The fact that atheists gather in any way does not suggest there is an ideology behind the label. If this were true, computer geeks could be said to have an underlying ideology because IT people gather in the same ways you described above.
"People who had no ideology would have nothing to that needed reinforcing -- at, say, a convention or conference."
This assumes the purpose of such gatherings is reinforcement. It may be in some cases, but not all. I meet with other atheists on occassion, and we do so to interact with other rational people, not to reinforce our ideas. In fact, you could say an underlying objective to a person attending would be seeking out alternative ideas. On the other hand, the stated purpose when religious people congregate is explicit reinforcement, and a religious leader will have no problem stating this outright. Faith by definition, as it relates to a higher power, needs reinforcement due to its very nature, because a person naturally tends to rationalize and this is corrosive to religioius doctrine.
It IS amazing, as Chez puts it, that any proof is assumed to be shouldered by the atheist. Nobody evers mentions that fact that there would be no need for "proving" the non-existence of a deity, or a need for the atheist label, if there were no religions in the world. The whole notion would be irrelevant at best. Sam Harris articulates this well in a talk he gave (links below), and even goes so far as to reject the label because of this.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/aai-lecture-the-problem-with-atheism/
I had more to say, but I have little time, and there seems to be no point. The arguments are stale, and there is no reasoning with religious faith simply because any outlandish reasoning will do to shut the conversation down.
No comments:
Post a Comment