In Monday's post, I talked about the bias against atheists in our country. There are many sites to check out on the web if you'd like to educate yourself about atheism, or about other non-religious belief systems.
An interesting side debate that is currently occuring in the non-religious community is the question over what to call people who are non-religious. Atheism has a negative connotation for many people, agnosticism is viewed more sympathetically, but is not well-defined enough for some. Other terms, such as secular humanism, secularism, or skepticism, are once again only vaguely defined terms that can encompass more or less than simple religious beliefs. A movement has started up to establish an umbrella name for all non-religious people. This movement wants to call people who do not belief in a God or any other supernatural deities Brights. I am a Bright in fact, though I still refer to myself as an atheist, simply because Bright is not a well-known term... yet. Here is the Brights' website, and here is an article which appeared in Skeptic magazine, written by the editor of Skeptic, Michael Shermer, detailing the controversy in the non-religious community over the Brights name.
For those who just want meat and potatoes atheism, you can check out The Raving Atheist, a blog written by someone who is apparently a raving atheist. I particularly enjoyed his (or her) listing of basic assumptions behind any pronouncements made in the blog: (1) There is no God. (2) Atheism is not merely one possible theological theory among many. Rather, it is the only true, proveable theory, and all other religious theories are false and delusional. (3) Because there is no god, any attempt to premise moral, social or political doctrine upon a belief in god is fruitless and potentially harmful. (4) Any person asserting a special individual right or attempting to dictate social policy based on a belief in god must first define the god, second prove that the god exists and third demonstrate how the right or policy follows from the belief in god. Because there is no god, nobody will ever be able to do this.
For a more even-handed look at religion and atheism, you should take a look at Beliefnet and the articles in their secular philosophies section. Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor for The New Republic, and sometime contributor to Beliefnet, asserted that their special section on Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was the best work he's seen done on the subject.
There are numerous atheist organizations out there. Recently, The Godless Americans Political Action Committee was formed to lobby Washington D. C. lawmakers on behalf of the interests of godless Americans. There is also the Skeptics Society, of which I am a member, who publish the above-mentioned Skeptic magazine. The Skeptics Society is not an atheistic group per se, but the society advocates an understanding of the natural world based on science and the scientific method, a view which comes into conflict with the view of many religionists regarding creationism, the veracity of Biblical stories, and the power, or lack thereof, of faith, prayer, and belief to control natural events. Finally, let me mention the Houston Atheists Society, of which I am a member. They are a local affiliate of the national group, American Atheists.
So, for those godless ones out there, and even the not-so-sure ones out there, who are feeling a bit left out during the Easter celebrations, spend some time on the web at these or other sites, meet new people, expand your horizons, and enjoy a break from the fire-and-brimstoners and Holy Joes who want to tell everyone else how to live.
