Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Friday, March 23, 2012
Monday, October 11, 2010
Point of Inquiry: PZ Myers vs. Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney
Point of Inquiry's latest podcast featured biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers discussing accomodationism with host Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney. It quickly turned into a two-on-one debate with PZ holding his own (and his apparent temper) quite well.
Here's the link: http://pointofinquiry.libsyn.com/rss
The core of the issue is this: Should atheists be nicer to theists about their incorrect ideas, simply because they might be liberal, progressive, or even scientists advancing some of the same causes in the realm of science education and critical-thinking?
For example, does Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project and now head of the National Institute for Science get a 'free pass' from is nutball brand of theism?
PZ was totally right on the money essentially saying that no idea is exempt from scrutiny.
Simply because we're in majority agreement with someone is no 'free pass' for bad ideas. I may think highly of someone, but if he/she claims to be psychic or sincerely advances some other woo, the skeptical boxing gloves come out and my opponent better be ready. I don't see god claims as any different or less erroneous than claims about homeopathy, acupuncture, Autism-vaccine stupidity, moon-hoax claims and the Chupacabra.
Jennifer Michael Hecht made a vague accusation to PZ that 'you might be a little wrong', but this is a statement that doesn't make any specific claim against PZ. Instead, she is defending a straw-audience of people she has deemed too delicate to handle the scrutiny of claims that she herself has rejected.
Despite the lighter tone of accomodationist atheists, they've rejected Biblical claims as much as PZ or Richard Dawkins and according to many Bibles, are going to a Hell that's just as hot. After all, Psalms 14:1 does not just call the 'aggressive atheists' fools, it deems us all fools and claims we've done abominable works and that none of us has done good.
Why would someone who rejects religious claims fret about the tone of another atheist who openly rejects the same claims, for an unspecified audience? In my view, it's a gross underestimation of the resilience of people who CAN handle hearing a tone she thinks is too much for them. So, while PZ might seem too harsh to some, Chris Mooney and Jennifer Michael Hecht simply underestimate people and their ability to deal with dissent, but they're all atheists who probably arrived at their conclusions in different ways.
It's like me strongly rejecting racist claims, and then some fellow-racist-denier says, 'hey, don't you think you're being a little harsh on the racists?'. Yes, because racism is wrong, and it needs to be resisted, but the racists would likely take offense to either of our arguments. Style be damned, the message is the same, and some styles work better for some than others.
This issue here is not being 'a little wrong', it's about specific claims and how no erroneous idea is exempt from scrutiny. Why all the fuss about tone between people who agree that no religion they've heard to date is worth believing?
How do the memes of religion spread in the first place? Why are so many people currently infected with bad cases of religion? Most people were simply told to believe the religious ideas they're infected with, and often at a young age where these bad ideas bypass their undeveloped logic.
The voices which might object to these claims have either been silenced, excluded, drowned-out by the masses and sometimes outright killed. Why on Earth in 2010 should theists expect any special treatment when religion brought us hundreds of years of Dark Ages, and continues to be a blight on progress?
While Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry are both atheists, they seem to somehow want to avoid 'offending' theists, especially those who are 'on our side' when it comes key issues such as reproductive rights, evolution, science in general, etc.
The mistake Jennifer and Chris make is that they wrongly assume that most theists (or people) necessarily shut down when 'offended', assuming they're offended at all by mere skepticism.
Some people can handle direct confrontation of even their most sacred ideas, and others want to kill us for merely drawing cartoons or even just admitting to being insufficiently pious, let alone an atheist. If we encourage logical accomodation, then we dim the voices of dissent, and I think that's an exceedingly bad idea when unchecked religion can inspire such suffering.
The Christian Bible even says that atheists are 'fools' and that there are 'none that doeth good' in Psalms 14:1, and some christians actually call this the 'good book'! Sorry, what was that about tone again? Islam recommends death for any who leave Islam and has a practice where women are oppressed, worth half of a man and sometimes killed to 'restore honor' if they get raped, date the wrong person or not properly covered with the Hijab, Abaya and Burqa. Sorry, what was that about tone?
As we've seen, Islam motivates its adherents to 'slay the Infidel', and people such as Kurt Westergaard or Molly Norris are threatened with death for drawing the 'offensive' cartoons about Mohammad, and there's already been an attempt on Kurt Westergaard's life...good thing he had a special saferoom installed in his house. Theo Van Gogh wasn't so lucky, he was murdered for his movie about Islam called 'Submission', and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, his partner, is still under armed guard.
Historically, there's a common theme with religion: It likes to silence its opposition. The answer is not less skepticism or 'nicer' skepticism but to stay the course. What we're seeing is two different worlds: Islam is how the world is when religion has too much power. Unchecked dogma leads not just hurt feelings but outright suppression of dissent.
While Christianity is more reformed, its adherents often encourage dissenters to be silent either because they consider it rude, impious, blasphemous and otherwise uncomfortable to deal with...but there was a time when Christianity's answer to 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' was oppression or death....kind of where Islam is now. We can thank skeptics and science for the reform forced on Christianity, and that same skeptical fortitude will eventually tame Islam but it won't go quietly into the night.
Skepticism and critical-thinking should be employed early and often, regardless of who it offends. The fact is, sometimes you get through to people whether its the more aggressive forms of atheism from Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or PZ Myers, or the accomodationist styles of Jennifer Michael Hecht or Chris Mooney. Reason works, but only if someone has agreed to honor reason over dogma. Failing that, ridicule is often a good counter for those being dishonest with their foundational assumptions or who refuse to acknowledge a lost point.
There will *always* be those offended by atheists or even skeptics whether we simply identify as such, wear a Darwin shirt or bring scathing critique in full-length, best-selling books. We need to encourage critical-thought and not further foster the silly idea that beliefs have merit just because they're sincerely held. Beliefs have to be justified, and nobody and more importantly, *no idea* is exempt from this. No belief should be respected merely because it's sincerely-held, just as we wouldn't respect the sincere beliefs of racists, sexists, homophobes, Creationists, anti-vaxxers, birthers, moon-hoaxers or those who claim to have a private audience with space-pixies.
Personally, I am very grateful for the person who openly-questioned my sincere Christian beliefs when I was 20. A month later, I was an atheist. My de-conversion was exceedingly fast (with some emotional upheaval), but I know others who I've personally helped de-convert who also became atheists rather quickly once the logic set-in. I have an aggressive skeptical style which doesn't tolerate logical inconsistency that well since I tend to see it as dishonesty.
If that person many years ago hadn't had the intestinal fortitude to question my beliefs, I might be posting a Christian blog entry today. I'd have much less respect for someone who lets me languish in the land of delusion simply because he or she didn't want to hurt my feelings...and put his/her personal comfort over facts.
Those who sacrifice personal comfort to question your assumptions are actually doing you a favor. The proper tack here is not to suppress critical-review, but to embrace it, check your assumptions, and be glad we can actually have a conversation without being burned at the stake for heresy.
-dB-
Here's the link: http://pointofinquiry.libsyn.com/rss
The core of the issue is this: Should atheists be nicer to theists about their incorrect ideas, simply because they might be liberal, progressive, or even scientists advancing some of the same causes in the realm of science education and critical-thinking?
For example, does Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project and now head of the National Institute for Science get a 'free pass' from is nutball brand of theism?
PZ was totally right on the money essentially saying that no idea is exempt from scrutiny.
Simply because we're in majority agreement with someone is no 'free pass' for bad ideas. I may think highly of someone, but if he/she claims to be psychic or sincerely advances some other woo, the skeptical boxing gloves come out and my opponent better be ready. I don't see god claims as any different or less erroneous than claims about homeopathy, acupuncture, Autism-vaccine stupidity, moon-hoax claims and the Chupacabra.
Jennifer Michael Hecht made a vague accusation to PZ that 'you might be a little wrong', but this is a statement that doesn't make any specific claim against PZ. Instead, she is defending a straw-audience of people she has deemed too delicate to handle the scrutiny of claims that she herself has rejected.
Despite the lighter tone of accomodationist atheists, they've rejected Biblical claims as much as PZ or Richard Dawkins and according to many Bibles, are going to a Hell that's just as hot. After all, Psalms 14:1 does not just call the 'aggressive atheists' fools, it deems us all fools and claims we've done abominable works and that none of us has done good.
Why would someone who rejects religious claims fret about the tone of another atheist who openly rejects the same claims, for an unspecified audience? In my view, it's a gross underestimation of the resilience of people who CAN handle hearing a tone she thinks is too much for them. So, while PZ might seem too harsh to some, Chris Mooney and Jennifer Michael Hecht simply underestimate people and their ability to deal with dissent, but they're all atheists who probably arrived at their conclusions in different ways.
It's like me strongly rejecting racist claims, and then some fellow-racist-denier says, 'hey, don't you think you're being a little harsh on the racists?'. Yes, because racism is wrong, and it needs to be resisted, but the racists would likely take offense to either of our arguments. Style be damned, the message is the same, and some styles work better for some than others.
This issue here is not being 'a little wrong', it's about specific claims and how no erroneous idea is exempt from scrutiny. Why all the fuss about tone between people who agree that no religion they've heard to date is worth believing?
How do the memes of religion spread in the first place? Why are so many people currently infected with bad cases of religion? Most people were simply told to believe the religious ideas they're infected with, and often at a young age where these bad ideas bypass their undeveloped logic.
The voices which might object to these claims have either been silenced, excluded, drowned-out by the masses and sometimes outright killed. Why on Earth in 2010 should theists expect any special treatment when religion brought us hundreds of years of Dark Ages, and continues to be a blight on progress?
While Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry are both atheists, they seem to somehow want to avoid 'offending' theists, especially those who are 'on our side' when it comes key issues such as reproductive rights, evolution, science in general, etc.
The mistake Jennifer and Chris make is that they wrongly assume that most theists (or people) necessarily shut down when 'offended', assuming they're offended at all by mere skepticism.
Some people can handle direct confrontation of even their most sacred ideas, and others want to kill us for merely drawing cartoons or even just admitting to being insufficiently pious, let alone an atheist. If we encourage logical accomodation, then we dim the voices of dissent, and I think that's an exceedingly bad idea when unchecked religion can inspire such suffering.
The Christian Bible even says that atheists are 'fools' and that there are 'none that doeth good' in Psalms 14:1, and some christians actually call this the 'good book'! Sorry, what was that about tone again? Islam recommends death for any who leave Islam and has a practice where women are oppressed, worth half of a man and sometimes killed to 'restore honor' if they get raped, date the wrong person or not properly covered with the Hijab, Abaya and Burqa. Sorry, what was that about tone?
As we've seen, Islam motivates its adherents to 'slay the Infidel', and people such as Kurt Westergaard or Molly Norris are threatened with death for drawing the 'offensive' cartoons about Mohammad, and there's already been an attempt on Kurt Westergaard's life...good thing he had a special saferoom installed in his house. Theo Van Gogh wasn't so lucky, he was murdered for his movie about Islam called 'Submission', and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, his partner, is still under armed guard.
Historically, there's a common theme with religion: It likes to silence its opposition. The answer is not less skepticism or 'nicer' skepticism but to stay the course. What we're seeing is two different worlds: Islam is how the world is when religion has too much power. Unchecked dogma leads not just hurt feelings but outright suppression of dissent.
While Christianity is more reformed, its adherents often encourage dissenters to be silent either because they consider it rude, impious, blasphemous and otherwise uncomfortable to deal with...but there was a time when Christianity's answer to 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' was oppression or death....kind of where Islam is now. We can thank skeptics and science for the reform forced on Christianity, and that same skeptical fortitude will eventually tame Islam but it won't go quietly into the night.
Skepticism and critical-thinking should be employed early and often, regardless of who it offends. The fact is, sometimes you get through to people whether its the more aggressive forms of atheism from Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or PZ Myers, or the accomodationist styles of Jennifer Michael Hecht or Chris Mooney. Reason works, but only if someone has agreed to honor reason over dogma. Failing that, ridicule is often a good counter for those being dishonest with their foundational assumptions or who refuse to acknowledge a lost point.
There will *always* be those offended by atheists or even skeptics whether we simply identify as such, wear a Darwin shirt or bring scathing critique in full-length, best-selling books. We need to encourage critical-thought and not further foster the silly idea that beliefs have merit just because they're sincerely held. Beliefs have to be justified, and nobody and more importantly, *no idea* is exempt from this. No belief should be respected merely because it's sincerely-held, just as we wouldn't respect the sincere beliefs of racists, sexists, homophobes, Creationists, anti-vaxxers, birthers, moon-hoaxers or those who claim to have a private audience with space-pixies.
Personally, I am very grateful for the person who openly-questioned my sincere Christian beliefs when I was 20. A month later, I was an atheist. My de-conversion was exceedingly fast (with some emotional upheaval), but I know others who I've personally helped de-convert who also became atheists rather quickly once the logic set-in. I have an aggressive skeptical style which doesn't tolerate logical inconsistency that well since I tend to see it as dishonesty.
If that person many years ago hadn't had the intestinal fortitude to question my beliefs, I might be posting a Christian blog entry today. I'd have much less respect for someone who lets me languish in the land of delusion simply because he or she didn't want to hurt my feelings...and put his/her personal comfort over facts.
Those who sacrifice personal comfort to question your assumptions are actually doing you a favor. The proper tack here is not to suppress critical-review, but to embrace it, check your assumptions, and be glad we can actually have a conversation without being burned at the stake for heresy.
-dB-
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The practical benefits of atheism.
And now for something completely similar, the practical benefits of atheism!
Ok, maybe this has been done before, but I am compiling my own list off the top of my head.
1. Sleep in on Fri. Sat. Sun. or whatever day the predominant religion in your culture insists you get up early to reinforce your claim of faith with sleep-deprived co-miserators. In essence, you're 'Taking Back Sunday'. Or Friday, or Saturday. ;)
2. No waiting around. Since you won't be praying, there's no need to wait around wondering when the all-powerful creator of the Universe will see fit to help you clear up that zit before your date with Jamie in accounting.
Worse, you won't have to wonder why he DID clear up your pimple but made a ginormous tsunami for Southeast Asia, or giant earthquakes for Chile and Haiti.
3. You are now free to embrace science. Since you no longer believe in a bible of any sort, you're free to appeal to reason and logic, as well as offer provisional acceptance of the peer-reviewed opinions of experts in the sciences. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old? No problem. We share common ancestry with other primates? Great! Atheists don't need to shun any established, peer-reviewed science due to supernatural claims which contradict that science. If the science is valid, it gets published. If peer review can't falsify it, it stands. Atheists don't have conclusions about reality that they need to twist reality to fit, since atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any god(s). The pursuit of facts is unfettered by religious dogma.
4. You don't have to fear looking stupid. As a theist, your faith is all well and good until you run into a non-believer who can undermine your religious logic in a few sentences. You won't have to face another believer who should agree on some basic doctrine but doesn't!
5. If you encounter another believer you disagree with, you're faced with the futile task of convincing him or her with dogma when the dogma of others hasn't yet swayed you. Worse, you won't have to be made into an ass when you trot our ridiculous arguments in favor of god in front of real skeptics, making yourself and humankind look like muttering crazies and forcing you into intellectualy uncomfortable position of dishonesty, excuses, transparent distractions, intimidation or attempting to silence or run from the messenger. On some level, theists know the weaknesses of their arguments, which is probably why some resort to childish distractions and intellectual dishonesty when their claims are challenged head-on.
6. Save money. No more dumping money in to the coffers of kid-diddlers or rich churches who squander it on hush money or support legislation which might impinge your rights and the rights of your loved ones (read: Prop H8 funded by the Mormon church). Instead, save your money or give it directly to causes you support. Most churches don't even pay taxes in the U.S., so you're going to be supporting them indirectly anyway, so you may as well stop giving them extra.
7. Save time and energy. It takes effort for all those unanswered prayers, and your food gets cold in the process. Bar/Bat Mitzvahs cost money, time and energy as well as Baptisms, Communions, Confirmations. Hell that chicken you're using in your Santeria ritual might be better off eaten fried with a side of corn rather than just wasted on some pointless ceremony...or just leave that chicken alone to do what it will.
8. No religious reason to get married. Weddings are generally religiously-inspired and cost a huge amount, and even if you get to choose your own bride or groom you're still often left with a gargantuan bar tab. Atheists don't need to pray, waste time and effort in church or church events, spend resources on magic rituals or buy religious paraphernalia of any sort. If you're not religious, you'll almost certainly never be one of those poor people who spend their life savings making Benny Hinn rich thinking he'll cure your cancer, which he most likely won't, and amputees, you're right out!
9. Nobody asks atheists to kill or die for atheism. You don't see Sweden standing at the border of Denmark, ready to convert passive atheists to explicit atheism! You don't see the French Universalists invading the UK to forcibly convert agnostics. Atheists don't strap bombs to themselves in the name of Darwin to blow up those who espouse the science of Einstein or who mention Wallace in the same sentence. Lacking belief in a religion is without dogma and thus, there's nothing to die or kill for. Imagine that. (The astute reader will note the homage to John Lennon's song, 'Imagine').
10. No enforced silliness or crazy rituals: No funny suits, clothing, hats, berkas, hijab, habits, skullcaps, fFez, pointy duncecaps, dresses, robes, etc. No speaking in tongues or 'Glossalalia' as it were, no slaying in the spirit or having to talk to perfect strangers with uncomfortable intimacy. No confessions to the celibate, no virtual cannibalism, animal sacrifice, blood drinking (as wine or otherwise), no zombie beliefs, or circumcision (male or female) and omg leave the poor virgins alone!
11. No violating naughty bits! Naughty bits remain untouched in atheism. There's no need to circumcise boys (or girls for that matter) as a part of not believing in sky pixies. Your kid's nether-regions can remain unscathed and untouched by the meddling hands of doctors or Sandeks by those who deem there to be some pressing galactic reason why the omnipotent creator of the Universe finds them unecessary or offensive.
12. Relationships, you get to pick your own girlfriend/boyfriend or spouse, and you even get to have sex with before marriage! Arranged marriages are practically unheard-of as a direct tenet of atheism, since atheism of course has no tenets and they don't believe there's any tenant in 'Heaven' either. Hell, as an atheist, there's no pressure to even get married if you don't want to, and no instruction against gay marriage or even poly-amory among consenting adults.
13. Politics. Vote how you want. There's no atheist doctrine or masses of churchgoers asking you to vote in lockstep. Republican one year, democrat the next...green party....well nevermind the green party. Vote how you want!
14. Food. Eat how you want. If you like pork shank with dairy, have at it. Meat on good Friday? Pass the steak-sauce. Passover? Pass it right over. Ramadan? Eat that Top Ramen™ till you're Ramadone. No starvation or simu-fasting in atheism. Nobody's passing around atheist food prohibitions and it's not likely to happen anytime soon.
Googol. Religion invariably restricts freedom, expression and social-progress.
Without religion, you're free to make your own choices for logical and ethical reasons without consulting the myth of one of 80,000 some-odd religions. Whether the issue is personal freedoms, sex, food, dress, behavior, etc., religion has no say in the life of an atheist. Instead, any restrictions in personal freedoms must be sold with an appeal to logic and reason, not mere dogma and tradition.
Religion has been on the wrong side of most social issues, including gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, atheist rights, unpopular opinons or self-expression and science in general.
The very definition of 'freethinker' is one who thinks about religion outside the confines of tradition and dogma....and the extra day to sleep in doesn't hurt either.
-dB-
Ok, maybe this has been done before, but I am compiling my own list off the top of my head.
1. Sleep in on Fri. Sat. Sun. or whatever day the predominant religion in your culture insists you get up early to reinforce your claim of faith with sleep-deprived co-miserators. In essence, you're 'Taking Back Sunday'. Or Friday, or Saturday. ;)
2. No waiting around. Since you won't be praying, there's no need to wait around wondering when the all-powerful creator of the Universe will see fit to help you clear up that zit before your date with Jamie in accounting.
Worse, you won't have to wonder why he DID clear up your pimple but made a ginormous tsunami for Southeast Asia, or giant earthquakes for Chile and Haiti.
3. You are now free to embrace science. Since you no longer believe in a bible of any sort, you're free to appeal to reason and logic, as well as offer provisional acceptance of the peer-reviewed opinions of experts in the sciences. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old? No problem. We share common ancestry with other primates? Great! Atheists don't need to shun any established, peer-reviewed science due to supernatural claims which contradict that science. If the science is valid, it gets published. If peer review can't falsify it, it stands. Atheists don't have conclusions about reality that they need to twist reality to fit, since atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any god(s). The pursuit of facts is unfettered by religious dogma.
4. You don't have to fear looking stupid. As a theist, your faith is all well and good until you run into a non-believer who can undermine your religious logic in a few sentences. You won't have to face another believer who should agree on some basic doctrine but doesn't!
5. If you encounter another believer you disagree with, you're faced with the futile task of convincing him or her with dogma when the dogma of others hasn't yet swayed you. Worse, you won't have to be made into an ass when you trot our ridiculous arguments in favor of god in front of real skeptics, making yourself and humankind look like muttering crazies and forcing you into intellectualy uncomfortable position of dishonesty, excuses, transparent distractions, intimidation or attempting to silence or run from the messenger. On some level, theists know the weaknesses of their arguments, which is probably why some resort to childish distractions and intellectual dishonesty when their claims are challenged head-on.
6. Save money. No more dumping money in to the coffers of kid-diddlers or rich churches who squander it on hush money or support legislation which might impinge your rights and the rights of your loved ones (read: Prop H8 funded by the Mormon church). Instead, save your money or give it directly to causes you support. Most churches don't even pay taxes in the U.S., so you're going to be supporting them indirectly anyway, so you may as well stop giving them extra.
7. Save time and energy. It takes effort for all those unanswered prayers, and your food gets cold in the process. Bar/Bat Mitzvahs cost money, time and energy as well as Baptisms, Communions, Confirmations. Hell that chicken you're using in your Santeria ritual might be better off eaten fried with a side of corn rather than just wasted on some pointless ceremony...or just leave that chicken alone to do what it will.
8. No religious reason to get married. Weddings are generally religiously-inspired and cost a huge amount, and even if you get to choose your own bride or groom you're still often left with a gargantuan bar tab. Atheists don't need to pray, waste time and effort in church or church events, spend resources on magic rituals or buy religious paraphernalia of any sort. If you're not religious, you'll almost certainly never be one of those poor people who spend their life savings making Benny Hinn rich thinking he'll cure your cancer, which he most likely won't, and amputees, you're right out!
9. Nobody asks atheists to kill or die for atheism. You don't see Sweden standing at the border of Denmark, ready to convert passive atheists to explicit atheism! You don't see the French Universalists invading the UK to forcibly convert agnostics. Atheists don't strap bombs to themselves in the name of Darwin to blow up those who espouse the science of Einstein or who mention Wallace in the same sentence. Lacking belief in a religion is without dogma and thus, there's nothing to die or kill for. Imagine that. (The astute reader will note the homage to John Lennon's song, 'Imagine').
10. No enforced silliness or crazy rituals: No funny suits, clothing, hats, berkas, hijab, habits, skullcaps, fFez, pointy duncecaps, dresses, robes, etc. No speaking in tongues or 'Glossalalia' as it were, no slaying in the spirit or having to talk to perfect strangers with uncomfortable intimacy. No confessions to the celibate, no virtual cannibalism, animal sacrifice, blood drinking (as wine or otherwise), no zombie beliefs, or circumcision (male or female) and omg leave the poor virgins alone!
11. No violating naughty bits! Naughty bits remain untouched in atheism. There's no need to circumcise boys (or girls for that matter) as a part of not believing in sky pixies. Your kid's nether-regions can remain unscathed and untouched by the meddling hands of doctors or Sandeks by those who deem there to be some pressing galactic reason why the omnipotent creator of the Universe finds them unecessary or offensive.
12. Relationships, you get to pick your own girlfriend/boyfriend or spouse, and you even get to have sex with before marriage! Arranged marriages are practically unheard-of as a direct tenet of atheism, since atheism of course has no tenets and they don't believe there's any tenant in 'Heaven' either. Hell, as an atheist, there's no pressure to even get married if you don't want to, and no instruction against gay marriage or even poly-amory among consenting adults.
13. Politics. Vote how you want. There's no atheist doctrine or masses of churchgoers asking you to vote in lockstep. Republican one year, democrat the next...green party....well nevermind the green party. Vote how you want!
14. Food. Eat how you want. If you like pork shank with dairy, have at it. Meat on good Friday? Pass the steak-sauce. Passover? Pass it right over. Ramadan? Eat that Top Ramen™ till you're Ramadone. No starvation or simu-fasting in atheism. Nobody's passing around atheist food prohibitions and it's not likely to happen anytime soon.
Googol. Religion invariably restricts freedom, expression and social-progress.
Without religion, you're free to make your own choices for logical and ethical reasons without consulting the myth of one of 80,000 some-odd religions. Whether the issue is personal freedoms, sex, food, dress, behavior, etc., religion has no say in the life of an atheist. Instead, any restrictions in personal freedoms must be sold with an appeal to logic and reason, not mere dogma and tradition.
Religion has been on the wrong side of most social issues, including gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, atheist rights, unpopular opinons or self-expression and science in general.
The very definition of 'freethinker' is one who thinks about religion outside the confines of tradition and dogma....and the extra day to sleep in doesn't hurt either.
-dB-
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Not-So-Smart Discrimination
I am a smart-car owner. The smart brand is referred to as 'smart', lowercase by design, one-word, as you might say 'Honda' or 'Mini'. This is a great little car, and the only micro-sub compact sold on American shores. It's a one-liter, 70 horsepower, mid-engine car which is easy to park and gets 41 mph highway...that's the best MPG of any gas-using car in America, right behind the hybrids but at about 10K less to buy. Available in the U.S. since early 2008, the smart has been making inroads through Roger Penske's smart dealers into the American consciousness.
As a member of the Smart Car of America Forums (SCOA), I participate with other enthusiastic owners about all things smart.....the questions we're asked, aftermarket accessories, everything regarding dealers, maintenance, perks and quirks with the car, etc.
Who buys smarts? My answer to this question might have be: 'progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers with a penchant for embracing new ideas, with a tendency toward size-economy and the green movement'. It ain't necessarily so.
Sadly, this blog is about discrimination, which is something atheists face every day. See if you agree.
On the SCOA forum, I happened to be browsing the off-topic threads and saw that some smart-owners had started threads about who among them might be gay, with another thread asking who their fellow vegetarians/vegans were. Reading the threads myself, it seemed people were playing nicely and simply voicing another common interest among a receptive, progressive audience of other forum members clearly open to new ideas.
That was, until I started the 'Who here is an atheist smart-owner' thread. Here's what I wrote:
'Ok, I've seen the separate Gay and Vegan smart-owner threads, very interesting!
Here's my question: How many atheists drive smarts?
Is there any correlation between our maverick embrace of a new automotive paradigm and those who self-describe as atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious or non-believers of some sort?
The car itself represents a lot in my opinion: a willingness to be different, a witting/unwitting embrace of the green-movement and less oil-dependence, some-degree of environmental conscience, a willingness to favor economy of size over the 'bigger is better' mentality (even with threat of derision), and a more liberal/progressive political population (I realize there will be exceptions).
My hypothesis is that atheists would be over-represented by smart-car owners (per-capita).
This is by no means a scientific poll, but I am curious to see the responses.
Thanks in advance'.
Reasonable enough, wouldn't you say? Just like the gay and vegan threads, it's natural to ask who among other out-of-the-box thinkers might have left traditional ideas like religion, right?
Wrong. The thread was immediately closed by an admin with this comment.
'Forget it.“The following topics and links are prohibited on Smart Car of America Forums: Religion, Death Penalty, and Politics”
Ok, since when does identifying as an atheist necessarily constitute a religious argument or even religion? Atheism by definition is the *rejection* of religion as it literally means 'without theism' from the Greek form, 'theos'. A-theos is literally 'without god or belief in god'.
Ostensibly, the forum admins are trying to avoid controversy which might lead to pages of in-fighting (which people can choose to ignore), but what good is a forum moderator if they can't even be bothered to moderate potentially volatile threads? Again, this was in the 'off-topic' section which should mean smart-owners are free to discuss issues, as long as it doesn't devolve into pure name-calling and threats, and these threads can be moderated.
Instead, the powers-that-be at SCOA seem to feel more comfortable with outright censorship based on the 'rules', but I would think censorship is far more volatile than moderating a 'potentially' controversial thread. Those who find these threads offensive always have the choice of ignoring them.
My post was merely an informal poll, like the vegan and gay threads, and was specifically posed to see who among my fellow-smart drivers shared my lack of belief in god(s). This rule, as applied, would necessarily mean that nobody could ever identify as any religion on the forum, ever.
Look what another admin said when I complained about censorship. Quoted in relevant part:
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
Ok, so the identifying as an atheist clearly doesn't fall into these categories, yet the thread about which smart-owners might be gay certainly *does*. Talk about selective application of rules. The reader will note that she had nothing to say in her defense after she was called out on this. Of course not. There is a clear double-standard at work.
My friends, this is a clear case of censorship, even if it's in the 'rules'. Sometimes, rules are wrong or too-broadly applied. After all, there used to be little rules about minorities being segregated from the majority, or women not being allowed to vote.
In this day and age, it's shocking that this still happens, but sadly not surprising. What's even more distressing is the lack of visible protests from other members who might be atheists or know agnostics, or understand the injustice that's happening. There were a few on that forum in support, but mostly....silence and thus, a form of complicity.
Here's what the smug admin had to say when I complained about the thread closure in a private message:
Whatever flood of protests you are hoping for is going the other way (by PM) – it has been positive for the action taken. You are, so far, alone in this.If you are in need of the support of atheists owning smarts, you are free to participate in atheist sites elsewhere, and ask the same question. As a start you might try something at groups.yahoo or groups.google*
* Full URL omitted to avoid linking.
I see. So it's ok for a smart-owner to ask, in an off-topic section, about who in the forum might be gay or vegan (controversial for many), even though talking about 'sexually-oriented' content is in clear violation of the forum rules. Why is it not permissible to ask who might be atheist even though by itself it's not a religious argument? Add to that the smug way in which the admin tries to convince me I am 'alone in this' which is probably why he thought he could get away with such a thing. You see, fellow non-believers...this is exactly why some theists feel they can abuse non-believers.. We seek fair treatment, but we still get abuse and discrimination because some feel that we're such an insignificant or silent minority that we just don't matter. This is exactly why we need to be out of that 'other closet' en-masse as we've seen with the success of the gay-movement.
Tell someone they can't talk about being 'African' or 'Italian' and there would be hell to pay. Tell someone they can't mention that they are a Christian or Jew and you'd see a backlash. Why is the mere mention of identification with 'atheism' seen as a 'religious' statement? By this logic, mentioning that you're abstinent would be sexual harassment?
This may all seem trivial, but it's still discrimination, and it's a reflection of the 'majority rules' scenario which has historically trampled on the rights of the minority, simply because it was smugly thought that the majority could get away with it. As long as people are cowed into silence, we will never have a collective voice, and this is why it's so important for minorities, especially the most-hated minority (atheists) all over the world to speak out, be heard, be seen.
When people realize how populous this abused minority is, they might think twice about being so cavalier with discrimination, even in the small, annoying ways which happen every day.
Sure, most of us on the SCOA drive 'smart' cars, but by no means should anyone assume that all of us are logical, forward-thinking, progressive or even smart. It makes me very glad I didn't 'become a member' and give them my hard-earned money....but apparently they think atheists are such a tiny, insignificant minority that our opinions and support just don't matter. ...even in such a tiny-sub group known as 'Smart-Car Owners of America'.
This is more than just discrimination on an obscure forum. It's a reflection of the world we all still live in, and a small core-sample of daily abuses.
I recommend that all of you who identify with labels such as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secularist, rationalist, non-theist, etc. make yourselves known. The sooner people realize that they can't get away with blatant discrimination and abuse, the sooner we'll get the fair-treatment we're asking for.
-dB-
As a member of the Smart Car of America Forums (SCOA), I participate with other enthusiastic owners about all things smart.....the questions we're asked, aftermarket accessories, everything regarding dealers, maintenance, perks and quirks with the car, etc.
Who buys smarts? My answer to this question might have be: 'progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers with a penchant for embracing new ideas, with a tendency toward size-economy and the green movement'. It ain't necessarily so.
Sadly, this blog is about discrimination, which is something atheists face every day. See if you agree.
On the SCOA forum, I happened to be browsing the off-topic threads and saw that some smart-owners had started threads about who among them might be gay, with another thread asking who their fellow vegetarians/vegans were. Reading the threads myself, it seemed people were playing nicely and simply voicing another common interest among a receptive, progressive audience of other forum members clearly open to new ideas.
That was, until I started the 'Who here is an atheist smart-owner' thread. Here's what I wrote:
'Ok, I've seen the separate Gay and Vegan smart-owner threads, very interesting!
Here's my question: How many atheists drive smarts?
Is there any correlation between our maverick embrace of a new automotive paradigm and those who self-describe as atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious or non-believers of some sort?
The car itself represents a lot in my opinion: a willingness to be different, a witting/unwitting embrace of the green-movement and less oil-dependence, some-degree of environmental conscience, a willingness to favor economy of size over the 'bigger is better' mentality (even with threat of derision), and a more liberal/progressive political population (I realize there will be exceptions).
My hypothesis is that atheists would be over-represented by smart-car owners (per-capita).
This is by no means a scientific poll, but I am curious to see the responses.
Thanks in advance'.
Reasonable enough, wouldn't you say? Just like the gay and vegan threads, it's natural to ask who among other out-of-the-box thinkers might have left traditional ideas like religion, right?
Wrong. The thread was immediately closed by an admin with this comment.
'Forget it.“The following topics and links are prohibited on Smart Car of America Forums: Religion, Death Penalty, and Politics”
Ok, since when does identifying as an atheist necessarily constitute a religious argument or even religion? Atheism by definition is the *rejection* of religion as it literally means 'without theism' from the Greek form, 'theos'. A-theos is literally 'without god or belief in god'.
Ostensibly, the forum admins are trying to avoid controversy which might lead to pages of in-fighting (which people can choose to ignore), but what good is a forum moderator if they can't even be bothered to moderate potentially volatile threads? Again, this was in the 'off-topic' section which should mean smart-owners are free to discuss issues, as long as it doesn't devolve into pure name-calling and threats, and these threads can be moderated.
Instead, the powers-that-be at SCOA seem to feel more comfortable with outright censorship based on the 'rules', but I would think censorship is far more volatile than moderating a 'potentially' controversial thread. Those who find these threads offensive always have the choice of ignoring them.
My post was merely an informal poll, like the vegan and gay threads, and was specifically posed to see who among my fellow-smart drivers shared my lack of belief in god(s). This rule, as applied, would necessarily mean that nobody could ever identify as any religion on the forum, ever.
Look what another admin said when I complained about censorship. Quoted in relevant part:
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
Ok, so the identifying as an atheist clearly doesn't fall into these categories, yet the thread about which smart-owners might be gay certainly *does*. Talk about selective application of rules. The reader will note that she had nothing to say in her defense after she was called out on this. Of course not. There is a clear double-standard at work.
My friends, this is a clear case of censorship, even if it's in the 'rules'. Sometimes, rules are wrong or too-broadly applied. After all, there used to be little rules about minorities being segregated from the majority, or women not being allowed to vote.
In this day and age, it's shocking that this still happens, but sadly not surprising. What's even more distressing is the lack of visible protests from other members who might be atheists or know agnostics, or understand the injustice that's happening. There were a few on that forum in support, but mostly....silence and thus, a form of complicity.
Here's what the smug admin had to say when I complained about the thread closure in a private message:
Whatever flood of protests you are hoping for is going the other way (by PM) – it has been positive for the action taken. You are, so far, alone in this.If you are in need of the support of atheists owning smarts, you are free to participate in atheist sites elsewhere, and ask the same question. As a start you might try something at groups.yahoo or groups.google*
* Full URL omitted to avoid linking.
I see. So it's ok for a smart-owner to ask, in an off-topic section, about who in the forum might be gay or vegan (controversial for many), even though talking about 'sexually-oriented' content is in clear violation of the forum rules. Why is it not permissible to ask who might be atheist even though by itself it's not a religious argument? Add to that the smug way in which the admin tries to convince me I am 'alone in this' which is probably why he thought he could get away with such a thing. You see, fellow non-believers...this is exactly why some theists feel they can abuse non-believers.. We seek fair treatment, but we still get abuse and discrimination because some feel that we're such an insignificant or silent minority that we just don't matter. This is exactly why we need to be out of that 'other closet' en-masse as we've seen with the success of the gay-movement.
Tell someone they can't talk about being 'African' or 'Italian' and there would be hell to pay. Tell someone they can't mention that they are a Christian or Jew and you'd see a backlash. Why is the mere mention of identification with 'atheism' seen as a 'religious' statement? By this logic, mentioning that you're abstinent would be sexual harassment?
This may all seem trivial, but it's still discrimination, and it's a reflection of the 'majority rules' scenario which has historically trampled on the rights of the minority, simply because it was smugly thought that the majority could get away with it. As long as people are cowed into silence, we will never have a collective voice, and this is why it's so important for minorities, especially the most-hated minority (atheists) all over the world to speak out, be heard, be seen.
When people realize how populous this abused minority is, they might think twice about being so cavalier with discrimination, even in the small, annoying ways which happen every day.
Sure, most of us on the SCOA drive 'smart' cars, but by no means should anyone assume that all of us are logical, forward-thinking, progressive or even smart. It makes me very glad I didn't 'become a member' and give them my hard-earned money....but apparently they think atheists are such a tiny, insignificant minority that our opinions and support just don't matter. ...even in such a tiny-sub group known as 'Smart-Car Owners of America'.
This is more than just discrimination on an obscure forum. It's a reflection of the world we all still live in, and a small core-sample of daily abuses.
I recommend that all of you who identify with labels such as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secularist, rationalist, non-theist, etc. make yourselves known. The sooner people realize that they can't get away with blatant discrimination and abuse, the sooner we'll get the fair-treatment we're asking for.
-dB-
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
New Dawkins Book (and Other Thoughts).
Richard Dawkins's new book entitled, 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' is being officially released today in the United States. I definitely plan to pick up a copy in case I run into one of the 40% of U.S. citizens Dawkins mentions who don't accept the fact of evolution (education time). It's also just a fascinating subject in general, and I am looking forward to the coverage of artifical selection relating to the domestication and breeding of our canine friends. Book review coming later!
I understand that evolution is out of the perview of atheism, but many who reject evolution do so because of conflicting ideas from their religion. That doesn't stop progressive theists from accepting evolution as they would accept the law of gravitation or atomic theory. And really, there doesn't need to be a conflict between theism and evolution. A liberal theist could just assume their 'god' started it all but that evolution was allowed to happen on its own. Not a logical argument for god, but it allows the theist the luxury to avoid the faith-arguments but still accept obvious scientific fact. There is a choice to be made here though, as most religions offer a creation myth that is expected to be taken seriously...because it's not like ministers, pastors and priests the world over are saying 'this part of the Bible is ok to reject but you must accept this part or burn in eternal hellfire forever'. Although, progressive-theism must do exactly that, reject large chunks of their holy books or be mired in medieval fundamentalism.
Incidentally, I am going to give Borders my business until the more conveniently-located Barnes and Noble has an atheist section where you'd find some of Dawkins's other books (such as 'The God Delusion'). We're too numerous as a minority group to be forced to buy our books alongside bibles, and atheism is most certainly not a 'religion' even though the term does deal with the rejection of theism. With the popularity of these books, and considering that they're probably going to get a lot more popular in the coming years, atheism deserves its own section in any bookstore. Hell at one time I could barely find any atheist books in stores and yet the religion section was huge. It's probably why I stopped going to bookstores altogether (though it's high-comedy to place the odd Bible in the science-fiction section). ;)
It's not like fundies are going to rush to buy books from the new-atheists, but the people they're trying to convince are quickly getting much better educated at taking down Bronze-age superstition, and the popularity of these books is telling. Fewer people are buying the whole religion thing, and more of them are actively resisting these crazy ideas.
With the Intertubes, good ideas spread fast and bad ideas are knocked down from every angle, not the least of which is Snopes helping to kill email chains with silly, repeated rumors and myths. I am surprised anyone could stay a Fundy very long if they feel compelled to talk about it at a young age because they'd be beleaguered by those willing to show them how they're wrong....in email, on blogs, YouTube, etc. The days of religious claims going unchallenged for years are over forever....even if parents try to shelter their kids in private-schools, the Internet is going to pounce all over silly beliefs and it doesn't generally have a delicate touch.
Usually I read new Kindle books on my iPhone with a wonderful little (free) app called, and you may have guessed, 'Kindle for iPhone'.
That's right, it's a port of the Kindle software you've read about for the Amazon Kindle, only Kindle for iPhone lets you read Kindle books with a backlight, which the real Kindle doesn't have (and sorely needs as an option you can toggle). You can read any Kindle book with 'Kindle for iPhone' so it's easy to buy new books with the 1-click feature at Amazon.com, just as you would with Kindle. I love it.
The variety of books on Kindle blows away any other e-reader, and being able to sneak into bed with the girlfriend and not wake her up while reading 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali or 'Stolen Innocence' by Elissa Wall was fantastic. Both of these books are escape-from-fundamentalist religion stories of sorts and are highly-recommended.
'Infidel' depicts the oppression of being an Ethioian Muslim and the horrific rituals and practices associated with that before Ayaan makes her escape, but not before she suffers the horrors of female castration and other indignities.
Wall's 'Stolen Innocence' delves into her experiences as a female in the Mormon Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS), where girls are 'placed' with their grooms at 14 (or younger) and whole communities live under the control of their 'prophet'. Wall was married off young, against her will to a boy she didn't even like...it's amazing people still live like this, and uplifting that some escape before lasting damage is done.
Whether you opt for hardback or a new Kindle book, there's a lot of resources to become educated enough to take on Fundies or apologists of any religion.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, but it seems fundies everywhere are attacking evolution as if somehow that leaves their crazy Creation-myth as the 'only' alternative. No doubt, Richard Dawkins's latest book will further arm your logical minds to combat some of the anti-evolution propaganda you'll encounter at some point, especially if you're an outspoken atheist.
I understand that evolution is out of the perview of atheism, but many who reject evolution do so because of conflicting ideas from their religion. That doesn't stop progressive theists from accepting evolution as they would accept the law of gravitation or atomic theory. And really, there doesn't need to be a conflict between theism and evolution. A liberal theist could just assume their 'god' started it all but that evolution was allowed to happen on its own. Not a logical argument for god, but it allows the theist the luxury to avoid the faith-arguments but still accept obvious scientific fact. There is a choice to be made here though, as most religions offer a creation myth that is expected to be taken seriously...because it's not like ministers, pastors and priests the world over are saying 'this part of the Bible is ok to reject but you must accept this part or burn in eternal hellfire forever'. Although, progressive-theism must do exactly that, reject large chunks of their holy books or be mired in medieval fundamentalism.
Incidentally, I am going to give Borders my business until the more conveniently-located Barnes and Noble has an atheist section where you'd find some of Dawkins's other books (such as 'The God Delusion'). We're too numerous as a minority group to be forced to buy our books alongside bibles, and atheism is most certainly not a 'religion' even though the term does deal with the rejection of theism. With the popularity of these books, and considering that they're probably going to get a lot more popular in the coming years, atheism deserves its own section in any bookstore. Hell at one time I could barely find any atheist books in stores and yet the religion section was huge. It's probably why I stopped going to bookstores altogether (though it's high-comedy to place the odd Bible in the science-fiction section). ;)
It's not like fundies are going to rush to buy books from the new-atheists, but the people they're trying to convince are quickly getting much better educated at taking down Bronze-age superstition, and the popularity of these books is telling. Fewer people are buying the whole religion thing, and more of them are actively resisting these crazy ideas.
With the Intertubes, good ideas spread fast and bad ideas are knocked down from every angle, not the least of which is Snopes helping to kill email chains with silly, repeated rumors and myths. I am surprised anyone could stay a Fundy very long if they feel compelled to talk about it at a young age because they'd be beleaguered by those willing to show them how they're wrong....in email, on blogs, YouTube, etc. The days of religious claims going unchallenged for years are over forever....even if parents try to shelter their kids in private-schools, the Internet is going to pounce all over silly beliefs and it doesn't generally have a delicate touch.
Usually I read new Kindle books on my iPhone with a wonderful little (free) app called, and you may have guessed, 'Kindle for iPhone'.
That's right, it's a port of the Kindle software you've read about for the Amazon Kindle, only Kindle for iPhone lets you read Kindle books with a backlight, which the real Kindle doesn't have (and sorely needs as an option you can toggle). You can read any Kindle book with 'Kindle for iPhone' so it's easy to buy new books with the 1-click feature at Amazon.com, just as you would with Kindle. I love it.
The variety of books on Kindle blows away any other e-reader, and being able to sneak into bed with the girlfriend and not wake her up while reading 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali or 'Stolen Innocence' by Elissa Wall was fantastic. Both of these books are escape-from-fundamentalist religion stories of sorts and are highly-recommended.
'Infidel' depicts the oppression of being an Ethioian Muslim and the horrific rituals and practices associated with that before Ayaan makes her escape, but not before she suffers the horrors of female castration and other indignities.
Wall's 'Stolen Innocence' delves into her experiences as a female in the Mormon Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS), where girls are 'placed' with their grooms at 14 (or younger) and whole communities live under the control of their 'prophet'. Wall was married off young, against her will to a boy she didn't even like...it's amazing people still live like this, and uplifting that some escape before lasting damage is done.
Whether you opt for hardback or a new Kindle book, there's a lot of resources to become educated enough to take on Fundies or apologists of any religion.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, but it seems fundies everywhere are attacking evolution as if somehow that leaves their crazy Creation-myth as the 'only' alternative. No doubt, Richard Dawkins's latest book will further arm your logical minds to combat some of the anti-evolution propaganda you'll encounter at some point, especially if you're an outspoken atheist.
Monday, September 21, 2009
America is (Not) a Christian Nation.
There are some who will go to any length to convince you of their brand of religion, including revising U.S. History. This is either an honestly mistaken belief due to an amazing historical ignorance or a lie perpetrated to convince others to embrace Christianity. Either way it's an anti-intellectual affront and needs to be confronted whenever it's repeated.
Our forefathers had the tremendous foresight to collectively forge the first-ever secular Constitution on the planet. The Constitution, our founding document, is godless. There is no mention of following any commandments, no religious decrees, no deference to commandments or Bibles. It's a secular governmental document, by the people and for the people, not by god(s) or for any god(s). Our founding fathers understood that unless we are free *from* religion we cannot enjoy religious freedom at all.
If you lived in pre-1776 England, you would not have had the choice of which religion you followed in the English church-state. In fact, the European witch-hunts were in full-swing at the time...admitting any kind of non-orthodoxy was still a life-risking proposition, let alone the deism of Thomas Jefferson or the atheism of James Madison.
The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution says it plainly;
'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free-exercise thereof'.
This means, in matters of religion, government is neutral. Religion nor atheism should be endorsed by any government-entity. Likewise, the government legal process should not include any kind of religious test, including swearing on a Koran, the Vedas, Talmud or Bible.
How would it feel to have an entire-courtroom see you refuse to swear on a Bible before your testimony even begins? This could affect the outcome of the trial if the jury or judge is very religious, and it's tantamount to an unconstitutional religious-test and is in clear-violation of the 1st-amendment. Yet, this happens every-day in America.
The removal of religious-oppression by government-entities such as courtrooms, public schools, presidential inaugurations, public monuments, etc. is *not* tantamount to atheism, as some might propose. It's simply neutrality. There should not be any government endorsement of religion or active rejection thereof as stated clearly in the 1st amendment.
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states in Article 11 that America is not a Christian Nation.
'Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries'.
Some would claim that our money is 'evidence' that this is a 'Christian Nation' by virtue of the fact that it's been infected with the religious slogan; 'In God We Trust'. Similarly, our pledge also has 'Under God' in it, which some believe is further evidence that this nation was intended to be god-fearing.
It might surprise some to know that the religious-language on our money and in our pledge are recent developments, and were originally secular.
Our pledge was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, and did not originally include 'Under God'. The divisive 'Under God' was added in 1954 by President Eisenhower at the behest of Christian special-interest groups such as the Knights of Columbus. Here's the unblemished pledge before it was altered:
'I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all'.
One might note that the original pledge is all-inclusive. The addition of 'Under God' instantly forces everyone reciting the pledge to be 'under' something, subserviant to an unseen 'diety' which has dominion over all, and makes all non-Christians and non-believers second-class citizens. It's amazingly divisive and is a clear violation of the intentions of the forefathers and the 1st-amendment.
Our money has 'In God We Trust' on it, but this wasn't added until 1957 on paper money, though it was on coins earlier. Most likely, the 'In God We Trust' motto was a reaction to McCarthyism and the 'Red Scare' associated with communism and atheism. However, it's possible to be a communist without being an atheist and most atheists are decidedly not communists.
Prior to religious-prayer now on our currency the Latin motto was 'E Pluribus Unem', which literally translates to 'From Many, One'. This phrase is all-inclusive regardless of religious-association or lack thereof. 'In God We Trust' is divisive, simply because people worship different gods and some don't submit to any gods. Again, this religious-notion violates the intention of the founding fathers and the 1st-amendment, and forces non-Christians and the non-religious to be party to theist-oppression. Our secular democratic republic is not merely majority rule, but serves to protect the minority from the majority. Otherwise, Jim Crow laws would still be in force, and women would still be disallowed from the voting booth. In the same manner, it's not Constitutionally right to oppress non-Christians and non-religious Americans with conflicting religious whims of a Christian majority.
Removing the oppressive religious language unconstitutionally-inserted into our pledge, money, court-rooms, schools, public parks or any governmental agency is a return to government neutrality and secularism as the founding fathers rightly intended. This neutrality still allows freedom of religion. The difference is that government should not endorse any one religion over another, or endorse religion over irrelegion.
Our forefathers and early patriots sought to escape the church-state of England, and many died establishing and defending the new colonies and the first-ever secular Constitution. We as free Americans should uphold church-state separation and the 1st amendment, because if there's no freedom *from* religion then there is truly no freedom of religion. If we slip into a theocractic church-state again we'll be right back where started in 1775 England.
As is often said, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
-dB-
Our forefathers had the tremendous foresight to collectively forge the first-ever secular Constitution on the planet. The Constitution, our founding document, is godless. There is no mention of following any commandments, no religious decrees, no deference to commandments or Bibles. It's a secular governmental document, by the people and for the people, not by god(s) or for any god(s). Our founding fathers understood that unless we are free *from* religion we cannot enjoy religious freedom at all.
If you lived in pre-1776 England, you would not have had the choice of which religion you followed in the English church-state. In fact, the European witch-hunts were in full-swing at the time...admitting any kind of non-orthodoxy was still a life-risking proposition, let alone the deism of Thomas Jefferson or the atheism of James Madison.
The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution says it plainly;
'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free-exercise thereof'.
This means, in matters of religion, government is neutral. Religion nor atheism should be endorsed by any government-entity. Likewise, the government legal process should not include any kind of religious test, including swearing on a Koran, the Vedas, Talmud or Bible.
How would it feel to have an entire-courtroom see you refuse to swear on a Bible before your testimony even begins? This could affect the outcome of the trial if the jury or judge is very religious, and it's tantamount to an unconstitutional religious-test and is in clear-violation of the 1st-amendment. Yet, this happens every-day in America.
The removal of religious-oppression by government-entities such as courtrooms, public schools, presidential inaugurations, public monuments, etc. is *not* tantamount to atheism, as some might propose. It's simply neutrality. There should not be any government endorsement of religion or active rejection thereof as stated clearly in the 1st amendment.
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states in Article 11 that America is not a Christian Nation.
'Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries'.
Some would claim that our money is 'evidence' that this is a 'Christian Nation' by virtue of the fact that it's been infected with the religious slogan; 'In God We Trust'. Similarly, our pledge also has 'Under God' in it, which some believe is further evidence that this nation was intended to be god-fearing.
It might surprise some to know that the religious-language on our money and in our pledge are recent developments, and were originally secular.
Our pledge was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, and did not originally include 'Under God'. The divisive 'Under God' was added in 1954 by President Eisenhower at the behest of Christian special-interest groups such as the Knights of Columbus. Here's the unblemished pledge before it was altered:
'I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all'.
One might note that the original pledge is all-inclusive. The addition of 'Under God' instantly forces everyone reciting the pledge to be 'under' something, subserviant to an unseen 'diety' which has dominion over all, and makes all non-Christians and non-believers second-class citizens. It's amazingly divisive and is a clear violation of the intentions of the forefathers and the 1st-amendment.
Our money has 'In God We Trust' on it, but this wasn't added until 1957 on paper money, though it was on coins earlier. Most likely, the 'In God We Trust' motto was a reaction to McCarthyism and the 'Red Scare' associated with communism and atheism. However, it's possible to be a communist without being an atheist and most atheists are decidedly not communists.
Prior to religious-prayer now on our currency the Latin motto was 'E Pluribus Unem', which literally translates to 'From Many, One'. This phrase is all-inclusive regardless of religious-association or lack thereof. 'In God We Trust' is divisive, simply because people worship different gods and some don't submit to any gods. Again, this religious-notion violates the intention of the founding fathers and the 1st-amendment, and forces non-Christians and the non-religious to be party to theist-oppression. Our secular democratic republic is not merely majority rule, but serves to protect the minority from the majority. Otherwise, Jim Crow laws would still be in force, and women would still be disallowed from the voting booth. In the same manner, it's not Constitutionally right to oppress non-Christians and non-religious Americans with conflicting religious whims of a Christian majority.
Removing the oppressive religious language unconstitutionally-inserted into our pledge, money, court-rooms, schools, public parks or any governmental agency is a return to government neutrality and secularism as the founding fathers rightly intended. This neutrality still allows freedom of religion. The difference is that government should not endorse any one religion over another, or endorse religion over irrelegion.
Our forefathers and early patriots sought to escape the church-state of England, and many died establishing and defending the new colonies and the first-ever secular Constitution. We as free Americans should uphold church-state separation and the 1st amendment, because if there's no freedom *from* religion then there is truly no freedom of religion. If we slip into a theocractic church-state again we'll be right back where started in 1775 England.
As is often said, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
-dB-
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Faith is Not a Choice (And How I Lost Mine).
First, let me state that people don't necessarily 'choose' their beliefs. Instead, they choose how critically (or not) they review new ideas and challenges to their existing beliefs. Atheists don't just 'choose' to dismiss their beliefs, so much as their logical mind eventually defeats their dogma, and a dismissal of the old-belief is inevitable. However, if you can convince someone of an idea before their logical minds are even formed, you're probably going to get the idea to sink-in, unfettered by opposition.
Sadly, children are convinced at a young age to believe in a 'god', and they lack the mental faculties and logical-prowess to protest in any effective manner, not to mention that they rely on their parents for everything. Imagine a six-year old who laughs off a parent's earnest description of god as 'nonsense', what kind of life would this kid have? As a matter of self-preservation, it's probably good that kinds don't protest too much early-on, for the same reason the child needs to listen when the parent warns against touching hot stoves or running into traffic. It's unfortunate that most kids taught religion at a young age are infected for life, and continue to hold ridiculous beliefs they pass on to their kids...so much so that when faced with a devastating logical challenge they will often react completely irrationally.
There's no reason at such a young age to think your parents are lying, deluded or downright bloody stupid. Kids just don't know any better. I knew one kid in school who thought he was an elf, simply because this is something his mom believed as well. He gave an oral report about it....and as funny as it was at the time, I find it kind of depressing now (but he did kinda look like an elf).
A child can see the clear problems with the very definition of things that contradict....like a square circle, or a big-small thing or something that is hot and cold...or other contradictory definitions. However, if you get them young enough, you can pretty much convince them of anything...you're an elf, there's an invisible space-spook watching your every move, and Santa delivers presents on Christmas eve to every kid in the world in one night. Sure, kids outgrow the notion of Santa Claus simply because adults don't really believe it, nor do older kids....but 'god' is a fairy tale most adults DO believe. When a child cries after discovering there's no Santa Claus...this is what some grown-people do when they discover there's no god....except it's all-too often preceded by anger and hostility toward the messenger. Adults seem to be much less resilient than children in this regard.
It's going to be confusing to a child when he/she is told that a god knows everything, is all-powerful and perfect and all-good and loving, but will let mommy's new baby die inside her tummy while the Duggars can pop out 19 of them without issue.
Why?
A kid's 'why' response oftens gets beaten-down early by those who find tough questions to be uncomfortable or threatening. A true-believer won't often call god evil or stupid or cruel as he should...instead people tend to make excuses for this evil space pixie. 'He's testing me. He's asking me to wait. Now is not the right time, I can't question him or his plan'.
Faith is not a choice, it's something you've been convinced of, usually at such a young age that it's out of the scope of your review process. It's internalized and often defended with territorial ferocity and irrational fervor. People routinely die or let others die merely because they're convinced of some fundamental deception about how the Universe works, and because being wrong can be so uncomfortable...moreso with a longer investment in an erroneous idea.
It behooves people to unravel their assumptions when reviewing ideas...including their own. How one responds to a challenge to one's beliefs is a test of courage, integrity and intellectual honesty.
Some people, when challenged on their belief in god, simply try to paint ruses and confuse or distract you, especially right before you trap them in unassailable logic (they can see it coming usually). Some will talk over you, or try to pressure you into shutting up, or threaten violence or change the subject or pretend to be distracted, or pretend 'evolution' or 'Darwinism' is on equal-footing with their god-belief in order to make it seem as if you're both in the same boat of religion. Nobody likes to feel stupid, but nothing makes people feel stupid faster than defending a barbaric, irrational religion with someone who can reason better than a child.
The courageous and intellectually honest-theist hears about the logical contradiction of how a loving god lets babies suffer and die and says, 'You're right, that's pretty crazy, I wouldn't let babies die if I were god'. This is an honest and no-nonsense response. This is how a *reasonable* person responds to the logical contradiction when pointed out. The reasonable theist, after being faced with this devastating argument from evil, should step back a bit and re-examine his faith on the spot and not make excuses for their killer god anymore than someone would be tolerated making excuses for Hitler or Stalin.
That's right, few of us would let babies suffer and die if we were god, because we're nicer and more logical than god. An all-powerful being, who knows everything and is *good* would simply not let this happen. Furthermore, god can't 'let' anything happen because he *makes* it happen...yes, if he's truly all-knowing, he knows everything for infinity past and future, meaning everything that happens is exactly to his plan: every miscarriage, holy war, epidemic, the rise of Hitler and venereal warts. All exactly to god's plan, and nothing that an all-powerful being wants can be denied, right?
Growing up, I was a devout Catholic, though in high-school my new circle of friends and experiences at various churches and youth-groups had me gravitating toward a more 'born again' Christianity. I prayed before meals and at night, read the Bible, made religious artwork (some of which I still have), communicated with God on a daily basis...asking him for stuff, thanking him, giving him credit or asking for guidance. I would acknowledge the cross in my room, and I distinctly remember playing guitar at a Christian youth-group I would attend on Tuesday nights...talking about God and religion and the Bible and such. The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy does not apply here (since some annoyed theists would simply deny that I was a 'real' Christian).
My family was Catholic (Irish-Italian) and my religion-primed brain readily accepted other hokum that my family believed: telekinesis, psychics, ghosts, Satanic lyrics embedded into backward-played records and other phenomenae. I actually destroyed my AC/DC album 'Back in Black' because I thought I heard 'Oh Lord Satan' in the lyrics when played backward. My mom was upset that we were Dungeons and Dragons fans, thinking it was somehow Satanic, and I remember my Dad being upset with certain art my brother made thinking it was Devilish or evil in some way. They weren't fanatics, but my family was definitely infected with religion, and they went back to be re-infected at our local Catholic church on a regular basis.
In 1989 at age 20, I was working with a somewhat zany yet brilliant software engineer at a new company making Nintendo games. He was my boss but our relationship was more like workmates/friends. We discussed everything under the sun while we worked into the wee hours making games...everything from Transcendental Meditation to the wonders of Indian food to how many fairies could dance on the head of a pin, and religion. He was a funny guy...not forceful in his atheism or high-pressure or anything, but questioned my logic when it came to my defense of a god-belief in his characteristically witty manner. I had never heard Christian apologetics, but I made plenty of apologist arguments and fallacies such as the argument from numbers (a lot of people believe it), Pascal's Wager (safe bet to believe rather than end up in Hell), and other unwitting apologist claptrap or outright fallacies.
This issue with Pascal's Wager is that it doesn't consider the fact that you lose a lot of time and resources praying to the wrong god if you end up in say, Islamic Hell or praying to a god which isn't even there. Argument from numbers doesn't work because the majority of people have been on the wrong side of a lot of issues (astronomy, slavery and civil rights, women's rights, etc.).
What happened was, his arguments made sense to me, but it internally embarrassed and infuriated me to be bested logically. I felt like a lawyer defending my client 'God'.
I knew that something was wrong. Either my client was a murderous and wantonly evil tyrant as he was saying it was depicted in the Bible, my client didn't exist as claimed or I needed to do more Bible-research and find explanations for this stuff.
Spurred by what I felt were logical defeats and seeking to defeat his arguments, I did some research. I looked up the Bible phrases he mentioned depicting god's killing sprees or when god's name is invoked by those on killing sprees. I checked out the babies being dashed on rocks, the hatred and recommended stoning of homosexuals, the condoning of slavery and instructions for keeping them, etc. Everything he generally mentioned about the Bible was shocking because I thought I knew my Bible, but more shocking when I verified the atrocities within the Bible! Suddenly, it was seeming like a whole different book. How come I didn't hear about this stuff in church? Why did we believe this whole book, but the priest only talked about the nicer stuff before the collection plates went out?
Then, it dawned on me. I was simply lied to, or those who were talking about the virtues of the Bible were either seriously omitting the bad parts, or were just as clueless about the bad parts as I was. It seemed that none of the atrocities of the Bible (aside from the snake-framing, the flood and Hell) were discussed, and since those who sit passively in church listening can't really stop a sermon to ask questions, nobody ever learned anything but what the priest felt like talking about unless they delved deep into their Bibles themselves (with a critical mind). No wonder the Catholic church banned reading the Bible for yourself in most of its history.
Within a month, I had rejected the Bible, and fired my client 'God'. I realized he didn't exist, and couldn't exist with all the evil in the world.
Isaiah 45:7 reads:
'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.'
Well, of course. Either god made *everything* as claimed or he didn't. If he didn't, then he's just a co-god, where another god is making other stuff. This would mean he's not the 'only' god and certainly not all-powerful if he cannot stop evil or stop creating it. If god is *good* then he'd want to stop suffering. But, Isaiah 45:7 clearly states that God 'created evil' and thus he IS evil. If God is everything, he is as evil as he is good. He is the hangnail, the stillbirth, the AIDS epidemic, and the kid-diddling Catholic priest. Be relieved there's no god, because if he does exist he's an evil bastard.
Either way, within a month of meeting and discussing real issues with the first atheist I met, I rejected my belief. It took some courage (willing to face objections head-on without ruses or game-playing), integrity (willing to follow logic where it lead me) and intellectual honesty (willing to admit being wrong).
20 years of inculcation unraveled in a month. It was disturbing and difficult though. One does not release a lifelong faith without some kind of trauma...because I felt even reviewing the evidence put me in very bad stead with God, which I still believed in until I didn't. But, it's like going against a cult-leader. The more you resist, the angrier he is and the more you lose your support in the cult. Once you're out, you can see it was the best thing you ever did, but it gets harder (and scarier) before it gets better.
Giving up the idea of gods was a huge weight off of my mind and conscience. No more did I think a space-pixie was watching my every move. I had true privacy and I could finally sleep-in on Sunday without guilt. No longer did I accept any other crazy ideas which were predicated on god, or spirits, the devil, an afterlife, etc. I also released the crazy idea that Jewish people killed Jesus, as I no longer believed in Jesus as a diety who 'died for my sins'. Women were no more responsible for the downfall of mankind simply because they failed the talking snake apple-test framed by God. I was free to delve into the scientific wonders and explanations of the world such as evolution and astronomy, since I didn't have to experience a battle in my mind between Creation as explained in Genesis vs. the findings of science. I no longer had to lament how many times God ignored my desperate prayers, or answered insignificant ones, allowed gluttony for some while others starved or let some die while others thrive.
The injustice in the world is expected in a world without a god (and worse with god), but it's humans who can make things better. My mind was finally free of the crazy myths of Bronze-age desert nomads and I was free to take the world on its own terms, for better or worse. I had to rely on myself and my fellow humans without wasting energy appealing to some murderous space-pixie.
It was the most liberating experience I've ever had in my 41 years.
No matter how old you are, or how uncomfortable it is....always follow logic where it goes. Resisting, mental-trickery, ruses, semantic-games, all of those distract from the pursuit of truth and retard our collective progress. It will also make those who see through the ruses lose a lot of respect for the person's courage, integrity and intellectual honesty. If one avoids logic simply because it's uncomfortable, it's like the drug-addict or alcoholic who can't get clean because he wants to avoid withdrawl symptoms.
The beauty of being a good critical-thinker is that there's no truth with a capital 'T'. You're free to adjust as needed, honing your knowledge as new data comes in. In fact, the human enterprise relies on this process as we discover more about the Universe we live in...and we all benefit. Yes, even the young-Earth wack-a-doo Creationist who argues over the Internet about the dangers of EVILution probably doesn't comprehend the irony.
Sometimes, the truth hurts, but it's well worth it.
-dB-
Sadly, children are convinced at a young age to believe in a 'god', and they lack the mental faculties and logical-prowess to protest in any effective manner, not to mention that they rely on their parents for everything. Imagine a six-year old who laughs off a parent's earnest description of god as 'nonsense', what kind of life would this kid have? As a matter of self-preservation, it's probably good that kinds don't protest too much early-on, for the same reason the child needs to listen when the parent warns against touching hot stoves or running into traffic. It's unfortunate that most kids taught religion at a young age are infected for life, and continue to hold ridiculous beliefs they pass on to their kids...so much so that when faced with a devastating logical challenge they will often react completely irrationally.
There's no reason at such a young age to think your parents are lying, deluded or downright bloody stupid. Kids just don't know any better. I knew one kid in school who thought he was an elf, simply because this is something his mom believed as well. He gave an oral report about it....and as funny as it was at the time, I find it kind of depressing now (but he did kinda look like an elf).
A child can see the clear problems with the very definition of things that contradict....like a square circle, or a big-small thing or something that is hot and cold...or other contradictory definitions. However, if you get them young enough, you can pretty much convince them of anything...you're an elf, there's an invisible space-spook watching your every move, and Santa delivers presents on Christmas eve to every kid in the world in one night. Sure, kids outgrow the notion of Santa Claus simply because adults don't really believe it, nor do older kids....but 'god' is a fairy tale most adults DO believe. When a child cries after discovering there's no Santa Claus...this is what some grown-people do when they discover there's no god....except it's all-too often preceded by anger and hostility toward the messenger. Adults seem to be much less resilient than children in this regard.
It's going to be confusing to a child when he/she is told that a god knows everything, is all-powerful and perfect and all-good and loving, but will let mommy's new baby die inside her tummy while the Duggars can pop out 19 of them without issue.
Why?
A kid's 'why' response oftens gets beaten-down early by those who find tough questions to be uncomfortable or threatening. A true-believer won't often call god evil or stupid or cruel as he should...instead people tend to make excuses for this evil space pixie. 'He's testing me. He's asking me to wait. Now is not the right time, I can't question him or his plan'.
Faith is not a choice, it's something you've been convinced of, usually at such a young age that it's out of the scope of your review process. It's internalized and often defended with territorial ferocity and irrational fervor. People routinely die or let others die merely because they're convinced of some fundamental deception about how the Universe works, and because being wrong can be so uncomfortable...moreso with a longer investment in an erroneous idea.
It behooves people to unravel their assumptions when reviewing ideas...including their own. How one responds to a challenge to one's beliefs is a test of courage, integrity and intellectual honesty.
Some people, when challenged on their belief in god, simply try to paint ruses and confuse or distract you, especially right before you trap them in unassailable logic (they can see it coming usually). Some will talk over you, or try to pressure you into shutting up, or threaten violence or change the subject or pretend to be distracted, or pretend 'evolution' or 'Darwinism' is on equal-footing with their god-belief in order to make it seem as if you're both in the same boat of religion. Nobody likes to feel stupid, but nothing makes people feel stupid faster than defending a barbaric, irrational religion with someone who can reason better than a child.
The courageous and intellectually honest-theist hears about the logical contradiction of how a loving god lets babies suffer and die and says, 'You're right, that's pretty crazy, I wouldn't let babies die if I were god'. This is an honest and no-nonsense response. This is how a *reasonable* person responds to the logical contradiction when pointed out. The reasonable theist, after being faced with this devastating argument from evil, should step back a bit and re-examine his faith on the spot and not make excuses for their killer god anymore than someone would be tolerated making excuses for Hitler or Stalin.
That's right, few of us would let babies suffer and die if we were god, because we're nicer and more logical than god. An all-powerful being, who knows everything and is *good* would simply not let this happen. Furthermore, god can't 'let' anything happen because he *makes* it happen...yes, if he's truly all-knowing, he knows everything for infinity past and future, meaning everything that happens is exactly to his plan: every miscarriage, holy war, epidemic, the rise of Hitler and venereal warts. All exactly to god's plan, and nothing that an all-powerful being wants can be denied, right?
Growing up, I was a devout Catholic, though in high-school my new circle of friends and experiences at various churches and youth-groups had me gravitating toward a more 'born again' Christianity. I prayed before meals and at night, read the Bible, made religious artwork (some of which I still have), communicated with God on a daily basis...asking him for stuff, thanking him, giving him credit or asking for guidance. I would acknowledge the cross in my room, and I distinctly remember playing guitar at a Christian youth-group I would attend on Tuesday nights...talking about God and religion and the Bible and such. The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy does not apply here (since some annoyed theists would simply deny that I was a 'real' Christian).
My family was Catholic (Irish-Italian) and my religion-primed brain readily accepted other hokum that my family believed: telekinesis, psychics, ghosts, Satanic lyrics embedded into backward-played records and other phenomenae. I actually destroyed my AC/DC album 'Back in Black' because I thought I heard 'Oh Lord Satan' in the lyrics when played backward. My mom was upset that we were Dungeons and Dragons fans, thinking it was somehow Satanic, and I remember my Dad being upset with certain art my brother made thinking it was Devilish or evil in some way. They weren't fanatics, but my family was definitely infected with religion, and they went back to be re-infected at our local Catholic church on a regular basis.
In 1989 at age 20, I was working with a somewhat zany yet brilliant software engineer at a new company making Nintendo games. He was my boss but our relationship was more like workmates/friends. We discussed everything under the sun while we worked into the wee hours making games...everything from Transcendental Meditation to the wonders of Indian food to how many fairies could dance on the head of a pin, and religion. He was a funny guy...not forceful in his atheism or high-pressure or anything, but questioned my logic when it came to my defense of a god-belief in his characteristically witty manner. I had never heard Christian apologetics, but I made plenty of apologist arguments and fallacies such as the argument from numbers (a lot of people believe it), Pascal's Wager (safe bet to believe rather than end up in Hell), and other unwitting apologist claptrap or outright fallacies.
This issue with Pascal's Wager is that it doesn't consider the fact that you lose a lot of time and resources praying to the wrong god if you end up in say, Islamic Hell or praying to a god which isn't even there. Argument from numbers doesn't work because the majority of people have been on the wrong side of a lot of issues (astronomy, slavery and civil rights, women's rights, etc.).
What happened was, his arguments made sense to me, but it internally embarrassed and infuriated me to be bested logically. I felt like a lawyer defending my client 'God'.
I knew that something was wrong. Either my client was a murderous and wantonly evil tyrant as he was saying it was depicted in the Bible, my client didn't exist as claimed or I needed to do more Bible-research and find explanations for this stuff.
Spurred by what I felt were logical defeats and seeking to defeat his arguments, I did some research. I looked up the Bible phrases he mentioned depicting god's killing sprees or when god's name is invoked by those on killing sprees. I checked out the babies being dashed on rocks, the hatred and recommended stoning of homosexuals, the condoning of slavery and instructions for keeping them, etc. Everything he generally mentioned about the Bible was shocking because I thought I knew my Bible, but more shocking when I verified the atrocities within the Bible! Suddenly, it was seeming like a whole different book. How come I didn't hear about this stuff in church? Why did we believe this whole book, but the priest only talked about the nicer stuff before the collection plates went out?
Then, it dawned on me. I was simply lied to, or those who were talking about the virtues of the Bible were either seriously omitting the bad parts, or were just as clueless about the bad parts as I was. It seemed that none of the atrocities of the Bible (aside from the snake-framing, the flood and Hell) were discussed, and since those who sit passively in church listening can't really stop a sermon to ask questions, nobody ever learned anything but what the priest felt like talking about unless they delved deep into their Bibles themselves (with a critical mind). No wonder the Catholic church banned reading the Bible for yourself in most of its history.
Within a month, I had rejected the Bible, and fired my client 'God'. I realized he didn't exist, and couldn't exist with all the evil in the world.
Isaiah 45:7 reads:
'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.'
Well, of course. Either god made *everything* as claimed or he didn't. If he didn't, then he's just a co-god, where another god is making other stuff. This would mean he's not the 'only' god and certainly not all-powerful if he cannot stop evil or stop creating it. If god is *good* then he'd want to stop suffering. But, Isaiah 45:7 clearly states that God 'created evil' and thus he IS evil. If God is everything, he is as evil as he is good. He is the hangnail, the stillbirth, the AIDS epidemic, and the kid-diddling Catholic priest. Be relieved there's no god, because if he does exist he's an evil bastard.
Either way, within a month of meeting and discussing real issues with the first atheist I met, I rejected my belief. It took some courage (willing to face objections head-on without ruses or game-playing), integrity (willing to follow logic where it lead me) and intellectual honesty (willing to admit being wrong).
20 years of inculcation unraveled in a month. It was disturbing and difficult though. One does not release a lifelong faith without some kind of trauma...because I felt even reviewing the evidence put me in very bad stead with God, which I still believed in until I didn't. But, it's like going against a cult-leader. The more you resist, the angrier he is and the more you lose your support in the cult. Once you're out, you can see it was the best thing you ever did, but it gets harder (and scarier) before it gets better.
Giving up the idea of gods was a huge weight off of my mind and conscience. No more did I think a space-pixie was watching my every move. I had true privacy and I could finally sleep-in on Sunday without guilt. No longer did I accept any other crazy ideas which were predicated on god, or spirits, the devil, an afterlife, etc. I also released the crazy idea that Jewish people killed Jesus, as I no longer believed in Jesus as a diety who 'died for my sins'. Women were no more responsible for the downfall of mankind simply because they failed the talking snake apple-test framed by God. I was free to delve into the scientific wonders and explanations of the world such as evolution and astronomy, since I didn't have to experience a battle in my mind between Creation as explained in Genesis vs. the findings of science. I no longer had to lament how many times God ignored my desperate prayers, or answered insignificant ones, allowed gluttony for some while others starved or let some die while others thrive.
The injustice in the world is expected in a world without a god (and worse with god), but it's humans who can make things better. My mind was finally free of the crazy myths of Bronze-age desert nomads and I was free to take the world on its own terms, for better or worse. I had to rely on myself and my fellow humans without wasting energy appealing to some murderous space-pixie.
It was the most liberating experience I've ever had in my 41 years.
No matter how old you are, or how uncomfortable it is....always follow logic where it goes. Resisting, mental-trickery, ruses, semantic-games, all of those distract from the pursuit of truth and retard our collective progress. It will also make those who see through the ruses lose a lot of respect for the person's courage, integrity and intellectual honesty. If one avoids logic simply because it's uncomfortable, it's like the drug-addict or alcoholic who can't get clean because he wants to avoid withdrawl symptoms.
The beauty of being a good critical-thinker is that there's no truth with a capital 'T'. You're free to adjust as needed, honing your knowledge as new data comes in. In fact, the human enterprise relies on this process as we discover more about the Universe we live in...and we all benefit. Yes, even the young-Earth wack-a-doo Creationist who argues over the Internet about the dangers of EVILution probably doesn't comprehend the irony.
Sometimes, the truth hurts, but it's well worth it.
-dB-
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Marriage: Who Needs It?
I hope you're settled in with a cool drink or hot cuppa joe, coz this is a long one! This could probably be a book, because there's a lot to say.
The premise is simple and direct: Nobody needs to be married in this day and age, and the legal downsides of divorce are tremendous.
I decided a long time ago that I don't need to be married *ever*, and this was back in 1989 or so when I de-converted from Catholicism. While some of us in our society are deprived of the right I also boycott in protest. As an atheist, I don't want to feed-into the 'married' couple ideal set up by ancient religions which I don't believe in, and any religious prescription to get married is irrelevant to me.
The concept of marriage comes from an institution where women were seen as chattel property. They didn't always have the right to vote and were told to 'honor and obey' theirmasters husbands....and all of this was after the understanding that there was no sex before marriage. Talk about motivation.
Pledging lifelong allegiance to a person based on the transient-insanity of sexual desire at a young age (or any age) is not the wisest choice, especially considering the change humans go through and the penalties for 'failure'.
Divorce has historically been shunned or could get one excommunicated from one's social networking group (church) and what many believe is the path to 'salvation'. Worse, divorce in modern times often means huge lawyer fees, alimony payments to maintain the lifestyle of an ex-spouse (usually the female) for a lifestyle she couldn't maintain without the partner in the first-place. On top of all this is community property law in relevant states and ball-busting judges with agendas who basically can decide your fate with the bang of a gavel...but if you're not married (assuming no common-law marriage) then you don't have to worry about the legal entanglements of divorce.
Without marriage, you're free to leave if it suits you and it keeps partners on better behaviour, and there won't be divorce lawyers banging on your door (and your bank account) with all the legal recourse in the world to make you miserable.
Child-support is often alimony in disguise and rarely relates directly to what a child actually needs as additional income (look at what celebrities pay in child-support). Since child-support follows the child, marriage doesn't relate to children at all except in some traditional religious sense, but religion has no effect on those immune from its dictates.
Sure, some of you are screaming at the monitor, 'Get a pre-nup doofus!'. Now, ask yourselves, why do you need a contract to *undo* the horrible contract that comes with a marriage certificate? Talk about a red-flag. It's like going to a car dealer with a lawyer-drafted contract to counter-act the bad contract you're getting into at the dealership. The simple thing to do is avoid the bad-contract in the first place.
Simply put, divorce can be insanely expensive, and confers too much power to the female (usually) and a legal system which has no business in the affairs (literally) of consenting adults.
It's disconcerting to think that the government 'stamps approval' on some relationships, but other taxpaying, consenting adults cannot marry at all because they share the same gender. Likewise, if four women want to marry one guy, what business is it of the government's? Guys with tremendous resources (or a convenient harem-religion) always attract multiple partners (same with powerful women). If they're all consenting adults, it's none of our business.
Oddly, straight couples under the age of 62 cannot even become domestic partners in California, where I live, though they *used* to be able to before politicians removed that law and just left us the 'all or nothing' marriage option.
Sure, companies can *elect* to honor heterosexual domestic-partners with regard to health-coverage, but there is no state-mandate. If you're straight and under 62 in California, it's marriage or nothing. If you're gay, it's domestic partnership or nothing. The logical thing would be to allow both straight and gay couples to enter into marriage or a domestic partnership if they so choose.
It's all a big hot flaming and discriminatory mess and I want no part of it.
Societal conditioning prepares young girls for marriage at an early age, though that trend is probably changing in 2009. There is a reason newsstands are plastered in 'Bride' magazines, but rarely will you find a 'Groom' magazine. There is a reason women want marriage in the U.S. more than men...they have everything to gain, generally speaking, and little to lose, whereas men stand to lose a lot in the event of divorce.
As an atheist, I am not bound by the dictates of the church. I am free to ignore its prescriptions for celibacy before marriage and ignore the very idea of marriage itself. After all, who invented this idea? It's out-dated and simply unnecessary in a modern age.
Some will fall under the misconception (usually promoted by wannabe brides) that marriage=commitment. Wrong. Divorce rates speak for themselves. Over half of marriages end in divorce, even with couples who claim to be religious (since they are the majority in the first place). In fact, unmarried households now outnumber traditional, married households as reported by U.S. Today in 2006. This shows that the trend is going away from marriage simply because it just doesn't work, statistically-speaking, and there's a lot to lose if you're in the more than 50% who end up getting divorced.
Speaking of commitment, some women will use this buzzword to try and get a guy to marry them, and I guess some men might do that, but you'll most often hear this from women on talk-shows, in books, articles, etc. The idea is that if the man doesn't 'commit', then the woman should find someone else to 'commit' and marry her. What is the idea here, to find a spouse or find the *right* person who you want to spend time with? Why do people feel they need a label, a legal paper and an expensive ceremony to feel 'committed' to someone, all the while being willing to let a good person go if they won't sign a legal document? Sounds like extortion to me. Imagine pressuring your friends....'Hey man, be my friend for life or find another friend!'. The logic just doesn't make any kind of sense.
If a woman is willing to leave you, a man she wants to be with forever simply because you won't sign a contract to marry, then she doesn't really want to be with you forever. It's simple. You're easily replaced, and she is telling you that unless you sign this contract, you're going to be replaced by someone else she wants to be with 'forever'...someone who WILL sign on the dotted line.
Commitment is not on a legal document. It's in the mind and displayed in your behavior. Unless I am missing something, people don't go to the altar with the intent to get divorced in the forseeable future (except gold-diggers who nobody should unwittingly marry in the first place). Ostensibly, those who get married take their vows seriously enough, and would prefer to stay married. But, life isn't a fairytale. Some people cheat, they grow bored, they change (sometimes wildly so), they disagree about fundamental issues such as religion, kids, money, in-laws, or what kind of wedding cake to get.
Humans are dynamic creatures, and evolution didn't shape us (notably, males) for long-term monogamy. Women drop an egg a month, men generate billions of sperm a day. If monogamy happens, great, and those who enter into relationships should honor the physical well-being of their partners and not spread diseases they might catch in a tryst. The moment one cheats, it behooves that person to tell his/her partner and abstain from sex until then. It's one thing to change your mind, but it's another to expose an innocent party by way of undisclosed dalliances.
That said, humans change...it's guaranteed. Whether you will change together or not cannot be known and it's another reason not to try and put a 'forever' label on marriage.
Let's pretend for a second that 'marriage' is just the first of two-stages of arbitrary 'commitment' labels. What if there was another level called 'Flarriage'? Would the partner then be comparing and contrasting with her friends, annoyed that the hubs will marry her but not 'Flarry' her? It could get ridiculous. One of the reasons I think that women get annoyed when they're not married is that they see it as some sort of personal failure, as if they weren't 'good enough' to 'get' a guy to marry them. But, there's no competition. What matters is whether you enjoy spending time with the person and whether you want to mutually continue.
The analogy just demonstrates that the label 'marriage' is arbitrary, even if it's widely thought to be something more. With regard to real commitment, it's in your brain and your 'heart' so to speak, not on a legal document. In fact, the false-security of marriage might cause some people to cheat, simply because they feel more trapped than they otherwise would....and they feel trapped because in a very real legal sense, they are.
The reason people get cold feet, most notably men, is because they are about to sign a paper which assumes they'll be together forever in the eyes of the law and their church for those who are religious, but with a huge penalty for failure (divorce) leading to a serious financial hit which can last a lifetime. In California, an alimony award (usually to the female) will cost the male *for life* if the couple were married over 10 years. Yeah, cold-feet isn't just a worry about the open-bar tab after the reception. Imagine deciding you'd rather have a Mini-Cooper than a paid-off Honda, but you still have to pay for the Honda even when someone else is driving it!
Some marriage proponents (or those seeking company in their misery) will note the perks that come with the legal rat's-nest of matrimony. Yes, there are rights conferred to married people that are withheld from gay or unmarried straight couples, but this is discrimination and should be treated accordingly...even by people who are allowed to get married.
Take hospital visitation, for instance. The law allows family and spouses visitation rights whereas it's disallowed for unmarried partners. Domestic partners who are government-recognized have these and next-of-kin rights in some states, but straight-couples under 62 cannot even get domestic partnership status if they wanted to!
It's not up to the hospital to decide who should visit you. If you're conscious, you should have a list of people who are allowed to see you, and those who are blocked at the nurse's station. Some people may have a dear friend they'd love to see and family they never want to see. Simply because someone is a spouse or family-member has nothing to do with visitation, but those who aren't having government approved sexual relations suffer the abuse of discrimination, simply because they are not married or straight. This will change, but it's been an issue.
With regard to death benefits...anyone can set up a will or other legal means to protect the partner in the event of death and through life-insurance. You certainly don't need marriage for this.
In the old days, you could not get a hotel room with your girlfriend/boyfriend without being married. Those days are over. Common law marriage was an awful Draconian practice where the government would 'marry you anyway' if you lived with someone for 7-10 years, depending on your state. Thankfully, this ridiculous law is off the books in most states (including my home state of California).
The downsides of unmarried relationships are minimal nowadays, but the downsides of divorce remain colossal. If you're unmarried, you're there because you want to be...like your parents, your brother or sister, your dog or cat, and your job. In California, businesses generally hire you 'at will', meaning they can fire you anytime for any reason, and you can leave when you want. This is ideal, since the employer is not saddled with a sub-par employee and the employee can always pursue a better deal.
Relationships are no different. There are always options, and no legal paper will disguise that. A woman can find a better-looking, richer guy who cuddles more and is better in bed. A guy can find a hotter, younger woman who is a nympho and part-time chef and gets season passes to baseball games. Staying with someone 'at-will' is far more noble and freeing than being married, without the ever-looming threat of messy, expensive divorce. You're there because both of you find it mutually beneficial.
Here's another example. Think of anyone you ever broke up with. Things started well, right? But, when things went sour, you were glad you didn't marry them. Since over-half of marriages end in divorce, everyone who gets divorced probably wishes they were never married either...though that doesn't mean they wouldn't still have had a relationship. You never know if you 'should have gotten married' until it's too late, but if you never marry in the first place you won't set a legal bear-trap for yourself just because things changed in a manner you didn't predict.
Nobody needs marriage. It's unecessary in a modern time, and the downside of divorce is tremendous and could lead to financial ruin for some. What we're seeing is the slow dissolution of the marriage idea before our eyes, changing incrementally by generation. First, gay couples can't get married, then they can, then it's voted down, but we all know that eventually, gay-marriage will be common, unremarkable and available to any gay couple.
Social progress is slow and the religious conservatives continue to do their level best to oppress others through legislated social-retardation, but in the end social-progress wins....the religious could not keep slavery, they couldn't keep women from voting, they couldn't keep Jim Crow laws and segregation, they can't suppress evolution, astronomy or science at large, and they certainly won't be able to 'save' marriage or even religion itself once people realize they don't have to allow the church to think for them. As religion dies its slow death, marriage will die along with it.
I predict that in 10 years, maybe less....marriage will be seen as the old-fashioned, quaint yet hopelessly naive, outdated and unnecessary institution it is. Unmarried households already outnumber married households in the U.S.. The shift has already started.
Finally, here's the unassailable logic in its simplest form: If you're gonna get divorced you shouldn't have gotten married and if you're gonna stay together, you don't need marriage.
-Happily unmarried for 12 years.
-dB-
The premise is simple and direct: Nobody needs to be married in this day and age, and the legal downsides of divorce are tremendous.
I decided a long time ago that I don't need to be married *ever*, and this was back in 1989 or so when I de-converted from Catholicism. While some of us in our society are deprived of the right I also boycott in protest. As an atheist, I don't want to feed-into the 'married' couple ideal set up by ancient religions which I don't believe in, and any religious prescription to get married is irrelevant to me.
The concept of marriage comes from an institution where women were seen as chattel property. They didn't always have the right to vote and were told to 'honor and obey' their
Pledging lifelong allegiance to a person based on the transient-insanity of sexual desire at a young age (or any age) is not the wisest choice, especially considering the change humans go through and the penalties for 'failure'.
Divorce has historically been shunned or could get one excommunicated from one's social networking group (church) and what many believe is the path to 'salvation'. Worse, divorce in modern times often means huge lawyer fees, alimony payments to maintain the lifestyle of an ex-spouse (usually the female) for a lifestyle she couldn't maintain without the partner in the first-place. On top of all this is community property law in relevant states and ball-busting judges with agendas who basically can decide your fate with the bang of a gavel...but if you're not married (assuming no common-law marriage) then you don't have to worry about the legal entanglements of divorce.
Without marriage, you're free to leave if it suits you and it keeps partners on better behaviour, and there won't be divorce lawyers banging on your door (and your bank account) with all the legal recourse in the world to make you miserable.
Child-support is often alimony in disguise and rarely relates directly to what a child actually needs as additional income (look at what celebrities pay in child-support). Since child-support follows the child, marriage doesn't relate to children at all except in some traditional religious sense, but religion has no effect on those immune from its dictates.
Sure, some of you are screaming at the monitor, 'Get a pre-nup doofus!'. Now, ask yourselves, why do you need a contract to *undo* the horrible contract that comes with a marriage certificate? Talk about a red-flag. It's like going to a car dealer with a lawyer-drafted contract to counter-act the bad contract you're getting into at the dealership. The simple thing to do is avoid the bad-contract in the first place.
Simply put, divorce can be insanely expensive, and confers too much power to the female (usually) and a legal system which has no business in the affairs (literally) of consenting adults.
It's disconcerting to think that the government 'stamps approval' on some relationships, but other taxpaying, consenting adults cannot marry at all because they share the same gender. Likewise, if four women want to marry one guy, what business is it of the government's? Guys with tremendous resources (or a convenient harem-religion) always attract multiple partners (same with powerful women). If they're all consenting adults, it's none of our business.
Oddly, straight couples under the age of 62 cannot even become domestic partners in California, where I live, though they *used* to be able to before politicians removed that law and just left us the 'all or nothing' marriage option.
Sure, companies can *elect* to honor heterosexual domestic-partners with regard to health-coverage, but there is no state-mandate. If you're straight and under 62 in California, it's marriage or nothing. If you're gay, it's domestic partnership or nothing. The logical thing would be to allow both straight and gay couples to enter into marriage or a domestic partnership if they so choose.
It's all a big hot flaming and discriminatory mess and I want no part of it.
Societal conditioning prepares young girls for marriage at an early age, though that trend is probably changing in 2009. There is a reason newsstands are plastered in 'Bride' magazines, but rarely will you find a 'Groom' magazine. There is a reason women want marriage in the U.S. more than men...they have everything to gain, generally speaking, and little to lose, whereas men stand to lose a lot in the event of divorce.
As an atheist, I am not bound by the dictates of the church. I am free to ignore its prescriptions for celibacy before marriage and ignore the very idea of marriage itself. After all, who invented this idea? It's out-dated and simply unnecessary in a modern age.
Some will fall under the misconception (usually promoted by wannabe brides) that marriage=commitment. Wrong. Divorce rates speak for themselves. Over half of marriages end in divorce, even with couples who claim to be religious (since they are the majority in the first place). In fact, unmarried households now outnumber traditional, married households as reported by U.S. Today in 2006. This shows that the trend is going away from marriage simply because it just doesn't work, statistically-speaking, and there's a lot to lose if you're in the more than 50% who end up getting divorced.
Speaking of commitment, some women will use this buzzword to try and get a guy to marry them, and I guess some men might do that, but you'll most often hear this from women on talk-shows, in books, articles, etc. The idea is that if the man doesn't 'commit', then the woman should find someone else to 'commit' and marry her. What is the idea here, to find a spouse or find the *right* person who you want to spend time with? Why do people feel they need a label, a legal paper and an expensive ceremony to feel 'committed' to someone, all the while being willing to let a good person go if they won't sign a legal document? Sounds like extortion to me. Imagine pressuring your friends....'Hey man, be my friend for life or find another friend!'. The logic just doesn't make any kind of sense.
If a woman is willing to leave you, a man she wants to be with forever simply because you won't sign a contract to marry, then she doesn't really want to be with you forever. It's simple. You're easily replaced, and she is telling you that unless you sign this contract, you're going to be replaced by someone else she wants to be with 'forever'...someone who WILL sign on the dotted line.
Commitment is not on a legal document. It's in the mind and displayed in your behavior. Unless I am missing something, people don't go to the altar with the intent to get divorced in the forseeable future (except gold-diggers who nobody should unwittingly marry in the first place). Ostensibly, those who get married take their vows seriously enough, and would prefer to stay married. But, life isn't a fairytale. Some people cheat, they grow bored, they change (sometimes wildly so), they disagree about fundamental issues such as religion, kids, money, in-laws, or what kind of wedding cake to get.
Humans are dynamic creatures, and evolution didn't shape us (notably, males) for long-term monogamy. Women drop an egg a month, men generate billions of sperm a day. If monogamy happens, great, and those who enter into relationships should honor the physical well-being of their partners and not spread diseases they might catch in a tryst. The moment one cheats, it behooves that person to tell his/her partner and abstain from sex until then. It's one thing to change your mind, but it's another to expose an innocent party by way of undisclosed dalliances.
That said, humans change...it's guaranteed. Whether you will change together or not cannot be known and it's another reason not to try and put a 'forever' label on marriage.
Let's pretend for a second that 'marriage' is just the first of two-stages of arbitrary 'commitment' labels. What if there was another level called 'Flarriage'? Would the partner then be comparing and contrasting with her friends, annoyed that the hubs will marry her but not 'Flarry' her? It could get ridiculous. One of the reasons I think that women get annoyed when they're not married is that they see it as some sort of personal failure, as if they weren't 'good enough' to 'get' a guy to marry them. But, there's no competition. What matters is whether you enjoy spending time with the person and whether you want to mutually continue.
The analogy just demonstrates that the label 'marriage' is arbitrary, even if it's widely thought to be something more. With regard to real commitment, it's in your brain and your 'heart' so to speak, not on a legal document. In fact, the false-security of marriage might cause some people to cheat, simply because they feel more trapped than they otherwise would....and they feel trapped because in a very real legal sense, they are.
The reason people get cold feet, most notably men, is because they are about to sign a paper which assumes they'll be together forever in the eyes of the law and their church for those who are religious, but with a huge penalty for failure (divorce) leading to a serious financial hit which can last a lifetime. In California, an alimony award (usually to the female) will cost the male *for life* if the couple were married over 10 years. Yeah, cold-feet isn't just a worry about the open-bar tab after the reception. Imagine deciding you'd rather have a Mini-Cooper than a paid-off Honda, but you still have to pay for the Honda even when someone else is driving it!
Some marriage proponents (or those seeking company in their misery) will note the perks that come with the legal rat's-nest of matrimony. Yes, there are rights conferred to married people that are withheld from gay or unmarried straight couples, but this is discrimination and should be treated accordingly...even by people who are allowed to get married.
Take hospital visitation, for instance. The law allows family and spouses visitation rights whereas it's disallowed for unmarried partners. Domestic partners who are government-recognized have these and next-of-kin rights in some states, but straight-couples under 62 cannot even get domestic partnership status if they wanted to!
It's not up to the hospital to decide who should visit you. If you're conscious, you should have a list of people who are allowed to see you, and those who are blocked at the nurse's station. Some people may have a dear friend they'd love to see and family they never want to see. Simply because someone is a spouse or family-member has nothing to do with visitation, but those who aren't having government approved sexual relations suffer the abuse of discrimination, simply because they are not married or straight. This will change, but it's been an issue.
With regard to death benefits...anyone can set up a will or other legal means to protect the partner in the event of death and through life-insurance. You certainly don't need marriage for this.
In the old days, you could not get a hotel room with your girlfriend/boyfriend without being married. Those days are over. Common law marriage was an awful Draconian practice where the government would 'marry you anyway' if you lived with someone for 7-10 years, depending on your state. Thankfully, this ridiculous law is off the books in most states (including my home state of California).
The downsides of unmarried relationships are minimal nowadays, but the downsides of divorce remain colossal. If you're unmarried, you're there because you want to be...like your parents, your brother or sister, your dog or cat, and your job. In California, businesses generally hire you 'at will', meaning they can fire you anytime for any reason, and you can leave when you want. This is ideal, since the employer is not saddled with a sub-par employee and the employee can always pursue a better deal.
Relationships are no different. There are always options, and no legal paper will disguise that. A woman can find a better-looking, richer guy who cuddles more and is better in bed. A guy can find a hotter, younger woman who is a nympho and part-time chef and gets season passes to baseball games. Staying with someone 'at-will' is far more noble and freeing than being married, without the ever-looming threat of messy, expensive divorce. You're there because both of you find it mutually beneficial.
Here's another example. Think of anyone you ever broke up with. Things started well, right? But, when things went sour, you were glad you didn't marry them. Since over-half of marriages end in divorce, everyone who gets divorced probably wishes they were never married either...though that doesn't mean they wouldn't still have had a relationship. You never know if you 'should have gotten married' until it's too late, but if you never marry in the first place you won't set a legal bear-trap for yourself just because things changed in a manner you didn't predict.
Nobody needs marriage. It's unecessary in a modern time, and the downside of divorce is tremendous and could lead to financial ruin for some. What we're seeing is the slow dissolution of the marriage idea before our eyes, changing incrementally by generation. First, gay couples can't get married, then they can, then it's voted down, but we all know that eventually, gay-marriage will be common, unremarkable and available to any gay couple.
Social progress is slow and the religious conservatives continue to do their level best to oppress others through legislated social-retardation, but in the end social-progress wins....the religious could not keep slavery, they couldn't keep women from voting, they couldn't keep Jim Crow laws and segregation, they can't suppress evolution, astronomy or science at large, and they certainly won't be able to 'save' marriage or even religion itself once people realize they don't have to allow the church to think for them. As religion dies its slow death, marriage will die along with it.
I predict that in 10 years, maybe less....marriage will be seen as the old-fashioned, quaint yet hopelessly naive, outdated and unnecessary institution it is. Unmarried households already outnumber married households in the U.S.. The shift has already started.
Finally, here's the unassailable logic in its simplest form: If you're gonna get divorced you shouldn't have gotten married and if you're gonna stay together, you don't need marriage.
-Happily unmarried for 12 years.
-dB-
Saturday, September 5, 2009
What is an atheist/agnostic?
The word 'a-theist' literally defines itself. The prefix 'a' means 'without', such as the word 'a-symptomatic' which explains a lack of symptoms.
Likewise, an 'a-theist' is without theism (from the Greek word, 'theos' or 'god'). Therefore, one who lacks god-belief or a belief in gods is an atheist, quite literally. This tells us nothing about what views the person holds, whether he or she enjoys long-walks on the beach, prefers fuschia over mauve or is an omnivore or vegetarian. When you discover an atheist, all you know by definition is that person has told you they lack a belief in a god or gods.
Similarly, the word 'a-gnostic' defines itself too. This term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in the late 1800's regarding his personal views about god-claims. Huxley was one of Darwin's most vociferous supporters of evolution and referred to as 'Darwin's Bulldog'.
A-gnostic literally means 'without knowledge', as the word 'gnostic' comes from the Greek, 'gnosis' which is, 'knowledge'.
Some atheists make a distinction between what you can or cannot know empirically, and what you actually believe or disbelieve. Either way, claiming 'not to know' a god-claim logically results in atheism just as positive rejection of said claim would. Let me explain:
If you cannot empirically know a proposition because it doesn't deal in the natural world, then there's no reason to abstain from rejection of that claim. With god-claims, the claim is 'all there is'. Thus, if the claim fails due to internal logical inconsistency or incoherence, then it's safe to reject the claim on its face.
That said, once you've heard a particular claim, you are by definition no longer agnostic, for you know the claim (which is all there is). You can be empirically agnostic about a god hiding behind Venus when we look behind Mars, but that would entail accepting that there even *is* a god who could flit around the Universe at will.
For instance, if I present to you the properties for the Flying Spaghetti Monster...all knowing, all seeing, all noodly, ever-present, mostly good and tasty, you would be forced to deal with the claim on its own merits. You cannot escape into 'agnosticism' because you know the claim now. Ask where it is, and I might tell you it's invisible, undetectable. Ask for measurements, and I would claim it's incorporeal and again, undetectable, and furthermore, lives outside of the known Universe. Of course, how do I know this creature even exists if I admit he is outside the known Universe?
The claim for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as described is ridiculous, and thus can be rejected out of hand. There is no agnosticism, because the claim, which is 'all there is' is now known to you and subject to review.
Thus, 'agnostic' is not a third position as it applies to god-claims. An agnostic as self-described is necessarily 'without knowledge' of a given god-claim and thus cannot ascribe belief to that which he claims not to know. When one calls himself an agnostic, one necessarily embraces atheism by way of lack of knowledge.
Sometimes, the agnostic simply misrepresents his lack of knowledge (purposely or not) even though the ridiculous claims are there for review, and thus is not agnostic about a given claim. If the agnostic holds a belief *in spite* of admitting he 'doesn't know', then he's really a theist who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'agnostic', which is quite common. This is often why agnostics as self-described are often hostile to atheists, or theists, or both!
A major reason people use this term lies with the demonization of the word 'atheist'. Some dictionaries list atheism as being 'wicked' in a third or fourth definition of the word. The word atheist is misunderstood, slandered and viewed with shocking disdain by the general public, and atheists are often referred to as 'the most hated minority group'. Sadly, this contributes to confusion surrounding this simple, self-defining word, causing some to discard it in an effort to use a 'friendlier' term.
An atheist is not a devil-worshipper, it's not a religion any more than abstinence is a form of sex, it's nothing other than a lack of god-belief. Some atheists, feeling pressure to avoid this term have resorted to 'agnosticism', but some of those think they are somehow agnostics without being either theists or atheists, but this is no different than the person who at once claims neither belief or nor disbelief in invisible pink unicorns...change the claim to something less culturally sensitive and the evasive semantics of self-proclaimed agnostics (who deny atheism) start to become clear.
Atheism or theism simply deals with a rejection or acceptance of god claims. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, but if you've heard the claim of god you're tasked with accepting or rejecting, you are by definition *not* agnostic about that particular god-claim.
If you reject all claims of god, even if you allow for evidence (which any reasonable person would), you're an 'atheist'. If you accept any kind of god idea, whether it's liberal pantheism or fundamentalist young-Earth creationism, you're a believer, a 'theist'.
Either way, the god-claimants have the burden of proof. Maligning the innocent skeptical non-believer doesn't prove any god or further the case of the believer, but thousands of years of oppression have bullied some into a state of silence.
The claims are there. Lean on them with the full weight of your intellect. If an idea has any merit, it will stand scrutiny and those who profess those ideas won't need to resort to slander.
Until then, if you call yourself an agnostic, you're also an atheist. If you have any kind of belief in any kind of god, you're by definition a 'theist'. Anything else is semantic trickery, evasive shell-games and simple ignorance.
-dB-
Likewise, an 'a-theist' is without theism (from the Greek word, 'theos' or 'god'). Therefore, one who lacks god-belief or a belief in gods is an atheist, quite literally. This tells us nothing about what views the person holds, whether he or she enjoys long-walks on the beach, prefers fuschia over mauve or is an omnivore or vegetarian. When you discover an atheist, all you know by definition is that person has told you they lack a belief in a god or gods.
Similarly, the word 'a-gnostic' defines itself too. This term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in the late 1800's regarding his personal views about god-claims. Huxley was one of Darwin's most vociferous supporters of evolution and referred to as 'Darwin's Bulldog'.
A-gnostic literally means 'without knowledge', as the word 'gnostic' comes from the Greek, 'gnosis' which is, 'knowledge'.
Some atheists make a distinction between what you can or cannot know empirically, and what you actually believe or disbelieve. Either way, claiming 'not to know' a god-claim logically results in atheism just as positive rejection of said claim would. Let me explain:
If you cannot empirically know a proposition because it doesn't deal in the natural world, then there's no reason to abstain from rejection of that claim. With god-claims, the claim is 'all there is'. Thus, if the claim fails due to internal logical inconsistency or incoherence, then it's safe to reject the claim on its face.
That said, once you've heard a particular claim, you are by definition no longer agnostic, for you know the claim (which is all there is). You can be empirically agnostic about a god hiding behind Venus when we look behind Mars, but that would entail accepting that there even *is* a god who could flit around the Universe at will.
For instance, if I present to you the properties for the Flying Spaghetti Monster...all knowing, all seeing, all noodly, ever-present, mostly good and tasty, you would be forced to deal with the claim on its own merits. You cannot escape into 'agnosticism' because you know the claim now. Ask where it is, and I might tell you it's invisible, undetectable. Ask for measurements, and I would claim it's incorporeal and again, undetectable, and furthermore, lives outside of the known Universe. Of course, how do I know this creature even exists if I admit he is outside the known Universe?
The claim for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as described is ridiculous, and thus can be rejected out of hand. There is no agnosticism, because the claim, which is 'all there is' is now known to you and subject to review.
Thus, 'agnostic' is not a third position as it applies to god-claims. An agnostic as self-described is necessarily 'without knowledge' of a given god-claim and thus cannot ascribe belief to that which he claims not to know. When one calls himself an agnostic, one necessarily embraces atheism by way of lack of knowledge.
Sometimes, the agnostic simply misrepresents his lack of knowledge (purposely or not) even though the ridiculous claims are there for review, and thus is not agnostic about a given claim. If the agnostic holds a belief *in spite* of admitting he 'doesn't know', then he's really a theist who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'agnostic', which is quite common. This is often why agnostics as self-described are often hostile to atheists, or theists, or both!
A major reason people use this term lies with the demonization of the word 'atheist'. Some dictionaries list atheism as being 'wicked' in a third or fourth definition of the word. The word atheist is misunderstood, slandered and viewed with shocking disdain by the general public, and atheists are often referred to as 'the most hated minority group'. Sadly, this contributes to confusion surrounding this simple, self-defining word, causing some to discard it in an effort to use a 'friendlier' term.
An atheist is not a devil-worshipper, it's not a religion any more than abstinence is a form of sex, it's nothing other than a lack of god-belief. Some atheists, feeling pressure to avoid this term have resorted to 'agnosticism', but some of those think they are somehow agnostics without being either theists or atheists, but this is no different than the person who at once claims neither belief or nor disbelief in invisible pink unicorns...change the claim to something less culturally sensitive and the evasive semantics of self-proclaimed agnostics (who deny atheism) start to become clear.
Atheism or theism simply deals with a rejection or acceptance of god claims. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, but if you've heard the claim of god you're tasked with accepting or rejecting, you are by definition *not* agnostic about that particular god-claim.
If you reject all claims of god, even if you allow for evidence (which any reasonable person would), you're an 'atheist'. If you accept any kind of god idea, whether it's liberal pantheism or fundamentalist young-Earth creationism, you're a believer, a 'theist'.
Either way, the god-claimants have the burden of proof. Maligning the innocent skeptical non-believer doesn't prove any god or further the case of the believer, but thousands of years of oppression have bullied some into a state of silence.
The claims are there. Lean on them with the full weight of your intellect. If an idea has any merit, it will stand scrutiny and those who profess those ideas won't need to resort to slander.
Until then, if you call yourself an agnostic, you're also an atheist. If you have any kind of belief in any kind of god, you're by definition a 'theist'. Anything else is semantic trickery, evasive shell-games and simple ignorance.
-dB-
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Out Campaign: A is for atheist.
I've decided to come out of the closet. No, I'm not gay, but some of my best friends are. ;)
Instead, I'm posting on my blog as an atheist, with 'atheist' in the title even though it's visible to prospective clients or employers. Shows to go ya how hated a minority we are when gay people are out without (much) incident, but atheists are still heavily closeted. I am all for equal-rights too and I am glad to see social-progress, but it sucks being in what is likely the world's most- hated minority group.
It's kind of a big deal, because I always have the fear that clients/employers will run screaming from the hills when they discover my atheism, though I'd taken great pains to hide it in the recent past.
The 'Out Campaign' was started by Richard Dawkins as a way to get atheists to come out and be seen, especially by other atheists who might come out as well. This could trigger an avalanche of awareness and acceptance similar to the gay movement. As more atheists leave their hiding places more people will realize that we're everywhere, and that's hard to ignore.
Atheists comprise a huge minority, and the fastest growing one in America. 16% in the U.S. alone are atheists or non-religious which is a staggering 49 million Americans. This outnumbers other minority groups like Catholics, Jews, even black people (not all of you are from Africa, I know). ;) We're your brother, sister, father, mother, friend, doctor, teacher and your video game artists specializing-in but not-limited to characters, specifically modeling and texturing.
Atheists have been so closeted and disorganized that we haven't been able to flex our political might to get merely equal treatment. In the vacuum of oppression, some have stepped in to try and foist religion into government and into our rights, and yes, even the rights of other believers. A better-organized group of un-closeted non-believers would be more effective at resisting religous tyranny, if nothing else, at the grass-roots level, because conversations do change minds (that's how I became an atheist in the first place). But, the first step is coming out. To that end, I urge fellow non-believers to check out Richard Dawkins's Out Campaign.
We're here. We're atheists. Get used to it.
-dB-
Instead, I'm posting on my blog as an atheist, with 'atheist' in the title even though it's visible to prospective clients or employers. Shows to go ya how hated a minority we are when gay people are out without (much) incident, but atheists are still heavily closeted. I am all for equal-rights too and I am glad to see social-progress, but it sucks being in what is likely the world's most- hated minority group.
It's kind of a big deal, because I always have the fear that clients/employers will run screaming from the hills when they discover my atheism, though I'd taken great pains to hide it in the recent past.
The 'Out Campaign' was started by Richard Dawkins as a way to get atheists to come out and be seen, especially by other atheists who might come out as well. This could trigger an avalanche of awareness and acceptance similar to the gay movement. As more atheists leave their hiding places more people will realize that we're everywhere, and that's hard to ignore.
Atheists comprise a huge minority, and the fastest growing one in America. 16% in the U.S. alone are atheists or non-religious which is a staggering 49 million Americans. This outnumbers other minority groups like Catholics, Jews, even black people (not all of you are from Africa, I know). ;) We're your brother, sister, father, mother, friend, doctor, teacher and your video game artists specializing-in but not-limited to characters, specifically modeling and texturing.
Atheists have been so closeted and disorganized that we haven't been able to flex our political might to get merely equal treatment. In the vacuum of oppression, some have stepped in to try and foist religion into government and into our rights, and yes, even the rights of other believers. A better-organized group of un-closeted non-believers would be more effective at resisting religous tyranny, if nothing else, at the grass-roots level, because conversations do change minds (that's how I became an atheist in the first place). But, the first step is coming out. To that end, I urge fellow non-believers to check out Richard Dawkins's Out Campaign.
We're here. We're atheists. Get used to it.
-dB-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed