Starting with The Velveteen Rabbit, winding through the Bible, and ending up somewhere around Greek mythology, a conversation with a fellow atheist grew increasingly uncomfortable as she insisted that all fiction is dangerous because too many believe it to be true and act accordingly. Too, she felt justified in acting violently both in deed and word to rid the world of what she considers a plague of delusion.
I would agree that religion is largely based in that which never existed, and it would be great if more religious people focused on that which does exist instead of crediting and blaming that which does not. There are those religious, however, who have stepped far beyond their personal beliefs and embraced the needs of their fellow human beings. How is this possible when religious belief is so myopic? It’s possible because even though religion is myopic, people are not.
The rabbit in The Velveteen Rabbit probably never existed, but a few things in that story do in fact exist: dependence, scarlet fever, hope, and love. The moral of the story isn’t to hold the rabbit up as a god and hold scarlet fever up as the devil; it is to hold love in high esteem. If you do come across someone who holds the rabbit up as a god, how are you any better a person for ripping the rabbit's head off in the name of reality? And what have you done for those in the world who suffer?
Yes, religion has been used to perpetrate some of the world’s worst crimes against humanity, but just as religion is not the source of all things right, it isn’t the source of all wrongdoing either. People are the source of that which is right and/or wrong, and it has never mattered to the recipient or victim whether the purveyor of the deed believed in God or got their idea from an episode of Friends.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Alonzo Fyfe
Why are you targeting atheists with this criticism.
A religious person can also believe that all fiction is dangerous because people might believe it. The difference between literal theists and atheists is not to be found in their beliefs on the dangers of fiction. It is found in that one believes that scripture if fiction and the other does not.
The mere fact that you encountered an atheist expressing this view no more makes it an atheist view any more than the fact that you encountered a woman expressing this view would permit you to say, "Some women need to get a grip."
2 - zingzing
of course, some women DO need to get a grip...
3 - roger nowosielski
"I would agree that religion is largely based in that which never existed . . ."
An odd way of putting things, to say the least.
4 - A Greenhill
I agree that some anti-religious people need to get a grip.. but I wouldn't go as far as you in saying that religion doesn't have an adverse effect on individuals and society.
I grew up in a very religious circle... my family, friends, church, and private school gave me keen insight into conservative Christian thought, and the conservative Christian life. It's not pretty.
5 - FCEtier
Arthur C. Clark (a self-proclaimed atheist) wrote a lot of fiction. He also predicted that the evolution of man would result in a lack of need for a body. He suggested that when we no longer need a body, that all that would remain would be our intelligence. Finally, he said that our intelligence might just be a "spirit". That was his explanation of how an atheist could acknowledge the presence of some other state of existence.
Anyway, what is "love" if not a spirit?
Diana you made some interesting points that I will ponder for a while....
6 - Raytheist
Just another atheist-bashing article. I always wonder why there is such a violent and wildly disproportionate backlash against atheists. Religionists have had a monopoly on the public debate for centuries, and have used it to saturate the discussion with the most vile hatred and violence, and the most mouth-foaming lunacy. But as soon as an atheist succeeds in getting a word in edgeways, all hell breaks loose. You would think Richard Dawkins had killed more people than Osama bin Laden.
7 - diana hartman
Comment 1: I will grant you I was remiss in not citing the example as one of many. I am targeting atheists because what I heard from one person (and wrote about in the article) I have also heard from many other atheists. Were I to target religionists, I would be just another atheist targeting religionists. If there is a violent atheist who is not open to criticism from within the atheist community, that would be another way s/he is similar to religionists.
3: It is an odd statement to those who believe otherwise.
4: I didn’t say religion doesn’t have an adverse effect on individuals and society.
5: I believe love is a decision, not a spirit. The latter suggests a lack of control and responsibility. Clark was one of my favorite authors, in large part because he explored a myriad of possibilities, but I see no reason to believe human beings would ever evolve into a spiritual state of any kind just as I don’t now believe we continue to exist spiritually after we die.
6: I am the atheist who got a word in edgewise. What is your point?
8 - roger nowosielski
It's an odd statement because it verges on being incoherent. (It's got nothing to do with my personal beliefs.)
What are you really saying?
9 - Dr Dreadful
"In the end it is who we are and what we do that defines each of us."
Quoted for truth. A tenet which is held not only by atheists but also by most of the world's major religions.
Great article, Diana.
10 - diana hartman
Roger, is God not a large part of the religionist's belief system?
11 - roger nowosielski
Of course it is. I just have trouble understanding what you mean by "religion is largely based in that which never existed."
Did you mean "God"? Even an atheist is not in a position "to know," as they would surely admit. That's why I took you to mean something else.
12 - diana hartman
Yes, I mean God. There is nothing for any atheist to "admit." Perhaps you are thinking of agnostics.
I know -- per many a religionist telling me and specifically per your confirmation -- that God is considered by religionists to be a large part of the religionist’s belief system. Therefore -- to the atheist -- religion is largely based in that which never existed.
13 - roger nowosielski
It's clearer now in that you were speaking, as it were, in third-person. So you were, in essence, expressing an atheist's view.
14 - roger nowosielski
Well, the atheist cannot claim, however, that he/she "knows." They just don't believe.
15 - Cindy
lol @ zing #2 (thanks, i needed that)
Those atheists who think their violent deed or word is justified until this world is free of religion are just as guilty, and guilty of the same things, as any religious person who speaks or acts violently in the name of God.
quoted for more truth...
16 - roger nowosielski
I'll second.
17 - Dr Dreadful
Well, the atheist cannot claim, however, that he/she "knows." They just don't believe.
It's not a question of 'belief', Roger. Not really. For example, I don't believe that there is a 60-foot weasel living underneath my house. I haven't made a conscious decision not to believe this. I just have no reason to think that there is such a beast.
That is the position of most atheists.
18 - roger nowosielski
"Having no reason to think that . . ." is simply not having evidence to the effect that . . .
Indeed, even having evidence to the effect that . . . doesn't exactly and always translates into "knowing that . . ."
I don't see why such a resistance to using the term "belief/believing," a perfectly ordinary English word.
19 - Dr Dreadful
But in this context, it can be easily misinterpreted or distorted so as to imply faith.
20 - roger nowosielski
But Dreadful, you can't escape the possible implication - although faith is usually reserved for things that are considered to matter - such as our institutions, etcetera, etcetera. Even a faith a person may or may not have in themselves - something quite different, perhaps, in a qualitative sense, from mere self-confidence.
It just so happens that knowledge and belief deal with different spheres. And I don't need to go through a laundry list of all things we don't really know. I'm certain you can come up with a list of your own.
If a believer is someone who believes in God, an atheist is someone who does not. I don't see anything problematic or confusing about this preliminary definition, unless you have something/someone else in mind.
21 - Boeke
I'm glad I'm an untheist instead of a theist or atheist, so that I can dodge thunderbolts like this: "...a lot of atheists believe that this difference justifies their abject hatred and intolerance of religious peoples."
I don't have to hate anyone.
As an untheist I simply don't care. I can nod in sympathy with theists and atheists alike, because I am unconcerned. I have no idea what is right or what is true.I shrug my shoulders.
22 - roger nowosielski
But you do care about ongoing privatization of our government - remember the other thread?
23 - Silas Kain
The heck with atheists! Has anyone seen the brouhaha in New Zealand over the Joseph & Mary billboard erected by a local Catholic Church? I have to admit, this was VERY creative and never would have flown here in the Colonies.
24 - MIKE
Roger,
I enjoy reading your comments.
I define a believer as someone who believes in the "existence of (a) (g)God." I became an atheist because I saw no evidence that there is a god. Your wording ("a believer is someone who believes in God, an atheist is someone who does not) implies that there is a god and that believers believe in him, while atheists choose not to do so.
My point is that there is no god to believe in, whatever your choice. It does not depend on your choice at all. He/she either exists or does not exist. I see no evidence that he/she exists in the traditional religious view of a "god," no matter which religion.
It is highly possible that there are advanced beings in the universe someplace. However, why refer to them as deities? They are just beings. Perhaps they seeded our existence somehow, though there's no evidence of it. Perhaps we exist because of something they did. Still there's no reason to call them gods.
Discussion is good!
25 - roger nowosielski
Thanks, Mike, but seriously, I don't see the implication you're drawing. The believer, to the best of my understanding, is not in any privileged position (of access). He/she just believes, whether the counterpart does not.
No position, IMHO, carries any greater weight than does the negation.
"There is no god to believe in . . ."
That surely sounds like a statement of fact, no matter how convincingly it may be uttered. But the point precisely is - it is not ascertainable, thus far, one way or another - least of all by any factual determination. That's why it falls into "beliefs" category.
Why call them "gods"? You really can't think of reasons?