Do you have any data to back up that claim? I would bet that a higher percentage of Atheists are pro-gun and distrust the government than other denominations. Without the results from a legitimate poll, your claim has no grounds. People of every belief are being fooled.

Do you have any data to back up that claim? I would bet that a higher percentage of Atheists are pro-gun and distrust the government than other denominations. Without the results from a legitimate poll, your claim has no grounds.

OP used the term "so many". That in no way implies a majority. It only shows that he's amazed at how many there are, even if it's only 5%.

I agree with OP in that atheists are so skeptical of religion yet some don't apply that same skepticism or rational thought to other areas of life.

Why are so many atheists anti-gun and somewhat trusting of the government?

Does it count as a stereotype if you have literally never heard of anyone being it before?

They have been brainwashed by the education system.

Yeah, education is evil.

The current US education system is a joke and used to manipulate the public. There can be no doubt.

I survived it intact. So did my daughter.

It's a joke, yes, and it mostly creates a bunch of meat puppets. Those are the kids who don't try. But it's not a thorough brain-washing.

Right, because public, government sanctioned education is the only type of education that exists.

So you have taken something 1 person said and applied that to a particular group without any statistics from any survey/study (s)

This is a pretty reasonable thing to point out. Many of the atheists who follow Dawkins will tend to follow his other beliefs, especially since he is so vocal about it. Also look at hitchens. He was extremely anti Muslim and pro war. Sam Harris came out with a reasonable essay on guns. You should see the salon article bashing him, calling him an extremist.

I'm an atheist and not anti-Muslim, I'm very anti-war, most other atheists I've met tend to think for themselves and don't parrot these self-appointed leaders.

This. It seems that theist have a hard time understanding anyone doing anything else other than parroting there leaders.

Because they aren't actually atheists. They worship at the altar of government and pray to their gods the politicians.

I'm an atheist, super pro-gun and not trusting of the government. So this question really confuses me.

I was attempting to draw attention to a sub population of statist atheists. I know many atheists have opinions and views that are unique, but this population does exist and it's because people tend to follow the leader. Dawkins and hitchens are the Trojan horse leaders that actually promote state trust, war, and gun bans. A percentage of followers of those two (and others) will soak up any other philosophies they hear coming from them.

Point taken. I just don't know where the majority lies.

[deleted]

I never said they weren't. I'm non religious myself. I'm just trying to point out a trend that I believe was fabricated. Please see the rest of the thread where I go into detail because I don't feel like typing it out again.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Wow, what a horribly contrived attack on people you apparently know nothing about. There isn't a such thing as a "statist atheist". Nor do atheists have anything in common besides a common "disbelief".

Are people seriously falling for religious propaganda here? I'd hope not.

I would say a "statist atheist" is an atheist who 1) points out how Obama is probably an atheist 2) listens to mainstream debunker/skeptic outlets 3) listens to the atheist talking heads like Dawkins and hitchens 4) worries about what is in the pledge of allegiance and on the dollar bill instead of questioning the authority worship in the pledge and the reason for using FED currency.

Those atheists do exist. I've talked to plenty of them. "9/11 couldn't be an inside job because popular mechanics." They worship authority and take Vioxx because "science." They are not worth defending.

All I just saw was someone creating a "category" of person of which to assign specific "attributes" to. Then you go and find ways to justify the existence of such a person through "personal observation".

But reality is not so. It would be nice if you could assign people into cookie cutter groups in order to assign attributes to them but this doesn't even exist throughout races or religions.

You can't even say that "All Roman Catholics" believe in abortion being murder. Yet you want to argue a viewpoint that atheists lack of a belief in a god somehow translates to a "statist" philosophy. That's absolute malarkey.

1) Religious nuts who hate Obama usually tend to call him Muslim, Anti-Christ, or atheist. Atheists don't give a fuck about his religion.

2)Religious people also listen to skeptics.

3) What's wrong with Dawkins or Hitchens? You say that in a derogatory way. Next thing you are going to say that we shouldn't listen to NDT or Bill Nye. We aren't talking about Limbaugh and his ditto heads here. (cough, wink, nudge)

4) You should worry about the rampant "Nationalism" that's being injected into your society. If you know anything about history, it's the oldest form of population control.

Mixing God and Country are actually how you get situations like Israel/Palestine and the Crusades. It's also the justification of the genocide of the Native Americans. Good old "Manifest Destiny".

But I digress.

Your intent to create a category of people to use as your personal scapegoat really doesn't bode well for your argument. I'd suggest staying away from such generalizations.

The same logic process could be used to justify a bulk categorization of "dangerous conspiracy theorists". Which really distills down to accusations of wrongdoing without a crime or wanting to assign guilt by association.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/search?q=Obama+atheist&restrict_sr=on

Also Dawkins is a heavy supporter of gun control and hitchens was a heavy proponent of the middle eastern wars. Also I was just giving a generalized idea of what a "statist atheist" is.

You don't get it. You are creating your own devil.

I never said all groups are perfectly carved out. I see it as more of a Venn diagram. The reason that groups tend to have similar viewpoints (and groups within groups) is because many people follow the leader. Not all of them, but enough that you can identify sub populations. This is just like someone pointing out how nutty and crazy some tea partiers are. They follow Glenn Beck et al.

As long as you find your devil, I guess.

Everyone has something they love and worship. You can never be a true atheist. They just changed their God to something else. Like money, success, power, lust, government....

I'm atheist and I don't worship god or anything else.

The US has a disproportionate amount of gun murders with a disproportionate gun culture, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a correlation. As for trusting authority, like trusting Government authority without question, this has to be the opposite of what most atheists do.

? Why are you rambling about gun culture? That has nothing to do with the fact that the US government is attempting to totally confiscate guns. See Feinstein and the "freedom from war document." Total ban on guns is a documented factual plan that the US has admitted to several times. They want to slowly regulate them until nobody but the UN police have them.

They are never going to confiscate your guns, I know it's a dark fantasy that many on the right have of 'gubbermint' kicking down their door and trying to take their guns away. In reality, they can't even get full background checks passed, the NRA has too much power.

Feinstein admitted on video to this and the US government has this on paper as a documented plan. What's so hard to understand about those two points?

Honestly man I googled this and I can't find it, do you have a link?

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qB4u6IGXMMk&app=m

1) they cannot say the ultimate goal because the NRA would be all over that and use that as ammunition to keep most gun rights

2) none of these politicians and laws have anything that addresses the problem of police shooting innocent people and dogs every day (or almost every day)

3) this is all part of the NWO which does exist as a plan. You can see quotes by Biden, Bush, Kissinger etc. The entire globe is more or less marching in unison with UN laws and goals, which is why most western countries have already banned guns or mostly banned them. That is a stated goal of the UN. If you read history, there was a lot more counties than the few usually quoted as having a gun ban that led to genocide. This is not a theory. That's just what happens. Ban guns, then genocide.

Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Peru, Turkey, USSR, China.

I fully agree with your second point but on the third point, while I know that the NWO is real, the issue is if they decide on widespread population reduction, no amount of AR15s or guns is going to stop them. They will only label anybody who violently opposes them as terrorists, and then use them as a scapegoat to further their plans.

Well I do agree with your conclusion, but I don't think it's 100 percent. A major civil war would divide the military and police as well. It could go either way. Currently, police/military are almost 100 percent drones that follow orders, but those orders will eventually be "commence the genocide" and not all of them will obey that. I know it sounds like a stretch to claim this is the ultimate goal, but honestly it would be weird if it didn't happen. It would be a historical anomaly and it doesn't even have to come from our own government. All we need is a crashing currency and a failing government and plenty of countries will have no problem paying us back for all of the garbage we put the world through. Russia, china, etc.

I'm an atheist.

I'm OK with guns but I think it's laughable that anyone in the US thinks the peashooters available to us will do any good in an armed conflict.

I mistrust the government.

I don't think there's necessarily a correlation here.

I survived it intact. So did my daughter.

It's a joke, yes, and it mostly creates a bunch of meat puppets. Those are the kids who don't try. But it's not a thorough brain-washing.

I never said all groups are perfectly carved out. I see it as more of a Venn diagram. The reason that groups tend to have similar viewpoints (and groups within groups) is because many people follow the leader. Not all of them, but enough that you can identify sub populations. This is just like someone pointing out how nutty and crazy some tea partiers are. They follow Glenn Beck et al.