Something that really annoys me is that there seems more and more that atheists want to only promote atheism with certain baggage into the public view.
One example is that atheists that are moral nihilists or ethical noncognitivists get pushed away from the public view by other atheists while atheists that are moral relativists or moral realists get promoted more.
Another example is that atheists that focus more on history or philosophy get pushed away from public view while atheists that focus more on social issues and the sciences get promoted.
It seems, more and more, that atheists are trying to get a certain public image of atheism that just isn't accurate.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). The thing is, atheists (not all, but quite a few) seem to want a public image different than that.
Have any of you noticed this?
Do any of you support this?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
An honest and sincere question.
What is the appropriate image for atheists?
I do not think there is one or should be one.
There exist atheists that can be on the opposite side of damn near any issue.
Some are pro-choice, some pro-life. Some support gay marriage, some are against it. Some are anti-theists, some are more pro-theist.
Because of how broad the views atheists can hold are, there can't and shouldn't be a common public image of atheism.
Very well said, one of the defining elements of atheism is surely the rejection of flock mentality. Therefore the notion that atheists should all adhere to some common world view is absurd. People are all too quick to label and pigeonhole however and I think there is a widely held view that atheism promotes some kind of unified, all encompassing doctrine we should all adopt and live by. This is contrary to the whole point however. While debates in which an atheist and a theist are pitted against one another are common (and quite entertaining in many cases) i think it would be very helpful to see more debates featuring a panel of atheists of different persuasions discussing issues such as those that you've raised above.
"Very well said, one of the defining elements of atheism is surely the rejection of flock mentality. Therefore the notion that atheists should all adhere to some common world view is absurd."
I agree with you on most points but I must point out something.
"Something that really annoys me is that there seems more and more that atheists want to only promote atheism with certain baggage into the public view."
The key here is; "into the public view."
What the general public thinks is different from what is true or right.
So if the majority of the public makes a referendum and banns all gays from the country the government might actually do it regardless of how moral or just it is.
Why? because what the general public thinks matters to get things done.
So even though
"moral nihilists or ethical noncognitivists get pushed away from the public view by other atheists while atheists that are moral relativists or moral realists get promoted more."
That is done because the people need to be handled with a certain tact, you cannot expect to convince anybody of some truths without it.
People tend to be flocky, and finding a small compromise to get the atheist view point out is wise in my opinion.
If we were dealing with a bunch of educated reasonable people, this would not be even considered.
But the reality is that we are dealing with a very high percentage of the population believing in Noah's ark and a world wide food to the highest mountain.
"Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s)."
It is, but no atheists is just that is he?
Some atheists have other common positions and form a group or movement for it.
Like a group of atheists that love their country enough to give people information about the atheist position for free.
"Do any of you support this?"
I do not support the changing of what an atheist stands for, but I do support the idea that if you love humanity enough you should also be an anti-theist and help people heal from the theistic virus.
A virus that defends itself by attacking doubt and knowledge.
A virus that promotes a totalitarian belief system.
A virus that can make a mother hate her children.
To do that, yes you need to be not just an atheist but an atheist who cares.
And most atheists out there are doing that in their own way.
There are exceptions of course but the concept is usually the same.
Give people a choice that their religion never truly gave them.