To Deny Atheism is to Reject Humanity
I just want to share a conversation overheard a a few weeks ago and comment on it. The key point is below, I’ll leave the rest out.
Person 1: I think I’m becoming an Atheist.
Person 2: That’s fantastic.
Person 1: Not really, it means I’m going to hell.
Funny, isnt it. The person involved had obviously been questioning their long held beliefs, but can’t quite overcome what’s been deeply ingrained into her, that hell exists. Fear is a favourite tool of the religious, if you don’t believe in God, you will be subjected to an eternity of torture. And there’s no point tippy toeing around the fact, it may not be phrased that exact way in the holy books, but it’s what they mean.
This fear, in some cases, results in people trying their best to be “good”. This causes two problems. Firstly, if it’s only fear that’s making you be a decent person, it’s all obviously fleeting and secondly, the same thing that is imposing the fear, also controls the conditions of that fear. What I mean by this is, if you believe the Bible’s version of things, with Hell existing, the only way you can avoid Hell is to follow the handy directions contained in the same source that describes Hell itself.
So on to the headline, why is denying atheism rejecting humanity? Logic dictates that if you are not an Atheist, you are involved in some belief (wishy washy agnostics excluded). Most belief systems include the concept of punishing those who do not follow it’s guidance. So therefore, by extension, a non-atheist is highly likely to be living in fear of punishment if they do not comply to the moral rules set out in their religion. So, it appears that by applying this logic, the only people on earth who are currently bound by their own moral values are atheists. The only people no living in fear. To me, this solves a whole bunch of problems. We’ve already seen that religious writings can be interpreted in multiple ways, and because of this it’s very easy to end up with fundamentalists. Those who apply the religious rules literally, or those who are filled with so much fear that they become overzealous in enforcing the rules they are bound by.
Personally, I’d rather be bound by my own moral compass, not one written hundreds of years ago that may not even be relevant or applicable today. Any teaching that tries to portray moral ambiguities as straight forward, and black and white, is far off the mark. People need to ability to adapt themselves based on the current position, environment and climate. And they need to do this without fear hanging over their head.
It takes a lot to deconstruct indoctrination.
Personally, I’d rather be bound by my own moral compass, not one written hundreds of years ago that may not even be relevant or applicable today.
And yet, I find it rather interesting that people who can point to a book and say, “That’s my morality. At least I have a foundation. All you have is yourself.”
To deny athiesm is to reject MY humanity!
I am so glad that you KNOW about my humanity.
agnostics and postmodern existentialist a like look! someone else who knows more about us then we do.
your just someone else claims to know truth and the Not truth…. kind of like Zoroaster.
Chris, you’ve obviously missed the point or just plain not read the post you’ve just commented on. Yes, I know your “humanity”. If you are a Christian, which I strongly suspect, you are bound by the moral guidelines stated in the Bible. This means you are bound to the moral compass of whoever wrote the Bible, not your own. By accepting this other persons moral guidelines, and not your own, you are denying something that makes us human. So yes, I know the rules in the Bible, and therefore, because you are bound by them, I know about your humanity.
Chris, are you aware that Zoroasterianism is a “re-up” of Mithraism, an ancient sun god religion from which Christianity borrowed heavily?
this is dumb. ive noticed you always write from the perspective that we (christians) are already wrong before we can reply. yes i believe there is a hell. i cannot prove this yet you cannot disprove this. as an atheist, are you out to find the actual truth? or are you trying to just remain ignorant in your idea that every other theory cant be right because it cant be proven? you write from the perspective that all you can document and prove IS ALL THERE IS AND THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. but how can you be sure. after all, theres believed to be up to 13 different dimensions to reality. us as humans are only aware of 3 dimensions of space and a half dimension of time. so there’s room for lots more out there.
Underoath, are you claiming that your God is some sort of interdimensional being? Intersting, and surely as science progresses beyond it’s current level of understanding we will be able to witness and interact with this interdimensional God.
Of course, you are way off the mark when it comes to seeking the truth. As a Atheist, I seek the truth, I look for evidence and proof that facts are just that, facts. what I don’t do, and this is what separates Atheists from most theists, is read a book and blindly follow and believe it as truth. Atheists, as a general rule, don’t even believe books that support their beliefs with corroborating evidence from independent parties, or at the very least evidence that can be examined. Consider the following and how theists and atheists would react:
* A priest claims that God spoke to him
* A scientist claims he can prove we evolved from great apes
I am certain that theists would blindly believe the priest’s claim whereas the scientific and atheist communities would question the scientists findings until every avenue had been explored. Deep down you know that is true (and previous incidents support my assertion). Now tell me which party is really seeking the truth.
The Atheist, you say you are seeking to determine the “truth”. However, we will never be able to completely determine the truth beyond doubt, no matter how strong the “proof”. Jesus could descend from heaven right in front of our eyes and most people would probably still not believe the proof (I know I’d struggle).
Since we can never prove the truth beyond doubt, how do you intend to seek it? At some point you are going to have to recognise that god simply cannot be proven or unproven beyond doubt. At this point, you will need to make a choice! God or no God?
Since you seem to have already chosen no God, you are in the equivalent basket to the theists, since neither of you can prove it beyond doubt, and therefore both of you are following a blind belief!
The implications of what I’ve just said are either:
1. You make a choice and trust in an unproveable belief (either that there definitively is a God, or that there definitively is no God).
2. You make no choice ever, and die undecided, simply because you were too afraid of holding any belief.
What’s wrong with holding an unproveable belief anyway? You do, Athiest.
@ athiest
good point but in the same way athiests think that an all powerful being that cant be proven to exist is simply non-existant.
I am a theist. Your assertion that “I am certain that theists would blindly believe the priest’s claim” just boggles my mind. How can you presume to know the thoughts of anyone, especially those of a person who sees things so differently than you do.? My observation is that there have been thousands of priests who have made more thousands of claims, most of both are self-serving and should be ignored. Please do not accuse me of such ludicrous ignorance! You cannot say that because Edison tried 9,000 times to make a light bulb (over-simplified here) and failed, that there cannot be any light bulbs. Your position seems equally ill founded.
Four incorrect statments from a theist perspective:
1. if you don’t believe in God, you will be subjected to an eternity of torture.
No, you must follow your conscience even if that leads you deny God, but you have the responsibility to form your conscience.
2. Most belief systems include the concept of punishing those who do not follow it’s guidance.
Hell is the choice that God allows one to make since he does not force anyone to live with him forever. It is a punishment only in a secondary sense, rather like the ‘punishment’ that comes from stubbing ones toe.
3. the only people on earth who are currently bound by their own moral values are atheists.
obviously wrong. Morality is not only extrinsic (”thou shalt not…”) but intrinsec, ie responding to our most genuine desires.
4. Atheists are the only people no living in fear.
That’s not the impression I get reading these blogs…
4. denying atheism is rejecting humanity.
the opposite is true. atheism, as you put it many times is a choice for self. choosing God is –or should be– a choice to love all God’s creatures and every person.
The good news is that there are some true statements also:
A. if it’s only fear that’s making you be a decent person, it’s all obviously fleeting and … imposing … the conditions of that fear.
Yes we should help people to understand which choices lead to fulfillment and which ones don’t.”
B. Any teaching that tries to portray moral ambiguities as straight forward, and black and white, is far off the mark.
Yes again, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some basic principles.