Quote:
Originally Posted by Hare_Geist
Now wikipedia has a fucking atheist symbol.
"Gee, Hare, you're just overanalyzing everything. Dawkinism, that sure is a funny term you made up." |
Hate to say it, but:
Gee, Hare, you're just overanalyzing everything. In fact, I'll upgrade that overanalyzing to include the vigilance you go through to take more pot shots at Richard Dawkins, all because you believe he is trying to turn atheism into his own cult, which he's not.
Using the term Dawkinism to try to maintain that this catch-phrase alone is proof positive that people who admire his work have put him on some sort of pedestal, and that his stance on atheism makes him the deranged leader of a dangerous cult-like mentality ... is ridiculous.
Supporting his stance on certain issues -
issues that already existed before he became such a popular author - does not mean that they cling to his every word as the definitive, unquestionable gospel. That he happens to effectively communicate to others that theism is an outdated concept that should be treated like any other old myth ... let's call ALL those who hold this same opinion Dawkinists, as if he alone granted everyone this epiphany.
Onto the symbol...
It's just that ... a symbol. Symbols are used in medicine, sports, advertising and politics. Symbols are simply a visual representation used to reference something. The Republican party has an elephant as their symbol. Does that mean that Republicans make some sort of theistic connection to whatever Republican is currently holding that platform? No. It simply means that they support the republican stance.
You are heavily inclined towards the philosophical stance, but I bet you don't find it at all disconcerting that there are several symbols that represent philosophy out there. I bet you don't find it absurd that people who appreciate philosophy sometimes sport these symbols on their webpages, their cars, their notebooks or the corkboards in their offices. And I know damn well you wouldn't believe for a second that people who display any one symbol for philosophy are somehow exhibiting a cult-like demeanor just for using it.
More likely, you are just overanalyzing the symbol for atheism as being absurd simply because you have a strong prejudice against the idea of atheists depicted as a group if they happen to hold theism in contempt. For some strange reason, you believe atheists shouldn't consider themselves as a "group", which really only means that in numbers, they are simply an assembly of people who are connected by their similar ideas. For some strange reason, a "group" of atheists who all share the same stance is just ... wrong. Especially if this group of atheists all happen to share the same notion that theism is asinine.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 23
The last thing atheists want is to be an organized group.
|
No, the last thing atheists want is to be compared to a religion. Being organized is not exclusive to religion, there are organized assemblies of people who are connected by the same values in other arenas, why should it be unusual or deplorable for atheists to be considered "organized" if they occasionally assemble together so that they can discuss things that are relevant to their stance, such as national public policies and judicial rulings that stand to undermine their preferred way of life?
This is disconcerting.
Linear Mode
