From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon atheism.svg

This Atheism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


What is an accommodationist? I focus criticism on fundamentalist religious groups and those aspects of religion that do harm. I respect groups like the Quakers that do good. Does that make me an accommodationist? I'm usually considered an antitheist and I criticise all religion to a limited extent because all religion is based on irrational faith and all religion encourages irrationality. Extreme accommodationists may actively promote religion though they don't believe it. The article didn't address that but I added it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to give an example of an "extreme accommodationist" who promotes religion.--Weirdstuff (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Chris Stedman. Evil fascistoh noez 19:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Teaching at Sunday school Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Petty as always, Proxima. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
And decidedly dense.--Green mowse.pngGodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 13:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Never heard of Stedman, and 3/4 of the links I try are dead right now, "hi sandy", but i don't think he's PROMOTING religion from what I've read. I'll not change it, cause you all seem to know him better, but "finding a common ground", and "respect" and "sharing humanistic things in common" doesn't seem to be PROMOTING.Green mowse.pngGodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 13:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I think S E Cupp is a much better example of extreme accommodationism. She is the sort whose atheism you question.Arachne1988 (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

On Respect[edit]

I was reading through the "Respect" section, and it got me thinking: while it's all well and good to value a person's abilities to clearly explain and defend their beliefs as empirically justified, it seems a bit excessive to assume that all beliefs must be defendable in that manner. This doesn't merely apply to belief in a god/gods or lack thereof- one can just as easily apply it to things like some philosophies, political stances, or just about any other kind of personal preference where empirical observation might not necessarily apply.

For what it's worth, my stance on the matter is "I'll respect your belief even though I don't hold it, as long as you respect mine in turn and let everyone else have the right to decide which of us they agree with. We both know we're not going to be able to convince each other of our respective stances anyway." I don't know if that would technically be accomodationism, but it does point out a common ground I expect to share with most believers. --Logos (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Obsolescence: PZ not accommodationist and not New Atheist any more[edit]

"The position of the atheist accommodationists can be contrasted with that of some of the New Atheists who maintain that all faith-based ideas are counter to scientific thought and should be criticized. Well-known New Atheists include Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers."

1. This section of the article contrasts NA with A with the weak qualifier "some of". 2. PZ has repudiated NA cf.

If anyone reads this and cares to correct that muddled and obsolete section, feel free. I would, but know nothing about the process and the guidelines. — Unsigned, by: / talk