300 years, yet atheism has not grown into a viable movement | Bart Campolo

[KevinM1]

Yeah, cuz what everyone really wants is a solid movement to merge with.[/sarcasm]

---

Sorry if I'm raining on your parade. Just not a joiner and sure don't need any leader.

---

Atheism is about not believing in God, and that's about it - atheists need not have anything in common apart from that... movements are usually about something, why would we even expect that a real movement can be based on not believing one specific thing?

This.

Atheists tend to value their individualism, and atheism itself is merely a lack of belief. Combine the two, and what are people supposed to build a movement around?

For me, I'm not really into clubs, teams, groups, etc. Because after a while, they ask you to sacrifice something to them, and, nope, sorry, I don't want to.

[Astreja]

Why does simple disbelief require a "movement," anyway? All that's actually needed is to protect the rights of everyone, believers and non-believers alike, so that one's worldview can be expressed without negative consequences, and so that the laws of the land neither favour nor disfavour people on the basis of belief.

[brewer]

Atheism is about not believing in God, and that's about it - atheists need not have anything in common apart from that... movements are usually about something, why would we even expect that a real movement can be based on not believing one specific thing?

bold mine

How about repression? We need an atheist SJW community. Substitute atheist for peasant in the following.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY

[Jehanne]

Atheism is about not believing in God, and that's about it - atheists need not have anything in common apart from that... movements are usually about something, why would we even expect that a real movement can be based on not believing one specific thing?

I agree.  As an atheist, I see no point in doing anything "atheistic" other than this board.  And, I am not going to pay $2500 to have dinner with Michael Shermer.

[mralstoner]

Why does simple disbelief require a "movement," anyway?  All that's actually needed is to protect the rights of everyone, believers and non-believers alike, so that one's worldview can be expressed without negative consequences, and so that the laws of the land neither favour nor disfavour people on the basis of belief.

What you're espousing is secularism i.e. separation of church and state, etc. That's great but it doesn't address some problems such as:

1 - Some people (especially young people) want a more defined identity and ethos, than is provided by chaotic individualism.

2 - Deep community, with lifelong connections, is hard to find in atheism's individualistic anarchy, and requires a group with clearly definied identity and ethos.

3 - The survival and growth of atheism depends on the survival and growth of atheists. While we've had an upswing in the number of atheists leaving religion, those atheists are relatively less prone to making babies. So the future of the atheist movement is grim.

Why aren't atheists making babies? There's a few reasons, but one main reason is that atheists are not part of a cohesive movement that acknowledges that history is a story of group fitness, and only fit groups survive. Individualism dies. Unless atheism (humanism, more specifically) sees itself as just one group in a competitive world, then it will wither and die and be replaced with more organised/fit groups e.g. Islam, communist China, Putin's Russia, and maybe Christianity in some parts of the world, etc.

It's a big topic, and I've barely scratched the surface of it.

Suffice to say, atheism/humanism doesn't have a bright future unless it starts acting as a cohesive group. (Not that one homogeneous monoculture is the answer, probably a co-ordinated network of speciated atheist/humanist groups is the way to go).

Read some of Jonathan Haidt's research e.g. the most successful groups (in terms of longevity) are those that make the most demands on their followers.

We love our individualism, but individualism is not sustainable, from an evolutionary point of view.

The Western world is in decline and retreat. Muslims are invading Europe. China and Russia are expanding and will soon pose an existential threat to the US, as it declines. And at the heart of the Western world is a vacuum of identity. The West doesn't know who it is anymore, except for our treasured individualism. And so the West will wither and die because it has no core identity. We've left religion, but not replaced that with a strong enough identity to sustain Western civilisation. The West is being torn apart, because of vacuous atheism/humanism.

Evolution is a story of group fitness. Measure up, or we die.

[Jehanne]

Why does simple disbelief require a "movement," anyway?  All that's actually needed is to protect the rights of everyone, believers and non-believers alike, so that one's worldview can be expressed without negative consequences, and so that the laws of the land neither favour nor disfavour people on the basis of belief.

What you're espousing is secularism i.e. separation of church and state, etc. That's great but it doesn't address some problems such as:

1 - Some people (especially young people) want a more defined identity and ethos, than is provided by chaotic individualism.

2 - Deep community, with lifelong connections, is hard to find in atheism's individualistic anarchy, and requires a group with clearly definied identity and ethos.

3 - The survival and growth of atheism depends on the survival and growth of atheists. While we've had an upswing in the number of atheists leaving religion, those atheists are relatively less prone to making babies. So the future of the atheist movement is grim.

Why aren't atheists making babies? There's a few reasons, but one main reason is that atheists are not part of a cohesive movement that acknowledges that history is a story of group fitness, and only fit groups survive. Individualism dies. Unless atheism (humanism, more specifically) sees itself as just one group in a competitive world, then it will wither and die and be replaced with more organised/fit groups e.g. Islam, communist China, Putin's Russia, and maybe Christianity in some parts of the world, etc.

It's a big topic, and I've barely scratched the surface of it.

Suffice to say, atheism/humanism doesn't have a bright future unless it starts acting as a cohesive group. (Not that one homogeneous monoculture is the answer, probably a co-ordinated network of speciated atheist/humanist groups is the way to go).

Read some of Jonathan Haidt's research e.g. the most successful groups (in terms of longevity) are those that make the most demands on their followers.

We love our individualism, but individualism is not sustainable, from an evolutionary point of view.

The Western world is in decline and retreat. Muslims are invading Europe. China and Russia are expanding and will soon pose an existential threat to the US, as it declines. And at the heart of the Western world is a vacuum of identity. The West doesn't know who it is anymore, except for our treasured individualism. And so the West will wither and die because it has no core identity. We've left religion, but not replaced that with a strong enough identity to sustain Western civilisation. The West is being torn apart, because of vacuous atheism/humanism.

Evolution is a story of group fitness. Measure up, or we die.

Why are countries like Norway and France becoming overwhelming atheistic?  As for community and individuals personal needs, I have found that there is very little of that in the atheistic community, certainly, not on a local level.  If you're Catholic, you can find a priest or a deacon who is a complete stranger to come and comfort you in the wee hours of the morning as you are dying.  Very few atheists would do that, unless they knew the person.

[Czechlervitz30]

I think atheism never gained much ground because most people grow up religious until they move out, and most people who matter and people who make food and have control over water are religious.

[Astreja]

What you're espousing is secularism i.e. separation of church and state, etc. That's great but it doesn't address some problems such as:

1 - Some people (especially young people) want a more defined identity and ethos, than is provided by chaotic individualism...

But why does that identity and ethos have to be centred on belief in particular?  (Disclaimer:  I am a member of a local humanist group, and do identify as a humanist.)  For instance, I find much more of My identity is connected to music, which is also where I get a sense of community.

[mralstoner]

But why does that identity and ethos have to be centred on belief in particular?  (Disclaimer:  I am a member of a local humanist group, and do identify as a humanist.)  For instance, I find much more of My identity is connected to music, which is also where I get a sense of community.

Music is more about individual tastes, whereas a humanist group with a clear ethos would be built primarily on a non-religious way of life i.e. a philosophy, ethics, value system, ceremonies, rituals, support. That type of group is a foundational and universal type of group. Music is more individual tastes.

The two types of groups are not mutually exclusive. They solve different needs. Your music community isn't going to teach your kids how to live without religion, nor support you in hard times, nor be a lifelong commitment (whereas music tastes can often change over time).

[Astreja]

Music is more about individual tastes, whereas a humanist group with a clear ethos would be built primarily on a non-religious way of life i.e. a philosophy, ethics, value system, ceremonies, rituals, support. That type of group is a foundational and universal type of group. Music is more individual tastes.

History demonstrates quite clearly that belonging to a group is no guarantee of a consistent ethos.  Religious schisms happen all the time.  In the long run I think we have to take responsibility for our own philosophies of life.  If we find groups that help us express those philosophies, that's fine.  If not, better to go it alone.

As for the "individual taste" aspect of music, one of the things I enjoy about playing in bands is that we push the boundaries in that regard.  Not everyone will like every score that we work on, but we almost always grow in musicality from attempting them anyway.