Validating Atheism

in

Why should an atheist have to validate anything?

If you think about it, this whole concept is absurd. Why should an atheist have to “validate” anything, when it’s the claims of believers that are ridiculous? When I was a kid going to Catholic school, the nuns used to tell us the stories of Greek Mythology and then tell us how ludicrous it was that some people used to believe these stories as the truth. And, yes, some of the stories of Greek Mythology are pretty far-fetched. But, how are any of these stories more ridiculous than God making the earth in six, 24-hour days or deciding, out-of-nowhere, that Sodom & Gommorah were worthy of destruction and choosing only Lot and his family to save, only to later turn Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt? Really? And I have to validate my point-of-view? I don’t think so.

I’ve always said I’m not going to just sit here and knock people for their beliefs. If, somehow, the belief in some entity from without and preprogramming life for those of us in the real world makes you feel better about yourself and the world around you, have at it. One thing I won’t accept, though, is the notion that belief in some separate entity, God, is somehow a more “valid” set of beliefs than believing in science or the theory of evolution. Believe all the ridiculous notions you want (i.e., God), but don’t pretend for even a second that these beliefs are anything more than just faith. Now, I’m not knocking faith, I’m merely saying that anyone who purports that “belief” is more valid than atheism is just not using sense.

Does the Bible serve a purpose?

Of course, it does. One can use the stories in the Bible to illustrate ideas of morality-of right and wrong. But, if one is to do this, one caveat must be applied. These stories are just that.

They are myths and fables used as metaphors to try to persuade people to behave in some morally acceptable way. These stories are no more “real” than Greek Mythology. That doesn’t make them less useful. It just needs to be understood that they are metaphors-period.

The whole idea of “validating” atheism is a “smoke-and-mirrors” job performed by members of certain faiths to try and make atheism appear less-than-logical. Those of us who choose not to believe doesn’t have anything to prove-anything to validate. It’s the believers who have faith in the utterly ridiculous who have something to prove. If you want to say, “I don’t have to prove anything. God is on my side,” that’s your prerogative. But, just remember, that kind of lame argument does nothing to validate the “pro-believer” argument. It’s the believers who have to validate their views. Not the other way around.

Leave a Comment

Related Posts

Are Atheism and Morality Compatible?

With the rise of secular society generally, especially in Europe, the question of the continued relevancy and objectivity of morality has been a question that has doggedly refused to be ... Read More

What is a Meme

The concept of the Meme was first coined by the British biologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene. In this book, he conceptualized a gene as a ... Read More

Agnosticism

Certainty. The word alone has a definitive ring to it. This word perfectly and succinctly sums up the problem with devout believers and atheists alike. Because no one can ever ... Read More