Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Atheism vs anti-theism, or won't someone please think of the children?


There’s a tendency, especially among Christians, to use the word “atheist” as an insult.

“You – you filthy atheist!”

(Stings a little, doesn’t it?)

And yet an atheist is simply (as defined in  The Free Dictionary): “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods”.

Simply lacking a belief in God or gods is not a character flaw or a crime (dare I say, “Thank God!”?). Yet some theists think it is exactly that. It’s certainly a sin, in most religious belief systems.

Yet how can that be? If you don’t believe, you don’t believe, and that’s it.

You can’t force someone to believe in something. (Well ... you can. But the methods are generally unpleasant, if not illegal. And the desire to force someone to believe anything seems like a character flaw in and of itself, at least to me.)

So I’m not going to use “atheist” as a pejorative in this blog. (And if, as may occasionally occur, I slip up and do exactly that, please feel free to call me on it!)

Look - if you believe in something (or Someone), great. If you don’t - great again.

Frankly, I don’t really care what someone believes or doesn’t believe. What I DO care about is how that belief, or disbelief, affects how you behave towards others - specifically, yours truly!.

Which brings me to “anti-theism”.

Anti-theists are not just atheists. They fit the definition - they don't believe in a God or gods. But they don't stop there. They don't shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, live and let live, just don't ask me to share your weird delusions."

No, no - anti-theists are people who don't believe - and don't think anyone else should, either. And are willing to do whatever they can to make that happen.

As an analogy, think of nonsmokers and antismokers. Nonsmokers disapprove of smoking, and will support laws banning smoking in public places. But if smokers insist on continuing their filthy habit, well, it’s their life and more power to them, just don’t blow the smoke in my face, that’s all.

Antismokers, on the other hand, KNOW that smoking is always and everywhere dangerious, and are constantly proposing new legislation to make it illegal for anyone to smoke, anywhere – even in the privacy of their own homes or cars.

“Think of the CHILDREN!” they wail.

So I’d classify people like Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, etc. as "anti-theists", rather than just ordinary garden-variety atheists.

Dawkins especially incurs my irritation, because of his ridiculous – and, if ever enacted into law, EXTREMELY dangerous – assertion that parents who teach their religious beliefs to their children are committing child abuse.

Child abuse. Really? Yes, he does say that.

“Think of the CHILDREN!”

To me, that’s not one whit different than the religious nuts (shall I call them "pro-theists"?) who want prayer reinstated in the public schools and the 10 Commandments on display at every courthouse in America.

Thank God (or gods) that our great country, the United States of America, has laws protecting the general public from BOTH anti-theists and pro-theists. We don’t allow our government institutions to promote religion, but we also don’t use our government institutions to forbid the free exercise of religion.

Sure, from time to time we go a little too far in one direction or the other. But the mechanisms are in place to correct the wrongs, and generally keep everything pretty well-balanced.

So no, you can't put up a Nativity scene on the lawn in front of City Hall.

But no, you can't pass laws forbidding private citizens from displaying even the most ludicrous of Nativity scenes on their own property.



And I like it that way. I like it that way just fine.

So – my criticisms of atheism or theism, here in this blog, are aimed primarily towards the extremists on both sides – the anti-theists and the anti-atheists.

Like anti-smokers, they have a right to their opinion, but they have a tendency to be a pain in the butt.


No comments:

Post a Comment