Atheist Tactics Debate

What on earth does atheism involve beyond disbelief in gods? What else do atheists who are Objectivists, Humanists, Raelians, Buddhists, Jews, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, monarchists, etc all have in common? Nothing – they all disbelieve in gods, but are united by nothing more. Indeed, they may disagree on everything else. Atheism isn’t a philosophy, religion, belief system, worldview, ideology, or anything similar.

Now, if you wish to argue that it’s important to promote more than just disbelief in gods, then I’m with you there. I have long agreed with George Smith that there is no value in mere atheism, but only in an atheism which proceeds from a “habit of reasonableness.” At the very minimum, atheists should be promoting skepticism, naturalism, science, and critical thinking – not atheism itself. There is nothing to atheism to promote – only the reasonable means by which one (hopefully) arrives at atheism. There’s a world of difference between a person who is an atheist for skeptical, naturalistic reasons and one who is an atheist simply because that’s what they learned.

Also, if you wish to argue that atheists should go even further and promote atheistic belief systems – be it Objectivism, Humanism, or whatever – then I’m with you there as well (even if I disagree with the belief system in question). Where you completely lose me is if you launch into any efforts to transform mere atheism into whatever atheistic belief system you think is best. Far too often I’ve seen people go from “I’m an atheist who believes A, B, C and values X, Y, Z” to “Therefore, atheism means believing A, B, C and valuing X, Y, Z.” I don’t care how good A, B, C and X, Y, Z are, they aren’t atheism and not all atheists will subscribe to them.

Bravo Austin! I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

will you be posting the debate on here so we can download and/or hear it if we miss it? I hope so!

I would argue that atheism alone won’t do it for most people, but we need to explain the positive aspects of not believing in God/superstition. Hope that makes sense.

It does, and I don’t disagree, but it’s important to be careful in order to avoid the trap of treating atheism as more than it really is.

For example, you say that we need to explain the “positive aspects of not believing in God/superstition,” but again there’s nothing positive about disbelief in gods if you are otherwise pretty gullible and irrational. I’ve said it before and it bears repeating here: if stranded on an island, I’d rather be stuck with a generally skeptical and critical theist than a gullible atheist. Why? I have a lot more in common with the former and can have a more productive, beneficial relationship with them than with the latter. Merely disbelieving in gods, or even superstition generally, doesn’t automatically tell me that this person has a leg up on others.

So I would rephrase the above to: we need to explain to people the positive aspects of a generally skeptical/critical perspective on gods/religion and a naturalistic/scientific approach to the world around us. When a person has this, it isn’t guaranteed that they will also be atheists, but I think it is more likely — and, if they aren’t, they should be a skeptical sort of theist who’s a lot easier to get along with and with whom we’ll have a lot of common ground.

To put it another way: it’s not your position that matters as much as your methodology. Your position, atheist or theist, isn’t as important as the methodology you use to arrive at it, evaluate it, and support it. The atheist position isn’t intrinsically superior and the theist position isn’t intrinsically inferior – it just tends to appear that way because of the poor methodology which is often used to defend theism. This, however, too often leads atheists to conclude that the positions are what matter most.

I would thus revisit your second point above and say: should we atheists present more than just disbelief in gods and instead argue for the importance of skepticism, critical thinking, naturalism, and science? Should we promote a methodology of skepticism and scientific naturalism? I say yes.