5 ms·

> But when we discuss matters of religious discrimination, atheists are a group against which there is discrimination on the basis of religion. Citation needed

> But when we discuss matters of religious discrimination, atheists are a group against which there is discrimination on the basis of religion. Citation needed. Specifically, show: atheists as a group have lower life expectancy and/or lower lifetime earnings than non-atheists when confounders are controlled. People over-use "discrimination". Edit: interesting points made about ethics, though. Worth reading.

bborud 4y ago
Easy: Look at atheists running for office and their chances of being elected. Also, your definition of discrimination is oddly specific.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >Easy: Look at atheists running for office and their chances of being elected. That's just democracy. People get to vote for people whose politics and beliefs they like.
  - bborud 4y ago
    No, it isn't "just democracy". Whether atheists should even be allowed to hold public office is a question that turns up regularly in public discourse. Now substitute "atheist" with "people of color", "jewish", "muslim", "gay" or "left handed" and see if you still think it is okay.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      It's still just democracy if the majority wishes so. Democracy (in the actual, direct demoracy sense) is not about ensuring inclusivity in public position offices and representation, it's about each person having one vote and then majority ruling. If those groups have the right to vote and get elected, but don't because most don't want to elect them, that's still a democracy. It's even a democracy if the majority decides to stiffle a minority (it might not be ethical or decent to do, and the majority might have decided so for racist or sexist reasons, but that's still democratic).
      - bborud 4y ago
        Goodness. If you think the western concept of democracy is merely about voting I think your educational system has served you poorly. A good way to learn what a democracy is may be to learn a bit more about what it takes to safeguard a democracy. Timothy Snyder has written a few books that might be useful.
        coldtea 4y ago
        If you think the western concept and practice of democracy is actual democracy, then your educational system has failed you. Which in the US it's not that difficult to happen...
fppasq 4y ago
There are a number of countries where atheism (as apostasy or blasphemy) is punishable by death: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
- coldtea 4y ago
  And nobody argued that there aren't. The charitable interpretation (and the obvious one to me) is that the parent is speaking about the US/West.
  - trasz 4y ago
    In many western countries you can be prosecuted for not following certain religious dogmas, like Catholic views on sexuality and reproductive rights.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      In some western countries you can be prosecuted for not following the law, which might be inspired by "Catholic views on sexuality and reproductive rights" (e.g. if you do X and X is forbidden) but which is a different thing.
      - trasz 4y ago
        It’s exactly the same thing: penalizing people in the name of religion. There are no examples in the other direction, ie penalizing people in the name of atheism.
        coldtea 4y ago
        >ie penalizing people in the name of atheism. You'd be surprised. It has happened in revolutionary France, up to and including civil war Spain, USSR, China, and several other times and places besides...
Barrin92 4y ago
In the US (which I think is where the author hails from) there's fewer atheists represented in congress than Muslims. (in fact technically none, only one or two members identify as 'non-observant'. That's fairly astonishing given that atheism or some form of secularism is probably the pluralistic, if not majority position among people with the kind of education status who get elected to that representative body.
- natch 4y ago
  fewer admitted* atheists
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    It's an important distinction to make; plenty of politicians do things like following a religion as a box ticking exercise.
- fmajid 4y ago
  And opinion surveys also consistently show American voters are even less likely to trust an avowed atheist politician than a muslim one. I wish they had also asked survey participants about LaVey Satanism :-) I personally suspect the majority cult among politicians is actually Mammon (love of money) or Moloch-Baal (love of violence).
throw_m239339 4y ago
> People over-use "discrimination". People are murdered just for being atheists all over the world. Seems discriminatory enough to be deemed discrimination.
jrajav 4y ago
There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. You're setting a very odd, nonsensical definition of what discrimination is to try to make a gotcha. Maybe if you tried to speak to the degree or effect of that discrimination you might have something interesting to add to the conversation.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. Any more than there's discrimination against religious people? (e.g. in progressive media, art circles, academia, and so on). Or just each team favoring their own, but none having systemic support, legal support, or any great power over the other? Can this still be called discrimination? Perhaps. But if we overblow some words, they lose their meaning. Atheists do face serious discrimination in some countries, for example, but in general, e.g. it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. One might argue it can hold you back in rural Alabama, and that I'd accept. But then again, try being a card-carrying Christian in Silicon Valley and see the looks you get, and whether you'll likely to get any promotion in a liberal news organization... Sure, it might hold you back in your chances for political election. But that's democracy. People get to pick someone whose politics and beliefs they like. That's more like complaining "there's discrimination against punk or hip hop fans", because they wouldn't accept you or your views at a prog rock group.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. For tech workers in US cities? I don't think it will hold you back. But there are still wide swaths of American society were self-describing as an atheist will make people distrust you. It may even be regarded as antagonistic, like you're teeing up to pick a fight with them. I've found that self-describing as 'not religious' gets a warmer reception, even though it's the same thing.
rocqua 4y ago
Discrimination literally means "being able to tell two things apart". In social contexts, it generally means "treating a group of people disadvantageously because of some trait that should not be relevant". Showing that atheists are treated disadvantageously in the US is easy. Political representation is an obvious one. Showing that this disadvantage also takes the form of life expectancy and lifetime earnings after controlling for confounders is not easy. But that ask isn't asking for proof of discrimination. It is asking for extremely strong proof of discrimination that would only be possible through monumental effort, and would require a really strong effect, depending on the manner of discrimination, it might not be measurable through life expectancy or lifetime earnings. Discrimination that makes you less happy whithout shortening your life or impoverishing you is still bad!

bborud 4y ago

Easy: Look at atheists running for office and their chances of being elected. Also, your definition of discrimination is oddly specific.

coldtea 4y ago
>Easy: Look at atheists running for office and their chances of being elected. That's just democracy. People get to vote for people whose politics and beliefs they like.
- bborud 4y ago
  No, it isn't "just democracy". Whether atheists should even be allowed to hold public office is a question that turns up regularly in public discourse. Now substitute "atheist" with "people of color", "jewish", "muslim", "gay" or "left handed" and see if you still think it is okay.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    It's still just democracy if the majority wishes so. Democracy (in the actual, direct demoracy sense) is not about ensuring inclusivity in public position offices and representation, it's about each person having one vote and then majority ruling. If those groups have the right to vote and get elected, but don't because most don't want to elect them, that's still a democracy. It's even a democracy if the majority decides to stiffle a minority (it might not be ethical or decent to do, and the majority might have decided so for racist or sexist reasons, but that's still democratic).
    - bborud 4y ago
      Goodness. If you think the western concept of democracy is merely about voting I think your educational system has served you poorly. A good way to learn what a democracy is may be to learn a bit more about what it takes to safeguard a democracy. Timothy Snyder has written a few books that might be useful.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        If you think the western concept and practice of democracy is actual democracy, then your educational system has failed you. Which in the US it's not that difficult to happen...

fppasq 4y ago

There are a number of countries where atheism (as apostasy or blasphemy) is punishable by death: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

coldtea 4y ago
And nobody argued that there aren't. The charitable interpretation (and the obvious one to me) is that the parent is speaking about the US/West.
- trasz 4y ago
  In many western countries you can be prosecuted for not following certain religious dogmas, like Catholic views on sexuality and reproductive rights.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    In some western countries you can be prosecuted for not following the law, which might be inspired by "Catholic views on sexuality and reproductive rights" (e.g. if you do X and X is forbidden) but which is a different thing.
    - trasz 4y ago
      It’s exactly the same thing: penalizing people in the name of religion. There are no examples in the other direction, ie penalizing people in the name of atheism.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        >ie penalizing people in the name of atheism. You'd be surprised. It has happened in revolutionary France, up to and including civil war Spain, USSR, China, and several other times and places besides...

Barrin92 4y ago

In the US (which I think is where the author hails from) there's fewer atheists represented in congress than Muslims. (in fact technically none, only one or two members identify as 'non-observant'. That's fairly astonishing given that atheism or some form of secularism is probably the pluralistic, if not majority position among people with the kind of education status who get elected to that representative body.

natch 4y ago
fewer admitted* atheists
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  It's an important distinction to make; plenty of politicians do things like following a religion as a box ticking exercise.
fmajid 4y ago
And opinion surveys also consistently show American voters are even less likely to trust an avowed atheist politician than a muslim one. I wish they had also asked survey participants about LaVey Satanism :-) I personally suspect the majority cult among politicians is actually Mammon (love of money) or Moloch-Baal (love of violence).

throw_m239339 4y ago

> People over-use "discrimination". People are murdered just for being atheists all over the world. Seems discriminatory enough to be deemed discrimination.

jrajav 4y ago

There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. You're setting a very odd, nonsensical definition of what discrimination is to try to make a gotcha. Maybe if you tried to speak to the degree or effect of that discrimination you might have something interesting to add to the conversation.

coldtea 4y ago
>There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. Any more than there's discrimination against religious people? (e.g. in progressive media, art circles, academia, and so on). Or just each team favoring their own, but none having systemic support, legal support, or any great power over the other? Can this still be called discrimination? Perhaps. But if we overblow some words, they lose their meaning. Atheists do face serious discrimination in some countries, for example, but in general, e.g. it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. One might argue it can hold you back in rural Alabama, and that I'd accept. But then again, try being a card-carrying Christian in Silicon Valley and see the looks you get, and whether you'll likely to get any promotion in a liberal news organization... Sure, it might hold you back in your chances for political election. But that's democracy. People get to pick someone whose politics and beliefs they like. That's more like complaining "there's discrimination against punk or hip hop fans", because they wouldn't accept you or your views at a prog rock group.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. For tech workers in US cities? I don't think it will hold you back. But there are still wide swaths of American society were self-describing as an atheist will make people distrust you. It may even be regarded as antagonistic, like you're teeing up to pick a fight with them. I've found that self-describing as 'not religious' gets a warmer reception, even though it's the same thing.

rocqua 4y ago

Discrimination literally means "being able to tell two things apart". In social contexts, it generally means "treating a group of people disadvantageously because of some trait that should not be relevant". Showing that atheists are treated disadvantageously in the US is easy. Political representation is an obvious one. Showing that this disadvantage also takes the form of life expectancy and lifetime earnings after controlling for confounders is not easy. But that ask isn't asking for proof of discrimination. It is asking for extremely strong proof of discrimination that would only be possible through monumental effort, and would require a really strong effect, depending on the manner of discrimination, it might not be measurable through life expectancy or lifetime earnings. Discrimination that makes you less happy whithout shortening your life or impoverishing you is still bad!