That caught your attention.
‘You’re a moron, Atheism cannot be proven. You are taking the non-existence of god without any evidence and painting it as a logical position.’
‘Give me a break! There is no scientific theory that comes close to explaining how the world was created. How intricate biological structures were formed. And there never will be!’
“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance”
– Darth Vader
Just kidding, it was Confucius.
However, the validity of this statement holds true regardless of where it originated. If you are smart then the direction of this discussion is already clear, at least in part.
So… Atheism. This word is pretty loaded now. It conjures up images of Richard Dawkins sitting at a podium and grimacing at his intellectual opponents. His book ‘The God Delusion’ is a metaphorical kick in the teeth for religious people of any faith. It also makes people, especially myself, think of Christopher Hitchens (peace be upon him) and the extended debates he frequented.
I do not believe that Atheism is defined, enhanced or diminished by these people. Atheism is one word and it has one extremely simple meaning. I don’t believe your God. I don’t believe in their God. I don’t believe in any specific God that has arisen during and from human civilization.
Bam. That’s it. No need to bring Psychology or anthropology or demographics or even science into the equation. Being an atheist is as innocuous as not believing in a three armed monkey that flips a coin to dictate every human decision.
So why the heated debates? Why the ideological clashes between clergy and scientists. Why the war between statistics and spirituality? Most important, why do people rehash the same arguments over and over with the apparent goal of ‘proving’ Atheism or Theism?
‘Atheism is parsimonious – Theism relies on fallacious constructs such as dualism and spiritualism to forge pseudo-evidence and present it as fact’
‘Theism has absolute morals which could only be derived from an intelligent God – How do Atheists know that killing babies is wrong?’ (True this argument is a little silly but still OU. If the person using it realises the position is such, they will usually resort to ad hominem attacks – an interesting Psychological phenomenon)
I think the problem lies with religious people but not because they are religious. It is perfectly understandable that religion, being an integral part of someone’s life, will be vehemently defended. Furthermore, to Theists who buy into the whole premise of their respective religions, spreading it is usually an agenda. We know that, in the past and present, much conflict is caused when religions ‘invade’ other’s turf. Not to say this is comparable to a street corner in South America but… It kinda is.
Atheists hold a view in direct contradiction of Christianity. And Islam. And Sikhism. And Buddhism. And Mormonism. And, obviously, for cults like Scientology. Therefore, given the vast majority of the world adheres to religion, Atheists are on a perpetual foreign Turf. A passive position that needs two lines of explaining becomes the antagonist of all society. This seems to explain why the public representatives seem to have the grace and acceptance of a Drunken, racist Hermit. Not to be too corny here but this is a little like Newton’s third Law. Two equal and opposing forces are exerted on physically interacting objects. The natural position of Atheism is 100% internal and without any need of explanation. However, introducing other components, then you get people trying to prove atheism.
Of course I am referring to Societies where free speech and belief is unhindered, largely, by law. Where free flowing ideas and discussion are an area unto their own. Sadly, the vast majority of Islamic countries have both these curbed to such an extent that Atheism is often illegal. Even opposing religious beliefs are significantly censored and sometimes outlawed. But I digress.
Atheism is not an argument. It neither relies on nor encourages missionaries. The only relation Atheism has to proof is to mandate it for a supposition. You cannot refute Atheism like a common theory by proposing arguments of moralism or creationism. So yeh… take that Buddha…