Rather than responding to Proxy, I think AJP is doing it just as well as I could, so I'll simply agree with AJPs comments.

As for grateful, yes, I did watch Golden Brown's gaff on tellie last night.

Very amusing indeed, particularly that point when he was being filmed in the live radio show as they played his words back to him and his head sank into his hands...what joy to see a politician being held to account for his declarations.

However, I have committed similar sins myself, and felt equally stupid as Golden must have at that point, but my indiscretions did not hang over my fate or my ability to win back his degree of power.

Nonetheless, it was done.

It was not a bad idea of his to apologise for his 'spoken thoughts', but I'd have thought a personal phone call might have done it.

I still have no real idea what the woman said to annoy him, so Golden may well have been correct in what he said, his crime then being 'being caught saying it aloud'.

Then again, politicians get all sorts of views thrust at them, some mad, some angry, some fine, one assumes.

I am sure the welter of opinions would wear down anyone in his position.... I recall Hawke and Keating upsetting people with their off-the-cuff remarks...and Beattie, and maybe one of the NSW premiers too... these things happen.

I'd be inclined to say that, given he had no intention of broadcasting his thoughts, given that it was an unfortunate error, then his 'crime' is greatly diminished.... and with that in mind, his apology was all he had to give.

How do I arrive at that view?

The 'reasonable person' approach.

How is that created?

Social norms, hegemony, and a reasonable desire to be treated reasonably by others.... as part of a social survival strategy that we have all practised for eons.

Not something taken directly from the Bible...or, please note here Proxy.... any other dodgy book of 'truths', particularly those I've never thumbed through.

Proxy,

You make the classic mistake of not realising that theism and atheism deal with belief, while agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

<<Unlike theists and atheists, I find myself in the unfortunate position of not knowing with any certainty.>>

I don’t know with any certainty either. None of us can really know and that’s what makes pretty much all of us agnostics. But I disbelieve with a high level of certainty because religions go against all reason and objective observations.

<<I am, however, pleased for those atheists (such as yourself) and theists who are privy to the secrets of the universe.>>

Oh, how sweet of you.

Atheists aren’t privy to the secrets of the universe any more than a juror (let’s call them a “not-guiltyist” to make it easier for you) is privy to the details behind a court case before the evidence has been presented.

But I already explained what atheism is yesterday and I don’t feel like going through it all again. You might want to re-read my posts to Grateful.

Anyway, what’s it like to discover that you were an atheist all along? Pretty trippy, huh?

I wouldn’t worry about it too much. The only reason it has negative connotations is because of the misinformation spread around by theists and the misconceptions of the older generations who are not yet aware that atheism says nothing about communism and is therefore not synonymous with it.

I'd buy you a beer AJP, if I knew your local.

The problem with being only e-connected is that none of us are really 'connected'.

Anonymous within a multitude.... together but apart... atomised collectives... a miserable outcome, a portent of our future?

If only we could have a sign we could all recognise, a tattoo, a number on our forehead, say, something like....ahhh.... say, 666.... then we'd all know who we were.... argggghhhh... the Biblical truths are revealing themselves to me.... all is lost.... it was all TRUE!

TBC,

Thanks. I really appreciate the thought. I enjoy your posts too. You maintain some sanity here when I really couldn’t be bothered.

I sometimes get the feeling that some here (fellow atheists included) wrongly think that I shouldn’t be saying some of the things I say - so any support is appreciated. But if that really is that’s the case, then I guess it’s probably related to what my wife often reminds me: “the world’s probably not quite ready to function completely without religion.”

By the way, my local’s anywhere within the Brisbane region. I live in the same suburb as Graham Young actually. And I’m always available if someone’s shouting!

Anyway, if you’ll excuse me I have something I need to clear up with Proxy...

Dear Proxy,

I owe you an apology.

Here you are, discovering that you are in fact an atheist; discovering that you adhere to a non-belief-system that is based on the non-belief in any religions, and here I am, insensitively making light-hearted remarks like, “Pretty trippy, huh?”

I feel ashamed.

So as a way of apologising to you and showing you how sorry I am, I’d like to mail you this pamphlet I have here on my desk about atheism to help you with your non-transformation.

It’s a blank A4 sheet of paper. It doesn’t look much like a pamphlet at the moment, but I could fold it twice into neat equal thirds to help make it look and feel more pamphlet-like. It’s the least I could do considering the sheet of paper is, after all, blank.

Nevertheless, I feel it accurately describes atheism and I believe it will help you to learn all there is to learn about this non-belief and the difference aspects to this rather un-complex non-belief-system.

Regards,

If you are an atheist "what do you teach about guarding the tongue", or, if you like, about justice.

Hence no more presumption that atheists agree upon a set of principles or rules of conduct.

Posted by grateful, Friday, 30 April 2010 3:10:20 PM
........................

"Guarding the tongue" is a vague concept: it might be appropriate in some situations, yet it might be inappropriate in others. In the gordon Brown situation, should his private comments in an enclosed car, have been reported? Were they maliciously reported to discredit him?

What about incitement to hatred comments? What about incitement to violence comments? What about "women as uncovered meat" comments?

Whether atheist ought to agree upon a set of principles or rules of conduct depends on their grouping - if they are an organised atheist group meeting regularly or a one off meeting such as the recent Global Atheist conference, then yes one would expect sets of principles or rules of conduct.

In a more general setting such a political or community debates more general societal laws, principles and rules would apply.

addendum - to elaborate on where guarding the tongue might be inappropriate - where someone, an animal, or property is being abused, it is appropriate to speak up or report or both.