Obsession
December 31, 2003 | 7 Comments
The 2003 award for The Most Atheist-Obsessed Christian on the Internet goes to Tertius. Much like The Secularist Critique, he devotes more space to attacking those who reject his religion than to providing reasons to believe in it. I am fascinated by his fascination over my fascination with people like him:
I write much about atheists and their atheism on this blog site; partly because I cannot fathom what it must be like to live without any sense of transcendent purpose and hope in life; partly because I am genuinely bemused by the kind of person who is more militantly and dogmatically god-obsessed in their denial of God than most believers are in their affirmation of God; partly because I find it bizarre that there are people who would project such an intensity of hatred and expend such a force of energy upon something which they claim does not even exist; and partly because of the realization that it is not the idea of “god” so much which really disturbs these guys but specifically the God of the Bible, as revealed in Jesus Christ and as worshipped in Christianity that really makes them madder than a junk yard dog.
Tertius’ wrath is primarily directed at the “internet infidels” who expound their godless views on websites and bulletin boards. But any formal exposition of atheism is necessarily going to be “god-obsessed”; the concept of god, in its various forms, is the sole subject matter of atheistic doctrine. He might as well criticize stamp-collecting sites for their obsession with stamps. But, you say, stamp collectors do not stand in opposition to stamps? Very well — let’s say, then, that the atheist’s relationship to God is akin to that of a doctor’s relationship to disease or a police officer’s relationship to crime.
I admit that an obsession with something that one believes does not exist may seem at first blush odd. But it is a natural response to the hectorings of those who actually do believe in the non-existent being. What else to talk about with the wild-eyed fellow next to you on the subway who jabbers about the Wizard of Oz and the invisible hippopotami scurrying about the floor? And even if he can be avoided, his friends in the legislatures and courts cannot. Because — and this is what’s really odd — the United States Constitution has an amendment specifically protecting conduct stemming from belief in God-delusion. It gives special privileges, including the right to ingest peyote or murder children, to anyone who babbles sincerely enough about their deity. The atmosphere is such that one can’t even run for public office unless one is willing to gurgle about Jesus to the masses. Tertius and his ilk demand that we talk about Him. Now, that’s an obsession.
My atheism, contrary to that form described by Tertius, is far broader than mere anti-Christianity. Believer that he is, I’m surprised that Tertius’ anti-atheism doesn’t similarly extend to all creeds which deny his particular version of God. Despite their radically differing moral, historical and eschatological claims, Judaism and Islam get a pass from him because they’re monotheistic rather than polytheistic. He identifies “utter uniqueness” and “transcendence” as the important distinguishing characteristics of the Abrahamic god, the ones that, he says, make comparisons to Ganesh and Thor and Santa and the tooth fairy and the Invisible Pink Unicorn “trifling.” But how so? The IPU is transcendent (that’s why you can’t see him) and certainly unique (he’s “the” IPU, not “an” IPU).
The short of the matter is that Tertius is obsessed because he’s crazy and I’m obsessed because I’m sane. This being said, Tertius does make one extremely eloquent point about those who are obsessed because they’re non-obsessed. I can add nothing to his criticism of “weak atheists” and “apatheists”:
A standard assertion from Internet atheists these days is as follows:
Its really quite simple: Atheism is the lack of a god-belief, the absence of theism, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. To assume that atheism involves more than the absence of theism is an error. [actual quote]
This view that has become de rigueur among a whole new generation of atheists and Internet Infidels. Here it is again:
It’s a very simple exercise. When you come to understand why you lack a belief in all other theologies but your own, you’ll also come to understand why atheists lack a belief in yours. [actual quote]
Alas, such a definition is not very helpful for anyone willing to reflect on the matter. I do not know whether those espousing this view are just na
December 31st, 2003 @ 3:31 pm
Tertius’ site seems to be DOA. Did he move to another location?
January 1st, 2004 @ 7:21 am
Works for me. Unfortunately.
January 1st, 2004 @ 10:01 am
“Burden of Proof”? Ah, that’s great. Now Atheists need to prove their belief that god is fake? Wow, and here I thought Xians needed to prove thier god exists. I guess after 2000 years of being unable to provide any real evidence that their big bad imaginary daddy in the sky exists must mean it’s time to turn the tables on those damn “infidels”. That’ll show ‘em!
January 1st, 2004 @ 1:46 pm
The error Tertius is commiting in the first quote is the same as that commited by those religious people who like to accuse atheists of just being angry at God. He is assuming that the focus of most atheists’ attention is God Herself, when in fact they are usually focused on the actions of those who believe in God. So they are actually obsessed over something they do believe in: they believe that there are people out there who believe in God and that this belief is troublesome and needs to be argued against. They’re not shaking their fists bitterly up at the sky, but rather at those around them.
Of course, since a person’s concept of God is entirely made up and has no external reality outside of his head, that person will naturally assume that fists shaken at them over some God-talk are actually being shaken directly at God.
January 1st, 2004 @ 2:05 pm
One more thing… I fail to see what is so “extremely eloquent” about the last quote.
Apart from calling his adversaries trendy, na
January 6th, 2004 @ 12:43 pm
I liked the part where Tertius said that “weak” atheism is a recent “Internet phenomenon,” only 20 years old at most. 20 years ago was 1983. The Internet was not so big back then, and I highly doubt Tertius was there to see the birth of “weak” atheism.
Of course, even if he *was* there 20 years ago, he would not have witnessed the birth of weak atheism on the ‘net… because the “weak” atheism he describes is a bit older than the ‘net.
January 6th, 2004 @ 10:28 pm
Tetius is a closet atheist. That’s the only kind of person that would use such obviously baseless lines like describing atheism as “a classic dodge, a semantic sleight”. The amazing thing is that this is the crap that makes people say “Hmm, I don’t want to be embarrassed by my intellectually suspect thought or incoherence. I’d better go grovel before the alter and sip some yummy blood right away…… I just won’t worry about the impossible astrophysics, statistical unlikelyhood or utter wackyiness involved in my newly adopted belief.”
I’ve met several church monkeys who claim to “uphold my religion for what it is because I already committed to it” or “intensify my evengelism and works of faith even as my own belief wains”. Hello? Correct your lack of belief by trying your best to convinvce others you believe? Being brain washed must be a nice vacation………..