…and this is a 
So what should we ornery atheists call ourselves?
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: April 5, 2007 7:00 AM, by PZ Myers
It's not nice to annoy a fellow atheist, but once again we've got someone bound and determined to promote himself by dividing atheists into artificial camps and slamming the side with which he doesn't identify. Greg Epstein, a "humanist chaplain" (whatever the hell that contradictory concatenation means), decided to disavow those horrible people like Dawkins and Harris as "fundamentalist atheists". Outrage ensued.
Ho-hum.
Whenever I see someone jabbering about "fundamentalist atheists", a combination of terms that makes no sense at all and immediately reveals the speaker's ignorance of both fundamentalism and atheism, I just write them off out of hand. It means we're dealing with a moron. Maybe Greg Epstein has some great ideas and goals, but pffft, screw him, he's not worth listening to. Moron.
However, the Friendly Atheist does ask a good question. We clearly have a division, with some of us being more <ahem> vigorous and uncompromising in our striving towards a consistently godless ideal, and others being a bit more laissez faire. What are we going to call those obnoxious loud-mouthed atheists who won't sit quietly in the corner?
I have a word.
It's "uppity."
You can just call us those damned uppity atheists. Really, I won't mind. I also won't dismiss you as a moron, Uncle.
Comments
It gets kind of tiring debating these things over and over. I didn't even feel the need to be an atheist, and in fact I didn't even know I was one till I came here to the U.S.
I live now in California, which is pretty lax by other states' standards, but still.. Bushy-boy, come on! What the hell is wrong with civilization. I came from a rather poor 3rd World country, and if anything, people are religious there, but they are not bat-shit crazy as most religious here. They don't mind atheists at all. They just wanna get over the hardships of life. Maybe here in the U.S. people have it too easy, and have too much free time?
Posted by: andyo | April 5, 2007 7:37 AM
By the way, I don't really like the very term "atheist" because it's just too freakin' pretentious. Pretentious on the part of religious people, who just assume there is something we have to deny.
Whenever somebody asks me if I'm an atheist (not many people have done that, admittedly, here in CA not many people ask that), I'll say that I'm an atheist in the same way that I'm an a-unicorniologist and an unastrologer. And if they're religious I'll call them a-nought-ologist. (I don't really, but it'd be fun if they could get the point.)
Posted by: andyo | April 5, 2007 7:44 AM
People who try and use the word "fundamental" and "atheist" together do so because they have the false idea that the word "atheist" actually describes what someome believes in. In other words, they attribute or presume all sorts of stances with the word when the word itself does not convey any other meaning than one who doesn't believe in the existence of a god or gods.
They want to pretend that there are automatic default political, economic, social, cultural and philosophical positions associated with the word "atheist." In other words, they want to pretend that describing oneself as an atheist is a belief system.
It's quite weird the way they attempt to do this, as if someone was an "afairyist", one wouldn't attempt to automatically assume that they had certain political or philosophical beliefs as a result. Or that if they didn't believe in the existence of fairies that this meant by default that they had a belief in gnomes.
Frankly, I think they need to add some words to their lexicon. Words like apathetist, irreligious, sacreligious, nullifidian and antitheist. When theists have learnt the definitions of these words, they might realize that they no longer need to refer so clumily and inaccurately to individuals as "fundamental atheists."
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | April 5, 2007 8:07 AM
Unguls. Short for ungullible.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | April 5, 2007 8:12 AM
Bob. Just Bob.
Posted by: NJ | April 5, 2007 8:20 AM
I believe people call atheists fundamentalists for the same reason people try to present creationism and evolution as merely two competing theories (or for that matter, those who seem to have fascist tendencies refer to their enemies as -fascists).
I think the point is the obliteration of meaning. There are clearly those who would like to see a world in which the meaning of "fundamentalism" is unclear, the meaning of "theory" is unclear and the meaning of "fascist" is unclear.
Posted by: argh | April 5, 2007 8:26 AM
The following will be snarky, quite possibly snide, and most probably unbecoming a serious discussion.
Q. "So what should we ornery atheists call ourselves?"
A. Correct?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 5, 2007 8:32 AM
Now you guys know what it's like to be a woman! We're supposed to be "nice" all the time and when we speak our mind with conviction or passion, and if we have the nerve to think independently and not follow the rules, we're called "bitch."
So, I for one will be most pleased to be known as a "Bitchy Atheist". Maybe you guys wouldn't feel comfortable with that title, but it works for me!
Of course, in general, if people ask me what religion I am, I just say "none." But about half the time they feel the need to clarify with the question, "Are you an atheist." Doh.
Posted by: writerdd | April 5, 2007 8:34 AM
Ooo, I like Unguls. It sounds like we ought to get black cloaks and winged mounts and a nice ring, and that we'd sail about terrorizing the populace.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 5, 2007 8:34 AM
To quote Elwood...."Uh, We'll talk to Bob"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2007 8:35 AM
...
...
This is an echo of something I posted recently over at Unscrewing the Inscrutable - a few new thoughts I had on the subject.
Say you're talking about slavery, there are two ways you can look at it. You can see it as a social phenomenon, or you can see it as a personal condition.
In SOCIAL terms, the opposite of slavery is anti-slavery.
But in PERSONAL terms, the opposite of slavery is freedom.
A man freed from slavery is not just a non-slave. He's a FREE MAN. The one implies a restrictive, walled-in life determined by the will of someone else. The other implies not just a non-slave, but a person faced with infinite possibility, someone who can do anything HE likes with his life. Slavery is a small box; freedom is the universe of self-determined choices outside it.
Likewise with religion, you can see it as a social phenomenon, or as a personal condition.
In social terms, the opposite of religion can be called atheism. But in personal terms, the opposite of religion is, again, freedom. Freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of ... everything.
Just like slavery, religion is a small box. Freeing yourself from that box presents you with infinite possibilities.
Because they're the words most people know, I'll probably still use the terms "atheism" and "atheist" to describe myself and my non-theistic beliefs. But I'm gonna try more often to also define myself and my fellow atheists in these grander terms: We're free men. Free women. Free thinkers. Free selves. With all the universe of self-willed choices, thoughts and possibilities that implies.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 5, 2007 8:49 AM
Hank, that's perfect. Thank you.
I often wish the word "freethinker" wasn't so, well, dated. I would like to bring it back into currency. It would be the preferred way I think of myself.
Posted by: speedwell | April 5, 2007 8:54 AM
Re: fundamentalist atheists
My reaction to this is the same as to those people who say "Science is just another religion." Without knowing it, they seem to be saying "Science is every bit as stupid as what *I* believe."
Near as I can tell, the word "fundamentalist" was proudly thrust into modern-day speech by people who are not just a little bit religious, but a LOT religious. Those who cry "fundamentalist atheist" seem to be saying "Your beliefs are every bit as ridiculously brainless as mine."
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 5, 2007 8:59 AM
Splitters!
Dawks?
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | April 5, 2007 9:06 AM
Sam Harris is going to be speaking at a local university this month and the ads for the event describe him as an evangelical atheist.
Has anyone else seen this usage? Seems like even more of a contradiction using the word fundamentalist.
Posted by: Andrew Staroscik | April 5, 2007 9:08 AM
Epstein's views are more complicated than two words taken out of context (and out of his original scare quotes) by a reporter looking to start a fight.
Posted by: Epistaxis | April 5, 2007 9:13 AM
For some reason, the URL I entered isn't what got used in the link. I'll try again.
Posted by: Epistaxis | April 5, 2007 9:15 AM
If observing religious types has taught me anything, it's that fundamentalists treat people who don't follow their religion with disdain and have a nasty streak of intolerance towards others.
Yes, you can have fundamentalist atheists. The fundamentals are simple. There is no God/Allah/Vishnu etc. If you believe in God/Allah/Vishnu etc. you're an idiot and never to be treated with any respect.
Having said that, I'm an atheist. I tend to not care what other people think. I may think it's silly, but I don't start defining people by whatever their religion is and use it as a crude litmus test to start judging others in entirety. To a fundamentalist, their religion makes all the difference.
Posted by: Miguelito | April 5, 2007 9:25 AM
"Sam Harris is going to be speaking at a local university this month and the ads for the event describe him as an evangelical atheist. Has anyone else seen this usage? Seems like even more of a contradiction using the word fundamentalist."
Not really. Evangelizing is a term that can be used more generally to mean pushing a particular view or belief, though generally with a sense of it being obnoxious to the person using the term. In that sense, 'evangelical atheist' makes sense as an atheist for whom it is not enough that they embrace atheism but that everyone else should as well and they try to bring that about. Given its sense, I wouldn't expect evangelical atheists would want to adopt it of themselves.
Posted by: Mike | April 5, 2007 9:25 AM
For the record, writerdd, I am perfectly comfortable calling myself a "Bitchy Atheist", and will commence doing so directly!
Posted by: Raymond | April 5, 2007 9:26 AM
I think Epstein explained his position eloquently and clearly on his blog, and it's clear that too many bloggers have extrapolated too far from two word featured in a single article.
I assume, PZ, that you bothered to read Epstein's blog responses and find out his actual position before you called him 'a moron'? If anything, your derogatory comments only make you sound dogmatic and close-minded.
Epstein is certainly not a moron, although I'm beginning to suspect that PZ is.
Posted by: Mike | April 5, 2007 9:33 AM
I would like to be an "incidental" or "accidental" atheist.
I would not concern myself with religion very much if they stopped shoving it in our faces. Unlike fundies, we can stop using the parts of the brain devoted to obsessive compulsions.
Until fundies go away, I am happy to be uppity, devoted, avid, whatever it takes.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 5, 2007 9:38 AM
I'm partial to militant atheist. Atheist missionary doesn't quite work although it is an improvement over fundamentalist. The focus is more on persuading others to become atheists.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | April 5, 2007 9:38 AM
See we atheists are supposed to be polite and quiet in the corner and not upset everyone with our party-pooper skepticism and reliance on evidence. And as soon as we open our mouths, we're often accused of being the fundamentalists' best friends, because our unlikable intensity serves only to drive people further into the arms of theism (I believe Dembski has accused Dawkins of this). However, that rhetoric never translates the other way: that tireless godbags will drive people to atheism. Funny, that.
Posted by: Will E. | April 5, 2007 9:41 AM
Actually, to be perfectly frank, I'm not that fond of the word atheist, at least applied to myself. I mean, it's true, but it's awfully uninformative! In terms of how I really live my life, both in my day-to-day affairs and in my metaphysical ponderings, the fact that I don't believe in any gods — and, more strongly put, that I straight-up believe that Jehovah does not exist — my atheism is less significant than the fact that I am a Dresden Dolls fan.
Isaac Asimov once wrote:
So, fine, I guess I'm a Humanist. By that definition, anyway. ("Freethinker" is also nice; "bitchy freethinker" even better.) If you talk about human beings being "supreme" in any way or having some transcendent importance beyond what reason can justify (I bet we can screw up our planet more than most species, for example), then no, I'm not in your club. The Randroid "man-worshipers" are down the hall.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 5, 2007 9:43 AM
I do not like to say "I am an atheist", I much prefer the construct "I am atheist", emphasis on the first syllable.
Also, for those cranky atheists, I like the word I invented the other day - antitheists. But then I laugh at my own jokes, too.
Posted by: Bob | April 5, 2007 9:57 AM
I was brought up to be religious but took it all too seriously, and of course under scrutiny it all fell apart. Now I am certain all religions are wholly wrong and without redeeming value.
I think of my self as a moron-in-recovery.
Posted by: SnarlyOldFart | April 5, 2007 10:03 AM
I have encountered Objectivists and Marxists who seem to me fundamentalist in their adherence to the writings they take as foundational, in much the same manner as fundamentalist Christians. But neither Dawkins nor Harris strike me as ideological in that sense, and it seems as odd to me to describe an Objectivist as a fundamentalist atheist as it would to describe a Calvinist Christian as a fundamentalist determinist. Atheism and determinism are merely doctrines of Objectivism and Calvinism, respectively, and it is the ideology as a whole that the adherent takes in a fundamentalist fashion.
Posted by: Russell | April 5, 2007 10:06 AM
I have to ask a question, Miguelito.
If a 25-year old still passionately believed in Santa Claus or perhaps the Tooth Fairy, you honestly wouldn't think, even for a moment, there wasn't something just a LITTLE lacking in their upstairs?
To an extent, yes, one's beliefs DO matter. Uncritical acceptance of contradiction and unprovable folderol are character flaws. Surely you're not suggesting a person's thoughts - and by extension, invariably, their deeds - are irrelevant to the content of their character?
Respect for a person AS a person is entirely seperate from respect for their "beliefs" or how smart they are. We "fundamentalist" atheists do not want to shove any nice christian grannies into ovens, nor indeed institute any form of oppression.
As soon as theists stop saying and doing dumb things, we shall stop calling them on it.
Posted by: Proteus454 | April 5, 2007 10:09 AM
They've got it all wrong anyway. They should be talking about "evangelical atheists" not "fundamentalist atheists". The latter makes no sense at all - there's nothing for an atheist to be fundamental about. There's only one (lack of) belief - that there are no gods. Pretty simple, no need to get anything out to literally interpret what that might mean.
Evangelical atheists, on the other hand, would be atheists who rabble rouse - who go around spreading their message of disbelief to the masses. Rather than sit silently, content with their own knowledge of the non-existence of gods, an evangelical atheist would feel that it was his/her duty to spread the message that there are no gods. And this would be done through discourse with believers to show them the error of their ways - much as an evangelist missionary interacts in discourse with non-believers to show them the error of THEIR ways, but through rational argument instead of through reading them Bible tracts.
Posted by: NonyNony | April 5, 2007 10:10 AM
I see nothing wrong with atheist, it is what it is.
Atheist: "a" Greek for without,not. "theist(m)" A believe in god(s), or just god(s)
Without a belief in gods.
You can sugarcoat it with another name, but the definition stays the same. It's really just about changing the connotation.
Posted by: Geral | April 5, 2007 10:14 AM
Ooo, I like Unguls. It sounds like we ought to get black cloaks and winged mounts
Or like "ungulate" which might conjure up images of mounts rather than riders. I guess "Hoofed" isn't an entirely bad thing to be, but it sounds a bit too evo-satanist...
Hmm... ungula can also mean claw or talon. Atheists with claws? ;)
Posted by: windy | April 5, 2007 10:16 AM
evangelical derives from Greek "good words", specifically in rerference to the so-called Gospels. I don't think that works so well for people of no theistic belief. Proselytizing atheist would be better, as the intent is to convert, not preach "gospels".
Posted by: Bob | April 5, 2007 10:19 AM
writerdd said: "Of course, in general, if people ask me what religion I am, I just say "none." But about half the time they feel the need to clarify with the question, "Are you an atheist." Doh."
Actually, these are two different issues--atheism and having no religion. The existence of religion doesn't really have anything to do with whether there are gods or not. No matter whether the universe harbors supernatural beings or not, religion is 100% a human invention, and exists completely independently of any old sky-guys in dirty robes.
I have to say, on a technicality, that I'm an agnostic when it comes to the god-issue. (I'd like to be able to honestly say I'm an atheist, but I get this guilty feeling because I know it's just not possible to prove a negative. So call me a wuss if you want **sigh**.) I also have to say that I strongly disapprove of *all* religions, for reasons which have little or nothing to do with my rejection of the existence of gods.
Lynn
Posted by: Lynn | April 5, 2007 10:19 AM
I wish the more comprehensive term "naturalist" were more widespread. It defines a positive position, implies a far broader range of nonsense not believed in, and bears little of atheism's stigma.
Posted by: Curt | April 5, 2007 10:20 AM
(I'd like to be able to honestly say I'm an atheist, but I get this guilty feeling because I know it's just not possible to prove a negative. So call me a wuss if you want **sigh**.)
You are not a wuss, but here's a word for you: unicorns.
Posted by: windy | April 5, 2007 10:25 AM
I occasionally use the term evangelical atheist. It isn't a perfect term as atheist are generally going door to door to spread the good news of no god. But it comes closer to capturing the distinction between the outspoken advocates and the quieter folks.
Posted by: AgnosticOracle | April 5, 2007 10:25 AM
I think he is using "fundamentalist" as a euphemism for "intolerant". Dawkins especially seems to be quite intolerant of creationists and religion in general, just as christian fundamentalists are intolerant of everybody except christian fundamentalists. It seems very common to use a word not so much for its actual definition but to allude to some other characteristic shared by that word. So in this case he is saying Dawkins attitudes towards theists is very similar to fundamentalists attitudes towards atheists.
So, I gues I'm suggesting "Intolerant Atheist" as the term for you "ornery atheists". :)
Posted by: SteveM | April 5, 2007 10:27 AM
PZ: If memory serves, Douglas Adams described himself as a 'radical atheist' not only to make sure that his views were not confused with agnosticism, but to emphasize both the conviction and thoughtfulness with which he held his views.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | April 5, 2007 10:28 AM
The more friendly variety of atheists have been called "Chamberlain atheists" so maybe you uppity types can call yourselves "Churchill atheists"?
That way you get to namedrop a highly regarded historical figure - always fun; not to mention the connotations of being on the Right Side against The Agressors.
We shall fight them on the beaches, etc.
Posted by: Markk | April 5, 2007 10:36 AM
Hm, that's a shame. I've met and conversed with Greg at a couple of events the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy has hosted up here in Boston, and he's a really great guy. No mush-head, he.
However, if he's throwing around the f-word when it comes to other atheists, that seems really irresponsible. There's no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist". The phrase is about as meaningless as "compassionate conservative" or "victory in Iraq".
Posted by: Joshua | April 5, 2007 10:37 AM
Lynn (#34) wrote:
Isn't that the difference between "theism" and "deism"?
That is, theism is believing in or being a member of a religion, while "deism" just means a belief in a god regardless of religion. Theocracy is government by a religion, theology is the study of religion, etc. a diety is a god. Theism implies deism (or does it, could there be a secular religion?), while deism does not imply theism.
So, actually, belief that there is no god should be "adeism"?
Posted by: SteveM | April 5, 2007 10:41 AM
If a 25-year old still passionately believed in Santa Claus or perhaps the Tooth Fairy, you honestly wouldn't think, even for a moment, there wasn't something just a LITTLE lacking in their upstairs?
You didn't address this question to me, but I'm going to answer it anyway.
No, I wouldn't automatically think that. And here's why:
Many people close to me, including my lovely and intelligent wife, were brought up by their parents to believe in a particular religious viewpoint. A standard religious upbringing is, in many important ways, similar to a cult indoctrination. What makes the standard religious upbringing worse is the fact that it's usually inflicted on someone who is far too young to have developed the critical thinking skills needed to see that it's all bullshit.
Now, some people eventually figure it out for themselves later in life. But many others do not, for a variety of reasons - often, I suspect it is a desire to avoid questioning one's tribal identity too much. At any rate, it seems reasonable to suspect that their are deep-seated psychological mechanisms at work in many people's heads that prevent them from looking too closely at the particulars of what they believe, and then at whether those beliefs make any fucking sense at all.
I don't think it's particularly fair to use that as a judgement of someone's intellect. However, I'm not generally so understanding when it comes to people who experienced a conversion to some religion as an adult, once their critical thinking abilities should be fully formed. But even then, there are exceptions, especially if their conversion came as the result of some deeply emotional incident in their lives.
Yes, religion is stupid. But that doesn't mean everyone who follows it is stupid.
(And for the record, I do sort of believe that a religious upbringing is a form of child abuse. Lucky for me that both my parents were severely lapsed Catholics.)
Posted by: spencer | April 5, 2007 10:42 AM
This is really pretty depressing. The intellectual level of some of the responses is low indeed--Flemming's, for instance. Precisely the sort of thing one might find on a real fundamentalist site, if we just were to switch some of the terms around.
Atheism, it seems, has gotten more popular maybe, but it has gotten a lot more arrogant and stupid, too. And now, in Sam Harris, we have our own budding televangelist, as well. In a world of 900 cable stations, I suppose we should have expected this to happen.
By the way, "uppity" african americans stuck up for their basic rights. I don't think the label applies very well to well-educated, upper middle-class atheists sticking up for their right to ridicule others, do you?
Posted by: Oran Kelley | April 5, 2007 10:43 AM
I really don't think there is much sense to having a name, e.g. atheist. I do not think about what my name is for may lack of believe is astrology or ESP or ghosts or ...
Posted by: George | April 5, 2007 10:44 AM
Upon further review, I should have made clear at the beginning of my previous comment that I was equating belief in Santa Claus with belief in just about any established, "mainstream" religion, and was taking off from that starting point.
Any 25 year old who believes in Santa Claus is certainly pretty dense. But prolonged Santa belief does not have the same social infrastructure propping it up that prolonged God belief does, so I guess you can't really equate them.
Posted by: spencer | April 5, 2007 10:46 AM
What this fellow (quite clearly to those who can read) means by fundamentalist is "intolerant," "strident," "obsessive." The way, actually, that the word generally gets used (albeit incorrectly).
I think a good label for Harris and crew might be "monomaniacal" atheists.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | April 5, 2007 10:50 AM
"If memory serves, Douglas Adams described himself as a 'radical atheist' not only to make sure that his views were not confused with agnosticism, but to emphasize both the conviction and thoughtfulness with which he held his views."
Scott, that's a good point. I know lots of people who are not religious, or sort of agnostics, but don't really know enough about religion or god belief to reject it consciously and outright. To me, a nontheist is someone who just doesn't even ever consider the question--and I know folks like that, brought up in completely secular homes, just completely unconcerned about religious belief--but me, I'm an atheist, I was raised in a mildly religious background, and I've thought about religion and read about and wrote about it for years and years, and reject it all, so I would classify myself like Adams, as a "radical atheist."
Posted by: Will E. | April 5, 2007 10:51 AM
No, it applies to those sticking up for the rights of women to control their bodies without theocratic intervention, the rights of children to be educated and not indoctrinated, the rights of loving consenting adults to be free to conduct their sex lives as they wish, the rights of all committed couples to receive the same state-sanctioned benefits regardless of their sexual orientation, the rights of scientists to examine vitally important issues without worrying about religiously-imposed funding bans, the rights of citizens to expect that their government will make decisions based on scientific evidence and not a book written two thousand years ago...shall I go on?
Posted by: Tulse | April 5, 2007 10:58 AM
No, it applies to those sticking up for the rights of women to control their bodies without theocratic intervention, the rights of children to be educated and not indoctrinated, the rights of loving consenting adults to be free to conduct their sex lives as they wish, the rights of all committed couples to receive the same state-sanctioned benefits regardless of their sexual orientation, the rights of scientists to examine vitally important issues without worrying about religiously-imposed funding bans, the rights of citizens to expect that their government will make decisions based on scientific evidence and not a book written two thousand years ago...shall I go on?
Hah! Religious people are probaly WAAAAAY ahead of atheists, and most especially way ahead of self-promoting, clever-schoolboy windbags like Sam Harris, in forwarding most of these agendas, wouldn't you say? Let's ask the humanist chaplain guy, he's probably actually done some work on these things.
These nice-sounding social agendas have nothing at all to do with televangelist atheism.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | April 5, 2007 11:11 AM
Oran, writing from Bizarro-land? ONLY religious groups are the ones fighting against all those social agenda items. It seems like maybe you have a particular headache with Dawkins & Harris. concern troll much?
Posted by: Bob | April 5, 2007 11:16 AM
I'm pretty much convinced that there is no current personal god(s) as proposed by the religious people. That makes me an atheist, I guess. I'm reasonably certain (but not 100% certain) that there is/was no creator or prime cause for the beginning of the universe so I'm agnostic in that sense.
When asked about my religious convictions I reply 'none' on written forms, but 'god free' in conversation. I am not 'a godfrey' - I am god free in the sense that I do not run my life as if there is some big sky pixie measuring me up for a place in paradise or hell. I choose what social rules I adopt to live my life by.
Posted by: Bunjo | April 5, 2007 11:16 AM
I use the term - "perfect atheist," to describe those who do not get heart palpitations over religious practices, and do not reflexively devote much time and energy criticizing and complaining about religious practices. Those who do are termed "imperfect atheists."
It's apt and it works.
Posted by: Howard | April 5, 2007 11:17 AM
Ridicule works. Bush has been ridiculed relentlessly over the last few years. His popularity plummeted, to the point where the Democrats were able to take control of Congress (thank goodness).
Religions are ridiculed because they are ridiculous. You can't expect people not to make fun of them. The Christian - Muslim - Hebrew kinds are based on nutty premises, provoke extremely nutty behavior (ritual chanting, weekly or daily mass indoctrination), and make lots of people bigoted, extremely narrow-minded, and even suicidally dangerous.
The more ridicule the better.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 5, 2007 11:18 AM
"uppity" african americans stuck up for their basic rights. I don't think the label applies very well to well-educated, upper middle-class atheists sticking up for their right to ridicule others, do you?
When we look back at the civil rights movement it is easy to see it as just standing up for basic rights. But the idea that basic rights applied to black was alien in much of American culture at the time.
The civil rights movement was a critic and an attack on the culture of America at the time. An attack it richly deserved but an attack none the less.
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, PZ and others are delivering an attack on the culture of today. It is also an attack that is richly deserved.
As with the civil rights movement various people use different tactics. It is perfectly reasonable to argue which tactics are the best. Though I think we should tone down the rhetoric of our internal debate. That goes both towards calling Harris, et al fundamentalist and calling others Chamberlain. I would argue that the best tactic is a combined arms. Greg Epstein's soft spoken approach likely helps un-demonize atheist to the religious. Dawkins's outspoken advocacy gives many of us pride and sets the standard that we shouldn't need to apologize for defending reason.
Internal debate is good but concern trolling and internal name calling is not.
Posted by: AgnosticOracle | April 5, 2007 11:18 AM
What do you call an uppity, radical, outspoken person who lack a belief in god or gods the same way he lacks a belief in unicorns and Santa Claus?
I call me Louis.
I like the Douglas Adams thing (also mentioned up thread you'll note), I do say I am a "radical atheist". I also have no trouble explaining a) what I mean by that and b) any errors or misinterpretations that may come up when I say it. I also make no apology for it either.
One thing I HATE to my back teeth is when organisations involved in the pseudodebate over evolutionary biology and creationism (we all know there's no scientific debate. The creationists were shown to be wrong centuries ago, Darwin and subsequent biology was just another series of nails in an already well sealed coffin) play the silly game of "hide the atheists". When some drivel spewing moron cries "OH! But you are nearly all atheists, it's an agenda I tells ya!" I reply with a very calm: "So what? What has religion, yours or my lack thereof got to do with this scientific subject? We are talking about science, right? How does my lack of belief in a deity have any relevance to, say for example, how speciation might occur, or the longevity of "junk" DNA in a genome?". Usually works too.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | April 5, 2007 11:23 AM
Nonsense. To note just one specific issue, Dawkins is vehemently and famously opposed to creationism, and has done more to bring attention to that issue that folks like Gould ever did (and don't get me wrong, I think Gould was a great man).
On a more general level, those "social agendas" are only "agendas" as opposed to unremarkable, mundane, universally accepted aspects of our lives precisely because it is religious groups, and more broadly religiosity, that has fought against them. And it is precisely this religiosity that Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, PZ, and others are combatting. You may not like the tactics, but tell me the last time in US history that there was such a vigorous and public debate about atheism. These writers have shifted the Overton window on the issue of religion, to where one can actually talk about atheism not as mere oddity, but as a serious challenge to religion. That is the only way to ensure that those "social agenda" items (like basic human rights for women) will be securely obtained.
Posted by: Tulse | April 5, 2007 11:27 AM
P.S. I should mention that I am happy with the words, freethinker, sceptic, and indeed atheist. Atheist is a simple word, it does exactly what it says: an a-theist is someone who does not have (i.e. lacks) a theistic belief. If I believed that god or gods did not exist I would not simply be an atheist because I would have a faith in the lack of something rather than a lack of faith in the existence of something. It isn't hard to grasp the difference yet so many people miss it. Those chaps and chapesses who believe there is no god or gods are "strong" atheists (or one of the many other monikers). Personally I prefer "antitheist" or even better "anterotheist". But that's just semantics really.
Posted by: Louis | April 5, 2007 11:27 AM
Ah, I'm always a day behind and a dollar short. I was going to use the African-American reference with "uppity" as a good thing, which Oran brought up badly and Tulse smacked him/her down over. I would never say that atheists are being persecuted today in the same way that African-Americans were in the recent past. If you go back to, say, the Crusades, the comparison would be more apt, but the basic idea of using uppity as a derogatory term is that whoever is being uppity doesn't "know their place" as inferior to everyone else and refuses to stay there. With that connotation, I think "uppity atheist" is an entirely appropriate way to both call the prejudice as it is and turn around and take back the word at the same time.
Posted by: Carlie | April 5, 2007 11:29 AM
I for one am an angry atheist.Six thousand years of history has made me angry.For most of this time it did not matter if you disbelieved in your local city state god or the local tribal shaman the results were the same.Usually we will kill you or get the hell out of here.Screw them all.Fuck their persecution stories.They all stood together when dealing with unbelievers.Now they have lost the power to kill me they want me to make nice with them.I for one will curse these bastards with my last breath.I don't give a rat's ass what they call me.One cannot overcome their angry gods,their gods of war setting around a campfire with them singing kumbaya.They are a bunch of murdering bastards!
Posted by: spartanrider | April 5, 2007 11:30 AM
Russell said:
Thank you!
Following Godwin's sterling example, I would like to propose a Law. I use that word only half in jest, for this will be a Law in both the legal and the scientific senses of that word. First, it is an empirical statement:
1. In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one.
Following this statement comes the second half, which is a judgment:
2. The person who makes this comparison will be considered to have lost the argument.
I'm not trying to make "fundamentalist" a taboo word. The point is that it's not logical to stick that word upon somebody when "strident", "vocal" or "inflexible" are actually the qualities for which you think they need criticism.
Is "Nazi" an appropriate description of all people who express authoritarian views, who want to see the world march in lockstep? No, because that word refers to a specific (loathsome) historical movement and its modern descendants. If you want to call somebody a Nazi, you have to back it up. Never forget, laws were made for people, not the other way round: if you have an argument and evidence on your side, sensible folk will let you "Godwin the thread". The ethic behind Godwin's Law is to make a memetically infectious mechanism to ensure that arguments are well-founded, and the same goes for the Dawkinsian analogue I propose.
People writing articles for glossy magazines like to look at these post-God Delusion kerfluffles and say, "The atheists are divided into just as many denominations as the Protestants!" In a spectacularly unfunny two-part episode, South Park made a similar jest. To me, the most interesting part of this issue is that the claims made by various "denominations" — New Atheists, New Humanists, the People's Front of Humanism, the Humanist Popular People's Front and so forth — are in principle empirically testable. What's more, this matters to us: in one form or another, we all acknowledge the virtue in real-world data.
"What on earth is Blake talking about now?"
OK, put it this way: Dawkins has given examples of evidence which could convince him that a god exists (or at least that there exist tremendously powerful forces as yet unknown to science). Carl Sagan has made similar statements, though more in the context, "This is the evidence which could well have existed, but for some reason doesn't." Why, as he asks in The Varieties of Scientific Experience, is God so clear in the Bible and so obscure in the world?
Surely, if Atheist Pope Richard I is willing to make such statements, he is also willing to consider evidence that his chosen tactic for effecting change is ineffective! Not morally unjustified, mind you — leveling that judgment leads only to fog and confusion. The critical point is that one could, by psychological and anthropological methods, judge the effects which Dawkins' book and lecture-circuit career have on different segments of the populace. This is a question not for philosophy, but for science.
Furthermore, if we phrase the problem as a scientific question, then we can bring our scientific maturity to the issue. We can take a deep breath and pull out the Baloney Detection Kit. We can even hold mutually contradictory ideas simultaneously in mind as alternate working hypotheses. Really. This is part of the training scientists get during their youthful travels in the mysterious Orient.
What empirical evidence we have on this matter today is probably contaminated by all sorts of selection bias. It is suggestive, though certainly not conclusive, that The God Delusion has sold so astonishingly well — but that's only a data point, not a theory of human behavior. We cannot with any fidelity judge whether a tactic is good or bad until we have a reliable way of estimating what its effects will be. It's tough, but that's the way the world works. Certainly, the Atheism Is The New Black crowd should have little trouble accepting this state of affairs, given that a predetermined moral order to the Universe is just as unsupported by the evidence as a personal, interventionist Creator.
We're supposed to be the Reality-Based Community. Let's act like it. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 5, 2007 11:30 AM
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I find it intersting that speaking up to say "This is what I believe and why I belive it" is seen as dangerous fundamentalism when you're an atheist and your right if you are a theist. As if I should hide my opinions on religion because I'm an atheist. I'm not ashamed nor am I afraid. Neither should anyone else.
I will propose a truce with the theists though. All atheists will agree to completely stop speaking about religion if all theists agree to do the same.
Posted by: commissarjs | April 5, 2007 11:31 AM
I thought it was a pretty hilarious episode myself, but largely because of the outrageousness of showing a naked Richard Dawkins having sex with a transexual. (And, in spite of that, I thought Dawkins was actually presented extremely sympathetically, and far less "uppity" than he actually is.)
I wonder if Dawkins has seen the episode, and what his reaction was...
Posted by: Tulse | April 5, 2007 11:38 AM
I'd call the non-uppity atheists accommodators, enablers, or even pussies. If you don't have the guts to call a spade a spade, then you're not honest.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | April 5, 2007 11:42 AM
I very much like the simple word "atheist". It's clean and direct. It's why I didn't care for that "Brights" nonsense at all -- it was trying to dress up something in new clothes that we should be proud of naked.
I've also always like the words "freethought" and "freethinker". It's a lovely term to unite atheists, agnostics, and deists in the common struggle against oppressive religion.
Unfortunately, I've been informed repeatedly by people I thought were all together on this issue that we "_______ atheists" don't belong, where some pejorative qualifier is plugged in to disown people like Dawkins or Harris or even li'l ol' me. There is to be only one tactic in the war against the theocracy and superstition: we are to bow respectfully to all religions, no matter how foolish, and anyone who points out the stupidity of the world's major religions is to be a pariah. That, apparently, is why we need the new name.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 5, 2007 11:45 AM
Stuart, why so strident? How is it dishonest to not rage against a machine? Why can't I be a "live and let live" nonbeliever?
I also don't understand your equating of "accommodators, enablers" with guts and dishonesty. No grey areas?
/snark
Why don't you call any non-uppity atheist a Quisling atheist?
Posted by: Bob | April 5, 2007 11:50 AM
I'm a PROUD athiest.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 5, 2007 11:52 AM
Tulse,
Richard Dawkins had this to say about the South Park episode.
On a slightly different track, Carlie said,
I think it is a pretty fair statement to say that atheists in the United States today are not treated as badly as African-Americans were a half-century ago. Oh, all sorts of unpleasantnesses can and do arise, but like the song says, it could be much worse:
However, even taking the difference in degree into consideration, I think the following reaction to pervasive cultural attitudes applies equally well to both situations:
At the moment, we "fight" our "struggle" with books and YouTube videos. Perhaps, should that unhappy day come when firehoses are turned on a marching crowd of agnostics, history will repeat itself again and these words will have new relevance:
Oddly enough, the Alabama public schools never required me to read Letter from Birmingham Jail. Still, giving credit where credit should be due, they made me aware of its existence; I hope many churchgoers can say the same of their Sunday sermons.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 5, 2007 11:53 AM
I grew up in the Unitarian Church and some of my Czech ancestors were freethinkers. I come from a long line of agnostics and atheists yet my very extended family has Catholics and Episcopalians as well. My grandfather was a Unitarian minister (of the secular humanist bent which seems to be on the wane at the moment) and one of his favorite quotes, long pinned above the door to the bathroom, was "pray for the success of atheism." In discussing this post and the general topic with my wife she made a very important point that "someone who can't imagine a humanist chaplain does not know any history of freethinkers." Having said that it seems to me that there is a fundamental flaw in some of the thinking in the above post, the links provided, and in the comments. Not believing in god is a belief system just as much as believing in god is (and I am not a post-modernist, in fact I'm a materialist - our experience of the world is subjective, whereas our existe