I was thinking about this thread some more today, and I think this entire part of the discussion that’s represented by these posts is going off in the wrong direction. Sure, in a GD thread about the existence of God it’s imperative that everyone define their terms and make their positions clear. But I don’t see how the difference between “strong atheists” and “weak atheists” or “weak atheists” and “strong agnostics” has anything to do with Americans considering atheists to be “a threat to the American way of life”.
It can’t just that atheists are considered “arrogant” or “dogmatic”; it that were the case, we ought to rank about the same as “fundamentalist Christians”–yet according to the poll, we apparently are rated lower by our countrymen than Muslims, at least some of whom in the last few years have been newsworthy for such actions as flying airliners into buildings, sawing off people’s heads, and demanding the death penalty for “apostates”.
Any sort of public campaign to clarify the difference between “disbelieving in God” vs. “lacking a belief in God” is (outside of a forum like this one) largely beside the point. If I were in charge of atheist PR in America, I’d probably focus on a lot of soft-focus stories showing that atheists are just regular people, who have jobs and care about their families, who worry about paying the bills; and at least some of whom are doctors and nurses, soldiers or police officers. Atheists volunteer for charitable and civic organizations; we give to for tsunami or hurricane relief when some horrendous disaster strikes, same as everyone else. We don’t poison wells or hold rituals involving the blood of unbaptized Christian children. We’re really not that different from the rest of y’all.
That would be a good PR move, and it has the weasley component to make it so. I think the first thing to gain respect and, eventually, acceptance is for someone to stand up and say THIS is what I believe. If that was done in tandem with your PR idea, I think you would be more successful in reaching your goal. Of course, YMMV.
Also, as long as you have the type of people tomndebb alluded to in the atheist camp, atheism will never be accepted by the mainstream. I know it’s unfair and all that and they represent a tiny percentage of atheists (although larger than some believe), but from a practical standpoint you allow those predisposed to paint relatively small group with a broad brush. If the goal is to gain acceptance, one needs to be realistic about the barriers that exist. And it what world is it a good strategy to gain acceptence in a group by exhibiting contempt for what they believe? No matter, chalk it up to human fallibility.
I do not think most people have much of a problem with agnosticism or even weak atheism. But the fervent atheist, those responsible for some of the ridiculous bile you may see pop up in a thread like this, are going to get no welcome from most Americans. That’s why I suggested earlier to use a different term to describe one or the other—weak or strong. There seems to be great resistance to consider this, but it would be effective. After all, not only are we dealing with people’s strongly held religious beliefs, but the society these people live in has been largely defined by religion, since it’s inception.
No, we don’t do that. Those doing the painting do that.
The barriers are erected by those who don’t “trust” us for whatever reason, not us.
I exhibit contempt only for those who have a problem with my beliefs or lack thereof.
That’s just it, it does matter.
Cite that most Americans even know the difference between a “weak” and “strong” atheist (actually, no cite is required if you stop following this BS path you’ve been called on already, but if you want to stick with it, show the goods).
Yes, but you have a history of wanting things defined to fit your needs. I personally could care less if someone is an atheist, how “strong” their stance is, nor whether they exhibit hubris, intransignency, or are just jerks in general.
I don’t have any desire to change their religious beliefs, nor do I mistrust them based on their beliefs. It’s their duty, not mine, to change their mistrust of atheists. I haven’t seen a single person in this entire thread give a valid reason, not even hypothetically, for Christians to mistrust atheists. Not one.
Schulz was a self-professed Christian through much of his life, and I no of nothing that irrefutably establishes that he did not remain a believer in God. In response to what GIGObuster quoted in Post #91, yeah, identifying oneself as a secular humanist probably involves at least agnosticism or doubt about God, but unless Schulz elaborated on what he meant, I’d be hesitant to read too much into a single remark like that—it reeks of the all-too-common tendency of any religious or philosophical group to want to seize upon public figures and, sometimes on dubious evidence, proudly point to them as “One of us!” (I’ve seen Christians do this sort of thing often enough.) It could just indicate Schulz’s growing dissatisfaction with (organized) religion rather than with God himself.
Certainly, an aversion to shallow or cutesy religiosity is an attitude shared by plenty of deeply religious people.
[whine]
I always wander into these threads around the third page.
grumble, grumble; gimme my cheese
[/wine]
Personal anecdote: I am dead sure that my mother would prefer I was (heaven forbid) gay rather than an atheist. At least, if I were “only” gay (but still a christian), my soul would be saved… :rolleyes:
To be honest, I don’t think that these are the most important aspects at all. I think, when it comes down to it, the relucance to accept atheists/agnostics boils down to two reasons:
1.) The Philosophical Grand Canyon. By their very definition, an atheist or agnostic is questioning one of the most emotional and basic tenets of another’s belief system. Even if the atheist/agnostic is the most tactful person in existance, there is a fundamental disagreement with The Big Question[sup]TM[/sup]. The fact that some atheists/agnostics are less than tactful only compounds this problem.
2.) The Anti-Social Group. Humans are a social creature. We don’t live in “troops” like the common or pygmy chimps, but we still want to define people according to the group to which they belong. By the definitions, the atheist/agnostic does not belong to any “social” religious group. Sure, some folks have tried to start groups, but one reason why they are not “run away successes” is that there must be an inherant antisocial tendency for a person to stand up and say that the other 95-98% of humankind is wrong.
In my personal experiences, I have been able to overcome #2 by being “in the right group.” (I.e. by showing that I still am a social creature.) However, #1 can only be overcome by th’ otha fella.
From tomndebb’s list, A.) is immediately overcome when I meet them. Hopefully I am tactful enough not to qualify as B.) And C.) is one of those things people can understand when they see how an atheist/agnostic is little different from them. (It does tend to floor people when I tell tham that I am an Eagle Scout.)
I don’t want to turn what has been a civil discussion into an arguement. If you’ve been involved in any of the threads that he described, you’ll know who they are. From your change in tone, I think you might be wondering if I am refering to you. I am not. Has my tone to you not been completely civil and on point in this entire thread?
The fact remains, the painting gets done.
Well, the OP was wondering if that was fully the case. Or if there was something that could be done on your part. I’ve been responding to his question. If you don’t like his question, tell him so.
You may wish to exhibit contempt for anyone you wish. But their “problem” leading to your “contempt” begins a spiral heading in a direction good for no one. Wouldn’t you agree?
That was my point. That it is not helpful to be antagonistic.
I never claimed that most Americans know the difference. Again that is the point. They do not know there are different flavors of atheism, so everyone wears the same “A”.
Oohhh, now I understand your pissiness. You objected to something I said in another thread. It must be the one in which I asked if we could narrow the definiton of “homophobe” to make discussion clearer.
I seem to recall you did the same thing it yet another thread—bringing in something you didn’t like from a older thread. I answered the (off topic) question you asked in that thread, then even went back to the orignal thread and provided a longer answer, while strightening out your mischaracterizations. Did you ever read it?
Can we keep the focus on this thread? If you want to rehash old stuff or be argumentative, do it with others. I am not interested.
As is your right.
I suggest you reread the thread, keeping in mind that the issue of validity may, as a pratical matter, rest in great part with your opponents.
I’m still perfectly civil. I just don’t agree with you. I know you’re not referring to me, actually, at least not correctly, but you’re using the statement in your debate, and it’s pretty hard to challenge if I have no clue what you are reffering to. So, once again, please point out an example of of the “ridiculous bile”.
Yes, but irrationally.
No, the OP never once mentioned that it could have been the fault of the atheists. He simply wondered if atheists could do anything to change the impressions others have of us.
I like his question fine.
Nope, I wouldn’t agree. If someone doesn’t like me because they are bigots, I don’t really feel a need to win their support. I think we need to work to remove the bigotry in their minds in general, not make the object(s) of their bigotry more pleasant to them. If we do the former, then they’ll just point their bigotry in a different direction.
Sure, and Rosa Parks should have just waited until we finally decided she was worthy of sitting up front.
That’s even worse. From this and your previous posts in this thread, I can only come to the conclusion that you think America rightly mistrusts “strong” atheists, and simply confuses those poor “weak” atheists and agnostics with the same group.
What pissiness are you referring to? I’m quite aware of the posting quirks of numerous posters here, and the ones that take bizarre tangents to attempt to preserve appearances stand out more than others. I simply noticed that you seem to be doing the same thing here, and pointed it out.
I actually didn’t cite any specific thread, as I was pointing out that this insistence that everyone agree on the exact terminology of everything is something you’ve used in the past, but I’ll happily retract my comment regarding the other thread and keep to this one, which illustrates the point all on its own. In so doing, I’ll simply say that MEBuckner is correct in his assessment of the “weak” vs. “strong” atheist aspect that you have taken, and you haven’t yet addressed him in that area.
And which would be a nice thing for everyone to do on all sides of the debate. It’s just that my side seems to already do it, with very very few exceptions, none of which have been demonstrated here. The side that mistrusts us is a mixed bag, with a large number of open-minded people who understand that their way isn’t the way for all, but also with what seems to be a vast majority of people who apparently trust us less than any other group out there.
I’ve read the thread all of the way through. Feel free to cite a single valid reason in this thread for mistrusting atheists that you think I missed.
No, a weak atheist lacks god belief, vs. believing there is no god. Weak and strong here are like weak conclusions in some sciences - not strengths as commonly used.
I know of no atheist who claims to know there is no god - thus the “I may be wrong” is implied. Contrast, please, to theists whose claim that they cannot be wrong is so strong that some wish to kill those who disagree. It is hypocritical to demand this of atheists and not theists.
You’re correct. He didn’t use the world fault. Neither did I. The point is the OP asked what atheists could do. I took that to mean both addressing existing problems that might exist and coming up with new ideas. That seems like a sensible interpretation. If I am wrong he can correct me and steer the discussion where he intended.
I’m not sure this paragraph is worded correctly (maybe it’s just the last line), but I’ll take a stab at what I think you mean.
If you are a member of a group that is thought ill of unfairly, no one has more of a vested interest in correcting that injustice than you. If they in the other group are, as you say, bigots, then their bias is probably due to ignorance. So the way to erase the injustice is to educate them. And that is usually done more successfully when confrontation and temper are dialed down. Starting from the point “Hey, you have a problem with the way you think and you better fix it” doesn’t seem to be the most promising course of action. Obviously, YMMV.
No. Did you just equate the injustice and struggle that athesits are undergoing with the struggle for equality among the races? I’ll just say that I think Miss Parks’ statement had the power it had because all the other means had been tried and exhausted. I’ll leave it at that.
Kinda. As I’ve said more than once, I persoanlly find it problematic to deal with someone who takes what is basically a philosophical position on reality and professes it to be the TRUTH. Whether they be of the Atheist stripe or religious fundementalist stripe, I’ll try not to deal with either of them.
Something I’ve used in the past? As a tool, you mean? Try sticking closer to reality with regard to my actions. I started a thread seeing if we could narrow the meaning of a word, as I had read another thread and the participants were arguing across each other because they each had their own interpretation in their head. You may have heard somewhere that when in a debate, it is often very helpful to define terms. It is.
I think the second paragraph of my reply responds to it, and other posts speak to the topic. If you recall, the OP asked what people thought could be done. Here is my first post (#10, I think) in this thread. PLease notice the first two words:
That was my opinion. People have questioned me about it. Maybe MEBuckner is right and the distinction needn’t be part of the discussion. I would disagree, as I see atheism haveing two distinct schools (which everyone seems to acknowledge), and I think that one of the schools has a good chance of becoming mainstreram. I don’t think the other one does, and I’m happy for it. Just as I wish fervent fundemantailst Christians or Muslims never enter the mainstream, and in the case of the Christian strain, lose some of thr power and influence they have.
Here’s one from my reply to MEBuckner:
Then there’s the one I’ve repeated several times that speaks to some strong Atheists who proclaim to speak THE truth with the same hubris as some religious people.
I don’t understand this either. What’s the difference between “not belief” and “belief not”, beyond an infinitessimal movement of the Belief-O-Meter needle?
To this point, this is the idea that I like the best. Pointing out “model” atheists might be a first step, but while the public always latches on to somebody as the “representative” of a particular group, that obscures the issue. Atheists shouldn’t have to be Christopher Reeve or Lance Armstrong to get a modicum of respect. The notion is absurd. People love those two because they were exceptional - not exceptional atheists, mind you, but exceptional people. You shouldn’t have to be Christopher Reeve to get a foot in the door, socially speaking. Rosa Parks’s name was brought up in this thread. Didn’t her protest strike a chord with people because she was ‘just a normal person?’
“Accepted by the mainstream?” That’d be putting the cart waaaay before the horse, wouldn’t it, when I’m apparently less trustworthy than even gays and Muslims?