Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Athiest Manifesto
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 16 of 54 (657254)
03-27-2012 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
03-27-2012 3:26 AM


I don't think it's as prescriptive as you seem to.
merely collating what he sees are the central 'tenets' of Atheism or Heathenism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2012 3:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2012 11:24 AM Heathen has not replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2012 12:34 PM Heathen has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 17 of 54 (657260)
03-27-2012 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Heathen
03-27-2012 2:23 AM


Category error
Heathen writes:
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.
Using your example: there is already an opposing position.
If you are against religious involvement in government then you are a secularist - not an atheist (because not all secularists are atheists).

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Heathen, posted 03-27-2012 2:23 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Heathen, posted 03-27-2012 6:26 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 18 of 54 (657262)
03-27-2012 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Panda
03-27-2012 5:41 AM


Re: Category error
ok... bad example..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Panda, posted 03-27-2012 5:41 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 19 of 54 (657263)
03-27-2012 6:31 AM


Now that he's done a manifesto for people who don't believe in God, maybe he'll start work on a manifesto for those who don't believe in pixies.
I'll be vaguely interested when he gets around to doing one for those who don't believe in trolls......

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 20 of 54 (657264)
03-27-2012 7:07 AM


Re: Atheist, heathenist.
Atheists are not heathenistic nor are heathens necessarily atheistic according to the Online Free Dictionary.
Atheist:
quote:
atheist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Heathenist:
quote:
heathen (hn)
n. pl. heathens or heathen
1. Offensive
a. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
b. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
2. Heathen An adherent of a Neopagan religion that seeks to revive the religious beliefs and practices of the ancient Germanic peoples.
3. Informal
a. One who is regarded as irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened.
b. Such persons considered as a group.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 7:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 22 by Heathen, posted 03-27-2012 7:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 54 (657265)
03-27-2012 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
03-27-2012 7:07 AM


Re: Atheist, heathenist.
True, Buz. One, the disbelief in God; the other, the lack of adherence to a religion. Two related, but different, concepts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2012 7:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 22 of 54 (657266)
03-27-2012 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
03-27-2012 7:07 AM


Re: Atheist, heathenist.
a. One who is regarded as irreligious...or unenlightened
Seems to fit pretty closely.
Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2012 7:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2012 11:31 AM Heathen has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9053
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 23 of 54 (657284)
03-27-2012 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Heathen
03-27-2012 3:29 AM


merely collating what he sees are the central 'tenets' of Atheism or Heathenism
Why does what he sees have any bearing on anything? Atheists(please learn how to spell it, the spelling is very important to the meaning) are not a religion are a not even a group any more than those who do not collect stamps are not a group. We do not have regular meetings or espouse a common moral code.
Also, atheism does not equal heathenism. Anyone that equates them is wrong and probably has no idea what they are talking about.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Heathen, posted 03-27-2012 3:29 AM Heathen has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9053
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 24 of 54 (657287)
03-27-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Heathen
03-27-2012 7:55 AM


Re: Atheist, heathenist.
You really are a tool arent you.
Lets look at the original definition you cropped in an attempt to make a lame ass point.
quote:
heathen (hn)
n. pl. heathens or heathen
1. Offensive
a. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
b. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
2. Heathen An adherent of a Neopagan religion that seeks to revive the religious beliefs and practices of the ancient Germanic peoples.
3. Informal
a. One who is regarded as irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened.
b. Such persons considered as a group.
Out of all of that you took one line that was clearly labeled as an informal definition and even that you altered.
Do you feel "uncivilized" may be seen as too offensive but "unenlightened" is ok?
Your arguments have become offensive.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Heathen, posted 03-27-2012 7:55 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Heathen, posted 03-28-2012 8:38 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(5)
Message 25 of 54 (657288)
03-27-2012 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Heathen
03-27-2012 2:37 AM


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.
There are christians who accept these ideals as well. There are christians who see the benefit of a secular society where religion is private but protected. These are not solely atheist ideals, as if there are any.
Think of it this way. You start a not-golfer club where the commonality between all the members is that you don't like playing golf. As you can guess, there is a very wide range of beliefs and ideals amongst these members. Even more, not playing golf really isn't a cause or something that is pursued. You then write a manifesto telling these members what they believe and don't believe, and it really has nothing to do with not playing golf. I think you would cause people to scratch their heads wondering why such a manifesto is needed.
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.
Getting atheists to agree to anything is pretty hard. I think the only thing we do agree on is our love of bbq kitten.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Heathen, posted 03-27-2012 2:37 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Heathen, posted 03-28-2012 9:00 AM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 26 of 54 (657295)
03-27-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Heathen
03-27-2012 3:29 AM


I don't think it's as prescriptive as you seem to.
merely collating what he sees are the central 'tenets' of Atheism or Heathenism
Well in the first place, that would not be a manifesto.
In the second place, it's not very accurate as a description. Are those my "central tenets"? I am an atheist, but atheism itself is not one of my "central tenets", any more than my disbelief that there's an elephant in my back yard is one of my "central tenets". I just checked my back yard and there's no elephant, it's not an ideology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Heathen, posted 03-27-2012 3:29 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Heathen, posted 03-28-2012 8:52 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


(2)
Message 27 of 54 (657296)
03-27-2012 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Heathen
03-27-2012 2:37 AM


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
There's certainly value in recognizing that a subset of the population does not believe what the rest of the population believes.
But this "manifesto" attempts to define a broadly general term with specifics that, frankly, just don't always apply.
Try to write the same "manifesto" for Theists.
1) Theists believe in god(s).
...I can't get more specific without falsely defining the beliefs of some subset of Theists. Do you see the problem here?
"Atheist" simply means "no belief in god(s)." That's it.
The "manifesto" bears the hallmark of an attempt to add filler to a definition that can be encompassed by a single line, merely four words. The author has sought to project his own brand of Atheism onto all Atheists, and in so doing has inaccurately described a large subset of non-believers.
The only reason I can think of for doing so is to attempt to make the "manifesto" more dramatic and meaningful...so that it becomes something like a creed from a major religion. The irony burns.
You cannot describe Atheists with specifics like "their first commitment is to the truth." It's just blatantly not so - and to prove it, all you need to do is find a single self-identified Atheist who honestly believes in something blatantly false, like "holistic medicine" or "autism is caused by vaccines." Hell, just look at Bill Maher, a popular Atheist who, as I recall, does not accept the Germ Theory of Disease (like Dark Onifre, he believes that poor nutrition is the primary cause of disease).
Some people just want to distinguish themselves from the crowd, and in their drive to not conform, they embrace a wide variety of what they see as minority positions, from 9/11 conspiracy theories to UFO abduction stories to psychic power to they hypothesis that the Egyptian pyramids were created by ancient aliens and that Stargate is in fact a documentary rather than entertaining science fiction. Some of those people will decide to be Atheists, too. It lets them continue their sense of belonging to an enlightened, persecuted minority.
We already have our own voices. I can say what I do and do not believe. I don't need some "manifesto" to spell it out for me. And just as much as I don;t want to be lumped in with Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Mormons and New-Age idiots, I also don't want to be lumped in with idiot Atheists and Agnostics, or told what I believe by some fool who thinks "we" need a "manifesto."
Do you know what Creeds and manifestos are used for? They're used as reference points for dogma. When in doubt on what to believe, just look at the Creed again and it will tell you!
There is exactly one defining trait among Atheists: a lack of belief in any deities. That's our only binding position.
Adding anything else is just silly.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Heathen, posted 03-27-2012 2:37 AM Heathen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2012 2:25 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 28 of 54 (657307)
03-27-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rahvin
03-27-2012 12:42 PM


There's certainly value in recognizing that a subset of the population does not believe what the rest of the population believes.
But this "manifesto" attempts to define a broadly general term with specifics that, frankly, just don't always apply.
The manifesto isn't about a group of people that do not believe what the rest of the population believes. It's about a group of people that share a common set of beliefs that together the rest of the population does not believe.
There are a allegedly a group of people who think that the term atheist has 'has unhelpful connotations' and who want label that defines them in terms of what they are rather than what the are not. They are naturalists rather than just anti-supernaturalists. They have a commitment to the truth of things, while retaining tentativity of their conclusions. They have a respect of science but do not believe that science is the only tool for uncovering truths. They believe in the power of reason, but also believe in the fallibility of human reasoning. They are sure of many of their conclusions, but are not dogmatic. They believe that religion and politics should not mix. They believe it is possible to be 'one of them' while also being religious for certain understandings of the word religious. They believe that religious values can coincide with their own, but they believe it is right to criticize religion in some situations.
Baggini believes that there is such a group of people, more or less. He proposes the term 'heathen' to classify this group.
The "manifesto" bears the hallmark of an attempt to add filler to a definition that can be encompassed by a single line, merely four words. The author has sought to project his own brand of Atheism onto all Atheists, and in so doing has inaccurately described a large subset of non-believers.
quote:
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.
I agree that he is in a sense, projecting his own views of atheism into his manifesto. But then, if I were to try and create a document that portrays the modern atheism movement, which does not represent all atheists, it would involve my projecting my own views of atheism...it's kind of a necessary step. There is, a noticeable movement of people brewing. They are almost all atheists. But not all atheists are part of the movement. The term that was in use was 'new atheism' but, 'heathen' is an acceptable term, I think.
I don't think what I would write in that circumstance, would be a close match with Baggini's. But Baggini gives his reason for making the manifesto:
quote:
Our commitment to independent thought and the provisionality of belief means that few heathens are likely to agree completely with this manifesto. It is therefore almost a precondition of supporting it that you do not entirely support it. At the same time, although very few people of faith can be heathens, many will find themselves in agreement with much of what heathens belief {sic}. This is what provides the common ground to make fruitful dialogue possible: we need to accept what we share in order to accept with civility and understanding what we most certainly do not. This is what the heathen manifesto is really about.
Putting on my confrontationalist hat:- It looks like an accomodationist mind trap!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rahvin, posted 03-27-2012 12:42 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rahvin, posted 03-27-2012 3:37 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 29 of 54 (657325)
03-27-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Modulous
03-27-2012 2:25 PM


Baggini believes that there is such a group of people, more or less. He proposes the term 'heathen' to classify this group.
By using a "new" term, this bypasses basically all of my disagreements. I'm not necessarily a fan of the term itself (and I'd suggest that "heathen" may have even more negative connotation than "Atheist"), but he's no longer describing Atheists as a whole, but rather a subset of Atheists who share his specific views.
I still think it's somewhat entertaining to exclaim at one's rejection of dogma in a list of tenets adhered to by members of this group (ie, dogma) and its similarity to a religious creed, but that's rather beside the point.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2012 2:25 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by 1.61803, posted 03-27-2012 3:51 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 30 of 54 (657333)
03-27-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rahvin
03-27-2012 3:37 PM


PFJ
Yes, please leave the dogma to the dogmatic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rahvin, posted 03-27-2012 3:37 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024