"Cornered Atheist" approach doing us harm!

[Dronning Dagmar]

Gracchvs

Quote:

I think promoting the ideas you're talking about should be separate from atheism. What I mean is, though a lot of people who support whatever ideal (e.g. secularism) with be atheists, they aren't all atheists, and perhaps all atheists don't support it.

Not a good atheist who demands the unification of church and state.

Please note the "e.g." I was trying to make a statement that could be applied to several issues, and not just one. Pretend I said, say, "abortion," instead of "secularism." Of all the atheists I know, one is pro-life, and although I think she's a bit crazy, she's just as atheist as I am.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

The 'e.g.' just declares to be a hypothetical, and all I did was make a jab against a nonsensical hypothetical.  

[Dronning Dagmar]

e.g. means exempli gratia, or for example. I gave one example of an interest. It was hardly the most pivotal point I was making. rolleyes  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Sorry, in my experience people use only one example either because it is the only example they have (and therefore not really an example), or because they are just putting it out there as a hypothetical, which it what you did. You presented the thread with the hypothetical example of a non-secular atheist (which insofar as atheist means merely denial of divinity is not non-sensical, but I assumed you meant denial of superstition, which is a common-place usage, though incorrect), which seems an absurdity to me.

Quote:

It was hardly the most pivotal point I was making.

Nor did I declare it to be. The fact that that was the only thing I dealt with from that post must show you that I either agreed with enough of your post to leave it unchallenged apart from a jab at an amusing contradiction, or that if I did have disagreements with it, that they were dealt with in replying to earlier posts.

My jab at that comment was hardly the most pivotal point I was making, however, if that jab was offensive to you, please tell me, and I will refrain from doing such in the future.

On the other hand, that was the only thing of yours I attacked, and you want to avenge your injured honour, such would have been better served by you taking on some of my other points, rather than something so small and inconsequential.

Hopefully we can leave that bit behind us and if there is to be discussion or argument, it can be about something important. smile  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Quote:

I'd like for the US to be less religious, but that's not going to be accomplished in this lifetime.

One cannot just give up hope so easily. One must have a certain measured optimism about things like this. The only way religion is going to lose its grip on the US, or anywhere else really, is because of massive social struggle.
Just as religion lost all of its grip on France during the revolution and was not able to get it back without serious propaganda on its part by the middle class and still has not fully gotten it back after 200 years. Just as the social struggles in the '60s had stiffled religion for a time, so too will future social struggles hold back religion.
The trouble is to point out that religion is not just wrong, but actively harmful, as appropriate to the religion in question. For christians, it is not enough to point out the crusades or the inquisition, as decent christians will reject them as 'unchristian' and fundies will embrace them. One must instead point out just how perfectly christian the crusades and such were.
For this, a non-theological understanding of christianity (and all religions, really) is needed. One must understand why it was that it was able to develop as it did, and why the different forms of christianity are all valid christianities.
Also, pointing out Mathew 10:34, Luke 12:49-, 19:27- and 22:35- is always good against 'moderate' christians.  

[Dark Pieman]

I think we have every reason to be angry. You'll never stop the media from twisting things, but I guess I can't really say anything here since I'm British. The situation in America does seem quite serious, and I actually feel quite sorry for you guys.  

[Teoka]

This is a very fascinating discussion, I'll add my thoughts in the pot

There is nothing wrong with coming together and fighting for a common cause. United we stand, divided we fall. Yes, there is no way that you will encompass every atheist's beliefs, but it's better than letting the Christians take over our country and society. As for what to name it, avoiding the term "atheist" would be in our best interests for PR reasons. Most Americans associate a negative connotation with the term, and we're trying to gain some ground with most Americans.

When it comes to standing up for our beliefs, we should jump in when religious issues are brought up. We should not go door-to-door trying to convert, metaphorically speaking. If someone asks, however, we have the right to tell them about atheism and why we think it's the best philosophy out there, when appropriate.