Is American atheism heading for a schism?

[rug]

A new movement, Atheism+, has prompted non-believers to spit venom at one another rather than at true believers

&feature=player_embedded

People's Front of Judea or Judean People's Front?

Peter McGrath
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 2 September 2012 07.00 EDT

In the passionate world of American atheism, the venom usually directed at believers has now been turned against the wrong kind of atheists.

The cause of this freethinking furore? A new movement called Atheism+. According to its website, "Atheism+ is a safe space for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime."

A+ was born when Freethought blogger Jen McCreight (the mind behind Boobquake) made a passionate call for a "third wave" of atheism, one that extends atheist activism into progressive politics and calls for a part of the movement to be one where women can exist free from the harassment that has plagued women publicly involved in the atheist movement.

The founders of Atheism+ say clearly that "divisiveness" is not their aim, but looking through the blogs and voluminous comments in the two weeks since A+ was mooted, trenches have been dug, beliefs stated, positions staked out and abuse thrown. A dissenting tweeter is "full of shit", while, according to one supporter, daring to disagree with Atheism+'s definition of progressive issues and not picking their side makes you an "asshole and a douchebag".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/02/american-atheism-schism-spit-venom

[Angry Dragon]

1. What a crock

Either you believe or not ...................

[rug]

2. Careful, that puts you in the notAtheism+ group.

[Angry Dragon]

23. What group are you in??

[rug]

24. Neither.

[Angry Dragon]

30. Do you follow the path that Christ taught or

do you profess a different belief??

[rug]

32. I only do whatever you say I should do.

[Angry Dragon]

34. A person that has no principles nor beliefs

Very unusual

[rug]

39. It's my cross to bear.

[Angry Dragon]

110. So now you are putting yourself on the same level as Jesus Christ??

[intaglio]

46. It's Ok, Dragon rug just likes muddy the waters

Ask him a real question and he'll dodge it or accuse you of insulting him. He cannot critically examine his own faith and does not see how absence of faith is based on critical thinking.

Expect cbayer to chime in in a bit.

[rug]

60. Hmmm, ad hominems are the hallmark of a weak argument.

In this case, extremely weak.

[MineralMan]

71. I will leave you to the job

of understanding weak arguments.

[rug]

75. It's a small task.

There, done.

[Angry Dragon]

111. I know he does not like to answer questions and cbayer has already chimed in

[djean111]

3. Yep.

As an atheist, I have never felt the slightest need to want a theist to prove anything, I just loathe theists thinking they can affect my life according to their beliefs.

[Leontius]

21. So do you have a problem with others who think they can effect

your life based on their beliefs or ideals if you perfer, if the are not "theists"?

[djean111]

31. Yep.

But this is the Religion thread, so that is all I am mentioning.
Not sure what the point of your question is? That religion is the only thing I hate making rules for me?
Or that so many other groups do that, so why mind religion?

[Buzz Clik]

4. These are hard times for the organized non-religious.

This may be a tipping point for evangelical atheism.

[rexcat]

36. Horse dodo on "evangelical atheism"...

e·van·gel·i·cal    [ee-van-jel-i-kuhl, ev-uhn-] Show IPA adjective

1. Also, e·van·gel·ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings.
2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, especially of the new testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.
3. designating Christians, especially of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible.
4. pertaining to certain movements in the Protestant churches in the 18th and 19th centuries that stressed the importance of personal experience of guilt for sin, and of reconciliation to God through Christ.

[Buzz Clik]

44. Here's a definition with a link:

5. marked by militant or crusading zeal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evangelical

[rexcat]

120. Nothing like "militant atheist" crap...

and I don't see any atheists crusading, that is held in reserve for Christians.

[Buzz Clik]

122. You've never heard Richard Dawkins speak?

[rexcat]

132. Yes I have...

and his remarks are valid.

[cbayer]

134. Perhaps, but he delivers it with a militant and crusading zeal.

[cleanhippie]

135. Oh, FFS.

Stop it. Just stop. You sound like humblebum.

[rexcat]

143. More like...

humblebum light. Cbayer is not even close to that one! If you would like to put humblebum and rug in the same category I would have a difficult time auguring against that one.

[cleanhippie]

146. Never said they were the same.

Just that she was sounding like him.

[rexcat]

149. Totally understand...

your POV!

[rug]

150. Where should I put you?

[rexcat]

152. I don't really care where you put me...

becasue it won't make any difference to me.

[rug]

153. Just as well.

[rexcat]

154. There you go.

[rug]

155. Nope, there you went.

Sorry.

[rexcat]

157. But you never made it...

more like lost in the jungle.

[rexcat]

141. I disagree, he expresses his opinions...

and that seems to be enough to get the religious in an uproar. He is tough but I would not go as far as militant or crusading.

[cbayer]

145. I think when a speaker is expressing ideas with which one agrees, one may

miss the militancy and crusading..

Many would hear Pat Robertson in the same way you hear him.

Both are militant crusaders, imo, in that there is little wiggle room and they speak in absolutes.

[rexcat]

148. I have never heard Dawkins say he was a...

militant atheist, just an atheist. I find it amusing that you label him a militant considering you take on others.

Please include some quotes on Dawkin's absolutes. I think I have missed them. I am sure you have a running list of them.

[cbayer]

156. Taking on others does not make one militant.

If you don't find him an aggressive spokesman for anti-theism, then you don't. I'm not going to try and prove to you that I do. We will just have a difference of opinion.

And once again, you make it personal. What's with that?

[rexcat]

158. Not personal at all...

you have stated that when it comes to how a person is defined it is up to that person to define themselves. I was just pointing out you being inconsistent. In your world view Neil deGrasse Tyson is an agnostic but I see him differently as per previous discussions. You labeled Dawkins the militant, not him. I don't think he sees himself as a militant, just an atheist. If you take that as personal that is your problem.

As far Dawkins being aggressive I would say yes but that does not make him militant. You are conflating the two words.

[cbayer]

159. When I talk about people defining themselves, I am clearly talking

about how they define themselves in terms of religious beliefs or lack of beliefs, because only the individual truly knows the answer to that.

Using descriptors to describe someone's behavior, outward appearance, attitude towards you or other characteristics is something else entirely. You can call NDT anything you want. The only thing that I care about is how he describes himself in terms of religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Whether Dawkins describes himself as militant or not makes no difference to me. It's an adjective and open to subjective assessment. I find him militant. You don't. Doesn't mean he is or isn't.

See you around the campfire. I am out.

[dmallind]

161. Strange - pretty sure you posted on the thread ABOUT Dawkins' uncertainty.

Ah yes - this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=41907

[cbayer]

162. Not sure what you are talking about.

His putting himself on the scale that left room for uncertainty? What does that have to do with what I said?

[cordelia]

124. You can not be serious.

[rexcat]

133. Yes I am serious...

and what is your point?

on edit: I will take reason over superstition and faith any day.

[cordelia]

164. My point is that you said you don't see any atheists crusading,

that is held in reserve for Christians.

Do you never listen to Dawkins? Others?

I find them just as offensive as the Swaggarts, Robertsons, et al.

[rexcat]

165. That is your opinion...

and I don't see it that way. We all view the world with a different lens because of our life experiences. I happen to agree with Dawkins except when he talks about punctuated equilibria which has nothing to do with his religious opinions.

I would suppose if you are religious you might find Dawkins, et el, offensive. As an atheist in this country I don't.

[edhopper]

5. A look at the DU website

shows that Democrats are deeply divided and at each other's throats. Their arguments a full of vitriol and animosity.

Moral, judging anything from message boards is idiotic. The stupid is strong in this article.

[rug]

6. Well yes, but we are arguing about something.

This is something arguing with nothing.

[edhopper]

7. Do you spend any time here?

[rug]

10. On occasion.

[edhopper]

13. Because I have seen

heated arguments over bigfoot and UFOs. Or how fat Chris Christy is.

So you'll excuse me if i think an article talking about a giant riff in the "atheism community" whatever the hell that is, based solely of internet discussion forums is full of shit.

[rug]

14. That is a miniscule number of threads. Check GD, P2012, GR and LBN just today.

And it's not limited to internet boards. Elevatorgate and the racist bilboard did not occur on the internet.

There are many nonbeliever organizations attempting activism with varying degrees of success and blunders. The concepts this article refers to are reflected even in how these organizations define themseves: Secualar Coalition, FFRF, American Humanist Association, Amerian Atheists, Inc, etc., etc. There is neither a need to organize nor to post billboards, nor to sue, if the issue is simply nonbelief.

This is not something that will go away by belittling.

[edhopper]

15. So you have done a calculation on these examples compared to

all the other atheism discussions to decide they are not "miniscule" as well?

You also confuse Humanism and Secularism with atheism.

Face it mate, you posted a none story to embarrass atheists and it turned out to be empty.

Sad really.

[rug]

18. Lol.

That's cute.

I don't confuse humanism, secularism or atheism. Or what activities these groups attempt.

You really can't have it both ways. Either your nonbelief means nothing more than nonbelief and you do not act based on it. Or you are taking actions and your nonbelief has nothing to do with it.

The more these groups organize, the more they will have to determine these issues. And stand in line with all the other groups for their due share of criticism.

Continue to ignore facts. I'll continue to deal with them.

[edhopper]

19. Huh?

You may be trying to make an anti-atheist point here, but i don't know what it is.

[rug]

25. No, I'm simply making a point about human organization.

Once people get together for a common purpose disagreements inevitably arise. That's what I think is happening here.

[edhopper]

33. I call bullshit

no one would say that atheist agree on anything but the nonexistence of God.
You posted a link about vitriol and name calling, not disagreement.

[rug]

40. You can call it Richard for all that it matters.

The article is very informative.

[edhopper]

42. Sure for you

someone looking for anything negative about atheists no matter how inane.

Fox viewers find their shows "very informative" as well.


Reveals a lot about you.

[intaglio]

48. Try asking rug a question and he'll dodge

answer one of his questions and he'll accuse you of not answering. He cannot reason and fears ideas based on reason.

[rug]

59. Yes, I am utterly incapable of reasoning.

[rug]

57. There's vey little looking involved.

It's published today.

It's written by an atheist.

It's telling.

And now you're comparing the Guardian to Fox News?

What are you upset about?

[patrice]

65. Curious here: What about the difference between non-belief vs. positing nonexistence?

Don't you, in order to posit nonexistence, have to conceptualize that which doesn't exist? Perhaps you can see my rationalist problem with that effort. In order to say TTE "it isn't there", I have to decide what "it" is, so what isn't there depends upon how I conceptualize "it".

Sorry about this tail chasing, I just have a problem with going beyond, TTE, "We have no rational empirical support/evidence for the existence of God - AND - we do not believe in God." Rational empiricism doesn't go beyond that for which it has some form of data, to do so would not be rational. I don't see how it can have any more than that to say about whatever would meet the definition of what a God would be.

[edhopper]

130. You are reading too much into my reply

And parsing my words far more than you should.
Start a new thread and we can discuss this.

[Progressive dog]

8. How can you turn atheism into a belief system? nt

This is simply stupid.

[rug]

9. That's two votes for notAtheism+.

From what I gather, it holds that progressive values flow naturally from an atheist viewpoint.

In contrast, classic atheism holds it does not.

[patrice]

72. That's not my understanding of that POV. I understand them to be saying:

Progressive values (amongst many other values) are natural, therefore, atheists can rationally apprehend this particular class of natural phenomena and, by implication, also therefore, do not require any form of divine authority (something for which they find no rational empirical support anyway) in order to identify with Progressive values.

Perhaps "classic atheism" holds that m/any values are natural, therefore, atheists can rationally apprehend m/any class of natural phenomena and, by implication, also therefore, do not require any form of divine authority (something for which they find no rational empirical support anyway) in order to identify with m/any values.

[rug]

74. Perhaps "simple atheism" is a better phrase.

Atheism is the absence of belief; it does not require an etiology.

If one asserts that progressive values naturally flow from atheism, then atheism needs to be redefined to explain the why of nonbelief and why it leads to progressive values.

It also would require an explanation of why progressive values are natural, as opposed to fascism, etc., etc.

[intaglio]

49. Dont worry rug will continue with his non-sequiturs

and maliciously misinterpret your answers.

And he will either ignore your questions or fluff them. Rug is not exactly a critical thinker.

[rug]

62. Well aren't you the buzzing fly.

Three indirect snide remarks.

If I were a lesser person I'd make a personal conclusion about you.

[mr blur]

11. You wish.

[rug]

12. I don't wish. I observe.

You may take what he says to heart. He's talking to you.

[intaglio]

16. Firstly - there is no schism where there is no central organisation

Secondly Atheism plus is a group. They do not regard themselves as "the only" atheists any more than Randi's JREF regard themselves as "the only" skeptics. The intent of Atheism+ is to propagate the idea that although there are atheists like Thunderf00t and the similarly bigotted, there are many others who wish to be differentiated from such dicks. A comparrisson might be a group of Catholics who wish to be seen as more open minded than the Papacy - Oh, there is; they're called Jesuits. Atheism doesn't have a Pope, Metropolitan, Living Prophet, Dalai Lama, Panchen Lama, Divine Emperor, Grand Imam, Grand Mufti or Ayatollah. There is no text essential to the study of atheism; no Septaguint, New Testament, Diamond Sutra, Mas'ud Qur'an, Zaid Qur'an etc. etc. In all honesty there is no text that is required for the profession of a religion, if people were actually expected to know them there would probably be far fewer faithful.

Now look at the Peter McGrath who posted this on The Guardian's "Comment is Free" open access comments section. I have no doubt he is a fine person but ... he is not a journalist, his bio says he is an author and Yachtmaster. This last means he has completed the RYA's Yachtmaster certification scheme (see below) it does not mean he is a Master Mariner

The only books I can find written by a "Peter McGrath" on "Good Reads". It is notable that although he studied Zoology at a Liverpool University he does not mention whether he actually achieved a degree and his only previous journalism chops are from being selected Editor's Choice for a science page article.

Seems a nice guy, just not the person you ought to be citing for this OP.

++++++++++++++++++

Yachtmaster Ocean

Ocean passage as skipper or mate of watch. The candidate was fully involved in the planning of the passage, including selection of the route, the navigational plan, checking the material condition of the yacht and her equipment, storing spare gear, water and victuals and organising the watch-keeping routine; During the passage a minimum non-stop distance of 600 miles must have been run by the log, the yacht must have been at sea continuously for at least 96 hours and the yacht must have been more than 50 miles from land while sailing a distance of at least 200 miles. Please see the 'definition of passage'. All qualifying seatime must be within 10 years prior to the exam.

Yachtmaster Offshore

50 days, 2,500 miles including at least 5 passages over 60 miles measured along the rhumb line from the port of departure to the destination, acting as skipper for at least two of these passages and including two which have involved overnight passages. 5 days experience as skipper. At least half this mileage and passages must be in tidal waters. All qualifying seatime must be within 10 years prior to the exam.

[salvorhardin]

17. Believers go to church on Sundays.

Atheists hurl recriminations at each other. It's just our way.

[patrice]

85. If "church" is community, which I think its etymology in the OED supports, believers make themselves

part of their belief communities, Sundays or when/wherever (and I make that distinction because of my personal preference to differentiate between belief communities and another form of organization known as "religion&quot .

If atheists do not believe, that does not necessarily preclude them from community, but would seem to suggest that the most universal aspect of their communion is non-belief, hence "recriminations" for anything for which there is no shared empirical base.

[MineralMan]

20. How is "American Atheism" different from any other sort of

religious nonbelief? There is no distinct "American Atheism," and the vast majority of atheists are not part of any organized group of atheists. It's a non-issue, except for that minority that is part of organized groups of atheists.

[rug]

26. That has been commented on often here.

Specifically in contrast with the phenomenon of atheism in the UK.

[MineralMan]

47. "phenomenon of atheism?"

There is no such thing. There are individual athiests who propose ideas and write about them. Some of them have followers who are interested in their ideas and writings. There are no large organized groups of atheists from which schisms would occur. There are no denominations, because there is no doctrine for people to disagree with.

Some atheists thing all religions should be abolished. Some atheists don't care a whit about what others believe. Some atheists are evangelists for atheism. Most atheists are not.

There are no central, organized atheist groups. There are only individuals raising ideas and questions, with more or less response from others.

You're looking for schisms of something that does not exist. It is a waste of your time.

[rug]

66. "There is no such thing."

Au contraire, mon frere.

This billboard, placed in a predominantly minority neighborhood, is just one part of it.

Distasteful as the notion may seem to you, atheism is a thing that exists, a thing that acts and reacts in society, along with many other ideologies. It is a phenomenon.

Moreover, there is a distinct American atheist phenomenon that is separate and apart from its counterpart in the UK, or even Canada.

If I really have to explain it to you further, I am indeed wasting my time.

[MineralMan]

70. You are, indeed, wasting your time.

But, it's your time, after all. Carry on, and I'll continue to comment. I'm always happy to help you waste your time.

[rug]

76. You are my go-to poster for wasting time.

[MineralMan]

79. I think not, based on looking at

numerous thread in this group. Carry on, rug; carry on.

[rug]

81. There is a lower proportion of waste in those threads than, for example, this exchange.

[cbayer]

22. Like it or not, they certainly are garnering a lot of attention.

This appears to be driven primarily by women who are revolting against the perceived sexism within the currently established groups. I think it may be an important and necessary step towards creating an effective movement.

It does not surprise me that those already established are going to vociferously reject this new group's position. That is happening even on this site.

I think some movements have to step back at times and see that there are some factions that hurt it more than they help it. It seems quite evident that that is true within the developing atheist movement. The anti-theists and latent misogynists do nothing to promote the causes the overall movement strives for. They need to be excluded. They can have their own little club and slap each other on the back when one of them is more hateful than the next.

Overall, what I have read from Atheist+, I like a lot. Sometimes you need a schism to rid yourself of the garbage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. It's internet commenters, not "those already established"

who are "vociferously rejecting this new group's position". They're mostly anonymous, and no more representative of American atheists than the commenters at Comment Is Free are of Guardian readers. They show the same tendency to swear and insult anyone else in the blog post a lot.

But you are wrong to lump anti-theists in with latent misogynists. This is nothing at all to do with anti-theists - I think several of those Freethought bloggers would call themselves anti-theists (eg PZ Myers or Greta Christina) - they think religions are harmful.

Indeed, since just about all the bloggers and commenters involved in this are argumentative and willing to label their opponents, I think the majority on both sides of the posts would call themselves 'anti-theist'.

[cbayer]

115. I wasn't clear, I think. I don't see a relationship between the anti-theists and misogynists.

I do, however, see some misogyny (both directly and reported) among some of the more established groups. That seems to be what triggered this Atheist+ movement to begin with.

You are so right about bloggers and commenters being argumentative, though. I would include the two of us in that group, lol.

[JoePhilly]

27. We're a group? When are our meetings?

I'm not going to come, but I'd like to know when the meetings are so I can tell others if anyone ever asks me.

Although, no one ever has asked me, but maybe some one will. So it would be good to know.

[rug]

28. Assuming you're from Philly, take your pick:

http://www.ftsociety.org/

http://www.meetup.com/atheists-215/

http://secularism.meetup.com/members/us/pa/philadelphia/

http://www.hagp.org/

http://www.phillyethics.org/

If you go, don't start any trouble.

[edhopper]

35. Secularist and Humanist

are not the same as atheists.

You keep making this same false equivalency.

[rug]

37. I didn't name the groups.

Perhaps they see an overlap that you don't.

[edhopper]

41. Overlap?

So you agree you are wrong in calling most of these 'Atheist Groups".

[rug]

54. I'm pretty sure American Atheists, Inc. are atheists.

It's unlikely you'd find very few in any of these groups who believe in a god. Could thy be Atheism+?

[MineralMan]

61. American Atheists has about 2200 members.

Hardly a large organization of atheists. Not influential, either.

This is all silliness.

[rug]

63. I agree there's a lot of silliness.

But not all of it.

[MineralMan]

68. Anyone can form a group and claim that the group represents

anything. A claim is not a fact. A group of two people can claim to represent atheism if they wish to do so. They are incorrect, though, if they do. American Atheists represents its members, and its members only. All groups do the same, whatever the basis for their organization.

Until a group can claim membership that makes up a large minority of a class of people, they cannot legitimately claim to represent that class of people. No such organization of atheists exists. None have memberships that even approach 1% of atheists. Not one. They cannot represent atheism. They can claim to represent their membership. They can evangelize to increase their numbers, but they represent nothing but themselves.

The Roman Catholic Church may claim to represent Christianity. The thousands of non-Catholic denominations give the lie to that claim, despite the huge membership of the RCC. Its size is large enough to use the word schism in relation to it, but it does not represent Christianity. It represents the views of its own organization.

Among atheists, there is no organization that represents any more than a tiny minority of atheists, so no organization can make a valid claim to represent atheism. It's stupid to even try. The vast majority of atheist have no affiliations with any organization of atheists. I live in St. Paul, MN. There is an atheist organization here in the Twin Cities. They have meetings, a website, and occasionally make some sort of public announcement. The organization, however, is tiny, and of no interest to most atheists in the Twin Cities. That group no more represents the atheists in this area than a small church created by some self-proclaimed pastor that meets in a rented building represents Christianity in the Twin Cities.

It's ludicrous.

[rug]

73. Don't worry. Nobody is coming to drag you out of spendid isolation.

That said, your criterion is for what makes a social movement is wrong. There are many, many people and organizations speaking for one type of atheism, with a concomitant agenda, or another.

There is no ideal Platonic "atheism".

[patrice]

91. I think the difference between you two on that matter is whether the organ is intentional or

co-incidental . . . and that may be a false dichotomy, but we can only speculate about the chicken-or-the-egg from here.

[patrice]

90. Any/all atheists may be secularists and/or humanists, but not all secularists and/or humanists

are necessarily atheists, e.g. Ralph Waldo Emerson, William James, and Pierre Tielhard de Jardin to name a few.

[JoePhilly]

101. I grew up in Philly, but I haven't lived there for a long time.

But pretty much like everyone else from Philly, I start trouble just for fun.

[Shadowflash]

29. I know, right?

Where can I get some tax free land to build temple to nothing? I'd love to build that temple, go on TV and bilk other Atheists out of their hard earned, and sometimes last, dollar so I can make my yacht or Mercedes payment.

Unlike the religious, I'm sure atheists wouldn't fall for it.

[rug]

38. This site will tell you how to do it.

http://richarddawkins.net/donations/new

[Shadowflash]

43. Dang!

Will you look at that - someone beat me to it.

Though he doesn't have the national TV broadcast from a huge megachurch. Maybe I can do that first?

[intaglio]

50. Malicious misinterpretation, your stock in trade

and what I'd expect from a Christian theist who steals answers from Buddhism - that are not answers to the questions asked.

[rug]

56. What?!? Now you accuse me of stealing from Buddhists!?!

So much for the free exchange of ideas.

P.S. Buddhists are probably the last people on earth who are concerned about intellectual property.

[intaglio]

64. Yup, stealing from Buddhists

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=43946

Nevertheless, I'll give you one example. Buddhism teaches compassion for others and detachment from material things is the meaning and purpose of living.

Or didn't you post this? Was it perhaps some demon who controls your computer when you are not looking?

I am certain you posted this theft from buddhism, what is more you posted this non-answer after repeated, ignored, attempts to get you respond to what you thought meaning was and how it could be applied to the universe.

[rug]

67. And?

You consider that post to be "this theft from buddhism"?



How about this? Compassion for all living things prevents me from saying more.

[intaglio]

77. You could not answer the question so you stole the answer

you stole an answer form a faith you do not support; an answer that did not actually relate, except distantly, to the question. You were unable to find an answer from your own faith. You were unable to use your own reason to answer; so you stole an answer.

I even offered you a better quote regarding meaning, but you ignored it.

In this thread you have maliciously misunderstood the answers people gave to you, just as you have maliciously misinterpreted an article by a blogger/amateur journalist to fire your hatred of "atheism".

In return you have accused me of "hating religion", which I do not. What I do hate is the results; what religion does to people. It distorts their rational faculties, so that nothing except approved ideas can penetrate. It leads to issuing lies in defense of faith. I do not hate people like you but I do despise them for the continual failure to use critical thinking and to see where this utter subjection to authority has lead.

Yes, I will continue to argue against you because you cannot be allowed to mislead without challenge.

[rug]

84. You're beginning to remind me of reincarnation.

Or maybe it's Groundhog Day I'm thinking of.

[intaglio]

86. Another nonsequitur

see what I mean about your reasoning?

[rug]

87. I lost the trail after you accused me of stealing from Buddhists.

[intaglio]

88. Proved you stole from Buddhism with a link n/t

[rug]

89. Lol, sure you did.

I also filched some rice from their begging bowls.

Karma will get me.

[intaglio]

92. non-responsive, childish - religious I suppose n/t

[rug]

107. I would call your response rational and logical but I really can't, try as I may.

[intaglio]

113. That's fine, I have no objection to your childishness

It just destroys your case.

[JoePhilly]

102. I did wonder about what would take place at the meetings.

What would you talk about?

Are there specific acts one must perform?

Is their special jewelry?

[marybourg]

45. The "passionate" world of atheism??? What BS. Most atheists

want nothing more than to be left alone and it's damn hard to become passionate about NOT holding a belief.

[cbayer]

55. Most believers want nothing more than to be left alone, as well.

It's the ones out in the front crusading that are the problems. Just like some of the *passionate* atheists.

[JNelson6563]

80. Isn't every Christian told to "save others"?

Go out and spread the "good news"!1!

Isn't that a Christian responsibility? Or did I misread the bible on that?

Julie

[cbayer]

83. Nope. Your experience is clearly limited.

[JNelson6563]

116. Perhaps you are right.

Perhaps you are wrong. Again.

Mar 16:15 KJV - And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Luk 4:18 KJV - The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Act 16:10 KJV - And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.

Rom 1:15 KJV - So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

Rom 10:15 KJV - And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Rom 15:20 KJV - Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

1Cr 1:17 KJV - For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1Cr 9:14 KJV - Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

1Cr 9:16 KJV - For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

1Cr 9:18 KJV - What is my reward then? [Verily] that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

2Cr 2:12 KJV - Furthermore, when I came to Troas to [preach] Christ's gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord,

2Cr 10:16 KJV - To preach the gospel in the [regions] beyond you, [and] not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.

Gal 1:8 KJV - But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1: 9 KJV - As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Gal 2:2 KJV - And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Rev 14:6 KJV - And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?criteria=preach+gospel&sstr=0&t=KJV

Never mind the spreadin' of the good news, I have a special fondness for the shakedown of those who support the spreadin' of the good news! Paul was the best! Machiavelli was an amateur who wasn't fit to carry Paul's shoes.

Julie

[cbayer]

117. Oh my goodness, Julie. You are a literalist!

I didn't think we had any of those around these parts.

[Goblinmonger]

118. So you're not a literalist?

Cool. So the Bible is nothing more substantial than The Great Gatsby? I think Gatsby teaches better lessons and Fitzgerald is a WAY better writer than 98% of those that contributed to the Bible.

If nothing is to be taken literally in the Bible, where is the basis for a religion?

[rexcat]

121. Some might be considered them "partial" literalist...

more like the cafeteria style christians. They pick and choose what they want to believe as literal and say everything else is an allegory. Some are more literalist and some are less literalist.

[JNelson6563]

123. lolz Yeah, that's it.

Literalist...intellectually dishonest simpleton....if I had to choose...

Of course neither applies to me, how 'bout you?

Julie

[cbayer]

125. Well, that's a really rude thing to say.

You made a statement about christians. You had multiple replies indicating to you that you were incorrect. Your personal vendetta led you to reply only to me by posting your list of biblical references that mean nothing to me. The bible says many things but most people don't read it literally.

The answer to your initial question remains no.

I am neither a literalist nor an intellectually dishonest simpleton, but I am someone who will not engage with a rude or abusive person. You choose.

[cleanhippie]

126. OMG, are you SERIOUSLY complaining about someone being "rude"?

[cordelia]

127. You expected something different?

[cbayer]

128. No, not really.

[patrice]

95. NO. Those are those fucking Paulists!! Christianity actually co-evolved in a context with

Judaism, of course, and also Gnosticism, some think John the Baptist may have had strong Gnostic tendencies and that the time Jesus spent in the desert may have been in the "company" of Essenes, Jewish mystic radicals who may have had what could be called Pythagorean intellectual ancestors. Even the documents from which The Bible was extracted are not as purely "Christian" as the poor starved, empty, fear-crazed reaction to post-modernism that so much of these Paulists have become.

[cordelia]

96. No.

[patrice]

97. Jesus was a liberator. It's not his fault a bunch of slavers came along & started marketing him. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. Many interpret "The Great Commission" as applying to everyone

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28%3A16-20&version=NIV

but some don't. And some scholars think that bit, coming right at the end of the book, was added on by some zealous copyist later. I'd have thought that "love your neighbour as yourself" would imply you should be telling them how to get everlasting paradise, myself, but perhaps some think it's OK to keep the good stuff to yourself.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. atheists organizing other atheists around issues beyond atheism does not a schism make.

Either you would like to expand "the atheist movement", (whatever that is, and plenty of atheists here will tell you it is pretty much nothing,) beyond the obvious fact that "there are no gods, we live, we die", or you don't. It is a choice one can make. I personally think it would be a good idea, many others here have told me in no uncertain terms it isn't, but that, as much as you would wish, isn't a 'schism'.

We do not have institutions or doctrines to defend here. Perhaps if de Botton is successful in creating Atheist Cathedrals with all the trappings we could in fact mimic some of the worst aspects of theism. Who knows, perhaps even decades of inter-atheistic slaughter could occur?

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

52. There's an atheism identity movement?

I don't see how that makes sense. Atheism, for me, is about the absence of a thing, not the presence of a thing. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Seems like setting up an atheist movement plays into the hands of those who consider it to be a religion and not the lack of religion.

Why not get atheists together in support of science, instead? Science needs our help, is under attack from religions.

Confused, me.

ETA: Possibly we need new labels. I will henceforth be thinking in terms of Non-Theists and Anti-Theists. Until a better idea presents itself.

[rug]

69. That's a salient point.

There is nothing about classic atheism that, ipso facto, leads to the support of science. Or feminism. Or Democrats. Or anything else. It is simply the absence of belief in a god(s).

The Atheism+ movement that the article addresses holds that it can and should lead to support for progresive things. Clearly, there are plenty of atheists, right here on this thread, who disagree.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

78. I think it may be a case of bad framing...?

I'm not the clearest thinker around, and I'm often mistaken about things. But an atheist movement, whatever it supports, seems like it cedes the ideological playing field to religion. It seems to me that the point should be that Theism is a worldview which posits unnecessary and unprovable theories about the reality in which we dwell. I'm all for any organization which promotes progressive causes, but here it seems to me that atheists would be working against themselves because of the way the ideas end up being packaged.

Atheism shouldn't necessarily support science or empiricism. I guess you're right in that. I think about activist atheism and I think about Richard Dawkins and his battle of science against religion. But I think atheists might do best to emphasize that we all dwell in the same reality, while religions are ultimately arbitrary and can be anything at all. A grounding in reality perhaps implies a connection to science. Perhaps not. As I say, I'm not the brightest bulb.

[rug]

82. Keep posting.

[patrice]

98. +1

[cbayer]

99. I think non-theist and anti-theist are the most obvious of the distinctions and am

seeing non-theist being used more and more.

[Kalidurga]

53. The answer is no and the reason is obvious...

You can't divide what hasn't been joined.

[cbayer]

58. If you are unaware of the myriad of associations purporting to represents atheists, secularists

and humanist, then you haven't been paying attention.

There are conventions, legal actions, websites and dues. Just like any other movement involving like minded people.

Your not being a member of any of them does not mean they aren't out there.

[Kalidurga]

93. Thank you for making my point.

You do realize that atheists like Christians have a lot of associations. And you have shown this with your post. To say christian are a monolithic group that can be divided would be silly. Christians like atheists are as varied in their beliefs as their are individuals claiming the title. So, no atheists can't be divided, they aren't and never have been a monolithic group to divide.

[cbayer]

94. Christians are clearly divided, though they share some things in common.

And some assign themselves to one particular group, while others join nothing.

There are at least a few different kinds of atheists as well, all sharing one thing in common, but diverging on others.

This new movement is attempting to define one kind of group and also to form an organization that will be more inclusive and less sexist.

I like it.

[patrice]

100. And, since there's nothing there to divide to begin with, that isn't un-atheistic.

Just like some who are more immersed in the world of Literature than I am have been known to say, TTE, "The point of deconstruction is re-construction, because . . . well, why not?"

[Deep13]

103. Non-god will send heretical atheists' non-souls to non-hell. nt

[rug]

104. That's comforting.

[Deep13]

112. Actually, I think it is.

Intellectual disagreements can exist without mutual excommunication and certainly without incurring divine judgment.

[pinto]

105. Why not? I think most organized groups experience schisms at times. Even loosely organized groups.

Doesn't seem to matter what issue / activity people coalesce around, at some point there are inevitable differences of opinion, disagreements and sometimes schism.

[dimbear]

109. trenches have been dug........

This is not as alarming as some imagine. Wilderness campers do this for sanitary reasons.

[Deep13]

114. Does "Atheist+" have a website? nt

[rug]

119. Here's what he's referring to:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/atheism/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/21/why-atheism-plus-is-good-for-atheism/


Here's other sites:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/08/24/a-draft-manifesto-to-promote-ethical-atheism/

http://preliatorcausa.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheism-welcome-to-the-third-wave-of-godlessness-3735.html


It seems still to be coalescing.

[Deep13]

137. thanks nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. So far, it's just a forum

http://atheismplus.com/forums/index.php

[rug]

142. Thanks for the link. It looks like it was started 6 days ago.

Pretty active so far.

[darkangel218]

129. Anyone else developed a headache after reading this thread?

[YankeyMCC]

131. You know this is very much like

the dispute between those who claim the Easter Bunny is Male and those who claim EB is female.

[cleanhippie]

136. You mean in the way that no one is actually having that dispute?

That its just a made-up issue to try and paint a particular group as being just like another?

[YankeyMCC]

138. No one and if there are

they're split over something that isn't there. So for that to make news or be used as you say to try and group people together and make them over in the image that suits them is well .... let me just say it might have made a good Onion headline

[cleanhippie]

140. An Onion headline. Exactly.

[rug]

144. You should follow this discussion.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42

[cleanhippie]

147. Just got an account there!

Thanks for the heads up.

[MADem]

151. Sounds like some corners of DU!

The whole "arguing on the internet" thing really, really--and I mean REALLY--matters!

They'd better not start flinging around the B and C words, though--the minute they all start "going alphabet" the shit will "really" -- and I mean REALLY--hit the fan!!!!

[dmallind]

160. No - there is nothing to schism from, since there is no creed

kind of definitional, that. There are already dozens of different atheist groups including many that like this one attempt to graft some other cause onto lack of god beliefs. Another one makes no difference at all.

[Prophet 451]

163. Surely that would require a creed first?

Since the only thing atheists have in common is not believing in god(s), it seems relatively straightforward. Either you're an atheist or you aren't.

[backscatter712]

166. Wow. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

Guess what. In every group in the world, including groups of atheists, there are going to be individuals that act like douchebags. Surprisingly, in most cases, the majority of the group doesn't endorse the douchebags' behavior.

Why would atheism combined with progressivism, a belief in equality, opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia, be controversial? Sounds to me like most atheists already believe these things.