|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Athiest Manifesto | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
Why did you choose to specifically replace his choice of word 'heathen' with 'atheist'?
Edit In fact, reading what he actually says, why did you choose to misrepresent it; rather than using his choice of bullet points? I largely agree with what he wrote. Although some of what he writes under 'We respect science, not scientism' sits badly with me. Edited by Mr Jack, : Added more
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1274 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
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. Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1274 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
You really are a tool arent you.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1274 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
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. Edited by Heathen, : No reason given. Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1274 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
You then write a manifesto telling these members what they believe and don't believe yeah, I don't read it as him telling people what they do/don't should/shouldn't believe. I think it's far more passive than that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
You really are a tool arent you. Fuck you. And take your personal attacks elsewhere.
If you notice someone breaking our rules the correct response is to add a post to Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0. The incorrect response is to say 'fuck you' and call the offender a 'gimp'. Consider this a warning to both you and Theodoric.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9053 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
because he uses the word Heathen as a more palatable, less loaded alternative. His ultimate meaning is the same. He states that. Please show where he states atheism = heathenism. If he does it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9053 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
athiests Is it really that hard to spell the word correctly? It is atheist as in not a theist.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1274 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
quote:it is the "connotations" he is unhappy with. not the meaning. quote:He wants to find an "alternative" word for "atheist". to avoid the "connotations", not change the meaning. quote:again, referncing "atheism" as the word he wants to find an "alternative" for, to avoid "unhelpful connotations" not change the meaning. quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1274 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
Is it really that hard to spell the word correctly?
No, not hard, but I'm posting here while working. so time for spell checking isn't available.I'm sorry you find it so offensive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Hello Heathen
I think the key to discussing what (I think) you want to discuss here is to not get bogged down in definitions of "atheist" or "heathen" or whatever else. Instead try to re-focus on the core aim of the article in question. Namely (as I see it):
Your OP link writes: 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. If atheists here think this a flawed aim - Fair enough. Let them explain exactly why they think it is flawed. Maybe it is. Personally I would agree with much, but not all, of the points in the article. But I don't think that is the point. More importantly I do think there is a case for re-assessing the manner of public discussion of atheism and irreligiosity for many of the reasons cited in the article.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3703 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Heathen writes:
Firefox is your friend. so time for spell checking isn't available. 1) Add a dictionary.2) Stand back while it underlines any typos. 3) Right-click and choose the correct spelling. 4) WIN! Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1274 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
not get bogged down in definitions of "atheist" or "heathen"
Which is why I didn't include that in my first post.
Personally I would agree with much, but not all, of the points in the article. But I don't think that is the point. More importantly I do think there is a case for re-assessing the manner of public discussion of atheism and irreligiosity for many of the reasons cited in the article.
I certainly think that discussions about atheism should be less about attacking religion, and more about demonstrating how unecessary and irrelevant it is and can be.I think Dawkins does a reasonable job of this, although I personally find his manner a little irritating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Heathen writes: Which is why I didn't include that in my first post. I know. But you'd be amazed at how many discussions about atheism just end up being debates about what the term "atheism" means. This one looked to be heading that same way.
Heathen writes: I certainly think that discussions about atheism should be less about attacking religion, and more about demonstrating how unnecessary and irrelevant it is and can be. I think many religiously minded folk would consider claims that religion is irrelevant and unnecessary to be an attack on their beliefs
Heathen writes: I think Dawkins does a reasonable job of this, although I personally find his manner a little irritating. Personally I'm quite a Dawkins fan. But he has become synonomous with a certain sort of caricature of entrenched atheism that isn't very conducive to discussion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024