Is the Atheist Movement on the Decline?

So, how come when a Christian distances themselves from the moron out there blowing up abortion clinics or waving signs around saying, “God hates fags,” we’re all thrown into the same basket. We’re told, “Look in the mirror. This is what religion causes?” Religious people, Christian and otherwise, for YEARS, have been saying that atheism is 1) too simple and 2) doesn’t REQUIRE morality or, at the very least, an aligned one. But, when someone hands out porn for religious texts, you want to distance yourself because of…what? Bad PR? Not because, at bottom, it is morally reprehensible…though you would fight for the rights of a gay man to parade down the street in pumps, make-up, and a nun outfit with a bra affixed to the outside. You would fight for a woman’s right to “do with her body as she pleases” as a matter of private morality. Somehow, though, a woman selling her body and video recording it and having it sold in stores or exchanged for religious texts (religious texts they OBVIOUSLY disdain by doing what they’re doing anyway), well somehow that’s just stupid.

Is atheism on the decline, though? I don’t think so. I think the church is on the decline, especially in America. Religious belief is not, however on the decline. We are simply becoming more pluralistic as a nation and church decline reflects that shift. Atheism has made vast strides in our society, but the spotlight has been taken off of Hitchens and Dawkins at the moment. The mass media has turned to other sensational news, so atheists do not have the free publicity they had for that brief window in time. Thus, this will force atheists to do what Christian missionaries have done for years–quietly go about their work hoping that someone notices the small amount of good they accomplish. Even if it goes unnoticed, though, they should be content that change is happening.

Anyhow, that’s my two cents. Not sure why I’m giving advice to atheists, but take what you will from it.

C.E. Moore
http://www.TheChristianManifesto.com/
Twitter: @CManifesto

I thought you’d point out how he can’t tell the difference between a forum and a blog. The discourse on a blog like this is generally positive, whereas forums can quickly degrade and eventually result in 4chan. Of course, some blogs have harsher comments, like Pharyngula.

“The atheist community will thrive only if non-believers find positive and constructive causes, as Mother Teresa did.”

Has Laugesen actually explored what Mother Teresa was doing? Using piles of donors’ moneys to set up locked sauna boxes disguised as “hospices” where people went to lie down and die on dirty cots, without water or food, any kind of medical attention, or the company of relatives (who were not allowed to visit).

There was nothing positive or constructive about Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu did, other than possibly to teach others how to bilk millions of dollars from would-be do-gooders.

Laugesen acts as though atheists are competing for attention with spotlessly pure religious types, as though the public will see only saints on one hand and poor p.r. on the other, and thus obviously prefer religion.

I would point out that today’s atheists don’t have a track record of buggering orphans and hiding evidence, conning grannies out of their Social Security checks for bogus charities, or getting caught out as hypocrites for bashing a behavior in public while indulging in private. Compared with religion’s record, handing out copies of Playboy looks pretty benign.

Meh. This reminds me of all those creationists who insist that “evolution is in decline” and will fall “any day now”.

We can’t tear down religion without offering something to replace it.

I don’t think you’ll tear it down even if you offer some fantastic “you can’t refuse” alternative.

Seems to me that if we focus on the things other than tearing down religion then we might accomplish things. The problem is now when issues like separation of church and state are brought up, they are twisted into another attempt to tear down religion.

Seems to me that when you have something that can be both positive and negative that tearing it down is not the best alternative. How about just addressing the negative parts of it?

But how can it fall apart? Atheism, or so I’ve been told, is NOT a movement. It shares no defining purpose or ethos, outside of being not-theist. Atheists can be folks who are highly rational and see no place for faith in their view of the cosmos. They can be libertines. They can be ethical humanists. Expecting something that is amorphous and defined only by negation to cohere in the way that political or social movements cohere seems, well, unreasonable.

@ Beloved Spear,
Yes, the author of the article being discussed here has done nothing more than set up a straw man to beat up on. Interestingly, quite a few of the readers here have bought into the straw man themselves. It would be nice if we defined ourselves instead of going along with the enemies definition of us, and then reacting to it as if it was a legitimate construct.
@ Aaron,
It also reads like mainstream anti-Semitic “journalism” from late 1930’s Germany masquerading as informative news.

heironymous Says:

C E –

I personally haven’t distanced myself from smut for smut. I don’t think it’s a good PR move, but I see nothing inherently wrong with pornography. One of the great wrongs of Christianity is associating sex and libido with evil.

^This. Porn isn’t my thing, but I don’t find it “morally reprehensible,” as CE called it. In fact, I find there is a lot more morally… questionable material in the Bible than Playboy would ever get away with having.

C.E. Moore,

So, how come when a Christian distances themselves from the moron out there blowing up abortion clinics or waving signs around saying, “God hates fags,” we’re all thrown into the same basket. We’re told, “Look in the mirror. This is what religion causes?”

Because it is what religion causes. You’re saying religion had nothing to do with blowing up abortion clinics, that their beliefs about souls didn’t lead to them judging it right to kill some doctors to save hundreds of “sacred” ensouled lives? Ask those responsible, ask their friends, and they’re explain to you detail why they did what they did.

2) doesn’t REQUIRE morality or, at the very least, an aligned one.

That’s interesting, my lack of belief in unicorns also doesn’t require morality. Religions often require immorality. Those that cherry pick the Bible and ignore explicit commandments to kill aren’t doing so because morality comes from religion, they’re actively rejecting religion as a source of morality.

Not because, at bottom, it is morally reprehensible…

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pornography inherently. Some pornography might be immoral, in content, creation, or intent, but two people fucking on film is not wrong. That doesn’t mean atheists don’t have morals, it means yours are wrong.

i don’t think the end-goal of atheism is to “tear down religion”. i don’t think atheists have an end-goal at all, really. (it can’t be reiterated enough: atheists are not an organized group.) some atheists may think we should all try to end the tyranny of religion over social and political life (which makes good sense to me, although i’m not an “evangelical atheist” [excuse the pun]), but for the most part, the “tearing down of religion” that takes place is very personal for each of us — leaving our church families, our real families, and the good graces of society to follow our hearts and admit that we just don’t believe. i’d wager that more christians are out to get us than we are out to get them.

“the love”? lol

But he has a point about the love. We can’t tear down religion without offering something to replace it. You can’t take away someone’s hope without inspiring them in another way. You can’t remove someone’s social network without offering them a new community to join.

To me, it seems fairly simple. If people just stop indoctrinating children and raising them in those environments, there will be nothing for them to miss. There seems to be a focus in the atheist “movement” (if we really are a movement) on replacing religion. But what about those of us who don’t think religion needs to be replaced with something else? I know I’m a minority within a minority, but I was raised outside of religion and never had a belief in any gods. I don’t think that I missed out on anything. I didn’t miss out on friendships. I didn’t miss out on community. I didn’t miss out on hope.

So, in my opinion, efforts to replace religious-structured communities with atheist-structured communities are missing the point. There are lots of opportunities to find community outside of religious environments, but they need not be atheist-driven or atheist-identified. I don’t want to stamp out religion. I would prefer to see a world where religion is mostly irrelevant, where it disappears naturally and organically because of lack of interest. But I don’t think the way to make that happen is to encourage organized atheism to be a carbon copy of religion.

@ kat
You wrote:

i’d wager that more christians are out to get us than we are out to get them.

You’re so right. Some of us are out to change that.

To me, it seems fairly simple. If people just stop indoctrinating children and raising them in those environments, there will be nothing for them to miss.

Simple in concept but the reality is much different. People indoctrinate their kids. That’s the way the world works. The best you can hope for is that they indoctrinate them on things like “be good,” “don’t hurt others” and other things that turn them into good human beings.

Besides, in the US you have a constitutional right to be an idiot and to raise little idiot sycophants.

Wishful thinking at it’s best.

Sure it might not have been our best month, but we will learn and regroup. I guess if we haven’t destroyed religion by next month we’re a complete failure though.

Simple in concept but the reality is much different. People indoctrinate their kids. That’s the way the world works. The best you can hope for is that they indoctrinate them on things like “be good,” “don’t hurt others” and other things that turn them into good human beings.

Well, yes, but I meant indoctrinating them by putting them into specifically religious environments. I don’t know if there’s anything atheists can do to encourage people not to indoctrinate their children, but there are countries with much lower levels of religiosity than the United States. In those societies, it seems that religious fervor has just sort of naturally fallen by the wayside.

The U.S. is much more religious than other developed countries, but I do think the statistics are somewhat encouraging even here. There are increasing numbers of people who are not affiliated with any particular religion and who say religion is not important in their daily lives, and those people are presumably much less likely to raise their children in organized religious communities. This doesn’t mean that they’re atheists, but it does mean that religious identification is not part of their lives.

There’s nothing for children to miss if they grow up in an environment where it’s normal not to go to church, where it’s normal not to claim any particular religion, and where it’s normal (even if not required) to disbelieve in gods. Thus, I think efforts to replace religious communities with atheist communities are sort of focusing on the wrong thing, trying to replicate the religious experience by putting an atheist slant on it. But that doesn’t speak to people who never had and don’t want the religious experience.

As a child, there was no need for me to go to atheist summer camp or for my family to join a local atheist group simply because our lives were already completely secular, and we found community with other people who already didn’t spend time talking about religion. Not that most of them were atheists; in fact, I doubt many of them were, but their religion (or lack thereof) was irrelevant to our friendships and the community we formed together.

I was raised to be an idiot sycophant 🙁 … but it didn’t stick… shucks! Just because people are indoctrinated, doesn’t mean they always believe it. (Thank goodness!) 🙂

Hey, I know! Why don’t we call upon all Atheists to have like 20 children each? Why don’t we get our own prophet to tell us not to pierce our ears or listen to Green Day? Or why don’t we gather on a set day and bash other people, all while sitting around with our heads up our asses, doing nothing of any true help or good… why don’t we look the other way when our leaders rape little boys? Oh crap… it’s because we aren’t a religion, we aren’t a movement and we aren’t crazy… well, shit. I’m all out of ideas.

Atheism has been around a long time. It’s not like one day in 1994 someone woke up and suddenly didn’t believe in the god of the Old Testament. Then started on a ‘mission’ to dissuade all of their friends and loved ones.

I think it’s a mistake for any religious person to assume that some of us Atheists didn’t come out of a religion. Or that we consider ourselves a movement. Or that we totally support any Atheist for any reason. Sure, I can see how the smut for smut trade could be seen in a bad light, and yeah, I can see that the FFRF fighting the Mother Teresa stamp can be seen as pointless, but that’s because I am a rational person who can often see both sides of an argument. Mostly I find the smut for smut funny and the Mother Teresa stamp as something that doesn’t bother me, I just won’t buy it. (I do know the importance of their fight.)

Sometimes it seems like in order for those ‘silly’ Christians to understand that not all Atheists are alike, we should group them in with Muslim extremists more often. Not everything is black and white, like religion teaches. I might not believe in a god, but I still have morals, I still am a good mother, a good wife and a kick ass friend. I don’t need guilt to keep me in line. I have self control.

Oh, and as long as humans suffer from reason and logic, there will be Atheists.

I do think that we have to be organized in a political sense, but WHY do we have to replace religion with something? Are they saying we have to replace Sunday morning meetings, fuck that, i play basketball on Sundays (with a bunch of Jews funny enough), then go swimming with my family. Is that religious enough for them?

Sorry about the block quote error, my bad. The text is mine, not Kaleena’s.

greg wrote: “Whilst I’ve only read the Bible from cover to cover, with that book at least, I have no hesitation in choosing which is more morally repugnant, and it aint the porn. Yet no-one forces kids to look at the porn.”

Well said. Excellent point.

The FFRF says, specifically, that issuing the stamp is in conflict with a postal regulation which reads, “stamps or stationery items shall not be issued to honor religious institutions or individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs.”

If this is their policy, how do they justify selling Jesus stamps at Christmas? It would seem that Jesus is the ultimate religious individual, one who is only known or associated with religion and religious achievements. Someone could at least argue that Mother Teresa was primarily known for her charitable endeavors, however questionable they may have been, but I don’t see how the same is true for Jesus.

Miko:

IIRC, Smut4Smut was handing out Playboy, which is less problematic.

That’s true if you’re talking about the fact that a lot of pornography is inherently demeaning and in poor taste. Playboy is, indeed, better than most in this respect. However, Playboy is just as guilty as any of implicitly promoting unrealistic body images as an ideal. And, of course, Playboy was founded to promote an unsustainable, unhealthy, hedonistic, testosterone-fuelled lifestyle.

Yes, I’m being over-the-top here, but I’m just making the point that just because it’s less problematic, that doesn’t mean it’s not problematic at all. Perhaps they should have handed out works by Greta Christina.

But this is beside the point.

I agree with the thrust of G.E. Moore’s initial post: What we’re seeing here is, essentially, karma. All those who said for years that atheism equals reason, all those who claimed that Christians and Muslims aren’t allowed to distance themselves from fundamentalists… today, thanks to Smut4Smut, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens and the FFRF, they have to learn the hard way what it’s like to be on the receiving end of precisely that kind of irrational argument.

However, contrary to Wayne Laugesen’s opinion, this is not a sign that Atheism is on the decline. On the contrary, it’s a sure sign that it’s becoming mainstream. You know that a movement has reached a critical mass when it develops a lunatic fringe.

Welcome to the club, guys! No, Atheism isn’t a religion, but the movement has finally reached a point where it’s started to learn why religion has some of the less desirable features that it has.

I empathise with those who have consistently rejected the irrational elements of the Atheist movement. To you: I know how you feel. Believe me, I know.

To everyone else: Suck it up. If you can dish it out, you can take it.

Either way, welcome. You’ve officially made it. If you need any advice on reformations, just ask.

Miko,

That said, actually existing pornography often is vile. Cf. Chris Hedges, who despite some smarmy moralizing and crazy assumptions does make some good points.

I haven’t agreed with Chris Hedges before, and I still haven’t. As usual he’s a dishonest and ignorant fuckwit. People get compensated for doing work they don’t want to do all the time. People get addicted to a lot of things. People can be unkind and nasty. These problems are with society, not with porn. I don’t understand why pornstars don’t demand condoms, I know some do, and I think they’re smart. Despite this, pornstars as a group are at less risk than many other sexually active groups when it comes to stds.

I wouldn’t criticize anyone doing anything I find disgusting or unpleasant consensually. I wouldn’t want to watch plenty of porn. I don’t want to watch gay men fuck, or pegs on nipples, or weights hung from testicles, it makes me cringe. There’s nothing wrong with consenting adults doing it for sexual gratification though, and there’s nothing wrong with people getting paid to perform these acts for other people.

If women shave their pubic hair to look like prepubescent girls, does that mean men shave their faces to look like prepubescent boys, or women? I vote for bush. I can’t believe someone actually thinks a problem in porn is that it portrays unrealistic endurance. It’s called fantasy, has Chris Hedges heard of fiction before? Chris Hedges is against porn because he’s a Christian, and doesn’t want people fucking on film. He’s as dishonest about this as he is about everything else he writes about.

Pseudonym,

However, Playboy is just as guilty as any of implicitly promoting unrealistic body images as an ideal.

TV dramas and movies are as guilty, actually pretty much any form of media is just as guilty. Not sure I agree that displaying “unrealistic” body images is wrong, but even if it is, you can’t blame porn, it’s a problem with society. Cosmos implicitly promotes unrealistic intelligence.

I agree with the thrust of G.E. Moore’s initial post: What we’re seeing here is, essentially, karma. All those who said for years that atheism equals reason, all those who claimed that Christians and Muslims aren’t allowed to distance themselves from fundamentalists… today, thanks to Smut4Smut, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens and the FFRF, they have to learn the hard way what it’s like to be on the receiving end of precisely that kind of irrational argument.

You’ve never been able or willing to understand the argument, so you’re not in a position to criticize it. Last time I checked, atheists weren’t going around saying you should believe things without evidence, that certain books have authority, and that you shouldn’t criticize certain beliefs. Last time I checked, I never did anything to promote, protect, or enable Bill Maher’s belief in alternative medicine bullshit. Yet somehow you feel that’s analogous to the way religious people behave. Not that pointing this out is going to do any good, because you’ll just ignore it like the other times it’s been explained to you.

Aj:

TV dramas and movies are as guilty, actually pretty much any form of media is just as guilty.

True enough. This isn’t specifically a problem with porn, it’s a problem with society.

Not sure I agree that displaying “unrealistic” body images is wrong, […]

It’s not the mere display that’s the problem, of course. It’s the message that a lot of people get that you’re not good enough.

And yes, I’m aware that many religions are guilty of this. I hope I’m not.

You’ve never been able or willing to understand the argument, so you’re not in a position to criticize it. Last time I checked, atheists weren’t going around saying you should believe things without evidence, that certain books have authority, and that you shouldn’t criticize certain beliefs. Last time I checked, I never did anything to promote, protect, or enable Bill Maher’s belief in alternative medicine bullshit.

Last time I checked, I have never said that any book has “authority”, unless it was Hoyle’s. I have never said that any belief is beyond criticism. I’m far from perfect, but had I ever done any of these things, I’m pretty sure that I’d remember.

To the best of my knowledge I have never defended, promoted, protected or enabled a fundamentalist beyond their civil rights. Admittedly, I may have said that some beliefs are reasonable even if there is no hard evidence to back them up, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t give religious beliefs a special pass in that regard.

For the record, while you’ve said many things that I disagree with, I don’t recall I’ve ever seen you promote Zeitgeist, or claimed that fundamentalist religion is more authentic/consistent/whatever than more moderate forms of religion.

I do not want you to be tarred with a broad brush any more than I want to be. We are complex individuals. But it’s an inevitable consequence of sticking your head above the parapet that people will do it to you.

Can we at least agree that Laugesen’s op-ed is dumb, and move on?

Here’s some unsolicited advice for the college atheists: Grown-ups don’t think it’s cute, and you don’t help the atheist cause by aligning it with porn. We’re just saying…

So his argument is “grow up”? What. A. Moron. I hope something unpredictable and horrific happens to him or his family for no reason at all. (Statistically, my hope will come true at some point without any outside intervention.)

C.E. Moore,

Hemant didn’t even disagree with the premise behind the Smut for Smut campaign. What he disagreed with was with its efficaciousness. He felt that the campaign does nothing to endear us to those like yourself.

So his post was more targeted at us, his fellow atheists, rather than at the religious like yourself.

Hah, how ironic, the day I stumble upon this fascinating blog is the day it brings up a local issue I’d already had on my mind. …This is gonna be long given that I’ve tried to address numerous points in their own paragraphs, sorry, but hopefully interesting and informative for all that.

I consider myself pretty much atheist–the Judeochristian god, in fact, is the version that seems most especially unlikely to me. But I volunteer all the time even without that flaming baseball bat labeled “HELL” held over my head. At the Catholic soup kitchen downtown, even, and with my church (yeah, you read that correctly), among other places and times. My Christian minister of my Unitarian Universalist church, in fact, was the first one to alert me to this article, by sending out an email to see if anyone wanted to help him write a reply to this same horrible farce of an article in the Gazette. (I did, but I got to it too late, and he was probably more articulate and concise than I would have been in any case…lol. I can see if he’s okay with my posting his reply here, in fact, if anyone so desires.) This town has more than its share of fundamentalist loonies, admittedly, but I’ve found myself surprised by the number of prominent places I see the local Gay and Lesbian Fund/Pride Center popping up. Maybe it’s just the godless sodomites I hang out with (:P) but I do think we have a pretty good-sized, though less noisy and obnoxious, anti-fundamentalist underground of all sorts of disparate groups (and isn’t Internet Infidels actually based here as well??). It’s really more about who, and what organization, is posting something than the simple fact that they’re from Colorado Springs–something I suspect most of you probably already knew, but I wanted to be sure that was clear. 😉

I think the Unitarian Universalist bunch is likely on the right track and best compromise when it comes to educating kids without brainwashing them (though I am, admittedly, biased). One of the major reasons I joined the church, in fact, was because I absolutely loved their religious education program for youth–namely, learn about and respect all religions (and atheism, too) while mandating none. I like this because I also think there’s value to be had in examining religions even if one doesn’t buy into all the weird, illogical, or otherwise questionable elements so often included as part of the package–and such a program helps to emphasize that really, we all usually have pretty similar goals in the end: be a better, happier person and make the world a better, happier place. So long as your actions align with that, I personally have trouble having a serious beef with your [essentially irrelevant] beliefs, though I still love to compare them to mine and debate about them for the fun of it.

UU, humanism, and many of the major philosophical schools, such as utilitarianism, provide ample basis for non-religious morality, if for some reason your own conscience is not enough. Heck, now that I think about it, even most of the Scout pledges I took as a kid were mainly secular words pledging good behavior–there were a few insertions of “god” in there, but I distinctly recall that I simply mouthed the theological bits and took the rest to heart.

Porn, on the other hand, is a separate topic–and probably a stupid PR move, but that has nothing to do with whether it’s right or excusable in some/all/any of its forms. And also quite different from religion and morality, or lack thereof, overall.

And while I can see what point I think the article’s trying to get at with atheists “needing to replace”, I think he is, like many Christians, confusing his own brand of religion with both love and morality. I have both in ample quantities, and give ampler consideration to them than very nearly everyone else I’ve ever come across, and yet I’ve never been Christian. I feel no dearth of great love despite my apparent religious “lack,” instead finding that the physical world around me here and now holds amazing, inspiring, wonderful things that inspire far greater depths of love and awe in me than any of my years of Bible study or Vacation Bible School have ever managed.