IT'S CHRISTMAS, SO LET'S
TALK ABOUT ATHEISM
I have spent the last couple of years wondering whether I am an atheist or an agnostic. One of the reasons it can be hard to distinguish between the two is that the reasons for being those two things are strikingly similar, while there are subtle differences in their philosophical applications.
According to American Atheists, their reason for atheism, in terms of god, goes like this:
Case in point (warning: you probably wont know what i'm talking about): When the great religious email "holy war" or March 2000 (with myself and a couple of allies taking the atheist/agnostic standpoint, while my one-time friend and bowling-buddy Mark N and some Berkeley evangelicals -- yes, they exist -- told me all about what a great time I was going to have in Hell), I took a defiant and strong stance for the inability to prove the existence of the judeo-christian-etc god, as well as the sheer cognitive dissonance that comes with western religious doctrine. Mark N (see the parentheses) decided that if my arguments went unchecked, the all-powerful god would soon be destroyed, as if I were one little blond dude firing torpedoes down a ventilation chute in the Death Star. To combat this inevitability (hehe), Mark N sent my most recent email at the time, along with his lengthy and rather defensive rebuttal (nothing like the last word), to a long list of common friends and acquaintances, apparently to show them how misguided I was and "not to be taken in" by my arguments. It's easy to sound right when you speak last, and this is one of the disadvantages of email.
Anyway, a day or two later, a friend of mine, a student in San Diego, instant messaged me, telling me that she had received Mark's email overreaction, saying "I don't know what's up with that". And she described herself as an "agnostic".
Anyway, my point is that people shouldn't be trying to draw thick lines between atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, and even, for that matter, unitarianism. That is the way too many Christians think of themselves, drawing thick lines between Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. And they see a plus in giving atheists/agnostics/etc the same treatment, in that it weakens the resolve of the concept of nonbelief in general.
What brought about these thoughts was a rather silly piece in Slate by a fellow named Jim Holt, basically going after atheists philosophically. (Holt himself doesn't seem the most pious fellow, though) He makes the usual false takedown of atheism: He puts the onus on the atheists to prove that god doesn't exist. Repeat after me, Mr Holt: You can't prove a negative! It's not the atheist's responsibility to prove the non-existence of god; it's the responsibility of the theist to prove that god does exist. If someone feels that theists have not shown any proof that there is a god, then s/he can feel free to be atheist or agnostic if s/he wants to. After all, the first rationale given for atheism at American Atheists, as I mentioned, is "There is no proof of the existence of god". That is not "There is proof of the non-existence of god". I hope I've made myself clear.
All that being said, we at TFM would like to wish you, yours, and others who celebrate it, a quite merry xmas. My xmases center around family and togetherness above all else. And decorating the hell out of the tree, hehe.
TALK ABOUT ATHEISM
I have spent the last couple of years wondering whether I am an atheist or an agnostic. One of the reasons it can be hard to distinguish between the two is that the reasons for being those two things are strikingly similar, while there are subtle differences in their philosophical applications.
According to American Atheists, their reason for atheism, in terms of god, goes like this:
We are atheists because:Most of those, if not all, could be perceived as reasons for being agnostic. I mean, atheists and agnostics essentially agree that the existence of a godlike deity cannot be proven. I think that it's the theists who get the most out of such somewhat false distinctions, because it weakens us god-free types, in a Napoleonesque divide-and-conquer sense.
-There is no proof of the existence of god.
-There is no need of, or use for, a god.
-A good god would be useless if it were not powerful.
-A powerful god would not deserve worship if he were not good.
-There is no all-powerful good god; otherwise there would be no imperfection.
-If this is the best world god can make, the stories of Heaven must be lies.
Case in point (warning: you probably wont know what i'm talking about): When the great religious email "holy war" or March 2000 (with myself and a couple of allies taking the atheist/agnostic standpoint, while my one-time friend and bowling-buddy Mark N and some Berkeley evangelicals -- yes, they exist -- told me all about what a great time I was going to have in Hell), I took a defiant and strong stance for the inability to prove the existence of the judeo-christian-etc god, as well as the sheer cognitive dissonance that comes with western religious doctrine. Mark N (see the parentheses) decided that if my arguments went unchecked, the all-powerful god would soon be destroyed, as if I were one little blond dude firing torpedoes down a ventilation chute in the Death Star. To combat this inevitability (hehe), Mark N sent my most recent email at the time, along with his lengthy and rather defensive rebuttal (nothing like the last word), to a long list of common friends and acquaintances, apparently to show them how misguided I was and "not to be taken in" by my arguments. It's easy to sound right when you speak last, and this is one of the disadvantages of email.
Anyway, a day or two later, a friend of mine, a student in San Diego, instant messaged me, telling me that she had received Mark's email overreaction, saying "I don't know what's up with that". And she described herself as an "agnostic".
Anyway, my point is that people shouldn't be trying to draw thick lines between atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, and even, for that matter, unitarianism. That is the way too many Christians think of themselves, drawing thick lines between Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. And they see a plus in giving atheists/agnostics/etc the same treatment, in that it weakens the resolve of the concept of nonbelief in general.
What brought about these thoughts was a rather silly piece in Slate by a fellow named Jim Holt, basically going after atheists philosophically. (Holt himself doesn't seem the most pious fellow, though) He makes the usual false takedown of atheism: He puts the onus on the atheists to prove that god doesn't exist. Repeat after me, Mr Holt: You can't prove a negative! It's not the atheist's responsibility to prove the non-existence of god; it's the responsibility of the theist to prove that god does exist. If someone feels that theists have not shown any proof that there is a god, then s/he can feel free to be atheist or agnostic if s/he wants to. After all, the first rationale given for atheism at American Atheists, as I mentioned, is "There is no proof of the existence of god". That is not "There is proof of the non-existence of god". I hope I've made myself clear.
All that being said, we at TFM would like to wish you, yours, and others who celebrate it, a quite merry xmas. My xmases center around family and togetherness above all else. And decorating the hell out of the tree, hehe.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home