The march of the atheist movement
First it was a bus, now a student body has been formed to spread the secular word
In the rush-hour traffic on High Holborn, commuters were getting off one of many London buses that carry an advert proclaiming the beginning of Psalm 53: "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."
But, in a theatre down the road, hundreds had gathered to proclaim exactly that – that there is indeed no God and those who think there is one are, in fact, the real fools.
Greeted by a cardboard cutout of Darwin, they gathered in Conway Hall, the headquarters of the Ethical Society, for the creation of the first national student body to represent and lobby for the rights of young British atheists.
The launch of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies – which the founders have agreed to shorten to the abbreviated AHS – is the latest in a series of pro-secular movements that have sprung up to oppose what they believe is a growing pandering towards religious groups.
With scientists and rationalists celebrating the bicentenary of Darwin's birth this year, the timing is more than apt. But the creation of this latest manifestation of atheism reveals a renaissance over the past three years for secular and humanist ideals that began with Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion and only recently manifested itself in the popular atheist bus campaign, in which double deckers carried the message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
There was once a time when those ideals were, of course, commonplace. Two centuries ago, progressive intellectuals of the post-Enlightenment age were all too happy to predict the end of religion, that the triumph of science and reason would win out and that man would turn away from God. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, meanwhile, student atheist groups were a vibrant and influential part of university life. Thinking the battle had been won, they largely died out two decades ago .
But, as religious conflict spreads once again throughout the world, throwing the Western world into a so-called clash of civilisations with radical Islam, the time is ripe, according to secularists, for a new religion – a live-and-let-live brand of soft atheism.
Dressed in a sharp suit and sporting a carefully trimmed goatie, 24-year-old Norman Ralph, the newly anointed president of AHS, explained why he feels it is time for Britain's atheists to unite. "I firmly believe that the secular traditions of this country are being openly challenged on all sides," he said. "But I also think there is a growing wave of British atheism sweeping the country and we need to ride that wave. Ever since 9/11 people are being challenged to pick a side. There is such a push at the moment to be politically accepting of religious views that those who don't have a religion are, in fact, missing out. That is a message that I think will be popular to many people."
If the recent atheist bus campaign is any indication, he may be right. When Ariane Sherine, the young comedian behind the adverts, somewhat jokingly suggested that atheists should all donate £5 to sponsor a bus campaign that would spread a secular message rather than the usual Biblical extracts, she was flooded with donations and letters of support.
Her original aim was to raise £5,500 to run 30 bus ads across London for four weeks. Within weeks, the campaign had managed to raise more than £150,000 thanks to a huge response from the public and the financial clout of Dawkins who agreed to match any donations. Over the past month, more than 800 buses across the country have been driving around with the "There's Probably No God" slogan and plans are afoot to place 1,000 more adverts on the Tube system. The idea has also spread abroad, with secular groups in America and Spain being prompted to take out their own bus adverts.
Considering his prominent involvement in the atheist bus campaign it was perhaps no surprise that Professor Dawkins attended the launch of AHS and announced that his charitable foundation would be willing to give support to students who wished to set up an atheist society at university.
"University is a place where people think, a place where people evaluate evidence," the former Oxford don said. "Public statements of non-belief are treated as threatening, an affront to the religious, while the reverse is not true. More concerning is the enduring assumption that religious belief does not have to earn respect like any other view, an approach that has caused politicians and public figures across the UK to withdraw from asking the vital question: why is religion given such special status in government, culture and the media? Why is belief in a higher power an indication of greater moral fortitude, character and acumen? No opinion should be protected from criticism simply by virtue of being religiously held."
Chris Worfolk, a 22-year-old Leeds University graduate, was one of many students who travelled to London for the launch. He said atheists in Leeds initially found it difficult to form their own society because of opposition from students' groups like the Islamic Society and the Christian Union. "It took us a long time to get our society up and running. There was a lot of opposition," he said. "One of the issues we are trying to lobby the university on is the serving of halal meat in the canteens."
Chloë Clifford-Frith, who recently graduated from St Hilda's in Oxford, said students today had a duty to promote atheist ideas: "We live in a world where religious governments execute adulterers and homosexuals, deny women and minority groups basic freedoms, circulate fraudulent claims about contraception and scientific research and create laws that protect them from criticism," she said. "We are privileged, in such a world, to live in a country where we can even have this debate. As such, we have a duty to bring it into our universities and beyond."
Taking a stand: Notable non-believers
Diagoras of Melos
Often referred to as the "first atheist", Diagoras was a poet and sophist who openly spoke out against religion in ancient Greece and was forced to flee Athens for doing so. Unfortunately, little record of what he thought survives although we know that he publicly questioned the Eleusinian Mysteries, an elaborate series of ceremonies.
Albert Einstein
Einstein was regularly asked if he thought there was a god. In developing the theory of relativity, he realised there must have been a beginning to the universe. The question he struggled with was what came before the beginning? He concluded: "I do not believe in a personal God. If something is in me which can be called religion, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Mark Twain
A fearsome critic of organised religion, Twain wrote many of the soundbites atheists repeat today, such as: "If Christ were here, there is one thing he would not be: a Christian." Born in 1835, a year Halley's comet was seen, he ironically predicted "the Almighty" would take him next time the comet passed near Earth. He died in 1910, two weeks after the comet was spotted once more.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
ATA ALPA SAID GOD IS GOD INTI
ATA WALPA INIT
A THEIST
A THEORIST
A PERSON WITHNO GOD AND A THEORY
SECULARIST
A PERSON WITH GOD AND THE DEVIL IN PARLIAMENT
TAOIST
A WAYFARER
PAYGAN
MUD
Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 87 in Books
Popular in these categories:
#1 in Books > Mind, Body & Spirit > Thought & Practice > Theosophy
#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion
#4 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > New Age
Michael
I think that says a lot for Einstein's support of atheist thought.
Sana
Don't quote out of context. Einstein said in the same letter:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
What Einstein meant by the passage you quoted is that he doesn't subscribe to any doctrine that is dogmatic, hence his agnostic stance. He was a scientist and used evidence for theories. As there is no evidence for a God, and of course for the opposite theory, then his only stance as a scientist was to sit on the proverbial fence. He was tired of religious indoctrination and equally that of Atheism because it ruled out a lot of things that he could not prove. Einstein was not being smart about this, simply a realist. How could he substantiate such a claim.
As for religion it is a flawed concept; a human concept. Anything involving the intelligence of the human mind is ultimately flawed. Religion was invented by humans for a number of reasons, the most important being lack of understanding of the natural world. People who subscribe to religion cannot accept the idea of their ancestors being apes as much as Atheists cannot understand the idea we were created out of thin air.
"In the beginning there was the heaven and the earth and the land was void and bare in the face of the deep... there was nothing... and God said let there be light... and there was light and he saw that is was good... there was still nothing but you could see it a whole lot better." Ellen Degeneres, lesbian and comedienne (everything religion hates in their women)
'Faith is believing what you know ain't so'.
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
I too am concerned about the March of fundamental religions, and the need fundamentalists have to force their views on everyone else. But anything can become a religion.
A question; do extreme Christians have more common cause with extreme Islamists than so called 'atheists' ...Who do they despise more ?
plus is there not a 3rd category between agnostic and atheist ?...as in the 'don't cares' or 'why is there a question' ...
As the "church of apatheism" succinctly puts it: "Simply put ... agnostics don't know, atheists don't believe, and apatheists don't care about the existence of gods."
serious thought on the part of the slogan writers.
God doesnt need to be defended just proclaimed and His love shared This adds to the opportunitiies
We have a national and global population that already far exceeds a level that is sustainable, and it is still growing. I firmly believe that we have been prevented from tackling this problem primarily by the religious faiths.
In the US, for many years, it was impossible to hold a senior public position if one was openly an atheist; even though this was against their constitutional standpoint on freedom of belief; hopefully as Obama acknowledged non-believers in his inaugural speech things might improve there.
Everyone who believes in free speech, whatever other beliefs you espouse, should support any movement which lobbies for secularity; it's the fairest way for believers and non-believers alike. When religious regimes get power they oppress all other beliefs that do not accord with their own (eg persecution of all non-Muslims in Iran). Religious groups already have enormous influence in British schools, the media, and in many spheres of local and national government, and it is often considered un-PC, or even "racist" to question the effects of this influence. It is small wonder that non-religious people are feeling side-lined and are uniting to express their discomfort. it is becoming more necessary than ever - look at the fate of the editor of The Statesman - in India, a multi-faith democracy - arrested for publishing Johan Hari's excellent article questioning why religions should all automatically be accorded respect.
I am endlessly frustrated by the offense which this causes in the people around me. Yet my own offense and distress that my children are forced by the government to worship in school is of no account to these people. You have to be a badge wearing, proselytising christian in my community to be truly accepted. Anything less is an invitation to all and sundry to attempt conversion.
The two things I tire most of having thrown at me are - "This is a christian country" (are they blind?); and that christian schools are better than state schools, by virtue of them being run by christians. I find it a national disgrace that christians receive preferential funding by the government. Government and church should be separate. Even the fundamentalists who sailed off to found America recognised the importance of this. When will we follow their lead in this?
I encourage the debate with atheists, I personally did believe in evolution but realised after much thought how inconsistent and full of flaws it was. The idea of us not having a Creator and doing what we pleased was a powerful and desireable thought, but it defied reasonable thinking of the reality of whats around us. The complexity of this world cannot be defined by a chance, it is merely a complete disregard for logic and rationale that leads a person to conclude that. So as always let the atheists( I was one), secularists, humanists begin their campaign, I just hope they are sincere in learning the truth as what confronts them may well change their opinions and lives forever.
2.'probably' was used to offer a more inclusive standpoint, and to meet advertising standards requirements, as there is no proof for the existence of God/Gods, but no ultimate proof for non-existence either, just as there is no proof for non-existence of fairies.
3.The vast majority of scientists accept that evolution is the best, most consistent argument there is for the world and its inhabitants. Maybe there are some flaws, as there are in all fields of scientific research, that is why research continues, to refine our knowledge, and and seek real, empirical truths. The idea that some magic man in the sky made the planet is simply risible and cannot be taken seriously by anyone with a reasonably developed level of intellect. There is no better existing explanation than that which Evolutionary Biology offers, and I doubt very much that Richard Dawkins would take leave of his sense and abandon a lifetime's work in order to subscribe to superstitious nonsense.
Atheists are NOT trying to hijack secularism. The opposite is the case. Atheists are merely trying to protect secularism (which in my book equates to "Human Rights") from religious tampering.
Religion should be a matter of personal choice and should be separated from matters of state or law. That is the simple principle at stake. Hitherto those of a relgious persuasion have sought to influence both politics and the law, and, sadly, in most countries across the globe have fully or partially succeded.
With the rise of religious extremism, there is bound to be a countering by those who, rightly, feel strongly that no-one should be forced to accept this form of oppression.
Ours is a world haunted by dead Gods and their morbid intercessors. Often they turn to us and point to the world's treasury crammed as it is with living miracles, appealing to our innate aesthetic wonder, saying, 'But all of this; all of this beauty'. And as our reason rarely outpaces our wonder, we sometimes find ourseves folding, physically and mentally, to our knees. But this God they appeal to, this prime mover and first arcitect of the impossible, made the cockroach as well as the peacock. Now plunge, if you can, into the mind that summons such horror and such beauty at will. Isn't such a God truly terrifying? And if He/She/It did exist, would you want to meet them after your journey?