That's basically the gist of the response (with a few exceptions) whenever I've told someone I'm atheist. It never matters that I was the same person I was when walked in the door. It never matters that I've helped the helpless cross the street safely, given money / food to the homeless, or done something as simple as listened politely while supposed theists have, without apology, spewed vitriolic rhetoric, while defending and promoting a deity that is supposedly averse to such outbursts.
It never matters that I brought the pie they're eating, talked about the game engagingly, go to work everyday and pay my bills on time, have taught kids at summer camp, etc., etc. All that matters now is that despite everything else that says I'm a regular guy, this one thing suddenly makes me evil beyond evil. One, seemingly nice old black lady, once hurried away from me when I enlightened her after she petitioned me to attend her church. I replied that I could and would not, and after she pressed me at length, I informed her of my stance on organized religion and the idea of Gods overseeing us, by use of that abhorrent and reprehensible term: atheist. The woman then made it her immediate and pressing business to vacate my presence and barely let me complete my sentence once the word had parted my lips.
And so, to paraphrase a popular movie line, what we seem to have here is a failure to understand. So often, when you utter the very word atheist, people will recoil as if Satan has just entered into the room. Sometimes, the reaction is so visceral, I half-expect people to hiss and form a makeshift cross out of some found object in the immediate area. And this is a serious problem, because not only do those who hate us, hate us (that's one problem), those who hate us do so without even actually understanding what it is they are hating. It's one thing to not care for peanut butter (as I do), but I have a full understanding of peanut butter. It is a spread made from peanuts with some other minor ingredients added (oil, salt, etc.). I simply don't care for it. But I don't hate it. Believe it or not, hate is a positive emotion. Not because it is good, but rather, it is positive in that it causes people to take action. People who don't care for something, stay away from it. People who hate something, actively seek to eliminate it.
In the case of Atheists, few care for us, and fewer care to understand us, in the United States at least. And being a black atheist, well, now I've exponentially increased the vitriol. Because, among the many things black people (and black men in particular) are not supposed to be, atheist is probably number two on the list (after homosexual). My own God-fearing mother has one of each. Confessed and confirmed black atheists probably rate at less than one percent of the total black population in the US. Those of us in the closet for fear of ostracism probably still rate at around five percent or less. And why?
1. Why are there so few of us?
2. Why do the few of us who exist, feel we have to hide?
These are separate questions, but they are rooted in similar soil.
The number of black atheists is likely so low because the black community, as a whole, is so connected with "the church". Well, that's obvious, you say. Of course a highly religious group of people is going to have fewer atheists than a less religious group of people. No matter where you end up in life, everything one does is surrounded by church and "the Lord", etc. Black homes are littered with bibles, and black mothers have coined the phrases "Oh, Lord" and "Help me Jesus". One is raised to attend church every Sunday (even if we don't continue as adults), and the biggest family gatherings often revolve around church functions and gospel music. Even Tyler Perry makes frequent use of religion and Gospel music in his films and plays. Being without religion and without a belief in God in the black community is difficult to say the least. There is rarely a time when one is not being indoctrinated, as it were.
Even if you fail to truly believe in what you are being socialized into, you go to church anyway, where the minister tells of how one must "believe" to get into "heaven", and those who don't believe will go to "hell". Those who don't believe are equated with thieves and murderers and all the ills of society are laid upon them. And who wants to be a member of that group? In many black communities (especially in Africa) the atheist (along with the homosexual) is considered less than a dog on the street. And so, one continues to feign belief, or even to attempt belief, to remain in the good graces of the society.
This brings me to my next point: There are so many of us in the Theist closet because of the representation of atheism by believers. When it is discovered that one is an atheist, he is often considered a Satan-worshipper, which by its very consideration, intimates a lack of understanding on the part of the believer - atheists don't believe Satan exists either. I told my mother a long time ago that I don't believe God exists (I didn't use the word "atheist" however - as I know the inflammatory power of the term). One of her responses was "What do you believe in then, Satan?" Another response was "So you think you have all the answers, then?" She was not only repulsed, but genuinely offended. My mother's reaction approximates others I have received.
Theists cast aside atheists either (incorrectly) as Devil-worshippers or as people who consider themselves greater than God. Neither is true. To be greater than God implies the existence of one, and atheists lack a belief in any God or Gods. Therefore, for atheists to be able to come out of the closet about their belief (or lack thereof), there needs to be an understanding generated between theists and atheists. Atheists are not any more evil, depraved, or corrupt, than the equivalent theist is. We all know stories of those who praise the Lord all Sunday after engaging in debauchery all Saturday.
As well, atheism does not require analysis. Many want to analyze the atheist, particularly the black atheist, as confused, done-wrong, or other. If a person claims to be atheist, he has likely thought about it quite thoroughly. Especially if he is black. It is not a psychological problem or disorder. Anyone who has claimed to be an atheist in the manner of "There is no God! It's all over! I can do anything to anyone!" is not truly an atheist, but rather a depraved person. No true, thinking atheist would harm another person and predicate it solely on "There is no God".
An atheist is one thing, and one thing only: one who lacks a belief in a God or Gods. Both by percentage and literal quantity, atheists make up the smallest number of "problem" people in society. Black atheists even more so.
The key to black atheists coming out of the closet and to the easing of friction between atheists and theists is also simply one thing and one thing only: understanding.
But that's just the opinion of One Black Atheist.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2009
An Atheist's Thoughts / Ruminations...
*Note: The following essay is a REPOST of an earlier essay, to kick off this new blog. The context of this discussion deals with the Atheist in relation to Christianity - but can be expanded to cover the other major western monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism, as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.
First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.
I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.
Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.
For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:
"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."
Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.
Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.
All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.
Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?
All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubtable, due to lack of evidence.
"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."
That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.
I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.
On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.
First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.
I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.
Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.
For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:
"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."
Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.
Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.
All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.
Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?
All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubtable, due to lack of evidence.
"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."
That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.
I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.
On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.
Friday, January 23, 2009
An Atheist's Thoughts / Ruminations...
*Note: The following essay / discussion deals with the Atheist in relation to Christianity - but can be expanded to cover the other major western monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism, as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.
First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.
I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.
Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.
For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:
"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."
Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.
Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.
All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.
Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?
All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubt-able, due to lack of evidence.
"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."
That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.
I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.
On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.
First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.
I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.
Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.
For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:
"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."
Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.
Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.
All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.
Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?
All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubt-able, due to lack of evidence.
"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."
That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.
I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.
On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Incivility of the Many...
"Doesn't he ever get tired of writing about society and politics?" you may ask. The answer is yes. I do. But when I see so much that is wrong, I can't help but say something about it. After all, if you see something, say something, right?
I was recently reading an article on gay marriage on CNN's Website, and there was a post at the bottom from a citizen in response to the article. Among many other incorrect and incoherent things in his post (and other posts), this caught my eye:
"There was a vote, the majority does not want gay marriage. That's how it works in America. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between and man and a woman."
What? Firstly, of the many things wrong with this statement, let's pick on the pettiest first. This is not America, this is the United States of America, meaning the United States is in America. Mexicans, Brazilians, Ecuadorians, Canadians, Jamaicans, and anyone else in the Americas can ALL, with complete accuracy, call themselves Americans. If there were a law in France barring the baking of baguettes on Tuesdays, you would say "that's how it works in France", not "that's how it works in Europe." It would be a French law, not a European law. It's a European law in that France is in Europe, in the way that a Frenchman is a European, but a European is not necessarily French.
Secondly, what the Bible says has little to do with legislature (in principle). Our system of government was specifically designed that way. It would seem (from the many embarrassing statements over several decades) that many of those who believe we should legislate religion, have not ever actually read the Constitution of the United States of America, or any part of it. Nor, it seems, have they paid any attention in any American history class that they have attended. The United States was founded specifically ON (among other things) the principle of separation of church and state. No legislator, executive, or judiciary figure should EVER make a determination on the law based on their religious beliefs, but rather, only in the best interests of the nation. Of course, in practice this is not easy and it certainly has not worked perfectly. If you believe Issue X is morally wrong based on your religion, how can you write Issue X into law? But that is why we have the checks and balances - which also are not perfect, but this was all set up with the idea of making the church and state as exclusive of each other as possible. This is for good reason. Remember when the Catholic church controlled 80% of Europe? And that's just one (widespread and historically prominent) example.
Thirdly, and for me, the worst of the wrong, the idea that "the majority does not want gay marriage. That's how it works in [the United States]." Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And, this is where terminology gets dicey, because the United States (as many people incorrectly believe) is not a "democracy". It is a republic. A "democratic republic", yes, but nonetheless a republic. This distinction is important, because though they operate in an EXTREMELY similar manner, they have some important differences. A pure democracy is "majority rule". All of the citizens in that democracy gather someplace and a poll is taken on a particular interest. If half plus one vote one way, that is what is implemented. If the United States were that, the person who wrote that post on CNN would be correct. However, they were wrong because the United States is not a pure democracy.
Without going into encyclopedic depths, The United States of America is a democratic republic, which means a representative form of government, which already eliminates pure democracy, AND the Constitution of the United States establishes a republic, which is based on protecting the civil rights of the few from the tyranny and incivility of the many, by use of the majority. Becauise if all are protected, the majority is protected. That incivility may be racism, sexism, or any other "-ism", but our government is designed to protect the oppressed minority from the tyranny of the masses. It can be complicated, and obviously, has not worked perfectly. Slavery, of course, comes to mind most easily. This contradiction was "corrected" by slave owners with the "3/5th's of a man" rule, where a slave was not a full person, but property. This allowed for slavery to exist without legally contradicting the principle and law of the Constitution, though in spirit of course, it still did, because one doesn't take property to church and teach it Christianity, one does that to (or forces that onto) a person. Because, at the time, since one did not have robotic aides with interactive voice recognition software, one didn't ask their property to clean their house and work their fields, one asked (or forced) another person to do that.
The structure of the United States government, as set forth in the Constitution is the great genius that allows for this nation to correct its past mistakes. From slavery, to women's suffrage, to the release of Japanese-Americans from our concentration camps, etc., etc., etc., it is the structure of our government as a republic that not only requests, but requires us to protect the rights of the few over the tyranny and incivility of the many. As a "white-talkin' ", black male atheist, I know all too well what it is like to be an outsider and a minority, and I'm thankful that our forefathers forethought this point. By the way, many of the forefathers that created this genius-in-principle, imperfect-in-practice system were the antithesis of the people who invoke them when they discuss this great country. Many of them were the progressive, LIBERALS of their time. The same CNN poster said the "... fore fathers are probably turning in their graves..."
They are. Because of him.
It is true, we are one nation "under God", but that statement is meant to make the point:
"Aided by our religious beliefs, we as men will do what is best for men to get by, but we will not infringe on the rights of others to do as they will. We are all under God; Let God judge us and them accordingly",
not
"Our God is the end all for all".
Let God judge us and them accordingly.
I was recently reading an article on gay marriage on CNN's Website, and there was a post at the bottom from a citizen in response to the article. Among many other incorrect and incoherent things in his post (and other posts), this caught my eye:
"There was a vote, the majority does not want gay marriage. That's how it works in America. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between and man and a woman."
What? Firstly, of the many things wrong with this statement, let's pick on the pettiest first. This is not America, this is the United States of America, meaning the United States is in America. Mexicans, Brazilians, Ecuadorians, Canadians, Jamaicans, and anyone else in the Americas can ALL, with complete accuracy, call themselves Americans. If there were a law in France barring the baking of baguettes on Tuesdays, you would say "that's how it works in France", not "that's how it works in Europe." It would be a French law, not a European law. It's a European law in that France is in Europe, in the way that a Frenchman is a European, but a European is not necessarily French.
Secondly, what the Bible says has little to do with legislature (in principle). Our system of government was specifically designed that way. It would seem (from the many embarrassing statements over several decades) that many of those who believe we should legislate religion, have not ever actually read the Constitution of the United States of America, or any part of it. Nor, it seems, have they paid any attention in any American history class that they have attended. The United States was founded specifically ON (among other things) the principle of separation of church and state. No legislator, executive, or judiciary figure should EVER make a determination on the law based on their religious beliefs, but rather, only in the best interests of the nation. Of course, in practice this is not easy and it certainly has not worked perfectly. If you believe Issue X is morally wrong based on your religion, how can you write Issue X into law? But that is why we have the checks and balances - which also are not perfect, but this was all set up with the idea of making the church and state as exclusive of each other as possible. This is for good reason. Remember when the Catholic church controlled 80% of Europe? And that's just one (widespread and historically prominent) example.
Thirdly, and for me, the worst of the wrong, the idea that "the majority does not want gay marriage. That's how it works in [the United States]." Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And, this is where terminology gets dicey, because the United States (as many people incorrectly believe) is not a "democracy". It is a republic. A "democratic republic", yes, but nonetheless a republic. This distinction is important, because though they operate in an EXTREMELY similar manner, they have some important differences. A pure democracy is "majority rule". All of the citizens in that democracy gather someplace and a poll is taken on a particular interest. If half plus one vote one way, that is what is implemented. If the United States were that, the person who wrote that post on CNN would be correct. However, they were wrong because the United States is not a pure democracy.
Without going into encyclopedic depths, The United States of America is a democratic republic, which means a representative form of government, which already eliminates pure democracy, AND the Constitution of the United States establishes a republic, which is based on protecting the civil rights of the few from the tyranny and incivility of the many, by use of the majority. Becauise if all are protected, the majority is protected. That incivility may be racism, sexism, or any other "-ism", but our government is designed to protect the oppressed minority from the tyranny of the masses. It can be complicated, and obviously, has not worked perfectly. Slavery, of course, comes to mind most easily. This contradiction was "corrected" by slave owners with the "3/5th's of a man" rule, where a slave was not a full person, but property. This allowed for slavery to exist without legally contradicting the principle and law of the Constitution, though in spirit of course, it still did, because one doesn't take property to church and teach it Christianity, one does that to (or forces that onto) a person. Because, at the time, since one did not have robotic aides with interactive voice recognition software, one didn't ask their property to clean their house and work their fields, one asked (or forced) another person to do that.
The structure of the United States government, as set forth in the Constitution is the great genius that allows for this nation to correct its past mistakes. From slavery, to women's suffrage, to the release of Japanese-Americans from our concentration camps, etc., etc., etc., it is the structure of our government as a republic that not only requests, but requires us to protect the rights of the few over the tyranny and incivility of the many. As a "white-talkin' ", black male atheist, I know all too well what it is like to be an outsider and a minority, and I'm thankful that our forefathers forethought this point. By the way, many of the forefathers that created this genius-in-principle, imperfect-in-practice system were the antithesis of the people who invoke them when they discuss this great country. Many of them were the progressive, LIBERALS of their time. The same CNN poster said the "... fore fathers are probably turning in their graves..."
They are. Because of him.
It is true, we are one nation "under God", but that statement is meant to make the point:
"Aided by our religious beliefs, we as men will do what is best for men to get by, but we will not infringe on the rights of others to do as they will. We are all under God; Let God judge us and them accordingly",
not
"Our God is the end all for all".
Let God judge us and them accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)