Is Atheism a Force to Be Reckoned with in America? May 25, 2012

Is Atheism a Force to Be Reckoned with in America?

By Hemant Mehta
May 25, 2012

Dave Silverman appeared on The Alyona Show (with substitute host Abby Martin) Wednesday night to talk about the state of atheism in America.

It’s a long segment with time for some substantive discussion — pretty unusual for television news airing in America.



Previous Post
Atheists Helping the Homeless Expands in Texas
Next Post
When It Comes to the Internet, Nothing Fails Like Faith
"Trumpig is too st00pid and too cowardly to do anything, he will incite his shepple ..."
L.Long
Pastor: Trump Will Soon Arrest and ..."
"Not even with a remote controlled Dyson."
Jim Jones
Eric Metaxas: I Am “Happy to ..."
"I does have a better ring to it in German."
Rob P
Eric Metaxas: I Am “Happy to ..."
"Gays and 'urbans'."
Jim Jones
Eric Metaxas: I Am “Happy to ..."
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

  • That’s because it’s on a branch of Russian State television and for whatever reason they think it “subverts America”.

  • GabyYYZ

    I think the broader concept of Secular Humanism has a better chance.  Atheism is currently antagonistic in nature, because it has to be to counter the rise of the religious right.  But with a healthy discussion of how we can contribute to society without a religious motive (charities, education, etc.), this may be a better option.  If Atheism is seen as a belief system, it will never be greater than the other religions, only a counterpoint.  But under the broader scope of SH, maybe we could be a force that truly lasts.  It doesn’t preclude religion (I’m sure there are some mildly religious secular humanists) but it doesn’t use dogma as a motivating factor.

  • Well said. Raw, in-your-face atheism doesn’t currently have as much as chance for effecting positive change as secular humanism does.

  • Tinker

    Yea, we won’t see that interview on Fox.

  • That is true unless we are successful in educating the populace that atheism is merely the absence of a belief in God and not the more narrow definition that many religious people prefer to use that atheism is the raw, bitter, angry, in your face, dogmatic insistence that there is absolutely no God. Also most of the more evangelical people I know consider secular humanism to be equivalent to their more narrow definition of atheism.

  • It’s all about social evolution.  Atheists are transforming america. We don’t see it as clearly because evolution doesn’t work that way. As the next generation comes into political power, it’s going to be very different. 

  • MegaZeusThor

    Great post. David did a good job. Atheism is basically not believing in mythology.

  • Chiyote

    Atheism has already proven to be a “force.” Most of the technology and other advancements were created by atheists. Atheism has proven itself as a belief structure (or the lack of one) by the fruits of its followers. Even as the Christian Bible says “You will know them by their fruits. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? (Matthew 7:16)” 

  • Pseudonym

    If atheism is merely the absence of a belief in God (as it is), then it’s not a “force” by any reasonable definition of that word, let alone one to be reckoned with.

    Secular Humanism, on the other hand, arguably is.

  • I always love the way David Silverman presents the argument for atheism and rational thinking in society. He’s a wonderful spokesman for the organization.

  • Well I guess it is your choice to be superior and divisive. Atheist simply means not believing in gods; nothing about religion or organisation in that – Buddhists are atheist.

  •  “Absence of a belief in God” is way less than the half of it, given how we have to defend ourselves, even from the earliest age, at the most difficult junctures of our lives (since times like bereavement and illness are when theists see fit to pressure us hardest)  and against really insidious pressure.

  • Evad

    Its always good to get atheism mire PR, but I’d be wary of RT news. Its owned by the Russian State. It’d be like George Bush in charge of Fox News programming or Barrack Obama in charge of MSNBC. This is Putin’s channel to put KGB talking point to Americans.