= new reply since forum marked as read
Why did they have to ruin the article with comments like this:
"The most “empirically visible” type of non-believer is the Anti-Theist, who believes that religion is a destructive force in society. According to Silver and Coleman, these are in fact the least common unbelievers, but there are the most strident. They rate highest in levels of anger and dogmatism. They however, are the least-common non-believers according to the survey results."
And
'“There’s just one small group that are the loudmouths” who are potentially making it more difficult for other constituencies of non-believers.'
Can't have an atheist story without taking a potshots at anti-theists. The loudmouth and dogmatic critiques in particular are bad.
I like this articles finding that we are a diverse group. That reinforces my stance that the only thing that really unites us is a lack of belief, though I think they are being overly simplistic and arbitrary with the labels the make. But seeing as they say:
“These categories are a first stab at this,” Silver said. “In 30 years, we may be looking at a typology of 32 types.”
Ill let that pass. Based on the categories they listed i would list myself as a hybrid between IAA/ AAA/ and to a minor extent non-theist. As with all these articles trying to create these forced categories none of them are a perfect fit.
Thanks for the article, was a fun read.
Now I guess I get to act normal for a change.
But the classification system seems to geared toward how activist they are. So activist atheists are the ones who get maligned as strident, dogmatic, and all the other bad adjectives.
Nope! I am an atheist activist and I am a very nice guy. I don't go around being mean or impolite to believers. They have the same personal rights that I do, and I would stand next to any of them to stand up for those personal rights.
But I am anti-religion because of the clear harm that it does when it coincides with politics, government, science, and other areas with which it has absolutely no business. The worst transgressors of this is the entire Republican Party apparatus, which is nothing more than a religious cabal these days. They are called the American Taliban because that's precisely what they are. They are a theocratic political party.
That's the distinction he seems to make.
Your description of being anti-religious seems to have more to do with being a secularist and anti-theocracy. That you share with many religious people.
These might be merely semantic distinctions, but I think that clarifying the language may help everyone communicate better.
At any rate, it may help people see where we share common ground.
Happy Revolution Day!
We see many posts here portraying atheism in a poor light, usually using the usual adjective modifiers. It's important to me to see them here as they give people a chance to comment here.
Make no bones about it. I am very angry about how deeply religion has seeped into the body politic, a place where it has no valid justification to be. I will attempt to take anybody who says otherwise (rhetorically) to the woodshed on this issue. I consider it to more important than any other in the modern world.
For instance, what does anybody think what has been happening in Egypt the past weeks has been about? I would like to see something similar happen to the Republicans here.
Religion by itself is maybe mostly benign. But when mixed with other cultural institutions it can be downright toxic. That's why I often repeat Hitchens here. Religion poisons everything.
People need to keep their beliefs to themselves. (Mostly.)
As always.
It seems to me it is the same mistake that is made when all religious people are painted in a bad light. One should not portray a whole population based on the activities or behavior of those at the extremes.
I share your outrage about the inroads that have been made by religion into the government. That makes us both secularists.
But I will continue those religious groups, individuals and organizations that fight for civil rights and social justice. If they use religious beliefs to accomplish those goals, that's ok by me, though I see how it might be a slippery slope.
The Moral Mondays movement is being led in large part by religious people, but includes a wide variety of individuals.
As to Egypt, there is no question that their stab at democracy was crushed by religion. I am hopeful that they can try again and do it right this time.
Lovely talking to you, as usual.
