Being Atheist isn't like having a religion. There is no philosophical bent. You either believe in some sort of spirituality, or you don't. If you don't, you're an Atheist. If you do, you're not. If you're wishy-washy, you're Agnostic.
People like Dawkins and Hitchens are bad for Atheism. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the opposite of religion. These guys act more like preachers defending their faith than they do rational human beings.
Agnosticism is more the "opposite" of religion than atheism. Here's why:Originally Posted by DaiTengu
I think that "something" is fairly easy to identify: we have evolved to assume agency in randomness. When proto-man (or many, many ancestry species prior to proto-man) saw tall grass rustling and decided "it might be a tiger, so I'll fuck off", he was more likely to live than the moron who sat around going "what a lovely breeze" and was subsequently mauled to death. Perceiving agency kept us alive. Unfortunately, it also led to us needing to assign resopnsibility for the sun's rising and setting, and our creation, and the universe, and so on. Fundamentally, all religions are out to answer "What is responsible for this?"
Me? I'm an atheist, and pretty damned passionate about it. I'm passionate about skepticism and science, (even though I flunked chem in year twelve). Think's breakdown is very useful, but I straddle both categories -- I don't think there's any reason to believe in any gods, and moreover, I'm incredibly thankful of that, because if any existed, they'd be assholes.
I don't have a "losing my faith" story, although I was raised with a Jewish education and Jewish religious faith. I just always never understood the faithful answer to the question "why is there suffering?" (ie. "because of free will). It never sat right with me that God would create a bunch of people a certain way, and then punish them for acting according with their nature. And the Christian idea of sin and the devil was always entirely repulsive and illogical to me -- God's supremely powerful, but he is constantly thwarted by some douchebag on a lake of fire?
As a child, I used to think that, somehow, everyone understood this and I couldn't grasp it. They all GOT how "free will" makes it fair that children die of AIDS and most of Africa is fucked in the ass and Hitler gassed millions of people. I thought I was stupid, or there was something I just hadn't been taught -- as it turned out, I was pretty much the only one at that age to really get it. When I was about 15, I didn't abandon faith, I just came to realise that I never had it... despite my parents' and teachers' efforts.
I don't hate Dawkins or Hitchens, and I don't think they're "bad for atheism". The wave of "new atheism" -- a detestable phrase, but better than "militant atheism" -- owes a lot to people like them. Atheists are still a tiny minority and the age of religion's decline is in its infancy, so one has to expect bickering and name-calling and lambasting. Dawkins and Hitch have given voice to a lot of people who weren't willing to speak out before, and have also given people who were unsure a few things to think about. I know that The God Delusion helped convince two of my friends (not on my urging) to reexamine their faith and eventually discard it.
The only reason people say they are "bad for atheism" is because their brashness and assholey demeanor "makes us look bad", or some shit. They get a lot of criticism from the religious community for being disrespectful -- but, let's face it, any person who publicly speaks out in favour atheism, whether they're being an asshole or just a nice person who believes a certain thing, is going to be a lightning rod for mostly Christian morons with a persecuted majority complex.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks