I am increasingly disheartened with the roiling controversy within and around the periphery of the atheist movement. It seems that some atheists have become like Joshua in the Old Testament when he said to the Israelites, Choose you this day whom you will serve.
Joshua goes on to say, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord. While certainly no one within the atheist community is suggesting we serve THE Lord, it is quite clear they expect true atheists to serve (commit to, follow after) groups like atheism+.
I suspect that the largest percentage of new atheists come from Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches. Learning that the Bible is not what the church claims it is, and becoming disillusioned with the shrill, acerbic hate speech of their preachers, has turned more people into atheists than Madalyn Murray O’Hair could every of hoped for.
When people deconvert they don’t immediately become atheists in the truest sense of the word. They may say they are atheists, but often this is just a reaction to their former religious beliefs. Some people get over their anger and return to Christianity. They were never atheists in the first place. They were angry, and hurling the words, I am an atheist, was a way of poking their finger in the eye of the bear.
A true atheist is born out of heartache, contemplation, and study. The true atheist (my focus is on those who come from Evangelicalism to atheism) must deconstruct their lives and rebuild them one belief at a time. The true atheist likely reads and reads and reads and…well you get the picture.
It is not enough to say, I don’t believe in God anymore. Just the Christian God? Some Gods? All Gods? The true atheist is one who says, I reject any belief in the existence of deities. Once a person has reached this point they are an atheist. Nothing more is required to claim the label atheist.
The atheism+ movement demand fidelity to a certain set of beliefs. I have no problem with this. A group is free to define their beliefs any way they want to. They are free to establish membership qualifications and only those who meet those qualifications may join. They are also free to try and convince me that what they are starting is not just an atheist version of church or a denomination.
Central to any group is its leaders. A Baptist preacher of yesteryear was famous for saying, Everything rises and falls on Leadership. This maxim is very true. The success or failure of any group rests on those who are leading the group. It matters who is leading and who is speaking for the group.
In the case of atheism+, there are many good people involved in the group. However, there are some not-so-good people involved too. Richard Carrier is case in point. As I noted in my previous post on this issue, Carrier is harming the atheism+ group and they know it. He has received a lot of condemnation over his treatment of those he disagrees with, yet he, for the most part, remains defiantly pigheaded and the other leaders within atheism+ remain strangely silent.
Atheism+ was born out of a reaction to the racist, misogynistic, sexist actions of a few. There were calls for the offenders to be publically identified, to be outed. Those making these claims refused to name the people (I suspect all the offenders are men) involved so we have no way of knowing “exactly” what happened. It would be helpful to know who the parties are and exactly what happened. If we are going to fracture the atheist movement over these things then full-disclosure is required.
I am in no way suggesting that what people are saying happened didn’t happen. I don’t have enough evidence to make any judgment and I am certainly not willing to join any group, let alone atheism+ without knowing the facts of why the group was started.
Atheism in America is finally gaining some momentum, but we are not so strong that we can afford to be subdivided according to rigid social and political beliefs. Every division makes us weaker.
I am of the opinion that the atheist cause is best served when atheists are free to connect themselves to whatever group or cause they wish. I prefer a loose coalition of atheists as opposed to a structured atheism with rigid political and social beliefs. With a loose coalition individual atheists are free to pick and choose what and who to support. Atheism+? Either you are with them or you are against them, to quote Prophet Carrier.
This Us vs.Them approach of atheism+ will ultimately harm and weaken the atheist movement. Any time there is exclusivism rather than inclusivism, the group’s power is diminished. The fundamentalist approach of atheism+ will only continue to marginalize other atheists who can’t or refuse to toe the atheism+ ideological line. Atheism+ should be working to include as many people as possible rather than exclude as many people as possible. (especially since atheism+ is a reaction to a tiny fragment of people within the atheism community)
Many of the sharpest critics of atheism+ are people who were Evangelicals before they deconverted. What we see in atheism+ is very similar to our experience in the Evangelical church. We left leaders who demanded we toe the line doctrinally. We left churches that were built on an Us vs.Them thinking. We left churches and leaders who believed they held the only Christian franchise. Exclusivism controlled everything our former churches and leaders did. Why would we want to join a group that is just an atheist version of what we left behind?
People are making all kinds of predictions about atheism+’s future. I am not going to get in on the betting pool. While I gladly embrace the tenets of atheism+, I cannot join up with them. As long as people like Richard Carrier are allowed to run wild with their words I have no interest in being a part of the group. His unwillingness to admit that his behavior towards those who disagree with atheism+ is reason enough for me to say atheism+ is not for me. How, behavior wise, is Richard Carrier any different than the racist, misogynistic, sexist people atheism+ is against?
The other leaders in the atheism+ group could have publicly called out Richard Carrier but they didn’t. It is also evident, based on his last post, that he wasn’t called out privately either. It is evident that the atheism+ group values Carrier being a part of their group more than it does attracting new members. As I told someone recently, Carrier killed the baby in the cradle.
I am sure I will be criticized for my singling out of Carrier. However, remember what I wrote earlier? Everything rises or falls on Leadership. When determining whether or not to join a group, I look at its beliefs and its leaders. The leaders of atheism+ should ask themselves, what message is Richard Carrier sending about atheism+?
Carrier remains unrepentant and defiant. He refuses to accept any criticism of his behavior. Carrier said of me “you are indeed a very unlikable person. Stay away from me in future.” Yep, unlikeable, that’s me.
In his latest post, Richard Carrier wrote:
In short, if you reject this value statement, you are simply my ideological enemy, and I will give you no quarter. I’ll respect your legal and human rights, because I believe in that. But don’t be shocked if I am not friendly.
And the beat goes on.
I intend to stay a part of the atheist Gentiles standing outside the Temple as the Jewish atheists worship the one, true atheist God. I intend to be an atheist free-agent, refusing any and all loyalty oaths. I know what I am, what I believe, and what it is I want to accomplish through my work on The Way Forward. I know I am a small fry in a bog atheist pond and words carry little weight. At best, I can be a small voice for atheists who are tired of attempts to corral them into ideological pens. We freed ourselves from the chains of Christian fundamentalism and we’ll be damned if we will be chained again by fundamentalist atheism.
I find myself in an interesting place. A liberal, socialist leaning, atheist standing with libertarian, conservative and Republican atheists. While we may disagree on a host of things, we all agree that intellectual freedom and the right to dissent should be valued above all else.
Does this mean that I will no longer associate with people who are a part of atheism+? Of course not. I am not petty like some within the atheism+ group. I can associate with people who have different beliefs than I do. I am free to choose to hang with whoever I want. This is the freedom that TRUE atheism brings.
I wish the atheism+ group well. I hope they, like may facets of the atheist movement, will grow up and mature. I hope they will make a meaningful difference in the world. Right now all I see is a bunch of children fighting over which super hero is better; Batman, Superman, Spiderman, or the Hulk. They are ALL great super heroes. Why must I choose just one?
I completely agree, bro; (other than the Superhero statement. Everyone knows Superman is the strongest). And bestest one!
Spidey’s my favorite (well, before the ghastly deal with the Mephisto/reboot – haven’t read since then), but Supes or the Hulk could kick his ass.
I have to admit that I don’t really *get* the Atheism+ thing. I absolutely am a humanist. But I really do like “atheism is a lack of belief in any gods” and not try to redefine it as a belief set. Organizers of events choosing those they *want* to represent them (those that share other values with the organizers) and so on makes sense, of course. You choose misogynistic, racist, jerks, and that’ll most likely be how your group is perceived.
My grandson says it is Batman, and he knows.
Very true sir, and I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. It was disheartening to see the same kind of divisiveness that I used to see in my fellow Christians now in the “atheist movement”.
this is one of the reasons why i don’t join groups, even ones with whose ideals i agree.
I am a member of a few groups but I don’t necessarily support all they do. Generally, I have much more of an affinity with humanist groups than I do atheist groups. I generally support an inclusivist rather than exclusivist approach. (the exact opposite of my view as a Baptist pastor)
I had no idea you were so unlikable, Bruce! But I can see how you are very intimidating what with the perfect health and your weekly cage matches with professional wrestlers.
Coming from years of fundamentalism I feel inoculated against needing to sign up to a new creed, even though I find Richard’s version of ‘Atheism + ‘very nice in principle.
Except that you should not use a cross after Atheism, it should always be spelled out like “Atheism Plus” to be the true followers. The atheists who use a cross (Athiesm +) are the evil “Judean People’s Front” rather than the righteous “People’s Front of Judea”.
Yes, anyone who reads this blog knows I am a mean, unkind, unlikable person.
All the Christians who read this blog really think so. 
I want to be like Hemant, the Friendly Atheist and not like Richard Carrier and PZ Meyers. I think verbose confrontationalism gets us nowhere. We must show Christians that we are good people, people who are loving and kind. We must show by our works that atheism/agnosticism/humanism is a worthy way to live.
I have problems with a lot of things in the atheist movement. While I am an American Atheist member, I despise the recent billboard campaign. I hate the message and I think such in your face approaches hurt our cause.
I am in this for the long haul, til death do I part.
I am not much interested in short term, feel good gains, at the expense of our greater agenda. In general the atheist movement needs to grow up.
“We must show Christians that we are good people, people who are loving and kind. We must show by our works that atheism/agnosticism/humanism is a worthy way to live.”
Why? Anybody that knows me, knows I’m a nice person. They may not understand why I’ve changed my views, but I doubt they think I’m now an un-nice person. When I’ve discussed religion or politics on Facebook, I haven’t been disrespectful to anybody.
So can you explain more what you mean exactly by the quote above? It just reminded me of being in IFB and having to worry about your testimony because you represented Christ to people. I have no desire to take on that weight of trying to convince Christians that atheists are nice people.
It’s a funny thought when you put it that way, but I agree with what you say. I have no desire to convince anyone that I’m an atheist or not. Like Bruce, I guess I would just say: Don’t try to legislate your bad exegesis.
Those of us who write on these subjects are often asked why atheism or humanism is a better way to live. I think we must be able to answer these questions, not only through our words, but also through our actions.
If we think the world would be better off without religion then we must be able to articulate a worldview that is better than the one religion provides.
I don’t worry about what other people think of how I live. However, I am cognizant of the fact that people are watching and that my conduct does say much about the things I value.
I disagree. I’m happy to join a coalition of the willing under the banner of atheism to do social justice work. If I understand correctly, the only criteria for atheism + is that you not be a raging misogynist, racist or homophobe. That’s a pretty low bar. I have no qualms whatsoever about excluding such people.
It is far more than that. It is a particular political ideology that excludes anyone who doesn’t embrace the the tenets of the group. I agree with most everything they believe, however, I cannot embrace their narrow, divisive Us vs. Them approach. This is not about the miscreants in the atheist movement. It is about narrow, sectarian, exclusivist thinking that demonizes those who refuse to sign on.
If they start calling it “Brother Carrier’s group”-I’m outa here! lol
“Atheism+ was born out of a reaction to the racist, misogynistic, sexist actions of a few. There were calls for the offenders to be publically identified, to be outed. Those making these claims refused to name the people (I suspect all the offenders are men) involved so we have no way of knowing “exactly” what happened.”
This is what I don’t understand – why protect people who (allegedly) did these horrible things?
That reminds me too much of the dynamics in certain churches when someone is discriminated against or abused. I don’t see what’s wrong with publicly talking about discrimination or abuse….or whatever it was that happened.
I completely understand why some victims are too worn our/traumatized to relive their experiences in the court of public opinion but brushing everything under the rug only gives the offender more chances to hurt other people.
Bruce, can you post a link to a page that lists the tenets of Atheism Plus? What is their “platform” (ugh), anyway? I guess I should know, but I don’t.
This dispute is getting to be as disheartening as the Great Schism which led to the Reformed Church of the Latter Day Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Carrier lists them on this page
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207/
Enjoy.
You cracked me up with that one! Love it!
I think “atheists” feel vulnerable to criticisms that they are without moral absolutes, and so feel under a particular compulsion to show themselves more moral than their adversaries. That’s a long story, we all know.
Atheists trying to prove to Christians how moral they are would be a futile exercise. Christians are never going to give their approval to atheists.
Good point, since denying God is surely the greatest sin imaginable.
The whole thing is just making me tired all over. As I said before, it feels just like Christianity and their many denominations. To be a real Baptist, you must believe all this, etc. I don’t think I’d be pure enough to measure up to the Atheism+ ideals. I have no fire in the bosom for women’s rights. I don’t even know what the heck “social justice” means. I do care about gay rights on a personal quiet level. I’m not an activist.
In reading Jen’s article, I didn’t read in detail, but I’m sorry but I truly can’t relate to women who take off their tops to make some point. I don’t think they’re horrible people, and I do care about women’s rights, but it just seems over the top and absurd to me. And undignified. Also her complaints seem nieve (can’t spell that word). Did she truly think that all men who happen to not believe in God are all feminists who have no “dirty” thoughts about enjoying seeing her chest? I guess I just think men are programmed certain ways, so she’s fighting nature on that one. I do think it’s awful that she was called ugly names,etc. I can only assume that many of the male atheists do enjoy having their little male club mostly to themselves, and they truly have no interest in taking up all the causes of racism, feminism, gay rights, etc. I really don’t have a big problem with that.
There are plenty of jerks in the world. Some of them are Christians. Some of them are atheists. If Carrier, etc. think they are going to somehow have a pure group of human beings, they are truly delusional. But good luck to them. I think I understand what they are trying to do.
I was just reading about Boobquake on wikipedia. A couple times it mentioned that there were more men than women, and they all had cameras. Men ogling seems to be the main result of it all. Which makes total sense to me.
” atheism + is that you not be a raging misogynist, racist or homophobe.” The problem lies in determining exactly what behaviour constitutes a person being a misogynist or homophobe. I think racism is a bit more obvious. I personally do not know any of these people in the atheist movement, but my definition of the above is fairly broad and accepting. Making value judgements against people is a dangerous game to play, especially as they are not named as Bruce points out, and therefore not in a position to defend themselves.