Atheism doubleplusgood

[Inferno]

Might be relevant to this topic. It's on why atheists are still distrusted by the american public.

Article[/url]"]
Gaining trust often involves disclosure , revealing something about who you are, not just who you aren't. While I fully understand why a political figure like Kyrsten Sinema might shy away from labels or a public declaration of her personal beliefs, this kind of disclosure might be precisely what's required for people to start to believe in atheists.

 

[Frenger]

That's both interesting and depressing in equal measures.

I remember this same point coming up in a QualiaSoup video. When he tells people he is an atheist they would complain saying that being an atheist tells them no more about him. He says "that's right, so why not ask me more questions?".

I don't define myself by my atheism, it's on the bottom of the list of "qualities" I attribute to myself. When people ask me about my beliefs on god specifically, I am always honest and say I don't see any reason to believe in one or any gods, this answer always leads to further questions, afterlife? hell? souls? origin of the universe? all sorts.

I am an atheist only in relation to my view of an existing god, beyond that I am a whole person, infinitely different and also infinitely similar to you. To not accept an infinitely diverse group based on a minor and flimsy label is an act of extreme ignorance and stupidity. To blame the label is missing the point with a huge, neon hoop.

 

[Inferno]

That's the problem though: People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it! (From MiB 1)

They won't ask another question, they'll hear "atheist" and attach "child-molester, evil person, etc." to that.
New label, new chance. Homosexual people did it, black people did it, women did it... why not atheists?

It's such a trivial matter to the atheist, yet it has such a potentially huge impact on how society sees us/them.

Sadly.

 

[australopithecus]

But why have to resort to semantic games because stupid people are stupid? Atheism describes my position on the subject of gods, if other people want to link that with bad stuff that's not my problem. I'll sleep soundly knowing they're idiots.

 

[Darkprophet232]

By saying we need to change atheism to accommodate idiots, you are saying the idiots are right. Instead of trying to educate people on what atheism is and how it is not as defining as religion, you're throwing in the towel for a very important fight, and one we are currently winning! From your article, we're up to 45% likely hood for votes for president. That's a giant leap in less than a generation.

And I've yet to hear a convincing argument for how stupid people wouldn't see Atheism + as just another DENOMINATION of atheism . They are stupid people, after all.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

This comes back to what I've said earlier in other threads in relation to identifying with atheism: if someone asks you "What are you?", must you answer, "Atheist"?

After all, I could just as easily answer, "Irish" or "IT professional".

I've never identified myself as - nor seen the need to identify myself primarily as - a "Agnostic" or (earlier) "Theist" or "Christian" or, decades ago, "Roman Catholic".

Why not - if asked regarding your philosophy of life - answer, "Humanist"? As in "love thy neighbour as thyself", which is what Humanism is all about - note that this tends to be the default position of Humanists, in that they tend to be atheistic and the first commandment is, therefore, irrelevant.

If specifically asked about whether you believe in god(s) or not, then by all means "I'm atheistic" is the time to mention your position on that particular subject.

It seems to me that the "New Atheists" - those who want to put their atheism front-and-centre, unlike the "Old Atheists", who put social issues first with their atheism as a side-issue - are riding for a fall, and should not be astonished when they come a cropper. The "Atheism Plussers" are trying to mitigate that by saying "but we have all this social-issues stuff as well!" - which wouldn't be necessary if they just took a step back, admitted that the New Atheists have been barking up the wrong tree and go back to calling themselves Humanists or embrace Tom Clark's Naturalism.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

Greetings,

This comes back to what I've said earlier in other threads in relation to identifying with atheism: if someone asks you "What are you?", must you answer, "Atheist"?

After all, I could just as easily answer, "Irish" or "IT professional".

I've never identified myself as - nor seen the need to identify myself primarily as - a "Agnostic" or (earlier) "Theist" or "Christian" or, decades ago, "Roman Catholic".

Why not - if asked regarding your philosophy of life - answer, "Humanist"? As in "love thy neighbour as thyself", which is what Humanism is all about - note that this tends to be the default position of Humanists, in that they tend to be atheistic and the first commandment is, therefore, irrelevant.

If specifically asked about whether you believe in god(s) or not, then by all means "I'm atheistic" is the time to mention your position on that particular subject.

It seems to me that the "New Atheists" - those who want to put their atheism front-and-centre, unlike the "Old Atheists", who put social issues first with their atheism as a side-issue - are riding for a fall, and should not be astonished when they come a cropper. The "Atheism Plussers" are trying to mitigate that by saying "but we have all this social-issues stuff as well!" - which wouldn't be necessary if they just took a step back, admitted that the New Atheists have been barking up the wrong tree and go back to calling themselves Humanists or embrace Tom Clark's Naturalism.

Kindest regards,

James

I've commented on that earlier, see "shock value" or, as I would like to think of it, getting people to think about their own position.

 

[Frenger]

That's the problem though: People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it! (From MiB 1)

A fine reference sir

T

hey won't ask another question, they'll hear "atheist" and attach "child-molester, evil person, etc." to that.
New label, new chance. Homosexual people did it, black people did it, women did it... why not atheists?

My favourite example of changing perceptions was by the homosexual community, the quite simple "we're here, we're queer, get used to it".

Wouldn't it be better for atheists to simply "come out" as it were. From my extremely limited experience it works. When a colleague of a specific middle eastern religion found I was an atheist she called me "disgusting" and the "devil". Over the following weeks I explained what it was exactly an atheist was and why it hadn't nothing to do with my character, it was simply a small fact of my universal outlook. This was something she was unaware of, she thought atheist meant something entirely different.

I suppose my point is that simply changing semantics is nothing but a quick fix and almost an admission of guilt. I see nothing wrong in being an atheist and I'm happy to keep the actual meaning and try and change people's perceptions, by being the kind, generous, highly hilarious atheist that I am.

Clearly this is small scale but with enough nice people who don't believe in a god, I think it's a more positive change than simply changing definitions.

 

[Inferno]

My favourite example of changing perceptions was by the homosexual community, the quite simple "we're here, we're queer, get used to it".

Wouldn't it be better for atheists to simply "come out" as it were. From my extremely limited experience it works. When a colleague of a specific middle eastern religion found I was an atheist she called me "disgusting" and the "devil". Over the following weeks I explained what it was exactly an atheist was and why it hadn't nothing to do with my character, it was simply a small fact of my universal outlook. This was something she was unaware of, she thought atheist meant something entirely different.

I suppose my point is that simply changing semantics is nothing but a quick fix and almost an admission of guilt. I see nothing wrong in being an atheist and I'm happy to keep the actual meaning and try and change people's perceptions, by being the kind, generous, highly hilarious atheist that I am.

Clearly this is small scale but with enough nice people who don't believe in a god, I think it's a more positive change than simply changing definitions.

Also see Richard Dawkins' "Coming Out" campaign.
I don't think that's enough, I fear, though I might be wrong about that, that people will become even more paranoid.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Funny thing, I just read a book and came back to LoR after a few months out, and now I understand the title a tad bit better

@Ontopic

@Inferno, mind if I ask you, how sure are you that a new label will really provoke people to think about their own position? The way I see it, it's intellectually more efficient to refer to your ideals using already known words, rather than adhering to a whole new "movement" and having to explain "Well, it's like atheism and humanism together, but it's something new... stuff...".

Sorry if I'm repeating someone else's already rebutted post, but I thought I'd chime in.


Cheers!

 

[bluejatheist]

Funny thing, I just read a book and came back to LoR after a few months out, and now I understand the title a tad bit better

Good book

 

[Inferno]

@Inferno, mind if I ask you, how sure are you that a new label will really provoke people to think about their own position? The way I see it, it's intellectually more efficient to refer to your ideals using already known words, rather than adhering to a whole new "movement" and having to explain "Well, it's like atheism and humanism together, but it's something new... stuff...".

I don't. I can't know, I'm not sure, I don't even think it's very likely. But I think it's more likely than the way people are going at it now.

 

[Prolescum]

Funny thing, I just read a book and came back to LoR after a few months out, and now I understand the title a tad bit better

Read it once a year or so

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Funny thing, I just read a book and came back to LoR after a few months out, and now I understand the title a tad bit better

Read it once a year or so

It deserves so. The rest of his books are waiting in line.

Just... must... buy... an... iPad... and read them... in English. Damn. Don't really like reading from my laptop.

 

[australopithecus]

I prefer Animal Farm myself.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I prefer Animal Farm myself.

Some books are more equal than others.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I prefer Animal Farm myself.

Some books are more equal than others.

Comment of the day.