A recent yearlong study to investigate the psychological well-being of — rural-residing and woman-identified atheists reveals various issues experienced because of their non-belief.
You kid but one of the main points here is that they are hiding it when prompted and are suffering genuine mental health issues for it. Less about being preachy and more actively hiding a part of their identity to avoid negative social outcomes
I think it is more that in some countries, the culture is not to really talk much about religions, politics, etc. The theory being there is no real right or wrong that can be proven, and it really ends up being one’s own opinion (arguments that can’t be won). I tend to rather look at the outcomes of any behaviour, and rather than label it as being a priest or an Atheism who has abused a child, I’d condemn the behaviour itself. As the Christian religion says (applying to Christians too) let him (or her) who is blameless cast the first stone. Humans are humans, and someone’s politics or religion makes them no better than anyone else, despite them thinking so ;-)
I find it highly dubious that there are any cultures where there are no preachy people.
But even if I grant that, that’s still missing the point. There is little self organization for atheistic and related people in the US. Regardless of other countries (where the issue would still exist even moreso if people genuinely never talked about religion) in the US there is no community organizing. The entire point of this article is that while say, christians can generally find community easily and find broader community outside of their direct churches and sects, they also barely ever feel any stigma about admitting to being christian, regardless of how much they may claim that they are because they don’t live in a theocracy. On the other hand, atheists in most of the country, along with minority belief systems here, rarely feel comfortable sharing at risk of genuine social ramifications.
If your ideal of “nobody is right” were actually achieved, people wouldn’t care about sharing or not sharing religion, that’s the point of acceptance. You’re really missing the point here. I get it, you prefer when people keep their beliefs to themselves, that’s not really relevant to the point of the article, and is instead just furthering the negative stigma about allowing people who are non-christian to share and be open about parts of their identity.
You kid but one of the main points here is that they are hiding it when prompted and are suffering genuine mental health issues for it. Less about being preachy and more actively hiding a part of their identity to avoid negative social outcomes
I think it is more that in some countries, the culture is not to really talk much about religions, politics, etc. The theory being there is no real right or wrong that can be proven, and it really ends up being one’s own opinion (arguments that can’t be won). I tend to rather look at the outcomes of any behaviour, and rather than label it as being a priest or an Atheism who has abused a child, I’d condemn the behaviour itself. As the Christian religion says (applying to Christians too) let him (or her) who is blameless cast the first stone. Humans are humans, and someone’s politics or religion makes them no better than anyone else, despite them thinking so ;-)
I find it highly dubious that there are any cultures where there are no preachy people.
But even if I grant that, that’s still missing the point. There is little self organization for atheistic and related people in the US. Regardless of other countries (where the issue would still exist even moreso if people genuinely never talked about religion) in the US there is no community organizing. The entire point of this article is that while say, christians can generally find community easily and find broader community outside of their direct churches and sects, they also barely ever feel any stigma about admitting to being christian, regardless of how much they may claim that they are because they don’t live in a theocracy. On the other hand, atheists in most of the country, along with minority belief systems here, rarely feel comfortable sharing at risk of genuine social ramifications.
If your ideal of “nobody is right” were actually achieved, people wouldn’t care about sharing or not sharing religion, that’s the point of acceptance. You’re really missing the point here. I get it, you prefer when people keep their beliefs to themselves, that’s not really relevant to the point of the article, and is instead just furthering the negative stigma about allowing people who are non-christian to share and be open about parts of their identity.