The Moral Atheist
Unless I am asked, I see no reason to volunteer that I am not a football fan, or that I do not play golf, or that I don’t believe in fairies. There are not even labels for positions like these like there is for not believing in god (atheism). I think that the fact that the term “atheism” exists shows the dominance of the creationist and theist beliefs. Not a dominance that the belief is based on truth or is right, just that the theistic creationist view is so widely held as to have a term or label for those that do not share their belief.
Creationists whine and complain about the modern atheist voicing their views and opinions to the public. You have to be kidding me. The creationists make great attempts to spread their beliefs like they are car salesmen and they do so as though the information were factual, and then expect us to keep quiet about it? Only fiction needs to be wrapped, packaged, and sold like such, for truth requires no such preparation, and it is available to everyone as is. It is a persons right to voice their opinions in respect for the pursuit of truth, and that is what atheists are doing.
Creationists claim that the atheist view is a negative one. This is simply incorrect. Atheists hold the default value of “0″ if you will. The creationist view is the positive one, +1. They are the one claiming something exists, not atheist. The burden of proof lies on the creationist. It’s interesting how often creationist expect atheist to defend the atheist non-belief. However, there isn’t much to defend for non-belief. The most an atheist can do is to show creationist the small probability rate of the creationist view, show the scientific evidence that there is a greater chance of natural means, and point out the fallacies in their logic, or sometimes lack of logic.
As a non-believer what is there to talk about? I mean, how can one continue to discuss not believing in something? The answer relates to the importance of defending truth, reason, logic and science. Creationists commonly say that atheists are without moral values because we are without religion and god. This is untrue. Moral values do not come from religion or god, moral values are created by man, just as god and religion are. Inspirational moral stories are thrown into religion to make religion sell. Without religion, morals are still in place as long as man is in place.
When atheists speak out, it is not only to defend the right to not believe in god, but to protect the sincere pursuit of truth and to protect and educate others about religions concealed fiction. Atheists want to keep it real. They value honesty, and appreciate the natural beauty of the world for what it is. Free of artificial flavors and additives if you will. Atheists do not want the wool pulled over people’s eyes, because atheists care. Now, do these actions sound amoral to you?
15. January 2008 um 22:57
That is so perfect. Well said… sometimes I read a post like this and think, that is EXACTLY what I wished I could have written in my blog, but you beat me to it. Excellent. Now if we can just find a way to market the value of non-belief without labels such as atheist, bright, agnostic, secular, etc. By and large, we are just good people… at least we aren’t hypocrites. :)
Hugh’s last blog post..Consider the Possibilities
16. January 2008 um 07:41
Thank Hugh! If you like it and find it worth sharing, feel free to link to it from your blog!
18. January 2008 um 08:52
just a jot on the notion of 0 and +1. Atheists do not have ownership on on 0. In my own thinking, it has been long standing, that a notion of God begins in 0. The post is interesting, but is substantively short in understanding one’s understanding in God and the role of experience in this understanding. The great mystics have described experiences that the vanguard of science are now beginning to appreciate. If this will be comforting, this comment is written not only by one ‘religious’ but one who is thoroughly indifferent to the ‘beliefs’ of an atheist. What is important to this ‘religious’ is the conduct of any one among, to, and with others. And their are many others like ms :-)
alias inkhorn’s last blog post..in the chilling shade
7. February 2008 um 09:42
How can one person say “this is what I believe” and another person resopond “you have no right to say that” ? Isn’t it a basic human right to speak our hearts? And how can one person say “you are not allowed to force your belief on me” ? Isn’t that, then yet another force of belief? When did it become a crime to disagree? When did it become an invasion of privacy to attempt to convince someone to agree with you? I remember that to be “debate”….free of personal attacks, but deeply personal in the belief that oneself is right….regardless of either party’s change of mind…or change of heart.
Freedom to disbelive demands freedom to believe. Living in equality demands respect, even when respect is not given to you. (sounds a bit Biblical) Doing right only comes from unconditional love of one another. Center a disbelief around that. (didn’t someone alread do that?)