Atheism+: the new New Atheists

[cbayer]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/religion/2012/08/atheism-plus-new-new-atheists

This new movement has an energy that makes it hard to ignore.
BY NELSON JONES PUBLISHED 23 AUGUST 2012 15:41


Atheism+ is a reaction against the "New Atheism" of Richard Dawkins. Photograph: Getty Images


Let me introduce you to Atheism+, the nascent movement that might be the most exciting thing to hit the world of unbelief since Richard Dawkins teamed up with Christopher Hitchens to tell the world that God was a Delusion and, worse than that, Not Great.

Less than a week old in its current form, Atheism+ is the brainchild of Jen McCreight, a Seattle-based biology postgrad and blogger at the secularist Freethought network. She has called for a "new wave" of atheism on that "cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime."

On one level, this is just the logical culmination of the huge upsurge in interest prompted by the so-called "New Atheists" and the growth over the last few years of a recognisable community or movement based around ideas of atheism, scientific scepticism and a progressive political agenda. While atheism is, by definition, no more or less than a non-belief in God, in practice it clusters with a variety of other positions, from pro-choice to campaigns against homeopathy. People who espouse "liberal atheism" as it might be called, oppose religion for political as well as philosophical reasons, just as the forces of religion seem to line up - though of course not exclusively - behind seemingly unconnected issues such as opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage and, in the US, gun-control.

Atheism+ is, at its most basic, an attempt wrap things together more formally, to create a movement that prioritises issues of equality and does so from an explicitly non-religious perspective. Some would say that such a philosophy already exists in the form of humanism. Others prefer the label Skeptic. Atheism+, however, seeks to capitalise on the sense of identity that has grown up around the word "atheism" during the past few years. One supporter of the idea, Greta Christina, celebrates the term as "a slap in the face that wakes people up."

more at link

[skepticscott]

1. Just someone else who wants attention

What she's talking about goes far beyond simple non-belief, which is all atheism is about. She should be honest right up front and acknowledge that she's really talking about humanism, secularism, skepticism, anti-theism, and liberal/progressive politics and social thought. That's all fine, but it gets things off to a bad start when she can't even get the names right.

[dkf]

2. Is that where the "skeptic" comes from in your handle?

I didn't realize there was a category labeled as such. I like it.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. If atheism is simply disbelief in a god or gods, how does it become a "movement"...

There are real movements out there that include atheists. Even a few churches, such as Unitarians and some Quakers accept, and may even promote, atheism. And there are those Ethical Culture places.

But, an atheist "movement" makes no sense. It implies an organization based on disbelief, which is irrational.

[cbayer]

5. Because many organizations, conferences and even rallies have formed around atheism.

There are some important items on their agendas, the top two being separation of church and state and decreasing discrimination against nonbelievers.

It is the same reason why we have an atheist/agnostic group here. Groups that have similar goals and have been marginalized often develop to provide a community for like minded people.

Some will join, others will not.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Point taken, but maybe the term "movement" doesn't quite fit. The questions of...

agendas are peripheral to atheism, not its core. When I think of a movement, I think of proselytizing for something-- in this case it would be atheism, and I don't think there are many atheist missionaries around.

Battling against church/state excesses is, again, battling "against" something and aside from being "for" something before being against something else, that, and religious discrimination are not exclusively atheist concerns. Calls to arms, yes, movement I'm not so sure.

But, OK, this is getting picky. I'm not sorry I started it, but it's running its course.

[cbayer]

13. Then it's just semantics, but I do think there is a strong and appropriate proactive

movement to increase understanding of and decrease discrimination towards atheists.

It's all good.

[dmallind]

7. Is an organization based on resisting Xian hegemony in law and society really irrational?

Sure a club for non-golfers makes no sense, but we don't have presidential candidate debates about golf on national TV. We don't have POTUS saying non-golfers are not considered citizens. We don't give golfers special privileges in law and taxation. We don't use "golfer" and "good person" as synonyms. We don't let golfers dictate how doctors and patients make healthcare decisions or who can marry whom. If we did, I'd bet non-golfer organizations would be populat and very rational responses.

[cbayer]

9. Agree. That is why the simplistic reduction of the term atheist is problematic.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Again, point taken, but I've always seen "movements" as pro-active, not...

reactionary. Persnickety parsing perhaps, but the civil rights movement was essentially for equality, and from that proceeded the battles against segregated drinking fountains.

[eqfan592]

16. It depends on how you look at it.

The civil rights movement could also be viewed as a fight against discrimination. I think a similar way of thinking might apply here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. You seem unaware of the Texas Repub senate candidate who says the UN is threatening golf courses

In an article that would appear to be a poorly-executed parody of Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz’s (R) right-wing beliefs it Cruz had not posted it on his own website, the Tea Party stalwart touts a truly ridiculous conspiracy theory about George Soros secretly partnering with the United Nations to come into our cities and eliminate our right to play golf:

In 1992, the United Nations adopted Agenda 21 to “achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy,” outlining a process to eliminate environmental decay and social injustice through micromanaging industries, communities, and culture. They will meet again next year to discuss its “progress” in over 100 nations.

The originator of this grand scheme is George Soros, who candidly supports socialism and believes that global development must progress through eliminating national sovereignty and private property. He has given millions to this project. But he is not the only one promoting this plan; in fact, the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) now consists of over 600 cities in the United States.

Agenda 21 attempts to abolish “unsustainable” environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads. It hopes to leave mother earth’s surface unscratched by mankind. . . . Agenda 21 subverts liberty, our property rights, and our sovereignty.

In reality, Agenda 21 is a twenty year-old non-binding resolution which speaks largely at a very high level of generality about reducing poverty and building sustainable living environments. The United States is one of 178 nations that signed onto this non-binding agenda — and we did so during the Bush Administration. So if Agenda 21 actually were a nefarious Soros plot to destroy paved roads and take away our sacred right to golf courses, it has worked very badly. Two decades after Agenda 21 was produced, Ted Cruz himself is still allowed to sell golf shirts on his website with minimal intrusion from UN peacekeepers.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/16/446352/tx-sen-candidate-ted-cruz-spouts-paranoid-fantasy-about-united-nationsgeorge-soros-conspiracy-to-eliminate-golf/

Cruz won the Republican primary, and is a shoe-in for the Nov election.

[dmallind]

4. Not even new either

IIRC this group is about 10 yrs old

http://atheistsforhumanrights.org/

[cbayer]

6. Except this group has some distinctive items on their agenda,

Including addressing sexism within the current activist community.

[dmallind]

8. You might want to contact Marie Castle, who founded AFHR, then.

I suspect she'd explain to you two things. One being that organized atheism's concern for gender issues is not at all new, and the other being that as a leader for decades in that same community, that has had women in national leadership roles for more years than men, a tactless horndog and a few sniggerers do not equate to communal sexism.

[cbayer]

10. Not familiar with her, but do you think that the complaints of sexism within some of

these organizations are baseless?

[MineralMan]

15. There is sexism in many groups. That it exists doesn't

characterize all members of the group. It is the same with atheists as it is with the religious. Atheism, on its own, says nothing having to do with attitudes toward members of either gender. Some atheists, on the other hand, are sexists. Why impose the prejudice of a minority on the majority? That is an incorrect, illogical process.

[MineralMan]

14. Some atheists, like some religious folk, want

to spread the word. Most atheists would rather just keep to themselves and their non-belief. The second group far outnumbers the first.

Atheism is. It needs no proselytizing, in my opinion. People who can not longer believe that supernatural entities exist become atheists. There's no real process of evangelizing. Today, more and more people are finding it impossible to believe such things.

[onager]

17. Not to be confused with "Atheism 3.0"

Atheism 3.0, also referred to as “the new New atheism,” designates an emerging irenic movement amongst writers which is held out by some atheists to be “a stream of atheism that maintains no belief in a deity, but views religion as a positive force for good in the world, benefiting both individuals and society.”

PZ Myers sums it up as "atheism for people who don't like atheism".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_3.0

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. it seems premature to call it a new movement with energy

When it comes down to it, it's many of the writers at FreethoughtBlogs, plus, perhaps, at Skepchicks (there's been a strong alliance between the 2 sites on the matter of misogyny in athiest or sceptic circles, but not everyone at the site is convinced by the need for a new moniker).

But it's only a week old, and I wonder if it's much bigger than a few websites. Those websites have always, to me, seemed overly concerned with conferences, which may get the people on various websites to meet up in person, but, I think, have relatively little effect on the world beyond that (and the events that have started this are largely about conferences, too - plus trollish anonymous internet comments, which are a far wider problem than any 'non-believer' community).

"The New Atheists" were named after it was noticed that 4 authors had written successful books in quick succession about assertive atheism that were being talked about beyond the atheist/humanist/sceptic associations and websites. And they continue to have high visibility, probably because they were mostly well known for more than atheism (Dawkins for writing about evolution, Dennett about philosophy, and Hitchens about politics or almost anything). How much of a 'movement' they are, I'm not sure - Dawkins started a website and educational charity, which has collected some people, but, beyond that, I don't think there's much.

And I think the New Statesman writer overstates it when he calls it "a reaction against the "New Atheism" of Richard Dawkins". Some of the FreeThoughtBlog and Skepchick writers got pissed off at his remark that the elevator incident was not comparable to atheist repression suffered elsewhere, but it looks more like a reaction to the anonymous internet misogynists, to me. it seems more of a statement on how they're going to run their websites and conferences, and a hope that others will follow.

[onager]

20. "Atheism + : Opposing ageism, racism and sexism. Old white men need not apply." - Paula Kirby