Should atheism be considered a movement?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Aye.


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

Great post, DR.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This is precisely true. Well said.
In theory atheists could be of all stripes. In practice, though, they almost all are philosophical materialists/physicalists. They are believers in materialism as an adequate response to life the universe and everything. Organisations such as JREF are positively advocating and defending this materialist world view.

I often get the impression that quite a few people just don't realise this fully,

Lucky for us you're here to tell us what we really think.

and see their atheism as a simple lack of belief... which, as you say, Menalitus, is a bit of a cop out.

Atheism is a lack of belief, in gods.

If you're going to make any kind of consistent and intelligible response to life you just can't avoid having a particular belief system. Sometimes it reminds me of fish in water. The fish don't realise they're in the water. Materialists don't realise they have a positive belief system.

Actually, they do. It's just that their positive belief system does not include gods. Why do you try to conflate "I have no belief in gods" with "I have no beliefs"?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I do.

Bully for you.

Of course, many of the atheists I know are also skeptics.

I identify more with my fellow skeptics, but on the basis of skepticism, not atheism.

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.

I find all that fun as well. Nevertheless, there is nothing inherently atheistic about any of it. Furthermore, even if it all was atheistic, hanging out and shooting the bull hardly classifies as a movement.

 

[plumjam]

I echo much of what DR said.
Another Little Known Fact of mine is that I'm very ambivalent about religious organisations.

Just as a little historical nuggety aside; anyone here ever heard of The Union of Belligerent Atheists?
Sounds made up, doesn't it. Yet in the Soviet Union this state-sponsored organisation, also known as The Society of the Godless, and The League of the Militant Godless existed for 22 years (1925-47), had around 3 million members, and get this: 96,000 offices around the nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless

Did it succeed?
No, and the former USSR is one of the hotbeds of religious resurgence.
Was there any link between such a society and what happened on a wider basis during those years? Who could tell? But I have my suspicions

Are Dawkins and his mates anywhere near that level? Gladly not.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I echo much of what DR said.

So do many atheists, myself included.

Just as a little historical nuggety aside; anyone here ever heard of The Union of Belligerent Atheists?
Sounds made up, doesn't it. Yet in the Soviet Union this state-sponsored organisation, also known as The Society of the Godless, and The League of the Militant Godless existed for 22 years (1925-47), had around 3 million members, and get this: 96,000 offices around the nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless

I noticed something in that article:

S.o.G. was an antireligious movement that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Communist Party.

At this point I wish only to remind everyone that you never answered Tricky when he challenged you to name a state that was based on atheism.

Did it succeed?

Did what succeed? Soviet Communism?

No,

You are correct. Soviet Communism did not succeed.

and the former USSR is one of the hotbeds of religious resurgence.

And crime, and alcoholism...

Was there any link between such a society and what happened on a wider basis during those years? Who could tell? But I have my suspicions

I'm sure there was a link between Soviet Communism and its suppression of rival social ideological power structures.

Are Dawkins and his mates anywhere near that level? Gladly not.

I'm sorry, perhaps you could explain how calling for an end to the notion that religion is off limits when it comes to matters of critical examination is even remotely related to the wholesale suppression of those whom the Communist Party felt to be rivals for the complete control of the hearts and minds of the citizens. Could you go into specific details?

I know you will ignore this, but I don't really care. Everyone else can read it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

And why the Hell does typing the big, blue superhero related screen-name of a certain TLA dictator for life result in the little mortar board emoticon guy?

Let's try it again: Tricky.

ETA: OK, that's just damned weird.

 

[Molinaro]

In my very humble opinion saying that atheism is simply a lack of belief is using semantics to absolve yourself of responsibility for your beliefs.

What is the difference in real terms between having "no belief in God" and "believing that no God exists"? Why even bother to try and define one?

This post makes no sense to me.

Have you made a point of forming a belief with respect to the onion fields growing on the moon? Have you formed a belief with respect to the turtle cities below the earth's crust?

Is there a difference between having "no belief in gurple" and "believing that no gurple exists"?

Hell ya, of course there's a difference. In the 1st case, it's some nonsense that requires no decision to form an opinion at all. In the 2nd case, it's a weird thing to believe since that which you have decided does not exist, has no definition!

For me, as an atheist, it's the same thing. I don't have to decide that I don't believe in God. There is simply no reason whatsover for me to even consider such a ridiculously silly notion. I have not formed a belief because none is necessary at all.

For some people I guess it's a big decision. And for others it is a non-issue that requires no belief whatsover.

How should someone who has never considered the idea of god be categorized? Are they holding onto a belief? Is ignorance of the entire concept the same as a belief? I hope nobody would say it is. And yet, that kind of lumping together is what every non-atheist seems to want to do.

Is it so hard to believe that for some people there is no issue. There is no belief. There is no decision to be made.

 

[Hokulele]

And why the Hell does typing the big, blue superhero related screen-name of a certain TLA dictator for life result in the little mortar board emoticon guy?

Let's try it again: Tricky.

ETA: OK, that's just damned weird.

Look at the date. You will find a few other forumites to whom this applies as well. Try typing in the title of one who belongs to the French aristocracy for example.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Is it so hard to believe that for some people there is no issue. There is no belief. There is no decision to be made.

Yes, of course it is.

This is the reason that every time an atheist presents reasons for why god, if he existed, would be beneath contept, you always, always get at least one person going "Ah HA! So you DO believe in Him, you just HATE him!!"

It's also the cause of the "Atheists just ignore the messages from god"

and

"Atheism is just another religion"

While this of course does not apply to ALL religious people, a damn large number of them simply cannot process the fact that others feel no need for a deity. This is so far out of what they know to be true they merely assume we do know about god, but we're lying to look cool, or we hate him, or we're just hardening our hearts (like Pharaoh, except god did his for him).

We all get something like this. The belief that someone finds a concept hard, or that they don't agree with X. I personally found it hard to understand why some people didn't do well in chemistry at school. The difference is, I never assumed they were lying or deliberately failing to be cool.

 

[Molinaro]

Were you, like me, a member of the not-chemistry club?

 

[Chimera]

Bully for you.

Nice. Glad we can disagree without one of us being condescending.

I find all that fun as well. Nevertheless, there is nothing inherently atheistic about any of it.

Atheism and skepticism, many times, go hand in hand. Maybe it's skepticism, not atheism, that is the movement.

Furthermore, even if it all was atheistic, hanging out and shooting the bull hardly classifies as a movement.

I only said that I enjoy being with atheists and skeptics more so than theists and skeptics.

Most of the time.

 

[GreyICE]

Anyone who tries to stick me in an atheist movement can have a stick and a suggestion of where to put it. I went to my local atheist club on campus when I was in college just to mock them all for being tools (seriously, how do you hang out for 2 hours a week talking about nonreligion? It was mostly a therapy group for people who thought religion had hurt them because their definition of pain laughable). I find most humans' company only moderately tolerable, and actually prefer agnostics and (oddly enough) Jewish and Hindu people if I have to choose who to hang out with. Atheists are often trying to get me to do something, which is annoying.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Atheism itself is too nonspecific to be considered a movement, although it is a subset of belief categories that could be considered movements, such as the aforementioned Brights. As I've said before, I consider it fallacious to use atheism, which refers only to a disbelief in worshiped beings called gods, in order to justify one's political, ideological, cultural, or scientific views. A component is not the same as the whole. For example, Buddhism could be considered an atheistic religion, meaning that atheism is a subset of the Buddhist philosophy, but Buddhism is not the same as atheism.

Incidentally, I have no idea how Communism came up again. It seems that whenever the definition of atheism comes up, some idiot has to try and equate it with Communism. But this is the same fallacy of composition as I explained above. Allow me to demonstrate. The leaves on a tree are green. Does that mean the whole tree must be green? Your ass is a subset of the parts that make you up. Would it be accurate for me to describe you as an ass yourself?

 

[plumjam]

Anyone who tries to stick me in an atheist movement can have a stick and a suggestion of where to put it. I went to my local atheist club on campus when I was in college just to mock them all for being tools (seriously, how do you hang out for 2 hours a week talking about nonreligion? It was mostly a therapy group for people who thought religion had hurt them because their definition of pain laughable). I find most humans' company only moderately tolerable, and actually prefer agnostics and (oddly enough) Jewish and Hindu people if I have to choose who to hang out with. Atheists are often trying to get me to do something, which is annoying.

I share your admiration for hinduism, judaism, hindus and jews.
Hopefully you are a kind-hearted heiress under 30, and with big knockers.
Come on, God, surely that isn't too much to ask for fighting your corner for so long.

 

[GreyICE]

I share your admiration for hinduism, judaism, hindus and jews.
Hopefully you are a kind-hearted heiress under 30, and with big knockers.
Come on, God, surely that isn't too much to ask for fighting your corner for so long.

Well I like big knockers. How close is that? They're definitely the best argument I've seen for the existence of a benevolent deity.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

This hits it on the head. There are people today who are atheists, and really don't care what other people think. Those people are, in no sense of the word, part of any "atheist movement." On the other hand, there are some people who are atheists, and who are trying to convince other people that they ought to be atheists, too. They get together and hold conventions for atheists. They write books saying why non-atheism is bad. They lobby governments for legal changes that are correlated with atheism.

When people hold conventions and lobby governments, not to mention sell T-Shirts that are endorsed by celebrity authors, I think it is fair to call them a "movement". What the OP may be getting at is that not all atheists are or want to be part of that "movement", and thus it is somewhat misleading to refer to "the atheist movement". Oh, well. You are judged by the company you keep. That's usually unfair, but it is human nature.

 

[plumjam]

Well I like big knockers. How close is that? They're definitely the best argument I've seen for the existence of a benevolent deity.

Especially on a massive Church door.

 

[Meadmaker]

I know what you mean....

No, not really. Those people are selling useful things that people wish to use for their rituals.

This is more like what I had in mind as crass commercialism.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Look at the date. You will find a few other forumites to whom this applies as well. Try typing in the title of one who belongs to the French aristocracy for example.

Yikes! Is it April already? Man, chasing a three year old around the house makes it hard to keep track of time.

 

[GreyICE]

Especially on a massive Church door.

Suddenly I found a reason to reconsider my policy on nonattendance. Why don't more churches have strip shows? It would definitely be good marketing.