Atheism is the absence of any such belief.
Ergo, atheism cannot be a religion, nor is it accurate to cite it as such. So stop calling it one! Critics of atheism love to point out similarities between atheists and theists, throwing around phrases like “You believe that there is no god, and that requires faith” or “Sounds to me like a religion.” The problem with such claims is that they are either examples of ignorance of what atheism actually is or they are confusions between traits that people have and traits that religion has.
When discussing atheism, note that atheism is not “the belief that god does not exist”, it is “the absence of a belief that god exists”, and this means that there are no implied beliefs. An atheist does not have to accept evolution, nor are they required to reject the existence of ghosts. The only trait that is common in all atheists, and the only one you should infer about them, is that they don’t believe that any god or gods exist. Any other traits are traits of the individual, and have nothing to do with their atheism.
Furthermore, an atheist does necessarily reject the possibility of a god; they simply don’t see a reason to believe that there must be one. There is no evidence that suggests a god exists, nor are there any observations that show that a god’s existence is required for the universe to exist, so why make the claim?
To examine this distinction more closely, I’ll present you with a similar faith claim.
When people die, their soul goes to a great celestial library in the clouds of Jupiter. Everyone there is put in a section based on their reading level.
If you read a lot and you had a high reading level, then you would be graced with books better than any book written by man, better than Orwell, Palahniuk, or Twain, and have the option to read any other book in the library, which holds every book ever written.
If you had a middle-school reading level, then you’d get to read only the best of the Earth, so you’d have I Am Legend, Ender’s Game, and Of Mice and Men, among others.
If you rarely read, and had trouble reading words like “Establishment Clause”, then you’d be sent to the kid’s section, where you’d only have Clifford Goes to School and Curious George. Entertaining, but not very satisfying.
Finally, if you were one of those people that never read except when they had to, then you’d be forced to read books like King and King and My Homosexual ABCs.
My rejection of the claim that there is a god who made the universe is no different from the reader not believing that they will go to a great library in outer space when they die: why should you believe it?
My next beef is with people who like to point out that Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Firstly, no one knows Hitler’s religious beliefs. He paid lip service to the Catholic Church, but he sometimes spoke ill about religion. We can’t rightly say that he was definitely an atheist, but if we make an assumption about his religion, we must assume he was a Catholic, both because it is what he was brought up in and because he said he was one. Secondly, assuming Hitler was indeed an atheist, pointing out that Hitler and Stalin were atheists accomplishes about as much as saying that they wore shoes: there is no way that being an atheist led to their actions, because atheism does not contain any implied dogma. There is no “atheist doctrine”. Atheists don’t have a set of Ten Commandments that say “Though Shall Commit genocide on the Sabbath” or “Though shall be unpleasant to all thou shall meet”, so there’s no connection that can be made.
This brings me to the next big problem I encounter: people assuming that atheists are in some way inherently immoral or cowardly or they all convert before death because they don’t have the courage of their convictions. This is largely due to the fact that a lot of religious people tell each other stories about how “there are no atheists in foxholes”, that Charles Darwin rejected Evolution on his deathbed, or about how they used to be atheists and they used to sin all the time and felt all empty inside.
Here’s some news to all of you folks. People don’t need the bible for morality. If you think that you do, then consider this: The bible says that you should stone to death people who work on the Sabbath. If you don’t do that, then you have proven that you do not base your morals on the bible, but on morals of society and the golden rule, or on your own personally held ideas. So the next time you find yourself assuming that atheists are immoral sinners who don’t care about anyone but themselves, remember that humans have an oft-forgotten emotion called empathy that drives people to be helpful to others, and this ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, from which we derive the golden rule (Do to others what you would have them do you) is very powerful.
Furthermore, the story of Charles Darwin saying that he was all wrong on his deathbed is a total myth. It originated in a story circulated by Lady Hope, a British evangelist who claimed to have been present during his illness. However, Darwin’s daughter-in-law, Florence, and his son Sir Francis, both rejected this story, saying that Hope was not present for his illness, or any illness of his for that matter.
Finally, if you really think that atheists are cowards that will convert at death, then present me with a tape recorder when I am dying and I will reject the Holy Spirit right there without a moment’s hesitation.
Picture of the Day:
You sure seem to preach like many of the Religions you seem so hateful towards.
ReplyDeleteI understand that this is a personal blog, but from what I have gained you certainly have carried over many of the negative aspects from your days as a Christian with you as you became an atheist.
Indeed? How so?
ReplyDeleteI like how you don't mention Stalin and how he killed all of the religious teachers, teachers, scientist and the well educated. That and thousands more because they didn't follow his belief.
ReplyDeleteAnyway they way in which you type makes it seem like you are preaching. i.e. this is fact and everything else is lies.
Indeed, Stalin did that, but who is to say that he was motivated by atheism? After all, atheism has no attatched beliefs.
ReplyDeletePointing out that he was an atheist is like pointing out that he had a mustache: it didn't cause him to be a genocidal dictator.
Furthermore, how is it preaching to dismiss misconstructions of atheism? That's like saying that correcting someone on the definition of "advocate" is preaching.
Except you know he kill all religious leaders in an effort to stamp out religion because he believed that there was no God. That and a God challenged his idea of Authority.
ReplyDeleteHe was motivated because he wanted to control people's thought. Anyone who wishes to control people's thought would do something similar. Were he a theist, I would expect him to have tried to make laws that made religion a requirement, and would have killed all atheists.
ReplyDeleteAt which point you would jump up and down about how religion was the cause of all those deaths, yet as soon as an Atheist does it, it is because they are a twisted individual. You effectively are saying that you can't be wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe only time i say that deaths caused by a religious individual were an effect of religion is when they follow the pattern that the persons religious beliefs would suggest.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if a Christian killed 5 Jews simply because they were Jews, I would say it was for religious reasons and came as a direct result of their belief that Jews killed Christ.
However, if a Christian bombed a building (Not suicide bombing either) full of innocent people, then I would say that they are fucked up in the head, not that it was a result of their Christianity.