If you aren't sure what to believe then you don't believe. That is atheism.

Someone who holds mystical beliefs is not consistent when he rejects some other mysticism for being mysticism. But most American Christians in their actual daily beliefs and actions they normally live by are practically atheists in comparison with the other worldliness of the originals, and are justified in their rejection of rabid Muslims, viro nature worshipers, etc. who are out to destroy us along with themselves. They reject that from from rational standards. If that were not the case America could not have become the country it did. Everyone who holds some religious belief in this country is not a ranting witch doctor of no value and unqualified to reject those who are. Far from it. I hope you agree with that.

Of course you can be anti-anything, I mean they can't do so and be consistent.
In other words, they are people of mixed premises.

The resolution was carefully crafted to embrace the "nonreligious" as "unaffiliated" without attacking the religious. To them the "unaffiliated" are just another cultural pressure group in what they politically organize as an alliance of ethnic tribes otherwise at each others' throats.

There are religious battles between religious sects all the time. Of course they can be anti-any of the things listed. There are also people of mixed premises, at least in this country, who are generally civilized and are very "anti" the primitive beliefs in that list.

There are no non-athiests in Objectivism, but if an "ounce" of respect is the standard there are many more who qualify. The better conservatives are fighting for private property and freedom in many realms, if not consistently. American Christians still embracing the American sense of life are mostly much, much better than the other-worldliness of the Dark and Middle Ages.

That excludes some conservative religious evangelists and anti-abortion crusaders who are shameful, but there is a rising movement of the religious left that takes its altruism and irrationalism very seriously and is promoting it in politics https://www.npr.org/2019/01/24/684435...

Democrats say they want to keep religion out of politics and yet as a political party they denounce people who are religious? But the headline is misleading because reading the carefully crafted resolution they passed shows that they are promoting the "religiously unaffiliated", trying to ingratiate an entire segment of the population as if it was equivalent to "Democrat values".

They are tying to promote themselves as the voice of science and reason but don't dare attack the religious as such because of their own religious left driving their altruist moral appeals. Where would Al Sharpton go? "Liberation Theology"? The viro nature worshipers and their alliance with Pope Francis? The militant religionists who forcibly occupied Sen. Collins office demanding higher taxes on the rich?

Search on "religious left" and you find an ugly trend that is on the rise and being heavily promoted as part of the spread of irrationalism, such as https://www.npr.org/2019/01/24/684435...

"Loving the sinner" is a bad position to borrow from anyone. It is the opposite of justice.

Atheism is not "irrational". It is rational to reject the arbitrary, refusing to believe in it, and it is rational to reject contradictions inherent in most religious claims for a god. Rejecting the irrational does not require a further proof of a negative.

Not believing in the supernatural does not imply that one ought to be indifferent to others' beliefs. Ideas matter and rational people do concern themselves with what others believe, such as in how they vote.

Leaving people alone to live their own personal lives does not mean that it doesn't matter what others believe at all. Fundamental premises that cause the nature of a society had better be of concern, especially when irrational ideas are being proselytized. It matters that the militantly religious are trying to ban abortion, for example.

People who don't know what to believe don't tend to be passionate about anything. That is not an argument for agnostics.

Atheist means a-theist -- not believing in the supernatural. Not believing something does not say what you do believe. Atheism does not mean trying to tell others how to live their lives. Whether anyone wants to do that depends on what he does believe.

Communism is not based on atheism. One cannot base a social system on not believing in the supernatural. The communists have their own mysticism and appeals to altruism. The Soviet Union was ripe for that because it remained heavily religious.

If you have any principles at all (other than appreciating the use of force to control others) they don't like you.

Since Richard the Lionhearted was gay, the SCA should be friendly to the LGBT community, just to be consistent : ) .

The Log Cabin Republicans have been around for quite a while as gays who support the constitution, and they get their worst treatment from the LGBT community, that considers them turncoats. Not everything is peaceful in the LGBT crowd, as "Mayor Pete" is taking flak from lesbians, who believe its more important to elect the first female president than the first gay.

"The problem isn't with Republicans, or conservatives in general, but with the image of them broadcast repeatedly by the Democrat-media propaganda machine that tells these groups not to bother associating with them."

I agree that this is a Big part of the problem - possibly more than half. (eg I have been told by some liberal friends that I cannot possibly be a Republican because I don't belong to a born-again religion,) But I have been among Conservatives at home and in the military, and many of them are decades behind liberals socially.

Race: Almost everyone, conservative and liberal, thinks that racial profiling has no place at work or in public life. We are, as a culture, finally looking at laying this bugaboo to rest.
Gender. Many many Conservatives are still struggling with the concept that a woman should not build her identity around 'husband and family'. Women are still pressured by their families into having children, so that they can be 'happy and fulfilled'. And they mean it.
Homosexuality. Most conservatives have reluctantly come to accept that homosexuals exist, and that they may not be sick or evil. That is about the best I can say for conservatives on this point - I know a lot of gay people who have to deal with this. (One of the reasons the SCA has a lot of gays is our enthusiastic acceptance of gays, as far back as the 1970s. Now we also have Trans.)
Religion. This is humorous. I do SCA -medieval reenactment. Each person gets to chose a 'persona' from before 1650. It is difficult to tell the Episcopal minister who happens to have a 'viking' persona from the genuine neopagan who has a viking persona.

I had forgotten about the walkaway movement - thank you for reminding me, DrZ. It is wonderful and hopeful.

Jan

Have you been following the walkaway movement? It was started by a young gay man who suddenly realized the Democrat party didn't stand for things he believed in, such as personal responsibility. Since he started it, he's been joined by many minorities and members of the LGBT community who have discovered the Republican party has welcomed them with open arms. The problem isn't with Republicans, or conservatives in general, but with the image of them broadcast repeatedly by the Democrat-media propaganda machine that tells these groups not to bother associating with them.

The difference is that the number of media agents that tell a coherent message about conservatives being more tolerant and charitable is small, compared to the bulk of left wing propaganda machines broadcasting a very negative image of conservatives without letup. It's true that some people fit the description, but I've found conservatives in general to be much more kind and tolerant than their progressive counterparts, from personal experience.

Metaphysical facts, like god not existing, are not a matter of opinion.
Agnostics are actively evading these facts and are therefore even more immoral than actual religious people.

Agnosticism means that an opinion has not been formed.

It can be rational, it says the person is too lazy, or too busy, or lacks the intellectual heft to form an opinion, or dare not speak against orthodoxy.

Your points are clearly made and perceptive, but do not address my point of minorities, gays, pagans, and strong women feeling that they cannot be Republican (or Objectivist) because they would not be accepted or welcome.
What initiated this discussion was the Democrats making a statement that would alienate anyone who was religious. If 'we' (for some value of 'we') make a point of accepting people who are religious, people who are not, people who are gay, pagan, whatever as long as they believe in freedom and responsibility then we will have a strategic advantage.
Then I looked at the comments on this very list...and realized that we had to take the beam from our eye before the mote from another's (to also quote the Bible as an agnostic).

Jan

It's not about being an atheist or not.
It's about being rational or not.
And rational people are atheists. As a starting point. Everything else follows from that.
But there are plenty of atheists who then get everything else wrong and are as completely irrational or more so, than religious people.

Agnostics are worse than religious people.
At least religious people are trying to have certainty about something, wrong though it may be. Agnostics are rejecting even having in wrong knowledge.

Atheists haven't fared any better than theists when they try to tell others how to live their lives. The Holy Roman empire was a mess, and communist (ergo Atheist) nations have been a disaster. It would be nice if we all just made the best effort to get along.

should be !
No- to telling others not just what they believe but what they should do.

Regarding those who want to attack feverishly, exhibit passion, or regard anything with indifference, they have that freedom.
Whatever floats your boat.

You definitely won't find anyone in this group that professes Objectivism, at least with any understanding of what that means.

People who profess an absence of a belief in theism should be indifferent to the beliefs of others. However, there are those who profess Atheism that feverishly attack those who do not believe as they do. I have never found an Agnostic with such passion, as they regard theistic arguments a waste of time.

they are secular humanists...still on the same moral spectrum as religious people...altruistic...