Political Crossfire Forums

I am an atheist.

I don't consider it a dirty word. I consider it an enlightened word.

I think that atheism is necessarily political, because religious nutcases are obsessed with forcing their views on others. And so the simple act of saying "there is no God" and "laws are for men, by men, not for men, by Gods," is inherently political.

Words change and sometimes the meaning behind them is lost. Yes, atheist means no belief in higher power. But today through a combination of attitudes and media it is more referring to radicals who want to spoil Christmas stop Theists enjoying their various forms of faith etc etc.

Look at the word gay person - went from being a unit of measure for tied sticks and twigs to a derogatory statement about gay people

I disagree that it is "necessarily political." Ask yourself, why would an atheist not want others' views forced upon them? Surely because they want to be independent, they want their individual rights respected, and they want the liberty to live their lives without God as they see fit. But independence, rights, and liberty aren't atheistic concepts at their core.

Does that make sense? Surely most atheists wouldn't want to live in a Christian theocracy, but not just because they disagree with Christianity, but because they don't want their lives dictated to by others' moral and political beliefs, and that is the nature of individuality and freedom, not atheism.

I don't see the utility in assigning to theists the term "enemy." That's downright idiotic in my view. People are supposed to be "enemies" just because they happen to believe differently? That's foolishness and tribalism, the origins of all religious and sectarian violence.

Atheism is the lack of belief in supernatural deities, it is the disbelief in theism. That is not worthy of being bandied about and paraded around. That is such a narrow and relatively empty void of a descriptive term. There are forms of belief in the supernatural that do not include a deity or deities, that do not include theism, that not believing isn't even covered by as narrow a term as atheism.

I don't believe in any supernatural hocus pocus, but I don't see the point in parading around the term atheism. I also don't believe in fortune telling, or astrology, or voodoo, but I don't center discussions around not believing these things. I also don't believe in free-market fundamentalism, but I don't frame discussions about it around simply not believing in it, I frame discussion around its inherent fallacious qualities and, more importantly, the alternative that I support. That is the utility of secular humanism or something similar. It's framing the discussion not just as a rejection of something, but as an affirmation of a viable and reasonable alternative. People need to see a reasonable alternative, a substantive affirmation, rather than just a rejection.

I also find it ironically amusing and hilariously oblivious of you, as an objectivist, to criticize, as do I, including atheism in a political ideology.

The word "enemy" is a very strong word. That is the language of warfare and of sectarian violence. It has no place in a discussion such as this and I'm glad you realize this.

My problem with your proposed alternatives to atheism continue to be that they only signify negation, rather than affirmation.

People will assign political meanings to everything. Nothing will ever change that. It's easy to assign whatever political meaning you want to atheism precisely because it doesn't affirm anything.

I believe that you haven't properly read Ayn Rand if you are under the impression atheism isn't at the root of objectivism. Rand literally founds her whole objectivist philosophy in her atheism. That's how her argument begins.

But Gregg you are dealing with a perception not a reality - and thats the problem atheists face in the United States