Response to "Why I remain an Atheist"
By Javacrucian
E-mail: javacrucian1@hotmail.com
Excellent essay, Nadia! I especially liked your writing about the realization that the doctrines involved in religion seem barbaric because they are so old - and we humans have come a long way from that. Well, some of us, at least.
There is one point of constructive criticism I'd like to make to you as a fellow atheist, and it comes from my personal experience. At one point in your essay you make the statement: "Atheism believes that humans are capable of living a good life, and are . . . " The paragraph continues, but I need not quote it all to make my point, which is this. Atheism, in and of itself, doesn't believe the things you mention. Atheism only believes one thing - the non-existence of a god or gods. That's it! Anything beyond this simple proposition is no longer atheism. This isn't just my own definition; look in any dictionary for proof.
The reason I want to bring this distinction to your attention is because I find myself forever being bombarded with accusations from theists who insist that atheism is a form of religion, and that it brings with it all sorts of moral and philosophical baggage with it. This simply is not true, and it's important that we atheists make sure that this misconception is not allowed to continue unopposed. If atheism is allowed to be falsely seen as an entire worldview, we are letting theists battle us on their own ground, and this is not only wrong, but foolish. Atheism is not a religion, philosophy, worldview or creed, and being an atheist doesn't automatically make you *anything*, anymore than being a theist automatically makes you a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Baha'i, or Hindu.
Why is this important? Because theists love to fling accusations like "Stalin was an atheist, and look at what a monster he was!", for example. Yes, Stalin was an atheist. He was also a monster. Yet, I too am an atheist, and I am not a monster. The fact is, atheism doesn't automatically lead anyone to any particular moral point of view, so claiming that atheism is evil because of what this or that atheist did is really a non sequitur (unlike religion, which DOES lead people to particular moral points of view). Can you see the difference? Further, can you see that this isn't just semantics or wordplay, but that it's a genuine case of proper definition? If your are debating a theist and they insist otherwise,
show then the same dictionary I pointed you to ;-)As for the things you believe, the moral framework you are referring to in your essay strikes me as Humanism; and I applaud you for that. (I too am a Humanist, for many of the same reasons you cite). The thing I would ask you - as one Atheistic Humanist to another - is to be careful to keep the two terms separate for reasons of both accuracy and also of damage control, an I mentioned. Define yourself as an atheist by all means, then further define yourself by the *type* of atheist you are. This will keep the definitions clear, and thus keep theists from making those annoying adhominem arguments. Make them argue on YOUR ground, not vise-versa!
Again, aside from that one criticism I think your writing is excellent, and I have nothing but respect for you. I hope to see more of your thoughts in the future!
One last thing and I'll shut up. Check out this website:
I think you'll find much there that is worth reading, and you can use the info to help formulate and deepen your moral outlook, as well as get some history on the Humanist movement.
Highest regards,
Javacrucian