Atheist Re-Activism

[Altfish]

Too many times media story headlines start off with "black man" or "white man".
Why not just say "a man"? Because they keep the race issue burning that way IMO.

Agree, if race is not part of the story.

 

[PureX]

I'd agree that atheism is inherently a reaction the prevailing culture's conception of theism, but it is a little unfair to say this reaction has no content. Countercultural movements involving negations of mainstream norms have been hugely important throughout history. Granted, this mostly happens through going beyond the superficiality of being reactionary and proposing alternatives, which gets bound up in the identity of the reactionary movement in most cases. This is probably why many of us don't conceptualize atheism as "just" being about rejection of Abrahamic god-concepts but extending beyond that to include other ideas that are used as alternatives.

All that said I think the OP also needs to be careful assuming that theist objections to the counterculture of atheism is a objection to that demographic "talking back" as they put it, in part because of the complications described above. Atheism isn't "just" atheism, just like theism isn't "just" theism. There's usually a whole slough of stuff that goes along with it, and while that stuff varies, there's a lot of room for heated and civil disagreement on those finer points. The answer to the complicated question "what is a god anyway?" alone provides ripe pickings for that discussion.

I agree with all of the above. And I have no issue with anyone "talking back". I appreciate it. But something I do find annoying about a lot of the "talking back atheists" I encounter is that they are not good at listening, at all. They listen only so far and so long as it takes to develop and argument against whatever they are hearing. So they don't really hear anything being said.

 

[Heyo]

Too many times media story headlines start off with "black man" or "white man".
Why not just say "a man"? Because they keep the race issue burning that way IMO.

What about "Florida man"?

I agree, often the ethnicity has nothing to do with the story and using it in the headline smacks of racism. Using it in the body to minimize repetition like "father of three", "60 year old", "former baseball player" is OK though.

 

[PureX]

What tribe do you identify with

I am of the artist tribe. The tribe that sees both what is there, and what isn't.

 

[Colt]

This is, of course, a reaction to the thread Typical atheists vs. Online atheists

Thesis: There is no such thing as atheist activism or proselytisation.

Some religious people find some atheists to be "loud", too loud.

I don't understand that. When I look around on YouTube or RF I see almost no atheist activism. What I see is re-activism. The typical video by "loud" atheists is a reaction video to a theists video. Pro-active atheist propaganda is hard to find if not non existent.

And how could it. Atheism has no message on its own. Atheism is always a reaction to theism. If there were no theists, there wouldn't be atheists.

So, what theists are really condemning is atheists talking back.

Thoughts? Refutations?

When Atheists join religious forums to argue with theist then they are in effect promoting the atheist belief in a godless universe. It's a kind of faith-based religion.

 

[metis]

When Atheists join religious forums to argue with theist then they are in effect promoting the atheist belief in a godless universe. It's a kind of faith-based religion.

I differentiate between "atheist" and "agnostic", whereas the former believes there are no deities and the latter doesn't know if there are any. However, some lump both under "atheist".

 

[Heyo]

When Atheists join religious forums to argue with theist then they are in effect promoting the atheist belief in a godless universe. It's a kind of faith-based religion.

I'd agree if RF were an exclusively religious forum. I don't go into churches to preach Agnosticism and I stay out of the religion DIRs. But since RF is explicitly open to non believers, I have no problem posting here.

 

[Audie]

When Atheists join religious forums to argue with theist then they are in effect promoting the atheist belief in a godless universe. It's a kind of faith-based religion.

Twaddle

 

[Heyo]

I differentiate between "atheist" and "agnostic", whereas the former believes there are no deities and the latter doesn't know if there are any. However, some lump both under "atheist".

I differentiate between "Atheist", "atheist", "Agnostic" and "agnostic". Not all of those labels are exclusive. I am an Agnostic by choice and an atheist by definition.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Both is because atheists have no message but theists do. And some think that their message is so important that they want to spread it, e.g. on YouTube.
And some of those messages are so horrendous or so wrong that people speak out against them. And while it would be the duty of the theists to keep their house clean, it is almost always atheists who jump to that task.

Atheists are on a mission to clean up the internet?

 

[Colt]

I differentiate between "Atheist", "atheist", "Agnostic" and "agnostic". Not all of those labels are exclusive. I am an Agnostic by choice and an atheist by definition.

I try to envision what I would do if I was a real atheist. Of all the forums available, I can't see joining one called "Religious Forum" for a social life?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I usually find atheists generally attacking theists more than theist attacking atheists.

You see what you want to see.

You are ignoring, however, the many, many things that theists actually DO attack, in the name of their religious beliefs. We could start with LGBTQ+, for example, and all that entails. Ever see a group of atheists trying to prevent anybody getting married? Or falling in love?

You brought up a thought that I had a couple of days age. Why is it that theists "proselytize" but atheists don't?

Theists have to proselytize, because contrary to what should be ordinary common sense, their omnipotent deity seems remarkably incapable of "getting the message out." So they have to do it for him.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I try to envision what I would do if I was a real atheist. Of all the forums available, I can't see joining one called "Religious Forum" for a social life?

Perhaps not purely for a social life, but you might do so if you thought so many of the world's problems do emanate from religious beliefs - and is what I tend to believe. And given these often are so intractable, learning where such beliefs form and stay rooted might be important to those who would prefer a different world in which to live.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, but in practice there are more than one version of humanism, if you look closer.

So you are a humanist and so am I. The joke is we don't do the same version. There is no universal, objective totally same and the only true version of humanism.
Remove religion as you understand it and we would still argue over the world is and what we ought to do..

In this thread and another current thread, you seem focused on there not being "one true, objective definition or answer" to a particular idea.

I don't understand how this is a useful argument? So what if not all atheists are humanists? So what if not all humanists agree on every point?

 

[Windwalker]

I don't understand that. When I look around on YouTube or RF I see almost no atheist activism.

I think we can thank the moderation staff for that.

What I see is re-activism. The typical video by "loud" atheists is a reaction video to a theists video. Pro-active atheist propaganda is hard to find if not non existent.

I think I would consider an anti-theism to be proactive. It seeks to disabuse any believer of their beliefs through debunking their faith in God. If it's an attack on religion in general, it's not just reactive. It's an active mission to destroy religious faith, because it sees the mere idea of religion to be an evil that needs to be gotten rid of.

If you compare this with Christian evangelists, they see that the world system as an evil that needs to be gotten rid of, that it is something they need to save you from. Anti-theists likewise see religion as something people need to be saved from. I'm thinking of those like Harris and Dawkins who blame religion for all the world's evils.

And how could it. Atheism has no message on its own. Atheism is always a reaction to theism. If there were no theists, there wouldn't be atheists.

Well, this is very true. And I've argued this from the beginning. Atheism is only a reaction to theism. Therefore no infant born from the womb can be claimed to be an atheist by "default', as some like to make that claim in support of atheism as the imagined "default position" of humanity. If they have no idea about God at all, they cannot be an atheist, because atheism is a reaction to theism, exactly as you have said.

But for the point of this thread, there is a difference between simple atheism, and anti-theism. An atheist may not seek to persuade others of their beliefs and ideas about religion, but an anti-theist may.

I was a moderator on a largely atheist site for many years, and everytime some young Christian dared to talk about God, or even other fellow atheists, like myself at that time, who dared to be soft on spirituality or religion itself, would be literally dogpiled by them. I called them the pitchforks and woo crowd, attacking others crying "woo woo", to whatever they might be suggesting beyond hardcore anti-theist, anti-religious thought. It was their new calling by their no-God belief, to stamp out anything that even hinted at spirituality or any positive view of God belief.

That my friend, is evangelicalism. And that is how I found my way in time over here instead.

So, what theists are really condemning is atheists talking back.

Talking back, or trying to prove they have the real truth to others?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well if you do not follow any "rules" or moral guidance given to you by a deist, then sure.

But in terms of what I'm talking about there is no right or wrong answer.

Well, morality is fun, because, yes,, it is opinions, but there is more than it is all just equal opinions, because they are all opinions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In this thread and another current thread, you seem focused on there not being "one true, objective definition or answer" to a particular idea.

I don't understand how this is a useful argument? So what if not all atheists are humanists? So what if not all humanists agree on every point?

But there is more than just objective evidence, when it comes to evidence.

 

[Alien826]

So, when people complain that atheists are too loud, they really mean that humanists are too loud?

I'm not too loud! Other people are, but not me!!!

 

[Alien826]

A lot of atheists seem to think that to proclaim a belief they find "improperly ingrained in our society" is to "impose it on others". As if society cannot and should not determine these things for themselves.

Oddly, the very same motive that some evangelicals use to justify trying to force prayer in schools, and public meetings and so on.

But atheists are part of society and their opinions are part of society determining things, no?

 

[Alien826]

If science is "anti-god" then why do you use medicine and technology?

I think there's good science and bad science.

Would you call a bowl of batter a cake?

What if it's a bun in the oven?

Not when so many Christians do what they can to deny rights and freedom for those who are LGBT.

Indeed.

How do you define "humanism" and how do you see it incorporated into government?
Governments should be secular - which means religiously neutral, NOT anti-religion - as this is necessary for a free and fair society. Otherwise you end up with theocracy, which is a form of tyranny.

Just a thought. If an individual Catholic wants to vote for a pro-life candidate that's democracy, no matter where he gets his ideas. If the Catholic church opposes abortion, they should keep out of politics. I'm not sure where the line is drawn, and why.