Thursday, December 27, 2007

I like this explanation of atheism

a little reading on atheism...

Actually, here is more or less the whole thing. I tried to cut out banter...but then I stopped:

Atheism does not have a centralized organization, so there’s no creed or dogma that might state what atheism is for all people at all times. If someone calls themselves an atheist, you really don’t know from that what they do or don’t generally believe. All you know for sure is that they aren’t theists.

The word atheist is derived from the Greek, a-none, no or not and theos-god or gods, so in the strictly grammatical sense atheist means without god. That isn’t especially enlightening, so let’s examine the common perceptions of the term.

In general, an atheist is one who does not identify themselves with any theological concept. In theology, all you know from someone calling themselves an atheist is that they don’t accept theism. You don’t know why, to what degree, or what they do believe.

There have been attempts made to define more precisely the varying degrees of atheism. You may see terms like hard atheist, fundamental atheist or militant atheist. These terms refer to those who are engaged in open and sometimes hostile opposition to all religions. They tend to be aggressive and outspoken. They will maintain with apparent certainty that gods don’t exist. While they may be the most visible (and audible) atheists, they are not the majority, anymore than the average Christian is like Elmer Gantry.

The rest of us who espouse atheism but aren’t militant and don’t declare absolutely that gods don’t exist are often referred to as soft atheist or agnostic atheists. This may seem to infer that we aren’t as convinced of our atheism as hard atheists. That’s not necessarily true. If we truly reject the religious notion that some truths are absolutely true for all people at all times, we can hardly turn around and make absolute statements about the non-existence of gods.

What we can and do say is that for the gods thus far proposed by humans throughout the history of mankind, no credible evidence has ever been presented that can be examined and qualified outside the realm of faith. All religions require the acceptance of their teachings based on faith and hope. As skeptics, we ask for something more, some convincing evidence like that provided to explain how gravity works or why there’s lightening. The fantastic stories about the lives and activities of all the various gods men have believed in over the years are simply unconvincing. Every religion maintains that their god is the only true god without, as far as we can tell, any sensible reason to believe that. At the same time, we cannot in all honesty say that someday we may not encounter a being or beings that to us appear as gods. So to say with certainty that gods can’t exist is not something we think is supportable.

Just because we aren’t as militant as hard atheists doesn’t mean we aren’t aware of and don’t oppose the harm done to mankind by religion. Religious belief discourages questioning, doubting and skepticism. Some of the greatest harm done to believers by their leaders has been made possible by their conditioning not to question authority, not to think for themselves. Atheism encourages thinking without bias and undue influence and questioning those who try to tell you how to think, even atheists. I wouldn’t think of asking you to accept everything I say without question. I am not offering absolute truths.

Atheism doesn’t imply an anger toward the gods or their followers. No doubt there are those who have adopted an atheistic attitude based on their disappointment with religion on an emotional level. Perhaps they perceive an abandonment by god. They are still theists, as they accept the existence of gods, they just aren’t happy about it. To those of us who don’t give any credence to the notion that gods exist it makes no sense to hate something you don’t accept as real. It would be like hating the Joker because of all the grief he’s caused Batman.

If gods exist, either they or their followers ought to be able to provide us with evidence of that. We should not be required to take them at their word. If you were to buy a car from me without ever having seen it, based solely on my word that it exists and is worth what I say it’s worth, I might call you gullible. Why should the standard be lowered for something as important as a god?

No comments: