Gary Knapp: Atheism's Logical End is Suicide or Murder
When such theists and Christians see atheists, all they see are their own assumptions and prejudices reflected back at them. In effect, it's all about them and their own ideology; real life atheists and real atheism disappear in the haze, never to be heard from unless someone stands up to set the record straight. This is one reason why it's so important for atheists to speak out, even if it's just to explain what atheism is. We can't leave that task to the ignorant and the bigoted.
Gary Knapp, pastor of the East Gate Presbyterian Church in Millsboro, Delaware, writes:
Atheism has no other answer to suffering than suicide or in atheism’s attempt to be merciful, to kill others who suffer.
These are pretty strong and serious accusations. We should expect them to be accompanied by equally strong support and evidence; unfortunately, such expectations are completely disappointed because Gary Knapp doesn't offer even a single reason to think that what he has written is true. In fact, Knapp doesn't write anything to suggest that he even understands atheism enough to be writing about it in the first place.
I have to ask, though, what sort of "answer" one should expect for "suffering." Suffering isn't a question, it's a condition, and thus doesn't necessarily require any immediate answers. That would only be the case if one has questions about suffering — like for example why one suffers or whether there is any point to one's suffering. Regardless, atheism isn't any sort of philosophy, ideology, or belief system that would have any answers to any questions. Atheism is simply the state of disbelieving in gods; if one wants answers to questions, one has to look to specific atheistic philosophies or belief systems (existentialism, humanism, Buddhism, etc.
By the same token, mere theism also doesn't have any answers to any questions. Mere theism is simply the state of believing in at least one god of some sort, and as such doesn't provide any inherent answers to any questions about morality, living, death, politics, etc. For answers, one has to look to specific theistic philosophies or religions. I wouldn’t expect Gary Knapp to answer any questions about morality or suffering solely on the basis of mere theism, but instead on the basis of specific Christian doctrine. Why, then, does Knapp expect answers to any questions on the basis of mere atheism?
Aside from probably not understanding what atheism is, could it have something to do with the fact that specific atheistic philosophies would in fact offer answers which would in turn require serious, critical engagement — but it's easier to just to attack atheism? I've read lots of bigoted attacks on atheism by Christians, but it's exceptionally rare to find any focused, critical assessments of specific atheistic philosophies. Christians consistently just make up beliefs or ideas which they then attribute to "atheism" and proceed to attack this straw man of their own creation.
For some reason, though, it's atheists who are the ones who misdefine religion and fail to critique "real" religion or "real" Christianity.
Know this, much of what is called belief in God today is nothing but practical atheism with a coat of religious paint brushed over it.
Given Gary Knapp's apparent ignorance of atheism, I'm not surprised to find a reference to "practical atheism" here. In my experience, we only see complains about "practical atheism" whenever a religious theist — usually a Christian — wants to complain about the morality of other believers but can't quite admit that they really are believers in the first place. So, rather than deal with the fact that other Christians behave in ways one disapproves of, it's easier to just label them "practical atheists" to allow that they say they are believers, but are in practice little more than atheists.
The effect is an attack on both believers and atheists. Believers are attacked through saying that unless one accepts the same beliefs and interpretations of the speaker, then they aren't "real" believers. The attack on atheists is one of bigotry and hate because the point is to claim that anything the speaker sees as immoral is a symptom or characteristic of atheism. Imagine if Gary Knapp listed several behaviors he said were immoral and then insisted that Christians who engage in them are really just "practical Jews" or "practical Muslims." Wouldn't the bigotry and hate be unambiguous to almost any reader? Few Christians would be comfortable with such statements, but such bigotry towards atheists comes easily to so many Christians.
Humanism is the religion of our day. Read the philosophy and legislation that comes with the death movement and it is filled with the term "self-determination" which as they mean it is totally incompatible with the Christian faith. ...Faith knows nothing of this self-determination, faith submits and believes God to be in control and wise in what He does and allows.
Humanism as a contemporary philosophy comes to two general forms: religious and secular. Both are more similar than different, with the primary difference being that religious humanists treat their humanist philosophy as religion. By definition, Secular Humanism is not a religion — if it were, then it wouldn't be secular.
So what is Gary Knapp talking about here? Does he even know that there is a difference between Religious Humanism and Secular Humanism? I doubt he does, frankly. I doubt he could even explain what the basic principles of philosophical humanism are — all he says about it is more about his own prejudices and what he doesn't like but attributes to humanism.
Knapp's problem with "self-determination" is something I found very illuminating. Humanism does argue for the principle of personal, social, political, and moral autonomy and often does so as a counterpoint to religions where autonomy is denigrated or rejected. Knapp here justifies that contrast by making it explicit that the Christian god is supposed to be regarded as being in control of everything. Of course, if Christians really did believe this, they would follow Jesus' admonition to focus on being right with God today and not worrying about the future.
Here is the position of atheistic man, he believes that we are nothing more than what can be detected on a monitor, if a monitor cannot detect life, than it must not be there. You don’t believe that we have a soul or spirit do you fallen man?
Belief in a soul or spirit is not incompatible with atheism (a fine distinction which is lost on Gary Knapp, but I've already established that he doesn't even grasp the rough outlines of what atheism is), though to be fair few atheists in the West believe in them. I certainly don't believe in souls or spirits — there is as much evidence for them as there is for elves and fairies. On the other hand, all evidence which we do have points to our lives and our selves being completely dependent on the physical, material, brain and it's wholly natural process. Knapp certainly doesn't offer any reasons to doubt this, so why should we take his complaints seriously?
Comments
Funny because the logical end to Christianity is to try to martyr yourself as soon as possible. After all, if you accept Jesus then get killed while doing something innocent, like missionary work in Iran, you’ll get to heaven that much faster! QED
Make it a family trip!
What always gets my goat is the 2,500 year old atheist experiment called Buddhism. At it’s core, there is no god(or at least in most Buddhist Sects there is not “requirement” for any god(s)). Talk about a successful life philosophy and moral compass without deities. Even Confucianism is a direct refutation of these theist bigots. Morality without a deity…
This Gary guy makes me so mad I could just kill myself.
Christians like him always make me smile. They claim that all that’s needed to be saved is accept Jesus as their personal saviour, and they do, so it seems to me the only thing left for them to do is to commit suicide.
Remember that they don’t believe that a person’s works or actions are relevant (only their belief in Jesus as their saviour) so they can’t play the suicide-is-a-sin card (as Catholics would).
Robert M.
That had to be one of the most breathtakingly arrogant things I’ve ever seen a theist say.
There is NO god !!!!!
In fact, that is why suicide rates are so high among all other species–they don’t have gods to give their lives meaning. I know that when people go hunting for deer, as just one example, often their prey will walk right up and lean their heads against the gun barrels, due to the apathy deer are plagued with because of their lack of religious experience.
No other species illustrates any desire to live or obey social conduct except humans, and that is only by the grace of god. Dog packs and Lion prides are often decimated by the serial killers in their midsts, they have no heiarchy or order in their packs and prides–only chaos due to a life without religion.
It’s very, very sad out their in nature.
I’m sorry–but do apologists just deny they’re an animal species? Do they not “get” will to live? Do they not get that ALL social animals require social order and structure to survive? It’s one thing to be species-specific or species-centric; but to claim you’re not subject to the same drives and requirements of any other animal is simply stupid (and unfounded–read some animal behavioral research and check how it translates to human behavior). In my book if a dog can get it, I should be smart enough to get it as well.
Do these people think humans are dumber than dogs?
Tracie, remember that many Christians do in fact believe that humans are separate and higher from animals, because the Bible tells them so.
However, to discern what Gary Knapp believes in that regard is extremely difficult, so perhaps he truly is that ignorant/dimwitted.
Fei:
You are right, and I do know that. What I find ironic is that, the author would have to be claiming we’re actually dumber than other animals, not better/smarter.
If a lower life form can find meaning enough in life to fight violently to preserve it–how could it be less possible for a human to find at least that much meaning–if not more? The animal does it without a god, so it is possible for even a “dumb animal” to derive enough love of life–or attachment to life–to fight to preserve what limited existence it appears to have (sleeping, eating, mating). Without religion, we certainly still have more available to us than eating, sex and sleep–so why wouldn’t that offer more–even to an atheist–to live for?
That’s what I was trying to relay when I wrote, “In my book if a dog can get it, I should be smart enough to get it as well.” But thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.
I still think they’re idiots if they think people are not an animal species (I guess they can pick from vegetable or mineral in that case?). But even if I give them their premise, their point still doesn’t fly.
Why isn’t that surprising?
“In my book if a dog can get it, I should be smart enough to get it as well.”
Thanks tracieh…somehow, I agree, that sums it up pretty well.
I was just about to open a can of dog food for dinner…and being a poor slob of an atheist, I was planning on sticking a butcher knife in my chest…ya know…for dessert? Like…why not?…what have I got to live for? Besides…I’m running low on dog food!
I’m KIDDING, of course! Actually, I really enjoy so many of your articulate comments; as well as many other fellow atheist’s comments. The comments, in my opinion, often add the appropriate ‘frosting’ on an already delicious cake, prepared by Austin! Finger lickin’ good, too! (slurp!)
It’s my opinion, that, just like there are a goodly number of male humans who have a significantly gross amount of hair growing on their backs…a definite bit of evolutionary evidence, perhaps, of our animal ‘heritage’ (Hmmm…the Heritage Society?
Do they need some heavy petting?)…there are a significant…nay…HUGE number of rather…shall we say…’unevolved’ humans who perhaps, really ARE dumber than some of our canine friends. Could it be, that these are the type of humans who actually NEED religion to keep themselves from oh-so hastily “going to their Lord” at the snap of a communion wafer; or even, perhaps, the drop of a yarmulke?
Just wondering.
When I get gloomy it is usually because of the actions of religious liars, bullies and crooks. Recovery doesn’t require any form of logic. I just take the dog for a walk. The world is full of beauty - except for Republican phonies and blockheads.