Atheism

Politics

Memes

Mind

Matters

String

Random

Interact

Feedback

Email

Links

Debate

Home

The Future's Bright

Atheist Sects

If I must be labeled, I prefer that I be labeled a "Rationalist". I am slicing myself a piece of the politically correct pie

I hereby declare that Atheist is non-PC and should be replaced by Rationalist.

The term Atheist means without belief in God. Atheist is a negative term that describes a person by what he does not believe in. I don't think there is a purple penguin orbiting Pluto, but I don't wish to be referred to as an "Apurpenguinist". If the Theists want me to believe, it is up to them to supply proof. It is not my burden to prove non-existence.

Rationalist is a more positive and descriptive label of my philosophy. As I have said earlier, I have yet to hear a rational argument for the existence of god that is stronger than any rational arguments against. But the existence of God is only one (however I must admit a very popular one) example where I would demand facts or a rational argument.

When I started my new job, I heard stories and comments from other ex-pats as to how the nationals are so hard to deal with and how there is this big culture difference, etc. I am warned that "They" are not sharing all their information. Being new, I did not have any first-hand evidence of this. I listened to the advice of the other ex-pats, but did not blindly accept it. I tried to avoid being infected by the other ex-pats' preconceived notions as to how they thought the nationals would behave. These preconceptions get passed on (I guess you can find memes at work everywhere) to other ex-pats. I have found the Lithuanians' relationship with ex-pats no different than what I would expect from the employees of any other company that all of a sudden has to deal with a new management that is trying to instill big changes. Actually, my personal experience is that they are very easy to deal with and share information freely. It just takes a while (and effort) to figure out who is doing what and who has the information you are seeking.

I can be skeptical almost to a fault. I demand rational explanations or data for almost everything (at least I think I do—I will have to start collecting data on how often I proceed with an action which is counter to the rational position). People tell me not to walk through a certain neighborhood and I will walk through nevertheless—because I haven't seen the crime statistics. If they tell me that the report came out last week and I was 1.8 times as likely to get mugged there compared to the adjacent neighborhood, then I might seek another route. If I am in an argumentative mood I would suggest that the report writer was skewing the results and that in neighborhood A the chances were 1 in 10,000,000 and in neighborhood B the chances were 1.8 in 10,000,000 and both neighborhoods were relatively safe and that there were probably political motives for the slant.

I am especially skeptical (and cynical) about the press. I do not have direct, accurate information on many newsworthy events, but occasionally I do. When this happens and I read it in the paper, hear it on the radio, or see it on the TV, there is, invariably, some error in the report. Sometimes it is a technical detail, but often a major point is misrepresented. If I extrapolate my experience to the entire news media, then more than 95% of all news is wrong. It is reported by incompetent alarmists bent on selling news. Of course this argument is based on my personal testimonial evidence, and you do not have to believe it.

Besides, everybody knows that Atheists are amoral, satanic, baby murderers.

© 2000 by the author

Mark S

Have we now got a better label? BRIGHT

© 1999 - 2008 by Martin Willett.

mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited