Jessica Ice, president of “Individuals for Freethought,” responded (”Free thinkers speak out: We need no dogma“) yesterday in the K-State Collegian to Levi Russell’s article (”Freethought group contradicts own principles“).  In his article, Mr. Russell attempts (badly) to contradict the tenants of freethought, including an implied criticism of the right of the group to exist.  Criticizing the freethought movement, even if the criticisms are false, is at least acceptable discourse.  When criticizing the group’s existence in a free marketplace of ideas, that crosses over into bigotry.  Would Mr. Russell write an article criticizing a different religious faith’s student group’s premise as “hopelessly illogical?”  This is doubtful, because unlike the religious in the United States, bigotry against atheists is still tacitly accepted and in some cases openly encouraged.  Rightfully, Ms. Ice doesn’t let him get away with this:

To say the premise of a freethinking group is “hopelessly illogical” is to undermine its importance in a democratic state, especially on a campus that has more than 30 religious groups. Individuals for Freethought is the only organized voice for non-theists on the K-State campus. I think students should value diversity and acceptance of new ideas that question dogma, and do not harm others. We should not have to live in fear of losing our free speech as we saw with the desecration of our chalking.

I’ve been a part of the nonreligious movement for a long time, and I have never seen anyone in our movement criticize a group in which like-minded theists congregate in such a way.  We criticize the beliefs and ideas, as the writer of the attack article can do with our views, but he goes too far, attacking the group for supposedly contradicting its own principals, principals of which Mr. Russell clearly doesn’t even understand.  We would never tell others that they are illogical for forming a group based around shared viewpoints.  That is an important part of an open society.

Ms. Ice’s continued response shows exactly why the article is bunk, and explains why we have every right to be open about our ideas, and will no longer be silence by religious bigots.  As is to be expected in such articles, Mr. Russell’s contains the same tired, flawed, and downright ridiculous arguments that tend to be so logically inconsistent as to need no opposition.

It is true that calling arguments “tired” can be a fallacy.  Theists use that argument against atheist’s arguments all the time.  The difference is that the arguments they target are repeated because they are supported by the facts.  Mr. Russell’s arguments are not just patently false, but ridiculous altogether.  They show themselves to be untrue on their face.  These are the type of arguments that I – even when I was a believer – would have been embarrassed to see another believer use.  Now, as a nonbeliever, I see it as another example of the fact that we are ultimately on our way to winning both the culture war, and winning our right to exist as opposition to the prevalent unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs.
Read the rest of this entry »

Kathleen M. Goodman and John A. Mueller published a great article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Atheist Students on Campus: From Misconceptions to Inclusion.”  The authors discuss the need for colleges to help atheist students break away from misconceptions about atheists and to have access to the same personal resources as religious students.  One of the best points they bring up supporting the need for such resources is that although atheism is not a religion, atheists are concerned with many of the same issues as religious students.

[...] many students who identify as atheist – or related designations, such as humanist or free thinker – are, in fact, quite thoughtful about their purpose, morals, and values.

In fact, as a marginalized group, atheists need these resources more than those in the religious majority.

Atheist students, however, tend to be cautious about whom they share their perspective with because they do not want to offend others or make them uncomfortable. Nor do they want to be put in the position of having to defend their worldview. To avoid being thought of as people with no morals or life purpose who are destined for hell, they choose to remain invisible.

Along with the general recommendation that colleges “create an environment that encourages atheist students to come forward and share their views,” the authors recommend five main actions:

• “Create a welcoming environment for atheist students.”
• “Include atheism in student programming.”
• “Ensure that atheists can, like other students, explore their inner development.”
• “Create safe spaces that are “atheist only” for student.”
• “Look to other institutions for best practices.”

There is a lot of great discussion about the marginalization of campus atheists, misconceptions about them, as well as more on actions colleges should take.  A lot of what is discussed is just as valid for American culture in general. The misconceptions and bigotry mirrors that in the outside world.  Unfortunately, it is likely that any institutionalized attempts at making atheists feel the least bit welcome on campus will be fought tooth and nail by those with an irrational hatred and fear of those who do not share their beliefs, or any belief – that is, if any colleges take their advice.