I don't believe in any gods. Yea yea, you know that already. Here's a list of some things I "believe" and accept. I know that word[believe/belief] causes some to shutter given how some theists use it to bludgeon others over the head, but that is not my concern here.
1. I believe in myself.
2. I believe in others and their capacity to do good things.
3. I accept evolution, not just in a scientific sense, but also in terms of the political process. Change takes time. It is very easy to become disillusioned if you think you ought to get everything you want when you demand it.
4. Unconditional love is desired but it is fiction. Even claiming to want someone to love you 'unconditionally' denotes a condition.
5. Certain kinds of disagreements among allies and friends, especially in terms of how they happen and how they are expressed with words can destroy relationships. Not just with people you hang out with in person but online too. It's hardly ever "just [insert whatever social network here]".
6. Take care of your own children and do not expect the government to help you do that.
7. The Atlanta Falcons suck.
8. Texas is not a horrible state. There are many good people, institutions and innovations which come from that state so the hyperbole exhibited by some is not helpful. Over-representing bad policy makers with kooky ideas is not a reason to make negative assessments about the inhabitants of the state.
9. Churches ought to be taxed. If you want to be involved in the political process pay up like the rest of us.
10. Cynicism and solipsism are debilitating. Both cause reasonable minds and able bodies to become stagnant.
11. There will never be a utopia unless you want to write fiction.
12. Targeting religion only will not solve social ills. There are plenty of non-theists who promote misogyny, homophobia, colorblindness, and racism. Saying religion is the cause is giving it credit it does not deserve.
13. Being an atheist is not some kind of magic pill with regards to thinking and skeptical inquiry. It's one position that is part of who I am. Nothing more, nothing less.
14. You own everything you do. Take responsibility for what you do.
15. I have no problem with the proper adjudication of 'stand your ground' laws, 'castle doctrines' or 'make my day laws'. If I catch you in my home, which poses danger to me and the people living here, it is not my responsibility to ask you questions and I will shoot you. Improper enforcement does not mean the policy is bad. People who go looking for trouble or cause the trouble does not mean the laws are bad either.
16. Women can make their own medical decisions regarding their bodies and do not need to explain themselves to me or anyone else.
Showing posts with label atheist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheist. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Common Objections to Atheists/Atheism
I've encountered some interesting and often very silly objections as to why someone would be an atheist or what the motivates someone to be an atheist. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. The lack of the belief is NOT a belief in and of itself. Think of it like this; If you are walking through a market and someone attempts to sell you something and you say "no, thank you" or something of that sort. Is your not buying what someone is trying to sell you a different kind of "buying"? Of course not. You are simply rejecting what's being presented to you and atheism works in the same way. When someone says that their god or gods exist we demand evidence for their claims. Until evidence, not arguments, are presented an atheist will not believe the claims(about the existence of gods). Here are some objections and answers.
1. You cannot prove that my god does not exist.
Answer: It's not my job to prove that your god exists. You are asserting that your god exists. You are making a positive claim and just like a court of law, if you make the claim, you must provide evidence to support that claim. You do not get to pass your job off to me and then declare that I am incompetent.
2. You're an atheist because you just want to sin.
Answer: That claim has a few unstated foundational premises. The first is that the atheist accepts the concept of sin as valid and that "sin" actually exists at all. The motivation for being an atheist is called into question as well in a sort of X Y formation(You are X because you want to do Y). The objection is baloney. I accept the concept of sin as valid only when I want to mess around with religious types. Sin is a religious hangup, not an atheist hangup.
3. You're an atheist because you have had a bad experience in church or with god.
Answer: The claim already has built into it that god exists. How else would I have a bad experience if that part is not granted? The theist already thinks that part is proven ergo the back end of the objection. The church part is interesting. I have had both good and bad experiences in churches but I've also had good and bad experiences in all other buildings. The experience alone is not the reason I lack the belief in the god within the objection. It's the lack of evidence that supports the existence of the god in question. The "bad experience" is trying to highlight that you are only an atheist in virtue of that experience and without it, you wouldn't be an atheist. There are plenty of atheists that have had good experiences in churches and they still do not believe. If I met an atheist who expressed to me they are only an atheist because of bad experiences, I would challenge her or him to go back and think about their reasoning. I doubt that many atheists are atheists because of bad experiences though.
Addition: Bad Experience could be something like being forced to pray, shamed in front of peers for not knowing particular scriptures at a young age, being ridiculed for having an abortion etc.
4. You're an atheist because you hate god.
Answer: Which god? Seriously though, this objection maintains that the god in question has been proven to exist and does exist AND that the atheist hates it. Scroll back up to see what an atheist is for a reminder. How can an atheist hate that which she/he lacks belief? It's like claiming that I hate flying pink monkeys with teapots circling their tales. There is a group of people that hate god and they are called MISOTHEISTS. Atheists by definition CANNOT hate something that is unproven.
5. Atheism lacks morals.
Answer: Atheism is only an expressed doubt about theistic claims(this is just another way of saying what I have stated in the opening paragraph). Nothing more, nothing less. I call this move "dismissal by unnecessary attachment". Those who use this tactic, unnecessarily attach an attribute which they think is necessary to atheism, simply to say "look, it's not there so the entire position is untenable". BULL SHIT. That's like dismissing evolution because it does not also tell me about planet formation or tossing out my refrigerator because it does not also mow my lawn. Atheism does not NEED a moral system to be a tenable position and it is not lacking or insufficient because it does not have one. The theist gets her/his morals from one book or place and the expectation is that the atheist must do the same. Not true by a long shot.
6. You must know everything and think you are some kind of genius.
Answer: In fact I do think I am a genius but that is totally irrelevant to proving your claims and it's untrue that I think I know everything. I am very ignorant of many things and subjects on this planet. The various believers make claims of knowing everything or the origins of things and I do not. Saying "I don't know" is a much better/honest reply when I don't know, as opposed to not knowing and making up some vague explanation to claim I do know what I don't.
7. On your death bed you will believe in god.
Answer: I won't. This objection is of the dogmatic/fear mongering form. Yes we will all die and the theist thinks the atheist will cave before her/his last breath. That's some fanciful wishful thinking and I have no plans to "confess" when my life is about to end.
8. Many people believe in god and there are only a few atheists. You guys are wrong.
Answer: It's okay to think we are wrong but just because you have more people than we do, does not automatically make your claims or beliefs true. Billions of people can be mistaken in/about their beliefs. Billions of people can lack sufficient evidence to support their beliefs. The bandwagon appeal does not get you off of the hook. If more people still believed that Elvis or Michael Jackson were still alive as opposed to those that do not, are Elvis and Michael Jackson still alive?
9. God is calling you but you have chosen to turn your back on him.
Answer: This objection too is claiming that the god in question has been proven to exist and exists and the atheist is "turning her/his back on god". For starters, what kind of phone service would I need for the call to take place?(Better not be Sprint or T-Mobile or the call will be dropped). This one wreaks of some earlier objections and has the idea of free-will tacitly attached. You have to first prove that your god exists in order for it to call me(god can dial? What kind of phone does it have? According to some theists, Steve Jobs has one specifically for god. Call it the iGod1 or something) or for me to turn my back on it. If you want to claim that the call is in some metaphorical sense, then that just appears like a convenient apologetic answer to which you have no basis. It's an assertion alone and assertions alone without evidence are just assertions.
10. God loves you whether you believe in him or not.
Answer: This is just another baseless assertion. You stating it does not make the specific contents of the statement nor the entire statement true in any sense. This is a play on the idea of love and is used as an emotive answer to obfuscate the fact that the linguistic statement lacks any evidence or proof of what it claims.
It's also a "you cannot escape" line.
This list is not the most comprehensive you will find and as I see more objections I will add them or you can add them in the comments section.
1. You cannot prove that my god does not exist.
Answer: It's not my job to prove that your god exists. You are asserting that your god exists. You are making a positive claim and just like a court of law, if you make the claim, you must provide evidence to support that claim. You do not get to pass your job off to me and then declare that I am incompetent.
2. You're an atheist because you just want to sin.
Answer: That claim has a few unstated foundational premises. The first is that the atheist accepts the concept of sin as valid and that "sin" actually exists at all. The motivation for being an atheist is called into question as well in a sort of X Y formation(You are X because you want to do Y). The objection is baloney. I accept the concept of sin as valid only when I want to mess around with religious types. Sin is a religious hangup, not an atheist hangup.
3. You're an atheist because you have had a bad experience in church or with god.
Answer: The claim already has built into it that god exists. How else would I have a bad experience if that part is not granted? The theist already thinks that part is proven ergo the back end of the objection. The church part is interesting. I have had both good and bad experiences in churches but I've also had good and bad experiences in all other buildings. The experience alone is not the reason I lack the belief in the god within the objection. It's the lack of evidence that supports the existence of the god in question. The "bad experience" is trying to highlight that you are only an atheist in virtue of that experience and without it, you wouldn't be an atheist. There are plenty of atheists that have had good experiences in churches and they still do not believe. If I met an atheist who expressed to me they are only an atheist because of bad experiences, I would challenge her or him to go back and think about their reasoning. I doubt that many atheists are atheists because of bad experiences though.
Addition: Bad Experience could be something like being forced to pray, shamed in front of peers for not knowing particular scriptures at a young age, being ridiculed for having an abortion etc.
4. You're an atheist because you hate god.
Answer: Which god? Seriously though, this objection maintains that the god in question has been proven to exist and does exist AND that the atheist hates it. Scroll back up to see what an atheist is for a reminder. How can an atheist hate that which she/he lacks belief? It's like claiming that I hate flying pink monkeys with teapots circling their tales. There is a group of people that hate god and they are called MISOTHEISTS. Atheists by definition CANNOT hate something that is unproven.
5. Atheism lacks morals.
Answer: Atheism is only an expressed doubt about theistic claims(this is just another way of saying what I have stated in the opening paragraph). Nothing more, nothing less. I call this move "dismissal by unnecessary attachment". Those who use this tactic, unnecessarily attach an attribute which they think is necessary to atheism, simply to say "look, it's not there so the entire position is untenable". BULL SHIT. That's like dismissing evolution because it does not also tell me about planet formation or tossing out my refrigerator because it does not also mow my lawn. Atheism does not NEED a moral system to be a tenable position and it is not lacking or insufficient because it does not have one. The theist gets her/his morals from one book or place and the expectation is that the atheist must do the same. Not true by a long shot.
6. You must know everything and think you are some kind of genius.
Answer: In fact I do think I am a genius but that is totally irrelevant to proving your claims and it's untrue that I think I know everything. I am very ignorant of many things and subjects on this planet. The various believers make claims of knowing everything or the origins of things and I do not. Saying "I don't know" is a much better/honest reply when I don't know, as opposed to not knowing and making up some vague explanation to claim I do know what I don't.
7. On your death bed you will believe in god.
Answer: I won't. This objection is of the dogmatic/fear mongering form. Yes we will all die and the theist thinks the atheist will cave before her/his last breath. That's some fanciful wishful thinking and I have no plans to "confess" when my life is about to end.
8. Many people believe in god and there are only a few atheists. You guys are wrong.
Answer: It's okay to think we are wrong but just because you have more people than we do, does not automatically make your claims or beliefs true. Billions of people can be mistaken in/about their beliefs. Billions of people can lack sufficient evidence to support their beliefs. The bandwagon appeal does not get you off of the hook. If more people still believed that Elvis or Michael Jackson were still alive as opposed to those that do not, are Elvis and Michael Jackson still alive?
9. God is calling you but you have chosen to turn your back on him.
Answer: This objection too is claiming that the god in question has been proven to exist and exists and the atheist is "turning her/his back on god". For starters, what kind of phone service would I need for the call to take place?(Better not be Sprint or T-Mobile or the call will be dropped). This one wreaks of some earlier objections and has the idea of free-will tacitly attached. You have to first prove that your god exists in order for it to call me(god can dial? What kind of phone does it have? According to some theists, Steve Jobs has one specifically for god. Call it the iGod1 or something) or for me to turn my back on it. If you want to claim that the call is in some metaphorical sense, then that just appears like a convenient apologetic answer to which you have no basis. It's an assertion alone and assertions alone without evidence are just assertions.
10. God loves you whether you believe in him or not.
Answer: This is just another baseless assertion. You stating it does not make the specific contents of the statement nor the entire statement true in any sense. This is a play on the idea of love and is used as an emotive answer to obfuscate the fact that the linguistic statement lacks any evidence or proof of what it claims.
It's also a "you cannot escape" line.
This list is not the most comprehensive you will find and as I see more objections I will add them or you can add them in the comments section.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Making God Unfalsifiable: Making Metaphysical statements to prove there is a God.
I hate metaphysics. I think it's a branch of philosophy that posits that there are 100,000 restaurants but never offers to take you to any one of them just to see what the food is tastes like. Metaphysics in this sense leads to salivation and leaves you hungry and empty. No menus and just positing the possibility of 100,000 menus. I like food so don't tease me with the idea and then leave me without being able to taste it. I've run into this kind of argument for the existence of a god or gods, in some supernatural sense. The argument hinges on a few things; that we as human beings are fallible and we do not know everything, a god of a metaphysical description is possible (the possibility is not impressive in any way), the ability to string a number of concepts within reality together, call it coherent and sound good while doing it. Usually the argument in a conversational setting runs like this; We know of many things and objects within reality but we do not know what is outside of reality. We have not been able to determine the cause of many or all things and we are still ignorant to our reality in many ways. We have not adequately explained the origins or the purpose(s) of life and we cannot rule out the possibility that a god exists.
Without qualifying which god they are speaking of or where they obtained this concept of a god, which they believe is far more than a concept (i.e. it's very real and has some significant role in our reality), let's look at the argument as it stands. We do know of many objects exist in reality as well as quantifiable phenomena. The odd part of some metaphysical claims is the claim about what is outside of reality. The claim is made within reality and the natural world as we understand it. What knowledge or evidence does the person have to claim that something outside of reality exists and/or has bearing on our reality and that thing outside of reality is "god"? Those are just statements used with the language we have developed over time to express a thought. The thought does not have any explanatory power within our reality. It's a load of hot air. The thought could be wrong, misinformed, held onto because it makes the author of it feel good and does not square with the facts on the ground.
There are things in our reality that may be unknown but that does not make them unknowable. We are still trying to gain an understanding as best we can, with the evidence we have in reality to explain our world/universe. The rest of the argument is an argument from ignorance/god of the gaps. It's a good way to demand absolute certainty with respect to knowledge about the world/universe (which we can't get nor need) and pitch an argument for the existence of a god, because of not possessing all knowledge of the natural world/universe, and place metaphysical statements about the god in gaps in understanding or knowledge. Not knowing a specific cause (one may not even exist at all or be necessary) does not give any credit to a god or gods being that cause. Even if the universe came into existence because of a FIRST cause, then all you have is a first cause. You have no reason or evidence to suggest or claim that the first cause is god.
The possibility aspect is an example of low standards for believing something as big as a claim about the existence of a god, whether the claim is metaphysical or not. Everything is possible under that standard. It's possible that in 10 seconds I will burst into flames and my entire home will burn down. You may think that sounds crazy but it IS possible is it not? If I adopt this weak standard of possibility, simply because I cannot rule it out, then how is the belief I have in me bursting into flames any more ridiculous that a god that exists outside of reality or caused reality into existence? It's possible that Santa Claus actually exists and so does the tooth fairy. It's possible that apples can vote within the next 10 years and chicken sandwiches can play football. Should we conduct our lives because of those possibilities? I don't think so. For the god claims to fly, metaphysical statements do not cut it. It's the epitome of verbal vapor without any explanatory power about our natural world/universe.
Life does not have to have a purpose in order for it to exist as it does. This includes all types of life which includes humans. That is not a bad thing. If you're worried about your life having a purpose, I think it is up to you to give your life purpose. We have no evidence to suggest a god, creator, or transcendent consciousness, or underlying intelligence exists at all. A lot of people have been very good at playing with words to express empty thoughts about our world. They play with emotional strings and some attempt to use science in such a way to support their claims but are later refuted by hard scientists. Most people do not see the refutations of the 'sciency' claims. They make appeals to us with shared experiences, usually through strife and unpleasantness to demand that something outside of reality must exist and in some cases, we are accountable to that thing i.e. god. Making statements about the existence of a god are merely assertions until proven otherwise. Insisting that the statements are true and have explanatory power are just more statements. Show me something other than words to prove that this god you speak of actually exists. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
Without qualifying which god they are speaking of or where they obtained this concept of a god, which they believe is far more than a concept (i.e. it's very real and has some significant role in our reality), let's look at the argument as it stands. We do know of many objects exist in reality as well as quantifiable phenomena. The odd part of some metaphysical claims is the claim about what is outside of reality. The claim is made within reality and the natural world as we understand it. What knowledge or evidence does the person have to claim that something outside of reality exists and/or has bearing on our reality and that thing outside of reality is "god"? Those are just statements used with the language we have developed over time to express a thought. The thought does not have any explanatory power within our reality. It's a load of hot air. The thought could be wrong, misinformed, held onto because it makes the author of it feel good and does not square with the facts on the ground.
There are things in our reality that may be unknown but that does not make them unknowable. We are still trying to gain an understanding as best we can, with the evidence we have in reality to explain our world/universe. The rest of the argument is an argument from ignorance/god of the gaps. It's a good way to demand absolute certainty with respect to knowledge about the world/universe (which we can't get nor need) and pitch an argument for the existence of a god, because of not possessing all knowledge of the natural world/universe, and place metaphysical statements about the god in gaps in understanding or knowledge. Not knowing a specific cause (one may not even exist at all or be necessary) does not give any credit to a god or gods being that cause. Even if the universe came into existence because of a FIRST cause, then all you have is a first cause. You have no reason or evidence to suggest or claim that the first cause is god.
The possibility aspect is an example of low standards for believing something as big as a claim about the existence of a god, whether the claim is metaphysical or not. Everything is possible under that standard. It's possible that in 10 seconds I will burst into flames and my entire home will burn down. You may think that sounds crazy but it IS possible is it not? If I adopt this weak standard of possibility, simply because I cannot rule it out, then how is the belief I have in me bursting into flames any more ridiculous that a god that exists outside of reality or caused reality into existence? It's possible that Santa Claus actually exists and so does the tooth fairy. It's possible that apples can vote within the next 10 years and chicken sandwiches can play football. Should we conduct our lives because of those possibilities? I don't think so. For the god claims to fly, metaphysical statements do not cut it. It's the epitome of verbal vapor without any explanatory power about our natural world/universe.
Life does not have to have a purpose in order for it to exist as it does. This includes all types of life which includes humans. That is not a bad thing. If you're worried about your life having a purpose, I think it is up to you to give your life purpose. We have no evidence to suggest a god, creator, or transcendent consciousness, or underlying intelligence exists at all. A lot of people have been very good at playing with words to express empty thoughts about our world. They play with emotional strings and some attempt to use science in such a way to support their claims but are later refuted by hard scientists. Most people do not see the refutations of the 'sciency' claims. They make appeals to us with shared experiences, usually through strife and unpleasantness to demand that something outside of reality must exist and in some cases, we are accountable to that thing i.e. god. Making statements about the existence of a god are merely assertions until proven otherwise. Insisting that the statements are true and have explanatory power are just more statements. Show me something other than words to prove that this god you speak of actually exists. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
Atheism is a Religion? Again?
I cannot stand the statement "atheism is a religion". Atheism is not an assertion nor a belief. It is the rejection of theistic claims about a god or gods. That's it. Nothing more than that. It's not true or correct to say atheism is a religion and the statement is often used to equate religion and atheism as two things on the same playing field. But let's grant the statement that "atheism is a religion" and see what that means. First, we need to decide how atheism is like a religion. Do we have a uniform set of beliefs? No. Do we have rituals? No. Do we have one particular book or a set of books in which all of our ideas are placed? No. Do we have some standard of morality that we demand others must follow? No. Do we advertise? Yes. Some atheist organizations advertise on the side of buses and billboards as do some churches. Do we cast people out of atheism? Even the question is absurd given that atheism is an expressed doubt about theistic claims. Do we have a ton of instances where an atheist has killed in the name of atheism? No. We have a number of cases where someone has killed others in the name of a religion. That does not necessarily mean the religion is bad, but it is certainly used as a motivation to commit violent acts against others. Bad people do bad things because they want to do them and the same can be said for good people. If the religion is used as a motivation to do good or bad things, then I think the religion ought to be subjected to scrutiny and skepticism. Do we tell others how to dress because of atheism? No. Do most atheists attempt to restrict your rights in public policy, which affects us all because of atheism? No. This is an absurd question too, given what atheism actually is. So we advertise. Some of us evangelize. I'm an advocate of evangelizing. You need to get your message out there and make yourself be heard and speak to issues that affect us all in the communities in which we live. You need to say, publicly, that you exist. There is great power in just showing people who you are.
The people that claim "atheism is a religion" are those that see atheism as a threat to their tightly held religious/spiritual beliefs and it's a response to outspoken atheists. I've seen this claim from a number of religious and spiritual people that would like for us atheists to shut up and sit down with our critiques of their beliefs. They have not learned the distinction that can be made between them as persons and the beliefs they hold. You can still be the person you are with a different set of beliefs or no beliefs at all. I or any other atheist can maintain respect for a theist as an individual and criticize their beliefs. I can respect YOUR RIGHT to hold a particular belief and not the belief itself. This is something that a lot of theists do not seem to understand. I as an atheist grant you respect because of our shared humanity but if you bring illogical, unsupported, supernatural claims to me, expect me to take those beliefs to task. Persons are worthy of respect tentatively, but that is not true of their beliefs. I do not care how nice you are or how charitable you may be, your beliefs will not get 'respected' until you demonstrate why they ought to be respected. A lot of theists that I have encountered view 'respect' as acceptance and accommodation of their claims without critical inquiry or push back when their claims have stepped into places where they have no business. Refusal to agree to those terms leads to unwarranted comments about not respecting them as persons, closed-mindedness, "fundie atheism" and all sorts of strange name-calling. Demanding respect for your beliefs from the jump is an automatic sign that you will assert something that you do not intend to work for and I will not accept that demand. The demand is unnecessary. Express your beliefs but do not demand nor expect respect for them until you earn it.
Name calling: If I call you an idiot within the discussion or call your beliefs illogical or stupid, it's within the context of the discussion we are having. I have been shown to be an idiot and many times by my own girlfriend. It happens. Put your ego aside. Some discussions do get nasty. Some people are total assholes regardless of their belief or non-belief.
Arguing from the idea that atheism has the potentiality as being as bad as religion is a pathetic argument because it's a cheap shot at atheism without looking at reality. Call me when an atheist because of atheism crashes a plane into a building or chops off their daughters head because she is in violation of some atheist tenant(which do not exist no matter how many theists claim they do). Call me when atheists are insisting a woman does not have the right to choose because she is in violation of another atheist tenant. This potentiality argument screams of weakness and "I do not have any other viable arguments". It's flailing around for the sake of flailing around. Stop claiming that we are doing the same kinds of things when you do not have evidence to back up the claims you are making.
There is also this problem some religious and spiritual people have with atheists that are outspoken and do not hide the fact that they are atheists and express it freely. Some of us wear t-shirts, blog, say it on Facebook or Twitter. We are not telling the religious/spiritual people to shut up, but they certainly want us to be silent and be okay with that and then they turn around and express they are advocates of free speech. In other words they are advocates of free speech and expression until such an expression hits too close to home. Religious/spiritual folks can express their beliefs as much as they want. If someone tried to prevent them from speaking, I would be against that. However I will not nor will I encourage others to be silent or soft with their criticism of religious/spiritual beliefs.
Atheism is NOT a religion. It is not asserting or claiming anything. No positive assertions at all. Atheism does not tell you how to lead your life or how to treat others but that is not a reason to dismiss atheism as a tenable position. If a theist has a problem with a particular atheist, then they have a problem with that atheist and should not use that as a way to attack ALL atheists or atheism. It's like being mad at one woman who claims to be a feminist and using that grievance as an attack on ALL feminists and feminism. It's wrong.
We atheists are not going anywhere and neither are the religious/spiritual folks. We are not going to shut up and you will not shut us up. We will speak on issues of justice, public policy, women's issues, politics, law, medicine, business, sports, technology, etc. Get use to us because we are not going anywhere.
The people that claim "atheism is a religion" are those that see atheism as a threat to their tightly held religious/spiritual beliefs and it's a response to outspoken atheists. I've seen this claim from a number of religious and spiritual people that would like for us atheists to shut up and sit down with our critiques of their beliefs. They have not learned the distinction that can be made between them as persons and the beliefs they hold. You can still be the person you are with a different set of beliefs or no beliefs at all. I or any other atheist can maintain respect for a theist as an individual and criticize their beliefs. I can respect YOUR RIGHT to hold a particular belief and not the belief itself. This is something that a lot of theists do not seem to understand. I as an atheist grant you respect because of our shared humanity but if you bring illogical, unsupported, supernatural claims to me, expect me to take those beliefs to task. Persons are worthy of respect tentatively, but that is not true of their beliefs. I do not care how nice you are or how charitable you may be, your beliefs will not get 'respected' until you demonstrate why they ought to be respected. A lot of theists that I have encountered view 'respect' as acceptance and accommodation of their claims without critical inquiry or push back when their claims have stepped into places where they have no business. Refusal to agree to those terms leads to unwarranted comments about not respecting them as persons, closed-mindedness, "fundie atheism" and all sorts of strange name-calling. Demanding respect for your beliefs from the jump is an automatic sign that you will assert something that you do not intend to work for and I will not accept that demand. The demand is unnecessary. Express your beliefs but do not demand nor expect respect for them until you earn it.
Name calling: If I call you an idiot within the discussion or call your beliefs illogical or stupid, it's within the context of the discussion we are having. I have been shown to be an idiot and many times by my own girlfriend. It happens. Put your ego aside. Some discussions do get nasty. Some people are total assholes regardless of their belief or non-belief.
Arguing from the idea that atheism has the potentiality as being as bad as religion is a pathetic argument because it's a cheap shot at atheism without looking at reality. Call me when an atheist because of atheism crashes a plane into a building or chops off their daughters head because she is in violation of some atheist tenant(which do not exist no matter how many theists claim they do). Call me when atheists are insisting a woman does not have the right to choose because she is in violation of another atheist tenant. This potentiality argument screams of weakness and "I do not have any other viable arguments". It's flailing around for the sake of flailing around. Stop claiming that we are doing the same kinds of things when you do not have evidence to back up the claims you are making.
There is also this problem some religious and spiritual people have with atheists that are outspoken and do not hide the fact that they are atheists and express it freely. Some of us wear t-shirts, blog, say it on Facebook or Twitter. We are not telling the religious/spiritual people to shut up, but they certainly want us to be silent and be okay with that and then they turn around and express they are advocates of free speech. In other words they are advocates of free speech and expression until such an expression hits too close to home. Religious/spiritual folks can express their beliefs as much as they want. If someone tried to prevent them from speaking, I would be against that. However I will not nor will I encourage others to be silent or soft with their criticism of religious/spiritual beliefs.
Atheism is NOT a religion. It is not asserting or claiming anything. No positive assertions at all. Atheism does not tell you how to lead your life or how to treat others but that is not a reason to dismiss atheism as a tenable position. If a theist has a problem with a particular atheist, then they have a problem with that atheist and should not use that as a way to attack ALL atheists or atheism. It's like being mad at one woman who claims to be a feminist and using that grievance as an attack on ALL feminists and feminism. It's wrong.
We atheists are not going anywhere and neither are the religious/spiritual folks. We are not going to shut up and you will not shut us up. We will speak on issues of justice, public policy, women's issues, politics, law, medicine, business, sports, technology, etc. Get use to us because we are not going anywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)