see religion as an inevitable component of most societies (regrettable as it might be), and as such it's a good idea to "de-fang" religion as much as possible, which to me means discouraging fundamentalism.  And since, from what I can see, nothing encourages fundamentalism as much as oppression I think a liberal society that protects the religious freedom of all individuals is essential.

Good insight. If you acknowledge fundamentalists, they seem to multiply. If you ignore them, they cease to exist.  Oppressing them or making them illegal is a form of acknowledgement.  Therefore, the wisest course of action is ignore, which means that you allow them to blather on, but don't respond, unless they go ballistic, of course.

If there is real freedom for all, eventually everyone sort of congregates in the center in a non-extremist normalcy.  Theist and atheist meet together for tea, and the conversation ends up being pretty placid.

[Crow]

If there is real freedom for all, eventually everyone sort of congregates in the center in a non-extremist normalcy.  Theist and atheist meet together for tea, and the conversation ends up being pretty placid.

That tends to happen to me on a regular basis, though its usually a coffee or beer.

[Recusant]

Good insight. If you acknowledge fundamentalists, they seem to multiply. If you ignore them, they cease to exist.  Oppressing them or making them illegal is a form of acknowledgement.  Therefore, the wisest course of action is ignore, which means that you allow them to blather on, but don't respond, unless they go ballistic, of course.

No, I don't buy that. Fundamentalists generally aren't content to merely "be fundamentalist." They usually have an agenda; they want to affect the world, to change it so that it conforms more closely to their vision.  In the US, that includes things like preventing same-sex marriage and outlawing abortion. They distort history when they say things like "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments." They cry "oppression" when they aren't allowed to mandate that science teachers teach Creationism in public schools. In fact they often yalp about being oppressed when they are stopped from getting their way.

This is a voting bloc in the US that has power, and would like to have a lot more. It's all very well to say, "Just ignore them," but it's not so simple.

[Tank]

Good insight. If you acknowledge fundamentalists, they seem to multiply. If you ignore them, they cease to exist.  Oppressing them or making them illegal is a form of acknowledgement.  Therefore, the wisest course of action is ignore, which means that you allow them to blather on, but don't respond, unless they go ballistic, of course.

No, I don't buy that. Fundamentalists generally aren't content to merely "be fundamentalist." They usually have an agenda; they want to affect the world, to change it so that it conforms more closely to their vision.  In the US, that includes things like preventing same-sex marriage and outlawing abortion. They distort history when they say things like "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments." They cry "oppression" when they aren't allowed to mandate that science teachers teach Creationism in public schools. In fact they often yalp about being oppressed when they are stopped from getting their way.

This is a voting bloc in the US that has power, and would like to have a lot more. It's all very well to say, "Just ignore them," but it's not so simple.

Agreed.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Good insight. If you acknowledge fundamentalists, they seem to multiply. If you ignore them, they cease to exist.  Oppressing them or making them illegal is a form of acknowledgement.  Therefore, the wisest course of action is ignore, which means that you allow them to blather on, but don't respond, unless they go ballistic, of course.

No, I don't buy that. Fundamentalists generally aren't content to merely "be fundamentalist." They usually have an agenda; they want to affect the world, to change it so that it conforms more closely to their vision.  In the US, that includes things like preventing same-sex marriage and outlawing abortion. They distort history when they say things like "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments." They cry "oppression" when they aren't allowed to mandate that science teachers teach Creationism in public schools. In fact they often yalp about being oppressed when they are stopped from getting their way.

This is a voting bloc in the US that has power, and would like to have a lot more. It's all very well to say, "Just ignore them," but it's not so simple.

But it appears that the fundies in the US are starting to self-destruct, which is typical when they take such extreme positions.  Fighting against them just evokes a more extreme response.  Ignore them, go about your business, voting and getting involved in a positive manner, and eventually they will pack their bags and go away.  This next election should test this hypothesis.  If they lose to Obama, they will begin to crumble.  Most in the younger generation don't have the stomach for this much extremism, and the fundies will begin to see their ranks depleted by attrition.  Or that's my theory, anyway.

[Recusant]

But it appears that the fundies in the US are starting to self-destruct, which is typical when they take such extreme positions.

What evidence would you cite to support your idea that fundamentalism in the US is starting to self-destruct? I think that the growth of the mega-churches in the past decade or so (many if not most having a fundamentalist cast, no matter if they describe themselves as fundamentalist or not) is evidence that fundamentalism is doing just fine in the US. As well, we have self-appointed pundits like Sarah Palin, and contenders for the presidency like Bachmann and Perry who spout fundamentalist ideas and catch-phrases. These people are fairly popular in the US. I'm open to considering evidence to the contrary though.

Fighting against them just evokes a more extreme response.  Ignore them, go about your business, voting and getting involved in a positive manner, and eventually they will pack their bags and go away.

If fundamentalists are pursuing an agenda which people disagree with, then I think it makes sense for those who disagree to oppose them. I would not characterize fundamentalists as mere trouble makers who thrive on the attention their antics provoke. They really believe the things that they say, and they will attempt to influence society in a way which is in line with their doctrines whether people oppose them or not.

This next election should test this hypothesis.  If they lose to Obama, they will begin to crumble.  Most in the younger generation don't have the stomach for this much extremism, and the fundies will begin to see their ranks depleted by attrition.  Or that's my theory, anyway.

I spend time on a very large conservative forum, with many members who espouse fundamentalist ideas and who really hate President Obama. If he is re-elected, they aren't going to stop hating him, nor will their resolve to oppose him and elect do-nothing obstructionist Tea Party representatives just crumble. If President Obama is re-elected, I think that it will reflect more on the weakness of the Republican candidate than any positive feelings for President Obama, or crumbling of the influence of the fundamentalists.

[Cforcerunner]

Not admirable to me, believing in anything without evidence and/or understanding of the concepts is not something I find admirable.

It's funny when I hear the argument of no evidence for God's existence. Especially when one of the apparent "strong" arguments for atheism is the problem of evil. Yet, in the same vein, the reason I believe God actually exists is the same intrinsic reason I believe evil exist. Yet, I apparently have no evidence for either the existence of God nor evil. How unfortunate.

[Davin]

Not admirable to me, believing in anything without evidence and/or understanding of the concepts is not something I find admirable.

It's funny when I hear the argument of no evidence for God's existence. Especially when one of the apparent "strong" arguments for atheism is the problem of evil. Yet, in the same vein, the reason I believe God actually exists is the same intrinsic reason I believe evil exist. Yet, I apparently have no evidence for either the existence of God nor evil. How unfortunate.

It is unfortunate, it would be easy to "convert" people if you did.

[Cforcerunner]

What?

The only statement I made in the last post was a direct quote from the bible. I didn't explain any further, because it already says enough to make my point about Christianity.

It did make your point about Christianity after I inserted the ridiculous implications which your point inferred. to "rule over" someone, especially in the context given in sacred matrimonial sense, doesn't imply sexist infringement or lowly stature, as your reference to it suggested.

[Cforcerunner]

I'm not anti-religious. I dislike certain religions but that doesn't mean I am anti-religious, nor does it mean I dislike a person because they associate their beliefs with that dogma. Do I think religion has a role in society? Yeah I guess it does, even though there have been some of the worst atrocities committed in the name of religion doesn't mean they haven't had a positive impact on society throughout history and in modern times. However I think the crucial question is can any of those positives be repeated without a religious belief? I would have to answer with a resounding yes and that they are, possibly to a better extent and inclusive not exclusive.

I appreciate your open mind, and tolerance. But I wouldn't you also agree that the affects of nihilism and communist soviet union are not as well guilty of negatively impacting society through fervently suppressing religion?