|
vincentML -> RE: A Christian and an atheist walk into a bar... (1/13/2013 5:20:31 AM)
|
quote:
As promised, these are half-baked. They may skew a bit young and reflect my weakness for sentimental stories. But perhaps they'll offer some ideas that an actual artist could run with.
Many kudos for some thoughtful scenarios, DC. I would particularly favor the Humanist Healer story.
quote:
I'm far from a PR expert, but one heretical suggestion I might make if I were would be to consider some "rebranding." Atheism is essentially a negative term, defining folks by what they aren't rather than what they are. That makes it harder, I think, to find points of connection. That said, I'm not brimming with alternatives. I like Humanist but realize it has other uses as well. Earthist might sound too environmental.
The New Atheists or the Militant Atheists of the 21st C are an outspoken group of about five authors who have debated and antagonized the Christian fundamentalists. Their work has been a backlash against the effort lead by the Discovery Institute to install Intelligent Design along side Darwinism in high school biology curricula, suggesting that there are doubts among Evolutionists about Darwin's theory. The doubting Evolutionists are hard to come by.
Doubters of belief in the supernatural are found throughout history.
The term 'atheist' was first used in the 18th C.
During the latter part of the 19th C a 'Free Thought' movement gained some notoriety in America. Thought free of religious dogma and belief in the supernatural. I favor free thinker myself and I think there are some such organizations to be found today.
In 2003 there arose the Brights Movement which is similar to the Freethought concept and whose goal is the following according to Wiki:
1.Promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
2.Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
3.Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such people.
A major criticism of the term 'Brights' is that it suggests an air of mental superiority. Their tag line is "Illuminating and Elevating the Naturalistic Worldview". I agree with the tag line but I find their name 'godawful.' [:D]
The Wiki article on Atheism quotes Sam Harris [one of the New Atheists] in part:
"In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
I don't much agree with Harris, although, admittedly, I haven't read his book Letter to a Christian Nation from which the quote arises. He may offer solid justification but I support self-identification. As you suggested, however, it leaves us in a bit of a quandry.
There are a number of choices: "atheist, antitheist, humanist (specifically secular humanist), freethinker, Objectivist, irreligionist, naturalist, materialist or physicalist, agnostic, ignostic, skeptic, apatheist, or even naturalistic pantheist, panendeist" They all seem to be subject to some negative connotation because they reject Belief in the Supernatural, which is the majority view.
Richard Dawkins [dean of the New Atheists] thinks we need a catchy term similar to 'gay' which is "succinct, positive, uplifting," and liberating.
Let me know if you think of one, DC, tho I doubt the 'community' of nonbelievers will ever agree because they value their liberated thought too dearly to give a damn about labels.
Many regards . . . . [:)]
|
|
|
|
