I like this entry a great deal. Speaking as somebody who was raised atheist and now sits firmly in the “just be excellent to each other” camp on religion, I have taken issue with the problem of Atheists Who Want Everybody To Share Their View.

Essentially, atheists who preach about the nonsense of belief, such as in god, hooey, that chickens have taken over Paris, or whatever people choose to believe, are doing the very thing they most hate religions for. Atheists’ biggest gripe about religion (beyond the one about killing in the name of God when he was quite specific about not doing that) is that all religions insist they are right, that everybody has to agree with them and give up their own thoughts.

Atheism, like all sets of ideas or forms of thinking, has its own spectrum. There are people at one end who have no god or religious or spiritual views in their lives and don’t notice. They’re the people who happen not to believe in a god. Then there are people who hold a very specific and well expressed belief: There is no god. That’s not a lack of belief, it’s a statement of belief itself. It’s a stance being taken on a subject. It’s not the same as comparing them to people who don’t collect stamps or don’t knit. Those people wouldn’t generally have any really strongly held opinions on stamps or knitting one way or the other (except in some unusual cases). But making a statement like “I believe there is no god” is a very clear philosophical statement.

Atheists in this category have very strongly held views not just about the non-existence of one or more gods, but also on the nature of good and evil, the meaning of life, and how we construct and develop knowledge as humans. While religions provide explanations for phenomena through the medium of ancient texts, atheism as a philosophical statement of belief takes the scientific method as a determinant of truth and source of explanations for phenomena.

Quite the analogy Mr. Rhodes has drawn there. I think he makes an important point, but I’m curious as to why he chose to single out atheism as his negative example. Any belief system would suffice. I’m curious, how does this sound, “Somewhere, there’s a lady who wants everyone to be an Jew like she is.”
There is also the issue that atheism isn’t a coherent belief system, just a way of describing a lack of belief. For instance, both Americans and Soviets during the Cold War where amonarchists yet that doesn’t describe a coherent set of shared beliefs. I’ve heard atheism described as a belief the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby and the same way bald is a hair color.

Ahh but if someone said, “You shouldn’t collect stamps, stamp collecting is a waste of your time because the post office doesn’t really exist, and anyway you stamp collectors are all morons who cramp my style.” that is putting forth a belief system is it not? I mean it’s not a system in the sense that it isn’t organized, but if every atheist believes the same thing about God (there isn’t one) then at least that’s somewhat coherent.

Because, Sid, she’s an atheist and not a Jew, and it’s the ongoing context of the recent posts to this blog. It wouldn’t have made sense to have her otherwise because in reality she IS trying to draw attention to her belief system, or lack of it.
Where did the portrayal of her beliefs come across as negative? I don’t care if she’s an atheist or if anyone becomes an atheist because of her. My point was that not everyone is going to, or should. The whole point was diversity and accepting each other.

Not all a-stamp-collectivists believe that. I would describe those as opinions derived from a lack of a hobby.
Seriously, though, my point is that atheism doesn’t describe a belief, merely a lack of a particular belief. Relative to the author’s point, however, I suppose the the difference is moot. Lack of belief also adds to diversity.

I think (and hear me out here) that agnosticism is a lack of belief. “I can’t prove it either way so I don’t know.” Atheism says, “There is no God.” doesn’t it? Isn’t that a belief?

Hello Rhodester,
Ah, I see. I was unaware there even was a context. “Somewhere, there is a lady” suggests a hypothetical person, not a particular person who’s been under discussion. I’ll chalk that up to a hazard of re-posting in a different blog.
The example was negative, not the portrayal of the person. It is negative in the sense that “this is how people should not act”. A positive example would be one that demonstrates how one should act.
I know, you were targeting her insistence on conformity and not her lack of belief. Your main point wasn’t lost on me. In fact, I even wrote, “I think [Mr. Rhodes] makes an important point…”

I like this entry a great deal. Speaking as somebody who was raised atheist and now sits firmly in the “just be excellent to each other” camp on religion, I have taken issue with the problem of Atheists Who Want Everybody To Share Their View.
Essentially, atheists who preach about the nonsense of belief, such as in god, hooey, that chickens have taken over Paris, or whatever people choose to believe, are doing the very thing they most hate religions for. Atheists’ biggest gripe about religion (beyond the one about killing in the name of God when he was quite specific about not doing that) is that all religions insist they are right, that everybody has to agree with them and give up their own thoughts.
Atheism, like all sets of ideas or forms of thinking, has its own spectrum. There are people at one end who have no god or religious or spiritual views in their lives and don’t notice. They’re the people who happen not to believe in a god. Then there are people who hold a very specific and well expressed belief: There is no god. That’s not a lack of belief, it’s a statement of belief itself. It’s a stance being taken on a subject. It’s not the same as comparing them to people who don’t collect stamps or don’t knit. Those people wouldn’t generally have any really strongly held opinions on stamps or knitting one way or the other (except in some unusual cases). But making a statement like “I believe there is no god” is a very clear philosophical statement.
Atheists in this category have very strongly held views not just about the non-existence of one or more gods, but also on the nature of good and evil, the meaning of life, and how we construct and develop knowledge as humans. While religions provide explanations for phenomena through the medium of ancient texts, atheism as a philosophical statement of belief takes the scientific method as a determinant of truth and source of explanations for phenomena.

Hey Scott,
First, that’s a bit of a characterization of most atheists. We most often lack the certainty expressed in your comment. I would say, “There most likely is no God”.
Second, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. “I know nothing about the existence of God therefor I lack belief in God.” Similarly, I know nothing about aliens visiting the French military therefor I lack a belief that aliens are visiting the French military. I’m not 100% certain there are no such visitations, but lacking information, I default to the lack-of-belief side of the scale.

See I think there is a distinction between saying “I don’t believe in a God.” and “There is no God/are no gods.” There we start splitting hairs I guess but it’s an important hair.
Hitchens/Dawkins don’t say “I don’t think there is a god.” or even “There probably isn’t a god.” as the atheist who started this discussion off did. They say with booming voices “There is no God period.” They are atheists (no god).
If you say “I don’t think there is a god because I don’t see proof of one.” then I think you’re an agnostic (no knowledge).
I mean hey self identify how ever it pleases you, but you’ve often encouraged me directly or indirectly to define my terms.

Scott asked me to guest post. I didn’t have a clue what I’d write about, so I took a walk. “Hey”, thought I, “I’ll write about this walk!”
It WAS a very nice, lovely walk.
But how to tie it in with this context? “Oh,” thought I, “I’ll make it a metaphor for all of this discussion they’ve been having.”
I never get these kind of discussion threads on my own blog, because readers know that I tend to wade around in the tide pools of frivolity rather than scuba dive in the shark infested waters of controversy.
“OOH, another metaphor!” thought I, just now.
I’m swimming back to shore now..

Hello Scott,

Actually, what Dawkins says is, “There is almost certainly no God”. Not even he expresses absolute certainty. He’s almost certain because he believes he has some reason to actively disbelieve. But like all good scientists, he understands that his conclusion can be reversed with better, contrary evidence.

What Hitchens says always depends on how much he’s had to drink that particular day.

As we’ve talked about before, though, atheism is not monolithic. There are some who express as much certainty as the most zealous religionist. For the agnostic/atheists, lack of knowledge is the reason for lack of belief. It’s not that I don’t think there are no aliens in the French military, I don’t believe it. Now it’s my turn to split hairs, apparently. Lack of belief is the default position until reason to believe comes along.