I am not prejudice against color, creed, nationality, citizenship, language, appearance, size, age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or anything that involves physicality or something beyond someone's control.
I AM prejudice against one's content of character. Generally, that includes conservatives and christians.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Mykcob
Exactly.
Not sure how to classify either. I know some intelligent Christians who are nice people but who just can not see facts in front of their faces. I am not sure what conservative means. I have a problem with anyone who is ridged in their thought process. The more someone has it all worked out the more ignorant they tend to be. The most difficult people for me to be around are people who disagree with me to a degree that they see my inquiries as threatening and insulting to them personally.
People who begin the whole, you are going to burn in hell routine are worthless individuals with no humanity in them at all.
Cognostic, you wrote, “I have a problem with anyone who is ridged in their thought process.”
Even if that rigidity is about atheism or anti-theism?
“The more someone has it all worked out the more ignorant they tend to be.”
Even if what they’ve worked out is in respect to being atheist or anti-theist?
“The most difficult people for me to be around are people who disagree with me to a degree that they see my inquiries as threatening and insulting to them personally.”
Is it unreasonable for someone else to disagree with to the extent that they find an atheist’s inquiries and lack of belief in god(s) to be threatening or personally insulting?
My purpose in asking these questions is not to be shitty with you, it’s because I genuinely want to know what you think.
I want to quickly add to CyberLN's post:
I am quite rigid now in my belief that there is no god. Any evidence to convince me otherwise would have to be very powerful to convince me there is a god. I would actually probably consider that I am going insane/ hallucinating / on drugs before I considered evidence presented to me as real. It would have to be VERY compelling evidence with very widespread agreement among other atheist and top scientist in respective fields for me to consider otherwise.
I am prejudiced against lying, dishonesty obfuscation etc.
That means I'm biased towards truth, honesty and clarity.
Of course those are ideals, and it takes work to try and
achieve those ideals, as best as possible.
Myk, you wrote, “I AM prejudice against one's content of character. Generally, that includes conservatives and christians.”
Do you think that a person’s beliefs are wholly demonstrative of their character? Are you saying that a theist cannot be, because of their belief in god(s), a person of good or decent character?
@CyberLN
I said generally. That doesn't mean that I automatically categorize them. For example, take into account my patience with Breezy. My respect for JoC. Most of my personal friends happen to be politically conservative and christian and muslim.
CyberLN - Even if that rigidity is about atheism? Absolutely! There is nothing ridged in atheism. Atheism is non-belief in god or Gods and nothing more. For Example; An atheist who goes to someone's home and then refuses to sit politely at the dinner table as they pray is an ass. And if he disrupts their meal by asserting "I am an Atheist, I don't pray." Then he is doubly so. There are times and places for battles.
CyberLNEven - if what they’ve worked out is in respect to being atheist or anti-theist?
You are confused. Atheist have nothing worked out. Atheism makes no assertions. Atheism is a position of non-belief in God or Gods. Ask an atheist where the universe began and the only true answer is "We do not know yet." Ask them how life began and the only true answer is "We do not know." In all cases there is more evidence for natural beginnings than there is for a magical remedy. Inserting a God is explaining one mystery with a bigger mystery. There is no more reason to jump to the existence of a god than there is to jump to the existence of universe creating pixies. If you think a God did it, "Prove it." This is not a position of rigidity. It is a position of inquiry. Atheists are not the ones pretending they know the answer to life the universe and everything. "God done it." is not an answer to an atheist.
I did not take the comments as "shitty." It simply appears that you do not understand the atheist position. Admittedly many "NEW" atheist also have problems with the atheist position. The modern trend seems to be religious people converting to atheism. (there is no conversion!) When this happens the religious tend to treat atheism as a belief system
(Atheists believe that there is no God or gods.) NO! Atheists do not believe in God or Gods. There is a big difference.
If we see a jar of jelly beans and you tell me the number of beans in the jar is even, when I tell you I do not believe you, I am not asserting that the number of beans in the jar is odd. I just do not believe your claim. Atheism is the position of not believing God claims. It says nothing at all about God not existing.
Okay, with that said, how does an atheist get to the claim that a god does not exist. Well, we have hundreds of failed apologetic arguments. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Pascal's Wager, The argument from morality, Presuppositionalism, the argument from design, and many many more that have all failed. We have millions of other failed gods. We have thousands of religions all thinking they are the one true religion. We have 32,000 Christian sects 1/3 of which will swear the other 2/3 are going to burn in hell for following false teachings on any given Sunday. We have a collection of books called the Bible that was written by men and over half of which consists of known forgeries, inconsistencies, and outright contradictions. Finally, we have a Christian god that can not be defined in any real sense of the word. When we add up all the information, it takes only a small leap of logic (NOT FAITH) to make the assertion that the specific God you are referring to "Does not exist." There is no definition of god that has ever stood up to critical inquiry. That does not mean there is not a God. It only means that there has so far never been a definition of a god that was successful. And if your god can not be defined in any way, well that is the same thing as not existing. Most atheists will assert that they are 99.9 % sure that Gods do not exist. However; like science, nothing is ever 100%
You really think that someone who is identified as atheist who was theist had nothing to work out?
When I first read the OP's post, I nodded my head in agreement with the first paragraph, but formed a little O with my mouth. I wasn't quite sure how to process that, then went back to the definition of "prejudice", to pre-judge.
And now I am in full agreement with mykcob4. When one chooses to identify themselves as a conservative or christian, I do expect them to think and act in a certain manner.
They chose to accept a certain dogma, and thus live and think by certain values.
I appreciate the sentiment of the OP, although I would like to use a definition of prejudice that suggests an unfounded dislike (i.e. thinking negatively of someone's character need not strictly be a prejudice).