Does Atheism Need Advocates?

[R. S. Martin]

On William Lane Craig's forums Reasonable Faith, I frequently see reference to the term "advocates for atheism." I get the impression that the Christians think atheism (whatever that is) needs advocates. At the moment, there is a thread asking why there are not more female philosophers in either Christianity or atheism. As the thread is playing out, it seems the emphasis is on atheist female philosophers as opposed to Christian.

 

I contend that atheism does not need advocates. No one asks why. However, my position is that atheism is the default position. I think this way because when we reason things through logically and factually, based on the reality of the universe as it presents itself to the human experience (empirically), this is where the evidence leads.

 

I have read a number of Christian arguments that argue logically that the evidence leads to a Creator. The problem with their arguments is that they skip a chunk of known factual natural history a.k.a. scientific discovery. I've been curious where they get their misinformation, so I keep my eyes open. I've checked and cross-checked some of the items.

 

Source of and Reason for Misinformation

 

It seems there are key knowledgeable individuals who take it upon themselves to massage truth to fit the universe into their version of the Bible. Then they pass on this information so that the masses accept it.

 

These arguments are set up in a way that make scientists look truly malignant and evil--propagators of human destruction, enemies of the human race.

 

I have not documented any of this. It's just stuff I picked up in WLC's forums and/or YouTubes they linked, but my guess is most people here are very familiar with all of it anyway. It just helps me understand--and put into perspective--a lot of misinformation. It helps me understand is how they can say with integrity that they "are going where the evidence leads."

 

I have also tried to understand their definition of the term "evidence." It is not the same as mine/ours. It seems to me they slither and slide between science and philosophy as needed to fit the "evidence" into their version of the Bible. And all of it is based on the authoritative word of whomsoever they have chosen to trust.

Why Christians Think Atheism Needs Advocates

 

That being the case, it makes sense to me that they think atheists do the same, and that atheism needs advocates. Since they cannot conceive of anyone taking the universe at face value, it does not occur to them that anyone would dare do so, esp. people who live without god. That's just my guess.

 

Now for the real question... Do atheists here think athesim needs advocates? What, exactly, does advocate mean? I personally arrived at the no-god position without any help from atheists. It was an up-hill/up-stream battle every inch of the way. I double or triple or more cross-checked myself every step of the way. Yet it was the only logical position I could honestly arrive at. But maybe that's just me.

 

However, based on what I've seen on these forums, I seriously doubt it. All the same, I'd like to find out for sure. So here's the opportunity for people to speak up. What was your experience? Do you think atheism needs advocates? Are people like Dawkins advocates or merely sticking their necks out so the rest of us know we're not crazy for not believing in God? Basically, that's how it worked for me--finding other atheists gave me courage to stick out my own neck, it helped me realize that being atheist did not mean being immoral.

 

Maybe that is what advocacy means? I very seriously doubt that this is what the Christians think it means.

[Shyone]

 

Now for the real question... Do atheists here think athesim needs advocates? What, exactly, does advocate mean? I personally arrived at the no-god position without any help from atheists. It was an up-hill/up-stream battle every inch of the way. I double or triple or more cross-checked myself every step of the way. Yet it was the only logical position I could honestly arrive at. But maybe that's just me.

 

However, based on what I've seen on these forums, I seriously doubt it. All the same, I'd like to find out for sure. So here's the opportunity for people to speak up. What was your experience? Do you think atheism needs advocates? Are people like Dawkins advocates or merely sticking their necks out so the rest of us know we're not crazy for not believing in God? Basically, that's how it worked for me--finding other atheists gave me courage to stick out my own neck, it helped me realize that being atheist did not mean being immoral.

 

Maybe that is what advocacy means? I very seriously doubt that this is what the Christians think it means.

I am currently reading a book called "The New Atheism." It speaks to the phenomenon of increasingly strident and vocal critics of theism and tries to explain it. He is tying Dawkins, Hitchens, Dan Brown and many others into this phenomenon.

 

Are these men "advocates"? The speak out, they promote, they seek to influence, they explain the problems of religion, so I would agree that on the whole they are advocates.

 

Atheism is already the "third largest category" when describing religious belief. What we have, however, is a world being torn between two competing philosophies. 9/11 was a catalyst for the advocacy of reason, and Christians are in no position to criticise Muslims for committing crimes because of their faith. Faith is the problem.

 

We are at an unusual period in time. Unprecedented. There are still many religions that appear silly to others. Science has made great strides in understanding nature and reality. And there is a critical body of information that has been reached and exceeded that does indeed prove to any person that has no agenda that there is no God.

 

Where science has been silent, evolution is not taught. Where science is silent, school boards will make science teaching into a mockery of science. To be silent means to accept that the religious can execute their agenda unopposed, and the agenda goes way beyond simple education to full blown indoctrination.

 

In an ironic twist, the religious accuse science of "indoctrination" while scientists view it as teaching. The term indoctrination in this context refers to the desire "to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle."

 

Is that acceptable? Are there dangers in such an approach?

 

The atheist "advocates" are probably not influencing a lot of people, but the thrust of their message resonates with people of no faith and people who can tell the difference between myth and science. Reasonable people will speak out and prevent the corruption of education. The advocates have given a little dose of courage to those who may not have spoken before. The advocates are still alive for one thing. Not one has been burned at the stake. They have not been mobbed, assasinated or executed. Maybe we can follow in their footsteps and not be social pariahs or punished for our beliefs.

[R. S. Martin]

What we have, however, is a world being torn between two competing philosophies. 9/11 was a catalyst for the advocacy of reason, and Christians are in no position to criticise Muslims for committing crimes because of their faith. Faith is the problem.

 

We are at an unusual period in time. Unprecedented. There are still many religions that appear silly to others. Science has made great strides in understanding nature and reality. And there is a critical body of information that has been reached and exceeded that does indeed prove to any person that has no agenda that there is no God.

 

<snip>

 

The advocates are still alive for one thing. Not one has been burned at the stake. They have not been mobbed, assasinated or executed. Maybe we can follow in their footsteps and not be social pariahs or punished for our beliefs.

 

Thanks, Shyone. So many points that resonate with me, esp. about 9/11 being a catylist for reason.

 

 

About today's outspoken atheists still being alive. I'm reading post-humously published notes The Great Infidels by Robert Ingersol. Of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Italian philosopher and mathematician burned at the stake, Ingersol writes:

The murder of this man will never be completely andperfectly avenged until from Rome shall be swept every vestige ofpriest and pope, until over the shapeless ruin of St. Peter's, theVatican and fallen cross, shall rise a monument to Bruno--the thinker,philosopher, philanthropist, Atheist, martyr (Ingersol, 36).

I'm not through the book yet but of the "infidels" (not all areatheists but all thought outside the religious box of their day) I haveread, according to Ingersol the priests and pastors invented terribledeathbed tales of hellish terrors that confronted these "evil" men asthey were confronted with death. Ingersol says none of these were true.I don't know where he gets his information but presumably from diariesor other writings of attending nurses or family members. Some of theseinfidels were very prominent individuals of their communities.

 

As for this being an unprecedented time. This lying-for-Jesus tradition is very old. Orthodox Christianityburned the Alexandrian Library in the fourth century or so, and athousand years of darkness followed it, yet Reason will not beirradicated. I find this simply astounding. Neither lies nor flames norany other means of evil can overcome truth.

 

I am reminded of what one Jewish person supposedly said shortly beforeWW2. Hitler was apparently burning Jewish books and other possessions.That person quickly left the country, saying, "When they start burningbooks, next they will burn the people." Today the Christians are notburning books--they are reading God Delusion and Da Vinci Code, perhaps more avidly than atheists.

[Shyone]

 

I am reminded of what one Jewish person supposedly said shortly beforeWW2. Hitler was apparently burning Jewish books and other possessions.That person quickly left the country, saying, "When they start burningbooks, next they will burn the people." Today the Christians are notburning books--they are reading God Delusion and Da Vinci Code, perhaps more avidly than atheists.

Well put. I can only hope they understand what they read, and that they are inspired to read some other things outside of apologetics to bolster their knowledge of the world.

[Franko47]

At the very minimum, atheism needs advocates to at least insure that our society will remain a secular one.

 

 

At a more volunteer level, it is skepticism more than just straight atheism that is needed in some areas of our culture.

[R. S. Martin]

Today the Christians are notburning books--they are reading God Delusion and Da Vinci Code, perhaps more avidly than atheists.

Wellput. I can only hope they understand what they read, and that they areinspired to read some other things outside of apologetics to bolstertheir knowledge of the world.

 

According to what I see on Craig's forums, conservative Christians use atheist books as a guide to formulate their apologetics--to know where the greatest "need" lies. They pick and choose what they get out of it and generally get a most distorted view of the author's intended message. They have been doing this since the days of Justin Martyr.

 

Sometimes it is so bad that I wonder whether one is actually doing the world any good by exposing atheism to the light of day. However, they slightly over-reached themselves when they had two contradictory threads going about Richard Dawkins.

 

In one thread they argued that he should be more careful with his words; they were accusing him of saying something he never said and I held them accountable for lying. (It was more widespread than that--if I remember correctly, some Christian had said something libelous about Dawkins on TV or YouTube and Dawkins commented on it in his forums. This had the Craig people ravenous.)That was that thread.

 

At the same time they had another thread "Dawkins dodges another debate with Craig." I'm thinking, "So which is it, Folks? Do you, or don't you, want to hear what Dawkins has to say? Debates don't always make for super-careful wording." I knew that they were after blood and that what they really wanted was to see Dawkins humiliated by their own deity William Lane Craig.

 

On a more positive note, something else that has also been happening since the days of Justin Martyr, and I see some of the same results on these forums, is people seeing the light of reason in these atheist works and turning away from faith. For this reason, I am glad that their leaders are so taken with reading the God Delusion, etc.; I think it gives the young people permission to read atheist literature--and sometimes with results different from what the old folks may have anticipated.

 

Hmmm. I guess that sort of goes against what I suggested in the OP--i.e. that atheism is self-evident. Well, I see that the opinions in this thread vary. It probably takes all kinds to make a world, as people have always said. And as I think about it, it is quite possible that if I had had access to a wider range of literature as a teenager that I would have deconverted in response to Bertrand Russel's writings or the like, because I would have had more information to work with.

 

So I can see that it can realistically work both ways--people can come to the no-god conclusion on their own via life experience and personal observation, or they can be helped by the insight and logical explanation of life by others.

[R. S. Martin]

At the very minimum, atheism needs advocates to at least insure that our society will remain a secular one.

 

 

At a more volunteer level, it is skepticism more than just straight atheism that is needed in some areas of our culture.

 

This is something else that I notice on the Craig forums. Once in a while a young person raises questions that the atheist members among us instantly identify as a question that, if logically or rationally pursued, will lead away from the faith. The rest of the time we are relentless in our critique of blind faith.

 

But the minute a young person raises these genuine skeptical questions, we become gentle and encourage them to find what is right for them. It's like it's a natural instinct: You don't tamper with Mother Nature when she is tutoring a child.

 

I think it's exactly what you say; a nurturing of skepticism because we know everyone must find what is right for them, but skepticism is the way to arrive at this point.

[ContraBardus]

I don't appear much in this area. I've got a bit much in the way of a sense of humor, and tend to be a little satirical in my posts. I don't avoid it or anything, but I have a tendency to be a bit less formal than the discussions here tend to be.

 

This one struck me though.

 

'Atheism' needs no advocates. However, without a voice it will die or be drowned out by the loud majority of the faith driven mobs.

 

We need people to speak for it, relate the view on some level, but Atheism itself is a very broad spectrum of beliefs. It's not as simple as 'advocates for Atheism'.

 

One of the things that Atheism shares in common with Christianity, is that there are several kinds of Atheists. Much like how there are several 'types' of Christians. Christians all believe in Jesus and his teachings, but they are not a singular group either. There's the Baptists, Catholics, Mormons...etc.

 

What is Atheism? It's simply a -belief- that there is 'no God'. There are many variations of this. Though not necessarily a firm certainty on the subject.

 

You can be an Agnostic Atheist, like myself. I don't believe in God, but I also acknowledge that I don't really know if there was some sort of sentient being that created the universe to amuse itself or otherwise. My answer to god is "Probably not, I certainly don't think so, but it is within possibility.' I do not use the phrase 'there is no God'. I do not believe there is one, but I do not 'know'.

 

It gets down to the definition of 'God' again. Is God simply what 'started' the whole Universe? Does it have to fit certain requirements such as 'all powerful' or 'all knowing'? Does it even need to still exist today? Does it even have to be some sort of being? Did it have it have to willfully create the Universe on purpose and with intent? Would it still be God if it did so by accident? Did it die doing it, and would it still be 'God' if it did?

 

I don't know.

 

Now, I do not feel that way about Christian God or his 'Son'. That's bunk, I'm as certain as I can possibly be that it's not true. I have no reasonable doubt that it's not true. The Bible is simply absurd beyond any level of reason in my view. It simply contradicts too much existing evidence and makes no sense without far too much bending over backwards and over reading into the scripture to force reality to fit it.

 

Then there are other types of Atheist. The one who claims without a second thought 'There is no God' for example.

 

Then there's the type that thinks that ghosts are real, and that spirits and magic are possible, but not necessarily the result of any supreme being.

 

The general idea I think that needs 'advocates' is secular Science and Humanism, not Atheism. I don't really agree that Atheism is the 'default' position. I think it would be more accurate to say Agnosticism is the default. We don't know, just because we're not aware of 'God' immediately, does not mean that we do not 'believe' in him. I think Atheism is a conclusion that is eventually reached, where Agnosticism is more a case of admitted ignorance on the subject.

 

I suppose that's splitting hairs a bit, but I do think it's the case as well. We do not think that there is 'no God' before we're aware of the concept of God. Given the nature of early childhood psychology, I think it would be fair to say that we think that we are God on some level at first. Babies are very self centered, and it takes time for them to develop an idea of others outside themselves, or even the existence of things out of their direct perception in any given moment.

 

Atheism itself doesn't need 'advocates' any more than Christianity on the whole does. There really are no advocates for Christianity, but advocates of a particular Christian idea or dogma. There are Catholic advocates, Mormon Advocates, Baptist advocates, but not really just plain Christian Advocates.

 

I think Secularist ideas need advocates. Secular Science and Humanism in particular, and Atheism sort of goes with that. However, it is not the singular source either. A lot of Agnostics would advocate such reasoning and thinking as well for example. Even some other spiritualist would agree with it. Some sects of Buddhism for example.

 

Atheism itself is too broad an idea for 'advocates'. It's the relation it has to other ideas that need advocates, but in and of itself, it does not need them. It's a position, often based upon the poor quality of evidence or absence of evidence for the idea of God, not really a faith. Not in the sense I think the OP implies it.

 

So, yes, I agree with the OP, but not for the same reasons. Atheism itself is a pretty pointless thing to advocate. It's just agreeing with a position. It's things like Secular Science and Humanism that need advocates, and they're only related by proxy. It's just the general sort of ideas that Atheists tend to believe in, but not by any means a direct relation. Athesim tends to lead to, or is caused by advocates of Secular Science or Humanist ideas.

 

Atheism in general is the conclusion that many people come to from those other ideas. Though it is not the only cause, and certainly not the only conclusion those ideas can lead to.

[R. S. Martin]

ContraBardus, you make a point I sort of wanted to make but didn't know enough about it to make, i.e. that atheism per se is almost too elusive a thing to pin down for having advocates. Oops, maybe that isn't exactly your point. Maybe I fail to fully follow your thought, but I understand you to be saying atheism is not just a simple thing easily pinned down. Yet the Craig variety of Christians seem to think it is, and I have reason to think the phenomenon is wider spread than that.

[ContraBardus]

That sounds about right.

 

I think Atheism is really too broad a position to really have advocates. It doesn't really fit a generalized 'ideal' or have any basic structure to advocate really. There's no specific dogma or logic to it. It's just a position about an unknowable factor in the Universe that doesn't necessarily attach itself to another belief or system of beliefs or thought.

 

It's just the conclusion that 'God is not real', and doesn't necessarily imply 'why' or 'how' that conclusion was made. It's a result rather than a cause.

 

Much like how Christianity is really too broad to really have advocates of it's own as well. It's not really a position anyone really advocates on it's own. Rather, people tend to advocate other ideas that fit into the much broader spectrum of what Christianity is. It's really a pretty loose term that really only has one basic idea that ties them together. Belief in Jesus and his teachings, you don't even have to think he was the Son of God necessarily.

 

Christians don't see a lot of things for what they are. Including their idea of what Christianity is. In general anyone who doesn't follow their particular sub-belief isn't a 'real Christian'.

 

The different sects do sometimes work towards common goals at times. Though, even then there are usually some of them who oppose the others. The issues of women in the clergy, gay marriage, and the level of relevance of the Eucharist are all good examples.

 

On the whole, they do tend to group Atheism with what are really Secularist beliefs. It's sort of a blanket term to them for anyone who doesn't agree with some of their crazier ideas. They don't often blame Agnostics for opposition to Creationism, you don't really hear them accusing the Buddhist of trying to prevent them from forcing their beliefs on others in public schools. It's not the humanist and agnostics who stand in the way of their attempts to control the sex lives of others. Nor is the Humanist who try to keep them from imposing their religiously driven moral standards about Abortion on the rest of the country.

 

It's the 'Atheists'. The Godless heathens. Their ideas about what Atheism is are faulty to begin with. It's not a position they understand, and they are, for the most part, ignorant of the particulars. It's just a general scapegoat term they use for those that oppose them on a number of views, even though those views have little to nothing to do with any particular Atheist beliefs.

 

There's only one to begin with. There are Atheist who oppose abortion. There are Atheist who don't think Gays should be allowed to marry. The term or label Atheist is misused by them to refer to what are really Secularist ideas or positions.

 

Atheism isn't specific enough to attach all those things to the idea. It's just a case of ignorance on their part about what Atheism is. Propagated and promoted by their sects and propaganda from their Churches in most cases.

 

It's just over generalizing when they attach most of those things to Atheism and what they really mean is 'Secularists' in most cases.

 

Even then, it's still over generalizing. They're so used to a uniform system of beliefs that a whole group holds, that they have difficulty understanding a group or belief system with much looser variation of thoughts and ideas I think. Many of them really think there's an Atheist Bible, or some sort of code, rules, or laws that Atheist or secularist must follow.

 

I think it's a case of them just not understanding that not every way of thought or group doesn't confirm to the same type of structure as their system of beliefs do.

 

The idea of an autonomous collective is somewhat lost on them. Its an alien idea that many Christians have no experience or understanding of.

[Shyone]

That sounds about right.

 

I think Atheism is really too broad a position to really have advocates. It doesn't really fit a generalized 'ideal' or have any basic structure to advocate really. There's no specific dogma or logic to it. It's just a position about an unknowable factor in the Universe that doesn't necessarily attach itself to another belief or system of beliefs or thought.

 

It's just the conclusion that 'God is not real', and doesn't necessarily imply 'why' or 'how' that conclusion was made. It's a result rather than a cause.

 

The idea of an autonomous collective is somewhat lost on them. Its an alien idea that many Christians have no experience or understanding of.

I agree generally, but think of this:

 

The relatively recent increase in the visibility of atheists and their apparent popularity does not relate to humanism or secular science, although these are important in and of themselves, and they are common to most atheists.

 

Rather the push for atheism - both the advocacy and the increasing willingness to embrace secularism - are a reaction to the "faith-based" fanaticism that has torn the fabric of society. At some level, the common person knows that fanatics are dangerous, whether they are pro-life, neo-nazi, or "fundamentalist" of any stripe. 9/11 still hurts.

 

It may not be overtly stated in every book, but it's hard to find an atheist book that doesn't specifically mention 9/11.

 

Atheists are being embraced for their advocacy of reason in place of blind faith, and the "advocates" are more accepted and more vocal because their has been a sea change in attitudes of the general public.

 

I don't mean that the "average Christian" will say, "I'm no longer a Christian". I think that s/he would be less likely to give assent to the radical agenda of the fundamentalists than before, and would instead "lean" towards secular government.

 

This is not too different from the phenomena that led to the secular government of the US. The recoiling from the horrific excesses of religion was the foundation for our lack of religious entanglement in our government.

 

I may be making too much of this, but I think the prevailing attitude that "religion is good" and "faith is good" are coming under fire. Obviously, most people will say, "Their religion is bad, mine is good. My faith is good, theirs is bad."

[RiverDale]

My definition of Atheist is simply, "without religion". Any god/gods to be believed in are a direct product of a religion. So, do I think Atheism needs advocates? No, although I admire and appreciate the work of Madylyn Murry O'Hare, Richard Dawkins, and others who have brought it to the forefront.

 

What I do think needs an advocate is the Separation of Church and State. It does not bother me if someone believes in a god, I just do not want them to get the government to tell me what it is their god wants.

[ContraBardus]

 

I agree generally, but think of this:

 

The relatively recent increase in the visibility of atheists and their apparent popularity does not relate to humanism or secular science, although these are important in and of themselves, and they are common to most atheists.

 

Rather the push for atheism - both the advocacy and the increasing willingness to embrace secularism - are a reaction to the "faith-based" fanaticism that has torn the fabric of society. At some level, the common person knows that fanatics are dangerous, whether they are pro-life, neo-nazi, or "fundamentalist" of any stripe. 9/11 still hurts.

 

It may not be overtly stated in every book, but it's hard to find an atheist book that doesn't specifically mention 9/11.

 

Atheists are being embraced for their advocacy of reason in place of blind faith, and the "advocates" are more accepted and more vocal because their has been a sea change in attitudes of the general public.

 

I don't mean that the "average Christian" will say, "I'm no longer a Christian". I think that s/he would be less likely to give assent to the radical agenda of the fundamentalists than before, and would instead "lean" towards secular government.

 

This is not too different from the phenomena that led to the secular government of the US. The recoiling from the horrific excesses of religion was the foundation for our lack of religious entanglement in our government.

 

I may be making too much of this, but I think the prevailing attitude that "religion is good" and "faith is good" are coming under fire. Obviously, most people will say, "Their religion is bad, mine is good. My faith is good, theirs is bad."

 

Well, I see your point, but if you think about it, there's really only one Atheist argument.

 

"There is no God."

 

Even Atheists who write books on the subject are using other arguments to bolster their point. Either 'Belief in God is harmful because..." or "I don't believe in God because..." or "The Holy Book/Faith promotes or leads to all these bad things..."

 

They use Humanist and Secularist ideas to provide the reasoning behind their Atheist belief or arguments against the reasoning of Theists. It's the conclusion they reached based on their interpretation of the evidence or counter reasoning of Theistic points.

 

Take Dawkins for example. He's definitely an Atheist, but does he really argue Atheism, or are his arguments mostly composed of Secular Science that his reasoning leads him to conclude Atheism is correct?

 

I don't really think it's Atheism per say that's really accepted, but rather Secularist ideas and Humanist ideas that lead to Atheism being more easily accepted. It does indeed cause some to become Atheists, but not necessarily.

 

The mention of 9/11 and it's religious reasons don't really directly lead to Atheism. In some cases sure, and it may indeed instill a more critical or mistrusting attitude towards organized religions and the idea of 'The God of Abraham'. It's less an argument for Atheism, and more one against Abrahamic religions, Islam in particular, though it is used against Christian/Jewish beliefs on some level as well.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean Atheism. Just because someone doesn't believe in Jesus or the traditional idea of God, doesn't necessarily mean that they give up on spirituality. The idea of God is often still there, but becomes less 'personal' or 'known'.

 

The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang still work quite well with Deistic beliefs like Agnosticism, or many other spiritual beliefs such as Buddhism.

 

A lot of books are written by Atheist, and I would say that they do imply that the conclusion of Atheism is correct. However, they also don't really use Atheist arguments. They prop their belief in 'No God' up on Secularist reasoning, Secularist Science, and Humanism. Atheism is just one possible conclusion to that reasoning.

 

I agree that Atheism is more accepted and popular. However, I also don't think that it's based on Atheism itself. Atheism is just sort of a proxy, and the subject matter is common for Atheists to believe in. So, books tend to be written by Atheists about the subjects. The books aren't really about Atheism itself, but rather indirectly related [or maybe even unrelated] subjects that are common beliefs among Atheists that are really Secular Science, Secular Philosophy, and Humanism, which don't necessarily reach the conclusion of Atheism.

 

I think Atheism isn't really a belief so much as a conclusion. At least not as a system of beliefs in the same manner as a religion or other philosophy. It's a philosophical idea, but not really a philosophy in and of itself. It's just a statement on the existence of God, and doesn't really have any deeper meaning to it than the conclusion reached on that particular idea.

 

Sure, a lot of those who write those books are Atheists, and I do think they promote the idea. I don't know if I'd call them 'advocates' of it though. They advocate other ideas that lead them to the conclusion of Atheism. They're really advocating Secular Science, Secular Philosophy, and Humanism. That's pretty much what the vast majority of the content in their books really is.

 

Really, most Atheist books about Atheism are pretty much "I am an Atheist because..." followed by explanations for that conclusion that only relate to Atheism itself by proxy.

[oddbird1963]

Atheism doesn't need advocates.

 

But Secularism, Humanism, Rationalism, Skepticism and Science all need advocates who are atheists.

[Shyone]

 

Sure, a lot of those who write those books are Atheists, and I do think they promote the idea. I don't know if I'd call them 'advocates' of it though. They advocate other ideas that lead them to the conclusion of Atheism. They're really advocating Secular Science, Secular Philosophy, and Humanism. That's pretty much what the vast majority of the content in their books really is.

 

Really, most Atheist books about Atheism are pretty much "I am an Atheist because..." followed by explanations for that conclusion that only relate to Atheism itself by proxy.

I'll grant you that. The effect, however, is greater than simply promoting secular science and the like. When a person is willing to say, "I am an atheist", regardless of the reasons, it opens up the door for others to do likewise. Advocates pave the way for atheism to be acceptable in the same way that the kid that says the emperor has no clothes allows others to agree openly. They may have held the opinion that there are no gods, but until someone steps forward and boldly declares that there are no gods publicly and without reservations people will continue to quietly yield to the religious leaders.

 

Atheism may only say one simple thing, but "there are no gods" is an opinion or conclusion that is held by many people secretly. People will not speak out against separation of Church and State if they fear the repercussions of being "associated" with atheists or even (gasp) being outed as an atheist. People might quietly assent to placing the 10 commandments in schools, or having public prayer. "It's not my place to object."

 

It no longer takes as much courage to speak out. The advocates have already brought the subject to the public conciousness, and we only have to enter the discussion that they started.

[R. S. Martin]

 

What I do think needs an advocate is the Separation of Church and State. It does not bother me if someone believes in a god, I just do not want them to get the government to tell me what it is their god wants.

 

There are a number of such organizations in the US, the largest of which is perhaps the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

 

Maybe others have mentioned it; I'm not through all the posts yet.

[Freddy]

I believe atheism or agnosticism needs intelligent, articulate, and mainstream advocates. If anyone has read "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris knows why. Religion can no longer been seen as just a part of humanity, it now has the power to end humanity. When terrorists fly planes into buildings, it's not because they are crazy, it's because their faith is so powerful and they are so sure of it that they are not afraid to end their life for a reward in heaven.

 

I have no problem with someone believing in god or gods, but it's the "religion" of it that is starting to have disastrous effects on our world. The entire middle east is constantly embattled over religous ideas and it's gone on for centuries. Now that India and Pakistan can nuke each other, it's no longer just a "middle east thing".

 

Religion is a detriment to humanity and it's past time that respectable, honest people started saying so in a meaningful way. Freddy

[R. S. Martin]

Freddy, I clicked on the link in your signature and read your testimony. My question is: How do we engage religious people when linking these atrocities with theism? I see you're newly deconverted so maybe you have some ideas. My experience with both Christians and Muslims is that neither accept responsibility for the atrocities. Those who identify with the "crimes" justify the actions and those who do not approve will claim that "It's just the extremists" or "Those people aren't real Christians."

 

The 9/11 event, for instance, I can't find Christians who accept that religion--Islam or Christianity--had anything to do with it. ExChristians and exMuslims, as well as agnostics and atheists, tend to label it as a religious issue. The Christians claim it is politics and/or oil that caused the conflict. (I don't know about the Muslims.) How does one discuss an issue they refuse to acknowledge exists?

[Antlerman]

The 9/11 event, for instance, I can't find Christians who accept that religion--Islam or Christianity--had anything to do with it. ExChristians and exMuslims, as well as agnostics and atheists, tend to label it as a religious issue.

I don't. I see that as much as an oversimplification and lumping everything into one name for a target of attack, as the Christians in your OP are doing into lumping all things that advocate a Secular approach under the label "Atheist". Religion is a product of human beings, and its manifestations are a reflection of social and cultural issues. Sam Harris' advocating the destruction of all religion, is the flip side of the same coin of those who feel atheism is responsible and if we only give everyone God, then we will have a sane and healthy society. Exactly the same thing, just flipped over.

 

These are deeply complex issues and the rhetoric of both of these political camps don't work towards any genuine solution.

 

The Christians claim it is politics and/or oil that caused the conflict. (I don't know about the Muslims.) How does one discuss an issue they refuse to acknowledge exists?

Exactly my point. How we going to solve the problem if we simply go the path of placing the blame on religion, get rid of it, but never address the issues that caused that issue in the first place? It will in fact come back, whether or not the religion it was found in exists or not. It will find a new home. The home is not the problem, the human issues are.

 

The real problem, is externalizing the issue as the source of the problem: whether it's the Christians blaming atheism, or atheists blaming religion. That is shifting the blame. It's the same behavior.

 

Now as far as having advocates for the Secular position, I agree with most of what everyone else in the thread has said. I think it is critically important for people to feel they can voice an alternative approach to social issues other than the one offered by religion. Advocates, give people in the middle a sense of empowerment to speak thoughts that challenge the norms. That is extremely important and positive and I full support that.

 

My only issues are with fruitless and destructive rhetoric. That's unhelpful, IMO. Although, I've always said, it is the extremes that get the middle talking in a more reasoned plain where they in fact do look at all the complexities that define the true *reality* of human social and cultural existence. In that sense there is value to the process of evolution, but not the answers.

[Shyone]

The Christians claim it is politics and/or oil that caused the conflict. (I don't know about the Muslims.) How does one discuss an issue they refuse to acknowledge exists?

Exactly my point. How we going to solve the problem if we simply go the path of placing the blame on religion, get rid of it, but never address the issues that caused that issue in the first place? It will in fact come back, whether or not the religion it was found in exists or not. It will find a new home. The home is not the problem, the human issues are.

The real problem, is externalizing the issue as the source of the problem: whether it's the Christians blaming atheism, or atheists blaming religion. That is shifting the blame. It's the same behavior.

 

Now as far as having advocates for the Secular position, I agree with most of what everyone else in the thread has said. I think it is critically important for people to feel they can voice an alternative approach to social issues other than the one offered by religion. Advocates, give people in the middle a sense of empowerment to speak thoughts that challenge the norms. That is extremely important and positive and I full support that.

 

My only issues are with fruitless and destructive rhetoric. That's unhelpful, IMO. Although, I've always said, it is the extremes that get the middle talking in a more reasoned plain where they in fact do look at all the complexities that define the true *reality* of human social and cultural existence. In that sense there is value to the process of evolution, but not the answers.

I'll grant that religion is not the sole cause for societal problems, and neither is atheism. [Mindless dogma and blind faith are more likely to occur when there is creed and religious devotion however.]

 

So humans are the problem. Most wars are fought over resources, but I can see no way to eliminate wars over resources. Cloaked in religious terms or nationalistic terms, or even racial/ethnic terms, wars over resources seem almost inevitable. Actually, when it works, capitalism is a lubricant that reduces the "You have something I want" friction. Now we can exchange money for resources instead of simply justifying a war, but that won't always work.

 

Suggestions?

[Antlerman]

The Christians claim it is politics and/or oil that caused the conflict. (I don't know about the Muslims.) How does one discuss an issue they refuse to acknowledge exists?

Exactly my point. How we going to solve the problem if we simply go the path of placing the blame on religion, get rid of it, but never address the issues that caused that issue in the first place? It will in fact come back, whether or not the religion it was found in exists or not. It will find a new home. The home is not the problem, the human issues are.

The real problem, is externalizing the issue as the source of the problem: whether it's the Christians blaming atheism, or atheists blaming religion. That is shifting the blame. It's the same behavior.

 

Now as far as having advocates for the Secular position, I agree with most of what everyone else in the thread has said. I think it is critically important for people to feel they can voice an alternative approach to social issues other than the one offered by religion. Advocates, give people in the middle a sense of empowerment to speak thoughts that challenge the norms. That is extremely important and positive and I full support that.

 

My only issues are with fruitless and destructive rhetoric. That's unhelpful, IMO. Although, I've always said, it is the extremes that get the middle talking in a more reasoned plain where they in fact do look at all the complexities that define the true *reality* of human social and cultural existence. In that sense there is value to the process of evolution, but not the answers.

I'll grant that religion is not the sole cause for societal problems, and neither is atheism. [Mindless dogma and blind faith are more likely to occur when there is creed and religious devotion however.]

 

So humans are the problem. Most wars are fought over resources, but I can see no way to eliminate wars over resources. Cloaked in religious terms or nationalistic terms, or even racial/ethnic terms, wars over resources seem almost inevitable. Actually, when it works, capitalism is a lubricant that reduces the "You have something I want" friction. Now we can exchange money for resources instead of simply justifying a war, but that won't always work.

 

Suggestions?

You want me to fix it?? I haven't quite figured that out yet.

 

I certainly feel its important to strip away the myths of nationalism, religious mythological justifications for bad behaviors and whatnot. No doubt. The one thing that really defines what mythic systems are about is sociocentric and ethnocentric thinking. Those were functional for the time in which they were prevalent in the ancient past, but in a global, pluralistic societies that sort of mindset in incompatible. Rationality and Reason move beyond it into more global thinking, so that is a truly positive thing along with a long list of others that the Enlightenment has brought us.

 

My current working thoughts are what you've heard me touch on elsewhere about the baby with the bathwater in tossing out myth. Not to get into my thoughts about that too much, other than to say that I feel that the reason why mythic systems persist is because its the only thing that in any organized, structural fashion, offers those 'spiritual', ethical, systems of worldview for your average person to look to. And the leaders of those mythic systems (at least in the most vocal and active of them), are less than capable of making the transition with spirituality into a realm of reason and rationality. I do believe it is possible for full reason and rationality to live harmoniously and in no conflict with human spirituality, but the mythic systems are not compatible. Science has to conform to its antiquated understandings of the natural world for it to work.

 

So in short, my suggestion... is that some system of human philosophy harmonizing reason and spirituality become part of human societies in a global community. Hardly some simple thing to bring to pass. No, it would have to be what happens natural out of necessity for the sake of survival - in other words, a natural evolution for the survival of the species. I question whether we can pull that together in any meaningful way before there is tremendous loss to our species and environment, but it may well be just those sorts of disasters that create that adaptation. I don't believe our species will revert to our mythic and pre-mythic pasts. That would be like saying we would devolve to our primate hominid ancestors. We've already evolved. Either we keep going, or we die off and become extinct.

 

Just some thoughts...

[Freddy]

Freddy, I clicked on the link in your signature and read your testimony. My question is: How do we engage religious people when linking these atrocities with theism? I see you're newly deconverted so maybe you have some ideas. My experience with both Christians and Muslims is that neither accept responsibility for the atrocities. Those who identify with the "crimes" justify the actions and those who do not approve will claim that "It's just the extremists" or "Those people aren't real Christians."

 

The 9/11 event, for instance, I can't find Christians who accept that religion--Islam or Christianity--had anything to do with it. ExChristians and exMuslims, as well as agnostics and atheists, tend to label it as a religious issue. The Christians claim it is politics and/or oil that caused the conflict. (I don't know about the Muslims.) How does one discuss an issue they refuse to acknowledge exists?

 

 

It's a tough thing to do. When you point out the violence that God commanded to be done for his own glory, Christians/Muslims don't want to hear about it and usually will take the conversation in a different direction. So, when I discuss these things with family and friends, I break it down to a personal level. If God loves us like his children, why would a drop of water in the ocean of eternity lead to eternal punishment? Could you think of any circumstance where your child could do something to you in which you would want them tortured for all of eternity? God obviously thinks it's OK to create us with certain emotions and drives and then punishes us for eternity for using them. When you create nightmare scenarios, which are personal, you can many times get a persons attention. If they are serious at all about their religion, they should want to immediately engage you on that.

 

And, I don't buy the notion that it's JUST THE EXTREMISTS, that give religion a bad name. I've heard that one a million times. The extremists are actually closer to the essence of Christianity and Islam than the "moderates". These "extremists" believe with all their heart and are willing to put their life up for their faith. The moderates may wave them off, but have you ever mocked a Christian extremist (like a creationist) to a moderate Christian? They usually don't like it and tell you to be respectful. Well, why be respectful of someone who takes a book that is thousands of years old and uses its' dogma to endanger the health and lives of others that don't agree with?

 

So far as 9-11-01, it was, at the very heart of it, a religious act. These people were not cowards. They actually put their money where their mouth was when it came to the words in the Koran. The are not willing to live and let live because the Koran says that there is no better way to proclaim your faith than to destroy infidels or unbelievers. The reason we won't (or maybe can't) defeat "terrorism" is because we refuse to put the proper label on it and we refuse to call it what it is. The religion of Islam is at war with us, but we are only at war with the violence they use. Religion itself needs to be dealt with and eradicated.

 

So, with all that, atheists need to step up and be heard. Are atheists not to be taken seriously because they DON'T subscribe to the words of documents that were written by and sorted by man thousands of years ago? When it comes to faith and religion, we really do live in a bizarro world. If I still believed in Santa or the Tooth Fairy, I'd be labeled an idiot or insane, though I suppose I could still be both. Hang on to a religion that says a man was born of a virgin, raised the dead, came back from death, healed the afflicted, and saw others live inside a fish for three days, part a sea, or be called up to heaven and you are considered a person to be listened to. Insane.

 

Freddy