Atheism is Beautiful. Yeah, I said it.

Explaining to a die-hard Christian that you are a “friendly atheist” is sometimes equivalent to explaining you are a friendly murderer.   To them, atheists are evil soulless creatures condemned to hell.

God made atheists, atheists. Who are they to question his creations? Who are they to question anything? Questioning means you don’t have true faith.

The word “atheist” seems to leave a sting when spoken.  Maybe that’s just me. It has a subliminal negative meaning after being raised Catholic.  I remember it being explained to me that atheists didn’t believe in heaven. As a kid, this was pretty terrifying because you would hang on to all the possibilities; you dreamt big and the idea of going to a place where there were no boundaries sounded wonderful. (Endless supply of candy? I can fly? Wow! I feel bad for people who don’t believe!)

It’s a bummer the word atheist has such a negative connotation when the only reason the word exists is because of religion.  Atheism isn’t a religion.  It’s a way to categorize a minority of people who want to take responsibility for themselves rather than credit or blame a supernatural designer. We do believe in something. Ourselves.

And it is not just other atheists we believe in. We believe every individual has the power to mold their own reality and that there are simply things out there that we do not quite understand yet.  Uncertainty is what makes life interesting. It’s a reason to learn, grow, and challenge ourselves to be better and a chance to discover new things about the universe through science and exploration.   There are certain things we may never know or understand in our lifetimes, but this doesn’t make them less beautiful or intriguing.

“I’m an atheist, and that’s it. I believe there’s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for each other.” — Katharine Hepburn

If anything, atheists have good reason to be friendlier than most groups of people — since there is no evidence for an afterlife, it is important to turn to each other for support and improve our world as we know it. Pave your own way. Do what makes you happy. Don’t hurt others in the process.  Sounds nice, doesn’t it?

“Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves –- or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth.” — Ayn Rand

There is an intrinsic allure to the world around us when we come to terms with the fact that we will die one day. Flowers smell sweeter, little moments become more joyous, and sunsets and sunrises look more vibrant in our eyes.  These little beauties are limited so enjoying them to the fullest is crucial. One day, the lovely light of life as we individually know it will go out and only the memories, tangible possessions, and works we created will remain. That’s why writing can be an amazing art.  I won’t be around forever, but my words will still cling to the paper they were written on.

Letting go of the idea of an afterlife doesn’t have to be sad, because you can’t necessarily feel loss for something you’ve never had.  Soaking in the reality of our here and now is something we can control, and there are means to make the world we live in better for ourselves and the people around us. Viewing the Earth as its exquisite self and delving into new paths as a walking, breathing human can be far more meaningful than an illusion of a God we can only prove in death.

About molly

Follow Molly: @Molly_Nelson/ www.mollyanelson.com

  • timorose

    “Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s a way to categorize a minority of people who want to take responsibility for themselves rather than credit or blame a supernatural designer. We do believe in something. Ourselves.”

    Perfect!

    • Seedofdoubt

      Well said.  There is nothing more frustrating then some bible thumper spewing the rules of the bible at you as if there just facts that we all know.  There minds are so lost that they actually no longer value logic and critical thinking.  Faith is what happens when people stop thinking and settle for idiotic answers even children no better then.

      • seedofdoubt
        • Luke Allport-Cohoon

          Placeholder

          This website has not yet been configured.

      • Mayadee121712

        Faith is what happens when belief is founded on solid grounds, a proven, credible basis or source, like from an all time best selling book that has been in circulation thousands of years already?
        Doubt and or doublemindedness is 
        what happens when people stop thinking, searching and settle for idiotic, inconsistent, baseless answers 

        • Sharpedgs

          So, in a thousand years harry potter will be the new bible?

  • myatheistlife

    What Molly said. Atheists do have hope too. 
    http://myatheistlife.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/my-world-view-hope/

  • Chris Kilroy

    Very well spoken. Thank you for articulating this. It is exactly how I feel. 

    • newavocation

      What??? “We believe every individual has the power to mold their own reality” Wouldn’t that require evidence of freewill? She does not believe atheists believe in a God, but maybe she believes that atheists are Gods.

      • amycas

        There is nothing in her posts that suggests she thinks atheists are gods. That quote was taken way out of context.

        • newavocation

          Her article is full of libertarian god type comments. 
          “people who want to take responsibility for themselves”
          “Soaking in the reality of our here and now is something we can control”

          • amycas

             I don’t think taking responsibility for your life is equating atheists with gods. She’s just using things called “eloquence” and “metaphor.”

            • stan

              I’ll bet that eloquence and metaphor are not qualities allowed of the Bible by this group.  And as for her analysis of Atheism, she is totally unaware of what it means to believe only yourself and the narcissism which that implies.  By believing only in the rules she makes for herself, she becomes untrustworthy, even to other Atheists, who cannot know what her moral base du jour might be.  That’s why Atheists are not trusted; no one knows what they have for morals today, or what they will be tomorrow.

              • R.T.

                 …even you get your morals from society. 

              • Derrik Pates

                That’s not true at all. At least for secular-humanist-big-A-atheist crowd, we have a piece of wisdom which predates the Bible – the good ol’ Golden Rule. (“Do unto others”, not “he who has the gold…”) The “right” thing to do is always the thing which decreases suffering to the greatest possible degree. It’s not that hard to figure out.

  • http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/ Andrew Hall

    To take a  turn on Winston Churchill’s phrase concerning democracy: Atheism sucks, it isn’t until you compare it to everything else when you discover it sucks considerably less than the alternatives.

  • Bananafaced

    I am an atheist. I believe in what I can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I hope for a world where I can be accepted without bigotry and prejudice.

    • Setracse

      You are basically saying “nothing should be believed unless it can be seen, heard tasted, touched, or smelt, i.e. unless we can use our five senses to detect it.”  But that statement itself cannot be proven from our five senses, so by its own criteria, it should not be believed.

    • Mayadee121712

      so you will hardly believe in electrons and perhaps would never believe in gluons or quarks? there are invisible particles you will never be able to see, 
      hear, touch, taste, and smell in your lifetime, you know?

  • The Captain

    I was with you right up until you quoted that horrible person Ayn rand. Next time it might be best to use a quote on how atheism can free you to realize your dreams on earth, by someone who didn’t think you should make those dream come true by stepping on the throats of others.

    • Nena

      I wondered how many comments it would be before someone complained about the Rand quote.

    • Jeff Akston

      “..you should make those dream come true by stepping on the throats of others.”
      Source, please.

      • The Captain

        The “source” is me! It’s my opinion of Rand and her philosophy after reading her writings. Am I to believe that Rand followers no longer believe in the freedom to hold an opinion or are they to dumb to tell when someone expresses one?!

        • Arc182

          While I agree with you 100% about Rand, I would point out that Mr. Akston was (politely, I hope) merely asking you to cite your source.  But, yeah, the Rand quote left me cold, too.

        • Jeff Akston

           Your opinion of her is being misrepresented when you pretty clearly imply that she thinks you should make your dreams come true by stepping on the throats of others. 

          In fact, that’s the opposite of her opinion.   Nowhere in her volumes of writings does she say or imply that it is good to harm, injure, steal from, or otherwise wrong anyone to achieve your dreams.

          She just felt that you should no one is obligated to help anyone, nor live for anyone else. 

          Twist her words all you want to make her seem like a Nazi ghoul, but it doesn’t make it right.

          But we’re cool since you admit that you have no source for your blatant misrepresentation of her opinion other than your own flawed interpretation of her words.

          • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

             Well said. There’s an assumption amongst many that in order to be a “good” atheist, you must also subscribe to any and all notions from the left whether they be rational or not. I find this to be tiresome in the extreme.

            • The Captain

              I would never claim that to be a “good” atheist (if such a thing exist) you would have to “subscribe to any and all notions from the left “. Hell I have positions that are in opposition to many on the US left. BUT not being so does not make one automatically correct either.

          • The Captain

            ” Your opinion of her is being misrepresented ” no, I represented my opinion of her absolutely correctly. 

            But it’s O.K. One this I have learned through all these years is the people who have the least but of understanding about what libertarianism beliefs mean in practice… are libertarians. (and yes, in practice the wealthy will put the preverbal boot to the throat of the poor for their labor)

            Oh, and yea, Rand did have a personal crush of a child killer because by killing her he made himself exceptional.

  • Tainda


    Atheism isn’t a religion.  It’s a way to categorize a minority of people who want to take responsibility for themselves rather than credit or blame a supernatural designer.”

    Perfectly said!

    • Stan

      Atheism is definitely a religion.  As she said it is the religion of the self.

      • http://CoffeeShopAtheist.com/blog Patrick

        New Age Philosophy is in the self-help section.

        though it is neither philosophy nor helpful.

  • houndies

    wow! thanks for this post! this is exactly how i have felt about being an atheist. life is more important than ever and death more tragic to me especially for those who havent lived or have lived sheltered lives trapped in religion or restrictive cultures. i try to be more understanding and more empathetic. i also try, but fail often, to be more patient with people.

  • Andrew Wilkens

    If you’re point is Atheists should be kind to people, perhaps Ayn Rand is not the person you want to quote while making it. Still enjoyed the article!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Mardiney/100002227617877 Brian Mardiney

      Depends on what you mean by that. As an Objectivist, I’m not “kind” to strangers (meaning I don’t go out of my way to do charitable deeds), but I am very kind to the few people I’ve chosen to call friend. It’s all about context.

    • Luke Allport-Cohoon

       if you quote mine Ayn Rand properly, she’s great.  seriously, the majority of what she says is interesting, besides the “be an asshole to everyone” part

      • http://CoffeeShopAtheist.com/blog Patrick

        Similar to Jesus.

        (just substitute ‘be an asshole’ with ‘burn in hell’)

  • http://www.facebook.com/dashifen David Dashifen Kees

    As a theist (and a polytheist at that), I find the idea that a lack of questions leads to true faith to be troubling.  It leads to blind faith, sure, but I fail to see that as a positive thing.  Questions (i.e. doubt) is an incredibly important part of my faith and it’s part of why I lurk on atheist blogs! 

    By challenging myself to analyze and understand the views of others, it serves to either strengthen the concepts of my own faith or tear them down.  Either way, I grow stronger.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

    Atheists are already in heaven.  It’s only as good as we make it, though.

  • Robyman44

    Nice article. It’s been my experience (primarily with several family members, and sometimes with friends who turned out to be, well, anything but friendly) that religion (specifically, Christianity) is a crutch that makes people blind, weak and naive – and keeps them that way.

  • Zmeck

    First, I would like to express admiration for your ambition in this article-if we are truly convinced of something important, we should strive to discover it as beautiful. You are so right to desire a worldview that embraces life in all its messy, glorious beauty and encourages us to appreciate the beauty, goodness and truth all around us ever more perfectly. As a person who is unwilling to compromise my enjoyment of the great gift of a mind, heart, and soul I assure you that my Catholic faith has only deepened my appreciation of all creation in its grandeur and intricacy. My faith always challenges me to take nothing that exists for granted, but at the same time its guidance gives form and meaning to what I experience. This does not limit the joy of sensing, feeling, thinking, and willing. Rather, living in the context of faith life and experience are made whole, fulfilled, and exciting. Everything touches everything else as we begin to see as God sees, yet each individual thing also stands out in its own existence more perfectly. Its pretty cool.

    Second, if my only experience of Christianity was infinite-pile-of-candy heaven and God-made the-world-in-exactly-seven-days pseudoscience/theology, I would take a long hike in the opposite direction too. I’m sorry if that sort of nonsense has really been your encounter with Christianity, especially Catholicism. As a Catholic (who has questioned faith very profoundly, and always found a deeper meaning in the Faith as I question) I encourage you, when you find yourself ready, to seek the real answers it does indeed contain. As with anything truly worthy of contemplation, they are not always easy to perceive at first, but they will always lead to fulfillment and peace when encountered with an open mind and a sincere heart.

    God bless and have a great day!

    • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

       Zmeck,
      I was once religious and in the way that you are now. In other words, I wasn’t a jerk. I’m sure you’d make a great neighbor and and I for one, am more than happy to coexist with those who believe differently than me…as long as they keep their religion out of my bedroom, public schools and government.
      If the Catholic Church was a democratic institution, I’m sure it would be a much better place to be as I’m sure there are many like yourself who would influence it positively. That’s a sincere complement.
      The sad truth, however, is that the Catholic Church is NOT an organization that is easily influenced or changed via the beliefs or actions of it’s followers. It’s a dictatorship and only a very select few get to sit at the grownup’s table.
      Food for thought, my friend.

      • Stan

        Atheism is making up your own morals, your own rules and your own reality.  It is this baseless foundation which Atheists want to force onto everyone else by institutionalizing Atheism in government.  No theist morals allowed, only the transient morality of Atheism.

        If there is a creating deity with the power to influence its creation, then there is no democracy anywhere in the universe regarding morality or reality.  Only in the untethered mind of the Atheist is there such a thing as democratic morality.

        • R.Tachnel

          Even religious people get their morals from society.

          • Mayadee121712

            The standard of morals are actually “not” from “society”, These are all from the Bible. Read the Bible, all morals are written there. That’s where it all comes from, even the governing laws  are from the Bible. Perhaps you should know.

        • Derrik Pates

          Even the religious get their morals through modern, secular reasoning. How many people do you see having slaves, or stoning their rebellious children to death, or killing women who aren’t virgins on their wedding day in America? I’m guessing not very many. Why? It certainly isn’t because the Bible doesn’t say those things are right – it’s because modern, secular reasoning tells Christians that those parts of the Bible should be ignored.

  • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    Religion and faith are ugly, but that doesn’t imply that atheism is beautiful. I admit, the concept of atheism as beautiful escapes me. Rationalism is beautiful. The Universe is beautiful, and being rational (and atheist, of course) allows us to appreciate that beauty. But atheism itself? I don’t get that.

    • Alexandra

      To me, knowing that all of these beautiful things exist without a god that made and maintains them is beautiful. 

      • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

        I agree completely.

  • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

    Letting go of the idea of an afterlife doesn’t have to be sad, because you can’t necessarily feel loss for something you’ve never had.

    This describes my experience as a lifelong atheist perfectly. Since I was never taught I was immortal and never expected to live forever, I don’t find the lack of an afterlife troubling or difficult to deal with.

  • PamBG

    In a “what the heck moment”…. As a religious person – doesn’t even matter which religion – I try to treat individuals with respect and whether a person is religious or not really doesn’t come into my frame of reference.

    But, how the heck am I supposed to think that it’s “friendly” to be stereotyped, told that because I’m religious I must be intolerant, superstitious, out of touch with reality?

    That’s not friendly.

    Friends don’t trade in stereotypes. Don’t stereotype me and I won’t stereotype you. But don’t negatively stereotype me and then try to tell me you’re “friendly”.

    • amycas

       I didn’t see any stereotyping in her piece. Could you supply an example for us?

    • http://CoffeeShopAtheist.com/blog Patrick

      because I’m religious I must be intolerant, superstitious, out of touch with reality?

      You may not be, but most religions are (or at least their deities).  Love the sinner hate the sin; love the believer hate the belief.

      If you practice, an intolerant superstitious out of touch with reality religion, don’t be surprised when people use their critical thinking skills to assume that aspect as a reflection of your nature.

  • Happy Humanist

    While I have no need for gods to explain the world around me, bring purpose to my life, and feel companionate and passionate love, I do not use the term atheist to describe myself. I prefer instead to label my belief system for others who need to understand it by labels as secular humanism.

    I belive it is easier to engage our fellow humans in a discussion by defining ourselves not by what we are not or are against, but by what we are for. I find much in common with the sort of Buddhism espoused by the present Dalai Llama, particulary in his recent book “Beyond Religion: ethics for a secular world”. Buddhism accomodates modern scientific knowledge of the world, and challenges adherents to be willing to accept evidence as a basis for understanding the world. I also think framing my belief system as humanism allows me to find common ground with most Christians too (ie not the fundamentalist types whose brains try to retrofit bronze age understanding of morality and the world onto 21 century life.) I love the one and only real life i will have, and the people and nature in it. Have a great day!

    • METGAT

      There is so much evidence that it I can’t begin to summarize it here.  All you have to do is go to the archives of the Society for Psychical Research. which, for some 130 years has documented volumes of material.  Its members have included esteemed scientists and scholars, including Nobel Prize winners.  You might begin with the famous paraffin hands case investigated thouroughly by Drs. Charles Richet, a Nobel Prize winner in medicine, and Gustave Geley.  You might dig into the research done with Leonora Piper by Sir Oliver Lodge, a world-renowned physicist, Professor William James, a pioneer in psychology, Dr. Richard Hodgson and other.  Of course, if you want to dismiss it as pseudo-science as Randi, Shermer, et al do, without really investigating, that is your choice.  I was in your place 20 years ago, but have spent the last 20 years studying the evidence.  It is not something that can be grasped immediately.  It took me 3-5 years before I began to really understand it.

      And yes, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research is a peer review journal. 
      As for replication, the paraffin hands case was replicated a number of times, as were others.  But if you choose to dismiss everything that can’t be exactly replicated, you have to dismiss both biological evolution until you see a human evolve from an ape in the lab and you also have to dismiss meteroites and other astronomical science.          

      • METGAT

        For a summary of the paraffin hands case, go to http://whitecrowbooks.com/michaeltymn/month/2011/07/

        • METGAT

          The above two comments were intended for the entry above it.  Sorry about that.

      • Stan

        Excellent point about astronomy and cosmology.  All that can be known is the state of things when the light was emitted, which was light years ago.  The current state of the universe is forever unknown: basic general relativity theory. 

        The demand for replicable, experimental data for “proof” is a demonstration of basic ignorance of both science and the components of the universe.

    • Stan

      So your particular self-derived morality is an already existing humanist manifesto?  Which Humanist Manifesto did you choose (there are three so far)?  You realize of course that the first manifesto was the most specific, outlining the Atheist takeover of all, yes all, institutions and installing dictatorial humanism?  The remaining two manifestos merely became less and less specific on the takeover and dictatorship.  But the enforcement of “what is good for all humans” by the Humanist elites is still part and parcel of every manifesto.  Can adequate empathy by every individual be enforced?  If it is up to the Humanists we will see.  Meantime check with the Cubans, the Chinese and the North Koreans.

  • METGAT

    A belief in God and in an Afterlife are not necessarily concomitants, as most atheists seem to believe and is implied in this article, or as one might infer from it.  A belief in a God, whatever form He, She, or It takes is a matter of faith.  However, a belief in the survival of conscionsness at death is a matter of scientific evidence.  There is a preponderance of such evidence out there for anyone who wants to examine it, although most atheists, unfortunately, seem content to accept the words of people like Randi and Shermer that it is all pseudo-science.  In fact, such people are pseudo-skeptics.  Most atheists I know are rebelling against orthodox religion and so jump to the other extreme, totally ignorant of the evidence for survival and unwilling or afraid to look at it, since it will require another adjustment in their worldview and also require an ego adjustment at the same time.    

    • amycas

       Care to elaborate on the preponderance of evidence in favor of life after death? What kind of evidence is it? Is it backed up by peer-reviewed empirical studies that have been successfully repeated?

      • METGAT

        Amycas, I inadvertently posted responses to your comment under the Happy Humanist below.  Sorry about that.

    • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

       

      “However, a belief in the survival of conscionsness at death is a matter
      of scientific evidence.  There is a preponderance of such evidence out
      there for anyone who wants to examine it…”

      Give at least one verifiable bit of evidence and then instruct me as to where I can find the rest of this preponderance of evidence. You popped off with a heavy duty claim, now I want to see you back this assertion. Show me the verifiable, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence of life after death. You get extra credit if you can adequately explain how this “preponderance” of evidence has  been effectively suppressed by the scientific community all these years.
      You have the stage.
      Here’s your chance.

      • METGAT

        Godless monster,  I inadvertently responded under the Happy Humanist below.   As to your question about how it has been suppressed by the scientific community for so long, there is a fairly large part of the scientific community that accepts it, but unfortunately, ego is a big factor, giving rise to sceintific fundamentalism, which is the other end of the spectrum from religious fundamentalism. Just as religious fundamentalists get stuck in the muck and mire of their good books, scientific fundamentalists get stuck in the muck and mire of the scientific method, refusing to believe that there are things well beyond modern day science.  . 

        • amycas

          Scientists make and break their careers by challenging the dominant views of the time. I’d like to see some evidence of this “scientific fundamentalism.” If you’re merely talking about strict adherence to empiricism and the scientific method, then you don’t have a leg to stand on–science is the scientific method, or applied empiricism. If you take those things away, then it’s no longer science. Due to your above comment, I’m now very skeptical of the type of evidence you are willing to accept as valid, but I will take a look at those studies since you spent the time to put it together.

          • METGAT

            Amycas,

            The very fact that the best evidence has been supressed is evidence in itself.  Scientific fundamentalism begins with assuming that science has all the answers.  If that were the case, there would be no further need for science.  All would be known.

        • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

           And I’m to take all of this at face value just because you said so? You made a bizarre claim. I asked you for evidence to back your assertion and you respond with yet another bizarre  assertion.
          You had a chance and you blew it.
          Big time.

          • METGAT

            Godless Monster,

            It took me three years to digest all the evidence and you dismissed it in less than day.  You must be very brilliant.

            • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

              Dismissed what? Where’s the evidence? Show me the evidence!

        • Sharpedgs

          Please provide links/studies/names etc. of the scientific community who believes this. Please, only scientific sources, preferably peer reviewed. Also, this might interest you, 
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal. Note all the prizes that have been claimed!

      • Ascent From Materialism

        And more to the point of this blog, show us the verifiable, scientific, peer reviewed evidence that THERE IS NO GOD.   We will want hard data, and replication so that we know that it has not been falsified at least one additional time.

        The demand for scientific data is a hopelessly Materialist demand, one that Materialism cannot supply for itself, even to support its own claims for knowledge limitation to the physical existence.

        You have the stage.
        Now is your chance.

        • Derrik Pates

          Wrong. You’re making the claim that “there is a god”, and specifically “there is a god, and the Christian god is the only one that exists”. You can make those claims all you want, but if you expect us to believe them, *you* have to back them up with evidence. You can’t turn it around and claim that saying something you haven’t proved isn’t true bears the same burden of proof as the thing you’re claiming. Pay attention, fool.

        • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

           I’ve become used to the fact that the overwhelming majority of theists who comment on atheist blogs are ignorant, stupid, liars or some combination of the three.
          One cannot prove a negative. That you are unaware of this simple fact says everything about your level of understanding and education. Don’t expect any further responses from me until you can establish that you’ve been successful in removing your head from your ass.

        • Sharpedgs

          Please google “Russell’s Teapot”, and “Invisible Unicorn” for a more thorough example of why your claim for god’s existence to be proven false is ridiculous.

  • METGAT

    I meant to add a William James quote to my earlier post, but I couldn’t find it.   I just found it, but let me further preface my remark by saying that I am considered an atheist by my mainstream religion friends as I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God.  However, I do accept the evidence for survival beyond a reasonable doubt.  Let’s say that I am 98.8 percent convinced that consciousness survives physical death.  It is quite easy to dismiss the idea of an afterlife when one is still in the prime of life, but when the individual is at death’s door and facing what he or she believes to be extinction or obliteration of the personality, the stoicism turns to bravado and then trembling.  As William James said:

    “The luster of the present hour is always borrowed from the
    background of possibilities it goes with. 
    Let our common experiences be enveloped in an eternal moral order; let
    our suffering have an immortal significance; let Heaven smile upon the earth,
    and deities pay their visits; let faith and hope be the atmosphere which man
    breathes in; and his days pass by with zest; they stir with prospects, they
    thrill with remoter values.  Place around
    them on the contrary the curdling cold and gloom and absence of all permanent
    meaning which for pure naturalism and the popular-science evolutionism of our
    time are all that is visible ultimately, and the thrill stops short, or turns
    rather to an anxious trembling.”

        

  • Lily

    I was with you until this part: “Explaining to a die-hard Christian that you are a “friendly atheist”
    is sometimes equivalent to explaining you are a friendly murderer.   To
    them, atheists are evil soulless creatures condemned to hell.
    God made atheists, atheists. Who are they to question his creations? Who are they to question anything? Questioning means you don’t have true faith.”

    And yes, that “part” is the very first thing you say.  I’m new to your blog, but the “Friendly Atheist” caught my eye.  I’m a hard-core Catholic (and by that, I mean I really do believe everything the Church teaches, read Catholic philosophy, and am working my way through reading the whole Bible), but I’ve known many friendly atheists in my day.  Some of my friends happen to not believe in any deity, but they are good people, and a lot of them are up for friendly discussions. 

    This post, however,doesn’t seem so friendly. Assuming that “Christians”— a very broad category— see you as evil, souless, or condemned to hell, is not a good way to show amiability, as you seem to be lumping all different sects in together and appear to already have a negative view of Christianity.

    And then you say “Who are they to question anything? Questioning means you don’t have true faith” you are basically implying A) that Christians are a bunch of stupid sheeple and B) that no Christians have ever asked questions or thought about anything (St. Paul, Thomas Aquinas, the numerous Church councils, etc. would like to have a word).  The majority of Church doctrine and Protestant beliefs only came because Christians asked a question, didn’t have an answer, and had to work one out based on what they already knew.  Western science, too, was pioneered by Christians, who saw God as rational and saw his creation as understandable. 

    Granted, today there are many Christians who don’t think about the world (all faiths and non-faiths have such individuals in them), but acting like all Christians aren’t thinkers and don’t take time to enjoy and study the world is disingenuous and not very friendly.

    • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

       I was once a believer. I certainly don’t see myself as having been stupid or gullible…

      • Lily

        I know many atheists don’t think Christians are stupid (like I said, I have genuinely amiable atheist friends).  I’m addressing the individual who wrote the post, not atheists in general.  After all, individual atheists are as varied and different as individual Christians :)   

        • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

           

          “I’m addressing the individual who wrote the post…”

          So am I Lily, so am I.  :-)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X