Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
A post of its own
Rather than stating this in the comments of the post, I think a response to Brent's opening paragraphs in his latest review of Vox Day's book warrant a full post.
Brent, unsurprisingly, I agree with you.
Kind of.
Sort of.
Mostly.
Here's what I agree with you about:
I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal, rational for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no "atheist leaders" or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.
Here's where our opinions may part:
I have lately (within the last few years) come to believe that the entire social and political "atheist movement", as it nominally exists, is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a "group" in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who organize activist marches, set agendas and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group seem to be lying to themselves. There is no cohesive atheist political movement.
more below the fold
Like I said, I agree with your basic premise Brent. Atheists as a group don't represent me. I'm not part of the Atheist Alliance or the Atheists for Puppy Grinding(I haven't been accepted yet) or anything of the like. I see this as a fairly new problem for today's atheists. Or, maybe it's not a new problem for atheists, it's just one I've come to recognize recently. I'm not a Republican because I don't favor gun control. I'm not a Democrat because I'm pro-choice. I DO hold both of those positions though. The label applied to each of those positions, however, does not define me. It doesn't predetermine a set of party goals for me. While I enjoy reading his blog, PZ's apparent positions on a wide range of issues are directly opposed to some of my own views (especially his, and many of the commenters on his blog, apparent hatred of Ayn Rand's views)...and yet we're both still atheists.
When it comes to political issues we atheists (again for clarity, those who lack god belief) still cover the spectrum politically. It's frankly, unsurprising. What I'm sure of though is that the misconception that we atheists are united in all things is not something to get upset about. It's merely something to correct, just like this blog attempts to correct theist misconceptions about atheists on a regular basis.
That being said, we various atheists will and do have our own opinions on what “good” atheists should and shouldn't do and should and shouldn't think. I feel like it's inevitable. Especially given my libertarian bent, I almost feel obligated to make statements like, “No good American atheist would vote for Mike Huckabee.” I DO believe that. It's my opinion. If you ARE an atheist voting for Huckabuck I couldn't say you're not an atheist, but I would be confused about your decision. And that, Brent, is where I disagree with your post (or at least my take of it). There are some atheists taking as strong a stance and making statements like mine about Huckabee who would seem to be trying to clump our wild and woolly atheist positions and groups together. I think, especially when we disagree with a particular position, that we should make it clear that not every atheist's position is shared with in the broad label of “atheist”. However, I also think we shouldn't condemn or really even get upset about, their expression of opinions on how they think we as atheists should view or act on things.
Earlier I stated that I thought the atheist movement was an exercise in futility. That's only partially true. Trying to mold us into a particular political group feels wrong because it is wrong, as I think I've demonstrated above. We do however, have a small set of common goals. What those goals are , outside of the American political spectrum, have yet to be discussed in a forum I've seen. Maybe we can start that discussion.
***edited to remove an inadvertant blockquote
Bookmark/Search this post with:
issues
Atheist clearly means one thing only, a lack of belief in supernatural entities of any description. But this definition implies certain concerns common to all Atheists. The ability to practice our lack of religious belief without discrimination or harassment by the religious comes to mind; an ability guaranteed us by the first amendment. This includes the ability of our children and grandchildren to attend public schools free of religious trappings of any description. To accept any less is to give up part of what it means to be an American.
But there are also issues that would concern a significant number of Atheists. For example....
The teaching of real science in science classes without a constant battle to include one insanity or another. The teaching of real sex education in schools, including pregnancy and disease prevention. The funding of scientific research without regard to religious belief (stem cell research, for example). The right of every American to make decisions about their own body, to have unhampered access to medical services, and to make medical decisions without checking with Moses. The need for foreign policy and humanitarian aid policies to be based on real world concerns with real world solutions. To fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa with abstinence only is both insane and criminal.
These battles cannot be fought without an organized effort. I do not see where such efforts necessarily undermine the independence that most Atheists rightly insist on.
I try really hard not to be an "anti-theist"
and to treat religious people, if not religion, with some respect. Then I read about stuff like Muslim medics not washing their arms for surgery because it would be 'immodest' and the cognitive dissonance just about gives me a heart attack.
Seriously, is there any science a religious person will not brush aside to keep following their dancing angels?
The "religion deserves respect" taboo
Until the last few years, I too thought "respecting" another's religious beliefs was the right way to conduct myself. Why? I don't know. Probably because that was the way I was brought up and never really thought about it. I now understand how badly I was mistaken.
Don't get me wrong, I don't go out of my way to disrespect another's religion, but you brought up the perfect example of why religion deserves to be disrespected at times. Sheesh. You'd think a friggin doctor or medical student would be able to figure out that hygiene supercedes one's petty religious hangups? Even if there were a god, don't you think he would want you, as a doctor, to wash up properly before surgery?
What's funny about this example is that pretty much everyone in America would understand and agree that these Muslim women should wash up to their elbows. It's a no-brainer. However, when one of the Christian pet issues is brought up, like abstinance only sex-ed or stem cell research, common sense is thrown out the window EXACTLY the way the Muslims did in your example. I suspect we will be fighting the "religion deserves respect" taboo for all of our lives.
By the way, Pat Condell has something to say about the effects of Islam in the UK...
Thoughts
Anti-theists on the other hand are easier to categorize- but that is only because they are a subset of atheism. Still, it is funny tryimg when people say "all atheists are". I heard someone saying a person wasn't an atheist because they were supersticious! Hopefully as the posts and blog continues this will clear up. Or it could become an ever present cloud of BS clogging up posts.
Let's Comppare!
We atheists, I declare, without a great deal of fussing with ritual or reliance on the interpretation of moldy, thrice-told stories, and without making a big noise about gathering together at short intervals to engage in buoying up each others dedication to an improbable hypothesis, have independently reached amazingly similar conclusions concerning things that actually happen.
This is in contrast to those who fuss endlessly with the proper presentation of the sacred objects upon the altar, those who endlessly intone the old stories, and jabber excitedly when brother Ezra interprets the holy prayer just voiced, in tongues, by sister Sarah. Taken as a whole, this group agrees on little, despite great emphasis on form, ritual and obedience. They agree, infrequently, on things that do not seem to have happened.
Both groups appear to flourish and reproduce successfully. The first group seems to be able to accomplish a great feat of cooperation without a large expenditure of effort in terms of time and effort. The second group, which may be said to attain a similar goal, does so only at the expense of very large and focused effort.
Is this sufficient evidence to hypothesize that the base state of humanity is godless heathenism? I hope so. Then I could feel as rewarded as all the other atheists who have recognized this principle.
It's five till eleven in the evening and this is the best I've felt all day.
Thanks, Rick.
Your post has help destroy some pre-conceived notions about atheists that deserved to be destroyed. I will keep this in mind next time an outside discussion turns toward "what atheists believe".
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
Post new comment