Subscribe to End Hereditary ReligionNews FeedSubscribe to End Hereditary ReligionComments

Home > Secularism > Atheism is not a belief system, ok? Got that? Why must we repeat ourselves?

Atheism is not a belief system, ok? Got that? Why must we repeat ourselves?

Posted by Richard Collins

Happy human Humanist logo, white and golden ve...
Image via Wikipedia

The people who promote the position that atheism is a belief system are no doubt confused between humanism and atheism or they lack fine control over their gun sights. Not all atheists are humanists, but probably the majority would majorly agree with the various humanist manifestos that are extant around the world. It is secular humanism that the theists are getting their wigs wound up over because that is a genuine world view that is anti-theist, organized, and humanists speak out. Humanists are thoughtful and kind and do leave room for freedom of conscience, as all thinking people must. They just want religion to go back to being a private matter, like masturbation, gluttony, nudity and other self-gratifications that are best not paraded in public.

The very idea that mere lowly humans can somehow get along and thrive without god and have a systematic and enlightened way of presenting their views is perceived by theists as a threat, precisely because it is a threat. The only dogma atheists hold is “we hate cant, humbug, hypocricy, pretense, and dogma”. This again spins the believers up because all they know is dogma, humbug, pretense and hypocrisy. Unlike humanists, atheists do not have a manifesto or a creed or until very recently any popular way to be recognized as atheists. There is no baptism or confirmation or any of the other ways religion dreamed up to psychologically close the cage door.

That little scarlet letter “A” emblazoned on atheist shirts and boldly printed on their web sites is a defiant, provocative, in your face announcement that we are here among you. Be afraid. The scarlet letter “A” (who says atheists don’t appreciate irony?) serves to bring more and more atheists out of the closet. The symbol gives them an identity with their soul mates and creates a sense of solidarity of purpose in overcoming the unjust hatred directed towards atheists. Not to mention the fact that the red letter “A” is guaranteed to produce vapors, palpitations and vertigo in the likes of Pat Robertson and James “smack-them-again” Dobson.

It is a curious fact of human psychology that we humans attribute the way others think to our own way of thinking. Therefore, a person sitting in a church listening to the pastor spout dogma as “truth” will have an almost insurmountable task to believe that other humans have absolutely no need of and are in fact violently opposed to dogma preached as truth.

The fact that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens identify as atheists has reignited the fire of opposition by religious people. Assuming the fire had ever really gone out. Now, in addition we must contend with the merging of religion and politics in the United States because the conservatives have brilliantly succeeded in a mashup of the worst qualities humans possess. And here I am talking about emotionalism, ignorance, fear, racism, bigotry, anachronism, and the worship of patriarchy.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/06/11/atheism-is-not-a-belief-system-does-this-really-need-repeating.htm#commentform

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Posted on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 at 2:32 pm in Secularism.

Related Posts

  1. Atheism is not a belief system, ok? Got that? Why must we repeat ourselves?

Share/Save


Bookmark and Share

Subscribe via RSS! or Follow EndOfReligion on Twitter!

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.


Comments (18)

 Follow this discussion | Leave a trackback | Login

dhl

I'm disappointed in the red A. this will attract and encourage the development of the (worst) human tendencies to group together in like-mindedness when ideas are challenged. Isn't this what is wrong with the world now?

» Posted on July 23, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Twango

Ironically, couldn’t a group that shares similar beliefs and rallies itself around a symbol be considered a religion, or at least something close?

Its a shame that believers dismiss atheists because of their pretense and hypocrisy. It’s also a shame that atheists do the same. There is an amount of arrogance that is required to ridicule the opposed and hold fast to either side of this particualr argument.

There is no proof that god exists, and I’m sure most of us agree, if some sort of creative force did take part in our existence, its not going to be a man who happens to hate all the same people you do. I’m thinking more of some kind of strange hermaphroditic plant. The point is, in this absurd world where come and leave with nothing, its a bit irrational to pick a side.

The only sane conclusion is doubt. If you choose to believe that no creative force exists, that’s fine, but that assumption is not completely logical, just as the opposing assumption is not. That is why it would be classified as a belief.

So if you wish to sneer at those who dare believe other than you, group yourself together under a shiny A that symbolizes your beliefs and your fraternity, go right ahead. But you look like a quasi-religious group to me, doing nothing more than promoting your own believes and ruthless and cruelly dismissing all others.

Instead of considering yourself an atheist, why not use the term rational skeptic? You acknowledge that there is a possibility that some creative force exists, but you personally don’t think there is any survival of the human “soul” or any kind of god.

I think it’s important and a wee bit humbling for Atheists to remember that although they don’t share the bloodshed and absurdity of the fundamentalists, they can be kissing cousins when it comes to the mindset they live their lives by.

» Posted on July 23, 2009 at 7:57 am

James Tracy

How is applying a symbol to show support for a cause/movement encourage group-think? Would you say the same thing to individuals who wear pink ribbons to fight breast cancer?

» Posted on July 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm

James Tracy

There is nothing wrong with sharing a set of beliefs (or non-beliefs) with a group of people and organizing yourself around it. I am an atheist because I don't believe in any gods, regardless of the possibility that some creative force exists. The mere possibility is not enough to compel belief. And I dislike attempts to make atheism seem like a negative or illogical position.

By the way, while religions generally do consist of common beliefs and symbols, the types of beliefs involved are just as important. You could probably think of a lot of other secular groups that have common beliefs and symbols that you wouldn't consider religious. Political parties?

» Posted on July 23, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Heidi

"Ironically, couldn't a group that shares similar beliefs and rallies itself around a symbol be considered a religion, or at least something close?"

You mean like republicans?

"The only sane conclusion is doubt."

In the face of extraordinary supernatural claims with absolutely no evidence behind them, the only sane conclusion is "come back when you have evidence. Until then, I see no reason to believe you." So gods, ghosts and UFOs will have to get back to me when they have proof.

"Instead of considering yourself an atheist, why not use the term rational skeptic? You acknowledge that there is a possibility that some creative force exists, but you personally don't think there is any survival of the human "soul" or any kind of god."

Why do you feel the need to tell me what I should think, and what I should call myself? I find it somewhat offensive. I don't see any reason to believe in gods. If someone finds proof, I'll re-evaluate. Until then, I am going to live my life atheistically, i.e. without gods.

» Posted on July 23, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Daniel Fincke

Humans are social creatures and social creatures group together and have means of identifying themselves as members of groups, means of establishing group norms, and means of perpetuating group goals. This is called being human. It's not what's wrong with the world right now, it's the tendency which preconditions every human social interaction.

But your objection is a bit more specific than this. You are saying that grouping together in like-mindedness when ideas are challenged is the problem. But the issue is that groups are already like-minded before the ideas are challenged. And every group shares some ideas or values or goals, etc. in common—again before any specific challenge from outside. So, banding together around like-mindedness is, again, the precondition of having groups, and being in groups is an inextricably human thing.

So, what is the real problem, is it sticking with the group when the group's ideas are challenged rather than breaking away straight away? That seems too imprecise again. We are not solitary knowers—we learn and we think in community. Sciences and other academic disciplines are collaborative endeavors and their investigations require both a high degree of agreement and a vigilant lookout for the necessary places to disagree.

Within any realm of human life from the most ordinary to the most refined expert discussions, people are obliged to rely on a degree of authority and on shared paradigms for analysis. And when one's authorities and reigning paradigms are challenged, it is not always just group-think to insist on deferring to, or trying to defend, those authorities and paradigms rather than immediately abandon them. Because you are not thinking by yourself, there are things you think and should think for which you nonetheless do not possess all the adequate evidence or understanding yourself. And in some cases, this is because it is a practical impossibility for you to have adequate reasons given the limitations of your own training or its alternate specialization. This is the nature of expertise, we have to stand behind credible experts even when we personally cannot ourselves discern the difference between what makes their claims better than an alternative one that sounds good to our untrained ears. This is humility and deference to legitimate authority.

Now, what is vital is that specialists take extra pains to reexamine the paradigms they share, that experts take under advisement the legitimate external challenges to their paradigms, and that experts earn their credibility with the public through demonstrable authority which educated people can recognize.

The problem with religious thinking is not that it involves deference to authorities but that the alleged authorities in "theology" have no credentials to speak with any knowledge about the things theology claims to address. The Scripture writers of all traditions have no more access to knowledge about supernatural schemes of justice requiring propitiation of sins than you or I have. They have no more access to know the thoughts of "God", let alone anything about the existence of such a being, than you or I do. Authority and community of like-mindedness are corrupted when the alleged authorities cannot demonstrate their sufficiency to speak with authority and when community of like-mindedness is preserved by policing against dissent, is based on authorities who are in principle unquestionable, is based on unsubstantiated claims that no experts could justifiably defend.

So, what are the pros and cons of atheists ourselves branding ourselves with the "scarlet A"? (1) It is a means of providing political solidarity since regardless of whether we disagree with each other on any of a number of other issues, we share at least one particular philosophical position which has political consequences for us and it is valuable for us to be in touch with each other insofar as we have a common practical interest.

» Posted on July 25, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Daniel Fincke

(2) Sharing that single philosophical position does not necessarily entail any other specific ones, but it often does make us more likely to agree on at least several others. And it also means that a whole set of other positions will be rejected in common as part of our coming to this philosophical conclusion (that there is no adequate reason to believe in God) in the first place. Therefore, dialoguing with others who share this philosophical position promises to be fruitful in particular ways that discussion with those who disagree is not. We can bracket all sorts of questions where there is disagreement and both (a) explore the implications of what we agree on and (b) find the places where even we disagree with each other. It is valuable both to argue with your enemies AND your friends, and your arguments in each case will be potentially fruitful in differing ways.

(3) As a group with a shared philosophical position, we can rely on each other's complementary areas of expertise to aid us in filling out the implications of what we already think for our own good reasons and to be a resource for each other against counter-evidence that we cannot address within our own means.

Now, the danger is that we hide behind group membership or each other's authority even when there is some compelling evidence that we are substantially wrong and our authorities do not have sufficiently better answers than competitor authorities do. But that danger is inherent in any thought endeavor that is communal and nearly all successful human thinking happens communally in the ways I described above. So, this good thing—thinking in tandem with other people—requires a vigilance against its possible vices—protection of the group or the group's cherished ideas as a dogma which becomes unassailable.

I want to say that atheists are inherently skeptics and so not as prone to this group-think as others are, but unfortunately there enough Marxists in the world to prove that thesis false! Yes, we atheists if less scrupulous about the rest of our beliefs as we are about matters related to gods,may get snookered by bad economics, bad psychology, bad politics, etc., and even compromise our intellects out of rabid allegiances to group identities. So, we, like all other holders of common philosophical positions and members of communities (from the ordinary to the intellectual kinds) must scrupulously hold ourselves to rigorous standards of evidence and critical reexamination of our beliefs which we take as settled.

So is the "scarlet A" a poison to atheist thinking or is it a bridge to connect currently isolated people who would make for a productive political and philosophical force in the culture if only they could start finding each other and constructively interacting together with each other? My suspicion is that it's the latter, given the disorganized and alienated state of atheists in America today.

And if it makes you feel any better, even as I (quite excitedly) adopted the A for my website, I made mine orange to fit my own site's aesthetic, so at least in my own case I can attest that my own gesture of like-mindedness was itself mixed with an assertion of my willingness to be non-conformist at the same time.

» Posted on July 25, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Atheist Groupthink? « Camels With Hammers

[...] to a blog post at End Hereditary Religion, 0ne of the commenters spoke out against the “scarlet A.”  The scarlet A serves as the [...]

» Posted on July 25, 2009 at 9:14 am

Richard_Collins

Atheists and humanists are notoriously independent minded so I don't see a danger to flying the red letter "A". For the first time in history the web has given us a means to find each other and constructively counter the oppressive religious hegemony that shackles the mind and crushes the human spirit. The issue is human rights for men, women and children. Atheism may be the banner, but ultimately secular humanism is the philosophy. I think our frightened religious friends and neighbors attack atheism because it does not have a spelled out philosophy, beyond do not create dogma!. That's hard to fight, but any mentally challenged believer gets atheism. Those people hate my jesus! Our opponents find it harder to attack humanism because then you have to fashion arguments against the doctrines of humanism.

» Posted on July 26, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Richard_Collins

Daniel writes:
The Scripture writers of all traditions have no more access to knowledge about supernatural schemes of justice requiring propitiation of sins than you or I have.
+++++++

Exactly, and as Stefan Molyneux writes in "On Truth: The Tryanny of Illusion". Parents speak to their children about morals as though they knew what they were talking about. Read my posts on Molyneux, "Fact and Fiction" and the Intersection of Molyneux and Law.

» Posted on July 26, 2009 at 7:42 pm

Atheist Bus Ads | Tangled Up in Blue Guy

[...] Atheism is not a belief system, ok? Got that? Why must we repeat ourselves? (endhereditaryreligion.com) [...]

» Posted on August 6, 2009 at 5:35 am

Cat wrangling and Atheist bus ads in Iowa

[...] Atheism is not a belief system, ok? Got that? Why must we repeat ourselves? (endhereditaryreligion.com) [...]

» Posted on August 9, 2009 at 8:09 pm

BillE

Of course Atheism is a belief system. In fact, Atheists spend more time talking about God than do many Christians! Atheists do believe in God. It's just that they reject God and then try to convince themselves (as well as others) that they are right for rejecting God. Silly people…. your belief is a faith. You have faith that your belief is correct. Of course, the majority of people know from what is seen and unseen that you are destined for a terrible fate.

» Posted on August 23, 2009 at 2:33 am

Heidi

I'm so sorry that you have rejected Odin the Allfather, and that you will not be admitted to Valhalla. They don't let you in unless you die in battle, so I'm guessing you're pretty much screwed. It's so silly and sad of you not to glorify Odin's name. Why, Odin even has his very own day of the week (Wednesday), unlike some lesser gods I could name.

» Posted on August 23, 2009 at 3:44 am

anti_supernaturalist

Speaking clearly about non-existent, but well-known fictional characters

Atheists cannot talk about your so-called "God" or about gods in general. There are no gods. By presupposing that a name (or a noun) must actually refer to something, you commit an elementary mistake.

Having an opinion that gods do not exist cannot mean that one has an opinion "about" gods. There is no so-called ‘god’ in reality, according to the atheist, about which to have an opinion.

However, I can have opinions about a fictitious character named 'Hamlet' as presented by Shakespeare in his play, 'The Tragedy of Hamlet.'

I can also have opinions about a fictitious character named 'God' as presented in the synoptic gospels of 'The New Testament.'

All I can know about these characters is what I read in allegedly “sacred” primary sources directly devoted to them. I can no more find "God" by doing cosmological research than I can disinter "Hamlet's” bones in a chapel at Elsinore.

No interpretation of Shakespeare's play "Hamlet" makes some character called 'Hamlet' more likely to have existed. No interpretation of the synoptics of the "New Testament" makes some being called 'God' more likely to exist. Theology is fifth-rate fan fiction.

the anti_supernaturalist

the anti_supernaturalist

» Posted on August 23, 2009 at 3:53 pm

anti_supernaturalist

You must be blood-sister to Raven wisest companion of the Great Goddess.

the anti_supernaturalist

» Posted on August 23, 2009 at 3:59 pm

anti_supernaturalist

BillE, You've been spending too much time listening to the wrong people and reading inferior literature. Do not project your xian death wish onto us. You already live out a terrible fate — being someone who wishes others die and wishes them to suffer forever postmortem in a hell born of a monstrous revenge impulse.

By rejecting reason . . . and accepting fideism as your refuge, you assume that others are as unclean in their mental habits as you are.

Your thinking almost frolics in typical fallacies (failures in reasoning) common to minds steeped in the illogic of xian discourse. (Blame it on Paul.)

1) You simply cannot assume the very point at issue — that's "begging the question", or "circular reasoning." You cannot claim that "P must believe that some god X exists" because you assume that "X exists."

2) Your viciously circular logic turns on the commonly held notion that if N is a name (or a noun or pronoun) that N does actually refer (point to) something which does exist. Names always "name" things, right? Wrong.

Just as 'Hamlet' refers to no being in the past. 'God' refers to no being now or ever. They are fictional constructs. See my explanation below in a separate post.

Here are your fallacious arguments:

'God' refers to some being X (hidden false assumption)
——————————————
Therefore, X exists
Person (P) is speaking about X (false assumption)
——————————————-
Therefore, P is speaking about God (invalid inference)
——————————————-
Therefore, P believes that God exists (invalid inference)

Of course, there is an additional failure to make a basic discrimination: between "believing that" and "believing in" — just because "P believes (as a fact) that BillE spouts nonsense" it does not follow that "P believes in (trusts) the nonsense that BillE spouts (because he does the spouting)". Just the opposite in fact.

the anti_supernaturalist

» Posted on August 23, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Breaking Spells » The psychology of atheism?

[...] Atheism is not a belief system, ok? Got that? Why must we repeat ourselves? (endhereditaryreligion.com) var addthis_pub = ''; var addthis_language = 'en';var addthis_options = 'email, favorites, digg, delicious, myspace, google, facebook, reddit, live, more'; [...]

» Posted on January 14, 2010 at 10:31 am

Post a new comment

« On Truth, The Tyranny of Illusion Intersection of Stephen Law and Stefan Molyneux »