M Y S T I C�� T A C O�� S T A N D

You're So Sure It's YOU That's Right, Huh? ... April 07, 2005

i went to a meeting of a club here on campus today that calls itself "the free thinkers," a group that has informal discussions and debates about various topics which are (sadly) almost always chosen from amongst the flimsy pop culture news articles presented in the school paper. i'd already been to the first very first of their meetings, months ago, but work had prevented me from returning to attend an actual discussion until tonight.

i was terribly dissapointed, really, despite my relatively moderate expectations. i mean, you can't expect TOO much from a group of freakishly pierced and tattoed, psuedo-rebel college party-boys, can you? still. it seems to me that they have little right to call themselves "the free thinkers" when it seems they have little interest in free thoughts that do not coincide with their own.

so the entire meeting was spent criticizing an editorial some student wrote that started off talking about the pope and all that dying he's been up to recently. the piece quickly and inexplicably switched subjects in the second paragraph and described the writer's highly opinionated reasons for believing that atheism is illogical. after the author had finished standing on his somewhat uneducated soapbox, he inexplicably goes on to babble about his own flimsy arguements for the theory of intelligent design. he's like a protestant at a natural history museum. sheesh.

don't get me wrong about what i'm about to say. i obviously don't agree with what the editorial's writer was trying to say. but i also can't accept the same baseless type of faith-ish arguements from the "free thinker" people either. simply put, you can't fight fire with fire.

so in the editorial, the writer automatically assumes god exists as the basis for his first point. he claims that atheists should have to prove the nonexistance of god. seems like a pretty shakey arguing technique if you ask me. basically, he's using this editorial of his to present his own opinions. (totally cool...IF, and only if you can then back yourself up with some undeniable facts.) then in the way of explaining himself, he simply throws out what reads as a smug challege to those who don't agree. any moron can see that the way HE presents it anyways, no one in their right mind would take the bait and retort with a matching reaction. sadly, the "free thinkers" did this very thing quite vigourously.

the outspoken ringleaders of the group all posess that OH-SO-ANNOYING brand of highly charged, loudmouthed, un-thought-out athiesm that gives athieists a bad name. these are the people who are athiest because it's cool in some circles. because it bothers their catholic momma and poppa. because it means they can go to basement punk concerts and pick up drunk goth chicks by telling them they don't believe in god. whatever, man. here is what they said... "He's basically indirectly saying that anyone who is an athiest is ignorant." -this was followed by a colletive grunting from several members, all going along the lines of, "nuh-uh! HE's ignorant."- i was strongly reminded of some of the arguements i had seen on the primary school playground. "you're a doo-doo head!" "nuh-uh, YOU're a doo-doo head!" they proceeded to voice the opinion that it was actually this writer's responsibility to proove that god exists and not the responsibility of the athiests to prove he doesn't exist. okay. he says it's you, you say it's him, but no one has come up with any reasons why it should be the other guy and not themselves who should come up with a convincing arguement.

so whose responsibility should it be? i say anyone who's going to go around with his pants down, waving his opinions around in the breeze like they're something to be so proud of, it's that person who's responsible for providing a convincing explanation. in other words, i don't think it's fair to sit and say that your opponent is the one who should prove himself. in fact, if you really have given your subject a single thought past how many drunk goth chicks it will get you, your arguements really should be so convincing they speak for themselves, now shouldn't they?

not only that but i would have to say that the out and out certainty that the members of the "free thinkers" group seem to have that their athiesm is right, well, it disturbs me just as much as the editorial writer's certainty that god does exist. it's as if both think that their opinions actually have some baring on the truth of the matter. "how dare ye, tiny mortal, how dare ye make thine puny and comical attempt to grant or deny god his existance!" what i mean is that i believe having any belief about the existance of any kind of diety futher than, "i don't know." is incredibly unwise. i think that it is the only statement you can make about the existance of a god that can be backed up by hard evidence. there is simply no need for blind faith, no need to join either camp if you will admit that you are unsure. who was it that said wisdom begins when you admit that you do not know? damn do i wish i'd thought of THAT one first.

still, due to the fact that the unrelenting idea in this group is that "free thought" means athiesm, well, i kept my mouth shut.
afterall, who responds favorably when some stranger stands up in front of a group of his or her peers and says that a central tenant in their arguement happens to be obviously un-thought-out and generally unwise?

not much interest in going back. free thought? my ass.

- previous - next -

- the old - profile - leave a note - contact -

DiaryLand makes me put this link here.
Please click on it before they cut off another one of my fingers!