It's not about contradictions; it's about attacking other religions.

In reply to katisara (msg #210):

Hmm, interesting.  If it had said "atheist?  Join the club!" do you think that might have gone over better with you?  That'd be closer to the "Gentlemen's club" than the "no girls allowed," I guess.

But whatever the case, I guess at least it gives some perspective on how easy it is to cause offense, even when not intending to do so.  I know it rubs me the wrong way a bit when politicians talking about welcoming people of "all religions," as it sort of implies that people without a religion aren't welcome.  Fortunately I usually find plenty of other stuff to be offended about when politicians speak, so I don't dwell on that bit! ;) Another example that always surprises me is when people get offended if you wish them "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas."

To get us back to the original topic, how much being offended should we expect to have to tolerate in this kind of stuff?  If even well-intended messages can cause offense, it doesn't seem like we have any real hope of completely avoiding offense, but is there some reasonable level we can expect people not go go over?  There is, after all, a fairly broad spectrum of how offensive a message can be.  Or do we just go to the other extreme and not try to limit offensiveness at all?  If you sign up in time, should you be allowed to burn a cross on the court-house lawn, or does that level of offensiveness warrant a restriction?  My gut tells me there should be some types of messages that a courthouse shouldn't allow the public to express on the government's land, but I'm not sure how to make a rule on it that isn't open to abuse on one side or the other, which makes my head question my gut reaction.

Probably, although I agree with your earlier post that atheists have a PR problem. Frankly, either way you phrase it, it sounds empty. I go to Church to worship God and pray for miracles. I go to Atheism Club to ... talk about no God? I don't know. There needs to be some constructive selling done there.



I definitely lean towards freedom over comfort, so I'd tend to say 'if you're following the rules, it should be legal'. However, that's different from what is polite. In cases like putting up displays on the courthouse lawn, perhaps it should require the individual register under his name and address. He can do it, but at the cost of social capital.

In reply to Tycho (msg #212):

Okay, that makes sense.  Personally, I feel that the depiction of atheism as a lack of something is where the PR problem lies.  Atheism, to me as an atheist, is simply the belief that science more successfully explains the world than religion.

I wonder, would this insult you as much?

(Won't link to it, because I'm not sure what the rules are given that it has some bad words, but look up Jon Safran Vs. God - Atheist door knockers.  It's on Youtube.)

I also agree with katisara's point to some extent.  The atheists now tend to call themselves "freethinkers."  This moniker implies that those who are religious don't think for themselves.  This is one area where they are deliberately pushing the limits.

An openness to having any and every idea challenged by the scientific process is a key part of most atheistic beliefs and is not a part of most religious beliefs.

For example, in many Christian traditions it is simply not okay to challenge the idea that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.

There is zero wiggle room there.

Whereas someone who might call themselves a freethinker is free to change their mind on that issue depending on the evidence.

So while some might be offended by it I don't see how it's actually untrue. True in all cases of all religions in every area?  No.  But to much more of a degree in religious setups than in skeptic circles for sure.

Yeah, I have to admit, I don't know what the "club" in the sign was really meant to be about. I'd guess it was mainly intended to be a "you're not alone" message, though I there are "humanist clubs" about these days.  Haven't really been interested in going to any of their meetings for largely the reason you raise--what goes on there, besides people agreeing that there's no god?  That said, I have been to some talks here during the edinburgh festival that they've put on that were pretty  good (one about the psychology of the paranormal was particularly good), so maybe it'd be more interesting than I give it credit for.


Hmm, that actually sounds like a pretty good approach.  Though, in some cases people aren't really afraid to let people know about their particular hatred.  I definitely agree about erring on the side of freedom.  But is there any limit on that that doesn't lead to potential abuse?  Is there anyway we can make burning crosses or swastikas against the rules without making it possible for the local government to ban political speech they disagree with?

Perhaps another way to put it:  is the first amendment a means to an end, or and end unto itself?  Is free speech simply good because it's free, or do we want free speech because it provides some benefit and/or that limiting it would cause some manner of harm?  Do we protect swastika's and hate speech because the right to express them is valuable in and of itself, or because preventing that kind of speech would also make it possible to limit other types of speech which we feel is valuable?  I'm not entirely sure where I stand on that.  Is the question "why is free speech good?" really meaningful?  Is it simply valuable by definition (ie, we value it because we value it--it doesn't need any further justification), or is there some other value that it provides.  If the former, then yeah, let any form of speech be protected and don't stop people from putting swastika's on the courthouse lawn.  If the latter, it might be in theory possible to put reasonable limits on free speech, when the speech isn't providing the value that makes it worth protecting.  The sticky part there, of course, is who gets to decide if it has that value or not, and is there any way to do so that wouldn't be abused?  Not really sure...and seem to be just rambling while I try to get my own thoughts together!  Sorry! :)

Yeah, I think if the word and concept had a different derivation, perhaps something like "materialist" or "naturalist" it'd do better, but those words have already been used for other meanings.



Links to that kind of thing are fine, just put a "warning, may contain strong language" next to the link.  And I don't find the the video offensive (but I'm an atheist, so that's probably not a surprise), but it sure seemed like plenty of the people in the video were offended by what the guy had done.  And, to be honest, it seemed like that was his goal.  I think that kind of thing tends not to change minds very well.  It's amusing to people who already agree with you, but it just pushes people who disagree with you away, I'd say.  I think he should definitely be free to do it, but I don't think he's helping his cause any.  Now, trying to sell atheism or a religion to the pair of Mormons who come to your door, that's entirely fair game in my opinion--and far more likely to change a mind (though still extremely unlikely), since they're already interested in discussing religion.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:15, Fri 09 Dec 2011.

Hmm, I would guess that they're more focusing on their own style of thinking rather than trying to put others down (though I'm sure there are some who do it to put others down--always some in every group).  Out of curiosity, is there any other word for atheists that you can think of that would be a positive definition (rather than indicating what it doesn't believe in) that wouldn't be off-putting?  I see "secular humanist" quite a bit these days, though I can't claim to know what the definition of "humanism" really is.

It's hard for me to define others by what they believe; I just hope it's a sufficient description to have meaning.  "Secular humanist" is vague and could apply to theists too.  Douglas Adams used to call himself proudly a "radical atheist" so no one would have any questions that he really doesn't believe.

But in the end, why have a label for something you don't believe in?  I don't call myself the "Santa Unbeliever" or "unatheist."  Atheist works just fine to say you're outside the scope of believers, and it doesn't cloud the waters.  Secular humanist or whatever may be a philosophical description but is not a religious one.

Well, then isn't proselytizing of all kinds offensive?  If someone goes door to door and says "believe in my god" isn't that being intrusive also?  If the sign on the bus said "Doesn't science and evolution explain the world better?" or some variant of that, would it be offensive?  Was it the atheism of the message or the presentation chosen that katisara found offensive?

You mischaracterize proselytizing (at least as I've always seen it done).

Proselytizing is equated to going around trying to share the lottery with everyone.  Most, unfortunately, don't want those millions of dollars (i.e., eternal life) that are being shared, or don't believe the money is real (i.e., the religion isn't right).

But proselytizing is not about telling people they are wrong and have to believe or they're going to hell.  That would be offensive...unless, of course, they were right.  :)

Instead, it's about sharing a message of joy and happiness and a path to follow to get one those rewards.  So, yes, it is different.

Doulos (msg 218):
What we're looking at here is the underlying subtext.  Yes, they certainly are "freethinkers" so long as that definition does not include anything not explainable by modern science...or in other ways.  The moniker is true, but its implication is that others are not, which is negative.  They could call themselves "scientific freethinkers" or "evidence seekers" or a number of things, but the term just "freethinkers" has a negative implication because it labels everyone else as "not freethinkers."

And yes, there are some areas of religion where there is no wiggle room, depending on the religion, the person's personal interpretation of the doctrine, and other issues; but the same is true of those who place their faith in science alone.  Their minds are simply bounded by other fences.

EDIT: Imagine that a religion called itself "the good guys" or "the people going to heaven" or "God's favorite."  These are closer to the offensive (if only slightly so) nature of "freethinker."
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:53, Fri 09 Dec 2011.

Who says sharing the message of secular humanism isn't about sharing a message of joy and happiness?

Not only would it not insult me, I'd consider myself part of that group! And that's part of the problem, I guess. If you were to say 'this group is about people who believe science is the best explanation of the observable world', I'd say 'yeah, that's right,' and I'd be happy to join. If you said, 'we are humanists, and we work together to define a stable moral code and philosophy based on rationalism,' I'd agree again and be happy to join. There's nothing about science or rationalism which exclude religion.

I'd be a little leery of 'free-thinker', because it implies 'gullible'. I've met a lot of 'free-thinkers' who will believe whatever you tell them (and funny enough, most of them are religious). Skeptic's Society seems a bit more appropriate, but again, you can be a skeptic and a Christian (or whatever). It's only where you say 'NO GOD-LOVERS ALLOWED!' that it becomes truly 'atheist' as well as exclusive.

And I guess that's also part of the issue. Does 'atheism' need to be exclusive? Humanist sounds good, because it's giving me a positive - humans; human issues, human experience, human limitations. But again, is it truly atheist? I didn't think so (at least, until I saw that sign on the bus).

I think that's just it.  Atheist is a label for something people don't believe in.  It's negative by nature, like "santa claus unbeliever."  Something that better expressed what they do believe might avoid some of the issues that are cropping up here.  Actually, the "evidence seeker" suggestion you gave in another post actually struck me as really good.  I think that's the best one I've seen so far.  Sort of like "skeptic" but without as much of a negative angle.  :)

It certainly does seem so to the people in that video, so ideally, they would reconsider their support for door-to-door proselytizing if they found it offensive when they were on the other side of it (and if they supported it in the first place--may be most of the people in the video slammed their doors on mormons too).  If the stunt worked to get them to change their views, great!  But I'm guessing it's more likely will just have a more negative view of atheists now, and feel like they've been victims of the "war on religion" that so many people think is going on.  If humans were rational creatures, stunts like this that show contradictions between our beliefs and actions would be effective.  But we're not all that rational in most cases, so it can actually do just the opposite.  In the vast majority of cases, people only change their minds when the person urging them to do so is someone they already trust and view as "on their side."  When people we disagree with show us evidence that we're wrong, most of the time it only reinforces our views ("if that guy thinks I'm wrong, then I must be right!").  It's not that I don't see and agree with the guy's point in the video, it's that I don't think people who don't already share his views are likely to see it.


Good question.  I'd say the "better" part probably sets it self up for causing offense, but a simple "Science and evolution explain the world!" might work better (though, evolution/creationism is a hot-button issue, so if you go down that route, some people are going to be offended no matter how you phrase it).

In the video the guy did try to do the "sharing the good word" schtick too.  He was definitely trying to doing it as close to what the mormons do while giving it an atheist spin as he could (which could have been part of what put people off, since it could easily have been viewed as mocking the mormon missionary style).  People still seemed offended, and I don't think it was the delivery that caused it.  I figure there's three reasons why people would be offended (we only saw clips of them, so not really possible to say which was most common):

1.  they're offended by anyone who comes knocking on their door to sell an -ism to them, whether mormon, atheist, or encyclopedia salesman.
2.  they're offended by someone suggesting they try atheism, found atheism distasteful, etc. If so, AND they were mormon, this would be somewhat ironic, but except for the guy who said he was a bishop (and who wasn't one of the more offended-looking people in the video), we can only speculate that people were in that situation.
3.  they might not have minded atheists coming up to their door to talk about atheism, but were offended that they did so in a way that poked fun at mormon missionaries.

Or "latter day saints" or "saved" or "God's chosen people?"  ;)

In reply to katisara (msg #227):

I prefer humanist, too.  Although 'humanism' as I understand it has generally implied a belief that the temporal human life we lead on Earth is all there is, so you are better served by focusing on your current life and ignoring the belief in the afterlife.  So, it has an element of negating the beliefs of others embedded right in it.  Of course, it could be interpreted by individuals in ways.  And an argument could be made that religious people have often been at the forefront of movements that value basic humanity in people.

Now, if you really believe what I wrote in my second sentence, that there is no afterlife and striving to meet some earthly goal whose only payoff comes in the afterlife is a waste of time, would it be offensive to proselytize that message?  I mean, Heath said proselytizing is about spreading joy, right?  Well, if you believe that true joy is only found by focusing on earthly rewards and you do your best to convince your fellow humans that you're right, aren't you just trying to 'save their souls' or 'spread the good word,' so to speak?

I wouldn't have any issue with someone saying "heaven isn't real, so we need to focus on what we have right now". Heaven shouldn't be the focus of Christianity anyway, and it's not an attack on the important bit of God, plus it's tied into your philosophy -- focus on right now.

Well, "latter day saints" is an aspiration only, not a declaration, and I think when that name came about, it was a much less politically correct world.  Same with the other two.

Those are "grandfathered" in, shall we say.  In other words, due to longlasting use over many, many years, everyone knows the context and colloquial meaning.  But if you took them totally out of context and historical record, then you might have a point.

I don't really get offended myself by freethinker or any of the other terms.  I'm just pointing out the inferences and contextualization that could easily be applied to such terms when they are introduced.  It's kind of like democrats saying they are "progressive" when, in my mind, they are "regressive," but that's all political rhetoric; same with Republicans saying they are "conservative" but have to couch that in "what kind of conservative?" words.  All semantics.

In reply to Heath (msg #234):

I don't find any of them offensive, I just found it a bit funny that the three "imagine if..." examples you gave were very similar to existing cases. :)

Your point about them being "grandfathered in" is probably spot on.  If "freethinker" had been the term for atheists for the last hundred years, no one would be offended by (well, except people who find atheism offensive in general, I guess).  That was part of what I was getting with the issue of the PR problem I mentioned.

In reply to Tycho (msg #235):

Well, now, Richard Dawkins uses the term 'bright' as in "Hi, I'm a bright." Is that better?

In reply to habsin4 (msg #236):

Heh, Dawkins is a very clever biologist, but inoffensive he most certainly isn't!  I loved The Selfish Gene, and think everyone should read it at some point, but Dawkins is pretty pompous and arrogant at the best of times.  Using "bright" as the term for atheists will go over worse than "freethinker" by a long shot, if you ask me.  ;)