John Wilkins has coined a new label for us: not new, not rabid, not militant, not stinky, but Affirmative Atheists. Yeah, I could live with that.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
John Wilkins has coined a new label for us: not new, not rabid, not militant, not stinky, but Affirmative Atheists. Yeah, I could live with that.
This brings a whole new meaning to Affirmative Action. *rimshot*
Stating the obvious here somehow…..
I like it. Its certainly a lot less confusing than telling someone i’m a new atheist.
Whatever happened to “godless atheists”? I liked that one.
(Approved by the Committee on Redundancy Committee)
I agree with all of that and I have no problem with affirmative atheist. However, I’m tired of labels being slapped onto atheists all the time. I’d like it if atheism and atheists could simply be, no label required.
Yeah, I guess that isn’t too bad. Though I think there might be a danger of it being taken as being prescriptive as opposed to being descriptive.
Another A.A.?
I only got to step two in the last A.A.
I’ll never cut it as an affirminizer atheist, I’m too skeptical.
Affirmative Atheism
It sounds like some geriatric knee problem.
Nah, sorry, it’s not for me.
I kinda don’t like being labelled…left/right, greeny/whatever, atheist/theist, gnostic/agnostic, it’s just a continuation of humanities obsession with classification, pattern making and putting people into nice little boxes (made out of ticky tacky).
I’m me, not you and, well I guess I’m just a non-theist who still has a lot to learn.
So that’s what I usually use, a “non-theist who is inquisitive”. It kinda defuses situations, invokes no needless animosity, but most important of all it invites honest discussion without threat.
Except to priests…then I’m a fucking ranting atheist nutter who wants to destroy their church.
Hey, nobody’s perfect. ;-)
This fits nicely with my self-identification as an “Assertive” Driver.
(PS: Hasn’t it been a week?)
Assertive Atheism is kinda nice too.
I’m fed up with the whole definitions and labels game, and the sort of people who talk about “militant atheists” are wildly unlikely to adopt anything as positive-sounding as “affirmative” anyway. So meh.
I like it, because there’s definitely a significant subset of atheists who could not be described in any way as affirmative. The difference between them and us is worth noting.
I’m all for linguistic redefinition as a cheap, crafty political tool (isn’t that called framing?) but I’m also part of the apparently “old” atheists, being an atheist before the title “new” was given. (Oddly, I have the feeling that most here are also “old” atheists by that measure)
More importantly, I don’t have a beef with “Atheist” as a term in need of redefinition. It may have negative connotations now, but so did “gay” before it and “suffragettes” before that. It’s simply a matter of “PR” for lack of a better term. Frankly, “Atheist” is a term that needs no improvement because it clearly describes the facts. Rationalist, humanist, secularist, objectivist, nascar-ist, etc, describes what happens after that depending on personal preference.
Simply put, I am not a fox without a tail and my tail suites me just fine, popularity be damned. I need no new titles. I’ll use this one thank you very much, rehabilitation needed or not. And more importantly, I intend on improving the image of the title I already have.
Atheism is what you are not.
I identify myself as a Secular Humanist, which defines (fairly well) what I am.
Something like Affirmative Atheism has a laudable goal – “please don’t kill us”. But that is only the bare beginning.
dsmwiener,
Wrong — atheist is what I am.
That the term employs a privative does not negate its descriptiveness. (e.g. ataxia).
So, that would make you an atheist, right? You just don’t like referring to yourself as such.
Fair enough. I do, it still retains a touch of shock value. :)
dsmwiener:
Where are you getting the “please don’t kill us” from? The idea, which was plainly set forth, is to get across that atheists have a place in civil society, meaning our views do matter, they matter every bit as much as those of theists.
No, atheist is what I am. I have no problems calling myself an atheist, as I am not a theist. I don’t think I need (or want) to find a bubble-wrap way to describe this aspect of myself. It took long enough for atheists at large to come out of the closet, I’m not looking to go back in.
My favourite term is still “non-astrologer”, descriptive and to the point without having to defend against the equivocation of the use of the word “doctrine” in the dictionary’s description of atheism.
Never had a problem with “militant atheism” nor “militant anti-clericalism”.
If some people are looking for a term that sounds nicer then maybe “affermative atheism” sounds nicer.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Etymology is only useful and relevant historically; who would call himself a professor if he had to include the original meaning of one who makes a public profession of faith in order to join a religious community? We define words by how we use them: who knew that the useful English word cretin derives from French crétin (Christian)?
#20
The etymology crétin <- Christian is far from settled
Though I guess the one downside to “non-astrologer” is that it’s still defining me by what I’m not. I suppose the closest philosophical position to mine would be physicialism – but again there’s not much to that.
I can guess I can learn to embrace affirmative atheism, though I’m still tempted to just use what my wife uses and call myself normal.
#20
The etymology of crétin is far from settled. Christian is only one of the numerous possibilities.
briclondon,
For most everyday purposes, I suppose so.
Note that neither I nor others have invoked etymology, only descriptiveness and relevance.
Anyway, I’m happy enough to be called an affirmative atheist, no less so than just an atheist, or godless, or an infidel, or an agnostic — I don’t get hung up on the label, because it’s a descriptor, not a definition (it only describes one aspect of my totality). I am an atheist, but I’m also much more (and there are many things I am not, other than a theist (e.g. I’m not a murderer)).
Kel,
if non-astrologist were the same as atheist, then aleprechaunist would also qualify.
I know quite a few atheists who strangely believe in the predictive powers of astrology. My mum is one of them! I also know theists who don’ believe in astrology. My dad is one of them.
I think if you don’t believe in any superstitions, Gods, astrology, homeopathy, leprechauns, etc… the term you are looking for is rationalist.
I would encourage everyone to not apply too much baggage to a word that literally has noting to do with whatever you might like to apply it.
Why is it so hard to agree with the idea that atheism is definitionally a theistic lack thereof and nothing else?
It seems to me that the idea of “Atheism” as “worldview” is only followed by those without any philosophical knowledge, or at least a dictionary.
Kel, OM #22
So you’re giving “affirmative atheist” a definite maybe? I’m impressed when someone takes a more or less possibly unambiguous stand on something.
but I am an aleprechaunist…
point taken though, I just prefer to use it because it highlights the absurdity of taking a negative to be prescriptive.
Perhaps, but rationalist is a little too extreme. I’m also a pretty strong empiricist when its warranted, and sometimes I forego rationalism and empiricism altogether and just follow my gut.
No, I’m giving it a tentative green light for the possibility of consideration. Not just going to embrace it like that, but its worth not dismissing it out of hand – mainly because John Wilkins destroyed the term “philosophical naturalism” for me…
Funny thing but I was just trying to think of a way to answer people who ask how I would describe my philosophy of life. I certainly understand the urge to go for shock value. I did enjoy that in my youth. As an elder I prefer to actually try to use language to communicate rather than obfuscate or irritate. Two thumbs up for affirmative, but I prefer non-theist for some reason. I guess the “a” triggers the “anti” in me and that’s not where I want to go in my old age. My years of protesting in the streets are long past. I see too much of me in the ones on the other side of the issues to make any one simple thing like god a dividing line between us. I would most like to be a harmonizing force in the turmoil we face, not just add more fuel to the fires already burning out of control.
Well, this is one of the cases I think where language obfuscates. There’s the philosophical rationalism which is basically the idea that all knowledge can come from reason and deductive logic (in contrast to empiricism). Then there’s the less technical meaning that simply rejects superstitious thinking.
Also, intuition or “following your gut” is often just unconscious reasoning. If you are playing baseball you don’t think in terms of Newtonian mechanics or differential equations. You let the brain do the unconscious work and you can make accurate guesses of where the ball is going to go. Or if you are having a conversation with someone, it’s simply impractical to analyze every aspect of it consciously. Tone of voice, facial expressions, syntax, choice of words, etc. You’d suffer from analysis paralysis.
Of course intuition is no more perfect than conscious reasoning, but it should not be seen as being against rationality.
Well about time. I have been calling myself that for years – well, I used the term “Positive” instead of “Affirmative”, but same thing.
No one listens to me.
JC
What’s wrong with Shrill Atheists or Strident Atheists?
My sentiment as well, as it counters that silly ‘militant’ cliché we get from the godbots and their subordinates (aka accommodationists).
Affirmative is IMHO somewhat meaningless as we are opposing theism.
OK, just semantics, but the assertiveness in Assertive shows that we mean business.
Let us remember that not everything an atheist says is a golden egg. ‘Affirmative atheists’ is just plain stupid… unless of course it means I’ll be getting some scholarship money from affirmative action. Seriously though, the term is unnecessary and might confuse the fact that atheism is not about affirming the ‘belief that God does not exist’ but rather atheism is about suspending the belief that ‘God does exist’. Atheism is not about affirming any belief… it is about suspending belief. For those of you who don’t wish to be labeled… grow up. The act of stating that you do not wished to be labeled makes me want to label you as a douche bag. Brains label… either pick a label for yourself or someone will do it for you. People who say they don’t want to be labeled sicken me… what fantasy world are you living in?
It’s ok. I still like Uppity Atheist.
I’m sort of partial to ‘them doggone sane people’ as the best descriptor for atheists.
“Affirmative atheism”, because even unbelievers can always use another buzzword.
Yep, that’ll get the religionists loving us for a change. It might even provoke a tsunami of de-conversions.
:)
Well it’s better than “Brights” anyway.
Did you say something?
While I appreciate Wilkins’ sentiment, “Affirmative atheist” is ironically redundant. If I affirm my atheism, then the term “Atheist” should be sufficient.
As someone who uses the phrase ‘militant atheist’ to describe some, I would gladdly use ‘affirmative atheist’ to describe others.
If someone rants on about how religion has only ever had a negative impact on society, all believers are defacto deluded fools, I’ll call them a militant atheist.
If they are standing tall and saying atheists are culturally repressed and they want freedom to publicly assert there non-belief without fear of reprisal, that sounds like an ‘affirmative atheist’.
The difference would be in whether one is antagonistic with people who differ from you on the belief axis or the how you treat others because of their beliefs axis.
I might suggest “Alliterative Atheist”, but that would be displaying my assonance.
Maybe you could tell us what positive benefits religion has had on societies that could only have come from religion and no other source.
I like it, but I can already hear the conservative snark tha “affirmative atheist” is a euphemism for atheist asshole like “affirmative action” is a euphemism for discrimination against whites.
On the positive side, “affirmative atheist” sounds a little nicer to religious ears initially than plain old “atheist”, even though affirmative atheist should be scarier.
Overall, I say thumbs up. We are an oppressed minority, and like it or not we need to fight for rights and respect, or theists and politicians will continue to stigmatize and scapegoat us for their own purposes. Gays, African Americans and other minorities have made it a priority to demand respectful labels for their groups. We should do the same if we want change.
el cid wrote:
That’s a querulant atheist.
And even if you do adopt “affirmative atheist” like you say, you’re still part of the problem – you’re still refering to perfectly peaceful folks as “militant”. Coining yet another term might be worthwhile if it made you stop doing that, but it, by your own account, won’t.
charley wrote:
Some of us are.
I’m sticking with Unapologetic Atheism.
There are lots of atheists who would fall under the category ‘Affirmative’ who would not necessarily support the ‘tone’ of the so-called ‘new’ atheists. The term ‘Unapologetic’ addresses the tone question: We are atheists, and we think your gods are silly and dangerous, and there’s nothing wrong with saying so, and we have nothing to apologize for.
For me, it’s a tough one. It really depends on the audience. Labels and phrasing can have social and political ramifications. Among friends, sure I’m a militant atheist. Among strangers . . . depends which strangers. In my physical community, my on-line community?
So I might actually use “affirmative atheist” in a particular social context if I feel it strikes the right balance between short-term pragmatism and my longer-term ideals.
Anyone for “avowed atheist” or “admitted atheist”? I don’t think we see those in the news as often as we did in the past. (The former sounds aggressive and the latter sounds too confessional.)
I suppose non-alliterative phrases are also allowed.
I’m with Carlie. I’ve been happy to go with “Uppity Atheist.” But I guess I’ve no objection to being affirmative . . .
What I call myself depends on the situation.
If anyone were to flat out ask me whether I believe in god or not, I would ask them to give me a coherent definition of the term ‘god’ so that I could give them a coherent answer.
If anyone asks me what label I give to myself, I would say “evolutionary atheist,” and then I would explain that to mean, the more I study evolutionary processes, the less reason I have to believe in god.
If we were discussing Christian origins, I would say I was a Jesus skeptic, explaining that I believe that the figure Jesus was most likely a literary invention by the Flavians, and that the so-called evidence of Jesus’ existence from Josephus and Tacitus was concocted centuries later. Certainly being a Jesus skeptic obviates the need to believe in a miracle-worker, and since there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed, there is certainly no possibility that he was crucified and rose from the dead. Since the resurrection is an obvious concoction, there is no redemption from sin, which is a stupid concept anyway.
Matt Penfold
Presumably you are aware of the game you are playing. There doesn’t need to be any such thing for the claim that “religion has only ever had a negative impact on society” to be false. That some have been inspired toward greater altruism from religious arena suffices. And don’t go all back and white in response, this is not an issue of singing the praises of religion, just refuting the wholesale over-the-top demonization. My typical complaint about many fundy christians is the “If you aren’t with us you’re against us” mentality. I find it as repugnant in people I agree with as those I disagree with. I’d say most atheists used to agree with me on that as a matter of principle in rising above base tribalistic instincts.
I think you guys(and gals, I guess; why isn’t there a genderless form of that word?) are missing the forest for the trees, here.
People who believed in and practiced ‘Affirmative Action’ weren’t called affirmative activists; They were just activists.
The parallell between activism and the kind of outreach that PZ does (and so very well)makes the reference elegant. Not every atheist is an activist, to be sure; but for those who do, drawing the connection between reason and civil rights can only be to their benefit.
‘Affirmative Atheism’ is a term that will resonate nicely in the Media’s echo chamber. If it’s tended well, it should serve well.
‘but for those who are‘,rather. Blast it, why do I catch these errors right when I hit ‘send’?
I am just asking you to support you assertions. If that is playing games to you, then tough. I suspect I just embarrassed you by asking you a question you cannot answer.
So you do not need to show that religion can be a force for good in order to show that religion can be a force for good ? This is a nonsensical statement that can be explained by either your being an idiot, or you not actually meaning what you said.
No, all that does is show that people can be altruistic. Since we already knew that, your “argument” adds nothing. You need to show that some acts of altruism can only come from religion motivations. That is, people would not be motivated to perform certain acts if there was no religion. You seem unwilling, or unable, to do so. It would be more honest of you to admit this.
All I want is for you to support your claims. You have not done so, which is not very honest of you.
One thing I find repugnant is intellectual dishonesty. And you are coming very close to being intellectually dishonest.
I’m with #46 (thausmasthelios) here–pretty much all atheists think that they should be free to exist in society, and maybe assert that right quite stridently. It’s sort of like “feminism” these days–most everyone would say that they believe women should have equal rights, even people that don’t assert many of the things that a more radical group would.
I think that the new assertiveness is a result of a bunch of atheists thinking that their belief system is actively superior to others, and shouting that to the high heavens. This goes beyond the author’s perspective of what “affirmative atheists” believe. I’ll forbear from labeling this group, but it goes further than merely affirming atheists’ proper place in society.
I think Agnostic is the better term anyway since it undercuts the argument that I really don’t know if there is a god or not. Which I don’t.
I don’t think any of the religions describe a god I would want to have in charge, but I’m open to the idea of a Spinoza-type intelligence at work in the universe.
So I’ll go with the Annoying Agnostic.
Given that the most powerful movements for nonviolence in world history have been pretty much exclusively religious, I think it might be on Matt Penfold to show that these movements would happen without religion.
Or, to put it another way, there is no evidence that a popular nonviolent movement causing social change can happen without a religious foundation. There is a great deal of evidence that it can happen WITH a religious foundation. Thus, this test where MP will only recognize something if there is NO OTHER explanation is simply unfair.
@ TWood, you think Agnosticism is better because it undercuts a claim that you are professedly ignorant on the non-existent? I’m not an atheist because I have absolute proof there is no God. I’m an atheist because the evidence for God is on par with the evidence for werewolves. Quite frankly I would sooner call myself a werewolf-agnostic than a godly one.
Me too. Because being a werewolf agnostic would KICK ASS.
No, it is for El Cid to support his claim. So far he had refused to so so. I suspect because he cannot.
But let’s take a look at an non-violent movement, namely CND. It is true that some of the founders of CND were religious. It is also true some were not. The motivations to found CND seem to go a bit deeper than religion, or lack of it.
You would also need to show that in non-violent movements that were predominately religious in nature that it was exclusively religion that was the motivating factor. You would have to control for the possibility that people motivated to organise non-violent movements make use of religion as a convenient means of getting their views heard. Your argument did not do this.
So come on, show some good that has come out of religion and that can be shown would not have been possible without religion and further, religion was not simply the most effective way of furthering the cause. You will need to show that it was religion, and religion alone, that led to the good.
It is not unfair at all. It is simply asking for the evidence to support a claim.
Well no, I take that back. It is not unfair if things like evidence do not matter.
Your choice.
If I get a choice then I’d rather be a giant mechanical monster agnostic. Then I could crush stuff.
One other thing.
In order to credit religion with motivating altruism, you also need to show that those performing acts that can be considered are doing altruistic are doing so without any consideration of how they will be treated in any afterlife. Doing good things because to avoid punishment, or because you expect to be rewarded, would not qualify as altruistic acts
This is about as wrong as it could be.
1. The enlightenment, a foundation of modern civilization was largely a reaction against religion. Instead of relying on ancient books interpreted by self interested magic men known as priests, reason and thought was emphasized.
2. The civil rights movement, women gaining the right to vote, and the anti-Vietnam war movement were both succesful and largely nonviolent. Much of the violence was perpetuated against the activists. Some religious people were part of it. Others were opposed to it. But that wasn’t the driving force.
I’m along with TWood — technically I’m an agnostic.
H.P. Lovecraft in a letter he wrote years ago happened to express my position well:
I don’t know if atheism is a superior belief system, but what I know is that religious beliefs, faith, and superstitions in general represent a void body of knowledge which is worthless when it comes to scientific research, ethics, informing our political decisions and in general helping us to make sense of our lives in the real world.
Also I think this new assertiveness is only new in those western countries such as the US with an abnormal religiosity and where non believers are treated as a pestified part of the human species.
I doubt most people who claim to be agnostic are truly agnostic in respect of all possible gods.
Evidence matters, and scientific evidence rules out a vast number of gods. We get left with two broad categories of god that are not ruled out. The first is a god who exists but fakes the evidence. The second is a god who exists but who does nothing.
With regards the first type of god, the one who fakes the evidence, then I suspect most atheists will claim to be agnostic. There is no way to know if such a god exists or not.
I am not sure we need go that far with respect to the second type of god. If a god does nothing, then to what extent can they even be considered to exist ? Existence surely requires some kind of effect on the Universe.
There is already such a label, it is called secular humanist, or bright or naturalist..
The major problem facing atheists is that we are perceived to be “lacking”, in values, morals, purpose, etc.
The urgent need, then, is to promote the notion that we don’t merely lack “values”, but merely replace the dated and unreasonable “values” of religion with relevant, modern ones.
Define ‘god’ vaguely enough and I’m a believer. OTOH, I think I can definitively disprove any of the various gods people believe in who care about it.
Just plain ‘atheist’ is a good description of my position. Close enough without ambiguity.
Claiming you “don’t know” will be interpreting as begging to be convinced.
Please tell me what was the religious foundation which helped us in France to benefit from universal healthcare, unemployement insurance, paid holidays, etc… ?
What is the religious foundation which helped women in many countries to be in control of their own body and legalize abortions covered by universal healthcare ?
What is the religious foundation which helped homosexuals to benefit from the same rights as heterosexuals in many western European nations ?
What is the religious foundation which helped India and Pakistan secure their independence ?
What is the religious foundation which helped South Africa get rid of apartheid ?
etc…
I agree with Dawkins when he says that he is atheist toward all gods of all the past religions, and takes it one step further with respect to the gods of the religions currently in favor. Yeah, there I’m an atheist.
When it comes to a god that takes a personal interest in me and my day to day activity, atheist again.
But when it comes to an -intelligence- that might be impersonally at work across the universe? Agnostic.
To Matt Penfold,
You really need a refresher course in logic.
I began by saying I feel fine using the term ‘militant atheist’ to describe one who asserts “someone rants on about how religion has only ever had a negative impact on society”. In other words, I’m addressing a positive claim by this hypothetical. Your retort was first to ask if any positive acts by religiously motivated couldn’t possibly have other types of motivations. In continuance, you worry if it’s true altruism or bartered deeds for an anticipated reward in an afterlife and further make the illogical leap that I have the burden of proof in opposing the original claim by the hypothetical person.
I suspect I’d used the term militant to describe you but fervently blinded comes to mind as well.
I agree with Matt Penfold.
el cid divided atheists into two groups:
1. The good, nice, polite atheists who don’t rock the boat, tug their forelocks when in the presence of their goddist betters, and remain in the closet.
2. The evil, raucous, uppity, noisy atheists who have the unmitigated gall to let goddists know they exist.
How dare those atheists disturb the goddists by asking rude and embarrassing questions like “what good has religion ever done for anyone?” The nerve of these atheists! Poor faithiest accomodationists like el cid are embarrassed by them. When el cid becomes King of the World, these “militant atheists” will be taken to the wall and shot to show the other atheists how to behave in the presence of goddists.
The sidebar coincidentally has some real data on the point.
Believers are no better than nonbelievers. Surprise!!!
The fundie xians on average are worse.
To Matt Penfold,
You really need a refresher course in logic.
It would be more honest if you just admitted you could not answer the question. It would also save us all the trouble of reading your blathering.
If you think there is a case to be made that religion can be a force for good then make it.
So far you have not. Personalty I think that is because you cannot and are not honest enough to admit it.
If you think I am militant I can say you clearly have no idea what militant actually means. But then it was already clear you have little idea of what you talking about.
For religion to be considered to be a force for good you really do need to show that people have done good in the name of religion, and that good would not have happened without religion. There is no doubt people do good, and that many people who do good are religious. Some will even say they do so because they are religious, but we need better evidence than that.
You said religion has been a force for good. Please show how. It is a simple request, and not one that should long delay someone who thinks they have a solid argument to support that assertion.
Raven, how militant of you to bring evidence into the discussion. Do you have no idea how rude you are being ?
Balderdash.
The division I provide is those who I called militant and those I did not. Those I called militant actively promote a “them” and “us” dichotomy based on the atheism vs. theism axis with full allusion to tribal warfare. They tend to promote this axis to the forefront of what they are and what others are as an issue of primal essence. There are christians who do the same, there as muslims who do the same, there are republicans/democrates/feminists/Yankees fans who do the same. It’s a primal human failing and I object to it within the atheist community as much as I object to it in other communities.
El Cid,
Just provide some fucking evidence. Show how religion has been a force for good.
el cid,
That’s because in a religious world, they were forced to justify their altruism from religious principles. But we know today that our altruism isn’t a benefit of religions.
Please find ONE religious idea that isn’t supported by evidence that has a net positive impact on humans today.
I described the “militant” athiests and the good, nice, el cid approved, non-militants. If you don’t like the descriptions that’s too bad. You set up the dichotomy between the polite, closeted atheists who don’t confront goddists and those uncouth, “militant” atheists who ask questions like “what positive contributions has religion ever given?”
Just to make it clearer to El Cid, we all know that people can do good things.
We also know that people who are religious can do good things.
We also know that some religious teachings can be seen as encouraging people to do good things.
None of this is in doubt. None of shows that religion can be a force for good. To do that you will need to show there is some unique aspect to religion that is absent from other ways of organising human activities.
What is it that is unique about religion that will make people do good who would not otherwise have done so ?
Oh, and to head of a potential argument, I will agree that there is nothing unique about religion that makes people do bad things.
When I see “militant”, I always think there needs to be some real lawbreaking going on. Occupation of offices with guns, sit-down strikes, vandalism, etc. Just being loud, no. Otherwise, all liberturds/teabaggers are militant, as they are loud and obnoxious. Missionaries would also be militant, as they are loud and obnoxious. The definition needs to be better defined.
Matt,
Back when I was a wee lad, I was a believer. I can honestly testify that my belief inspired me toward charitable acts and not for the promise of candy or rewards in an afterlife. I also have many friends who remained believers and cite their faith and the inspiration they receive from others of faith in inspiring them toward good works. You want scientific proof? That wouldn’t cut it but it makes it no less true.
Meanwhile, you still are confused regards the burden of proof. Repeating, my original comment was regards a positive claim by a hypothetical militant atheist who asserts that religion has never led to any good. The burden of proof belongs to this hypothetical person. If you claim that no such people making such claims exist, we would be done but I sense you are itching to make that very positive claim.
el cid,
I suppose you are okay with this:
Tis Himself
You really are daft. Nowhere do I suggest atheists ought to be closeted, or hiding or demure about their view. One can be quite open and even assertive about what one thinks, however, without resorting to denigrating anyone who thinks otherwise. Well, most people can. There may be a few who are unable to do so. Have you considered therapy?
Matt Penfold said @ 67
What? The “God as perpetrator of Academic Dishonesty” silently falsifying the fossil record just so one day it’ll look like the Creationist forum trolls are wrong and the science profs are right, therefore the Creationist troll is secretly right and the scientist secretly wrong, hence the phrase “Nananana I’m right you’re wrong!” with fingers firmly in ears?
Yeah, I think we can safely rule that one out as a reductio ad absurdum.
You first. Including having the religious stop denigrating atheists.
I said I want evidence. Clearly you are not aware of what evidence is.
I am well aware of the concept of the burden of proof. You made a claim, that religion is a force for good.
It is now clear you have no intention if backing your your claims with evidence. Indeed, you have indicated you have no real concept of providing evidence actually means.
A decent, honest, person would in your position admit they overstated their case and withdraw their claims. It seems you cannot or will not do that.
I also object to you claiming I am itching to say no one has ever done any good and said it was religion that led them to so. I have already said that religious people can do good, and that many will say it was their religious belief that led them to do so. You are simply lying when you say “If you claim that no such people making such claims exist, we would be done but I sense you are itching to make that very positive claim”. Clearly honesty is not something you are familiar with.
We know the burden of proof belongs to the hated, “militant” atheist because el cid, speaking ex cathedra, has said so. What more needs to be said? EL CID HAS SPOKEN!
How come El Cid thinks denigrating the views of others is being militant, but his lying is not ?
Do you think he is a hypocritical tosser ?
Is there any doubt?
From a practical viewpoint ? None at all.
From a philosophical viewpoint ? Some, but still vanishingly small.
Nerd,
I don’t think there is any difference nowadays between “activist” and “militant”. Neither presupposes violence nor that the struggle one is actively fighting for is rationally based but it always signifies a confrontanional behaviour.
There are militant libertarians (teabaggers), militant atheists, militant feminists, militant independentists (eg the founding fathers in their time)…etc
Didn’t that dude die, like 337 years ago?
Isn’t that bigger news than his new term for the modern atheist human?
I could be confused.
El cid’s attitude toward militant atheists here reminds me of all of those conservatives and anti-feminists who are constantly telling ‘militant’ feminists that they’d grace us with their blessing if only we abandoned all of our most deeply held principles and became Palinesque “feminists”.
It’s always so condescending and stupid, as if militant feminists care whether the Jerry Falwells of the world find them too strident. The false assumption that the anti-militancy types operate on is that everyone ultimately needs to feel accepted by the social powers that be, those who are in charge. So the patriarchs think they can dangle their approval like a carrot in order to get us to back down and shut up.
Well, I’m not piping down or watering down my message to make el cid feel more comfortable, thank you very much. Or anybody else for that matter.
Negentropyeater, I suspect the militant/activist division nowadays is whether your are behind or against the activists.
My outlook and definitions comes from the ‘Nam war era, where activists were peaceful, but loud, and the militants had guns, like the SLA or Black Panthers.
el cid,
I’m sick of having to change my label all the time.
So from now on, ‘theists’ are to be called non-atheists, i.e., nonbelievers in nonbeleif. “So you’re a nonbeliever? Me too!” “I used to be a heathen with regard to heathenism, but now I’m just a heathen.”
That’ll show’em.
When (almost never), people ask me, I just say I’m a pagan.
The religious are so dumfounded and confused they never say anything after that. They aren’t known for being quick thinkers.
The logical question should be, “what sort of pagan” but no one has ever gotten that far.
What sort of pagan? lol
They probably don’t say anything else because they erroneously assume that pagan means “Satanist” even though Satanists don’t really exist.
Even though affirmative atheism is based on methodological materialism and absent of the supernatural grounds for explanation, is it not absolutist to some degree? I generally think myself a non-religious person towards anything apart from the nature world as we know it. I am curious of the necessity for affirmative (maybe even a type of evangelical–zealous in advocating something) atheism. Is it wrong to caution towards a concept that appears absolutist?
Yeah I like “Affirmative Atheist” better than “Brights”. Brights just sounds so itty-bitty-Britty-committee to me.
Just to get the message across though, how about:
Affirmative Active Atheist
(that oughta ruffle some feathers)
or maybe
Practical Atheist
-DU-
In what manner? I see no evidence for a deity at the moment. Neither does PZ, Dawkins, or most of the blog here. Our minds could, and probably would be changed if conclusive physical evidence for a deity is found. But I also consider the odds of that happening remote. Until then, we can say with certainty that there is no evidence for a deity. Which does sound absolutist, but isn’t.
Is it too late to vote for “Throbbing, Pulsating Atheist”?
Too wimpy.
It probably won’t happen in my lifetime, but I don’t want a world where atheism is “equal” to the religious. I want a world where rationalist reasons and justifications (which can, of course, cite what we humans are and our common hopes, wants and needs) are the only valid contributions to discussion of public matters.
Anyone citing god or some religious text as a “reason” for something should be given a disbelieving stare, perhaps a few giggles if the topic warrants, and be quietly but firmly escorted out of the venue and not permitted to return until his medications or dosages have changed.
Why do all attempts to define us wind up with accomodationist friendly verbiage? I hang over on the brights forum, and it has become painfully clear that the organization is more hostile to athesists than to religious literalists.
— TWZ
Affirmative Atheism doesn’t work for me. I prefer “anti-clerical” in a “Man will never be free until the last king has been strangled by the last priest” Denis Diderot kinda way.
Oh dear, does that make me an El Cid “militant”. I can live with that, proudly. Heroes like Margaret Sanger add Martin Luther King were militants because they spoke truth to power (yeah, yeah MLK was a Rev. and I don’t care). They changed the world with a better, more egalitarian view of the world and were despised by people in power.
I am happy to include more diplomatic atheists in the cause but fight-shy accommodationists can go have a horse do what was wrongly, allegedly, done to Catherine the Great.
This whole “affirmative atheist” label is leaving me cool at best. Yeah, I’m for equal civil standing for atheists. Duh.
What this also does is add another confusing label for atheists. We’ve all heard many versions: week atheist, strong atheist, agnostic, toothfairy agnostic, Dawkin’s 7 point scale, blah blah blah. This just sounds like another synonym for strong atheist, when it actually means no such thing. Atheist activism or a label indicating that this is about what you are fighting for in the legal/civil arenas, *not* what your brand of atheism is, would be a better choice.
Matt P
You’ll have to refresh my memory as to where I made that assertion. Here’s a hint: I didn’t.
As I understand it, the label “affirmative atheism” is supposed to take the place of the term “new atheism,” and distinguish one subgroup of atheists from another: the accomodationists. There are affirmative atheists (so-called “new atheists”) and the accomodationist atheists (the “faitheists.”)
The affirmative atheists want the issue of whether God exists or not, to be a public issue. Religion ought to be treated the same way we treat politics, science — and pseudoscience. It’s open to analysis, criticism, and mockery. Faith is not a virtue, it’s intellectual dishonesty and an unreliable and risky method which will invariably lead average people to extremes: it’s the root of the problem with religion.
The accomodationist atheists want the issue of whether God exists or not to be a private issue. When religion intrudes into politics or science, then we argue, over the intrusion. But otherwise, we leave the religious alone, to believe whatever they want, and agree to forebear on direct criticism. Faith is fine as long as it leads people in good directions: the root of the problem with religion isn’t faith, it’s bad people going to extremes.
But there’s another distinction that the term “affirmative atheist” leaves out, but “new atheist” included: how you see the relationship between science, and religion. “New atheists” see a necessary foundational conflict; accomodationists think that conflict only matters if it’s direct.
As for “militant” atheist, I really hate using that term to describe atheists who take an “us vs. them” attitude towards the religious, because “militant” religion involves violence. It’s not consistent to compare strong negative feelings and language with the use of actual bombs, force, and legal sanctions.
Also, what term do we then use for atheists like Stalin, who sometimes put religious people in jail just for being religious? The Christians love to tell themselves that atheists all want to do the same. I think “militant” should be reserved for actual militancy. Otherwise, using the term allows religious people to slide in the implication that outspoken atheists are going to use violence and force.
How about anti-theists instead? Sends a much stronger message.
el cid sez (in part):
And if my belief is that a reality-centric view of the world is better than one centerd on fairy stories of gods and heroes (such as the Bible), how do you suggest I be open and assertive about that belief without being denegrating to those that believe the opposite?
Can you give me some examples?
“Well, yes, I believe that disease is caused by mircorganisms rather than demonic possesion, but you’re view is no worse than mine because…”
Please complete this statement for me.
No denegration of the opposing view, please.
“Hmm, you say that your holy book says that women should not be held as being equal to men. Actually, that’s just peachy, because…”
Again, left as an example.
“Your holy book says that black people are horrid and smelly and really should be eliminated, and I happen to believe that people shouldn’t be judged on the color of their skin. You know, your view is fine, because…”
Remember, nothing negative, please.
(let the peanut shells begin) It’s a framing issue. Anti sounds bad. Which is why anti-abortionists call themselves pro-life, even if they are anti-abortion, anti-birth control, and anti-doin’ it outside of marriage.
Gads, I made several stupid errors of spelling and word use in my last post.
Sorry ’bout that.
In my defense, I will say I am on a somewhat unfamiliar computer currently…
Brian #108 wrote:
The way I interpret it, affirmative atheists are not afraid to “affirm” their atheism in public. They don’t hide it, they don’t avoid confrontation, and they don’t think “persuasion” is a form of violence, or a way of persecuting people. Religion is not like race: it is like pseudoscience. It’s a viewpoint, not an identity.
When the religious demand “respect” from atheists, a lot of the time they’re really asking for “forbearance.” They want the atheist to back off on the robust sort of critique they’d normally get if their religious beliefs were simply taken on their own merits, as claims about reality.
Instead, they want us to pussy-foot around, as if their faith made their views special, praise-worthy, and in need of protection. If we try to make them change their minds, this is just like attacking them as persons. What affirmative atheists are affirming, then, is that atheism is a conclusion, and a reasonable one. It can be derived from an honest combination of looking at the evidence — and opening the dialogue. Shine daylight into the dark corners.
And the neologisms just keep coming.
Did you notice? He mispelled you last name.
I don’t know; do we really need a special term to distinguish between:
1.) “Your religious views are irrational and unsupported; you’re putting too much weight on intuitions and bad arguments.”
and
2.) “Your religious views are irrational, unsupported, and just plain stupid: you’re putting too much weight on intuitions and bad arguments because you’re such a moron.”
It’s mostly style, I think. From what I can tell, the religious will gladly lump the two together anyway.
What about Rabid Atheist?
That should scare the godbots, but maybe not to make ’em come to their senses.
Look, Cranky Uncle Ratzi thinks secularism is the real threat:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/03/21/pope-the-real-threat-is-the-scourge-of-secularism/
How about ‘naturist’?
That should get their interest. Then, while they’re listening all agog, you explain that you don’t mean nudism, but the other definition that refers to naturalism in philosophy.
Then you can say that it’s really ‘naturalist’ that best describes you.
BINGO. It’s a no-win situation.
Some guy at the GAC said it best, forget his name, beard, glasses, funny tie..
He said roughly this : “New atheists are just atheists the RCC can’t burn at the stake anymore”
Most of the time i just call myself godless or non-believer.
I don’t use the term atheist often.
I rather like the sound of Universal Humanist.
Who and what are you fighting for or against. You are fighting individuals you do not believe have the intellectual capacity to engage in intellectual combat. If it’s real fighting you’re after, just remember they have more guns than you do, believe you me. If it’s fistfights – oh get real. Have a few beers and brag about your
macho attitude somewhere else. Why should it be any more upright to be a corporate power hungry mogul or a militant hawkish mercenary or a kill the enemy (that means everyone who isn’t like you, right?) Oh my goodness, that does sound amazingly familiar – except you are the one who is omniscient and all powerful instead of god. Well I think you need an ego allignment – no one I have heard of elected you god either. Check your inflated ego, your gun, and your limited vocabulary at the door and try to discuss the real needs of the people of the world on an more mature level than college student. Go forth and multiply, add, subtract, divide and for goodness sake learn how to spell while you’re at it. Typos are not included in this mandate.
Please delete my 124 comment.
Very Zen.
Sastra #115
I’ve just realized that soft-spoken, mild-mannered, kind, polite Sastra is more outspoken about her atheism than I am. All too often I’ll grant goddists the respect they demand, if only because I don’t feel like having that argument on top of “why don’t you believe in god.”
Madam, I salute you.
Raven,
I usually call myself a cheerful pagan, which to me adds an extra fillip of dumbfounding :-)
I always liked “godless heathen” for some reason.
But the neopagans took it over. They also took “pagan”, which irritates me, too.
Despite my moniker (a word I picked up in Indonesia–it means “making sambal” (chili sauce)), I am of northern European ancestry, and I miss the old gods. Swords, axes, spears and trees, and death to the robe-wearers!
my suggestion: “HAPPILY DAMNED”.
I use different terms depending on the audience. Sometimes, I will just say I’m an atheist; more often I’ll call myself a godless heathen. I don’t particularly care for affirmative or assertive atheist, unless I want an argument (which I sometimes do).
The question doesn’t generally come up spontaneously, since most people assume you’re much like they are. More likely, I’m asked what church do I belong to, and then I usually just say none. I don’t often get any more questions after that, but I’m quite willing to stand on atheist.
Maybe it’s a Canadian thing — too polite, don’t you know. Most of the people I meet (and I’m a part-time recluse) don’t really care one way or the other.
I don’t proselytize.
Tis Himself, OM #127 wrote:
Oh, but so do I: you have to know when (and how) to pick your battles. There’s a definite need for “Dinner-Table Diplomacy.” That’s when you agree to disagree, and simply avoid bringing up controversial subjects. No politics, no religion, no dietary advice — nothing that will set anyone off, or upset the happy family atmosphere around the table. Talk about kids, or the weather, or something that’s common ground.
The devious situation, though, is that, all too often, Dinner-Table Diplomacy is invoked to silence the atheist, when it wouldn’t be invoked to silence anyone else. The public forum is not a Giant Dinner Table where we never argue or disagree because it ruins the digestion. Deliberately confusing the two, is the tactic those in power use, to quash dissent.
My basic rule of thumb is to respond, rather than initiate — and ask myself whether it would be considered ‘socially acceptable’ for a theist (or a homeopath or a psychic) to answer an initial statement made by a skeptic, with a defense of their own belief. If so, fair game.
(But I avoid making (obvious) insults myself, because, in the circumstances I’m usually in, it will sidetrack the issue 100% of the time. I spend so much time trying to keep to the issue, there’s no way I’m knowingly giving them rope to pull it away.)
No! Don’t you all realize! The correct name is the “Allied Atheist Alliance”! That way it has 3 A’s!
We would be a double threat to Firmative Theism
Sastra #115:
Only half of my point. I find the label misleading at best; it makes me think of a synonym for strong atheism, which would of course, be a mistake.
While it could distinguish between the accommodationists and more, er, “affirmative” atheists, it’s an academic distinction at best. Having this new name is not going to win over anyone that has not been by the oft mentioned last five years or so of more visible atheism.
Of course it won’t. It’s not for their consumption but for ours. The silly “new atheist” label, an unwanted gift from the faitheists, can be retired.
Brian #135 wrote:
I don’t think that the new name is specifically designed to win anyone over; it’s simply trying to label one particular subgroup of atheists in a way that is both “descriptive and true.”
As it is, calling the so-called New Atheists “militant,” “angry,” and “fundamentalist atheists” is not descriptive, not true, and specifically designed to not win anyone over. Right. Our turn to pick our own designation; at the very least, “affirmative atheism” is better, than what our critics chose.
Better isn’t perfect, but it is better. (I was always partial to “uppity atheists” myself ;)
Thanks for the great H. P. Lovecraft quote:
Exactly defines myself and far more eloquently than I ever have. But then, the man was a writer of great eloquence. Now I think I’ll toddle off to get more compost into my new raised bed and see about planting my onion seedlings while listening to the lovely Gareth David-Lloyd reading “the Call of Cthulhu”.
Nerd@97
One of the founding principles behind the Black Panthers was rejection of religiosity. It was a reaction against the SCLC and the Black Muslims.
They have always been my favorite revolutionaries, but I’m somewhat biased having lived a long time in Oakland.
I’ve called myself a rabid feminist for years; no reason I can’t use rabid atheist sameway. But it’s not about “relabeling”—more like expanding one’s useful vocabulary. Uppity, I like that a lot too.
I’m not thrilled with the way “militant” has become such a universally dirty word lately, but then I was raised in the Church Militant, which is what the Catholic Church uses to refer to all its members who are currently alive on Earth.
The other categories are the Church Suffering (the souls in Purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (those in Heaven).
Really. Ask ’em.
Okay this is off topic but where do i find PZ’s email address? I’ve scoured the blog and i can’t seem to locate it. . .
I consider myself an atheist activist, in fact I have often described myself so. I don’t particularly like “affirmative atheist.”
@ 141: Click ‘contact’ on the bar at the top of the blog.
At the top of the page under the word “Pharyngula” there’s a line of brown buttons: the last one says “Contact.” It takes you to a page with the email address, and other suggestions. Hope this helps.
No more “militant?” Dammit, I’ll have to get rid of my camo gear.
I’m not a fan of affirmative atheist. It’s too made-up, like Bright, which, well, yuk.
I’m a fan of heathen, damned soul, yer goin’ straight to hell, militant atheist, unicorn agnostic, unbeliever, infidel, faithless bastard… and I really like the one someone said above, werewolf agnostic. I also answer to uppity atheist, damned intellectual, and rational humanist.
OT- I have a stupid screen name. In my defense, it’s ancient. But still stupid. How can I get movable type to let me change it? Anyone? Bueller?
ah thanks sastra and caine. . . apparently i’m not a very good scourer. . .
I go with the simple “non-believer.”
(nobody live-blogging the health care business?)
*(/threadjack)
I like the term used by Cecil Bothwell, councilman of Asheville, NC. He described himself as a “post-theist”, as in “theism is something that I grew out of”.
redrabbitslife @ 147
wonkette.com has live threads going with lots of comments
I don’t know about affirmative atheist. It sounds redundant. The realization that I am an atheist (with no modifiers) was quite a big step, I thought, when it happened. I think the term “atheist” is strong enough on its own in the media without all the hyperbole, although I was starting to like New Atheist because it represents the attitude of PZ and the Four Horsemen. Though personally these days I like to think of myself as a god slayer. Gods are so overrated.
I like to think of myself as a god slayer
Michael Moorcock helped make me an atheist.
especially the swords trilogy with Corum-as-godslayer motif:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corum_Jhaelen_Irsei
“Whatever happened to “godless atheists”? I liked that one. (Approved by the Committee on Redundancy Committee)”
Do you mean, perhaps, the Department of Redundancy Department?
As to the thread’s title, “affirmative” for me has the connotation of action where (in this instance) none is needed, certainly not productive. Those who don’t understand don’t understand. Why not simply “affirmed atheist” and let the chips fall as they may?
aratina cage:
Yes they are. Seriously so. Out of all the labels, Uppity Atheist suits me best, and I like it on several levels. I think I’ll stick with that one personally.
It seems, though, that philosophical distinction of words is where a lot of the problems come in. If I could just talk in terms of pure philosophy, I’d have no trouble using the word agnostic – the term how Huxley intended it works just fine. But because of the popular meaning of the word agnostic, I hesitate to use it in any sense where it could be taken as “doubting theist”.
So while rationalist may have that softer version, it’s still too muddy between that conventional use and the philosophical use. And then as soon as you say something like rationalist, you’re basically admitting to be Mr Spock. And then come the perceived character flaw accusations of being human…
Multi-reply comment:
To El Cid @ #77
>Those I called militant actively promote a “them” and “us” dichotomy based on the atheism vs. theism axis with full allusion to tribal warfare.
That depends on your point of view. From where I’ve been standing (I was posted to an Anglican school by the ministry of education, and here the Anglicans worship the African part of the non-schism), we are not promoting the dichotomy; we are recognising that the theists have promoted this dichotomy and we are responding in the way that you _should_ respond when a nutter has a gun to your childrens’ heads.
To ods5926 @ #133:
>The correct name is the “Allied Atheist Alliance”!
Department of Redundancy Department.
To PZ:
How about:
i. Unashamed Atheist
ii. Seriously Atheist
iii. Seriously Atheistic Secularists (for the SAS cachet)
iv. Thinkers
Or
v. Smart ?
I suggest that we use ALL these, all at once.
I have always been happy to be godless heathen or an atheist depending on context, but I’d love to be a werewolf agnostic!
I don’t think many people would know what a secular humanist was or a naturalist either, and I don’t feel so much militant as fed-up! Rationalist is good but I’m still going to have to explain what it means.
Anything is okay really except Bright, that makes me feel a bit queasy.
Who ?
I was the one what posted at 147.
I’ve always posted as DLC . . . not the Democratic Leadership Committee, but… my initials. ::shrug::
OK, let me get this straight. If I claimed that you can get protein by eating steak would Matt Penfold call me intellectually dishonest because there are beans?
To put it another way: “If someone rants on about how religion has only ever had a negative impact on society” (quoting el cid’s original post) they’d be wrong. For example, religion is a great force for binding the tribe together and unifying it against “the other”. Granted, not such a benefit in a global society, but definitely good from the tribe’s point of view in the right circumstances.
If you can get the same effect through some other cultural element (epic poetry maybe, having your own particular style of music and dance or a tradition of extremely patriotic mime) why does that mean it no longer counts as a benefit of religion?
Naturalist is easy, just shed your inhibition and your clothes! In my case the former are gone, and the latter would not be a pretty sight.
Really? I thought it entailed roaming the countryside collecting various specimens and making detailed scientific observations.
Shonny got it wrong; it’s ‘naturist’, not ‘naturalist’.
Thanks. The Swords Trilogy looks interesting. I’ll have to add it to my future reading list. *bookmarked*
:) Yes, I like that one too. It’s really easy to be an Uppity Atheist: simply declare you are an atheist, and… BAM! “You better sit your ass back down!”
Icthyic → Ichthyic. (Sorry.)
I’ve got it – simple, clean, in your face or self-derecating depending on how it is said, and above all succinct.
GODLESS!
How about Assertive Atheist?
Affirmative, according to the OED, means
There are other meanings but that is the only one which makes any sense at all.
IMHO, Affirmative Atheist, then, doesn’t really mean anything.
In fact, the original article (if that’s what Rorschach was quoting in #2) doesn’t use the word affirm correctly.
Okay, there should be an overstrike through “affirm” in my post #166. Has the “del” tag stopped working? (Did it ever work?)
Any info on how to overstrike appreciated…
[s]strikeout[/s]
use the greater than less than brackets
strikeoutColin,
like with the italic command written under this box, except with an s instead of an i (s for strike).
Thanks, Rev. BigDumbChimp and negentropyeater.
Here’s the fixed version:
In fact, the original article (if that’s what Rorschach was quoting in #2) doesn’t use the word affirm correctly.
Colin C,
El Cid is being intellectually dishonest because he has claimed that there is a benefit from religion that can only come from religion and no other source. He has been asked to support that claim.
He only response has been to claim that asking him to do so is unfair. He later indicated that he considered anecdote to be evidence.
I guess you, like him, see no problem with making claims that cannot be supported.
You, see, no one is denying people do good in the name of religion. What some us are denying that they do godd only because of religion, and that without religion they would do not that good. Do you see the difference ?
I like Evangelical Atheist…
Update to my thoughts – instead of godless. I am going to misquote one of my favorite sources and start using, “I am currently without gods.” I really do not play well with groups, so ism’s are not appealing to me. I see the sameness of us too much to want to discriminate and put individuals into groups which is, after all the definition of ism, just for the sake of speed in passing a judgment that is out of place to begin with.
Lock-step actions imply a herd mentality. It’s only one sharp noise between a herd and a mindless stampede.
@ #172: I don’t like the connotation of “Evangelical”. Yech.
Affirmative Atheist sounds alright, but I’d prefer Balls Out Atheist. Affirmative makes it seem like we’re all lovey-dovey, whereas Balls Out Atheist tells everyone that we’re either exhibitionists or pretty badass. And I’d say we’re all pretty badass, no?
No Matt –
What El Cid wrote was
“If someone rants on about how religion has only ever had a negative impact on society, all believers are defacto deluded fools:”
You equated it to: “there is a benefit from religion that can only come from religion and no other source.”
There’s an extreme logic fail there.
Matt Penfold,
Tell me where I made the positive claim that there is a benefit from religion. I happen to believe there is, but I did not make that positive claim as you keep saying but don’t provide a quote for.
As you kept harping, I gave you a personal statement, acknowledging it isn’t scientific evidence but, again, I never claimed proof, that’s in your imagination.
So man up old boy, and admit you were wrong or provide a quote.
You said it here:
You forgot to add this quote from El Cid.
“I can honestly testify that my belief inspired me toward charitable acts and not for the promise of candy or rewards in an afterlife. I also have many friends who remained believers and cite their faith and the inspiration they receive from others of faith in inspiring them toward good works. You want scientific proof? That wouldn’t cut it but it makes it no less true.”
I think I’m way too negative to call myself an “affirmative atheist.” How about I just call myself “atheist.” Attempts to circumvent thousands of years of uninterrupted slander from believers by simply changing labels are not going to accomplish anything. We could call ourselves “the Sunny Day Society for Puppies and Flowers” and they would still hate us. It’s their attitudes we have to work on, not our labels.
@148—
I like “post-theist”. My other favourites tend to be “post-” something (e.g., postmodern architecture, post-punk music, post-structuralism), so it’s good to still be a postie in dealing with religion.
Then why the “buddhist” in your name that implies you follow Buddha’s teachings in some backwards way? *smirk*
Matt,
I’ll leave with this, you may respond as you like but I expect people tire of back and forth so I’m done after this.
You came after me for supposedly having made the positive claim way above the ‘testimony’ example you cite. That was in response to you saying I had already made a positive claim. I clearly note it is not anything in the nature of scientific proof.
The statement I did make early about a ‘militant atheist’ you quote above. That discusses a positive claim by some other. If you think it is the equivalent of me making the opposite positive claim, there’s no hope in discussing logic with you and I leave your accusation of my dishonesty to the educated reader.
Yep, El Cid, you are dishonest, starting with your definition of militant. You are a militant theist delusional fool.
Whatever. Any reader who reads what you wrote in #40,
knows you are playing fast and loose with the truth. There is nothing militant about such a rant (probably provoked by someone like you). It certainly is not comparable in its militancy (if you want to abuse that term) to things like preaching on the street-corner, but would you call Ray Comfort a militant theist?
Nerd,
Nice try except I’m no theist. Why you react to claim I am when I’ve never made godish claims is a question you should ask about yourself. Do you feel a need to be oppressed? For what it’s worth, I (like many others) also characterize other groups that thrive on polarization as militants, no special treatment for atheists, and add that the majority of atheists don’t thrive on polarization. At least we didn’t used to and most of my scientific colleagues still don’t.
Don’t worry El Cid, I don’t agree with you at all. The militant term should be only used for people who commit violent acts. Nobody here is doing that. Otherwise, the activists are just noisy. And noisy people can make other folks feel bad, but that is their problem, and they need to deal with it. It isn’t ours. And you are being militant yourself.
Matt P, El Cid :
As one who doesn’t tire of the back and forth (it always makes for good reading IMHO) I am willing to offer an “educated reader” opinion here —
El Cid, you can’t tell Matt P. that Matt’s initial inference was incorrect unless it actually was. You, instead, confirmed his inference was, in fact, true (in comment #176).
That’s the whole point of inference, El Cid. Sometimes what we write communicates other beliefs we hold unbeknown to us, even when we think we aren’t expressing them. Matt P. merely picked up on that (as I did too — because I inferred the same thing from your original comment).
So, for you to make this the focus of the discussion into a silly “he-said he-said” debate rather than simply moving on, was intellectually dishonest because it allowed you to hide behind an entirely moot point and avoid Matt’s original request — namely. providing evidence for that assertion (inferred by Matt AND later confirmed as true by you in #176).
Not to derail anything here, but I think “folks” is a suitable gender-neutral alternative in this context. I agree, the lack of gender-neutral pronouns in English can be problematic. I’ve seen “sie” and “hir” (pronounced “see” and “hear”) suggested as alternatives for he/she and him/her, but good luck getting it to catch on.
OK, we’re late to this party, but was just wondering: If you’re a black atheist would that make you an A.A.A.A? (African-American-Affirmative-Atheist)
DagoRed,
Thanks for that. You expressed my views better than I could, (and did for that matter!).
Cromulent Atheists
No Matt Penfold, you really have got the wrong end of the stick on this one. El cid has never made the argument that you have ascribed to him/her.
El Cid at #40:
If someone rants on about how religion has only ever had a negative impact on society, all believers are defacto deluded fools, I’ll call them a militant atheist.
You at #42:
Maybe you could tell us what positive benefits religion has had on societies that could only have come from religion and no other source.
El cid at #51:
Presumably you are aware of the game you are playing. There doesn’t need to be any such thing for the claim that “religion has only ever had a negative impact on society” to be false.
You at #54:
I am just asking you to support you assertions. If that is playing games to you, then tough…So you do not need to show that religion can be a force for good in order to show that religion can be a force for good ?
‘Nuff said.
el cid #185 wrote:
I know you’ve said your farewells, but I’m curious about this point. Could you give an example of some of these other groups, ones which don’t advocate violence or force, but are called “militant” simply because they polarize, and scorn the other side?
There are many religious groups which divide the world into the saved and the damned, and try to convert people to their beliefs, claiming that those who don’t are steeped in sin, do no good, etc. etc. Yet I wouldn’t call them “militant” unless they’re actually advocating violence, or the use of the force of law, against those who are theologically evil. Are they marching, are they bullying, are they throwing things?
Consider how we would distinguish between animal rights activists — and militant animal rights activists. Are “tea baggers” militant? Not yet. The term seems to carry along the idea of active, physical aggression. I do think it’s unfairly applied to atheists in general, and don’t see it even for the angry subgroup you’re talking about.
Militant Bacon Fans!
re 56:
No, “agnostic” means “cannot know” (or “cannot be known”), not simply “I don’t know”. If you do not know, then you do not believe, therefore you are atheist. Atheism is “without belief in god”, not “belief in no god”.
The reason I keep bringing this up is to point out that atheism is not the extreme (other) end of belief in god with agnosticism being the more moderate “middle ground”. That is, atheism is not a philosophy of “certainty” the way theism is. Atheism is “without belief” because there is no evidence, with evidence any rational atheist would certainly become theistic.
Agnosticism is not a claim about belief but about evidence; that evidence is impossible. In this way the RCC is essentially agnostic with its emphasis that only faith is possible (and necessary), that “miracles” can all be explained naturalisticly but faith informs them of their miraculous nature.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism and Theism/Atheism are orthogonal concepts, the first about what knowledge is possible, the second about personal belief. Agnosticism is not the midpoint between theism and atheism. Atheism is not a bucket of black paint (faith in god’s non existence) compared to theism’s bucket of white paint (faith in god) with agnosticism being the empty bucket (no faith). Atheism is the empty bucket. Agnosticism is not about “paint” at all.
[I apologize for being long winded and pedantic, just trying to clarify these concepts to myself more than anything. Thank you for your tolerance]
Militant Michigan Football fans
And
Militant Ohio State football fans
They are certainly much closer to the definition than strident atheists are. But, yeah, until they actually start attacking people, the label “militant” would be hyperbolic.
Yeah he did:
“I can honestly testify that my belief inspired me toward charitable acts and not for the promise of candy or rewards in an afterlife. I also have many friends who remained believers and cite their faith and the inspiration they receive from others of faith in inspiring them toward good works. You want scientific proof? That wouldn’t cut it but it makes it no less true.”
How did you manage to miss that ? Was it simply laziness ? Incompetence ? Dishonesty ? Only you did miss it, and El Cid did say it, and you did say he did not say it.
Militant non Twilight fans
and
Militant Twilight fans
omg if you like something or identify with something and think people that don’t agree with you are silly or stupid or uneducated and aren’t afraid to say it, that means you are militant!
THERE ARE MILITANTS EVERYWHERE!
Of course some of the Teabaggers have taken to carrying their guns to political meetings.
Matt, that was comment #84 – are you claiming to be a seer, or a reader of minds, that you could rebut El cid’s argument before it had been made?
I suggest you read what RedDago has said. I took a reasonable inference what El Cid had said. I was correct in doing so, since he confirmed it. Clearly inference is some alien concept to you. But go read RedDago, since he explains it better than I have.
Now, do you intend to explain how you missed that comment from El Cid or not ? Only I am inclined to assume it was because you chose to ignore it, since it destroys your argument.
Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you wanted serious discussion Matt. My mistake, I should have realised you just wanted to hurl abuse. Carry on, don’t mind me…
DagoRed,
You seem a sensible fellow so I’ll respond.
Taking my words in #40 and inferring that I think religion has had some positive impact is wholly appropriate. Demanding that I back up something you inferred about me but that I did not assert is nonsense. Asking if I have evidence to the contrary is another thing compared to demanding I back up something I did not positively claim. Oh there was spice added to the demand on me such that I had to show it had to be religion and only religion. Sorry that’s more than inference, that’s fetching a favorite strawman and assigning it to my post.
Next, I generously offered up an example as the best I could knowing full well, and acknowledging as such, that it was not the sort of thing to pass as scientific evidence. Not because I needed to, but because it does make a point. Need we get scientific evidence that you love your partner for you to be opposed to someone asserting love doesn’t exist? Not in a rational discussion.
Do you object to following the form of logic regards what is a claim and what demands support? Come now, where’s the rationality there?
And if you simply want to label me as antagonistic, that, I assert, is misguided as well. To the point, there’s nothing essential to atheism that requires one to assert that religion has never done any good. It is, in fact, a mostly tangential issue to the existence of god(s). Neither is it essential to standing up for full acceptance of atheism.
You started the discussion with me by being less than honest. In the circumstances I was rather restrained in my response to you.
Clearly you take exception to being show as being less than honest. Well tough. I will call out dishonesty when I see it.
Now, do you intend to explain how you came to be less than honest ? Are you lazy, incompetent or a liar ?
Jennnyxyzzy,
It’s called inference — one does not need to explicitly say things to communicate their ideas. And what Matt picked up on in other things El Cid said, I also inferred. Then, rather than having El Cid correct Matt’s accusations, like telling Matt his inference was wrong, he actually confirmed the inferrence as RIGHT — in #84 and also more explicitly in #176. That’s how its done.
jennyxyzzy, I would add that concern trolls get short shift around here. That applies especially to people who complain about “abuse” rather than address substantive issues. It is taken as an admission that the person has no substantial response.
Sastra regards 193,
And I’m sorry as I’m sure most don’t want to hear more from me, yet you directly asked.
I’d allude to ‘militant feminists’, as I’m fully guilty of having used the term before. This includes those who are so far in advocating the right of women to work that they get upset with women who chose to stay home to raise kids and attack them as if they were creating a problem. And before anyone draws any inferences, I think women should be allowed to do what they want including asking their partner to stay home. You can also apply it to the ‘all heterosexual sex is rape’ camp.
My opposition is to people “knowing” they have found enlightenment and that everyone else must recognize their revealed truth and think like them. It’s a very common human meme but a dangerous one when it imposes itself on private lives and thoughts of others. As atheists have often be a victim of such mentality, I’d like to see us stay clear of committing the same foul.
SteveM #195,
I really like the empty paint bucket analogy.
Agnosticism is refusing to look in the bucket. Atheism is looking in the bucket and finding no paint in it. Theism is looking in the bucket and pretending it is filled with a particular color, that color being a certain god or set of gods. Deism is looking in the bucket, seeing it is empty, and muttering to oneself that it might have been full in the past.
El Cid,
Perhaps then it is merely a difference in definition of what the word “believe” means. When someone say they believe something — I assume they have some kind of evidence (not hearsay, anecdotes, opinions, etc.) — now before you jump back upon the “proof” horse, I am not asking for proof. I am merely asking for some kind of evidence, something to back up your expressed belief. What you said in #84 is a story many people have (including myself) but without religion being involved — thus it doesn’t stand as any kind of evidence for a belief in religion being the cause — what your anecdote leads one to rightly believe is that human nature (that thing you as a religious person and me as a non-religious person share), not religion, makes us all charitable in some situations. It is a non-sequitur to say that your story goes so far as to support a belief that religion has some intrinsic benefit too. As it stands, your assertion about the benefit of religion remains an unfounded belief — a mere hunch or intuition….but like I said at the beginning, perhaps you use belief interchangeably with hunch and intuition. In my experience “belief” implies evidence and that assumption on my part (and perhaps Matt’s too) might simply be the mistake here.
That is not how the word is used in common parlance. It’s not even what it meant when Huxley coined the term:
Even when expressed as a creed nowadays, the most common meaning is “not sure” not “is not knowable”. It doesn’t even seem to take a position on whether the existence of a deity is demonstrable or not, it simply states that if it is not, one should not pretend conclusions on the existence of deities are certain. Which is really too bad; we don’t need a new word to describe a state of not being sure about theistic matters, but it might be helpful to have a label for people who don’t think it is possible (even in principle) to know if there is a god. I fall into the latter category, but it’s simpler to just identify as atheist.
El Cid,
Why don’t you save us the trouble of nailing your tapdancing clownshoes to the floor and just define your position clearly and unequivocally. It will save us the trouble of taking potshots at the chaff you’ve been throwing up and facilitate meaningful discussion. After all, if you are secure in your position, you ought to be able to defend it against all these mean militant atheists, right?
el cid #208 wrote:
But this example is I think problematic, because feminists were also an unfairly demonized minority, and the adjective “militant” can be argued as being part of this demonization. This particular angry offshoot of feminism was extreme, and used intemperate language, yes — but were the extremists on the other side also called “militant?” Not unless they used violence.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a subset of atheists who are angry, hostile, and unfairly divisive. My problem is referring to them as “militant” — particularly when the “militant” extremists on the religious side are using actual bombs, guns, force, and law. It’s at best a sloppy choice of word. At worst, it feeds into deep-seated prejudices against atheists and atheism.
There is a cultural taboo against criticizing religion. Faith beliefs are supposed to be exempt from scrutiny, let alone the normal wear-and-tear of public debate. Militant atheists, as you define them, are still only using words. Accepting that this is indeed “militant” seems to implicitly buy into the view that we should never “attack” religion. Verbal attacks on faith are just like physical attacks, because faith is fragile, but precious.
The second problem is that religious fundamentalists and conservatives love to consider themselves not just persecuted, but, apparently, on the verge of being railroaded into boxcars by atheist thugs bent on ripping Bibles out of their hands as their children are lead away to atheist re-education camps. Ok, I’m exaggerating here, yes, but not by all that much: we’re talking about a group that is expecting the end of the world to involve them, and their religious views. It’s the “next step” after the separation of church and state.
So this is the version of “militant atheism” they fear. When people use the term for anything less, it helps blur the distinction between ideological polarization, and actual violence. It also feeds into prejudice against an unpopular minority.
I don’t think we — or anyone — should use the phrase “militant atheist” unless they’re talking about someone like Stalin. And I would argue the same with “militant feminist.” I don’t have to agree with the extremists, to recognize that there are labels which are extreme, and marginalized groups which are already stigmatized don’t need the hyperbole.
DagoRed,
You can infer someone’s position all you like. You may even get it right some of the time. But you don’t get to ask someone to justify their assertions before that person has made the assertion. Otherwise we’re heading deep into Thought Crime territory.
Personally I would go further and dispute that Matt’s “inference” was correct. Or, to be more precise, which inference are you talking about, because there have been several. For example, Matt at #41:
I really do not see any justification for an “inference” that El cid thinks that there are benefits that only religion can provide. I can see the claim that it inspired in him some positive actions, but not the claim that only religion could have done so. Maybe I missed it, I’ll happily concede that point if you can give me a quote from El cid saying the contrary…
I have aleady shown you where El Cid admits it is right. Since you clearly cannot remember my doing that, here it is again:
“I can honestly testify that my belief inspired me toward charitable acts and not for the promise of candy or rewards in an afterlife. I also have many friends who remained believers and cite their faith and the inspiration they receive from others of faith in inspiring them toward good works. You want scientific proof? That wouldn’t cut it but it makes it no less true.”
Please, at least try and pretend to be honest.
“I can honestly testify that my belief inspired me toward charitable acts and not for the promise of candy or rewards in an afterlife. I also have many friends who remained believers and cite their faith and the inspiration they receive from others of faith in inspiring them toward good works. You want scientific proof? That wouldn’t cut it but it makes it no less true.”
And how does this show religious exclusivity?
You grok poorly.
He’s saying that there are people who do and have done good things because of religion. He’s not saying without religion, these good things could not have been done.
You’re creating that strawman and lampooning it.
Not to put a bee in your bonnet, but that does seem to lack the second part of the phrase in question. I don’t see an assertion that religion alone COULD provide that inspiration towards charity. Didn’t that come earlier?
Dago,
In reference to #84 and your reasoned discussion of why I would have a certain belief, I think you’ve missed a key point. There are things I can know about me that I can likely never prove to you including what my motivations were. And I can form my opinion based on interactions with friends and family in ways that will never get translated to objective evidence for inspection and dissection. Nevertheless, I have reasons for what I think even if those reasons don’t fulfill the requirements of peer reviewable scientific data. If I began this by claiming some sort of proof positive for claim A you’d be right to take me to task but there’s a whole big middle ground here between me claiming proof and my objecting to people claiming proof of claim ~A.
Beyond that, I’m struck by a bit of odd logic you’re pressing. If you can show that something other than religion can inspire altruism (and there are clearly many such things) then any claims that religion can are automatically void unless you rule out each and every other possible cause. Add to this that the discussion is innately one of motivation, rule out personal testimony and you’ve rigged the deck rather effectively.
And I’m still struck by what a hot button this seems to be. I grow suspicious of a drive to demonize religion so universally and purely because I have a strong fear of ‘them’ versus ‘us’ thinking as that is the pattern I see reflected in most of the truly violent episodes of human history, and as I see that as the very worst negative feature of many religions.
Jennyxyzzy,
There is nothing quite like an argument over the analysis of another argument! Only at Pharyngula.
You were claiming Matt couldn’t know something at one point (#41) because El Sid hadn’t yet confirmed it in anyway — as if to imply Matt was back peddling. But, as I explained, an inference allows people to suspect things about someone long before they state them without “claiming to be a seer, or a reader of minds” as you sarcastically asserted. That was the only point I was making to you. Whether or not that Matt’s inference was correct is really between Matt and El Sid, not you and I.
But you don’t get to ask someone to justify their assertions before that person has made the assertion. Otherwise we’re heading deep into Thought Crime territory.
Yes you do. How else do you confirm your inference (which is an inference of an assertion in this case)? If you say The planet is made of snow — whether you state it directly or merely that I infer it in your words — I have the right to ask you to back that up. If my demand for evidence comes from an incorrect inference, then you may simply say my inference was incorrect. But, as the remaining conversation unfolds after Matt’s first request for for evidence. El Sid seems to waffle around a bit, first denying that Matt’s inference doesn’t represent his position, but then he also seemingly confirming Matt’s inference — namely in 85 (a bit softly) and then in 176 (in an actual affirmation).
Personally I would go further and dispute that Matt’s “inference” was correct
Again I return to comment #85 and #176. As I mentioned to El Sid, perhaps you, like he, define the word believe differently than I, but when I say something like “I believe evolution is true” I am implying that I have evidence to support my belief. In #176, El Sid says he believes that Matt’s inference is true — to me that is a slam dunk for Matt’s inference being correct.
Now, it might turn out that it is a misunderstanding about what El Sid meant by the word “belief” (he may have merely meant it to be synonymous to “wishful thinking” or some such) but to assert that Matt was improper in pressing El Sid about it when El Sid does not give an emphatic denial of Matt inference — and in fact at one point seemingly confirms it — I think absolves Matt of the wrong doing you are accusing him of committing.
4el cid #223 wrote:
Consider the situation from another standpoint: religion is not so much being “demonized,” as morality and meaning is being “universalized,” and grounded in this world, and human value. This is not divisive: it’s the opposite of divisive. Look below the rhetoric, to the position itself.
The hot button is partly the result of long experience watching religion try to claim the “magisteria” of morals and meaning for itself, and then neatly divide the world into the people who reflect what God has grounded, and the people who do not. Because this division is based, like belief in God, on faith, all bets are off on how unifying — and reasonable — this is going to end up being. God doesn’t have to be a humanist.
The new atheists want to eliminate religion by changing minds through reason, and bring the religious over. So it really doesn’t matter how horrible they think religion is; they’ve grounded the disagreement, in a fundamental respect for the people they argue with. When people stop pointing out absurdities because “you can’t teach a pig to sing” — and argue instead for a harmonious truce — that’s more worrying, I think. They’ve given up on “we,” and settled for “us” and “them.”
DagoRed,
Good, isn’t it :-)
No, you really don’t. “Inference of an assertion” is getting awfully close to the definition of a strawman. I suppose it depends a bit on the whole question of the reliability of the inference. To take your example of a planet being made from snow, a hypothetical claim maker may have said something like “At the formation of the planet there were only molecules of H2O available”, which you infer to mean that the planet is made of snow, when it may infact be a super gas giant orbiting near the sun made of steam. You don’t get to claim that the claimmaker had asserted that the planet was made of snow – that would be a strawman. You are obliged to limit yourself to what they have actually stated.
As for my comment about being a mind-reader, it still stands, as I most definately was taking issue with Matt’s “Maybe you could tell us what positive benefits religion has had on societies that could only have come from religion and no other source.”
When I took issue with that, Matt tried to claim a later comment from el cid as evidence that he was right, but you see, that later comment doesn’t back up Matt’s claim. The inference was inexact, which is why making an inference is a dangerous thing to do in an argument. It shows clearly just how close an “inference” can be to a guess – in this specific case Matt guessed wrong. Instead of trying to read el cid’s mind, he would have been better advised to ask for a clarification, thereby saving us all this excruciatingly painful discussion.
El Sid:
I can form my opinion…
If that is what you meant when you said “you happen to believe…” then there is no reason for discussion. You, however, expressed a belief here. So, did you mean belief like when I say “I believe evolution to be true” which has an implication of evidence involved, or are you really just expressing a mere opinon?
…never get translated to objective evidence for inspection and dissection.
Again, I think there is another difference in word use. For me (and I think for many others) the word “evidence” means “objective evidence” by definition. If you are claiming there is such a thing as “subjective evidence” I think most people will agree that is a euphemism for “opinion.”
Nevertheless, I have reasons for what I think even if those reasons don’t fulfill the requirements of peer reviewable scientific data. If I began this by claiming some sort of proof positive for claim A you’d be right to take me to task but there’s a whole big middle ground here between me claiming proof and my objecting to people claiming proof of claim ~A
I don’t think anyone needs peer reviewed scientific data, nor is anyone asking for “proof positive” anything (I am sure that doesn’t exist for much of anything). People just merely something objective to chew over – anything at all — that will give your position some sway. Something that, when people doubt it, their doubt comes off hollow. Sorry to rehash something you likely have heard before – but just having reasons, even rational ones, are not sufficient to support a rational belief without some kind of evidence. Much of theology is very rational and reasonable, but without the evidence, their premise remains idle speculation and their belief in God is not supported by any of it. People poke fun at brane/string-theory and other theoretical physic ideas for much the same reasons. Evidence is not simply key to science, it is key to everything we think we understand, know, or accept as real.
I’m struck by a bit of odd logic you’re pressing. If you can show that something other than religion can inspire altruism (and there are clearly many such things) then any claims that religion can are automatically void unless you rule out each and every other possible cause. Add to this that the discussion is innately one of motivation, rule out personal testimony and you’ve rigged the deck rather effectively.
That’s only because that is a partial argument I presented. You are right it doesn’t exclude religion from also inspiring altruism, good, etc. (I am, in fact, sure religion does do so in many individuals). That’s when the second part of the argument comes in. Do these individual cases of inspiration add up to the whole inspiring more good than evil in the world. I would contend when we look at the overall national level data, that kind of big picture claim is difficult to accept, given that poverty, illiteracy, war and many other ravages of mankind often correlate to high degree with increased religiosity of the population. So, yes, in individual cases religion can help some to achieve better morals, but overall, I have my doubts. I am sure Communism (and Nazism, Maoism, etc) also inspires/inspired many to be better people too, but do the individual cases add up, and represent the general affect Communism has on the world? I have my doubts just as I doubt religion overall provides more benefit to the world (or even the larger society) than harm. The evidence I know of, tells me that these ideological systems maintain order only during times of desperation but when things recover, they tend to hinder progress and efforts to avoid times of desperation.
And I’m still struck by what a hot button this seems to be. I grow suspicious of a drive to demonize religion so universally and purely because I have a strong fear of ‘them’ versus ‘us’ thinking as that is the pattern I see reflected in most of the truly violent episodes of human history, and as I see that as the very worst negative feature of many religions.
I see “us” vs “them” part of human nature. It is whether or not it becomes physically violent that I abhor and fear I do not see the former as being necessary for the latter or even related. I wouldn’t, for example, wish Congress functioned in a more civilized and less contentious way than it does. It’s ugly, but argument is basic to intellectual pursuit. As long as there is also a protocol that denies physical violence, like in Congress, verbal abuse in all its glory is good. I think that same protocol against violence, informally, applies to the atheist/freethinker/secular movement of today. Be as loud and obnoxious as you want, but if you ever strike or hit someone as part of the debate (unless its in defense) you are going to be shunned and isolated very quickly. The same cannot be said for the religious of this world who, instead, often glorify their violent tendencies.
Jenny:
“Inference of an assertion” is getting awfully close to the definition of a strawman.
I agree, and if the ‘inferrer’ is wrong it is up to the person being inferred about to emphatically deny the inference if it is wrong. But El Sid failed to say I don’t believe X” He merely said, “I didn’t say X” — and we are back to the validity of Matt’s inference again and whether or not some silly word games are being played.
When I took issue with that, Matt tried to claim a later comment from el cid as evidence that he was right, but you see, that later comment doesn’t back up Matt’s claim.
I agree – the comment Matt cited is only a partial implication of Matt’s inference. But, more importantly, despite Matt’s omission of this in his reply to you, El Cid in #176 does, in fact, give what appears to be tacit endorsement to Matt’s assertion.
A more minor point to ask about the earlier comment we both agree does not endorse matts assertion entirely, is to wonder why El Cid implied any kind of partial support to it — should is he not flatly stating, “I do not believe religion has anything unique to it that makes people more altruistic” — i.e. flat denial of Matt’s inference.
Instead of trying to read el cid’s mind, he would have been better advised to ask for a clarification, thereby saving us all this excruciatingly painful discussion.
Yeah, but you forget, if such inconsiderations didn’t occur regularly around here, no one would really have much to read. The science stuff is nice, but you know we are all here for the drama!
DagoRed,
In all the back and forth, you’ll not find any implication from me that religion has a unique ability claim to inspiring altruism. That’s part of the over-the-top strawman tossed my way.
I’ll give you more but only because it’s become an issue here. I’m of a mind to go with a whatever works for someone type of accommodation, mostly out of an aversion to ‘my way or the highway’ proselytizing. I’ve been on a habitat for humanity build that had a marginally uncomfortably level of religious background but for the people who get motivated that way I figure it’s working for them (and nobody got pushy with me). And it isn’t special deference for religion, I oppose demanding that people agree with me about politics, sports or ice-cream flavors too.
In all the back and forth, you’ll not find any implication from me that religion has a unique ability claim to inspiring altruism. That’s part of the over-the-top strawman tossed my way.
Well that settles it then. Matt’s an idiot for inferring what he did and you’re an idiot for not stating this earlier in as clear a way. And I’m an idiot for living — but I will give Jenny high praise, simply because she is a woman (yes, sexist, I know, but only against men).
Aratina @#214:
>Agnosticism is refusing to look in the bucket. Atheism is looking in the bucket and finding no paint in it. Theism is looking in the bucket and pretending it is filled with a particular color, that color being a certain god or set of gods. Deism is looking in the bucket, seeing it is empty, and muttering to oneself that it might have been full in the past
And stupidity leads to one kicking it.
It’s an empty paint can. Are we concerned about non existent paint ruining the carpet if we kick the can?
Matt, ever since you made the claim that the benefits of religion only count if they “could only have come from religion and no other source”, people have been asking you to back that up. I asked you 24hrs ago and you just dodged the question.
So here it is: What basis do you have for that bizarre requirement? Does it only relate to religion or do you apply it to other things as well?
Come on. You claim to value intellectual honesty. Answer the question!
I second the Assertive Atheism proposal, “Affirmative” has just too strongly been linked in everyone’s heads to Affirmative Action. Messy messy…
Someone still has to explain to me why I need another adjective accompanying my label of “atheist” in the first place.
Gods-do-not-believe-does-not-compute !
Which part of that is ambiguous as to require a further description?
The basis is that we know humans are capable of doing good things without religion. We also know humans are capable of doing bad things without religion.
Therefore in order to be able to claim that religion is responsible for people doing good, or bad, you need to show that they would not have done things without religion.
Now, please do try to keep up.
It seems a bit odd to deny religion as a motivator, good or bad. Matt, I’d argue you’re setting an impossible standard and detracting from what people really mean when they talk about people doing good in the name of religion. Just because someone is capable of doing good anyway doesn’t take away from religion as being a primary motivator for a particular action.
jennyxyzzy,
I have looked through the comments posted whilst I was asleep. I can find several comments from you, but none explaining why you failed to mention El Cid’s comment confirming he thinks religion can be a unique force for good.
I have asked you more than once, so I am left to conclude that your failure to explain your omission was wilful. You knew he had said, but to acknowledge that fact did not suit your propagandist agenda, so you left it out.
You might want to look into all the good things done by the catholic church based on the morality their practitioners so obviously inherit from reading their holy book, and then get back to us on that one.To pick just one sect.
el cid wrote:
The implicit logic here seems to be something along the lines of that it’s OK for you to slander certain atheists because you are an equal-opportunity slanderer who also slanders certain non-atheists.
@Rorschach: It’s not meant to be added to “atheist”, it’s meant to replace existing subclassifications thereof (eg. “new atheist”).
Bah. Stupid echo-chamber. :)
Uhm yeah, what I’m saying is we don’t need no more subclassifications.These are labels the religious are trying to slap on us, and we shouldn’t be encouraging it by trying to come up with our own versions.
“Atheist” seems pretty damn self-explanatory to me.
Rorschach wrote:
Wilkins would deny being one of us, so this seems somewhat besides the point. And anyway, I doubt the sort of religious person who tries to attach derogatory labels to the irreligious needs any encouragement to do so.
Self-explanatory doesn’t equal useful. “Atheist” doesn’t take you far if you want to discuss, say, the differences between PZ and Nisbett.
As per above, I don’t think this particular label will help anything, and I don’t expect to adopt it myself, but it doesn’t make sense to object to a term of a subtype simply because there’s already a term for the general type.
(I suppose one could argue it would be politically expedient to pretend there are no subtypes of atheists, but apart from a distate for that sort of dishonesty, I doubt it work – it’s practically asking apologists to claim all atheists are wannabe Stalins.)
Matt yet again claims,
Please stop lying. It’s unattractive you know.
Saying I personally believe that religion can inspire good works is not even close to equivalent to claiming religion has a unique capacity for good, just as saying pork is a good source of protein does not say is a uniquely good source of protein. Basic logic. Try it sometime.
><
Darwin-Awards-grade stupidity.
Spilling the “paint” only makes the essence of paint in the can stronger. But your rug is safe from discoloration. </homeopath>
Matt,
I didn’t answer because your question was irrelevant to the question at hand – a response could only further distract from the issue being discussed…
aratina @ 243
True hopmeopathic paint is all solvent with a couple of molecules of pigment, that’s how it removes the paint from the carpet and makes it all better.
scooterKPFT #245, very funny. It’s all water! (Unless it is oil-based paint, then one would not want to peer into the bucket for too long—or maybe one would.)
Matt, how could I possibly keep up? Your argument changes every time you post!
But you have been saying all along that the benefits of religion have to be unique. Even if I could find an example that satisfied you, it wouldn’t count because non-religious people do good deeds too. So it wouldn’t be a benefit unique to religion.
See, it’s this uniqueness that’s the sticking point. El Cid never made that claim. You’re the only one who has done that. I thought for a moment in #234 you were changing your position, but there it was back again in #236.
Back at #161 I suggested that a benefit of religion is unifying the tribe against “the other”. That’s not unique to religion – ask any sports fan. So by your criteria it is automatically ruled out as a benefit.
Why? Why do the benefits of religion have to be unique to religion? Why do they not count if they can also be gained from some other source?
It’s a simple question, Matt, that you have been asked repeatedly. How’s about actually answering it?