What Are Some Positive
Aspects To Atheism?
November, 1995
Positive Atheism Forum
What Are Some Positive
Aspects To Atheism?
November, 1995
Jim Cox:
When that one is thrown at me, my responses are:
1. My Atheism liberates me from the errors of belief and belief systems, thereby enhancing the quality of my life, the prospects for my personal prosperity, and giving me Sundays off to pursue my numerous hobbies.
2. Upon becoming an Atheist my disposable income jumped an immediate 15 percent, as I no longer tithed or contributed to endless building funds and missionary drives.
3. Being freed from the nightmare of eternal punishment, and being emancipated from the bribery of eternal bliss, I am now able to concentrate wonderfully on being happy in the here and now.
4. My Atheism has clarified the observed and recorded caprices of human history. It has enlightened my understanding of why the good guys don't always win -- and the bad guys don't always lose. Atheism has solved such philosophic conundrums as why evil exists.
5. Atheism helps me cope with the stresses of life and the inevitability of death.
6. Atheism gives me a practical and effective mechanism by which to develop an overall system of philosophy and ethics for a robust intellectual and personal life.
7. And perhaps most of all, atheism gives me a coherent mechanism by which to make sense of the senseless -- including religions and the religious, with all their accouterments of dogma and ritual, scriptures and strictures, martyrs and murders.
Richard S. Russell:
Well, I don't view the statement as an "accusation," I view it as an accurate description. And I see no need to apologize for it. I'm also negative about slavery, child abuse, torture, censorship, and other social ills. If there were no religion, there would be no need for atheism. "Positive Atheism" seems oxymoronic to me.
Atheism, in its organized form, exists solely to counter the claims of theism.
Jerry Stone:
From: Jerry Stone <jerrys@fluidsysus.epcorp.com>
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 7:55 AM
Subject: Q_and_A:_Positive_Aspects_of_Atheism
Why is it always this question? Everything is set to begin from the point of view of the professed believer in any given deity. The word "atheism" itself is a perfect example to begin with. The word atheism does not, I repeat does not mean that one does not believe in a god. Does the word "asexual" mean that in the reality of an organism with this quality that there exists no sexuality anywhere? I do not know the history of the word atheism but I do not doubt that it arose in the dark ages and was propagated by someone of the church. So even if you were enlightened to the truth the only way that you could relate it was to acknowledge this god character. I come before all of that. I am here before any superstitious beliefs can be proffered. I am here originally. I am not without your god. Your god never was.
You ask what the positive aspects of atheism are. I ask you what are the negatives? I am a loving and compassionate human being. Would you be interested in knowing that I cry when I hear about two kids in Colorado going into a school and simply killing other children? The state of our reality is a product of the lying to ourselves from the beginning about what reality even is. When the first person who declared his god did so, he started a snowball of chaos rolling down the mountain of time. I say that the state of things today is the product of centuries of self-deluded chickenshits too afraid of their insignificance in the universe to see that the only things that matter are what we have before us. Everything that you put before me that is what you see as negative about knowing that gods do not exist, I will tear down to the nothing that it is and give you back a piece of what is real. Ask me about morality and ask me about justice. Ask me about any of the things that you think we cannot achieve without your god and I will show you such a simple and beautiful way that we can that I should hope it to bring you to tears.
I do not mean to glorify myself or to imply that I am better because of what I think. I just have spent so much time with questions that have never led me to any answers that were by anyone else. Except for Nietzsche whom everybody thinks is a monster but is only as fearless as I am to face life and death. I have spent so much time answering these questions that I am proud of them if they are true and willing to learn from them if they are mistakes. I am not afraid to be wrong because it is a good thing. Every time I make a mistake, I learn something and those are the best lessons because you worked for it.
I dare anyone who reads this to challenge me. I do not fancy that I am exceptionally intelligent but that my honest simplicity is something that clears away the dirt of time. I hope I have answered this question in a manner that will make it comprehendible. I sometimes get so excited and in such a hurry that I jump from mountaintop to mountaintop without showing the lay of the valley. I'll stop now. I've calmed back down. Goodbye.
Jerry Stone
Test Technician
Eagle-Picher Fluid Systems
http://www.epcorp.com/
Cliff Walker responds:
A thorough history of the various meanings of the word atheism can be found in George H. Smith's 1990 article, "Defining Atheism."
I follow Theodore M. Drange when he says that I am an atheist if your definition of the word god makes sense, that is, if your idea of God is conceivable. If your definition of god does not make sense or is logically impossible, then I am a noncognitivist. Others have differed on this point, though, such as Charles Bradlaugh, who called himself an atheist though he would fit my definition of a noncognitivist by saying that no god-ideas make sense.
I also tend to agree with Smith's "weak" or "negative" definition for atheism. This says that an atheist simply lacks a god belief, he or she does not necessarily declare that no gods exist. I do get some flack for this position from time to time.
The word atheist is a negative term, describing what someone is not: a theist. If I could find a word that describes this element of my personal philosophy that is not a negative term, I would adopt it without any further ado. The words humanist, rationalist, infidel, freethinker, and others I have encountered either say too much, do not say enough, or say the same thing.
Aside from that, we carry the stigma of several thousand years of bigotry at the hands of theists. Psalm xiv. 1. says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Many people throughout history have believed this and have acted on it. A case in point is the Mirriam-Webster's Tenth Collegiate Dictionary, whose synonym for atheism is wickedness. Many theists have been executed for the crime of atheism because they believed in the wrong gods.
Atheists are constantly accused of trying to take from people the joy that religion allegedly brings, though the atheists will tell you they are trying to free the theists from the bondage of superstition. More than this, though, atheist are often seen as the enemies of God. The goal of this question was to ponder these points.
Jerry Stone Replies:
From: Jerry Stone <jerrys@fluidsysus.epcorp.com>
To: <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 8:25 AM
Subject: my letter
Cliff my man,
I was just looking over what I wrote and your response and you may have misunderstood me. My response to the question and the way I put it forth was directed toward the people who would ask it out of curiosity and not for the reason that you did. What I said, be it somewhat frantic, is the product of my pondering of the question. It's point, for the people who would seriously want an answer to the question as if it was actually valid, was to show them that indeed it is not a question that is valid. There isn't some "answer" as theists think there is for everything. There is nothing that is inherently wrong with atheism (except the word itself!) that the question bears(sp?) asking. Because it is not a manufactured idea unlike theism. I myself am not making a denial of any kind because I see before me nothing to deny. Now, if it was my thing to ask the theists what is good about what they believe, that would be a valid question. They are making the assertion where as I am simply living my life. My thing isn't to challenge them though because it is pointless. It has no meaning. The only thing I am interested in challenging them on is the state/church thing because the two obviously do not belong together. Things of that nature.
Also, I really should have looked around before I started writing responses to questions. I realize it was terribly naive of me, but I have never been exposed to all of these ideas that I have, by anything but my own mind. The George H. Smith article was exhilarating to me because parts of it could have been plucked from my head! So I foolishly went on about the word "atheist" like I was going to open the worlds eyes up when really it was my eyes that ended up widening. So do forgive my passionate ignorance. This is very serious to me and I need not explain that to you I think.
I do not know if you will put this up or not but if you do, I would like to say that this is in no way a backing down from the dare that I made to the theists. As I said, my thing is not to challenge these people about their beliefs but if they are so willing to challenge what I think, then by god I'll scrap with them. (heh, heh, heh)
In closing I would like to say thank you for your time. I really know no other...a...at...noncognitivists! I know people who say that they are atheists but I seriously doubt their conviction. Although that could be my mistake in that not everyone who is atheist feels, or at least shows that they feel, as strong as I do. I am a no-bones-about-it kind of guy. Anyway, the result is that I have no one to talk about these things so I selfishly bend your ear. Do forgive. And if I have any more revelations you'll hear from me!
Jerry Stone
Test Technician
Eagle-Picher Fluid Systems
http://www.epcorp.com/
Tom:
I have been reading through many of the threads on this site and find them very insightful, especially those of Mr. Walker. However, I tend to disagree with the following:
I follow Theodore M. Drange when he says that I am an atheist if your definition of the word god makes sense, that is, if your idea of God is conceivable. If your definition of god does not make sense or is logically impossible, then I am a noncognitivist. Others have differed on this point, though, such as Charles Bradlaugh, who called himself an atheist though he would fit my definition of a noncognitivist by saying that no god-ideas make sense.
What you are describing is an agnostic. Webster's describes the two terms as follows:
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Atheist: one who denies the existence of God
I would revise my definition of atheist to be: "one who denies the existence of the supernatural." I also disagree with Mr. Drange. I would define an agnostic as one who finds the definition of god conceivable even though their loyalty to a particular belief system is in doubt. An atheist, as I define myself, is one who finds the concept of god inconceivable.
Certainly, one of the positive aspects of Atheism is that it allows events in your life to be explained on a consistent basis.
Cliff Walker responds:
I wholeheartedly agree with defining atheism as denial of (or lack of belief in) God(s) and the supernatural. When I discuss my atheism with thests of any bent, I try to throw in the phrase "and the supernatural" as describing what I don't believe.
I think the difference between an agnostic and Drange's noncognitivist is that for an agnostic, ultimate reality itself is unknowable, whereas for the noncognitivist, it is certain theist's definitions which do not make sense. Drange and Smith agree that discussion of the strong definition for atheism (the flat-out denial of the existence of a god or gods) must always follow a claim that a god or gods exist, such discussions are not valid unless and until such a claim is made.
Also, as Lavanam pointed out, the last time he visited Portland, the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions for atheism have almost always been written by preachers (that is, until Microsoft Encarta commissioned atheist philosopher and author Michael Martin to write their article on atheism. The way the Webster's definition reads, for example, presupposes the existence of God. George H. Smith, in Defining Atheism, makes several excellent cases for looking to atheistic philosophers for our definitions of atheism.
Salvator Giustra:
Well, as a dyed in the wool atheist I mightily appreciate the preceeding correspondences. There are a number of interesting issues that are highlighted when the issue of God arises.
But does anyone feel like this is a big waste of time? No I don't mean there arent forces which need to be confronted, but that I feel resentful having to try to, well yes I'll say it, enlghten folks.
I seriously doubt that people who need to be enlghtened will avail themselves of it. People are scared. Hey! I'm scared!
What we atheists need to do is become extremely political and join with forces that will join us. That way we can be seen as normal, not marginal cooks! We nedd to work on not allowing "them" to marginalize us. That's why we need to become more political than, oh, philosophical, scientific-logical and the other forums wherein we atheists often do battle.
I know I'm rambling but think about it, how many other groups of people, are often reluctant to profess a respectable belief? How many grps are met withsuch open-mouthed stares, pitying looks and the like when they profess beliefs?
Yeah, I know, Christians, among others, speak of the persecution they undergo when they express their faith. Yeah right, Americans by and overwhelmingly large believe in God(s), and are likely to be Christians.
Chris Schatschneider:
Date: September 11, 1996
To me, atheism is a statement of non-belief. When I say I am an atheist, I am saying that I cannot find enough evidence to suggest that a supernatural "being" exists. If this is a negative belief, then why would I want to counter this "accusation." And while there are many positive aspects in not believing in things that don't exist, the term "positive atheism" is unclear to me. The essence of atheism is a non-belief in a god. No other beliefs I may or may not have can be inferred from my statement of atheism.
From:
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Thursday, April 12, 2001 6:08 AM
Dear Positive Atheism Editor:
First I'd like to say that I am an 18 year-old lifetime Catholic who has attended catholic schools all his life. With that out of the way I'd like to commend you on having such a wonderful website. Any time questions about religion are brought about there is a chance for constructive analyzing about religion. I also found your "What Are Some Positive Aspects To Atheism?" section interesting and humorous. Something that I always find interesting about atheists who actively seek out to disprove Christian belief structures is that the criticism is rarely at the expense of Catholicism beliefs. One reason is probably due to pope John Paul II's Vatican II work and the "modernization", if you will, of Catholicism We are very keen on interpreting the Bible figuratively, not literally (which, quite frankly makes a lot of Christians look like close-minded morons). We also seem to be less rigid in our belief that only those who "accept" Jesus as their savior are the people who can enter heaven. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I could understand why someone would be atheist. I'm a very liberal Catholic, and I don't believe EVERYTHING that is in our doctrine as it is today. I suppose I mainly wanted to thank you for providing such an open forum and to keep up the good work. So, keep on keepin on, and talk to ya later.
Aaron Thomas
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.