The Trouble With Atheists

Does the phrase ‘herding cats’ apply here.

John Loftus has made a legitimate point. If atheists wish to change anything, even if it is just how atheism is perceived by the general public, then they do need to become more organised. You aren’t going to effect change if you have a thousand different voices all speaking a slightly different message and tone; a level of organisation is necessary.

You do need a level of organisation that allows for all the members (atheists in this case) to move as a single body. You do need leaders, not so much people that you listen to and take orders from, but someone who represents and speaks for the group and around whom that group can rally. You also need a common cause and shared beliefs, because they are typically prerequisite for bringing people together in the first place.

If atheists wish to be taken seriously in both society and politics they do need to organise, otherwise any perceived looseness and independence amongst atheists will be interpreted as evidence that they are even slightly anti-social. Displaying social organisation would in fact be the strongest evidence possible (potentially indisputable) that atheists are not immoral.

“What if I don’t WANT a leader? Where does THAT vote go?” — Doug Stanhope

When I was on the “Stanhope in ’08” presidential campaign strategy team, we had a meeting in Las Vegas in March 2007 to discuss various approaches.

Someone mentioned trying to get the Atheist vote. It was at that time that Penn Jillette piped in, stating that it’s difficult-to-impossible to organize Atheists. We took his word for it and moved on to the next point.

He did not explain why this is the case, but it is making sense now, almost 4 years later.

Part of being an Atheist involves shunning the institution of religion, which involves organizing members and guiding them to a place of conformity. If we were the type of people to conform, then we might be more likely to swallow the story of the invisible friend and join in the cakewalk and bingo sessions.

I know it’s not all about being anti-establishment. It’s not merely a rebellious position, as some theists would love to claim. “Oh, you’re just being a naughty rebel.” This is but ONE small attribute.

Even on YouTube, when there is talk of “an Atheist community,” some will perk up and shoot down that notion, stating that the ONLY thing we have in common is our non-belief in gods and an unwillingness to subscribe to religious dogma.

I would have to say that none of the points made by Loftus are relevant, and would further take issue with you, Hemant, in describing what we has as a “movement.” To my way of thinking a movement is what I hope for each morning but find it becoming increasingly more difficult as I grow older.

There is nothing wrong with belonging to groups with the purpose of defending non-belief from religious zealots, but we should not look for leaders nor should we seek to evangelize.

Loftus is accustomed to organization and seeks it in his hew found lack of belief, but atheists are more anarchist than that. He’ll get used to it in time.

First off, 3 cheers to John W. Loftus for accepting reality and becoming an atheist! 🙂 🙂 🙂

But, in my opinion…
1)We have several united fronts. for example, FFRF and groups like that are doing great legal work for the Separation of Church and State.
2)We do have some “spokespeople” of a sorts, famous awesome atheists who have written books and get on tv and get noticed.
3)Not having religion forced on us is kind of the point, isn’t it? Why would we need to agree upon anything but making the total Separation of Church and State a reality?
4)Yeah..Separation of Church and State…We ALL agree on that.
5)We have a boatload of tactics. FFRF et al with the legal issues and billboards and other things, Awesome atheists write atheist books & awesome atheists buy atheist books, the huge online presence of awesome atheists with stuff like United Atheist Front & Friendly Atheist, Blag Hag ETC many many more, the whole thing of “coming out” and standing up for ourselves and not cower in fear of religious people, etc.

I think we’re definitely on the right track and should continue on course.

What do you see as the biggest problems we face?

I think one of the biggest problems in the way in which so many other people, purhaps even some atheists, think. There is a willingness to believe in all kinds of things for which there is no evidence. My wife, stepdaughter, sister, and mother all believe in ghosts, hauntings, some sort of heaven and hell, reincarnation, even horoscopes. No amount of reasoning has any affect on their opinions egarding such things. I think the religious teachings of our childhood prepare a young mind to believe in just about anything and it is very few of us that have the ability to shrugg off the superstitions and become skeptical free thinkers. I also believe that this trend in thinking covers the majority of people and will for some many generations. We certainly have a challenge ahead of us.

I would say that it’s an astounding testament that we ARE making such headway in society; becoming recognized, becoming respected, being included in presidential speeches, forming student clubs, winning lawsuits, erecting billboards, etc etc etc, and all DESPITE not having unity, leaders, or general consensus of tactics or causes.

Obviously, we have no NEED of those things. Our EXPOSURE is our best tactic, and our insistence on equal legislation for all citizens regardless of faith is our best cause.

Whatever we are doing, or NOT doing, keep it up!

If you read his blog post about this, here:
The Trouble With Atheists

You see he ends it a bit differently:

But this is our strength. We are everywhere. We are the wave of the future. There is no turning back the hands of time. We cannot be ignored any more.

(emphasis not mine).

1. Separation of church and state and the creeping co-opting of religion by political entities.

2. Frankly, a PR problem. Atheist=dick is becoming a frequent talking point. We need more ads with “good without God” and less that try to stick a finger in people’s eyes.

Anyway, my $0.02 for today…

The trouble with atheists is precisely people like Loftus: atheists who want a Movement.

What political agenda do we need to impose on the world? Why do we need to organize?

Atheism is not a belief system; the fundamental debate is over – mysticism is a conceptual error by first principles. And we cannot be in the propaganda business, because conversion to freethinkers is an oxymoron: recognizing and removing the error is a personal obligation.

So, again, what is an atheist “united front” for beyond moral support (that any atheist with a good philosphical substrate doesn’t need)?

We are all our own individual agency. That’s the point. Everyone was born an atheist.

Noel Says: “The trouble with atheists is precisely people like Loftus: atheists who want a Movement.”

Glad to oblige. Although, wait, I distinctly remember forgetting I said that. There are other things here I distinctly remember forgetting I said them too.

Dang memory.

[Note to self: forbid people from remembering things I forgot.]

What grass roots movement has ever had a spokesperson? They all have had many and lots of different tactics and those tactics change with society. Did any of the Women’s movements have a leader? Did the LGBT, or racial civil rights, or anti-war movement of the ’60’s? No, they all had many people with different ideas on how to accomplish the unifying goal.
The goal I would like to see is that religious views get no more traction than belief in Santa Claus.

I see those “bugs” as features.

Within the movement, I’d lean towards our biggest problem being people who can’t tell style from substance.

Discussions about atheism always seem to turn into, “Is this tone right?” even though tone has nothing to do with the truth of the argument.

Or we have people who can’t tell the difference between ‘uses harsh language’ and ‘is intolerant’.

The endless re-hashing of the topic of tone really seems to prevent a lot of substantive discussion about actual issues.

As has been touched on before, one of the things that irks me about the “atheist label” is that it defines us as the opposite of the theist. It defines us on -their- terms, not ours.

Richard Dawkins has touched on this; unfortunately, he came up with the term “bright”, which to me seems like a very shallow and trite term, but at least he tried.

The biggest problem with atheism, is that it is possible to be an atheist, yet still believe in “woo”. I would love to see the “movement” move away from any sort of “woo”, and be skeptical and questioning of -everything- (even pronouncements from the “four horsemen”!).

It may be the “not a true AtheistScotsman” fallacy, but I sometimes wonder about atheists who don’t apply the reasoning skills that led to their atheism to all areas of their life. I understand that humans are great at compartmentalizing, and I also understand that not all atheists arrive at their conclusions thru logical, rational, self-analysis of their beliefs…

But maybe that should or could become the platform…? Maybe we should be pushing for the teaching and learning of critical thinking, logic and reasoning? Maybe we should be pushing for a less “demon haunted” world, using the tools we know that can get us there?

Would this…could this…(should this) work? Would it be a good approach?

“As has been touched on before, one of the things that irks me about the “atheist label” is that it defines us as the opposite of the theist. It defines us on -their- terms, not ours.”

I usually go by the term “naturalist” when describing myself through my own terms. I don’t care much for the word “atheist” either.

Mule Breath summed it up nicely:

There is nothing wrong with belonging to groups with the purpose of defending non-belief from religious zealots, but we should not look for leaders nor should we seek to evangelize.

I just don’t get the drive for us all to be anything and every time the calls go out for this, the next damned thing I know other Atheists are telling me how I ought to be. Excuse me? No. I didn’t leave religion to obey orders.

Obviously, church-state separation is paramount but as has been pointed out above, that is not just our issue. AU is very effective and they are a melting pot of disbelief and every danged belief under the sun. I might also point out that the ACLU — also a mixed bag — is probably the most effective organization going in defending not just this but all our civil liberties.

I think it’s a mistake to try and make church-state separation an Atheist thing. It’s crucial that theists of whatever ilk recognize that it’s important to them too. Fortunately, a good many do. A good many care that once government can tell you to worship, they can also tell you how to.

We should really focus on even if you believe in Jesus, if government promotes Jesus, Jesus himself becomes what the government says he is. How many Christians would really want the government co-opting Jesus if they were aware of that?

Social stigmatization is linked to church-state separation and that is why even small violations are crucial. If government can favor religion as in giving the basketball hoops to churches as if they’re special, it stigmatizes everyone not Christian, not just us.

But we don’t need a united Atheist front on that (though I support FFRF because they do good work both in separating church and state and in improving the image of nonbelievers); we need to make it more acceptable to believe anything other than Jesus. And to see Jesus other than how those who push to join church and state see him.

Speaking as an American frankly. I do get tired of hearing why do we focus so much on Christianity when it’s utterly obvious why. They’re the ones constantly being treated like they are what the government would like everyone to be.

Some groups focus on lawsuits and church/state separation issues. Others focus on charity work, or college groups, or local communities, or debunking claims of supernaturalism… What do you see as the biggest problems we face?

I’d like to take a swing at this one because I did not come to my perspective overnight, but it emerged as a kind of unintended realization after thinking about this for a number of years. Two issues stand out:

1. Education vs. Influence

I think the biggest divide among atheists is pretty basic: Some atheists are truth-educators, while other atheists are influence-peddlers.

They don’t always need to conflict, but sometimes they do. When they do conflict, an atheist has to pick a side. Do you care more about spreading the truth, or defending the atheist ‘brand’ through marketing/public relations?

To use my recent example: Do I defend atheism against sociologists, or do I embrace sociologists’ findings that religious people are more generous than secular ones? In a case like this, is it more important to be a card-carrying atheist, or to be scientifically minded?

(I know what side I would pick. What’s the old adage? ‘He who loves atheism more than truth will end by loving himself most of all’.)

2. To Organize or Not to Organize

I’m disinclined to become involved in any organizations, atheist or otherwise. Whenever a group of people come together they inevitably become a clique that exists, in part, to peer pressure dissenters to conform to the majority opinion of the group, establishing groupthink. ‘Conform or be cast out!’ I value my freedom of thought too much to subject myself to this sort of harassment. You want to think otherwise, fine. But I want to follow the evidence where it leads, approval by others be damned. I just can’t see myself voluntarily surrendering my thinking to someone else – a person or a group. I can think unfettered, without harassment, if I’m not part of some group trying to shame me into compliance with the majority opinion of the group. Organization? No thanks! I don’t need anyone else’s help to think for myself. And I certainly don’t need to make myself a target of someone who wants to manipulate/use me for their own ends, even at the expense of my own interests. I look after my own interests thank you very much!

Now for some comments on the comments:

The biggest problem facing atheists is that the issues we (virtually) all agree on, such as Separation of Church and State, are not atheist-only movements.

@keddaw: Also keep in mind that while (nearly) all atheists might agree on separation of church and state in principle, in practice it might be very low priority for them. We don’t even have real health care in this country, and who knows if we’ll ever get it. If I can be resigned to the absence of such an incredibly important benefit of social living, I can certainly be resigned to the presence of merely cosmetic church-state violations.

The problem with atheists is that they’re excessively petty towards American Christianity. Take Hemant and the commentariat’s grousing about a sheriff who took away basketball hoops from CRIMINALS and gave it to a church playground.

@OneSTDV: Going after low-priority cosmetic church-state violations indisputably increases intolerance toward atheists, and that’s a substantial reason to at least consider committing resources toward something else.

Organized atheism should focus on debunking supernaturalism and the threat of Islam to the Western world. Those are the only two issues where a real impact can be made.

@OneSTDV: I concur that both of those things are far more important than most of the things I see atheist organizations doing. I don’t see them making sure that History Channel programming about Jesus or the Exodus or whatever be responsible, educational programming that would pass muster with first-century historians or Egyptologists or whatever. I don’t see them leading the charge with James Randi-style exposes of televangelist Peter Popoff.

“What if I don’t WANT a leader? Where does THAT vote go?” — Doug Stanhope

@TOS100: Count me in the party of ‘I don’t want to be a leader, or a follower.’ I neither want to give orders or take them. One boss is enough for me thanks!

“The problem with atheists is that they’re excessively petty towards American Christianity. Take Hemant and the commentariat’s grousing about a sheriff who took away basketball hoops from CRIMINALS and gave it to a church playground.”

We had a problem with taxpayer money taking something from people in a county jail, most of whom hadn’t been convicted of a crime, and handing it to private churches. That’s an actual misappropriation of state funds that gets a pass because of Christianity’s dominance, and I’m fine opposing it on principle. Are their bigger issues? Sure, but it’s not like we’re arguingg online too cure cancer anyway.

“Organized atheism should focus on debunking supernaturalism and the threat of Islam to the Western world. Those are the only two issues where a real impact can be made.”

I have to disagree entirely. First of all, in a Republic with highly visible and well-connected people working towards a Christian theocracy, I’m more concerned about Christian dominance than whether some people get fleeced at seances and fortune tellers, and in fact we’re in a BETTER position to combat the former. I can’t keep people from going to frauds like Miss Cleo; I can demand that my representatives don’t deny basic rights to people based on middle eastern mythology.

As for Islam, as an ex-Muslim who would face the death penalty for apostacy in many countries, I’m aware of the danger it can pose. On the other hand, anti-Muslim rhetoric in America is tied prettys trongly to some racist and xenophobic and Christian-centric elements that I want nothing to do with. So while I’m happy to criticize Islam, I’m not willing to be part of the bigoted and myopic movements that often do the criticism.

I’m sure sorry but I get the impression you’re a conservative Christian (correct me if I’m mistaken), and atheists simply are not going to take strategic advice from people whose aims are diametrically opposed to ours. That should kind of be a no-shit proposition.

I thought that diversity was one of “our” strengths?

I’m with @Edmond and @Non-Litigious Atheist on this topic-the ideas that undergird atheism will go a lot farther if people see atheists in other contexts. Like the atheist marching band in Texas or supporting charitable work, working to overcome injustice or to create a better society.

While I am not a fan of the current trend that suggests that atheists should follow the glbt blueprint to greater public awareness there is one point I think we can learn from it: people are mostly in the dark about how atheists live.

Christopher Hitchens is doing an amazing job showing how an atheist lives with cancer-how to deal with challenges and fear, why religion isn’t a possible comfort, etc. I am amazed at how many times the Blair-Hitchens debate has been rebroadcast here in Canada in response to public demand-but it boils down to showing people another option.

So let’s have nontheists show the public how we celebrate christmas (or don’t); why we think human rights exist and should be promoted; how to parent (PBB is doing a great job of this) or not. There are lots of folks out there on the metaphysical fence who don’t consider nontheism because they don’t see examples of it in everyday life. I didn’t and that kept me from even considering it for years-even now, as I work through some of my issues, I tend to shy away from groups concerned with “atheism for atheism’s sake” as they don’t seem to have traction in the outside world.

Atheism isn’t a gospel, being atheist won’t “save” people, it will simply give them a clearer understanding of one more aspect of existence. Rather than trying to “sell” the idea, let’s show people what that clearer understanding can accomplish so that they ask for it before we can start a “sales pitch”.

Atheism isn’t a club. We don’t have a uniform, hats or badges. We don’t have membership rolls or a charter. We don’t have tenets of disbelief. We aren’t the same as a religion.

“We don’t provide a united front” because we aren’t united.

“We have no leaders” because we aren’t followers.

“We cannot agree on anything else but religion” because atheism is defined by one thing: a lack of belief in gods.

“We have no agreed upon causes.” Is there any reason why we should?

“We cannot agree about tactics” because there aren’t any common tactics to not believe something. We simply don’t buy into the belief in gods.

Did I miss the meeting where atheism because Atheism (with a capital A) and we all decided to be just like a religion? No, didn’t think so. We are a whole lot of individuals who all happen not to share a belief in gods. Do I get a badge for that? If so I want one for not being female and another one for not being dark skinned and another for not being French.

Honestly if an organisation says something worth backing then I’ll back it. I’m not going to defer my opinions to someone else. I’ll stand for what I belief in thank you very much. If it coincides with what you believe in then great, we both benefit. that’s as close as I feel like getting though.

How about you actually read what John wrote – and read all of it?

The Trouble With Atheists

John seems to be arguing for a Roman Catholic atheist movement while you seem to be arguing for a nondenominational atheist movement. What both positions share is a belief in the validity and power of group ratification of the central idea.

This sociological component is no different than what animates the churches. If “50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong” then get as many fans as you can. This is all based on the premise that he who has the most fans wins, or really he who has the least fans loses (which is not quite the same thing).

If one chooses to believe in God as opposed to a religion (such as Christianity) or an idealogy (such as atheism), then one truly has to be prepared to stand alone. Others may come along if they wish, but the individual must not wait to see who will join before he steps out toward God.

Christmas came late, or New Years came early, either way I just did what I’ve wanted to do for years. A couple of ladies came around to show me how I could find anwers in the Bible. Oh Joy! I’ve never had what I considered to be sufficient knowledge or answers to refute and debate these zombies…until now! I told them that they came to the wrong house with a huge smile on my face. I then proceded to tell them about some of the “answers” I’ve found in that book. I’m pretty sure they didn’t like them because it was all they could do to get away from me. I especially loved it when they stuttered and stammered to try and answer some of the questions I posed to them about their special book and the things it promotes like bigotry, tribalism, oppression, genocide, vengaence, slavery and all those other wonderful things. They just kept backing away and all I could do was smile and keep asking them questions and telling them what I found when I read the Bible. What a rush! I asked them why they were preaching to me when Jesus taught that a relationship between a man and his “god” is a personal matter that should be kept in the home and their tax exempt places of worship that I help pay for, yet can not use. I also asked why I should get up early on the weekend, get dressed up and go apologize for being human and give my money to some guy with an imaginary friend he speaks to? They just smiled and said they would be back in the area in case I ever changed my mind. LOL. I only regret that I didn’t have any of those wonderful biblical quotes to throw in their face, but hey, they said they’d be back. This is going to be a great year. Happy New Year everyone!

@John W. Loftus: I like everything you said in your ‘why do I bother’ post – except this:

There are people who wish I would go away. They don’t like me. There is a lot of misinformation about who I am and what I’m doing. For Christians the goal is to poison the well in a misinformation campaign that has had some success.

My first thought when I saw that is that most people probably don’t ask, ‘Should John W. Loftus stay or go’? When confronted about you most people probably ask, ‘Who the hell is John W. Loftus’? (i.e. they’ve never heard of you before)

I’m sure there are Christians who want to attack, that’s the price of the game, and you’ve made a choice to play that game. To make the focus about you seems a little… egotistical.

Your little misstep here is made up for (or close to it) by your statement that you are a nobody. It’s good to see oneself as a nobody. It keeps our heads from getting too inflated. I’d rather hang with someone who thinks he’s a nobody than with someone who think he’s the shit.

But there are leaders. Hemant and PZ are obvious examples that come to mind (but I’m very blog-centric). We also have some common causes (secularism, skepticism, increasing atheist acceptance, reducing religion), though there are factions.

Something that hit me when I started getting involved in the queer movement… why should we expect anything else? Most movements have only unofficial leaders. Most movements have multiple goals, and factions that conflict over the relative importance of each. Why should we ever have expected anything different? It’s because we were comparing it to organized religion rather than to other social movements. Come on, we’re better than that!

The reason atheists will never organize like the African-Americans, Women, or LGBT rights movements have is because atheism is not intrinsic to any person’s identity.

I am transgendered, and I happen to be an atheist. Both of those qualities affect how society views and treats me; people may be victims of discrimination by society for self-identifying as LGBT, or by publicly stating their disbelief. However, only one of those qualities is intrinsic to how I view myself. Disbelieving in a deity is totally external to myself, so I cannot feel any emotional tie to any other person simply on the basis of shared disbelief. The reason other groups have been able to unite and organize is because of that shared emotional connection. Since atheism is purely intellectual, it will never offer such an emotional connection to unite any of us.

Disbelieving in a deity is totally external to myself, so I cannot feel any emotional tie to any other person simply on the basis of shared disbelief.

It’s untrue that something external cannot be the basis for emotional ties or convictions. If that were the case there would be no such thing as religious loyalty or political loyalty. Shared beliefs do indeed bring people together in communities. True, not believing in god/s isn’t in itself enough to form a community. However a large number of us do feel deeply offended by the interference of religion in our society, affecting the civil rights, education and very physical safety of other human beings. This is where we can find a common purpose.

@ainefairygoddess

The reason atheists will never organize like the African-Americans, Women, or LGBT rights movements have is because atheism is not intrinsic to any person’s identity.

Speak for yourself. How do you know it’s not intrinsic to anyone’s identity? How do you know that everyone feels that having atheism as an intrinsic identity is a prerequisite to participating in organizations?

I just want to share. I am newly agnostic/atheist. I don’t exactly disbelieve in god but I don’t believe so much anymore. I studied with Jehovah Witnesses and actually read the bible. Like, really read the bible. Then I read books from atheists, agnostics, christians and rabbis. The big moment for me came when I realized that Jesus was Jewish, the ones christians hate, and that christians and muslims both use the Jewish bible. I know that’s stupid but that’s what did it. Okay, along with the books. I figure if a rabbi and a down to earth christian both say the bible was never meant to be taken literally then they are probably right. I doubt this info will help the atheist movement but maybe give some insight. Folks aren’t going to listen if they’re programmed to believe. If they can’t let go. For me it was a relief, nobody watching over my every move, no more worry about heaven and hell.

Tactics? d-d-d-ddos and hacks.

What political agenda do we need to impose on the world? Why do we need to organize?

@Noel: Well, some people seem to think that removing all merely cosmetic church-state violations is some sort of goal to rally around. I doubt that’s a high priority for most atheists, though. The presence or absence of cosmetic church-state violations is just too inconsequential to get excited about, IMO.

Atheism is not a belief system; the fundamental debate is over – mysticism is a conceptual error by first principles. And we cannot be in the propaganda business…

@Noel: I wish that were true, but I find propaganda to be the bread and butter of most atheist organizations. (Just another reason not to organize…)

For example, some atheist organizations will inflate our numbers to ridiculous proportions, claiming something like 50 million atheists, in order to create more political clout for their demands. They do this by intentionally conflating the nones with atheists, even though they have to know by now that most nones are not atheists.

Lying for the cause becomes second nature when you’re an ideological atheist.

They will further pretend that whatever their agenda is – maybe removing cosmetic church-state violations – reflects the will of all atheists.

The truth is that less than 5 million Americans are probably atheists (10 X less!), and maybe 10% of them are the tight wads that get their panties in a bundle over public Christmas trees, leaving you with something like 500,000 Americans that have cosmetic church-state stuff on their radar.

The other one I mentioned is that they just cannot admit, on principle, that religious people tend to be more charitable than non-believers. Doesn’t matter if its true – its not good public relations so we need to make up our own facts to counter it.

It’s the same thing when people quote the Founding Fathers out of context. Organized Christians and organized atheists are equally guilty of distorting their beliefs to suit their own ends. Want to know the truth about the subtleties of what our Founding Fathers believed? Ask a presidential historian, not an atheist organization.

Atheist organizations’ revisionism is not really all that different from that of fundamentalists who put up web sites saying that condoms don’t protect against AIDS. The ideology comes before the science.