Atheist Alliance International Convention 2007 (Recap)

I wish atheism was a chick magnet!

Sounds like you had fun there.

Dying with envy over here. When will this happen in Europe? I mean the conference in Iceland last year was fun and all but nothing like this! (Besides, Iceland is really expensive to get to. Mainland convention plx!)

Arrgh. It’s so unfair. ;_;

My problem with “atheist” is that it’s so widely and solidly misunderstood semantically. EVERY fundamentalist I know was taught that atheists believe strongly that there is no god, which makes them arrogant because how can they know? And that they are anti-theist and out to destroy religion.

Society in general finds the word toxic. Atheists in the popular imagination are angry, miserable, bitter. I think we can change that toxicity as more atheists come out of the closet – just as gays have succeeded in great measure by being visible in families and communities.

But I fear that we can explain the difference between strong and weak versions of atheism until we’re blue in the face and the message won’t get out to even a small percentage of the people who need to hear it. And even then, I suspect a portion of them won’t understand the difference.

It’s a dilemma, because agnostic isn’t the right word either. And Bright was ill-conceived (IMO) and seems to be falling out of use. Maybe Sam Harris is right.

I think I agree with Harris. While I use atheist, non-theist and so forth all interchangeably, and probably will continue to, the real fact of the matter is that the result is almost always confusion and a waste of time. While there’s something to be said about roaring THIS. IS. ATHEISM!!!!! and kicking Kirk Cameron down a hole, in the end we really AREN’T a group, we’re an outgroup. Acting like a group, running around under the banner of atheism just flat out confuses the heck out of people. And it means that we have to spend the vast majority of our time and energy just explaining who we are and aren’t, leaving far less time to get at the really important functional and practical issues.

There are already a ton of different labels, many of which are positive assertions. There’s humanist, rationalist, skeptic, secularist, bright, naturalist, materialist, infidel, agnostic, nontheist, freethinker, etc. The thing is, the instant you change the label to something else, you no longer have the same group of people, just an overlapping one. We could change the dominant label, but I think it’s far more important to consider who you’re including or leaving out than it is to consider whether the label is defined by a positive assertion or a negative one.

Seeing the crowd reaction (not everyone was thrilled) to Sam Harris’ suggestion that using the term “atheist” was a mistake. There are no “non-racists,” he said, so why are we defining ourselves by something that should simply be the case? Victory for our side would not result in a world where everyone called themselves an atheist; rather, atheism would just be an obvious afterthought.

I think atheists (or whatever we call ourselves) can benefit from some identity politics right now. The LGBT movement, which is similar in that the people it represents are prone to hiding in the closet, could never have gotten off the ground if it had let “queer” continue to be a derogatory word instead of seizing it and using it positively, even though (or precisely because) it describes such a large, diverse group of people. Until journalists stop adding “self-proclaimed” before “atheist,” we haven’t done enough to disarm and reclaim the word.

Importante convention atea | My.netsons said,

October 1, 2007 at 8:25 am

[…] Un resoconto giornalistico sul sito della ABC, un commento “dall’interno” sul blog Friendly Atheist. […]

Tradusca por favor.

My problem with “atheist” is that it’s so widely and solidly misunderstood semantically.

Yes, Karen, I agree with what you said and I do find it sad, thus why I say non-theist, Humanist, or Freethinker. I think most of the time I use Humanist or Freethinker though. The think is, in this area an atheist has to come out of the closet kicking or they will just get pushed back into the closet if they come out minkly. Thus I try to avoid the word atheist because it is met with so much hatred. Now if I lived else where, I don’t know if I would shy away from it as much. However, I find if I use the word non-theist, I have to explain myself, which I get tired of doing.

The LGBT movement, which is similar in that the people it represents are prone to hiding in the closet, could never have gotten off the ground

This analogy is common, but highly inapt. The fact that gay people are diverse but fit under a common banner is key to having a word. But the fact that atheists are just people who do NOT have a common faith or ideology is precisely the problem with trying to group them in a movement. That is EXACTLY what confuses people, and in some respects, seizing on identity politics only further confuses the issue, playing into how believers characterize us instead of rejecting it!

‘Realist’ is a useful indentifier. It takes in many different kinds of thinkers, and is not threatening–I mean, most people would probably consider themselves realists, in addition to whatever else they think. I’m a plain and simple guy, and ‘realist’ is simple enough for anyone to understand. If they have questions about what that might mean, then I’ve got an opportunity to talk about the specifics.

I was there too – and met the Friendly Atheist – and all the other luminaries. everyone was so accessible and involved in the conference. FA’s description of the conference is very apt.

regarding the term atheism – it perfectly describes my stance on religion. I do not believe in supernatual beings. It does not desribe my philosophy — that is humanism. I think the learning moment with theists is to explain the above, then say something like – “I understand you’re a Christian and believe in a supernatural god. That’s your religion. what’s your philosophy of life?”

I haven’t had a chance to do this yet, but I suspect they will be stumped – having thought frequently about their religion, but possibly never about their philosophy. Maybe they’ll say ,”uma-uma – I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ.” If so, I’d ask them to name some, then point out how these are also humanist values.

Try it and see how it works.

Damn! I wish I could have been there.

I’m not that keen on the word “atheist”, but I think it has to be accepted at least for now. In more philosophical circles I call myself a philosophical naturalist, which goes further than atheism (though there’s some vagueness and disagreement about how far it does go). I doubt that there’s a perfect word.

The best one is probably “sceptic”, except that there’s no agreement on how to spell it. 🙂

From my viewpoint, though, the people to organise are the ones who are sceptical about religion and its claims to authority, even if they are agnostics or deists or pantheists or something. Make the tent as big as possible.

Instead, he argued, we should be saying that we advocate intellectual honesty, reason, and evidence. Who wants to be an enemy of “reason”? This terminology will be much easier to spread than “atheism.”

People who believe in God reject evidence and reason, they use terms like faith (defined by lack of evidence), and non-rational (interchangable with irrational). They very much line themselves up against intellectual honesty, and will come out with the flimsiest evasions when called on it.

This is why I love Richard Dawkins, he fully recognises that Atheist is a label that sounds aggressive, triggers strong responses, and is misunderstood by many. Yet he thinks that’s a very good reason for using the label Atheist, to provoke, rally, and put the point across, “lets stop being so damned respectful”. Also, and probably more importantly, non-Theist just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

Why should we be respectful, because of the moderates, the liberals, the equally likely agnostics, who betray us and themselves at every turn, defending these people? The ones that are bright enough to think religion isn’t for them but arrogant enough to think that other people need a shepherd, need to be sheep. The ones that are all too willing to forgive, even defend, religion’s role in suffering, indoctrination, and wilful ignorance.

An Atheist’s Call to Arms (TED 2002)

Hey, I would have signed your book… I’m not major enough? Sniff.

I had fun and my report to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board readers is here.

It was great to see you!

regarding the term atheism – it perfectly describes my stance on religion. I do not believe in supernatual beings. It does not desribe my philosophy — that is humanism. I think the learning moment with theists is to explain the above, then say something like – “I understand you’re a Christian and believe in a supernatural god. That’s your religion. what’s your philosophy of life?”

I think you have it backwards- Christianity IS their philosophy of life. Theism is their stance on religion. Humanism is both a life stance and a philosophy, just as you said, but for a Christian, Christianity is their life stance and philosophy on life.

You see, religion is a way of life for many people. Nothing else matters beyond that or outside of their religious values. Their religion surrounds their values and morals. Religion decides what they can and cannot do. In some cases, religion tells them what people are acceptable, what they can and cannot learn, and a whole lot more. It controls their thinking, learning… their whole life. There is nothing beyond that for some people.

Great overview, Hemant! Sorry I had to miss it.

When someone says something like “Stalin was an atheist,” I reply “Oh yeah? Every satanist believes in God.”

Think about it.

Think about gay sex with dead men? I try to be open minded but I’ll have to pass on this one. 🙂

Sam Harris makes himself sound like an idiot when he asserts there are no “non-racists”. The term is “anti-racist”, and there are quite a few.

Polly, it was once a political movement. It was called… The Roman Empire. There was a LOT of intellectual loss due to its superstition, dogma, and oppressive/suppressive Theocracy.

I spent my professional career as an analyst for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, which oversees the elementary and secondary schools in the state. I can tell you from personal experience that the effective lifespan of any term for slow learners is about 8-10 years, after which it’s irredeemably a pejorative. Moron, imbecile, idiot, retard, cognitively disabled, special ed, educable, learning disabled, slow learner, and so on — they’ve all had their half-decade or so in the sun before being tainted by association with dumb kids and turning into insults or derogations.

The same would be true of any term we came up with as a potential replacement for “atheist”. Let’s not even bother. Let’s follow the lead of the blacks and the queers and develop pride in who we are, regardless of the label, and after awhile the label will lose its stigma right along with the good, admirable people who proudly proclaim it as their own.

Religiious people too long fighting against science, too long time killing innocent people, too long time abusing children. Its time to UNITED and fight back.
K. Sabinicius

ahhh I am so jealous of you!!!!! I watched the whole thing on Google RDF posted the whole thing! I wish I had been there. Imagine being in the same room as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Daniel Dennet all at the same time!!!!!!!

Man you are so lucky. I wish I lived in USA and meet with all those people.