Monday, July 27, 2009

Guest Blog Repost: Friendly vs. Outspoken Atheism

Before I repost this, note that this post was not intended to call anyone out. I am simply taking the two most common archetypes of Atheist and making them as extreme as humanly possible.

One might rather use the adjectives "Passive" and "Militant" or some other pairing of words that are the opposite of each other (and, perhaps, more apropos). I chose not to do so and, in the end, offended people who I respect. It was not my intention.

Here's the post!

Another guest post from Mark:

Now that I've had a little bit of booze in me... I don't know much about Christmas, but Bailey's, Peppermint Schnapps, and chocolate milk is fine by me.

My hat goes out to Jen here. I would not be able to blog every half hour. I don't have that many things to say.

That being said, here's Guest Post #3 from me!

I was asked by Jen to discuss the difference between the so called “Friendly Atheist” vs the so called “Outspoken Atheist.”

Here, I think, are the pros and cons of each at their most extreme:

The Friendly Atheist is sort of seen as the apologetic atheist. They are there to be a spokesperson of atheism to religion. As a result, these people tend to be less outspoken about their own atheism in hopes that they can act as ambassador to the religious.

On the other hand, we have the Outspoken Atheist. The Outspoken Atheist is out there to let people know that he exists and doesn't care about your shenanigans. If you say or do something stupid, they will let you know because they're Atheists and they are the guardians of logic and the path of scientific enlightenment.

I think it is possible to conserve the best traits of each. It is possible to be an Atheist who is quite staunch in his beliefs and not be a dick about it. Certainly you may come across people with stupid beliefs. However, in my opinion, if they aren't bothering you, it is perfectly fine to leave them the heck alone.

As a general rule, when I meet a person, I try to judge them on their merits. I am, indeed willing to ignore the faults of a person if I find they are a positive influence on my life.

For example, a very close friend of mine, “Barry,” is very religious. He went to a school system run by a Baptist church and is a very active member of his congregation and a very religious individual. However, as a person, he is an incredibly good one. He's a talented musician of many stripes, an incredibly intelligent person, and an all around good guy. As a result, I have no problem with him as one of my closest friends. Sure, we disagree on certain things, religion being tantamount among them, but that is a small part of our relationship. We recognize that we have an incredibly different opinion, and recognize that, in the end, we are unlikely to change each others minds...so we don't bother mentioning it. Incidentally, he helped to build the museum that we are going to in two weeks. (LOL *cough*)

It is possible to be an ambassador to other faiths without compromising your integrity just as it is possible to be outspoken without being intrusive.

When it comes to these two archetypes, I don't think they need to be different.

2 comments:

  1. I'm pretty sure that you want "paramount", not "tantamount".

    ReplyDelete