tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7034543361703927392..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Suit-and-Tie Atheism: And the “Church-ification” of the GodlessUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35862922566343247782008-05-25T22:33:00.000-04:002008-05-25T22:33:00.000-04:00Thanks, John. You may be my biggest fan! :p Yes, "...Thanks, John. You may be my biggest fan! :p <BR/><BR/>Yes, "new atheists" is often used derogatorily, but a number of atheists have proudly adopted the title and use it, and other atheists use it to describe atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens. Therefore, it well deserved mentioning.<BR/><BR/>No, I'm not "telling" any atheist that they cannot be or act a certain way. What I'm saying is, there's no cause for this suit-and-tie behavior if we understand its pointlessness. That's how I see it. And as always, I am definitely saying that EVERYONE should be who they are, and vocally so. <BR/><BR/>(JH)Joe E. Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273702675019012966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41646668139150160622008-05-23T10:17:00.000-04:002008-05-23T10:17:00.000-04:00"Brights" was the dumbest idea to come from an oth..."Brights" was the dumbest idea to come from an otherwise smart person that I have heard in a while. Why not just name yourself Elitists and be done with it. You think atheist has a bad connotation, Brights starts off bad and will only get worse as people associate the phrase with atheism.<BR/><BR/>And a New Atheist is just an old atheist who refuses to know his/her place.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85259594449042046842008-05-23T08:19:00.000-04:002008-05-23T08:19:00.000-04:00Joe, thanks for sharing your story. I wish better ...Joe, thanks for sharing your story. I wish better for you than what you've described of your life, unless you're a happy recluse. ;-) I am very much in agreement with you about a cookie cutter mentality when it comes to atheists, adopting the same goals and wearing the same labels. Brights? Come on now. That's just stupid, even if there ought to be a label most of us can call ourselves besides a negative one like a-theists. I left all of that when I left the church. I am first and formost a freethinker. I wish this on everyone. I don't consider Bible believers freethinkers because they must gerrymander and cherry pick what they claim to believe out of a so-called authoritarian ancient superstitious book. <BR/><BR/>That being said, you should also recognize that just as you are an individual, so are other atheists. Some of them want to be of the suit and tie variety to win others to their viewpoint for various reasons. Others are just nice atheists because that's who they are. Some of them just don't want to offend others any more than they have to. So if your post is that atheists should be themselves then I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is when atheist of one variety tell atheists of a different variety to be just like them. I know you understand. We can argue our respective cases, as you just did. But there is no way any atheist can argue another atheist out of a different personality temperment. <BR/><BR/>You are one hell of a word crafter!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63796198775374464722008-05-23T07:56:00.000-04:002008-05-23T07:56:00.000-04:00What oli said. And what Melville said, in Moby Di...What oli said. And what Melville said, in <I>Moby Dick</I>:<BR/><BR/>"Now, as i before hinted, I have no objection to any person's religion, be it what it may, so long as that person does not kill or insult any other person, because that other person doesn't believe it also. But when a man's religion becomes really frantic; when it is a positive torment to him; and, in fine, makes this earth of ours an uncomfortable inn to lodge in; then I think it high time to take that individual aside and argue the point with him."zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40342863972928380292008-05-23T06:55:00.000-04:002008-05-23T06:55:00.000-04:00I agree and disagree with a lot of what you have w...I agree and disagree with a lot of what you have written. Like you the brights movement seems to me to be an exercise in silliness. A more divise label could not have been invented unless they called themselves the "Not-Stupids". Like you i dislike the "Atheism cause". And like you i find atheists that are middle of the road, unoffensive and trying-to-please deeply misguided.<BR/>However, I do differ from your views on several points.<BR/>Firstly, on "New atheists". This isn't an atheist term. Its a term that was applied by religious types to authors such as Dawkins, Harris, etc. A new atheist is different from the old ones only in that unlikely the bulk of the "old" atheists, he has no respect for religion and no complusion to stay quiet.<BR/>If you look at Dawkins work for instance, as well as generally decrying religion, what he really goes after is religion in politics, education and science. I believe he is right to do so. If religion was simply a matter of private belief, then i'm sure that the new atheist would not exist. But it isn't. Religion influences our politics, our science, our education and our society. As atheists and members of society it is our duty to stand up for ourselves and say "We do not want this". <BR/>For instance. American foreign policy towards Iran and Iraq is influenced by the right wing churches that have huge sway within the republican party. Decisions that should be made on the basis of international relations and facts are being swayed by apocalypic religious nutcases. Hagee's support for John McCain is a good example.<BR/>Over here in Britain we have bishops in the House of Lords (one of our two chambers of government).This men are there solely because of their rank within our state church. <BR/>Our children, in the UK and USA are being taught creationism (when they can get away with it) and this is a doctrine demonstratably false. We have a duty to insist that our tax dollars are spent educating our children wisely, not on the basis of myths. This is why atheists should speak up and be heard.<BR/>While i agree that atheists do not necessarily share anything beyond their lack of belief, this doesn't mean that atheists who DO share more than this godlessness cannot get together and do something productive. To say that they speak for all atheists would be inaccurate but i see nothing wrong with atheists forming lobbying groups to counter the influence of churches, or even charitable groups to try and improve the view of atheists amongst the general population.<BR/>I agree that religion is dying. Compare the power of the Roman catholic church in Europe now to any other time in the last 1000 years and its clear they are losing power. But to ignore the power they DO still have left could result in decisions being made that will negatively impact many atheists simply because they ARE atheists. <BR/>In America i know your situation is worse, your churches wield enormous power, particularly in the republican party, and this power has some very bad ideas. Sensible atheists, even right wing conversative atheists, should find plenty to work against in such situations.<BR/>And thats the difference between new and old atheism. Old atheism maintained its lack of faith but didn't rock the boat, new atheism lacks the respect for the privileged status of religion and works against its more destructive ideas. <BR/>It would of course be a mistake to assume that all new atheists are "New" atheists, or that all old atheists are "Old" atheists.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736338251480507015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33258523025843309712008-05-23T06:50:00.000-04:002008-05-23T06:50:00.000-04:00Mr. Holman "doth protest too much."He clearly sees...Mr. Holman "doth protest too much."<BR/>He clearly sees "atheist" as the primary category and "suit" as a subdivision of it.<BR/><BR/>Couldn't it be that people who dress thinking that others might have to look at them fail to believe in a diety?Bill Seymourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01749868270375485563noreply@blogger.com