Theo writes:
Please show where he states atheism = heathenism. If he does it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.
It seems more like a suggestion to bypass some perceived issues with the use of the term "atheist". The first point from the OP link writes:
OP Link writes:
1 Why we are heathens:
It has long been recognised that the term "atheist" has unhelpful connotations. It has too many dark associations and also defines itself negatively, against what it opposes, not what it stands for. "Humanist" is one alternative, but humanists are a subset of atheists who have a formal organisation and set of beliefs many atheists do not share. Whatever the intentions of those who adopt the labels, "rationalist" and "bright" both suffer from sounding too self-satisfied, too confident, implying that others are irrationalists or dim.
If we want an alternative, we should look to other groups who have reclaimed mocking nicknames, such as gays, Methodists and Quakers. We need a name that shows that we do not think too highly of ourselves. This is no trivial point: atheism faces the human condition with honesty, and that requires acknowledging our absurdity, weakness and stupidity, not just our capacity for creativity, intelligence, love and compassion. "Heathen" fulfils this ambition. We are heathens because we have not been saved by God and because in the absence of divine revelation, we are in so many ways deeply unenlightened. The main difference between us and the religious is that we know this to be true of all of us, but they believe it is not true of them.
I think some of the atheists here are giving Heathen a rather hard time. The article is a discussion point rather than something claiming to represent all atheists or dictate what it is anyone actually believes.
In the intro it says:
OP Link writes:
This manifesto is an attempt to point towards the next phase of atheism's involvement in public discourse. It is not a list of doctrines that people are asked to sign up to but a set of suggestions to provide a focus for debate and discussion. Nor is it an attempt to accurately describe what all atheists have in common. Rather it is an attempt to prescribe what the best form of atheism should be like.
What the "best form of atheism"
should be like is bound to be disputed and debated. But as I understand it that is kinda the point.
If there is such a thing as "the atheist movement" of which Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc. are seen as the representatives then the author of this article seems to be suggesting that it has got itself stuck in a rut.
OP Link writes:
Atheists are too often portrayed as bishop-bashing extremists and any meaningful debate with the religious becomes impossible. How can this be remedied? At the Guardian Open Weekend, Julian Baggini presented his 12 rules for heathens
In recent years, we atheists have become more confident and outspoken in articulating and defending our godlessness in the public square. Much has been gained by this. There is now wider awareness of the reasonableness of a naturalist world view, and some of the unjustified deference to religion has been removed, exposing them to much needed critical scrutiny.
Unfortunately, however, in a culture that tends to focus on the widest distinctions, the most extreme positions and the most strident advocates, the "moderate middle" has been sidelined by this debate. There is a perception of unbridgeable polarisation, and a sense that the debates have sunk into a stale impasse, with the same tired old arguments being rehearsed time and again by protagonists who are getting more and more entrenched.
It is time, therefore, for those of us who are tired of the status quo to try to shift the focus of our public discussions of atheism into areas where more progress and genuine dialogue is possible. To achieve this, we need to rethink what atheism stands for and how to present it. The so-called "new atheism" may have put us on the map, but in the public imagination it amounts to little more than a caricature of Richard Dawkins, which is not an accurate representation of the terrain many of us occupy. We now need something else.
If we are going to insist that there is not any such thing as "the atheist movement" because atheists are just too disparate a bunch to ever form such a thing then the author is onto a loser as his whole premise is a lost cause.
If however there does a exist a broad set of aims that a significant number of atheists can sign up to and which have recently been represented by figures such as Dawkins who are now perceived to be overly divisive then perhaps a discussion on what this movement is trying to achieve and how best to achieve it isn't so silly.
You decide....