Austin

Atheists -- Show Me Your Holidays

By JohnnieBaby - Wednesday October 21, 2009 - 10:45 am

442 Views | 11 Comments | -3 Votes

It hit me this evening -- I have had too many conversations with my daughter about her not wanting to practice piano. Those of us with adolescent children know the drill. Do your work -- learn your skill -- whether it be piano, or a sport, or a craft, or whatever.

But there is one thing that I -- and I would propose every parent reading this -- has not said to my child. And that is: do nothing and claim something for it. Never have I said sit there, and then claim something gained. And it's quite obvious why: because there is nothing gained.

And it occurred to me that I have that same feeling regarding art -- yes, many styles, many different ways of expressing things -- but there is some "art" for me that is no art at all. And it boils down to this: art that required no effort on the part of its creator, is worthless as a "work of art" of its creator. Sorry Jackson Pollock.

Now at this point you might be saying "Whoa, Johnnie Baby, don't get philosophical on me here. I need a beer." That's OK. But hang with me.

Because I have a challenge for my atheist friends out there -- and that is this: I respect your right to believe there is no God, but I am challenged on how you call it a religion, when it has no organization, no holidays, no formal documents, no means of study or advancement. Nothing. If I decide to be an athiest, there is nothing I am aware of that differentiates the novice from the expert athiest. Where's the black belt? Where's the work? Where's the effort to learn something? Are there atheist holidays?

John Cage wrote a piece called 4 minutes 33 seconds. It is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of utter slilence where the "music" is that which incidentally occurs in the room. Fancy, Mr. Cage. And from the Father of Chance Music, we could expect such. But you and I are just as good as John Cage at creating a 4'33" experience anywhere anytime. It requires no effort. No skill. No education.

I am starting to view atheism as the 4 minutes and 33 seconds of religions. Because I do not understand how you get good at it. Or what makes you a more advanced atheist than someone else.

So help me out here! Are there atheist mission trips of which I am unaware? Do Atheists gather under that name to help the poor? And what about Christmas Dinner?

442 Views | 11 Comments | Votes [ 0 ] [ -3 ]

You need to be logged in to do that!

Comments

Add Comment

Shogg | Points: 0 | Monday December 28, 2009, 21:38 PM

JohnnieBaby,

I'm a little confused as to what your argument is. First of all, atheism isn't a religion, it is freedom from religion and I doubt many people claim it otherwise. Since it is not a thing (it's the lack of a thing) you cannot get "good at it" or be better at it than someone else.

You seem to be arguing that atheism is a poor religion because it lacks elements of religion -- OK you are correct. Were atheism a religion it would be way less attractive than one with established stories, holidays, rules and community groups.

You say "if atheists don't have any rules or hierarchies that govern them, how can there be general statements about them that are true?" -- because the term itself means someone who does not believe in a god. If you believe in a god you are not an atheist. The term does not say why someone doesn't believe in any god or what they should believe instead, if it did perhaps then it would be a religion (and would require more organization than just a label).

I don't practice a religion because I have no reason to believe in something I haven't witnessed or experienced, can't test or question, and only know about through being told by others or books. I much prefer the scientific method where ideas can be revisited in light of new evidence and in order to be useful theories are expected to be able to predict the future with some degree of accuracy. If I don't agree with someone I can design an experiment to prove them wrong and engage in dialog to find a better theory. If a new theory can more accurately predict the future than an old theory then it will gradually the old school of thought.

Note that I don't say "Atheists don't...", since atheism isn't an organization, I can't speak for other people who all I have in common with is the desire to come to my own conclusions. Some atheists (Dawkins et al) attempt to express their own views on behalf of similar minded people and while I may agree more with an atheist argument than a theist argument I will continue to think for myself when it comes to such matters.

Not believing in any god (aka "Atheism") is not about finding fault in religion, it's about not having one. Many discussions and arguments tend to end in atheists pointing out faults in religions when put in situations where religion is assumed and/or forced on someone. It is difficult to think outside one's system of beliefs and relate to someone who has a different frame of reference. Since monotheism is dominant in the western world it tends to be the default frame of reference and atheists have to make arguments against religion rather than theists making the argument for it. Going back to your building analogy it's harder to knock a building down than it is to leave it standing.

Finally, are you suggesting that it is only Christians giving time and money to help the poor and unfortunate rebuild? Or that it takes religious motivation to help others? Both of which seem like weak arguments if you are. No sane person will argue that it is bad to help others and many atheists are involved in community projects, albeit not under an atheist banner. How many scientists and engineers (professions with much higher percentages of atheists) dedicate their entire careers to making the world a safer, more comfortable, better place?

Disasters like Katrina are an interesting topic in any religious discussion though. I admire the Christians helping their fellow men out but I always wonder how they reconcile their belief that their supposed kind and just God chose to inflict such death and destruction on people which they are now helping to restore to their previous way of life. Should they not ask "was this disaster for a reason?" or is the directive to not question their God more powerful than any attempt to understand their God?

Religion does many good things, inspiring charitable work, comforting the beleaguered, and providing guidelines as to how one should live their life but in this sense I truly feel that religion is "das Opium des Volkes" and an convenient explanation for things that are otherwise hard to explain.