Student atheists reject religion’s ‘insurance plan’ – The Arkansas Traveler

Student atheists reject religion’s ‘insurance plan’

By • December 2nd, 2009 • 9:34 am.

By Samuel Letchworth

In the modern scientific world, atheism has come into vogue more than ever before. In the attitude of many academics, science, in its consistent pursuit of fact and reason, has cast religion largely into the category of unfounded superstition. Under the scrutinizing eye of logic, God tends to seem, well, illogical.

Symbol of American Atheists

Symbol of American Atheists

Atheism is not to be confused with agnosticism. Agnosticism, from the Greek “gnosis,” meaning “to know,” simply means “to be unknowing.”

An agnostic does not presume to understand the mystery of the cosmos or to admit that there is or is not a god.

An atheist, on the other hand, has arrived at the conclusion that there is no god or gods or otherwise higher, conscious power over existence.

The proof is in the pudding, and for the atheist, it’s a pudding-less world.

Many people arrive at the atheist conclusion by examining the erstwhile actions of religion.

“If you think about it, religion is responsible for nearly all the wars of the world,” UA student Charlie Baker said. “Without religion, man might be peaceful.”

UA student Jeff Smith said the idea of God “is a human invention.”

“Where God has not been used as a tool of oppression and war, God has served as a false comfort for people afraid of death,” he said. “The human race is more mature now. We are growing out of God.”

Atheism is not as well represented on campus as other philosophies are, but student groups do exist. On its Facebook group, UA-based Occam’s Razors describes itself as associated with the Center for Inquiry – On Campus, which is dedicated “to the enhancement of free thought, skepticism, secularism … and atheism on college and high school campuses” throughout the country and world.

But there is no “church” of atheism, and for the most part, local atheists have few support groups or communities. They just don’t seem to need one.

“Religion is an insurance plan,” UA alumni Kyle Wasser said. “Nobody needs after-death insurance. The fact that we are alive is reason enough to live and die. Experience in and of itself is God.”

Wasser is not a cut-and-dry atheist.

“I don’t believe in God,” Wasser said, “but you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist and you can’t prove that he does. Proselytizing atheists are just as bad as religious fanatics.”

Theists would accuse atheists of arriving at their godless conclusion out of arrogance and apathy. Atheists would reply that theists are frightened, weak and lonely people. But both theists and the atheists presume to know, definitively, about the existence of God. And you can’t argue with faith, or lack thereof.

The Christian author G.K. Chesterton wrote, “The point of having an open mind is to shut it on something solid.” UA student Greg Gehle said, “An open mind is a terrible thing to waste on religion.”

  • Jeremy

    “But both theists and the atheists presume to know, definitively, about the existence of God.”

    I agree that there are at least two theists and two atheists that fit that criterion…or did you mean all of them, every last one.

    And why can’t you argue with faith or lack of it.

    And what is the point of this piece.

    And with such a litany of unsubstantiated opinions…:

    “atheism has come into vogue more than ever before” (how can you say that)

    “In the attitude of many academics” (really? who, do you have anyone to point to or are you just saying it, at least get two so you can claim the ambiguous “many”)

    “Under the scrutinizing eye of logic, God tends to seem, well, illogical” (really? to whom?)

    “Many people arrive at the atheist conclusion by examining the erstwhile actions of religion.” (you listed one, one is not many)

    “They just don’t seem to need one.” (really? …really, what could lead one to think that)

    “Theists would accuse atheists of arriving at their godless conclusion out of arrogance and apathy.” (because it works for your narrative)

    “Atheists would reply that theists are frightened, weak and lonely people.” (because it works for your narrative…HEY, they had three adjectives and the former only had two)

    “But both theists and the atheists presume to know, definitively, about the existence of God.” (I would’ve like to see one person speaking as the authority on all theists and atheists cited here, because one person can authoritatively claim such)

    “And you can’t argue with faith, or lack thereof.” (That is simply absurd.)

    …this was listed as a news article. Regardless of what else it may qualify as, it does not qualify as news. I’ll even accept opinion if it is based on something. News implies information to masses via impartial fact-based journalism via impartial fact-based journalist. I didn’t see fact, but I did see de-base.

  • Allison

    First, I'm disturbed that you've tried to put words in people's mouths. Atheists are as individual as theists, and I would personally never call someone “frightened, weak, and lonely” just because they believe in a God.

    Similarly, calling oneself an atheist does not necessitate certainty that there is no god. Agnosticism has a bit of a “limp-wristed” connotation in that it asserts nothing at all. In general atheists do not have the unshakable faith of believers, but rather point to logical contradictions and evidence against the existence of a god as described by religion. Here are a few of the “troublesome” characteristics of God: all good, all powerful, “personal,” interventionist in the world, and creator of Hell and the devil, to name a few. A more non-traditional god who is, for instance, amoral, might seem more plausible to atheists, but not worthy of any special worship.

    I don't think that Theists would label us “apathetic” either, since we usually have to go out of our way and make social or familial sacrifices to defend our position. Atheists are one of those unprotected minorities in the US; we self-identify as atheists because we have been “forced” into our position by an intellectual clash with the default ideology of theism, and this can often be quite difficult. Atheism is for me is not some lazy solution, but rather the result of careful and prolonged thought about the world.

    We ARE often accused of having no morality because we believe in no God, but the reality is quite the opposite. Most atheists have a strong moral compass and see the evils in our world (including natural phenomena, not just human actions) as strong evidence that it is not regulated by morality.

    Anyway, I'm glad that you noticed atheists, but I feel that you failed to portray any real arguments behind atheism, instead choosing to focus on some criticisms of organized religion, which do not in any way constitute an argument in favor of atheism.