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

Perhaps the most pernicious religious belief. It’s the initial assumption from which all the rest of religious belief flows.

The attitude assumes the outcome of the quest to learn and wonder. “No matter what, the answer is going to be God”. I see no need to presume an end-game, it’s the journey that’s important. It’s OK to say “I don’t know”. Beliefs are rest-stops along the way, they shouldn’t be used as permanent residences for the mind. All knowledge is inadequate, but religious belief, for many of us, is more than inadequate. It’s unnecessary. It attempts to nail down and codify the human propensity to wonder and inquire, to ask and not be satisfied with the answer. If you think you already know something so absolutely that you prefer to ignore and even disparage any information you encounter that challenges those beliefs and if you’ve already reached an unassailable conclusion in advance of hearing all the evidence then you have followed the wrong path and have encountered a dead-end, an intellectual infinite loop. Your knowledge cannot grow as it has nowhere to go. The limitations of belief create a boundary layer, a point beyond which faith cannot go.
I contend that anyone who proposes that they already know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what the end of the journey of knowledge is; anyone who claims a special knowledge of the final answer without having asked all the questions; anyone who contends that they have completed the journey, that they’ve travelled clear to the end of knowledge and have come back to let a few of us in on the secret; are liars. They aren’t lying to me, I don’t believe them. They’re lying to themselves. They’ve convinced themselves that they possess all the answers, that there’s nothing know beyond this or that god. They’ve put their intellect on hold, they’ve created an answer that excuses them from asking any questions that are difficult or outside the bounds of faith.

Print Friendly

This appears to substantiate the possibility of blasphemy laws being enacted in the West as presented in my last posting.

An atheist who left leaflets mocking Jesus Christ, Islam and the Pope in an airport’s prayer room has been given an Asbo.

Harry Taylor, 59, from Higher Broughton, Salford, left the anti-religious posters in prayer rooms at Liverpool
John Lennon Airport in November and December 2008.

Taylor denied three counts of causing religiously aggravated harassment during his trial at Liverpool Crown Court.

But he was found guilty by a jury and given a suspended six-month sentence yesterday, as well as an Asbo forbidding him from carrying anti-religious leaflets in public.

One of the posters Taylor left at the airport depicted a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue. In another, a cartoon depicted two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: “Not for women or gays, obviously.” A third poster showed Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise being told: “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins”. (Source-The Independent)

The National Secular Society expresses an opinion on this ruling that reflects my own thoughts.

One of the "offensive" images

The sentencing of Harry Taylor has been condemned by the National Secular Society as “creating a new blasphemy law that will open the way for every religious extremist to persecute and prosecute their critics.”

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society said: “Regardless of the fact that this six month sentence has been suspended, it is still totally out of proportion for what Mr Taylor did. Nobody can deny that he was being deliberately provocative in leaving these rather mild cartoons, cut from Private Eye, in the prayer room, but in the end he didn’t harm anybody and was simply making a point about the existence of such a facility. The chaplain could quite easily have simply thrown the papers in the bin.

“Instead, she claims to have been hurt and offended by this material, which makes her ultra sensitivity a dangerous thing indeed. The professional ‘offence takers’ in religious communities will now feel that they have a strong new weapon to use against anyone who is critical or disapproving of them. It is, in effect, a blasphemy law that covers all religions and is much more powerful than the one that was abolished only two years ago.”

“Religiously aggravated offences represent a new kind of blasphemy law, and the professional offence takers in religious communities won’t be slow to exploit this new avenue of restricting criticism and comment about their beliefs. It is time for parliament to reconsider these provisions and remove them from the statute books.”

Mr Sanderson said that Mr Taylor describes himself as a “militant atheists” who wanted to challenge the existence of the “prayer room” particularly as it was situated on John Lennon Airport in Liverpool – he maintained that John Lennon was an atheist and would not have approved of the presence of the prayer room. (Source-National Secular Society)

I can’t imagine any rational free-thinker accepting this ruling without protest.

The Pope has repeatedly expressed his displeasure with the media coverage of the multitude of molestation claims being presented around the globe. Will he be the next person to make a legal challenge to this coverage and manage to silence criticism of the Church’s efforts to ignore and bury those claims? Isn’t it a form of blasphemy to question the actions of the Holy See?

How will Christians in the West react if Muslims are able to gain legal protection against any defamatory statement about Islam being made by those who don’t follow that religion, including those who believe in other gods?

When did life offer us a guarantee to never be offended by those who don’t share our opinions? By what universal right do the religious claim exemption from criticism and skepticism. It seems to me that the last refuge of any shallow philosophy that cannot defend itself with logic and reason is the court. When beliefs are indefensible make any offense a criminal action.

Finally, what about my beliefs as a non-religious believer? Shouldn’t I be equally protected by law from offensive remarks made by religious believers who think nothing of calling me immoral and condemning me to an eternity of pain and suffering?

The whole “anti-blasphemy” concept is a joke and antithetical in any nation that repects freedom of thought, speech and the press. Sadly it appears the list of nations that respect those freedoms is shrinking.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Atheist given Asbo for leaflets mocking Jesus (telegraph.co.uk)
• Keeping a bigot at arm’s length (washingtonmonthly.com)
• South Park, Muhammad, Jesus, and the Media (beliefnet.com)
• Belief in a sky fairy may get you a lighter sentence (seantheblogonaut.com)
• Indonesia: Court upholds blasphemy law (tea-and-politics.blogspot.com)

Print Friendly

Anti-blasphemy laws are coming, I have little doubt. And they won’t be used to only protect Muslims from offense. Defenders of religious belief seem to think they are exempt from satire and criticism. One day soon they’ll have international law on their side and freedom of speech (where protected) will have to step aside to permit imprisonment or death for those who dare disagree with the church.

Am I over-stating the situation? I don’t think so. Consider the following:

A German cartoon mocking the Catholic Church has sparked holy outrage among believers here who say it incites hatred against the Pope and the Catholic faith.

The caricature, published in the Good Friday edition of satire magazine Titanic, shows a priest apparently having oral sex with a crucifix of Jesus on the cross.
The crucifix cartoon is a barbed commentary on recent revelations that 250 people in Germany were sexual abused at Church-run schools in the past decades. The scandal has shaken the German Church. A recent poll said Germans’ trust in the Catholic Church had fallen to 17% from 29% in late January and approval ratings for Pope Benedict have dropped from 38% to 24%.

The German Press Council reported that some 100 formal complaints have been filed since the magazine came out, a level of protest not seen since 2006, when German newspaper Die Welt reprinted the infamous Danish Mohammed cartoons.

Two criminal complaints have also been filed against the cartoonist and the editors of Titanic, claiming the picture slanders their religion. The state prosecutors office in Frankfurt, where Titanic is based, said it would decide next week whether to begin an investigation against the magazine.

“We were shocked — shocked! — By the reaction to the cartoon,” Titanic editor-in-chief Leo Fischer told THR, his tongue firmly in cheek. “It shows a priest cleaning the crucifix. … I find it strange that Catholics immediately think of sex when they see it.”

I wasn’t surprised when Muslim nations attempted to outlaw blasphemy by establishing an international law exempting religious belief from criticism. After all, Islam isn’t a religion noted for its tolerance of opposing views. I confess I wasn’t expecting the next nation to enact anti-blasphemy laws to be Ireland. I fully expect Vatican City to soon pass its own anti-blasphemy law. Perhaps the Catholic Church will follow the Scientology method of eliminating criticism.

I submit there are two primary motivations behind the efforts of religious sects to have their beliefs protected by law against criticism. The first is the unprecedented exposure of the less than savory aspects and activities of these groups on the internet. Never before have critics had a vehicle like the internet with which to publish and document religion’s dark side. Even those trapped in militant theocracies can speak out in anonymity to the rest of the world. Since the defenders of the faith cannot deny the allegations they attempt to criminalize the exposures.

The second primary factor is the increasing irrelevance of religion among the world’s citizens. As more natural explanations are found for those phenomena once attributed to the gods, the less all-powerful the gods become. As we enter the 21st century, 1st century explanations are unsatisfactory and easily dismissed. In our modern world there is little reason to believe in the gods. They serve no useful purpose and offer scant comfort. As the masses cease to allow the god’s representatives here on Earth total freedom to behave as they wish, the priests and imams begin to panic. Their hold on the people who once blindly followed them and excused them for their excessive and immoral lifestyles is lessening. They are no longer able to keep their sheep in line with threats of godly displeasure and eternal damnation. So they do what, in the end, all dictators and despots do. They attempt to use the force of law to enforce their beliefs. Not satisfied to demonize their detractors, they try to criminalize them. Non-believers might not be impressed with being consigned to a non-existent hell, but they can’t deny the living hell of being imprisoned.

Religious belief does not always simply fade away without a whimper. Too many times in history we’ve seen that just before a fanatical regime disappears it fights the hardest to survive. It has no regard for the damage it inflicts on humanity in its efforts to remain powerful and relevant.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Taking Up the Dr. Seuss School of Catholicism (time.com)
• My Letter to the Catholic Church (slog.thestranger.com)
• Catholic church hotline in meltdown over paedophile priests (telegraph.co.uk)
• Everybody’s a blasphemer – Herb Silverman (newsweek.washingtonpost.com)
• German bishop denounces church’s failures (cbc.ca)
• Senior Vatican Priest Compares Scrutiny Over Abuse Scandal To Jewish Persecution (oliverwillis.com)
• A sense of the sacred | Nick Spencer (guardian.co.uk)
• Irish atheists fight new blasphemy laws (trueslant.com)

Print Friendly

In an effort to rebuild our relationship with the United Nations, an effort that is being questioned by many Americans, the Obama administration has chosen to support an agenda that contradicts our own Constitution.

The United States has backed a new UN resolution on free expression which would be considered unconstitutional under its First Amendment — which protects freedom of expression and bans sanctioning of religions.

The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.

While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.

“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”

France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.

On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.

“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship)

As Jonathan Turley comments at USAToday,

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

While I respect the right of any person to believe as they wish, I also believe that the right to speak our minds freely and without fear of reprisal, intimidation or sanction is a hallmark of Western democracy. We should not surrender our rights in order to provide uncertain security in the face of violent opposition to contrary opinions. Ben Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

There is no reason to provide special protection to religious beliefs. The fear that religious believers will suffer “incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them” is nonsensical. The majority of people on the planet are religious. Religious believers hold most of the positions of power in both the East and West. They have no reason to fear the opinions of the minority. The most immediate danger to any believer in a particular god are those who believe in another god.

Criticism is not necessarily an act of hatred. Quite often criticism is an act of love. If a family member has become enslaved to drug addiction, is it an act of discrimination or hatred to criticize their addiction? If I firmly believe my country, a country I willingly served to defend, is headed in a dangerous and unconstitutional direction, should I remain mute?

Religious belief in a generic sense is predominant among humans around the globe. But there is little agreement as to the nature of the god the religious believe in. What anti-blasphemy resolutions seek to achieve will result in the inability of Baptists to speak out against the Catholic Church or reasonable people to object to the foolishness of Scientology. We will have to remain silent when Iran decides to execute those who oppose their theocracy or happen to be homosexual. Any theocratic government will be exempt from criticism by anyone for any reason.

The philosophical and legal quagmire with such legislation centers around the definition of “blasphemy.” Practically every religion, sect and cult possesses concepts that are blasphemous to another. As an important example, while Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Muslims consider him a mere prophet, albeit an important one. Calling Christ the “Son of God,” however, is viewed as “blasphemous” within Islam, as is not believing in Mohammed as Allah’s final and most important prophet. Under such anti-blasphemy legislation, therefore, all Christian literature could be confiscated and Christians arrested, because at its very core, Christianity would represent “blasphemous material” that could cause—and has caused—outrage many times in the Muslim world, explaining in part why the Bible is banned in such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia.

Beware Of “Defamation Of Religion” Censorship!

This subject both fascinates me and fills me with dread. It’s fairly obvious that Christians in the West are growing just as intolerant of criticism and challenge as the Muslims in the East. When our government bows to pressure from the theists and supports blasphemy laws that directly contradict our Constitution the groundwork is being laid for the further erosion of our freedom of speech. I worry for the future of our secular and pluralistic republic.

Pat Condell says it better than I can, as usual.

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. criticizes attempts to bar defamation of religion (ctv.ca)
• The right to offend (guardian.co.uk)
• Interview – 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We are Atheists (butterfliesandwheels.com)
• UN rights body approves US-Egypt free speech text (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Blasphemy Day (tuibguy.com)
• Transparency, Creativity, and Heresy (insightscoop.typepad.com)

Print Friendly

If I may, I’d like to introduce into evidence the following letter, written by the founder of the FSM movement. Who should know better the purpose of the concept of the FSM than the person who created it?

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
(graph of relationship between the number of pirates and the global average temperature and a drawing of the FSM not included in this quote)

The concept has been borrowed by atheists and applied to religious faith in general, but the original focus of the parody was the Kansas School Board fiasco over the Intellectual Design movement.

Can satire ridicule and humiliate? Sure, watch Life of Brian and Monty Python and the Holy Grail sometime (both available from Netflix-awarded five stars by this reviewer). But satire is also useful in making people think instead of presume, to look at familiar situations from a different perspective.

When it comes to granting an unwarranted exemption-from-criticism to religious belief I agree with AC Grayling when he writes,

It is time to reverse the prevailing notion that religious commitment is intrinsically deserving of respect, and that it should be handled with kid gloves and protected by custom and in some cases law against criticism and ridicule.

It is time to refuse to tip-toe around people who claim respect, consideration, special treatment, or any other kind of immunity, on the grounds that they have a religious faith, as if having faith were a privilege-endowing virtue, as if it were noble to believe in unsupported claims and ancient superstitions. It is neither. Faith is a commitment to belief contrary to evidence and reason, as between them Kierkegaard and the tale of Doubting Thomas are at pains to show; their example should lay to rest the endeavours of some (from the Pope to the Southern Baptists) who try to argue that faith is other than at least non-rational, given that for Kierkegaard its virtue precisely lies in its irrationality.

On the contrary: to believe something in the face of evidence and against reason – to believe something by faith – is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect. It is time to say so.

Those who claim to be “hurt” or “offended” by the criticisms or ridicule of people who do not share their views, yet who seek to silence others by law or by threats of violence, are trebly in the wrong: they undermine the central and fundamental value of free speech, without which no other civil liberties are possible; they claim, on no justifiable ground, a right to special status and special treatment on the sole ground that they have chosen to believe a set of propositions; and they demand that people who do not accept their beliefs and practices should treat these latter in ways that implicitly accept their holder’s evaluation of them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/19/acgrayling

It’s clear that the original intent of the FSM proposal was specifically to challenge the philosophical underpinnings of the ID movement in its attempt to infiltrate the Kansas high school science curriculum. I submit it could be successfully argued that the FSM has been co-opted by atheism to illustrate how religions are formed and how difficult they are to debunk. In neither case do I believe there is evidence of intent to ridicule or humiliate believers.

However, we all know that intent does not guarantee a particular outcome. Similarly, intent does not protect against mis-perceptions. If offense is taken by satire directed against religious belief, it must be understood that this is a choice, the insulted party is responsible for their perception. No one knows another mind completely. If one chooses to take offense the intent of the “offender” matters little.

There are many people I go out of my way not to offend. I respect them and feel they deserve this from me. Some of them I know as individuals while others are members of groups that as a group earn respect.

Religious believers is not a group that has earned respect, and loses points of respect every time I hear them demanding it or threatening what they’ll do if they don’t get it. Atheists are expected to passively submit to frequent postings on the internet and statements by people with whom we associate that portray atheists as evil, devil worshipers, Satanists, Communists, molesters, rapists, doomed to hell to suffer eternal torment for having the audacity to question the gods and to laugh at the belief in them. And while not taking offense ourselves, we’re expected to offer respect to those who espouse and announce such judgmental ignorance. In fact, we’re further castigated for not showing respect to our overlords, just another sin added to an already long list. Sure, that sounds reasonable. Let me throw myself in the mud so that you may step on me and avoid becoming soiled, my lord.

Theism is horrified by the realization that atheism has finally developed into a formidable foe. There is a growing number of atheists who can defend their opinion with intelligence and citations. A growing number of “celebrity atheists” are emerging, outspoken and out of the closet, the beginning of a well prepared counterforce to the Jim Bakkers and Pat Robertsons we’ve had since the beginning of this nation. And the FSM is one of those celebrity atheists. Some branches of theism despise cartoons about their prophets and gods, but now atheism has its own.

The FSM is an appropriate satire on several levels. It was successful in exposing the true intentions of Dembski, Behe and their fellows. It’s equally effective when used by atheists to draw attention to the often overlooked weaknesses in the arguments supporting the notion that gods exist.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Handy Table Comparing FSM, Evo, ID, Creationism (tuibguy.com)
• Monty Python, minus Cleese, reunite for Not the Messiah in London (tvsquad.com)
• Religion and Evolution (prep4md.blogspot.com)
• Behe’s “objectionable” interview reinstated (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• Liars for Jesus (endhereditaryreligion.com)
• Meme or Gene: Is the Belief in Religion an Evolutionary Trait? (agentultra.com)

Print Friendly

I despair when I encounter people like this in RL and on the net. They should be the punchlines of jokes, they ought to be caricatures. But they’re real, they really exist, really vote, really have kids and most likely an active sex life. THAT RIGHT THERE PROVES THERE’S NO JUSTICE IN THIS LIFE!!

I feel so sad for humanity knowing people who “think” like this are still around. These are the guys who fly planes into buildings, or would if they could and if Christian fanatics had as big a pair of balls as the Muslims. Instead they kill doctors and innocents, justifying it by blaming it on god, using an idea to excuse their inhumanity.

Beliefs like these stifle human progress, they retard our evolution. Religious belief is essentially retarded (note: I’m not calling believers retarded, not explicitly anyway). It can never advance in understanding past its origin 2000 years ago (or less depending on the religion). At the time Christianity was invented, for example, it proclaimed itself to be the ultimate truth, the zenith of knowledge. Implicit in that belief is the sad fact that nothing more could be added to the “wisdom” in the Bible. Access to further knowledge and understanding of our universe was closed. Everything you needed to know, would ever need to know, was in the Bible. Of course not just anyone could read and interpret the holy writings. We needed a priest class to act as intermediaries between just the words claimed to be god’s and humanity. Others claimed to be intermediaries between the god itself and humanity. Lay people, ministers and theologians have been at each other’s throats ever since.

Humanists and atheists don’t accept limitations on knowledge. We confess our ignorance of so much. But we, like everyone else, have a standard that has to be met when it comes to what we’ll accept as truth. Not absolute truth, conditional truth is as good as it gets. Our standards are high, our tolerance for bullshit low. If we’ve listened to what you have to say (and I don’t know an American who hasn’t heard what Christians have to say), and we’ve dismissed it as inadequate, don’t be obnoxious and try to imply there’s any aspect to your religion we haven’t already considered and discarded. It’s a done deal. Unlike Christians, we don’t want to answer 21st century questions with 2000 year old answers. Humans have developed tools and techniques unknown to ancient goat herders that allow us to answer questions we didn’t even have 5 years ago.

Yet humanity, by and large, prefers to embrace superstitions rather than face realities.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The god of abuse (endhereditaryreligion.com)
• How to Graduate From Christianity (stevepavlina.com)
• Liveblog: Homosexuality sermon at Church of the Resurrection (hackingchristianity.net)

Print Friendly

I spend quite a bit of time in forums. I can attest to the reality of the following video. I have seen these same comments, most likely copy/pasted from some religious site, being posted as either evidence for the Christian god or as a challenge to atheists.

They really write this shit. Now here’s what this inanity sounds like when spoken by young, white, apparently sane young men:

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mississippi Woman Diverts Tornado Through Prayer (msatheists.org)
• If Atheists Ruled the World (inquisitr.com)

Print Friendly

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

• Berlinski on Atheism’s “Scientific Pretensions” (schansblog.blogspot.com)
• Shut Up, That’s Why (tuibguy.com)
• Atheist Revolution (rwandanatheist.blogspot.com)

Print Friendly

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

• Evolving Beliefs (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Religion in the Brain (delanydean.com)
• Religion: Biological Accident, Adaptation — or Both (wired.com)
• Reclaiming the Irrational from the Religious (3quarksdaily.com)

Print Friendly