A second generation atheist is one descended and raised in an atheistic environment by parents who are both atheists.
The term is used by atheists,[1] but it is not easy to find many examples of productive second generation atheists. While atheists raised in religious environments have occasionally been productive, atheists raised in atheistic environments are not known to be. Moreover it has been shown that second generation atheists who converted to Christianity early in life have been moderately successful.
62 comments
They labeled Rap music with "offensive language" stickers
Can't they make this site carry a warning label? Such as "Conservapedia, pack of liars" or "truth has no place here"
...Looking at the original page, I can't help but think that their problem is that no-one really says 'second-generation atheist'. That would explain the lack of Google results for it, wouldn't it? *has never heard the phrase before*
"The term is used by atheists"
Which atheists?
"...but it is not easy to find many examples of productive second generation atheists."
You haven't looked.
"While atheists raised in religious environments have occasionally been productive, atheists raised in atheistic environments are not known to be."
Not known to you, because you're complacently ignorant.
"Moreover it has been shown that second generation atheists who converted to Christianity early in life have been moderately successful."
Citation, citation, citation! Where is it?
From Conservapedia article:
The gist of their argument is that Google finds very few successful or creative people under "second generation atheist". Strawman at its finest. I have never heard anyone use any number of generations when identifying themselves as an atheist. Mainly because preceding generations have nothing to do with being an atheist.
My own Google search found no other 3rd generation anti-marxist non-alligator wrestlers. Looks like I'll never amount to anything.
What definitions of "productive" or "successful" are we using here, and who provided them? Is this statement supported by anything?
(Reads the fucking article)
Holy fucking shit, they based this off "Who's Who," the publication that will include ANYONE who pays them to be in it? No fucking wonder that Christians are over-represented in Who's Who: they've already proven their gullibility!
It's been my experience that Christ-stains are the least productive members of society, as they're too busy kissing "God's" ass and begging for the rapture to, you know, DO anything.
Atheists, however, tend to be *very* successful in life.
My roommate last semester is a 2nd gen atheist, and he got a promising career in something involving computers and the military (I'm just barely technologically literate enough to use this computer so I can't begin to understand the techie stuff he does, lol) before he was even old enough to drink...
What a Fuckin' truckload of buzzard shit!
Cite anything that supports this!
I did a Google and only your site claims or links to itself. Never been a study directly but other studies that contain any connection show the opposite.
Plus: a lot of Atheists (like me) aren't 'raised' Atheist, they're raised without religion.
Big difference: They're not told to NOT believe in a god, they're never told TO believe in a god
And by definition, since no-one believed in Christianity 2000 years ago, we all have an atheistic parentage.
And since Atheism is default, the result of not being indocrinated by others belief. it's the only natural state.
Bitch
And by definition, since no-one believed in Christianity 2000 years ago, we all have an atheistic parentage.
And since Atheism is default, the result of not being indocrinated by others belief. it's the only natural state.
Bitch
2nd generation atheist here (well, more like third, but who's counting?).
Also, I am considered quite a successful and productive member of society, so fuck you.
Also, citation really fucking needed!
@aaa
Nor China, that's for sure.
@Jadehawk
"and I can think of at least one set of productive and even internet-famous atheist-spawn... ;-)"
Linus Torvalds, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates, to name but a few. And the same Consevapoodians are using things invented by Atheists, to spew their bullshit. Oh, the irony. Oh, the hypocrisy.
Hmmm... I know of a weird example. I have this friend who is an athiest, no biggie. His parents and his brother are ALSO atheists. Here's where it gets weird: our school is by far the best in our county. It's also a Catholic school. Yeah, you guessed it - he and his brother were baptised, DESPITE BEING ATHIESTS, in order to get into this school. Like I said, weird example.
On the plus side, he's one of the most interesting people I know, and he's also great in debates. Not even our Religious Studies teacher (who is IRISH, and you know what they're like about religion) cares!
Ah, so religion should be promoted not because it is "true" but because it is useful for making people productive. You seem utterly blind to the fact that the two are not related in any way. Singing while working has been demonstrated to make people who are engaged in repetitive tasks more productive. However, no amount of choruses of "I've Been Working on the Railroad" will, in fact, make me a railroad employee.
Andy complains that liberals water down the Christian message. However, to promote Christianity as utilitarian, that is a means to worldly ends, strikes me as not just watering the message down, but abandoning it entirely. But hey, abandoning inconvenient parts of your religion, such as Jesus' lessons about love and non-materialism, has never bothered you before, has it Andy?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
