“Atheism is intrinsically linked to issues of social justice?” How could that be? While I don’t agree, I understand if someone wants to say they are linking nonbelief with social justice as a matter of policy, but intrinsically? How could the disbelief in a god be intrinsically linked to anything other than the disbelief in god?
Translation: I personally can not conceive of a way that lack of belief in gods could be anything more that lack of belief in gods in the dictionary sense, or could possibly have any intrinsic implications, and I therefore feel entitled to say stupid things and criticize others who do not share my lack of comprehension.
This is not rocket science. Religions tell us that their holy texts are the transcribed and recorded revelations of their gods, and because this is so, they must be taken as true, and the instructions therein must be followed. And the revealed truths in those books make claims about matters of social justice and equality all the time, for example the treatment of homosexuals, or women, or rape victims, claims that religious believers cite to this day when they discriminate against such groups in the name of their deity.
No gods means no revealed truths by gods, and that means no moral obligation to discriminate against people based on scripture. Is this so hard to understand?
If you consider yourself an atheist and this is not obvious to you, then I’m afraid you’re doing it wrong.
Are we talking about or Atheism+ or plain old atheism here? The title says it’s the former, but the body of the text only mentions the latter. Are you *sure* Atheism+ isn’t about redefining the term “atheism” because I have been claiming it isn’t and nobody likes to look stupid.
I have to say, before I can develop much enthusiasm for this Atheism+ thing it’s going to have to show itself to be a bit more productive than it has been so far. I already identify as an atheist and a feminist (and a supporter of LGBT rights etc. etc.). Now I am to say I am an Atheist+ist (or whatever the correct terminology is). People are going to ask me what that is, and I will have to tell them it means I am an atheist and a feminist (plus, etc. etc.). So after that pointless little detour I am back to defending my position as a feminist. Why am I bothering again?
That’s not my understanding of it, actually. Or at least only for very basic values of feminism, like, “woman are people”, and not merely things whose ankles we can gnaw on, who we may proposition at our leisure at conferences, call cunts and sluts, and act surprised when they object to being stalked and harassed for daring to voice an opinion in public.
There is no hidden radical agenda to A+, to me it’s a movement of people who accept the basic premise that all people should be equal and treated equal. And this follows directly from dismissing the existence of gods and their holy texts.
“Translation: I personally can not conceive of a way that lack of belief in gods could be anything more that lack of belief in gods in the dictionary sense, or could possibly have any intrinsic implications, and I therefore feel entitled to say stupid things and criticize others who do not share my lack of comprehension”
Translation: I am an idiot who doesn’t understand logic, what implication means, or maybe even the definition of the terms I am invoking. Despite my breathtaking ignorance, I am so self-righteous that I feel like I can attack people who actually do know what they are talking about.
This post makes logic cry. It also sums up quite nicely the mindset of the atheism+ people. Stupid and proud of it.
There is no hidden radical agenda to A+, to me it’s a movement of people who accept the basic premise that all people should be equal and treated equal. And this follows directly from dismissing the existence of gods and their holy texts.
Oh wow, this just keeps getting better. I remember the good old days when atheists tended to be better educated, intelligent and sceptical. Those days are gone. You are proof that being an atheist entails nothing more than having one less stupid idea than any particular theist.
Celtic Chimp,
two comments by you, and I’m still waiting for an actual argument. But I’m not holding my breath.
Religions tell us that their holy texts are the transcribed and recorded revelations of their gods, and because this is so, they must be taken as true, and the instructions therein must be followed. And the revealed truths in those books make claims about matters of social justice and equality all the time, for example the treatment of homosexuals, or women, or rape victims, claims that religious believers cite to this day when they discriminate against such groups in the name of their deity. No gods means no revealed truths by gods, and that means no moral obligation to discriminate against people based on scripture.
How does that work? The “dictionary sense” is the correct one — atheism is the lack of belief in anything that could be considered a deity. The atheist doesn’t reject religion because it’s eeeevil; he rejects it because he thinks it’s false. He might think religion is eeeevil. He might think it’s eeeevil because it’s false. But that’s secondary.
Obviously an atheist can’t justify racism, sexism, homophobia etc on religious grounds (duh). But that doesn’t mean he can’t find other reasons to hold beliefs that are racist, sexist or homophobic by your lights. He might believe (rightly or wrongly) that these attitudes are in accord with the facts of science. Or he might believe uncritical xenophilia, feminism and the gay rights movement are destructive of social order. Hell, he might just be racist, sexist, homophobic etc because he feels like it.
You might argue that these positions are irrational. But so what? Even if they are irrational, there’s no necessary connection between atheism and reason, scientific or otherwise. Some atheists might have reasoned their way to unbelief in God. Many more might have fallen into atheism by default as a result of osmosis: because family, friends or the wider culture aren’t particularly religious. Just like many people are religious for no other reason than that they’ve been brought up to be.
Atheism+ means atheism+liberalism. If you want to be an atheist+liberal, fine. If you believe it’s the supremely rational position, great. But don’t pretend to speak for all atheists or try to redefine atheism in those terms. There are plenty of appallingly illiberal atheists out there, just as there are plenty of appallingly liberal religious folk.
Ah, Alex… good to see you again. I’ve missed you.
Thus far I’m in agreement.
True enough. There are plenty of atheists who are racist, sexist or homophobic.
Of course rejecting traditional religion removes some of the traditional beliefs that have been used to justify bigotry (which I think was Martin’s point – an honest atheist could not say, for instance, that gay people are an abomination because Leviticus says so). But you’re entirely correct that that doesn’t stop bigoted atheists from coming up with their own non-religious forms of bigotry. Pat Condell is an atheist, and he uses his anti-theism as a convenient excuse for hating Muslims. John Derbyshire is an atheist, and he claims (falsely) that there is “scientific evidence” to support his prejudices about differences in intelligence between racial groups. Plenty of sexists are atheists, and rely on mangled evolutionary psychology tropes to support their claims about “inherent differences” between men and women. And so on. None of these forms of bigotry is necessarily incompatible with being an atheist.
But those bigoted atheists are wrong – no less wrong than theists are, and often in a far more destructive way. (I know from experience that I have far more common ground with a religious anti-racist activist, say, than with a racist atheist.) And that’s exactly the point in Atheism+, as far as I understand it – it’s a group of atheists who reject racism, sexism and homophobia, and want to say so loudly and publicly. I consider that a very good thing (even if I’m still not particularly comfortable with movement atheism in general).
I don’t think anyone was claiming otherwise. There are plenty of irrational atheists.
But no one’s trying to “redefine atheism in those terms”. As far as I understand it, Atheism+ is a movement of atheists who also happen to be committed to social justice and to opposing bigotry, and who want to distance themselves from those atheists who are bigots. That doesn’t mean they’re purporting to “speak for all atheists” or trying to redefine atheism itself.
Celtic Chimp,
Er… what? Do try to stop ranting and make an actual argument.
David Neale:
Flattery will get you everywhere, you saucy beast.
Oh. That’s all right then. Carry on!
You need me to spell it out to you? Ok. I will.
No gods means no revealed truths by gods, and that means no moral obligation to discriminate against people based on scripture. Is this so hard to understand?
If you consider yourself an atheist and this is not obvious to you, then I’m afraid you’re doing it wrong.
Not having a moral obligation to do something is not positive content. At best you are stating a kind of pointless tautology. Atheists don’t do things based on scripture. And? so? This is essentially a restatement of “Atheists aren’t theists”.
It is a bit like saying “Another interesting aspect of vegetarians is that they don’t kill animals in order to eat them.”
Atheists are entirely capable of discrimating if they want to.
Christians don’t discriminate on the basis of Hindu scripture. Would you consider this an attribute of Christianity? If you start defining things by what they don’t entail, the descriptions would be a tad unwieldy.
You do understand what a dictionary is, right?
You are stating directly that you are not taking Atheism to be what it is defined as
personally can not conceive of a way that lack of belief in gods could be anything more that lack of belief in gods in the dictionary sense
When you do that, you aren’t taking about that thing anymore. You are talking about something else.
Does being an atheist tell you anything at all about a person other than “they don’t believe in gods?”
As you seem to think it does, would you mind telling us what that is?
It most certainly does not tell you that they don’t discriminate against X or Y group or anything like it.
Atheism has a very clear definition. Don’t like the definition? Fine. Call yourself something else.