OK so this is a post i have been thinking about writing for a serious amount of time. There is a non-fiction book i read relatively recently that has a great idea (i got it for Christmas, so you know, first 6 months, recently). The book is called I Don't Believe in Atheists, which proposes the idea that any kind of fanaticism is wrong and dangerous.
Seems to be a pretty simple idea right? I mean how many people like those crazy bible thumpers from down south? And of course terrorists nobody likes them. So we know this is bad, therefore... fanaticism is wrong. Book seems right, but why is it called I Don't Believe in Atheists? I mean atheists aren't dangerous, the don't want to change and alter people... or do they? DUH DUH DUH!!! (music)
Most of the atheists we hear about, from Richard Hawkins to Christopher Hitchens (which admitidely isn't a giant leap) talk about the "dangers" of religion as a whole, and how if only people didn't follow this delusion/"delusion" (i didn't know whether to use the sarcastic quotes or not cause i kinda see both sides...). The problem occurs in books like America Alone by Mark Steyn where he doesn't talk about fantisism in general, or even about how it can infect religions. He doesn't base his points on readings of the Koran or other religious texts, rather he bases it all on the idea that becoming muslim means eventaully you will become a finatic and the only way to protect our society is to remove all muslims from the planet (don't worry, he doesn't actually say it like that right off the bat, he is kinda persuasive and argues his side very effectivly).
The problem in that is expounded upon by I Don't Believe in Atheists is that people who preach against religions so deeply, that fight them so strongly, are in fact doing the same thing as those they are preaching against (note how i used preaching instead of speaking against). They are feeding into a crowd movement and creating an us against them ideology.
Now when i believed myself to be an atheist instead of an agnostic i admit i agreed that the world would be so much better if i possessed god-like powers and could remove the belief in religion from the modern world. Fist off how would i get these powers except from a god? Secondly why would it be good? Greed tends to be the main reason for bad things happening, forget religion. Thirdly, greed is just overwhelming ambition, which our society promotes. So if i had the god-like powers to make the world a better place, in theory i should erase our society from existence, not very nice eh?
Yet the world would be cleaner, nicer, and we wouldn't be running out of resources near as fast. Hmmm...
But back to the main point, which would make the world nicer, if everyone who believed in some kind of god were gone magically or if everyone who though someone else should be killed/made to dissapear for not sharing their beliefs dissapeared? (and yes i know that statement makes me a fanatical person, ergo i get to go bye bye too).
Just think about these kind of things when you find yourself arguing with someone and simply refuse to accept they might be true. It makes me think of a quote i loved all through high school "i have had many good debates ruined by an arguement" or something along those lines. If your debating someone it means you need to be open to the idea they might be right and you might be wrong, even if it is opinion based (because yes, your opinion can be wrong). Furthermore when we think we know everything, as Socrates proved way before Jesus back in Greece, the wisest man in the world only knew that there was nothing he knew.
Think about how good our politicions could be if they figured they didn't know everything and asked for what people wanted, instead of just promising good sounding things...
Seems to be a pretty simple idea right? I mean how many people like those crazy bible thumpers from down south? And of course terrorists nobody likes them. So we know this is bad, therefore... fanaticism is wrong. Book seems right, but why is it called I Don't Believe in Atheists? I mean atheists aren't dangerous, the don't want to change and alter people... or do they? DUH DUH DUH!!! (music)
Most of the atheists we hear about, from Richard Hawkins to Christopher Hitchens (which admitidely isn't a giant leap) talk about the "dangers" of religion as a whole, and how if only people didn't follow this delusion/"delusion" (i didn't know whether to use the sarcastic quotes or not cause i kinda see both sides...). The problem occurs in books like America Alone by Mark Steyn where he doesn't talk about fantisism in general, or even about how it can infect religions. He doesn't base his points on readings of the Koran or other religious texts, rather he bases it all on the idea that becoming muslim means eventaully you will become a finatic and the only way to protect our society is to remove all muslims from the planet (don't worry, he doesn't actually say it like that right off the bat, he is kinda persuasive and argues his side very effectivly).
The problem in that is expounded upon by I Don't Believe in Atheists is that people who preach against religions so deeply, that fight them so strongly, are in fact doing the same thing as those they are preaching against (note how i used preaching instead of speaking against). They are feeding into a crowd movement and creating an us against them ideology.
Now when i believed myself to be an atheist instead of an agnostic i admit i agreed that the world would be so much better if i possessed god-like powers and could remove the belief in religion from the modern world. Fist off how would i get these powers except from a god? Secondly why would it be good? Greed tends to be the main reason for bad things happening, forget religion. Thirdly, greed is just overwhelming ambition, which our society promotes. So if i had the god-like powers to make the world a better place, in theory i should erase our society from existence, not very nice eh?
Yet the world would be cleaner, nicer, and we wouldn't be running out of resources near as fast. Hmmm...
But back to the main point, which would make the world nicer, if everyone who believed in some kind of god were gone magically or if everyone who though someone else should be killed/made to dissapear for not sharing their beliefs dissapeared? (and yes i know that statement makes me a fanatical person, ergo i get to go bye bye too).
Just think about these kind of things when you find yourself arguing with someone and simply refuse to accept they might be true. It makes me think of a quote i loved all through high school "i have had many good debates ruined by an arguement" or something along those lines. If your debating someone it means you need to be open to the idea they might be right and you might be wrong, even if it is opinion based (because yes, your opinion can be wrong). Furthermore when we think we know everything, as Socrates proved way before Jesus back in Greece, the wisest man in the world only knew that there was nothing he knew.
Think about how good our politicions could be if they figured they didn't know everything and asked for what people wanted, instead of just promising good sounding things...
No comments:
Post a Comment