Religion And The Atheist
I was reminded of a conversation I had with a fried of my not to long ago after I read this article that Andrew Sullivan linked to. My friend is religious, while I am not. If fact, I am pretty much an atheist with the understanding that religion gives great comfort and guidance to many, and I respect that (I say "pretty much" because I don't think much about religion beyond what world affairs, child molesting priests and gay fundementalists bring to the news). Too often people think an atheist is necessarily anti-religious. Not true. At least, not for me. I think anyone can worship whatever they want, just leave me out of it. I actually enjoy discussions about religion because, if anything, religion is a testament to humankind's imagination. Sadly, we live in a society that feels the need to cram down our collective throat their belief. Ironic, or, perhaps not, since I have never tried to convert anyone to my belief that there is no god. But, when pushed, I will usually bring up that, as far as I know, no one has ever gone to war over the the other side's non-belief in god was non-believing enough.
As the conversation progressed, the usual talking points of how much carnage and war religion has brought to the world was brought forth. My friend mentioned that even atheists have brought pain and suffering to the world, like Stalin. True enough, I responded, but then gave this caveat: Stalin did not kill those millions of Russians out of some sense of being an atheist, he did it out of a sense of retaining power over his country, not out of an atheist dogma (an atheist dogma, in the classical sense, would be counter intuitive). The want for power is not the sole provenance of the atheist or the religious. The difference is the want and need for power from a religious person is often wrapped in the cloak of doing "god's work". The want and need for power by an atheist is generally simply the want and need for power, with none of the trapping of a faith to hide inside. One can argue Stalin's atheism, and accompanying Communism, was used as an excuse for the many deaths he caused. If he were to allow religion, he would always be secondary to this faceless god. Simply put, his atheism was a tool to retain power, but not the reason to pursue power. Whereas a religious fanatic uses religion as a reason for his power; the religious fanatic always has the hot line to god, after all!
Does the lack of belief in a god make Stalin's atrocities any less heinous than that of, say, Bin laden's use of his god as reason for killing thousands of people? Certainly not. Religion is used in conflict time and time again as an excuse to spread, ironically, the love of god. In true atheism, there is no such conceit to spread anything. If you are a true atheist, you really shouldn't care what someone else beleives since it doesn't make a difference since what they believe in (god) does not exist and, therefore, has no bearing on our lives. The problem is the religous person has this need to convert the atheist, and that can be annoying.
As the conversation progressed, the usual talking points of how much carnage and war religion has brought to the world was brought forth. My friend mentioned that even atheists have brought pain and suffering to the world, like Stalin. True enough, I responded, but then gave this caveat: Stalin did not kill those millions of Russians out of some sense of being an atheist, he did it out of a sense of retaining power over his country, not out of an atheist dogma (an atheist dogma, in the classical sense, would be counter intuitive). The want for power is not the sole provenance of the atheist or the religious. The difference is the want and need for power from a religious person is often wrapped in the cloak of doing "god's work". The want and need for power by an atheist is generally simply the want and need for power, with none of the trapping of a faith to hide inside. One can argue Stalin's atheism, and accompanying Communism, was used as an excuse for the many deaths he caused. If he were to allow religion, he would always be secondary to this faceless god. Simply put, his atheism was a tool to retain power, but not the reason to pursue power. Whereas a religious fanatic uses religion as a reason for his power; the religious fanatic always has the hot line to god, after all!
Does the lack of belief in a god make Stalin's atrocities any less heinous than that of, say, Bin laden's use of his god as reason for killing thousands of people? Certainly not. Religion is used in conflict time and time again as an excuse to spread, ironically, the love of god. In true atheism, there is no such conceit to spread anything. If you are a true atheist, you really shouldn't care what someone else beleives since it doesn't make a difference since what they believe in (god) does not exist and, therefore, has no bearing on our lives. The problem is the religous person has this need to convert the atheist, and that can be annoying.
Labels: Religion
posted by Michael at 2:28 PM
1 Comments:
Wow, that pretty much sums up my own feelings about religion. As a literary minded person, I enjoy the stories and lessons that all religions offer, but I realize that they are just that, stories.
I've long been a believer that religion is the cause of all wars. But believe it or not, a recent episode of South Park has caused me to rethink this position. Cartman travels to a future in which religion is abolished, yet the various atheist factions are warring over who are the best atheists. I suspect there's some truth in that.
Good post.
Post a Comment
<< Home