Quantcast

«

»

Sep 05 2009

Perspective

Once again I find myself lacking for time. So, as my placeholder for today so I don’t miss a day on my daily-posting-streak, here’s a little snippet of perspective.

The theist’s idea of what atheism is:
atheism-by-a-theist

The atheist’s self-definition:
atheism-by-an-atheist

So which one do you figure atheism actually entails, especially considering all the atheists that either know nothing about, or outright deny, science in favor of ridiculous alien invasion fairy tales or other forms of metaphysical woo. Take, for instance, Buddhism, which is a wholly atheistic worldview — there are no deities, only humans on the path to enlightenment, with Buddha himself being the first to achieve it. (Note: I’m not a Buddhist, by any stretch of the imagination. I’m just mentioning it as being an atheistic religion.) Or take for instance the Pirahã tribe of the Amazon — the “Show Me” tribe of some fame for having deconverted a Christian missionary. They do not assimilate technology or other cultures, and they have no interest in history whatsoever, restricting their concept of what’s important knowledge of the world to what has happened in living memory. Wholly atheistic, wholly without scientific understanding.

Penn says:

And I agree wholeheartedly. Always have, in fact. You will consistently, if you pore through my old writings, find that I espouse exactly this. The atheist/theist schism is one of belief — “do you believe in a god”. The gnostic/agnostic schism is “can the existence of a god be positively known”.

No, I don’t believe in any gods. No, I don’t believe the existence or non-existence of a god can be positively known. And I think that just as much as I’m afraid of anyone who says “there is definitely no god,” anyone who thinks that the existence of a particular god can be known, and that they positively know of the existence of a god and therefore believe in it, is fucking dangerous to a much, much higher degree.

Especially those people who go on to dehumanize atheists, or claim that agnosticism means ignorance. Stay away from me and my loved ones, you scary fucks. The fact that you think you have some kind of knowledge of a deity that might or might not want you to kill me (or so you believe), means you might override your otherwise decent human nature to do your god’s supposed bidding.

And if you don’t consider that horrifying, you just haven’t thought about it long enough.

4 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    ZDENNY

    An atheist actually does believe in God; however, it is not a personal God, it is simply the same God that pantheist worship. The God of nature. Pantheism believes in an impersonal force of nature and their are different forms of it; however, Atheist believe that they become one with nature in their materially just like the Pantheist do. I really don’t see a difference between the two…

    I didn’t mean to offend you by using the term ignorant. The fact is that agnostic does mean ignorant of a supernatural cause of reality. I just think it is interesting that you would want this title is all.

    God Bless…

  2. 2
    Jason Thibeault

    Wrong, fucko. Pantheists believe the universe IS God. Not the Abrahamic god Yahweh you believe in, but a God that’s all-loving because he loves himself. Naturalistic pantheists believe the universe is God but isn’t sentient or self-aware. Atheists believe the universe IS THE UNIVERSE.

    You didn’t offend me by calling me ignorant or saying that I’m taking that label on myself. You just scare me. A lot. As a member of the group “gnostic theists” you are a frightening individual.

  3. 3
    Dan J

    An atheist actually does believe in God; however, it is not a personal God, it is simply the same God that pantheist worship. The God of nature. Pantheism believes in an impersonal force of nature and their are different forms of it; however, Atheist believe that they become one with nature in their materially just like the Pantheist do. I really don’t see a difference between the two…

    There’s a lot you don’t see, Denny, and the reason you don’t see it is because your vision is forever colored by your religion. Everything in the universe gets filtered through your biblical glasses. It’s sad, really, because there’s so much beauty out there to see, if you could only see it for what it truly is: The natural beauty of the universe. No god necessary.

  4. 4
    nigelTheBold

    Not only “No god necessary,” but “no god in evidence.”

    The universe is an awesomely-beautiful result of reality, the fundamental nature of which we are still exploring. I absolutely love the fact that we don’t know everything, that we can’t explain everything, that there is yet more to explore in this incomprehensibly-immense playpen we call “the universe.”

    But there is less and less space for god. As vast and unknown as the universe is, there is very little room for god.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>