Ricky upsets a journalist and I explain my choice of atheism
As ever, the views of some can be exaggerated and then used to paint all, suggesting this is the bigger picture. On twitter you can chose to follow people who will tell you how nothing supports religion being true, that God is a bastard, and you are a moron if you believe. Then you can say this is the new wave of atheism.
Social media means you can find anyone voicing any opinion on any subject you like so you can choose to find what you agree with and what you disagree with. A journalist can mock Dawkins that he could not get a crowd of 200,000 well wishers like the pope. Ricky Gervais can mock morons that need education in reply to that tweet . That journalist can then blog about it, feeling hurt for Catholics insulted, then mock Gervais’ career and achievements since “The Office”. Earning his journalistic pay cheque because traffic will be higher to the blog having talked about Gervais, who he despises for filling his twitter feed with “sick” jokes. Still maybe professional blogs these days are about catching a whale with tweet bait, and blubbering to make a buck when caught.
The unfollow option is there on twitter; unless you want to be continually offended. So you can tell people about the offence. Then get paid for writing how offended you were.
Yet there is one thing in the whole debate, on my side of atheism, which is disingenuous when recycled again and again. The:
I have looked at the evidence, only rational conclusion is man made. I have not chosen atheism, it is the only rationale thing to be. Having faith there is a God does not make it true; my non belief is based on logic not sentiment.
My point would be – we still chose to be atheists. There are a myriad of reasons why you might be religious even if not true (social status, better health, feeling good about it, fear of persecution, and yes Ricky lack of education about alternatives). You could believe God was a first cause, then went away and all human thought is trying to get to grips with that cut umbilical cord.
Looking at organised religion I do see the designs and machinations of human (and predominantly male) thinking. The idea of individual salvation and personal insight sounds blissful, but how that differs from a delusion to being actual spiritual enlightenment there seems no clear way to mark the distinction.
All things considered, I choose atheism. It makes more sense to how I think about these things. If there is a God not too fussed what they make of that. Trying to make sense of human thought past and present, and developing my own, this is a small part of who I have decided to be. Religion is a human thought I disagree with.
I do not want a utopia where all agree and follow my reasoning. Instead aiming for a world where we celebrate differences and agree no one should be harmed for religious or ideological or ethnic or racial or gender or sexual orientation reasons. Religion seems to hinder these things burning bridges while stressing to all who listen it is the ark to cross over to the other side.
The great thing is you do not have to be an atheist, or educated, to be moral. So let us speak up above the rants, and hissy fits that try to dominate social media. Avoiding the rabbit holes, and tweet baits that await us.
Photo from Ricky Gervais site
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog