A group of atheists thinks so, and gave that phrase a prize:
Blasphemy. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. And the T-shirt reads, "Faith is no reason."
The Center for Inquiry (CFI), an international advocacy group based in Amherst, N.Y., picked that brief phrase as the winner of its first-ever blasphemy contest.
Contestants were invited to submit slogans of 20 words or fewer that were critical of religious faith. The competition, launched to mark the inaugural International Blasphemy Day, attracted 1,000 entries from 650 participants, but also drew criticism from online commentators, some of whom called it offensive and suggested CFI was soliciting hate speech.
One CFI supporter even distanced himself from the contest on the organization's Web site, calling it "not dissimilar to the anti-Semitic cartoons of the Nazi era."
The top five contest winners are to receive T-shirts printed with their phrases; the first-place winner, Ken Peters of California, will also receive a coffee mug featuring his submission.
Ronald Lindsay, president and CEO of the atheist group, said the organization was overwhelmed by the response to the contest. Much of the criticism, he suggested, came from observers who may not have read the contest rules, which discouraged sexual jokes and other "crude entries."
While the contest might insult some people, Lindsay said the primary purpose was not to offend religious sensibilities. CFI argues that religious beliefs ought to be subject to examination and criticism, just like other beliefs.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Of course, no one would attend. They would be standing on street corners talking to themselves."
In our world, there is always someone discussing the tenets of atheism, every moral issue out there has an atheist point of view and opinion. You just have to look. Pharyngula for one. The links from there branch in every direction. More and more people come to read and discuss. Sure, there are those who need to learn to be more diplomatic and understanding, but those are everywhere. But you can delude yourself that they aren't attending. And that exponential growth isn't probable.
Anti defamation is a very slippery slope. If a dogma says the earth was created 6000 years ago, then that dogma will be challenged. That isn't defamation. If a sect preaches the end will happen on 12/20/2012 and that all members should lie down and drink poison the day before to ensure rapture, that has to be questioned. That isn't defamation. Questioning the stand of the Catholic Church on condom use and the resulting impacts is also no defamation. Where is the line?
Tom, the examples you provide are not defamatory. We could walk together down that path.
I, for one, believe in very open, free-wheeling discussion of issues. Over the years I have engaged in many cordial discussions/debates with atheists.
One high profile atheist and I -- through exchanging posts in a debate -- ended up having a number of very rewarding lunch meetings in which we were able to enjoy each others' company and views.
The news article, however, referred to slogans critical of faith. That is not reasoned debate. That is bashing and hate speech.
While I may have resorted to hyperbole in saying no one would show up, I think it is true that hatred drives a higher percentage attendance than a passion for the uplifting nature of atheist thought.
The atheist takes a position that faith (in a divine essence) is "unreasonable". A theist (one who believes) assumes the atheist evil or hateful. Both are woefully wrong in their assumption.
The universe is 15 billion years old. Man is about 130,000 years young, so for man to "reason" that there is something much larger and beyond himself seems pretty reasonable. Man through his powers of reason can also deduce that because this "something" isn't visible then it must not exist.
The definition of reason is: "power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements by process of logic." Both positions use this approach to arrive at their understanding.
The definition of faith is: "Complete trust or confidence in something or someone. Strongly held belief or theory." Both the theist and the atheist have faith in their theories. It is often said that faith is belief without evidence. The atheist has no more evidence that God/Allah/Yahweh/Brahma/Spirit etc. doesn't exist than the theists has that he/it does exist. So, both are positions of "faith", or belief without evidence.
The idea that proof something exists lies only if it can be seen and/or understood by the human eye seems more "unreasonable" than the opposite. For most of our existence we had no concept of electricity for example, yet it has always existed. It didn't come to be only when we learned to harness it's power, it was always there whether we could see it or understand it or not.
For believers to label non believers as hateful, sinful, blasphemous etc. is sanctimonious. For atheists to label believers as superstitious and ignorant is arrogant. Reasonable people can conclude different things using the same process of reasoning we've been endowed with.
It seems to not intuit a more perfect presence, a higher intelligence to the order of things is like looking at a coat hanging on a wall and assume it clings to the wall by it's own power, defying gravity and ignore the hook on the wall.
Theism and atheism are two "reasonable" conclusions to mankind's quest for answers. It is when religious belief systems come into play that the argument becomes strewed with intolerance on both sides.
Tim, I certainly agree intolerance does come into the picture much too easily. On both sides.
There is much "talking past one another" and there are greatly varying degrees of sophistication in the discussion/debate.
I would not agree with your characterization of the situation being "blind faith vs blind faith" but that discussion would take up more time and space than is possible on this blog post.
In the future, I believe our task is to create forums where we can explore such topics in an environment of mutual respect. In the conflict resolution field, the idea of "learning conversations" is taking hold -- ways of convening disputing groups and exploring views in a context of personal respect.
Greg,
Thank you. Your last paragraph is exactly my point.
And, to be clear - I'm not calling or characterizing either side as "blind". My point is both are arrived at (or can be) through reason, not blindly following one doctrine or the other.
I think your original post did a fine job of instigating a respectful dialogue. I'll look for more.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.