I’ve seen in blogs and in print that we continue to refer to atheism as some sort of philosophy or world view. As Sam Harris points out, in the picture at left, it isn’t so. I agree with him saying that “atheism is a term that should not exist.”
I, as an atheist, am simply saying that I don’t believe in a god, any god. It does not say anything about my views on politics, my views on the economy, my views on capitalism or anything else. If I was to say I was a “a-unicornist”, that simply means I don’t believe that unicorns exists. There is no such thing as “a-unicornism”, in other words a world view or a philosophy about the lack of belief in unicorns.
Christians love to attack atheists and atheism because they think that being an atheist spills into a philosophy that, to them, entails hedonism, paganism, liberalism, and anything else they want to dump into that pot. Again an atheist is simply a person that has no belief in a god and that’s it!
I’ve heard it said elsewhere that we should refrain from using the word atheist because of the seemingly bad connotation it has to believers and to use words like “humanist” or “non-believer” or “non-religious.” The last is my preference. There are religious people and they comprise various faiths and religions. Non-religious people are those outside of that camp. Nothing more.
One of the things that believers like to do is attach a lot of suppositions to the word atheist. From their prospective, atheists are the scum of the earth because they have been taught since birth that religious people, particularly Christians, are on a higher plane when it comes to morals. They can not conceive that other people that don’t share their belief can be moral.
An example of how twisted people can be in their interpretation of the word “atheism”, getting themselves wrapped up in words like belief and rational, while confusing the issue even more can be seen in this article from an Indian web site called Boldsky.
“Atheism in its essence, pertains to a system wherein belief in deities is non-existential belief. This implies that atheism completely rejects the worship of any form of religious idol or religious entity. So coming now to the question- are atheists rational? Is atheism rational? Is it irrational?”
I’m sorry but I don’t understand what a “non-existential belief” is. To call yourself an atheist is simple saying that you don’t believe a god exists. Period! There is no implication that this non-belief in gods is a belief in of itself. The last point from above - “is it irrational?” To say that it’s rational when you say you don’t believe in a god until there is evidence is completely rational. What is more rational than that?
“At this point, a very important facet of this discussion- what is atheism in the philosophical dimension ? A recent study revealed that a staggering 65 percent of all philosophers are atheists. Now there has to be some logical rationale behind this. Philosophy in the current age has overtaken religion in terms of envisioning a society that would work towards absolute human happiness. So if most philosophers are atheists, doesn't it imply that atheism is actually a logical belief system?”
Again atheism is not a philosophical thing. It’s just a statement of non-belief. And just because 65% of philosophers are atheists doesn’t mean anything. What if 65% of philosophers believed little green men visited Earth, would that mean Martians were here?
“To answer this very question, let us address a very important aspect. While atheists claim that there is a lack of evidence in validating theism, they do not support their views with evidence. So basically, there isn't plausible coherence in what atheists declare or state.”
Basically what this is saying is, “prove there is no God!” It misses the point that those who espouse theism must provide a clear foundation for that belief. Until that happens the default position is “no proof, no belief.”
“To elaborate the previous point, if an atheist asserts that the number of stars in the milky way is an odd number, then he needs convincing evidence to espouse his claim. But, quite unfortunately, it is in the nature of atheists to discard claims of others on the one ludicrous claim that there doesn't exist any evidence.”
Comparing apples to figs.
“So if an atheist is rational, then what would he believe in? Theism? Then that wouldn't make him an atheist, would it? And if he is irrational, does he continue to be an atheist?
It is hard to address the question gratifyingly, for to answer the question "are atheists irrational", you might end up, after getting entangled in a web of intricate thoughts, that theism can be irrational in many a way too.”
Finally the author gets himself wrapped up in terminology. Is it rational to be irrational? If you don’t believe, then you can’t believe in anything. How about just the natural world that we can sense, measure and experience? Stop all the woo-woo talk and get on with the one life you have.