It is time again to play the irritatingly amusing game of wack-an-ignorant-weasel. In Karl Giberson’s most recent Huffington Post piece, “Take an Atheist to Church”, he makes a number of statements with a great deal of confidence. He really shouldn’t. He clearly knows little about atheists.
In the first paragraph he rather ironically states, “Atheists, however, speak with great confidence about the evils of a religion that they seem to have encountered only in headlines…” Really? Setting aside for the moment the fact that there are a number of prominent atheists who started out as fundamentalist/evangelical Christians (like Robert Price, John Loftus, Dan Barker…), how does he know that so few atheists have ever attended church? I consider myself to be a natural born atheist since God and religion have never made any sense to me. However, I have been to plenty of church services. I have also read multiple versions of the Bible and more importantly paid attention to what I read. Then, of course there is the fact that I have been studying religions in general since middle school. I can’t think of a single major world religion that I have not read at least one sacred text, multiple commentaries on (from perspectives of both believer and non-believer), and text books on individual faiths as well as comparative texts.
So when Karl Giberson, Ph.D, further states, “Atheists should go to church and do some research if they want to keep talking about religion.” I feel confident in answering that I have and continue to do so. These days I prefer not to set foot in church, especially a Catholic one. If the current Pope ever apologizes for all the nasty things he’s said about atheists I might reconsider. I’m not holding out for that unlikely event.
Giberson manages to dispel any doubts about his ignorance regarding atheists when he throws in, “Even Richard Dawkins charitably – and honestly – admitted recently that his atheism was less than 100 percent certain.” There are so many things wrong with this comment I’m not completely sure where to start. Why is it “even Richard Dawkins”? If he ever read Dawkins, did “some research”, he may have pick up on the fact that Dawkins has never claimed 100 percent certainty. This is not new so it is not “recently”. The implication that Dawkins is dishonest smacks of an ad hominem attack. Not a particularly scholarly approach to the subject of atheism. I also wonder what makes Dawkins long established views on his own beliefs “charitable”? What is charitable about seeking to understand the world around you?
It seems to me that Giberson is trying to paint a picture of atheists as being ignorant antagonists while he himself is just passing off tired old myths and stereotypes as if they are facts. Not exactly an inspiring approach. Then, again the point clearly isn’t to inform atheists but to attack them.
Well Mr. Giberson, here’s my 100 percent certain statement: You’re an ignorant hypocritical whiney asshole!
No comments:
Post a Comment