Oh boy. What fun.

Consistent, if nothing else.

What could possibly 'concern' them, if not that?

If you are not a theist, it would make no sense to you. But I was not analyzing your particular viewpoint, merely suggesting a motivation for other theists.

That meaning informed my response to you.

The objection remains.

Why?

Sounds like evangelism.

If I am not a believer, why would my family have 'concern' about that, by way of a matter of importance or interest?

And I answered it. Evangelism is another matter.

of course it's motivated by a negative, a negative perception of atheistic views whereby the atheist will be condemned for non-belief for all eternity.

They might be acting out of genuine concern for their family member's spiritual well-being but the motivation for that is the knowledge that atheism is a bad thing in the realm of belief.

Heathen non-believers aren't exactly highly thought of in the US....51% of the population would rule a candidate out immediately for their non-belief. Atheists are only 1% more likable than Muslims 41% to 40% on a scale of likability from 1-100....where other religions are rated above 61%....so motivated by a negative perception of atheists is the most likely reality.

If they had a positive perception of atheism they wouldn't be trying to convert her back from her heathen ways....

When you wrote:

you can name the religions that accept atheism and non-belief as positive aspects for their members?

It's not projecting my assumption that atheism is a bad thing for a religious family it's a data based reality for at least 60% of the population of the US according to Pew Research. Factual data isn't a projection, it's just factual data.

As 60% of Americans identify as fairly religious and atheists, according to Pew, are rated at 41% likability by Americans it's not really that hard to ascertain what most religious families think about non-believers. That's not an assumption it's just the math supplied in the data.

I suspect many atheists or non-believers have a negative perception of theism.

Why would someone have a positive perception of a group of people who find them unlikable and not trustworthy?

It's not all that dissimilar to realizing that most of us here don't have a positive perception of Republicans for precisely the same reason, many of them despise us.

Perhaps you're the one person who has a positive perception of those who dislike and distrust you.

I will confess that is not the case for me, if someone has 60% negative trust and feelings about me there's not much chance I'm holding a positive perception in return.

Some of it is undoubtedly a fear of the other, a universal human trait by all the evidence of history, but some might be because of prominent professional atheists like Richard Dawkins and others of that type who seem to delight in the outrage they provoke with their often inflammatory remarks.

Dawkins, in my view, is the atheistic counterpart to Christians like Franklin Graham. Intolerance is not limited to theists.

according to the Pew research it's mostly from the idea that without the fear of god watching over them atheists aren't answerable to a higher authority so they don't fear eternal damnation and consequently they aren't as trustworthy as someone who fears a god watching him and holding his eternal soul for ransom....

What I find interesting with progressive christians is the idea that an atheist saying something the christian finds outrageous or inflammatory is somehow different than a progressive saying something that is outrageous or inflammatory to an authority figure or conservative viewpoint.

Saying outrageous and inflammatory things to power is the hallmark approach of those progressives wishing to incite change, suggesting that blacks no longer ride in the back of the bus was outrageous and inflammatory to some folks.

Those who were offended were wrong so who really cares if they were upset? Sometimes the only way to create an effective, progressive change is through uncomfortable, inflammatory remarks and actions.

For the record, I never suggested intolerance was limited to theists...

Rarely does it lead to dialogue. At least in my experience.

if we never started a fire regarding voting rights would not have changed due to the god fearing christians who were perfectly happy to suppress black voters rights suddenly deciding they needed to accept black voters as their equals.

It was demonstrations, beatings, bombings, lynchings, and finally the law and the national guard that settled tensions.

Even Ghandi's approach to non-violent protest resulted in beatings and deaths for his movement's followers. He started with simple words...words that many found inflammatory and they did indeed start a fire, that's what happens when we decide it's time to have change take place. Words that are inflammatory are spoken, violence follows, and then some sort of change follows that.

When one side is patently wrong what's the point of dialogue? The white supremacists of the south weren't interested in dialogue, the British colonial rulers of the US or India weren't interested in polite dialogue.

Do you think those people felt any different about their views than you currently do about yours? You'd like non-believers to know their place and defer to you out of respect for your belief system. Just as any other person of privilege has done throughout history. Once their privilege is challenged they try a multitude of deflections in the interest of peace and reasonableness....

For persons used to privilege, like christians, equality is uncomfortable and disconcerting. When privilege is challenged privilege always reacts as if it is suddenly being oppressed.

The words of theists describing atheists aren't all that different from words white supremacists used to dismiss those uppity persons of color who thought they should also have the same right to cast a vote.

When you said:

Do I need an inner villain?

Nope, you are right I know nothing about you personally...so what? You know the same about me and yet you are comfortable ascribing potential thought processes to my line of reasoning. After all you said I felt comfortable expounding on your thoughts...how the hell do you know if I am comfortable doing that?

I'm kidding with you, it's not a big deal it is what people do when they try to discuss things with someone they don't know. They reference the little they do know and ascribe motive to what little they do know. I'm not offended that you want to project my level of comfort in describing you....

You are completely incorrect about Ghandi with respect to starting a fire...it doesn't matter what you think he said in today's context it matters what he said in the context of the time he lived in. The British were the colonial master of India...they were not interested in hearing about how India wanted to be independent. They were profiting from their rule and had no desire to grant independence and resisted Ghandi's words with violence and murder, Ghandi's words incited that reaction. He started what he knew would be a fire...

Ghandi also said this, "I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor." People like to remember the peaceful comments because it suits their narrative that no one should ever be violent in protest or express a need for violence. Maybe not you of course I wouldn't want to project that on you after I all I don't know anything about you.

And if you think people of privilege weren't upset at having to allow their black inferiors the same rights, well perhaps you ought to reread that portion of history. Christians don't want to allow atheists a seat at the table generally, perhaps you are different but most christians in the research at Pew were clear that atheists are not liked and are not trusted because of their lack of belief.

It's really that simple, you don't have to like the data you don't have to fit personally in the data but the data doesn't require you to believe in it or to agree with it. It's just data.

People of religious privilege in the US don't like atheists because we challenge their notion of the world and how it should be....tough shit for them.

Because you framed your response as a response to me with your use of the pronoun you. As in "you probably" etc.

As to surveys, surveys can be crafted to give a pre-determined result.

I cannot speak for any theists other than myself, but among the theists that I know, when the subject of atheism arises very few of the theists that I know express a generalized dislike for atheists. Some, me included, dislike the tactics of some atheists who seem to go out of their way to antagonize people who are not atheists.

2 Corinthians 6: 14 - Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

Revelation 21: 8 - But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

Hebrews 3: 12 - Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.

Titus 1: 15 - To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.

Psalm 14: 1 - The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.

I could add more, but my point was that tolerance is something that should be shown by all and to all. My faith, my belief, does not require you or anyone else to share it.

Denigration of unbelievers is pretty consistent throughout the Bible, and is taught in plenty of churches. This was true long before Dawkins and others like him came upon the scene.

appears to be a human condition. It is not limited to theists.

So when discussing human behavior, it is not surprising that intolerance can be found in every society all through recorded human history.

My religious family members eventually got over their prejudice toward my atheism.

One of them tried very hard to convert me to being gay for God, but she finally gave up.

she said, "No you are NOT! You were raised a STRICT BAPTIST!" 😄

Now she's 94 and I'm 72, and we have a compassionate detente. I let her be happy knowing she's going to heaven, and she doesn't try to drag me along with her.

It took her many years to just give up and believe me. She is not a Drumpf supporter. She's even accepted that some people in our family are in same-sex marriages. She loves her Jesus though. I guess it would be frightening to let go of that at her age.

I lost mine when she was just shy of 80 and I thought I was lucky.

We know how rare it is to have both our mothers still alive.