The strength of atheism is in that it is, generally, arrived at individually.
I've been on-line on and off for a decade or so, seriously since 2006, but have been arguing pro-atheism since my teens.
And the one thing I've loved is the independence.
The lack of a centralised authority, the lack of others, not necessarily betters, setting standards for me.
Later since the advent of social networking I have been thrilled by the support of those atheists with specific expertise stepping in to assist with pertinent bible verses, scientific points etc when they thought it necessary to support my/our argument.
I've also been thrilled by how ready atheists are to police ourselves; it gives me great confidence to think that if I make logic boob or deliver an unintentional implication or so some other incorrect statement, there'll usually be half a dozen atheists ready to point out the fault.
(Thanks to all who, over the years, have propped up my fallibility)
The fact for me that atheism was and currently is not centrally dictated by those who "know" has been its greatest strength.
I feel that the different routes out of oppression that atheists have taken have always been paved by critical thinking; atheism is not the destination of the route to freedom, it is merely a symptom, a consequence, a pit stop on the road.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods only and the stated list of principles detailed in Atheism+ should not be diminished to a mere "+"; it's derogatory to summarise them as such. They are each separate, valuable, important issues, which have absolutely nothing to do with atheism.
The strength of the atheist "movement" is in that is not under control, it is a prime example of how "not under control" does not mean "out of control". It is a "movement" by virtue of numbers but it is a colonisation of thought and I feel it would weaken that to "corporatise" it.
Atheism is open source, nobody owns it.
We are all already telling the same facts, speaking critically in a reasonable, rational fashion because of what we each individually discovered to be, and because of the honesty inherent in concluding atheism.
It's our honesty and lack of a uniformed cohesive message that makes our point, we have not been told what to think, we each read the religious stuff and concluded "Well, that's bollox" independently of any authority or structured, rote learning.
I feel if a 'message' is laid down, it will become a focus for opposition and a stick with which they will beat us; the moment a code of conduct for atheists exists, "You are only saying what your book tells you to say" can be directed at us. It is folly.
Atheism plus embraces all the things to which I already subscribe, merely by being an honourable human. I am atheist, I follow generally humanist principles and abide by the ideals of the declaration of human rights.
Atheism plus is a definition and authoritarian interference, I need not.
I do not, would not, object to the principles but I will not be taking the label; it's another unnecessary complication, a watering down.
For shit-sake people, stop naval gazing; take your self-obsessed heads out of you equally inclined rears and recognise. The vast majority of the public still don't understand the basics; agnostic, apostate, atheist...
Let's explain these conditions first, eh?
I posted this blog in 2012 - I can't believe it's still going on...
Jaclyn you have my sympathy.
Update
This is one of the Too Many Questions
I've been on-line on and off for a decade or so, seriously since 2006, but have been arguing pro-atheism since my teens.
And the one thing I've loved is the independence.
The lack of a centralised authority, the lack of others, not necessarily betters, setting standards for me.
Later since the advent of social networking I have been thrilled by the support of those atheists with specific expertise stepping in to assist with pertinent bible verses, scientific points etc when they thought it necessary to support my/our argument.
I've also been thrilled by how ready atheists are to police ourselves; it gives me great confidence to think that if I make logic boob or deliver an unintentional implication or so some other incorrect statement, there'll usually be half a dozen atheists ready to point out the fault.
I feel that the different routes out of oppression that atheists have taken have always been paved by critical thinking; atheism is not the destination of the route to freedom, it is merely a symptom, a consequence, a pit stop on the road.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods only and the stated list of principles detailed in Atheism+ should not be diminished to a mere "+"; it's derogatory to summarise them as such. They are each separate, valuable, important issues, which have absolutely nothing to do with atheism.
The strength of the atheist "movement" is in that is not under control, it is a prime example of how "not under control" does not mean "out of control". It is a "movement" by virtue of numbers but it is a colonisation of thought and I feel it would weaken that to "corporatise" it.
We are all already telling the same facts, speaking critically in a reasonable, rational fashion because of what we each individually discovered to be, and because of the honesty inherent in concluding atheism.
It's our honesty and lack of a uniformed cohesive message that makes our point, we have not been told what to think, we each read the religious stuff and concluded "Well, that's bollox" independently of any authority or structured, rote learning.
I feel if a 'message' is laid down, it will become a focus for opposition and a stick with which they will beat us; the moment a code of conduct for atheists exists, "You are only saying what your book tells you to say" can be directed at us. It is folly.
"I know!" said Florence
"What? What do you know?" asked Dougal, excitedly.
"We'll make a book of principles and rules fo..." she started but Dougal rudely interrupted.
"Rules? I'm not keen on rules! Rules for what?"
"Rules by which all the atheists can henceforth be known." she said, looking proudly up at the sky.
That's ironic thought Dougal, as Florence walked off to start making the list.
"And thus the cult of atheism was forged into the very antithesis of the struggle's purpose," said Mr Rusty, as he peddled by.
"Crikey, I wonder if Florence knows?" said Dougal as he scuttled off to tell her.
Atheism plus embraces all the things to which I already subscribe, merely by being an honourable human. I am atheist, I follow generally humanist principles and abide by the ideals of the declaration of human rights.
Atheism plus is a definition and authoritarian interference, I need not.
I do not, would not, object to the principles but I will not be taking the label; it's another unnecessary complication, a watering down.
For shit-sake people, stop naval gazing; take your self-obsessed heads out of you equally inclined rears and recognise. The vast majority of the public still don't understand the basics; agnostic, apostate, atheist...
Let's explain these conditions first, eh?
I posted this blog in 2012 - I can't believe it's still going on...
Jaclyn you have my sympathy.
Update
This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!
