Archive for April 3rd, 2008
The New “Questions For God”
After reading Friendly Atheist’s blog post about the “Questions for God” proposed over at Ethical Atheist, I went to go have a read of them. Quite a few of the questions I thought were a bit harsh, and were either presented in a very sarcastic manner, or were extremely stupid. For example:
Do you know how to use email? Surely you do, right? Why haven’t you written us yet with all the answers?
and
Why do men and women have the same number of ribs if you stole one from Adam to make Eve?
The first question is just plainly meant as a joke, and the second ignores the biological fact that if a parent loses a limb or bone, the child won’t be affected. In fact, a believer actually pointed this out the the author of the question in their answer.
I think that although the idea of asking questions to God, and allowing his followers to answer is a great idea, because it allows understanding of theist thinking in ways atheists cannot understand. Some of the answers produced are actually quite rational, and only rely on partial support from the supernatural to work. However, whilst the idea itself is good, the Ethical Atheist version of the questions has taken the entire thing as a joke, which lessens the importance of the whole project, and probably accounts for the reason why most of the questions have been unanswered.
There Is No God
Atheism Needs More Penn Jillette’s And Less Jodie Foster’s
Firstly let me explain the title. I am not having a go at Jodie Foster’s acting talents, she is one of my favourite actors and I have utmost respect for her as an actress. What I am having a go at is her views on atheism and religion. It seems that there are two distinct groups in atheism these days, the people who are “all out” atheists and continually argue against the irrationality of religion and belief, and those who are almost apologising for their atheism.
Jodie Foster is one of those in the latter group. She freely admits to being an atheist, but in doing so, always relates herself back to organised religion in some way, so it seems less of a “controversial” issue.
I don’t follow any kind of traditional religion, but I have great respect for all religions. I spend a lot of time studying divine texts, whether it’s Eastern religion or Western religion. I only have questions so far and no answers. [1]
The usage of the word “but” is probably the most conclusive evidence in this quote. She describes herself as an atheist (rather, one who doesn’t follow a religion), and then tries to cover up for the fact by showing her “respect” for religion in general. Many would argue it’s a minor piece of evidence, but how would the quote look if she had said “and” instead of the “but”, or some other passive conjunction? Instead of some kind of apology for being an atheist, the statement becomes one where the emphasis is not so greatly strained on the religious side.
Loading ...
