Athiest Manifesto

Interesting piece (I thought)...Main points: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 necessaryIt'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?Atheists, please read my heathen manifesto | Julian Baggini | The GuardianEdited by Heathen, : formattingEdited by Heathen, : link replaced with working one.

It's from Julian Baggini, who seems to be a source of nutty ideas. Naturalism is a metaphysical thesis. I prefer to eschew metaphysics altogether. Our notion of truth should itself be subject to examination and criticism. So it's a mistake to make such a commitment. I'm never sure what scientism is, except that it is typically used as a derogatory term. It seems pointless to include this in a manifesto. It may be equally pointless to even have a manifesto. What does that even mean? The reason that comes from creationists is often worthless. I don't have a problem with that. But I am puzzled as to what Baggini takes "atheism" to mean, if he wants to include that in the Baggini manifesto. That's yet another reason to wonder what Baggini takes "atheism" to mean. I am all for secularism. But you don't have to be an atheist to be a secularist. That one is straight from the Baggini lunatic asylum. Why should I be expected to make sweeping generalizations? I'll criticize individual acts of religious groups, when appropriate. But why does that require criticizing religion as a whole?

I don't see where he says it shouldn't. I think here he is saying that truth is paramount, rather than dogma, belief, wishful thinking etc. I think he agrees when he says Reason is precious, but also fragile. I took this to mean that Atheism doesn't provide big answers in the same way a belief system does. and that is accepted. I don't think that he suggested otherwise. yeah, this struck me as a strange one. I guess it depends on what he defines "religious" as again I'm not sure where the article suggests you do this. Are you reading the same article? again, I think that's what he means by "when necessary"

It has been my experience that there are as many kooky atheist as there are theist. The bell curve distribution in effect. Some have a " I dont have a dog in this fight" attitude while others will froth at the mouth in need of a exorcism while in argument.

I commented point by point to help get the discussion going.I really don't see the point in an atheist manifesto. One typically issues a manifesto to organize people into a movement. But there is very little in common between people who consider themselves atheists. The term "atheism" does not refer to a central principle, but to the lack of any central principle.The one point where most atheists would agree, is on secularism. They oppose the attempts at encroachment on the public sphere by religious groups.The idea of commitment to a central system of principles (such as a manifesto would be), seems to be what atheists don't want.

Surely one central principle would be: having no belief in a divine creator/god?

But that makes as much sense as a non-stamp collecting club for people that don't collect stamps."Having no belief" is not a "central principle" - it is not a principle at all.

I wouldn't really call this a principle as much as a state of being.Concrete doesn't have the central principle of being hard, it simply is hard.

Organizing a group that only shares a lack of belief is a bit like herding kittens. I think the mistake is burdening the movement with the term Atheism. You need to find some positive common belief that people can rally around, be it well reasoned and evidence based policies or secularism. It seems to be a waste of time to rally everyone one around a non-belief, one that is not necessarily tied to how we would like to see society change.For example, I personally do not know of any atheist who believes that people should be prevented from holding religious beliefs. In fact, personal freedom is something we atheists hold very dear. This is not a war against the freedom of religious belief. Therefore, making atheism the center of the manifesto is a big mistake, IMHO. Secularism is the central tenet of the movement, and this is something that even some theists can agree with.

Your summary is problematic. First you list the main points, but then list 10 out 12 of the points. You may as well have listed the other two 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.

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...
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...
"Heathen" fulfils this ambition.

---

Furthermore, you managed to spell 'atheists' wrong every time. Well atheists can obviously be religious. Not all religious beliefs are about gods. Baggini wants to have us believe that there could be a religion that has no supernatural component. I suppose that might be true, but a loosening of the definition of religion sometimes ends us with including things that are not regarded as religion such as fandom.

quote:

---

There are a small minority of forms of religion that are entirely compatible with the heathen position. These are forms of religion that reject the real existence of supernatural entities and divinely authored texts, accept that science trumps dogma, and who see the essential core of religion in its values and practices. We have very little evidence that anything more than a small fraction of actual existent religion is like this, but when it does conform to this description, heathens have no reason to dismiss it as false.

---

I've seen multiple attempts to "define" the atheist position. Unfortunately, "atheism" is nearly as broad a term as "theist."The author here seems to assume that all atheists arrive at their non-belief after serious introspection and rational, logical examination of evidence. That's simply not so. Just because one rejects the various god hypotheses does not mean that such an individual rejects all unevidenced claims, for example.The "manifesto" is an attempt to merge the concepts of rationalism and atheism, but for those who really have a commitment to the truth, this should not be done. Atheism simply encompasses far too many individual belief systems, linked only by the lack of a belief in deities.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 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 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" hey ho... everyone seems to have understood anyway.. I think that's key to this particular point.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

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

Thing is, Heathen, there are already a large number of people who self-identify as atheists, given which it seems a bit arrogant to come along and retrospectively write a manifesto for them. "Oh, is that what we believe? Well thanks for telling us. We were in the dark up until now", one hears them cry.