What Atheists Want

The Washington Post ^ | Chris Mooney

[TXLibertarian]

Excerpted from a longer op-ed. Author discusses the danger of legal proselytizing by a few firebrand secularists. Worth a read, IMHO.

What Atheists Want

By Chris Mooney

....

Unfortunately, in my experience, the U.S. atheist and secularist communities contain a number of activists who are inclined to be combative and in some cases feel positively zestful about offending the religious. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, easily America's most famous atheist firebrand, wasn't dubbed "the most hated woman in America" for nothing. Despite her landmark 1963 Supreme Court victory in a case concerning the constitutionality of school prayer, O'Hair's pugilistic and insulting public persona hurt atheists a great deal in the long run. A head-on attack on the pledge seems to epitomize the confrontational O'Hair strategy.

....

[MattAMiller]

If a mega asteriod was going to hit the earth the Atheists would fall on their knees and pray to something.

I suppose people would reach out for something. And many people would find comfort in beliefs that they were raised with. I wasn't raised with the belief that I could petition a higher power for anything so I don't see why I'd be reaching out for it.

Just like a Vegetarian would eat meat rather than starve if meat was the only food source after the asteriod hit.

I suppose they would. I suppose the rest of us would eat our dead if that was the only source of food available even though it's not something we'd normally do. I don't see what this has to do with anything.

[man of Yosemite]

And for what good purpose did you make an agreement? Why should there be harmony or good intentions on anyone's part? The notion that some actions are preferable to others implies a moral order that atheists say doesn't exist.

[MattAMiller]

So what is an atheist to do? Well, they can subscribe to one of these unprovable theories... sounds like faith to me. Or they can harbor hope that a more plausible explanation will pop up later... again, sounds like faith. Or they can simply conclude that the truth is unknowable... which really makes them agnostic, doesn't it?

I think people are too quick to view atheism as the mirror image of theism. I believe there is no God in much the same way I believe the Yankees will win the World Series, I'm well aware that I can be proven wrong. The difference is mostly a matter of the degree of my certainty.

The notion that the universe was brought into being by the efforts of some intelligent being is just one of an unimaginably large number of possibilities and there's no reason it should immediately rise above all other possibilities. To the contrary I can reasons to doubt it.

For instance it seems to me that intelligence is a property of certain sorts of things within the universe. So where did this intelligent entity come from?

[The Westerner]

I subscribe to the Pre-Christian viewpoint that the universe always was and will be. I became an atheist after my confirmation year in Sunday school. My teacher and I spent the year discussing the proof for and existence of God. Father always said I'd change my mind. Year after year he asked, "Well, have you changed your mind yet?" Finally, he gave up asking and accepted our difference. I have found that atheists I know don't dwell on the issue of God at all. It's a non-issue to them. They don't feel the lack of a belief as religionists imagine.

Speaking for myself, I only want our country to return to its more tolerant era, such as the one before ours. I have worked extensively with the elderly and found them to be quite accepting and even uninterested in each other's beliefs. As Greta Garbo said, "I just want to be left alone."

[MissAmericanPie]

I beg your pardon, but it isn't Christians running around attacking anyone, but radicals running around attacking their belief, which we are also more than entitled to hold in a Christian nation, which is, while everyone is free to indulge in any thing they like, some choices end one in hell.

No one is chasing atheists down the street, tackling them and issuing ultimatums to believe or die. Not in Christian nations anyway, they wouldn't fair too well in the Middle East however.

[charmtrap]

And for what good purpose did you make an agreement? Why should there be harmony or good intentions on anyone's part? The notion that some actions are preferable to others implies a moral order that atheists say doesn't exist.

Well, you didn't ask me, but if I can jump in here...

I don't think many atheists believes that no moral order exists. We just disagree on what the parameters of that order are. Christians might argue that all morality comes from the bible. For myself, I would say that morality should be defined in the tension between personal freedom and the laws required to maintain a civil society.

Obviously, murder, rape and theft are right out. But prohibitions on drugs, certain sexual acts and jaywalking are subjective. Can we prove that smoking pot harms society. If so, then prohibitions are reasonable. If not, then they are not. How about sodomy? Who is it hurting? If you find sodomy immoral, don't do it. But consenting adults may disagree.

As with many things, morality *can* be in the eye of the beholder.

[antiRepublicrat]

but radicals running around attacking their belief,

I never said insensitive idiots couldn't be atheist just as much as they can be Christian. However, don't always equate an atheist defending himself with an attack on Christianity. We are just so used to being considered second class citizens that we get a bit paranoid sometimes.

which we are also more than entitled to hold in a Christian nation, which is, while everyone is free to indulge in any thing they like, some choices end one in hell.

You are of course entitled to that belief, even the one that a hell exists. However, others have equally held personal beliefs. How would you feel being constantly proselytized by atheists in the way Christians do it? Most of the time it is annoying and unwelcome as Krishnas at the airport.

No one is chasing atheists down the street, tackling them and issuing ultimatums to believe or die.

Of course not. Your more fundamentalist believers have not yet gained sufficient power in the government. Such actions would be a natural byproduct of a religious state. I am trying to think of an exception, but I can't.

[antiRepublicrat]

If a mega asteriod was going to hit the earth the Atheists would fall on their knees and pray to something.

Do artillery shells count? They didn't get me praying.

[MissAmericanPie]

I didn't know atheists wore some indication on their sleeves that they are in fact athesits. I would be willing to bet that a good 90% of Christians never even wonder what those atheists are doing and how can they can be made ashamed.

It is the very fact that Christians believe so strongly in the freedom of the individual to find his own way that our government was based on that belief. In fact we have tolerated ourselves into a position of being under attack in our own Christian nation. It's no suprise, Jesus said they hated me and they will hate you.

What atheists and homosexuals have in common is the hatred of the idea that they will ever come under judgement by any one or any Entity. They don't want to hear it and they never hear it from me. I don't believe in overt conversion unless a person asks or shows an interest. I don't see the topic addressed in church or on those tepid tv ministries, they don't dare really. So many members are engaged in their own little adultries they have no room to talk.=o)

[elfman2]

"Do I, as an atheist, have the right to take something of yours if I want it? After all, my right to self-fulfillment is all there is, isn't it? It seems to me that if EVERYONE were atheist, then world-wide anarchy would be the logical, end result. (Each person looking out for number #1)"

One doesn’t have to consult theology to recognize that man’s nature is not served by anarchy or predatory relationships. This is a very frequent misunderstanding of Objectivism. Sorry, but I’m unable to commit the time to continue this discussion.

[elfman2]

"Hmm, what about Agnostics? Or followers of a religion where there is no "god given" theology and yet a belief in god still is present? "

I’m not sure that I understand your question. Agnostics are at least open minded toward a religion.

[elfman2]

"Ok, so you believe rights are an agreement between men. So why would you stick by your agreement "

Because it’s to my advantage to live in a society where agreements are meaningful, rights are established and where principles and honor are respected. An Objectivist atheist recognizes that this is in his rational self interests. That’s the motivation for improving the lives of others. From what I know of Objectivists, they are generally no more of a pragmatist than Christians. I think you can predict my response to the “greater rights” part of your post.

If you are ever interested, there are more answers on Objectivism here. Sorry, but I can’t commit the time to continue this discussion.

[elfman2]

"Anyone else want to argue semantics ? Atheists REJECT all gods and deny their existence."

No disrespect to religion intended here. Having no belief in God no more makes one’s belief system defined by God and therefore religious than having no belief in Big Foot makes one’s belief system defined by Big Foot.

This is a very old attempt at linguistic trickery, but amusing enough to some self doubting Christians that seem to need this kind of reassurance. So it reappears here like a weed. Be confident in your beliefs, but don’t misrepresent mine in such a silly way.

Sorry, but I’m unable to commit the time to continue this discussion.

[Zack Nguyen]

However, we are talking about adults with as much right to their beliefs as he has to his.

Of course he does! The issue is not whether he has the right to his beliefs, but rather are his beliefs right? And what are the consequences if they aren't?

In this case, the consequences involve the immortal soul.

Perhaps the atheists should be worried that he's living in a delusional state, wasting his current and only life away on false hopes of something greater afterwards. That sounds like the exact respect out of deep concern you describe...

It would, except the atheist tries to lead the believer to a life of utter hopelessness, moral fog, and eternal nothingness. None of which are true. The Christian wants to lead the atheist to a new life now and for eternity.

[gcruse]

It sure looks that way.

[gcruse]

The notion that some actions are preferable to others
 implies a moral order that atheists say doesn't exist.

I don't see how you arrive at a deity by saying you
would rather not be poked in the eye with a stick than
to be poked.  The human desire to not be in pain is
reflected in the animal kingdom.  Do they have gods too?

[JohnSmithee]

Sounds like a perfectly good Arabic translation to me. After all "Allah" means "The One God".

Splitting hairs, I know, but it's literally "The God." "Allah" is literally the article "A" meanning "The" combined with "llah" for "God" which is closely related to the Hebrew word for God, "Eloah."

---

The more popular etymology concnering Allah in Arabic is that it is based on 'Al' + 'iLah' (the god), which became shortened to 'Allah'. This isn't quite right though and there is a bit of a controvery in the scholarly community. Some scholars think 'Allah' is based on the Syrian word for god, while others belief 'Allah' may be merely the male name for a well known Pagan deity of the time -- 'Allat' being the female name.

The Hebrew term for God is typically taken to be 'El', 'Elohim', or 'Adonai'.

[Prov3456]

Actually, I do think "selfishness" is all there is, in opposition to God. It's called "original sin" and it is what makes every person look out first and foremost for themselves. (You don't have to teach an infant to be selfish, but you do have to teach him/her to share, take turns, etc.) Adults may have some understanding of those concepts, but when the going gets really tough, human nature looks out for self, not others.

[Prov3456]

The problem I have with your post to me and this one is that you're presuming that the other person you're dealing with at the moment shares your belief/perspective/opinion of the issue at hand. What if that person believes that YOU should come to his/her position? Both of you are acting in your own self-interest. Even if the desired results may be positive, there will still be disagreement-and perhaps fighting (literal or figurative)-because both sides perceive their position to be the correct one. That's what I mean by self-centeredness. It is the original sin every person is born with.