Being an atheist is largely still taboo. There is a joke I have heard numerous times when telling people I am an Atheist; it goes: A vegan and an atheist walk into a bar - I know because they told everyone there. I have also heard Christians openly talk about their religion without this type of response. This is anecdotal evidence, but there is more evidence that atheism is still not a widely accepted perspective. Take for instance the way in which religious institutions are given tax breaks simply for being religious institutions, and that atheist organisations have to fight for this same right. Or that the Queen, the head of the Church of England, is still presiding over the British government. Or that there are suggestions by the Government that more Church of England schools should be opened. These are just a few examples. Britain has become more secular and accepting of secular beliefs, and disbelief is becoming more popular, however, faith is still incredibly potent in the culture of this country, and atheism is still seen in somewhat of a negative light.
Inevitably this led to a reactionary approach by modern atheism. 'New Atheism' is its label, and it is characterised by an active rejection of faith and spirituality and leads towards pure scientific rationalism. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this type of atheist. Richard Dawkins is a great biologist, and his expertise in the theory of evolution is incredible. One thing he does not get, and something which pure scientific rationalism is pretty poor at, is human connectivity. Richard Dawkins is very poor at understanding the reasons that people turn to religions in the first place. He is very poor at persuading people that atheism is a valid alternative that can have the same levels of comfort and wonder. He is very poor at commentating on ongoing social issues, usually asserting his opinion with the same level of confidence as he would a scientific fact. These are not traits exclusive to Richard Dawkins, and they have morphed into a caricature that critics of atheism use to denounce it. It is this type of atheism which leads to the types of jokes I described earlier. It is the confidence and assertions that come along with somebody believing that they only ever think rationally that leads to the appearance of arrogance. No one only ever thinks rationally, and this should not be the goal. People have emotions, limitations and instincts. People make mistakes, have weird thoughts, and vivid imaginations. It is ok to accept some irrationality provided it does not oppress, suppress, bully, dictate, persecute, harm, or humiliate anybody else. It's a fundamental part of being human, and leads to wonderful things like love, art, and creativity. Phobias are a good example of irrational beliefs. I have a phobia of mushrooms and avoid them at all costs. It doesn't affect my life in a particularly big way, and it doesn't harm anyone else. This is just one example, lots of our experiences are by their very nature irrational. When it becomes harmful should be when it is combated.
I am an atheist. So I have a mutual goal that I share with Richard Dawkins, and I would not want to disparage him entirely. He has been a key figure in making atheism an acceptable position in the U.K. However, for atheism to continue to grow, I believe, a new tactic needs to be adopted. A tactic borne from hope, from compassion, and from kindness. We need to be speaking less about how religious institutions are bad, and the damage they have done - undoubtedly this is the case and should not cease entirely, but it does nothing to demonstrate why atheism is any better. We need to be speaking in a less derogatory way about individuals with religious beliefs - and this is different to standing up to any damaging or bigoted views an individual may have as a result of their religion. Certainly, we need to stop characterising religious people as mentally ill, stupid, or childlike - this only puts up barriers, reduces the conversation to insults, and further stigmatises mental illness (because it is meant as an insult). Atheism has a lot to offer people, and what it does have to offer is not often the topic of discussion. The truth about modern atheism is that it needs a reboot. Whilst we need to continue to fight pro-religious bias in politics and institutions, and ensuring that our freedom from religion is safe and protected, we also need to make it a priority to spread the message of what atheism has to offer, and why being an atheist can give you such a new, refreshing, unique view of the world. We need to make atheism accessible - it is too bogged down with complex scientific theories that prove or disprove this or that, and philosophical mazes that boggle the brain of somebody who might not be able to wrap their head around those concepts. Two people that are pioneering this vision I am discussing, and who I think are key role models for the future of atheist discourse, are Neil deGrasse Tyson and Alice Roberts. They speak about the wonders of the atheist perspective with such passion and intrigue that you can't help but be in awe of what they are describing. They make it relatable and describe things in a way that is easy to understand. They still fight against the struggles that atheists face, but maintain their sense of hope. It is this positivity, this energy, that I find compels me to engage in atheistic discourse - where I felt despondent and lackluster about the negative messages from new atheism a few years ago.
Atheism has a long way to go before being a universally accepted belief. In order to help people understand why people are atheist, and how it affects the rest of their world-view we need to be open and share these positive experiences. It's time to take modern atheism to the next level, to make it a real option for an average person, and to demonstrate just how incredible the world can be through the eyes of an atheist.