Comments on: The Atheists Stand Alone http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/ by Hemant Mehta Sat, 26 May 2012 06:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: FriendlyAtheist http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8640 FriendlyAtheist Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:15:27 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8640 Ebonmuse-- FFRF is definitely a great organization. And while Dan Barker is a prominent ex-minister, I don't know if he's as well-known as Paul Kurtz is in the secular movement. Same with Annie Laurie Gaylor. Maybe the Supreme Court case will help that, though. They'd be a great group to take a leadership role among the leaders. Ebonmuse– FFRF is definitely a great organization. And while Dan Barker is a prominent ex-minister, I don’t know if he’s as well-known as Paul Kurtz is in the secular movement. Same with Annie Laurie Gaylor. Maybe the Supreme Court case will help that, though. They’d be a great group to take a leadership role among the leaders.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8638 Ebonmuse Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:07:47 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8638 <blockquote>The only secular groups I can think of where the organization is relatively large and its leader is well-known are the Center For Inquiry (headed by Paul Kurtz) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (headed by Barry Lynn).</blockquote> What about the <a href="http://www.ffrf.org/" rel="nofollow">Freedom from Religion Foundation</a>? They're explicitly atheist, they're much larger than American Atheists (well on track to reaching 10,000 members now), they've won several major court victories against the faith-based initiative, and their leader is a prominent ex-minister! What else could you ask for? :)

The only secular groups I can think of where the organization is relatively large and its leader is well-known are the Center For Inquiry (headed by Paul Kurtz) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (headed by Barry Lynn).

What about the Freedom from Religion Foundation? They’re explicitly atheist, they’re much larger than American Atheists (well on track to reaching 10,000 members now), they’ve won several major court victories against the faith-based initiative, and their leader is a prominent ex-minister! What else could you ask for? :)

]]> By: miller http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8560 miller Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:54:52 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8560 This reminds me of an <a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8800.htm" rel="nofollow">article</a> I read once. It is difficult to get organized around atheism, since in general, atheists have little in common. Things that atheists do usually support, such as separation of church and state, are all things that many theists, too, support. It would be very sad if atheists constituted the majority of people who support secularism. This reminds me of an article I read once. It is difficult to get organized around atheism, since in general, atheists have little in common. Things that atheists do usually support, such as separation of church and state, are all things that many theists, too, support. It would be very sad if atheists constituted the majority of people who support secularism.

]]> By: Richard Wade http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8525 Richard Wade Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:30:49 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8525 We don't have to play their game. We don't have to build enormous organizations with their potential for corruption and inflexibility. Think of the effect a very small number of secular people have had resisting theist intrusions into government and public policy in the last few years. I belong to four organizations that do this. As long as we protect the First Amendment we have a powerful force. We can be, if you excuse the irony of the analogy, David to their Goliath. David didn't play by Goliath's rules, with heavy armor and sword. Just a well-aimed lawsuit here and there can keep our rights protected. A small increase in organizational size and clout would make a big difference, and then we could do more than just hold our own. To really begin to have a secular culture dominate the scene and replace theism will take a long time, but time is on our side. From 1990 to 2001 Christians dropped by 8.5% of the U.S. population, while non-religious/agnostics/atheists grew by 6.5%. I suspect those trends have accelerated in the last six years. Keep in mind during those same survey years the U.S Muslim population increased by 0.3%. In fifty years we may be dealing more with them than the Christians. (data source: Wikipedia, "Demographics of the U.S.") We don’t have to play their game. We don’t have to build enormous organizations with their potential for corruption and inflexibility. Think of the effect a very small number of secular people have had resisting theist intrusions into government and public policy in the last few years. I belong to four organizations that do this. As long as we protect the First Amendment we have a powerful force. We can be, if you excuse the irony of the analogy, David to their Goliath. David didn’t play by Goliath’s rules, with heavy armor and sword. Just a well-aimed lawsuit here and there can keep our rights protected. A small increase in organizational size and clout would make a big difference, and then we could do more than just hold our own.

To really begin to have a secular culture dominate the scene and replace theism will take a long time, but time is on our side. From 1990 to 2001 Christians dropped by 8.5% of the U.S. population, while non-religious/agnostics/atheists grew by 6.5%. I suspect those trends have accelerated in the last six years.

Keep in mind during those same survey years the U.S Muslim population increased by 0.3%. In fifty years we may be dealing more with them than the Christians. (data source: Wikipedia, “Demographics of the U.S.”)

]]> By: Jim Henderson http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8522 Jim Henderson Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:29:26 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8522 Hemant I saw someone voted for you to lead. People lead because they have a passion to bring change Then they devote their whole life to that cause They expect that people will disagree with them - no surprise there They learn from their enemies tactics and use them themself They don;t get sidetracked into the obvious arguments that are easy pickins I think you should lead whatever you love to do Don't worry if people demonize or idolize you (both will happen) Hemant

I saw someone voted for you to lead.

People lead because they have a passion to bring change

Then they devote their whole life to that cause

They expect that people will disagree with them – no surprise there

They learn from their enemies tactics and use them themself

They don;t get sidetracked into the obvious arguments that are easy pickins

I think you should lead whatever you love to do

Don’t worry if people demonize or idolize you (both will happen)

]]> By: QrazyQat http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8480 QrazyQat Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:16:51 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8480 There's a couple (at least) problems here. The big, most-visible Christian organizations thrive because they make tons of money for the hypocrites who control them (and in the USA there are big tax breaks for many of them). Also, these organizations exist not just to lobby, but to convert people. In my experience athesists are far less likely to go around pushing people into things, and this is something I'd hate to see change. You make atheism into a money-making, power-grabbing, hypocritical force like the big visible Christian organizations and they'll last too, but at what cost? Far too high a cost for me. There’s a couple (at least) problems here. The big, most-visible Christian organizations thrive because they make tons of money for the hypocrites who control them (and in the USA there are big tax breaks for many of them). Also, these organizations exist not just to lobby, but to convert people. In my experience athesists are far less likely to go around pushing people into things, and this is something I’d hate to see change.

You make atheism into a money-making, power-grabbing, hypocritical force like the big visible Christian organizations and they’ll last too, but at what cost? Far too high a cost for me.

]]> By: King Aardvark http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8478 King Aardvark Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:02:49 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8478 For the parallel atheist-type groups, it's probably due to the same thing that causes various religious denominations: we're all human and all have different ideas. While we're more sensible than them and recognize that all we have are opinions and preferred ways of doing things (not being the sole holders of the Truth like the various fundies), we would have difficulty getting along well enough. Imagine PZ and Dawkins trying to share leadership of an organization with a proud Neville Chamberlain atheist? Wouldn't work. And while increasing the centralization would increase funds and visibility, it may hurt in other areas. Consider the differing tactics of Dawkins-types vs friendlier atheists. Both are useful. Dawkins brings freethought loudly and boldly into the public scene, whereas Hemant can use the interest in atheism generated by Dawkins to engage religious moderates in fruitful discussion. While both help to get the job done, putting them together could create a branding issue. How would a moderate trust Hemant if he knew he was bussom buddies with that hated blowhard Dawkins? Having seperate organizations allows them to be kept at arms length. For the parallel atheist-type groups, it’s probably due to the same thing that causes various religious denominations: we’re all human and all have different ideas. While we’re more sensible than them and recognize that all we have are opinions and preferred ways of doing things (not being the sole holders of the Truth like the various fundies), we would have difficulty getting along well enough. Imagine PZ and Dawkins trying to share leadership of an organization with a proud Neville Chamberlain atheist? Wouldn’t work.

And while increasing the centralization would increase funds and visibility, it may hurt in other areas. Consider the differing tactics of Dawkins-types vs friendlier atheists. Both are useful. Dawkins brings freethought loudly and boldly into the public scene, whereas Hemant can use the interest in atheism generated by Dawkins to engage religious moderates in fruitful discussion. While both help to get the job done, putting them together could create a branding issue. How would a moderate trust Hemant if he knew he was bussom buddies with that hated blowhard Dawkins? Having seperate organizations allows them to be kept at arms length.

]]> By: Karen http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8466 Karen Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:23:25 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8466 <blockquote>I am not saying that freethought organizations couldn’t market themselves more effectively, but this doesn’t seem to be a priority.</blockquote> I agree that lack of visibility is a big problem, but I think the funds for a solid marketing budget are just not there in most the atheist-type groups. Hemant, you may have some insight on this question I've wondered about: Why are there so many (parallel or potentially "competing") agnostic, humanist, freethought, atheist, etc. groups, most of which seem to have a common mission? Is it an historical phenomenon, or just the result of geography, or personality conflicts, or what? It would seem to me we'd have more clout and more money if there were some consolidation of budgets, personnel and effort.

I am not saying that freethought organizations couldn’t market themselves more effectively, but this doesn’t seem to be a priority.

I agree that lack of visibility is a big problem, but I think the funds for a solid marketing budget are just not there in most the atheist-type groups.

Hemant, you may have some insight on this question I’ve wondered about: Why are there so many (parallel or potentially “competing”) agnostic, humanist, freethought, atheist, etc. groups, most of which seem to have a common mission? Is it an historical phenomenon, or just the result of geography, or personality conflicts, or what?

It would seem to me we’d have more clout and more money if there were some consolidation of budgets, personnel and effort.

]]> By: Steelman http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8465 Steelman Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:20:40 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8465 <blockquote>Ty said: Apperantly you have missed the point of why Christianity will live on past the personalities (good & bad) (kool-aid & Holy Water), it’s becase there really is a living, loving, GOD.</blockquote> Maybe there are other reasons? Otherwise, we could say that Scientology lives on after the death of L. Ron Hubbard because the story of Xenu is true; or that Islam lives on post-Muhammad because he truly was the seal of the prophets. There are more examples. It would seem that organizations can live and grow through a cult of personality, even when that person is no longer present. Industrial corporations, with the right leadership, can certainly outlive their founders as well. As always, the efficacy of a method of lifestyle (for attainment of health, wealth, or well being, etc.) does not prove all of its truth claims, supernatural or otherwise. In other words, there <em>could</em> be a God or gods, but the continuing survival of all the various religious organizations in the world isn't proof of that claim.

Ty said: Apperantly you have missed the point of why Christianity will live on past the personalities (good & bad) (kool-aid & Holy Water), it’s becase there really is a living, loving, GOD.

Maybe there are other reasons? Otherwise, we could say that Scientology lives on after the death of L. Ron Hubbard because the story of Xenu is true; or that Islam lives on post-Muhammad because he truly was the seal of the prophets. There are more examples.

It would seem that organizations can live and grow through a cult of personality, even when that person is no longer present. Industrial corporations, with the right leadership, can certainly outlive their founders as well. As always, the efficacy of a method of lifestyle (for attainment of health, wealth, or well being, etc.) does not prove all of its truth claims, supernatural or otherwise. In other words, there could be a God or gods, but the continuing survival of all the various religious organizations in the world isn’t proof of that claim.

]]> By: Karen http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8464 Karen Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:19:16 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/03/15/the-atheists-stand-alone/#comment-8464 <blockquote>Apperantly you have missed the point of why Christianity will live on past the personalities (good & bad) (kool-aid & Holy Water), it’s becase there really is a living, loving, GOD.</blockquote> Oh, man! (slapping forehead) how could we have forgotten to think of that!! Duh ... ;-)

Apperantly you have missed the point of why Christianity will live on past the personalities (good & bad) (kool-aid & Holy Water), it’s becase there really is a living, loving, GOD.

Oh, man! (slapping forehead) how could we have forgotten to think of that!! Duh …

;-)

]]>