Karl Rove Is An Atheist

and one day that fellow answered the phone in the church kitchen. The caller began berating Methodists: "I suppose you believe X and Y and Z!" and the good reverend allowed as how the people in his congregation believed lots of stuff, but not all the same stuff. And that was "Methodists", a Christian sect with a large, complex, defined body of doctrine. In that sense it could conceivably make sense to call oneself a "Methodist blogger" but as this information about Rove illustrates, there is no body of doctrine that defines atheism. Calling someone an "Atheist blogger" (the upper-case is essential) makes about as much sense as calling me a "Bald blogger".

Still, there is a continuum of focus on atheism. Some atheists blog exclusively about specific, nonreligious topics. I mention it occasionally and have a lot of links in my sidebar. This blog is probably 80% in posts opposing religion. Some blogs are about nothing else BUT atheism. The problem we face is that labels are cognitively economical; people like them because they save a lot of taxonomical skull-sweat.

(enter rant HERE about deliberate attempts to create an "Atheist identity" through labels such as "Bright")

Religious people need to see us as more complex people, and atheism isn't much of a group identity. It isn't a culture, it isn't a philosophy, it's one belief, or rather the lack of a belief. You are exactly right we need to avoid letting that single thing be our identity. Otherwise, we'll never climb out of the pigeonhole.

While my blog is a bit one-dimensional, hence the name, I don't think I've ever described myself as an "atheist blogger." Whether or not someone else has described me as such, I don't know. I'm not sure I would have much of a reason to object since that's what I blog about most of the time. In the past I have affectionately referred to certain other bloggers as my "fellow godless bloggers." I certainly didn't mean to imply that they are atheists and nothing more. And even though I'm an "atheist blogger," I've found that some of my "fellow godless bloggers" list my blog under "Politics" in their blogrolls. I'm so confused!

I don't believe Atheism should be considered a religion. Religion implies belief in some sort of God or Gods so by definition Atheism is not a religion. Although over at the VA's web site you'll find the Atheist emblem on the Emblems of Belief which are allowed on Vet's grave stones and as such is grouped with all the other religious emblems. I'm not sure we need to be on that list nor do I think we need an emblem.

Of course you're right, atheism is not anything but lack of belief in any gods, and so doesn't imply any political leanings generally.

However, there does seem to be some correlation...

Take this for example (from iidb.org, the biggest atheist discussion board I know of on the internet):

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=172413

I think Rove's an outlier.

And now that Rove's atheism is out... does that make him a . . . wait for it . . . an out and outlier?

I surprised someone when they asked what is more important, truth or faith by replying, "Truth is faith". She thought this was hypicritical of me, considering I was an atheist. But it isn't. I just have no belief in gods. But to believe in anything 100% you have to take some kind of a leap of faith.

...saying that I blog about atheism. But I too resist the notion that I am an 'atheist blogger'. In the .sig file for my email I have the following (among my other links):

www.brentrasmussen.com - blog about atheism & politics

Because I think that the distinction is important. I'm not here just to deny belief - I'm here to promote secularism, share views on the absurdity of the world and people in it, discuss news items of interest to me, and engage in conversation with people who I would not otherwise meet. If I just wanted to read (or even write) rants about the foolishness of religion, there are plenty of other places to do so. This place is more than just that.

And so am I more than just an "atheist". My lack of religious belief is just one aspect of my personality - an important aspect, to be sure, and one which informs and is informed by other attitudes I have, but still just one aspect.

I got a comment on my CommunionBlog yesterday that I thought was very interesting, and touches on this topic:

When I was reading the book, I was wondering if you might use the book as a vehicle to take on a crusade against belief or organized religion, and was concerned my friend might consider this yet another of our mutual good natured chain yankings rather than a ’serious’ SF book.

I was happy to see the book is in fact a thoughtful and balanced examination of our human paradigm and ‘religious allegory’ as you say–with a bit of a jab here and there where warranted!

I am an atheist. Have been for a long time. But just as many people of faith are not *only* people of faith, so am I not *only* an atheist. I do not organize my life around my atheism. I do not write only about atheism. I do not pick my friends from only other atheists. Furthermore, like Brent says, I share some things with other atheists, and am completely different in other things. I'm fairly comfortable writing about politics at dKos (though the hoplophobia of some there gets old), and identify myself as a progressive independent. That puts me somewhere between Brent and PZ on the spectrum, I'd guess.

Identifying with other blogs in writing about atheism is fine - just as identifying with other blogs in writing about any topic is fine - but it doesn't mean that is the only way to identify.

Jim Downey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.

How you can claim this isn't an atheist blog? Virtually every post is about atheism. OK, thats a bit strong and a bit general. But still, its a theme that runs heavy through most everything. Thats not to say I mind. I rather enjoy this blog. But... write about some party last week. Write about niece/cousin/father's birthday/school play/health problem. Write about whatever is happening in your life. I can't imagine that your mind ties atheism to everything that comes into view before you. If you do that, then atheism can come up when atheism comes up, and you can still be an atheist with a blog. But until then, whatever you label yourself as, the content of the site comes through with a pretty clear message of its own...

Good questions, Brent. I think the only thing you're overlooking is that "Atheism as a Religion or Stereotype" has been defined in the minds of most Americans already, as "evil, heartless, immoral bastards who threaten everything I stand for." It has gotten further sharpened by association with the only known atheists most people have ever heard of, Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

So in one sense, atheism is already (falsely) seen as a religion or creed by most people, only the definition of it has been created by those who hate and fear atheists. Letting the opponent define you is not a good thing.

One way to fight that is to do what you do, which is to keep hammering away that there is no unifying creed or cohesive definition. Another is to create a counter-definition of what an atheist is and what it means. Your method has to fight against multiple competing definitions out there, while the other runs the risk of being shanghaied into something that doesn't reflect reality, either.

For my money, one good thing to do is to get as many people out there to identify themselves as atheists as possible, and to keep repeating your mantra, until it becomes obvious that there isn't any cohesive philosophy joining all these folks without god-belief together. I think it's good that Karl Rove has been outed, and that Christopher Hitchens is outspoken, as neither of them are in the liberal, University professor, Democrat mold. We need more of that. There was a Republican woman who "came out" a few months ago as well. For that reason I don't think you should completely distance yourself from the "atheist blogger" label, since you'd be contributing to the chorus of different atheist voices instead of sitting it out. The more the better for this kind of approach.

Is there a list of prominent atheists somewhere? That might help point out how different atheists can be.

In what sense are the Raelians a group of atheists? They believe that a group of supernatural beings (Elohim) designed the human race. Their prophet, Rael, was whisked off to the Elohim planet to recieve the revealed knowledge of these beings (and while there hobnobbed with Buddha, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.) Just because they call their gods aliens doesn't make them atheists.

I'm just sayin'...

It's funny to see this type of post popping up all over. Nobody wants to be the Drag Queens (or at least they don't want the Drag Queens representing them).

This is the sort of argument that came to a head in the gay movement during the Dying Times. So many gay men who'd been forced out of the closet by their illness fiercely hated the public face of gays, especially Drag Queens and Leathermen. Only problem was they were the ones out front doing all the heavy lifting on the fundraising and providing services to dying people (to say nothing of the political muscle, but that's whole other story). ACT-UP alienated and embarrassed a lot of people (hell, it may have been in their mission statement).

So, congratulations. It's only taken the atheist online movement six months to achieve the sort of public identity arguments it took gays two decades and a devastating epidemic to reach. Forgive me if that sounds snaky. I mean it sincerely. It's rather like going through puberty; awkward and uncomfortable, but a necessary step to reach adulthood.

I don't bear a grudge. I have no surviving enemies.

Thank you immensly for your

contribution to reason.I have been

strengthened by your

thought.Though we are faced with

animosity from our opponents while

expressing our views, we must keep

up the good fight.

HABYARIMANA BANGAMBIKI
http://www.imana-god.blogspot.com/

I only recently found your blog - I was referred to it because I was looking for someone whose atheism is part of a rational stand *for* something, instead of the unfortunately common irrational railing *against* everyone who doesn't identify as an atheist (generally done in the name of "logic," with a mass of assumptions related to Christian guilt-based patriarchal culture imposed on Those Others, a heavy dose of arrogance, and a boiling resentment).

I've backread quite a bit. YOu do talk about atheism in almost every post, but you relate it to the world, and to the actions and convictions and manipulations of real people, in power and as part of the masses who are led to choose their leaders. I thank you for taking the time to make your points in public.

My question here would be - are people like me welcome to come here and read, and maybe toss in a comment here and there? I'm a person of faith. I believe organized religion is a hothouse for the perversion of faith. I believe religion in government is the death of faith. The person who said "truth is faith" is someone I would have a great deal in common with.

Is it possible to come to this or any other atheism-dominated blog and disagree, without immediately gathering angry posts full of false assumptions and "allow me my passion, damn you," comments such as I received last week, simply for stating that attack is not defense, and that a sneering attitude to everyone who disagrees with you is not helpful?

Is it possible to come to a place where self-identified atheists discuss their point of view, and make common cause? Is it even wanted, or is the desire to identified as a universally oppressed minority still too strong in the community? Is there a place in this loosely associated group of faith-absent folk with political ideals for a faith-positive person who shares at minimum the ideal of a secular government?

I don't mean me particularly. I may or may not be up to the caliber of your discussions. I'm really interested in your opinion on a broader scale.

first off, I'd like to say to Kael that it is absolutely possible for theists and atheists to interact on a blog without it coming to figurative blows. You sound like somebody I have a lot in common with and we could agree on a lot of things. I have no particular problem with religious PEOPLE just as long as they don't use their religious beliefs as an excuse to be jackasses and attack science and other people's lifestyles. I will however laugh at ridiculous beliefs (the Flood etc), and I frankly despise creationism/ID with a firey passion because people keep trying to pass it off as science, which to me is like trying to pass off a dog as a cat. Also, I am a biology geek, so any attack on evolution is PERSONAL lol. Which doesn't necessarily mean I despise all creationists (although most of the ones I've encountered tend to dissolve into petty insults when cornered which makes me rather inclined to dislike them), I have somebody I chat with on IRC who is a creationist, but she's a decent person and I enjoy talking with her, we just avoid the subject entirely because neither of us wants it to dissolve into a huge pile of internet drama. Internet drama is pathetic.

I'm afraid I fit the "stereotype" of atheists quite well, I'm a college student (biochemistry), liberal in most of my politics (although frankly, excessive insipid "political correctness" irritates me especially when it prevents people from pointing out the fact that creationist beliefs are complete nonsense).

I'm a bit unusual in that I'm a second-generation atheist both my parents were atheists so I have no baggage caused by a bad break with a religion, my anger with creationism comes from my passion for science and my annoyance with organized religion comes from the fact that it causes people to do some really DUMB things (the JWs and their refusal to accept blood transfusions comes to mind) and some times it hurts others when they do dumb things (the case of the JW mom with quadruplets that refused to allow them to given blood transfusions and a couple of them died comes to mind, can you tell I have a particular focus on the JWs, well they come to our door so I have more exposure to that particular bunch of nuts then others).

Yeah that turned into a rant, sorry.

Even us manic-depressive-Liberal-radical-moderate-libertarian(esque)-wanna-be-academics-with-friends-who-run-ashrams-techno-hippies can be atheists!

Hope that dark cloud has left ya by now, Brent. Sorry I been so scarce lately. I actually got over-whelmed a bit with all the non-stop atheist bloggin' so've been blog-hoppin' thru other parts of the sphere. Doesn't mean I could ever forget my roots reading UTI!

Later amigo!

a personally evolving organism

Not too many by the looks of it. You might as well just put the Atheist blogroll on your sidebar.
You really should. And there is nothing wrong with it.
As someone pointed out, most of your posts are atheist related. So I say, just sit back and enjoy the atheist movement.
Here is the thing, most atheists in the blogosphere do blog about many common things: separation of church and state, especially where science is concerned and the stupidity of all religions.
I really don't care if theists perceive us as a "religion." That is just their ignorance. We are obviously not a religion, but don't candy coat the reality that most of our posts are related to our atheism.
I do think we are making a difference by stating facts about evolution and contradicting "bible history and fact." And by difference, I think the average internet theist who is willing to learn, is really learning.
I wonder what Karl Rove's blog would be about if he had one? I know a few atheist who choose not to be on the atheist blogroll and have a more personal type of blog. But whenever an atheist strays away from either politics or their cats and children, the posts are usually related to atheism.

I am going to stop trying to fit myself into what the rest of the world considers an atheist to be.

Well, the term "athiest" actually, etymologically, is pretty close to the common perception of an athiest. Not in the sense of being a liberal history professor at an ivy league school, but in terms of being religiously anti-religious. The suffix a- is a shortened form of anti- - so it really means "anti-theist" when you come down to it, as in someone who doesn't just not believe for themselves, but is actively against belief. For those of who are a bit more mild-mannered about about it, but still firm in our nonbelief - i.e. not agnostic - I've always preferred nontheist. It's not so aggressive, doesn't carry the stigma, has more of a libertarian live-and-let-live vibe.

I think the best solution would be to stop using the term athiest - you want to use only positive suffixes - see how both sides of the abortion issue are "pro" something? And while non- as a prefix is essentially neutral, maybe it needs to go one step further. You have to be for something, not just against stuff. No one likes a whiner. Secular and skeptic are all well and good, but they're both neutral as well. We have to be pro-something. If "Pro-Logic" wasn't a brand name already (look on your surround sound processor) I'd say it was a pretty good choice. Pro-Science maybe? Doesn't roll well. I kind of like "Pro-State" (as in "Seperation of Church and...") except that without the dash it says prostate, which is kind of an icky thing to call one's self.