Should atheism be considered a movement?

[andyandy]

All very slippery mister ape, however looking for cracks to expand into reasons for not accepting some degree of categorisation does not really serve a purpose. You know exactly what I mean when I say "belive that no god exists" there is no need to define all of the possible permutations of that Gods abilties or noodly appendages. Yes you can insist that I define each type but why?

The reality is that if you are an atheist you by definition think that the religious are wrong, this in turn means that while you may not want to be you are to some extent allied to other atheists.

Here is a question for you, if you went up the pub and there were two groups who you got along with equally well, one a group of atheists and one of God botherers, which would you choose to hang out with and why?

If there were two groups who I got along with equally well, then I honestly wouldn't give two hoots about which I hung out with. It seems a remarkable question. If there were two groups in the pub, one of which were vegetarians and the other group not, and I got on with each group equally well, then again I would have no preference of one group over the other, even though I like to eat meat myself....

Do I have an alliance to meat eaters? I reject a vegetarian ideology but I wouldn't say meat eaters were my allies.... such terminology splits into allies/enemies rather simplistically and not I would suggest very helpfully.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

But surely if someone or a group of people were, without any evidence at all and simply based on some required leap of faith insisting that asparagus did not in fact exist you would dissagree

I would disagree, but I wouldn't make it my business to try and convince them asparagus existed.

...and presumably you would also identify to some degree with others who could see the "truth"?

Of course I would identify "to some degree". (You will note I did not say I do not identify with other atheists at all.) But I would not bond together with them to let our mutual opinions be known to the world in an effort to... what exactly, spread the good word of asparagus? No, thanks.

 

[Menalitus]

If there were two groups who I got along with equally well, then I honestly wouldn't give two hoots about which I hung out with. It seems a remarkable question. If there were two groups in the pub, one of which were vegetarians and the other group not, and I got on with each group equally well, then again I would have no preference of one group over the other, even though I like to eat meat myself....

Do I have an alliance to meat eaters? I reject a vegetarian ideology but I wouldn't say meat eaters were my allies.... such terminology splits into allies/enemies rather simplistically and not I would suggest very helpfully.

My point really depended on you selecting one group or the other, I know you are an ape but it still must be quite uncomfortable on that fence. I am not suggesting that the group you do not choose would be lined up and shot you know.

I think that the vegitarian analogy is not really compatible, vegitarians do not insist that the great vegetable in the sky whispers to them in their sleep and insists that meat is murder, any more than meat eaters insist that the veggies are imagining the existance of carrots.

 

[Menalitus]

I would disagree, but I wouldn't make it my business to try and convince them asparagus existed.


Of course I would identify "to some degree". (You will note I did not say I do not identify with other atheists at all.) But I would not bond together with them to let our mutual opinions be known to the world in an effort to... what exactly, spread the good word of asparagus? No, thanks.

All I was really suggesting is that you in fact WOULD identify more with another atheist than you would with a fellow non aspargus eater. The degree is not really that important, I would not expect all atheists to be particulary vocal. Atheism is a far more complex (lack of) belief that simply thinking asaragus is yucky however and as a result I would expect a large number of atheists to be quite open about their beliefs.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

All I was really suggesting is that you in fact WOULD identify more with another atheist than you would with a fellow non aspargus eater. The degree is not really that important, I would not expect all atheists to be particulary vocal. Atheism is a far more complex (lack of) belief that simply thinking asaragus is yucky however and as a result I would expect a large number of atheists to be quite open about their beliefs.

Why would I associate with an atheist more readily than a believer? I'm friends with people of both camps, and I tend to be their friend not based upon what they believe as much as what they are like as people. There are, of course, some people I cannot get on with; those who insist atheism is evil, racists, sexists, and a few other things, but there is no reason I would automatically ally wiht atheists. I would ally myself more with a moderate believer who was of similar political views to my own than an atheist neo-nazi, or even an atheist conservative. I would be able to get on with the believer and the conservative (not the neo-nazi) and would (and do) have constructive debates with both parties about the things we disagree on.

Atheism is simply lack of a belief in a god. Why would that make me feel more inclined to support one person over another, unless the other were a total headcase about it?

 

[Menalitus]

I think you are taking me to literally and I apologise if my point was misleading, I think I must have expressed myself poorly. I also would not choose one group over another in usual curcumstances but I was interested if you HAD to choose what would you choose and why, thats all. I withdraw any suggestion implied or otherwise that beer drinking religious types should be ignored in the pub.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Atheism should not have to be a movement, but sadly, in some societies, it seems as if that’s the only way for non-believers to really find a way of legitimizing their position – which is absurd but true. The context I grew up in has always been atheistic or mildly theistic at best, thus it’s very hard for me to imagine a situation where forming atheistic group identification would be necessary at all. It’s simply astonishing, at this stage of human evolution, that not buying into any creator nonsense should even be considered a position. Furthermore, to not accept any illusion about knowing the will of that imaginary creator is even more bizarre. But religion is a real phenomenon, and people actually think they know stuff they cannot know, and that is simply something we have to accept. It’s not easy, since it’s so absurd, but many other social phenomena are also absurd.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

All I was really suggesting is that you in fact WOULD identify more with another atheist than you would with a fellow non aspargus eater.

Well, then, you were wrong. I don't feel any particular connection to any other atheist beyond "Hey, we agree on that."

The degree is not really that important, I would not expect all atheists to be particulary vocal. Atheism is a far more complex (lack of) belief that simply thinking asaragus is yucky however and as a result I would expect a large number of atheists to be quite open about their beliefs.

I would be willing to bet that more people make an effort to hide their atheism than make an effort to hide their distatste for asparagus. The complexity of the belief has nothing to do with it; it is the perceived reaction of others and the willingness to endure it that are the crucial factors in openness.

Not that being open about one's belief necessarily makes one part of a movement nor grants them any inherent feeling of solidarity with their fellows.

 

[plumjam]

In the pub, as a theist, I'd likely sit with the atheists first, for a bit of a debate, and then as the beers descended I'd migrate in the direction of the theists for a good old sing-song.

 

[JoeEllison]

Atheism is simply lack of a belief in a god. Why would that make me feel more inclined to support one person over another, unless the other were a total headcase about it?

Because people who view the world with religious blinders on assume that everyone sees the world they way they do?

 

[Menalitus]

In the pub, as a theist, I'd likely sit with the atheists first, for a bit of a debate, and then as the beers descended I'd migrate in the direction of the theists for a good old sing-song.

LOL

 

[Menalitus]

Atheism should not have to be a movement, but sadly, in some societies, it seems as if that’s the only way for non-believers to really find a way of legitimizing their position – which is absurd but true. The context I grew up in has always been atheistic or mildly theistic at best, thus it’s very hard for me to imagine a situation where forming atheistic group identification would be necessary at all. It’s simply astonishing, at this stage of human evolution, that not buying into any creator nonsense should even be considered a position. Furthermore, to not accept any illusion about knowing the will of that imaginary creator is even more bizarre. But religion is a real phenomenon, and people actually think they know stuff they cannot know, and that is simply something we have to accept. It’s not easy, since it’s so absurd, but many other social phenomena are also absurd.

I am with you on the absurdity point, I was also brought up in an "atheistic or mildly theistic" household and this stuff was simply not an issue for me until I began to haunt these kinds of Forums and my opinions took on a more solid form.

It is the (to me) total absurdity of religion that irritates me I suppose, I just can't get my head around how someone who in all other ways seems to be extremely intelligent and critical of many aspects of society has this "blind spot" where religion exists. The whole thing is so inconcievable to me that I really struggle to not get annoyed with the simple fact that someone holds that view. I know its sad and I mostly keep it to myself in my day to day life, I am however feeling increasingly militant and am definately more confrontational in my views.


Maybe I need help

 

[Gate2501]

It is the (to me) total absurdity of religion that irritates me I suppose, I just can't get my head around how someone who in all other ways seems to be extremely intelligent and critical of many aspects of society has this "blind spot" where religion exists. The whole thing is so inconcievable to me that I really struggle to not get annoyed with the simple fact that someone holds that view. I know its sad and I mostly keep it to myself in my day to day life, I am however feeling increasingly militant and am definately more confrontational in my views.

Smart people can still compartmentalize their religion in a logic proof box in the mind. They do it to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would occur every time they went to church, or even thought about those zany bible stories, were it not in said box.

And Plumjam... As has been said to you before.

Most atheists here on the JREF, are empiricists, not materialists. If something other than matter/energy were proven to exist, our empiricism would override materialism and we would be on board the God train!

Choo-Choo!

 

[James Fox]

Good discussion all !!

I find a rational material view of the world and the processes of nature to be the best explanation for the experience of being alive that I’ve come up with. At this time I have not seen any credible evidence for anything “supernatural”. I find no evidence for any supernatural beings of any kind, be they gods, ghosts or aliens who’ve become elevated ethereal non-corporeal intelligences. A “material” explanation for observable phenomena seems the most plausible and the most rational. This set of conclusions or opinions or whatever’s does not mean I have a particular world view except that I’m comfortable rejecting world views that incorporate ideas of supernatural beings. My personal conclusions have not been arrived at as a result of being led by an authority figure nor do I feel any need to subscribe to a philosophical, political, sociological or any other kind of school of thought or belief system as a result of my conclusions about my existence. And I agree that my conclusions do not require any action on my part. I have other reasons for doing or not doing things! And I don’t ever want to be known as a “non believer”… it always seems to be applied with an all to broad paint brush.

And please, friendships are about the ability to have an intelligent conversation, tolerance of idiosyncratic behaviors, knowing when to discuss what and choice of beer!

 

[fuelair]

Actually, I am compelled to be pretty sure atheism is a movement only in the sense that there are a number of atheists and sometimes some of them get together for various purposes. Just as many religious (not all, but many) are a movement in the sense that you deposit your movement in the toilet and flush it down.

 

[andyandy]

My point really depended on you selecting one group or the other, I know you are an ape but it still must be quite uncomfortable on that fence. I am not suggesting that the group you do not choose would be lined up and shot you know.

I think that the vegitarian analogy is not really compatible, vegitarians do not insist that the great vegetable in the sky whispers to them in their sleep and insists that meat is murder, any more than meat eaters insist that the veggies are imagining the existance of carrots.

But if I get on as well with each group then there really isn't the choice to make. If you don't understand this then it's because you've loaded your presented choice with your own dislike of the religious group and as such seem not to be able to accept that someone could actually get on with each group equally well.
I know plenty of vegetarians you would insist that it is immoral to eat meat and I've never met any Christian who insists that their god whispers to them in their sleep.... and as such I'm not sure what sort of company you're used to keeping

the analogy is there to serve as an illustration of my ambivalence towards whether or not someone believes in God. As hard as it might be to believe a lot of people really don't care one way or the other. If I get on with someone I'm not going to start blacklisting them just because they believe in a God that I don't, just as I'm not going to start blacklisting someone because they vote Conservative or because they are vegetarian. I would just as happily sit down with a group of vegetarians I got on with as I would with a group of Christians I got on with. We have countless ideological differences with other people, why does this particular ideological difference have to take precedence over others?

And if you could be so good, you still have not outlined what it is my responsibility is for being an atheist..... it would be good to know, I hadn't realised that I wasn't fulfilling my ideological necessities

 

[Darth Rotor]

One of the commoner qualities in atheistic thought has to be individuality. Personally, I value this very highly - it's important to me that I can make up my own mind about the big questions and be prepared to think differently.

Aye.

James Randi's 'Bright' term is an example. It seems to be an attempt to turn lack of belief and skepticism into a movement.

Should atheism be considered a movement?

Sure, a bowel movement.

I am only partly joking.

The risk of going through the process of creating Atheism as a movement is the risk of falling into the same traps as other mass movements, such as religious and political movments.

The very individualism you so cherish, and which is so strong a component of atheism, cannot be expected to scale up with size any better than the personal relationship with God deal does with religion, or the adherence to the ideals of Marxism or "the Free Market as the answer to all of our problems" does.

People create friction, dissent, factions, sects, and introduce all manner of nasty side effects when transitioning from individuals to groups to mobs to movements and beyond.

Should it be done, the aggregation as a movement, in self defense?

Perhaps.

Given that other world views leverage the power of numbers where they can, it may be a necessity. Contra that thought, the very social balkanization and individualization the information age has introduced may mitigate the need to take on movement's clothing, with all that it entails on the down side.

The usual caution is

Be careful of what you wish for, as you will surely get it. There are folks who love God who are driven to distraction by religoin, which is the aggregation and organization that attends the relationship with God. I work with quite a few folks in that class.

The other matter is of choosing the avatar for one's movement:

Does Dawkins speak for you? Perhaps he does. Does he speak for each and every atheist? It's the same problem as found in politics.

DR

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

James Randi's 'Bright' term is an example. ....

James Randi is responsible for the Brights movement?

I don't think so.

Who directs The-Brights.Net?

* Paul Geisert, a Bright in Sacramento CA who first coined the noun, Bright. He is now Co-Director with Mynga.
* Mynga Futrell, a Bright in Sacramento CA who developed the definition and joined with Paul to design/implement strategy for a brights movement
* Kevin Schultz, a Bright in Citrus Heights CA who came on board the movement as Webmaster of this site

Some people reject the idea as too much of an antagonistic perspective. I, for one, joined as soon as I heard about them.

Is a Bright an atheist?

There are both semantic and practical differences. Despite cultural, media, and atheistic fascination with deity-belief, bright (noun) is about a naturalistic worldview, period. It offers a way of denoting a full-spectrum worldview, rather than a narrow view focused on religion. (Even if one's focus remains on god-belief only, there are plenty of agnostics who are Brights.)

A naturalistic worldview connotes something far broader, and identifying their "type of worldview" frees people from defining themselves (negatively) in reference to religion. One can now define oneself free of religious terms or comparisons.

 

[Chimera]

I feel no more solidarity with other atheists than I do with other people who don't eat asparagus.

I do.

Of course, many of the atheists I know are also skeptics. We share a lot of the same interests. It's fun for me to hang out with people with whom I can discuss evolution, or cold reading, or science-related books we've both read or want to read, or how religion affects politics. My theist friends are usually not too hip on these topics.

It's why I love TAM so much. I know JREF is not an atheist organization, but I sure meet alot of like-minded people there.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Sure, a bowel movement.

You're obviously still in shock from your encounter with Texas Drano.