Posted: Mar 03, 2010 3:19 pm
hackenslash wrote:Indeed. The analogy is completely valid. It isn't atheism and stamp collecting that's being compared, and nor is it religion and hobbies. The comparison is being made between the descriptions, and it works perfectly.
It's like a finger, pointing to the sky. Don't watch the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory - Bruce Lee
I completely disagree, because an analogy is supposed to compare two things which are qualitatively alike. My whole point is that the description proposed for atheism is wrong as a general truth. It is NOT true for everyone that being an atheist is nothing more than not believing in God, because in a culture where everyone believes in God, to take that position is, in fact, a significant and meaningful thing in a way that a mere absence of belief in something that has no other implications is not. The implications of atheism are so vast that to say you can describe being an atheist in general as just not being something else is to mis-identify what atheism really is, all the way down. Now, I know that for some people, "nothing more than not believing in God" feels like an accurate description of their atheism. But to present that as the whole story, as the only possible inherent description, is false.
IN another thread just now I noticed someone saying "Being an atheist is a religion like not being kicked in the bollocks is a religion" and that's an analogy I can really get behind.
There is a difference between saying "I do not collect stamps" and saying "I do not believe the reason people use to kill and hurt each other all the time is valid". One is a personal preference with no ethical implications possible, and the other is so deeply connected with ethical issues it can only be separated by personal decree, by an individual declaring that they choose to disengage from the ethical implications. Any description which claims that atheism can be described merely as saying "I do not collect stamps" is wrong because it is assuming that atheism exists in a vacuum where any one position a person takes is ethically equal to any other. If collecting stamps led to the deaths of millions of people, then not collecting stamps wouldn't be just not collecting stamps either. The analogy is meant to suggest that people who claim there is more to atheism inherently than just not believing in God are incorrect, but clearly there is, because the world exists and has qualities which can't be ignored.
In a way, my point is partly that without intending to, this analogy actually gives the impression that belief in God is perfectly valid and it's all just a matter of whether you do or not. Some people might feel that way, but not this atheist, and not, I think, a significant enough number of atheists that to deploy this analogy as a general truth is misleading. And really, if your atheism is based on rationality, then it's impossible to claim that it really is valid to believe in God; the most you can do is say that you don't choose to engage the question.