“Arrogant” stereotype misleading, unfair
One of the newer stereotypes to show up in the popular consciousness is the “new atheist.” This argumentative outcast dons a black T-shirt, a full neck-beard and a superior air.
He is characterized by his willingness to debate anyone into the ground if provoked. He uses his (ir)religious stance as a way to get back at the society that doesn’t accept him. And so on.
The question is: Does this mythical figure actually exist? Surely he must, somewhere.
After the rise of the “new atheist” writers back in the mid to late 2000s, atheism and its adherents received national media attention. One couldn’t turn one’s head without seeing the chubby visage of Christopher Hitchens on television, arguing heatedly with some poor news anchor or someone else.
As one might expect, these figures, including Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, began to gather legions of followers. These figures took to the internet with almost fanatical zeal, posting on message boards and generally making themselves known.
It is easy for such an outspoken group to be reduced to a stereotype, and they quickly were.
(Interestingly enough, this movement prompted the “Christianity as victim” idea, which pointed to non-events like the “war on Christmas” as examples of secular injustice. How the majority religion in the U.S. can see itself as overwhelmingly persecuted confuses me to this day.)
In any case, this overarching stereotype puts me in a difficult situation. As an atheist, there’s no way I can bring this up in general conversation without summoning up the specter of the bloated, acne-riddled Dawkins acolyte.
I’m convinced that the best method of dispelling stereotypes is the truth. In this case, the truth consists of an accurate account of what an atheist believes.
So, here is what I believe.
First off, I believe there is not enough evidence to support the idea of a supernatural, all-powerful being. No one can prove the question either way, try as one might. The atheist isn’t trying to disprove God; he or she only sees no reason that a god need exist.
Some will point to the world and all of its wonders as proof. The atheistic response is that the world was formed naturally and without the need for theistic (or deistic, for that matter) input. The atheist believes that we can explain enough without that assumption.
Secondly, morality. If we do not get morality from a higher power, then where do we get our morals?
I believe that morality is innate in us and is an exclusively human concern. If our ancestors, traveling out of Africa thousands of years ago, thought that murder and theft were a good idea, the human race would simply not exist.
These two beliefs sum up the core of the atheist position. While there are variances, they are minor and not worth going into.
I want to emphasize the following: I am not trying to convince anyone here. As long as your beliefs do not affect how I live my life, I couldn’t care less what religion you follow.
But while I’m not trying to proselytize, I do want to dispel the stereotype that all “new atheists” are seething, ridiculous people who are angry at a world that doesn’t accept them. That characterization is unfair and (largely) untrue.
We see the same world as everyone else. We simply see it in a different light.
Let’s move on, shall we?