Atheist extremism is bad... mkay?

[Edwardo Piet]

It's all very well to say you're against such misrepresentation of atheism. Are you going to actually do something about it? And if so, can you do it without forming groups of atheists that are against it in some way and thereby perhaps making atheism, once again, look more than it is and in turn misrepresent it further?

For example, if you have a lot of atheists protest with signs about how "Atheism is nothing more than non-belief in gods" the very protest might misrepresent that very point. Ironically.

[Paul the Human]

As an atheist, I can do my best to show that my lack of belief in someone's god does not automatically mean that I hate them or even hold their belief against them somehow. I can also speak out against such extremism... which is what I have done with this thread.

If more atheists were more vocal in such a way... it would not mean we are a 'club'.

[theVOID]

That's pretty much all we should do. If it comes up correct it and if they still refuse to accept the correct definition then fuck'em, they aren't worth talking to if they refuse to let go of something so trivial.

[Edwardo Piet]

If more atheists were more vocal in such a way... it would not mean we are a 'club'.

No. But I think that if it might not be misrepresented as such then there wouldn't be a misrepresentation in the first place.

[theVOID]

I doubt it, some people would simply string together "atheism" and whatever the fuck assumptions they have about the type of person who would hold such a position, in that case it wouldn't matter whether we had picket signs or not.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah, I agree actually on that point. But I do think it could still ironically compound the very problem for "Us atheists" who actually consider it a problem.

[Cerrone]

Uhmmmm what's the problem here exactly?

You shouldn't be so hasty to condemn the people who're actually on the same side as you are -providing obviously you fall into the category of atheism- i mean, diplomacy and debate and rationality are fine for conversation at parties and at the dinner table, but you need to recognise that to counter extreme christianity (and it is extreme in its effects) you need to have an opposition that is equally if not more extreme and committed.

Malcolm X put it best when he pointed out that white racists and the establishment were extreme, so the black muslim movement also had to be extreme to get its message across and defend its members.

[Cego_Colher]

If we didn't condemn the actions of extreme atheism then it might look to other as if there is a double standard.
etc. and probably repeat things Paul said.
(I ran into a case of this on the NPR Facebook page. Everyone was complaining about atheists being pissed off at the fact that someone wanted to 'recreate' how Moses got across the Red Sea. and some of them were actually insulting the religious people there.)

Also, everyone has different connotations attached to words. I had to do an exercise on it last week for my public speaking class for what each of us thought of a specific word/set of i.e. Date rape, soccor mom, media, family values....
so, it's not like anyone is an idiot for having negative connotations to the word "atheist" in fact I think my boyfriend kind of does and he's a/n agnostic/weak atheist. His father was very anti-religion/angry atheist and he had other issues with his father. or he just thinks atheist means belief there is no god not a lack of believe in god.

[theVOID]

Oh come on Cerrone, it's got nothing to do with that. It's the same as moderate theists quite rightly not wanting to be associated with extremists - If the distinction is not somehow made clear then there are going to be even more instances than currently occur where people immediately assume that all theists or atheists have the attributes of the extremists.

That raving angry loon Aussiegobber will inevitably enforce the idea in the minds of some that he is representative of all, or at least a large portion, of Atheists.

Imo rather than referring to ourselves as something else or just not having a term (like Sam Harris suggests) I say we continue to use the word that actually and historically describes the position we hold regarding the existence of God and instead make the definition clearer to those who get it wrong.

In fact i would say that the suggestion that we don't refer to ourselves as Atheists (because we don't call ourselves afairiests) is one of the dumber of the many dumb things Harris has said.

[Cerrone]

Oh come on Cerrone, it's got nothing to do with that. It's the same as moderate theists quite rightly not wanting to be associated with extremists - If the distinction is not somehow made clear then there are going to be even more instances than currently occur where people immediately assume that all theists or atheists have the attributes of the extremists.

But they do already though! I've read a lot of stories about how people "coming out" to express their thoughts that maybe god doesnt exist have been treated like shit by their communities, ditched by their friends and given the cold shoulder by their families.. and for just having the balls and brains to express their opinion. The treatment that some atheists already receive is appaulling, it couldn't get any worse could it?

Extreme pro-christian types spread all the hate they want about atheism anyway, so if an atheist group in any community wants to put an end to it they've got to get their point across themselves. Like I said in another thread on here, when you see a christian poster, paste an athiest one over it and so on metaphorically.

No group or people in history have saved themselves from repression by just doing nothing, right?