Aggressive Atheism
Whisper it quietly, but Atheism is so last year.
You can barely pick up a Sunday supplement these days without the book review section containing some polemic against religion. Dawkins, Hitchens and co's swelling ranks of non-believers have found a voice and an audience but, by God (or not), they just won't shut up will they?
Every review of anything literary that analyses the question of religion or belief always ends up with some cautionary tale of the dangers of aggressive atheism. These deranged psychopaths with their out-of-the-box non-beliefs, stating their points of view in a VERY agitated manner! Well, that is not just the done thing is it! Let's stick a Fatwah on their heads.
Indeed reading these reviews makes enjoyable reading for the utter banality of it all. Rather than take issue with the points raised, the issue now seems to be to take issue with how the point is raised. Yeah, we know you think God doesn't exist, but do you have to be so rude about it?
I'm sorry, but that doesn't really wash. To accuse atheists of aggressively defending their point of view is as puerile and bone-idle as it gets. The Old Testament was hardly a walk in the park, a gentle advocacy for the benefits of Christianity. You either believed, or you and all your family, animals, friends would roast in eternity. You'd think fervent believers would take some solace in knowing that atheists are in for eternity with a red-hot poker jammed up their nether regions, however this it seems is not enough.
I laugh when I read these comments. It seems that the new way religious zealots are on the attack is to accuse atheist of...well, being a zealot. I know, people in glass houses and whatnot, but hey. When is consistency and fairness ever an issue when it comes to religion for some folk?
What amuses me most of all is that for the vast majority of people who are religious in this country, what a group of people think of their beliefs matters not one jot to them. And hurrah for that. An inordinate amount of good is done by people who go to church on a regular basis and the country would be a lot poorer for it if it stopped.
I would defend their choice to believe what they like (up to a point - I mean loving animals biblically is a hard one to defend and the antics of a few Catholic priests cannot be condoned in the pages of any good book) as I would defend anyones right not to believe in whatever they like. That matters less than what they actually do.
I often find it is the most vociferous religious zealots who are most affronted by atheist texts, not because it undermines their beliefs, but because it undermines their power and profit-margins. Also, it is precisely they who atheists really want to get under the skin of. Because they are manipulative, evil scum in the main rather than because of what they believe.
I find it hard to categorise at times. I don't believe a word of it, but I defend the right of anyone who does. This includes my son who is adamant God created the world, because it is what he has been told and despite my claims to the contrary, he is happy enough to go along with it. That is his choice. That doesn't mean he is right and I am wrong, or, more to the point, vice versa.
It means we both had a choice and we made a decision. We just made them in different ways. Maybe in time his opinion will change, maybe mine will. That's the beauty with opinions, they can change. Belief's are much more difficult.
I also do like the fact that at this time of the year, some religious nutters get on their high-horse about Christmas. "Aha! Celebrating it are we? So much for your atheist beliefs now eh?" - So, because of what we believe, we have no cause to celebrate in the traditional way? Ok, so explain to me then how Father Christmas is linked to Jesus? How about the Robin on a snowy branch? The Christmas tree? Baubles? Tinsel? Reindeer? A partridge in a pear tree? Noel Edmonds' Christmas presents? The Queen's Christmas Condescension to the masses?
I can't remember Jesus lying in his manger while the three wise men sat in Santa's Lap, avoiding Reindeer shite and explaining to Mary that Tesco's was out of Pampers, so she'd have to do with Myrhh instead, while all the while Joseph and an Angel fecked about with the fairy lights trying to find the one faulty bulb on a string of 100. Similarly, I can't remember Jesus coming back after his resurrection and urging the world to eat Easter eggs. But of course, that's a symbol! Which makes it perfectly ok...
But of course, Jesus was born on Christmas day. Wasn't he? Well, evidence from the bible suggests otherwise (unless you believe it could be flawed of course). While shepherds watched their flocks by night. We know the song, but do we also know that just over 2000 years ago, Shepherds only watched their flocks by night in the Springtime during Lambing season? Some argue he was born on 6th January, 21st April or even May 1st. Other biblical scholars reckon September. Truth is, nobody has a clue.
What IS certain is that this time of the year, around the winter Solstice, has always been a time for celebration in many cultures and that Christianity just borrowed that feel-good factor to base their messianic story around.
Does that matter? Nope. Not at all. It is the act that is more important than the message. The showing of love, compassion, friendship and togetherness for many at this time of year, overrides the logistical issues of if it is really accurate.
Besides, how stupid would Bing Crosby look if we were singing "White Christmas" on 1st May each year?
Criticising atheism as aggressive is lazy and incorrect. It smacks of desperation and is in no way an endorsement of any belief system. It is zealotry at its worst. It is lazy, puerile and simply adds weight to the belief that the reason people choose to criticise atheism in this way, is because they cannot find fault with the logic of their argument.
For some idiots, that's a real worry.
For those with faith. It matters not a jot.
So long live religions, long live atheism, long live choice, but mealy-mouthed bigots shall not be missed.
Amen to that.
You can barely pick up a Sunday supplement these days without the book review section containing some polemic against religion. Dawkins, Hitchens and co's swelling ranks of non-believers have found a voice and an audience but, by God (or not), they just won't shut up will they?
Every review of anything literary that analyses the question of religion or belief always ends up with some cautionary tale of the dangers of aggressive atheism. These deranged psychopaths with their out-of-the-box non-beliefs, stating their points of view in a VERY agitated manner! Well, that is not just the done thing is it! Let's stick a Fatwah on their heads.
Indeed reading these reviews makes enjoyable reading for the utter banality of it all. Rather than take issue with the points raised, the issue now seems to be to take issue with how the point is raised. Yeah, we know you think God doesn't exist, but do you have to be so rude about it?
I'm sorry, but that doesn't really wash. To accuse atheists of aggressively defending their point of view is as puerile and bone-idle as it gets. The Old Testament was hardly a walk in the park, a gentle advocacy for the benefits of Christianity. You either believed, or you and all your family, animals, friends would roast in eternity. You'd think fervent believers would take some solace in knowing that atheists are in for eternity with a red-hot poker jammed up their nether regions, however this it seems is not enough.
I laugh when I read these comments. It seems that the new way religious zealots are on the attack is to accuse atheist of...well, being a zealot. I know, people in glass houses and whatnot, but hey. When is consistency and fairness ever an issue when it comes to religion for some folk?
What amuses me most of all is that for the vast majority of people who are religious in this country, what a group of people think of their beliefs matters not one jot to them. And hurrah for that. An inordinate amount of good is done by people who go to church on a regular basis and the country would be a lot poorer for it if it stopped.
I would defend their choice to believe what they like (up to a point - I mean loving animals biblically is a hard one to defend and the antics of a few Catholic priests cannot be condoned in the pages of any good book) as I would defend anyones right not to believe in whatever they like. That matters less than what they actually do.
I often find it is the most vociferous religious zealots who are most affronted by atheist texts, not because it undermines their beliefs, but because it undermines their power and profit-margins. Also, it is precisely they who atheists really want to get under the skin of. Because they are manipulative, evil scum in the main rather than because of what they believe.
I find it hard to categorise at times. I don't believe a word of it, but I defend the right of anyone who does. This includes my son who is adamant God created the world, because it is what he has been told and despite my claims to the contrary, he is happy enough to go along with it. That is his choice. That doesn't mean he is right and I am wrong, or, more to the point, vice versa.
It means we both had a choice and we made a decision. We just made them in different ways. Maybe in time his opinion will change, maybe mine will. That's the beauty with opinions, they can change. Belief's are much more difficult.
I also do like the fact that at this time of the year, some religious nutters get on their high-horse about Christmas. "Aha! Celebrating it are we? So much for your atheist beliefs now eh?" - So, because of what we believe, we have no cause to celebrate in the traditional way? Ok, so explain to me then how Father Christmas is linked to Jesus? How about the Robin on a snowy branch? The Christmas tree? Baubles? Tinsel? Reindeer? A partridge in a pear tree? Noel Edmonds' Christmas presents? The Queen's Christmas Condescension to the masses?
I can't remember Jesus lying in his manger while the three wise men sat in Santa's Lap, avoiding Reindeer shite and explaining to Mary that Tesco's was out of Pampers, so she'd have to do with Myrhh instead, while all the while Joseph and an Angel fecked about with the fairy lights trying to find the one faulty bulb on a string of 100. Similarly, I can't remember Jesus coming back after his resurrection and urging the world to eat Easter eggs. But of course, that's a symbol! Which makes it perfectly ok...
But of course, Jesus was born on Christmas day. Wasn't he? Well, evidence from the bible suggests otherwise (unless you believe it could be flawed of course). While shepherds watched their flocks by night. We know the song, but do we also know that just over 2000 years ago, Shepherds only watched their flocks by night in the Springtime during Lambing season? Some argue he was born on 6th January, 21st April or even May 1st. Other biblical scholars reckon September. Truth is, nobody has a clue.
What IS certain is that this time of the year, around the winter Solstice, has always been a time for celebration in many cultures and that Christianity just borrowed that feel-good factor to base their messianic story around.
Does that matter? Nope. Not at all. It is the act that is more important than the message. The showing of love, compassion, friendship and togetherness for many at this time of year, overrides the logistical issues of if it is really accurate.
Besides, how stupid would Bing Crosby look if we were singing "White Christmas" on 1st May each year?
Criticising atheism as aggressive is lazy and incorrect. It smacks of desperation and is in no way an endorsement of any belief system. It is zealotry at its worst. It is lazy, puerile and simply adds weight to the belief that the reason people choose to criticise atheism in this way, is because they cannot find fault with the logic of their argument.
For some idiots, that's a real worry.
For those with faith. It matters not a jot.
So long live religions, long live atheism, long live choice, but mealy-mouthed bigots shall not be missed.
Amen to that.
Comments
Post a Comment