Why Christians oppose the atheist bus campaign

5 comments

Posted on 24th February 2010 by Jack in society

, , , , ,

Atheist Bus Campaign Launch

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
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The danger of superstitions

1 comment

Posted on 8th January 2010 by Jack in human rights

, , , ,

Witchcraft Crash Course Day One

Image by Carolina Gonzalez via Flickr

Atheists are often challenged on their lack of belief. Christians in the U.S. seem to think that atheists are only opposed to their god, ignoring the fact that disbelieving in gods includes all the gods invented by mankind throughout history. Atheists are accused of being mad at god or resentful of god’s laws. Some say we simply want to live a life full of sin and disobedience without having to submit to the authority of a divine rule-giver.

What our challengers fail to appreciate is that atheism is the disbelief in a broader range of fantastic thinking than just their particular faith. Atheists reject for lack of evidence belief in any concept that can be reasonably categorized as supernatural or superstitious. To atheists the belief in a personal god is as nonsensical and unfounded as the belief that a black cat crossing your path brings bad luck. Many theists dismiss the idea that walking under a ladder creates bad luck but fail to notice the obvious correlation between that belief and their own belief in gods.

Many atheists consider supernatural and superstitious beliefs to be fairly benign; believe what you will as long as it doesn’t interfere with another person’s privilege to believe what they wish. Yet this degree of tolerance allows the more harmful consequences of supernatural and superstitious belief to be practiced without criticism. Tolerance of the differences between individuals is commendable; tolerance of belief systems that are used to subjugate, enslave and kill those who don’t share those beliefs is not commendable at all. By not opposing fantastic thinking, especially when it is used as an excuse to cause harm to our fellow humans, we atheists become complicit in that harm. We need to champion realistic and clear thinking and not shy away from criticizing belief systems that cause wars and death to innocent humans.

Here is a prime example of how superstitious thinking can cause real harm to the innocent.

Human sacrifice is on the increase in Uganda according to a government spokesman. This barbaric crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly. Witch doctors claim they have clients who regularly capture children and bring their blood and body parts to be consumed by spirits. One witch doctor confessed for the first time to having murdered about 70 people, including his own son.

According to media reports, the witch doctors revealed that some of their clients capture other people’s children and bring the heart and the blood directly to them to take to the spirits. They are brought in small tins and are placed under a tree from which the voices of the spirits are coming. Clients come on average three times a week, with all that the spirits asks them to bring. The witch-doctors deny any direct involvement in murder or incitement to murder. They claim that spirits speak directly to their clients.

Witch doctors are paid about 500,000 Ugandan shillings, equivalent of about $260 for a consultation. The head of the Anti-Human Sacrifice and Trafficking Task Force in Uganda, assistant commissioner Moses Binoga of the Ugandan police, said that witch doctors operate in a network and have bosses who give instructions and receive the bulk of payment made by clients. The bosses involve in one of five or six witch-doctor protection rackets operating in the country.

The Assistant commissioner went on to say that the senior ones extort money from lower people because they deal in illegal things. He said that police had opened 26 murder cases in 2009, in which the victim appeared to have been ritually sacrificed, compared with just three cases in 2007. He also said that they have about 120 children and adults reported missing whose fate they have been unable to trace. They cannot rule out that they may be victims of human sacrifice, he said. (Source-Newstime Africa) (Hat-tip to @SkeptInquiry on Twitter for the link)

We can see a pattern here that is common to many religions. A persuasive and charismatic charlatan realizes they can get rich by getting the gullible to believe their conveniently unprovable premise that misfortune and eternal punishment will be visited on anyone who doesn’t join their cult and surrender their money, possessions and their good sense to the leader. It’s nothing more than a scam, sadly protected from criticism and exposure by claiming to be a religion. Even the most progressive societies are reluctant to challenge any belief system that hides behind the label of “religious belief”.

If you are a passive atheist who doesn’t think it’s worthwhile to openly criticize supernatural and superstitious thinking, I would ask that you consider the possibility that your reticence is what allows witch doctors to sacrifice children to ward off evil spirits free of condemnation. By thinking that it’s their right to believe in witchcraft if they want, the tolerant fail to protest the effect of their superstitious thinking on innocent children.

We have thousands of examples of the harm done to humanity in the name of a god or spirit. Atheists owe it to their fellow humans to oppose and speak out against such nonsense, especially when it subjugates and kills.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Conceit of Superiority & Other Thoughts

2 comments

Posted on 30th December 2009 by Jack in humanism

, , , , ,

The Oracle of Reason
Image via Wikipedia

I’m not a militant atheist, I’m certainly not a dogmatic atheist. But I am an atheist, or as I prefer, a disbeliever. I have no interest in offending the religious, it isn’t my intention to insult. But I am quite opinionated, well-read, a former believer, a spiritual non-believer. I will not back away from or disavow my opinions. If that causes someone offense, if they perceive insult, that’s their problem. They’re always free to ignore me.

I am a humanist (not an official Humanist). I share with all other humans certain traits, behaviors and aspirations. I understand the need and origin of religious belief. But I have no respect for any belief system that divides humans, any dogma that egotistically states that some humans (always humans like themselves) are better than everyone else, more deserving of an enjoyable life, more favored by some divine authority. All of us reading this are humans.

I’ve never been embarrassed to admit that I am a product of evolution, that I share the same origins as every other human on the planet. We should feel no pride or shame for what we are due to nature; we had no choice in our race, our sex, our hair natural hair color or lack of hair. What fairly brings us pride or shame is what we’ve made of ourselves with what nature gave us. We are judged by our attitudes, our beliefs, our statements, our behaviors. Those are what divide and unite us. It’s not our fault I’m white and you’re Black. We can’t help that you’re a woman and I’m a man. But once I’ve formed an opinion about Blacks and women I am fully responsible for those opinions. I don’t accept the excuse that “God made me this way”. You’re perception of god is not to blame for your racism, your smug superiority, your callous disregard for your fellow human. We choose our beliefs, they are our responsibility for better or worse. To own your attitudes and beliefs is to be fully human. To realize that natural handicaps come in all shapes and sizes, aren’t always obvious and say nothing of the human inside is to be fully human.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Carnival of the Godless-coming soon to RA

0 comments

Posted on 8th August 2009 by Jack in Site News

, , , ,

I’m really stoked to be able to announce that the August 23, 2009 Carnival of the Godless will be hosted right here on Radical Atheist. This is the first time I’ve offered to host the Carnival but I doubt it will be the last. I’ve long enjoyed reading past CotG entries and am excited to finally be involved in bringing them to you.

If you haven’t yet enjoyed an issue of the Carnival, you should head over to Socratic Gadfly and read the entries in the current edition. Different authors present their unique insights on atheism, skepticism, godlessness in society and a host of other topics related to the godless life.

I encourage all of you to submit your own work or other blogger’s posts you’ve read and think should be exposed to a wider audience. Submission is easy using the pre-formatted submission form.

There are only two rules for submissions:

Carnival of the Godless

Carnival of the Godless

1. The post you send in must be from a godless perspective and address something such as godlessness, atheism, church/state separation, the evolution/creation debate, theodicy, philosophy of religion as it relates to godlessness, etc. There is a huge amount of wiggle room in the post subject and we will consider every submission carefully for inclusion.

2. You may only submit one post per carnival. More may be accepted at the host’s discretion. If you submit a post that you really think ought to be included from another blog, and the author of that blog also submits a post, we’ll use their post. This should be considered a great way to get one of your excellent, but (for whatever reason) unknown or underrated posts in front of a potentially huge audience. Grab the bull by the horns!

I know from the comments I’ve received that a large number of thinking individuals are always on the lookout for new blogs to read. The Carnival of the Godless is a great venue for finding new blogs to add to your RSS rotation.

Some great articles are already being submitted and I look forward to reading those submitted in the next two weeks. Please bookmark Radical Atheist and visit again on August 23rd for the 124th edition of the Carnival of the Godless. I guarantee you’ll be enlightened, entertained and challenged.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Atheist or agnostic? Both.

2 comments

Posted on 26th July 2009 by Jack in re: atheism

, , , , ,

Personification of knowledge (Greek Επιστημη, ...

Image via Wikipedia

“Atheism” and “agnosticism” are both poorly understood terms. Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. Theism and atheism relate to belief.

Agnosticism, as defined by its creator, Thomas Henry Huxley, is similar to skepticism. It’s a means of examining reality that says, “show me”. Show me the evidence that leads to a certain conclusion, show me the process of getting from point A to point Z that supports the contention that point Z is true. Knowledge should be based on truth and truth claims should be examined skeptically/agnostically to judge their merit.

Atheism is a rejection of the beliefs of those who claim that there are or have been gods. We do not accept the explanations and substantiations offered by believers in support of their beliefs.

I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is the tool I use to examine truth claims and atheism is the conclusion I’ve reached in the matter of belief in gods.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Are you responsible?

0 comments

Posted on 21st July 2009 by Jack in theist misconceptions

, , ,

Religious belief encourages shifting the blame, avoidance of responsibility. You can pray for the president to die and blame it all on god, or the Book, or the god’s evil twin/nemesis. Superstitious beliefs encourage putting the blame for our shortcomings on the alignment of the stars, our karma, crystal vibrations or breaking a mirror. It’s a common human tendency to think more highly of ourselves and when forced to acknowledge a failure to live up to our self-image, to find something to blame that on. In others words, to avoid responsibility. Religious belief offers lots of scapegoats. Sacrificial lambs, if you will. They pay for your sins so you don’t have to. How convenient, how irresponsible.superstition-paradigm

When you strip away the supernatural and superstitious you are left with the inescapable conclusion that each of us is responsible for ourselves. We ought to own both the positive and negative within us.

Gods don’t ask people to kill other people people kill people and blame it on their god. God doesn’t hate anything, people hate things and claim that their god shares their opinions.

It’s pathetic to use religion as an excuse for inhumane behavior. We who do not believe hold every person responsible for their own words, thoughts and actions.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Making atheism acceptable

0 comments

Posted on 25th May 2009 by Jack in re: atheism

, , ,

After years of extensive research and absurd experiments involving cheap hookers and blow, I’ve finally come upon the simple solution for making atheism acceptable to the majority of humans on this planet. It doesn’t involve asking atheists to change any of their current opinions, even so-called hard “there absolutely is no god” atheists can can do this. It’s so easy an agnostic can do it. Nor does it require theists to change their attitude toward non-believers.

Because from now on there are no non-believers. We’re all believers.

Atheism is now theism, atheists are theists. Everybody believes in whatever god you believe in.

Now it’s quite obvious that theists differ dramatically in how they interpret their scriptures and dogma. They even differ in their passion for their beliefs. At one end of the scale are those who thank Jesus or Allah after every other sentence while at the other end is the Jew who eats a ham sandwich but believes he’s wrong to do so (not that the thought of that stops him). Theists are all over the place.

So what place in the broad spectrum of religious belief exists for ex-atheists?piegraph1

The Unitarians are notorious for their nearly-non-theistic theology. So we former-atheists are just a bit more secular than the UU. We accept that gods are possible. It’s just that we believe the probability that gods exist is extremely low, so low that it becomes nearly impossible.

See what a simple and elegant solution this is? Theists can no longer dismiss us from the tent; we’re now a part of the theistic clan, one big happy family. We might be the weird, possibly retarded cousin 6-times removed who grew up in a cave with wombats who insists on attending every family reunion, but we’re still family.

We humanists had it all wrong. We were trying to convince theists that we are all humans, we all belong to the human family.We should have been turning that around and stating that all humans are theists, just to varying degrees. After all, the vast majority of people believe that you cannot say with absolute certainty that gods do not exist. Conversely it must then be true that you cannot say with absolute certainty that gods do exist. So absolute (100%) belief and disbelief are positions one cannot reasonably hold. You can approach within the smallest increment to 100 and 0%.

Thus those who were once called atheists and humanists are actually just the least convinced theists you can find. I’ll let the other theists fight among themselves for the position of closest to 100% convinced.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Atheism, science and the lack of obligation

0 comments

Posted on 22nd May 2009 by Jack in re: atheism

, , , , , ,

The Death of Socrates (1787)
Image via Wikipedia

To accept any brand of theism entails accepting certain assumptions as established fact. All religious belief systems have a creation story. It may be interpreted literally or figuratively, but the underlying assumption that the universe was created by a particular god must be accepted as literal truth and fact to be a member of any particular sect of religious belief.

In rejecting religious belief, atheists also dismiss the presumption that any god created the universe.

However, beyond implying the rejection of religious creation stories, atheism does not provide further guidance as to what to think about the manner in which the universe came in to being. Unlike the vast majority of religions, atheism isn’t a belief system. Atheism is a single point of disagreement with other people over the idea that it’s plausible that any particular god exists. There are many things that atheists believe and disbelieve. The fact we’re atheists only pertains to a single one of the disbeliefs.

Some atheists just don’t give a damn about philosophy or science. They could care less how we got here. They have lives to lead and no time for foolish speculation about things we can’t possibly know at this point in time. We tend to call folks like this practical and level headed.

Others of us are fascinated with understanding how everything works and what it all means. There are many names for us, one or two are complimentary. We follow the findings of scientists, philosophers and thinkers who enlighten us and increase our knowledge, which we expect to result in wisdom.

Accepting scientific explanations about life and the universe and philosophical musings on our place in nature are not obligatory. No atheist is obligated to agree with science. It’s an option, one of many that don’t entail believing in gods.

Scientific explanations of reality are incomplete and never absolute. Some people can’t tolerate a lack of absolutes, so they invent them then proclaim their inventions to be absolute. “It is because we say it is.” Not a convincing argument. My standards for belief and agreement are too high to be satisfied by religious belief. I was a theist, I’ve been there, I’ve walked that road in total sincerity and with unbridled passion for many years. Theism in general and Christianity in particular are not unknown to me. I’ve made their arguments and fought for their validity. I’m completely comfortable with dismissing them as irrelevant in the quest to understand nature on their own merits. Having scientific and philosophical explanations that hold together better and explain nature in terms that don’t require a suspension of good sense and skepticism is an added bonus. It’s nice to have but isn’t the reason for my rejection of belief in gods.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

What good is god?

0 comments

Posted on 14th April 2009 by Jack in random stuff

, , ,

:Image:Religious syms.png bitmap traced (and h...
Image via Wikipedia

What good does believing there’s a perfect god somewhere do? It doesn’t seem to make us any better people than we could be without belief? What benefit has believing that there’s a supreme being out there somewhere watching every little thing you do and condemning you for much of it? “Supreme” can be understood as both absolute and above all others. The problem with that is no religion can prove beyond doubt that their particular god and way of believing in that god are the only possible right and true belief and way of believing. Reality shows us that theists cannot agree sufficiently about the characteristics and behaviors of their particular vision of god among themselves, which pretty much dooms any attempt to devise a supreme guide.

We don’t need gods. We don’t need to feel guilt and shame over many of the things religious belief has managed to persuade us we must. Belief systems from 2000 years and more in the past are routinely ignored in practically every other field of human inquiry except religious belief. That makes no sense. We do need to face our problems, acknowledge that we created them and we have to correct them ourselves without waiting around for divine intervention. We do need to acknowledge our limitations and strive to do the best we can with our abilities. We do need to grasp the fact that it’s up to us to figure out if we are harming this planet and figure out how to fix it if we are. We need to face the reality of life, and too many religious dogmas aren’t helping. They’re hindering our attempts to understand and learn.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Can science kill god?

0 comments

Posted on 9th April 2009 by Jack in re: atheism

, , , , ,

Heliocentric theory disclaimer
Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

All across the world wide web are comments from theists of every stripe denouncing science as an attempt by the ungodly to disprove their god or gods. In their never-quenched thirst to be seen as persecuted victims of a world-gone-wild (without taking any responsibility for it, even though they brag about the universality of their beliefs), they try to convince the uncritical and uncertain that science is determined to prove gods do not exist. They make it sound like a holy quest, though we know only believers can enjoy those. Religious believers refuse to acknowledge that the best evidence against the possible existence of any particular god is the gross lack of any evidence for one. We have yet to discover any credible, physical evidence that can only be explained by the existence of a certain god and that god’s intervention in our natural world. Science isn’t trying to disprove god, science simply hasn’t found any evidence that irrefutably proves there is one.

Even if we could somehow learn to a 99% certainty that the universe began this way or that, that knowledge will not kill off the idea of god.

Science will never make an absolute declaration that it knows how the universe came into being. Definitive, absolute proof doesn’t exist. Science is not religion. It can only draw tentative conclusions from what evidence we can collect. Scientific conclusions are only as valid as the data. As we come across more information, science has to adjust its conclusions. Religions pretend to know absolute truths, yet they require us to accept these truths on faith.
If science were to state that all the evidence leads us to believe that the universe started in this or that manner, there will always be room to squeeze in religious belief. We’ve already seen in history how religions adapt to current reality in an effort to stay relevant and retain their power over people. In all probability science can’t and won’t put an end to superstitious belief. With our complex brains otherwise intelligent people believe in luck and fate. Beliefs can exist beside knowledge without being eradicated by that knowledge. No matter how smart we become about reality, superstition will survive. There are many theories as to why humans develop and believe in superstitions, but history leads me to accept that every human has them. Religious belief will no doubt change subtlety, as it has before, to accommodate secular knowledge, but it will unfortunately be with us for a long time yet. It is, after all, just another superstitious belief.

Already there are Christian groups that have managed to incorporate scientific conclusions into their dogma. They accept the Big Bang as the best explanation for the beginning of the universe that can currently be drawn from available evidence and still credit their god with having set it all in motion. They give reverence to the Bible, but as an allegorical work rather than literal truth. Scientology is another example of a religion that has incorporated some science into their otherwise wildly fantastical belief system.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
« Older Entries
UA-661665-3