The Atheist Community is Dead; Long Live the Atheist Communities

[rug]

October 17, 2014
Posted by Jack Vance at 6:23 AM

If is is true, as I believe it is, that atheism begins and ends with the lack of god belief, I suppose it makes sense that most atheists who write blogs will eventually address topics other than atheism. After all, how many times can one explain that one does not share the god belief of the majority? How many times can one criticize religious belief or promote atheism without repeating oneself? Sure, many of us could devote more time to supporting other atheists in various ways, but it seems almost inevitable that we will branch out to other topics (e.g., church-state separation, humanism, science education, skepticism, the importance of free expression in democratic societies). And as we do so, we are likely to experience the pull to comment on the behavior of other atheists as they do the same. Perhaps the narrowness of atheism assures that we will end up encountering and then dealing with atheists whose opinions differ from our own on a number of topics and whose tactics for addressing the issues they value will be quite different from our own.

Some atheist bloggers have tried to resist. Conflict undermines progress, we tell ourselves. But conflict seems inevitable. We would be stronger in defending secularism against religious extremism if we were united, as there is strength in numbers. Perhaps, but it should be clear by now that secularism is not a high priority for many atheists. And if secularism is not a high priority, where else will we be able to put our numbers to use? Maybe we should stop resisting and embrace the inevitably of disagreement and even conflict. I'll do my thing, and you do yours. There may even be some benefits to learning to work through our disagreements in healthy ways. Maybe it is time to recognize just how diverse atheists are and accept the reality that groups of atheists will cluster around various issues that have little to do with atheism, forming communities (or tribes) as they see fit.

It may be time to let go of whatever idealized vision of an atheist community (or skeptic community or a secular community) we might have once had. We could look instead for a number of smaller groups of atheists organized in local areas or around goals peripherally related to atheism. As long as we can figure out how to effectively build short-term and highly focused coalitions when we need to maximize our numbers for activist efforts on specific goals shared across such groups, such a decentralized approach could still work. But for it to work, it seems to me that we have to be willing to set aside our differences and work together when it is in our shared interest to do so. The alternative is that we become so intensely tribalistic that we focus more on attacking each other than on working to improve our plight in the religious societies in which many of us live. I could imagine a point of no return where so much damage is done to inter-group relations that we can no longer set aside our differences, and that would be unfortunate.

If we imagine the death of the "atheist community" and look instead for a variety of diverse groups of atheists coming together to work on particular goals, the subject of coalition building soon takes center stage. Without a centralized structure, we will have to learn how to build coalitions effectively so that we can temporarily unite diverse groups of atheists for specific tasks where numbers are essential to success (e.g., letter writing campaigns, petitions, protests). We will still need national (and international groups), but I would think that coalition building might become an increasingly important part of what they must be prepared to do.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2014/10/the-atheist-community-is-dead-long-live.html#ixzz3GSIuBbEl

[edgineered]

1. +1

Thinking Beyond Ones Self 101 - pre req to the big picture.

[phil89]

2. Do you mean thinking rationally beyond ones' self? nt

nt

[edgineered]

3. That's the ticket

Some kids don't understand why they can't have the last piece of cake when sitting at a table with many others. Other kids accept it, some have hurt feelings.

As time passes some of those with hurt feelings learn that others also have feelings and no longer act out of resentment, but not all. At times we meet kids of any age, wrinkled faces and bald heads crying because the world still does not see itself as wrong.

[edgineered]

4. And some kids have better grammar and writing skills, too. Ya think? nt

[Kalidurga]

5. Maybe someday we will get rid of the stupid word too

It's such an odd way of defining a lack of belief in a god.

[cbayer]

6. I agree. It's sets up an unnecessarily antagonistic situation from the get go.

I like agnostic, and as most non-believers are also agnostic, it is available for them.

I also like apatheist - which is basically the position that I don't know if there is a god or not, and I don't care.

[Kalidurga]

7. apatheist

Yeah that pretty much describes me. Personally I think we have had expanding and collapsing universes since well for eternity. And even if we could find the first one we would never know how it got started.

[cbayer]

8. It pretty much describes me as well.

Since I don't think I will ever "know" and I don't have some kind of innate belief or faith, it makes no difference to me.

I would not live my life differently if god were definitively proved or disproved.

Like you, I am unable to speculate with any certainty where it all started or whether there are things behind it all that are far beyond our understanding.

[Kalidurga]

9. Everything that exists goes against the odds of probability

i find both life and absence of life equally perplexing.

[cbayer]

10. Unless you can really put infinity and infinite possibilities into the equation.

Then the probability of both life and absence of life become less perplexing, at least to me.

[Fumesucker]

12. Most "believers" are also "agnostic" as well

If I recall correctly you and I have determined that most everyone has "doubts" regarding religion, that's agnosticism when you are not positive you know the truth about a god or gods.

Agnostic is a cop out word in many cases, I'm an agnostic but I'm also an atheist in that I lack belief in a god or gods, it is my opinion that there is no god and certainly not the one described by any religion I'm aware of.

[cbayer]

13. Yes, they are.

I don't think it's a cop out word at all. I'm glad you are both an agnostic and an atheist, but there are many who only identify with the term agnostic, and that's fine, too.

It's the insistence that one must choose a team that creates a lot of the animosity, imo.

[Fumesucker]

15. I think a lot of people have chosen the team but don't want to wear the jersey

They aren't prepared to take the ostracism and hostility that wearing the team colors will engender.

Like it or not there are many people in our society who will react in a strongly negative reaction if you announce you just don't believe, they act shocked or insulted and often start telling you things you grew up learning like you've never heard them before.

[cbayer]

16. Doesn't matter to me why they want to wear the jersey or not.

I understand that there are social consequences in some areas for saying you are an atheist. I happen to live primarily in an environment where you are more likely to take heat if you say you are a believer.

In the end, though, it is your personal decision and if you don't want to choose a team, that's should be ok. You shouldn't be called cowardly or otherwise shamed for it. You just don't have a position.

Apatheist - don't know if there is a god and don't care if there is a god. How about that?

[Fumesucker]

17. I'm a long way from being the most active poster on this group or that other one

Evidently there are people on both sides of the issue who care a lot more than I.

[cbayer]

18. There are people who care a great deal and they have their own reasons

I suppose.

I think people should be able to define themselves, even if others don't agree with their definitions.

And in the end, diversity is a good thing.

[Curmudgeoness]

30. I don't believe that you are an apatheist.

If you were, I doubt that you would post in the Religion group, or any group associated with religion. But that is not the case. You are very interested in religion, and that is far from apathetic.

[xfundy]

11. The best part is

that anyone who doesn't believe in sky monsters-who-love-you-unconditionally-as-long-as-you-do-exactly-what-they-say or they'll burn you for eternity can have that lack of belief alone, without needing a congregation full of biddies who will cluck and peck to keep him in line with the official view.

[cbayer]

14. And the other best part is

those that love to mock people who experience the world differently can do that in complete isolation or they can find a group of biddies who will cluck and peck to reinforce the official view.

You get to choose!

[Silent3]

19. I'd never mock anyone for simply experiencing the world differently...

...but only for implausible, sometimes downright ridiculous, explanations for those experiences.

[cbayer]

20. And there you go with more mocking.

If you had proof that people's beliefs were "downright ridiculous", you might have a case.

But you don't. It's just your personal and prejudiced opinion.

But perhaps I am wrong? Maybe you have it right and 88% of the humans on earth have it wrong. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[Silent3]

21. Do you have proof that I just mocked something? Anything?

What degree of proof should I demand from you? What degree of proof, once we've established that there's even anything to get proof about, do you expect from me?

Where does this 88% you pulled out come from, other than perhaps your ass? I can guess, but you don't deserve any benefit of the doubt for the unwarranted generalizations that would imply.

Is there anything to your response to my post other than a childish "neener-neener!" attempt to play games with the word "proof", based on a silly premise such as "Oh, the guy doesn't like religion! He must be one of those everything-has-to-be-PROVED sorts! Let's play 'gotcha' with some vague demand for proof of... something!"

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[cbayer]

22. Gee, I don't know. Calling people's beliefs "downright ridiculous" seems

like mocking to me, but if you didn't mean it that way, then I just misread it…. I guess.

I haven't taken a definitive position on anything and have absolutely no proof to offer you.

Pulled it out of my ass? Wow, you are a classy fella, ain't you.

But if you must have data, it comes from a Cambridge University Study.

Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael T, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-521-60367-6. OL 22379448M

If you have some data that would challenge that, please put it up.

My, my. I must have really pushed your buttons here, but you do tend to have very sensitive buttons when your generalized and judgmental statements about religious people are challenged.

[Silent3]

23. There are no beliefs *at all* that are "implausible" or "downright ridiculous" in your opinion?

That's the stance you want to take, and all I need to do then is find a single belief that, by some mutually agreeable definition of "ridiculous" meets that criteria?

Let's re-cap what I said: "I'd never mock anyone for simply experiencing the world differently... but only for implausible, sometimes downright ridiculous, explanations for those experiences."

That's not even stated in a form for which "prove it!" is very applicable. I don't think you're looking for proof that I've ever mocked any belief -- you seem to take that as a given.

So the only thing it makes sense that you can be asking for proof about is that there's anything in the world, anything at all, which, by the stated criteria of "implausible, sometimes downright ridiculous" is something I could mock for being so.

Here's a belief I consider worthy of mocking: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/louie-gohmert-nurses-infected-with-ebola-are-part-of-the-democrats-war-on-women/

Will you accept that on face value as ridiculous, or do you need "proof" of that?

If you do think it's ridiculous, are you guilty of the terrible crime of not sufficiently appreciating the different way that Louie Gohmert "experiences the world"?

[cbayer]

24. I guess that there are and if I had some evidence that

they were false, I might feel justified in saying that.

Hey, if you don't mean it as ridicule, just say so.

In terms of your link, I could provide ample evidence that this is not the case and would ask them to provide proof if they are making a definitive claim, as opposed to expressing a belief.

But calling the beliefs of 88% of the people on earth, a number which I did not pull out of my ass, downright ridiculous is a pretty extreme position to take.

The difference would be similar to the example above. Is this just your belief or do you express is as a fact?

[Silent3]

26. Please do point out the place where I called the beliefs...

...of 88% of the people on earth ridiculous. I seem to have lost track of that part of my posts.

While you're at it, can you please explain why you're omitting the "implausible" part of "implausible, sometimes downright ridiculous"?

Oh, and why, even if I'd said what you're trying to say I said, should I be responding to argumentum ad populum?

[beam me up scottie]

27. How about laughing at another person's holy book?

The Book of Mormon, for example.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. that's different. and how dare you bring that up?

[beam me up scottie]

31. Of course it is!

If an atheist had posted something like that she would have given them such a lecture on mocking people who experience the world differently.

[skepticscott]

32. Calling creationists "a bunch of dumbasses"

sounds like mocking too, wouldn't you agree? And we both know which person in this thread has done that.

[beam me up scottie]

33. I'd say that qualifies as mocking people who who experience the world differently

It sounds like someone's personal and prejudiced opinion.

Thats a bad thing, isn't it?

[A HERETIC I AM]

25. I have stayed out of these threads for quite a long time, though I read them, but FFS!

Last edited Sat Oct 18, 2014, 09:11 PM - Edit history (1)

First of all, to the above persons who say they themselves or other Atheists "Lack" something is fucking bullshit.

I don't lack a damned thing (OK..I lack the ability to fly a helicopter proficiently and assorted other knowledge based items) regarding any god or gods.

The idea that I somehow lack ANYTHING because I have come to the KNOWLEDGE that ALL gods are mythical constructs is absurd.

A - Theist = without a god or gods. Parse it any way you wish, but that's what it means.

I have no gods. Is it possible that an entity that we as mere humans might think of as a god exists?

Sure. It's possible. There could be thousands. Millions. But they all do a damned good job of hiding and that to me means they aren't worthy of reverence, much less any attention. And if they exist I STILL wouldn't revere or "worship" them or it because everything I have been taught or led to understand about him (it's almost ALWAYS A 'HIM') makes me, as a person who does his best to think rationally, come to the conclusion that all gods are unworthy of worship or reverence or attention by a modern, rational mind.

The idea that there is an all knowing, all powerful, transcendental super being in control of everything is quite frankly, primitive thinking.

It deserves its place in the dustbin of history.

It is astouding to read sentences like "I also like apatheist - which is basically the position that I don't know if there is a god or not, and I don't care" from people who are so incredibly prolific in this forum.

Most of the threads in this group, and certainly the subject matter, involve the god of Abraham and Isaac. Let's not beat around the bush, shall we? There is NO MORE REASON for a rational, thinking person who has had a 20th century, western education and is capable of critical thinking to believe that THAT god exists to the exclusion of all others, than there is reason to believe Unicorns are right around the corner, it's just that we keep missing them.

All gods are mythical constructs, full stop. If you truly think that the god of Abraham is a real thing - a thinking, manipulative, calculative, vengeful, spiteful being who is in control of everything and knows the number of hairs on your head etc.etc. etc. ad nauseum, then I say you are fucking nuts. I say you haven't thought it through, I say you haven't understood the history of the church and I say you have done NOTHING to educate yourself on how the priestly class came to be and why it is they so vehemently cling to promulgating myths.


So go ahead. Fucking alert on this post. One of what? 4 I've put up in this group in the last 2 years? But I read the bullshit you guys put up....oh yeah. And it is tedious as hell to be told I "lack" something over and over and over.

Believers lack a conduit to rational thinking.

Hows that?

[rug]

28. Since you asked, the reply is completely misplaced.

Jack Vance, the author, an atheist himself, is not talking about atheism at all. He's talking about the behavior of atheist communities. Do you deny those exist as well?

[A HERETIC I AM]

34. Here's what I think of the idea of "Atheist communities"

And FWIW, I didn't ask.

[rug]

35. Well, you're certainly free to reject the ample evidence to the contrary.