• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists

Kenect2

Member
The suggestion that modern American atheists are not united is, in my opinion, a serious misunderstanding of that community and its underlying philosophical principles. It's not atheism itself that unifies the atheist community. Rather, it is the epistemological principle underlying their atheism that is uniting them. That epistemological principle is science. Atheists don't seem to realize it yet, but they are fairly strongly united by their belief in science. It might even be said that American atheists are behaving as if science were a religion.

In spite of that, I don't believe we're seeing a schism in the atheist community. Atheists are united, in the sense that they have strong epistemological agreement, but they have little organization. A couple of sensationalist authors calling themselves "New" isn't much leadership. There are starting to be more real life meetings, and more and more writing about atheism, but there isn't any robust social infrastructure like there is in any other religious community. "Schism" implies that one order is leaving another order. But there isn't much order among American atheists. Instead of a schism, I'm sure that what we're seeing the start of is the emergence of a new order.

The idea of "Atheist 3.0" seems fairly correct, assuming that the so-called "New" atheists are 2.0. The "New" atheists are only different from the old atheists in that they are getting a lot of media coverage and expressing their atheism quite publicly. However, Atheist 3.0 can be described as a group of atheists who are searching for more order in the community, and are making the effort to create order. I know this because I am one of them.

I've been a strong atheist for well over a decade. About two years ago, bashing Christians online started to get boring. Especially when the smarter Christians started posting thoughtful arguments for their positions. Now, I don't support mythology or Christianity, but I've been able to put aside my hate and bias towards Christians and start looking at them objectively. What I discovered is that, regardless of all the atheist smears of Christians, they have a robust social infrastructure. That is the kind of order that American atheists need. After that, I started treating Christians as individuals, and it became obvious that there are a ton of good Christian people in America, people that, despite my philosophical disagreements with, I know I can trust.

I'm now at the point where I am looking at Christian communities as models for "atheist" communities. But of course, the idea of a strictly "atheist" community doesn't make much sense. The American Secular Humanist movement has already resolved this problem by adapting the Christian Humanist tradition to an atheist society. Secular Humanists are taking what is good from the Christian tradition, and adapting it to fit the modern, rational age. I know Secular Humanism has been around for the last few decades, but I predict that its numbers are going to start swelling as American atheists start looking for more than another online forum to bash Christians on.

By the way, this post might seem a bit random, but the fact is I just got banned from an atheist forum for expressing ideas like these. I was accused by several people of being a Christian in disguise, trying to troll their forums. So I definitely agree that there is starting to be a "bitter rift" dividing atheists.
 

Tiapan

Grumpy Old Man
Confrontation is the way of youth, it mellows with age, maturing into co-existence. There is no rift just a generation gap untii the young gain wisdom. Science binds us, individuality scatters us, irrationalities like religion infuriate us. The beauty of the new movement is may help show some of the blind leading the blind theists, that other paths exist and that which has been handed down from father to son may not be perfect and suffer the same frailty as any other human endeavor.

Australia where religion has basically been dumped in favor of a co-operative reality secular society (ie Atheist), I think demonstrates a population can act humanely with high morals standards and intellectual capacity, with out the wierdos, witch doctors and gurus running around in even stranger costumes telling us we are all going to some mythical hell if we dont wear their particular coat fetish.

We have differences but we don't need a god to sort them out.

There is no rift it is just good social evolutionary diversity.

Cheers
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
I have to wonder about the science bit.
I know several atheists who have about as much interest in science as they do Christianity.
One who I know very well is an atheist because of the misery she sees in the world. Her atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I have to wonder about the science bit.
I know several atheists who have about as much interest in science as they do Christianity.
One who I know very well is an atheist because of the misery she sees in the world. Her atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Agreed. If I was going to pick something that "unites atheists" (a silly thing to do, IMO), I'd pick secularity, which actually is a philosophical perspective. If I was really feeling like going out on a limb I might toss in humanism, but that would be a very difficult claim to defend. Not as difficult to defend as "belief in science" though. I don't "believe in science" - I am an empiricist. It's a subtle but important difference - it means I place the greatest store by things I have experienced directly. I don't automatically believe something because "a scientist" said it. (How could I, after having read Trust Us, We're Experts?)
 

Alceste

Vagabond
The idea of "Atheist 3.0" seems fairly correct, assuming that the so-called "New" atheists are 2.0. The "New" atheists are only different from the old atheists in that they are getting a lot of media coverage and expressing their atheism quite publicly. However, Atheist 3.0 can be described as a group of atheists who are searching for more order in the community, and are making the effort to create order. I know this because I am one of them.

I've been a strong atheist for well over a decade. About two years ago, bashing Christians online started to get boring. Especially when the smarter Christians started posting thoughtful arguments for their positions. Now, I don't support mythology or Christianity, but I've been able to put aside my hate and bias towards Christians and start looking at them objectively. What I discovered is that, regardless of all the atheist smears of Christians, they have a robust social infrastructure. That is the kind of order that American atheists need. After that, I started treating Christians as individuals, and it became obvious that there are a ton of good Christian people in America, people that, despite my philosophical disagreements with, I know I can trust.

I'm now at the point where I am looking at Christian communities as models for "atheist" communities. But of course, the idea of a strictly "atheist" community doesn't make much sense. The American Secular Humanist movement has already resolved this problem by adapting the Christian Humanist tradition to an atheist society. Secular Humanists are taking what is good from the Christian tradition, and adapting it to fit the modern, rational age. I know Secular Humanism has been around for the last few decades, but I predict that its numbers are going to start swelling as American atheists start looking for more than another online forum to bash Christians on.

By the way, this post might seem a bit random, but the fact is I just got banned from an atheist forum for expressing ideas like these. I was accused by several people of being a Christian in disguise, trying to troll their forums. So I definitely agree that there is starting to be a "bitter rift" dividing atheists.

In my opinion, you are projecting your personal psychological evolution onto the whole world. The vast majority of atheists don't get a kick out of "bashing Christians online", and never did, and never would. And most of us know and love a few decent and intelligent religious people in our lives, and always have and always will.

I'm not surprised your ideas are unpopular though. I'd be no more welcoming to an atheist missionary at the door inviting me to partake in a (Christianity-based) atheist "community" than I am to the Jehovah's Witnesses when they pop round.

So, how's that going for you then? Getting lots of takers?
 

Kenect2

Member
I don't "believe in science" - I am an empiricist. It's a subtle but important difference

When I say people "believe in science" I mean they believe in the so-called scientific method, which is essentially empiricism. I didn't say atheists believe in "scientists."

Alceste said:
I'm not surprised your ideas are unpopular though. I'd be no more welcoming to an atheist missionary at the door inviting me to partake in a (Christianity-based) atheist "community" than I am to the Jehovah's Witnesses when they pop round.

It isn't my idea to be an "atheist missionary" or to go door to door evangelizing. Why mischaracterize me like that?
 

Hitchey

Member
You must be glad to be on a more tolerant forum, Hitchey.

It's not just theists, though - some of the stuff I have heard from atheists is almost as disagreeable to me as that.
It was an eye openr for sure; I would have like to hung around longer and learned some more. What have you heard from atheists that was comprably disagreeable?
 

Hitchey

Member
... I just got banned from an atheist forum for expressing ideas like these. I was accused by several people of being a Christian in disguise, trying to troll their forums. So I definitely agree that there is starting to be a "bitter rift" dividing atheists.
I hate to say it but you do sound like a Christian to me. In fact, reading your post through I thought you were a Christian until you made the declaration that you were an atheist. You are expressing views about atheim that up till now I have only heard expressed by Christians.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
There is no atheism 1.0.

There is no atheism 2.0.

There is no atheism 3.0.

There is no Christianity 1.0.

etcetera. Insert any religion or philosophy and the idiotic metaphor x.x and it falls flat. Expressing such concepts is nothing more than a display of incredible ignorance.

I mentioned ol' Bob Ingersoll in another post. Though I do give credit to the notion that Ingersoll considered himself an agnostic. His works regarding Christianity and the Bible are more akin to Dawkins. Another member brought up an even older atheist/agnostic/non-believer. It would be wonderful for people to actually become familiar, acquainte themselves, with the works of these individuals. I challenge anyone to take the works of Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens, Shermer, etc. and compare them to that of Ingersoll and declare there to be a "new atheism". Then I would invite them to understand the importance of mass media.

Yes, this post is for you Kenect2. Welcome to RF.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
When I say people "believe in science" I mean they believe in the so-called scientific method, which is essentially empiricism. I didn't say atheists believe in "scientists."

But a lot of religions believe in and promote empiricism too - for example Buddhism and Taoism. A lot of Western theists believe in the scientific method. We simply would not have any science if things were otherwise - the demographics are stacked against it. There would have been no progress for the past century if only - or even mainly - "atheists" pursued careers in the sciences and used empiricism to deduce the facts about the natural world. 80 % of scientists believe in a god, or a higher power of some kind. On top of that, a lot of atheists believe in Tarot cards or astrology, as was pointed out earlier in the thread. I'm basically saying it's an indefensible point. You should shift to "secularism" if you're looking for a unifying perspective, or something you could pretend was a "religion" for atheists. There again, though, you'd have the problem that a large majority of Western theists also prefer the philosophy of secularism to theocracy.

It isn't my idea to be an "atheist missionary" or to go door to door evangelizing. Why mischaracterize me like that?
"Atheist 3.0 can be described as a group of atheists who are searching for more order in the community, and are making the effort to create order. I know this because I am one of them.
I'm now at the point where I am looking at Christian communities as models for "atheist" communities."

I'm not part of your "atheist community".I have no interest in your pursuit of "order" or your desire to make atheists behave more like Christians, at least as far as "community" is concerned, whatever that means.

I mingle with a lot of different social groups loosely organized around our common interests. Atheism - unlike playing the fiddle or organic gardening - isn't an "interest" or a "hobby", or a "philosophy" or a "belief" or anything that might be even remotely possible to get people to "do" or "discuss" in a group. So if someone invited me to an "atheist community" event, I'd basically think they simply didn't understand what the word "atheism" means.
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
But a lot of religions believe in and promote empiricism too - for example Buddhism and Taoism. A lot of Western theists believe in the scientific method. We simply would not have any science if things were otherwise - the demographics are stacked against it. There would have been no progress for the past century if only - or even mainly - "atheists" pursued careers in the sciences and used empiricism to deduce the facts about the natural world. 80 % of scientists believe in a god, or a higher power of some kind.

No, the figures are reversed within the scientific community, only 15 or 20% believe in a God or higher power.
 

Kenect2

Member
Alceste, I think you might be jumping to conclusions about my position. I'm not suggesting that I am a Christian who doesn't believe in god. I'm saying that if "atheists" wanted to build a community, then they might want to look at what Christians are doing, and imitate some of the good things that Christians do. For example, Christians have the church as the center of their community.

I already said in my first post that the idea of an atheist community doesn't make much sense, so I'm not sure why you're going on about that. I subscribe to an adapted form of Secular Humanism as my philosophy, and I'm only atheist as a matter of fact. The reason I have addressed some of my statements to "atheists" is because I think that many atheists self-identify as atheists, whether or not it is correct to do so.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
No, the figures are reversed within the scientific community, only 15 or 20% believe in a God or higher power.

Damn - thought I could get away with just making it up (just this once).

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe. source

We're both wrong, but at least I'm 30 % closer to being right! :p
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
I'd rather have the community centre that is welcome to all rather than an atheist centre or a church.
 

Sententia

Well-Known Member
ATHEBITTERRIFTISTS

Hmm...

Atheists / Bitter Rifts = Ahs / Ber Rif (Is this some kind of word puzzle?)

Anyways....

dogsgod said:
I'd rather have the community centre that is welcome to all rather than an atheist centre or a church.

This actually makes a lot of sense on many levels. In my town there are like 50 or 60 churches... Many different religions are represented. But though on sunday they come together they actually just go hang out with people who think and act like they do and they do it separately.

Their right for sure. But lets say we want to meet as a town. We goto the green. Which is cool but the green is a field. A real secular community center could serve as the nexus of each town and reinvigorate america.

Rather then all this division and hate, each town could have a neutral place that brings people together.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Alceste, I think you might be jumping to conclusions about my position. I'm not suggesting that I am a Christian who doesn't believe in god. I'm saying that if "atheists" wanted to build a community, then they might want to look at what Christians are doing, and imitate some of the good things that Christians do. For example, Christians have the church as the center of their community.

I'm saying your proposition makes no sense. Christians base their community on a shared cosmology / philosophy / ethical framework / world view. They've got lots to talk about. There's no similar common ground among "people who don't happen to believe in any gods". I know, you think "science" fills that niche, but I think you're wrong. IME, it's far more common for a different cosmology / philosophy / ethical framework / world view to fill that niche. Buddhism, for example, or Taoism, or Secular Humanism... Science is just a good method of figuring stuff out. Anybody can use it. Anybody does. Both the Pope and the Dalai Lama fully endorse it. It's only a narrow minority of scriptural literalists who happen to reject science.

I already said in my first post that the idea of an atheist community doesn't make much sense, so I'm not sure why you're going on about that. I subscribe to an adapted form of Secular Humanism as my philosophy, and I'm only atheist as a matter of fact. The reason I have addressed some of my statements to "atheists" is because I think that many atheists self-identify as atheists, whether or not it is correct to do so.

Hm - well I don't personally believe the loudest and most irritating members of any given group are representative of the entire group. Of the ten most admired (by me) atheists in this community, none "self-identify" as atheists in the slot where you stick in your "religion", and it only comes up in the context of discussions on the topic of god-belief, or how evil and immoral we "atheists" are supposed to be. You know, when it's relevant to the conversation at hand. I don't go around wearing one of these:

militant_atheist.jpg


(Although I do, however, find this hilarious:)

Blasphemy.jpg
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Am I the only one who views humanism as a religion?
Religious humanism yes, secular humanism no.
Humanism encompasses a pretty broad range but at its core humanists reject the necessity of the supernatural to as an arbiter of ethics. So there's lots of room to attach it to religions or not, but humanism itself is a philosophy.
 
Top