[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: Why Hard Atheists Shouldn't be Taken Seriously While trudging through the comments section of Sandra Miller’s “Good without God” post, I offered some criticism of so-called “Hard Athiests” and tacitly defended the vast majority of Americans who (according to a U of M study) would never vote for such a person if he/she were running for president. Obviously, this drew some criticism in turn. One needs to closely examine the 100+ comments under Sandra’s excellent post to locate the few believers that joined the discussion. My argument, here and in Sandra’s comments section, is not a defense of religion or even of belief. I am simply critical of hard atheists—defined as people who have made a conscious and unflinching adult decision that there is no higher power. The people who concretely affirm that there is in fact no higher being whatsoever are among the people that I do not agree with nor trust. I see such declarations as the epitome of self importance. Hard atheism is a belief structure and it is just as prideful and dangerous as the unflinching beliefs of religious extremists. The hard atheist characteristic is a defining and damning one. It is a potentially fatal flaw in moral judgment—one that points to extreme hubris and an unwillingness to compromise or listen to varying points of view. As for pin-pointing historical examples of this potentially fatal flaw… it is widely acknowledged that atheists throughout history have often hid their inner thoughts, so it is somewhat difficult to point out extremely harmful atheists. It is much easier to point to the destruction caused by hard line religious fanatics (crusaders, the Spanish inquisition, osama bin-laden….the list goes on and on). But, like hard-line religious fanatics, the hard atheists’ character flaw is an uncompromising belief in self. The individual fanatic and hard athiest both share the belief that they are right and disagreeing others are terribly misguided and wrong. This self worship (synonymous to hard atheism) better explains such “Christian” sociopaths as Hitler, Charles Manson, Jim Jones and David Kouresh. Out in the open hard atheists responsible for mass destruction and terrible deeds include some of the most gruesome figures in history: Pol Pot, Mao and the man that some historians call the greatest murderer that humanity has ever witnessed: Josef Stalin. I am not discriminating against atheists by writing all of this. Hard atheism is a belief structure and therefore involves conscious decisions. In comparison, race, gender and sexual orientation are not choices. My personal distaste for subscribers of hard Atheism is on par with my personal distaste for al-qaida Muslims and hard line Zionists. All of these people—no matter how flawed I personally think that their belief structures are—deserve my kindness and compassion. If I choose not vote for one of them, how is that any different than my decision not to vote for a strict creationist? Or a person who believes in the death penalty? Or an anti-immigrant candidate? I have always and will continue to pick candidates based on their beliefs. Those beliefs include a strong preference to diplomacy over war and a dedication to the notion that it is our society’s moral responsibility to provide universally affordable healthcare to the entire population. I also want a president who believes that there may be a higher power other than his/her self. As the leader of free world (as we obnoxiously call our presidents) one has achieved something close to the apex of human accomplishment. At all levels, but especially in the oval office, a dose of humility is needed. I do not want a hard line evangelical in office, but I believe that someone who has completely ruled out the possibility of a higher power is an even more dangerous and alarming choice. I am not passing judgment here. My idea that hard atheists have “a potentially fatal flaw” is nothing more than my personal opinion; a reason for me to cast my ballot for someone else. I am not insisting that I am right or that I have all the answers. I am simply explaining my distaste for those who do insist that they are right; those who proudly believe that they have the answers and the proof. And for those poised to pounce on this post, please note that the best way to attack a belief in a higher power is to attack the hypocrisy of the supposed believer. That is a cheap and easy tactic. Plus, it assumes that atheism is not a belief structure when it actually is. I would be interested in someone willing to argue for atheism—particularly hard atheism—on its own supposed merits.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#3. To: Old Friend (#0)
A fanatic is a fanatic, whether religious or not. I was listening to a rabid atheist on a radio program a few weeks ago, and he was clueless, which the host pointed out. He beleived that Hitler and Stalin were Catholics, and that religion has killed more people than anything else. When the host pointed out that the officially athiest societies in the 20th century -- Germany, Russia and China -- murdered more than all of religion murders put together, he just ignored it.
#4. To: Turtle (#3)
Interesting observation. Thank you.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||