"Who's there?"
"Atheists who want to tell you the good news of atheism!"
... Said no atheist ever. Am I right?
Seems many atheists take pride in the fact there are no organized groups of door-knockers spreading the word of atheism, trying to convert others to their viewpoint. For me, as an atheist, I'm fine knowing others hold views that are wildly different from mine, provided they don't try to dump them on me, or try to convert me. Or, for that matter, force me to take part in those beliefs through legislative or judicial action.
This all seems like a pretty fair, reasonable set up, right? Most of us atheists just want to be left alone when it comes to religion, right? Live and let live, right? I'll assume you're nodding in agreement.
Well, I've noticed a bit of a problem recently. I've found myself privy to and taking part in conversations between atheists and believers where the atheist begins with the question "How can you believe in a book so full of contradictions?" You've probably heard that question asked, or asked it of believers yourself. Maybe it was "How can you live in a world where science provides nearly every convenience you use and not believe in evolution?" or "How can you believe in something so irrational yet profess to be a rational person?" or any line of questioning in that vein.
My fellow atheists, I pose a question to you: exactly what do you hope to gain from this line of questioning? There may be honest intellectual curiosity at the root of this questioning sometimes, but it seems to me that when an atheist begins this way, they're looking to finish the conversation with an attempt to demonstrate to the believer how ill-founded their faith is. Exactly who benefits from this type of
Are the beliefs (or lack thereof) of atheism superior to those of religion? Well, obviously atheists think so, otherwise they wouldn't be atheist. This can of course be reversed to describe anyone harboring any set of beliefs. But let me be clear: trying to persuade someone that their belief in god is wrong is both divisive and unnecessary. Frankly, it is the exact same thing many atheists, myself included, deplore from some of the more fundamentalist religions.
What should be understood is that there is not one belief system that provides everything to everyone. Atheists who were raised with religion, like myself, know that not everyone needs the same belief system to be whole. Instead of trying to demonstrate the folly of religious belief, we should instead believe that we have the answers for no one but ourselves. We may have struggled long and hard to break free from religious dogma and all the trouble it caused us, and maybe now we feel liberated, which is fantastic. We have indeed found a system of belief that is superior for us. What is it that should make us think our beliefs are superior for others?
Of course, this all depends on your beliefs. And let's be clear, atheists, some of us do harbor beliefs. Some believe that there should be no religion, that religion is purely a destructive agent, or that religious people are credulous fools and so on. But on what basis are we to assume every religious individual fits the mold of those extremists we see from Westboro, or those angry folks who scream about the president being a Muslim? Even if we saw a thousand different images of people like these in the media every day, there is still not sufficient evidence to conclude that these people are representative of the broader religious community. Assuming that all Christians are Tea Party extremists effectively destroys the experiences and uniqueness of each religious individual in your mind before you even meet them.
Why would we want to do this? What do we gain from this? It seems clear to me we've enough divisiveness and partisanship in our country and in the world. I think it's time we stop assuming boundaries into existence between ourselves and start engaging, really engaging, with people, regardless of their beliefs.
What say you?