Atheism, Agnosticism, Politics and Religion

I think that Edgarblythe has gotten to the crux of the problem. By calling themselves "Brights", the group will be the target for a lot of unnecessary sarcasm and put-downs. If the group ever gets going, and does become a political force (which I doubt) the folks at the religious end of the spectrum will perceive the Brights as a threat to their power and influence. One way to discount a group, is by making fun of them. IMO, the Brights are just setting themselves up for problems.

Besides, what the heck does the word "bright" have to do with a naturalistic world view?

Yeah; it's silly. Besides, most of us want to be known as individuals and left alone.

There's something significant in that EB, this bunch sounds awfully adolescent. What they would hope to achieve, i really can't fathom, in that those to whom it seems they would appeal to are those who wouldn't be joining anyone. People join groups with a moral or ethical agenda either for reassurance that they are not alone in what they believe, or to have belief provided for them.

The reason i characterized them as adolescent is because of this aspect of seeming to think and act independently, while desparately wanting to fit into a group.

I tried to join the non-conformists when i was in high school, but they told me i wouldn't fit in.

edgarblythe- I have to disagree with you there. Yeah, in general, I like to do my own thing and be left alone, as many non-religious do. The problem is that the religious have power and influence that go way beyond their churches, temples or mosques, and into the political arena.

So here we are, a whole lot of us doing our own thing, with no organization to speak for us. In the meantime, the religious are using their clout to influence public policy, based on THEIR ideology.

I know what you are saying Phoenix, and to a degree I think you are right. Only thing, every time I see groups of atheists they start behaving like the groups they criticise. But, free thinkers are not all alike. That's why they are free thinkers.

Agree with all of you. Reread the piece in the NYTimes early this morning and though I agree with much of it, I hate the term "brights" and a GD website with some groupies really puts me off! Like Edgar, I believe in free-thinking -- in fact, I think it's the only way to think. Whether you like "a little bit of this, a little of that" or whether you are wholly or partially original, independence and courage are very important, and you're not independent if you leave one group only to join another... Collaborations among truly free-thinking people are the most exciting of all.

Yeah, I like my independence. c.i.

truth
I agree with Edgar that the "brights" are setting themselves up for ridicule. Indeed, it is not very bright of them to adopt that label. But for the life of me I can't think of another, more appropriate, one. At the same time, is Phoenix right? Are we non-supernaturalists doing ourselves harm by not organizing to form an effective counter-clout to that of the theistic fundamentalists who are recruiting many people in part because no alternative is presented to them? Yet I resist having anything to do with evangelical atheists. Frankly, they are such bores: their level of discourse is "fundamentalist", at the same level as that of their opponents. To be proud of what I DON'T believe or do is a weak basis for self-satisfaction. I an atheist not on the basis of what I BELIEVE; I am an atheist only on the negative and passive ground that I can't see any reason AT ALL to believe in supernatural phenomena.

JL- I hear exactly what you are saying. Until now, I would probably agree.
I have never been a groupie, or an activist of any kind. I just want to be left alone to do my thing.

The problem is that the religious in this country have assumed a tremendous amount of political influence in the US. If the non-religious remain silent, and therefore not a political force to contend with, OUR slant on issues will be ignored.

I can see where some sort of coalition might be useful. Depends who drafts the organization's position papers and how they would want to present it whether I would actively support them.

I might feel differently tomorrow, but today my feeling is that we nons should eschew labels and simply ramp up our participation in the political (and above all, voting) process. We need to be committed to skepticism about more than religion! Muck-rakin' non -- that's my calling!

It would have to be a well oiled machine to attract my interest. But I just don't want to shut and bar the door until we see what happens.

Here's an interesting observation: It seems many A2Ker's beliefs in religion and politics are in the minority. According to statistics I saw on atheists of the world, we represent about 2.5 percent of the world population. How we can translate that into any kind of political influence seems hardly worth while. c.i.

I feel that way about MoveOn, Edgar. They are dedicated to being pros in a difficult area.

c.i.- We are not speaking only of avowed atheists. What about agnostics? I would bet that there are plenty of agnostics who attend a house of worship "for the sake of the kids", or because it is the social thing to do.

Problem #2: Atheists are conservatives, liberals and middle of the road. Each would need a separate voice, dilluting their power still further on most issues, except religion.

I, just being a run of the mill atheist, and certainly not one of the radical groups, you know like Unitarians or something, kinda figure that we are pretty much alone in the world we live in politically speaking. we generally are not joiners of any organization that would have us and seem to have a personality defect that keeps us from cloning up to the sheep trough of ideology. At best, from my minimal observations, we try to evade/elude and ignore the constant barrage of religious verbage and iconography of our non-secular society.

Adding to the problems inherent in what dys and edgar said, there's no way our minority will ever become a political force in anything. We just gotta live with tthat! c.i.

truth
C.I., I think that to a large extent we atheists (that is to say "secularists") DO exercise a lot of power. Look at our nation; it gives lip service to theistic symbols and slogans, but the legal system (if it isn't altered by future judges) is essentially secularist. Nobody goes to jail for their lack of believe; noone can be fired from his job because he is agnostic or atheistic; etc. etc.
I personally rather just support organizations whose goals are ethical but non religious. MoveOn, Naral, ACLU, Common Cause, local causes, NPR radio, The Democratic Party (CNC and DCCC), but only because of the desperate need to remove Bush and the NeoComs from power.

for what it's worth, I find I have an aversion to joining groups (other than my professional organizations) And I think Tartarin has it when she says we should get involved with the political. The crisis is reaching monstrous proportions and we better all give time, money or whatever we have to defeating the present administration. All that progress we've made in the last 50 years is being severely threatened and it will take another 50 years to regain what is being lost.