Just What, Exactly, Is Atheism? November 21, 2012 08:58 33 Comments
Ever since I brought the question of Atheism Plus to this blog, my being, my very core, has been shattered, and every granule remaining from the devastating destruction is poised, waiting on the brink to turn on its fellow granules and wage all-out total war in an effort to prove what is and what is not. In other, less grandiose, and, let's face it, false words, the response to the blog, and in turn the responses I was spurned to write, lit a spark of inquiry in my sunken chest - what exactly "comes with" atheism? What's bundled in with the purchase of every Deity Denial? When I order a Godless #7, do I get fries or slaw?
As many of the anti-Atheism+ folks were adamant to point out, "atheism" itself isn't really a movement. It's not really anything. I'm sure I'm paraphrasing dozens of more witty and urbane folk, but atheism is a system of belief the same way not-boxing is a sport of kings, being quiet is a genre of music, and "off" is a television channel.
Or like this sparkly thing is a vampire. (Source: allthingsd.com)
In its simplest, purest form, the kind of crystal clear Walter White would cook up, atheism means the disbelief in a "god," a supernatural force that is creator and governor over human souls. I don't even like using the word "disbelief" there; to me its more of an acknowledgement of a fact of the world. Facts don't require belief or disbelief. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I could believe all I want that I don't have a wart on my hand, but that's not going to change the fact that I either need to see a dermatologist or buy some gloves.
But even the bit about what TYPE of god is unnecessary, if we want to simplify further. To the atheist, there are NO gods, not deist types who created the infinite Multiverse, fine-tuned the cosmic dials of physics and chemistry, and then floated away to dick around on Xbox. No theist types who take a serious vested interest in EVERY SINGLE prayer, no matter how contradictory they may be to EVERY OTHER prayer. No multi-teired gods that are all part of the same god, nothing like that.
Nope, not even Thor. (Source: 1upcollectibles.com)
That's it. End of definition. This is what the anti-plus folks were arguing - lumping together a bunch of ideals and goals and shared viewpoints on top of a word that means something very simple is unnecessary. It was the same reaction when the whole hullabaloo about "brights" came up. A person could be an atheist and have VERY different opinions on a multitude of issues. Hell, and atheist could strongly believe in ghosts, cryptozoological creatures, and The Secret - they'd still be an atheist if none of those things fell under the billowy veil of "god."
I also feel it is unnecessary to define what type of god "atheism" rejects, but for the opposite reason. For me, atheism comes with a whole boatload more. Right of the bat, being an atheist also comes with a denial of most, if not all, of the world of the "supernatural." To me, there's just as much evidence for a god as there is for a ghost. These people fall into the realm of the "Spiritual But Not Religious," a group that deserves its own space on this blog for the tarring-and-feathering I feel it oh so justly deserves.
To me, atheism comes with an overwhelming appreciation for science, especially the life sciences of evolutionary biology that better explain our place on this odd little rock better than any tattered old parchment. For most it seems like a thorough understanding of evolution by natural selection LEADS to the denial of the supernatural and of creator gods. I admit - I was handed The God Delusion before The Selfish Gene and The Greatest Show on Earth, but it was actually reading an interview with Douglas Adams, published posthumously in the tragically brilliant collection The Salmon of Doubt that began my lust for knowledge on how we fit in here and why that's a better offering than the teachings of religion. I've yet to meet an atheist that is also a denier of evolution, or a proponent of the young-Earth theory. I'm not saying they don't exist, but to me, they just seem to go hand-in-hand.
Read This! But only after reading everything else the man wrote, and only then if you're prepared to cry like a little girl. (Source: neoseeker.com)
When you deny the existence of a creator god, and, depending on the god or gods, the existence of an afterlife, the crushing, almost paralyzingly so, realization that THIS IS IT comes with. Again, I'm not saying there aren't atheists that may simultaneously believe in zero gods while also believing in the eternal soul or reincarnation or alternate planes of existence or some such bullwonky, but I've yet to encounter him or her. This too seems to be an atheism package deal. No gods = this life is it. The odds stacked against one unique little swimmer uniting with the warm orb and resulting in the exact genetic code for ME is so astronomically huge that one is simply bowled over by how appreciative I, and all of us, should be every single day that we even made it, when the slightest alteration in the plan could have resulted in anyone else. Or no one at all! Of course, it's hard to live constantly in awe and appreciation of existence itself - think about it too long and you have to sit down with a glass of water.
Or, preferably, something stronger. (Source: realfoodtraveler.com)
I find the same thing happens if I try to think about what would existence be like if we had evolved to work in the world of atoms, and we could see that every object is mostly empty space. Or what if we had evolved to perceive time several times slower than we do today. OR what if another species elsewhere on the planet, separate and secluded, had developed consciousness at the same rate as humans!
Do NOT think about this stuff while operating heavy machinery. (Source: i.com)
From this consciousness-raising view of the universe and our tiny place in it, a whole slew of other stuff seems to follow. Atheists seem to be in favor of a woman's right to choose. They seem to be tolerant of the decision to let go of life in situations in which assisted suicide would be preferable to prolonged suffering. I could go on, but it seems so much simpler to connect atheism with humanism, because it looks a whole lot like the two go hand in hand. But there's an aspect of humanism that I personally feel goes right along with the entire atheism caboodle but somehow missed the kit for a whole lot of non-believing folk I've met, and that's personal responsibility - specifically, the kind of personal responsibility that would be labelled as "Libertarianism" in the political sphere. Why? Well, that's a question for next time, isn't it? I've got to go drink whiskey and contemplate our place in the universe. I expect to find all of zero answers.
What is Atheism+ and Why Does It Make Me Slightly Angry? September 08, 2012 10:40 130 Comments
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] The Atheism+ Logo, and then a unique take on it that may or may not be an accurate assessment of its tenets, who knows, I sure don't. (Source: SecularCafe, Photobucket)[/caption]
EDIT: After reading and reading and reading this ongoing discussion, I'l like to start by saying Atheism+ no longer makes me "slightly angry." Not changing the title of the article, as that was my initial gut feeling based on very little understanding. Let this blog be a time capsule for future generations.
A "New Wave" of Atheism Seems a Bit Too Vitriolic
At least, for this amateur bloggist's taste. But then, this is all very new to me. I only first heard of this "Atheism+" business when The Raw Story shared this story from The Guardian. I've done a bit of internetular browsing, and have seemed to come up with bits of info here and there: a perfectly nice woman named Jen McCreight, who blogs on the FreeThought network, has created a new atheism movement called Atheism Plus, with the plus represented by + just like Prince did for a while. Her movement "cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime." Now, this all sounds well and good, right? So why is there such a divisive attitude towards it, and why do I immediately share it? Some think that it's become atheism's moral thought police, run by people who know better than you and I. Some feel that, while it claims to not be purposefully alienating, but as anyone whose even offered a polite rebuttal to their stance has been trolled to web-based death. Some feel that atheism itself is inherently socially progressive and humanist, and attempting to create an actual doctrine is foolhardy at best. And some feel that Atheism+ is a platform for extreme feminism fueled by disdain for the notion that the current realm of atheism is run by white middle-aged men of means.
I don't really want to get into my thoughts about this just yet. I still don't completely understand what it is! Is it just a name for a few people's ideas on a blog? Is it a burgeoning political movement looking for donations and memberships? Is there really a virulent swarm of caveman woman haters who are also vocal atheists? If you have thoughts about Atheism+, positive (Ha!) or negative, please comment. I'd love to talk to you internet folks+ about this, and really get into my initial reactions.
EDIT: Yeah, I figured this would be the case. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everyone - except for you, Jizzer. You are awful. You will miss everything good in this life, and you have our pity.
I want to stress that I still know very little about it, so my opinions are just that - opinions, initial judgment calls, but minds made up can be easily changed, if they're open to new evidence. But right now, I see an attempt of a select few to become the moral authority for a diverse number, and attach a name to it that, at its core, has no real ethical bearing. Yes, most of us who define ourselves as atheist or agnostic feel that, inherent in that, is a strong sense of humanism and social progress. I can't honestly say that I've met an atheist who wanted fewer rights for women, an amendment against gay marriage, or anything like that. But that doesn't mean that all people who don't believe in a god also agree on all the issues.
And that's entirely fine - the good parts about what I've discovered of Atheism+ through this little blog experiment is that it's an opt-in thing, it's not FORCING anything on anyone. Call yourself whatever you want, support whatever you want, Atheism+ don't care. It hopes to affect social change and fight religious influence on policy, and that's a noble ideal. Here's where my "slight anger" comes in -
Now, it looks like a lot of Atheism+ stems from a tree of feminism whose seed was that whole elevator debacle a while back. If you're unfamiliar with that whole mess, a convenient breakdown can be found here. It feels like a lot of what Atheism+ is about is in response to this environment that may very well exist - I don't know, I'm a white, unattractive male, I get ignored more than attacked or abused. But I do remember my initial response to the elevator story was similar to Dawkins' rather than Wilson's. I felt, and still do feel, that to cry misogyny and sexism in that scenario was overblown - the cry of feminism in that instance made women all the weaker, rather than equal. <---OPINION
And it feels like instances like this, especially with Dawkins' response, are why Atheism+ is so stridently opposed to being represented by the names we're all used to. No more Dawkins, Dennet, Randi, Hitchens, Harris, and the rest - since they're aged white men, their opinion must be at least a little sexist! Could it be coincidence that a lot of the people we currently see as the "faces" of atheism are older white men? Or are these the people who just so happen to be the experts on the subject? I feel like atheism+ is seeking to disassociate with these men simply because they are men. <-----OPINION
But is there really a huge, vocal base of hateful, sexist, monster atheists making death threats against Atheism+ bloggers and leaders just for speaking out? Or is this the internet, where anyone can feel the sensation that space and anonymity gives to the id? Any online gamer will tell you - all you ever hear are the racist, bigoted, vile monsters screaming obscenities. It's the power of the internet. Creating divisions and shouting back only does so much, and I think all it does is "feed the trolls," as they say. <---- OPINION.
That's all for now. Let us never forget - this would not be the first time I, Kyle Van Son, could be 100% wrong.