On true atheists
There’s a disturbing trend amongst atheists these days. I first noticed it on a board about at least three, possibly four, years ago. A group of atheists decided to have a discussion about what a “true†atheist was. In the end… well let’s just say that it had to have been a mere coincidence that a true atheist had the same pedigree (a wealth of religious knowledge) of those who began the alleged “discussionâ€.
It’s only gotten worse because now the mark of a true atheist is a particular disposition. I was put off by the above discussion and ended up quitting the board in protest, but this new one really disturbs me. In short, it seems certain atheists are hell bent on actually controlling the thoughts, beliefs and behaviours of other atheists.
We more aggressive atheists are now ‘extremists’, ‘fundamentalists’ and in some (growing) quarters – heretics. Most, if not all, of the well-known atheists are being accused across the various boards and blogs of “misrepresenting†atheism. I read a post recently where a prominent atheist was accused of not being an atheist because they didn’t appear to be associated with a particular organization! There are also videos on YouTube and other sites that declare by fiat that “true†atheists are those who are actively involved in various organizations.
This is just wrong. The only mark of a “true†atheist is the lack of belief in gods, but even that’s not really representative with the monotheisms which makes atheists out of theists such as Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists and deists. Being an atheist doesn’t require one be nice, mean, friendly, hostile, passive, aggressive or otherwise.
It is not about a dispostion. My husband is no more a “truer†atheist for being passive than I’m one for being aggressive. We are both atheists. We both do not believe in gods. It’s as simple as that.
Very well said.
The evangelists among us, who are working so hard to spread the atheistic good news, often speak as though atheists’ primary role is to disseminate nonbelief. Frankly, I don’t care what my ignorant neighbors believe, as long as their views don’t intrude on mine. When their religious opinions do impinge on my life, as unfortunately happens almost every day in Bush’s U.S., I become assertive and aggressive, maybe some would say nasty. Occasionally, I make common cause with other atheists on specific issues. But I never claim to be speaking for all, nor should any others have the audacity to claim to speak for me. And no one should tell me either to tone down or to pump up my invective based on some imagined shared agenda.
Nonbelievers are not, by nature, a group; we share nothing except our nonbelief. When some atheists start expecting all of us to join them regularly in their “churches,” or to insist that we take part in specific communal activities, I scratch my head in disbelief. We’re FREEthinkers, get it?
Us Atheists are beginning to make South Park look like an extremely prescient show, with its Go God Go episodes.
I think we have to ditch this idea that we must be a coherent group, thus jettisoning the religious stigma that one Atheist somehow speaks for the entire group, and with it, the notion that there are such things as true – and by default, false – Atheists. The problem is that no matter how many of us recognize the individuality inherent in providing meaning in your own life, there will, at least for a very long time, be theists that try to characterize Atheism according to the words or actions of the one person or group that they find most offensive to their beliefs. Much like some people try to use Fred Phelps, or Rush Limbaugh, or Pat Robertson as though they speak for all of Christianity.
Ah, I’m just thinking out loud. The Exterminator above said it as well as I could.
Yes, I would rather leave fighting about the “true” label to the Christians. An atheist is someone who does not accept the theistic belief claim. Arguing over who has the most atheist street cred is counterproductive.
If I’m not mistaken, atheist means “without a god”. Period. So the only thing that atheists all have in common is that they’re without a god. Doesn’t seem too complicated to me.
With irony, I’m sitting here thinking about all the times I’ve heard people say atheism is not a religion.
When the atheism blogs, forums, and newsgroups are choked with posts and replies focusing solely on Christianity, I find it difficult to believe otherwise.
I am a Christian and a rationalist. (Impossible? Try me.) That being said, I wondered the other day what a real Atheist religion would look like. Not a mock religion, like FSMism (may his noodly appendages never dry up), but a real religion, with lifestyle choices, social gatherings, a moral code, legal recognition, and the like.
An organized Atheism would be technically non-secular, which is a real feat of logic. Atheism would have to claim (like so many other religions) that all other religions are false. Ironically, that would make “Liberal Christianity” more tolerant, since that religion says that there are many paths to God / Everything / The Afterlife.
Atheism gets far more converts by simply being quiet while its wittier prophets (Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, Douglas Adams) speak with their everlasting works of fiction and collections of essays.
Atheist is a good word, because it describes an individual, and in context what he/she believes/doesn’t believe. Atheism is not so great. Too many connotations,too many assumptions. Like Communism, or Nazism, or socialism, it’s subject to being transformed into a pejorative. It’s not just another “ism”.