Atheism

Am I a theist?  No.  Am I therefore atheist?  Ah - a little more clarity is called for, no?  The correct, short answer is that I am a-theistic, or not a believer of any god concept.  But the way many people today use the word atheist is to ascribe to someone a belief while the individual is proclaiming non-belief.

Words in the English language always beg to be played with by nutty semi-linguists such as I.  (And I don't want to cheapen this by calling myself cunning.)

Fun with words and phrases can be kept in the humorous mode while also at times asserting subtle nuances, but we also have to be sure that our audience is able to laugh along with the supposed wit.  For instance, it's in the poorest of taste for anyone to make light of rape, even if it's legitimate!  (Sorry about that.)  But consider the opportunity offered in the language to muse on this strange coincidence:  After a woman is raped she would likely seek therapy - ergo, facing the prospect of walking right through the office door with a sign reading Therapist, or the rapist.  Probably not a very comforting idea.

But back to the subject at hand - words that deal with god or no-god, and how do we label ourselves?  That is the question.

One of the Free Thought Bloggers wrote this in a recent post:   At this moment, atheists dominate humanists, agnostics, freethinkers, rationalists, secularists and all those other squishy sub-categories who are still squirming at the ‘A’ label. If you’re not convinced that any actual deity really exists, then you’re an atheist.  It’s that easy.

Nope - not that easy!  And this assertion above is part of the reason it isn't easy.  The writer has a touch of the belligerent approach here.  If he isn't being actually militant in his stand, he is at least a bit aggressive and challenging - much like today's numerous vocal atheists who are challenging, maybe even militant, toward religionists.  He's not being merely not theistic but is actively opposing theists.  In the above comment, the writer also bates me along with other freethinkers, belittling our stance as timid or holding a weak position for one who is "not convinced an actual deity really exists."  While I am quite comfortable having no belief in and no concern whatever for a potential phantom deity, I am still not trying to challenge everyone I meet by using toxic terms.  Nor does this cry for peace between believers and non-believers make me a faitheist - that newly coined hybrid word that tries to cover those who are on some kind of fence between the two.  Even such a noted atheist as Michael Shermer has been labeled in this pejorative way, and also called an accommodationist, which is its own pejorative within a select group.  My personal life today (after years as a fundie and three-times as many years as an escapee), is far from any fence, walking boldly in any direction I choose but always away from that arcane world of belief.  More on this in a moment.

The trouble is in the meanings of terms, meanings that are continuously changing; in the case of atheist, the original meaning has long been slanted.  In most usage, it has lost the simple meaning of not a theist.  It actually could be likened to the current (and likely future) meaning ascribed to the word gay, as an example.  Though you may well be a person who enjoys life and might have said (in a time now past) that you were happy and gay, or that you had a gay old time at the party, why would you not likely now use that expression?  The meaning of gay has been altered and most heterosexual males, even if not homophobic, would typically not take the chance on using the term.  The desire to avoid confusion is essentially the reason many of us don't wave the flag of atheism.

One of my long-time friends, a former devotee of a cult I also represented as a minister, calls himself now an atheist, although he places qualifiers along with that term.  In his bio, he says that he has become an ardent agnostic atheist (that's one way to belong to triple-a).  I rather like the qualifiers.  A newer acquaintance who endured a long stint within the same quirky fundamentalist sect calls himself an atheist and doesn't qualify it.  Or at least, no qualifiers have shown up yet in our private communications.

Why have I never chosen to label myself flatly as an atheist?  I certainly am no longer associated with any concept of theism and have no interest whatever in whether there is or is not a god of any kind.  The matter of not claiming the atheist handle was, for me, quite simply the desire to stay more in a neutral zone.  Perhaps you've noticed the reference in my blog's title.

In actual fact, if we were all etymological purists, sticking with the original meaning of the term atheist should be neutral enough.  [One who is theistic believes in a god; one who is a-theistic does not.]  However, the usage has morphed over the years.  This may explain why many people who wish to seem less aggressively anti-god will refer to themselves as non-theists.  Like me, I suppose, these folks have heard over many decades the spitting out of the word atheist, knowing full-well that the speaker judged someone very harshly indeed for holding such a horrible belief.

And now the term belief comes into play, adding to the confusion.  Those inclined to believe in a god have come to see someone who is neutral (having NO belief in any god) as holding a belief that there is NO GOD.  Big difference here - again owing to the semantic nuances available within the language.  Having  no belief in a god is not the same as having a belief there is no god.  This very twist came up recently when I had written to an old friend that I no longer had any belief in any gods.  Her reply stated something about "If I believed there was no God,..." which immediately addressed the twist in meaning of words and phrases.

Though I don't often use Wikipedia as an authority on words, this is one time I chose to check into that source first.  Why?  Because that website is intrinsically a part of the realm of current and active usages that show up as accepted meanings for today.  The meaning given to atheist shows within the first short paragraph to be one of those ever-changing things.  You might call it definition-creep.  Today's common meanings of the words atheist and atheism have crept so far from the original that vast numbers of people seem to accept today only the altered  (incorrect) meanings.

This incorrect usage is so pervasive that even I, a reasonably dedicated semanticist, have been guilty of glibly utilizing the terms in a wrong way in some of my own writings.  In expounding upon my own coined expression devised to proclaim my separation from the whole shootin' match, I stated this:  Rather than calling myself an atheist, saying there is no god, or an agnostic, saying I don't know; I prefer my own term of theo-neutralist, meaning I don't know and I don't care.  So I perhaps got across my point of introducing a clearer personal label into the mix - clarifying my detachment - but in the effort, I misused the original word atheist in the way it is typically abused.  My apologies for that.

Atheist merely means not theist - not believing in a god.  The fact that over recent decades more and more people are stepping up to proclaim atheism as a way of life has begun to set and harden the altered meaning.  That's apparently because many of the new (zealous?) atheists are declaring that religion is doing little if any good for humanity and is usually harmful.  (I often make this case myself, and I believe it to be true of religion, whether or not there may be some invisible supreme being.)  These bold folks have inadvertently assisted in the drift of the term atheist from meaning no belief to meaning belief against.  While I applaud the effort as well as the fortitude to fight the uphill battle against entrenched belief systems, it probably would be better had the struggle started from a more sure footing by first establishing a positive meme rather than standing firmly on being not something else.  That approach eventually worked for protestants - those whose only basis for a label was their protesting against Catholicism - but the protest itself was more of a positive movement and was not as weak as merely saying I am acatholic.  That one probably would never have worked at all. 

The folks who call themselves Brights have an interesting approach.  Choosing to seek out a word that was not based on the negative - non-theist, a-theist, non-believer - they eventually landed upon the term bright, used as a noun, not intending to claim more brightness of mind or some special relationship to the sun perhaps, but meaning a positive position on life and a sound approach to the naturalistic worldview.  These folks express a bright outlook on what is and what can be understood rather than allowing themselves to be known for a lack of belief in the supernatural and mythological.  There is no way to tell yet whether this Bright meme will catch on significantly in the larger world, but it is rapidly growing as an online constituency of folks who share a positive, naturalistic view and want to see more civic accomplishment that is not guided and/or hampered by traditional religious views.

So to sum up, my simple reason for not using the atheist label is based on these two points: 1.) Just as Wikipedia reveals, the term no longer is accepted to mean merely not believing; common usage has made it a more militant belief against.  2.) My desire is to stand on a positive platform rather than just being someone who does not believe something many others believe.  My atheism is not my public persona. 

I am a Bright, I am a Humanist, I am a freethinker.  I love humanity but hate what humanity has done to itself through beliefs, most of which are strictly based in superstition and fear.

Dodged Another Apocalypse!

Yes, I am still here!

And here is actually at the home of my son and family - including my only grandchild.  Grammy & Papaw accompanied the family to the Tae-Kwon-Do studio this morning for the promotion ceremony where my grandson was awarded his purple belt.  That means he's a little over half way to the top of this martial arts regime, having only blue, brown and red belts to gain before entering the series of black-belt levels.  They seem to have broken it all into about twenty-five or so levels but with several designated by stripes on the various colored belts as they progress through the discipline.

I'm struggling a little with the whole concept but on the whole, it does appear to be the beginnings of some kind of disciplined outlook and interest in achievement on the part of this almost-seven-year-old.  He takes to the routine and is showing signs of being accomplished at taking instruction.

However, it is admittedly difficult for me to get enthusiastic about the whole thing.  First there's the fact that the visual of all these youngsters dressed alike in their white uniforms and standing at attention in a group, all falling into lines and following strict orders, brings startling reminders of the many militaristic modes within the human experience.  Not pleasant, to say the least.  Also the idea of my very special (to me) grandson falling in with all the others and made to look very UNspecial gives me pause.  And to further frustrate my sensitivities, it seems to me that all of these martial arts concepts and disciplines are precisely what they are labeled: art.  They surely are never very practical in the long arch of life unless the initial requirements of listening and following guidelines helps in some foundational way to begin forming social pathways to acceptable behavior.  I'd be interested to see some studies that link better citizenship and avoidance of gang activity that are substantively a result of these early training sessions.  Certainly the idea that anyone would ever expect to defend himself from would-be criminals, or even bullies, because he studied this ritualistic little art of holding poses and making interesting spins with precise hand gestures would be fool-hardy.

At any rate, while as a grandparent I am pleased to sit and watch him perform his forms and receive his accolades, I cannot do so without longing for the day when he gives it all up for piano lessons.  Those precise hand movements applied to a keyboard to create beautiful sounds - now that is the performance I would go a long way to attend!

And maybe now that doomsday didn't develop, there will one day come that opportunity to listen to my grandson the musical genius.  For now, I can merely love him and keep hoping.

Ready!

It's here.  12/21/12 - End of Days.  7:45 Pacific Time.  I'm WAITING!

(Oh, well, I suppose technically it will be more conclusive if I am here tomorrow.  Hope you will be too.)

Oh, Maya, Maya!

Yes, the title above seems to take the lighthearted view of the coming date that looms just ahead - December 21, 2012.  I have written about in an earlier post.

But try this on for size: the prophesy is very vague and perhaps it can all be seen as a positive and a leap forward for our human species.  How?

Thanks to lots of coverage online, we can all look about for various takes on the prevailing topics of our time.  The Mayan calendar having no progression beyond 12/21/12 has brought great fear and foreboding to many in our world.  A refreshing take on the subject is available at a blog site called The Token Skeptic in an interview with a professor in Australia.  I clicked on to the audio embedded and was pleasantly surprised to hear the astute and up-beat coverage of the subject by Dr. Gelfer.

Out of respect for my son and his preparation (mostly mental and emotional) for the coming date, I thought it incumbent upon me to look into it a bit more.  The Gelfer predictions made me very glad to have made the effort.  If you know anyone who has made comments of a serious nature regarding the Mayan calendar and the coming Dec. 21st "deadline," you just may want to listen to the audio mentioned here.  And maybe share Dr. Gelfer's views on the matter.

It's a quite amazing age in which we live.  What more can we make of life?  For my part, the act of connecting to the world via online chatter and contacts will continue to expand.  Beginning on 12/22/12, my focus will be on those bits of human accomplishments and attitude adjustments that may show that yes, in fact, we are experiencing a new world - the new day that follows successfully on the heels of the date that was predicted by many to bring the end of life as we know it.  This positive angle is fun to contemplate and will be delightful to witness following doomsday!

GUNS Kill People

The ease of firing a bullet into a human body, whether the gun is aimed with intent to kill or fumblingly fired by someone totally inept and/or unaware of the momentary hazard, makes gun deaths continue to soar in frequency.

The affection for guns has long mystified me.  I made my own out of sticks and pieces of discarded lumber when I was only six-to-eight years old.  Running around from tree to building to large rock on our farm property, dodging imaginary bullets fired by my brothers from other safe positions they had chosen for cover, seemed to be great fun.  We learned from radio and television shows that zinging bullets could be real challenges to avoid while trying to get in shots that would disarm opponents, generally doing just enough damage to them to be able to arrest or tie them up for later handling.  Killing was never the direct goal of those cowboys or G-men who carried guns; law enforcement was.

For the millions of guns owned or being bought today in our country, certainly the primary goal of the buyer is not murder.  Not killing at all.  Probably more than 90% of folks who buy guns will say they are for a combination of hunting and protection.  The remainder would probably say they are for the sport of target shooting of some sort.  Perhaps there are other reasons for guns that I simply haven't heard or thought of.  I'm sure others could inform me.

My point here is simply that other than for military usage, practically no purchaser of a gun would likely (at least openly) admit that the gun is for killing another human.

So why are so many humans killed by these guns?  Because they are there; they are handy when anger overwhelms someone or when fear of harm from another drives one to go for the fire power.  Of course it's true in all but the strangest of accidents, that guns don't do the job of taking a life; it takes a trigger finger.  Unfortunately, humans seem to have trigger fingers at the ready, and often very little provocation is required.

A spokesperson from the NRA was reported to have said this week that if the young mother of a little girl had owned a gun herself, she might be alive today.  That is, we are to assume, that if she had learned somehow that her housemate, a football player who was angry or unbalanced - probably both - planned to take his gun and shoot her nine times in front of their toddler, that she could have dashed to her nightstand or other private hiding place and pulled her own gun in self-defense.  Dr. Phil might ask, "How'd that work out for ya?"  That is, if either shooter survived.  He should ask the same of the NRA.

Interestingly, another report stated that both of these people did own guns and that they practiced their art of shooting as part of their togetherness, apparently compatible souls enjoying their 2nd amendment privileges as a part of routine fun of living.  Well, live-by-the-sword...

There simply has to be a way to curb the gun violence in our society.  There isn't any chance of such in my own home unless some misguided human invades my house with gun in hand.  I suddenly gave away my own rifles and shotguns after I looked at my own folly about forty years ago, while a young minister, and decided the shooting of pheasant, quail and dove was no way to seek pleasure.  Yes, my family typically ate everything I shot out of the sky, cautiously chewing because not all bird shot can be removed with absolute certainty.  But it was clear that tasty fowl were available from the frozen food department at the store - birds that had been grown for food, killed more instantly and humanely, cleaned and quick-frozen and leaving no tooth-shattering lead hidden inside.  My real station in life was not hunter/gatherer, living off the land.  And the sport part of it became nauseating to me once I focused on the incalulable number of wounded creatures I had left to die and rot after receiving not quite enough of my violent blast to kill them instantly.  It didn't hurt my new perspective either when an errant single lead ball from one of my shots through a tree managed to lodge itself in the eye of my friend.  Makes me wonder whether Dick Cheney quit hunting after shooting his friend in the face.

Though I personally cannot even imagine the taking of another human life, by the simple pulling of a trigger or in any other fashion, there are far too many people who can apparently do so.  Therefore, guns need to be less prevalent and not so easily grabbed in anger or fear.  I was alive and aware at the time and was emotionally shattered by the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.  Perhaps even personally more assaulted five years earlier at the death by bullet of the President while I was still a teen.  But today when I hear the statistic that since the 1968 deaths of King and Kennedy, more than one and a quarter millions of humans have died of gun shots in this country, I shake with ire and question.  What are we?  And why can a society such as ours with all its wonders and capabilities not come to some better control of this senseless violence?  Why is it less safe here on our streets and in our homes than it would be living among wild animals? 

Answer to that last one: wild animals don't own or fire guns!

UPDATE 12/15/12
"angry or unbalanced - probably both -"  Adam Lanza, Newtown, CT

When will it get our full attention?  Adams mother, his first victim, surely knew of her younger son's mental problems (reported by his older brother), yet she provided the guns which were accessible to Adam.  Today, his mother and twenty-six others are dead at Adam's hand.  He then took his own life, but it's almost as though his mother did the same.  The guns were there.

IMAGINE

At this moment, I have no burning desire to spout any of my own philosophies.  It is my hope that you will check out my friend Al Dexter's blog, The Age of Reason - 21st Century.  He posted an embedded play of John Lennon's song which has long been my favorite lyric line ever written.

By the way, much of what Al writes allows me to read with pleasure and empathy; it is often like reading my own thoughts.

Enjoy  ---