That would be a dwarf, in real life.
I can relate to this sentiment.
But at the risk of being presumptuous, I don’t think women actually want guys who are equal to them (equal in the sense you seem to be using the word).
I have been to many atheist gatherings large and small and I haven’t noticed a correlation between atheism and height.
Atheists however do tend to be angrier than theists.
Seriously?
1 Like
No. The short atheists have smaller vocal chords, and they have to project their voice upwards to reach the ears of the tall theists , so they talk louder.
They just sound angry.
In my years as an atheist associating with hundreds of other atheists, both online and in real life, I have noticed anger is a common trait. (Cynicism and a penchant for the surreal are others).
Perhaps some quasi-objective proof could be that the most vocal theists in society are not similar to that preacher, but the most vocal atheists in society are similar to PZ Myers or the Amazing Atheist, just to name two outspoken figures.
You can’t fool me. When driving and using the car radio, I have a bunch of christian radio stations to tune through as I’m trying to find some music worth listening to. I’m appalled at the misplaced hostility, plan old outlandishly twisted thinking going on, and the transference of their fantasy fears onto others without a second thought.
I could find plenty more like that.
Just saying, you’re being blind to what’s happening to people in this country.
This gal has much better finger on the pulse. Others might be interested in hearing Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, she does a nice job of describing the problem with Hateful Christians, er Christian Nationalists.
Thanks chilango, would have never searched out that, or had a chance to listen to it, without your nudging.
“Christian nationalism has influenced the course of American politics and policy since the founding of this country, while, in every era, moral movements have had to fight for the Bible and the terrain that goes with it,” Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis recently wrote in The Nation. “The January 6 assault on the Capitol, while only the latest expression of such old battlelines, demonstrated the threat of a modern form of Christian nationalism that has carefully built political power in government, the media, the academy, and the military over the past half-century.
Today, the social forces committed to it are growing bolder and increasingly able to win mainstream support.”
In this segment of The Marc Steiner Show, Marc welcomes Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis back on the show to discuss the growing and dangerous influence of Christian nationalism in the US and around the globe—and how to fight it.
Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis is co-director of the Kairos Center, as well as a founder and coordinator of the Poverty Initiative. She is national co-director of the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call For Moral Revival, and author of Always with Us?: What Jesus Really Said about the Poor. She is also an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and a biblical scholar in New Testament and Christian origins.
Don’t get me wrong it’s not like I think all Christians are bad people, quite the contrary, as Rev. Theoharis proves. It was an interesting interview for sure. To round it out, towards the end she speaks about why this is needed.
This phenomena is universal.
In France, special security reports show that the ultra right is dangerous. In fact it mirrors the Islam fundamentalists, and share some of their phobias, for homosexuality, for woman equality and so.
And both are dangerous.
The matter is why this increase.
M Dani Rodrik thinks 
Personally, I think that the rise of authoritarian populism in many states in Europe and the United States is linked to the disappearance of quality jobs in the middle class of these countries. This is due to multiple factors, including globalization, which has accelerated deindustrialization. The loss of factories has reduced the job offer, for a population that is sometimes very competent but not very mobile, and which did not have the necessary qualifications to benefit from the hyper-globalized economy.
But globalization is not the only force at play. Technological changes, automation, robots have also contributed to this. The very radical approach to economic policy, pushing for more liberalization and deregulation of the labor market, has created anxiety. Whatever the situation, there are always voters who lean towards the far right, but its leaders have been able to capitalize on this anxiety and these shocks that have affected economies like France for thirty years.
The paradox of globalization over the past three decades is that it has integrated nations into the global economy, while dismantling national economies.
It’s true, China has been the biggest beneficiary of hyper-globalization. One billion Chinese have been lifted out of extreme poverty and destitution. But the paradox is that China has not played the hyperglobalization game at all. It took advantage of the opening of other economies, while subsidizing its businesses, controlling its exchange rates and capital flows, and violating intellectual property rights. In short, policies contrary to the rules of hyperglobalization. The countries that have benefited the most from hyperglobalization have ultimately been those that have failed to play by the rules of hyperglobalization.
Google translated from French ( an interview in le Monde )
I share your dislike of the bigoted preachers but they are not representative of the average theist. (Outspoken theists to be precise because most theists are not outspoken).
Thanks for sharing that Morgan.
Unfortunately, recent history, puts a lie to that. The intolerance of the religious crowd coupled with their unexamined self-certainty and fear saturated mentality is clearly dominating today’s thinking and politics landscape.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
https://www.thearda.com/timeline/movements/movement_17.asp
ByJack Jenkins - January 13, 2022
WASHINGTON (RNS) — A religion scholar believes major trends in religion and politics can be traced back to the rise of the religious right in the 1990s, a sea change moment that set in motion an array of phenomena ranging from an uptick in religious disaffiliation to the radicalization of some Christian conservatives.
The sweeping theory is outlined in a new paper penned by Ruth Braunstein, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut. Her paper, titled “A Theory of Political Backlash: Assessing the Religious Right’s Effects on the Religious Field,” published late last year in Sociology of Religion, offers an unusually broad-based examination of the interplay between the religious right, the religiously unaffiliated and the power of political backlash.
It’s all about backlashes, big and small, right and left.
But as liberals — and particularly religious liberals — responded to the religious right over the decades, Braunstein says, something else was happening to the religious right itself: It experienced the effects of a counter backlash, a “feedback effect” that leads to “doubling down” in the face of criticism.
Really? You don’t live in Missouri (or Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi…) do you?
Maybe you’re right about atheists and height. As for “angry atheists”, I was half joking about that. Atheists definitely are angry but that just stems from them being bitter nerds.
Wouldn’t you be bitter too if you realized much of your life is ruled by something imagined by others?
… but that’s another thread…
1 Like
No one’s life is ruled by religion unless one is religious. Atheists just tend to be antisocial.
You haven’t a clue.
Come on, the only excuse for persecuting women is religious based, some misguided notion that abortion are the worst thing in the world, when it can be used as a political bludgeon.
Birth control, contraceptives, infanticide and abortion have been done by humans since earlier days and all through history. It’s normal, but religious fanatics be they Catholic or Evangelical are the root of hideous human carnage.
antisocial. Seriously what is social or healthy about refuse to allow woman sovereignty over their own bodies, and YES their off spring!
And how does abortion impact woman who are allowed to have it?
thatoneguy Enough with your fantasy thinking, look at the real world. Religion can and has done huge amounts of damage to people who wish they could have nothing to with it, but aren’t given the option. 
Really? You just group a bunch of individuals together and stereotyped them. Is one antisocial if they work on a presidential campaign (phone banking, canvassing door to door, etc)? Is one antisocial if they attend conventions of any sort- Star Trek or political or whatever? Is one antisocial if they attend PTA/PTO meetings? Are they antisocial if they work with the public? If you answer no to any of these things, then you’d better rethink that statement, because that is just some of the social things atheists do.
Antisocial means going against social mores – which is a massive part of the atheism movement.
Bad things happen to some people because of religion. Those unlucky bastards are free to not be religious when they grow up.
But most of humanity is OK with religion, so the non-religious will have to deal with it or put a bullet through their own heads.