Happy Atheist Forum

It seems a strange question to ask, but the question was provoked when I saw the opening page to the site. "Atheists are often happy, ethical people". Hmm. It's a strange statement to make, considering that atheism isn't limited to just one small social group, but many different kinds of people. Atheism, like Buddhism and other philosophies, is made up of people are so differentiated and numerous they can't really be 'generalized' all into just one category. To say all atheists, then, are happy people, is like saying that all asians are happy people, or all women are overly emotional, or all blacks are educated.

Now I understand that atheists, like Buddhists and other groups, are linked by commonly shared belief; but is that really, really enough to just generalize and box them up all into one category? A more accurate position for the site might be, for instance, "Atheists, while linked by common belief, are vastly different people, sometimes happy and ethical, other times depressed and irrational, as can be said of most or all other social groups. It is our duty here to bring atheists, however, together, in a spirit of common good will, despite our various differences. Hopefully, the atheists who are happy and ethical can encourage others to be the same, while learning some important lessons in the process."

Quote from: "Goathead"To say all atheists, then, are happy people, is like saying that all asians are happy people, or all women are overly emotional, or all blacks are educated.

I'm pretty sure that's the reason the qualifier "often" is included.

QuoteA more accurate position for the site might be, for instance, "Atheists, while linked by common belief, are vastly different people, sometimes happy and ethical, other times depressed and irrational, as can be said of most or all other social groups. It is our duty here to bring atheists, however, together, in a spirit of common good will, despite our various differences. Hopefully, the atheists who are happy and ethical can encourage others to be the same, while learning some important lessons in the process."

Pithy is best.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm pretty sure that's the reason the qualifier "often" is included.

Exactly.

The point is to point out that just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they are evil (as many fundamentalists tend to believe since they associate god with ethics)

No sense writing a long paragraph acknowledging that sometimes atheists are bad horrible people just as all people are bad horrible people.

Plus, speaking generally all people are often happy and ethical...so what's the problem?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Exactly.

Quote from: "Whitney"The point is to point out that just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they are evil (as many fundamentalists tend to believe since they associate god with ethics)

Actually, in my experience I've found that it's actually the atheists who tend to assume religious people are evil before getting to know them, but that's probably just me.

Quote from: "Whitney"No sense writing a long paragraph acknowledging that sometimes atheists are bad horrible people just as all people are bad horrible people.

Plus, speaking generally all people are often happy and ethical...so what's the problem?

"generally all people are happy and ethical...?" Sorry but I don't think so.

Like everything in life, it all depends on the individual.

I've met fellow atheists who are stable as rocks, leap out of bed every morning and can't wait to start the day, and are so cheerful and happy I get nauseous if I spend too much time in their company.  I've met Christians who seem like they have to be talked back from the ledge each and every day.  Then vice versa.

Quote from: "Goat"Actually, in my experience I've found that it's actually the atheists who tend to assume religious people are evil before getting to know them, but that's probably just me.

[Emphasis added]

Yeah, that's pretty much a "gimme."

Quote from: "Goathead"Actually, in my experience I've found that it's actually the atheists who tend to assume religious people are evil before getting to know them, but that's probably just me.

Those who willingly subscribe to and defend a system of beliefs many of which are considered to be evil by most modern societies, ARE themselves evil (to put it in such terms, although I detest using the word evil in serious discussions)

If you promote farts, you are, most likely, an asshole (to put it in wider metaphorical terms)

 

New sig spotted, itt.

Also, I regard many religious practices to be evil, while many religious people hold them to be beneficent.  The only thing this shows is that morality is relative.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.farleysinglesleague.com%2Fimages%2Fsmiley%2Ffart.gif&hash=5758e0df6c15b5c7f0458e78d442bafc0f68fec5)

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Goathead"Actually, in my experience I've found that it's actually the atheists who tend to assume religious people are evil before getting to know them, but that's probably just me.

Those who willingly subscribe to and defend a system of beliefs many of which are considered to be evil by most modern societies, ARE themselves evil (to put it in such terms, although I detest using the word evil in serious discussions)

Does the same apply for stupidity?

Quote from: "Goathead"Does the same apply for stupidity?

Goathead, this is the second thread in which I've seen you utilize personal attacks for no apparent reason. As I mentioned in the other thread, I recommend you read the forum rules on civility. Perhaps I am unaware of a personal issue you have with one or more members here? Regardless, you need to abide by this forum's rules for posting. Don't bring personal issues in here.

You just misunderstood my question. I honestly am asking if the same applies for stupidity. So does it or doesn't it?

I have many issues with the opening generalisation on the home page

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god"
I don't think this should be phrased as a mutually exclusive alternative as it is not one or the other. I am sure that believers love themselves and their fellow humans as well as their god/gods.

I like the second sentence but it is tainted by the end "for all men together to enjoy". Why men? Why not human kind? I really don't like gender bias.

"An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it"
I actually think this could be seen as belittling of believers, most likely they also find in themselves the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. Of course it doesn't actually preclude this of believers, but it could be read to imply that athiests are distinguished from believers in this way. This statement is also gender biased.

"An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment"
I completely disagree with this sentence. It is gender biased, puts a common thought into all atheists heads and a common understanding of the definition of fulfillment with a common path on how to achieve this. I don't believe this to be true.

"Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god"
Again with a mutually exclusive alternative. Believers have an additional dimension they could be seen as compliments rather than substitutes. Also gender biased again.

"An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church"
This is a crazy statement. "Knows" is inferring that non Athiests are wrong and ignorant. Churches and Hospitals serve different purposes. This statement is just plain wrong.

"An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said"
Again with the mutual exclusivity. I would presume that believers do both.

"An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death"
Only people who are suicidal seek escape into death!

"He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter"
Do believers rely on god? Also the "knows" bit implies a better than thou attitude towards believers. Gender biased again.

Overall, I feel the statement is gender biased and is trying to relate an atheist in terms of what a believer is. And to this regard I don't think the author actually understands a believer so the statement misses the mark quite badly.

I was initially a bit apprehensive about going to a forum based on a religious belief or stance (Atheism). I don't tend to distinguish people based on their religious beliefs. But was interested enough to do an internet search as see what atheists might be discussing. I stumbled upon this site and the first thing I read was this opening statement.
I actually thought the opening statement was quite off putting, It put me on the back foot and made me more apprehensive and critical, however I pushed on and read what people were actually posting despite this opening statement. I do feel however that this opening statement would be more likely to push people away than to make them get excited about entering the forums.

Quote from: "Goathead"Does the same apply for stupidity?

Those who willingly subscribe to a system of beliefs they know to be stupid need not be stupid, given that they are doing so with a deeper agenda in mind. However, it certainly can apply, yes.

Quote from: "Goathead"Does the same apply for stupidity?

What about arrogance? You know, those people that tend to call others stupid?

Quote from: "Goathead"You just misunderstood my question. I honestly am asking if the same applies for stupidity. So does it or doesn't it?

Not buying it. The unofficial reminder to you is now being repeated.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"New sig spotted, itt.

Me, I like it.  

Quote from: "Stevil"I have many issues with the opening generalisation on the home page

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god"
I don't think this should be phrased as a mutually exclusive alternative as it is not one or the other. I am sure that believers love themselves and their fellow humans as well as their god/gods.

I like the second sentence but it is tainted by the end "for all men together to enjoy". Why men? Why not human kind? I really don't like gender bias.

"An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it"
I actually think this could be seen as belittling of believers, most likely they also find in themselves the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. Of course it doesn't actually preclude this of believers, but it could be read to imply that athiests are distinguished from believers in this way. This statement is also gender biased.

"An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment"
I completely disagree with this sentence. It is gender biased, puts a common thought into all atheists heads and a common understanding of the definition of fulfillment with a common path on how to achieve this. I don't believe this to be true.

"Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god"
Again with a mutually exclusive alternative. Believers have an additional dimension they could be seen as compliments rather than substitutes. Also gender biased again.

"An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church"
This is a crazy statement. "Knows" is inferring that non Athiests are wrong and ignorant. Churches and Hospitals serve different purposes. This statement is just plain wrong.

"An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said"
Again with the mutual exclusivity. I would presume that believers do both.

"An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death"
Only people who are suicidal seek escape into death!

"He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter"
Do believers rely on god? Also the "knows" bit implies a better than thou attitude towards believers. Gender biased again.

Overall, I feel the statement is gender biased and is trying to relate an atheist in terms of what a believer is. And to this regard I don't think the author actually understands a believer so the statement misses the mark quite badly.

I was initially a bit apprehensive about going to a forum based on a religious belief or stance (Atheism). I don't tend to distinguish people based on their religious beliefs. But was interested enough to do an internet search as see what atheists might be discussing. I stumbled upon this site and the first thing I read was this opening statement.
I actually thought the opening statement was quite off putting, It put me on the back foot and made me more apprehensive and critical, however I pushed on and read what people were actually posting despite this opening statement. I do feel however that this opening statement would be more likely to push people away than to make them get excited about entering the forums.

I think you're reading too much into it. And as for the gender bias, there is none. Just because political correctness says that you can't use the word "men" to refer to the entirety of mankind doesn't mean you can't; also, it's grammatically correct to use the word "he" when the gender is unknown or ambiguous.

Its been a very long time since I have read something as badly gender biased as that statement. All the other issues with it also make me cringe, even more so than the gender issue, I can't associate with it what so ever and hence as this is the mission statement of this forum then maybe I do not belong with this forum.

But thanks for pointing out that the issue is me and my reaction to the statement.

Hello and welcome to HAF, Stevil!  A very interesting post.

Quote from: "Stevil"I have many issues with the opening generalisation on the home page

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god"
I don't think this should be phrased as a mutually exclusive alternative as it is not one or the other. I am sure that believers love themselves and their fellow humans as well as their god/gods.

In the case of the Christian though, there are specific injunctions in the Bible to love their god above all; above family, friends, the rest of humanity...  That doesn't preclude loving those here on earth, but their god is a jealous god who wants the lion's portion of love from his followers. Since generally we are approached by Christians in this particular forum, I imagine this sentence is meant to contrast the ideal attitude of a happy atheist with the ideal attitude of a Christian.  I grant that it's not as nuanced as it could be, but rhetoric often isn't.  

Quote from: "Stevil"I like the second sentence but it is tainted by the end "for all men together to enjoy". Why men? Why not human kind? I really don't like gender bias.

And I don't like overly PC pronouncements about language usage, but I'm happy to live with them, since they don't hurt anybody.  Do you feel that the language to which you object here is harmful in some way?  Do you think that women and girls who read it are silly enough to feel somehow excluded by it?  I can't say with 100% certainty, but I'm pretty sure it was written by a woman.  If I'm correct about that, then it would follow that there is no subtext of exclusion, and your objection might conceivably be a manifestation of hypertrophied sensitivity.  I see you continue to harp on a supposed gender bias throughout your post.  I'm not going to continue to harp on how tiresome that is to me.

Quote from: "Stevil""An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it"
I actually think this could be seen as belittling of believers, most likely they also find in themselves the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. Of course it doesn't actually preclude this of believers, but it could be read to imply that athiests are distinguished from believers in this way. This statement is also gender biased.

Atheists are distinguished from believers in this way.  Atheists do not appeal to a deity when times are tough, believers do.  It's one of the perks of being a theist.  Have you never heard of Footprints in the Sand (http://angelpages.net/foot%20steps%20in%20the%20sand.htm)?  Sure, the good believer is expected to have some gumption, but "God helps those who help themselves."  Again, there is an essential difference here (there is no god helping an atheist, whether she helps herself or not) and this passage you object to only acknowledges that.

Quote from: "Stevil""An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment"
I completely disagree with this sentence. It is gender biased, puts a common thought into all atheists heads and a common understanding of the definition of fulfillment with a common path on how to achieve this. I don't believe this to be true.

We are a social species, Stevil.  We travel through life in the company of our fellows.  "No person is an island." (That just doesn't have the ring of the original, but I thought it might make you happy. )  If we do not know ourselves and our fellow man, and achieve some sort of community, we will not be fulfilled.  A theist can quite righteously assert that knowing their god is of primary importance in seeking fulfillment, and many of them do.  An atheist will never make such an assertion.

Quote from: "Stevil""Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god"
Again with a mutually exclusive alternative. Believers have an additional dimension they could be seen as compliments rather than substitutes. Also gender biased again.

The god malarkey, taking the prominence it does in the theist's life, is a distraction as well as a compliment.

Quote from: "Stevil""An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church"
This is a crazy statement. "Knows" is inferring that non Athiests are wrong and ignorant. Churches and Hospitals serve different purposes. This statement is just plain wrong.

If there is a choice to be made, and there often is, since funds are never unlimited, by all means build the hospital.  Non-atheists are often wrong, and not infrequently ignorant. (Of course, atheists are not immune to these failings, but you'll never find them building a church when a hospital would be a better choice.) Theists often send money to greedy god-botherers which could be put to much better use.  This is rhetoric, Stevil, and as such, it sometimes makes sweeping statements rather than precise parsing of fine points.  If you choose to read it as something akin to a legal document, then you're misunderstanding its purpose.

Quote from: "Stevil""An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said"
Again with the mutual exclusivity. I would presume that believers do both.

Again with the failure to recognize the nature of rhetoric.

Quote from: "Stevil""An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death"
Only people who are suicidal seek escape into death!

No, theists look to a "life everlasting" after they die.  Many of them view this world as an evil place, merely to be endured, a test to be passed, so that they may partake of eternal bliss in the afterlife.  That's not the view of an atheist.  This life is all an atheist has, and better to make the best of it rather than to look forward to an everlasting post-mortem festival.

Quote from: "Stevil""He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter"
Do believers rely on god? Also the "knows" bit implies a better than thou attitude towards believers. Gender biased again.

Yes, believers do rely on god.  I've seen examples of this reliance all my life.  It may please you to deny this fact to make a point, but your denial rings hollow.

Quote from: "Stevil"Overall, I feel the statement is gender biased and is trying to relate an atheist in terms of what a believer is. And to this regard I don't think the author actually understands a believer so the statement misses the mark quite badly.

I was initially a bit apprehensive about going to a forum based on a religious belief or stance (Atheism). I don't tend to distinguish people based on their religious beliefs. But was interested enough to do an internet search as see what atheists might be discussing. I stumbled upon this site and the first thing I read was this opening statement.
I actually thought the opening statement was quite off putting, It put me on the back foot and made me more apprehensive and critical, however I pushed on and read what people were actually posting despite this opening statement. I do feel however that this opening statement would be more likely to push people away than to make them get excited about entering the forums.

I think the author understands believers quite well.  I would even hazard a guess that they were a believer at one time.  I admire your tendency to avoid distinguishing people based on religious beliefs, but I think that you just might be somewhat hypersensitive.  Many atheists have dealt with some extremely negative reactions and in some cases, physical abuse resulting from their lack of belief.  Most of them suck it up and carry on.  They may have a thicker skin than you do as a result of their experiences, and such people might well read the statement which you dissected above as an affirmation of a sort of fellowship.  Yes, it may not be especially kind to theists, but I don't see it as manifesting any malevolence toward them, either.  As far as I know, though theists are welcome here, this site was not constructed with them in mind.  If some of them (or an extremely sensitive non-theist such as yourself) find it a bit off-putting, I don't think anybody here is going to cry about it. I've observed other atheist forums that can be outright hostile to theists as a general policy (whether it's overtly acknowledged or not) and by comparison, this place is quite welcoming.  The moderators here do a great job of regulating the forum to prevent abusive behavior on anybody's part. Atheist, agnostic or theist, if the line is crossed, almost without exception, there will be repercussions.  I think that the general attitude here is better than tolerant of non-troll theists, especially compared to some other places I've seen.  But nobody is perfect.

Hello Recusant

Thanks very much for your response and letting me know your take on my thoughts and reaction to the statement. I am quite an analytical person as I suspect many on this forum are. I don't really think of myself as hypersensitive but understand why you may think that I am. I do strive to put myself in the other person's shoes which is of course impossible but I try none the less. Interesting to read your comments about Atheists being persecuted as I have never really experienced that myself but I guess within families or communities with strong religious ties this probably does go on.

There are many posts and threads here that I disagree with but I do find it interesting to better understand how different people think. I certainly get a feeling that some people here have an us versus them attitude towards non Atheists, with statements that Atheists are smarter, that non Atheists support "stupid' theories. It does seem that many people (not just in this forum) are searching for ammunition to their arguments as to why their beliefs are right and others beliefs are wrong. Maybe this is because they want to explain to the others the error of their beliefs and essentially convert them. Maybe they are unsure about their own beliefs (due to past experiences or simply because they are open minded and are in search for the truth).

I feel there is little difference between myself and agnostics, atheists or theists. Some people's lives are intertwined with their religion and beliefs and hence they have more differences to me than others. But essentially we all want to be happy and have fun, we want to be adding value to the world we live in, we want to feel wanted, loved and part of a community. For the most part people take control of their lives towards these things regardless of whether they believe in a deity.

Unfortunately what I don't see much of is a willingness to try and understand others viewpoints. I think their is a great divide between what atheists think of theists and the actual reality of what a theist is. Also vise versa, what theists think of atheists.

I don't feel the opening statement on the homepage of this forum helps towards this and I don't think it recognises how similar theists, atheists and agnostics are. The opening statement is important to this forum as it is the first impression, the taster that is given to new people. I am new here and had a bit of a reaction to it so thought I might let people know. Whether it is taken on board or discredited is fine, I am an individual and don't expect the world to revolve around me. Seems like no-one has agreed with what I said, two people have disagreed, so maybe it is me that is off track.

QuoteUnfortunately what I don't see much of is a willingness to try and understand others viewpoints. I think their is a great divide between what atheists think of theists and the actual reality of what a theist is.

This, from the guy complaining about generalizations?

Didn't say that I don't like generalisations, they have their purpose. I was just spelling out the specific problems I had with the mission statement on the homepage. Not because it was a generalisation but more so because of the strange wording, the illogical statements and the confrontational style. (my perception anyway)

It was an interesting excercise looking up the author on Wikipedia. It seems that she was quite significant with regards to removing government sponsored prayer in American public schools. So she has done much more than I have ever done with regards to equal rights, but she does seem to be a bit off as well.

"Host Phil Donahue would later call her message of atheism "very important," but said that O'Hair was "unpleasant" to be around and that she mocked him off-camera for being Catholic"
"She described herself as a "sexual libertarian" and stated that children in sixth grade should be given sex education and "be allowed to go at it without supervision or restriction -- in their parents' bedroom, on the grass in a park", and so forth."
I take it that 6th graders are 11 or 12 years old?
"O'Hair remained a polarizing figure into the 1980s"

Of course all of this is speculation and is taken out of context. But I reserve my right to be weary. Ultimately if members of this forum feel at ease and happy that the mission statement represents them then that is fine, I have no issues with it representing them. Personally I don't feel that it represents me and quite the opposite it does polarise me and make me cringe if anyone were to think that I endorsed it. So again, the problem is me and my lack of fit with the mission statement, which is fine as you certainly can't please everyone and I wouldn't expect you to.

Quote from: "Stevil""Host Phil Donahue would later call her message of atheism "very important," but said that O'Hair was "unpleasant" to be around and that she mocked him off-camera for being Catholic"
"She described herself as a "sexual libertarian" and stated that children in sixth grade should be given sex education and "be allowed to go at it without supervision or restriction -- in their parents' bedroom, on the grass in a park", and so forth."
I take it that 6th graders are 11 or 12 years old?
"O'Hair remained a polarizing figure into the 1980s"

Of course all of this is speculation and is taken out of context. But I reserve my right to be weary.

You have every right to feel weary, but in this very same post you said you had problems with the illogical nature in a quote in the mission statement, then point this out which you admit is unfounded. Which looks very inconsistent.

Quote from: "Stevil"Ultimately if members of this forum feel at ease and happy that the mission statement represents them then that is fine, I have no issues with it representing them. Personally I don't feel that it represents me and quite the opposite it does polarise me and make me cringe if anyone were to think that I endorsed it. So again, the problem is me and my lack of fit with the mission statement, which is fine as you certainly can't please everyone and I wouldn't expect you to.

I don't find that the quote that you have a problem with fits me, but I wouldn't expect anything someone else subscribes to, to fit me. The mission statement is for the owners/employees/volunteers, not the participants. This would be like saying that the mission statement of the company I'm working for applies to all the people who buy their stuff. If you don't agree with the mission statement then don't do work for the forum, but that doesn't mean you you should have a problem using the service.

I believe the mission statement in someway represents the members as part of the community. In this way the mission statement is very important. Lots of companies develop brands so that their customers can feel that the company and brand associated with the product they proudly now own is a representative of them. e.g. Car companies, Nike, Coke, Levis, Apple etc... It is very important.

Anyway, we could spend a very long time picking out my flaws, I am sure I have an endless supply of them to offer.

Quote from: "Goathead"It seems a strange question to ask, but the question was provoked when I saw the opening page to the site. "1) Atheists are often happy, ethical people". Hmm. It's a strange statement to make, considering that atheism isn't limited to just one small social group, but many different kinds of people. 2) Atheism, like Buddhism and other philosophies, is made up of people are so differentiated and numerous they can't really be 'generalized' all into just one category. To say all atheists, then, are happy people, is like saying that 3) all asians are happy people, or 4) all women are overly emotional, or 5) all blacks are educated.

Now I understand that atheists, like Buddhists and other groups, are linked by 6) commonly shared belief; but is that really, really enough to just generalize and box them up all into 7) one category? A more accurate position for the site might be, for instance, "Atheists, while linked by common belief, are vastly different people, sometimes happy and ethical, other times depressed and irrational, as can be said of most or all other social groups. It is our duty here to bring atheists, however, together, in a spirit of common good will, despite our various differences. 8) Hopefully, the atheists who are happy and ethical can encourage others to be the same, while learning some important lessons in the process."

1) It said 'often.'  How did you turn that into 'All'?

2) Buddhists are a bad example.  I defy you to track down an unethical and unhappy person who can actually be called a Buddhist.

3) Racism?
4) Sexism?
5) Racism?

6) They all belong in the same category (don't believe in gods)
7) But should they really be in the same CATEGORY?

8) Yeah! Let's go destroy Mr. Gruff! We're good atheists!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.bandzoogle.com%2Fusers%2Fevil3%2Fimages%2Fcontent%2Fmr_gruff.jpg&hash=38145a3b15be42aa9d21af9adce5d550866c3267)

I don't regard the mission statement as expressing my view; I don't regard any mission statement written by someone else as expressing my view.

I don't feel like putting a disclaimer at the end of my posts to that effect, though.

I agree with you more than I disagree, to be sure, but I also think it's overly nit-picky.

Quote from: "Stevil"I believe the mission statement in someway represents the members as part of the community. In this way the mission statement is very important. Lots of companies develop brands so that their customers can feel that the company and brand associated with the product they proudly now own is a representative of them. e.g. Car companies, Nike, Coke, Levis, Apple etc... It is very important.

If I wear shoes made by Nike do I then "lead in corporate citizenship through proactive programs that reflect caring for the world family of Nike, our teammates, our consumers, and those who provide services to Nike?" I think that's ridiculous.

I don't think the mission statement of any company I use services and/or products of has any effect on myself, especially the companies you listed. It's their goal, not mine. Just because I use Microsoft products at work, doesn't mean I'm part of their mission (At Microsoft, our mission and values are to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential). I'm only concerned with getting my job done. How their services and/or products are useful to me are what's important, not what they say their mission is.

Also what a company does is important to me: Apple's app store limitations on developers, Microsoft stealing Windows from Xerox before laws were in place to prevent that kind of thing... etc.. There are several reasons for me to not use the services of Apple and Microsoft, none of which are what they say their mission is. The mission statement is less important than anything else I can think of, but apparently you hold more weight on the mission statement than the actions of the company, services or products provided. That's your choice.