1. Athiests are naturalists 2. First Commitment is to the truth 3. We respect Scence, Not Scientism 4. Reason is precious 5. Reject Dogma 6. Accept that Athieism will not have answers and are prepared for that 7. Are Secularists 8. Athiests can be religious(?) 9. Religion isn't all bad. 10. Are Critical of religion hen necessary
It's a fairly inoccuous piece but I'm interested to hear some folks views on this article... Are you in agreement? IS it a pile of Crap?
I guess you're right except Stamp collectors aren't trying to exert influence in schools/governments, so perhaps there's not so much of a need for an opposing position.
The first point you missed was actually the rejection of the term 'atheist' and the adoption of the term 'heathen'. He does not call it the atheist manifesto but the heathen manifesto - I would have thought you'd have liked this given your screen-name.
The naming didn't strike me as central to the article. Or at least not central to what I was interested in getting views on. Neither did the final point which talks about "Forging Links"
Furthermore, you managed to spell 'atheists' wrong every time.
hey ho... everyone seems to have understood anyway..
It's entertaining that some atheists feel such a strong need to mirror religion that they can simultaneously define themselves as having no dogma while publishing their own version of the Apostles Creed.
I think it's more about being recognised as a section of society. A section who do not wish to give undue deference to religion, a section who does not wish to see crimes that would otherwise be considered hateful or bigoted being accepted as part of a persons faith. A section of society who do not wish to be absorbed into a default position of Christian, or CofE or whatever. I don't think this article represents dogma, but rather an attempt to write down a series of principles which, the author thinks, represent a common thread in atheists/heathens or what ever you choose to be called. It's far from perfect but, the idea that there is a part of society, not insignificant in number, who reject the "accepted" norms of religion is good, but as long as the members of that section of society just carry on, head down, allowing themselves to be counted as part of some other majority by virtue of their silence, the 'majority' are more likely to have a stronger, unopposed, mandate
Why did you choose to specifically replace his choice of word 'heathen' with 'atheist'?
because he uses the word Heathen as a more palatable, less loaded alternative. His ultimate meaning is the same. He states that.
Edit In fact, reading what he actually says, why did you choose to misrepresent it
I'm not sure I did misrepresent, I basically took the first few words of each point he made and listed them here. I left out the name change from Athiest to Heathen, and the declaration about this manifesto being about forging links etc.
calm yourself.. I didn't set out to misrepresent or twist anything that he had written, if I had, posting the link kinda defeats the purpose dontcha think?
if it makes you feel better just comment on the article in the link, and ignore my bullet points. sheesh.
Fuck you. And take your personal attacks elsewhere.
make a lame ass point
I wasn't making a "lame ass" point you gimp. I posted this in coffee house cos I thought it may be of interest. Nothing more. If you don't like don't read.
The author of the article is pretty informally deciding on a more appropriate title for athiests, in his opinion. Athiests are considered "irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened" by many religious folk. I put an elipsis in to highlight the two descriptions I felt were more common.
Ok. this is a journalistic, comment-section-of-the-paper type article so I don't think getting hung up on the minutae of definitions serves any purpose.
Strictly speaking you're right, it is not technically a manifesto, it is a list of things that atheism means to this guy. (that is to say it's written more to be descriptive and prescriptive)
I guess my reason for posting this was to find out which bits of it people here do/do not identify with.
purely an exercise for interest sake. nothing more.
quote:It has long been recognised that the term "atheist" has unhelpful connotations.
it is the "connotations" he is unhappy with. not the meaning.
quote:If we want an alternative,
He wants to find an "alternative" word for "atheist". to avoid the "connotations", not change the meaning.
quote: atheism faces the human condition with honesty
again, referncing "atheism" as the word he wants to find an "alternative" for, to avoid "unhelpful connotations" not change the meaning.
quote: "Heathen" fulfils this ambition.
So. "heathen" works as an "alternative" title to "Atheist" in order to avoid the "unhelpful connotations"
The author of the piece feels that heathen is an acceptable alternative to atheist. If you disagree. good for you, articulate your disagreement. but save yourself the energy you expend in going after me. As I said, I posted this here to get some opinions, not to be an apologist.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)