Every so often I get engaged in a discussion about atheism and its inherent meaning. Happens on the net, happens in real life. Everyone knows the definition, but it seems to twist depending on the person.
While helping to start an atheist group in my home town, I was surprised by how many of those who came to the first few meetings were disenchanted with the word, and to them, its lack of being for something.
I never understood that thought.
After much debate, humanist was added to the name of a group. Members wanted part of the name of the group to stand for something. A moral and ethical outlook. I disagreed, especially since there were a pocket of Rand followers, and I find no honorable morals in those thoughts.
It seemed that the desire to use a name that promoted a viewpoint on life was necessary because those that were brought up religious felt that, whether they agreed with the thought anymore or not, that their past religion of choice stood for something.
They felt atheism lacked a positive position.
Though I have been able to say that atheism, by association, does have a positive approach on life, I have not been able to make that point stick. It always comes back to the definition, the lack of belief. Many seem to find this a negative position for some reason.
I now approach the view from a different angle. Most of us would, I think, debate the point that religion is a positive statement. More or less because of the supposed holy words of whatever religious tome is being discussed. But what the books really lack is a positive approach on bettering our lives by living in this world.
I would say now that religion is a negative position to take. Especially with the ID or YEC crowds. Much more so than atheism.
Religion in some aspects is the absence of rational thought, the absence of science, the absence of reason.
While helping to start an atheist group in my home town, I was surprised by how many of those who came to the first few meetings were disenchanted with the word, and to them, its lack of being for something.
I never understood that thought.
After much debate, humanist was added to the name of a group. Members wanted part of the name of the group to stand for something. A moral and ethical outlook. I disagreed, especially since there were a pocket of Rand followers, and I find no honorable morals in those thoughts.
It seemed that the desire to use a name that promoted a viewpoint on life was necessary because those that were brought up religious felt that, whether they agreed with the thought anymore or not, that their past religion of choice stood for something.
They felt atheism lacked a positive position.
Though I have been able to say that atheism, by association, does have a positive approach on life, I have not been able to make that point stick. It always comes back to the definition, the lack of belief. Many seem to find this a negative position for some reason.
I now approach the view from a different angle. Most of us would, I think, debate the point that religion is a positive statement. More or less because of the supposed holy words of whatever religious tome is being discussed. But what the books really lack is a positive approach on bettering our lives by living in this world.
I would say now that religion is a negative position to take. Especially with the ID or YEC crowds. Much more so than atheism.
Religion in some aspects is the absence of rational thought, the absence of science, the absence of reason.
How can a stand on willful ignorance be for anything?
Atheism is at its essence a stand for reality, a very positive message to deliver.
No comments:
Post a Comment