Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Serious Misconceptions
This began as a reply to Rick's post below about "Freedom From Religion". Please see his post for context.
[RickU] I think that the theists have a serious misconception which drives them to make the errant statement. The misconception is that we want to push our godlessness onto them and remove god from everything.
This goes hand in hand with the other serious misconception religious folks have about atheism; that it is a religion.
The two are very simple to understand.
More below the fold...
1. "Freedom From Religion". The First Amendment protects the free expression and religious rights of individual American citizens. It also admonishes our government to be fair about it. So, we get the "equal access" stuff for public schools, and such. That's why churches can use high school auditoriums on the weekends to hold services - as long as *everyone who asks* gets the same access. So, theoretically, the Church of Satan could hold black mass in a school auditorium. Or we could have weekly freethinker's meeting. Or whatever. Basketweaving classes.
However, the misconception comes into play when people get confused and begin to think that the government itself has free expression and religious freedom rights. This is incorrect. The government does not have any rights at all. The government has to enforce and uphold our rights as individuals, but it has no rights of it's own. So, when a person is employed by the government, and thereby becomes a spokesman for the government, they do not have any rights while acting in that capacity. For example, a public school teacher - who is a city or county employee - is a government representative. In that capacity, they cannot lead a class of public school students in a prayer, or pass out literature from their church. Because in that situation, they are the government - and the government does not have any rights, remember? Folks lose sight of this and cannot separate the government job from the individual person who is performing it.
Understandable to a certain degree, I suppose, but frustrating - not to mention unconstitutional at times.
2. "Atheism is a religion". Everyone does this. Even some atheists do this. It is the single-most frustrating thing about being without god-belief. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry have their own idea about what atheism is - and they are all generally wrong. Sometimes I think that the word has become so mangled in the common usage that it's quite nearly useless. I have taken to describing myself to folks in person as "a person without god-beliefs." Or, "I have no god beliefs".
I have gone through this time and time again on this blog for the past five years - and on other folks' blogs. And in editorials, letters to the editor, op-ed columns, personal letters, etc.
It just doesn't matter. People still don't get it, and I am beginning to think that they never will.
Atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin. NEITHER are "religions". They are descriptions.
First of all, "Atheism" and "theism" BOTH are NOT:
- Religions
- Philosophies
- "World views".
- Ethical frameworks.
- Moral authorities
- Dogmas
- Rulebooks
- Lifestyles
- Guidelines
- Political indicators
- "How to" books.
Again, they are descriptions. "Theism" describes a person in which god-belief is present. "Atheism" describes a person in which god-belief is absent.
That's all. Nothing more. Black or white. On or Off. There or not-there. Mutually exclusive. You may be described as one, or the other, but not as both.
Now, after someone describes themselves, say, of having god-beliefs present within them, then they can be called a "theist".
Does this say anything else about them at all? Just because they have god-belief in them, can you now ascribe a political party to them? Tell them that "all of them" act in a certain way, and they "all you theists" want the same monolithic political even to happen?
No! Of course not. The ONLY thing we now know about that person is that god-belief is present within them. We don't know which god(s) they believe in, which religion they subscribe to, their political views, their predisposition towards puppies, babies, and cute fuzzy bunnies and kittens - N.O.T.H.I.N.G.
The same is true for atheists. All we know about them is that god-belief is absent within them. That's it.
Except - when your average American hears the word "atheist", they seem to picture some frothing-at-the-mouth, rabid, anti-Christian baby-eating nihilist devil who wants to use the government to persecute Christians in their own homes.
Even the ostensibly smart ones like D'Souza and Vox Day seem to conflate a simple lack of god-belief with full-blown nihilism.
It's frustrating sometimes.
What do we do about it? I mean, I like the word "atheist". It's a perfect description to what I am. A person without god beliefs. But the colloquial and common usage of the word is becoming so tainted that it's almost impossible to use without having to re-explain, at great length, what it actually means - and even then, you get blank looks and hostility.
What do you folks think?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
You've stated your
You've stated your beliefs... now try to defend them... The odds and modern science are against you...
That Whooshing Noise
Hi Seve,
That "whooshing" noise you heard just now was my entire post sailing right over your head.
Not once did I state what my beliefs are in this post. (Unless you count my strict reading of the U.S. Constitution as a "belief" - in which case your comment about "odds" and "modern science" is completely mystifying.)
So, because I stated no beliefs in this post, I have nothing to "defend", and your mysterious ellipses-laden comment about "odds" and "modern science" is not only silly, but completely irrelevant.
Care to address the, you know, actual substance of my post instead of your fantasy-land interpretation of it?
Thanks in advance.
Serious Misconceptions
Very useful ideas, Brent. Thanks.
This is a subject that I have been giving much thought to lately. I certainly agree with your basic definition of "a-theist". I would only add that atheism does not contain nor approve of discriminating against another's theistic beliefs. I would in not suggest that someone should not hold beliefs without evidence. I am aware that I do so, though just not in a way that places the answers to all those questions of existence neatly into the palm of my hand.
In the interest of full disclosure I must admit to thinking that the god botherers are just a bit silly because I was that silly once. Fortunately I was lousy at it and the moment eventually arrived to lay that burden down and walk away. It was not easy but it sure felt good!
When the subject of religion
When the subject of religion comes up in conversation, I simply say brightly "Oh, I'm an atheist."
Shocks the hell out of people sometimes, that someone clean, intelligent, non-drooling, non-evil and SMILING can say such a thing.
If atheists could just get equal time on the conversational field, I'd consider that a huge victory.
As long as you
can keep that hickory-smoked child jerky hidden in your pocket. Otherwise, they all roll their eyes and say, "Oh, exactly what I thought."
I'm an atheist, too. It does shock the hell out of people that a guy with a suit and tie, short-cropped hair, wife and kid, who reads WSJ, gets on and off at the same bus stops as they do is so evil but they get over it. Well, they have no choice, if they didn't get over it I'd have to conger up Satan to swallow them whole in front of the other passengers and then, since I know some of their families, I'd have a hard time facing their wives and kids.
Perhaps it is working in the international arena but on the job I have few second looks when they find out.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
I'm a computer tech and have
I'm a computer tech and have often saved the ass of a particular client. This client is a wonderful older woman who I have a great relationship with and I've even received hugs and thank you cards from her on occasion. She is a very devout Christian and within her cards are many references to God and him bestowing blessings on me for being so helpful and generous. If she knew I was an athiest I don't doubt for a second that she would never call me again and most likely shun me the next time I was in her building. In my neck of the woods here in Virginia this is the norm and it's also why,due to financial reasons, I can't come out of the closet, so to speak. Unfortunately describing yourself as an athiest makes you, in their eyes, a satan worshipper. It really pisses me off that I could potentially lose a client just because of my non-belief.
I like the word, too.
Yeah, I understand and share your frustration, Brent. I generally describe myself as someone who is "not a person of faith", which is saying the exact same thing as saying "I am an atheist", but makes people actually stop and think about what I said as opposed to sticking me into a pigeonhole as soon as "atheist" registers.
But I like the word "atheist", and hate to see it just discarded because it carries some baggage. Can we rehabilitate it? I dunno - but I, and you, and the others here, and Dawkins, et al, we're trying...and it is too soon to give up the attempt.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Is atheist enough?
It strikes me that perhaps atheist is not a sufficient descriptor. I am reminded of the idea that I have heard that theists are all atheists relative to every god they do not believe in. But I think that something is missing from that statement. A theist, let's say a christian, likely disbelieves in other gods not from skepticism, but through faith. Their religious teachings often include the condemnation of other religions as idolitry.
This is not universally true, of course. I am reminded of one of my high school physics/astronomy teachers who spent at least one full class period scientifically debunking astrology. I was rather annoyed at this, not because I had any sort of belief in astrology, but because he, a prosletyzing christian, would never turn the same skeptical eye on his own cherished beliefs.
So is the 'atheism' of a theist towards other religions the same as that of an atheist towrds those same religions? Pehaps this is where those terms like awakened atheist come in handy. The theist is essentially a DNAtheist to other religions.
Evangelicals like to call
Jews who have converted to Christianity "completed Jews." How about we call ourselves "completes?" Or, Total Atheists? I'll stick with atheists and let conversations go the way they will. I've done a pretty good job to date of not turning off people in spite of my stridency in the face of a religious discussion. What is most interesting is that the evangelicals, you know those who feel duty bound to convert everyone, including other Christians of insufficient persuasion, to their orientation, are the ones most likely to avoid me as much as possible.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
On the face
On the face of it, yes. At the root, no. You're right. The reasoning you have for not believing in a specific god does, at least in a way, matter. It's certainly something to consider in the larger debate.
I can think of one thing we shouldn't do
I can think of one thing we shouldn't do, and that's try to invent a new word. Just keep using the descriptive word, and act in ways that confound the stereotypes. As I always told my sons, "if you don't like being treated as a stereotype, don't act like one".
But then, no one is more stereotypical than I am (bald-with-goatee middle-aged tech guy)
Anyway, I like the word "atheist" too. Just defend it, or get lost in an endless series of euphemisms that become devalued as they are re-branded by fundies.