Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation.
I believe that assertion to be patently false--ludicrous, in fact. I also find it deeply and personally offensive. As Eric seems to be dressing down one religious bigot who is defining another person's belief system in a false way which buoys up their own, so is he doing the same to me.
I'll assume (if only for argument's sake) that Eric specifically believes that there are no such things as leprechauns, and that there never have been. I'll assume that he believes it would be a waste of time to look for evidence of tiny magical Irishmen with the power to grant wishes, and pots of gold they keep at the end of rainbows (that last bit being provably untrue). Because, you know, there aren't any leprechauns.
I will then classify his belief as a religion. I will tell him he specifically believes in the non-existence of leprechauns in the absence of (!) evidence for the non-existence of leprechauns.
I will then, hopefully, watch him remember that the burden of proof is not on the person who asserts that there never have been leprechauns. Or demons. Or angels. Or body thetans. Or a monster in your closet. Or CIA agents instructing the homeless guy through an implanted chip in his head. Or a creator god.
I will, hopefully, hear him admit that it is not irrational to positively disbelieve a sufficiently outlandish and unsupported claim--that it does not require an act of faith, and certainly does not constitute a religion to do so.
He and I may (and clearly do) disagree on the plausibility of the claim. But hopefully he will realize that the fact that he rates the plausibility of "creator god" something closer to "an unproven scientific hypothesis like string theory," and I rate it something closer to "the story of the shoe-making elves" does not make the disbelief in gods (or elves) into my religion.
Faith is antithetical to atheism. Calling atheism a religion is the equivalent of saying to an evangelical Christian that "Jesus is really Satan, you know. It's obvious." Hopefully, Eric will understand the insult in those terms, and why I am completely appalled at his level of gall, especially in the context of someone having just insulted his beliefs.
I say "hopefully" because I'd sure like to have a friendly conversation with him again someday.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 06:36 am (UTC)Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation.
I believe that assertion to be patently false--ludicrous, in fact. I also find it deeply and personally offensive. As Eric seems to be dressing down one religious bigot who is defining another person's belief system in a false way which buoys up their own, so is he doing the same to me.
I'll assume (if only for argument's sake) that Eric specifically believes that there are no such things as leprechauns, and that there never have been. I'll assume that he believes it would be a waste of time to look for evidence of tiny magical Irishmen with the power to grant wishes, and pots of gold they keep at the end of rainbows (that last bit being provably untrue). Because, you know, there aren't any leprechauns.
I will then classify his belief as a religion. I will tell him he specifically believes in the non-existence of leprechauns in the absence of (!) evidence for the non-existence of leprechauns.
I will then, hopefully, watch him remember that the burden of proof is not on the person who asserts that there never have been leprechauns. Or demons. Or angels. Or body thetans. Or a monster in your closet. Or CIA agents instructing the homeless guy through an implanted chip in his head. Or a creator god.
I will, hopefully, hear him admit that it is not irrational to positively disbelieve a sufficiently outlandish and unsupported claim--that it does not require an act of faith, and certainly does not constitute a religion to do so.
He and I may (and clearly do) disagree on the plausibility of the claim. But hopefully he will realize that the fact that he rates the plausibility of "creator god" something closer to "an unproven scientific hypothesis like string theory," and I rate it something closer to "the story of the shoe-making elves" does not make the disbelief in gods (or elves) into my religion.
Faith is antithetical to atheism. Calling atheism a religion is the equivalent of saying to an evangelical Christian that "Jesus is really Satan, you know. It's obvious." Hopefully, Eric will understand the insult in those terms, and why I am completely appalled at his level of gall, especially in the context of someone having just insulted his beliefs.
I say "hopefully" because I'd sure like to have a friendly conversation with him again someday.