Atheist ceremonies.

[Nialler]

I see that there have been a couple of news stories (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/08/03/baptism.ART_ART_08-03-08_B4_61AU3UV.html) and YouTube videos floating around regarding atheist "debaptisms". The NYC Atheists group are pretty keen on them as well, suggesting that the card-carrying atheist should besides wearing atheism t-shirts and calling their kids after prominent atheists also consider "deconfirming" and "un-Bar Mitzvah" ceremonies. The news story linked above mentions the form of the baptism, which involved the President of American Atheists using a hairdryer on the depatisees before they added to the undoubted hilarity by partaking of a wafer.

I find all this vaguely disturbing. Why is it considered necessary? In a sense it validates religious ritual and merely replaces it with an atheist version. The symbolism is every bit as absurd as the originals. On top of that the "debaptising" seems to be every bit as bad as the ritual it mimics. Instead of being washed of Original Sin (I've come with some very original sins, by the way), the subject of the ritual is being washed of theism.

I know that it was all played in a making-an-ironic-statement-aren't-we-funny type of way, but the humour of it is plodding and the secondary ironic tones overwhelm whatever play they were making.

Above all else, it makes the participants look stupid. Why? Because it *is* a stupid idea.

One comment about the day captured my eye: "This will drive the fundies mad". Maybe it will. But it will also offend the very many non-fundamentalist - non-evangelical theists who go quietly about their observances not seeking to recruit or persaude anyone of the rightness of their beliefs.

Atheism is exposing itself to charges of cultism with greater frequency of late.

What's next? A "reattaching of the foreskin" ceremony?

[Nialler]

I should add that rejecting one's religion is a striking comment on the efficacy of the rituals by which you were inducted to that religion.

To simply ignore all of the commitments and promises made in those rituals seems to me to be a damning comment on them and an adequate expression of how binding you see them to have been.

[Ray Moscow]

I've never heard of this before, but I also fail to see the point in "deconversion" ceremonies.

Also, those of us who were formerly religious were usually just doing the best we knew at the time, and I don't see the point in mocking what we used to do (except, of course, when other people try to push it on us or other would-be victims).

[Nialler]

The mockery aspect is also very close to home. In my case, my baptism was, of course, at the behest of my parents. To partake in a snide pastiche of the event would of necessity involve directing some of that scorn at them.

[Nialler]

"close to him"? Meant "close to home" and I can't edit for some reason at this PC.

[Jet Black]

done it for you Nialler.

I agree though, these ceremonies seem rather pointless to me, though perhaps some people want to announce their Atheism to the world and with the lack of any religious texts telling us what to do, are making it up as they go along (as I guess people did thousands of years ago when these ceremonies were first made up). It would be better if they could do it in a less mocking manner though.

[leccy]

Stupidest.
Idea.
Ever.

[Febble]

Stupidest.
Idea.
Ever.

I don't see why. Rituals can work.

[Rathpig]

I don't see why. Rituals can work.

Can work for what?

In this case the ritual is intended to mock and upset those who are believers in a very juvenile display of religious angst. It also opens the whole of "atheism" to well-deserved ridicule.

[leccy]

Stupidest.
Idea.
Ever.

I don't see why. Rituals can work.

What for though?

What's the point?

[Febble]

I don't see why. Rituals can work.

Can work for what?

In this case the ritual is intended to mock and upset those who are believers in a very juvenile display of religious angst. It also opens the whole of "atheism" to well-deserved ridicule.

Well, possibly. I'm just saying that rituals have power, and that for some people, symbolically washing off their baptism might be a powerful thing to do.

For others, not so much. But I recently, as it happens, heard someone say he wished he could.

[Febble]

Stupidest.
Idea.
Ever.

I don't see why. Rituals can work.

What for though?

What's the point?

Rejigging your mental models with a powerful bit of imagery?

[Ray Moscow]

I don't see why. Rituals can work.

Can work for what?

In this case the ritual is intended to mock and upset those who are believers in a very juvenile display of religious angst. It also opens the whole of "atheism" to well-deserved ridicule.

Well, possibly. I'm just saying that rituals have power, and that for some people, symbolically washing off their baptism might be a powerful thing to do.

For others, not so much. But I recently, as it happens, heard someone say he wished he could.

I never felt that my baptism, receiving communion, or any of that sullied me in any way.

However, I did feel some disgust about associating with certain people after a while (present company excepted, of course). But I didn't need any ceremony for that -- I just changed my associates.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Febble has a point. Rituals are (apparently) hard-wired into the majority of people's consciousnesses. Being responsible for your own reprogramming, so to speak, is an important part of breaking free from the stultifying aspects of your former belief structure.

Some folks don't need this to be public. In fact, some people don't need it at all just as some people don't need an aid to breaking an addiction.

Pointlessness is subjective.

[Pavlov's Dog]

In my subjective opinion they are fucking stupid.

[Nialler]

Febble has a point. Rituals are (apparently) hard-wired into the majority of people's consciousnesses. Being responsible for your own reprogramming, so to speak, is an important part of breaking free from the stultifying aspects of your former belief structure.

Some folks don't need this to be public. In fact, some people don't need it at all just as some people don't need an aid to breaking an addiction.

Pointlessness is subjective.

But this was all very public and was very ritual. The idiot President of American Atheists was wearing robes, ffs. Derituaising a previous ritual only serves to validate the first one and is not a good introduction to a life of freethought.

Far better to just put things away and to file past rituals in the bin.

And how do you deritualise circumcision?

My point is that it's quite clearly impossible to reverse the effects of a physical ritual. If Febble is serious that rituals have effects, then some of them may be as irreversible as physical effects.

Above all, though it is aesthetically, intellectually and logically stupid.

[Alethias]

Some people seem to feel a sense of closure when they do this. Some value ceremony as part of their life.

Why do humanists get a humanist celebrant to conduct a wedding for them instead of just going down to the courthouse and getting a license? Similar reasons. Lots feel a need for some sort of ceremony to be part of marking significant events in their lives. To put it another way, the point of the ceremony is to make a memory, to have a significant event as a marker to look back at with fondness in the passing years of your life.

If someone feels a need for an un-baptism ceremony to mark their de-conversion from christianity, why the hell not? If someone else prefers to just ignore it, why the hell not? Either should be the route chosen if that is what the individual prefers.

[Pavlov's Dog]

If someone feels a need for an un-baptism ceremony to mark their de-conversion from christianity, why the hell not? If someone else prefers to just ignore it, why the hell not? Either should be the route chosen if that is what the individual prefers.

He was wearing robes for christ's sake!

[leccy]

And how do you deritualise circumcision?



http://www.junkfoodblog.com/uploaded_images/pork-rinds-779594.jpg

+

http://www.pocketgadget.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/superglue.jpg

[Matty]

In my subjective opinion they are fucking stupid.

this. ^

of course i think the originals equally fucking stupid but many people seem to get something out of them. Felt up by the priest for starters.

[Nialler]

Some people seem to feel a sense of closure when they do this. Some value ceremony as part of their life.

Why do humanists get a humanist celebrant to conduct a wedding for them instead of just going down to the courthouse and getting a license? Similar reasons. Lots feel a need for some sort of ceremony to be part of marking significant events in their lives. To put it another way, the point of the ceremony is to make a memory, to have a significant event as a marker to look back at with fondness in the passing years of your life.

If someone feels a need for an un-baptism ceremony to mark their de-conversion from christianity, why the hell not? If someone else prefers to just ignore it, why the hell not? Either should be the route chosen if that is what the individual prefers.

We're supoosed to be rational people here. Freethinkers, if you will. If there has been a psychological burden imposed by a previously undergone ritual, well then psychology might hold the answer. If that involves a guy dressing in a robe brandishing a hairdryer, then fine. But let that burden be first defined and the "cure" be established.

I know that the people who were there will be saying "but it was a joke"! That avoids the issues. Firstly, as jokes goes it just wasn't funny. Secondly, it is gapingly open to misinterpretation. Thirdly, to suggest afterwards that it may provide "closure" is definitely in the realm of ex post facto rationalisation.

If there is a need for this closure then let us not self-diagnose that need and let us apply some rigour in attending to that need.

But not through an idiot wearing robes and sniggereing his way through what was clearly an enormously childish event.

[Alethias]

We're supoosed to be rational people here. Freethinkers, if you will. If there has been a psychological burden imposed by a previously undergone ritual, well then psychology might hold the answer. If that involves a guy dressing in a robe brandishing a hairdryer, then fine. But let that burden be first defined and the "cure" be established.

I know that the people who were there will be saying "but it was a joke"! That avoids the issues. Firstly, as jokes goes it just wasn't funny. Secondly, it is gapingly open to misinterpretation. Thirdly, to suggest afterwards that it may provide "closure" is definitely in the realm of ex post facto rationalisation.

If there is a need for this closure then let us not self-diagnose that need and let us apply some rigour in attending to that need.

But not through an idiot wearing robes and sniggereing his way through what was clearly an enormously childish event.I'm fine with that.

But if someone wants to establish a ritual that pokes fun at a major religion, I think that's pretty kool. Sometimes a little silliness can help people get past their locked frames of reference.

Why not have a little fun and mess with the serious peoples rituals? If you don't like that, Nialler, fine. But personally I don't see anything wrong with a little silliness. Breaks up peoples static mental patterns.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Are they doing it in fun or are they being serious? I was under the impression that they were being serious. If they are being intentionally ironic that is another story.

[VoxRat]

..The NYC Atheists group are pretty keen on them as well, suggesting that the card-carrying atheist should besides wearing atheism t-shirts and calling their kids after prominent atheists also consider "deconfirming" and "un-Bar Mitzvah" ceremonies....Well, I don't know about any of the rest of it, but I was determined not to give my kid a Christian - or Biblical - name. I named him Julian, after the last Roman emperor who tried to reverse the establishment of Christianity as a state religion.

I suspect his Catholic grandmother secretly baptized him (she's a pediatrician, and I know she did this with terminal cases under her care). And you know what? I couldn't possibly care less.

[epepke]

Oh, that's Ed! Great guy. Very silly guy, though, and why not? If you don't like it, go eat some stinky cheese and take Derrida seriously.

[Rathpig]

If this is a one-of event, then no big deal. It's kinda silly and mildly retarded, but it very well could be a "have to be there" moment. No harm. No foul. I don't believe that just because you are a gray beard you have to always act like a Stoic.

If this is something bigger, that as has been alluded to as a "ritual" with some psychological
"cleansing" effect, then that is a problem.

Atheism is a simple answer to a single question. It isn't a lifestyle or a psychological crutch. People who believe they were harmed by a religion should seek psychological help if they need "cleansing" of their superstition. If old people want to get together and act like retards, none of my business. When I do find out, I will laugh at them.

Remember this is Madalyn O'Hair's organization. One would have to try very hard to damage the word "atheist" more than her.

[SteveF]

I'm going to have a deconversion ritual, presided over by Rook Hawkins.

[lippard]

While I think this particular ceremony seems silly, read Pascal Boyer's _Religion Explained_ if you don't think there's a point to religious ritual that still applies for social groups in the secular world. (Also see the section on rituals in Diego Gambetta's _The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection_, for a non-religious instance of the same phenomenon.)

Ceremonies act to cement social ties by signalling things like commitment to a group or a relationship and increasing the expense of defecting.

[Alethias]

The first sunday of january 2004 was the first time I missed church because i just didn't fucking believe anymore. I went to see a movie instead. It was probably a totally lame movie, as most are, but it was awesome because it was a sign of my freedom. It's not necessary to me, but I make a habit of going to see movies on sunday mornings while the good christian folk of this town are in church, and especially on the first sunday of every year. It is a fitting memorial to me, and one that I enjoy immensely. I don't really care if it's logical; it meets a personal psychological need to honor or memorialize one of the most incredibly freeing things that has ever happened to me. I have a nephew that does something slightly different. He parks his car out by a local lake, tunes some jazz in on his radio, smokes a cigar and reads out of whatever book he's in, instead of going to church.

For others it may not be a big deal, but growing up like we did makes it seem worthwhile to us to make a point of doing something different like this.

I don't fault people for rejecting ceremony. That is an excellent way of dishonoring religion. But somehow it seems useful to me to substitute my own ceremony in place of what others would demand of me.

[Farhat]

Oh, that's Ed! Great guy. Very silly guy, though, and why not? If you don't like it, go eat some stinky cheese and take Derrida seriously.

Don't knock stinky cheese. A friend of mine used to have a stinky cheese party every year. The rule was the stinkier the better and a cheap wine to go with it. I successfully picked up a woman there.

[Rathpig]

Ceremonies act to cement social ties by signalling things like commitment to a group or a relationship and increasing the expense of defecting.

Which I think is the larger point which must be addressed if the "ceremony" isn't just a bit of silliness for laughs. If it was in mildly serious then it must be criticized for the very reasons you list. Social ceremony leading to a group identity is one short step to groupthink, us-versus-them, and excommunication for the non-agreeable.

We have seen exactly that type of behavior this Summer from the New York City Atheist affiliate of American Atheists. So it is a real situation which must be addressed.

This specific situation with the "de-baptism" seems like a lark, probably a lark helped along by a few drinks, so it isn't a big deal. If it becomes an annual event then it should be criticized.

[Garrett]

There you have it. Don't adhere to a group, lest you realize that others aren't in your group.

[Nialler]

Are they doing it in fun or are they being serious? I was under the impression that they were being serious. If they are being intentionally ironic that is another story.

It's serious to the extent that in one of their newsletters NYCA actually recommend these ceremonies as part of being an active atheist.

[Nialler]

While I think this particular ceremony seems silly, read Pascal Boyer's _Religion Explained_ if you don't think there's a point to religious ritual that still applies for social groups in the secular world. (Also see the section on rituals in Diego Gambetta's _The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection_, for a non-religious instance of the same phenomenon.)

Ceremonies act to cement social ties by signalling things like commitment to a group or a relationship and increasing the expense of defecting.

I've been through ceremonies before for various non-religious events. Yes, they can be of use in marking a phase-change in your life, or for confirming commitment to a group or an ideal.

But what I fail to see the value of is negative "cleansing" ceremonies which undo a ceremony which is deemed to havr had no value in the first place.

If Baptism has no spiritual value whatever for the baptisee, if it really is just a guy in robes pouring water on your head as a baby, then fine. Once you have made the conclusion that you do not accept the beliefs of your religion then you are home and hosed. There is no need for a symbolic debaptism because the first one was just a hollow ceremony in your new worldview.

[Febble]

While I think this particular ceremony seems silly, read Pascal Boyer's _Religion Explained_ if you don't think there's a point to religious ritual that still applies for social groups in the secular world. (Also see the section on rituals in Diego Gambetta's _The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection_, for a non-religious instance of the same phenomenon.)

Ceremonies act to cement social ties by signalling things like commitment to a group or a relationship and increasing the expense of defecting.

I've been through ceremonies before for various non-religious events. Yes, they can be of use in marking a phase-change in your life, or for confirming commitment to a group or an ideal.

But what I fail to see the value of is negative "cleansing" ceremonies which undo a ceremony which is deemed to havr had no value in the first place.

If Baptism has no spiritual value whatever for the baptisee, if it really is just a guy in robes pouring water on your head as a baby, then fine. Once you have made the conclusion that you do not accept the beliefs of your religion then you are home and hosed. There is no need for a symbolic debaptism because the first one was just a hollow ceremony in your new worldview.

Well, I agree, it wouldn't really be my thing either. But I think I remember someone (Alethias?) saying his "ceremony" was deliberately going to a movie on Sunday morning one week, instead of church. I can see that being useful. And sometimes we need ways of telling our bodies what our minds already know (no, I'm not a dualist, it's a figure of speech....)

But the robes thing is icky.

[ninewands]

I see that there have been a couple of news stories (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/08/03/baptism.ART_ART_08-03-08_B4_61AU3UV.html) and YouTube videos floating around regarding atheist "debaptisms". The NYC Atheists group are pretty keen on them as well, suggesting that the card-carrying atheist should besides wearing atheism t-shirts and calling their kids after prominent atheists also consider "deconfirming" and "un-Bar Mitzvah" ceremonies. The news story linked above mentions the form of the baptism, which involved the President of American Atheists using a hairdryer on the depatisees before they added to the undoubted hilarity by partaking of a wafer.

I find all this vaguely disturbing. Why is it considered necessary? In a sense it validates religious ritual and merely replaces it with an atheist version. The symbolism is every bit as absurd as the originals. On top of that the "debaptising" seems to be every bit as bad as the ritual it mimics. Instead of being washed of Original Sin (I've come with some very original sins, by the way), the subject of the ritual is being washed of theism.

I know that it was all played in a making-an-ironic-statement-aren't-we-funny type of way, but the humour of it is plodding and the secondary ironic tones overwhelm whatever play they were making.

Above all else, it makes the participants look stupid. Why? Because it *is* a stupid idea.

One comment about the day captured my eye: "This will drive the fundies mad". Maybe it will. But it will also offend the very many non-fundamentalist - non-evangelical theists who go quietly about their observances not seeking to recruit or persaude anyone of the rightness of their beliefs.

Atheism is exposing itself to charges of cultism with greater frequency of late.

What's next? A "reattaching of the foreskin" ceremony?
^^^ QFMFT!!!

[ninewands]

My thoughts on an "atheist" ceremonial that IS appropriate ...

When She Who Thinks She Must Be Obeyed and I got married, we had a rather lengthy ceremony for a wedding in a UU church. The reason we did this is because all of her weddings before had been small and informal and I wanted to give her the experience of "being a bride" for some silly reason, so we did the whole thing with bridesmaids, music, etc.

The ceremony consisted of readings fraom Kahlil Gibran and other authors and poets, including one I selected from Orson Scott Card. There was a brief "sermon" on the meaning of commitment and love, then the exchange of vows/rings/etc. Then we extinguished the chalice and made our recessional to the strains of "Linus & Lucy" from the Charlie Brown Christmas Special (the "Snoopy Dance Song").

Nowhere in a roughly 40 minute ceremony was an allusion made to a god or any other supernatural entity.

[Nialler]

What you're describing could as easily be described as an "event". A choreographed or scripted one.

I have no issue with such a ceremony. It marks a very significant change in status. My own marriage was conisderably shorter, being a purely civil one, but we both dressed up for it, did the photos, had the reception etc.

[Nialler]

Ceremonies act to cement social ties by signalling things like commitment to a group or a relationship and increasing the expense of defecting.

Which I think is the larger point which must be addressed if the "ceremony" isn't just a bit of silliness for laughs. If it was in mildly serious then it must be criticized for the very reasons you list. Social ceremony leading to a group identity is one short step to groupthink, us-versus-them, and excommunication for the non-agreeable.

We have seen exactly that type of behavior this Summer from the New York City Atheist affiliate of American Atheists. So it is a real situation which must be addressed.

This specific situation with the "de-baptism" seems like a lark, probably a lark helped along by a few drinks, so it isn't a big deal. If it becomes an annual event then it should be criticized.

That latter point is worth noting.

Lippard, I don't have access to any of the documents you provided, so even a précis would be good.

I'm wary of the point that ceremonies such as debatisms or deconformitaions or the like have an intrinisc value in terms of psychology. Theat leads directly to the validation of church ceremonies, which can then be justified in terms of their intrinsic value - even in the absence of a deity.

It also undermines any claim that the ceremonies were some form of a satire. It is illogical, after all, o suggest that "our" ceremony carries some form of psychological merit, while their's doesn't. Not when "our" one is a mirror-image of theirs.

And, while the referenced ceremony was certainly a skit, the NYCA has been promoting actual deconfirmations etc as the type of thing that atheists should perform. And not for lulz either.

[Rathpig]

... the NYCA has been promoting actual deconfirmations etc ... .

This is where the situation becomes problematic. NYCA promotes this type crap as part of their larger activist atheist agenda (such as wearing atheist t-shirts, naming your children after famous atheists, "confronting irrationality", and other open ideological promotions), and then when someone questions the behavior, they reply with "haha, it's just a joke".

Well, is it just a joke?

First of all if it's a joke at the expense of or to poke fun at organized theism, then it is juvenile and completely inappropriate. If it is just a one of joke, then it is rather embarrassing that someone recorded the event. Anyway you look at it, it's dumb. What purpose does it serve to promote something ignorant like "de-baptism"?

As Nialler has been stressing, this type of shenanigan only reinforces the power of the original symbolism. This supports the common theist theory that atheism is a form of "secular religion" and that atheists are "mad at God".

Why would an "atheist" even care to mimic theist symbolism?

Organized atheism, especially the evangelical wing, seems filled with some really retarded shitheads. People need to realize that Richard Dawkins ain't the Messiah, atheism isn't a crutch for people who need a support group, and most importantly, there should never be a war on theism simply because you don't believe.


Save the silly and faggoted behavior for the "Satanists".

[David B]

I wonder if the rationale behind this is looking for a precedent in activism by looking at gay activism.

On the one hand - coming out in a big, and provocative way.

On an other hand - either mocking, or seemingly mocking, the ceremonies of the status quo.

Gay marriages, I'd suggest, were pretty generally regarded as risible 20 years ago.

Not now - even among those who oppose them.

Still - it's not something that would appeal to me, except perhaps in a private, personal way, like Alethias above.

Seems a bit silly.

But then, gay marriages once seemed silly to me.

:dunno:

If a big thing is made of something, then why not make a big deal about changing ones mind, and getting out of it.

Like a divorce party?

David B (finds the idea that it would be politically correct to have such ceremonies very distasteful)

[lpetrich]

I will concede that hair-dryer de-baptism seems rather silly to me, but I wouldn't want to bother anyone about that, let alone get worked up over it.

[Rathpig]

...but I wouldn't want to bother anyone about that, let alone get worked up over it.

The problem stems from these groups also presenting themselves as the public "face" of atheism. American Atheists is just not another little local group doing silly things for fun. When representatives of this group speak to the media on "atheist issues" they don't disclaim themselves "spokespeople".

That is the problem.

When utter fools like Brian "Sapient" Cutler or Kelly "Titz" O'Connor have a chance at an wider audience, they do so because they present themselves as "atheist spokespeople". It is no accident that the media often chose the very worst people for this role. We, as other people who just happen to be atheists, have a duty to speak up against this type of misrepresentation. Ironically we should do this for the exact same reason "moderate" Muslims should decry the extremists using their ideology, and Jews should speak against militant Zionists, etc.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Exactly. Now I know how some black people feel when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson claim to speak on their behalf.

[Sarpedon]

I don't like this because I feel that we don't need to define ourselves by their terms.

[Nialler]

I posted this at RnR:
That Jane Everhart (from the NYC Atheists) sure is one funny broad. Here's her suggestion for a declaration when becoming baptised into the atheist faith:


I envision a semi-humorous declaration: 'In the name of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and George Bernard Shaw, I hereby declare myself free of the bondage of church, religion, heaven and hell…I dedicate myself to truth, science, logic, rational thinking and the furtherance of the power of humankind over nature…I dedicate myself to grappling with the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be, and to seek no comfort in unsubstantiated tales about any unseen, unproven, otherworldly deity, be it Jesus, god, Buddha, Yahweh, fairies, goblins, angels, Zeus or the spirits of the dead. Long live truth and reason!”
"Semi-humorous" also means semi-serious. She's kidding on the square here.

By naming Dawkins in there she implies the god-figure that every religion needs, and she merely casts away the traditional gods to be replaced by her own unholy trinity.

As for dedicating oneself to "truth, science and logic", what the fuck does that even mean?

Of course, to baptise into the atheist faith you will need someone to run the ceremony and to hold the hair-dryer etc. But of course, he'd be anything but a priest.

[Goldie]

... the NYCA has been promoting actual deconfirmations etc ... .

This is where the situation becomes problematic. NYCA promotes this type crap as part of their larger activist atheist agenda (such as wearing atheist t-shirts, naming your children after famous atheists, "confronting irrationality", and other open ideological promotions), and then when someone questions the behavior, they reply with "haha, it's just a joke".

Well, is it just a joke?

First of all if it's a joke at the expense of or to poke fun at organized theism, then it is juvenile and completely inappropriate. If it is just a one of joke, then it is rather embarrassing that someone recorded the event. Anyway you look at it, it's dumb. What purpose does it serve to promote something ignorant like "de-baptism"?

As Nialler has been stressing, this type of shenanigan only reinforces the power of the original symbolism. This supports the common theist theory that atheism is a form of "secular religion" and that atheists are "mad at God".

Why would an "atheist" even care to mimic theist symbolism?

Organized atheism, especially the evangelical wing, seems filled with some really retarded shitheads. People need to realize that Richard Dawkins ain't the Messiah, atheism isn't a crutch for people who need a support group, and most importantly, there should never be a war on theism simply because you don't believe.


Save the silly and faggoted behavior for the "Satanists".

I agree with the OP and this^^^
Having our own personal customs / ceremonies is great. However, we are supposed to be the logical ones. Marking a special event/day is one thing, what they are doing goes way beyond that, in jest or not.
Would it be too simplistic just to say, "This makes us look bad?"
Because, when I read it...it was the first thing I thought.
The whole idea is NOT to depend on such foolish thinking.

[Alethias]

Bah. After re-reading that article and thinking about it some more, I've decided I don't much like what these people are doing. It seems to be all about creating an Atheist religion, or turning atheism into religion.

The way to oppose religion isn't to turn atheism into religion. I don't mind ceremony for ceremonies sake if that is what people want. But dogmatizing atheism and making it into a religion is A BAD IDEA.

1) Christians use this argument all the time, and want to say atheists are all alike and are therefore a religion. Why make the strawman they want to construct for us accurate?
2) I left dogma. I'm not gonna return to dogma of a different type. I'm fundamentally opposed to people telling me what to believe and why to believe it.
3) It is misrepresenting itself. It is more anti-christian than it is atheism. I hate deception, and it builds in deception.
4) It is a mistake to say that everyone's needs upon deconversion are the same. I suspect that mine are radically different than say a deconvert from Catholicism, or the needs of a deconvert from Mormonism, or a deconvert from Transcendental Meditation. I may value certain aspects of ceremony in my deconversion, but it is extremely individualized. One-size-fits-all atheist religion doesn't fit anyone.
5) Forcing a fit like this doesn't lead me to likeminded people. If I want to socialize with my peers(and I do) this is not the way to do it. I need to celebrate what I am in my own unique individual way. Hopefully that will attract others that value similar things. A much better basis for fellowship.

Personal ceremonial celebrations are kool, but turning atheism into a religion is wrongheaded. That's my take on this.

[Pavlov's Dog]

It seems to be all about creating an Atheist religion, or turning atheism into religion.

That is the vibe I get too.

[Pavlov's Dog]

In the name of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and George Bernard Shaw...

How the fuck did Sam Harris make this list? That guy is only a couple of steps up from Rook Hawkins. Throw Bert Russell on there. Although, Russell defined himself more as a skeptic than anything else. These people seem to want to make a cult out of atheism, and Russell probably wouldn't be appropriate for that.

[Gojira]

So there are barking mad atheists, too. This is a surprise?

Trouble is, just like any other group, it is the loonies who get all the press time :yuck:

[Nialler]

So there are barking mad atheists, too. This is a surprise?

Trouble is, just like any other group, it is the loonies who get all the press time :yuck:

The problem is that they are part of the hierarchy of athesist representation. When Nightline ran a debate on evolution they turned to those nutjobs at the Rational Response Squad to present the atheist position. Those guys claim that theism is a mental disorder.

They have nobody in their self-described "core" who has a degree, let alone an advanced degree in the disciplines which allow them to make that claim. So they are on a par with various evangelists on that count.

The NYCA, who have suggested these ceremonies, must also be seen as representing a large rump of atheists. They're also affiliated to the largest atheist organisation in the US, and it was the President of this organisation who wore robes and who plied the hairdryer.

It's a fucking disgrace.

I take your point, though. Yes, there are lots of nutters who are atheists.

It's our job to expose them. Just as we expose god-botherers

[Rathpig]

It seems to be all about creating an Atheist religion, or turning atheism into religion.

That is the vibe I get too.

In many ways it is more fundamental than even this. They want to turn atheism into an active "belief" and endow it with all the trappings of belief.

Atheism is not an active belief. End of story.

[Garrett]

It seems to be all about creating an Atheist religion, or turning atheism into religion.

That is the vibe I get too.

In many ways it is more fundamental than even this. They want to turn atheism into an active "belief" and endow it with all the trappings of belief.

Atheism is not an active belief. End of story.
Except when it is. There's the rest of the story.

Haven't you heard of explicit atheism? :rolleyes:

[lippard]

... the NYCA has been promoting actual deconfirmations etc ... .

This is where the situation becomes problematic. NYCA promotes this type crap as part of their larger activist atheist agenda (such as wearing atheist t-shirts, naming your children after famous atheists, "confronting irrationality", and other open ideological promotions), and then when someone questions the behavior, they reply with "haha, it's just a joke".

Well, is it just a joke?

First of all if it's a joke at the expense of or to poke fun at organized theism, then it is juvenile and completely inappropriate. If it is just a one of joke, then it is rather embarrassing that someone recorded the event. Anyway you look at it, it's dumb. What purpose does it serve to promote something ignorant like "de-baptism"?

As Nialler has been stressing, this type of shenanigan only reinforces the power of the original symbolism. This supports the common theist theory that atheism is a form of "secular religion" and that atheists are "mad at God".

Why would an "atheist" even care to mimic theist symbolism?

Organized atheism, especially the evangelical wing, seems filled with some really retarded shitheads. People need to realize that Richard Dawkins ain't the Messiah, atheism isn't a crutch for people who need a support group, and most importantly, there should never be a war on theism simply because you don't believe.


Save the silly and faggoted behavior for the "Satanists".

I think there's a difference between mimicking organized religion (at one point Madalyn Murray O'Hair wanted to create all sorts of ridiculous parallels to the Catholic Church, and she certainly had a habit of excommunicating people who disagreed with her) and having ceremonies in social groups.

I tend to agree with you about organized atheism. I've just re-joined FFRF, and the second issue of Freethought Today I've received is reminding me of some of the reasons I let my membership lapse about ten years ago. (There was an article in the current issue about Turkey's prime minister's political party wanting to remove the ban on headscarves, and the author created a false dilemma between supporting the removal of the ban OR (exclusive or) supporting secularism, when I think any reasonable person would support both.)

Atheism is not a worldview, it's just a small but significant component of a large set of possible worldviews. FFRF is not *just* an atheist group, it carries with it a lot of other baggage, mostly political.

[lippard]

It seems to be all about creating an Atheist religion, or turning atheism into religion.

That is the vibe I get too.

In many ways it is more fundamental than even this. They want to turn atheism into an active "belief" and endow it with all the trappings of belief.

Atheism is not an active belief. End of story.

I don't know what you mean by "active belief." Weak atheism is the *lack* of a belief in gods, but strong atheism (which is what most people mean by the word "atheism") is *disbelief* in gods, which is a belief.

I don't see anything wrong or religious about belief. S believes that p merely means that S thinks that p is true. It doesn't mean S holds that p is absolute fact, is unquestionable, certain, or irrefutable.

[Rathpig]

explicit atheism?

At no point does the denial of one belief become a belief unless you accept that one can actively believe in nothing. I strongly disbelieve in the existence of "Big Foot". This is not in itself a "belief". I don't believe that I don't believe. I simply don't.

Ironically, and often forgotten even by atheists, is that one doesn't need evidence to not believe in something that has never been shown to exist. From unicorns and leprechauns to Yahweh and Zeus, not "believing" is the default position. The many atheists who spend their lives refuting religious apologia seem to most often be trying to convince themselves. But that is a whole 'nother subject. ;)

[lippard]

Lippard, I don't have access to any of the documents you provided, so even a précis would be good.

I'm wary of the point that ceremonies such as debatisms or deconformitaions or the like have an intrinisc value in terms of psychology. Theat leads directly to the validation of church ceremonies, which can then be justified in terms of their intrinsic value - even in the absence of a deity.

Seems to me that that's *true*, though. There *is* intrinsic value in ceremonies for things like coming of age, marriage, funerals, award recognition, etc.

I wrote a review of Pascal Boyer's book at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2J6GZ9ATK4MW0/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Todd Stark also wrote a good review of it there:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2AA0CSNV3QVO/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

[lippard]

explicit atheism?

At no point does the denial of one belief become a belief unless you accept that one can actively believe in nothing. I strongly disbelieve in the existence of "Big Foot". This is not in itself a "belief". I don't believe that I don't believe. I simply don't.

Ironically, and often forgotten even by atheists, is that one doesn't need evidence to not believe in something that has never been shown to exist. From unicorns and leprechauns to Yahweh and Zeus, not "believing" is the default position. The many atheists who spend their lives refuting religious apologia seem to most often be trying to convince themselves. But that is a whole 'nother subject. ;)

I disagree. Nonbelief arguably doesn't involve the representation of a belief, but disbelief does.

Higher order belief that one believes is not a requirement for belief. S believes that S believes that p is not a requirement for S believes that p.

[Rathpig]

I don't know what you mean by "active belief." Weak atheism is the *lack* of a belief in gods, but strong atheism (which is what most people mean by the word "atheism") is *disbelief* in gods, which is a belief.

I think this is a bit of a kludge to make the language work. As I said above, not believing is not something you "believe". It may be a conscious action, but it isn't a "belief" per se. God being no different than Big Foot for demonstration purposes here.

As to "active belief", I used this as shorthand for something that is actually considered as opposed to the numerous things which we accept or not without consideration. It may be proper to say one can have an "active disbelief" even, but again, I don't think this magically becomes a belief in the non-existence of something labeled "nothing".

The counter to this would be the passive beliefs and disbeliefs which we just accept through perception. I passively believe in the stability of this table until I actively searched for an example to type.

This is somewhat of a derail, but it does point to a divide in the world of atheist perceptions. Most of the time my atheism is a passive disbelief. It is a "strong" passive disbelief as I accept nothing supernatural as possible, but it isn't a "belief" because of it's certainty.

[Rathpig]

I disagree. Nonbelief arguably doesn't involve the representation of a belief, but disbelief does.


That is merely semantics until you introduce proof into the equation.

I would say that active "disbelief" once exposed to evidence may become a "belief", but you are not believing merely in the negation. Some replacement value has to exist.

The Creation/Evolution debate is an example where some people "disbelieve" despite physical evidence, but their "belief" is not in the negation, it's in the replacement.

Until something tangible is being discussed, "non-belief" and "disbelief" are effectively synonyms. A supernatural deity is about an intangible as a discussion becomes. I can just as strongly non-believe as disbelieve. Either way this is not in-and-of itself a "belief" as I've added nothing to the equation to believe.

[Blueskyboris]

I really do wonder why all these "weak atheists" feel the need to argue on atheism forums if they simply don't believe.

[Nialler]

Lippard, I don't have access to any of the documents you provided, so even a précis would be good.

I'm wary of the point that ceremonies such as debatisms or deconformitaions or the like have an intrinisc value in terms of psychology. Theat leads directly to the validation of church ceremonies, which can then be justified in terms of their intrinsic value - even in the absence of a deity.

Seems to me that that's *true*, though. There *is* intrinsic value in ceremonies for things like coming of age, marriage, funerals, award recognition, etc.

I wrote a review of Pascal Boyer's book at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2J6GZ9ATK4MW0/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Todd Stark also wrote a good review of it there:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2AA0CSNV3QVO/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Thanks for the reviews. It looks like an interesting book. I'll certainly source it here.

I'm amenable to the idea that ceremonies satisfy a human need. That validates theist ceremonies, giving them a value utterly aside from any question as to the existence of they god they celebrate.

In that case, it becomes like food. Theists and atheists both need it. But some atheists seem to think that it is fun to satirise the way that theists eat it.

[Alethias]

In that case, it becomes like food. Theists and atheists both need it. But some atheists seem to think that it is fun to satirise the way that theists eat it.Bingo. I think a need for ceremony is a part of the human condition. Ceremony adds significance to memories; it is one of the things that makes specific events stand out in our memories as time passes.

But they are not just creating ceremony here. They are attempting to make atheism into a religion or dogma. I find that objectionable.

[lippard]

I disagree. Nonbelief arguably doesn't involve the representation of a belief, but disbelief does.


That is merely semantics until you introduce proof into the equation.

I would say that active "disbelief" once exposed to evidence may become a "belief", but you are not believing merely in the negation. Some replacement value has to exist.

The Creation/Evolution debate is an example where some people "disbelieve" despite physical evidence, but their "belief" is not in the negation, it's in the replacement.

Until something tangible is being discussed, "non-belief" and "disbelief" are effectively synonyms. A supernatural deity is about an intangible as a discussion becomes. I can just as strongly non-believe as disbelieve. Either way this is not in-and-of itself a "belief" as I've added nothing to the equation to believe.

I'm not sure you're clear on the distinction I'm drawing, which is not merely a matter of semantics.

I lack belief in propositions I've never even considered, like whether the number of fish in the ocean is a particular integer, but I don't disbelieve them (if they're in an appropriate range of apparent plausibility).

If I consider and reject a proposition, I disbelieve it, regardless of whether I adopt some other belief serving the same function. My rejection is likely to be based on logical inference from other things I believe, but this is the case even for atheism where I have no replacement belief serving the same function.

Note that it is certainly possible to consider a proposition and refuse to either accept or reject it, on the basis of an inability to reconcile competing piles of evidence, a lack of understanding of the meaning or implications of the proposition, a lack of relevant evidence one way or the other, etc. And most of the people who consider themselves to be in that position with respect to the existence of gods call themselves agnostics.

[lippard]

I don't know what you mean by "active belief." Weak atheism is the *lack* of a belief in gods, but strong atheism (which is what most people mean by the word "atheism") is *disbelief* in gods, which is a belief.

I think this is a bit of a kludge to make the language work. As I said above, not believing is not something you "believe". It may be a conscious action, but it isn't a "belief" per se. God being no different than Big Foot for demonstration purposes here.

As to "active belief", I used this as shorthand for something that is actually considered as opposed to the numerous things which we accept or not without consideration. It may be proper to say one can have an "active disbelief" even, but again, I don't think this magically becomes a belief in the non-existence of something labeled "nothing".

The counter to this would be the passive beliefs and disbeliefs which we just accept through perception. I passively believe in the stability of this table until I actively searched for an example to type.

This is somewhat of a derail, but it does point to a divide in the world of atheist perceptions. Most of the time my atheism is a passive disbelief. It is a "strong" passive disbelief as I accept nothing supernatural as possible, but it isn't a "belief" because of it's certainty.

Now I don't think I understand your position.

I actively disbelieve in the existence of unicorns. That means I have representations in my head that somehow tokenize propositions like "Unicorns are fictional creatures" or "unicorns do not exist," and which are publicly expressed by my tendency to utter or write such sentences of English and to answer "no" when asked if I believe in unicorns.

I consider that a clear-cut case of active belief, of disbelief, of a parallel to atheism in the strong form. I consider myself to hold the same position with respect to the Christian and Jewish God, the Islamic Allah, the gods of the Greeks and Hindus, and other god concepts I'm familiar with. (I plead agnosticism or weak atheism with respect to the god concepts of Paul Tillich, Richard M. Gale, and those with which I am completely unfamiliar.)

If you think that nothing supernatural is possible, it's a logical consequence of that premise that no supernatural god is possible. I don't understand why you don't think that leads to the consequence of an active disbelief in supernatural gods.

[Rathpig]

I don't understand why you don't think that leads to the consequence of an active disbelief in supernatural gods.

It still would not turn "disbelief" into a "belief" about nothing. That was the larger point. I would question whether "active disbelief" is an actual event or a function of language. When something can only be perceived in a fictional context, is disbelief really active? Do we actively disbelieve in Harry Potter, or is this merely accepted as fiction where disbelief is integral to understanding the term?

This was my point about supernatural deities or Big Foot. Simply defining the term leads to my disbelief. This isn't "active" per se, though it is a conscious perception.

To bring it back to the OP, this is why I simply cannot fathom the "anti" side of atheism in so many cases. "Anti" what? Being "anti" God-belief is almost as ridiculous as the God-believers who were anti-Harry Potter. It is giving a conscious level of opposition to something that is entirely "make-believe" in the first place.

Can you "actively" disbelieve make-believe by the very definition of the words?

[Dlx2]

What bothers me is that a lot of these are not necessarily "religious" rituals but rather life event rituals that happen to have a religious aspect to them.

I mean, would a new atheist annul their marriage just because the marriage was conducted by a religious rather than a secular authority? If not, why would they choose to annul a ritual that basically simply recognizes you as a member of the community, or as an adult, or whatever?

Like, that's what bothers me about this. I don't believe in God, but I put a lot of importance on the fact that I'm Bar Mitzvah. Why? Because that means I'm an adult and have adult responsibilities to the community. I don't care if those responsibilities are a bunch of antiquated laws in an old book, or if they're ethical responsibilities I consider important, because the point of the ritual is adult responsibility, not the specifics of that responsibility. I get the impression that something like confirmation is similar in Catholicism.

The solution is to look for the secular meaning of these rituals, not engage in stupid ritual-mongering for the sake of being an annoying twat.

[epepke]

Oh, that's Ed! Great guy. Very silly guy, though, and why not? If you don't like it, go eat some stinky cheese and take Derrida seriously.

Don't knock stinky cheese. A friend of mine used to have a stinky cheese party every year. The rule was the stinkier the better and a cheap wine to go with it. I successfully picked up a woman there.

Oh, I have nothing against stinky cheese, and of course stinky cheese is useful as a means of desensitizing the nose if you are going to pick up a woman and expect to perform cunnilingus on her.

But the thing that I'm trying to point out is that such things are fun. Atheists don't have enough fun. We, or perhaps I should say "they" are so desperately worried about how such-and-such an action would be perceived.

I reiterate, Ed is a silly person. He wears kilts, which causes some comment during the trivia quiz, when he does not always remember to keep his legs appropriately closed. It is possible that he originated our Lake Hypatia tradition of a moment of bedlam, which is so much fun that even the Christian I brought to the last Freethought Advance enjoyed it. But he's also responsible for not only a lot of good, solid legal wrangling, and also Camp Quest, a summer camp for atheist youth, which grew from a simple thing borrowing a Baptist (!) summer camp (I spoke there) to several permanent places around the country. (The other Ed had something to do with this, too.)

He's also the only person who, after I gave a talk on secular ethical systems, and during the Q & A made a comment about organized swinging, came up and asked me about it. Now, in an audience of 50 freethinkers, and none of them admitted to swinging, I think the likelihood is that some were lying. Atheists do too much creeping around and worrying about Mainstream America is going to think of us. Well, I can answer that. They're going to despise us. They did it during the soft-spoken Sagan/Asimov years, and they're doing it during the more aggressive Dawkins/Hitchens years. They're going to keep on doing it, no matter how much we strategize and reason and bow and scrape and touch the fetlock. We might as well have some fun and love each other. If we get better at that, maybe there won't be quite as many suicides.

[Farhat]

He's also the only person who, after I gave a talk on secular ethical systems, and during the Q & A made a comment about organized swinging, came up and asked me about it. Now, in an audience of 50 freethinkers, and none of them admitted to swinging, I think the likelihood is that some were lying. Atheists do too much creeping around and worrying about Mainstream America is going to think of us. Well, I can answer that. They're going to despise us. They did it during the soft-spoken Sagan/Asimov years, and they're doing it during the more aggressive Dawkins/Hitchens years. They're going to keep on doing it, no matter how much we strategize and reason and bow and scrape and touch the fetlock. We might as well have some fun and love each other. If we get better at that, maybe there won't be quite as many suicides.

Another thing about this is that it prevents networking among people who are atheists or at least doubtful. A lot of people who may be atheists tend to identify as non-religious or 'spiritual' for fear of what others may think. I used to run into lots of people who were atheists but never identified themselves as such until they felt sure that they wouldn't be judged for it. Personally, except for an evangelical Korean guy I ran into on a Greyhound bus, I have had no major problems identifying as an atheist even on occasions when I've socialized with preachers and the like. I might even say they are a bit on the nicer side if you are open and unapologetic about it.

[Nialler]

Oh, that's Ed! Great guy. Very silly guy, though, and why not? If you don't like it, go eat some stinky cheese and take Derrida seriously.

WTF?

[Nialler]

Oh, that's Ed! Great guy. Very silly guy, though, and why not? If you don't like it, go eat some stinky cheese and take Derrida seriously.

Don't knock stinky cheese. A friend of mine used to have a stinky cheese party every year. The rule was the stinkier the better and a cheap wine to go with it. I successfully picked up a woman there.

Oh, I have nothing against stinky cheese, and of course stinky cheese is useful as a means of desensitizing the nose if you are going to pick up a woman and expect to perform cunnilingus on her.
I'm sure that there are showers in the US.
But the thing that I'm trying to point out is that such things are fun. Atheists don't have enough fun. We, or perhaps I should say "they" are so desperately worried about how such-and-such an action would be perceived.
....
Y'see, atheists have lots of fun.

In fact, I'd move that atheist comedians, for instance, have far greater freedom to tilt at sacred cows than their theist equivalents, and atheist audiences derive greater fun from listening to them.

Hell, there is a long line of comedians including people such as Dave Allen (who once opened a programme on BBC by saying that he's had so many complaints about his religious jokes that he was doing no more. There followed a minute of silence before he resumed: "Speaking of religion...") through to the more acerbic Hicks, or the gentle Gervais, all of whom make fun of organised religion. Similarly, atheists have greater choice of music, of sexual behaviour, of how we live our lives. We have greater freedom of our reproductive choices, we have more disposal income than our equivalent who may be paying tithes. We have less guilt and worry about our actions. (That's not to say that we are irresponible or unethical - just that we suffer less pangs of conscience over indulging ourselves).

Being an atheist (as opposed to strict observer of Catholicism) has allowed me to pursue a guilt-free sex-life. It allowed me to divorce. It saves me money in dues to the local church. It saves me a couple of hundred hours a year which I would otherwise spend in obervances. It allows me a freer choice of literature and theatre and cinema.

Believe me, all of that is enjoyable, and fun.

And I don't have to do it at anyone's expense by lampooning them.

We atheists are having plenty of fun. If you're not, then you're doing it wrong.

[Nialler]

Oh, that's Ed! Great guy. Very silly guy, though, and why not? If you don't like it, go eat some stinky cheese and take Derrida seriously.

WTF?

Ahah! This is one of the reasons that I love online debate. There"s just nothing like the intellectual cut and thrust of a good debate. And epepke's reply fulfilled that desire in that it was nothing like the intellectual cut and thrust of a good debate.

It was simply a resort to xenophobia and stereotypical attacks on the location field.

I get the impression that epepke has undergone an atheist ritual. And that he eats his cheese from an aerosol container.

[lippard]

I don't understand why you don't think that leads to the consequence of an active disbelief in supernatural gods.

It still would not turn "disbelief" into a "belief" about nothing. That was the larger point. I would question whether "active disbelief" is an actual event or a function of language. When something can only be perceived in a fictional context, is disbelief really active? Do we actively disbelieve in Harry Potter, or is this merely accepted as fiction where disbelief is integral to understanding the term?

This was my point about supernatural deities or Big Foot. Simply defining the term leads to my disbelief. This isn't "active" per se, though it is a conscious perception.

To bring it back to the OP, this is why I simply cannot fathom the "anti" side of atheism in so many cases. "Anti" what? Being "anti" God-belief is almost as ridiculous as the God-believers who were anti-Harry Potter. It is giving a conscious level of opposition to something that is entirely "make-believe" in the first place.

Can you "actively" disbelieve make-believe by the very definition of the words?

If you were surrounded by people who asserted that Harry Potter was *real*, and that the Harry Potter books should be the basis for making decisions in law and your personal life, wouldn't that provoke some conscious opposition?

Check this out:

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/03/adams-maxim-spinozas-conjecture/

Key conclusion: Skepticism and disbelief takes more effort than belief.

[epepke]

Oh, that's Ed! Great guy. Very silly guy, though, and why not? If you don't like it, go eat some stinky cheese and take Derrida seriously.

WTF?

Ahah! This is one of the reasons that I love online debate. There"s just nothing like the intellectual cut and thrust of a good debate. And epepke's reply fulfilled that desire in that it was nothing like the intellectual cut and thrust of a good debate.

LOL! Good one.

It was simply a resort to xenophobia and stereotypical attacks on the location field.

I get the impression that epepke has undergone an atheist ritual. And that he eats his cheese from an aerosol container.

Cheese from aerosol? Heaven forfend! That is an abomination unto 'Bob.' Though I have been known to cool my milk with Freon 22.

[epepke]

Another thing about this is that it prevents networking among people who are atheists or at least doubtful. A lot of people who may be atheists tend to identify as non-religious or 'spiritual' for fear of what others may think. I used to run into lots of people who were atheists but never identified themselves as such until they felt sure that they wouldn't be judged for it. Personally, except for an evangelical Korean guy I ran into on a Greyhound bus, I have had no major problems identifying as an atheist even on occasions when I've socialized with preachers and the like. I might even say they are a bit on the nicer side if you are open and unapologetic about it.

I don't really understand the referent of "this" in your first sentence.

All I can say is that, with only one or two exceptions, the atheist meetings I've been to have consisted mostly of people who were very impressed with their rationalism beyond their ability actually to be rational. The social feeling is generally worse even than the science fiction conferences I've attended, and that's saying something.

My experiences with Christians are similar. I have found them friendly and accepting even when they know that I am an atheist. Of course, they ply their wares, and it is not always possible to tell whether the friendliness is real or feigned, but it is no worse than when they deal with another believer.

Also, over the past couple of months, I have only had a falling-out with two girlfriends. One was an agnostic, and one has a feeling toward Native American beliefs. The latter has recently been making some overtures toward me. Of the rest, there's a Renewal Jew, a fairly conservative Christian, a Catholic, several mild Christians, and a few of beliefs I have not pressed, but at least vaguely theistic.

I went to a movie night here with the North Alabama Freethought Association, and it was a great place if you wanted to watch a movie and then stand around with arms folded and make intellectual-sounding comments. It wasn't welcoming at all. There is one woman there I want to become closer to, but it will be in the absence of the group.

I'm a solid atheist, but I like theists a lot better, and they like me a lot better than most atheists seem to. Theists are better people, statistically. This bugs me. They have the common decency to know where their intellect and reason fails. They like to talk with me about atheism, even when they disagree. They don't consider it something by which they should judge me as a person.

There's one exception to this, the gang at Lake Hypatia. I love them, and they love me. We hug. We have a lot of fun. Still, there are problems. I took a Christian lover to the do on the fourth of July. She got along pretty well, and people I loved accepted her. Three people were rude to her. I had a word with one of them, and he vanished. Another was a bigwig with some Atlanta group of hoohaws. He simultaneously tried to pick her up and insulted her. That made me laugh. He was on the panel of ex-evangelists. My lover pointed out to me that he was still an evangelist but had simply switched sides. His current work was rather puerile and overly rational, a list of Bible contradictions or something. Who cares? It displayed an utter failure to realize that contradictions had no bearing on the mind of a believer, which was emblematic of other failures (or apathy) with humans. Even if he had played his cards right, he could have had my lover. I can share. But he couldn't even do that.

For the most part, atheists just aren't good with people. They have this stupid fetish, in many ways akin to religious faith, that being brains in a jar is all there is (when I don't think that too many of them would require more than a watchglass). Reason is like a deity, not even something actually to use properly, but more something to put on top of a totem poll and sing chants to. Their attempts to have fun, well, it's a bit like watching high-school kids. They don't really know how to do it. They can laugh at the in-jokes, but there is no sense of inclusiveness, or even of fair exclusiveness. When I was socially inept, it all felt normal to me. I may be socially weird now, but at least I'm not inept, and something inside me screams, "this is wrong!"

[Rathpig]

Key conclusion: Skepticism and disbelief takes more effort than belief.

Perhaps for some people. I can concede that some people who self-label "atheist" spend the rest of their lives trying to convince themselves. That doesn't make the the behavior universal. It then becomes an individual psychological issue.

As for the effect of religion on politics and the need to react, I see this as no different than belief in other forms of authoritarianism. Just because someone has contrived a supernatural excuse for their social fascism doesn't elevate the excuse to a meaningful position. The result and legality of their desire should be the focus.

I don't need to dis-prove God to lack a belief in God, and likewise I don't need to consciously oppose God to oppose the politics of the evangelical believer. Simply stated, I don't need Contra-Church because Pat Robertson has Political-Church

[Farhat]

I don't really understand the referent of "this" in your first sentence.


By "this" I was referring to


Atheists do too much creeping around and worrying about Mainstream America is going to think of us.

[Nialler]

Rathpig nails it for me.

As long as no-one tries to convert me, or tries to change the educational system to incorporate their beliefs; so long as they don't try to implement their sexual mores on the nation, or prevent me from divorcing, or prevent my wife from making her own decisions about her body, then I'll stay quiet.

If I am to get involved in a scrap, I'll throw myself into it, but it will only be for specific causes and not to promote an ideoloy.

I don't want to convert anybody.

Imagine if the theists were right all along. If hell it wasn't hellish before, it bloody well will be if you have to listen to an ex-fundie blaming you and saying "I told you so" for all eternity.

[lippard]

Key conclusion: Skepticism and disbelief takes more effort than belief.

Perhaps for some people. I can concede that some people who self-label "atheist" spend the rest of their lives trying to convince themselves. That doesn't make the the behavior universal. It then becomes an individual psychological issue.

As for the effect of religion on politics and the need to react, I see this as no different than belief in other forms of authoritarianism. Just because someone has contrived a supernatural excuse for their social fascism doesn't elevate the excuse to a meaningful position. The result and legality of their desire should be the focus.

I don't need to dis-prove God to lack a belief in God, and likewise I don't need to consciously oppose God to oppose the politics of the evangelical believer. Simply stated, I don't need Contra-Church because Pat Robertson has Political-Church

I agree with your position here, which makes me think that by "active belief" you mean something like a belief that drives one to self-identify oneself with respect to that belief, join organizations which promote that belief, etc., whereas originally I thought your active/passive distinction was like an explicit/implicit distinction. Do I have it right this time?

[Rathpig]

Do I have it right this time?

I don't know that I would go so far as to say that it drives them to join an organization, but it does drive them to activity.

[lippard]

Do I have it right this time?

I don't know that I would go so far as to say that it drives them to join an organization, but it does drive them to activity.

But you're drawing the line regarding the type of activity that entails "active belief" somewhere beyond the mere tendency to answer "no" when asked if one believes in a god.

[Rathpig]

But you're drawing the line regarding the type of activity that entails "active belief" somewhere beyond the mere tendency to answer "no" when asked if one believes in a god.

Of course. I would say that someone who feels compelled to share the fact unsolicited has moved beyond a passive view of a-theism, but not necessarily in all cases.

A group such as the ironically-named Rational Response Squad or American Atheists have gone way beyond simple disbelief in God into a realm of "active" belief in anti-theism.

[Alethias]

Another thing about this is that it prevents networking among people who are atheists or at least doubtful. A lot of people who may be atheists tend to identify as non-religious or 'spiritual' for fear of what others may think. I used to run into lots of people who were atheists but never identified themselves as such until they felt sure that they wouldn't be judged for it. Personally, except for an evangelical Korean guy I ran into on a Greyhound bus, I have had no major problems identifying as an atheist even on occasions when I've socialized with preachers and the like. I might even say they are a bit on the nicer side if you are open and unapologetic about it.

I don't really understand the referent of "this" in your first sentence.

All I can say is that, with only one or two exceptions, the atheist meetings I've been to have consisted mostly of people who were very impressed with their rationalism beyond their ability actually to be rational. The social feeling is generally worse even than the science fiction conferences I've attended, and that's saying something.

My experiences with Christians are similar. I have found them friendly and accepting even when they know that I am an atheist. Of course, they ply their wares, and it is not always possible to tell whether the friendliness is real or feigned, but it is no worse than when they deal with another believer.

Also, over the past couple of months, I have only had a falling-out with two girlfriends. One was an agnostic, and one has a feeling toward Native American beliefs. The latter has recently been making some overtures toward me. Of the rest, there's a Renewal Jew, a fairly conservative Christian, a Catholic, several mild Christians, and a few of beliefs I have not pressed, but at least vaguely theistic.

I went to a movie night here with the North Alabama Freethought Association, and it was a great place if you wanted to watch a movie and then stand around with arms folded and make intellectual-sounding comments. It wasn't welcoming at all. There is one woman there I want to become closer to, but it will be in the absence of the group.

I'm a solid atheist, but I like theists a lot better, and they like me a lot better than most atheists seem to. Theists are better people, statistically. This bugs me. They have the common decency to know where their intellect and reason fails. They like to talk with me about atheism, even when they disagree. They don't consider it something by which they should judge me as a person.

There's one exception to this, the gang at Lake Hypatia. I love them, and they love me. We hug. We have a lot of fun. Still, there are problems. I took a Christian lover to the do on the fourth of July. She got along pretty well, and people I loved accepted her. Three people were rude to her. I had a word with one of them, and he vanished. Another was a bigwig with some Atlanta group of hoohaws. He simultaneously tried to pick her up and insulted her. That made me laugh. He was on the panel of ex-evangelists. My lover pointed out to me that he was still an evangelist but had simply switched sides. His current work was rather puerile and overly rational, a list of Bible contradictions or something. Who cares? It displayed an utter failure to realize that contradictions had no bearing on the mind of a believer, which was emblematic of other failures (or apathy) with humans. Even if he had played his cards right, he could have had my lover. I can share. But he couldn't even do that.

For the most part, atheists just aren't good with people. They have this stupid fetish, in many ways akin to religious faith, that being brains in a jar is all there is (when I don't think that too many of them would require more than a watchglass). Reason is like a deity, not even something actually to use properly, but more something to put on top of a totem poll and sing chants to. Their attempts to have fun, well, it's a bit like watching high-school kids. They don't really know how to do it. They can laugh at the in-jokes, but there is no sense of inclusiveness, or even of fair exclusiveness. When I was socially inept, it all felt normal to me. I may be socially weird now, but at least I'm not inept, and something inside me screams, "this is wrong!"Ya, I've thought a few times about faking a reconversion to Christianity just to make the social aspects of my life easier. I fit pretty good with Christians, and it seems that other atheists act very wary around me, kinda like I set them on edge for some reason.

I get so fucking bored with my life sometimes, and I think that in some ways I'd have more fun. For me, part of the point of religion and religious ceremony would be to have something to do with my time that seems meaningful while doing it. It'd be a form of play, or gaming. I know all the talk and in-lingo, so I think it'd probably be pretty easy to do.

Lake Hypatia is a ways away for me here in Colorado Springs, but it sounds like a good time.