The Atheist's Jihad

Disbelief is a fairly simple concept, one simply does not believe, applied to the atheist it connotes a disbelief in deities. The term for one who believes in a deity or deities is theist. There are many ranges of disbelief ranging from agnosticism to strong atheism. An agnostic believes that the existence of a deity is unknowable, and there are even agnostic theists who believe that the proposition of at least one deity is true, but that the deity itself is unknowable.

There are also varying degrees of atheism and overlap between and among them. An implicit atheist does not believe in any deities, yet without a conscious rejection of it, in fact they haven't given it any thought at all, implicit atheists are undoubtedly rare. An explicit atheist has considered the existence of deities and has rejected the possibility. There are also strong and weak atheists, a strong atheist disavows the possibility of the existence of a deity with certainty, a weak atheist is someone who is not quite sure, some people classify agnostics as weak atheists.

There are positive and negative atheists, Gora, an Indian atheist calls for a secular society with positive values and states positive atheism entails such things as a being morally upright, showing an understanding that religious people have reasons to believe, not proselytising or lecturing others about atheism, and defending oneself with truthfulness instead of aiming to 'win' any confrontations with outspoken critics. Negative atheism is often given the same definition as weak atheism but I would propose that it is the opposite of positive atheism as defined by Gora, that is the active belief that people do not have reason to believe, should not believe, and through action on the part of the negative atheist be persuaded, or forced, not to believe.

The atheist's jihad is a manifestation of negative atheism, it is the struggle (jihad) to eliminate religion, it exceeds the notion of the secular as being separate from religion not opposed to the existence of religion. The line between separation of church and state is a narrow one, the founding fathers left us with the predicament of not establishing or favoring any one religion while not interfering with the free exercise of any religion at the same time. The problem with the atheist's jihad is that it attempts to further the latter, in attempting to exorcise all religion from public life it interferes with the free exercise thereof.

The atheists jihad are those activities that attempt to completely eliminate any indication whatsoever of the existence of religion from public life, many with the underlying motive and belief that if completely eliminated from public life it will wither and die in private. It can be found in the argument that religion is the source of all evil and misfortune in the world, the root cause of most if not all war, and generally the primary source of oppression.

Take the statement from the atheist display put up in Olympia Washington "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds". This statement is not one of fact but of opinion... it is the publicly exercised equivalent of running into a church and yelling "you're all fools, there is no God". One could, as legitimately, argue that religion opens hearts and minds and be just as correct. I would have no problem with an affirmative display of the belief in science and have no problem with the first part of the display "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail". It is a fairly positive statement, unfortunately the erectors of this sign (The Freedom from Religion Foundation) chose not to espouse there own positive values, but to assault the values and beliefs of others.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/) claims to defend the separation of church and state. Its purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to non theism. I fail to understand how they can state "Our Constitution was very purposefully written to be a godless document, whose only references to religion are exclusionary" when the the sentence they seem so concerned with reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". How can one construe the statement 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof' as exclusionary?

The atheists jihad by it's very nature is lacking in tolerance and acceptance. It is not a campaign of freedom or free thinking, but of thought control. The jihadist rejects not only the existence of a deity but the cultural value and heritage of religion. They point to religion as the source of all evil, presuming themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to the religious, yet can offer no rationale explanation for the evils committed by atheists and atheistic states, which more often than not are manifestations of evil. Too many mistakenly assume that secular means without religion, when its true meaning is separate from religion.

The problem lies not in atheism, but in the attempted and forceful promulgation of atheism. It is not the desire for a separation of church and state that is wrong, it is the self-centered arrogance of the belief that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and religion must be eliminated completely. The atheistic jihadist condemns the fundamentalist while acting in the same manner with a different agenda. I no more want to live in a theocracy than a technocracy, for both are elitist and derived from the false notion that one belief system is superior to others.

The negative atheist is not for science, he is against religion. Negative atheism seeks not the advancement of dialogue but the repression of belief, it hides behind the mask of science and reason in an attempt to find legitimacy, yet at its root it is a philosophy of opposition. The negative atheist embraces all that is wrong with religion while ignoring all that is good, they seek not to promote a belief in science but to eliminate a belief in God. They attempt to elevate themselves by belittling others and to advance their beliefs by repressing others. The negative atheist is as fundamentally wrong and dogmatic as the fundamentalist... in the belief that their atheism is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

It was the namesake of this blog who stated “After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands”, I'll go him one further and say that after coming into contact with a negative atheist I always feel I must take a shower.



~Finntann~