Or an apathetic atheist—I waver between the two, but I don’t know for sure, apparently because I don't care enough to sort out my own personal beliefs thoroughly.
The point is I don’t care. I’m not saying you shouldn’t care. I don’t care if you do or not.
Apathy allows me to answer with a firm “No!” when asked if I want to attend any religious event whatsoever. This has been my position from my early youth, when I was forced to attend myriad Catholic events, some as a civilian but many as an altar boy. Altar boys have to tinkle bells and wave incense, which gives these sleepy youths the opportunity to tinkle the bell at the wrong time or let the incense go out, earning them a glare or a reprimand from the nasty old celibate representing God to his parishioners at, usually, a frighteningly early hour in the morning. Also, if you were an altar boy, that was the best thing that could happen to you.
None of the worst things ever happened to me. I want to make that clear. My experiences with Catholic clergy only served to confirm my belief that there are many twisted, sadistic weirdos in the world who are not child molesters.
After I left the Church behind me, like I was ditching a creepy hitchhiker at a rest stop, I was not tempted by any other faiths. I didn’t care to drink grape juice like a Methodist, or handle snakes, or speak in any tongue other than English or halting Spanish. I didn't want a bishop to advise me on my underwear style. I definitely didn’t want to substitute Friday or Saturday for Sunday as a day of worship, nor did I care much for dietary restrictions imposed by people who claimed that God has an interest in what you are chowing down on. I never wanted to have to tell a party’s host, “I belong to the Church of the Holy Fishmongers, and I can’t eat sushi on Sunday.”
I don’t try to persuade other people to give up their religion, though. I don’t abuse people who want to take the Bible literally for their utter lack of logic, although many of my fellow rationalists feel obligated to do so. I don't argue with religious people on the Internet regarding their proofs for the existence of God. Here’s what a guy said this morning on my feed:
Do atheists think that God should be detectable by sensory experiences?
If yes, they are no different to those from the past who believed in such gods and whom they laugh at for doing so. If they want to have god be observable, why would they accept God this time?
If no, then why do they expect for God to be proven empirically or as they often say, "give us the evidence."
I admit that he didn't add, "Checkmate, Atheists," to his hot little argument, as many of them do, but I don’t think I am obligated to reason with this person. Many of my fellow rationalists feel the need to do so, but not me. I do not have the urge to pry open the hinges on that turgid little lockbox of a mind, for this simple reason:
There will always be religion. No matter how many astounding scientific discoveries are made, no matter how convenient our lives are enhanced by technology, religion will always be treasured by some. Some future person, having been teleported from Earth to a sub-moon of Betelgeuse 5 to attend an intergalactic rock concert for less than the cost of a monthly bus pass in Shanghai, will, as his molecules are re-constituted by a device that represents centuries of science, thank God for his safe journey. Count on it.
People will always want an afterlife, or at least way to influence or predict the unknowable future, whether that way be Jesus, a sacred bone necklace, a lucky rabbit’s foot, or an exhaustive study of astrology columns. Allah, Dianetics and cutting out your enemy's entrails with a consecrated blade also remain options. The future, however will remain just as unpredictable for them as it is for the rest of us, no matter how hard they try.
Why do they bother? No matter how nice their church clothes are, or how sweet the cakes are at their bake sales, the universe doesn’t care about their telepathic, sacrificial, or ceremonial efforts to bend it to their will. And neither do I.
It’s the only logical position.
The point is I don’t care. I’m not saying you shouldn’t care. I don’t care if you do or not.
Apathy allows me to answer with a firm “No!” when asked if I want to attend any religious event whatsoever. This has been my position from my early youth, when I was forced to attend myriad Catholic events, some as a civilian but many as an altar boy. Altar boys have to tinkle bells and wave incense, which gives these sleepy youths the opportunity to tinkle the bell at the wrong time or let the incense go out, earning them a glare or a reprimand from the nasty old celibate representing God to his parishioners at, usually, a frighteningly early hour in the morning. Also, if you were an altar boy, that was the best thing that could happen to you.
None of the worst things ever happened to me. I want to make that clear. My experiences with Catholic clergy only served to confirm my belief that there are many twisted, sadistic weirdos in the world who are not child molesters.
After I left the Church behind me, like I was ditching a creepy hitchhiker at a rest stop, I was not tempted by any other faiths. I didn’t care to drink grape juice like a Methodist, or handle snakes, or speak in any tongue other than English or halting Spanish. I didn't want a bishop to advise me on my underwear style. I definitely didn’t want to substitute Friday or Saturday for Sunday as a day of worship, nor did I care much for dietary restrictions imposed by people who claimed that God has an interest in what you are chowing down on. I never wanted to have to tell a party’s host, “I belong to the Church of the Holy Fishmongers, and I can’t eat sushi on Sunday.”
I don’t try to persuade other people to give up their religion, though. I don’t abuse people who want to take the Bible literally for their utter lack of logic, although many of my fellow rationalists feel obligated to do so. I don't argue with religious people on the Internet regarding their proofs for the existence of God. Here’s what a guy said this morning on my feed:
Do atheists think that God should be detectable by sensory experiences?
If yes, they are no different to those from the past who believed in such gods and whom they laugh at for doing so. If they want to have god be observable, why would they accept God this time?
If no, then why do they expect for God to be proven empirically or as they often say, "give us the evidence."
I admit that he didn't add, "Checkmate, Atheists," to his hot little argument, as many of them do, but I don’t think I am obligated to reason with this person. Many of my fellow rationalists feel the need to do so, but not me. I do not have the urge to pry open the hinges on that turgid little lockbox of a mind, for this simple reason:
There will always be religion. No matter how many astounding scientific discoveries are made, no matter how convenient our lives are enhanced by technology, religion will always be treasured by some. Some future person, having been teleported from Earth to a sub-moon of Betelgeuse 5 to attend an intergalactic rock concert for less than the cost of a monthly bus pass in Shanghai, will, as his molecules are re-constituted by a device that represents centuries of science, thank God for his safe journey. Count on it.
People will always want an afterlife, or at least way to influence or predict the unknowable future, whether that way be Jesus, a sacred bone necklace, a lucky rabbit’s foot, or an exhaustive study of astrology columns. Allah, Dianetics and cutting out your enemy's entrails with a consecrated blade also remain options. The future, however will remain just as unpredictable for them as it is for the rest of us, no matter how hard they try.
Why do they bother? No matter how nice their church clothes are, or how sweet the cakes are at their bake sales, the universe doesn’t care about their telepathic, sacrificial, or ceremonial efforts to bend it to their will. And neither do I.
It’s the only logical position.
RSS Feed
