On Wednesday September 1st, James Jay Lee went into the Discovery Communications building with bombs strapped to his chest and a handgun. He took hostages and made demands. Now the Religious Right media are reporting that he was an atheist.
Did atheism cause this man to hold people hostage and make ridiculous demands? No, atheism isn’t a religion. There are no doctrines associated with atheism. Atheism is simply a label used to describe people who are not theists.
However, in the United States and across the globe, atheists have begun to organize around certain ideas that many of us share like humanism, science, reason, skepticism, etc. The view that humans are a cancer on the environment is not one of the ideas atheists organize around. In fact, the greater atheist community tends to take the exact opposite view of humanity.
Most atheists within the greater atheist community consider human life to be valuable in that we are rational animals. We have the ability to learn and understand the world around us and this is what makes us special, not some delusion that we are the favorite toy of an all-powerful creator. Humans are not a cancer on the environment; we are a part of the environment. In fact, the view that humans are inherently evil and are some how separate from the rest of the natural world seems to be a product of the Abrahamic religions, not humanistic atheism.
While it is becoming clear that James Jay Lee may have had some mental issues, some of his demands actually have some value which might be worth discussing as suggestions. Of course, posing them as demands ought to be out of the question. The Discovery Channel and other television networks might consider some of these suggestions like promoting science more and weapons of mass destruction less. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good action television show or movie just like everyone else, but we should be able to create more programming that can merge action with science education. I think it might be time to re-boot MacGyver.
The point is that we can denounce James Lay Lee for his actions and even call some of his demands ridiculous, but we shouldn’t let his actions stop us from considering some of his more reasonable ideas. The fact that this violent guy hated “Kate Plus 8” doesn’t mean that we ought to give the show an Emmy. We can still hate “Kate Plus 8” and denounce Lee for his actions. We should also remind people that Lee’s atheism did not inform his actions unlike the many religious people whose violent actions were and are directly informed by their interpretation of whatever Holy Book they believe was divinely inspired by the Creator of the Universe.
Please check out the Atheism 101 series for frequently asked topics
If you enjoy this article, please share the link on facebook, twitter, and reddit and subscribe to the Philly Atheist Examiner column using the ”Subscribe” button above so that you can be notified about new articles through your e-mail.
Comments
Said it perfectly. Bravo!
"However, in the United States and across the globe, atheists have begun to organize around certain ideas that many of us share like humanism, science, reason, skepticism, etc. The view that humans are a cancer on the environment is not one of the ideas atheists organize around. In fact, the greater atheist community tends to take the exact opposite view of humanity."
I couldn't have put this better. Maybe I'll steal it.
:)
I have run across some atheists who do advance the philosophy that "life = suffering" and "humanity = virus/cancer". They are definitely a minority and tend to be attacked more by fellow atheists than by theists.
I think they are still under some of the ill-affects of Abrahamic indoctrination. Religious influence can get pretty deeply ingrained in our psyche and even after years of rejecting those beliefs, some of the influence sometimes still remains. I still meet atheists who think that sex is dirty too. Same thing applies. But that is just my opinion.
Spot on! A thumbs up from the UK!
I find it ironic that anyone who questions the status quo is labeled as having mental issues. Sure, this culture and its destructiveness can make you feel a bit crazy, but I tend to think that those who see our destruction of our own habitat as normal behavior are the ones who have mental problems.
As far as him being violent...did he actually hurt anyone, or just threaten to? He did something drastic to make a point. I agree this wasn't the best way, unless his intention was to get publicity to start a movement among those who are afraid of being martyrs (which he obviously wasn't afraid of). Our system is one maintained by violence. Real violence, not just a label being applied as a way to further diminish someone's arguments rather than giving it critical thought.
Very well said, Staks. An excellent summation of our position.
Good work!
You make some interesting points, particularly that humans are not a cancer but rather a part of the environment. But I will take issue with you on one item: as a practicing Catholic, I was taught not that people are essentially evil but essentially good. Perhaps at one time this wasn't the Church's outlook, but it most certainly is nowadays. Philosophically, the very act of creation, being a good act, cannot directly produce anything particularly evil. The argument that the Church teaches that people are evil is simply a straw man at this point in time.
Really? So we are not born with the Original Sin? Then why would be need Jesus to "Save" us? I think you don't really understand your own religion. The doctrine of Original Sin is no straw man.
Of course we are born with Original Sin, Yet that does not make us bad, only unable to get to Heaven. That is the barrier which Christ broke. Besides, none of us are saved merely by His action. His action only makes salvation possible; we still must recognize Him as our Savior. We must still freely accept Him for that act to have any real bearing on ourselves.
Sin is not bad? Wow, Charles, you sure don't really understand Catholic Doctrine or any Christian doctrine for that matter. I rest my case on this one.
I did not that sin was not bad; those are words you are attempting to put in my mouth as a way to avoid the real issue. That human beings may sin does not mean that the creation of human beings nor the human products of the creative act are bad. It merely means that they are capable of doing ill. I notice that you do not address my points and lash back using only highly charged, negative words. I would say that proves my case better than any defense you have thus far offered of yours. Do you really understand religion, or are you merely superimposing you presumptive beliefs over it?
So, Sin is bad and all humans are born with an Original Sin, but humans aren't born inherently bad? Is that your argument? Because that doesn't seem to logically follow. If Sin is bad and all humans are born inherently with Original Sin, then all humans being born inherently bad would be a necessary conclusion of this line of thinking. This is what I was talking about in the article. You can try to get around it any way you want, but that is what I was the issue here.
No it would not. It would mean they were born without the ability to reach Heaven without help. The idea is based on the philosophical concept that the created must be less than the creator, that's all. When a man makes a chair, the chair is not bad but merely less than him. That's because a man cannot put all of his essence into what he makes. Likewise, God cannot have put all of his essence into his creations. That would mean multiple gods, or in fact, no god at all.
Why can't someone make something equal or greater than oneself, again? And why are you limiting what your God can do? It seems that you think your God is not really a God at all. Besides, you haven't addressed the issue of Original Sin at all. You just tried to change the subject.
I did address Original Sin; you are simply ignoring my points. It is a simple philosophic principle that nothing can make something equal to itself because that would mean giving all of itself to something else, which is impossible. No one has ever said that God can do the impossible. That's not a limit, that's just the way it is.
Yes, sin is bad, but that does not make sinners bad per se. They may be, on an individual basis, rotten to the core. Yet that is of their doing, not God's. God creations must be essentially good, because God cannot make bad things He's too good for that.
"nothing can make something equal to itself" again I ask why? Giving all of itself is not really an answer that makes any like of logical sense.
According to theology, God created logic, so the laws of logic don't apply to God. Claiming that God must abide by certain laws is your attempt to limit your own deity. Is he a god or isn't he? The problem with your God is that you made him too perfect for your own good. But that is another subject for another article.
"sin is bad, but that does not make sinners bad." That seems like a logical contradiction if every I heard one and it doesn't fit with Christian theology either. But why should I expect logic from someone who believes that saying some magic words over a cracker turns that cracker in to the flesh of some dead man.
Doesn't make sense? Although I helped in the creation of my son, I did not give all of myself to him. I cannot. It's simple logic.
God's laws don't apply to Him? If you want to talk about something which isn't logical, that's it. A profoundly good Creator would not make good and then promptly exempt himself from it. God does not work against Himself. So, from whose theology did you draw that conclusion?
I make no logical contradiction. That a single given act by a man may be evil is a separate question from whether the man in question is evil. That a man is born flawed is a different question that whether a man is born bad. Do you believe that anyone might do good or bad? Can an atheist do a bad thing and still be an overall good person?
Once more you display insults rather than a serious desire to discuss the issues seriously. You seem like the angry atheist indeed. You assert in several places that I try to change the subject. Yet the subject here is whether individuals are inherently good or bad, not whether the Eucharist is the Body of Christ or not. What are you hiding from to illicit such a reaction?
All I can say is that I feel bad or your son. You claim that he can never be equal or greater than you and that must really suck for him to have such low expectations in life.
I also like how you continue to tell your perfect deity what he can or can't do. This really just support the claim that you made up your deity of choice and that such a deity doesn't exist independently of your imagination.
I will again lay out the logic of Sin. Premise 1: Sin is bad. Premise 2: All people are born with Original Sin. Conclusion: All people are born originally bad. This is the corner stone of Christianity and the point that I made in the article.
Wow. The hubris inherent in that last assault is almost incomprehensible.
My son, quite honestly, is in many ways better than I am and almost certainly in other ways less so. That's the nature of the human condition. But you either miss or ignore the point. My son is not me nor can he be me. I did not turn over my individuality to him; if I had I would cease to be, because all of me would have been given over him. Yet that cannot be done, as is quite obvious to any objective thinker.
So far as we are equal, it is only in either political sense such as one man one vote, or in the sense that we are all equal in the eyes of God. Not that we are in any way truly equal, that is, the same as one another.
I am not telling God what He can and cannot do. Once again you put words in my mouth, perhaps because you have no words of your own with which to counter mine. I am simply stating that God, as the Creator of all, would not, if just ,exempt Himself from the good and perfect rules He has made. It is sheer nonsense that a Perfect Good would not make rules He could live and act by.
I shall also then lay it out to you: a sin, any single sin, is bad. But no single act makes a person bad. The overall quality of that person, chosen by his free will, is what makes them bad. I shall also ask again: is an atheist who does one bad thing a bad person?
I rested my case.
Indeed, By answering no charge with any kind of intellectual honesty.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!