The Good
To be a Christian, as most Westerners are, is to admit to being fundamentally, intrinsically flawed. As a young child this weighed heavily upon me; after being introduced to the concept of sin and forgiveness, but before being old enough to read critically, I often felt ashamed of myself, being that I was weak and bad, and that I needed constant salvation and forgiveness because I was constantly sinning-as was every other human. As a very young child it was strange to me, to see everyone as happy as they were, knowing that deep down, we were all such sad beings.
To be an atheist, or to simply accept creation ex nihilio, is a much more beautiful thing. The result of universes’ formations are inevitable, and yet, that one so mathematically perfect as ours (as far as science currently knows) exists is a miracle in its most connotative sense. And that we humans are an imperfect but extremely well-functioning result of millions of years of chance, change, and natural selection is something so wonderful. We are lucky to be the way we are: capable of higher intelligence (most of us, anyway) and moral reasoning. We are like no other animal. Our existence is something to be cherished. It is a combination of atheism and science that provides this view.
The Bad:
I have discussed this before: the community. We are between 4-10% of the population, depending on where you are and who you ask. Most fall into two camps: the “chill” atheists, and the aggressive ones.
The first group is what I would call humanistic: they realize the negatives of religion and rationally, calmly explain their reasonings to those who ask. These are the people who are pragmatic: they know that atheists are among the most hated groups in America, and that a high degree of civility is required when discussing topics of such a sensitive nature. Annoying though it may be, they realize this. They indulge in name-calling and satire privately, in good fun, just as other groups sometimes do, and their satire of religion is generally dignified, though can be either hyperbolized or understated. These people usually feel that life is inherently meaningful, given that human existence is the result of such a remarkably rare universe, and are often politically liberal, holding the view that it is only right for us to aid others in making the most of the lives we are so, if I may borrow the term, “blessed” to live.
Then we have the group I am obviously biased against: the “aggressive” atheists. They are unabashedly vocal, sometimes to the point of offense, and hold the view that mockery is the sole way to reach most of the population. They argue religious debates are far past civility, nor do those who engage in the act deserve the privilege, the implication being that all religious individuals are either too stupid or too blind by their religious fervour to even consider a series of rational arguments. They are past skepticism, and are cynics. Many are pessimists, and many more are misanthropes. They are angry at the evils of religion, that it has caused countless numbers of deaths and wars, and they are angry at the irrational world that allows the beliefs that caused this to be so accepted. Their views mostly liken to that of extreme libertarianism: they abhor any kind of censorship, and desire extremely small government. Most of these people, incidentally, find examples of the most extreme and idiotic of feminists, and then cry that feminism is pro-censorship, irrational, and a hate group. If they weren’t already somewhat disliked, this alienates them from many atheists. Further, they view life as inherently meaningless, that we are barely above being slaves to our animal instincts, and often use this belief to deny feminist disdain over rape culture, sexual objectification of women, and other ideas which are viewed by feminists as obvious and undeniable. This view these atheists take, combined with their fierce condemning of religious individuals who are “in denial”, make them appear hypocrites; this makes it hard to take these atheists, who make up about half of the “atheist population”, seriously (though, to be fair, I imagine these atheists view feminists or those who are more “gentle” in their activism as overemotional, sentimental, and smarmy). These people are clearly intelligent, rational individuals, but their anger at the human race acts as a filter that is almost constantly reinforcing their hatred. Their satire is biting and amusing, and I am sure it has been responsible for many people’s “conversions.” While these people have their place, their existence leaves a bad taste in my mouth (because our perspectives are entirely at odds). But I appreciate their activism all the same, for they are responsible for much of atheism’s popularity, have provided much of atheism’s arguments, and have created some amusing and influential satire.
I’ll leave with a quote from Carl Sagan: “For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
