Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Atheists Unite!

Organised atheism fascinates me. Mainly because of the parallels between the development of the modern atheist movement and that of early religions – the emergence of ‘church leaders’, creation of certain ‘doctrines’ and ‘rites’, the treatment of apostate members, the push to gain political influence, and so on. I’m not saying that it’s wrong in any sense – certainly, any group that feels persecuted or threatened will often self-organise and push for power in order to assert their rights – just rather ironic.

This recent story has some interesting points:

During the first five months of 2009, 95 new atheist groups have formed through meetup.com, bringing the US total to 372. That’s up from 59 in 2005, says Blair Scott, director of national affiliates for American Atheists, a networking and advocacy organization.

…”It used to be that these atheist groups … met almost in hiding,” says American Atheists spokesman David Silverman. “Now they’re doing a lot more stands at town parties, a lot more trash pickups, a lot more blood donations – a lot more stuff that gets their group out and noticed.”

It’s easy to understand why atheism is pushing for more say in decision-making though, when you read stories such as this one about the inclusion of ‘God’ in the American Pledge of Allegiance. When a Senator justifies it by saying “The Founders based the Constitution and our laws on religious faith and principles that clear the way for individual freedom”, I think he’s only getting the latter part exactly correct. The part which is most important to allowing people freedom from religion…

Not to mention the ways in which Fundamentalist religions are affecting the wider population, from the teaching of evolution in American schools, through to the obvious influence in certain Middle East nations. There’s certainly a need for a counter-balance of some sort. My only beef with the modern atheist movement is that a large portion of them (including their ‘leaders’) are pretty obnoxious and self-righteous. Which just makes them another special interest religious group that may one day impede my individual rights and silence my point of view.

Hell…er…heck, even our favourite Tool singer is an atheist apparently (and sexy to boot). Not to speak for MJK, but perusing that list I’m not sure about how they’re defining the word “atheist”. Antipathy towards organised religion does not always an atheist make. Unfortunately, that seems to be how both Fundamentalists and Atheists tend to think…

Editor
  1. Sexiest atheists
    I don’t understand those links either. I can’t also claim that I can’t stand organized religions like most (or all) of the people quoted, but I’m far from being an atheist; and that seems to be the case with some of those folks, like Uma Thurman and Angelina Jolie.

    Oh, and this was both hilarious and sad at the same time:

    [quote]Number 6: Bree Olson (1986-)

    Career: American Pornographic Actress

    Claim to Atheism: I’m atheist. I know that when you die, there’s no heaven, so that really bums me out. I wish I could be Christian and say I’m going to heaven but I know I’m not. It sucks to know the truth. [Bree Olson Interview. lukeisback.com. Retrieved on 2008-03-18.][/quote]

    Why does it suck, honey? Personally I would be elated to have such a level of certainty about anything in my life!

    But don’t worry, I still want you to marry me 😛

    —–
    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

    1. Salmon mousse
      It annoys me when atheists automatically lump life-after-death in the religious Heaven/Hell basket. I personally believe in the possibility that consciousness may survive after death, but I do not subscribe to religious concepts of Heaven and Hell.

      Can atheists prove there’s nothing after death? The “truth”, as Bree sucks to know, is that we don’t know. Let’s say it together — We. Don’t. Know. But we all get to find out eventually, and I’m a patient man. 😉

      ~ * ~

      @levitatingcat

      1. You and your church music…
        [quote=Rick MG]I think Greg was thinking of Bono.[/quote]

        I prefer my music to be from demonic-invoking undergrounders, not God-Bothering megastars…
        ;P

        Kind regards,
        Greg
        ——————————————-
        You monkeys only think you’re running things
        @DailyGrail

  2. Atheist Late Night TV?
    What’s next, Atheist Late Night TV to balance out all the Christian PTL Late Night TV? That would be great – atheist late night TV exactly like the Christian fanatics have – same PTL format, white patent leather shoes, catch phrases and key words like “covenant”, hell the works!

    Now that’s Entertainment! HAHA!!Can’t wait!

    (PTL = Pay The Leeches)

    🙂

  3. it’s interesting. by the
    it’s interesting. by the standards of that atheist blogger, i must be an atheist. i always thought that i was a polytheist. you learn something new every day.

  4. Good point, and one that
    Good point, and one that brings me hope rather than disillusion.

    One way i look at things is that religion functions much like politics. Forgetting theology for a second we have bodies like the Church of England (to pick my own) that advertise, try to get bottoms on seats, persuade using sales techniques (most political parties try and sell a better view of this life, religion tries to sell rewards in the next one), then they raise money to lobby politics itself to gain changes in society that will increase their own power and wealth. The notion of countering this with either a divide between politics and religion (where does that ever exist?), multi-faith representation, or full blown null positions such as atheism is important to me.

    I would add the idea that the reason that religions are often untangleable from politics on many levels is that they actually are political parties, though with obvious differences. The removal of the reward from this life into the next changes the nature in an important way, freeing them from certain responsibilities to the people and putting them on paths towards some of the more obvious disfunctional societies.

    The other place where their political level begins to disfunction is because they promote based on servitude and belief. Normal political parties do this as well of course, but there is a difference in character. The higher up a religious hierarchy you go the more right wing and religiously prioritised the views of the adherents become so that the normal public are at one level, the vicars at the next, followed by the bishops etc. The trend here is only general of course, but it is visible and has reprecussions for the political nature of the Church’s. Compare this to normal politics, where we might hope to elect the more centrist and mainstream voices into power and i think you can see the difference and the effect it can have geopolitically.

    We live in our own realities can be expressed in another way, everything is a hypothesis. We all have our own ideas. Those ideas that are in mass circulation, such as God’s and Heaven deserve thought, but i would expect people here to be philosophical about it rather than religiously factual and throwing bible quotes back at me 😉

    So where can philosophy take us?

    Firstly where did these ideas come from? Does their place in historical space and time given them any specific ultimate relevance or truth? Or should they come under modern philosophical and scientific enquiry? Are the God’s of King Arthur real? Are King Arthur’s thoughts on the matter unimportant now just because ‘mainstream’ modern historians do not think he ever existed? What about St Paul’s? Or John’s? 1st John 5 7 and the Trinity. Where does the line lie?

    In John 1 1, “In the beginning was the word” etc, a God, a god and others say he ‘was as god was’, the Greek uses a modifier, it says that he has the qualities of God, not is God. And what of the translation of the word Logos in the Greek for word?

    David Hume, the Scottish philosopher states that the human mind is capable of certain functions, addition, subtraction, reduction, expansion of ideas from sensory input. There may be much more, but this is certainly going on. What ideas are lending themselves to the hypothesis of God’s and heavens or hells? Pain, pleasure, suffering, love, fire, transition, movement, space, moving from one room to another, fatherhood, motherhood, goodness, evil, power, causality, strength etc etc. Does the conjuntion of these ideas lend any credence to the hypothesis? Of course not, just like it doesnt to confound variables like gravity or fusion. So what do we do?

    1. Or the other way around
      “…religion functions much like politics” and politics function much like religions.

      Q: Which one of the two was created by us?

      A: Trick question – BOTH were

  5. Beware of certainty. Embrace Maybe.
    Atheism = know them by their fruits…

    And instead of inventing new fruits, use what fruits you already have.

    A relentlessly-ancient thought-process.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal