Norman Ralph

Since leaving university and stepping down from my positions with the AHS and Leeds Atheist Society I have had quite a bit of free time on my hands, much of which has been spent looking at new ways of developing a national identity for atheists.

I don’t know how many of you will have ever tried looking at how many different groups exist for atheists and the seemingly endless associated groups, humanists, secularists, brights, freethinkers, rationalists, sceptics etc, but there are a lot. Almost every conceivable name and wordplay related to atheism, humanism, secularism etc has been used and there is a group set up. However, the majority of these groups have relatively low numbers and small areas of influence. In fact with the exception of the British Humanist Association and National Secular Society, these groups receive little to no national attention.

I think this is a problem. I think it is perhaps a greater problem, however, that there is no unified group representing all non-religious people. Whilst it is true that no two atheists (and I will use atheist from now on as an umbrella term for anyone who describes themselves as non-religious) have the same desires, ambitions or even world views, they do tend to exhibit broadly similar political and ethical views. These views should be expressed to decision makers, politicians and commercial leaders. Atheists should have a national voice that should be listened to.

Having spent some time with the BHA I can report that they do sterling work in the name of humanism and the NSS, likewise for secularism but they don’t represent enough people. Their image is not attractive to young atheists, for example, and their membership demographics highlight this. There is a need for a unifying brand to be created and heavily marketed. The most difficult thing for atheists to grasp at the moment seems to be the need to start running an organised, national atheist centred organisation that represents everyone, regardless of the name they call themselves. Moreover, this organisation needs to be run like a business.

The more time I spend delving into local and regional groups, and even some of the larger national groups, is the feeling that they are not meant to be attracting new faces, finding new blood. What is more depressing is the fact that the large organisations do not have the resources or, seemingly, the desire to recruit and retain members.

In order to develop the kind of business, the kind of brand that I have alluded to above, requires a rethink of how atheist organisations should approach marketing, recruitment and ultimately their basic business model. People in today’s world are consumers. We consume everything. We should start appreciating this fact and begin to treat members and potential members like customers and potential customers respectively. If atheist organisations approached recruitment like a service brand approaches their customer base I believe they would be far more successful.

These organisations need to start marketing themselves not as a luxury, discretionary purchase such as a large screen TV or an expensive tailor made holiday, but an essential! Once you have started to change people’s minds about how essential their worldview is to their lives then you can start to turn your customers into fans. Brand loyalty is something that the religious organisations have built up and the strength of this loyalty is stronger than that of household names like Coca-Cola and Sky. Atheists should be aiming for that kind of loyalty.

This kind of loyalty can only be developed if atheists stop thinking of themselves as idealists and start thinking of themselves as offering a service, a product.

I’ve just finished reading a blog post on moderation and anti-fundamentalism and it got me thinking about a number of things. Firstly, is the age old question of fundamentalism. Is it wrong to believe something so strongly that you pursue it with all your might, literally in some cases? I still cannot make up my mind, my fellow A-Soc member Chris Worfolk says that moderation in religion is wrong, a cop out even in his article “The problem With Religious Moderates”. I am not entirely convinced by his arguments, I like to think that there is room even within the most deep set of principles for self censorship and the need to balance your convictions against the freedom of those around you. It is important as a religious commentator that balance is given to all arguments. It is fine blasting non-fundamentalists for failing at their religion as long as you continue that crusade against all non-fundamentalists in every walk of life. Every conviction out there can be followed fundamentally. If fundamentalism was to be applauded then shouldn’t we all be members of the BNP or the Communist Party? Extremism is not the same as fundamentalism, I think it is important that is clarified, but all fundamentalists are extremists in the modern sense.

I like the idea of fundamentalism, I think it allows an easy life. The rules and thought processes are simple. you just follow the guidelines set down by your conviction be it religion, racism, anti-semetism or just that all meals must be eaten at the dinner table! However, there is no flexibility in it, which is the crux of the issue for me. We need flexibility. We need to be able to say “wait a minute?”. There must be room for criticism, for question, for reason.

As an atheist I am often barraged with the question, “But, isn’t Atheism a religion?”. I am often forced to concede that certain aspects of the atheists beliefs can be construed as religious. Especially with idealogies such as Buddhism and Humanism. I, however, an neither of the above. I am an atheist. I have no reason to believe ina god or gods, so I don’t. Is it, therefore, possible for me to be a fundamentalist atheist? I am sure that there are many out there who would say that some of my actions within A-Soc and in public could be cinstrued as fundamental. I am not known for my lack of convictions. However, as a rational thinker I require flexibility. None of my convictions are set in stone. This would pique the author of the initial article as he suggests that weak convictions are a curse on society. it would also cause some concern for my esteemed colleague, Chris, as he maintains his convisitons as the bedrock of his motivation to pursue his goals for A-Soc World Domination!

Anyway, I hope some of you enjoyed this little discussion and I welcome your comments on the issue!

Wow.

What a week! Rationalist Week has been an unbelievable success, a success far beyond even our most optimistic expectations. We were hoping for maybe one or two members and a few people coming into the tent. Instead we filled a membership book, raised the awareness of the society to the point that we are pretty much the talk of the union at the moment, we also managed to be full pretty much every day. Early indications suggest we were attracting a hundred people a day with about a 50% return rate in terms of people coming back over and over. The debates were in depth and relavent most of the time and the effort that most of the A-Soc membership put in was phenominal.

A massive thanks to the crew: Chris (El Presidente) for pretty much organising and funding the event singlehandedly; Claire for her constant cheerfulness – even in the face of adversity – and total support; Paul for his input, which although contraversial at times really sparked debate; Moz, for the tents and his help with really getting people involved and active in the discussions; Rich, for his enthusiasm and desire to be involved; finally, every person over the week who sat down and spoke to us, those who got involved and those who gave us the feedback we need to ensure that next year is even better! We couln’t have done it without you!

So a run-down of the events.

Monday was ok, quiet for the most part, but we did get some interest and learned a lot very quickly about what we could and couldn’t do. The talks attracted a few people, but by far and away this was our worst day in terms of turn out.

Tuesday saw a massive pick up in attendence. The word was getting out. We were attracting a real mix of people. A lot of atheists popped in to talk and see where and what we stood for. We attracted a lot of Christians – a theme that continued throughout the week – who wanted to ask us many things. The debates were starting to heat up and the biscuiots were starting to disappear. Unfortunately, we had to cope for a second day without a generator. The evening talk from Chris was not well attended, we got about six people. We needed to push these evening events, they were our flagship after all.

Wednesday was our best day to date. We were full for the first time, we had standing room only and quite a few people were! The discussion was getting deeper and the feedback we were getting was very very positive. We also had a new generator! Things were going well. Mike Lake, the guest speaker from Derby Secularists, spoke at the evening event. This was slightly better attended than Tuesday, but still a disappointing turnout. The talk was excellent. He really knew his stuff on why ideas should always be open to ridicule, mockery and insult. I recommend you watch the video when it becomes available.

Thursday continued in the same vein as Wednesday, we were swamped all day. The work was really starting to pay off now. Thursday night saw the much anticipated debate with the CU. Chris and I had been preparing all day and were as up for this as anything. The debate was amazing, great arguments were put forward by both sides on the motion “this house believes there is enough evidence that Jesus was the son of god.” Felicity, the Debate Soc president, chaired the debate and was simply brilliant. She kept everything running smoothly and even managed to control unwanted outbursts from the audience. A-Soc lost the vote on the motion unsurprisingly – the CU had brought a contingent of about 100 people! The turnout was great, it was really overwhelming to see a full lecture theatre! The feedback we got in the pub afterwards suggested that we had won the argument as well!

Friday, the final day, was relatively quiet in the morning. This gave us a good chance to reflect on the week and start to put together some findings. Business picked up in the afternoon and we started to really see the benefit of having week long events, The continuity and depth of the debate was really evident by now. I think we were really effecting people and, more improtantly, effecting change. A couple of trips to Tesco later and we were ready for our final event – the all night debate.

We were dead until about midnight when it really kicked off. We probably had twenty people in the tent at any one time. We got through 40 cups of tea, uncountable cold drinks and 160 hotdogs! The event was a massive success! We really made a difference. Thanks to those of you that stayed up to 4am to help out. We couldn’t have pulled this night off without you.

Rich, Chris and I then set about dismantling everything, tidying up and storing all the equipment. It was a good time, we really noticed the bond that had grown after a week together. it got to 9am before Chris and I finally finished.

Now I could sleep!

While at Sarann’s this week, I got involved in a long conversation about religion and rationalism with Kat, Sarann and Joanna.

I am a Rationalist, I belive in what I can prove. I do not believe in a god because I can define no experiment that can prove their existence independently. This means that I cannot consider myself Christian and live according to the Bible. At this stage Sarann pipes up with “Am I a girl?”, an interesting question as how can I belive Sarann is a girl without any evidence? After some debate on definition, I decided the only way to prove Sarann was a girl was by testing her chromosones. However, I act as if she were a girl without this evidence, so – as Joanna asked – why can I not believe in God existing and live my life according to the Bible without the proof? An interesting point.

I decided that, ultimately, the answer lies in the methodology of the proof process. I can define an experiment that can prove that Sarann is a female, this experiment would have repeatable outcomes that could be verified by any number of witnesses. I cannot say the same for proving the existence of a god. I think, in the end that rationalism is determined by the definitions one applies to a situation. I am rationalist and define my rationalism by saying I choose to belive that a god does not exist because there is no evidence to the contrary and that Sarann is a girl becasue there is no evidence to the contrary. Would it be wrong for the opposite to be true? I.e. could it be rational to believe that a god exists until their is proof to the contrary and that Sarann is a boy until there is proof to the contrary? I think not.

This conclusion has led me to the belief that you can be rational and religious.