by J.K. Gregg » Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:50 pm
Couple things. First, I said it was dangerous to mix concepts. I didn't say Humanism was dangerous (even though I think it is, but I don't want to talk about that).
Second, I don't think atheists are "in the negative" or "against something." We don't call people who don't believe in Santa Clause "anticlauses." People believe the world is flat, but we don't call those who don't "antiflaters." Furthermore, if a group of people claimed unicorns existed, we wouldn't call people who didn't "antiunicornbelievers." Theists are the one to invent a character, assign him magical powers, and then gasp, throw hissy fits, and even commit violence when someone raises an eyebrow. Atheists aren't "against" anything. They just aren't theists.
Third, my point this whole time is that atheism isn't a political party, a political ideology, a philosophy, or a sociological theory. It's simply and only the state of not believing in a god. As soon as you mix concepts (like atheism and humanism or atheism and liberalism) you commit a huge fraud of blurring definitions and distorting reality. I am an atheist and a husband. I am an atheist and an Objectivist. I am an atheist and a fan of Star Trek. Atheism stands for something, and giving it definitions it doesn't deserve is wrong, IMO.
Objectivist, IT professional, news junkie, geek, and husband. Formally known by Tetracide. I do the twitter @jk_gregg.
You're wrong until proven correct.