Elad Nehorai, an orthodox Jewish blogger, has an inane article at the Huffington Post arguing that atheism is a religion. But he blatantly distorts what atheism is in the process. And to make it even more annoying, he writes with a cloying faux-intimacy.
OK, atheists. Let’s have a talk. Pull up a chair, sit down, relax.
There’s so much I want to say to you in so little time, so let’s just get straight to it.
We’re not so different, you and I. Me, an Orthodox Jew. You, a non-believer. We both argue vehemently for our points of view, we both have a certain vision for the world, we both think we know the truth about life.
Sure, just start right out by showing that you’re a moron. “We both have beliefs about things, so we’re a lot alike.” Well yes, and we both breathe oxygen too; that hardly makes us alike when it comes to the substance of our positions.
Let’s look at the arguments atheists make: they say there’s absolutely no evidence for the existence of G-d, and that the burden of proof is on the believers, etc., etc. Now, these are great arguments, and I will be the first to admit that my belief is beyond logic.
But atheism is not agnosticism. It doesn’t claim to simply point out the fallacies of belief. Instead, it has created a belief system out of not believing. It takes a defiant stance, saying that there is absolutely 100 percent no chance there is a god in the world.
So, let’s be honest, dear atheists. Do you really believe that your argument is based around science, around logic, when you say that there is absolutely no chance there is an intelligent design behind the universe?
Yes, by all means, let’s look at the arguments atheists make. Can you name any atheist who takes the position that there is “absolutely no chance there is an intelligent design behind the universe”? I can’t either. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous and influential atheist in the entire world, emphatically does not take such a position. What he would say, and what nearly all atheists do say, is that there is no evidence to compel such a belief. Isn’t it fascinating that he says he wants to look at the arguments atheists make but doesn’t bother to actually cite any such arguments?
As soon as anyone makes such a stance, and makes it unequivocal, they are going from the world of logic to the world of belief. We’re both religious, you and I. The only difference is that your belief is based on the assumption that everything you see and touch and feel is real. I base my belief on the assumption that not only is the tangible world not real, but that books thousands of years old and men with beards know more about the universe and spirituality than I do. Yeah, I get it, that’s a bit crazy, and easily argued against in the world of logic and science. But so can yours, my friend, so can yours.
Quantum physics, ironically, has already made a good case that all we see and touch and feel isn’t real. So, even science disagrees with you. Now, I know you’ll be able to bring about a bunch of scientific evidence to prove me wrong even in that respect, but the truth is that that argument would end up being circular. We would continue to debate and debate and get nowhere, just like every debate between religion and atheism.
Except this debate isn’t between religion and atheism; it’s between your religion and the cartoonish version of atheism you carry around in your head, which you prefer because it’s so much easier to argue with than what atheists actually say and believe.
Because at the end of the day, no belief will ever be 100 percent validated by evidence. That’s why there are democrats and there are republicans. That’s why some people like Pink Floyd and some people like Justin Bieber (G-d help us).
Holy shit, what a fucking idiot.