Friday, March 09, 2007

Onwards and Forwards: why I am not an atheist

 I am confused, Onwards and Forwards goes out of his way to tell us why he is not an atheist, but also goes out of his way to tell us he is an something like an atheist. He is not a Christian, is not a theist, is not agnostic, and is not even religious. that means what.... an atheist or a polytheist, or a nutball. 

He states five reasons for not being an atheist:

1. Worldview

2. Scientism

3. Belligerence

4. Intolerance

and 5, atheism is closed. 

Atheism is not an open, but a closed way of thinking. Atheism does not seem willing to ask: “Is there not a concept similar to ‘god’ that would prove useful for explaining the world?”; “What is religion good for?”; “What do the religious mean - beyond what they manage to say?” Atheism is just plain not curious enough for me.

Of course, he does not address what actually means, he instead focuses on his perception of people who are atheists. His thinking is flawed. What a shame.

I encourage the atheist community to pay Onwards and Forwards a visit - he needs clarification.

Technorati tags: ,

7 comments:

olly said...

Commented, done and done. Man, I love it when someone is calling me arrogant while looking down their nose at me ;)

-olly

Mojoey said...

No kidding - I felt like punching this guy in the nose.

RG said...

You guys crack me up. Just as defensive as any other fundie. He makes a sound, and to me a compelling point about the image that Atheists themselves are projecting. Telling him that "his thinking is flawed, what a shame" is annoyingly similar to the way Xian fundies argue in circles from the source. And you know how effective that is "The Bible is God's word and it says God exists therefore God exists." (Head explodes) Your position appears to be "Atheism is logical and you aren't an atheist therefore you aren't logical." SWEET! Sign me up. You make his point for him.

Wouldn't a more *cough* rational response be to ponder whether or not any of the points he makes are valid? And then in the time honored tradition of rational human beings, open a dialog of reasonable discussion?

And labeling this guy a nutball is just offensive.

Mojoey said...

RG - I did ponder his thinking, it reminded me of your fuzzy newage pseudo religious thinking. I was warm and fuzzy and confused all over after reading it.

The man is an atheist but cannot call himself one because some atheists do things he does not like. He thinks like a child. I'm just calling a spade a spade bro.

He's not a nutball, but thinking like this leads one down the road.

vjack said...

Looks like a common case of misunderstanding what atheism means (and what it does not mean).

RG said...

"He thinks like a child."

No, actually, he doesn't. Children see things in very black and white terms, nuance is hard for them. Children also think that the terms "definition" and "meaning" describe the same thing. The definition of "Atheist" may be "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings", the meaning of Atheist these days is substantially more complex than that.

There is an emerging "atheism", which he has characterized quite well that signifies a shift to fundamentalist thinking that those of us who are relativists find abhorrent. In face to face conversations not only have you repeatedly agreed with me on this point, you have in fact offered criticisms of the new atheist movement identical to his points 2,3 and 4.

Why you then choose to ridicule this guy and label him a nutball is beyond me.

Mojoey said...

RG,

You know me better than most. I don't like the whole new atheism thing. It makes me ill. But this guy... He can't call himself an atheist because he does not like the Dawkins acts. Come on, it is just a word and it has a simple meaning. I will never buy into the "if you call your self an atheist, your just like Dawkins crap."

I don't care what what flavor of atheist his is, you cannot not believe in god (or anything else) and get away with pitching shit my way.

You do that all the time and I've never understood it. You say atheist and Dawkins and baaaad in the same sentence every time we talk. I've been an atheist 27 years, Dawkins and his crap has only hit my plate in the past three.

If you can't call yourself an atheist because of the actions of another person and his agenda, you don't get to make up another word for it. oh, just call me un religious, on non-theistic, or fundamentally unaligned with supernatural father figures, anything but that icky atheist word.

And RG - my beef with the boy is because he can't call himself an atheist. I like his other points, but give him less credit because of his hippy child "I don't like it therefor I'm going to call myself something else that means about the same thing but is not."

I'm not arguing over dogma, or anything else. His approach is avoidance - it is the act of a child. I just pointed the way to my fellow atheists, you choose to adopt him.

btw - he wrote a love note about you on his blog. You guys should hook up and discuss not believing in stuff while calling it some other name.