I’m actually an atheist

DiscussieHappy Heathens

Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.

I’m actually an atheist

Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.

2quicksiva
mei 22, 2013, 10:51 am

Quick recovery though.

3majkia
mei 22, 2013, 10:59 am

#2 by quicksiva> I think he acted like a complete jerk. I wouldn't call that a recovery.

4Amtep
mei 22, 2013, 11:27 am

She missed such a perfect moment for saying "Actually I"m a bit upset with the Lord for sending that tornado"

5Noisy
mei 22, 2013, 1:18 pm

She should have said: "Actually 'The Lord' is a fictional cat - my cats are called Tom and Jerry."

6Amtep
mei 22, 2013, 2:14 pm

She didn't take her cats with her when she ran, what's up with that?

7Jesse_wiedinmyer
mei 22, 2013, 2:20 pm

Claws+Tornado is probably not a good combo.

8Taphophile13
mei 22, 2013, 5:24 pm

9weener
mei 22, 2013, 8:02 pm

It's nice that we're getting to the point where people can let others know they are atheists without being Hitler.

10amysisson
mei 22, 2013, 8:28 pm

I think it still depends a lot where you live. That woman may suffer repercussions. I live in Texas. I don't generally go around announcing it, although I will say either "I'm not religious" or "I'm an atheist" when asked.

But yes, progress.

11rastaphrog
mei 23, 2013, 9:28 am

The article I read on this had a slightly different reply from the woman in it

“I–I’m actually an atheist,” she responded. After the awkward laughter that followed, she added, “We are here and you know, I don’t blame anybody for thanking the lord.”

“Of course not,” Blitzer replied.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-wolf-blitzer-asks-atheist-tornado-survivor-if-sh...

Given the circumstances, the womans reply was a lot more polite than could have been given.

12keristars
mei 23, 2013, 9:55 am

For those concerned about potential repercussions, I've heard that she's openly involved in her local atheist organization, so is probably prepared and has a support network in place. :)

13southernbooklady
mei 23, 2013, 4:20 pm

It speaks volumes about the kind of culture we live in that Blitzer didn't think twice about asking her to make a statement of faith and even pressing her about it. This is news? They are surrounded by tragedy and devastation and he angles for tea party moment? He can't just ask how she feels, he's got to ask if she's giving due credit to god? It's not like the woman was running for office.

14CliffordDorset
mei 29, 2013, 1:09 pm

But don't you blind unbelievers realise that she was the target of God's tornado? She should be trembling, lest Charlton Heston decides to give God a (cold, dead) hand.

15Amtep
mei 29, 2013, 1:41 pm

Yeah... God has bad aim :-)

16Sandydog1
mei 29, 2013, 9:38 pm

It was OK after all. I don't think it's too embarrassing for Blitzer. He's just doing his job, so to speak.

But I wonder, would he had said the same thing if he was covering a similar meteorological event in CT, MA, VT, or NY? What about Alberta? What about Sweden (ok, ok, I know there aren't a lot of twisters in Sweden).

17paradoxosalpha
mei 30, 2013, 10:13 am

> 16 He's just doing his job, so to speak.

Too bad his job is pandering to the prejudices of his viewers, rather than committing journalism.

18Atomicmutant
mei 30, 2013, 10:39 am

I actually think it's a great moment for Atheism.

She responded with a smile, and warmth, and humanity,and it shows a human side to those who would demonize Atheists.

Plus, she was holding a baby and not eating it. Big PR bonus, there.

19Bookmarque
mei 30, 2013, 5:15 pm

Maybe an atheist ate your baby. (in my best Elaine does Aussie accent).

20WholeHouseLibrary
mei 30, 2013, 5:43 pm

Don't we atheists just love them baby-back ribs!

21Helcura
jun 5, 2013, 4:08 am

I love children, but I can never finish a whole one.

22jbbarret
jun 5, 2013, 4:33 am

Sign in a local pub:

"Sunday Lunch £6
 Child £5"

23jbbarret
Bewerkt: jun 5, 2013, 4:37 am

On an invitation to a barbecue that I received: "Please state if you are bringing chidren for catering purposes".

24Jesse_wiedinmyer
jun 6, 2013, 12:05 pm

Aren't there labor laws where you come from?

25jbbarret
jun 6, 2013, 1:19 pm

I hope you're not suggesting that they were made to work before being eaten. Although it might be an idea. Perhaps next time.

26paradoxosalpha
jun 6, 2013, 1:30 pm

Industrious children aren't as tender as idle ones.

27Jesse_wiedinmyer
jun 6, 2013, 1:42 pm

Idle hands are the devil's playthings and make mighty good eatin'.

28Sandydog1
jun 6, 2013, 10:07 pm

And to think I just read A Modest Proposal only a few weeks ago...

29varielle
jun 13, 2013, 11:24 am

Salon strikes again with a study that says spiritual people are more likely to commit crime than atheists. http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/study_the_spiritual_more_likely_to_commit_crimes...

30WholeHouseLibrary
jun 13, 2013, 2:24 pm

They actually needed a study to figure that out?
My own observations have shown me that the more religious one claims to be, the more likely one will engage in criminal behavior.

31Mr.Durick
jun 13, 2013, 6:47 pm

You might have a look at the article and note that they distinguish between spiritual and religious people. And you might also look at a fuller representation of the facts: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612144732.htm.

Robert

32paradoxosalpha
jun 13, 2013, 7:09 pm

Interesting that the largest of the four categories by far among 14,000 respondents was "neither spiritual nor religious." I was trying to figure out why that would be so much higher than is usually reported for the general population. The answer appears to be youth. This study was directed to adolescents and young adults, with an average age of 21.9.

33AsYouKnow_Bob
jun 13, 2013, 9:31 pm

WHL at #30: My own observations have shown me that the more religious one claims to be, the more likely one will engage in criminal behavior.
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

- Emerson

34WholeHouseLibrary
jun 14, 2013, 12:34 am

Yeah, except I'm an atheist, and just on principle, wouldn't even think of stealing Emerson's or even your silverware.

35varielle
jun 14, 2013, 9:42 am

Books though are another matter. I might filch a few books, but then I'd feel bad about it and bring them back along with a few more that I think you would like. :)

36WholeHouseLibrary
jun 14, 2013, 12:55 pm

Well, yeah, books, of course. That goes without saying. (And usually, not unlike this, the less said, the better.) Mum's the word.

37Sandydog1
jun 14, 2013, 10:24 pm

I would NEVER steal any of your books! I may leaf through it, jot down the title, borrow it on inter-library loan, and return it on time or, late with a few cents penalty.

But then again, I've absolutely no more room for a single book over here.

38Helcura
jul 5, 2013, 3:42 am

One thing that I noted at the bottom of the Science Daily article was that the "spiritual but not religious" group was also associated with being victims of criminal behavior and higher rates of depression. So I question that there is any causal association with being "spiritual but not religious" and higher criminality. It's also notable that the group was composed of young adults - not a very representative group since religious beliefs often change radically (sometimes more than once) during young adulthood.

39AsYouKnow_Bob
Bewerkt: jul 5, 2013, 6:51 pm

So I question that there is any causal association with being "spiritual but not religious" and higher criminality.

Not necessarily a direct link, but indirect: "spiritual but not religious" are more likely to be young, which probably is what puts them at greater risk for "being victims of criminal behavior".

(...and maybe something similar is at work for the correlation with "depression" too - - but I'd have to look up some data to back up that claim....)

40Meredy
jul 6, 2013, 3:53 pm

39: "spiritual but not religious" are more likely to be young

Do you have any stats for this? Is the implication that people become more religious as they age? That doesn't jibe with my experience.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much in the way of proof (although it can supply disproof of sweeping generalities), but I do know a lot of people who would describe themselves as spiritual but not religious, and few of them are young.

41AsYouKnow_Bob
Bewerkt: jul 6, 2013, 8:32 pm

Stats? The first Google hit for "religious affiliation by age group" is

http://www.pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the-Millennials.aspx

Compared with their elders today, young people are much less likely to affiliate with any religious tradition or to identify themselves as part of a Christian denomination. Fully one-in-four adults under age 30 (25%) are unaffiliated


Is the implication that people become more religious as they age?

Well, no, that's a snapshot at one instant of time, not longitudinal view of people-changing-over-time. The implication is that young people are increasingly less likely to automatically adopt the religious traditions of the older generation.

42Meredy
jul 6, 2013, 9:42 pm

41: Where's the "spiritual but not..." part?

43AsYouKnow_Bob
Bewerkt: jul 6, 2013, 11:12 pm

"Spiritual bnR" is a subset of "not affiliated with any religious tradition"? -

and, according to Pew, "young people are much less likely to affiliate with any religious tradition or to identify themselves as part of a Christian denomination"

(Look, this falls out of the first Google hit - if you want more, feel free to go poke around for it.... Me, I was just pointing out to Helcura at #38 that a relationship does not need to be directly causal to be a real association.)

44Meredy
jul 6, 2013, 11:17 pm

I'd have thought it was the other way around: "religious" and "not religious" as two flavors of "spiritual." Or can you be religious but not spiritual? Maybe there's a definition of "religious" that would make that work.