Does Atheism Need to be Rebranded?

[Shell B]

An excuse as good as religion?

Elitism. Racism. Patriotism. There are a lot of isms that do not have to be connected to religion to justify hate.

I'm not sure where I heard it, but there was a very convincing argument as to why religion is so suited to foster hate, violence and all that other stuff - its because religion has no reality-check.

Hate doesn't really have a reality check, either. I could find a logical reason to hate anyone, if I wanted to. I could even find good reasons to hate myself, I'm sure. Sure, religions fosters the fuck out of hate. It gives people an omnipotent being on their side. That is one hell of a delusion. People don't need it to hate, though. They don't need it in the slightest. We still have borders and nationalities to hate over.

Any other philosophy, political ideology or belief system can be used to foster hate and violence, but eventually, it'd fail as an excuse in face of simply not working. The reason why religion is such a good excuse is because what it promises (heaven or better next-life) is by nature unverifiable.

Well, that gives it shelf-life, for sure. I simply don't believe that lack of religion will lessen hate or "evil" in the slightest.

[mediamogul]

I was thinking more in terms of advocating specifically for things like secularism, rights for non-religious people and anti discrimination on a societal basis. It's not in itself necessary to be anti-religious just that it is necessary to have some unity to oppose those oppressive parts of religion being enacted into public policy or culture.

I am also not talking about an atheist league where we go out burning churches but a little solidarity would go a long way and demonstrate that the religious right cannot easily push us around or back us into a corner. More people will come out of the closet about their atheism the more people there are in public who are not afraid to say they are atheists and to support others who label themselves as such. We just need to pick a damn word and stick with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

-stows the torch, very disappointed-

Oh Shell, forgot to add this one to my last post.

"Heroin gives those people comfort, why should we take that away from them?" hehehehe. I'm not looking to rob anyone of their comfort, and if they find comfort in religion I can't rob them off it by "robbing" them of a god anyway, because there isn;t any god doling out the comfort to begin with. They are comforting themselves, and I'm fairly confident that they would continue to do so. Unless you want to propose that even though all the bad shit would be there if religion were gone, the good shit wouldn't.

[Shell B]

I'm married to one worth keeping, still doesn't change my stance on religion, or my opinion of those who profess any nasty bit of it that I simply cannot stand. It is just my stance after all.

Of course.

Anti-religion is anti- "a thing", anti-people with a religion would be anti-"a group of people".

Yes, but it is not "anti-any given thing," as you stated it, making it sound like any anti-stance was contemptible in my eyes. Religion is a thing spurred by people, abused by people, cherished by people, etc. It is a deeply personal thing to many. Being anti-religious is like saying you are against a person's thoughts and feelings. To be against certain aspects of religion, certain adherents, certain crimes, etc., is to be against the things that seem to be the real problem.

I didn't read wrong, you're being a bit loose with your words. "To be non-religious is a much more honorable position to take. " would imply that mine was less Shell....

Huh. I don't think I'm being loose with my words. You are quoting something that had nothing to do with what I said you read wrong. I said a specific group. You said a specific thing, attributing that to me, despite that "thing" is a much broader term than "group."

What you quoted was a statement of opinion unrelated to the quote you were responding to. I was not being loose with my words, either. I'm confident that my opinion was made clear there. Now, you can choose to look at it from the perspective that you are actually non-religious and anti-theist. So, you're kind of neutral as far as my opinion goes, eh?

---

I am also not talking about an atheist league where we go out burning churches but a little solidarity would go a long way and demonstrate that the religious right cannot easily push us around or back us into a corner. More people will come out of the closet about their atheism the more people there are in public who are not afraid to say they are atheists and to support others who label themselves as such. We just need to pick a damn word and stick with it.

Um, atheist. There already is a word. There is also a way to do exactly what you described. Start an atheist group that has members who go out and do those things. Even the KKK was a group for racists, but not of all racists. Shit, there are already atheists doing exactly what you describe. Join one of their groups, instead of trying to pigeonhole atheism. Not all of us are afraid or relate to those who are afraid.

[The Grand Nudger]

If someones religious thoughts and feelings are disgusting to me, then I am anti-"their thoughts and feelings", aren't I? So what? Doesn't stop them from having them. Sometimes people think things that bother the shit out of me Shell, it isnt the thinking that bothers me, it's the things being thought. Religion is a long list of things being thought. Ergo anti-theist.

We are talking about anti-religion right (that's the second time I've asked this for the same reason). You equate anti-religion with anti-the group(the religious). I equate anti-religion with anti-religion (the thing). I'm not talking about something unrelated to your comment, I'm suggesting that your idea of anti-religion may be a bit of a mix-up (a mix up that paints that broad brush in the hue of bigotry which I do believe that you've actually commented upon-turn about is fair play). There are religious people who are positively pleasant otherwise (and the same is true of Klansman, as I've already mentioned). That doesn't make their position with regards to religion any more palatable (same with Billy Bob in the white hat). You can take the negative value judgements you have about Billy Bob as a member of the KKK and confidently say that he's probably a peice of shit, even if he cooks a mean barbeque, helps out his neighbors, and all his buddies swear by him right? Allow me the same for John Q Churchgoer, eh? Now, ultimately, I'd agree with you, Billy Bob is a piece of shit, unless he just wears the white hat and doesn't go in with all the prejudice shit, right? How about John Q Churchgoer, just believes in god, full stop? Seems to me that both of these people are accomplices in the con. That doesn't get either of them brownie points from me.

[Shell B]

"Heroin gives those people comfort, why should we take that away from them?" hehehehe.

Haha, Man, we're good at this. If you want to start suggesting that religion will eventually kill everyone who uses it heavily, you'll have yourself an argument.

I'm not looking to rob anyone of their comfort, and if they find comfort in religion I can't rob them off it by "robbing" them of a god anyway, because there isn;t any god doling out the comfort to begin with.

No, there is no god doling out the comfort, but fucked if feeling alone is not a horrible feeling. Kids have imaginary friends to keep them company. So do adults. Kids blame the bad things they do on their imaginary friends. So do adults. So, you're against religion, but unlikely to try to strip the world of religion? Really, it's not such a bad stance to have. Again, I'm just trying to understand it.

They are comforting themselves, and I'm fairly confident that they would continue to do so. Unless you want to propose that even though all the bad shit would be there if religion were gone, the good shit wouldn't.

Oh, come on. You wouldn't expect such a shoddy argument from me, would you? Sure, the good would still be there. People would find a way. I just don't see how a little religious reform wouldn't do the same thing. We can start with the Vatican.

---

If someones religious thoughts and feelings are disgusting to me, then I am anti-"their thoughts and feelings", aren't I? So what? Doesn't stop them from having them. Sometimes people think things that bother the shit out of me Shell, it isnt the thinking that bothers me, it's the things being thought. Religion is a long list of things being thought. Ergo anti-theist.

We are talking about anti-religion right (that's the second time I've asked this for the same reason). You equate anti-religion with anti-the group(the religious). I equate anti-religion with anti-religion (the thing). I'm not talking about something unrelated to your comment, I'm suggesting that your idea of anti-religion may be a bit of a mix-up. There are religious people who are positively pleasant otherwise (and the same is true of Klansman, as I've already mentioned). That doesn't make their position with regards to religion any more palatable.

That's the point, Rhythm. I don't understand where you are coming from and am trying to. Now, religion is the product of human minds. It's only way of existing is through the people who believe in it. How is it possible to be against religion, but not against the religious?

[genkaus]

Elitism. Racism. Patriotism. There are a lot of isms that do not have to be connected to religion to justify hate.

Hate doesn't really have a reality check, either. I could find a logical reason to hate anyone, if I wanted to. I could even find good reasons to hate myself, I'm sure. Sure, religions fosters the fuck out of hate. It gives people an omnipotent being on their side. That is one hell of a delusion. People don't need it to hate, though. They don't need it in the slightest. We still have borders and nationalities to hate over.

Well, that gives it shelf-life, for sure. I simply don't believe that lack of religion will lessen hate or "evil" in the slightest.

My point is that without religion, a lot of that hate would be impotent. You can rationalize your hate to yourself however you want, but in order to do any effective damage, it needs to be a part of a systematic organization. People don't need a reason to hate - but they do need to give a good one if they want to spread it around.

And looking at the difference in violence and crime rates between secular countries and religious countries - I'd say that not only lack of religion would lessen the "evil", but it has.

[mediamogul]

I'm married to one worth keeping, still doesn't change my stance on religion, or my opinion of those who profess any nasty bit of it that I simply cannot stand. It is just my stance after all.

Of course.

Anti-religion is anti- "a thing", anti-people with a religion would be anti-"a group of people".

Yes, but it is not "anti-any given thing," as you stated it, making it sound like any anti-stance was contemptible in my eyes. Religion is a thing spurred by people, abused by people, cherished by people, etc. It is a deeply personal thing to many. Being anti-religious is like saying you are against a person's thoughts and feelings. To be against certain aspects of religion, certain adherents, certain crimes, etc., is to be against the things that seem to be the real problem.

I didn't read wrong, you're being a bit loose with your words. "To be non-religious is a much more honorable position to take. " would imply that mine was less Shell....

Huh. I don't think I'm being loose with my words. You are quoting something that had nothing to do with what I said you read wrong. I said a specific group. You said a specific thing, attributing that to me, despite that "thing" is a much broader term than "group."

What you quoted was a statement of opinion unrelated to the quote you were responding to. I was not being loose with my words, either. I'm confident that my opinion was made clear there. Now, you can choose to look at it from the perspective that you are actually non-religious and anti-theist. So, you're kind of neutral as far as my opinion goes, eh?

---

I am also not talking about an atheist league where we go out burning churches but a little solidarity would go a long way and demonstrate that the religious right cannot easily push us around or back us into a corner. More people will come out of the closet about their atheism the more people there are in public who are not afraid to say they are atheists and to support others who label themselves as such. We just need to pick a damn word and stick with it.

Um, atheist. There already is a word. There is also a way to do exactly what you described. Start an atheist group that has members who go out and do those things. Even the KKK was a group for racists, but not of all racists. Shit, there are already atheists doing exactly what you describe. Join one of their groups, instead of trying to pigeonhole atheism. Not all of us are afraid or relate to those who are afraid.

I don't think that "pigeonholing" is the correct term to use. My specific question was regarding the word "atheism" and if non-religious folks or people who disbelieve in religion, that is what we are talking about, could be more effectively united under a common banner that places importance on the non-religious as opposed to "atheistic" aspect. It is actually a question about potentially broadening and making more inclusive. Also, to dismiss the supportive element and community is not helpful. That is the reason we come to an "atheist" forum is it not? To be in a community of individuals who share a common disbelief?

[Xyster]

Why rename it.... IT WOULD DO NO GOOD. If the out look on the word Atheist is to change it is up to us to change their PERCEPTION . Changing a word does NOTHING! for example.... (> = changed to)

Stupid > Dumb > Retarded > Special ......

Untill perception is changed the new word will become the derogitory.

the word is ATHEIST .... NOW FUCKN EMBRACE IT AND MAKE A DAMN DIFFERNCE................... GO DO SOMTHING POSITIVE

[Shell B]

You can take the negative value judgements you have about Billy Bob as a member of the KKK and confidently say that he's probably a peice of shit, even if he cooks a mean barbeque, helps out his neighbors, and all his buddies swear by him right? Allow me the same for John Q Churchgoer, eh?

I fail to see the correlation. John Q. Churchgoer may not be linked to a hate-organization. He might go to a reform church. Now, is not the prerequisite for being a member of the KKK racism? I mean, that is the whole kit and kaboodle, right? Religion doesn't fit that neatly. That is where my confusion lies.

---

I don't think that "pigeonholing" is the correct term to use. My specific question was regarding the word "atheism" and if non-religious folks or people who disbelieve in religion, that is what we are talking about, could be more effectively united under a common banner that places importance on the non-religious as opposed to "atheistic" aspect.

Well, then, it would have nothing to do with atheism. People who are theists can be non-religious. Then, what do you do with the term "atheist?" Do atheists get to keep it?

It is actually a question about potentially broadening and making more inclusive.

Why would you broaden the term for atheism to include theists?

Also, to dismiss the supportive element and community is not helpful.

Oh, goody. I love being chastised. I did not dismiss it. I am showing that our lack of belief does not constitute a community, nor should it. Your solution is to start a community of willing atheists, not try to redefine atheism so it is more PC.

That is the reason we come to an "atheist" forum is it not? To be in a community of individuals who share a common disbelief?

Actually, this is the only one I frequent and I only do so because it is not exclusive. I prefer not to box myself in with only those who agree with me. This is not an atheist community. It was started by an atheist who wanted a place where theists and atheists could have a community together.