Should atheism be considered a movement?

[tmackean]

One of the commoner qualities in atheistic thought has to be individuality. Personally, I value this very highly - it's important to me that I can make up my own mind about the big questions and be prepared to think differently.

I've always considered atheism as not 'a belief system' but 'not a belief system' (thank goodness for apostrophes). That's why I'm wary of recent attempts to categorise and unite atheistic or skeptical groups - it undermines the individuality that I imagine is a core value for those who choose not to believe. I don't wish to be counted AS something when in fact I'm simply NOT something else.

James Randi's 'Bright' term is an example. It seems to be an attempt to turn lack of belief and skepticism into a movement. More recently, Richard Dawkins (who I respect very much), has started the 'Out' campaign with the scarlet letter 'A' and is selling branded apparel. These campaigns, as well as established movements such as Humanism are largely anathema to me. Why do these high-profile, accomplished men feel the need to turn an opinion into a club?

Imagine you were at a wedding and the vicar solemnly asked "If anyone here has any objections... let them speak now or forever hold their peace.", would you raise your hand and shout "I don't!"? Categorising atheists through the campaigns I've mentioned seems to me to be similarly illogical and, worse, lays us open to accusations that atheism is just another belief system.

Which it isn't. Or, at least, I hope it isn't.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It's because of the way atheists are treated as a whole. Individual atheists in a number of countries (not the UK, thank goodness) with derision and contempt, and are routinely discriminated against. Therefore if they felt they were not alone, they might stand up to this, and it might show those doing the opression that they aren't able to do what they like.

 

[Meadmaker]

Which it isn't. Or, at least, I hope it isn't.

Bad luck, then. I'm afraid it is. Or at least, it can be.

In "The Life of Brian", Brian exhorts the crowd to be individuals and they respond, in unison, "We are all individuals." I see some of that going on with the recent surge in atheism.

I really liked your characterization of the phenomenon as "turning an opinion into a club." I think it's deep within human nature. People with an opinion seek out others with similar opinions, and inevitably once they get together, they end up attacking the people who do not have that opinion, sometimes verbally, sometimes physically. Atheists have not been immune from this phenomenon.

Still, the idea of a branded clothing line for atheists strikes me as really distasteful. I'm not religious, but I think religion has both good and bad effects. Crass commercialism, on the other hand, is without redeeming qualities.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Still, the idea of a branded clothing line for atheists strikes me as really distasteful. I'm not religious, but I think religion has both good and bad effects. Crass commercialism, on the other hand, is without redeeming qualities.

I know what you mean....

 

[CFLarsen]

Imagine you were at a wedding and the vicar solemnly asked "If anyone here has any objections... let them speak now or forever hold their peace.", would you raise your hand and shout "I don't!"?

Why would you?

I don't see either Dawkins or Randi advocating this.

 

[tmackean]

Claus,

The example was intended metaphorically. I was attempting (poorly) to illustrate the adsurdity of organising people who aren't something.

For instance, I don't collect stamps. I've got nothing against stamp collectors, but it's just not for me. I guess that makes me a proud aphilatelist.

Should I get some T-shirts printed?

 

[Mister Earl]

Meh. Too often I hear "Atheism is a matter of faith / is a religion itself". There's always someone trying to classify atheism one way or another. Atheism is just atheism. There's no ulterior motive or hidden agenda. As an atheist, I don't believe there is a god. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Darat]

I don't think it is a movement at all however saying that I can see some people would think that the humanists and "evangelizing" by the likes of the Brights is a movement but that is not the same as atheists being a movement.

With regards to the wider point of the "no-stamp collectors"; you've hit on one of the areas where the analogy breaks down. Consider however if the "Stamp Collectors" were a majority in society and suddenly said that unless you were also a "Stamp Collector" you couldn't use stamps or they would restrict your access to stamps; that is more akin to what many atheists in countries like the USA report it is like being an atheist in such a country. (As evidence to support this look at the number of people that said they wouldn't vote for a atheist politician in the USA.)

 

[Menalitus]

I feel that it is important to try to spread my atheistic view and not hide it away as if ashamed.

Religion and Woo in general should be campaigned against. Personally I don't care if it is done under the banner of atheism or some other collective title, the name is irrelevant. The point is that I am increasingly of the opinion that unless we push critical thought forward in society and attempt to "educate" people we will have only ourselves to blame if the herd continues to think as if their mind is wearing blinkers.

Show some backbone everyone and stand up for your beliefs (or lack of them)!

 

[tmackean]

Darat,

My classification as Brights as a 'movement' may be in error. The modicum of research that I did whilst writing the original post led me to this site:

http://www.the-brights.net/

...which clearly identifies it as such. However, I have no knowledge as to whether this site is affiliated with the JREF or Randi. It does suggest, however, that some people certainly do see it this way.

 

[Darat]

Oh I agree with you that the "Brights" are a movement in the usual sense of the word but I think it is wrong to characterize that as the "atheist movement".

 

[andyandy]

It is an interesting question - to which the simple answer should be no. As the analogy has already been made with stamp collecting, atheism is not a positive ideology in itself just the rejection of someone else's ideology. I should not consider myself in any movement of people who don't believe in the Christian god (say) any more than I should consider myself in a movement of people who don't believe that the Earth is carried on the back of four elephants standing on a turtle.

However, that being the simple answer it doesn't really do justice to the question.
human nature is such that we like to create in groups and out groups, where we can divide people into those whom we share an affinity with and into those whom we do not. It makes us feel like we belong and reinforces a positive belief in ourselves..... so it's only natural that we seek out people who share the same ideas as our own. This natural tendency is then greatly enhanced through concepts of victimology where the in group regard itself in the minority or indeed discriminated against. If you add to this the belief that the outgroup is itself wrong, bad or even dangerous in its beliefs and attitudes, then you have the perfect recipe for an in group movement..... regardless of the fact that the in group may simply be united in its rejection of the outgroup - in this context one could indeed see atheism as a movement.

This is all well and good - and a sense of atheism as "movement" is something which has been harnessed to a great extent by writers like Dawkins. This may indeed have some positive consequences in raising the profile of atheist arguments, but as a downside it does play into the hands of those who wish to portray atheism as an ideology in its own right. The descriptions of people as "fundamentalist atheists" stem from this confusion between atheism as rejection of an ideology and atheism as a movement. That is the unfortunate downside of creating an atheist movement, as it presents the opportunity to recast the debate as a clash of two different ideologies rather than just the rejection or acceptance of a single one.

 

[Menalitus]

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

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

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Whether or not it's a movement, it's not my movement. I feel no more solidarity with other atheists than I do with other people who don't eat asparagus.

 

[Menalitus]

Whether or not it's a movement, it's not my movement. I feel no more solidarity with other atheists than I do with other people who don't eat asparagus.

But surely if someone or a group of people were, without any evidence at all and simply based on some required leap of faith insisting that asparagus did not in fact exist you would dissagree and presumably you would also identify to some degree with others who could see the "truth"?

 

[Darat]

How many times does this strawman have to be set on fire and burnt to a cinder?

Just because you are an atheist does not mean you don't eat asparagus!

Why you keep repeating this Marquis is beyond me, you are obviously just trying to tar atheists with the stigma that also attaches to non-asparagus eaters.

 

[andyandy]

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

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

But this is precisely the attitude that causes such division. What is my "responsibility" with regards to being an atheist? Am I any more responsible for an action as a result of not believing in a specific god (that you have to define) than I am for an action as a result of not believing that Pongo the great orangutan god of the all over Bodywax limbo dances under my washing line at weekends? Since when does a rejection of an ideology require an ideological imposition of action?

ook

 

[Menalitus]

All very slippery mister ape, however looking for cracks to expand into reasons for not accepting some degree of categorisation does not really serve a purpose. You know exactly what I mean when I say "belive that no god exists" there is no need to define all of the possible permutations of that Gods abilties or noodly appendages. Yes you can insist that I define each type but why?

The reality is that if you are an atheist you by definition think that the religious are wrong, this in turn means that while you may not want to be you are to some extent allied to other atheists.

Here is a question for you, if you went up the pub and there were two groups who you got along with equally well, one a group of atheists and one of God botherers, which would you choose to hang out with and why?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

The example was intended metaphorically. I was attempting (poorly) to illustrate the adsurdity of organising people who aren't something.

For instance, I don't collect stamps. I've got nothing against stamp collectors, but it's just not for me. I guess that makes me a proud aphilatelist.

Should I get some T-shirts printed?

I don't think it is absurd to organise people who are atheists. There are many atheists who need a community of some sorts, e.g. to help them fight back whenever they are attacked.

In the wedding example you gave, what's it to atheists if someone get married in a particular religious setting of their own choice?

If atheists don't want religious people to interfere with their life, why should they interfere with theirs?

If we don't want Fred Phelps and his family to mock dead soldiers' funerals, don't mock religious people either, whenever they do whatever they do when they do something religious.

ETA: Not that we shouldn't express our concern and criticism - just choose the right moment to do it.

 

[Egg]

Good post, pmckean!

I agree that in of itself, atheism shouldn't constitute a movement. I can understand how in the case of a minority it might be something people group together to protest about if society/legislation is giving them a raw deal on the basis of that lack of belief, especially in the USA where such a lack of belief should be protected by the constitution.

I also agree that there does appear to be a movement, encouraged by the likes of Dawkins and others. I think such a movement can lead to the kind of confusion highlighted by Mister Earl, where others come to regard Atheism (with a capital A) as almost a religion in itself (I think the "faith" notion is usually caused by different understandings of the definition being used).

There's a fair bit of talk about "us" and "them" (even on these forums) and the drawing of lines in the sand (which often even excludes the atheists who don't disbelieve in the right way). I'm not sure it's so much of an atheist movement as an anti-theist movement, with talk of Atheists having higher consciousnesses, being referred to as "Brights" and a general spreading of the ideas that religion is socially harmful, anti-science, child abuse and the cause of most wars.

I can't help feeling that such a movement may end up being guilty of the same kind of acts of tribal mentality that they accuse religion of being responsible for.