'Positive' Atheism?
(Or, 'Truths Can Be
Found in Religions')
Aradia
Please note that as of the posting of this letter on February 15, 2000, and the reformatting of this letter on August 29, 2000, we had not received a reply to the questions and objections we raised. This suggests that the motive for this letter was to cloak abusiveness within a shroud of open-mindedness. Should we eventually receive a reply, we will post it below and indicate here that we have done so. |
From: Aradia
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: 'Positive' Atheism? (was: just another title?)
Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 5:01 PM
After hearing various humourous comments about your website and things you've said, I decided to take a quick side-trip to positiveatheism.org and peruse the writings that are online. Hmmm. A couple things struck me almost immediately, one of which was driven in when I read the following, from the "Atheism...just another title?" thread, your response dated 7.11.1999, sixth paragraph:
Positive Atheism is based upon the premise that organized atheism exists only to counter the claims of theists. We are, in this sense, calling theism falsehood. This would indicate that we have a respect for truthfulness.
The first thought I had (unrelated, directly, to the above paragraph) was that you tend to focus on the judeo-christian-islamic trio and, that said, mostly on the 'christian' part. While I've taken part in many a religious debate, and baited plenty a fundie in years past, it's ludicrous to declare yourself against "religion" if the only religion you focus on is christianity. There are more fish in the sea. That said, I did in fact read some items that dealt with other religions, but they seem to be in the minority.
The second thought I had, which the above quote directly confirms, was that you and your website are less about atheism and its "positive" aspects (as your name implies), and is more about the negative aspects of other religions. Indeed, you come off as a politician in a negative compaign, trying to win only by making your opponent lose. In fact, it sounds a bit like a religion I know...
In your journey to truthfulness, don't forget that truths can be found in religions, and that there is more to religion than christianity. And if you believe that taoism, buddhism, the church of satan, voudun, wicca, shamanism, the temple of set, confuscianism, hindu, and all the others are just like christianity, you're doing yourself a disservice.
I have no problem with atheism. I have no problem with any other religion. I have problems with a number of practitioners, but that's often not the religion's fault. A question: if you call yourself "Positive Atheism", why do you seem to focus more on "Religious Negativity"?
And here's something for your quest for truth: If you don't believe in an afterlife, the only truth that's important is that we are born, we live, and we die. Ultimately, no other truths matter. The truths you learn will eventually be lost, and will change nothing. The religious practitioners who are "deceived" by their faiths will die just the same, their self-deception having done no real harm. So where is the good in trying to crush the belief systems of others, which in many cases is one of the few things that helps them deal with life...?
From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Aradia
Subject: Re: 'Positive' Atheism? (was: just another title?)
Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 8:00 PM
I read the following, from the "Atheism...just another title?" thread, your response dated 7.11.1999, sixth paragraph:
Positive Atheism is based upon the premise that organized atheism exists only to counter the claims of theists. We are, in this sense, calling theism falsehood. This would indicate that we have a respect for truthfulness.
The first thought...
But then you proceed to weave arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the simple statement being made here.
Please explain to us why you brought this up in the first place.
The first thought I had (unrelated, directly, to the above paragraph) was that you tend to focus on the judeo-christian-islamic trio and, that said, mostly on the 'christian' part. While I've taken part in many a religious debate, and baited plenty a fundie in years past, it's ludicrous to declare yourself against "religion" if the only religion you focus on is christianity. There are more fish in the sea. That said, I did in fact read some items that dealt with other religions, but they seem to be in the minority.
We tend to ignore the unintrusive religions, and counter only the ones that directly impact us against our will.
Also, we strongly discourage the use of the pejorative "fundie"
on this forum. It's a dignity thing. We have, on several occasions, rejected
a perfectly good letter simply because it contained such perjoratives.
The second thought I had, which the above quote directly confirms, was that you and your website are less about atheism and its "positive" aspects (as your name implies), and is more about the negative aspects of other religions.
You have a completely different understanding of the term "positive"
than the way we use it here.
In fact, it sounds a bit like a religion I know...
This is a pretty low blow, and justifies our asking you to specify which
religion and also to specify how so.
In your journey to truthfulness, don't forget that truths can be found in religions, and that there is more to religion than christianity. And if you believe that taoism, buddhism, the church of satan, voudun, wicca, shamanism, the temple of set, confuscianism, hindu, and all the others are just like christianity, you're doing yourself a disservice.
Truths can be found in Grimm's Fairy Tales, too, but this does
not justify teaching our children that the characters in Grimm's
actually existed.
I have no problem with atheism. I have no problem with any other religion. I have problems with a number of practitioners, but that's often not the religion's fault. A question: if you call yourself "Positive Atheism", why do you seem to focus more on "Religious Negativity"?
This is the essence of fundamentalist thinking: that the philosophy itself is without fault, and that all problems are caused by certain individuals who just aren't practicing the (faultless) religion properly.
"Positive Atheism" opposes such thinking, especially within
atheism, and will issue a harsh statement
against such tendencies within organized atheism in December, after the
specific wording undergoes the scrutiny of a small group of atheistic leaders
whose organizations could be impacted by our statement.
If you don't believe in an afterlife, the only truth that's important is that we are born, we live, and we die. Ultimately, no other truths matter.
I go further than this: Ultimately, even these three truths do not matter.
Meanwhile, I am alive at this moment and choose to make something of
what little I have -- which is my prerogative. Here is where our actual
philosophy differs from your false caricature of our philosophy.
The religious practitioners who are "deceived" by their faiths will die just the same, their self-deception having done no real harm. So where is the good in trying to crush the belief systems of others, which in many cases is one of the few things that helps them deal with life...?
"Ultimately" is not the here and now. We humans, while alive, are very concerned with the here and now, even though "ultimately" nothing will matter. At one point, someone graciously (and patiently) showed this to me, thus helping me to stop being part of the problem.
Your question ignores one glaring fact: Historically, it has been the religious organizations that have not only crushed the thinking of those who see no gods, but also have crushed our thumbs, our legs, and our skulls; pulled our limbs out of joint, poured molten lead in our bodily orifices; cut off our ears and ripped out our tongues; tied us to a stake and set us aflame; confiscated our estates; sent our wives and children into slavery.
In addition to this, the religious organizations have retarded science and set us back by thousands of years because they enforced superstition upon us and killed those who would question the dominant myth (including members of minority religions, mind you). We would hope that some such minorities would join us in demanding that religion never again be used to determine public policy, and that all religion remain on a separate realm (in the interest of human progress as well as in the interest of freedom of individual religious choice, and of freedom from the dominant religious paradigm).
Finally, I do not think that it is wrong to hurt someone's sensibilities, or to offend them by criticizing their publicly proclaimed religious dogmas. I openly advocate that no idea is above criticism (including my ideas -- and especially those of the dominant paradigm). If anyone's religious beliefs are crushed by this open and public exchange of ideas, so be it. To protect someone's views from criticism simply because they hold those views to be "sacred" (or whatever) is the most vicious form of religious tyranny that is left -- now that they are not currently allowed to burn us at the stake.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.