Talk Back 23
You are overly critical of atheism
by Gregory R. Reed
To open a discussion on this article, please use the contact page to provide your comments.
Your site appears to me overly critical of atheism. While I respect your desire to defend against misunderstandings of agnosticism on the part of non-agnostics (and particularly on the part of theists), I don't believe that it is necessary to impugn atheism to the extent that you often do.
You place a great deal of importance on the use of human senses and reason in fabricating opinions about the world.
I, as an atheist, have concluded that there cannot exist any god or gods. As a naturalist, I have concluded that any phenomena that has or can occur must be explainable by wholly natural means, and that the (present) inability of humanity to do so in any particular instance is not in itself proof of extra-natural intervention. I therefore hold the term "supernatural" to be oxymoronic.
While I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, I do not besmirch your freedom to declare such things as the existence of paradoxically omniscient and omnipotent beings "unknowable." Where you find logical arguments against the possibility of such a being unconvincing, I have found otherwise.
You readily concede that the capacity of human perception and reason is insufficient to determine conclusively the existence of gods (either in the affirmative or the negative). Yet you will not concede that *your own* capacity of perception and reason may be insufficient to consider the logical arguments that disprove these gods.
Lest you misunderstand, let me clarify: My point is far from ranting in favor of the atheistic point of view as contrasted to the agnostic point of view. My point is only to suggest that it may be a tad hypocritical to denounce atheism with the same vigor as you denounce theism, and that you should consider your treatment of the viewpoint more carefully than you currently do.