I often cross swords with James on the old issue of militant atheism. I am what is generally referred to a a soft atheist. That is, I don’t believe, but really don’t care over much what others believe. If you want to argue the toss, then fine, I’ll state a case and I’ll pull apart your logical fallacies and circular arguments, but otherwise – and especially out in the real world – I leave others alone to practice or not whatever they believe. Indeed, I will leap to their defence if their right to practice is under threat (freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and so on).
Apparently, this makes me an asshole atheist (yeah, those Yanks still can’t spell arse. An ass is an animal).
Now you see, that’s just stupid. There are lots of atheists who take this blinkered stance that atheism is just one specific idea about rejecting god-belief, and it has absolutely no philosophical foundation and should have no political or social consequences. And that’s nonsense. This commenter is deluding himself as thoroughly as any god-walloper.
Cockwaffle on stilts. I have no time for progressive politics. Indeed, whenever I hear the term, my hackles rise. Atheism is not about progressivism. It is a lack of belief in gods. It is nothing more and nothing less. So, yeah, some atheists are progressives and some are not. The only thing they have in common is that lack of belief. There is no political or philosophical position – other than; “I don’t believe in gods”. Nor are there any social or political consequences from not believing on gods. It stands alone. And, frankly, trying to organise such a disparate group of people – not least because they aren’t a group, sharing only their lack of belief in gods – is like herding cats and believe me, I’ve tried that one. Those of us who recognise that atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods are correct, because that is precisely what it is.
Frankly, I don’t much like feminism when it means one sex is treated more favourably than the other, and I have no particular desire to fight racism although I reject both. I have only one interest and that is liberty – I treat each as I find them and expect the same in reciprocation. The dogmas of the progressive movement are a scourge on our society, creating the very divisiveness they claim to want to eradicate.
So, no, I have no interest in Atheism+ or any other silly clubs or labels. Best left that side of the pond, frankly.
However, as the Groan points out, it is all getting rather silly with some fine name calling if people dissent.
It really isn’t a movement about exclusion, but about recognizing the impact of the real nature of the universe on human affairs.
And if you don’t agree with any of that — and this is the only ‘divisive’ part — then you’re an asshole. I suggest you form your own label, “Asshole Atheists” and own it, proudly. I promise not to resent it or cry about joining it.
Given that the argument appears to revolve around an ad hominem, then that’s fine. Why would I want to be a part of this anyway? Not least because I have no desire to be an activist wearing my lack of belief on my sleeve anyway. It is what it is – or isn’t, if you like. And, it’s arsehole if you please…
Still, the general silliness and earnestness with which they view themselves raised a smile. Nice to see they take themselves seriously even if no one else does.
Apathist and proud, or would be proud if I thought it mattered. There might or might not be a God or gods. I don’t care.
Well, quite.
Though I’m definitely an atheist, the legacy of a Catholic education was decades of looking furtively over my shoulder whenever I said so.
I agree with you about herding cats – though I think the ‘group’ idea springs from the same stable as the tendency to define as a ‘community’ any collection of people sharing certain attributes, something that says more about the insecurities of those using the term and their reluctance to stand alone.
I can’t help feeling that anyone who feels a need to quantify an absence of belief is, deep-down, regretting not having ‘kept a-hold of Nurse/ For fear of meeting something worse’.
I’m not an atheist but I don’t have an issue with atheism. As regards politics I’ve found atheism to be found across the political spectrum. It’s not a specific left wing / progressive thing, atheism is just another human philosophy.
I think with the way the Left has fawned over Islam and especially the aggressive sort, they are the last people who should lecture anyone else on how to believe or not believe. You are correct, atheism is not believing in the existence of any gods.
I was an atheist until I read the following quote from Isaac Asimov:
“I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.”
It made me realize getting into any sort of debate about the existence of god was the same as debating the existence of Santa.
Andrew
Fence-sitter.
I’m a definite Atheist, in that there is no evidence, anywhere at all, between photons & neutrinoes, all the way up to the distant supergalaxy clusters for BSF (BigSkyFairy).
IF any evidence turns up, then I’ll look at it.
THAT is a rationalist position.
However, I’ve looked at “atheism+” & have decided I’ll stick with my membership of the National Secular Society.
That said, I can see why they are doing it, in the USSA, given the levels of religious bigotry and cruelty in that declining and reactionary country.
One only has to look at the amoiunt of support that Hick Sanatorium got this year to be scared …
“The Handmaid’s Tale” was meant to be a warning, not a road-map, idiots!
@Greg.
Definitely not a fence sitter, I meant that the idea that there is a god is so completely ludicrous it’s on the same level as believing in Santa.
And as I wouldn’t waste my time debating the existence of Santa – surely even taking an opposite position helps legitimize insane beliefs – I certainly won’t about the sky fairy.
Never understood the militant atheism thing. Wouldn’t forcing atheism on people be akin to the Spanish Inquisition – torturing those who don’t believe what you do?
Quite so, Henry.
I’ve never quite understood the evangelical zeal exhibited by Richard Dawkins and others of his ilk. Personally, I’m still of the agnostic-ish persuasion, tending towards believer-but-not-quite-sure.
However, I don’t expect others to share my beliefs, and neither do I condemn others for either following OR refuting any faith. With the possible exception of a faith which adorns women in shrouds, treats them as mere possessions and kills those who aren’t unquestioning adherents.
Ted Treen & Henry Crun
You have obviously NEVER READ ANYTHING by R Dawkins.
I strongly suggest that you do so.
“Militant” in the sense that he very politely points out that BSF is a figment.
As opposed to militant christians & muslims, going arouind murdering people.
I call stupid & ignorant on both of you.
You’re right, I haven’t read anything written by Dawkins and nor to I intend to. He comes across as a pompous self-righteous arse.
Although, I didn’t make any reference to Dawkins in my comment, I fail to see the relevance of yours.
I am an atheist but also a secularist. Secularism often seems to be misunderstood by religious people as being some kind of total ban on religion or some kind of religion free society. What it really means is that the government should be neutral with regard to religious matters, no-one should be privilaged or discriminated against due to their religion or lack of it.
@Henry Crun
Who ever said anything about forcing atheism on anyone? “Militant” atheists talk and write. Because we tend to have the facts on our side regarding the absurdity of religions and the complete lack of credible evidence for any of their gods, we hope that other people will become atheists of their own accord. The reason for wanting to do this is simply because religion does enormous harm.
If people want to believe in a religion and do no harm, I’m ok with that. If people want to disbelieve and do no harm, and also don’t want to get involved in the argument, I’m fine with that too.
Awww cummon! You’re not telling me Santa doesn’t exist? Who was that bloke in the funny red suit and whiskers who smelled of Whiskey and Mintos whose knee I sat on in Howell’s Grotto all those years ago then? 🙁
Like the rest here, I am just a plain Atheist. Nothing militant about me at all. If people want to believe in whatever they wish, fine by me, as long they are not trying to force me to believe whatever too.
My atheism does colour and shape my life though. In the respect that I believe I have just the one life and do my uttermost to live it to the full, to drink in all its experiences and pleasures, and yes, all its pain and sorrows too.
If on the day I finally snuff it, I wake up outside the Pearly Gates, or even the 7th ring of Hell, I will be well chuffed. Because I lived my life as well as I am able, expecting nothing more beyond that at all.
Greta Christina thinks atheists should, because of their atheism, embrace social justice. It seems not to occur to her that the idea of ‘social justice’ is as impossible to pin down as the concept of God, she is doing what theists always accuse atheists of doing and turning her non belief into a system of belief. That’s not the fault of atheism it’s because she’s a progressive and progressives are probably now one of the biggest set of believers in unverifiable propositions on the planet.
Shan’t bite. Your gaff here. 🙂