We already considered the arguments against the label Atheist, and while there still isn’t complete agreement, it’s clear that many Atheists have decided for themselves that this is the best course of action. We’re still willing to hear arguments against it, but after the initial failure this is an embarrassment from someone who was doing so well.

I don’t think Harris, given his recent actions, can ask people not to be involved in a community of ‘whatever he wants to call us’. That’s the only way we can get something done. United we stand etc… etc… don’t get mad, get organised.

People who don’t agree come up with bullshit like that South Park episode. People fall for it, because they’re cynical fools, loners, or believe in belief agnostics. It’s something to be wary of, cultishness, but there’s going to be a lot of wolf-crying aswell. Fine, if you don’t want or care to join a group of secularists, but don’t throw accusations about that you can’t back up.

However, if some atheist organizations behave that way, that is an entirely different debate from whether we should embrace the term “atheist.” I know plenty of people who openly self-identify as atheist and who have never joined an atheist-interest organization (and don’t even bother to read atheist blogs, if you can believe it! ). Harris is just grasping at random straws to justify his stance against using this label.

When Stephen Colbert turns the tables on a guest by saying, “So why do you hate America?” It is funny because this is how many people actually think. This is also how many politicians (and others) can manipulate a debate.

What Harris is trying to say is that we need to change the way this discussion is being framed. It isn’t God vs No God. That hasn’t gotten anyone anywhere in thousands of years. To many theists even the idea of atheism is repulsive. My own dad last week said something like proportional representation was “a way to get atheists, Muslims and Islams (sic) the vote.” Sure, you might dismiss him as a senile old man, but we all know that for many people, atheists are evil and going to hell. For many people, atheism is a discussion ender. We all know this.

What Harris is suggesting is that we pick our battles, and pick them strategically. Fighting for something called “atheism” is a losing preposition. Invisible Pink Unicorn and all, we’re still on the defensive. But, fight for rational and critical thinking, and we’ll find many more opportunities open to us.

To put it another way, when faced with a religious moderate who is seemingly open to conversation, do you lead with the conclusion that there is no god, or the evidence of a naturalistic world?

I have found I have much more interesting conversations with people when I describe myself as an Animist instead of an atheist. They want to know what an Animist is, so I explain them my worldview, define some terms, etc. They are, more often than not, fascinated. What I have essentially described to them is a naturalistic world without god that any atheist could accept. Why this works and I get positive results with it is that I lead with our similarities and my values. I describe a world without god, without necessarily referring to god, or the lack of god.

Learning how to frame a debate is key to establishing a framework where we can actually accomplish something worthwhile.

Hoo, boy.

I won’t touch stuff like this with an eleven-and-a-half foot pole. It reminds me too much of the South Park episode where the Unified Atheist League, the United Atheist Alliance, and the Allied Atheist Allegiance are all at war with each other, presumably over who has the best name. Don’t we all have better things to do?

I agree Andy

I have to agree with Sam here. If there was no religion, there would be no atheists either. The word simply wouldn’t have any meaning.

I think Sam has a deeper point here that he REALLY didn’t want to come out and say. He has found himself at the center of an atheist publicity storm, and Harris is clearly one of those types of atheists who thinks “organized atheism” is the wrong direction for an atheist movement.

I am one of those atheists as well, and I tell you why:

I attended a few gatherings of a local atheist group. From what I can tell, a lot of people have filtered in and out of that organization (including its founders) over the last decade, but there are a few stalwarts who stick around for years before getting the picture. Of those stalwarts currently running the organization, only one was not originally a fundamentalist Christian. I think that those people (for better or worse?) have simply traded one fanaticism for another. But eventually the majority realize that organized atheism is mostly a zero-sum activity.

This atheist-cult, what Sam sees forming around him, would make our movement very vulnerable to the “just another religion” argument.

The character House said something interesting about his atheism on last weeks show. He said, “I’m an atheist on Christmas and Easter. The rest of the time, IT DOESN’T MATTER!” And he is completely right.

I think the best way to fight religion in our nation is to not give any ground on science, and this will inevitably let education weed out religion one generation at a time (as it has been doing for the last 50 years).

This is a difficult problem with no easy answers. I’m not I sure I really understand Harris’ proposed solution, but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Now the Out campaign, that sounds like the start of a potential solution.