But that is only the first hurdle. Perhaps it could be proven that there is a god (or gods), but having done that it then becomes necessary to show that its existence is somehow relevant. Wikipedia defines a branch of atheism/agnosticism they call “apatheism”, those who believe that solid proof of a god’s existence will not make a difference one way or the other: “So god might exist, who cares? The overwhelming evidence of history is that religious belief has no salutory effect on human behavior, proof would not change that.”
I am waiting for Atheism++ because it includes classes, polymorphism and inheritance.
…
Sorry, someone had to say it.
Personally, though I am not an atheist, I think the term *rationalist *is fairly neutral in connotation.
The bold part is where you begin to add stuff to atheism.
It may be true, it may be valuable, but it’s not inescapable, taking atheism only as a starting point. You haven’t refuted Shodan’s point; you’ve only put yourself in a category of atheists with certain values.
I bet most atheists would fit in the same tent, but that’s beside the point. No doubt there are atheists who don’t care a whit about their fellow man, other than as means to their own ends. Even if there isn’t a single one, but the possibility exists, Shodan’s point holds.
Is that someone who doesn’t believe in pi?
Yeah, but so what? Just because atheism doesn’t logically imply social justice doesn’t mean a group can’t espouse both.
And that’s kind of the entire point of the + in Atheism+. It’s more than just atheism. Why is that a problem?
Also, Introduction to Atheism+
While I completely agree, M-W.com defined it as a lack of a belief in a deity. I’m good with that. However, the link to the student’s (children’s) definition states;
the belief that there is no God.
I would say that the conclusion follows if you desire a good life and if you possess sufficient empathy and intelligence to question the central motivations behind racism.
Obviously, not everyone will or does. And at its core, atheism is simply the loack of belief in a god, but it isn’t unlikely that many, if not most atheists who came to their position rationally do fit in a group who would eschew racism.
I’m not saying all atheists fall into that group, I’m saying some large number do. Does that make sense? He said the argument doesn’t follow, but I say it does if you fit some criteria.
Which, of course, doesn’t negate his point, it just clarifies that for many it would hold.
For those concerned about shifting what you thought atheism was, here is what Greta Christina has written:
from Why Atheism Plus Is Good for Atheism - Greta Christina's Blog
OK, I don’t think there’s any real disagreement here.
Atheism is the lack of belief in any deity or deities.
Atheism+ is that plus … something that sounds like Humanism.
As I said before: nothing new here. Well, the term is new. If it helps make atheists seem less evil to bible-clutchers, then fine. My guess is it won’t help much.
No.
I like pie.
Greta Christina makes some interesting points. I saw two basic ones in the part I skimmed: one is that there is a tolerating-intolerance issue, and the other is that it’s not a good idea to let the loudest and most obnoxious people dictate the discussion. I know PZ Myers unloads on sexist dipshits on a regular basis, and I’m sure the reason they are bothering him in the first place is that they’re also atheists. You can certainly take an “I’M SUPER-RATIONAL AND I’M TELLING IT LIKE IT IS!” to really nasty extremes with regard to gender and for that matter race. I think we’re largely talking about small meetings and blogs message boards and things, so I’m not sure how much it even matters, but she makes a good point that it’s not in atheists’ interests to have people have one encounter with a group of atheists and decide they’re a bunch of crass jerks. That’s more of a first-impressions thing than a movement.
That said, I have to confess to a lingering skepticism at the statement “atheism plus does not re-define atheism.” No shit a handful of bloggers aren’t changing what atheism means. They don’t have the capability. That’s a really hubristic clarification.
The same goes for the adjacent statements “atheism plus does not re-define atheism” and “[atheism] isn’t enough.” The main reason for the negative reaction, I think, is that “atheism” is essentially a classification and “atheism plus” is supposed to be a movement. Atheists are not necessarily movement people. And as noted, there are already a lot of terms that cover what “atheism plus” purports to be. If there’s a difference, it’s that those other groups aren’t restricted to only atheists - which is probably a good thing.
Even stronger than that: it’s someone who doesn’t believe in the square root of 2.
Someone who believes in the square root of 2 but not in pi is not a rationalist, but an algebraicist (or equivalently, an a-transcendentalist).
Sounds great and Darwin can be our Moses and Dawkins be our Messiah.
Stupid idea, I don’t want to identify with a new religion my choice is personal and shall remain so. I will support a political party with those views but bringing religion in [excluding non atheists] is bigoted.
Yeah I’m going to join the chorus saying this sounds kind of stupid. Apatheist is probably the label that describes me best and I find a lot of organised religion distasteful. It’s not the belief in God that upsets me though, but the arrogance that comes from professing to know the Truth, and that us-versus-them attitude.
Seems to me like a lot of atheists crave the community and sense of belonging that religious people get from attending a church. Play a sport! Join a club! Volunteer! Don’t just gather under a banner with people who share your beliefs so you can sit around feeling morally superior. Isn’t that something we should be trying to move beyond?
WTF is she on about? Atheism isn’t some defining label to attach to people, it just means “I see no evidence or compelling reason to waste a large part of my life obsessing over deities”. Atheism is surely the default state of a human being. Of course it “isn’t enough”. I fail to see any connection between one’s belief, or lack thereof, in some invisible sky-being, and one’s social or moral opinions and goals.
It’s like saying, “I’m a Redhead Plus: just having red hair isn’t enough for me; I want to become a veterinarian and cure sick puppies.”
Again, atheism isn’t a “thing”, it’s just what people are unless they decide (or are coerced from an early age) to follow a religion.
Edit: wayward, I agree completely. Atheism does seem to be becoming co-opted into some happy-clappy “gosh look at us aren’t we so damn clever” banner. If you want to get together to promote some social cause, then knock yourselves out, but don’t wrap it in “We’re atheists and we think this”.
I personally would prefer Atheism -
As in I don’t believe in God or astronomy.
I propose Atheism Xtreme - not believing in God while doing a backflip on a motorbike.
Maybe we can drive off vampires by waving a copy of On the Origin of Species at them.
Maybe we could get more converts with Diet Atheism.
Makes Sense!
Less Filling!
I think you might have something here, but you need to start marketing the Atheism Extreme Games. If you create the right sports, you’ll have an easy time getting free publicity.