Wonderful symposium! Thanks for putting this one together and for including my post!

[...] November 18, 2008 · No Comments The 28th edition of the Humanist Symposium is up over at Disillusioned Words.  Looks pretty good this time around.  Check it out here. [...]

Can Atheists outrun inexorable human nature? Can Atheism convincingly squelch attitudes of arrogant exclusivity and elitism from festering within its ranks? If not, what offerings to humanity does Atheism bring, that Religion does not?

In my unceasing and fruitless pursuit of freedom from delusion it seems perhaps the most subversive are those who would advocate disillusionment in an illusory manner. This danger, and effect, can aptly be compared to Satan manifesting himself as a Cardinal or Bishop.

Be careful that you don’t start believing in your atheistic ideologies with the same narrow-minded zealotry exhibited by the theisms you oppose.

I do enjoy reading the thoughts of many who post around here.

I understand the symbolic point you are expressing by suggesting that atheism not be considered a proper noun. Point taken, but let me also suggest that perhaps evaluating one’s understanding of a particular concept based on symbolic technicality may actually resemble an indoctrination of that which, by nature, is to be characterized as inherently nebulous and amorphous by its strongest proponents. I hope atheism will not develop its own form of dogma. I actually consider myself an atheist, however I like to assume the role of “devil’s (ok a bit ironic) advocate” and mimic the apprehensions that someone who staunchly, or casually, believes in religious concepts may have –beyond discrimination, societal pressure and other “macro” issues– when considering an atheist substitution as a form of alternative schema. You may disagree with me, but I consider it to be essentially true that whether it be a religious set of beliefs, or an atheistic set of null-beliefs, an individual is still presented with an uncooperative choice between a set of definitive characteristics that eventually result in irreconcilable absolutes and contradictions. For example, as formless as atheism aspires to be (and I appreciate the motives behind this effort…I think) there are certain concepts that it simply cannot entertain…such as the belief in god –as the most obviously metric. It is the primary effect of this lack of universal accommodation that fundamentally eradicates any amorphous form of rationality that atheists may aspire to. Put simply, atheists do define their beliefs as “this not that”, which I fear always eventually leads to a concept of “us and them”. It is perhaps impossible for human logic and rationality, as it is for irrationality and imagination, to produce purely non-exclusive concepts or ideas. So, I post the question (as one who considers himself to be an atheist): “How does an atheistic belief (or non-belief, if you must), which is by nature based on a set of logical parameters, address that which does not adhere to atheistic parameters, in a way that is unique, and different from the way a religion would address secular concepts? In other words –using a popular example– hypothetically speaking, how does an atheist’s rejection of christianity differ from a christian’s rejection of atheistic concepts, not simply in procedural terms, but more importantly in terms of propagating the acceptance and co-existence of all spectrums of human thought? How would someone who believed in god be treated in a predominantly atheistic world? Would there be blogs like this created by religious believers expressing their fear of rejection or even persecution in a world that does not make any room for their “irrational” beliefs? My hope is always that the minorities consider it a top priority to avoid adopting and assuming the subjectively negative traits of current, or former, majorities.

One last thing while I’m hogging the microphone =)…I did read your article and I think it was organized and well-written. I especially liked your reference to a “magical parental figure”, which to me, carries a lot of heavy meaning in a short phrase.

Hi Brian,

I do want to reply to you more fully, but I am only now reading this as I head out the door to go out of town to visit a Grad School. As you may be able to tell from the dates of my posts, I have recently slowed down quite a bit in my blogging because of this MFA pursuit. So, please don’t think that I don’t want to engage more fully, as I do and will once I return. (To compound all this I need to fix my laptop, so that slows me too). Just a couple quick thoughts:

there are certain concepts that it simply cannot entertain…such as the belief in god –as the most obviously metric

I think the idea of belief in god can be “entertained” in that it can be considered and scrutinized. For me the problem is quite clear, belief in something that has no evidence is similar to prosecuting a man for murder based on the word of someone (multiple people, actually) who died 2,000 years ago and who left a diary that contradicts itself and has been proven wrong numerous times. We would never allow a man to be convicted for a crime on such evidence and we should not form our values and “beliefs” on such evidence. But I do go further in stating, what many if not most atheists state, that ALL Belief is problematic. Whether that Belief is in Marxism, Fascism or a particular leader/party, as well as religious Belief. It all leads to irrationality. I agree that we have to avoid the us and them, “in-group/out-group” mentality that it is so easy to slip into when one has Faith and/or Loyalty to a given ideology. We both know that atheism is not a belief and it is not a doctrine. After coming to an atheistic conclusion one may take it further and formulate a set of values and ideas which will be “atheistic” in that they do not posit a supernatural consciousness as the source, but they are not “atheist ideas” or an “atheist doctrine” any more than my lack in belief of Marxism makes my political ideas and social values “an aMarxist doctrine.” My political ideas are indeed aMarxist in nature, but they do not result from being not-Marxist. Another way of looking at this is to consider it in a metaphorical way. I am white, but being white does not define me. My ideas do not come from my being white, though one can accurately describe me as white. So saying that my values constitute a “white doctrine” would be wholly inaccurate, though I am white. It is beside the point.

Anyhow, I feel like I am rambling and redundant now and I have to run before my wife leaves without me.