Do you
think that atheists are a group which often face unfair discrimination in the
US (and in Slovakia)? Should religious people be more tolerant of atheists and
vice-versa? Is the more outspoken atheism promoted by
people like Dawkins a good or bad trend?
How can we create healthy
dialogues between religious and non-religious people?
First of all, I have to say that after reading this article, I was rather startled. As I do not believe in existence of any kind of god/gods, I have automatically considered myself as an atheist. However, the truth is I have never really thought about what the word atheism wholly means and from now I will probably be much more cautious when expressing my religious beliefs.
ReplyDelete"American voters disapprove of atheist politicians; parents dread the possibility of atheist boyfriends and girlfriends for their kids; and in general, the public feels less warmly toward non-believers than almost any other faith." These are the sentences which surprised me the most and it is, I guess, because of the country I inhabit that I do not come across such thoughts and ideas. Or maybe I have just never actually realised anything like this present around me. But what bugs me about the whole world the most is the never-ending intolerance among people, in this case among the huge variety of religions and beliefs (or non-beliefs). I have always deemed atheism as some kind of a possibility how to evade all the spiritual dramas. But as I have learned from the article, atheists cause just as much trouble as any other believers, or maybe even more, as "It is hard not to come to the conclusion that atheists have spent a far greater deal of time thinking and writing about religion than religious people ever have of atheists as a group".
I absolutely do not agree with Mr Dawkins and company about "ridiculing" people's faith and being irreverent, so I fancy the idea of classifying atheism into a couple of subgroups - "normal atheism" (or I would call it "soft atheism"), Dawkins' "new atheism" and "aggressive atheism". If I were to characterise myself, I would go with the soft atheism by virtue of my lacking interest in showing off my beliefs (more precisely non-beliefs) as well as lacking passion for confuting other people's faith. On the contrary, despite freedom of expression, in my opinion, religions and beliefs are a serious subject which should not be laughed at and made fun of. Or the consequences may be catastrophic, which is also proved by one of the latest dramas (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/07/world/europe/ap-eu-france-newspaper-attack.html?_r=0). In addition, persuading people of different religious beliefs about yours, and continuing even after no visible interest from them, seems completely inappropriate to me. Believe in anything you want and let others believe in what they want! Live and let live!
To conclude, atheists should not be regarded as if they are facing unfair discrimination because many of their obnoxious actions are just as bad as any other believers' in different faith. To not let the world fall apart, all people should sit back for a while and think about their beliefs and how to enrich their lives by caring more about themselves rather than always convincing others to change - convert.
My uncle, who has been living in the U.S. for almost 20 years, came to visit us this Christmas and when the topic somehow got to the religion he said something that stuck in my mind. He said, “In U.S., it’s better to be totally anti-Catholic or to hate whatever kind of religion than to be atheist or not to have any opinion about it at all.” Hence, I was very interested in this article and as it showed, it is not really THE case; however, being a non-believer puts you into difficult position.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing, is to realize who, is an atheist, because not everybody who does not believe in God is atheist. Most of these people are simply agnostics, or “the shruggers”, as they were labeled in the article. These people simply do not believe in god and do not think about it any further. However, the atheist is someone, who has also a materialistic worldview and he can explain it. This is the situation in Slovakia. The atheists do not harm, or at least I have not noticed it yet, the religious people and they do not make fun of the religion itself. On the other hand, in U.S., atheism involves some kind of trying to ironize the religion. I understand, where this thought comes from, because there are many irrational things about the religion (I am sorry if I hurt or offended anyone by this sentence). Nevertheless, I do not like the idea of making fun of the religion publicly. I think that when the atheistic people have the need to express their opinion, they should arrange meetings or an internet discussion as it was said in the article.
Moreover, I have to say I really approve of the idea of writing a book which is tracing the evolution of the atheist community. The non-atheists have a chance to find out what the atheism is about but I agree that titling the book Atheist Awakening is a bit provocative, especially in the U.S. On the contrary, I do not understand why it should be so. Why should be atheism some kind of taboo? It is just a group of people that consider religion irrational and they feel urge to show it. We are living in the 21st century so why we cannot accept each other? Why do we act like in the in the era of knights and solve the problems and disapproving by violence? The case from 2012 is an example of such a behavior. I think it was insane to fire up a crowd which was wearing scandalous T-shirts and singing a song that lampooned the Christianity. I admit that the atheists did not act properly, because even when we do not practice the religion we should have a respect towards the ones who do, but the violence was not good solution at all.
As I was reading the article a stopped at the sentence "It is hard not to come to the conclusion that atheists have spent a far greater deal of time thinking and writing about religion than religious people ever have of atheists as a group." The statement is perfectly truthful, yet I have never thought about it that way. From my, partially atheistic point of view, I can say I have tried million times to understand the religion. I have many friends-believers and last year, I was at the Mass for my friend who was trying to fight the cancer. I considered it a nice gesture. But I do not remember any situation when some of my friends-believers tried to understand what it is like not to believe.
In the end, the research from 2012 showed that many of the atheists are between 18 and 29 years old, which means that people with the modern fact-and-science-based education are more likely not to accept the religion. It seems they feel free to choose not to believe even if they were born into the religious family, which is a progression. If it will go on like this, I think that more and more people will become non-religious, however, not necessary the atheists. But who knows…
Since the beginning of the era of self-determination when it comes to religion, we can observe one phenomenum, which from my point of view, is something outraging and absolutely unnecessary. From crusaders to these passive-aggressive atheists, there is seemingly no way to reach any kind of consensus when it comes to different beliefs, or in this case, non-beliefs. But why is this is an ever-lasting problem in our society? If we were able to overcome racial or gender differences (I am speaking about developed countries such as US), what is the defining moment of not being able to overcome questions of religion?
ReplyDeleteActually, when I read the headline of the article I expected something more violent or controversial. This article should have been meant to tackle the problem of atheism as a community which would somehow harm the believing society, but I think that it only underlined lack of tolerance from the believers. I can t see any reason why it's provocative to title your book Atheist Awakening, just because it somehow refers to religion and past streams of belief. On the other hand I believe that this is something inevitable in a society which marks itself as tolerant and developed when it comes to respect towards other ideologies. By naming this book Atheist Awakening they legitimized atheism, and put believing society into the test of tolerance, which they haven’t passed yet.
As the article suggests, it is common for atheists to be discriminated and it only leads me to a conclusion that there is an urgent need for an atheistic force in a form of rationally functioning community to stabilise the situation. To remove the bias from a religious community is going to be a very difficult task, which may take decades to be fulfilled, however, it is the only way to achieve complete democracy. Atheistic people may be equal in front of law, but they are still a minority which is not completely accepted by religious majority.
Vanessa Maderova