Atheism+: the new New Atheists
This new movement has an energy that makes it hard to ignore.
By Nelson Jones Published 23 August 2012 15:41
Let me introduce you to Atheism+, the nascent movement that might be the most exciting thing to hit the world of unbelief since Richard Dawkins teamed up with Christopher Hitchens to tell the world that God was a Delusion and, worse than that, Not Great.
Less than a week old in its current form, Atheism+ is the brainchild of Jen McCreight, a Seattle-based biology postgrad and blogger at the secularist Freethought network. She has called for a "new wave" of atheism on that "cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime."
On one level, this is just the logical culmination of the huge upsurge in interest prompted by the so-called "New Atheists" and the growth over the last few years of a recognisable community or movement based around ideas of atheism, scientific scepticism and a progressive political agenda. While atheism is, by definition, no more or less than a non-belief in God, in practice it clusters with a variety of other positions, from pro-choice to campaigns against homeopathy. People who espouse "liberal atheism" as it might be called, oppose religion for political as well as philosophical reasons, just as the forces of religion seem to line up - though of course not exclusively - behind seemingly unconnected issues such as opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage and, in the US, gun-control.
Atheism+ is, at its most basic, an attempt wrap things together more formally, to create a movement that prioritises issues of equality and does so from an explicitly non-religious perspective. Some would say that such a philosophy already exists in the form of humanism. Others prefer the label Skeptic. Atheism+, however, seeks to capitalise on the sense of identity that has grown up around the word "atheism" during the past few years. One supporter of the idea, Greta Christina, celebrates the term as "a slap in the face that wakes people up."
In this early phase Atheism+ is fired by anger as much as by as idealism. And, at least initially, much of this anger is directed inward towards the world of atheism itself.
Any community, new or old, has its tensions, and in the past year the atheist/sceptical community has been rocked by a divisive and increasingly bad-tempered debate over sexism and, more generally, a sense that the dominant voices have tended to be white, male and middle-class. On the one hand, there have been suggestions that atheism and scepticism are philosophies disproportionately attractive to men. Indeed, the stereotype of the atheist as white, intellectually overconfident male - as Richard Dawkins - has long been a favourite among religious apologists. More seriously, there are definite feelings of exclusion, especially on the part of younger women.
A number of incidents have served to crystallise the sense that all is not right in the world of unbelief. Most notoriously, there was "Elevatorgate", an late-night incident in a lift during an atheist conference in Dublin during which the blogger Rebecca Watson was propositioned. Her subsequent public complaint about the man's behaviour and sexual harassment within the Skeptic movement drew criticism from Richard Dawkins himself and fuelled an ugly flame war. She received, and continues to receive, rape and death threats.
McCreight (it rhymes with "right") has her own experience to draw on. She first came to prominence as the creator of 2010's "Boobquake", a satirical response to claims by an Iranian ayatollah that women who dressed immodestly were responsible for earthquakes. McCreight wondered if encouraging women to wear tight t-shirts on a certain day would lead to a noticeable increase in seismic activity worldwide. It didn't, though it did produce a small earthquake in parts of the skeptical community, in the form of a debate about whether such a stunt was compatible with feminism.
For McCreight personally, the "experiment" had an ambiguous outcome:
I’ve always considered myself a feminist, but I used to be one of those teenagers who assumed the awesome ladies before me had solved everything. But Boobquake made me wake up. What I originally envisioned as an empowering event about supporting women’s freedoms and calling out dangerous superstitious thinking devolved into “Show us your tits!”
McCreight recalls receiving unsolicited sexual invitations and, when she appeared in public, gratuitous comments about her appearance. It all made her feel that atheism was a "boys' club". It might welcome "a young, not-hideous woman who ... I made them look diverse" but "rescinds its invitation once they realize you’re a rabble-rousing feminist." A movement that claimed to be rationalistic and against prejudice was not simply replicating the sexism of wider society, she felt, but actually magnified it. Whenever she wrote or spoke about feminism she received hundreds of insulting and hateful comments. Atheism had become - perhaps it always was - a bolthole for misogyny. Worse, she wrote, "I don’t feel safe as a woman in this community – and I feel less safe than I do as a woman in science, or a woman in gaming, or hell, as a woman walking down the fucking sidewalk."
The first item on the Atheism+ agenda, then, is a cleansing one. McCreight herself says: "We need to recognize that there’s still room for self-improvement and to address the root of why we’ve been having these problems in atheism and skepticism." Greta Christina has gone so far as to devise a checklist of goals to which atheist organisations should aspire, including anti-harassment policies and ensuring diversity among both members and invited speakers. "To remember that not all atheists look like Richard Dawkins."
That sounds like, at least party, a negative programme - "getting rid of the garbage". Yet the name - or at least the symbol - is pleasingly double-edged. "Atheism plus", the natural reading, implies incompleteness: that other, associated principles need to be added to the core idea to produce a rounded philosophy. But it can also be read as "Atheism positive", going beyond the mere negation of belief. Time will tell whether McCreight's initiative leads to permanent changes in the atheist and sceptical movement, or to the formation of a new and distinct nexus of atheism and progressive politics, or is soon forgotten. But I'd bet against the latter. Whether or not the name sticks, there is an energy behind this new wave that makes it hard to ignore.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















270 comments
A + sign means many things, but the most fundamental use of the cross in western civilization has been to denote Christianity. It is very odd that out of all the signs and symbols they could have chosen, they chose the cross.
Given their femi-facist take on atheism, i think a swastika would be more appropriate.
Why is Richard Dawkins given so much credence? He only ever compounds his own rhetoric. Communicating with my spiritual ancesters through automatic writing makes a total nonsence of everything any atheist says. I hold the pen and they move it, it's old fashioned writing, nothing like my own, and I can't direct it because I never know what they're going to come out with next! But they can tell me what I was thinking a moment or an hour ago, or what happened to me last week. They give me advice sometimes and they use words that I have to look up in the dictionary because they're not words I've ever used. So get real, atheists, you'll have to, eventually...
How about the term non religious or no religion, or if asked- none. My local council now use this after my request for a change to a form that didn't allow a tick box for you having no religion, not even an atheist tick box. How about- people are non religious? I am not an atheist, i'm simply not able to put a tick in any of the religious boxes.
Why do I have to be pigeon-holed - again? My humanism and atheism do rather well without subjugating future growth to a 'new group'. No thanks. Plus, as a white middle-class male - my monkey-brain is doomed from the start with Jen and company IMHO.
Interesting combination, atheism + feminism, especially since feminism itself is a (secular) religion. Feminists believe in invisible structures ("the patriarchy") and dogmas that must never be questioned, scientific facts that contradict their dogmas are ignored and they polarize their community.
Reeeaaaallly???? !!!
I liked the idea of Atheism+ so much, I signed up.
What I found was a forum so politically correct that it was not politically correct to say politically correct.
Atheism+ is clearly for hypersensitive atheists who miss the feeling of moral indigence theists get by marking things as blasphemous.
Atheism+ is atheism + sacred cows + ideological purity through lingual fascism.
This is no "New Movement", just a few Bloggers who've got a little bit carried away, best forgotten &/or ignored.☮
I would not have had even a single thought about Atheism+, had not the Oligarchs of said group - McCreight, Carrier, and overlord Myers - not made very disparaging comments about the fitness of anyone who would not willingly join the 'club' to even be called an Atheist.
This is not a New New form of Atheism, but a power-grab on the part of the Radfem fringe, and their Eunuch followers...
Apparently, the phrase "politically correct" has given lots of people a way of dismissing calls to treat people ethically (you know: morality) without having to use their brains.
Atheism+ The one-stop solution to all your Weltanschauung needs, correct ethics for all occasions.
Atheism+ The one-stop solution to all your Weltanschauung needs, correct ethics for all occasions.
The humanism espoused by Atheism + is nothing other than the political correctness entrenched in humanities departments in American universities for four decades. Radical feminists have a long history of coopting not only university departments but also other political movements. Atheism + is yet another putsch, this one aimed at atheists, as if atheists were a monolithic demographic amenable to proselytism. Because of this, Atheism + is doomed to fail. Most atheists will see through the movement's reliance on dogma and reject it with the derision it deserves, though stalwarts within the movement will persist. Their persistence may yield yet another branch of feminism to take root in humanities departments in American universities, but only after the Atheism + label has been abandoned.
This Atheism+ is dead on arrival because of massive opposition online from moderate, conservative & even liberal atheists. I hope this puts to rest the old, lazy, ignorant propaganda of the Religious Right, that atheism is liberalism. You can have whatever politics you want without believing in fairies.
From what I can tell the only difference between Secular Humanism and Atheism+ is Jen's Feminist agenda and misogynistic paranoia...But it seems that she has decided to do a vanishing act and not defend her position...
I have no problem with atheists. But as soon as they start adding "positives" to their grand "negative" concerning the supernatural, they become just as fideistic as any religious believer. And to their sentimental humanistic waffle, this latest bunch has added the supreme trivialities of political correctness and identity politics. Ye Merry Gods!
Sincere, yes. Misguided, I think so.
It's sad that the politically-correct left are so substanceless and relativistic to always resort to attacking Richard Dawkin's character. Yes, he's white, posh, arrogant and not charismatic. Guess what? He's also right. He's also one of the few public intellectuals in this country to actively stand up against the child-abuse facilitating Pope, the fundamental problems with Islam, and the vast problems of religion in our state education. We don't need a new atheism. We need a populace grown up enough to realise that mass delusion is never a good thing - and tickling it gently isn't going to make it go away.
In friendly debates with theists, I spend much of my time explaining that atheism is not a belief system. It only describes what we don't believe. Atheism is not, in fact an "ism", the word is a-[without]-theism. As soon as I think that point is coming across, somebody wants to coin a term for a belief system which includes the word atheism. No! Why would you name a belief system after what you don't beleive? There are tons of things we don't believe in besides theism; astrology, homeopathy, fairies, etc. Quit muddying the waters. Secular humanism works just fine, thank you.
As someone once told me, it's because the faith delusion is like an addiction. Not unlike alcoholics, rabid people of faith claim atheists are also really just like them. In other words, if everyone else has the same problem, it's a way for them to feel normal.
Sad really.
What you describe already exists. It's called secular humanism, or just humanism.
Unfortunately unless Atheistic movements start to promise followers eternal life then they'll always struggle to build a mass following. The competition is killing us!
Atheism is just the start. We do need to throw off the shackles of religious belief systems. But I suppose this is the reason early atheist groups are filled with cantankerous naysayers - they were the ones who first said "NO" to religion. But we've had naysayers throughout history. None of them have been able to build a replacement belief system that was sticky enough (true enough) to bring down religion in a lasting way. Atheism+ has the right goals, but the wrong name. It's not about what we don't believe in, it's about what we do live for. Evolutionary Philosophy is the new belief system for atheists. Non religious, science based, progressive, inclusive, and evolving. EvPhil.com
'Atheism is just the start.'
Atheism is a non-starter. It's a bit like stamping one's foot. People just carry on.
'We do need to throw off the shackles of religious belief systems.'
That's been done, outside sharia.
What is in a name. How do you self identify.
I self identify as an agnostic/atheist, Skeptic and Humanist (best fit). My values are my own and there are no ideologies that I hold as central. I can be swayed by the truth of a position not by its perceived outcomes.
I am agnostic in that I cannot know if there is a god, I am atheist in that I do not believe there is a god due to lack of evidence of its existence.
Along comes atheism+
I am agnostic in that I cannot know if there is a god, I am atheist in that I do not believe there is a god due to lack of evidence of its existence, I stand for social justice, I stand for womans rights, I stand against racism, I stand against homophobia and transphobia, I use critical thinking and skepticism................wait a sec...........where is mens rights??? I want to stand for equal rights why cant I, I'm an atheist.
I self identify as an agnostic, skeptic and humanist.
I have just been disenfranchised by atheism +. This wouldn't happen if they called themselves something like Atheists for social Justice and Human rights.
The big issue here is naming rights, Atheism+ does not sufficiently distinguish itself from atheism and so tries to draw us all into one big net, if you don't fit you are not one of us.
"That sounds like, at least PARTY (sic), a negative programme"
Mr. Jones, please have enough respect for your readers to proof you work before you post it.
Got to love a typo, in an comment complaining about a typo!
"an comment"...
Got to love a typo, in a comment making fun of a comment complaining about a typo! heh ;)
Men are bigger and stronger than women so why should men not take advantage of women? After all it is not like there is a god out there saying anything different. Right?
William Reed you are a moron.
With Boobquake in Iran and multiple beheadings for same-sex dancing in Afganistan it strikes me that there are more pressing sexism issues in this world..... Yawn yawn same old western feminist reaction to something which is clearly not misogyny.
It is never enough to be an atheist - eventually you get communism as in Russia or china, or North Korea seeking to stamo out faith- or militant new atheist, and that is because the spirit of the anti-christ uses poor hapless souls who are blind to God's love
It is never enough to be an atheist - eventually you get communism as in Russia or china, or North Korea seeking to stamo out faith- or militant new atheist, and that is because the spirit of the anti-christ uses poor hapless souls who are blind to God's love
You are joking, yes?
There's always one.
this discussion like all others that are not homogenous in their conclusions strides purposefully away from the central point of what atheism really means: there is no logical reason to believe that any of these mythologies are literally true. I can't understand how a religious person of any sect can get past the fact that there are thousands of competing myths all bearing the obvious hand of a human author that they DON'T believe yet somehow this one tale, so utterly like the others is absolute truth. have we no humility? do we understand nothing of human nature when we look at the near-endless cosmos and see ourselves and don't realize immediately that we are not seeing the cosmos at all but only the inside of our own tightly closed eyelids?? or said differently: how unsurprising that a notoriously ego-centric hominid species should imagine themselves the center of something so vast.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Isnt the intellectual argument that none of them are true just as arrogant that one of them is true. I know who loves me and who saved me.
Don't tell me, let me guess. Mithra (amirite?)☮
No, of course not. Adhering to one involves wilfully lying to people about what is real with no evidence and moreover damning, marginalising and demonising those that do not adhere to the same belief. Refusing to adhere to any is tantamount to an honest admission that there is no evidence for any of them and that therefore one shouldn't make claims about reality based on complex positive assumptions and guesswork rooted in fictions - let alone expecting others to make the same assumptions on pain of being regarded as fallen, lost, blinded by some satan character and execrable by the god character that is the proxy for the believer's own adopted attitudes. Atheism allows that theists can be intelligent and excellent persons, but just deluded. Biblical theism requires that non-believers, at minimum, are fools as a starting point (the fool has said in his heart that there is no god).and that's the mildest attack in the doctrine.
Do you understand now?