If just 1 in 7 atheists are anti-religious, who speaks for atheism? An interview with Dale McGowan -

[rug]

Chris Stedman | Sep 24, 2014

How many atheists are anti-religious?

If you said “all,” “most,” or even “many,” think again.

In his most recent book In Faith and In Doubt, Dale McGowan draws on a University of Tennessee study from last year on the different “types of nonbelievers”—challenging the stereotype that atheists are broadly anti-religious.

“Many of the most prominent and well-known voices in modern atheism,” he writes, “are best described as anti-theists… (Yet) even though they are often seen as the 'typical' atheist, anti-theists make up only 14.8% of nonbelievers."

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/09/24/just-1-7-atheists-anti-religious-speaks-atheism-interview-dale-mcgowan/

[okasha]

1. That seems at least a good approximation.

All the atheists I know in real life--and you can't move in academic and artistic circles without knowing quite a few--are rational, tolerant people who value diversity.

[rug]

2. "rational, tolerant people who value diversity"

Ditto.

[TM99]

3. Yes, I concur.

Isn't interesting that the most fundamentalist and strident voices in both theism and anti-theism tend to be the minority position?

If it bleeds, it leads, and the MSM loves controversy, intensity, and antagonism.

[edgineered]

4. That small portion do not see what their creation will be

Turning atheism first into an organization, then an organization with timed events could be considered as a first step into creating a church. Year by year, decade by decade commemorations celebrating the successes of it movements and its leaders become ritual. In another century or two the calendar will fill. Groups of followers will attend and doctrine will be written. Or maybe this is just an ironic viewpoint?

[cbayer]

6. The only way this could be seen as a wholly negative outcome is

if one sees no value in religious organizations.

If organizations develop that embrace all the good things that religious group do, reject the bad things and have atheism or agnosticism as the tie that binds the people together, why would that be a bad thing.

Timed events provide education, community, a sense of belonging and an opportunity to gather together to do good deeds or pursue just causes. Commemorating successes and leadership makes the organizations more valuable and focused. Doctrine may merely be a platform of goals and positions.

And as the interviewee points out, joining up with interfaith initiatives (unfortunate name, imo, but it is what it is) allows for the formation of coalitions to achieve shared goals.

Those that reject organized atheism have no obligation to participate.

[edgineered]

7. That is the irony

you said: The only way this could be seen ... organizations.

The 1 in 7 outspoken ones are the ones seeing no value, and essentially laying the groundwork for creating what they seek to destroy. Lunch thing.

[cbayer]

8. Ah, I see your point there.

Thanks for clarifying.

[okasha]

9. An atheist--or any other kind of ist--

can be rational, tolerant AND outspoken. The president of my ACLU Chapter is a civil rights attorney who is all three. He's been honored many times by professioal organizations as an outstanding defense lawyer.

He's not a celebrity who needs to toss out red meat to the fans periodically to keep the money coming, though.

[cbayer]

10. I think both the interviewer and interviewee are all of those things as well.

I know that Chris Stedman takes a fair amount of abuse at times for being the wrong kind of atheist, but I find him very engaging and right on the money on many issues.

He also seems quite humble.

[cbayer]

5. Highly recommended.

Excellent interview and his take totally resonates with me.