A fairly dumb article in today’s Guardian by Ian Jack explaining why he doesn’t like to call himself an atheist. He writes: “As a definition, atheism belongs to the same dull category as non-driver or ex-smoker; an inadequate guide to self.”
Good to read that many of the comments are from people who disagree with him . The most recommended and most intelligent response was from someone calling him/herself ‘Irritant:
“Atheism is so much more than a religion. It is a commitment on the part of an individual to keep an open mind and base opinions on evidence rather than wishful thinking and superstition. It’s an affirmation of the age of enlightenment that the theists have fought against every step of the way. It’s a statement about the victory of reason”.
I second that emotion.
Related articles
- The Top 50 Atheists (sandwalk.blogspot.com)
- Atheist Holidays? (atheistrev.com)
- Loftier musings on (my) atheism/atheists.. (zaknafein81.wordpress.com)
- Defining Atheism (sandwalk.blogspot.com)
- How to make atheism matter – Jacques Berlinerblau – The Washington Post (richarddawkins.net)
- Friendly Atheists and the Other Kind of Atheist (sandwalk.blogspot.com)
- Atheism and Popular Atheist Books (aboutpopularbooks.wordpress.com)
- Atheist Unapologetics (anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com)
- Atheists and Meaning (nytimes.com)
Irritant said: ““Atheism is so much more than a religion. It is a commitment on the part of an individual to keep an open mind and base opinions on evidence rather than wishful thinking and superstition. It’s an affirmation of the age of enlightenment that the theists have fought against every step of the way. It’s a statement about the victory of reason”.
I just worry when people start attributing so much to atheism, it can leave it open to idiots who want to call it a religion – or even start to pigeonhole it as something other than it is (Buddhism is after all, atheistic – and I doubt we would use the above terminology in speaking about it). Atheism, definitionally speaking, is nothing (lack of belief, or a belief no god or god’s exist) – it can mean a lot to you (and by ‘you’ I mean the royal ‘you’), and culturally it has a popular meaning (i.e the above quote perhaps?) – but by definition alone, it tells you almost nothing about a person.
I, personally, like the word atheist, and I disagree with the original author that that’s a problem with it. If I want to propose a worldview on any forms asking for my religious belief, I’d write ‘naturalist’, or ‘materialist’ etc otherwise I’m happy to write atheist, and let the reader stew on what else I stand for.
Just my un-asked for, perhaps, unwanted 2 cents 🙂