God believers have always misinterpreted atheism and atheists. You canât blame them, atheism was always slandered and until now we can still find a lot of articles in the Internet that vilify atheism.
So today, I will just mention a few.
About God
Majority of god believers get the wrong impression of the atheist position about god. Instead of defining an atheist as a person that doesnât believe in a god or gods, they intentionally label atheists as people that deny the existence of God. I think the word âdoesnât believeâ is quite different from âdenyâ. Maybe because believers assumed that a certain god exists so it is quite hard for them to comprehend.
Atheism is really a negative stand. Now most Christian articles I seen so far states that an atheist declare that there is no god (which automatically justifies Psalms 14:1 and 53:1). Well sorry to burst the Psalmsterâs bubble, but an atheist stand is clear, an atheist doesnât say there is no god. Atheists will never utter something base on faith and assumptions.
An atheist will says that for a god with the characteristic of so and so to exist is quite improbable.
Believers might ask why atheists believe in the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. These things are not empirically observed.
Thatâs because the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are explained in the natural way and they doesnât rely too much on so-called supernatural explanations. A friend of mine describes an atheist as a person who doesnât believe on supernatural claim so base on his description we can say that an atheist relies on natural clarifications. Remember, there are observable, natural evidences that support the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution - powerful, independent data that corroborate them.
There is also the âword playâ issue. Filipino believers sometimes delineate atheism as âatheoâ. That is simply wrong. In a debate, my opponent insisted that an atheo and an atheist are just the same. This guy who boasts himself as an English professor seems to be too ignorant on root words. The root word âtheoâ and theism may be related but itâs not the same thing. Theism means a doctrine or belief in the existence of a god. So a theist simply means a god believer. Theo on the other hand means âgodâ as in âtheologyâ â from the root word theo = god and logos = study. An atheist therefore means ânot a theistâ or someone that doesnât believe in the existence of a god from the root word a = not and theist = a believer of a god, while the word âatheoâ, well it just mean ânot a godâ.
So then what is this god atheist doesnât believe?
The next common question I always encounter is this, âWhat God does an atheist doesnât believe to exist?â As if there are some gods an atheist might believe and there are other gods an atheist doesnât believe.
Hereâs the answer: An atheist doesnât believe in the existence of any types of gods...PERIOD!
New Age followers and Neo-theism (yep I just invented this word...sounds cool eh?) try to re-define god. I donât know...maybe they feel that the traditional god-concept is too unsuitable in the 21st century. So they just have to dress god with a new costume to fit the party.
With this new gear, some presume god becomes acceptable with atheists. WRONG!
God is god, whether we like it or not. I donât know to you guys, but Iâm not even buying the pantheistâs explanation. Is nature the same as god? Well...if you can give your 100% unfettered devotion to nature, then itâs a god. But can you do it? I remember the late Carl Sagan said thatâs itâs not fulfilling to pray to gravity.
In the Philippines, Iâve met some so-called âatheistâ who surreptitiously deems that rocks and other inanimate objects also have life, so the idea that nature is âgodâ appears to be OK. I was even surprise to find out that some professing Filipino atheists agree to pantheism. There are even atheists who said that they are only atheistic in the issue of the personal, classical definition of god. But deism or pantheism is not atheism. Most think that pantheism and atheism is just the same. Hmmmmm...I have also committed such mistake...but now...I disagree. Itâs the same with La Veyian Satanism, which also claim to be atheistic. So maybe pantheism is atheistic, but itâs not atheism. A pantheist still believes in the existence of a god, he just called it Nature.
Agnostics
So why did I become an atheist and not an agnostic? Many consider the agnostics position much better that an atheist position. Thatâs because an agnostic suspends his belief because of lack of knowledge.
Agnostics believe that no one can really have 100% knowledge to disprove the existence or non existence of something. I think one of the best examples was Russellâs teapot, as proposed by the philosopher Bertrard Russell.
The best explanation is found on Richard Dawkinâs book, âThe God Delusionâ
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened (The God Delusion pp.51-52)
So we really donât know if there is this teapot circling the orbit between Earth and Mars, right? We only know this teapot exist because ancient books have taught it to us. But no empirical evidence, what so ever can ever prove its existence.
So thatâs the same with god-belief. An agnostic will insist that such knowledge is quite impossible: we cannot prove, for sure, that there is no celestial teapot or a god. Yet hereâs where the agnostics were proven wrong. What matters is not whether God is disprovable but whether its existence is probable.
Let me put it this way. Old folks here in the provincial regions in the Philippines believe in the existence of dwende (or dwarfs) that resides inside large âbaleteâ trees. Legends say that their castles are made of gold and are invisible to human eyes. Mostly these castles are found inside large tree trunks. Dwendes are known to fell in love to human maidens whom they kidnapped. The dwende will bring the maiden in his kingdom to be his spouse and will remain with him in the interior the balete treeâs large trunk forever.
So are we 100% sure that dwendes doesnât exist? Do you have 100% knowledge that dwendes doesnât exist? The answer is no. We donât have 100% knowledge that dwendes doesnât exist. Thatâs where the agnostics cash in. But, is there by any chance from a range of 1 to 10 probabilities that we can find a castle inside a tree? Is it probable that a sort of a magical little person can take a woman and place her inside a palace inside the trunk of a balete tree? Is it possible that there are gold invisible to human eyes? Hmmmm now thatâs where atheism or should I say âadwarftismâ sets it.
Thatâs it for now.
John the Atheist (AKA Pinoy Atheist)
