Stories Are Power: Atheist Nationality

[mishalak]

The stories we tell ourselves, the ones we make up and then believe in, are the most powerful of all. What we call ourselves is the first of these and the first one that all ideas need, for how can one talk of an idea that has no name?

This is why I think the people behind all the various renaming Atheism movements are right in looking for a new name. I think they are wrong in the words they choose to repurpose and their end goal of doing so. But if Atheism is to grow it needs to be more than an avoidance of belief system institutions and I think for that we need a new name and a central purpose/myth.

Communism or Soviet-ism once served that purpose. The ideology was hollow and does not work, but it gave a name and group to join rather than just a label to use individually. And there were symbols we could use. But the Soviets in particular and Communism generally piled up a nice heap of skulls along the way of demonstrating that the hypothesis was not viable in real world operation.

We still need symbols and traditions though. Ideals to live up to and for. A little music that has a particular lilt to it. Houses of learning and community where we can create the myth we want to tell ourselves.

Just because there is no god does not mean that religion has nothing to teach us. If we are careful in our experimenting we may be lucky enough to avoid the mistakes shown to us by older institutions.

Comments

[pompe.livejournal.com]

I think I'd see it in almost the opposite way. Successful atheism isn't to me made by creating some sort of organized "humanist" philosophy as an alternative to religion, successful atheism is to me to secularize so thoroughly the basic need for religion is weakened.

Organized religion is a communal development and to be honest I don't think organized atheism can compete with the promises, hierarchies and traditions. But by pushing faith into the personal sphere we can shift the balance.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Perhaps that works for you, but not all humans are the same. And though I cannot believe in deity I want to acquire all the psychological and social advantages of belonging to a religious group.

Human are meant to be part of a group. On some level all sexually reproducing animals are meant to strike a balance between personal survival and species survival, our genes command it. Humans more than average since we are social animals. Governments are too distant and abstract for this particularly since they have to balance so many competing interests.

Besides all that it is a sensible experiment to test which parts of religious belief are critical to the advantages that seem to accrue to believers in geriatric studies.

[pompe.livejournal.com]

Well, but you can have other types of groups than religious ones for people to belong to. And if a religious group doesn't confer much of a social advantage because society is secularized...

I suspect in order to evaluate what is more or less successful way to establish atheism we need to look at different largely non-religious societies and their methods. I mean, are the least religious nations of the world like, I don't know, Iceland is sometimes mentioned, also places where there are strong organized atheist movements? Next time I speak to an Icelander I'll ask.

I know there are "humanists" here, who favor some sort of organized philosophical atheism complete with non-religious confirmation ceremonies and such, but it is not my impression they are particularly thriving or driving, nor very popular among atheists in general. Then again, being an atheist isn't a big deal over here. I don't know if our current Prime Minister is Christian, just believes in some sort of God or is an outright agnostic or atheist, but googling around I found he isn't member of the Church of Sweden or any other congregation.

Atheists in Norway seem to be more organized and militant - but Norway is a more Christian/religious society than Sweden is.