What does it mean to be an atheist? Is there some special club with weekly dues and funny hats that you must pay and don in order to be a ‘proper’ atheist? Do you have to know a special handshake? What sort of club is this and where is my gin and tonic? I ordered it ages ago. The service here sucks. Oh, wait. No wonder. This is Fuddruckers and not some convoluted atheist circle jerk.
I’m noticing a fairly disturbing trend lately. It seems that we atheists are expected to stick together and lift up anyone else who happens to be an atheist, as well, no matter what other factors might ordinarily inhibit support for them. First, I suppose we should define atheism. All it means to me is a lack of a god belief. Anyone can be an atheist. There really isn’t much to it. There are no codes or bylaws one must adhere to in order to join. There are atheist conservatives, atheist liberals, atheist Jets and atheist Sharks. It doesn’t matter. The only thing that binds us together is a lack of a belief in god.
I’ve never felt the need to support anyone just because he happens to be an atheist. What’s the point? Atheism isn’t a platform. It’s simply a word that helps us identify ourselves and other people who don’t believe in god. It’s a small part of our identity and, if you ask me, atheism is simply a by-product of something I find to be much more important: critical thinking. Without logic and reason I don’t know why anyone would come to the conclusion that there are no gods. That’s why it confuses me when atheists also happen to be conspiracy theorists or anti-vaxxers. I don’t quite understand how someone can come to one major logical conclusion and then throw reason right out the window in favor of some groundless conclusion. Can atheists have wacky beliefs? Sure. Do I have to respect them for it? Absolutely not.
In short, rules belong to religions. Now bugger off. Here comes my drink.
Cuddles,
Kate
I agree.
In WWII, the US and Britain (and others) cozied up to Stalin simply because he was not a Nazi, regardless that he was a dickboiling nutbag. It seems there are many skeptics who would cozy up to Maher and his ilk simply because he is not a theist.
Hopefully, Maher won’t end up killing as many people, although if his anti-vax rhetoric is effective enough, he just might.
Well put.
Now, the tendency to form cliques and entrench into an ‘Us Vs Them’ mentality is a normal part of the human process. But it does not have to do so, especially not at the price of the critical thinking that, supposedly, defines us.
The Dawkins foundation as the right to want to honour Maher, to be sure, and I have the right to disagree with them.
Loved your article .You`re very LOGICAL and SMART …..
“I’m noticing a fairly disturbing trend lately. It seems that we atheists are expected to stick together and lift up anyone else who happens to be an atheist, as well, no matter what other factors might ordinarily inhibit support for them.”
It is my view that it isn’t actually a “current” trend to stick together and lift up atheists no matter what other factors might ordinarily inhibit support for them.
Supporting a vocal push back socially and publicly as atheists *regardless of other personality traits* is the actual current trend and it is hardly disturbing…it is, in my opinion, very refreshing, completely necessary and long overdue.
I can give a couple of big “high fives” to all of my friends at a Hitchen’s rant on religion and then proceed right into a very noticeable “wtf?” facial twitch on his ravings regarding war in Iraq.
I still like the old fart and support his “atheist activism”.
Now, of course, atheists share only one common facet (by default) but, as individuals, we can disagree on any one of a number of assorted issues.
Some atheists immerse themselves in community service and promote that sort of activism while others like to chat about life, the universe and everything through the prism of being critical of *all* things, religious assertions especially.
We can, in fact, chew gum and walk at the same time.
In short, we are individuals who may or may not share many views and opinions except for the one we’re certain of based on a lack of evidence for the existence of God(s)ess(es).
With all of that said, I support Cuddly Atheism Kate and agree that I don’t have to agree with your views of atheists lifting up other atheists in a public forum and still be an atheist.
My only remaining question for Kate and the AssHat (hrmmm, sounds like a 70′s PI sitcom) would be…in spite of the disagreement with the Dawkins Award being given to Maher, do you still “stick up” for Dawkins and Maher regarding their specific critical views on religion specifically and their vocal support for atheists in general?
And, no, you certainly don’t have to and, no, I’m not an archbishop of atheism testing your fealty!
;0)
I’m just me, your friend Steve from Biloxi (who wasn’t invited to the ceremony and had no opportunity to send a card or a gift or nothin’…grrrr).
No-one was invited to the ceremony, but we accept gifts at all times.
As for Dawkins and Maher and “sticking up” for them. I support Dawkins proudly because of his overall skeptical and scientific viewpoint. I cannot say I support Maher, though, even when I agree with him (though, if asked, I will certainly declare my agreement; I’m not going to lie out of Maher-spite).
Going back to my Stalin analogy, there’s one glaring problem with it (and I’m a bit surprised no-one’s busted me on it yet): we needed Stalin. Yes, Germany under Hitler was bad enough that taking strange bedfellows was acceptable. Yes, Stalin was a powerful enough ally that accepting him in particular was not only acceptable; it was all but mandatory.
When it comes to Maher and atheism, I do not think that the situation of atheists in America is dire enough nor do I think Maher is important enough that there is any need to support him. We’ve got better friends.
But again you question a person’s thinking because it doesn’t fall in line with your own. And you belittle their conviction that there is no god because of their thoughts on things not remotely related to said convictions. Because how can someone believe there is no god if they believe that vaccinations are harmful?
“Atheism” is calling a spade a spade instead of “a holy instrument of salvation”. It’s a devotion to seeing things as they genuinely are rather than as you wish to see them. Certainly, you can make a religion out of your pursuit of what is genuinely true and, I’d argue, it’s a necessity to reach some degree of consistent devotion to that pursuit. In other words, are you genuinely actively interested in what’s true or is your interest only half-hearted, chaotic or even apathetic? Where many go wrong is attempting to grow their private religion into a religion of many which ignores the fact every pursuit of what is true must necessarily be tailor-made to ourselves and ourselves alone. “Religion”, or rather consistent passion and curiosity for what is true put into daily practice, is a necessity – imposing your brand of religion is not and, in fact, is more often than not harmful to other life.
No one can see through your eyes, hear with your ears, taste with your tongue, smell with your nose, touch with your hands or skin. They cannot think with your mind, feel happiness or sadness, feel love, experience awe and wonder or decide to be apathetic for you. The “religion of you” is something only you can create and impossible to rightly create for others.
Thanks, AssHat, for that insightful response…I’ll mull that over as it may shift my perspective of what y’all are on about.
In the meantime, speaking of Stalin (first time I’ve ever typed that particular seque) ~
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/6545874/Vitaly-Ginzburg.html
“Although Ginzburg and his wife celebrated the anniversary of Stalin’s death as a “great festival”, he shared the dictator’s avowed atheism and, after the fall of communism, emerged as a trenchant defender of scientific rationalism in a Russia rediscovering religion. When a Moscow newspaper reported that he had criticised the proposed introduction of religious teaching in schools as a project initiated by “church riff-raff”, figures associated with the Russian People’s Assembly, a pro-Orthodox think-tank, began proceedings to indict him under anti-hate laws. ”
My best to you and Kate.
If you’d send me an address via email, I do have a gift for you both.
Steve