the book still advertises itself as a reading material for “true” atheists. if it’s really for the “true” members of a certain group, there should be a way to read it for free. Or else it’ll just be a grift. People can read holy books for free online and choose to buy a physical copy if they want. but this “true atheist” book? unless I find a legitimate source to read this without wasting money, I’d call this a grift trying to capitalize on atheists and trying to create some sort of “in-group” to FEEL they are above others
2 Likes
I rather agree. It’s either misguided marketing / positioning or the author is just writing a book about how to do atheism “right” (the way the author does). Also any attempt to herd cats – er, organize atheists into some kind of monolithic ideology is definitionally doomed from the outset. There’s no “there” there. Nothing to define a movement around. It is just a straight-up yes or no vote on a single narrow topic. Not enough in common to build an organization around.
Madeline Murray O’Hair founded American Atheists which nominally exists today to advocate for legal reforms to improve freedom of conscience for atheists, but really it’s misguided because if you have a society that respects humanity you have a society that respects atheists. All that org does IMO is play into the conservative theist idea that we are some sort of “ideology” with a nefarious “agenda”. When in fact it’s just a teensy minority of atheists who want to relate to the larger society mostly via legal oppositionalism rather than any sort of positive vision for human rights and decency.
Many religions give away their holy books for free because that’s the whole point of religion. Pass it around and convert as many people as possible. Atheism is not a religion.
I don’t care about the book, I’m not going to even bother reading it. There’s plenty of free sources online on what Atheism is. The American Atheists have this floating around on google and that’s enough for me.
1 Like
The fact that atheist exist plays into their lies. Nothing you or I do will ever make a dent in those thousands of years of lying. There is no use in avoiding a bad look; there is no such thing as a good look when it becomes known that you don’t believing in someone’s imaginary friend.
3 Likes
it’s kinda annoying when my father tells me that I made “science” my “god”. Science isn’t a god, goddammit, it’s the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation to organize knowledge. It’s a lot better than jumping to conclusions that a diety did things.
And it’s not just because he said about atheists being “science worshippers”, but because he just parroted what a lot of christians would say about atheists. It’s either that they never picked up a dictionary in their life, or they deliberately say that so they can pin down some kind of stereotype against atheists.
It’s way easier for them to object to a straw man than to the actual reality of what atheism definitionally is. It’s way easier to believe the notion that “everyone worships something whether they admit it or not” and then claim that you worship science, or yourself, or that you simply hate god, than to actually engage with actual positions and arguments. Partly because they have literally nothing to argue against us. They only have preaching and Bible verses and dogma.
Does he think science has a god or is he meaning it in a way that you’ve placed your complete trust and confidence in it as a form of faith?
I’ve seen this charge made also and it’s the latter. The idea is:
- Everyone has a “god-shaped vacuum” in their “heart”
- Everyone strives to fill this vacuum with something
- Religious faith is a natural activity of humans, most just have the object of that faith wrong.
- Hence you can substitute money, science, reason, education, sexual expression, or anything for god as the object of your faith and trust and the thing you believe will resolve your personal concerns and issues and make you happier. But god is the only faith-object that actually can do that.
The reality is that there is no “god-shaped vacuum” or universal need. There is a general tendency to want to transcend the nasty bits of the Human Condition in some way but all religious faith consists of is a substitute love object that you think will lift you above whatever insecurity, loneliness and angst happen to vex you. It’s really just the same as thinking a love interest will save you from yourself, projected onto Jesus. In fact there is a trend in parts of fundamentalism to direct the ardor of young teen girls away from boys and toward Jesus. To pretend you’re dating him. This really gets at what Jesus is – for a woman, an idealized husband, for a man, an idealized big brother or leader, for a teenage girl, a substitute boyfriend.
This is true, especially among primates such as Chimpanzees that worship trees and waterfalls. Even our Pagan ancestors worshipped trees. The Norse and Greek Pagans worshipped trees. Odin (no I don’t believe he exists) according to their mythology, hung himself on a tree and sacrificed his eye for knowledge. Hell, there’s quite a bit about trees in religious mythology. Even in Christian Mythology, the talking serpent was sitting in the tree of knowledge getting Eve to eat an apple.
You can indeed rightly point to all the many ways in which humans have worshipped various things.
Still, I would argue against the notion that religious faith is a natural human activity. I think it is confirmation bias and motivated reasoning and agency inference that are the real problems. Religions (and tribalism of other kinds) just codify and reinforce that sloppy mentation and herd mentality for us.
Clear thinking is a discipline that has to be developed or it devolves into conspiracy theories, various bigotries, and, yes, religions.
The reason I don’t believe the fundamentalist Christian assertion that their “god-shaped vacuum” is universal is that it appropriates the human need for belonging and refuge and mis-identifies what it really is – the need for connection – as a missing piece that only their god can fulfill. As you point out, there are lots of ways to try to scratch that itch, most of them equally ineffective at the end of the day.
Even real human connection is impermanent / transient. It’s harder to learn to sit with that and develop a supportive relationship with yourself to bridge the inevitable gaps and betrayals and tragedies that life presents to us. But it’s also honest and real. One of the things I fled religion over was this false notion that god is not just more reliable but more real than reality itself. It’s crazy-making if you are unable to ignore reality.
But what if I’m not a “true atheist”? Maybe I’m not believing simply “just in case” there is no god. Or, maybe I do not fully abide by all the atheist guidelines/dogma. What if I do not fully agree with the Atheist Worldview? Or, maybe I refuse to take the Lord’s name in vain? Hell, sometimes I even backslide a bit and say, “Bless you,” to somebody who sneezes. Should I still read the book? Would it help me to become a better non-faithful “TRUE” atheist?
2 Likes
When someone mentions the words “true atheist” , it sounds like a Dragon Ball Z reference for when Vegeta goes on and on about his Saiyan Pride and talking about what a “True Saiyan” is supposed to be.
I think it’s more to do with ones’ personal Atheist Pride than it has anything to actually do with Atheism itself. It’s less about facts and more so about what that person thinks an Atheist should or shouldn’t be or shouldn’t do.
So they sit there and project their idea onto everyone else. It’s basically their personal definition.
1 Like
So, basically, what you are saying is that we need to start developing different sects/denominations of athiesm?…. 
…. Well, in that case, I would like to submit “The Next-to-the-last Church of Non-Faith” as a suitable denomination to be considered. All in favor, say, “Aye!”
1 Like
lol no way. But if you make one, I’ll be the first to join 
1 Like
Personally I think it’d be more fun to join a parody religion. Church of the SubGenius has always amused me.