Category Archives: Atheism

This months conversation in our series exploring religion and death is with Karen Teel, who has been a member of the department of theology and religious studies at the University of San Diego since 2007. Her research and teaching focus on the essential beliefs of Christianity and the theological engagement with the problems of racism and white supremacy. She is the author of Racism and the Image of God. George Yancy

George Yancy: Id like to start with a personal question. What does it mean for you to embody the teachings of Roman Catholicism?

Karen Teel: I grew up Catholic, and I continue to practice Catholicism not out of obligation but because I claim it as my home. I try to live faithfully by what is highest and best in my church. This actually means that my allegiance is not first and foremost to the Roman Catholic Church, a human and imperfect institution, but to Jesus and to his God of love and justice. So, for me, embodying the teachings of my church means trying to love deeply, to live with integrity, to treat every person as beloved by God, and therefore to work passionately for justice in the world.

One way that I have chosen to demonstrate fidelity to my church is by raising my children Catholic. I want them to know in their bones what it means to belong to a faith community, so that when they grow up that is a real option for them. Embodying the teachings of Catholicism means living the truth that I believe, and really believing that this is the truth, while respecting and honoring the fact that others also live according to what they believe is true.

Yancy: What do you consider some of the essential teachings of Roman Catholicism?

Teel: Roman Catholics share the basic beliefs that all Christians hold in common. We believe that God is a Trinity, one god in three persons. We proclaim that Jesus saves. And we use the Bible, both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, as our sacred text.

For me, the most important distinctively Catholic belief is the Eucharist. My church teaches that when we celebrate communion, Jesus becomes present in the bread and wine that we share. The way the people come together every week to be nourished by this concrete reminder of Gods presence with us in the struggle is really beautiful.

Yancy: We are concentrating in these discussions on learning about and understanding religious conceptions of death. How is the reality of death conceptualized in your faith?

Teel: Death is conceptualized as a transition from this life into eternal life. Christianity teaches that God is eternal; this world came from God and will eventually return to God. In that sense, this life is temporary. Moreover, God created humans with immortal souls, so the death of a human being is not the end. The body dies while the soul continues to live.

When this world comes to an end, Christianity teaches, Jesus, who has already been raised from the dead, will return to oversee the general resurrection of the dead and the last judgment. The bodies of those who have died will be resurrected rendered alive anew in a glorious, immortal state and reunited with our souls. The bodies of those who have not yet died also will be transformed into this new state. And Jesus will separate us into two groups, those who will be eternally rewarded and those who will be punished. Christians traditionally believe that heaven is where God is and hell is where God is not, but I like the idea, suggested in the teaching of one of my graduate school professors, Father Michael Himes, that we may all have the same destiny to spend eternity being loved by God. For those who want Gods love, this will be heaven; for those who dont, it will be hell.

For Christians, everything that God created is good, and God will not allow anything that is good to pass away. We are never alone, in this life or in eternity. The death of a loved one brings profound sadness. But it is a temporary separation; we hope and believe that we will see each other again. Death is not a separation from God but a return to God. When a Christian dies, we say that they have gone to be with God. And when we die, we will join them.

Yancy: This all seems to work out well for faithful Christians, but what about atheists? Should they fear death?

Teel: No more than anyone else. In the 1960s, the Catholic Churchs teaching on non-Christian religions developed beyond the ancient notion that only Christians could be saved. Now the church teaches that, under certain conditions, people who do not identify as Christians may be saved. Personally, I believe that whenever a person does their best to live rightly, according to the principles they know to be true, God honors that effort. Nothing good will be lost.

Yancy: Speaking of atheism, I read recently that cosmologist Stephen Hawking said, I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. He also added, There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. How do you respond to the charge that Christians who believe in an afterlife are just really afraid of the dark, that is, afraid of facing the inevitability of nothingness?

Teel: Thats very logical. I can see why a nonbeliever might think that. The question here is whether we are going to allow people to be the authorities on what they feel.

When my mother was 59, she was diagnosed with A.L.S., Lou Gehrigs disease. Hawking had it too. Theres no cure for A.L.S. Its a neurological disease in which the mind usually remains sharp, but the voluntary muscles gradually stop working, leaving you totally dependent on others. Hawking lived for decades after his diagnosis; most people live two to five years. My mother lived for three years.

Moms decline never hit a plateau. The diseases progression was gradual and relentless. Her arms went first, which seemed particularly cruel, since she was a pianist. When she could no longer climb stairs, she and my father moved to be near me and my children. She began to need help with everything: eating, using the bathroom, controlling her wheelchair, breathing.

During Moms last weeks especially after she asked us to stop feeding her, when we took turns sitting with her around the clock, so that she would not die alone I realized two things: She was going to die soon, and I believed that I would see her again. This had nothing to do with being afraid of losing her. I was losing her. We had known for three years, with reasonable and devastating certainty, the precise manner in which we were going to lose her. But I also believed, with a conviction I had never before felt, that she would not cease to exist upon her death. She was going to join her parents, and one day I would see them all again.

Before facing my mothers death, I never really knew that I believed that life continues. I still dont expect others to believe it. But I know it as I know the sun will come up in the morning, as I know Ill get wet in the rain, as I know I love my own children. It isnt about fear. Its a gift and a mystery, this conviction that we come from love and we return to love.

Yancy: That is a powerful story and I thank you for sharing it. How do we explain the fact that even Christians continue to fear death despite the fact that they believe that there is so much more after we die?

Teel: Well, Christians hope to go to heaven, but ultimately its not up to us. Perhaps the outcome of the last judgment will not be in our favor, or a loved one wont make it. Thats a pretty terrifying scenario. Then again, some of us probably imagine that heaven will be boring because we will no longer be doing any of the exciting stuff that we had feared might land us in hell.

Change is scary, and death is a big change. Many ways of dying involve pain. Even if we expect a good death and something better beyond, this life is familiar and beloved, and we are in no hurry to go. We also fear for the loved ones we leave behind. Who will take care of them when were gone?

Yancy: It has occurred to me at times that the atheist belief expressed by Hawking that there is no afterlife, that there is nothing after we die, might have an upside of adding value to our current lives. For example, I might treat people differently knowing that I will never see them after this life. Given that, do you think believing that one will exist forever could negatively impact how one lives in the present?

Teel: I suppose there are Christians who use their hope of heaven as an excuse to be lazy or immoral, though I dont know very many. More common, and more problematic, is our tendency to look down on people who dont believe what we do. Yet believing that life ends at death can also lead to nihilism, or to treating people horribly. Neither belief guarantees good character.

Yancy: Do you think that people lose anything by taking an atheist stance? And if they dont, why should they invest in the belief that we exist beyond the grave?

Teel: Im not terribly interested in convincing others to believe what I do about life after death. I may turn out to be wrong; and anyway, whatever is going to happen will happen whether or not anyone believes in it. Im much more interested in working to make our world more just.

In this life we have right now, people are suffering. This is not new. In his Urbi et Orbi blessing in March, Pope Francis, praying with the world from a dark and empty St. Peters Square, suggested that perhaps we can learn from the pandemic what we have failed to learn from war, injustice, poverty and environmental catastrophe: We need each other. If God is love, then we must do everything we can to reduce one anothers suffering, now and always. In fact, Jesus says that God cares far more about whether we do that than about whether we invoke God as our reason to do it. So, if believing in life after death motivates you, great. If not, then lets find another reason, pick a cause, and get to work.

Yancy: You say that your views on death and the afterlife could turn out to be wrong. If so if death were in fact final would it render life meaningless for you?

Teel: No. I dont believe that life matters because it continues. I believe that life continues because it matters. If it doesnt continue, it still matters.

We love each other imperfectly, yet love remains. My mothers love for me did not begin or end with her. She could love me because others loved her, they could love her because they had been loved, and so on. Her love is with me now. And it will continue, through me, through everyone I love, through everyone they love, long after we are all forgotten. Whether I actually see my mom again, in the specific way I anticipate, doesnt change that. As love, we live forever, we always will have lived.

George Yancy is a professor of philosophy at Emory University. His latest book is Across Black Spaces: Essays and Interviews from an American Philosopher.

Now in print: Modern Ethics in 77 Arguments, and The Stone Reader: Modern Philosophy in 133 Arguments, with essays from the series, edited by Peter Catapano and Simon Critchley, published by Liveright Books.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read this article:
I Believed That I Would See Her Again - The New York Times

On Wednesday, May 20, the American Humanist Associations Center for Education presents its May Speaker Series event via Zoom (6:30-8:00pm ET) with Sikivu Hutchinson. The author will discuss her new book, Humanists in the Hood: Unapologetically Black, Feminist, and Heretical. The Zoom link to join is: https://zoom.us/j/95825362663 (and if maximum capacity is reached for the live event please note video will be available at a later date). The following is an excerpt from Humanists in the Hood, reprinted with permission of the author.

Growing up in the seventies and eighties as a secular Black girl, I rarely saw myself represented in mainstream childrens literature. One of the most popular teen books of the era was Judy Blumes Are You There God? Its Me, Margaret, a coming-of-age novel whose protagonist is an eleven-year-old white girl from a middle-class Jewish-Christian family. Blumes novel was considered controversial for the early seventies because it dealt explicitly with adolescent sexuality, puberty, desire, and religious skepticism. It was widely banned by conservative religious groups for its alleged anti-Christian and immoral themes. Still, even though Blumes lead character Margaret questions organized religion, she affirms her personal relationship with god at the end of the book.

Critics and activists of color have long pushed back against the publishing industry for the dearth of culturally diverse childrens and young adult literature. In much of childrens literature, the default child protagonist has been middle class, Christian, white, and male. Indeed, 75 percent of the 3,700 books reviewed by the Cooperative Childrens Book Center (CCBC) which were published in 2017 featured white protagonists. This is especially problematic given the U.S. rapidly diversifying population, in which a growing majority of children are non-white. In 2020, less than half of all children are projected to be non-Hispanic whites, and by 2050 it is projected that this number will have declined to approximately 39 percent. The representation deficit spotlighted by the CCBC is also problematic when considering that many white children are not exposed to literature that feature protagonists or communities unlike their own. In addition, the CCBC found that the majority of books featuring African American, Indigenous, and Latinx protagonists were written by white authors. Similarly, LGBTQI childrens book characters were overwhelmingly written by straight, cisgender authors. In 2014, authors of color created the We Need Diverse Books campaign to redress the systemic problem of underrepresentation in childrens literature. The campaign was initially sparked on Twitter in response to an all-white male childrens author panel at the 2014 BookCon festival. This representation deficit is just as much a humanist concern as church-state separation. Why? Because multicultural childrens literature has the capacity to elicit critical consciousness, challenge the dominant culture, redress toxic, preconceived notions about the other, and, ultimately, save lives.

For generations (before the Internet and social media hijacked the custom of reading print literature), children received messages about what was human from books and iconic literary figures. Human characters, fantastical characters, and anthropomorphized animal characters taught us what was heroic, villainous, lovable, contemptuous, good, bad, and all points in between. As a form of cultural socialization, these portrayals provided guideposts for morality and ethicsbe they Pinocchios lesson on truth telling or working-class Charlie Buckets lesson on greed and selfishness in the 1964 novel Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Ironically enough, Charlie was originally intended to be a Black character. [Roald] Dahl was reportedly persuaded by his agent to change him to a more socially acceptable (and presumably more universal) white protagonist. The ethnicity of childrens literature protagonists notwithstanding, the fact that most of these so-called universal lessons come from a white, Eurocentric literary lens underscores the burning need for secular humanist art and literature by and for people of color. This is especially true given the robustness of the Christian entertainment market and the way in which Christian respectability (I will unpack this term and its cultural implications in greater detail later in this chapter) influences gender roles, family structures, and sexual identity when it comes to Black and Latinx portrayals in mainstream TV, film, and literature. As streaming services, online platforms, and social media marketing have exploded over the past decade, Christian entertainment has become an influential niche market with diverse appeal in both traditional white evangelical communities and communities of color.

For example, in popular culture and academia, Christian entrepreneurialism and the faith-based gaze are booming. Christian films, reality shows, and maudlin TV dramas abound. Christian dating websites, Christian book publishers, education courses, colleges, and universities do a brisk business in faith-based propaganda. Most of these media and institutions tell us how to be, think, and do as flawed, made-in-His-image humans. According to a 2018 Los Angeles Times article on the rise of the Christian film industry, Studios now have to go to greater lengths to attract devout audiences in an increasingly challenged faith-based film business, as the market for Christian movies becomes more crowded. Although grosses of big budget Christian films have fallen off, the sheer glut of faith-based content sends a strong global message that reinforces the GOPs fantasy about the United States reigning Christian nation status. This message of Christian dominionism, or Christian theocracy, is embodied by faith-based legislation and public policies that imperil the economic self-determination of communities of color. GOP efforts to privatize public education by giving vouchers to religious schools, criminalize and outlaw abortion, and prohibit LGBTQI people from obtaining health care are especially pernicious because people of color disproportionately rely on what little remains of the social welfare safety net.

As an educator, playwright, and filmmaker-producer who strives to make the lives of humanist, atheist women of color visible in my work, Ive long challenged the lack of explicitly Black humanist secular content in American media and the arts. Where is the humanist cultural production to buck the tide of the OWN networks Black evangelical family dynasty show Greenleaf or all of those ubiquitous Life of Jesus documentaries on cable? Where is the intersectional Black feminist scholarship that frames humanist, secular, and atheist of color ideology? In 2016, I submitted a course proposal entitled Going Godless: Challenging Faith and Religion in Communities of Color to the School of Religion at the University of Southern California. After many gatekeeping gyrations from college administrators, it was shot down due to lack of funding. The course focuses on the intersectional politics of secularism, atheism, and humanism, cultural representation, and the work of humanists of color. The uptick in Americans identifying as secular nones has led to the creation of more secular courses, many of which are housed in religious studies departments. Despite the much ballyhooed rise of the nones, however, there is currently only one bona fide secular studies department (based at Pitzer College and helmed by my friend and colleague, author-scholar Phil Zuckerman) in the United States. Even when secular, humanist, or atheist people of color appear in academic spaces, the range of lived experience that they are allowed to represent is limited and reductive. The standard caricature that bubbles up into mainstream consciousness is one of smug atheist Blacks and Latinos condemning God and Tyler Perryesque evangelicalism among folk of color. Rejecting religion becomes an end in and of itself, and not merely symbolic of a more politicized belief system based on social justice, ethics, Black liberation, Black feminism, and serving Black communities within the context of heightened anti-Black state violence, segregation, and misogynoir. Because Black bodies have always signified an irrational supernaturalism positioned as the antithesis of the Western universal subject, Black humanist atheist praxis can upend traditional constructions of racial authenticity and identity.

Similarly, humanist representations that highlight Black lived experience, faith, and secularism are largely MIA in the contemporary artsbe it narrative film, theatre, or fiction. Virtually all of the internet lists I found on atheist or humanist films are by white folks about white folks challenging religion, posing questions about the nature of the universe, and taking on religious dogma in the family, politics, or the judicial system. Exploring the subject in the Humanist magazine, Nick Farrantello asked, How does one clearly define a motion picture genre as humanist? Im thinking of those few films that reject religion and supernaturalism, even peripherally, and that uphold the ideals of reason, ethics, and justice while also celebrating what it is to be human. While questioning and criticizing faith is a familiar theme in Black literature in particular (for example, in August Wilsons Ma Raineys Black Bottom, Lorraine Hansberrys Raisin in the Sun, and James Baldwins Go Tell It on the Mountain and Blues for Mister Charlie), a complete rejection of supernaturalism and religion, as a sustained critical theme in fictional works by Black authors, is still rare. Indeed, only the works of Richard Wright (Black Boy and The Outsider) and Nella Larsen (Quicksand) occupy this space of radical aesthetic and ideological possibility. Larsens portrayal of Black female atheism in her 1928 novel is still seminal insofar as it frames her protagonists atheism as a direct rebuke of the stifling conventions of motherhood, gender respectability, and domesticity. However, far too often in Black cultural production, the presumption of faith-based, religious, or spiritual worldviews, and experiences preclude more complex portrayals of Black life, Black subjectivity, and epistemology.

Visit link:
The Black Humanist Heathen Gaze - TheHumanist.com - The Humanist

Despite the rise of the religiously non-affiliated (aka The Nones), being a non-believer is still a social taboo. This was recently confirmed by the American AtheistsReality Check: Being Nonreligious in Americareport, which compiles results from the organizations Secular Survey conducted last year. Out of the 34,000 respondents, almost half said they hid their non-belief from co-workers and people at school due to negative experiences. The survey also found that LGBTQ non-believers are more likely to hide their beliefs from family than straight/cis non-believers, and the 43 percent who were out said their parents werent supportive.

Im thankful to have understanding parents because my time in atheist spaces has taught me other queer/trans atheists arent so lucky. At best, relationships with their religious parents are awkward, but sometimes their parents disown them simply for who they are, which is whyhomelessness ratesin LGBTQ youth are so high. Even when theres no trouble at home, the constant bombardment of messages about how being queer and trans is a sin is detrimental to LGBTQ peoples mental health. A 2018 paper by theAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicinefound that queer people who regularly attend religious services are more likely to be suicidal than straight people.

Yet I rarely see room in LGBTQ spaces for non-believers. As several religious institutions became more LGBTQ-affirming and more LGBTQ people of faith made peace with God, theres been an increase of religiosity within the LGBTQ community. Many LGBTQ people do find solace in religious traditions, as well as motivation to fight for liberation, but the overemphasis on queer spirituality comes off to me asrespectability politics. Focusing the spotlight almost exclusively on LGBTQ people of faith is another way of appealing to the cis/straight gaze, and the result is less visibility for LGBTQ non-believers.

Back in January, before the pandemic lockdown, I flew to Dallas for the annual Creating Change conference to co-present a workshop on humanism with my friends Diane and Ashton. The event was fun, but there were only three spaces there for non-believers: our workshop, a caucus for non-believers, and a caucus Diane and Ashton led centering LGBTQ non-believers of color.

Even the Many Paths interfaith spacedespite advertising with various religious symbols, including theHappy Humanwas very Christian-centered. Because religion causes so much trauma for many LGBTQ people, there should be more spaces for LGBTQ non-believers as well.

The atheist community has gotten better about providing a safe space for LGBTQ non-believers over the past few years, although theres room for improvement. Thanks to trans atheists like Callie Wright and Marissa McCool, there have been a lot more conversations about trans issues that have made the atheist community more trans-inclusive. However, transphobic atheists still exist; they may be a small minority, but theyre vocal. All it takes is one Twitter dogpile from transphobic atheists to make a trans non-believer feel like theyre not welcome in the community. This leaves the trans atheist in a tough spot: not feeling welcomed in atheist spaces for being trans, and not welcomed in LGBTQ spaces for being a non-believer.

The spaces that do exist for LGBTQ non-believers are overwhelmingly white. Thats why last year Diane and I created Centering the Margins; a one-day conference held in DC for LGBTQ non-believers of color. Only about 50 people attended, but they all thanked us. It may seem like identity politics to some to have a space only for secular LGBTQ people of color, but given the intersection of racism, anti-LGBTQ bigotry, and anti-atheist bias many LGBTQ non-believers of color experience, there are certain conversations that cant happen if the space is majorly white.

According to the Secular Survey, non-believers involved with secular communities are less likely to battle with depression than those with no community. This is why there needs to be more attention for LGBTQ non-believers. Not safe spaces as in stereotypical recovery rooms for college students offended by different opinions, but places where LGBTQ non-believers can be authentic. Countless studies show theres power in having a chosen familya group of friends and loved ones someone can turn to for the support their biological family and peers never gave themand this chosen family can be the reason another LGBTQ person chooses to stay alive.

Visit link:
Safe Spaces in Trans Atheism - Splice Today

Are the nonreligious a marginalized group in America? When I brought this question up to a friend who lives in New York the other day, he was skeptical. Practically everyone he knows is an atheist, he says, as if this were the most natural thing in the world. As someone who grew up in central Indiana and Colorado Springs, where I was sent to evangelical schools, his attitude both bemused and concerned me. The disconnect just serves to illustrate that how one answers this question may vary wildly depending on where one sitsin some cases quite literally.

According to a new report from American Atheists* called Reality Check: Being Nonreligious in America, those living in very religious communities reported substantially more discrimination in employment, education, and other services than those living in not at all religious communities.

Visual from Reality Check: Being Nonreligious in America, courtesy of American Atheists.

The Secular Survey, from which the report was drawn, includes data from 33,897 nonreligious Americansthose who self-identify as atheists, agnostics, humanists, skeptics, freethinkers, secular, and/or simply nonreligious. The surveys designers consider a lack of data on nonreligious Americans an obstacle to effective advocacy for the needs of this group, which the report describes as an invisible minority.

In a webinar for journalists and advocates, American Atheists vice president for legal and policy, Allison M. Gill, stressed that most data we currently have fail to distinguish between the various stripes of the religiously unaffiliated (i.e. nones). Nones may retain some religious beliefs or consider themselves religious without belonging to a formal institution, but this is not true of the nonreligious proper, as the report defines them. As Gill observes, this can sometimes obfuscate the needs of our community.

According to Reality Check, Participants analysis of community religiosity aligned well with geographic expectations. In other words, regions youd expect to be highly religious were reported by participants to be so. In addition, While nonreligious beliefs may be casually accepted in states like California and Vermont, nonreligious people living in states like Mississippi and Utah have markedly different experiences.

Stigma and Community Religiosity by State chart is from Reality Check: Being Nonreligious in America, courtesy of American Atheists.

Indeed, the 554 survey respondents from Utah rated their state more religious than respondents from any other state, although Mississippians reported a slightly higher degree of stigmatization of nonreligious people. The study measured stigma using a scale based on nine microaggressions targeting nonreligious people, and respondents were asked to note whether and how often they had experienced each one over the year prior to taking the survey. Per the report:

Nearly two thirds of all survey participants were sometimes, frequently, or almost always asked to join in thanking God for a fortunate event (65.6%). Nearly half (47.5%) of survey participants recalled sometimes, frequently, or almost always being asked to or feeling pressure to pretend that they are religious. Nearly half of participants were sometimes, frequently, or almost always asked to go along with religious traditions to avoid stirring up trouble (45.3%), and nearly two in five (37.9%) were treated like they dont understand the difference between right and wrong.

Of participants, 26.3% reported that sometimes, frequently or almost always others have rejected, isolated, ignored or avoided me and 17.3% reported sometimes, frequently, or almost always being excluded from social gatherings and events because of their nonreligious identity. When RD recently spoke with American Atheists Gill over the phone, she also noted that her organization and others like it hear from constituents every day who have complaints about their children facing discrimination and bullying in school, how theyre at risk at work for talking about their beliefs, how theyre not able to access government services.

Stigmatized minority or bullies without a pulpit?

The representation of nonreligious Americans as a stigmatized minority is bound to be contentious, particularly when the Secular Surveys respondentsa convenience sample recruited through secular organizations rather than a representative sampleskew so disproportionately white (92.4% vs. a U.S. Census Bureau estimate of 76.5%, including white Hispanic/Latinx) and male (57.8% vs. 49.2%), a profile that inevitably recalls elevatorgate and the racism, misogyny, and alt-right views that have come to characterize far too much of visible movement atheism in recent years.

If ones primary associations with being nonreligious are people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, and their vocal and all too often abusive fans, its only natural to find it absurd and even offensive that such privileged and powerful men could be considered in any sense marginalized. But before we jump to too many conclusions, in addition to recalling the disparate geographic experiences noted above, we should also note that Secular Survey respondents skew disproportionately LGBTQ (23% vs. an estimated 4.5% of American adults as noted in Reality Check). In addition, Reality Check takes care to note disparate outcomes among African-American, Latinx, ex-Muslim, and LGBTQ respondents, the intersections of whose racial, ethnic, sexuality, and gender identities can affect their experiences as nonreligious Americans.

After reading Reality Check, I recently decided to test the waters on how the politically engaged, broadly progressive public might relate to the representation of nonreligious Americans as a stigmatized minority. I did so, as a queer nonreligious American myself, by posting a 24-hour Twitter poll in which I asked respondents, Can the language of coming out properly be used by anyone forced to conceal an aspect of identity, or does it belong only to the LGBTQ community?

I noted that the question was inspired by the new report on the Secular Survey, which found that many respondentsparticularly those in very religious communitiesare forced to conceal their nonreligious identity. The Twitter poll results are, of course, unscientific, but the replies were passionate and deeply divided in ways that matter for the kind of public discussion the Secular Survey is intended to spark:

While some respondents insisted that being nonreligious is a choice in a way that ones experience of ones gender and sexuality is notand even some self-identified atheists replied to the effect that they dont consider their atheism an identitythe fact remains that in many parts of the United States, being recognized as an unbeliever can come with severe social consequences. In addition, although ones beliefs about the nature of reality should ideally be a matter of conscience, children have no control over the beliefs theyre raised with or the communal norms that surround them.

If we recognize that forced religious conversion is an act of violence, then we should recognize that living in a community where its unsafe to disagree with the prevailing religious consensus and to refuse to participate in religious activities is also to experience violence. As a transgender woman and ex-evangelical, these issues are very relatable to me, as they are to many who have left high-control religious groups, and its my fervent conviction that they need to be part of our public discourse.

According to Reality Check:

Nearly one third (31.4%) of participants mostly or always concealed their nonreligious identity from members of their immediate family. Nearly half of participants mostly or always concealed their nonreligious identity among people at work (44.3%) and people at school (42.8%).

Family rejection can come into play as well, with the Secular Survey finding that 29.2% of respondents under 25 whose parents were aware of their nonreligious identity had somewhat or very unsupportive parents. By including questions about loneliness and isolation, the survey was able to suggest that such situations result in higher likelihood of depression, and it also showed that lack of family support for nonreligious Americans resulted in lower educational achievement. The reports prediction of likely depression corresponds well to recent social scientific findings on the psychological harm that comes to people who consider leaving their high-control religious communities but choose to remain.

In addition, some atheists are at risk of physical violence over their lack of religion. Only .8% of survey respondents reported being physically assaulted over their unbelief, although for African-American respondents the number is 2.5%. Meanwhile, 12% of respondents experienced threats of violence, and 2.5% experienced vandalism (14.2% and 3.2%, respectively, for Latinx respondents).

None of these facts make the experience of coming out as nonreligious the same as coming out as LGBTQ, but they do nonetheless show that disclosing ones nonreligious identity can be fraught and risky depending on ones social environment. While the report itself did not use the language of coming out, its framing is recognizable as that associated with social justice advocacy. The reports inclusion of intersectional analysis is also particularly noteworthy for an atheist organization, but is unsurprising given the diversity of American Atheists national staff and the organizations willingness to partner with religious organizations to work toward the common good, as the pluralism inherent in democracy demands.

With respect to the terminology of coming out, one of the qualitative responses included in Reality Check, identified as coming from a female respondent in Kentucky, reads in part, Joining an atheist/humanist meetup group helped me have the courage to come out with my secular beliefs. Prior to having a social group, I felt alone without a way to overcome judgement from religious family members. American Atheists Utah Director Dan Ellis also recently commented, When I came out as an atheist, I experienced discrimination from family members, adding that he lost friendseven ones who werent particularly religious.

Gill, herself a transgender lesbian, noted in our phone conversation that the Secular Surveys questions about identity concealment were indeed meant to get at a coming out experience, though the survey deliberately did not use that language in order to avoid possible confusion.

Asked whether she thinks the phrase coming out belongs only to the LGBTQ community, Gill remarked, I would vehemently disagree with that; I think it belongs to everybody. And I see a lot of similarities between being nonreligious and being LGBT. She stressed that this does not mean that the stigma and discrimination faced by nonreligious people and members of the LGBTQ community are the same, but observed that the process of coming to awareness of ones identity and beliefs and revealing it to other people and facing possible rejection is similar.

The use of the terminology of coming out outside of LGBTQ experience will likely remain contentious. But the hardships that many nonreligious Americans face for being nonreligious, while distinct from those faced by LGBTQ Americans, are still very real. Christian privilege and supremacism are pervasive in the United States, and much work remains to be done to render them more visible so that, along with white supremacism and patriarchy, we can work more effectively to dismantle them.

*Full disclosure: I am in regular contact with the leadership of American Atheists, and I was slated to speak at the organizations 2020 convention before it had to be postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

View original post here:
Yes, It Can Be Hard to Be an Atheist in America; Now We Have the Data - Religion Dispatches

May 11 (UPI) -- A new report says atheists in the United States face such widespread stigma and discrimination that many of them conceal their nonreligious identity from relatives, co-workers and people at school.

Atheist residents of "very religious" communities are especially likely to experience discrimination in education, employment and public services such as jury duty, according to Reality Check: Being Nonreligious in America, a survey released this month by American Atheists, a Cranford, N.J.-based nonprofit that advocates civil rights for nonreligious people.

The report says that although the percentage of Americans who consider themselves religious has been declining for decades and the diversity of religious beliefs has increased, nonreligious people "continue to live in a culture dominated by Christianity."

"Like religious minorities, nonreligious people too often face discrimination in various areas of life, as well as stigmatization, because of their beliefs," the report says.

Survey results

The report was based on the U.S. Secular Survey, which was created and managed by Strength in Numbers Consulting Group in New York. Nearly 34,000 participants age 18 or older who self-identified as atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics or secular people responded to the survey between Oct. 15 and Nov. 2.

"The Reality Check report reveals how widespread discrimination and stigma against nonreligious Americans is," American Atheists said in a news release. "Due to their nonreligious identity, more than half of survey participants had negative experiences with family members, nearly one-third in education and more than 1 in 5 in the workplace."

The percentage of survey respondents who mostly or always conceal their nonreligious identity from members of their immediate family was 31.4. The percent for co-workers was 44.3 and 42.8 for people at school, according to the report.

Among respondents under age 25, 21.9 percent reported their parents are not aware of their nonreligious beliefs. In that age group, 29.2 percent of those with parents who know about their nonreligious identity said they were somewhat or very unsupportive of their beliefs.

"We found that family rejection had a significant negative impact on participants' educational and psychological outcomes," the report says. "For example, participants with unsupportive parents had a 71.2 percent higher rate of likely depression than those with very supportive parents."

Geographic differences

The experiences of nonreligious people vary dramatically in different parts of the nation, Reality Check says. Nonreligious beliefs might be causally accepted in some states, including California and Vermont, but the stigmatization and concealment were higher on average in states survey participants reported as "very religious."

To reach those conclusions, survey participants were asked to assess how religious the people are in the community where they live and to rank the frequency -- never, seldom, sometimes, frequently or almost always -- that they had encountered nine types of "microaggressions" in the past year. Those experiences included being asked to go along with religious traditions to avoid stirring up trouble; being bothered by religious symbols or text in public places; being told they are not a "good person" because they are secular or nonreligious; and being asked by people to join them in thanking God for a fortunate event.

"As might be expected, participants from rural locations (49.6 percent) and small towns (42.7 percent) were more likely to say their current setting was 'very religious' than those from other settings (23.7 percent)," the report says. "Stigmatization and concealment were higher on average in states that participants reported are 'very religious.'"

The survey ranks Utah as the most religious state based on 80 percent of survey participants who live there calling their community "very religious." Mississippi is second with 78.7 percent.

Mississippi ranks as the worst state for stigma against nonreligious people and as the state where they are most often forced to conceal their beliefs. Utah is ranked as the second worst.

Sarah Worrel said she had friends of many faiths while growing up in Long Island, N.Y., and "you didn't presume someone was religious or of a particular religion until they told you." It's different in Mississippi, where she's lived since age 12.

"There's so little cultural diversity that it's assumed that you are some form of Christian unless you state otherwise," Worrel, the American Atheists assistant state director for Gulfport, wrote in an email. "I've met many atheists, pagans and other non-Christians here, but I usually don't find that out until I've gotten to know them well."

Worrel said she's had encounters with strangers trying to push religion on her and is always honest about her lack of belief but has not faced any serious discrimination. However, a friend lost a job for being an atheist, she said.

Questioning religion

Dan Ellis, the Utah state director for American Atheists, also is open about being an atheist.

Ellis said that as a child, he couldn't square what he learned in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with stories of a Biblical flood that destroys everything. His teacher couldn't explain why a loving God would kill babies in such a cruel way, he said.

Ellis, who was never a firm believer, also was unable to get satisfactory answers to his questions from church leaders and as an adult, he eventually became a "Jack Mormon," a term for an inactive member of the LDS Church.

For a long time, he thought it was wrong to be a non-believer. He wasn't sure how to refer to himself until he was in his mid-20s and a co-worker revealed that he was an atheist. Ellis began using that label for himself with close friends and family.

At the time, people he knew linked atheism with satanism, he said. Ellis lost friends and angered some relatives, who cut him out of their lives.

"There's a lot of discrimination and recrimination in Utah against atheists," Ellis said, adding that many atheists can't be open about being nonreligious for fear of losing their job.

Overlooked viewpoint

Other survey findings include:

Nick Fish, president of American Atheists, said in a news release that the struggles of nonreligious people are often overlooked.

"Thankfully, the U.S. Secular Survey has revealed the discrimination our community regularly faces," Fish said. "With that well-established, we need to find solutions and work toward ending the stigma faced by our community."

Read the original:
Survey: Atheists face discrimination, rejection in many areas of life - UPI News

ATHEISM

a'-the-iz'-m (atheos, "without God" (Ephesians 2:12)):

Ordinarily this word is interpreted to mean a denial of the existence of God, a disbelief in God, the opposite of theism. But it seems better that we should consider it under four heads, in order to obtain a clear idea of the different meanings in which it has been used.

(1) The classical.

In this sense it does not mean a denial of the existence of a Divine Being, but the denial of the existence or reality of the god of a particular nation. Thus the Christians were repeatedly charged with atheism, because of their disbelief in the gods of heathenism. It was not charged that they did not believe in any god, but that they denied the existence and reality of the gods worshipped, and before whom the nation hitherto had bowed. This was considered so great a crime, so dangerous a thing to the nation, that it was felt to be a just cause for most cruel and determined persecutions. Socrates' teaching cast a shadow on the reality of the existence of the gods, and this charge was brought against him by his contemporaries. Cicero also uses the word in this sense in his charge against Diagoras of Athens. Indeed, such use of it is common in all classical literature.

(2) Philosophic.

It is not meant that the various philosophic systems to which this term is applied actually deny the existence of a Divine Being or of a First Cause, but that they are atheistic in their teaching, and tend to unsettle the faith of mankind in the existence of God. There is indeed a belief in a first cause, in force, in motion, in a certain aggregation of materials producing life, but the Divine Being as taught by theism is absolutely denied. This is true of the Idealism of Fichte, of the Ideal Pantheism of Spinoza, the Natural Pantheism of Schelling, and similar forms of thought. In applying the word atheism to the teaching here given, theism does not intend to assail them as wholly without a belief in a Divine Being; but it affirms that God is a person, a self- conscious Being, not merely a first cause or force. To deny this fundamental affirmation of theism is to make the teaching atheistic, a denial of that which is essential to theism (Hebrews 11:3).

(3) Dogmatic.

It absolutely denies the existence of God. It has often been held that this is, in fact, impossible. Cousin has said, "It is impossible, because the existence of God is implied in every assertion." It is true, however, that in all ages there have been persons who declared themselves absolute atheists. Especially is this true of the 18th century a period of widespread skepticism--when not a few, particularly in France, professed themselves atheists. In many cases, however, it resulted from a loose use of the word, careless definition, and sometimes from the spirit of boastfulness.

(4) Practical atheism.

It has nothing at all to do with belief. Indeed it accepts the affirmations of theism. It has reference wholly to the mode of life. It is to live as though there was no God.

It takes the form often of complete indifference to the claims of the Divine Being or again of outbroken and defiant wickedness (Psalms 14:1). That this form of atheism is widely prevalent is well known. It is accompanied in many cases with some form of unbelief or prejudice or false opinion of the church or Christianity. Dogmatic atheism is no longer a menace or even a hindrance to the progress of Christianity, but practical atheism is widespread in its influence and a dangerous element in our modern life (compare Isaiah 31:1; Jeremiah 2:13,17,18; 18:13-15). Whatever the form, whether it be that of religious agnosticism, denying that we can know that God exists, or critical atheism, denying that the evidence to prove His existence is sufficient, or dogmatic, or practical atheism, it is always a system of negation and as such tears down and destroys. It destroys the faith upon which all human relations are built. Since there is no God, there is no right nor wrong, and human action is neither good nor bad, but convenient or inconvenient. It leaves human society without a basis for order and human government without foundation (Romans 1:10-32). All is hopeless, all is wretchedness, all is tending to the grave and the grave ends all.

Arguments against atheism may be summarized as follows:

(1) It is contrary to reason. History has shown again and again how impossible it is to bring the mind to rest in this doctrine. Although Buddhism is atheistic in its teaching, idolatry is widespread in the lands where it prevails. While the Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte was based on a denial of the existence of God, his attempt to found the new religion of humanity with rites and ceremonies of worship reveals how the longing for worship cannot be suppressed. It is a revelation of the fact so often seen in the history of human thought, that the mind cannot rest in the tenets of atheism.

(2) It is contrary to human experience. All history testifies that there are deep religious instincts within the human breast. To regard these as deceptive and unreasonable would itself be utterly unreasonable and unscientific. But the fact of such spiritual longing implies also that there is a Being who is responsive to and can satisfy the cry of the heart (Hebrews 11:6). In his Bampton Lectures Reville has said on this subject:

"It would be irrational in the last degree to lay down the existence of such a need and such a tendency, and yet believe that the need corresponds to nothing, that the tendency has no goal."

(3) It fails to account for the evidence of design in the universe.

See COSMOLOGY.

(4) It fails to account for the existence of man and the world in general. Here is the universe:

how did it come to be? Here is man: how is he to be accounted for? To these and like questions, atheism and atheistic philosophy have no adequate answer to give. See also COSMOLOGY; CREATION; GOD.

Jacob W. Kapp

Read the rest here:
Atheism Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

I. Definition

Atheism means lack of a belief in gods or a belief that there is no god. But, atheists are not necessarily anti-spiritual, anti-religion, or immoral; many atheists believe that atheism can provide a better foundation for morality and a meaningful life than theism (belief in a god or gods)

Originally, in ancient Greek, atheism meant without god (a-theos) in the sense of impious, or irreligious people. But since the 17th century it has referred to a lack of belief in, or belief that there are no gods. But whether an atheist is a person who has never heard of gods, doesnt care about gods, doubts their existence, or absolutely denies their existence . . . well thats a matter of some debate among the many kinds of atheists! Well look at varieties of atheism more in Section III.

Atheism is pronounced A-thee-ism, with the A sound in day and the th sound in think.

Small amounts of philosophy lead to atheism, but larger amounts bring us back to God.

Francis Bacon

This quotation of Francis Bacon probably speaks for a great many rationalists and scientists. Bacon was one of the first and most influential rationalist philosophers of the 16th and 17th century; one of the founders of modern science. In this quote, he perhaps agrees with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein who felt that science (which was still a branch of philosophy in his day) eventually leads towards a belief in God rather than away from it. Bacons quote is also probably referring to the spread of rationalist atheism in European philosophy in his time, and suggesting that extensive investigation would make a philosopher see the intelligence in nature which motivates many scientists to believe in God.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

George Bernard Shaw

George Bernard Shaw, a playwright, literary critic, and famously opinionated writer, here echoes a belief shared by many atheiststhat people believe in God because it makes them happier, and that this isnt a rational justification for belief in God, but rather an admission that belief in God is irrational and merely based on a need for psychological comfortlike drugs and alcohol.

In a sense, atheism is older than humanity, since according to some definitions, atheism includes people who have never heard about gods, such as our distant ancestors. And several ancient major religionsvarieties of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoismdid not believe in gods, although they did not oppose the belief in gods; they just thought of spirituality in different terms; and some would say that they believed in things, such as the Tao and the Buddha, who play the role of god in those religions.

The strongest form of atheismthe active rejection of belief in godshas only become popular enough to have a name since the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason in Europe (17-18th centuries). And only in the 20th century has atheism become widely acceptedeven enforced by certain governments!

The earliest recorded atheism appears in the oldest Hindu scriptures, the Vedas (approx. 2000 B.C. although not written down until much later), some of which are theist, while others are more mystical, describing religious experience as a form of consciousness expansion, rather than a relationship with gods. Atheistic Buddhism was born out of the mystical side of Hinduism around 500 B.C. and eventually became the most popular religion in East Asia.

Some kinds of Buddhism recognize god-like supernatural or enlightened beings, but nothing like an omniscient creator god, and for the most part, the gods of Buddhism are understood to represent natural and psychological forces; in fact, some say that Buddhism is about how humans can become gods, but not in the same sense as the gods of Western religions.

The two native religions of China, Taoism and Confucianism, also have no gods, technically, but many of their believers also believe in the gods of some other religion, or simply the gods of Chinese folklore. But the actual teachings of these religions definitely lack gods, defining spirituality fully in terms of nature and humanity.

Atheism in the Western world grew out of the seeds of reason and science promoted first by the ancient Greeks, although some of them, such as Socrates, strongly denied accusations of atheism. Democritus and the atomists promoted the belief that the world was entirely material and understandable in terms of natural law. And several other Greek philosophers, such as Prodicus and Critias, also declared themselves atheists.

But atheism did not make a major appearance in the West again until the 17th Century, when materialist, rationalist, and scientific views began to come to the fore in Western philosophy. Although most philosophers and scientists at that time also claimed to believe in God, it was their materialism and rationalism which opened the philosophical door to serious arguments against the existence of God. Moreover, scientists realized that the existence of God was unprovable, and so considered him irrelevant to science. Meanwhile, rationalists could also argue that the idea of God contradicted itself (can God make a rock so big that he cant move it?).

Some of the first vocal atheists were rationalists associated with the French Revolution, such as Voltaire, in the late 18th century, but still it wasnt until the later 19th century that atheism came forward in a big way with German philosophers such as Karl Marx, Max Stirner, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Atheism has continued to become increasingly popular world-wide since around the year 1900 (with many exceptions of course). Probably three things have made atheism appeal to more and more people since then:

The popularity of atheism is strongly correlated with the level of education and economic well-being in a nation. In general, educated well-off nations have more atheists. The horrors of the world wars caused many philosophers to reject god. And increased communication between different cultures made people realize that their own religion might not be correct. Atheism was also strongly promoted by the spread of communism, with both the Soviet Union at China actually enforcing atheism during their early yearsalthough both became somewhat more tolerant later.The latest chapter in the history of atheism has been the rise of scientists, philosophers, and artists who believe in and actively promote strong atheismthe total denial of both God and organized religionand who try to stop religious beliefs from dictating the content of public education. World-leading philosopher Daniel Dennett and biologist Richard Dawkins, have written books and given lecture tours speaking strongly against the belief in gods and associated beliefs, such as creationism.

At least since the 18th century, theists have feared that spreading atheism would promote immorality and some religious leaders today blame atheism and science for the spread of immorality and crime in the world. And it is true that certain things considered immoral by some religious people has been promoted by the rejection of traditional religions in other words things which are discouraged by certain religions.

Atheists argue that atheism does not promote immorality, but in fact, the opposite. Atheists often have non-theistic spiritual beliefs, such as in the sacredness of human life, or nature. They have morality based on positive reasons, such as compassion and respect for all people, and love of nature.

Have you ever heard people say something like nothing can stop someone who believes in something? Well, a joke criticizing agnosticism is nothing can stop an agnostic who really doesnt know whether they believe in anything or not.

Agnosticism means not knowing; weak agnosticism means simply recognizing that you dont know whether any gods exist. Strong agnosticism means believing that nobody can know, and that it is wrong to believe or disbelieve. Agnosticism and atheism can overlap, depending on how you define each of them, or a person can even be an agnostic at the same time that theyre an atheist or a theist, depending on your definitions.

Many atheists and theists would say that they dont really know whether God exists, but they choose to believe or disbelieve for various reasonssuch as to give meaning to their lives.

Therefore, although people usually think that agnosticism is opposed to both atheism and theism, in fact, it addresses a different question. Atheism and theism are beliefs about the existence of deities, while agnosticism is about what we can know, and whether we should believe in things that we cant know. In fact, some people believe in pan-agnosticism, being agnostic about everything, not just God!

But agnosticism raises an important accusation and debate about atheismwhether atheism is a kind of faith. Many atheists have responded by pointing out that it is normal to assume that something extra-ordinary does not exist unless given extra-ordinary proof. Thus atheists may say that agnosticism is not really a rational position, because it is irrational to even take the belief in gods seriously; its like feeling as if youre obligated to admit that Santa Claus might really exist.

This song, by a major British New Wave band, sparked controversy when it came out in the 1980snot least because it featured a child-singer. Although presented as a letter to God, the song passionately rejects Christianity and belief in God, based on the common argument that no God worth believing in would allow the amount of meaningless suffering which exists in the world.

This routine by the popular and often controversial comedian George Carlin rather speaks for itself. Carlin gives many reasons to reject (at least Christian) beliefs in God, including the violence which has been committed in the name of God. And Carlin goes further, pointing out many inconsistencies, irrationalities, and hypocrisies of Christian belief.

View original post here:
Atheism: Examples and Definition | Philosophy Terms

By Dale McGowan

A lot of people think that atheism is a recent idea. But religious disbelief actually has a long and fascinating history. Just as a student of Christianity would want to know about a few rather significant things that happened 2,000 years ago, someone who wants a better understanding of atheism likewise needs to know what atheism has been up to for the past 30 centuries or so.

People tend to think of certain times and places as completely uniform in their beliefs. India is full to the brim with Hindus. The Greeks all worshipped the gods of Olympus. Everyone in Medieval Europe was Christian. Right?

A closer look shows all of these claims to be misleading. Just as political red states (Republicans) and blue states (Democrats) in the United States are really all various shades of purple, every place and time in human history includes a lot of different beliefs including atheism.

Thats not to say all points of view have the same chance to speak into the cultural microphone. Religion in general and the majority religion in particular tend to call the shots and write the histories, especially prior to the late 18th century.

Add to that the fact that atheism has often been punishable by imprisonment or death, and you can see why atheists in certain times and places tend to whisper.

But the voices are there, including some in the distant past and in cultures both in and out of Europe. The thread of atheism in the ancient and medieval world is a story that very few people know. Even atheists are usually in the dark about this part of their history.

By the early 18th century, disbelief was gathering serious steam in Europe. Secret documents challenging religious belief had been circulating for 50 years, just steps ahead of the censors. French parishioners going through the papers of their Catholic priest who died in 1729 found copies of a book, written by the priest for them, telling how much he detested and disbelieved the religion hed taught them for 40 years.

By the end of the century, philosophers in France, Germany, and England were openly challenging religious power and ideas and establishing modern concepts of human rights and individual liberty.

It all culminated, for better and worse, in the French Revolution, when a brief flirtation with an atheist state was followed by the Cult of the Supreme Being and the Reign of Terror at which point atheism went back underground for a bit.

The idea that God didnt really exist never completely went away, even when someone like Napoleon shut it down for a while. It was always bubbling under the surface and occasionally shooting out sideways through someone who just couldnt stand to keep it quiet.

The poet Percy Shelley proved to be one such person, getting himself kicked out of Oxford in 1811 for expressing an atheist opinion. Then the early feminists of England and the United States made it plenty clear that they considered religion to be a stumbling block in the way of womens rights.

Science really put the wind in the sails of atheism in the 19th century. By paying close attention to the natural world, Darwin turned himself from a minister in training to an agnostic and solved the complexity problem that prevented so many people from letting go of God.

As the biologist Richard Dawkins once said, atheism might have been possible before Darwin, but Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. But a flurry of activity after Darwins death tried to hide his loss of faith, including some selective slicing and dicing of his autobiography and a false deathbed conversion story dreamt up by a British evangelist with little respect for the Ninth Commandment.

In Darwins wake, a golden age of freethought opened up in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Atheism also doesnt guarantee good behavior any more than religion does, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely becomes a tragically apt phrase in the 20th century.

There are plenty of examples of corruption and immorality in positions of unchecked power, both by atheists (such as Mao Zedong in China, Joseph Stalin in the USSR, and Pol Pot in Cambodia) and theists (such as Adolf Hitler in Germany, Francisco Franco in Spain, and Idi Amin in Uganda).

But theres also good news, including the growth of humanism as a movement and court victories for the separation of church and state something that benefits both the church and the state.

The 20th century also saw one of the most fascinating developments in the history of religion as two God-optional religions formed and flourished: Unitarian Universalism and Humanistic Judaism.

Dale McGowan, PhD, writes the popular secular blog The Meming of Life, teaches secular parenting workshops across North America, and is executive director of Foundation Beyond Belief, a humanist charitable organization. He has been interviewed in major publications, such as Newsweek and the New York Times, and was 2008 Harvard Humanist of the Year.

Originally posted here:
The History of Atheism - dummies

PastorCharles J. Harris of the Beattie Road Church of Christ in Albany, Georgia doesnt like superstitions except his own. Hes as incredulous as you and I at the thought that some people think that a rabbits foot will bring them luck. But carrying a little gold cross around your neck, or thumbing through a Bible,that will obviously lead to the greatest fortune of all being bathed in the light of the Lord.

An American tradition is that if you have a rabbits foot, good luck will come your way. I am not sure where this idea originated, but mankind has so often looked to find a magic potion or icon of some sort that will help them in times of trouble.

That got me thinking. I can easily imagine that with just a few different turns in history, Christianity would only be a marginal cult today, or not exist at all; and that a religion revering rabbits would be the predominant faith worldwide, its adherents stroking an amputated rabbits foot for the luck they hope to receive from their leporine Lord.

You know what else wouldnt change much, besides science? Atheism. Godless folk would still be head-desking and face-palming as they watch the Gnomists and the Saucerans battle and kill each other, the warring parties united only in their violent ill will towards heretics who decline to bend the knee to deities.

Anyway, back to Harris. Wheres he taking his rabbit-foot sermon?

The Jews thought they had the ultimate item to help them in the midst of trouble. When the Philistine army came against the Israelites, the Jews were losing the battle. What was their rabbits foot? It was the Ark of the Covenant designed by God and which contained those tablets on which God had written the Ten Commandments. They brought it into the camp of Israel, believing it would help them win. It didnt work. The ark of God was captured. (1 Sam. 4:12) That ark had its purpose, but God never wanted it to be thought of as a good luck charm.

For that, the Almighty wants us to finger tiny jewelry sculptures of His son whod just been tortured to death by crucifixion. It only makes sense!

The Philistines finally decided [the ark] should be taken into the sacred house where their god, Dagon, was kept. The next morning, their idol was found lying face down bowing itself before the ark of God.

I read blowing the first time. I like my version better.

So they stood Dagon upright again. Early the next morning, Dagon had fallen again and his head and both of his hands were separated from his body. The only thing that remained was the torso of Dagon. (1 Sam. 5:1-5) God then brought a plague of tumors on the Philistines.

Quick question: Did the Lord afflict the Philistines children with tumors too? Or was He kind enough to only torment their parents with cancerous growths, which presumably meant He slowly orphaned the young ones as they got to watch their moms and dads writhe and wither?

Ah. Its right there in 1 Samuel 5:9: [God] afflicted the people of the city, both young and old, with an outbreak of tumors. Cool. Family-style suffering. That mustve taught those kids, who had nothing to do with any ark, that the Abrahamic God was totally worth worshiping.

Is there any significance to this story? Perhaps the words of Psalm 115 and 135 give insight. David described the folly of worshiping idols when he said, They have mouths but they do not speak; eyes they have, but they do not see; they have ears, but they do not hear; nor is there any breath in their mouths.

That describes the Catholic Churchs millions of plaster statues to a T. Should God also afflict the worlds 1.2 billion Catholics with tumors? Would that meet with Harriss apparent approval too?

What does this have to do with us? Paul showed that whatever we covet after becomes our idol. (Col. 3:5) It is tragic to see our nation thinking that a mans life consists of how many material possessions he can get. (Check Luke 12:15) Houses, cars, luxurious clothing, electronics, traveling and vacations have become the gods of so many around us. These dominate our society so much we become like those who unknowingly are idolatrous. Have we not learned during recent events that these gods are unable to help us in the midst of the storm?

We happen to have a president whose careerexemplifiesrapacious coveting a man who lived his entire life amassing opulent homesand gilded skyscrapers. When Trump moved to the White House, he had to get used to how spartan his new residence was relative to the splendor of his Mar-a-Lago quarters, and especially compared to the three floors of his hideously ostentatious Louis XIV-style penthouse in New York, gleaming withmarble and 24-karat gold.

Do you suppose that Charles Harris has written even one newspaper column criticizing American evangelicals Orange Savior for his gross lavishness idolatry? Of course not.

Harriss (and Trumps) particular superstition doesnt include a belief in the talismanic power of a severed rabbits foot. It does comprise, however, a number of odious doctrines and indefensible dogmas that we examine and deflate on this blog every day. Personally, Ill bet that the average person with a rabbits-foot amulet does less harm than the average evangelical blowhard for Jesus.

Maybe someone really should start that rabbit-revering religion.

(Top image via Shutterstock. Cartoon by Paul Noth via Fine Art America)

See more here:
Georgia Pastor Says a Rabbit's Foot Won't Help You, But God Totally Will - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Whenever major polling groups survey Americans about religion, atheists are usually lumped in with agnostics and people who believe in something even if they arent part of any organized religion the Nones. Its hard to know what atheists in America believe simply becauseits hard to find a representative sample and a polling group willing to look at us specifically.

Its also cost-prohibitive. It may be useful to know how different religious groups voted, for example, but not necessarily how atheists differed from agnostics since we mostly vote the same way.

The downside of that is that theres a lot about Secular Americans that we just dont know. How many of us are accepted by our families? How many of us are open about our atheism? How many of us say we face discrimination?

American Atheists has taken a big leap in fixing that with the release of Reality Check: Being Nonreligious in America.

They used information obtained through the (online) U.S. Secular Survey to find out what roughly 34,000 non-religious participants thought about a variety of topics. 34,000. They say its the largest ever data collection project on secular Americans and their experiences.

To be clear, this isnt a survey about all atheists in America. Youd need a lot of money to pull that off. This is a self-selected group of people, the kind who are willing to take this sort of survey online. But it was heavily promoted, in a variety of ways, to gather as many participants as possible, and theres still a lot of useful information we can glean from that.

So what did we learn? Here are just 6 takeaways:

More than three quarters of survey participants reported to identify as nonreligious (79.6%), atheists (79.4%), and secular (75.1%) very much. A little over three fifths of survey participants very much identified as freethinkers (64.9%), and a similar number as humanists (64.6%), while slightly fewer very much identified as skeptics (61.4%). The vast majority of participants (94.8%) identified as atheists to at least some extent. Survey participants did not identify as agnostics (35.1%) as strongly as they did with the other identities.

I suspect most of us use a variety of these labels depending on who were talking to. Everything but agnostic would apply to me personally.

While almost one-third (31.4%) of survey participants mostly or always concealed their nonreligious identity from members of their immediate family, the rate of concealment was much higher for extended family members (42.7%). Nearly half of participants mostly or always concealed their nonreligious identity among people at work (44.3%) and people at school (42.8%).

Im surprised by how many more people hide their atheism at work than from their families. I would have thought its safer to tell your work colleagues youre not religious than your religious parents, but outing yourself at work may pose greater threats to your livelihood.

As expected, the vast majority of participants were raised in the Christian religion, either in Protestant Christian (54.7%) or Catholic (29.9%) households. One in seven participants (14.3%) were raised in nonreligious households.

More than 40% of participants said their homes were somewhat firm or very firm about religious expectations. In other words, they took religion seriously in their families and yet it didnt keep them in the fold. Its also going to be fascinating to see what happens when we have more kids raised in non-religious homes. While only 14.3% of participants grew up with non-religious parents, I suspect that number will skyrocket over the next generation.

The most common areas where participants reported having negative experiences due to their nonreligious identity were using social media or commenting online (58.3%) and with their families (54.5%).

Participants were also asked if they had been threatened, experienced property damage, or been hit, punched, kicked, or assaulted in the past 3 years because of their secular identities. While the vast majority (86.7%) of survey participants did not experience any of these events, 12.2% of survey participants reported being personally threatened, 2.5% had their personal property damaged, and 0.9% have been hit, punched, kicked, or physically assaulted because of their nonreligious identity.

Not surprisingly, stigmatization was highest in what wed consider very religious states Utah, Mississippi, the Bible Belt, etc.

Most participants want secular schools, access to birth control, and no special treatment for religious groups. But fighting a Ten Commandments monument on public property? Not a major priority.

In order to understand the policy priorities of nonreligious people, we asked survey participants how important a number of policy issues were to them personally. Issues were selected from among those discussed as important to nonreligious people during focus groups. While survey participants expressed strong interest in all these policy issues, overwhelming concern was expressed for maintaining secular public schools (91.6%) and about the denial of health care based on religious beliefs (88.0%).

This doesnt surprise me. There are a lot of groups that will fight for abortion rights and keeping schools secular. Those are not atheist issues, per se. The sort of things atheist groups tend to fight are, by definition, going to be niche causes, even if they have legal importance.

Nearly all participants who answered the question reported that they were registered to vote (94.7%), 87.0% voted in 2016, and nearly as many (86.5%) reported that they always or nearly always vote.

Although not directly comparable, these rates are much higher than the voting rate in 2016 (55.7%) for members of the general voting age population (FEC, 2017).

At some point, Democrats need to recognize were a valuable voting bloc and stop avoiding us. Its to their advantage to engage with us and support our (fairly mild, totally sensible) policy issues.

In a statement, Nick Fish, president of American Atheists, said, Now that we know the power of organized secularism, its up to secular organizations to advocate for change and provide as many nonreligious Americans as possible with the support and community they need. Thats a fair point. This survey isnt about what certain groups ought to be doing. Its about who they all represent. If just about everyone is dealing with anti-atheist discrimination, for example, then calling it out and working to change it would be a valuable endeavor for any secular group.

Theres so much to sift through in this 60-page report, so check it out for yourself. Weve never seen anything like this.

View original post here:
6 Takeaways from the Largest-Ever Study of Atheists in America - Friendly Atheist - Patheos