I enjoyed reading some of these criticisms. . .
The Faux Pas of Modern Atheist Unity
1. The Plea for Atheist Unity
. . .
Some atheists want to be more unified, and I understand an important reason behind that desire is to be well-represented in our society. We still live in a country in which admitting agnosticism or atheism is political suicide. Non-theists need a voice in the public square; however, the danger is that one day "atheist" will be spelled with a capital A and then Atheists will risk falling into dogmatism and a herd mentality, which is what they wanted to avoid in the first place. I don't trust anything that a person has to be "converted to" in order to accept.
This is certainly a reflection of why I prefer the labels "skeptic" and "freethinker" over "atheist" to describe myself, but if atheists want to unite, they should unite under the banner of logic, science, the desire to gain knowledge and form beliefs on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition, and the willingness to change one's views in light of the best evidence available currently. Fortunately, many atheists are united for such purposes, which is why I feel more at home in the atheist culture than anywhere else.
2. The Brights
. . .
If they want favorable P.R., then why call themselves "Brights"? They're just asking for people to see them as arrogant prigs who think they're smarter than everyone else. Sure, the founding members of the movement - along with its two most notable publicists, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett - probably believed the new label would help present to the public a shiny, positive image of non-theists. I would be remiss in my duties if I did not mention that the Brights' apologists have expressed explicitly that the label isn't meant to suggest that non-theists are smarter than everyone else. That's wonderful, but what puzzles me is that while they felt such a disclaimer was necessary, they didn't realize how counterproductive calling themselves "Brights" could be to their cause.
If non-theists want to be understood and accepted, they should show everyone just how compassionate, inquisitive, humble and, well, bright they are.
Even if they had picked out a better label for themselves, how much difference would it make? Would people become more accepting of non-theists just because they have a perky new name? Turning the tables for a moment, would these Brights look at the Christian Coalition differently if its name were changed to, say, "The Happy Sunshine Fun Brigade"?
3. Hubris
. . .
Luke over at Common Sense Atheism writes:
When will atheists stop embarrassing themselves in debate? This shows the problem with atheists believing they are, by default, more rational than believers. Atheists don’t think they need to study the relevant subjects, or pay attention to the logic of the Christian’s position. Instead, they just wander in and spout some irrelevant points about the Crusades and religious disagreement. Meanwhile, the Christian can put forth whatever argument he wants – whether it’s a good argument for not – because the Christian will clearly explain why the atheist’s arguments fail, but the atheist will not clearly explain why the Christian position fails. Thus the audience leaves believing the Christian has won. And basically, he has.
[Quote taken from Sean McDowell and Theistic Morality. I find Luke's entire entry worth reading. Check it out.]
It's easy to fall into the trap of trading one prejudice for another, even if one's initial motivation is to avoid a dogmatic mindset. It's also just as easy for one who has revolted against dogmatism to feel like she is on the more enlightened side of the debate, and this feeling can lead to hubris; consequently, the "enlightened" skeptic dismisses the arguments given by the other side instead of critiquing them thoroughly.
4. Calling Religious People "Brainwashed"
. . .
Calling someone "brainwashed" only serves to shut down communication and put that person on the defensive - especially if that person is, in fact, brainwashed. Of course, there is the question of what is meant exactly by "brainwashed"; regardless, the word carries intense emotive baggage that's best avoided, especially when one finds herself in a discussion about topics that are already emotionally stirring, such as god and religion.
A person has to see for herself that she has a problem and accept it before she will allow anyone or anything to help her. The more defensive a person is, the more likely that person will try to justify herself. The answer is to promote critical thinking in as positive a light as possible, and try one's best to help another evaluate herself.
5. Getting Uptight About Colloquialisms
I have witnessed atheists get their knickers in a knot over phrases like "bless you" and "oh my god," because they are seen as "religious references." I don't have a lot to say about this except: lighten up. They're colloquialisms. If you sneeze and someone says, "bless you," they're not trying to convert you to their religion or keep your soul from leaking out through your nose. They're simply trying to be polite according to a particular social norm that people do for the sake of social norms. Likewise, "oh my god" is just a figure of speech, not a tool of religious oppression. So relax, for god's sake.
6. Demonizing the "Agnostic" Label
I engaged in a brief conversation about the "atheist" and "agnostic" labels with a guy named "ShaunPhilly" in the comment section of my blog entry titled, A Practical Atheist. He directed me toward an article he wrote. While ShaunPhilly makes some good points, I think the implicit negativity towards "agnostic" is unnecessary. While I don't think one label is superior to another, I prefer the label "agnostic" over "atheist" for myself because I find the former to be more relevant to me. Labels are only moderately useful anyway. If someone wants to know what a person thinks, she should take the time to talk with that person or, in the case of bloggers like me, take the time to read that person's writings.
. . .
http://dead-logic.blogspot.com/2010/03/faux-pas-of-modern-atheist-culture.html