we are all teapot atheists
As a result of having the flu and having slept all day, I am now wide awake at 1AM and somewhat stir-crazy. This resulted in internet searching, as per usual. I finally got to watch Richard Dawkins’ Root of All Evil which is basically about how religion is evil. Mainly, this film makes Dawkins look like a GIANT asshole, to the point where even I, someone who agrees with him, cringes when he talks sometimes. The evolution parts are kind of a snore, but amusingly one pastor basically tells Dawkins he knows nothing about evolution.
My favorite quotation so far though, is when Dawkins interviews a Jew who has become a devout Muslim. The Jew/Muslim keeps telling Dawkins how much he hates atheists because they let their women dress like whores. He is really on a tirade about the whores, and keeps accusing Dawkins of letting woman whore it up all over the place. Finally Dawkins yells “I don’t dress the women! They dress themselves!” I support all prostitution accusations of famous scientists! I also enjoy that Dawkins doesn’t argue that Western women dress like whores, just that it’s their choice to dress like whores.
While I respect that Dawkins is totally frightened my religious fundamentalism, there’s probably a better way to go about it than to go to people’s churches and say “You’re evil and hate-filled and believe in stupid things!” On the other hand, fundamentalist religious people tend to want to to do the same thing to people who disagree with them, so I dunno if I should feel so bad for them. I guess once you start mucking about trying to convert others or change their laws/morals, you deserve the criticism. I mean he isn’t attacking any Quakers!
6 Comments so far
1. Chad wrote on October 24th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Hey Jenny,
I’m a fan of the blog who happens to be Quaker and I also have seen that video. Dawkins pretty far out, as far as atheism goes.
I have a friend who is also atheist and is a scientist. The thing I keep trying to remind myself of is that atheism has extremists just like any belief system. If there were fundamentalist atheists, I think he’d be at the top. My friend, on the other hand, isn’t a flaming atheist, though he’s pretty belligerent that evolution and other scientific explanations can answer the question “where does love of another person come from?” and “what is creativity and where does it come from?”
Quakerism is definitely the post-modern religion for the 21st century, at least the liberal, unprogrammed kind. One blogger friend of mine advocates that Quakerism is one of the most agile and adaptable religions. Too bad it’s dwindled from 300 years ago when there were 250K Quakers in the world to well below that now–no wonder people don’t realize that we’re not Amish or Shakers, we need better advertising.
2. jenny wrote on October 24th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
haha! i love quakers. seriously. i was iming my friend the other day about how i want to be quaker, except not the jesus part. in fact i was reading something about a movement of atheist quakers! see here. Please don’t think I was dissing Quakers. Quite the contrary! I think people are sort of confused about what it is. It’s sort of a weird name and all. But who can dislike friends? also, quakers on the whole seem to have websites. i like religions with websites.
I used Quakers as the example because I think attacking people who are actively making the world a worse place, like fundamentalist christians or muslims, which dawkins does, is totally defensible. However, were he attacking Quakers, say, who pretty much are taking the workd in a positive direction, then I might take more offense to it….
I listened to Dawkins on NPR hawking his books today, and someone asked him just this–don’t you think some atheists have elevated atheism to a form of religion. dawkins of course said no, and got angry at the questioner who said his religion was “i don’t really care.” I think we need a word for that–it’s what I am I think “we can’t prove there is a god, so who cares?”
3. Jenn wrote on October 24th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
I was married in a Quaker ceremony (ex-husband is Quaker). Even though it required much explanation to my friends and family, it was the least reprehensible religious-based ceremony ever that this agnostic/atheist/whateverIamthisweek could expect. I had decided long ago that I would never get married because it made no sense to me to have any entity “marry” you, including a Justice of the Peace (I am making a distinction between the legal and social recognition of marriage). And then there are the Quakers, who have the couple announce their marriage and just witness it as a group (yes, I’m simplifying greatly). Very cool.
Okay, and then the whole marriage thing went kablooey, but it was definitely not the fault of the Quakers! Well, it was the fault of one Quaker in particular, but that is beside the point.
4. jennybento wrote on October 24th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
haha it’s good that you don’t blame the ENTIRE religion.
5. Grant wrote on December 27th, 2006 at 7:34 am
*Sigh* chad…Atheism is not a belief. To put it simply it’s unbelief. Atheists hold that belief alone, without emperical evidence, has no value in understanding the universe.
I would hold that you’re Atheist about the existence of Zeus, Thor, Baal, Vishnu, Superintelligent Space Aardvarks or Invisible Celestial teapots? Just like the Judeo-Christian god there is no evidence for any of them, and the probability is so slim that any exist, that the rational position is to be atheistic or skeptical about them. You select one belief out of many, with no evidence to show why your belief is superior to all others. Atheists reject beleive outright.
Yes some of us are tend to be strident and vocal in expressing our opinions but that does not make us fundamentalist as fundamentalism presupposes a belief in spite of the evidence. Atheism is nothing of the sort and if Baal, God or the celestial teapot were to present themselves, the Atheist would be the first to ask ‘..so how did you do it?’ The devooutly religious on the other hand would hold to their belief, even if the evidence contradicted it. Indeed, this is what many do now with the ever-massing scientific evidence.
We’ve had a gutfull of the obsequiousness and deference given to religion, which is nothing more than a broadly-held delusion, and which commits acts of bigotry, prejudice barbarism, and even murder in the name of the religion.
I will say, of all the Christiam deluded, the Quakers are the ones I greatly respect and admire.
6. jenny wrote on December 28th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Well, Grant, wikipedia (I can’t look up OED right now) says fundamentalism is:
“Movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles. ”
that’s how I interpret fundamentalism, which could easily be applied to atheism/skepticism. following reason is a principle…
personally, i refer to fundamentalist atheists as those people who can’t SHUT THE HELL UP about atheism. who go to meetings about it, who bring it up anytime anyone mentions anything even vaguely related to church. I agree with you personally, Grant, but I also believe people should get to think whatever the hell they want AS LONG AS it doesn’t fuck with my life.
No one hates Quakers! Yay!