I have met a number of nominal atheists who refuse the label, because they think the word is negative. I think that confuses negation with bad, and this is an irrational response, but I’m not going to worry too much about the labels that other people prefer or not.
It annoys me sometimes though, when people try and do the exact opposite. They identify with the label so much, that they can’t stand the idea of sharing it with those they disagree with… on some completely different issue.
Abortion is one of those hotbutton issues that get people riled. Apparently, so is fiscal conservatism.
Dear Sarah, not everything you (or I, for that matter) dislike or disagree with is based in misogyny, stupidity, or religious fundamentalism, and it’s high time people stop using the m-word as the ultimate trump card to which one cannot possibly dare to reply.
I wonder when we’ll get to the “just happens to be atheist, and is not an atheist X, Y, or Z” stage of subtle distancing 🙂
Is Massimo Pigliucci or Daviv Silverman pregnant? If or when they are then they can consider the ethical implications for themselves only, what does a womans decision on abortion have to do with anyone else?
Fortunately in human beings, a rational discussion of ethics, involves the organ called the brain, and is not dependent on whether or not one is in possession of a functioning uterus.
And since we were all fetuses at one time… your ‘anyone else’ question is disingenuous. The ethics of reproduction is an issue for us as a species.
If someone were to write about the ethics of homosexual
sex almost every one in the atheist and humanist communities would be appalled. “Leave them alone what they do is their business” would be shouted from the rooftops. Why are women lower on the totem pole, can they not make a decision without a man helping?
– If someone were to write about the ethics of homosexual sex almost every one in the atheist and humanist communities would be appalled.
Now there is an idea. Just so.
…they can’t stand the idea of sharing it with those they disagree with… on some completely different issue.
At least in some cases, I think it’s more that people convince themselves that no one could possibly disagree with them if it weren’t for the pernicious influence of religion (except perhaps through stupidity or selfishness). They seem to perceive their own fundamental moral intuitions as obviously and indisputably correct, and the intuitions of those who disagree with them as a spurious “holdover” from religion. It’s a remarkably blinkered attitude, and I expect it will become less and less tenable if atheism becomes more widespread among conservatives.