1. Comment #82070 by ksskidude on October 25, 2007 at 4:12 pm

I think right now we must be very clear in our position and "atheism" says it very precisely.

We must stand out at this important time in our history. If we are going to actually create massive change globally, in my opinion of course, atheist's need to be vocal and prepared. We must have the knowledge to debate our position on a moment's notice. It's all of our duty to be so prepared.

Other Comments by ksskidude

2. Comment #82080 by JonH on October 25, 2007 at 4:42 pm

If anyones wondering who that dashing young man is, in the second question; It was me. :D

I agree with Harris. We should drop the Atheist tag, and if we HAVE to have one, it should be humanist.

Atheist has a lot of baggage, and I think it turns people away. I think proof of this can be seen with people who believe the same things we do, yet call themselves agnostic.

Other Comments by JonH

3. Comment #82084 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 4:47 pm

I still have to disagree with Harris. I think right now we must be very clear in our position and "atheism" says it very precisely.

Ah, but does it? Do you share the same view as a Buddhist who does not believe in a God, but does believe in ghosts and demons?

Other Comments by steve99

4. Comment #82086 by plastictowel on October 25, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Steve you answered your own question be calling them a Buddhist....

Other Comments by plastictowel

5. Comment #82090 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 4:54 pm

I assume you agree I answered the question in the negative. Atheism is not a precise term, as simply describes something absent from a person's set of beliefs. It says nothing about the remaining beliefs and their reasons. I am tending towards Harris' views.

Other Comments by steve99

6. Comment #82093 by Mango on October 25, 2007 at 4:57 pm

If someone says, "I'm Catholic, what are you?" I can say naturalist, rationalist, or ramble on about not believing in the supernatural, but when I'm done speaking the person is going to say, "Oh, you're an atheist." Not labeling ourselves does no good because it's the most accessible, common term for us that our neighbors have.

The real problem with the term "atheist" is that our communities do not know how normal, centered, and friendly atheists can be. Let's claim the word and be examples of admirable people who make it unreasonable for theists to use it as an epithet or stereotype.

Other Comments by Mango

7. Comment #82098 by Summer Seale on October 25, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Actually, I think Harris is right.

We should perhaps re-term ourselves as "Skeptics".

This is why: I have noticed in each and every debate, the first thing that the other side is try to tag us with all sorts of labels to prove that we're "just as bad" (or just like them, only they don't realize they're trying to drag us down). Basically, they attribute that God is a fact, and that denying God is a burden placed upon us.

If we rename ourselves "Skeptics", then the word automatically launches a new meaning for us in each and every debate. Suddenly, we're not saying "God doesn't exist and we know he doesn't". Instead, we are suddenly saying "Okay, prove to me that such a ridiculous thing exists."

Suddenly, they are the ones faced with proving their case.

At least, that's my take on it. I have nothing against the word "Atheist", but perhaps Sam is right. And, coming from the right (at times), I do see the value in good re-branding of an idea. It can work. Let's use it for Atheism and science and put *them* on the defensive for once? =)

Summies.

P.S. Nobody remarked on my other amazingly brilliant and fab idea the other week. Our side is *always* asked "What are you going to replace religion with?"

They ask everyone this question. We sorta don't have a simple answer for it either. Hitchens talks about philosophy and art, poetry, music....etc...etc.... so does Dawkins. And I agree. But it's not catchy.

Next time they ask you that, answer with *my* new catchy phrase.

Q: "What are you going to replace religion with?"

A: "The Truth!"

Hope you like it. =) I do. Maybe cuz I'm blonde, but I think we can still popularize a few concepts and make them more catchy.

Other Comments by Summer Seale

8. Comment #82099 by ksskidude on October 25, 2007 at 5:04 pm

What Harris says all make sense, until we actually reach the point where we have a majority opinion, I think our position needs to be stated.

Before slavery was ended, and new states entered the union, many people were called free soilers, because they did not want more states to enter the union as slave states. Now that is a term that has no meaning today, but back in 1855 it was absolutely necessary!

Other Comments by ksskidude

9. Comment #82100 by Mango on October 25, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Related to the term atheist, until recently I thought it was clever to say to a theist, "You're an atheist when it comes to Zeus or Wotan, so you're just like me except I go one god further." But that's not right at all. Christians and other theists today are not atheists when it comes to those gods -- they are merely non-believers. Atheism by definition denotes belief in no god(s), and only those people who do not worship any gods can really be atheists. So I've changed my tactic to instead say to a theist, "When you understand why you don't worship Zeus you'll also understand why I don't worship your god."

Other Comments by Mango

10. Comment #82101 by TheHardProblem on October 25, 2007 at 5:07 pm

I agree with Sam Harris. I may be just repeating points here brought forth by Sam but i'd like to point them out anyway.
Problems with atheism (the word):
There is so much more to oppose then mere theism that calling ourselves just atheists would not be covering enough ground.
There is something strange about a position in which you try to point out the irrationality of theism and it's nonsensicality and at the same time calling yourself something which is only to be understood by knowing what the other side is about.
Another problem is that, through a political viewpoint, calling yourself anti or a-anything is suggesting a rebelious nature, and rebels, in the past, have more often then not been caught practicing anti-democratic behaviour.
Atheism is telling people what we're against, or at least what we do not believe in, but what about the rest? For some this position would seem a very negative and depressive stance.
All this makes the term becoming much too complex if one would want to use it within politics.

Kelly's question is ofcourse a legitimate one, but then again I would find no problem in the name of her movement (rational response squad).

I think we would be better of if we would call ourselves Rationalists or Humanists.

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

11. Comment #82105 by Mango on October 25, 2007 at 5:14 pm

commment 10: I think we would be better off if we would call ourselves Rationalists or Humanists.

I see your point, but it can sound condescending.

Theist: "I'm Catholic, what are you?"

Atheist: "I'm a rationalist."



Other Comments by Mango

12. Comment #82121 by TheHardProblem on October 25, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Ah yes, but then again, I do not propose to abolish the word as well.
I would say something like this:
Theist: "I'm Catholic, what are you?"
Atheist: "I do not adhere to any branch of christianity, on the subject of god I'm an atheist."

Do we want to be precise or politicaly smart?

Ofcourse, what exactly is the atheist movement trying to achieve? Are we promoting science, educating, trying to establish a voter-base, or?

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

13. Comment #82123 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Posted by Mango-
I see your point, but it can sound condescending.

*Shrug* Good.



Other Comments by Diacanu

14. Comment #82126 by Nusmus on October 25, 2007 at 5:52 pm

As much as I enjoy Sam for talking about it, I don't think he is very persuasive to atheists about mindfulness and meditation. The whole experience of losing what we call "I" is his main talking point, but it is ungraspable to someone who hasn't even pursued meditation in a sustained manner.

He would be more successful if he chose to start at a more understandable goal: being happy.

What does it take to be happy? Well, one aspect is that you must BE. You must live, and the more fully you live/experience life, the happier you can be. Meditation is a wonderful tool to increase our capacity to "be"

Studiously trying to maintain awareness of ALL our sensory input, all our experiential faculties, can be another definition of meditation. The difference I can experience in the quality of my day can be astounding between a day when I begin with 15 minutes of meditation vs. not. Granted, I have been doing this for some time, it makes me a more integrated, informed, smart, and happy individual.

Other Comments by Nusmus

15. Comment #82128 by TheHardProblem on October 25, 2007 at 5:57 pm

To 7. Comment #82098 by Summer Seale on October 25, 2007 at 5:03 pm

I like your idea of calling yourself a skeptic during a debate with regards at the question at hand.
But outside of it becomes a bit problematic, because the question will always be 'A skeptic of what?' and then you would find yourself holding on to a dogma that you should be a skeptic, no matter what.

And if you dont want your opponent to win on the spot, I would seriously discourage using a term like 'The truth' of something that we would replace religion with. You would hand them the debate on a gold platter if your opponent is any bit knowledgeable of philosophy.

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

16. Comment #82132 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 6:03 pm

because the question will always be 'A skeptic of what?'
-TheHardProblem

One could simply say "extraordinary claims", and leave it at that.

That covers religion, ghosts, UFO abductions, bigfoot, bullshit political speech, advertising, you name it.



Other Comments by Diacanu

17. Comment #82133 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 6:03 pm

I'm not too sold on the idea of getting rid of the "Atheist" moniker. I mean, when talking about religion with someone or in a public forum, we are "atheists". It doesn't matter if you're a Buddhist Atheist or a Humanist Atheist or Agnostic Atheist when you're debating the existence of your enemy's god. You may have different approaches to the argument, but in the central question of "is there a god?" then we are simply ATHEISTS. Now, when the discussion comes to ethics or politics that's when other monikers come into question or come into play.

When someone says, "I am a Catholic. What are you?"

"Atheist" is the correct response.

When someone says, "I am a christian conservative. What are you?" or, "I am a Communist. What are you?"

Then "Secular Humanist" or something else is preferable.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

18. Comment #82138 by RainDear on October 25, 2007 at 6:21 pm

As this Harris AAI 07 talk has been discussed at lenght when the transcript came available, it's probably good to brief here.

It's almost impossible to make words mean what you want them to mean. Language doesn't work like that. It has little to do with reason or logic, and quite a bit with recent history. You just can't use the Latin or Spanish words for "black" in the American English, because it would sound offensive. You'd get punched in the face. So, since the simple fact is that the word atheism means "The Mao-Stalin-Hitler Fan Club" to so many people, why insist on using that word? Nobody could argue that millions were killed on Gulags by secular humanism or ethical rationalism.

Actually, we should turn the argument against the theists: Which do you put first, the interests of your living, breathing fellow human beings or the interests of an alleged abstract supernatural sky-creature?

Other Comments by RainDear

19. Comment #82140 by Janus on October 25, 2007 at 6:23 pm

I don't think the ones proposing other names for ourselves understand what Harris is saying. He doesn't want to switch one label for another, he wants to get rid of ALL labels. He doesn't want us to call ourselves anything at all.

It's hard to believe he's saying something so stupid, but he is.



Other Comments by Janus

20. Comment #82141 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 25, 2007 at 6:24 pm

If I ever write a "new atheist" book or essay for publication (which I might, at least the latter) I'm going to call it something like, "Against Dogma: the New Atheism, the Culture Wars and the 'War on Terror'"

And if any of you steal that idea, I'm going to take up Voodoo. ;-)

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

21. Comment #82142 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 6:26 pm

I have a question. Why do you feel an obligation to label yourself? And conform to activities consistent with that label. None of us believe in any supernatural entity and we can get together under various banners, for various reasons, but why this urge to tattoo a label onto your brain, that would never come out wherever you are or whatever you do?

I think I know why. Some of you may scream, if I say, but here goes. It is the impact of the Abrahamic faiths on our civilization. Christians, Muslims and Jews are required to carry the label of their religion always under all circumstances, from birth to death to afterlife.

Most people here have a Judeo-Christian background. If the causes of our actions are determined by the sum total of all our previous experiences, this explanation would make perfect sense.

I have an idea. When in a general crowd, just be yourself and put the burden of labeling you to those people who are interested in it, especially when their objective is to use it against you. And always remind them it is their name for you. You do not have any obligation towards them, to be labeled.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

22. Comment #82144 by socratzsche on October 25, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Whether to use atheism as a label for oneself does not make a difference to the priest. I don't think this was Harris' point; philosophically, it is futile: the priest declares himself above reason--as a mere messenger of "God's will." Harris is simply saying it is undesirable in terms of social perception.

Other Comments by socratzsche

23. Comment #82145 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 6:32 pm

*Listening along in a separate tab*

Aw man, here he goes with this meditative empty your head stuff again.

Um, NO.

I LIKE my steady geyser of thoughts.
The way I've found release is not to turn my brain off and trance out into nirvana, but to analyze my thoughts with more thoughts, and weed the bad stuff out, and get stronger.

I'm with Hitchens, not into the whole siren song of Buddhist/yogi stuff at all.



Other Comments by Diacanu

24. Comment #82146 by RainDear on October 25, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Janus,

That's the very thing about labelling: Once you accept a label, someone's going to make you responsible for all kinds of thing that are done under that label.

Other Comments by RainDear

25. Comment #82147 by Pin_Cushion on October 25, 2007 at 6:34 pm

I think Harris's point is that our efforts should be used to get things done. If we're talking about why stem-cell research should be pursued with all scientific diligence and we are asked what our religious views are, to answer "Atheist" is to completely doom whatever cogent argumentation we might have had behind the issue to, "Well of course he thinks that...he's an atheist."

The same could be said about abortion legislation, gay rights legislation, war protests, or any number of real-world goals we may have. As soon as The A Word comes up we are viewed merely as pawns of a morally bankrupt ideology. It sucks, but it's the case.

90% of the time, when someone says "What are you?" they are searching for a beachhead from which to make an ad hominem attack. We see it all the time. Athiest is mentioned, and suddenly it's Atheist=Stalin=Evil=You QED. If we just adopted a codeword, such as Rationalist, then it's simply one more easy step to say Rationalist=Atheist=Stalin=Evil=You. You see this logic work for the opposition quite frequently with the Christian=Christ=Good=Me, and faith-based audience members eat it up. Easy thinking, no matter how sloppy, is attractive because it is easy.

Far better to attempt to hold people up to their own moral ideals, or challenge those ideals if they are bankrupt (i.e. killing abortion doctors is my Christian duty), than to exclude ourselves from the debate before it even starts.

That being said, I do think the banner of "Atheism" is a useful construct under which we can gather relevant ideas and like minded people. It simply isn't very useful in mixed company.

Other Comments by Pin_Cushion

26. Comment #82149 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 6:35 pm

RainDear-

That's the trouble, religionists either think, or want to make it look like that's what we're doing to them, which is why they think the Stalin argument is so killer.



Other Comments by Diacanu

27. Comment #82151 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Pin_Cushion-

That's the thing, this whole "let's be PC", vibe gets my back up on one hand, and I reflexively think "fuck off!! They don't have to be PC, but I do?!?!".

But then on the other hand, shit, I'm outnumbered by these friggin' people.
That is a pragmatic concern.

...I dunno....

.

Other Comments by Diacanu

28. Comment #82152 by TheHardProblem on October 25, 2007 at 6:48 pm

I'd like to explore the "I am a Catholic. What are you?" question further.
The questioner here assumes you believe in god, but is not entirely sure in what form it is represented. The questioner is thus actually not nessecarily interested if you believe or dont believe in god (he/she thinks you believe).
So stating you are an atheist is ofcourse a very informative answer but it is not what the person was looking for.
In what form do you express your unbelieve in god?
If you answer Atheist and leave it at, then you are giving rise to speculation and people will fill in the blanks for you. And we don't want that.

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

29. Comment #82154 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 6:54 pm

TheHardProblem-

How about as George Carlin suggests, sun worshipper?

Or Pastafarian?

Or Subgenius?

Or Jedi?

.

Other Comments by Diacanu

30. Comment #82158 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 7:04 pm

It's one thing to say, "atheist is not my label." But to have no label at all will not work in everyday conversation. Someone will always ask you. Will you simply say, "I don't like labels," and dodge the question? Then a label will be imposed upon you without your consent: Waffler, Dodger, or worse, Deceiver, as if you're trying to hide something. Looking like you're evading the question will garner you as much or more suspicion than if you came outright and said the eeeeville "A" word.

Okay, you say, I'll just use a different word. Do you say "Humanist" when in the context of one's belief in god or when talking about the existence of god? Of course not. Someone can be a Secular Humanist and still be religious or at least Deist. No, you are an Atheist. When you describe your views you will be labeled as an "Atheist" anyways. We might as well embrace it, IMHO. If you don't want to, that's fine. I like that we are talking about tactics and all voices should be heard. I do think labels are important in discussions and in tactics. They can be used in specific instances, no matter how "dirty" the word may be. "Atheist" when talking about the existence of god, "Antitheist" when talking about the negative effects of religion, "Rationalist", "Humanist", and so on and so forth.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

31. Comment #82160 by TheHardProblem on October 25, 2007 at 7:05 pm

Well I'm beginning to bend more and more to the term 'Humanist' with a capital H.
from wikipedia: "Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience and superstition."

I try to do the following: what would describe me the best without having to deal with the threat of someday having to say "no no, thats not really humanism, they do not represent me".
Switch Humanism with any other term if you wish.

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

32. Comment #82162 by heathen2 on October 25, 2007 at 7:14 pm

I think Sam needs to debate the idiot D'Souza. Has someone already suggested this here and I missed it? Nothing fazes Sam, it seems, and I would hope he would not let Dinesh get away with his silly remarks.

I don't agree with Sam's entire premise in this talk. It seems labels may be needed at times and people against slavery and ill traetment did have a label - abolitionists.

Other Comments by heathen2

33. Comment #82163 by RainDear on October 25, 2007 at 7:15 pm

I find it a bit worrying how so many people (even inside this RD's forum of all places) seem to have this strange need for a strong, flawless intellectual leader.

Sure, Sam Harris makes a few points I find silly. And Hitch often comes off a bit arrogant. Yeah, it's sometimes irritating how Dennett avoids a direct statement and RD keeps repeating the same old lines, etc, etc. But isn't the point to not take their worst, but their best ideas, best speeches and best debates, and use them to help one's own thinking process. If you don't like what Harris or Hitch say about meditation or war on Iraq, listen to someone who makes more sense to you on those topics.

For some people there seems to be a strong emotional need to build their whole outlook on life on one word, atheism. Well, it won't take any of us very far. It's nothing but one reasonable, evidence-based opinion about one single topic. The whole word is pretty much meaningless, unless you happen to live surrounded by religious bullies.

Other Comments by RainDear

34. Comment #82166 by heathen2 on October 25, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Whoops, I posted before I looked at the Q&A and the first questioner mentioned labels such as abolitionists.

I like your point RainDear, about taking the best from each of these people. I don't think there is a leader though.

Other Comments by heathen2

35. Comment #82167 by FreeThink25 on October 25, 2007 at 7:24 pm

I've thought about this issue a great deal since the transcript of his speech was released. And the more I think about it, the more I see the validity in it. Only one thing he said is truly unfortunate and that is this:

We should go under the radar the rest of our lives.

It's almost as if his brain was possessed for that one moment and he blurted out this entirely ludicrous idea.

The Civil Rights movement and the racist/non-racist terminology is, I believe, a valid analogy and quite useful in many ways. But do any of us truly believe our society would be as it is now, where out-right bigots and the Klan and lynchings ARE relegated to the fringes of society, had those believing in the "Civil Rights Movement" simply flown under the radar?

Of course not. And perhaps I'm misunderstanding his use of this phrase. Maybe the true solution when asked "what we are" is to turn the question not into the response of a label, but merely to a conversation about what we believe and how we think.

Catholic: I'm a Catholic, what are you?
Me: (blinking) I'm sorry, I don't believe I understand the question.

Catholic: You know, WHAT are you?
Me: Just a human being. So tell me...what do you believe in?

At least labels are no longer being used, with all the assumptions and baggage that go along with. And a conversation has begun, one in which the brass tacks are exposed for what they are....real beliefs, real ideas, subject to real intellectual honesty and reason.

I think Sam is right, but maybe a little ahead of the curve on this one.

Other Comments by FreeThink25

36. Comment #82168 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Comment #82163 by RainDear on October 25, 2007 at 7:15 pm

I find it a bit worrying how so many people (even inside this RD's forum of all places) seem to have this strange need for a strong, flawless intellectual leader.

Totally agree. I bet a lot of them are new atheists, in the sense they are recent atheists or are recently adjusting to the idea of living as an atheist and still have the old tendency to look for truth from a single flawless source. Like Hitchen's Stalin example. That is damage inflicted by centuries of monotheism and realizing it is the first step to free oneself.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

37. Comment #82169 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 25, 2007 at 7:26 pm

I don't understand why people are so critical of Harris on mysticism and the supernatural.

As Daniel Dennett (and it would be hard to get a more naturalistic philosopher than Daniel "Consciousness Explained (Away)" Dennett) said in the question session, there really isn't that much to be upset about in what Harris is saying, once you actually take the time to understand what he is saying.

In many ways, I think a lot of atheists are having the same irrational knee-jerk rejection reaction to Harris' "spiritual" ideas that theists are having to *our* ideas.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

38. Comment #82172 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Atticus_of_Amber,

"Mysticism" and the "Supernatural" are terms that have been used for ages to con people into falling for the supernatural.

While I am sure there is a natural explanation to such phenomenon, experience suggests, it to be better to approach such concepts with loads and loads of skepticism.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

39. Comment #82173 by FreeThink25 on October 25, 2007 at 7:31 pm

And RainDear....excellent point. I've noticed that as well, and it seems counter-productive.

The more we feel the need to concentrate our views into the embodiment of one person, the more fragile we become. There is strength and stability in dispersing the focus, much like Sam responded initially in the Q and A.

Ideas are ideas. That's what is great about the ones that happen to be our champions, for the moment...they don't want to be.

Other Comments by FreeThink25

40. Comment #82174 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 25, 2007 at 7:33 pm

82abhilash: '"Mysticism" and the "Supernatural" are terms that have been used for ages to con people into falling for the supernatural. While I am sure there is a natural explanation to such phenomenon, experience suggests, it to be better to approach such concepts with loads and loads of skepticism.'

...which is pretty much what Harris is recommending.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

41. Comment #82175 by Veronique on October 25, 2007 at 7:39 pm

9. Comment #82100 by Mango

Ah, our own Stephen Roberts. I am glad you use both points from his quote independently. I have used it and sometimes it has been devastating to the hearer. Blank horrified look, then a smidgen of reluctant light in the eyes. Only once did I ever get to develop the point further. Very satisfying it was too:-).

I don't have a problem referring to myself as being atheistic. It is rarely as bald as that. I always add something to it; I tie the word in with reason, rational thinking, pragmatism and always use Occam's Razor with a description of its meaning. The more descriptive words you use together with atheism, the more atheism, as a word, is likely to have its baggage modified. That's my take anyway.

You never know what is likely to be retained in someone's head. I keep it light and easy. I am always friendly and by now most people know how I think because of my religi-board. It's getting easier all the time in my little neck of the woods. Two more people joined my lending library borrowers this week. Terrific!!

And I am sussing out more atheists on the block. It's summer here and getting warmer. My next move is to advertise in our local paper for a front yard party with wine and nibblies for atheists and agnostics to replace a xmas garden party. Could be fun:-). I have a lovely front yard.

Good idea?
V

Other Comments by Veronique

42. Comment #82176 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 7:41 pm

RainDear: I don't understand what you're saying. What have we said that insinuates some of us "require a flawless leader"? The very fact that we critique the voices of our movement is sure fire evidence we *don't* see them as flawless. Perhaps I am missing something. Do you advocate we stop critiquing the statements made by the prominent members of the Rationalist movement?

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

43. Comment #82178 by menoone on October 25, 2007 at 7:44 pm

I have to agree with alot of this as well. On one level I dont like the idea of running from a word because its been tarred and feathered. For one thing, it seems like a concession to people I would rather not concede anything too. For another, there is no word we could use that right wing reactionaries couldnt tar, feather and smear once they set themselves to the task.

However, a-theism being only a negation of theism is inherently unsatisfying. Not only do you get pasted with all the usual nonsense strawmen like Mao and Stalin, but it doesnt say what we are positively for or about.

My big A is for Agnostic, but that has issues too. Hmmmm...more thought required on this.

Other Comments by menoone

44. Comment #82180 by Janus on October 25, 2007 at 7:47 pm

RainDear:

That's the very thing about labeling: Once you accept a label, someone's going to make you responsible for all kinds of thing that are done under that label.

And that's the genius of a negative label like atheism: It's not logically possible to do anything because you don't have faith in a certain entity (or set of entities).

I find it a bit worrying how so many people (even inside this RD's forum of all places) seem to have this strange need for a strong, flawless intellectual leader.

Then again, perhaps we just want the people representing us on the public stage to be as perfect as they can be.

This whole thing of worrying that the budding atheist movement we have here might turn horribly, horribly wrong is getting ridiculously alarmist.

For some people there seems to be a strong emotional need to build their whole outlook on life on one word, atheism. Well, it won't take any of us very far. It's nothing but one reasonable, evidence-based opinion about one single topic. The whole word is pretty much meaningless, unless you happen to live surrounded by religious bullies.

Well, you've destroyed your own point. No one is building their outlook on life on atheism, because it's not possible to do so.


FreeThink52:

That's what is great about the ones that happen to be our champions, for the moment...they don't want to be.

You mean they don't want to be our leaders, which is fortunate for them because I've never met an atheist who wants one of them to become a leader.

Any competent and successful critic of religion automatically becomes one of our champions, that's unavoidable. And as repellent as many of you might think this is, it's not a bad thing either. There's nothing wrong with champions and heroes, you know. It's priests, gurus, and demagogues we don't want.




Other Comments by Janus

45. Comment #82181 by First Dark on October 25, 2007 at 7:49 pm

I find myself in agreement with Sam.

To me, labeling oneself with a non-belief is just as empty and problematic as labeling onself based upon "racial" background. Having a very diverse ancestry, I used to have trouble deciding what to answer when asked what I 'am'. Eventually I realized the absurdity of what was being asked. I now refuse to answer such a question unless it is asked out of true anthropological curiosity.

Such labels will only provoke assumptions and stereotypes.



Other Comments by First Dark

46. Comment #82189 by Arcturus on October 25, 2007 at 8:26 pm

I like Sam much more after seeing this. He has some very good points. Also, what he said in response to Daniel sounds very reasonable.

Good job Sam!

Other Comments by Arcturus

47. Comment #82190 by Perileyes on October 25, 2007 at 8:29 pm

"Atheism" is not a world view, just like "non-racism" is not a world view. Interesting...because last I checked anti-racism is very much a world view being forced apon/offered to everyone on earth, whether they want it or not.

Why is it that no matter which path the message is coming from, be it racist, or anti-racist, christian, or anti-christian, gay, or anti-gay....blah blah et cetera....

...they all seem to be suffering from the very same "illness". The illness of "im not one of yer kind, you aint one of mine kind, im right you are wrong, everybody must see things my way or else, and a host of other such things?

It seems to me that people who "preach" tolerance of diversity would be the first to step up and advocate for the right of EACH and EVERY types of people to be what they are/choose to be/whatever, and live free from the oppression of other groups of people. Even if that group is christian or racist, or gay, or anti-gay...et cetera blah blah blah.

Instead what we keep seeing is an endless round of self identifying pot's and kettle's calling eachother black, and both the pots and the kettles espouse the irradication (by whatever means)of each others lifestyle preference/culture/whatever.

Maybe instead of worrying about whether or not we/they/whatever are labelled "atheist" or any other label...maybe we/they/whatever ought to be more concerned about whether or not we/they/whatever can undeniably be labelled "hypocrite".

If "the shoe fits wear it". And if you truly believe (oops...belief...not fact) that every human has the right to live free from persecution...then practice such, by NOT persecuting ANYONE for their unique peculiarities.

The problem still to this day ages later, is NOT "who is what, or who is not what, or who has the right, or who doesnt have the right, et cetera"....the ages old problem is still the same....every group trying to super impose thier own unique peculiarities apon everyone else. I dont think theres a "group" in existance who does NOT practice this "got to convert the heathens, or make them extinct" kind of behavior/tactic. Feel free to replace the word "heathen" with any other social groups title, it still works out the same way.

It seems the simple logical solution is never embraced...which is, get away from eachother and leave each other be. Then it wont matter who is what, or what who is called, or who considers themselves to be what, or who doesnt prefer what, because you wont have to experience or be subjected to eachothers unique peculiarities.

Yup we've come a long way in "overcoming" "bigotry" and "universal totalitarian expansionism" and "slavery" and "opression based on lifestyle peculiarity". But we have much more to do and the hardest part is yet to come...accepting, tolerating, and respecting the rights of those whom we/they/whatever...DONT LIKE.

Until the "my way is better than yours assimulate to it or else" mentallity is gone from EVERY "group"...there wont be peace, or justice, or freedom from opression.

Whatever you are, whatever you consider or choose for yourself to be....wear that shoe proudly, but dont try to force your neighbor to wear your shoe. It will never fit. I hope this makes sense to someone out there.

If the definition of the word "atheist" fits what you believe...then so be it. If it doesnt then dont use it, or be used by it. But either way...lets everyone consider strongly not endevouring to be hypocrites...whoever the "we" might be.

Other Comments by Perileyes

48. Comment #82192 by Janus on October 25, 2007 at 8:32 pm

So what do you anti-labeling people do when someone asks you if you believe in God or what your religion is?




Other Comments by Janus

49. Comment #82193 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 8:39 pm

I think Sam is great, and applaud that he is willing to stand up and say things some might not like. I do not think "we" should all do the same thing, whatever that is. I am sure it is fine for some to go under the radar until things change in the world, but I also think that some need to be out there as the "in your face" "sharp edge of the spear" calling themselves "Atheists" (thank you Brian Sapient).

What I call myself depends on what I think it is going to mean in the mind of the listener. Folks here know perfectly well what "Atheist" actually means, so I will use it here. When asked by strangers, I usually tell them that I am "not a person of faith" (with language control) and then a bit later in the discussion I let on that I think that no case of the supernatural has been properly established, and that the unconscious mind is much more powerful than people realize (covers Sam's spirituality). By the time they get around to stuffing me in a preexisting category, I have wrapped myself with enough extra information to have some wiggle room.

EDIT: I also go as a Pastafarian from time to time, especially when discussing the Supreme Being.




Other Comments by Quine

50. Comment #82194 by ketandev on October 25, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Sam is opening up a new area to have constructive conversation, which will in time make the debates between atheists and creationists seem to irrelevant. I completely agree on Sam's view of our need not to necessitate labeling ourselves as Atheists. Being an Atheist is not a stand, because so far all we've done is to refute theists. But simply refuting theists doesn't make us who we are. It doesn't automatically give us a unique stand. In order to make a real difference, we need to be able to create a stand that actually enrolls people into pure rational thought. What are we doing to enroll people? Arguing with theists and creationists is not the answer because it will never progressively and constructively advance a conversation, it will simply raise consciousness awareness. The four musketeers have beaten this to death over the last two years and I think it is time to advance the conversation in a direction of enrolling those held hostage to religion to a point where they find their practice irrelevant. Consciousness awareness and debating is no doubt the premiere step, but there is more to this than debating creationists by calling ourselves Atheists or Anti-theists or Agnostics. We have to function and converse from a stand of ration and reason with the intent of enrollment - that is the key.

Other Comments by ketandev