"Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves." Sam Harris, "The Problem with Atheism"

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-problem-with-atheism

"Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of “atheist,” it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I’m not saying that meetings like this aren’t important. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet." Sam Harris, "The Problem With Atheism" address to the 2007 Atheist Alliance International Conference September 28th, 2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMa-0Fjn2sU

You really do deify Harris don't you?

Regardless of what you or Harris say, if you meet the definition of an atheist, not having a belief in God, you are an atheist. To deny being an atheist is stupid.

And I do define my way by things that are "nothing" I am a non-fish eater, I am a non-smoker, I am a non-drinker. None of those are philosophy's, so should I stop defining myself with those terms because they are, by the logic you are presenting, nothing and not philosophies???

As I have learned in the gay rights movement, we atheist will be bashed as <insert hateful rhetoric here> no matter what label is used.

Running away from words because the hate mongers try to vilify them and the hate mongers win. They have controlled you into what words you do and do not use.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2015 10:53PM by MJ.

I like that Sam Harris speech. It was just one speech. I think he has since referred to himself as an atheist, but I do think he makes an excellent point. People don't call themselves non-astrologists (he points out).

I think Tyson has taken that approach but is much more intent than Harris on avoiding the label. He wants the focus on other things rather than a discussion about his atheism.

The trap Harris refers to, I believe, is that claiming to be atheist allows all other religions to dismiss you out of hand without even addressing the insanity of their respective religions.

Nobody likes the atheist label more than religious people. It gives them a quick out of any reasonable discussion.

I call myself a non-drinker, a non-smoker, a non-fish eater, I am not an astrologist, so I am also a non-astrologist, I am a non-stamp collected. I am also not symmetrical so I am Asymmetrical. Should we stop using works like asymmetrical because it is not a philosophy? No, that would be silly.

No, the point is silly and nonsensical.

I'd like to see your resume:

Interests: Fly fishing, painting and logic.

Non-interests: Stamp collecting, drinking, flamingo guitar, cowboy poetry . . .

Can't say I would like to see yours.

Illogical from start to finish?

as a guitar or I shall report you to the SPCF. :)

Well, you got me there.

And probably has nothing of any real interest.

all words are labels, everything you describe has a label on it. Labels are not a bad thing. Sam Harris should stop hanging negative attributes that BY DEFINITION apply to him.

And you should stop worshiping the words of predominate atheists. They do not deserve your deification.

Yes, Sam Harris can argue silly things. He says atheist is not a thing, so I guess we should stop using the label "nothing" because it is not a thing. Silly concept.

And we should stop using

atypical
amoral
asymmetrical

For the same reasons, eh?

If you are going to quote Harris, you should pick ones that are stupid.

If you do not believe in God, you are atheist BY DEFINITION.

If you are human, you are human by definition, even if you do not like the label and claim you are not human.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2015 10:45PM by MJ.

I think people get confused by the word atheist, because it ends in 'ist', like activist, scientist, terrorist, etc. The suffix 'ist' usually indicates a profession or a follower. But in the word atheist, it indicates someone who is *not* a particular type, i.e. not a theist.

That is an import point, The A in atheist is a negation of theist as in "not-thist" so it is NOT an ist. The ist applies to the thing that we are not.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is an import point, The A in atheist is a
> negation of theist as in "not-thist" so it is NOT
> an ist. The ist applies to the thing that we are
> not.

Right. People see or hear the word 'atheist' and they think it means we're actively running around trying to bring down religion. It's not a very good word, maybe 'unbeliever' is preferable.

"Mock them (believers), Ridicule them, in public, with contempt." Richard Dawkins, in his keynote address at the "Reason Rally" in WA DC 3 years ago.

Well, that's one way to follow (in part) Sam Harris' advice to destroy bad ideas.

I'm glad someone is doing something to stomp out the scourge of religion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2015 11:32PM by thingsithink.

As I expected, you will judge a whole class for what one person says! That is prejudice and bigotry.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Mock them (believers), Ridicule them, in public,
> with contempt." Richard Dawkins, in his keynote
> address at the "Reason Rally" in WA DC 3 years
> ago.

I don't agree with that. It's a good way to get killed or seriously injured, apart from anything else. I don't think it works pyscologiclly either, just gets them even more het up. See recent events in Paris...

Mocking the religious worked for gays.

Wow, really? EVERYONE? Stop with the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously. If you have read other posts, people from Europe are saying that atheist does not have a negative connotation there.

Do fanatical atheists come across as anti-social or hostile towards believers?

I went through a period after leaving the Mormon church where I was really missing the regular conversation I had every week with my friends and men I considered to be my Brothers at Church every week. I missed those kinds of face to face, deeply meaningful discussions. I found a local group of Atheists through the Richard Dawkins website. They called themselves "South Sound Skeptics Society"
Yeah, "SSSS"
They met once a week at a Round Table Pizza joint which I always find ironic, because there's not one Round Tables at a Round Table Pizza joint. It was me and 2 cranky old men who really just wanted to share their seditious conspiracy theories about how the government is lying to us all. And one other younger guy my age, who was like me, an escapee from a dogmatic faith, although his was Evangelical and mine was Mormon.

So I'd go and want to talk with them about the latest New Atheist book I'd read and found I couldn't get one of them to agree that 9-11 was evil.
I couldn't even get them to agree that the Holocaust was evil.
We couldn't even agree upon the word evil.
They all thought the word 'evil' was a religious invention.
I said, it's a common word in the English language to describe the worst kind of human behavior, like the holocaust, like inhumanity, like genocide, murder, terrorism.
They all claimed that everything is relative, including morality.
That's the point at which I knew I wasn't one of them.
I"m not a Moral relativist.
Neither was Einstein.

Labeling all atheist as asocial is prejudiced and bigoted.

Showing your true stripes I see.

Do I have to stop using the word "nothing" because it is not a philosophy?

I mean nothing is not a thing, so could Harris argue that because "nothing" is not a thing we should not use the word nothing, even to describe, well, nothing?

no, but rather than using the word you, you should use "not me".

That is discussing arrogance. But I expect nothing less of you.

Who had the best response to 9-11, The End of Faith, which started the short lived, so-called "New Atheist Movement". He pretty much killed the movement with his speech to the AAI in 2007, by saying it's a really bad idea to call yourself an Atheist, then he went on to list about 20 reasons why that not even Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennet could argue with, or any other Atheist I've heard or seen,

"We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them."
Sam Harris "The Problem with Atheism"

I listed those reasons 2 threads ago.
Nobody bothered addressing even one of the reasons,
They just accused me of being a liar, a coward and an idiot for saying the same thing Dawkins said in his book, "The God Delusion" that I believe in the God of Einstein, Spinozza, Epicurus, Aurelius, Democritus, Lao Tzu, Confuscious, Whitman, Emerson and Thoreau, which is nature, making me a Pantheist.

Not an Atheist.
Big difference.

Pantheism is a meaningful, affirmative philosophy.
Atheism is nothing. It's as meaningless as being a non-stamp collector.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2015 11:18PM by koriwhore.

I agree that atheist is not a good word, for reasons I outlined above. Also, I don't like describing myself by what I am not - not a theist.

Secularist is better, but 5% of people will know what it means.

I am considering using the label "Profane." :) It actually works quite well.

Google atheist and you will find lots of people that disagree with the claim that atheist is a bad word! Tons of atheist organizations, web pages and videos.

Maybe it is a bad word because people like you keep labeling it a bad word.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2015 11:43PM by MJ.

Lots of people disagree with you and Sam.

Google "Atheist" and see how many people, a movement, that uses the word to describe their web pages, organizations and videos!

One has to wonder why you are protesting so much! If you don't like the word, don't use it. Others do like and use the word. You are not the atheist god that gets to dictate how others use the word, neither is thingsithink.

If atheism is nothing, then how could you dislike atheists?

I don't know, but theist sure have fond a way to hate atheist, or those that do not believe in God!

who's not in their little club and doesn't want to be in their little club.

1.6 Atheists/every 100 Americans.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

And for such a small group, they make a hell of an impression.
Religious People Distrust Atheists as Much as Rapists

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/Atheists-Trusted-Less-Than-Rapists.htm

How are they going to change that?
By mocking believers, with contempt, in public?
Seems like kind of dickish and a great way to lose friends.

I am gay, a similarly small group and look what we have managed to do!

And yes, we changed a lot by mocking what needs to be mocked!

Gays even went so far as going into churches and staging die-ins. Gays have changed the world!

We even have changed a word that was mostly derogatory word, gay, to a word much more positively viewed.

Atheists can do the same. Oh wait, atheist have already changed the minds of many!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 12:20AM by MJ.

Without theism, Atheism wouldn't exist.
It only really exists to oppose theism.
Take away the theists and suddenly atheists have nobody to direct their hostility towards.

Yeah, like asymmetric only exists to appose symmetric. Pure nonsense that makes me ask again, did an atheist kill your mother?

Sorry, atheism is nothing more than everything that is not theist. No opposition needed. IMHO, only a hate monger would make such a claim.

Being a choice or not is IRRELEVANT to the point I made. But you are sounding pathetically desperate to try such red herrings



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 01:27AM by MJ.

True, because the crazy fucks telling people how God wants them to live would be gone. No dead artists. Nice, eh?

I doubt the dislike has much to do with atheists' behavior. I suspect it has to do with the rejection of the person's religion.

People say they distrust atheists, but they ride in airplanes, use computers (and so on) created in large part by atheists.

Religious people don't flock to Sam Harris - they hate him just like they hate self-described atheists. Why?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 12:16AM by thingsithink.

You bet, who really hates "atheist"? Many atheist reject the label but do not really hate the atheist as long as you do not use the word atheist to describe them

Hate of atheist pretty much exclusivity comes from theist.

A recent court ruling determined that atheism is a religion.

Some atheists hailed this as a big win. I'm sure others won't be so pleased. Welcome to the pews, you're now a religion:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/03/3587801/district-court-declares-secular-humanism-a-religion/

That article talks about a case regarding secular humanism. Secular humanism is not the same as atheism.

There was another case where the court ruled that for the purposes of constitutional interpretation, atheism should be viewed the same as a religion. It said nothing beyond constitutional interpretation and protecting the rights of those that do not believe in God.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 12:35AM by MJ.

Did you read this part of the decision:

"The Supreme court said that the touchstone of the establishment clause was the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between between religion and religion and between religion and non-religion. [cite omitted]. Thus, whether humanism is a religion or a non-religion, the Establishment clause applies."

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you read this part of the decision:
>
> "The Supreme court said that the touchstone of the
> establishment clause was the principle that the
> First Amendment mandates government neutrality
> between between religion and religion and between
> religion and non-religion. . Thus, whether
> humanism is a religion or a non-religion, the
> Establishment clause applies."


Oh sure. But it also characterizes it as a "faith:"

"Prisons must afford an inmate of a minority religion a reasonable opportunity of pursuing his faith comparable to the opportunity afforded fellow prisoners who adhere to conventional religious precepts."

This is why I'm sure it will be viewed as a double-edged sword among the atheist community. Many strong atheists positively bristle at the use of "faith" and "atheism" anywhere close to one another. It's the sort of thing that can get you unfriended.

But you said atheism was held to be a religion. It wasn't. No room in the pews.

There is no evidence that pantheism is true. Can you provide any evidence? If you cannot provide any evidence, then it makes more logical sense to think pantheism is false, and to become non-religious.

Atheists are banned from running for public office in 7 states.

Texas, Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS, Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, *provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.*

This means that atheists CANNOT RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IN TEXAS. A Muslim can, however, as he believes in a "supreme being". There are six (?) other states in the USA with the same law.

That says more about the bigots in texas than atheist. Thinking that an atheist should be denied rights are every bit as much a bigot as those that said blacks or gays should not have rights.

People should not pander there hate by modifying what works they use.

Alberta Ted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Atheists are banned from running for public office
> in 7 states.
>
> Texas, Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS, Section 4 -
> RELIGIOUS TESTS
> No religious test shall ever be required as a
> qualification to any office, or public trust, in
> this State; nor shall any one be excluded from
> holding office on account of his religious
> sentiments, *provided he acknowledge the existence
> of a Supreme Being.*
>
> This means that atheists CANNOT RUN FOR PUBLIC
> OFFICE IN TEXAS. A Muslim can, however, as he
> believes in a "supreme being". There are six (?)
> other states in the USA with the same law.

And in Arizona it's illegal for a donkey to sleep in a bathtub.

Maybe we should stick with laws that are actually enforced instead of searching out irrelevant ones to feign offense over.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alberta Ted Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Atheists are banned from running for public
> office
> > in 7 states.
> >
> > Texas, Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS, Section 4 -
> > RELIGIOUS TESTS
> > No religious test shall ever be required as a
> > qualification to any office, or public trust,
> in
> > this State; nor shall any one be excluded from
> > holding office on account of his religious
> > sentiments, *provided he acknowledge the
> existence
> > of a Supreme Being.*
> >
> > This means that atheists CANNOT RUN FOR PUBLIC
> > OFFICE IN TEXAS. A Muslim can, however, as he
> > believes in a "supreme being". There are six
> (?)
> > other states in the USA with the same law.
>
> And in Arizona it's illegal for a donkey to sleep
> in a bathtub.
>
> Maybe we should stick with laws that are actually
> enforced instead of searching out irrelevant ones
> to feign offense over.

Would you not be offended if told you can't hold public office for being.... I dunno, bald or fat? Or old?

The point is, atheist are discriminated against in such a way that there would be an uproar if it applied to any other reasonable type of person.

Alberta Ted Wrote:
> Would you not be offended if told you can't hold
> public office for being.... I dunno, bald or fat?
> Or old?
>
> The point is, atheist are discriminated against in
> such a way that there would be an uproar if it
> applied to any other reasonable type of person.


If you could show me a single instance where any of these laws was invoked to prohibit an atheist from pursuing office, we may have something to discuss. These laws are unconstitutional, and remain on the books largely because they never have been applied (therefore, never tested).

You must demonstrate damages to seek any redress. An unenforced, forgotten, dormant law makes for interesting conversation, but it has as much impact on your life as Arizona's prohibition on donkeys sleeping in bathtubs.

And on behalf of all the other old, bald, fat people, may I say we face our own challenges without the requirement of any laws to compound our misery?

It is amusing to see such a law exists.
We won't test you on your religious beliefs, provided you submit to this test on your religious beliefs.
I had no idea!

I think atheism is a philosophy. You reject any and all conceptual models of deity on principle.

It's like the line in Time Bandits: "Look, we agreed no leaders, right? So shut up and do as I say!"

Even though God may have nothing to do with deity. In that case, atheists may strongly believe in God while definitely not believing in deity or sky daddy or what have you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2015 01:14AM by bradley.

And what do all atheists do per their leaders instructions?

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think atheism is an philosophy. You reject any
> and all conceptual models of deity on principle.

No, we don't believe because there's zero evidence. Waxing philosophical about it is purely optional.

> Even though God may have nothing to do with deity.

The word deity means god.

> In that case, atheists may strongly believe in God
> while definitely not believing in deity or sky
> daddy or what have you.

No, because gods ARE deities. What are you trying to say here?

I guess not stamp collecting is a hobby.

Sorry, but I do not reject any deities. I do not believe in them because there is no empirical evidence to show they exist. That is not a rejection of the deities, they may exist, but because there is no evidence there is no reason to believe.


So many straw men in so few lines.