Radical Atheist

Image via Wikipedia

I debate with theists a lot. I’m a member of a debate forum where the atheist/theist ratio, based on active members who debate in the religious threads, favors the atheist/agnostic/non-Christian contingent. However, the theists that do stick around and debate frequently are pretty good at defending their opinions. They’re an active, contentious bunch, just what we need to keep some balance.

In all honesty, every debate between theists and atheists should begin with the challenge to produce physical and convincing evidence that their god exists. Until that challenge is met no further assertions should be allowed. The primary contention has not been resolved.

However, if we insisted that whenever we debated a theist, whatever the topic, they first answer the challenge to the very existence of their god, we would quickly become strident and annoying even in our own eyes. Atheists would become too much like theists in that regard.

So we mention god as often as theists do. Is that a problem? They should be pleased, free advertising. Besides, they need us. Who else would there be to blame for all the bad stuff if everybody became Christians?

You wanna talk technology? I can go on for hours on that topic without once mentioning any religious concept, even by analogy.

Print Friendly

The more comments I read by those opposed to the Muslim center the more I wish all those who are incensed at this would understand that this vitriol ought to be applied to every group of religious fanatics.

I wish every bible-thumper in America could understand that the outrage and offense they feel about this mosque, the feeling that the Muslims are pushing this in every Christian’s face is the same that many atheists feel every day courtesy of the Christians. The insult of having someone else force you to accept their religion’s unpleasant beliefs, the gall of being expect to respect laws that were created solely based on their religious beliefs; these are the same way non-Christians feel in America.

Here we go agai

The way the Muslims make you feel? Well, that’s the way you both make us feel. We find you both annoying and somewhat frightening. We can’t fathom how you are able to believe the weird things you both accept without question and demand that we accept as “truth” just because you say we have to.

I read Christians resenting the way Muslims have bastardized our freedoms and Constitution for their own purposes (”And we won’t put up with it” they cry) without a hint of awareness that this is precisely how they come across to non-believers.

Since you two not getting along could seriously fuck up the lives of everyone on the planet at any moment, it’s in the best interest of the rest of us that we do what we can to keep you from each other’s throats.

A compromise, then. Hold off on the Muslim center for now or relocate it to a reasonable alternative site. Muslims willingly concede that the time is not right no matter how unreasonable the opposition. In return the Christians convince their minions to back off in Minnesota and California. Muslims get two mosques and lose their YMMA and the Christians get to salvage their righteous indignation. Both sides gain a little and both sides lose a little. Everybody gets to save face, both of you can claim a victory for your side.

Then the rest of us can quit holding our breathes and get back to worrying about truly important matters.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ground Zero Mosque Controversy for Dumbies (nowpublic.com)

Print Friendly

Image by Girl with a one-track mind via Flickr

It’s the belief of the religious that we should all live by their rules, open opposition is not allowed.

Their dogma allows for illogical censorship, book burnings, prohibitions. They see nothing wrong with denying everyone the chance to make their own decisions and reach their own conclusions.

They avoid being exposed to anything that challenges their beliefs. And since they’re in the majority in many countries, they have weight to throw around. Bullies always bully others out of fear.

The NZ Atheist Bus Campaign, which late last year raised in excess of $20,000 from public donations, has met a set back in their plans. Nationwide bus company NZ Bus, who had tentatively approved the campaign’s ads on buses in major city centres, have now rejected them.

NZ Bus stated that they have received a number of complaints from the public about the proposed ads, which read “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Advertisements with identical wording ran in the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Spain. Similar campaigns also ran successfully in Croatia, Finland, Holland, Italy, America and across the Tasman in Australia.

“We are gravely concerned that in New Zealand we’re unable to present an atheistic message, showing that we do not have the same practical freedom of expression as in other first world countries. It highlights why this campaign is so necessary.” said spokesperson Simon Fisher.
http://www.nogod.org.nz/2010/02/atheist-bus-campaign-determined-to-roll-on-despite-set-back/ (Emphasis added)

Let’s break the message down and see if we can find what’s so objectionable.

There’s probably no god.
An opinion rather mildly offered. Nothing like the presumption of absolute knowledge claimed in religiously influenced public postings. There’s no condemnation of believers or of any particular religion. It’s perhaps the mildest expression of disagreement with religious belief I’ve ever encountered. Yet it seems to make religious people apoplectic.

Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Oh, well, yeah, there it is. The complete antithesis of religious belief. A direct challenge to the faith. Now I see why theists have raised such a stink over these banners.

OK, no, I really don’t. Does god want us to worry? (Actually he does. The Bible, for example, encourages believers to live in fear and trembling of their god. If I thought for a moment that their god was real, I’d fear their god, too. He’s portrayed as one mean sum-bitch. )

Is it anti-theistic to suggest that everyone should be able to enjoy their lives? Are those values which somehow conflict with religious belief?

If anyone thinks they can clearly present an intellectually satisfying explanation for why these signs should be opposed I’d love to hear it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New Zealand has bigots too (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• NZ Atheist Bus Campaign reaches fund raising target in under a week (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: Religious Communities Must Be Engaged in Foreign Policy (huffingtonpost.com)

Print Friendly

From the massive irony file:

A prominent Buffalo area businessman who founded the BridgesTV network to improve the image of Muslims in the U.S. has been arrested and charged with murdering his estranged wife – by beheading her at his company’s office in Orchard Park, N.Y., on Thursday.

Police have charged the husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder in the death of Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37.

In its logo, BridgesTV boasts of “connecting people through understanding” via its dish network available in several states. Its Web site quotes comments about the company by Jay Leno, Brian Williams and others, plus a screen shot of a CNBC interview with Hassan conducted by Maria Bartiromo.

Programs include kids shows, “American Muslim Teen Talk,” Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” and an interview show with James Zogby. Its news program “brings you balanced coverage from around the world. News you can trust.”

Police say the wife had an order of protection from the man. A murder weapon has not yet been recovered. The couple had two children, ages 4 and 6.

Khalid J. Qazi, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said, “There is no place for domestic violence in our religion — none. Islam would 100 percent condemn it.” (Source-Editor & Publisher)

“Islam would 100 percent condemn it”? How about “Islam does 100 percent condemn it”? Why the timid response?

Islam, like Christianity, is an ancient religion that has no place in modern societies. It’s rules of conduct and moral code are suited for 1st century goat-herders, not people living in the 21st century. In the civilized world, women are not property.

If Hassan wanted to change the Western concept of Islamic barbarism, he certainly went about it the wrong way. At least he committed this atrocity in the U.S. where he’ll be held accountable for his behavior and not in the Middle East where his actions would have been excused and accepted.

Related articles by Zemanta

• -Muslim ‘Honor’ Beheading in Buffalo? (answersforthefaith.com)
• Iran leader wants U.S. apology for ‘crimes’ (msnbc.msn.com)
• Founder of Islamist TV Channel Arrested in New York for Beheading Wife (littlegreenfootballs.com)

Print Friendly

Those who have reached the conclusion that gods either do not exist or are so improbable as to be unlikely in the extreme are atheists. Other than that one specific philosophical opinion, atheists do not necessarily share any other conclusion, interest or attitude.

It’s difficult to form a cohesive social network based solely on the issue of atheism. Atheists are often too different in what they do believe to feel a strong fraternity with others just because they both disbelieve in gods.

And it’s for this reason atheism fails to capture the interest of most people. Indeed, it actually repels many. Their is no community aspect to atheism.

Humans are pack animals. We respond to strong leadership, we take comfort in numbers. Strays and those outside the pack are suspect, potentially dangerous. One particularly powerful pack in this country is the religious pack. By having the numbers, this pack has established itself as the predominant pack in this society. Those outside this particular pack are viewed as so dangerous they required legislating against. This pack is so large it presumes the title of “normal”. It has determined that its standards be the standards for everyone of every faith and of course those of no faith. As compensation for requiring the sacrifice of personal freedom, it offers the sop of community. Even a fool feels less lonely in a crowd of fools.

But we can’t underestimate the power of community. There’s power in numbers. Might may not make right, but it’s still might. Because of our pack mentality, we are suckers for groups, communities, nearly any collection of human beings assembled for any old reason. We have ample evidence of humans surrendering, of their own free will, their rationality, logic, common sense, skepticism and disbelief when the appearent reward for doing so is sufficiently desireable.

I was recently reading a discussion between atheists about the benefits of using groups like MeetUp to get together with other atheists. Atheists are no different than anyone else in being pack oriented. Unfortunately many of us are a pack of cats. The packs we form often leave much to be desired, when a pack can be formed at all.

By not offering a community, we fail in marketing. We have to concede to the religions that they prevail in meeting that human need better than non-believers on a social scale. We aren’t different in the way we feel about our friends and families, but we tend to commune with those who share our common beliefs, not common disbeliefs. Just like Christians, Muslims, the Amish and the Scientologists do. Otherwise there would be a “Church of the Non-Atheists”.

There is one community that being an atheist allows a person to appreciate, the community of humanity. You don’t have to be an atheist to be a humanist, but being an atheist frees you to see humanity as it exists in reality, not fantasy. Granted, the community of humanity is open to all, totally inclusive, non-judgmental, all the things that religion isn’t. That’s why every successful religion has told its believers that they are separate from humanity, that they’re special, the select, the chosen few selected by the god itself to know the real truth about everything, the secret of reality, the answers to all the really big questions. Religious communities make their members feel comfortable with this attitude that drips with pride and superiority. Otherwise reasonable people who practice skepticism and common sense in every other aspect of their lives can fall prey to this insidious group-think, and do, in large numbers around the world.

And one of the greatest attractions is the religious community.

The best we can do is sneak into Unitarian services and try not to wince too often. Cookies and punch if you’re successful.

Print Friendly

If terrorism were simply another human trait it would be much more common among all people.

True, all humans have the potential to be terrorists, but that potential requires a motivation. Motivation is what turns any human potential into human behavior. And the most powerful and effective motivator for most people is religion. Fanatic religious belief acts like a fuse on a bomb. No fuse, the device is inert. With a fuse the device has the potential to be deadly, light the fuse and that possibility becomes a near certainty.

Religion is the fuse and the spark that lights the fuse is a fanatical belief that your god wants you to kill as many other people as possible. Christians do that, but generally in a rather inept way. Fanatical Christians are quite often more amusing than frightening. Fanatical Muslims on the other hand…

Oh, and worst of all? Those roving bands of fanatical atheists with their tracts and their bullhorns, trying to blow people’s minds. Dangerous lunatics.

Print Friendly

No one likes being lied about.

One of the most frustrating things about being an atheist is reading and hearing the religious, either through ignorance or maliciousness, contend that atheists can’t be loving, caring, compassionate people simply because they don’t accept the claims of this religion or that religion. Don’t believe me? Here’s what theists want their children to believe…

No doubt it makes the religious feel all smug and self-righteous to envision atheists as grumpy, mean old bastards.

Unfortunately, there’s no meat on those bones.

I wonder if theists ever question why so many people that describe themselves as humanists are also atheists? I wonder if theists have actually asked an atheist why they are atheistic, and actually listened to their answer?

The majority of atheists I know, have heard and have read about reached the conclusion that religions are detremental to peace and harmony among humans because they care about their fellow man. Atheists, unlike theists, know that all people are equal. We are all humans, all members of the same species. We don’t place ourselves above the rest of humanity. We don’t claim a special relationship with a fictional god. We don’t exclude those who don’t live like us, think like us, dress like us or believe like us. Atheists aren’t trying to make every American live like an atheist, we want all people to be free to live as they wish, think as they wish and believe as they wish without interference from the government or any other single group within society. We don’t strive to create an atheistic society, while the Falwell’s in America publicly confess they intend to see our secular country become a theocracy. We don’t claim special knowledge of absolute truth.

We are atheists because we care about people. We suffer when others suffer. We feel their pain because they are like us, we are all humans. We hate to see children and innocents die in wars fought for no better reason than a disagreement over whose imaginary friend is superior. We suffer with those who die for want of medicine and aid withheld because some religious leader doesn’t think his god approves of providing it. We fear for our planet as populations grow without restraint because a virgin pontiff doesn’t condone condoms. Our hearts go out to our gay brothers and sisters who are oppressed and harmed simply because some people say their god doesn’t approve of them.

Atheists and humanists hold the moral high ground when it comes to compassion and true love for all humanity. It’s pretentious and false for the religious to try and claim the same degree of concern. They only care that everyone shares their fantasy. They don’t especially care if you’re hungry, ill or without hope. Just accept their beliefs and their god will care for you, or if he fails to do so, claim that your condition is their god’s will for you. Sure they offer charity, but that comes with a big string attached. If you refuse to buy into their belief system, their charity will become condemnation. They want to believe you’ll suffer for all eternity to having the gall to refuse the “love” of their god. Charity will be the furthest thing from their minds.

Theists attempt to claim that atheists provide no charity, that we don’t have our own Salvation Army (think about that name for a moment), our own ministries to the homeless, that atheists don’t contribute to causes that help others. What they fail to take into account is that we have no “god” in whose name we perform our acts of charity. We have no organization to show the world how concerned we are. Our acts, our donations are done individually. We give what we can where we can, without the showy “we’re doing god’s will” self-promotion. We don’t love in the name of a god, we love in the name of humanity. Our goal is not to get everyone into our club so we can collect their tithe every week. Our goal is the good of humanity, peace on Earth, a brotherhood of man.

Print Friendly

Is this a situation in which the person should quit if they cannot abide with the rules of the employer, or an unreasonable expectation of employess by an employer?

Two ex-employees of Diskeeper have sued the firm over allegations they were obliged to take part in Scientology training courses as a mandatory condition of employment.

Alexander Godelman, former chief information officer of Diskeeper, and Marc Le Shay, former Diskeeper Automation Planning Officer, filed a joint suit of unfair dismissal at Los Angeles Superior last month alleging that the disc utilities firm made it compulsory to attend Scientology-based courses. They charge that their refusal to participate in the courses led to their dismissal.

The claimants allege that Diskeeper violated Californian employment law and engaged in religious discrimination.

Diskeeper founder and chief exec Craig Jensen is a committed Scientologist who allegedly told Godelman, who is Jewish, that his attendance at Scientology-based courses was non-negotiable while talking up the supposed benefits of the course. Le Shay refused to attend the course, and Godelman’s support of this stance ultimately led the the dismissal of the duo, the lawsuit alleges.  (Source-The Register)

Print Friendly

Time again to ask…

Why are parents who object to the teaching of evolution to their children because they think it’s a lie OK with teaching their children about Santa Clause when they know it’s a lie? Where are those absolute morals when you need them?

A SUBSTITUTE teacher who told a rowdy class of seven-year-old that Santa Claus does not exist has been fired.

The 25 children in the class at a primary school near Manchester, England, were talking excitedly about Christmas and Santa Claus when the substitute alleged he was not real.

“‘It’s your parents who leave out presents on Christmas Day,” she blurted out, according to the Daily Mail website.

The children were reduced to tears at the claim and went home and told their parents, who were less than impressed.

According to the Mail, one parent had a simple solution to his son potentially losing the magic of Christmas – blame religion.

“My lad was in tears and so was everyone else in the class – especially as it was so close to Christmas,” the boy’s father was quoted as saying.

“We told him that she did not believe in Father Christmas because of her religion and he’s fine now.” (Source-Couriermail)

They’re not just lying to their children about Santa but they compound their error by lying about the teacher’s motivation. Ah yes, the magic of Christmas.

Print Friendly

Lot’s of people have what you and I would probably agree are screwed up moral codes. Humans are imperfect. To touch on the old Hitler “was an atheist” chestnut, he was raised with strict religious (Catholic) morals. Somewhere along the line he took what he believed and twisted it into a perverse belief system. A person who acts “immorally” is by definition not acting out of a belief in any moral code, theistic or atheistic. They’re acting without morals of any kind.

People behave immorally (according to so-called Christian morals). Are they all atheists? Hardly. A fellow atheist and friend, Mojoey, blogs about ministers caught molesting children. He’s been doing this for a while and his list is extensive. Surely these men were raised with good so-called Christian morals. What went wrong? Are these so-called Christian morals not strong enough to overcome our common flawed humanity? When I see so many people commit horrible acts against their fellow man and know that they were raised with so-called Christian morals, I have to ask; what about Christian morals makes them worthy of emulation or respect?

How many average criminals, people acting immorally or unethically, are atheist? I don’t know exactly, but I would expect they are represented among the criminal class to about the same degree they are generally in society. I suggest the majority of those we’d call immoral and unethical criminals are religious believers, raised on some sort of religious moral code.

I further submit that the majority of atheists in America live lives indistinguishable from the average theist’s. If they can melt successfully into society, they must be living ethically/morally enough to escape notoriety.

All our ethics/morals are instilled in us at an early age. We are all taught the rules for membership in our society. We are taught early on how to get along in this Western society.

In reality, there are no Christian or atheist morals; there are social morals that are different in each society. If morality was absolute, different cultures would all behave identically. All morals are relative to the context in which they are applied.

Print Friendly