(March 19, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Delicate Wrote: It's too late. This is what atheism is, whether you like it or not. You can choose to sit on the sidelines if you want. But don't presume atheism is some sort of social club.

You don't get to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean. Or rather, if you do, don't expect people to be able to find anything coherent in your responses.

Atheism is not believing in any gods. That's it. Anything else is some other stuff you're trying to tie to the term. It'd be like me describing pizza as "a food with a crust topped with sauce, melted cheese, and pepperoni". I mean, yeah, that can be a pizza, but you're getting your squares and rectangles mixed up.

The only thing "atheist" means is "off" on one claim. Outside that common "off" on claims of god, we are very different. I know atheists who love Ayn Rand and would support the Koch Brothers. I know other atheists who love Che which lead to Cuba, and stupidly think you can rid 7 billion people of the private sector. I know others who buy 9/11 conspiracies. And it is also possible to be a cultural religious person without believing in a god. Jews and Buddhists can like the rituals and grouping but don't believe in gods.

Atheists form clubs like everyone else, but the word itself is talking about one position on one claim. It is not a moral code, it is not a political party, it is not a religion, it is not a class, it is not a loyalty oath. It simply means "off" on god claims. Sam Harris is an atheist but I don't like his Buddhism fetish. Ayn Rand was an atheist, but I hate her economic views.

Now if someone wants to claim that Atheists can try to turn it into a religion, sure, I hope they don't because at that point it will be ridged and political and poison like every other religion. But the word "atheist" by itself is not a religion.

(March 20, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: What if you agree with the majority of their views, but think they are making a mistake on Issue X? What if they actually are making a mistake on that issue, but because of the requirement to not go against the grain, you cannot present a view or proposal which is possibly more useful?

This idea that you will always be able to find consensus in a group is chimerical, because people have different opinions on different issues, and the more issues your group intends to address, the more likely you are to have heterogeneous opinions inside your own group. Restricting the conversation to only those views approved by the leadership is certainly their right, at A+ -- but how much are they losing by requiring the membership to toe the ideological line?

Debate happens within every group of thinkers. Stifling it in the name of ideology is the act of valuing preachments above insights.

Oh, that is simple to address. It is fine to have a disagreement about a certain issue but when the majority of the group support it and are actively trying to get things done, then you need to know when to stop harping on it. If it reaches the point where you are a source of distraction and are causing problems within the group, then it is time to stop. This is what was happening during the Atheism Plus controversy. People weren't just disagreeing, they were causing rifts in the group. When that happens, the source of the rift needs to either tone it down or he/she needs to be removed. There is a massive difference between voicing your opinion and just causing problems.

If the group in question says something isn't open for debate and you are not okay with that, then you should find another group that suits your views. For example, thunderf00t was not removed from FreeThought Blogs because he was disagreeing with people about something. No, he was banned because he was being obnoxious about his views and basically having a public tantrum because no one supported what he was saying. He was a constant distraction in the community that needed to be removed. If you want to have a cohesive group that can accomplish specific goals then it needs to be free from this sort of problem. If people are always arguing about everything, you'll never get anything done.

(March 20, 2015 at 10:23 am)c172 Wrote: Sorry to, like, get back on topic 'n stuff, but I am a huge fan of the late Carl Sagan, and of Sam Harris, and NDT. Sarah Vowell is a favorite author, who just happens to be atheist. I like Christina Rad's YouTubes, but sometimes her accent is a bit thick to understand.

Also, there was another YouTuber, a somewhat angsty young female British Columbian, that I liked, but she wasn't always atheism. She delved into feminism and other things. But I never recorded her account name, and she may have left YouTube.

I liked Carl Sagan.

But he wasn't an atheist. He was agnostic.

(March 19, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Meh I don't disagree completely, I strongly dislike the idea of having "representatives" of atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens - You see, we can say that atheists only share their lack of belief in god as a common denominator, but regardless atheist celebrities push interests in the name of skeptics, atheists, and free thinkers. I like Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris, but I don't put them on a pedestal, all of them are imperfect to an extent - And I think many atheists don't fully feel represented by them. I would go one step further and say that most atheists worldwide are probably middle class people who are interested in living life peacefully without religious people bothering them, anti-theists like Dawkins and Harris don't represent accurately what most atheists think.

Sam Harris may be a good skeptic and scientist, but he loses everything when he argues that we should racially profile Muslims, just like Dawkins tweets questionable arguments like "rape X is worse than rape Y and if you disagree you are emotional and not logical"

I used to be a fan of Dawkins but I lost all respect for him in recent years. He is clearly out of his element when discussing social issues so he really needs to stick to science and religion. His comments about rape, pedophelia, and people with Down's Syndrome were appalling. He seriously needs to stay away from Twitter.

(March 20, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Delicate Wrote: I liked Carl Sagan.

But he wasn't an atheist. He was agnostic.

Do you happen to know anything about the roots of either of those words? A-theist, meaning without theism, and a-gnostic, from the root word gnossis, meaning knowledge. The former denotes what you believe, the latter what you claim to know; under an actual understanding of the words, Sagan was both an atheist and an agnostic, as are a lot of us here. Sagan misunderstood what atheism was.

(March 16, 2015 at 6:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I like most of what Sam Harris has to say about religion, but I am no fan of his Buddhism stuff.

Haven't read this thread for quite some time, so I only came to notice this now.

My problem with Harris lies mainly with his support for torture under certain circumstances than anything else.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris..._8993.html

I certainly haven't got any respect for his general views. Same goes for his preaching attitude. He's constantly talking down from the top of the ivory tower. As opposed to most other prominent atheists, who tend to rather look at the realities and adress them on an individual level.

@abaris I think Harris lost it when he stoop up for racially profiling Muslims (as if Muslims were one single ethnicity)

Quote:I used to be a fan of Dawkins but I lost all respect for him in recent years. He is clearly out of his element when discussing social issues so he really needs to stick to science and religion. His comments about rape, pedophelia, and people with Down's Syndrome were appalling. He seriously needs to stay away from Twitter.

Indeed, he did some idiotic comments - I respect his work about religion and skepticism + science and biology, but I don't think he is good on social issues - Reminds of John Locke arguing for liberty while keeping slaves

Wookie, I get what you're saying. It was my impression that they had a sort of ideological litmus test. Am I mistaken in thinking that they require members to adhere to a specific set of value claims?

Throwing people out for being disruptive is understandable. Throwing them out -- or worse, accusing them of racism or sexism etc -- will almost certainly foster groupthink.

If that's what they want, it's all good. Such an approach is nothing I'm interested in supporting.

This thread showcases the crucial difference between theists and atheists. Atheists, in general, can admire the work of so-called leading authorities in the field, without necessarily admiring the person; and are free not to accept the entire message whole-cloth. With theists, on the other hand, it's all about the authority of the messenger.