comments_imageCOMMENTS: 146

Atheism: Living Life Unfettered by Supernaturalism and Groupthink -- Interview With Sikivu Hutchinson

African-American atheist Sikivu Hutchinson calls on black atheists to play a critical role in the atheism movement.
June 17, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

What is it like to be a black atheist?

Obviously, I wouldn't know. But via Friendly Atheist, I recently read a piece by Sikivu Hutchinson for the L.A. Watts Times, titled 'Out of the Closet' -- Black Atheists. (A must-read, by the way.) Her piece focused on one side of this question -- being an atheist in the African American community. But I was curious about the other side: What is it like to be African American in the atheist community?

I don't think this is something atheists talk about enough. We're too willing to let our most prominent leaders and speakers mostly be white; we're critical of the negative effect religion has on communities of color, but we don't look very hard at why the atheist movement is so predominantly white, or what we could be doing to make our movement a safer place to land for people of color who are leaving religion.

So when I read Sikivu's piece, I thought she's be a good person to ask about this stuff. She was kind enough to give me an interview, and we spoke -- well, okay, emailed -- about privilege, the intersection of race and religion, the history of Christianity in African- American culture, what atheism has to contribute to society, and more. Here is that interview.

Greta Christina: In your piece for the L.A. Watts Times, you talked about being an atheist in the black community. Can you tell me a little about the flip side of that? What is it like to be a African- American in the atheist community? Have you encountered much racism? Have you found it to be pretty inclusive? Is it somewhere in between?

Sikivu Hutchinson: As it is with many prominent issues of ideological/ social relevance the assumption that white male thinkers and writers are the definitive spokespeople on atheism is highly problematic. I would like to see more atheists of color rise to prominence as theorists and scholars of record on atheist discourse, rather than the continued privileging of the usual "authorial" white suspects (i.e., Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris).

GC: On that topic: There's often an assumption in political movements (I've seen it in the LGBT movement) that being inclusive of people of color simply means not being overtly and grossly racist. (As a queer woman, I've seen something similar, where people or organizations make subtle or not- so- subtle assumptions of heterosexuality, but they think they're not being homophobic because they're not hurling epithets or turning us away at the door.) Can you talk a little about that? What is the difference between being actively inclusive and welcoming of people of color... and simply not being overtly racist? And how does that play out in the atheist community?

SH: Oftentimes white folk engage with the issue of people of color and religious observance in a very paternalistic way -- musing about the "backwardness" of people of color, particularly African Americans, who subscribe to Christian and Muslim dogma despite their histories of colonialism, terrorism and slavery. Although religious observance among African Americans is paradoxical for these very reasons, the white critique of said world view is narrow and lacking in consciousness of the cultural context that informs black adoption of Judeo- Christian mores and values. Hence, the European- American atheist community can't be truly inclusive unless there is some recognition of how privilege and positionality undergird the very articulation of atheism as an ideological space that empowers white folk to deconstruct the cultural tethers of organized religion, without having their authorial right to do so be questioned.

GC: Getting away from race for a moment: Can you tell me a little about your own atheism? Were you raised as a non-believer, or did you have religion at one time and then deconvert... and if you deconverted, how did that happen? What effect did it have on your life and your relationship with family and friends at the time, and how has that changed over time?

SH: I was fortunate to have grown up in a very secular household. My parents were highly literate politically conscious writer-teachers and placed a premium on independent thought. That said religion was still a part of my life because it was so integral to much of African American extended family and community. My grandparents were very religious and I frequently went to their Methodist church when I was growing up. I had some vague notion of and belief in the existence of God up until the first year of high school when I was totally galvanized into agnosticism by an utterly brain-dead Catholic School experience which signaled the end of my suspension of disbelief!

GC: There's a common assumption that the black community, and other communities of color in the U.S. such as the Hispanic community, are more deeply religious than white people. Do you think that's true? If so, why do you think that is? And if not, where do you think that assumption comes from?

SH: As I mentioned before religious observance is a powerful influence in communities of color. However, given the enormous political influence of white Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. it would be reductive to say that people of color are "more" religious than whites —- rather, religion, for better or for ill, has in many respects played a formative role in allowing people of color to navigate and survive institutional racism and domestic terrorism. This is the defining difference between white Christian fundamentalist observance and, say, African American spiritualism predicated on a notion of liberation theology that derives from a redemptive view of the moral universe. In this regard African Americans who have broken from these traditions have a more complex "meta-critical" relationship with organized religion than do white atheists who have rejected religion.

GC: On that topic: When people criticize atheism and the newly vocal, "openly critical of religion" atheist movement, one of the tropes that I see a lot is that this openly critical atheism is disrespectful to marginalized communities like the black community. The argument goes that because religion is so deeply interwoven into black history and black culture, and because the comfort of religion is so important to a community that's had such a hard time of it, criticizing religion is disrespectful and racist. As a black atheist, what are your thoughts on that?

SH: Clearly criticizing religion is not racist. One of the charges of atheistic discourse is foregrounding how there is nothing intrinsically superior about religious observance -- its value for African Americans as a people derives from a specific cultural and historical context of institutional racism and oppression. The supposed basic moral precepts of Judeo- Christian theology -- love for one’s neighbor, tolerance, doing unto others, non-judgment, etc. -- are certainly not exclusive to religious doctrine, while the hierarchies, persecution and intolerance based on race, gender, sexuality and ideology that religious doctrine breeds effectively negate the moral preeminence that organized religion presumes. These contradictions open up a path for critical engagement by atheists of color with why organized religion has been so toxic vis-a-vis validating the rich diversity of communities of color. African American intellectuals and thinkers (see for example Frederick Douglass' critique of "slaveholding" Christianity) have always challenged the role religious orthodoxy plays in African American communities. This historical complexity has just never been "officially" recognized by white scholars.

GC: Again moving away from race for a moment: A lot of atheists are talking about how we need to not just criticize religion: we also need to present the positive aspects of atheism as a meaningful and satisfying way to live. What do you see as the meaningful and beneficial side of atheism? And how does your atheism shape the way you live your life?

SH: Sure atheism could use a PR infusion that extols the virtues and sexiness of secular belief. However, much of the discourse around atheism necessarily involves upending the orthodoxies and hypocrisies of organized religion that enshrine it as a "natural" and "normal" way of life for many. I for one think that there has not been enough political exposure of the massive welfare state entitlements that have been conferred on organized religion in the form of so-called faith-based initiatives. Atheist "activists" have an important role to play in shifting the discourse to frame organized religion (and highlight the theocratic nature of the U.S. and the continued degradation of the separation between church and state) as just another corrupt welfare swilling special interest that reflects a particular narrow and sectarian belief system -- why let Rove, Limbaugh and the Fox regime control the terms of debate?

With regard to your second question, atheism has value for the uninitiated both as a means of unpacking the social and cultural contradictions that inform so-called religious morality, and as a means of living life unfettered by the conventions and hierarchical dictates of supernaturalism. It’s an antidote to groupthink and blind acceptance, a dynamic that has always informed my outlook on and approach to life's complexities.

GC: And do you think there's any chance of a political alliance between the atheist community and the black community? Or is the black community just too hostile to atheism for that to happen?

SH: That question assumes that there is a monolithic "black community." Certainly atheists of all walks of life and African American "freethinkers" of all walks of life can forge solidarity on certain issues, but a fundamental wariness will remain if white atheist communities continue to maintain a paternalistic stance toward both the dissemination of atheist discourse and the critique of African American belief systems.

GC: Finally, is there anything else you'd like to add -- on these topics, or any other?

Ever since the debate on Prop 8 debate and same-sex marriage emerged it has been critical for me as an atheist and a black feminist to make my voice heard in opposing the presumed solidarity of African American communities in support of the initiative. Rather than allow white atheists to control the terms of debate, black atheists of conscience can play a critical role in these and other political firestorms which highlight the disproportionate influence of organized religion in general, and Christian fascism in particular, on public policy.

Sources for further reading:

The Black Atheists of The Harlem Renaissance: (1917-1928), by John G. Jackson, on American Atheists

Ralph Dumain's Page, Atheist Nexus

The Invisibility of The Black Atheist, by Wrath James White, on Words of Wrath

Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: religion, hitchens, dawkins, christianity, atheism, african-americans, prop 8


Comments are closed-

One smart penetrating thinker in Sikivu
Posted by: pelican beak on Jun 17, 2009 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re: "atheism has value for the uninitiated both as a means of unpacking the social and cultural contradictions that inform so-called religious morality, and as a means of living life unfettered by the conventions and hierarchical dictates of supernaturalism. It’s an antidote to groupthink and blind acceptance..."

Maybe a significant reason folks don't leave their religious notions behind is because they LIKE to have that baggage... they'd feel naked and unworthy without it.

That's not a healthy motivation for anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here we go again. Posted by: Karlh
» I agree ... up to a point. Posted by: Kate_24
» Altruism Posted by: Karlh
» RE: Altruism Posted by: Kate_24
» RE: Altruism Posted by: Karlh
» RE: Altruism Posted by: Kate_24
» RE: Here we go again. Posted by: mtnprivy
» RE: Here we go again. Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Here we go again. Posted by: Spot
» RE: Here we go again. Posted by: Karlh
» Very Well Said Posted by: Kate_24
» RE: Very Well Said Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Very Well Said Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: And maybe others just exchange one load of baggage for another Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» Left liberal americans are unfair and unbalanced Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: Left liberal americans are unfair and unbalanced Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: Left liberal americans are unfair and unbalanced Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal

Comments are closed-

If being an atheist keeps your mind unfettered from Groupthink...
Posted by: ZPaul on Jun 17, 2009 2:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Why do there exist Right-wing atheists?

I have debated with several on forums, and I certainly saw Groupthink in their rationalizations of Right-wing thought. Am I the only one here who has observed this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Beck, are you for real... Posted by: bornxeyed

Comments are closed-

People of color, above all others, should reject religion
Posted by: Moonray on Jun 17, 2009 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering the historically close relationship between religion and racism, it's pathetic to see African Americans, Hispanics and other "minorities" happily supporting their neighborhood churches -- the very instruments of their enslavement and torture not many decades ago.

I was especially pained to see Barack Obama pay tribute to the influence of religion in his life and was outraged when he allowed a shameless Bible-thumper to conduct the mumbo-jumbo at the presidential inauguration. That's politics for you.

African-Americans and Hispanics especially should be at the forefront to end tax breaks for religious groups and otherwise limit their influence. Meanwhile, atheists should call themselves "realists" while they refer to religious folks as "non-rationals." Those terms more accurately describe the two groups.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "the 'backwardness' of people of color" Posted by: MilesGregarius
» Um? Posted by: maddy

Comments are closed-

Living unfettered by "groupthink"?
Posted by: Beck on Jun 17, 2009 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the outside looking in, it doesn't appear that way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah, lets not just assume... Posted by: JoshuaLudd

Comments are closed-

Honoring the sacred without being a supernaturalist.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 17, 2009 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The defense here, from a self-defined atheist/secularist, of the positive role of organized religion in the African American community is refreshing. The fact that most people participate in the organized religion they learned from their family is no greater a surprise than similar patterns of participation or non-participation in a political tradition.

The issue for us, regardless of race, religion, or gender, is the maturity of our belief system. Insofar as organized religion requires orthodoxy—that is, uniformity of belief and conformity to creeds and dogmas long rendered incredible—the result is an undeveloped and mystifying belief system. Whether one is superstitious as a theist or atheist is less significant than that one is superstitious.

Some of us are content to define religion as what you do with your life, the choices you make, what you decide for yourself, and the relationship of those to your belief system. That describes religion as a universal phenomenon seeking sacredness rather than arguing over whether we must believe what authority figures have told us is true.

Understanding the sacrificial dimension of living together remains a tie we all retain with our ancient ancestors. It provides a basis both for a critique of simple-minded nihilism as well as simple-minded religious beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I don't believe in your fervent disbelief :)
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 17, 2009 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm going to invent my own religion, called Disspassionatisim, that stresses that there is no need for "group-think" at all, save to figure out a way to do what we are incapable of doing ourselves, i.e., paving roads, providing security and defense against collective aggressors, etc.

My church shall be a Constitutional Republic!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» heh Posted by: EinMD

Comments are closed-

january37
Posted by: january37 on Jun 17, 2009 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sikivu or Pollyana? Any doctrine can be adhered to outside of groupthink and any doctrine can foster it. I know Mormons who reject groupthink on some political issues (gay marriage in particular)and, as the postings show, people who claim to be atheists can be subject to it (God knows how, pardon the expression.).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Leadership?
Posted by: EinMD on Jun 17, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're too willing to let our most prominent leaders and speakers mostly be white;

Putting aside for a second that I've never met a black atheists, where all of a sudden did atheists get 'prominent leaders and speakers' first of all and what damned difference would it matter if they were black white or purple?

I'm an Atheist simply because I don't believe in a deity or deities. Human ethnicity as absolutely nothing to do with it. You're black? Great. You're white? Great. But why the hell should I play follow the leader? I'm not a sheep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Leadership? Posted by: cmonroe

Comments are closed-

Heirarchy of Needs
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jun 17, 2009 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently, since the dawn of Homo sapiens, there has been the need to explain us, them and the universe (for lack of a better all-qualifying label).

First there was religion. Then there was mythology. Then there was philosophy.

Religion and mythology exist in the same realm. 100% made up by man. 100% not based on anything observable.

Philosophy was an attempt to rectify that situation, but it still exists in the realm of thought and not a lot on observation.

Then came science. Oh my. Now we can actually replicate some of the discussion about the nature of reality. We can codify the nature of reality. We can discuss it as UNIVERSAL TRUTH for the first time in human history - because everyone involved has the opportunity to REPLICATE results, conclusions, laws.

Religionists want the answers codified in stone from a previous time in history. Science seeks to discover the nature of the universe (plus us and them) as time goes by, as our methods of observation become more sophisticated and tuned; and as we build on previous observations and become smarter as a result.

Religion will have nothing to do with new knowledge. It seeks to suppress anything new. This is a fact since they have their texts, which are ancient and incapable of being modified as time goes on.

So, mankind leaves religious nonsense behind because it is incapable of keeping up with today. UTTERLY INCAPABLE. You would have to remove the falsehoods contained in religious texts - just like science does to its science texts - to be able to progress in the religious world of belief. But since that is not the case, the inescapable conclusion is that religion belongs in the far distant ancient past - as it should - in an attempt to be what science is today.

Sorry, science explains everything just fine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RAMEN!!! Posted by: Karlh
» Ideology... Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Ideology... Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Ideology... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Ideology... Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Ideology... Posted by: bornxeyed
» They just don't get it. Posted by: Karlh
» I see a Straw Man Posted by: Karlh
» RE: Heirarchy of Needs Posted by: Bibsisis

Comments are closed-

Religious Propaganda
Posted by: aonghus36 on Jun 17, 2009 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is what atheism is, repackaged.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Religious Propaganda Posted by: factbased
» RE: eligious Propaganda Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: eligious Propaganda Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: eligious Propaganda Posted by: sunnywater
» 100%... Posted by: LeaderofMen

Comments are closed-

Movement?
Posted by: maddy on Jun 17, 2009 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting interview, but, if I may...

Too many folks jump the gun in declaring themselves a "movement." Two examples to illustrate what I mean:

1. The Civil Rights Movement? Now, that's a movement. Concrete demands: voting rights, economic justice, the end of Jim Crow. Conflicting strategies and philosophies (and, let's not forget, the black church--esp. the social gospel--as central organizing place/philosophical guide). They had plans and dreams to change American politics and social life. And, to include the example of Black Power groups, they opened schools, fed and clothed the poor.

2. The Evangelical Movement: Talk about demands!, the most radical being, of course, the desire to turn the US into a theocracy. But, and this is the key point, they have (see Barbara Ehrenreich about this) "stepped in" to compensate for the collape of the social safety net. That's fancy talk for: they're feeding people, clothing people, and providing, again, a sense of community in the face of hardship.

So, from one atheist/agnostic to another, what in the bloomin' heck is this "movement" you speak of with such assurance? What demands are being made and on whom? Demonstrations? Boycotts? Pressure on particular politicians? What social infrastructure is being created to support our members? What services does this "movement" provide? Where is the vision for a better political future or more equitable society save the criticism of the harms caused by organized religion?

Look, what I'm saying here is that this, ahem, "movement" is really just about an absence of belief or a critique of the myriad ills caused by organized religion. It's a growing group of people who share a point of view. It is not, however, a "movement" and can never be one if it exists only as a contrary point of view.

Btw, I say this as atheist/agnostic myself: "Movement" this is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Movement? Posted by: Richard House
» RE: Movement? Posted by: bornxeyed

Comments are closed-

Can you help me clarify how the Scientific Method works?
Posted by: cmonroe on Jun 17, 2009 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems some people have gotten confused as to the scientific method, here is how it goes:

1. You have a hypothesis.
2. You come up with experiments to test the hypothesis.
3. If the experiments come back favorable for the moment, now you can put out a theory.
4. Tomorrow someone else can come along with a new hypothesis and new experiment that proves you were wrong.
5. There is no 'proving' in science, only disproving. That means one theory only holds until some new and better theory comes along.
6. There are no 'laws' in real science, only theories. People that call a theory a 'law' only do this to solidify a position.
6. If you believe something exists only if you can sense it from your limited 5 senses, you are not scientific, you are a materialist.
7. What does this have to do with atheism? Easy: the scientific method cannot 'prove' anything, it can only disprove something.
8. Here is a challenge for you: If I have a belief (atheism), I want you to scientifically prove my belief does not exist. Go ahead.
9. Another challenge for you: If I have another belief (an alternate dimension), I want you to prove my belief does not exist.
10. Intolerance and militancy against my belief, whatever it is, is not acceptable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

No groupthink in atheism?
Posted by: kenhymes on Jun 17, 2009 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is touchingly naive [and of a naivete lately only to be found among the fervently non-religious and those who blindly defend scientific institutions by confusing them with the scientific method] to find atheism trumpeted as a cure for "groupthink." Has Alternet truly become so one-sided on this, so resolutely unable to acknowledge history, that it can seriously use this headline?

Is it any sort of struggle to note examples of grouthink among groups openly hostile to religious belief? Mao; Stalin; Eugenics; Nazism; the CIA; posters on this topic on Alternet.

Beyond this, the posts about how much the black church has damaged the cause of black people in the US go beyond ahistorical sophomoric commentary into truly disturbing monomania. Can Alternet and its readers move beyond this absurd reductionism? If not, then I fear the exercise in "free speech" so pleadingly defended in the fundraising pop-up is really just an exercise in mutual delusion. There is no place for actual sociology or in fact any evidence of what religious people actually do, unless they are spokespeople for hate-filled fringe communities far removed from the rather boring, sometimes socially helfpul and even progressive, run of church life in America.

Put more simply: your contributors do not know anything much about religion, what they know is merely their own reaction to their own experience with religion.

If Alternet is truly interested in dialogue, and more importantly in progressive social change, it would do well to expand its range of views on this topic. Is there no place for Dominic Crossan, Jim Wallis, Brian McClaren, or any of a large number of progressive Christian writers, on these pages?

You're pretty much "preaching to the choir" by running piece after piece along these lines, pardon the irony.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Let's talk about straw men Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: No groupthink in atheism? Posted by: Bibsisis
» wow Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: Well said Posted by: kogwonton

Comments are closed-

Athiests are not immune to groupthink
Posted by: pomes on Jun 17, 2009 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish there was something inherent about atheism that made one immune to groupthink. However, this just isn't the case. Atheism has finally become "cool" in our society, so the trend-chasers and wind-sniffers are chucking their old authority figures, dogma, and superstitions for brand new ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Black and white
Posted by: willymack on Jun 17, 2009 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People tend to think in terms of right and wrong, good and evil, and black and white. There's nothing new about this, just look at the ying/yang symbol, for instance, or the swastica, which was thousands of years old before hitler profaned it. I've seen swasticas in Hindu art as well as in a tapestry (hundreds of years old) made by the Shoshone people, here in the USA. It most likely represented the four cardinal points on the compass, and as an alegory the Earth.
The whole thing about organized religion is CONTROL, and even that isn't all bad. Consider the Muslim and Hebrew injunctions against eating pork and shellfish, for instance. In ancient times, before the microscope, the trichina worm in pork and red tide toxins in shellfish were unknown. All that was known for certain was that people sometimes got sick and even died after eating pork or shellfish.
The beautiful prose in religious texts is a testament to the knowlege of human nature possessed by those seeking control of people, and many of these passages are perfectly suitable for secular applications.
The problems between believers and thinkers begin with the opinion "God said it. I believe it, and that settles it". This is a statement of one with a closed mind, with a crying need to be right 100% of the time, and somehow superior to unbelievers for it.
Believers: It's written in a book. Never mind that it was written by a human hand; it's divinely inspired, therefore divine itself.
Thinkers: With all due respect ( precious little, in fact), there's not a shred of empirical evidence to back your purports.
There can be NO common ground other than the usual civilities expected of all of us, between thinkers and believers, and the day when some sort of religious hokum doesn't have any appeal to anyone will never arrive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Right-wing atheist websites
Posted by: ZPaul on Jun 17, 2009 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since my reply looks like it got lost in the large number of answers to my post (The second one on this page), I would just like to point out that, in answer to a request to name some right-wing atheists, I provided a couple of links to right-wing atheist websites in reply. One of them is a Facebook group.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Should Religion Be Criminalized?
Posted by: njguy73 on Jun 17, 2009 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes.... Posted by: yale
» and there it is Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: and there it is Posted by: yale
» RE: and there it is Posted by: kogwonton

Comments are closed-

Not in my name please!
Posted by: Fish on Jun 17, 2009 6:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I despair when I hear the term “Atheist Movement”. Not in my name please.

As a person who does not and has not believed in a deity for over 40 years I have never felt the need or the thought that I belong to a group of similar minded people.

My non belief or if you prefer atheism freed me from that.

Yes I am guilty of feeling a particular superiority to those who still follow a religion or who believe in a deity but because I had reached my current thought position I felt the mental freedom of not having to conform to any thought and or group.

The thing about being an atheist is that you are above the need to associate and or follow, not to be a part of a "movement".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Groupthink vs. doublethink
Posted by: kogwonton on Jun 17, 2009 8:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Till people are omniscient (objective awareness) all honest humans will have to accept that they 'believe' things to be true or false till otherwise proven. Every person with a set of moral values carries beliefs about conduct, based upon profit motives. The only difference is in what 'profit' means to them. Some value objects (wealth), the environment, wildlife, others people. The difference is in what people value most. What is it that makes life worth living? Not all moral values are rational. Everyone has an ideology of some sort. To say that 'religion' is the cause of all human ills is correct if you consider all ideologies as types of religious belief. Truth and Justice are topics which are impossible to define from the perspective of the individual, yet we hopefully aspire to them. This is something requiring pure objectivity (God awareness anyone?). People that claim to love truth (philosophy) and justice have to admit they can never attain the deepest possible understanding of what those things mean yet, paradoxically, must always strive for deeper understanding. This does not necessitate having no beliefs, but of being willing to challenge them.

When a person calls themselves an atheist and honestly means that they are open to information which might threaten their current grasp on reality, then I'm willing to grant them that their form of atheism really is a 'lack of a belief in deity'. But most people I've met that call themselves atheists actually do have a definite belief that there is no such objective awareness, and are quite hostile to any such concept even if it doesn't come from any of the more established religious faiths. In that case I would have to say that they do have a definite belief, and are quite defensive of it.

It is comforting to (B)elieve that by adopting atheism that one is immune from group-think, but it is absolutely a lie. In fact, if one takes a really casual look at most of the heroes of the religious faiths, the prophets, etc, you will find that they were deified for their heresies and their refusal to conform. Heroes of all sorts - mythological, literary, historical, and religious - were idolized for their willing self-sacrifice, of going against the group. The problem is dogma. Problems inherent in religious dogma can be said of any sort of ideology, and especially so of economic ideologies.

To find a particularly bloody ideology, take a look at economics. Economic ideologies have spilled more blood in the last century than all religious wars combined in human history - but even if ANY war (religious or not) in history is chosen as an example it can be shown that the taking of property, in one form or another, was the primary motive, and that spiritual beliefs were hijacked.

Capitalism (insatiable lust for wealth and concentration of capital/power) hijacks all other ideologies for personal gain, and lays them aside just as quickly. It's called greed, or lust for power. Even the Christian Devil is said to have become proud (before his fall), and his heart filled with violence by virtue of the wealth gained through his commerce (Ezekiel 28). I believe that it can very accurately be labeled fascism. It would seem that exploitation of the beliefs of others for personal gain would be rational inasmuch as the person doing it could be considered an 'atheist' of sorts. The problem is that, as humans, we live by trust - mostly in each other. Faith, if you prefer. Our currency is only as good as our word. When honor is the first casualty justice is the second, and our most valued currency is restricted leaving us in depression. Paper currency is a false god, and none in history has ever required more faith OR blood than the Dollar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why Less Black Atheists?
Posted by: aberdeen on Jun 17, 2009 11:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps people of lighter skin are statistically more ignorant than people of darker skin, which would explain why there are more "white" than "black" atheists. After all, according to Thomas Jefferson, only a complete idiot, whether dark skinned or light, would conclude the universe appeared on it's own, which is what "self-evident" means.

FREE 20-Song CD
Who Would Jesus Bomb?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why Less Black Atheists? Posted by: TheNamelessCity

Comments are closed-

Atheists free from "groupthink" and "supernaturalism"-get real!!!
Posted by: Woodpecker on Jun 18, 2009 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get real- avowedly atheistical states (Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba) were the most intellectually conformist polities in the 20th century!

Terry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Atheists live lives unfettered by groupthink? Pul-leeasee
Posted by: Jasonix on Jun 18, 2009 4:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the average AlterNet reader 19 years old and being exposed to big ideas at the state U for the first time? Atheists have as much group-think as anybody. And as many superstitions, too - most libertarians are atheists, and if libertarian economics aren't superstition, I don't know what is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

African American Atheists and Political Liberation: A Study of the Sociocultural Dynamics of Faith
Posted by: badiane on Jun 20, 2009 5:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I came across this book by Michael Lackey back in 2007. At that time there was only one review. I noticed and was kind of upset that among all the books on or about atheism that this one had just been passed over. To this date it only has one review.

I had ordered it, back in 2007, from the Queens central public library and picked it up around 2008. Well it seemed at the time that I was the only one who had taken it out. I took the book with me at an atheist meetup and showed it to some of the people in attendence at the after meetup dinner and basically nearly everyone who looked at the book simply brushed it aside and that was it.

I mentioned it to a friend of mine of African ascendence who, after my insisting on asking him if he had taken a look at it, told me that all that had to be said about atheism was already covered by the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the others and, I paraphrase here, that anything by someone of African ascendence would only be a rehashing of the subject. This same person told me that if I hated the westerners so much why do I think like them. So critical thinking belongs to westerners and not non-westerners and especially not those of African ascendence.

I was recently in Guadalajara, Mexico and was talking to a friend of my cousin who is French and after presenting my views about relationships as it concerned women from ex-colonial countries, he told me that my view was very western.

I'm fascinated that nearly anything that remotely has a hint of critical thought is attributed to the west. It reminds me of the fallacy that many people who have a system of reasoning which leads them to religion which claims that knowledge has to be passed from one to the other. One has to teach the other how to be or how to know because they don't know how things are derived.

I have been dismissed by non-afro people without being given an argument which would refute my statements or an explanation of where my argument may have failed or erred. Just dismissed. I have had a lawyer tell me, vehemently, that I had improperly used a word, not because she could tell me where the mistake was but simply because she didn't know and I therefore couldn't possibly know. I asked her to get back to me at her leisure about her fact finding mission. I met her husband the week after and he just smiled at me when I inquired about the progress of his wife's search. She is American and he is from Sweden. He knew what I was talking about but she didn't. He just told me to forget about it and we talked about something else.

As far as the many people of African ascendence are concerned, once the word atheism is pronounced, an iron curtain drops. Also, these dear moral people feel that they then acquire some invisible license to do whatever they feel that their god would want done to the non-believer.

Michael Lackey covers the problems mentioned in this article at length. I would recommend it to those who find this article interesting.

Badiane

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

One smart penetrating thinker in Sikivu
Posted by: pelican beak on Jun 17, 2009 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re: "atheism has value for the uninitiated both as a means of unpacking the social and cultural contradictions that inform so-called religious morality, and as a means of living life unfettered by the conventions and hierarchical dictates of supernaturalism. It’s an antidote to groupthink and blind acceptance..."

Maybe a significant reason folks don't leave their religious notions behind is because they LIKE to have that baggage... they'd feel naked and unworthy without it.

That's not a healthy motivation for anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here we go again. Posted by: Karlh
» I agree ... up to a point. Posted by: Kate_24
» Altruism Posted by: Karlh
» RE: Altruism Posted by: Kate_24
» RE: Altruism Posted by: Karlh
» RE: Altruism Posted by: Kate_24
» RE: Here we go again. Posted by: mtnprivy
» RE: Here we go again. Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Here we go again. Posted by: Spot
» RE: Here we go again. Posted by: Karlh
» Very Well Said Posted by: Kate_24
» RE: Very Well Said Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Very Well Said Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: And maybe others just exchange one load of baggage for another Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» Left liberal americans are unfair and unbalanced Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: Left liberal americans are unfair and unbalanced Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: Left liberal americans are unfair and unbalanced Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal

Comments are closed-

If being an atheist keeps your mind unfettered from Groupthink...
Posted by: ZPaul on Jun 17, 2009 2:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Why do there exist Right-wing atheists?

I have debated with several on forums, and I certainly saw Groupthink in their rationalizations of Right-wing thought. Am I the only one here who has observed this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Beck, are you for real... Posted by: bornxeyed

Comments are closed-

People of color, above all others, should reject religion
Posted by: Moonray on Jun 17, 2009 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering the historically close relationship between religion and racism, it's pathetic to see African Americans, Hispanics and other "minorities" happily supporting their neighborhood churches -- the very instruments of their enslavement and torture not many decades ago.

I was especially pained to see Barack Obama pay tribute to the influence of religion in his life and was outraged when he allowed a shameless Bible-thumper to conduct the mumbo-jumbo at the presidential inauguration. That's politics for you.

African-Americans and Hispanics especially should be at the forefront to end tax breaks for religious groups and otherwise limit their influence. Meanwhile, atheists should call themselves "realists" while they refer to religious folks as "non-rationals." Those terms more accurately describe the two groups.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "the 'backwardness' of people of color" Posted by: MilesGregarius
» Um? Posted by: maddy

Comments are closed-

Living unfettered by "groupthink"?
Posted by: Beck on Jun 17, 2009 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the outside looking in, it doesn't appear that way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah, lets not just assume... Posted by: JoshuaLudd

Comments are closed-

Honoring the sacred without being a supernaturalist.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 17, 2009 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The defense here, from a self-defined atheist/secularist, of the positive role of organized religion in the African American community is refreshing. The fact that most people participate in the organized religion they learned from their family is no greater a surprise than similar patterns of participation or non-participation in a political tradition.

The issue for us, regardless of race, religion, or gender, is the maturity of our belief system. Insofar as organized religion requires orthodoxy—that is, uniformity of belief and conformity to creeds and dogmas long rendered incredible—the result is an undeveloped and mystifying belief system. Whether one is superstitious as a theist or atheist is less significant than that one is superstitious.

Some of us are content to define religion as what you do with your life, the choices you make, what you decide for yourself, and the relationship of those to your belief system. That describes religion as a universal phenomenon seeking sacredness rather than arguing over whether we must believe what authority figures have told us is true.

Understanding the sacrificial dimension of living together remains a tie we all retain with our ancient ancestors. It provides a basis both for a critique of simple-minded nihilism as well as simple-minded religious beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I don't believe in your fervent disbelief :)
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 17, 2009 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm going to invent my own religion, called Disspassionatisim, that stresses that there is no need for "group-think" at all, save to figure out a way to do what we are incapable of doing ourselves, i.e., paving roads, providing security and defense against collective aggressors, etc.

My church shall be a Constitutional Republic!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» heh Posted by: EinMD

Comments are closed-

january37
Posted by: january37 on Jun 17, 2009 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sikivu or Pollyana? Any doctrine can be adhered to outside of groupthink and any doctrine can foster it. I know Mormons who reject groupthink on some political issues (gay marriage in particular)and, as the postings show, people who claim to be atheists can be subject to it (God knows how, pardon the expression.).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Leadership?
Posted by: EinMD on Jun 17, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're too willing to let our most prominent leaders and speakers mostly be white;

Putting aside for a second that I've never met a black atheists, where all of a sudden did atheists get 'prominent leaders and speakers' first of all and what damned difference would it matter if they were black white or purple?

I'm an Atheist simply because I don't believe in a deity or deities. Human ethnicity as absolutely nothing to do with it. You're black? Great. You're white? Great. But why the hell should I play follow the leader? I'm not a sheep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Leadership? Posted by: cmonroe

Comments are closed-

Heirarchy of Needs
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jun 17, 2009 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently, since the dawn of Homo sapiens, there has been the need to explain us, them and the universe (for lack of a better all-qualifying label).

First there was religion. Then there was mythology. Then there was philosophy.

Religion and mythology exist in the same realm. 100% made up by man. 100% not based on anything observable.

Philosophy was an attempt to rectify that situation, but it still exists in the realm of thought and not a lot on observation.

Then came science. Oh my. Now we can actually replicate some of the discussion about the nature of reality. We can codify the nature of reality. We can discuss it as UNIVERSAL TRUTH for the first time in human history - because everyone involved has the opportunity to REPLICATE results, conclusions, laws.

Religionists want the answers codified in stone from a previous time in history. Science seeks to discover the nature of the universe (plus us and them) as time goes by, as our methods of observation become more sophisticated and tuned; and as we build on previous observations and become smarter as a result.

Religion will have nothing to do with new knowledge. It seeks to suppress anything new. This is a fact since they have their texts, which are ancient and incapable of being modified as time goes on.

So, mankind leaves religious nonsense behind because it is incapable of keeping up with today. UTTERLY INCAPABLE. You would have to remove the falsehoods contained in religious texts - just like science does to its science texts - to be able to progress in the religious world of belief. But since that is not the case, the inescapable conclusion is that religion belongs in the far distant ancient past - as it should - in an attempt to be what science is today.

Sorry, science explains everything just fine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RAMEN!!! Posted by: Karlh
» Ideology... Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Ideology... Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Ideology... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Ideology... Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Ideology... Posted by: bornxeyed
» They just don't get it. Posted by: Karlh
» I see a Straw Man Posted by: Karlh
» RE: Heirarchy of Needs Posted by: Bibsisis

Comments are closed-

Religious Propaganda
Posted by: aonghus36 on Jun 17, 2009 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is what atheism is, repackaged.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Religious Propaganda Posted by: factbased
» RE: eligious Propaganda Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: eligious Propaganda Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: eligious Propaganda Posted by: sunnywater
» 100%... Posted by: LeaderofMen

Comments are closed-

Movement?
Posted by: maddy on Jun 17, 2009 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting interview, but, if I may...

Too many folks jump the gun in declaring themselves a "movement." Two examples to illustrate what I mean:

1. The Civil Rights Movement? Now, that's a movement. Concrete demands: voting rights, economic justice, the end of Jim Crow. Conflicting strategies and philosophies (and, let's not forget, the black church--esp. the social gospel--as central organizing place/philosophical guide). They had plans and dreams to change American politics and social life. And, to include the example of Black Power groups, they opened schools, fed and clothed the poor.

2. The Evangelical Movement: Talk about demands!, the most radical being, of course, the desire to turn the US into a theocracy. But, and this is the key point, they have (see Barbara Ehrenreich about this) "stepped in" to compensate for the collape of the social safety net. That's fancy talk for: they're feeding people, clothing people, and providing, again, a sense of community in the face of hardship.

So, from one atheist/agnostic to another, what in the bloomin' heck is this "movement" you speak of with such assurance? What demands are being made and on whom? Demonstrations? Boycotts? Pressure on particular politicians? What social infrastructure is being created to support our members? What services does this "movement" provide? Where is the vision for a better political future or more equitable society save the criticism of the harms caused by organized religion?

Look, what I'm saying here is that this, ahem, "movement" is really just about an absence of belief or a critique of the myriad ills caused by organized religion. It's a growing group of people who share a point of view. It is not, however, a "movement" and can never be one if it exists only as a contrary point of view.

Btw, I say this as atheist/agnostic myself: "Movement" this is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Movement? Posted by: Richard House
» RE: Movement? Posted by: bornxeyed

Comments are closed-

Can you help me clarify how the Scientific Method works?
Posted by: cmonroe on Jun 17, 2009 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems some people have gotten confused as to the scientific method, here is how it goes:

1. You have a hypothesis.
2. You come up with experiments to test the hypothesis.
3. If the experiments come back favorable for the moment, now you can put out a theory.
4. Tomorrow someone else can come along with a new hypothesis and new experiment that proves you were wrong.
5. There is no 'proving' in science, only disproving. That means one theory only holds until some new and better theory comes along.
6. There are no 'laws' in real science, only theories. People that call a theory a 'law' only do this to solidify a position.
6. If you believe something exists only if you can sense it from your limited 5 senses, you are not scientific, you are a materialist.
7. What does this have to do with atheism? Easy: the scientific method cannot 'prove' anything, it can only disprove something.
8. Here is a challenge for you: If I have a belief (atheism), I want you to scientifically prove my belief does not exist. Go ahead.
9. Another challenge for you: If I have another belief (an alternate dimension), I want you to prove my belief does not exist.
10. Intolerance and militancy against my belief, whatever it is, is not acceptable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

No groupthink in atheism?
Posted by: kenhymes on Jun 17, 2009 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is touchingly naive [and of a naivete lately only to be found among the fervently non-religious and those who blindly defend scientific institutions by confusing them with the scientific method] to find atheism trumpeted as a cure for "groupthink." Has Alternet truly become so one-sided on this, so resolutely unable to acknowledge history, that it can seriously use this headline?

Is it any sort of struggle to note examples of grouthink among groups openly hostile to religious belief? Mao; Stalin; Eugenics; Nazism; the CIA; posters on this topic on Alternet.

Beyond this, the posts about how much the black church has damaged the cause of black people in the US go beyond ahistorical sophomoric commentary into truly disturbing monomania. Can Alternet and its readers move beyond this absurd reductionism? If not, then I fear the exercise in "free speech" so pleadingly defended in the fundraising pop-up is really just an exercise in mutual delusion. There is no place for actual sociology or in fact any evidence of what religious people actually do, unless they are spokespeople for hate-filled fringe communities far removed from the rather boring, sometimes socially helfpul and even progressive, run of church life in America.

Put more simply: your contributors do not know anything much about religion, what they know is merely their own reaction to their own experience with religion.

If Alternet is truly interested in dialogue, and more importantly in progressive social change, it would do well to expand its range of views on this topic. Is there no place for Dominic Crossan, Jim Wallis, Brian McClaren, or any of a large number of progressive Christian writers, on these pages?

You're pretty much "preaching to the choir" by running piece after piece along these lines, pardon the irony.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Let's talk about straw men Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: No groupthink in atheism? Posted by: Bibsisis
» wow Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: Well said Posted by: kogwonton

Comments are closed-

Athiests are not immune to groupthink
Posted by: pomes on Jun 17, 2009 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish there was something inherent about atheism that made one immune to groupthink. However, this just isn't the case. Atheism has finally become "cool" in our society, so the trend-chasers and wind-sniffers are chucking their old authority figures, dogma, and superstitions for brand new ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Black and white
Posted by: willymack on Jun 17, 2009 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People tend to think in terms of right and wrong, good and evil, and black and white. There's nothing new about this, just look at the ying/yang symbol, for instance, or the swastica, which was thousands of years old before hitler profaned it. I've seen swasticas in Hindu art as well as in a tapestry (hundreds of years old) made by the Shoshone people, here in the USA. It most likely represented the four cardinal points on the compass, and as an alegory the Earth.
The whole thing about organized religion is CONTROL, and even that isn't all bad. Consider the Muslim and Hebrew injunctions against eating pork and shellfish, for instance. In ancient times, before the microscope, the trichina worm in pork and red tide toxins in shellfish were unknown. All that was known for certain was that people sometimes got sick and even died after eating pork or shellfish.
The beautiful prose in religious texts is a testament to the knowlege of human nature possessed by those seeking control of people, and many of these passages are perfectly suitable for secular applications.
The problems between believers and thinkers begin with the opinion "God said it. I believe it, and that settles it". This is a statement of one with a closed mind, with a crying need to be right 100% of the time, and somehow superior to unbelievers for it.
Believers: It's written in a book. Never mind that it was written by a human hand; it's divinely inspired, therefore divine itself.
Thinkers: With all due respect ( precious little, in fact), there's not a shred of empirical evidence to back your purports.
There can be NO common ground other than the usual civilities expected of all of us, between thinkers and believers, and the day when some sort of religious hokum doesn't have any appeal to anyone will never arrive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Right-wing atheist websites
Posted by: ZPaul on Jun 17, 2009 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since my reply looks like it got lost in the large number of answers to my post (The second one on this page), I would just like to point out that, in answer to a request to name some right-wing atheists, I provided a couple of links to right-wing atheist websites in reply. One of them is a Facebook group.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Should Religion Be Criminalized?
Posted by: njguy73 on Jun 17, 2009 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes.... Posted by: yale
» and there it is Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: and there it is Posted by: yale
» RE: and there it is Posted by: kogwonton

Comments are closed-

Not in my name please!
Posted by: Fish on Jun 17, 2009 6:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I despair when I hear the term “Atheist Movement”. Not in my name please.

As a person who does not and has not believed in a deity for over 40 years I have never felt the need or the thought that I belong to a group of similar minded people.

My non belief or if you prefer atheism freed me from that.

Yes I am guilty of feeling a particular superiority to those who still follow a religion or who believe in a deity but because I had reached my current thought position I felt the mental freedom of not having to conform to any thought and or group.

The thing about being an atheist is that you are above the need to associate and or follow, not to be a part of a "movement".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Groupthink vs. doublethink
Posted by: kogwonton on Jun 17, 2009 8:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Till people are omniscient (objective awareness) all honest humans will have to accept that they 'believe' things to be true or false till otherwise proven. Every person with a set of moral values carries beliefs about conduct, based upon profit motives. The only difference is in what 'profit' means to them. Some value objects (wealth), the environment, wildlife, others people. The difference is in what people value most. What is it that makes life worth living? Not all moral values are rational. Everyone has an ideology of some sort. To say that 'religion' is the cause of all human ills is correct if you consider all ideologies as types of religious belief. Truth and Justice are topics which are impossible to define from the perspective of the individual, yet we hopefully aspire to them. This is something requiring pure objectivity (God awareness anyone?). People that claim to love truth (philosophy) and justice have to admit they can never attain the deepest possible understanding of what those things mean yet, paradoxically, must always strive for deeper understanding. This does not necessitate having no beliefs, but of being willing to challenge them.

When a person calls themselves an atheist and honestly means that they are open to information which might threaten their current grasp on reality, then I'm willing to grant them that their form of atheism really is a 'lack of a belief in deity'. But most people I've met that call themselves atheists actually do have a definite belief that there is no such objective awareness, and are quite hostile to any such concept even if it doesn't come from any of the more established religious faiths. In that case I would have to say that they do have a definite belief, and are quite defensive of it.

It is comforting to (B)elieve that by adopting atheism that one is immune from group-think, but it is absolutely a lie. In fact, if one takes a really casual look at most of the heroes of the religious faiths, the prophets, etc, you will find that they were deified for their heresies and their refusal to conform. Heroes of all sorts - mythological, literary, historical, and religious - were idolized for their willing self-sacrifice, of going against the group. The problem is dogma. Problems inherent in religious dogma can be said of any sort of ideology, and especially so of economic ideologies.

To find a particularly bloody ideology, take a look at economics. Economic ideologies have spilled more blood in the last century than all religious wars combined in human history - but even if ANY war (religious or not) in history is chosen as an example it can be shown that the taking of property, in one form or another, was the primary motive, and that spiritual beliefs were hijacked.

Capitalism (insatiable lust for wealth and concentration of capital/power) hijacks all other ideologies for personal gain, and lays them aside just as quickly. It's called greed, or lust for power. Even the Christian Devil is said to have become proud (before his fall), and his heart filled with violence by virtue of the wealth gained through his commerce (Ezekiel 28). I believe that it can very accurately be labeled fascism. It would seem that exploitation of the beliefs of others for personal gain would be rational inasmuch as the person doing it could be considered an 'atheist' of sorts. The problem is that, as humans, we live by trust - mostly in each other. Faith, if you prefer. Our currency is only as good as our word. When honor is the first casualty justice is the second, and our most valued currency is restricted leaving us in depression. Paper currency is a false god, and none in history has ever required more faith OR blood than the Dollar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why Less Black Atheists?
Posted by: aberdeen on Jun 17, 2009 11:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps people of lighter skin are statistically more ignorant than people of darker skin, which would explain why there are more "white" than "black" atheists. After all, according to Thomas Jefferson, only a complete idiot, whether dark skinned or light, would conclude the universe appeared on it's own, which is what "self-evident" means.

FREE 20-Song CD
Who Would Jesus Bomb?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why Less Black Atheists? Posted by: TheNamelessCity

Comments are closed-

Atheists free from "groupthink" and "supernaturalism"-get real!!!
Posted by: Woodpecker on Jun 18, 2009 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get real- avowedly atheistical states (Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba) were the most intellectually conformist polities in the 20th century!

Terry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Atheists live lives unfettered by groupthink? Pul-leeasee
Posted by: Jasonix on Jun 18, 2009 4:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the average AlterNet reader 19 years old and being exposed to big ideas at the state U for the first time? Atheists have as much group-think as anybody. And as many superstitions, too - most libertarians are atheists, and if libertarian economics aren't superstition, I don't know what is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

African American Atheists and Political Liberation: A Study of the Sociocultural Dynamics of Faith
Posted by: badiane on Jun 20, 2009 5:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I came across this book by Michael Lackey back in 2007. At that time there was only one review. I noticed and was kind of upset that among all the books on or about atheism that this one had just been passed over. To this date it only has one review.

I had ordered it, back in 2007, from the Queens central public library and picked it up around 2008. Well it seemed at the time that I was the only one who had taken it out. I took the book with me at an atheist meetup and showed it to some of the people in attendence at the after meetup dinner and basically nearly everyone who looked at the book simply brushed it aside and that was it.

I mentioned it to a friend of mine of African ascendence who, after my insisting on asking him if he had taken a look at it, told me that all that had to be said about atheism was already covered by the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the others and, I paraphrase here, that anything by someone of African ascendence would only be a rehashing of the subject. This same person told me that if I hated the westerners so much why do I think like them. So critical thinking belongs to westerners and not non-westerners and especially not those of African ascendence.

I was recently in Guadalajara, Mexico and was talking to a friend of my cousin who is French and after presenting my views about relationships as it concerned women from ex-colonial countries, he told me that my view was very western.

I'm fascinated that nearly anything that remotely has a hint of critical thought is attributed to the west. It reminds me of the fallacy that many people who have a system of reasoning which leads them to religion which claims that knowledge has to be passed from one to the other. One has to teach the other how to be or how to know because they don't know how things are derived.

I have been dismissed by non-afro people without being given an argument which would refute my statements or an explanation of where my argument may have failed or erred. Just dismissed. I have had a lawyer tell me, vehemently, that I had improperly used a word, not because she could tell me where the mistake was but simply because she didn't know and I therefore couldn't possibly know. I asked her to get back to me at her leisure about her fact finding mission. I met her husband the week after and he just smiled at me when I inquired about the progress of his wife's search. She is American and he is from Sweden. He knew what I was talking about but she didn't. He just told me to forget about it and we talked about something else.

As far as the many people of African ascendence are concerned, once the word atheism is pronounced, an iron curtain drops. Also, these dear moral people feel that they then acquire some invisible license to do whatever they feel that their god would want done to the non-believer.

Michael Lackey covers the problems mentioned in this article at length. I would recommend it to those who find this article interesting.

Badiane

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS