cultural-identity, activism-promotion, proselytizingUsually, various religions try to “forcefeed” people with their beliefs and give you flyers, build temples, etc, to gain followers and prestige.
If you don’t believe in a higher power, you are usually discouraged from doing the same.
In addition, there isn’t such thing as an organization (though that’s fine, who would want a non-stamp collectors guild).
Since advocating atheism is perceived by thesists as advocating apostasy, which in many religions is a sin, it is both offensive and amoral to theists. It is also deeply ingrained in many religions that denying god (and his love) is an affront to god himself.
I think this comes, at least in large part, from how much of a challenge to someone's belief system a certain thing is. To help exemplify that, let's take it to something in the scientific realm: which of the following statements would be more challenging to you to hear?
The value of acceleration of gravity on earth is 9.812 meters per second per second, not 9.81.
Or:
Gravity doesn't actually exist, it's a myth. Things fall to the earth because Fred said they should, and that's all there is to it.
Perhaps you laugh at the latter as being absurd, but if someone was seriously trying to convince you of it, wouldn't it start to ruffle your feathers, so to speak?
So, attempting to take on the mindset of the theist, then, which is harder to hear?
Your God isn't the true God, because the true God actually considers Saturday to be the Sabbath, not Sunday.
Or:
Your God doesn't exist. No god exists. Your whole belief system is based on a myth.
Surely the latter would be more of a challenge to the person's beliefs, yes? The former (in each pair of examples) is just a squabble over details. The latter is a fundamental mind-shift. And while many scientists embrace the idea of having our minds changed, and having to radically re-think things, in general, it's something that people (including scientists) find difficult to do, frequently resorting to denial as a defense mechanism -- because it's just that traumatic to imagine that your whole belief system is fundamentally flawed. That's just... a lot to process, and that's overwhelming, and overwhelming is scary, and thus to be avoided and protected against. Enter defense mechanisms -- whether it's fighting back (hostility towards (or, in the words of the question, "looking down on") atheism), denial, or whatever else.
Typically thoughts and ideas that are in the minority are resisted as many people are resistant to change. Getting people to believe the Sun was the center of the solar system treated much the same as getting people to believe there is no God is today.
I think Man as a species has a need for community, which has grown into Religion. Religion provides common rituals, and rites of passages which unite a people.
Unfortunately theistic religion can tie the rituals to a magical/paranormal/supernatural element. – ex: Baptism is no longer about welcoming a child into the world, and congratulating a new family. – It’s about the idea of Sin, and washing away Sin. Similarly a Briss is about a covenant between a people and ‘The Big Guy In The Sky.’
Refusing to marry outside the Faith isn’t ‘Prejudice’ it’s Divine request. (For certain Jews)
Atheism by itself does not have that ritual, and can poke fun at the deeply held beliefs of the theistic. – Thus theistic people feel threatened.
I’d also add that it’s threatening. People like to be set in their ways. Across a variety of subject.. politics, equality, society, economics, religion, even sports. When you have a strong point against somebody that has little to know points, there is little for them to do but to get angry. I’m sure you’ve done it before when you’ve been cornered in a heated argument. I have :)
Many people are used to the idea that it’s rude to talk about religion, all the more so to challenge it. Advocating a rationalist approach to religious claims is therefore seen as intrusive interference.
I think there’s a difference between making converts, and just building stronger bonds within an existing community. Theists (except for Jehovah’s witnesses, who are looked down upon) are generally doing the latter, whereas atheists are generally doing the former.
Its not in the where I live http://www.humanism.org.uk/home
I have to agree with Nim Chimpsky that it isn’t always looked down upon (at least by other atheists), and there certainly are groups that do proselytize (e.g. http://www.secularstudents.org/ or http://www.centerforinquiry.net/ in my country). Interesting to note is that (as in Nim’s example), the word “Atheist” is usually avoided, because, as you say, who would want a non-stamp-collector’s guild? For one prominent example of a group that uses “Atheist” in the title (and proselytizes with billboards), see http://www.atheists.org/.
As for a potential reason for why some atheists do not like to promote atheism directly, I’ve heard everything from “It’s too much like religion” to “It’s just plain wrong to force your beliefs on others”. As there isn’t actually that much between these responses, I think the answer lies somewhere around here, from the atheist (as opposed to theist) perspective.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.