The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Christopher Hitchens - image and impact

How can we as atheists present our view as worthy and valuable in public debates and forums?

I've been watching a few You Tubes of debates between Christopher Hitchens and others of mainly religious persuasion.

Hitchens comes across as being negative.

I totally agree with Hitchens but I'm trying to work out what it is that causes him to seem this way.

I totally understand his disinterest, boredom and frustration at debating with these people - but clearly he believes that doing so is useful.

The religious people come across as confident, self assured and definite in their arguments and statements.

I think that it's because Hitchens is taking a position against their arguments - to counter their arguments. I suppose this is a natural position when self-identifying as an atheist and put into a debate with a theist. But it would be nice to up our profile a bit - come across as strong in ourselves with the same confident, self assured and definite approach that they have with their world views.

I think we need a "culture" to promote - a culture of reason, science and pragmatism. A way of approaching life and life's challenges and dilemmas - one that can be talked about in a positive way - it doesn't need to include personal opinions, but it can include the way that we reach those private opinions - such as in a reasonable way that is based in scientific method for good moral values.

I notice also that they keep getting into a preaching sort of track where they start going on about Jesus or such like and really it would be the equivalent as Hitchens using fairy stories to illustrate his point. Perhaps he should. Perhaps people might relate better to him if he did use fairy stories to illustrate his points. Then he might come across as confident as they do.

I think that another important point is that religion has changed according to society. Things have changed as time has passed. But I suppose on things like human rights are lacking - such as gay marriage - and these are the points that we need to keep arguing with our "culture" of reason, rational and science based, morally good values.

2 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on July 10, 2011 at 6:36pm

I think what Atheism needs to do to is push the theme of 'Good Without God'. That is, it needs to espouse Secular Humanism. As history has demonstrated repeatedly the masses are not long going to be part of something they perceive to be amoral or immoral. The precepts of Atheism must be positive and honorable to win the masses and if they are not the masses will ultimately discard Atheism as decadent. While being positive and honorable in a 'Good Without God' theme founded in golden rule morality Atheism should use reason to point out to theists that it is their perspective that is fundamentally lacking in the potential to provide for behavior that is harmonious with the development of dignity and self-esteem. That is, reason should be used to have theists realize that a being which freely demands to be worshiped must be narcissistic not good and worshiping even a good being would be worshiping something with the free will to become bad. Holding this moral high ground over worship Atheists could reference the voluminous scientific material available to help further unindoctrinate theists and be the most self-confident in any discussion or debate with them.

Permalink Reply by Bob on July 10, 2011 at 6:50pm

(writing this from my SF Bay Area California perspective) I agree, but with the billionaire Christians out there controlling the order and processing the image and messages, the non-theist, Secular Humanism is relegated to the fringe LINK TV types..

Just look at PBS which has been forced to go corporate.

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 11, 2011 at 12:26am

I totally agree Bob - that's what we are lacking - institutionally paid for, PR management. I think perhaps this could be arranged in time - in a self organised way - rather than the dictatorship (using Hitchens description) way of the church.

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 11, 2011 at 12:24am

I think what Hitchens and Dawkins and others are doing is great - even if they aren't perfect at it - who could be! I'm being over picky really - they are both great minds and have done much great work - really it's a bit like criticizing the women who threw themselves under horses for women's rights - Hitchens and Dawkins hopefully have made a pathway for others such as Harris to make their way further into mainstream society with reasonable and rational thinking. We can only hope for more of the same - with a broader influence from many professional backgrounds.

Permalink Reply by Dr. Terence Meaden on July 11, 2011 at 2:14am

Part of the problem is that many believers are petrified by the word 'atheist'.

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 11, 2011 at 2:18am

LOL!

Permalink Reply by Noah Petersen on July 11, 2011 at 4:17am

That's hilarious. I might have to print that and display it at work.

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on July 11, 2011 at 5:47am

They are petrified by it because there is a stigma associated with it to the effect that Atheists are amoral or immoral and many are. Too many Atheists are Atheists not for any good reason but only because they see religion as an obstacle to being amoral or immoral and, unfortunately, their voices have tended to give Atheism without qualification a bad name. The onus is on us to have Atheism understood as a positive thing. We can learn a lot from the Gay community in this regard in that it would not have gained the rights that it has by allowing itself to be stigmatized as malign. Religion and especially Christianity has been able to captivate the masses by selling itself as founded in good and if Atheism does not do the same it will fall victim to theism as it has repeatedly throughout history despite centuries of scientific discoveries that have unequivocally contradicted religious doctrine. The church is on the defensive now only because it appears hypocritical as the result of the many sex abuse scandals in which it has been embroiled. However, if the alternative provided by Atheism is founded in egotism or narcissism it will not long be deemed any more viable than religion which can at least say it wants to become better. Accordingly, Atheism must take the direction of Secular Humanism valuing dignity as much as science and reason to be the meaningful credible option necessary to, on an enduring basis, demand attention and inspire imagination sufficiently to displace theism.

Permalink Reply by Dr. Terence Meaden on July 11, 2011 at 8:24am

Hear, hear.

Permalink Reply by Cheryl Kerkin on July 11, 2011 at 10:22am

I am sensing an underlying anxiety in this thread that atheists should try not to come across as angry or combative otherwise we will be despised more than we already are by many ill-informed people.

I have no sense that I must go the extra mile to 'make nice' with people just in case they might have a prejudice against atheists. I am nice enough. I have a moral code. I hate injustice and in the words of a philosopher whose name I forget "As long as there is one unhappy person in the world, I cannot be completely happy".

I can't control the thoughts of everyone I meet, nor spend time with every person who may be mistaken about what my views represent, to uproot their ideas. Except sometimes. I just 'do me'.

We all can only contribute our best selves and that MUST include anger, frustration, and many other not so angelic traits, to be healthy. We could not survive as a species without anger and self/group interest.

I have never in my life met a self -defined atheist who believed in God then thought..."Hmmm, this is very inconvenient for my narcissistic selfish immoral interests. I think I'll switch and decide I don't believe in God, even though I do". I find this a weird proposition. A bit like people who think homosexuality is a choice. I can't help being an atheist. It came with my thinking. I didn't 'opt' for it.

Whereas how many religious people can we come up with who, retrospectively, if not presently, seem to have chosen a 'religious vocation' as a cloak for 'other activities', most damaging to people and children. Whose narcissism truly got the better of them? The 'faith healers' of the world who take massive donations from very sick people (sometimes saved up in pocket money from dying children) and spend it on themselves (in one secret case, spending it on rent boys after the show), whilst getting a huge kick from standing up on stage to have lame, sobbing, star-struck people being brought into their 'godly' presence, with a reverential humming choir behind?

And there are atheists who 'choose' atheism just to live more selfishly? Really?!! No need!

Years ago I had a Catholic ask me why, as an atheist, I don't go around killing grannies and robbing banks. I said, "for the same reason you don't". It's wrong. It hurts the world, which includes me. I empathise with my fellow humans.

I will not go around paying lip service to this crap line of thought anymore.

It's not us that need to prove ourselves, or acknowledge some nasty types who sully our point of view, they exist no more than the good and bad exist in any demographic you care to analyse. It's religion that needs to answer for itself. And I'm not accusing all religious people of shameful acts. Of course I'm not.

I recognise that in the States there is an image problem. This is not due to those nasty rogue atheists out there using the tag to live selfishly. It's ignorance. The USA is a big country. The virus spreads. And if you're living with mainly religious people there may be a temptation to worry that the ones you love think you're bad. Don't live apologetically. Simply be yourself.

Here are the well known correlates between peace, criminality and religious versus non-religious countries. Let the religious proponents apologise.

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on July 11, 2011 at 3:37pm

You might have misunderstood some posts. I certainly didn't advocate that Atheists apologize for being Atheists (how you could have thought such a thing from what I wrote is hard to fathom) nor that they not have a healthy sense of anger about religious hypocrisy and indoctrination. I simply advocated (and supported rationally) that Atheism (for its good and the good of humanity) more vigorously move in the direction of Secular Humanism (golden rule morality without deities) and take care to become more disassociated with egotism and narcissism. I understand that some Atheists are uncomfortable with this.

Permalink Reply by Cheryl Kerkin on July 11, 2011 at 4:18pm

The whole of my post wasn't directed to you John.

As I said, I've picked up a sense on this thread of a concern that we should, for want of a better phrase, show our kindly, humble face as much as possible, for fear the religious think us more degenerate (or whatever) than they might already do. By the way, you can't aspire to be humble. The lie begins the minute you start. I would rather meet an entertaining egoist who knew it, than someone who is taking deep pride in 'showing humility'. Can't be done.

My point is, we aren't what they think we are anyway, and I believe we should make no extra effort in that direction. We are good enough as we are and should be free to be angry and frustrated when we are. I'm sure you agree with me.

Uncomfortable with what? Atheism doesn't and shouldn't carry any dogma. Take care to disassociate from narcissism and egotism? Why? Are atheists more prone to those things? Is this something you've noticed? It reminds me of how women have to do more work (in some professions they call it "the vagina tax"), to prove they can do what men do. I personally think this is unjust and unfair.

What puzzled me was the idea that some, presumably previously religious people choose to label themselves atheist to be more self indulgent.

The evidence among the past and current history of the clergy, the Vatican, the millions spent on temples and 'God's representatives on earth' in so many poor countries, plus the many people who set up their own sects, cults and ministries etc, to indulge their out of control narcissism, suggests overwhelmingly the money and glory is easier to aquire in religion. No?

I am a member of a group in London, many of which have cut their ties with the Humanist Association. This on the grounds that, although it's played it's part in helping people 'come out' and have an image as a Humanist which easily carries the semantic association of humanitarianism, so helping them convey the 'good without god' message to counter any hostility, the feeling here is that it's now a very pipe and slippers Association, with not much clout and a manifesto that lends itself to the dangers of cultural relativism. Which, in the UK right now, with Sharia Law being seriously considered by our government, MUST be countered. You can call it secular humanism. Or you can call it secularism.

I'm suggesting it's a little patronising to all of us to need the PR of 'good without god' Humanism. As is suggested by the tables in the YouTube vid, it's religion that needs to prove to us it's prescriptions give us 'goodness'.

Most of your post I agreed with.