The Growing Importance of an Atheist Community

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/the-growing-importance-of_b_4820365.html

Dan Arel
Posted: 02/20/2014 9:34 am EST Updated: 02/20/2014 9:34 am EST

Like it or not, atheism has become more than a "lack of belief in gods".

Sure, if you want to pull out a dictionary you can prove me wrong and say that is all atheism is. Yet doing so would be naive as to the world we live in and ignoring the movement that is happening all around the world.

Many people want to call this movement by many names, humanism, secularism, skepticism, or your choice of label that strategically avoids the word atheist, but when your movement is made up of at least 99% atheists, guess what, you have an atheist movement.

Perhaps though, a better term would be atheist community. Because we don't have leaders, we don't elect people to speak on everyone's behalf, but the media does take to certain voices more than others and we use these outlets to our advantage. This community is a necessity to the lasting effect atheists can have in the political arena, and you cannot ignore that atheism is entrenched in politics.

more at link

[pipoman]

1. The only point I disagree with is

The "we don't have leaders". That would imply nobody leads or coordinates secular humanism rallies and meets...or other groups of atheists for that matter. .

[cbayer]

2. Agree. I think there are both official and unofficial leaders within the group.

Although religious groups often have clear lines of authority and leadership, there are also unofficial leaders within religion as well.

[trotsky]

3. Welcome to the atheist community, cbayer. n/t

[rug]

4. Seems he's addresing atheists.

You can get behind the groups you like and ignore the ones you don't. You never have to state that any particular person speaks for you, but you can allow those people to speak and make your world better, and if you disagree, then speak up. Ignoring it and simply saying it is not a movement means you will let others speak for you. Silence is an action, the action of inaction.

The community is forming whether you like it or not, you can either get on board and help in this struggle or you can simply opt out and watch change happen one way or the other and do nothing to help or stop it. The good news is, while some sit back and criticize the work of these community activists, these activists don't stop working. They do the dirty work even when some in their own community refuse to thank them.

I wonder what prompted this.

[cbayer]

5. There seems to be a lot of understandable resistance to viewing

atheism as any kind of "movement", let alone an organized movement.

I think this has to do with some not wishing to be seen as replicating anything that might resemble a religious organization.

But the fact is that the level of organization is growing and the various causes they are embracing are widening.

People in general are drawn to communities of like minded people and I hope to see it expand, although I would argue that we need a new nomenclature to diminish some of the current resistance.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. For me it is about being truthful

I can accept that some people want it to be, but that does not make it one. In a way, not being a movement is more liberating than if it was. I am free to believe what I want when and where I want it. Being an atheist I have no preacher telling me that homosexuality is a sin, no book telling me what I can and cannot eat, and so on.

It also brings a huge amount of diversity with it. Atheists can come from any background, in any country, and from all walks of life.

For secular, humanist, etc.. organizations their growth has nothing to do with whether atheism is a movement and the fact that the causes they are embracing are widening only helps highlight that atheism is not a cause because sometimes those causes are diametrically opposed to one another.

An Objectivist will find very little common ground with a humanist and vice versa.

As for communities of like minded people, I got one already. Its called the liberal community and I'm very happy with that one.

[cbayer]

12. How then do you explain the growing number of organizations?

From high schools, colleges, small communities, metropolitan areas, whole states ant on to the national level, the number or organized groups that are specifically "atheist" or more broadly "non-religious/secular" are growing.

There are a growing number of "assemblies" that have some similarities to church services.

There are national advocacy groups that run billboard campaigns and pursue legal actions when there are 1st amendment issues.

There are national and international conventions with growing attendance.

That's being truthful LO4E. Whether you choose to recognize that or become involved in any way is completely optional.

And some of these groups do have some dogma and ritual attached to them, though I think those are the most objectionable to some non-believers.

Religious people come in all colors and flavors too, you know. If you think they are a homogenous group and not as diverse as atheists, that would be incorrect.

[LostOne4Ever]

14. Its a growing demographic

And again, not a single one of these groups represent atheism as a whole. As the population of these groups grows it makes sense that the number of these organizations would also increase.

While there is a growing number of "assemblies" there are also plenty of atheists who criticize and reject these assemblies as well. If anything this speaks to the diversity of thought of atheism and supports the conclusion that atheism in and of itself is not a movement.

Many of those group are open to believers as well (FFRF) and some have nothing to do with atheism (Citizens united for seperation of church and state/the ACLU).

Im not arguing that atheism is not growing, just that it is, in and of itself, not a movement. Similarly there is a difference between saying atheism is a movement, a movement has atheism as a tenent, a movement that is primarily made up of atheist, a movement advocating for atheist rights, and so on.

Yes religious people come in all colors and flavors. Some are theists and some are atheist for example. Christians, as another example, can vary greatly on an issue like abortion. But the difference is that Christians all at some level claim some sort of guidance from a book that they want to promote, while the ONLY thing uniting atheists is a lack of belief in any god/god(s).

Some of us are total skeptics and won't believing in anything not proven. Some of us believe in things like an afterlife, reincarnation, astrology. We only have one thing in common.

Lets take things the other way around. Is theism, in and of itself, a movement? Is there any cause that is common to all theists? The only thing I see is a belief that there is, at least, one god and imho that is a belief and not a cause. Some theist push for conservatism others for liberalism.

Im not seeing any movement either way.

What is so wrong with atheism not being a movement and just a descriptor?

[cbayer]

15. No, there is not a single group that represents atheists as a whole,

just as there is not single group that represents believers as a whole.

There are, however, some possible shared goals that would benefit from a "movement". The two that seem most important are decreasing the prejudice against non-believers and addressing church/state separation issues. These are also areas in which alliances with some religious groups might be possible.

I see what you saying about a "movement" per se. But when civil rights become an issue, there is often the need for a movement.

I would argue that christians in general also just share something very narrow - a belief in the christ. After that, all odds are off. Because the specific book that adherents use is so wide open to interpretation and full of contradiction, it is almost unrecognizable as the same book when placed in different hands.

So I would argue that christians also only have one thing in common, while there are subgroups that share more than one thing.

In short, believers and non-believers are not that different. They differ in only one way and it is the extent to which they embrace their belief or non-belief that predicts how big (or small) the chasm between them may be.

I like your argument about "movements". I particularly like it because I think it is the things that we all have in common which are the most important. Civil rights, social justice and caring for the most needy among us are values that I would anticipate all liberal/progressive people share and our strength is in building coalitions, not finding divisions.

[LostOne4Ever]

16. Totally agree

You will get no disagreement from me on any of that

[skepticscott]

6. What he's referring to

is an anti-theist movement, and when he says it's 99% atheists, he's just spewing nonsense, like all the other Huff Post hacks you dredge up, cbayer. You're a member yourself, cbayer, whether you admit it or not. I mean, seriously, do you apply even the slightest measure of critical thought to what you post, or do you just fling everything at the wall and hope something sticks, with your usual dodge "I don't necessarily agree, I just flung this out for discussion"?

[rug]

7. There it is. The answer to my question.

[skepticscott]

8. Noise blast

Apparently

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. This reads like one side of an argument with another atheist

and seems to deny the existence of liberal Christians, or other religions, who would also oppose the religious right.

[LostOne4Ever]

10. Im going to quote the article's author

Last edited Fri Feb 21, 2014, 01:52 PM - Edit history (2)

You can get behind the groups you like and ignore the ones you don't. You never have to state that any particular person speaks for you, but you can allow those people to speak and make your world better, and if you disagree, then speak up. Ignoring it and simply saying it is not a movement means you will let others speak for you. Silence is an action, the action of inaction.

Very well. You Mr Arel do not speak for me. Atheism is not a movement.

There are movements that atheists join. There are movements founded by atheists. But Atheism is not a movement in and of itself. It is simply lack of a belief in god/gods.

Yet doing so would be naive as to the world we live in and ignoring the movement that is happening all around the world.

Naive:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/naive

Yes, I, who have been an atheist for 10+years am inexperienced. -.-

Many people want to call this movement by many names, humanism, secularism, skepticism, or your choice of label that strategically avoids the word atheist, but when your movement is made up of at least 99% atheists, guess what, you have an atheist movement.

No, what you have is a movement that is popular with atheists. Humanism exists within many religions including theist religions. Secularism is favored by religious people and theists too. There are theist skeptics. Not a single example is 99% atheist.

I also should point out that the author is being VERY loose with his language here. His original premise is that atheism is a movement which is a different point than there might be movements that are atheistic, which is different from movements that are primarily composed of atheists, and etc...

The author did not actually support his position but rather brought up counterpoints that prove his position is wrong and is trying to dismiss them. To pretend they are not there. They are an inconvenient truth the author wishes to go away.

Now it can be said that for many, the only thing atheists have in common is their rejection of god claims, because atheists can come from many different political and social backgrounds.

This is 100% correct.

These atheists are rare, and for some like Cupp, I question her sincerity in either politics or atheism and wonder if one or the other is a good money making gimmick

Not only is this a no true Scotsman fallacy it is condescending and intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Its like saying that the only reason a man might support a feminist cause is because he is wanting to seduce female feminist.

He provides no evidence to back up his claims, and, in fact, ignores everything to the contrary. He is relying on innuendo and distrust to push a point he can't make with facts. I am not a fan of Ms. Cupp but I find this INCREDIBLY insulting none the less. Here she is, a grown woman, making a claim about herself, and her own thoughts and opinions and he dismisses them as if she does not matter as a person. Not only that but he does the same to Ayn Rand.

What? Does Penn Jillette or Carl Rove not count as conservative atheists? Or does he only feel okay in telling women that they have no clue what their talking about? He probably didn't think of things that way but still it reeks.

So maybe not all atheists agree on the same political ideologies, though I would ask anyone to show that the overwhelming majority is not liberal, leftwing based ideologists, instead of selfish or theocratic ones. If there is one thing all atheists have in common politically it is that we are not the religious right.

Bandwagoning, burden of proof, poisoning the well, couting the hits and ignoring the misses. Sooo many logical fallacies here.

Lets start at the beginning. Even if a majority of atheists are liberals that does not mean there cannot be conservative atheists. The author even lists a few disproving his own argument. What he is wanting us to do is marginalize them and even attempts to allude to them not being "true" atheists while providing NO evidence to back that up. Further, it is possible for a negative claim to be unprovable. Therefore, it is upon HIM to prove that the "overwhelming majority" are liberal. Going further, what does he mean by overwhelming majority? 99%? 90%? 75%? 60%? 50.000000000000001%? Nice weaseling words there Mr Author.

Speaking of weaseling words, what do he mean we are not the religious right? Some atheists do belong to religions like Buddhism. Some atheists are conservatives. Some might even support positions from the religious right. Again what does he mean?

Without atheists united in some form of community, the US would be lost overnight to a theocratic right.

Yes, because atheists are the ONLY people fighting the religious right and we make up such a HUGE segment of society that we ALONE are holding them at bay

While we are busy infighting claiming, "no one speaks for me", the right is speaking and gathering followers. If we continue to run around unorganized, they will overtake this nation.

I hope the author realizes we can chew gum and walk at the same time right? I can claim that a group does not talk for me and oppose other groups at the same time. I can also join groups that are not necessarily based on atheism to fight against those conservatives as well. Groups like the ACLU.

There are groups [...] We should be thanking these groups and individuals in this fight, not chastising them for being "the face" of atheism as many have.

Here I finally agree with the author. But then again I don't see atheism as a movement to begin with so why should I blame anyone for being the face of "the movement."

While these is some good things the author does point out (here and there), this article is so poorly written that its hard not to take offense.

[trotsky]

13. Great post. n/t