For those who don't believe?

Schuhart

I’m mostly starting this thread because I have a childish and pathetic interest in seeing the Atheism forum – already the second largest religion/spirituality forum after Christianity in terms of number of posts – pass out the number of threads on the Paganism forum so that there’s no doubt over who’s the intellectual counterbalance in this reality. At the time of posting, there’s 281 threads here against 284 on Paganism. Just four more threads and we’re one step closer to world domination. (What do you mean I’m obsessing.)

Anyway, the transparently manufactured reason I’m starting this thread has to do with the strapline description of this forum seen here. It says For those who don't believe. If we consider all the spirited discussion on the Christianity Forum about what all these atheists are doing, and all the stuff about how it’s a forum to discuss Christianity and not a forum for Christians, should the description of the atheism forum not similarly reflect that it’s a place for discussion of godless matters rather than discussion by godless people?

Zillah

What an oddly schizophrenic post. You've been drinking haven't you?

Asiaprod

We can never win, we don't have a competitor for the JC and Co. thread.:D

monkeyfudge

Are you saying that we shouldn't be discussing god in the atheist forum because it doesn't exist and as such there isn't really anything to talk about?

So, anyone see Eastenders last night?

Dades

monkeyfudge wrote:

Are you saying that we shouldn't be discussing god in the atheist forum because it doesn't exist and as such there isn't really anything to talk about?

I think what Schuhart is saying is that the Christianity forum is described as a place for Christian issues, whereas the A/A forum is described as a place for A/A people. (Yes, MF I assume you were being sarcastic!)

Dunno who made up that tagline, but IMO it probably has no bearing on who posts here. Who reads them anyway - I'd never even seen it! We get all sorts here and the charter makes it clear that we have an open door policy.

I suppose we could give this thread a boost and see who's got a better suggestion for our tag...

My suggestion:

Atheism & Agnosticism
It's okay to talk about it. Really.

PDN

Schuhart wrote:

I’m mostly starting this thread because I have a childish and pathetic interest in seeing the Atheism forum – already the second largest religion/spirituality forum after Christianity in terms of number of posts – pass out the number of threads on the Paganism forum so that there’s no doubt over who’s the intellectual counterbalance in this reality. At the time of posting, there’s 281 threads here against 284 on Paganism. Just four more threads and we’re one step closer to world domination. (What do you mean I’m obsessing.)

Anyway, the transparently manufactured reason I’m starting this thread has to do with the strapline description of this forum seen here. It says For those who don't believe. If we consider all the spirited discussion on the Christianity Forum about what all these atheists are doing, and all the stuff about how it’s a forum to discuss Christianity and not a forum for Christians, should the description of the atheism forum not similarly reflect that it’s a place for discussion of godless matters rather than discussion by godless people?

So, Schuhart, you're saying this is my board too? You're making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

So, Schuhart, you're saying this is my board too?

I like to think of atheism as the natural home of all God's children.

Valmont

or Athiesm & Agnosticism

as featured in 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins.

robindch

"Athiesm + Agnosticism"

"Just say no!"

...or...

"Where the thinking is free"

Schuhart

robindch wrote:

"Where the thinking is free"

I'd suggest just a slight tweak to "Where thinking is free". It has that faint touch of mockery that is to Atheism what pretty red socks are to Catholicism.

robindch

Seemed to me the pun worked better with the 'the', but I could be wrong. Not much in it either way.

BTW, I believe catholic socks work this way - muted colors for normal priests, purple for bishops, red for cardinals and white for the pope. More on religious footwear here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3582288.stm

Yours truly has two pairs of purple ones from Gamarelli's, just behind the Pantheon and on a street with a few more shops selling all manner of religious garb and tittle-tattle - bishops hats, croziers, crosses, chalices etc. Quite amazing.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

Seemed to me the pun worked better with the 'the', but I could be wrong. Not much in it either way.

BTW, I believe catholic socks work this way - muted colors for normal priests, purple for bishops, red for cardinals and white for the pope. More on religious footwear here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3582288.stm

Yours truly has two pairs of purple ones from Gamarelli's, just behind the Pantheon and on a street with a few more shops selling all manner of religious garb and tittle-tattle - bishops hats, croziers, crosses, chalices etc. Quite amazing.

Suggest change:
"For those who don't believe" to "For discussion about lack of belief."
Also update point 2 in charter to say something like: "It's ok to question and critical thinking is welcomed however please respect those of differening opinions, no personal insults."

Schuhart

robindch wrote:

Not much in it either way.

Agreed. Although in one of my many delusional moments I've wondered how atheism needs an enormously divisive argument over something that doesn't essentially matter to give it the same kind of structure as religions. A split around 'thinking' atheists versus 'the thinking' atheists sounds like just the thing.

robindch wrote:

a few more shops selling all manner of religious garb and tittle-tattle - bishops hats, croziers, crosses, chalices etc. Quite amazing.

Do they do whips and furry handcuffs too?

Tim Robbins wrote:

"For those who don't believe" to "For discussion about lack of belief."

I think 'unbelief' has a better ring than 'lack of belief'.

robindch

"Lack of belief" -- seems to imply that believing arrant rubbish is a good thing (can't have that!)

What about taking a cue from the Buddhism forum's tagline with "Free thinking matters"?

robindch

Schuhart wrote:

A split around 'thinking' atheists versus 'the thinking' atheists sounds like just the thing.

Already been done, kind of:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070421/COMMUNITY03/204210370/-1

Atheists split on how to not believe
By JAY LINDSAY, The Associated Press
Published: Saturday, Apr. 21, 2007
BOSTON – Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who’s leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out. Among the millions of Americans who don’t believe God exists, there’s a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called “New Atheists.”

Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism. The most pre-eminent New Atheists include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of the Old Testament “a psychotic delinquent,” and Sam Harris, who foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by science and reason.

Epstein calls them “atheist fundamentalists.” He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences. Next month, as Harvard celebrates the 30th anniversary of its humanist chaplaincy, Epstein will use the occasion to provide a counterpoint to the New Atheists. “Humanism is not about erasing religion,” he said. “It’s an embracing philosophy.”

In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there’s no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work.

The celebration of a “New Humanism” will emphasize inclusion and diversity within the movement and will include Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist E.O. Wilson, a humanist who has made well-chronicled efforts to team with evangelical Christians to fight global warming.

Part of the New Humanism, Wilson said, is “an invitation to a common search for morally based action in areas agreement can be reached in.” The tone of the New Atheists will only alienate important faith groups whose help is needed to solve the world’s problems, Wilson said. “I would suggest possibly that while there is use in the critiques by Dawkins and Harris, that they’ve overdone it,” he said.

Harris, author of “Letter to a Christian Nation,” sees the disagreement as overblown. He thinks there’s room for multiple arguments in the debate between scientific rationalism and religious dogmatism. Harris also rejected the term “atheist fundamentalist,” calling it “a silly play upon words.” He noted that, when it comes to the ancient Greek gods, everyone is an atheist and no one is asked to justify that to pagans who want to believe in Zeus.

“Likewise with the God of Abraham,” he said. “There is nothing ‘fundamentalist’ about finding the claims of religious demagogues implausible.” Some of the participants in Harvard’s celebration of its humanist chaplaincy have no problem with the New Atheists’ tone. Harvard psychologist and author Steven Pinker said the forcefulness of their criticism is standard in scientific and political debate, and “far milder than what we accept in book and movie reviews.” Dawkins did not respond to requests for comment.

A 2006 Baylor University survey estimates about 15 million atheists in the United States. Not all nonbelievers identify as humanists or atheists, with some calling themselves agnostics, freethinkers or skeptics. But humanists see the potential for unifying the groups under their banner, creating a large, powerful minority that can’t be ignored or disdained by mainstream political and social thinkers.

But Epstein worries the attacks on religion by the New Atheists will keep converts away. “The philosophy of the future is not going to be one that tries to erase its enemies,” he said. “The future is going to be people coming together from what motivates them.”

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Do they do whips and furry handcuffs too?

Israeli Embassy, I think.

Schuhart wrote:

I think 'unbelief' has a better ring than 'lack of belief'.

Same here. I do think the forum description could do with a change.

PDN wrote:

So, Schuhart, you're saying this is my board too? You're making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Of course! After all, we welcome all unbelief, whether it is unbelief in Zeus, or Ahura Mazda, or Jehovah.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Same here. I do think the forum description could do with a change.

See what Asiaprod thinks - he's a CMod and might be able to alter it.

*Buck successfully passed*

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

See what Asiaprod thinks - he's a CMod and might be able to alter it.

*Buck successfully passed*

"For doubt and unbelief"?

"Mocking your religion"?

"Where faith meets reason"?

suggestively,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

Where faith meets reason

That wouldn't be bad. I've also a fondness for a quote from the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, summarising the demand of the Philosopher's Union in their demarcation dispute over Deep Thought. It might be pilfered to describe the forum as:

"A rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty"

PDN

My suggestion: I can't believe it's butter!

Of course the agnostic, to be more accurate, is simply stating that it is impossible to know whether it's butter or not.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

"For doubt and unbelief"?

"Mocking your religion"?

"Where faith meets reason"?

Not sure if you're serious, but they all seem to fuel the flames of smugness lit under us as a group.

LOL @ PDN

karen3212

I actually had to look up the dictionary to see if the word unbelief was real.
So I would suggest that for people like me the words used in a description should be simple.
Do people think not knowing it was a real word is unbelievable? Not sure how to spell that either

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

See what Asiaprod thinks - he's a CMod and might be able to alter it.

*Buck successfully passed*

Damn you:p, I will find one for you yet.
If its really an issue, and you guys come up with a nice one that is welcoming and non-confrontational I am happy to raise the issue.
So far I like:
robindch's "Free thinking matters"
The Atheist: It's okay to talk about it.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

...a nice one that is welcoming and non-confrontational...

That would be false advertising! We may be welcoming, but non-confrontational?

Seriously, though, this forum does actually seem to be a forum for atheists and agnostics. Only the most 'solid' of the theist posters seem to venture in - which is probably as it should be, since we're not here to proselytise. Possibly we could make it clearer that all are welcome, but that would probably be pointless, since I get the strong impression that most theists would not be interested anyway.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Seriously, though, this forum does actually seem to be a forum for atheists and agnostics. Only the most 'solid' of the theist posters seem to venture in - which is probably as it should be, since we're not here to proselytise. Possibly we could make it clearer that all are welcome, but that would probably be pointless, since I get the strong impression that most theists would not be interested anyway.

Regardless of the actual demograph of who posts here, I'd much prefer to keep an open forum where any sort of believer would not be put off from posting in. How many times have we all been accused of being a clique, and worse?

It may only be a small thing in reality but a tagline suggesting a "free thinking", rather than a tongue-in-cheek "we know better" version would, for me, be preferable. The charter backs this idea up welcoming any type of believer to any discussion.

Who comes to the party is out of our hands - we can only send out the invites.

PDN

This one is so obvious that I'm sure somebody must have thought of it before me, but for any Cartesians among you:

I think, therefore He is not

coffee_cake

PDN wrote:

This one is so obvious that I'm sure somebody must have thought of it before me, but for any Cartesians among you:

I think, therefore He is not

Sounds like my buddhist version - I think therefore I am not

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Regardless of the actual demograph of who posts here, I'd much prefer to keep an open forum where any sort of believer would not be put off from posting in. How many times have we all been accused of being a clique, and worse?

It may only be a small thing in reality but a tagline suggesting a "free thinking", rather than a tongue-in-cheek "we know better" version would, for me, be preferable. The charter backs this idea up welcoming any type of believer to any discussion.

Who comes to the party is out of our hands - we can only send out the invites.

Oh, I agree - I haven't made a single entirely serious suggestion yet, I'm afraid. I certainly see no point in exclusive forums, and I would be happier in many ways if we could have our Christian-Atheist debates here rather than over in Christianity, since they represent more of a distraction there than here. However, I don't think it's the tagline that most people find off-putting - like it or lump it, most theists aren't interested in atheism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

This one is so obvious that I'm sure somebody must have thought of it before me, but for any Cartesians among you:

I think, therefore He is not

LOL, or to include the agnostics: I think, therefore I do not know.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

This one is so obvious that I'm sure somebody must have thought of it before me, but for any Cartesians among you:

I think, therefore He is not

Cogito, ergo non est? How about an adaptation in dog Latin for the "evolutionists" - coito, ergo sum?

Hmm. Again, probably not...


cordially,
Scofflaw

Beruthiel

Asiaprod wrote:

If its really an issue, and you guys come up with a nice one that is welcoming and non-confrontational I am happy to raise the issue.

Cloud is the man in charge of that little job.