Of late, I have been contemplating the word "atheist", a label that I had slapped on myself to define and encapsulate my convictions. While "atheism" does define one aspect, I don't think it is adequate. Most people seem to think that an atheist is a person who BELIEVES that there is NO god. I don't take this stance, as you can't prove a negative. Thus, I define an atheist as a person who sees NO REASON to believe in god. Just the way I feel that there is no empirical evidence to believe in ETs and UFOs. Maybe "non-theist" is a better definition of such a position.
While atheist/non-theist answers the question of belief in god, it does not describe me fully. Just as "Catholic" clarifies more than a broad term like "Christian", "atheist" relates to only 1 aspect. The other aspects that are:
- I value knowledge and its pursuit
- Universal brotherhood of mankind
- A secular, earthly basis for morality
I think these values fit more under the definition of "Humanism". "Atheism" fits under the umbrella of Humanism.
1 comment:
I certainly liked the definition. Which leads me to wonder - if you were to read the Gita unencumbered by religious beliefs, you'll probably find more meaning in it.
And again, perhaps all the great prophets we worship today were the iconoclasts of their time. Which is perhaps why their ideas were original.
Post a Comment