Atheists, Unite?
Does this seem weird to you?
…Sunday morning I joined 2500 other atheists streaming into the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre for The Rise of Atheism: the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.
The rise and rise of atheism | Rachel Holkner | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.
First of all, guys: next year can we pick a less sinister name for the convention? The Rise of Atheism sounds like the subtitle in a science fiction trilogy, like maybe the title should be No Help From Above, and I fear it neatly feeds the input slots of the conspiracy theory processors whirring across the anti-atheist basements of America. How about I Got 99 Problems (But God Ain’t One)?
The real notion I snagged on here is that atheists want to organize. My experience of nonbelief is that it not only comes with a built-in hole in the place of anything to rally around, but that it also makes me resistant to joining ideological groups.
Last week I gave an interview on a Christian talk show, and my interlocutor asked, “When I say you’re a SECular JEW from BERKeley, CaliFORnia, people pretty much know where you’re coming from, don’t they?” And I said I wasn’t so sure, because labels aren’t particularly helpful in defining someone who doesn’t subscribe to any organization. I resist the idea of letting an institution present the tenets of my morality.
But when I give the atheist convention a chance, I realize we do have some things to discuss. Do we share a gravitational center of morality if it isn’t god? How about the corrective powers of conscience and man’s duty to man? How do we interact with believers?
I was disappointed to read that “many participants came looking for techniques to discuss atheism with religious family, friends and door-knockers,” since the bossiness of evangelism to me only seems redeemable by the sincere (if misguided) belief you’re rescuing someone from eternal suffering.
And I have two other concerns about this atheist convention. The first, demonstrated here:
However, when a Christian stood up to ask a question of [evolutionary biologist Richard] Dawkins, there was a vibe not only of hostility, but impatience and frustration – even a sense of violation, as no one expected anyone with honest-to-god beliefs to pay the not-inconsiderate ticket price to learn about atheism.
The rise and rise of atheism | Rachel Holkner | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.
Friends, that’s the same fearful insularity poisoning many churches. Atheists should welcome questions and challenges from believers, shouldn’t we? Why shy away from a little repartee?
This leads me to the second thing troubling me, something I smashed headlong into last week when a Q&A I did with Benyamin Cohen, author of My Jesus Year, went up at The Huffington Post, and spurred a flurry of responses, some of which suggested I wasn’t really an atheist if I wished to have the comforts of religion, or if I had nice things to say about Christians.
It’s an odd position to put me in. How do you prove you don’t believe in God? Because I don’t. I never have (in spite of some very public efforts to force myself), and although I also don’t believe in psychic powers, I doubt I ever will.
And so here’s what I worry about: that anybody has the right to accuse anyone else of not being a true nonbeliever. How silly is that? That this convention could be part of a gathering movement toward the exclusionary attitude that if you don’t not-believe the way they not-believe, you’re actually not a nonbeliever.
Whoa, double negatives. Sorry.
In other words, that variety within the kingdom of nonbelief is unwelcome. Isn’t that the same exclusionary arrogance that rankles many atheists about religion?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Yes. It is a pretty odd title for a convention. Not that everyone has to live and die on pop culture but the title of the recent GI Joe movie was “The Rise of Cobra,” so something that similar seems very odd. Maybe they wanted to sound tough and a little scary. In the end you’re point about exclusion hits home. As you’ve touched on in the past a lot of people are very tightly barricaded in their open mindedness. I experienced a lot of that growing up in BERkeley.
Why can’t the commitment to only believing things on the basis of good evidence be something to rally around?
I think what rankles most atheists about religion is that religion leverages a considerable degree of behavioral compliance predicated on the basis of things that aren’t just false, they’re completely absurd.
When people believe that global warming is a danger, it’s not absurd for them to try to convince people of that. When people believe that religion is a danger, suddenly it’s “evangelism” to try to convince someone?
The problem with religion isn’t that the religious try to talk people over to their position. That’s something that everybody has the right to do, always. The problem with religion is that it’s wrong.
Because there’s substantial disagreement over the definition of “good evidence”, I suppose. You, presumably, decided religion is wrong based on “good evidence”, but by what standard did you evaluate it as “good”?
In response to another comment. See in context »I think I agree with you completely. I am an atheist, (not Jewish)and I have been one for more than 50 years. But that only declares a believe that a god doesn’t exist, to the best of MY knowledge. And, yes, there are atheists in foxholes! I say to those at the convention, pace non-believers, never proselytze, for how can you rationally preach about a negative. Logically and philosophically, it is the believers’ responsibility to prove his/her claim.
I wish this site included a spell-checker!
I don’t understand your comment, I guess. “It is the believers responsibility to prove their claims, and they have not done so” is exactly the message that these atheists want to get out.
And why shouldn’t they? How is it fair that atheism should be the only thing that it’s somehow inappropriate to try to convince people about?
In response to another comment. See in context »Justin, in my view, I don’t think trying to persuade Christians that there is no god is good judgment, unless, of course, they ask for your opinion. Christianity is a way of life, while atheism is simply a disbief, not a philosophy. While Christians have a set of moral standards, with which I mostly agree, atheism has no moral set of standards. Moreover, any rational person must conclude that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient ghost is factual, is to be pitied, not counseled. Your comportment should be the only example required to proive your point. Trying to prove the non-existence of a god is reducio ad absurdem–attempting to reduce someone to the absurd who is already there!
In response to another comment. See in context »Funny, I don’t feel absurd. And I certainly don’t want your pity. I think it’s a shame that people feel a need to be so polarizing. My pity is for anyone so sure of their own position that they could act so dismissively towards people with differing world views.
In response to another comment. See in context »If you have a new argument for the existence of a god, I am all ears. But if you intend to present me with the same old bromides, then I choose to beg off.
In response to another comment. See in context »By asserting that atheism has no moral standards, doesn’t that imply a philosophy of “anything goes”?
In response to another comment. See in context »That may be what you infer–and you are correct! Atheism does not include any moral standards. One has to develop a set of values and standards aside from the observation and conclusion that no god exists, including the Christian God. Just because you may believe that the sun will rise again in the morning doesn’t imply that you are a moral person. Nor does a disbelief in communism make you a moral person. You could be a monarchist!
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t have any arguments new or old. I don’t see why I’d need them. I have no compulsion to convince you. I believe, you don’t. I’m perfectly happy leaving it at that. My whole position is that the argument itself is useless. I won’t try to convince you, or pity you, or worry about your soul, and you can do the same for me.
Fair enough?
In response to another comment. See in context »Both sides are equally indefensible. Why should anyone need to convince anyone else about any of this? It’s not logically anyone’s responsibility to prove their side since neither side can be proven.
There are places where trying to evangelize is considered inapproriate. For example, Berkeley.
In response to another comment. See in context »You’re so wrong. Haven’t you ever read philosophy. It is the evidence of the senses that provide us with the tools of knowledge. No one can prove non-existence. If nothing exists, then there is no one to prove it. No one can prove the non-existence of a god. But anyone who purports that something exists (god), they must be able to prove it by using the evidence of the senses. Since a god is imperceptible, then I have every right to disbelieve while the believer is logically unable to prove anything.
In response to another comment. See in context »It is not vitriol that read here, it is reason.
But we have all sorts of wonderful words in the world to describe things that can’t be proven “using the evidence of the senses.” (Which is a phrase I’ll have to look as you’re right, I haven’t read much philosophy.)
I’ll fall back on the old saying, “That’s what faith is.” The great thing is you don’t have to care what I believe. Your lack of belief certainly doesn’t bother me.
As to vitriol vs. reason, painting believers as people who are in need of pity and who are absurd is not reasonable, it’s kinda mean and closed minded.
In response to another comment. See in context »There are two problems with this line of reasoning:
1) If “evidence of the senses” is all that is required, why discount the testimony of people who claim to have experienced God with their senses? Shouldn’t their belief in what they experienced be a sufficient proof?
2) What evidence do you have that God is imperceptible?
In response to another comment. See in context »“The problem with religion isn’t that the religious try to talk people over to their position. That’s something that everybody has the right to do, always. The problem with religion is that it’s wrong.”
Prove it. Seriously. Prove it. As a “believer” I can’t prove the existence of God and I wouldn’t try. But you can’t prove the non-existence of God any more than Gina can prove her non-belief. The vitriol in your comment shows a closed mind equal to any right wing Christian. Intolerance is still intolerance. You’re no better than the people you’re railing against.
I’ll also encourage us to avoid using “religion” as a blanket designation. There are rational thinking lefty believers out there. Just because wackos have very publicly and infamously misused religous zeal doesn’t mean there’s anything inherently wrong with religion.
What “vitriol” could you possibly be talking about? Frankly, the immediate defensiveness of the religious literally any time it’s even hinted that they should supply some evidence for their contentions grows tiresome.
As a “believer” I can’t prove the existence of God and I wouldn’t try. But you can’t prove the non-existence of God
I don’t have to prove the non-existence of God. It’s incumbent on God’s believers to defend that position. But what I can do is show that God as believed in is both logically inconsistent and inconsistent with the universe as we observe it. This is not the universe in which the God of the Christian Bible (nor of any other religious tradition) exists.
Just because wackos have very publicly and infamously misused religous zeal doesn’t mean there’s anything inherently wrong with religion.
It really doesn’t have anything to do with “wackos.” Moderate religious belief isn’t any better than fundamentalism.
In response to another comment. See in context »Why are you a hater? It’ not incumbent on me to prove anything because I don’t care if you believe or not. I don’t have to defend anything. I’m not defensive, if you read my comment I said I have no proof. But neither do you.
What I do find interesting in this conversation is I’m not trying to convince anyone to change their mind and I’m not saying they’re wrong. Meanwhile so called open minded free thinking people are so angry and attacking.
It’s kinda like same sex marriage, what I believe doesn’t have any effect on you Why do you care?
In response to another comment. See in context »Why are you a hater?
Who’s a hater? Why do you think it’s “hateful” to be asked for evidence for your beliefs, especially if you expect me to respect them or live by them?
But neither do you.
I never said I did. But I do have a sufficient weight of evidence, more than sufficient to convince any reasonable person, that none of the gods proposed by the world’s religions exist.
It’s kinda like same sex marriage, what I believe doesn’t have any effect on you Why do you care?
Because it does have an effect on me. It has a substantial effect on me. Every part of my life is affected by someone else’s faith, and the cultural pass given to those who believe absurdities but call it “religion.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Why do I need to provide evidence? I don’t care what you think. If you don’t believe that’s fine with me. How does my belief affect you? I don’t expect you to live by what I believe, I expect you to live as you believe. I don’t see an intersection. You be you. I’ll be me. We’ll both be happy.
As for respect, well, that’s clearly beyond you in regard to this topic. You have a clear disdain for believers. I know I won’t change your mind no matter what I say.
As for evidence, again, you’re ignoring the nature of faith. You don’t have evidence that God doesn’t exist. All you have is a lack of evidence that God does exist. I have no evidence that God does exist. Who cares?
I don’t what your life is like but the fact that people believe in God doesn’t affect you. What some people do in the name of God is horrifying. But the belief itself isn’t what’s to blame. I have to deal with all kinds of people and their crazy beliefs everyday. The pass we give to Trekkies, and Tea Baggers, and pundits, and a host of others is just as annoying. But I don’t go out trying to tell people that cosplay is stupid. I just don’t go to cosplay conventions.
In response to another comment. See in context »Vitriol:
“The problem with religion isn’t that the religious try to talk people over to their position. That’s something that everybody has the right to do, always. The problem with religion is that it’s wrong.”
“Moreover, any rational person must conclude that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient ghost is factual, is to be pitied, not counseled.”
“Trying to prove the non-existence of a god is reducio ad absurdem–attempting to reduce someone to the absurd who is already there!”
In response to another comment. See in context »The discussion that begins with the questions “Can you prove the existence of God?” and “You can you prove that s/he doesn’t exist?” will inevitably go NOWHERE. These questions need to be excised from any rational discussion of religion. I’ve met plenty of intelligent, thoughtful, caring religious people, and I’m related to a few religious whack jobs. Oh well.
I used to be a little more up on scripture and found Christians more willing to debate this. One lengthy discussion ended with a man telling me that I was “confusing the issue with facts,” so I knew there was no sense in getting into it with him again. If facts (that he AGREES are facts; we were discussing the mere existence of the big 3 religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) couldn’t get him to see things from another perspective, then really, what would? An epiphany of sorts, perhaps.
It takes special diplomatic talent to reach fundamentalists, but most religious folks will engage in a discussion if you can meet them on common ground and get them to scrutinize their faith. Then again – those types of faithful folks aren’t trying to (if I may borrow a phrase) ram their agendas down our throats.
In response to another comment. See in context »In my experience, whenever someone (believer or nonbeliever) asserts they can “prove” something concerning the existence of God, the first task is to get them to define what evidence is acceptable and what constitutes “proof”.
I am a believer, and probably someone you would characterize as a “fundamentalist”, but I don’t think one can prove whether or not God exists in a scientific or mathematical sense. Since the God in whom I believe is not of the natural world, any system that is designed to test and describe the natural world and exclude any supernatural explanation–in a word: “science”–is a self-limiting system and inherently problematic.
In the end, individuals are responsibile to themselves to compare claims, arguments, evidence and experience, and identify their own limitations, prejudices and biases, and decide which worldview they believe is the best fit for the facts and arguments.
My personal belief is there is an abundance of evidence and arguments from which to take a logical position and the reason people take so many different positions is they’re trying to describe the world they want to live in rather than the world they’ve got.
In response to another comment. See in context »Again, whatever “vitriol” is being suggested is in the first statement is not apparent to me in the least.
“Religion is wrong.” Can someone explain to me how that statement is “vitriolic”?
In response to another comment. See in context »So at this point it seems like you’re either purposely ignoring my responses or you’re baiting me. Are you a troll?
In case you’re not I’ll repost:
Vitriol:
“The problem with religion isn’t that the religious try to talk people over to their position. That’s something that everybody has the right to do, always. The problem with religion is that it’s wrong.”
“Moreover, any rational person must conclude that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient ghost is factual, is to be pitied, not counseled.”
“Trying to prove the non-existence of a god is reducio ad absurdem–attempting to reduce someone to the absurd who is already there!”
In response to another comment. See in context »I saw your post the first time, but you’ve still not answered my question.
What am I supposed to perceive as “vitriol” in this statement? You keep repeating it like it’s self-evident. I wrote the statement, so let me assure you that it is not.
As for “vitriol” and “hatred” – why doesn’t that include your statement, below, that the Pope – spiritual leader for the world’s millions of Catholics – is a “whacko”? That Catholics are “morons”?
From exactly what basis do you pretend to accuse me of being a hateful bigot – which I am not – at the same time that you’re saying these incredibly hateful things?
In response to another comment. See in context »“It really doesn’t have anything to do with “wackos.” Moderate religious belief isn’t any better than fundamentalism.”
Sure it is. Moderates don’t go out trying to change others. We don’t lead movements to rob other people of basic rights. We don’t hate.
Based on some of the comments here I’m beginning to think that atheists may be just as dangerous as evangelicals. Y’all seem kinda hateful.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sure it is. Moderates don’t go out trying to change others.
But that’s exactly what they do. Frequently! Here you are, in fact, trying to change my mind.
Of course the other major danger of religious moderatism is the cover it gives to fundamentalism. A religious moderate is someone whose faith can be manipulated by his co-religionists, much as how the Catholic Pope was able to secure the silence of literally thousands of priests in regards to institutionalized sex abuse. For that matter, that same shared faith has compelled civil authorities to turn a blind eye and not pursue criminal prosecutions.
Frequently, a religious moderate is just someone who hasn’t read his Bible; religious moderation is nothing more than the breeding ground for fundamentalism.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah. Okaaaaay. This is the kind of dangerous hatred that people worry about from fundamentalists. Blanket statements are scary. It’s this kind of statement that leads to mass murder and war. “All ____ are bad even the ones who don’t seem bad.” Very reminiscent of the “rationale” to go to war in Afganistan. After all, little Islamic children are just tomorrow’s terrorists right?
As for changing your mind I think I was pretty clear the many times I said some version of “I don’t care what you think.” but I’ll try to clarify. I don’t care if you believe in God or not. It doesn’t bother me. What I would encourage you to think about is being a bigot. Being demeaning and condescending to people just because they believe different than you is a bad thing. Accusing them of potential crimes is worse. You’re a fundamentalist too. You’re just as bad as any right wing evangelist.
But hey, I’ll save you seat in the middle just in case you ever ant to drop by.
In response to another comment. See in context »As for the Pope etc. That doesn’t have to do with moderates, it has to do with morons. I think the Pope falls into the “whacko” category I mentioned earlier.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bertissimo, I’d like you to use a lot less hateful rhetoric, please. All I’ve done is made a plain statement in English that you, incomprehensibly, found “vitriolic”. I’ve asked you to explain how that could possibly be.
Your response has been to call me names. Can you explain this behavior? Can you explain why a simple request for good evidence is somehow “condescending and demeaning”?
In response to another comment. See in context »@palavering:
You lost me. I don’t see how this:
One has to develop a set of values and standards aside from the observation and conclusion that no god exists, including the Christian God.
is justified by this:
Just because you may believe that the sun will rise again in the morning doesn’t imply that you are a moral person. Nor does a disbelief in communism make you a moral person. You could be a monarchist!
Could you clarify?
I am done with this subject.
In response to another comment. See in context »@Gina:
Good point about the tone of the conference. I think the “new atheists” do themselves no favors with their shrill and intolerant approach. Of course, we’ve completely lost our sense of what “tolerance” actually means these days.
My favorite quote in Ms. Holkner’s piece was this:
Part of the challenge of atheism is extending our visibility and educating theists on rational thought.
Yes, because we all know that people like Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal and Anthony Flew needed to be educated on how to think rationally.
Nothing unites a group like a common enemy. The believer who stood up was a representative of the common enemy. Of course they felt violated. If they were rational they would have welcomed the question as a valid test of what was otherwise a scripted performance.
D J Wray
Packaged Evolution: The Intelligent Universe
http://www.atotalawareness.com/documents/packagedevolution.pps
Atheism does not equate to religion, whether or not someone is snooty, disdainful, or exclusive about it. Even hateful.
Atheism will never be the opiate of the masses. It just doesn’t work that way.
Atheism does not use itself as an excuse to control the public and private behavior of others, to justify crime and oppression; as far as I know no-one has ever been killed in the name of un-god. Even granting one, the all-time total would still stand at millions upon millions to one.
Then why is the prominent atheist thinker Michael Schermer writing books about how people are supposed to behave?
In response to another comment. See in context »Atheism is not a moral system, nor does it provide a moral system. Atheists do not get their morals from atheism.
I suspect that most atheists (like most theists) simply follow social mores and use common sense. Some may develop moral systems based on humanism. Some might even borrow morals from one or more religions.
So Michael Schermer is a prominent atheist thinker. He may also be a moral philosopher. That does not mean his moral philosophy is based on atheism. I do not think it would be possible to develop a moral philosophy based solely on a the lack of a single belief.
In response to another comment. See in context »