demanding to know how many female astrophysicists, explorers, great authors, and orchestral conductors there were.

The answer, of course, was that female talent had been consistently undervalued and even actively suppressed for thousands of years.

The same goes for atheists, most of whom reside in that "I'm not religious" closet where they have little chance of stepping on hypersensitive theistic toes.

However, if you really want to know atheists in social struggle, I'll refer you to Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Helen Keller (a strong socialist and worker for social justice, the part of her life that has been suppressed), Noam Chomsky, Margaret Sanger, and many, many others should you care to do the research.

Did they do what they did purely because they thought that the value of having no belief in God was worth acting upon?

I maintain that atheism isn't a motivator. People don't do things because of something they don't believe in. They do things because of something or someone they care about.

And before some snarky ass comes up and says "but atheism motivates you to post here," I should point out that, by and large, falsehoods like the OP are what motivate me to post here.

You may be right. "Atheism is not a motivator." Theism is. And history moves ahead for the good on the backs of those who are motivated for whatever reason.

Please name the falsehoods now that you have made the accusation,.

As for the falsehoods, read my first post in this thread at #4.

We contribute because we are ethical people and not psychopaths.

There have been a lot of destructive psychopaths who have acted in the name of whatever god they're claiming, though.

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2012, 01:23 AM - Edit history (1)

What are the roots of the ethical imperative you espouse?
Why is equity and justice better than selfishness and greed?. Where did you first learn that?
Certainly not from Ayn Rand.

Since you clearly don't remember, I'll try to jog your memory.

Have you never heard of the term "zeitgeist?"

Have you never thought about how human groups managed to get along before the Abrahamic religions came along?

Have you never thought about what is being implied when someone explains that the archaic laws in the Bible merely reflect the attitudes of the time?

Have you never asked yourself why not all Christian societies share the same values at the same time?

By the way, what the fuck does Ayn Rand have to do with anything?

directly seen, tasted, smelled, heared or touched any ethical imperative. But I'm aware of social etc. environmental conditioning and emotional reactions that it produces in my thought patterns.

And there is also deeper awareness of compassion (or "agape" in Pauline terminology) that is at least as basic and fundamental as gravity. Much more fundamental than liberal or literal biblical exegesis or any organized religion. If you need the word and concept of 'God' to speak about compassion or agape, in order to explain it, that's fine by me, even though I don't see the need for that concept except when talking with theists (and atheists). IMHO the point is rather just to feel compassion-agape in the world of endless variety than theological etc. speculation about the source and meaning of this all, however intellectually addictive speculation and theorizing is. Which addiction also I enjoy as much as the next guy.

religious or spiritual roots? Are ethics and morality totally separate in origin from what mankind has traditionally called religion?

is a Latin word and traditions of mankind go way back beyond Rome - and Egypt and China and any and all civilizations. Assuming that "spiritual roots" refers to ASC/shamanistic experienses and interactions with spirit worlds, and that shamanhood (as individual institution or some more collective form) has been universal feature of all human cultures, it is safe to say that spiritual roots have greatly affected and been central in all human cultures.

Ethical and moral come from the Greek and Latin words meaning local customs (ethea, mores), so attempts to turn those concepts into systems of universal laws (imperialistic monoculture instead of ethics of local variety) seem by norm doomed to fail from ethical, ecological and evolutionary points of view.

Local customs are adaptive dynamic systems, but what is today usually meant by ethical and moral systems usually refers to verbal codes and principles intended to be universal and immutable systems - especially so in abrahamic religions.

To conclude, yup on the spiritual roots and qualified no for the connotation of 'moral system' described above, as I understand ethics primarily as adaptive and practical situation awareness (Gr. fronesis) on both individual and communal level.

are so broadly spread across so many different religious and spiritual traditions (including none whatsoever) that it is absurd to refer to ethics or morals as intrinsic to religion.

It is quite clear: without religion, there would still be morals and ethics. They are therefore mutually exclusive.

that without faith ethics and morals are quite evident in society. I'm asking about the roots of the concepts of religion and ethics and morals. As I see it they are intertwined in our cultural history. They come from the same source in mankind's reach beyond self. Name one ethical and moral system that has no religious or spiritual tradition that has influenced it and the same applies in the other direction as well . I"m not saying that you as an atheist cannot have morals or ethics without religion or belief in a god.

I really don't care how you see it. I care about historical facts. Show me some to back up your amazingly bold assertion. Prove to me that ethics, morals, and religion come from the same source.

Humanism was first and foremost a religious tradition and secular humanism has the same moral and ethical system it just tried to sever the relationship with faith in practice not in its origin and foundation. But do keep selling your story I'm sure your group will buy it without the slightest thought .

You have yet to prove your premise. Your attempt at insult and dismissal here is worthless. Can you, or can you not, prove your original premise?

that slavery was a great evil? Certainly not from the Bible, where it is condoned and treated as perfectly fine and normal. Not from the Ten Commandments, or any of the very extensive and detailed laws that Gods lays down in the Old Testament. Nowhere in there is slavery condemned or forbidden. Not from any of the moral values espoused by Jesus...he never had a bad word to say about slavery.

You've been asked time and time again: What moral or ethical principles are discoverable ONLY through religion? You have yet to answer, because we both know there are none. Human reason is capable of discovering them all, without any help from "gods". And how that driving energy of the world that you now call "god", leads anyone to ANY moral or ethical discoveries whatsoever, is another mystery, since it doesn't remotely resemble the god that most people (including Martin Luther King) have ever believed in. Perhaps you'd explain that one as well. Simply saying that someone is religious and that they have morals and principles, therefore those principles MUST have come from their religion, is a valueless non sequitur.

Why is this in the wrong spot, and where should it have been posted?

getting in the way of you reading for comprehension.

Bully for you, doing god's work.

I just suggested one proposition, and asked one question.

1- proposition--the civil rights movement was essentially spawned and led by religious people.
There has been no refutation of that proposition.

2-question--who among atheist persons or groups were involved in the movement?
the one solid answer I have gotten is Phillip Randolph.

Thank you. I agree.

Please tell me just how this is anti-atheist hatred?

Trotsky You are the last one who ought to accuse anyone of anti-something hatred.

The vast majority of responders on this thread have been offended.

Do you EVER consider that even if you're truly not intending to spread hate, that's what you are actually doing?

Or are all of us just totally wrong, and oh by the way, thanks for your swipe. I truly feel the love of Christ from you.

(By the way, your proposition hasn't even been supported yet. There is nothing to refute.)

You conveniently and dishonestly left out the second part of #2 above.

"But what name of an individual atheist or group was prominent and involved? Could it be that it was absent because at its core atheism has no substantial ethical posture?"

Hmmmmm...wonder why you forgot to include the second question, which is either a dishonest implication that atheists have no morals, or a flawed implication that atheism and religion are equivalent and that if atheism doesn't include moral imperatives then it must be inferior to religious belief. That's you're anti-atheist attack, as you well know. You certainly didn't ask the names of involved atheists because you were curious and wanted to know, because you could have discovered those names easily for yourself. You asked because you hoped (foolishly) that no one could find out something so simple, and that that would support your bogus implication in the second question.

BTW, there has also been no refutation of the proposal that the civil rights movement was violently OPPOSED by religious people. So why does religion get anything but a neutral grade?

yeah, OK

"Without religious groups and persons there would have been no civil rights movement."

Pure, unmitigated bullshit.

Firstly, it is laughable to claim that the concept of civil rights is purely religious, and that's what you've done even if you don't realize it. If religious groups and persons hadn't existed in the '60s, there still would have been plenty of people interested in civil rights.

But it gets worse than that when you investigate the reasons why slavery was perpetuated, and why Jim Crow laws were passed with such incredible majorities, and why black people were considered "lesser than" for more than 100 years after they were finally granted personhood and freedom. Go and look. You will find appalling religious apologetics designed to support the most racist shit you've ever heard of, and those apologetics were used for decades in order to make people who were just plain racist feel good and justified in their hate.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if religious groups and religious people didn't exist in the time between the Civil War and the 1960's, racism would have been left to die in the dark corners of the minds of the elderly, rather than indoctrinated in the young through religious apologetics.

Religious people were essential to the civil rights movement. Nobody said it was purely religious--but the essential work came from religiously motivated people. Anybody care to deny that--with evidence?There was not in culture any other group that could have on their own made it happen. My question: if there was, who were they and how did they make it happen--and what atheists or atheistic groups were essential to the movement in the same way the religionists were?. And what in atheism provides the moral undergirding for civil rights?

You've done nothing at all here to answer my points in #4. You're welcome to try again, but considering that you've made a ridiculous claim that is and always will be entirely unsupportable, I don't think your chances are very good.

Do you have any response to what I asked?

I can't believe you still haven't learned that you don't get to monopolize and control the conversation.

This. is. not. your. forum.

Now, since you still have done nothing but restate your hypothesis as a supporting "fact", do you have anything else to say in response to #4, or would you like buy a clue?

Burt you refuse to hear it because it takes away an attack point.

I'm sorry you feel that discussing the cons of an issue, as well as its pros, is an "attack."

would have been unnecessary. After all, it was bible-believing Christians who ran the slave trade in America and continued racist policies after the civil war.

It is unbelievable, the attitude you have toward non-believers.

in this thread

We are talking specifically about the civil rights movement. What atheists, atheistic groups or atheistic moral undergirding came to the front and were involved in the civil rights struggle?

For a long time here theism and theists have been on the defensive and have been called almost everything. Atheists have just called names and attacked, and have never been confronted with any serious questions they were called to answer. That time is up.

Instead of answering the questions you are reduced to "complete horseshit" and being offended.
The shoe is now on the other foot. Can you deal with it? I've answered scores of questions. It is time I asked some.

Your high horse has bucked you.

I'm not sure if it it would have been worse if you'd just come out and said that you think atheists have zero positive affect on the civil rights movement or the fact that you made the same point using a sneaky implication.

I would posit that your premise is flawed from the start because religion is a large part of why many minority groups lacked basic civil and human rights. I think religion is the problem not the solution.

As someone pointed out further up, this is not your personal forum.

And now you've decided to take on the wicked atheists and ask some tough questions? On whose behalf, exactly?

And, please, spare us your usual screed on how persecuted the poor theists are around here.

in this thread

For example, the primary objection to LGBT rights comes from the religious community.

Regarding African-American rights, once again many of those opposed based their views on religion. Yes, I have actually heard Christians claim the Bible prohibits interracial relationships.

Sure, maybe some in the religious community have helped advance civil rights...but only because they had to overcome years of religious-based denial of civil rights.

That is admitted, but is not what I asked. I know the Christian record on both sides. What I want to know is what on the positive side is the atheistic record in civil rights--and how would you justify denying that civil rights was substantially a religious movement?

Didn't think so

Cuz seriously, if this garbage is what decided to bring you back in ahead a schedule, we all would have been better served by you just continuing your break.

EDIT: I think this seems to fit you nicely.

I'm just asking what atheists were in the leadership or even the struggle leading to civil rightsl --and can you deny that theist were essential in that struggle?. Can you respond to either question?

or would you, as you did above, simply restate your hypothesis as supporting "fact"?

Seems to me you're not looking for answers, but for noses to tweak.

If you choose not to read what I've posted, then that is your problem.

How about what atheists did on at 9:37 am on June third nineteen sixty?



You're a riot TMO!

Clearly if you were taking a break you wouldn't have cared about the locking of that post. It seems that you are more interested in manufacturing drama than anything else at this point.

And completely inept attempt to paint religion the hero when, in act, it's responsible for way more evil than you can Even begin to enumerate . . . Lets cut to the chase

"atheists" do good because they know it's the right thing to do. Not because they fear some imaginary hell nor desire some fairyland heaven.

Which is the more moral? He who does good for no gain? Or the ones who do it because they believe they have to?!?

"Which is the more moral? He who does good for no gain? Or the ones who do it because they believe they have to?!?"

It matters not to society what your motives are as long as you stick to society's moral code of conduct society will count you a good citizen.

1. Father Coughlin, Roman Catholic priest, invented rightwing hate-talk radio.

2. The loudest and most insistent voices in favor of prohibition were Protestant ministers. Prohibition brought in many wonderful things, mostly organized crime and a general disregard for the moral suasion of government.

3. The loudest and most insistent voices in opposition to women voting were Catholic priests. The Antisuffragists, they were called. They (and some Protestants) fought a long hard slog to keep women in their places, but to their chagrin fell short of the mark letting loose the power of the fair sex. The immediate result was the election of Warren G. Harding, a handsome man. Oh, and later the rise of the Democratic Party.

Hint - it's not atheists

But I also know the other side better than you do.Burt this is not the question I raised about where were atheists, and who were they?

And can you deny the role of the religious in the struggle?

Following our examples above almost any fair person would.

Atheists are a small slice of the population. They should only be expected to pull some small slice of the weight. We have our stars and our duds too. For every Robert Ingersoll or Mark Twain or Carl Sagan you can find comparable disappointments.

Religion and ethics haven't much to do with one another, that's the facts.

to come out publicly as atheists, as you know perfectly well. Even today, it's risky for many. For that reason, we'll never know how many there were. Even so, there were some known atheists. The writer Harlan Ellison, for example, wrote about it many times, spoke about it all over the country, and attended marches, protests and other events - including the march from Selma to Montgomery. Later, he did similar work to try to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified.

There are several posts on this thread linking to articles about other atheists who were important in the movement.

who refuses to acknowledge post #72, which blows his OP completely out of the water.

is a pretty weak response.

The point was that atheists were unlikely to be OPEN about their atheism during that time frame, thus having an exact count of how many atheists were participating in the civil rights movement of that time would be difficult at best.

Of course I didn't say that.

You know, lying about what other people have written isn't conducive to thoughtful, constructive dialogue.

Where do these beliefs come from, and why weren't they out front in the civil rights struggle?

As has been demonstrated to you repeatedly.

The rest of your questions would likely be better handled by a psychology professor, but I'd say we all gain our ethical compass from a variety of sources; parents, teachers, etc.

don't feel the need to co-opt a valuable social movement in order to get facetime for their lack of belief.

Apparently you think this is necessary. Why? Don't you think it is more ethical to fight for something WITHOUT having to shove your beliefs (or lack thereof) to the forefront?

I have alerted

with questions I have tried to answer.

Does this mean that gotcha questions about religion or put downs of everything religious are at and end? I might be willing to come up with a deal about that one. Is it s two way street?

I, for the record, want to have meta discussions in R/T. But that isn't allowed. Just because your put yours in the middle of a post about something else, doesn't mean that it isn't a meta discussion.

Do you need someone to come over to your computer and physically point it out to you?

It's becoming quite clear that reading comprehension isn't your strong point.

How very Christian of you! You truly display the love and compassion worthy of the label.

Last edited Tue Apr 10, 2012, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Yeah, that would be the part.

Edited to add: sorry to be so cryptic.

Some people have trouble reading if there aren't colorful pictures to help them understand.

in this thread. I'm counting attacks on me in the mix, too.

What, here in your safe little personal Forum?

Generous of you.

Religious leaders are trained to leverage emotion to focus group cohesion. Sometimes they use it for good. Sometimes they use it for evil. You can't claim credit for one without assuming responsibility for the other.

Atheists have never had sufficient social or political power to focus emotional energy that way. Fortunately, some very wise believers (and no doubt a few atheists) saw how pernicious social organization through religion had become and cooked up a little thing called the Enlightenment. Those of us who don't seek to profit from the faith of others are still working on it.

I think that's the part that he/she doesn't seem to be able to grasp at all.

Unfortunately it's grasping him by the short hairs and he won't admit it.

That one never tires of trying to frame the discussion to his liking. In an open forum.

I have made that admission over and over again. The reason some of you don't want to see it, is because it take a a weapon out of your hands. How long can I be accused of something I have admitted over and over again, as if I had ignored it.

..at a time when black people were heavily discriminated against?

Your obfuscating tactics are just as BS as when you signed up.

"Atheists are (take your pick) immoral or amoral."

Bullshit! Utter rubbish!

That is one of the lies that theists use to malign opponents to their faith. I don't take anybody serious who makes anything like these claims.

Non-believers have been alongside the liberal theists all along the way. Where are the liberal theists now when the fundementalist Republicans have tread so much on science, on wonen's rights, on racial and cultural equality?

Why don't they stand next to us atheists who

1. Have the same political position.

2. Have no desire to convert theists. We merely want to be respected like the theists. (A homosexual, Jewish, woman could be elected President before an atheist -- chosen because none of the three have been president.)

Atheists feel like Rodney Dangerfield, we can't get any respect.

And at least on "religion" in DU what we get is not a hand in return, but a rejection.

That is a pretty lame response.

is the sound of your own voice, repeating the same "Poor me I'm so misunderstood and bullied and all I want to do is teach you all!" whine.

I simply asked where they were, and who was on the front lines when religious liberals were crossing bridges and being attacked by Bull Coners's dogs.

You can only ignore reality for so long before you start to appear amazingly obtuse.

Or are you going to tell us that ONLY believers did that?

Again, where is your proof? Or is this just a personal prejudice against non-believers, thinking that they can't possibly support something noble? That is a very hateful attitude to have. I hope you don't really believe that.

And I never suggested that non-believers can't possibly support something noble. I just wanted to know who they were in the civil rights movement..
Phillip Randolph was suggested. Good.

What need would any non-believers in the movement have had, to broadcast their non-belief? The movement was likely more important to them than self-promotion. You are demanding information that simply does not exist, because it was contained only in the minds of the participants. Neither you nor I have any idea how many non-believers (many of them potentially crucial participants) were involved.

Do you understand this?

crossing bridges and getting attacked by Bull Conner's dogs.

They just didn't find it necessary to sing the praises of an organization that had harmed the cause of civil rights as much as helped it.

I guess they weren't as worried about publicity and spin.

Repeat after me, "Atheism is not a faith,"

People do what they do not "because of atheism," or "because of faith" but because they are ethical and moral people. If you are going to post your nonsense about faith motivating people I will be forced to point out that these faithful often did what they did in contradiction to the contents of the Bible they take as their guide and the teachings of their Church within which they worship.

People of faith acted because they were in organisations that could not be ignored or easily suppressed and because they were ethical and moral people. They held these values despite the shallow foundations of what they believed to be true

without knowing the people who were motivated.

Yes, we all admit that the religious had a profoundly positive influence on the civil rights battle. But to use that to argue against atheism is utter rubbish. Utter rubbish!

First, a vast proportion of people in this country are religious. So naturally the vast proportion of civil rights advocates would be religious. And it's not surprising that the one prominent advocate would be religious.

So what!?

Again, the vast proportion of people in this country are religious, and those who are not have many reasons to not reveal it. That skews the data in this citation.

Non-believers we're part of the civil rights movement from the beginning.

I don't mean to be confrontational here but I have an extreme dislike for the meme that you have to be religious to be moral. That ship has long since sailed.

But those who acted in the Civil Rights out of their faith, not only led the parade, but took the hits from the bigots. I guess all I had been looking for in this thread is your first sentence. If you go through "religion:" in DU, all you would assume is that all religion and those who practice it are rotten to the core.

The one name anyone has come up with is the great renown A. Phllip Randolph--a giant of a Civil Rights advocate.

Randolph was raised and got his ethics in a CME church where his father was the pastor. He was disturbed over the sad side of Christianity that was narrow and bigoted. He later signed the "Humanist Manifesto." a marvelous document. He deserves our deepest respect.

I have to wonder just how many people in this thread you have on ignore...

So tell us, please, why you would ask the question in your OP: "But what name of an individual atheist or group was prominent and involved?"

If you already knew about Randolph, why would you ask that question, other than to dishonestly imply that there were NO atheists involved in the civil rights movement, even though you knew there were?

And please don't tell us that you only found out about him after someone here mentioned his name, because that would be a lie. Only a despicable bigot would have asked that question without first Googling "Black atheist civil rights movement", which would have answered your question right there, and you're not a despicable bigot, right?

And Stalin went to seminary.

Clearly you're implying Randolph's Christian upbringing was crucial to his adult actions. So now you're stuck with Stalin's crimes too. Have fun!

I think you'll find that the US, the most religious of all the Western democracies, was among the last to ensure it's minorities had full civil rights. The UK was also tardy with ensuring that Catholics in Ulster received their civil rights as was Germany in respect of Turkish "gast arbeiten". To be fair to the UK, Ulster was, at the time, even more religious than the US.

One might also note that minority civil rights were most abused in the most religious states in the US.

"...than to do what you're told, whatever' s right."

And if you can't see where this is relevant to your rather hectoring question, then you're even more lost than you appear to be.

what is being said.

But, then, that's always one of your problems. You don't listen, then you waffle about how no-one here but you understands what faith is/should be, then you judge, then you ignore once again the fact that this is not a Group set up for fellow-travellers to worship together, then you remind everyone how persecuted Christians are on DU and how the nasty atheists are shouting at you and refusing to respect your supernatural belief (the nerve of these people!)...

Then you do it all again.

You protest that all you want is dialogue and discussion, but you don't. You seem to want a platform and an audience dazzled by your insight into Progressive Theology (Oxymoron Of The Week).

This thread, which you seem to have started primarily to state the POV that atheists are of no real use to society unlike "people of faith", who should be hailed as the source of everything good in life, is a new low for you.

to slam atheism by trying to create a false equivalency between atheism and religious faith.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods...period...end of story. An atheistic worldview says nothing about how you should live your life or treat other people, any more than preferring butter to margarine or being an advocate of vinyl records over CDs does, and it doesn't need to in order to justify itself. The only relevant issue is whether having an atheistic worldview precludes discovering and practicing ethical principles or makes it less likely that someone will do so, and you have never offered ANY evidence (here or elsewhere) to that effect. As to where the atheists were during the civil rights movement...right there among the rest, but unable for the most part to be vocal about their lack of belief because of the stigma attached to atheism (by religious people, surprisingly enough), and seeing no need to in any event, since that was not why there were there. And one hardly needs to point out (or maybe one does in this case) that the violent opposition to the civil rights movement (and to women's rights and gay rights) has come entirely from religious people.


BTW, short vacation, wasn't it? And I guess we'll have to count this post of yours as one bashing atheism, since you were determined to add those up.

Prove this statement.

On edit: You know, after reading the whole thing, this is really one of your most foul and insulting threads to date. It is so sad that you simply refuse to acknowledge the hurtful preaching you do.

Any scholarly review of the movement makes that affirmation, whether or not you want to accept it.

Bottom line is, you can't. You cannot possibly know how history would have unfolded - no one can.

For you to state with such certainty reeks of religious bigotry.

since there are so many of them that make that affirmative claim.

I await some interesting reading.

Their religious convictions are beside the point. The civil rights movement was about civil rights, not moral hegemony . The fact that religious organizations try to link their claims of moral authority to a cause more properly related to the equitable distribution of resources reveals the true reason for those claims.

Leveraging a social movement for monetary gain requires a fair bit of spin, fallacious logic, and defensive posturing. Which is what I see in your OP and in your attitude to those who disagree with you.

I don't expect an answer to this post. The reason why should be obvious.

Anti intellectual assaults on public education.

Since the late 70s religion in the united states has primarily been a force against equality, against human rights, and against science and reason. Religion has primarily been a force for intolerance and hatred and a strong supporter of endless war. The same religious organizations within the African American community that were prominent in the civil rights era, have by and large stood silent or opposed gay rights. With notable exceptions the same is true across all major religious institutions.

There is what was, and there is what we now have, and what we now have is more typical of how religious institutions have acted in society: as conservative institutions of repression and control.

religious movements in repression and control !

I see little for religious believers to be proud about as their sacred religious institutions are becoming involved in such repression and control. Patting themselves on the back for what they did 50-300 years ago is really grasping for straws.