Passive Activism: The National Pocket Atheists

Join us if.....
You feel that many people in the general public are not aware of an viable alternative to religion.
You are able to wear a shirt with the word Atheist in big letters on the back.
You can refrain and refuse to discuss religious topics with people outside the group.
You will carry a few brochures to hand out to people who insist on knowing more about Atheism as a alternative to religion.
You like to go to public events like festivals, concerts, etc.
You can set an example of appropriate behavior at these events.

This is an exclusive group. If you agree to the guidelines listed above, your first attendance will be a trial to see if you can resist confronting people outside the group on the topic of religion.

My goal is to meet those whose moral development goes beyond the need for such rules.

Yea. You are the typical atheist. It is all about your goals not about what is best for the country. That is how Bush got elected for two terms. I don't blame the the religious fanatics. I blame the Atheists. The fanatics don't understand and the only ones (atheists) who do and could lead by example remain inconspicuous. Of course, atheists do write books, and create blogs and demonstrate, but that isn't leading by example, that is complaining because atheists don't have the guts to do anything else. For years, I thought that being around people of like minds was so important. Well, it was. It taught me that atheists are the culprit because they understand but will not help the general public understand. One can write all the books and demonstrate all they want, but the target audience will just ignore those books and demonstrations. If you don't mingle with the public as conspicuous atheists, they will continue to ignore reality. Most American atheists are a disgrace to this country. Thank you Atheists for letting Bush screw up this country. I may be an atheist...but I am not like you at all.

How are we supposed to influence people with our philosophical beliefs to the extent that we alter their fundamental philosophies without "discuss[ing] religious topics with people outside the group"?
I'm reminded of a popular song with a catchy melody entitled, "Waiting on the World to Change"

You song analogy is inappropriate. Like them, you seem to want people to follow your philosophy by being confrontative. You are no better than they are.
Obviously, you don't get it......maybe this will help.....
It is a concept that has taken several years to develop. Unlike most atheist activists, my research has pointed me in a different direction. The majority of the public is unaware of atheism as an alternative to religion. There are a few reasons for this. One, the media isn't likely to show anything that is not considered American. Their ratings will drop. Two, outspoken clergy depicts atheist as being immoral. This generates fear towards atheists. Three, atheists hide from the public (out of sight, out of mind). Four, atheists, when they do speak out, do so under aggravating circumstances. They see us as complaining all the time. The result of these four factors is that the general public have a very negative view of atheists which is why the political platforms of both parties are anti atheist. The only way to change this is to take it directly to the public. I don't mean by writing books or Internet exposure. They don't work well because the general public will avoid them. The trick is to be conspicuous in an unavoidable manner. That is to go out to public events, clearing identifying yourself as an atheist, and participating in the same activities as the general public. They aren't going to run away. They will be force to acknowledge that atheists are everyday normal people. If you remember, the gays were forced to do the same thing. They are accepted today in mainstream society. It is true that eventually, atheist may become accepted by the general public if we don't use this strategy. The problem is that it will be very slow, if it happens at all, with the tools that we are using now. The impending problems of today will not wait that long. Theocracy is at our doorstep.
In case, you have not made the connection...."conspicuous" is wearing the shirts to identify each member as an atheist.

For the DC Baltimore Area, we have almost enough to make a local Pocket. Other large cities in the US are close also. If you want to actually do something other than complaining and trying to force your philosophy on others, join us.

Passive Activism could have been more clearly described than in the first message.

If this view is that atheists should make themselves conspicuous in public to let people know we exist, but refrain from verbal confrontation; I do not disagree.

However, to say that this is the only way to be an Atheist sounds like fundamentalism. I would have thought "Fundamentalist Atheist" would be an oxymoron.

• What about "The Brights" to the degree that they want to promote a new term for naturalism?
  
• What if my shirt said "Secular Humanist" or "Darwinist"?
  

There are, in fact, few events where I would find it appropriate to wear a shirt with anything in large letters. At a rock concert I am sure it would only attract Evangelicals who would not leave me alone. (I have been chased down the street by proselytizers when I refused to listen to their "message".)
It might even be the same as wearing the word Gay in some communities, and get me assaulted [ "Kill an Atheist for Christ" ].

Seems Norm and Joe's disagreement evolved into the beginnings of a discussion.

I'll bet most of us have struggled with both the isolation of atheists/atheism and the challenge of how to effectively communicate our views in the religious miasma.

Norm, your points would have been clearer if you had spelled out or got some feedback on your "don't talk outside the group."

And Joe, what would you suggest as an example of how to get through better to those we are not reaching?

Maybe we should collect examples of techniques and approaches that have worked for us in the past and along with things to avoid, develop a guide for the persuasive atheist. Something like "Atheism, uncommonly good sense."

Just a thought.

Walter

There are two types of "reaching people", individuals and cultural change.

Only individuals that have at least begun to have doubts about religion would be influenced by what an atheist might say. There is no point arguing with believers since their thought process excludes logic and evidence in favor of "faith". However, if an atheist happened to find herself talking to someone honestly interested then they certainly should be free to do so. Why be limited to handing out a brochure with some "officially sanctioned" version of Atheism? (If that is the meaning of one of Passive Activism's rules.)

Frankly I do not know what is being done to promote atheism, that is one reason I joined this group.

For cultural change, the model of the Gay movement is for me a good one. Homosexuality has been removed from the list of crimes/mental disorders in my lifetime. Atheism should seek to make similar progress.

Where are the books/plays/movies/TV shows portraying the resolution of moral dilemmas without reference to God? (Particularly when the non-religious answer is the correct one.) Or portraying the freeing of individuals from the repression of faith. Not that there should be propaganda, but such stories must have been written but they never reach the mass media. Would the backlash be greater for a "good atheist" than it was for a "good homosexual"?

[Actually the current cable TV show "Saving Grace" is to me an arguement for atheism. The absurdity of a reality that includes a god that sends individuals gardian angels could not be more apparent.]

It also needs to be established in law that "fair treatment" of religion does not mean inclusion of mainstream believers, but non-believers as well.

Where are the history books that accurately identify free-thinkers? If we no longer allow teaching the racist/sexist version of history, why allow this omission, and what would it be called?

Such changes are not made by any monolithic program of self-appointed spokesmen for atheism. This was tried in the civil rights and gay movements. Some thought that change required the members of the group seeking rights behave in a particular (non-confrontational) way. But change occurs when anyone is free to present any message they want; and each message may reach a difference segment of the population.

I don't know where you are getting these arguments. I don't care what you belief and I don't care what you do for atheism. I've created a group that simply has fun wearing a shirt that makes atheists conspicuous. If you want to call such behavior fundamentalism, then you can take your twisted view and do what ever you want with it.
Your objections to this nonconfrontational, but potentially effective group smacks of fear. We aren't going to harm you. We aren't even going to talk to you. You are free to believe what you want, but you will know that we exist and just that knowledge may set you free.

In the future, I would suggest that when one gives you the opportunity to join a group that you keep it simple. The answer is "no answer". "yes" or "no". I don't care what your objections are because they are out of touch with reality and you have every right in the world to be out of touch so if you interpreted may statements as constricting your behavior in any way then maybe you should do a reality check.
I did what I wanted to do here...that is; ask if anyone wanted to join? Obviously, you don't want to join, but a simple "no" would have been sufficient. Personally, I think that you need some help. Maybe a good counselor to help you with your issues.
Today's atheist has failed. Could it be that many think like you?
At this point, I have nothing else to offer. You will continue to paint horrible things about someone who is has come up with a harmless and potentially useful group. That is your right, but I don't and won't be a part of this interchange any longer.