"God, save our flight!" -- The Religion Of Atheism

 

Believe it or not, atheism is a religion.

While its primary dogma states that there is no G-d, it's a structured belief system with countless followers who accept its teachings and who spread them as diligently as they can. In fact, they sometimes spread them too diligently.

I have no interest in belittling our Constitution's First Amendment. Thank G-d we're all free to believe what we choose and to speak of our beliefs to anyone. We are free to evangelize – to involve others in our faith if they choose to accept it. In fact, most religions encourage others to join them – to observe the ritualsⁱ that they do. And atheists are certainly free to spread their Gospel along with the others.

Most religions try to attract other worshipers by means of example, provision of services,ⁱⁱ or by non-threatening evangelism. But not all. Islam, for example, encouraged belief by the use of the sword.ⁱⁱⁱ It wasn't a subtle or psychologically sophisticated way, but it brought them millions of adherents. Atheists, too, are anything but subtle. Their sword, however, is the word, the insult, the denigration they apply to anyone who may believe in a divinity. I suspect that most atheists are equal-opportunity maligners, who have as little regard for Eastern as Western religions – for those who sacrifice others and for those who make sacrifices for others.

They are religious fanatics. They're not the only ones, but too many of them are fanatics.

I know it's inappropriate and incorrect to characterize a group based on the actions of a few of its members, however the confidence expressed by some atheists, and the deprecation of the beliefs of others – the “in your face” attitude – of too many of its members, is the principal face presented to the public, and it is hard to overlook. I like to believe that my religion is the most valid, but I believe that to be the case for me, not necessarily for others.

Too many atheists, however, express the view that anyone who sees things differently from them is a fool who is being hoodwinked by purveyors of the opium of the masses. From their perspective, anyone who believes in G-d is a gullible simpleton who has not seen the light. And, like it or not, they will enlighten us.

Yesterday I saw a story on my computer Home Page entitled: “Cathay Pacific Airbus 330 makes emergency landing in Singapore.” It told of the crisis on board an Airbus when one of the engines failed and the pilot was forced to take unanticipated action. The sub-headline read “'God, save our flight! Give us your protection!' passengers pray.” And as is the case more and more with internet news, there was room provided for comment. While many of the submissions were supportive and expressed gratitude over the safety of passengers and crew, there were many who found the terror of the participants to be a good platform for their religious^iv pronouncements. A typical message: “I'm sure God didn't have anything to do with it. He was too busy not existing.” Whatever beliefs I may have about the subject, it's hard to understand what this writer, and others like him, hoped to accomplish by their mocking.

Here's another example. This billboard was up just before last Christmas, greeting drivers coming into New York City.

I don't celebrate Christmas myself, but I think the confrontational approach can only reflect the insecurity of American Atheists.^v I can't put any other construction on the proposition that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. That's anything but a unique view, however it usually reflects paranoia and a lack of confidence in one's position.^vi Those who are secure don't need to defend themselves when there is no attack.

They can say whatever they like and wherever they choose. They can spend their money on whatever campaigns they consider worthwhile. But that doesn't add any credibility to their message. Who is right? If they are, they'll never know. And neither will the rest of us. But if they're wrong they'll have to rethink the matter. If that's possible.

 

i     Or non-rituals.

ii     Some may view this as bribery.

iii    I know I'm not supposed to say things like this since some may view it as “hate speech.” All you need to do to confirm what I'm saying, though, is to look in a history book. And you'd better do it quickly. Before they're “corrected” and some of the things we don't wish to teach are removed.

iv    Actually anti-religious. But expressed with the self-assurance of a true believer.

v     I also wonder if they were unreasonable before 1963.

vi    As I noted earlier, there are others whose way it is to evangelize – to educate and attract those with other points of view – but it is far more effective when done without taunting and provoking. Vehemence and fanaticism may prompt fright in the listener, and possibly even fearful agreement, but they do not encourage the confidence of those subjected to them.