Maybe the Atheist-Gay "Come Out of the Closet" Analogy Isn't the Best One to Use...

[LAGC]

I was just thinking about this, I know Richard Dawkins used the analogy in his book that atheists are at the point where gays were 50 years ago, and that its time for atheists to just come out of the closet en masse. The only problem with that analogy, is that gays aren't out to change straight people, they just want acceptance, whereas the "new atheist" agenda is very clear about wanting to convince people to stop believing in religion. That could partially explain why society shows more tolerance for gay people than it does for atheists, there isn't this threat of conversion coming from gay quarters, even though some of the right-wing spin doctors like to spin it that way. ("The homosexuals can't breed, so they grow their ranks by recruiting our youth!" yada yada ya).

I just wonder if maybe Richard should quit using that analogy when encouraging atheists to "come out", although I agree with him that there'd at least be more acceptance if atheists did all "come out" and make their views known to friends and family, as it would be harder for people to hate those who they were exposed to on a daily basis, once they realized most were decent people after all.

Am I off-base here?

[salvorhardin]

1. Not all atheists want the same things.

Thinking that there's some kind of overarching atheist agenda is making the same mistake many religious believers make about atheists. There are many atheists who would be pleased with just acceptance, toleration, and a high wall of separation between church and state.

[JI7]

2. imagine how it is for gays who are atheist

gays aren't out to change straight people as the new atheist agenda?

it's the religious who are always out trying to change people using horrible means including violence.

[RKP5637]

3. IMO going back through time and now, religion has consistently been at the

root of much evil. I agree with Bill Maher on religion. What irks me about religion is generally they are trying to force it on other people.

If they've found something that they personally find is so F'en great for them then fine, but no, they can't stop there, they have to try to shove it on everyone else and that crosses the line for me. And now, they seem to want a theocracy. Damn, but these people PO me.

[humblebum]

10. Yes, New Atheists are generally very tolerant people.

"What irks me about religion is generally they are trying to force it on other people."


"whereas the "new atheist" agenda is very clear about wanting to convince people to stop believing in religion."

[darkstar3]

11. Don't buy the BS.

There is no "new atheist agenda". Just like there is no "gay agenda".

[darkstar3]

4. Yes, you are.

A. You fall into the same trap of mischaracterizing the supposed "new atheist agenda" that many believers fall into.
B. There is no better analogy for a person who conceals their true nature in order to be accepted than "being/hiding in the closet," mostly because it's one that has been around and understood for so long. The comparison between atheists and gays in this regard is very apt.

[pinboy3niner]

5. "once they realized most were decent people after all."

They won't stop hating--they'll feel even more threatened.

Large numbers of gays coming out didn't cure homophobia, and defending hetero marriage against "the gay" remains a priority for far too many people (and it's still codified in federal law).

That most Democrats are decent people was never hidden, but suddenly a whole lot of people believe Democrats are America-hating fascists and "socilists" who are DESTROYING the country and "want the terrorists to win."

More acceptance doesn't seem very realistic. The opposite is more likely to be the case.

[iamjoy]

6. It's A Thought...

But I think perception matters at least as much as reality when it comes to discrimination. The notion that gays wish to "convert" people is sufficient to fuel prejudice against them, it doesn't matter that gays have no mission to "make" others that way.

I think in some ways, religion is like sexual orientation - you're wired one way or another. Either you're inclined to be a person of faith or you aren't. I know it isn't an exact analogy.

I don't think most atheists have any desire to convert others to their way of thinking either. American atheists do take a rather strong view on the whole "establishment of religion" and will fight for "freedom from religion, not just freedom of religion. Some see that as an attempt to "convert." Also, while religion (like politics) is a taboo subject it seems there's more that can be discussed when it comes to religion than sexual orientation. "Why are you an atheist?" is likely to result in an in-depth discussion. "When did you become/decide/realize you were gay?" results in a personal story more likely to be heartfelt and emotional than philosophical. Maybe because the former question usually invites some debate, whereas the latter doesn't. It seems to me that sometimes it is the people of faith who can't leave an atheist alone and in challenging that lack of faith, invite an attack on their own.

I'm not an atheist. I'm more of an agnostic, ignostic or apatheist.

Oh, and this should go without expressing, but I know sexual orientation is not a matter of choice and so one cannot become or decide to be gay, neither can they "convert" others - I make these statements as representations of other opinions I have heard.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Thank you for your intelligent and well reasoned reply.

It's encouraging to see so many well informed DUers posting in this thread - believers, non and everyone in-between. :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I disagree with "Either you're inclined to be a person of faith or you aren't"

Look at the wide variation of levels of religious belief between countries. It's far more a function of culture and the environment you grow up in, or live in as an adult, than any innate tendency. Your tendency to have religious (or supernatural) beliefs may not be something under conscious control, but it's not 'how you're wired'.

And I'd agree with the OP that some of The New Atheists want to change societies to be a place where religious belief has as little influence as possible. I think it's fair to talk about Dawkins' agenda, for instance.

[iamjoy]

13. Strange How There Are No Gays...

I mean, there don't seem to be a lot of gay people in countries like Iran. Since it is the way one is, you would expect a more or less even or proportional distribution across the world population. We know it isn't really that there aren't gays in Iran, but that those there live a lie, or perhaps don't even have the freedom or context to recognize who they really are.

When it comes to religion, a government can force a person observe the rituals and laws, especially if death is the penalty for violation. That does not mean those people will find meaning in those rituals. Some may observe it because it is part of the culture, but that does not mean they find it spiritually fulfilling.

Well, gay people could marry the opposite gender. Many do because they have not recognized or admitted to their identity and they are trying to fit in to the societal norms. You know, they're just be going through the motions because it is a function of the culture and environment. I know it isn't an exact analogy because saying a prayer that is really just words with no significance may be annoying and boring, but to actually be intimate with some one who is wrong for you...

And there is nothing wrong with trying to minimize the influence of religion in public life. I'm glad we got rid of Sunday Laws and payers to Jesus in our public schools. That's different than telling some one they can't be religions, or trying to "convert" them. You can keep your faith, but keep it to yourself, in your home and in your church.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I agree there's nothing wrong with trying to minimize religious influence

I don't see 'an agenda' as necessarily a bad thing. Political parties have agendas; so do human rights activists, environmentalists, and so on. I'd like less influence in my own country (the Church of England is 'official', and gets some seats in the House of Lords, for instance).

Yes, governments can force people into observing religious rituals under pain of punishment, and they can also force homosexuals to pretend to be heterosexual. But relatively few countries do force religious observance, and, in particular, there's wide variation of levels of religious belief between developed countries, although they do not force observance. There may be social pressure to conform to a particular religion, but I don't think it often manages to get people to live their lives as a lie. How often is non-attendance at a church every Sunday actually used as a way to victimise someone? Perhaps in small rural communities, but in an urban environment where people inevitably go to different churches from their neighbours anyway, I don't think it happens in the developed world.

I think many people really do change their beliefs during their lives - it's not just "at last, I can tell people what I have always thought". People who have spent part of their adult life in a religion, and who end up as a non-believer, normally say they thought about issues, or decided something, or were disgusted by the religion's attitude to something or to some people. It's a rational process, not an unmasking. So I don't think 'wired' is a suitable description.

[MindPilot]

7. You say the gay/atheist analogy isn't appropriate and then actually use the term

"Atheist agenda". You have answered your own question.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Yes, you are.

The only "Atheist Agenda" I'm aware of is to uphold the separation of church and state and there's nothing new about it.

"New" atheists just refuse to sit down and shut up.

Anti-theists might want to see the end organized religion, but I know of none who would de-convert the religious or throw them in prison.

I didn't choose to be an atheist and I'm sick and tired of having to worry about keeping my dirty little secret.

Don't buy into the "new atheist agenda" meme, it's no more credible than the "homosexual agenda".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. I think there are some obvious differences, certainly.

One is that most atheists think that it is beneficial for other people to be atheists, whereas most homosexuals don't care about anyone's sexuality other than their own. Another is that there is fairly clearly a large genetic component to sexuality, whereas I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that genes play any part in propensity to religious belief.

[Goblinmonger]

16. You certainly aren't an "It" getter, that's for sure.

It has been said above me, but it bears repeating, go back to when the coming out movement hit the gay community and take a look at all the rhetoric about the gay agenda and how they were going to make others gay. No come back and read your post and the posts of many others who talk about the atheist agenda.

Hopefully you get it now.