The actual core FRC? Pretty-much all atheists or agnostic-indifferent (effectively atheists).
Damn it Rym it's Agnostic Atheists or Gnostic Atheists (or Agnostic Theist or Gnostic Theist) :-p
Most if not all of the college FRC is Agnostic Atheists with a few asshole Gnostic Atheists :-p There might be a few Agnostic Theists in the extended crew but I'm pretty sure there are not Gnostic Theists in the extended crew (not talking about the forums :-p)
So I'm subscribed to /r/etymology (because I'm a word nerd like that), and they had a really interesting discussion on the etymology of "atheism."
Basically, there are two primary ways to parse the word:
"a-theism" - "I am without theism" "a-theos-ism" - "I believe there are no gods"
The original atheist movement (WAY back when), whose writings are available, unequivocally supported the second interpretation, which today we tend to consider either gnostic atheist or anti-theism. This was a professed belief system that directly opposed extant belief systems.
The more recent atheist movement has touted the first parsing as their primary definition, reflecting a more neutral approach. One must profess a belief in a god, or else one is an atheist. Less "aggressive" and more social.
So the movement used to mean a different thing than we're trying to make it today, and this causes some friction between different groups because we are using the same word to mean subtly-but-distinctly different things.
It's always better to discuss individual specific affirmative beliefs.
If someone claims to believe in a specific interpretation of a christian god, then I can trivially dismiss it due to:
1. Zero evidence of existence 2. Specific evidence of secular origins of this particular belief
If you loop through most all religious beliefs, they're effectively and practically disproven in this manner. But, this applies to each specific individual belief.
The people who take issue with being called "atheists" despite not affirming any specific supernatural beliefs are sort of problematic edge cases that are better discussed as philosophy than religion.
Isn't calling atheism a movement a bit of an overstatement? I think there is far too much of a tendency nowadays to shoehorn atheism into the mold of religion, when atheism is really the lack of a mold in the first place. Atheism isn't an empty cup, it's the lack of cup altogether. A lack of belief is not a belief.
EDIT: Wow I said lack a million times. I think this is a sign that I need to get back to reading. I always seem to go in cycles though. A couple months of gaming, couple months of manga and anime, a week or two of TV and movies, couple months of reading. One-track minded I guess.
Isn't calling atheism a movement a bit of an overstatement? I think there is far too much of a tendency nowadays to shoehorn atheism into the mold of religion, when atheism is really the lack of a mold in the first place. Atheism isn't an empty cup, it's the lack of cup altogether. A lack of belief is not a belief.
"Movement" doesn't necessarily mean "religion," and there is most definitely a social movement regarding atheism. The goal is to raise public awareness for non-belief as a viable option in societies that are otherwise dominated by belief.
Perhaps "public atheism movement" is a better term. There are a great number of atheist/non-believer social groups who advertise their existence publicly.
It's not quite like, say, the civil rights movement - but it's not unlike it either.
It does seem weird because of the generally agreed idea that "atheism" today simply means "lack of professed belief" - how exactly can a bunch of people rally around the absence of a thing - but there it is.
Isn't calling atheism a movement a bit of an overstatement? I think there is far too much of a tendency nowadays to shoehorn atheism into the mold of religion, when atheism is really the lack of a mold in the first place. Atheism isn't an empty cup, it's the lack of cup altogether. A lack of belief is not a belief.
Again, this is a semantic issue. There are people who are atheists who simply happen not to believe in gods. There are also people who are called atheists that are part of a movement to fight against religious belief and religious organizations (Dawkins et al.).
Due to this semantic conflict people intentionally or unintentionally conflate the two. The English language requires a person to be able to correctly identify which of many possible definitions of a word a person means when they use it. This is difficult for even somewhat intelligent people to do online without the context of audio/visual cues and lack of skill or care on the part of the writer.
Thus, almost every debate I see lately comes down to semantics and is a complete waste of time. Anyone who is about to say something has to begin with a ton of definitions and defensive statements to prepare the listener for their actual point.
My point is that if someone says the word atheist in context, you should be able to tell whether they are referring to the movement or simply the lack of belief. If you are so pedantic as to question which one they mean when it is obvious, you are simply avoiding the topic, so please STFU.
My point is that if someone says the word atheist in context, you should be able to tell whether they are referring to the movement or simply the lack of belief. If you are so pedantic as to question which one they mean when it is obvious, you are simply avoiding the topic, so please STFU.
Sorry, I wasn't aware there WAS an "atheist movement." I've never seen atheists proselytizing, never even heard of any kind of broader push. Everything I've seen has just been people individually doing their own thing. I've never heard of any historical movements either, unless you want to stretch and call the mass rejection of the church in medieval Europe (circa the plague) a movement.
My point is that if someone says the word atheist in context, you should be able to tell whether they are referring to the movement or simply the lack of belief. If you are so pedantic as to question which one they mean when it is obvious, you are simply avoiding the topic, so please STFU.
Sorry, I wasn't aware there WAS an "atheist movement." I've never seen atheists proselytizing, never even heard of any kind of broader push. Everything I've seen has just been people individually doing their own thing. I've never heard of any historical movements either, unless you want to stretch and call the mass rejection of the church in medieval Europe (circa the plague) a movement.
Perhaps you should research things before debating them. Top Google result for "atheist movement."
I think that if you're talking about "militant" atheists, you need heavy qualifiers, since the generic "atheists" to me seems to mean pretty universally the apathetic, disinterested sort. Maybe this is a regional thing or something, as I'm sure down South in the US they feel differently...
My point is that if someone says the word atheist in context, you should be able to tell whether they are referring to the movement or simply the lack of belief. If you are so pedantic as to question which one they mean when it is obvious, you are simply avoiding the topic, so please STFU.
Sorry, I wasn't aware there WAS an "atheist movement." I've never seen atheists proselytizing, never even heard of any kind of broader push. Everything I've seen has just been people individually doing their own thing. I've never heard of any historical movements either, unless you want to stretch and call the mass rejection of the church in medieval Europe (circa the plague) a movement.
Perhaps you should research things before debating them. Top Google result for "atheist movement."
I don't see a debate happening here except between you and your imaginary conception of an argument that I did not make. I was just pointing out that there is a widespread and disturbing tendency for people discussing atheism to use religious frameworks to define the concept (thereby setting a quasi-religious tone and creating a group mentality just like religion), when it should be approached from the opposite direction. I find the concept of atheist movements unsettling and morally suspect. Quit preaching, start teaching, then we'll be on the path to a better world. A mob mentality helps no-one.
there is a widespread and disturbing tendency for people discussing atheism to use religious frameworks to define the concept (thereby setting a quasi-religious tone and creating a group mentality just like religion)
there is a widespread and disturbing tendency for people discussing atheism to use religious frameworks to define the concept (thereby setting a quasi-religious tone and creating a group mentality just like religion)
That reads like just a point-for-point rebuttal in response to a contest, which is exactly what it was.
There is no implication that it is intended to be used as a dogmatic set of rules by which one is required to live. At best, it superficially mimics the format of a well known "religious" text that had ten items, and in doing so refutes each in kind.
As for the "humanist chaplain" at Stanford University referenced, those are common primarily because there are affordances and benefits to "religious" organizations and people (tax credits, exemptions, etc...), and it's the only way for non-supernatural people to take advantage of them.
Nothing in that article implies dogma or structure in the slightest.
Further, many religious people find comfort in the structures and community of their family's/parents' faiths/churches. Even if they're logically atheists (or on their way), leaving these structures and communities is often very difficult. It leaves a hole behind even if not a spiritual/supernatural hole.
Mirroring those kinds of social structures for people who don't believe in ghosts but are otherwise the same as they were when they did believe in ghosts makes them much more able, willing, and ready to stop believing in ghosts.
Meeting with your community every Sunday, having a potluck that afternoon, and volunteering at soup kitchens once a month? If someone did that with their church, but no longer believes in ghosts, what's wrong with a "we don't believe in ghosts, but we still meet every Sunday, have a potluck, and volunteer at soup kitchens" group?
Comments
Most if not all of the college FRC is Agnostic Atheists with a few asshole Gnostic Atheists :-p There might be a few Agnostic Theists in the extended crew but I'm pretty sure there are not Gnostic Theists in the extended crew (not talking about the forums :-p)
This is all I can think of with all the words being tossed around.
"Fuck you!!"
So I'm subscribed to /r/etymology (because I'm a word nerd like that), and they had a really interesting discussion on the etymology of "atheism."
Basically, there are two primary ways to parse the word:
"a-theism" - "I am without theism"
"a-theos-ism" - "I believe there are no gods"
The original atheist movement (WAY back when), whose writings are available, unequivocally supported the second interpretation, which today we tend to consider either gnostic atheist or anti-theism. This was a professed belief system that directly opposed extant belief systems.
The more recent atheist movement has touted the first parsing as their primary definition, reflecting a more neutral approach. One must profess a belief in a god, or else one is an atheist. Less "aggressive" and more social.
So the movement used to mean a different thing than we're trying to make it today, and this causes some friction between different groups because we are using the same word to mean subtly-but-distinctly different things.
If someone claims to believe in a specific interpretation of a christian god, then I can trivially dismiss it due to:
1. Zero evidence of existence
2. Specific evidence of secular origins of this particular belief
If you loop through most all religious beliefs, they're effectively and practically disproven in this manner. But, this applies to each specific individual belief.
The people who take issue with being called "atheists" despite not affirming any specific supernatural beliefs are sort of problematic edge cases that are better discussed as philosophy than religion.
That's why just calling yourself an Agnostic doesn't say much in the Theist Atheist conversation.
EDIT: Wow I said lack a million times. I think this is a sign that I need to get back to reading. I always seem to go in cycles though. A couple months of gaming, couple months of manga and anime, a week or two of TV and movies, couple months of reading. One-track minded I guess.
Perhaps "public atheism movement" is a better term. There are a great number of atheist/non-believer social groups who advertise their existence publicly.
It's not quite like, say, the civil rights movement - but it's not unlike it either.
It does seem weird because of the generally agreed idea that "atheism" today simply means "lack of professed belief" - how exactly can a bunch of people rally around the absence of a thing - but there it is.
Due to this semantic conflict people intentionally or unintentionally conflate the two. The English language requires a person to be able to correctly identify which of many possible definitions of a word a person means when they use it. This is difficult for even somewhat intelligent people to do online without the context of audio/visual cues and lack of skill or care on the part of the writer.
Thus, almost every debate I see lately comes down to semantics and is a complete waste of time. Anyone who is about to say something has to begin with a ton of definitions and defensive statements to prepare the listener for their actual point.
My point is that if someone says the word atheist in context, you should be able to tell whether they are referring to the movement or simply the lack of belief. If you are so pedantic as to question which one they mean when it is obvious, you are simply avoiding the topic, so please STFU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/the_numbers_are_in_america_still_distrusts_atheists_and_muslims_partner/
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/
No buddy, I just don't believe.
It really depends on the circles with which you interact.
As for historical movements, read up on the "Cult of Reason" that arose in late 18th century France.
There is no implication that it is intended to be used as a dogmatic set of rules by which one is required to live. At best, it superficially mimics the format of a well known "religious" text that had ten items, and in doing so refutes each in kind.
As for the "humanist chaplain" at Stanford University referenced, those are common primarily because there are affordances and benefits to "religious" organizations and people (tax credits, exemptions, etc...), and it's the only way for non-supernatural people to take advantage of them.
Nothing in that article implies dogma or structure in the slightest.
1. That was a response to a contest.
2. There is no authority, literal or even implied, to those "commandments"
3. There is no organization enforcing or requiring those rules of anyone.
4. It's literally nothing more than 10 benign life suggestions having no literal basis other than pure philosophy/opinion.
5. No specific assertion is made that various gods don't exist even
6. Anyone who doesn't already generally live in all of those vaguely suggested ways probably is, in all seriousness, a shitty person.
Mirroring those kinds of social structures for people who don't believe in ghosts but are otherwise the same as they were when they did believe in ghosts makes them much more able, willing, and ready to stop believing in ghosts.
Meeting with your community every Sunday, having a potluck that afternoon, and volunteering at soup kitchens once a month? If someone did that with their church, but no longer believes in ghosts, what's wrong with a "we don't believe in ghosts, but we still meet every Sunday, have a potluck, and volunteer at soup kitchens" group?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology