I used to have no problem telling people I’m an atheist if asked if I was religious. Not because I particularly care for or identify with the term. But because it was the simplest, quickest way to answer that question.
But now it’s gotten to a point where I’m reluctant to say it because it’s starting to have different connotations. At least in the English speaking world (in Croatia it’s a whole other story with atheism). This new atheism movement and all the die-hard zealots who get fervent and angry, fanatical even. I don’t know how organized they are, but they’re starting to resemble an organized religion and I don’t want to be associated with that.
Why is it so important to be in opposition to believers? To me it’s a non issue. There are people who believe in supernatural beings and I don’t. What is there to get all worked up about?
I agree that in societies where religion is dominant, young people should be given options that they otherwise might never become aware of. Just like with any dogma. So, yes, someone should make those options available to them. But doesn’t education already do that? As long as we have science in schools, that should be covered. No?
And why would atheists need to be organized in a group of any kind? It’s like belonging to a group of people who are not interested in soccer. What am I missing?
Do we have any atheists here who would be able to explain this?
[quote=“tash”]I used to have no problem telling people I’m an atheist if asked if I was religious. Not because I particularly care for or identify with the term. But because it was the simplest, quickest way to answer that question.
But now it’s gotten to a point where I’m reluctant to say it because it’s starting to have different connotations. At least in the English speaking world (in Croatia it’s a whole other story with atheism). This new atheism movement and all the die-hard zealots who get fervent and angry, fanatical even. I don’t know how organized they are, but they’re starting to resemble an organized religion and I don’t want to be associated with that.
Why is it so important to be in opposition to believers? To me it’s a non issue. There are people who believe in supernatural beings and I don’t. What is there to get all worked up about?
I agree that in societies where religion is dominant, young people should be given options that they otherwise might never become aware of. Just like with any dogma. So, yes, someone should make those options available to them. But doesn’t education already do that? As long as we have science in schools, that should be covered. No?
And why would atheists need to be organized in a group of any kind? It’s like belonging to a group of people who are not interested in soccer. What am I missing?
Do we have any atheists here who would be able to explain this?[/quote]
My best guess for the drive to organise is a backlash against the influence Religion has in politics and policy in the west. In the US for example you have organised religion determining educational curriculum (intelligent design vs evelotion). As for Croatia, in my grandmother’s village if you want to find the athesists the best place to look is the church.
The term “atheist” is loaded with preconceptions and misunderstandings.
An atheist is nothing more than someone who doesn’t believe in a god. But too many out there think it means someone who believes there is no god, or who opposes all religion, or who worships the devil. So though I am an atheist in the strict sense of the term (i.e. I lack belief in deity), I usually describe myself as non-religious.
If there were political groups and organizations out there telling us that we must play soccer and that those who played any other sport were to be oppressed or were damned to burn for eternity in the Infernal Locker Room, and insisting that the supposedly sports-neutral country you live in was a Soccer Nation whose laws were based in the FIFA Rulebook, actively campaigning to force FIFA rules on society through legislation, then a-soccerists would indeed band together to resist the oppressive soccerist forces.
[quote=“Gman”]As for Croatia, in my grandmother’s village if you want to find the athesists the best place to look is the church.[/quote] :roflmao: That is SO true!
[quote=“Chris”]An atheist is nothing more than someone who doesn’t believe in a god. But too many out there think it means someone who believes there is no god… [/quote] I like this distinction.
[quote=“Chris”]
If there were political groups and organizations out there telling us that we must play soccer and that those who played any other sport were to be oppressed or were damned to burn for eternity in the Infernal Locker Room, and insisting that the supposedly sports-neutral country you live in was a Soccer Nation whose laws were based in the FIFA Rulebook, actively campaigning to force FIFA rules on society through legislation, then a-soccerists would indeed band together to resist the oppressive soccerist forces.[/quote]
Nice analogy, thanks
And it’s not far from the truth for some countries. You got me going a bit here, I’m getting the urge to get organized against the soccer dogma in Croatia.
And it’s a critical one, one that too many people don’t quite get.[/quote]
So what’s a person who is utterly convinced there is no god? I NEED a LABEL, for god’s sake! Quit excluding me!
Your wish is my command. My handy-dandy label maker is printing out the following label:
“strong atheist”[/quote]
It’s not fancy enough for sandman. You have met him, right?! I mean, just his SHOES deserve a better label than “strong”. Chris, come on!
So a peson who doesn’t believe in a god, but thinks there might be one, is called an atheist? C’mon Chris, that’s a bit rich.
That person is an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheism is defined as the awareness that there is no god, or gods, or devils, demons, pixies, sprites, souls, little green men, flying space camels, or other imaginary objects.
Do a google/search on “new atheism” or '“new atheist”…quite the fad now-a-days…even has a multitude of web sites and bloggies to help one thru those times of trouble…
(I’m being entirely serious about this…really…trust me…have faith)
It should be a philosophical position, but unfortunately some people want to turn it into an ideology. That’s unfortunate, because when that happens this isn’t far away. Every single atheist state in history has been characterized by oppression and bloodshed. When people start encouraging the idea of thoughtcrime, as some of the ‘New Atheists’ do, this kind of situation is inevitable.
What I find most dishonest are those atheists in states which have been secular for centuries, who complain as if they’re living in medieval theocracies just because the government gives religious people the vote.
In its strong form, I don’t think there should be any such thing as “the state” or voting or any of the rest of it. It pisses me off that anyone has sway over another.
In its weak form, I acknowledge that political systems will exist. They seem almost natural for humans. With that in mind, it pisses me off that the religion, not science, holds sway.
The absurdity of it would be if I created a political party called The Dionysian Democrats or the The New Easter Bunnyian Democrats. People would think I was taking the piss. Yet plenty of countries have overtly religious parties, often with a reference to religion in their party names. It’s interesting to note that not all religions are equal in this respect. I was reading an article yesterday (can’t remember where) about why Americans generally regard Mormonism with suspicion. Some religious groups only have a few hundred, thousand or million adherents (take your favourite religion to mock – the Mormons, Scientologists, Hare Krishnas, Heaven’s Gate, whatever). Therefore, they’re considered wackos or fringe in some way. Others have several hundred million or over a billion, but they’re considered mainstream, with something to say that’s worth listening to. To me, it’s all more of the same sort of bizarre stuff that is grounded in something completely different to reality, and I really think it has no place in the public sphere. Really, what’s the difference between some guy who claims to channel God and some guy who claims he talks with Napoleon? Should such people be politically enfranchised? I say enfranchise the lot of them or none at all.
Atheists still seem pretty disorganized to me. I’ve seen coverage of Gay Freedom Day Parades, Marches on Washington by hundreds of thousands of Black Americans, millions coming out to see the Pope; on St. Patrick’s Day, everyone’s Irish and vomiting green beer. I’m trying to think of the largest gaggle of atheists I’ve ever seen.
I don’t think it’s a fad, like TC says. The atheist community is growing in America, and I think things are different now with the Interweb. I come from a small town in the US where people still feel they have to stay in the closet, and most kids are forced by parents to go to church. Some kids go willingly, but I don’t remember any saying, “Yahoo! It’s time for mass! Hurry or we’ll miss something.” For some of these kids who just couldn’t bring themselves to believe, yet felt forced to pretend, they are for the first time finding their voice with anonymity on the Internet. Some of them are rebelling.
They’re also watching videos and reading books by some convincing and charismatic speakers. I think Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Dan Dennett have resonated with young people. Some of these kids will join a Facebook group; a few may join their school’s Secular Student Alliance, but I think 98% of atheists are content to quietly enjoy their freedom from religion.
The problem comes when politics gets mixed with religion. Unfortunately, atheists are now politically disenfranchised in the US. Of course no one should be forced by the state, or even their parents, to believe or not believe.
Fortigurn, I didn’t know any of the "new atheists’ were encouraging thoughtcrime. Is the following considered thoughtcrime?
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour’s.”
Organized atheism is a logical political movement in a place like the US, where those openly professing atheism are an underrepresented minority politically. In addition religious politicians are not always shy about trying to weaken religious freedom and create a religious uniformity, and some desire to make an organized, explicit stand against that. Look at some of the positions of this major party congressman I looked up a while back:
However, in my opinion there’s a wide gulf between basic political organization of people sharing common beliefs and enforced state atheism, thoughtcrime, etc–two entirely different kettles of fish. Any movement that seeks to impinge on people’s freedom of belief is wrong.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”]Organized atheism is a logical political movement in a place like the US, where those openly professing atheism are an underrepresented minority politically. In addition religious politicians are not always shy about trying to weaken religious freedom and create a religious uniformity, and some desire to make an organized, explicit stand against that. Look at some of the positions of this major party congressman I looked up a while back:
However, in my opinion there’s a wide gulf between basic political organization of people sharing common beliefs and enforced state atheism, thoughtcrime, etc–two entirely different kettles of fish. Any movement that seeks to impinge on people’s freedom of belief is wrong.[/quote]
In the last century, the only atheist states were communist states. The states were oppressive because communism was oppressive.
Even the most hardcore “new atheist” values the freedom of religion. They don’t believe religion should be encouraged by the state.
Odd statement, given that religion is pretty big on the idea of divine punishment for “impure” thoughts.
I have no problem with religious people voting. But secular governments (like that of the US), which have a constitutionally enshrined church/state separation, should not be in the business of codifying laws based on religious precepts or religious values.
But that’s the strict definition of the term. Look it up.
Wrong!! That’s a popular misconception of the term “agnostic”. The terms gnostc/agnostic have to do with knowlegde, while theism/atheism have to do with belief. They are independent, and one may be an agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, etc.
Atheism deals only with the subject of belief in deities; it doesn’t address souls, aliens, elves, fairies, pixies, etc.
