A poll, hopefully to prove a point

I’ve noticed a lot of terms thrown around lately identifying others as belonging to one or another side of the Civility Debate, and I was wondering whether or not any of you actually identify yourselves as belonging to that group when asked. I’ve seen a few on the “New Atheists” side use the term to self-identify, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins most notably. However, I personally find the term to be meaningless, as akin to labelling as “New Homosexuals”, gays that are out of the closet. So, here’s a poll for you.

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

As a side note, the idea that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar is actually scientifically incorrect. It’s the other way around. So I wouldn’t be surprised if being acerbic and in-your-face actually helps people make the decision to “come out” themselves, because I’ve seen a number of such stories (e.g. DuWayne’s — it took having to defend his faith repeatedly before he lost it entirely).

{advertisement}
A poll, hopefully to prove a point
{advertisement}

34 thoughts on “A poll, hopefully to prove a point

  1. 1

    I admittedly had to spend a little time googlind such, because I never cared enough to bother to learn all the terminology. I’m gonna have to go with agnostic atheist. I don’t believe there is a god, but I can’t say with 100% certainty that there isn’t. I think there’s too much that we don’t know about how the world and universe work to discount it entirely. If there is one, I think its safe to say that none of the organized religions has it right. God certainly doesn’t care if I eat fish on fridays, jerk off, or if Jason has gay sex when Jodi isn’t looking (or even if she is looking).

  2. 7

    Or to reduce the analogy further, one third of the time I am thinking about you period, as the property of being a dick is pretty integral to you.

    I doubt it’s anywhere near that high though. Sorry. Next hypothesis?

  3. 10

    Sorry dude. It was making a wreck of my bandwidth, I think the plugin was refreshing constantly for anyone who was on any page with a comments field. If I find a better one, I’ll put it in.

    And God might not care, but Jodi sure would. And me too, as I’d be wondering how I managed to get involved in such an act. According to http://www.stockholmpride.org/howhetero/ — I’m apparently 71% hetero, judging by my Twitter feed.

    Also, you might want to check out this old post of mine. It includes a tl;dr at the bottom.

  4. 11

    Wait, you think I’m going to play with myself less or more after getting married? That’s a hell of an assumption, either way you cut it. Additionally, I think you have to be thinking of other people’s penises, not your own, or every male that masturbates is de facto gay.

    Wow. What a digression from the original topic.

  5. 14

    I am refusing to take part in your poll (as lovingly as possible of course) because I don’t see my option there. I prefer just ‘Humanist’ as opposed to ‘Secular Humanist’ because the wikipedia definition of Humanist tells me that by nature we are secular.
    So there.
    😛

  6. 15

    Its probably for the best, Jodi. I think the way we’ve warped this, by participating in the poll, you’re automatically having impure thoughts about me, and I’m pretty sure nobody wants that.

  7. 16

    Wow. Textbook definition of a false dichotomy. I could be thinking of other parts of you, or no parts of you at all.

    Okay, I’ll edit that option. I suppose “secular humanist” is mostly used as an epithet by people who think “secular” = “devil-worshipping.” I have no problem with altering it as long as nobody else does.

  8. 18

    dammit. i think i voted Accomodationist. must have been the last thing i googled before voting. argh. its showing up bold and in italics.

  9. 20

    There ya go. I have used my Wayback Machine to change the answer you gave. Also, now let’s go visit Christopher Columbus in 1492.

    Quiet, you.

  10. 22

    Wow. See what science has wrought? I shouldn’t have gone messing with the past, now look at the repercussions!

    Something similar happened in the other poll — four people voted while I was changing the title, and they registered as votes without also registering as voters. I know, WTF. Horrible plugin coding as far as the math side is concerned. I’ll see if I can fix it before tomorrow for your further amusement at work.

  11. 23

    I think it means almost 1/3 of the time I’m thinking of penises instead of vaginas. Which is strange in and of itself.

    Also, my Twitter e-penis is a mere 15.6cm (6.14 inches). Totally… average. Oh well. At least I’m consistent.

  12. 25

    That’s a good one, however most people would consider “What faith are you?” — “I’m a scientist” to be a dodge. Correctly or incorrectly. I should have put in an “other” answer, though.

    In fact, maybe I still can. If I go meddling with this, we’ll see whether or not I break it again. I notice that the last poll option has -1% of the vote with 0 votes… :p

  13. 26

    HA! I’m not the only theist/religious/spiritual etc. in existence!

    Either that or your counting every vote twice… is this the same polling system they used in Florida in ’00?

  14. 27

    Mmm. Epicurean. Good one. Now I need to go get me some good food and wine.

    I also love “biblically derived atheist” — just to rub it in their faces that many atheists actually HAVE read the bible, and are not simply not-Christian out of ignorance of the bible’s contents.

  15. 28

    I generally refer to myself as “ateapotist,” “atomist,” Pyrrhonic, or Epicurean. Most don’t get these references. It’s fun to watch them squirm. A few others I use are, for the particularly devout, “antitheist,” “historical realist,” and “biblically derived atheist”

  16. 30

    Nope. This one has even more problems with math, though it has fewer issues with choosing which option to vote for (be thankful I didn’t use butterfly ballots).

    I can verify that it was someone else — someone who voted from an IP belonging to the US Dept. of Commerce. I know. Whoa.

  17. 31

    I should just note that no matter what wiki says, a humanist is not necessarily irreligious. I used to identify as a humanist, even when I was also a theist, because I believed very firmly in humanist ideals. Though it could be argued that humanism is itself, a secular position – regardless of the humanists religion or lack thereof.

    Material humanist? Human materialist?

    And goddammit!!! Had I known you were going to go and change it, I would have voted accomoddationist, just to be the asshole I am so very good at proving myself to be.

    I will admit that I do occasionally respond that I am a frisbetarian – unless I’m in a really pissy mood, in which case I am a diabolist

  18. 32

    I have to agree with Jodi and Wikipedia that Humanism is by definition secular, as in irreligious. It can be adhered to while also adhering to religion (e.g. deists), though I’m sure there are some areas of conflict where humanism would directly contradict your religion’s tenets (e.g. stoning a woman to death for adultery, or torture being okay once in a while).

    Much like the contradictions which are readily apparent between trusting that the scientific method is the best way to obtain knowledge about the universe, and assuming that a really old book got it right that there’s an invisible man responsible for the universe (no matter how weak a deist you happen to be). Either empirical evidence, and the extrapolations made thereby, is paramount; or it’s not and you’re willing to take unevidenced claims on faith. Likewise with Humanism, either you’re all about humanity, or you’re okay with occasionally killing or torturing someone in the name of your religion.

    Both frisbetarian and diabolist are good. Too bad diabolist implies you believe in Satan, even if it acknowledges carnality as good.

  19. 33

    Yes, but I was not, for example, a theist who would ever find it acceptable to torture (excepting exceptionally narrow and exceedingly far fetched scenarios) and who believes that killing is only okay, if it is in self-defense or the direct defense of others. Like any religious inclination, I won’t claim my beliefs were anything shy of extreme cognitive dissonance. But that doesn’t change the fact that I have been a pretty absolute humanist far longer than I have been an atheist.

    And in all honesty, the vast majority of my religious friends are very much humanists.

    I would suggest googling “religious humanism,” “secular humanism” and “Christian humanism.” The key factor to consider is not that these are all labeled “humanism” and presume that the label is just that – a label. Look at the actual espoused philosophies – the only difference to be found (for the most part – in all categories label doesn’t always = philos) are in the acceptance of deity or lack thereof.

    I am certainly not knocking considering oneself humanist and eschewing caveats to that. But one should be aware that in doing so, they are accepting a farther reaching mantle than they might have bargained for. At the very least accepting that whether you consider theists using the label to describe their own beliefs as valid or not, they do. And arguing that such use is invalid, is a lot like one brand of Christian, arguing that another brand aren’t Christians – which is not to say that even that argument isn’t valid either, given that by your perception that may be a statement of fact.

  20. 34

    I’m seeing a lot of parallel between what you’re saying about humanism and the cognitive dissonance inherent in practicing it and a specific religion simultaneously, and the whole idea of accepting science and religion at the same time — partly mentioned in my last comment, but especially prevalent the moreso in this last comment of yours, DuWayne. Actually, I also see the same cognitive dissonance between atheists who believe in science and think some parts of science are expendable in order to sway the religious onto our side.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that religious folks could be considered humanists. If you’re not at least partly humanist, I’d have a hard time reconciling your views with mine, so I’d strongly suspect most of the people I agree with and love, fall under that classification, regardless of their other thoughts. In fact, I’m thinking specifically of ReformedYankee with this — he’s a good man, and in fact probably my choice for Best Man if he’ll take it (we’ll talk about this, bro). Frankly, I have a much harder time accepting people who live their lives in a morally repugnant manner than I have accepting people who happen to believe in a god or gods.

    I just happen to rail against the policy-setting creationists who erode at science’s foundation primarily, on this blog, mostly because they are directly assaulting intelligence itself.

Comments are closed.