Tuesday, 18 January 2011
-
Why can't you leave us alone?
This comes courtesy of The Thinking Atheist, and it's perfect.
The protests come every day from the religious, and they go something like this:
"Why spend your time disproving God?"
"Why not just let people believe what they want to believe?"
"Why can't you leave religion alone?"
As one YouTube commenter said recently, "No one can explain to me why it is so important to convince theists to abandon their beliefs."
The answer is simple. Pages like this one exist because religion exists.
Religion permeates our culture, shows up on our doorsteps with literature, scriptures and threats of eternal damnation, influences our science books, contaminates our political systems, indoctrinates our children and postulates that its doctrine must be followed, lest we be destroyed in body, in soul, or both.
Non-believers are simply responding to the avalanche of religious messages that bears down upon us daily.
Religion gets carte blanche to be as vocal as it wants, to knock on our doors and accost us in our homes, in our places of work, in our personal and professional lives. Believers are charged with a life mission to preach, teach, disciple, shout it from the mountaintops and to "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Religion...is everywhere.
Ask yourself. When's the last time an atheist rang your doorbell with the Good News of Humanism? How often do you find Richard Dawkins books in the dresser drawers of your hotel rooms? When was the last atheist temple erected in your neighborhood? Have you ever attended an atheist revival? Has atheism demanded 10% of your household income? How many dedicated atheist television channels come through your satellite dish? How many atheist verses were you instructed to memorize as a child? When's the last time someone thanked a FARMER (or even the cook) at the dinner table instead of God?
On a more radical front, what's the name of the last atheist who sawed the head off of an "infidel?" Or sentenced a shrouded woman to death for displeasing an oppressive husband? Or strapped explosives to his belt in order to kill hundreds in a public square? Or publicly hung a gay person for his choice of lifestyle?
It's everywhere. Religion is a pounding drum that has gone mostly unanswered for a long, long time. And religion is not satisfied with merely existing quietly in the homes and hearts of the faithful. Its very nature compels the believer to proselytize, preach, promote, convince, convert and prevail. If you play on the team of the religious, your game plan is to stay, always, on offense.
Throughout our history, those who raise a simple hand of protest against these advances have been portrayed as the real problem. Religion has attempted to marginalize and defeat legitimate questions and concerns by indignantly portraying any resistors as misguided, immoral, rudderless, angry, miserable, lost and alone.
And when skepticism challenges wildly improbable (or impossible) stories found in the bible, the Qur'an and other holy books, the religious wail, "Why can't you just leave us alone?"
The irony is thick.
And religion impedes curiosity and inhibits learning, as the much-maligned Creation Museum proves. It stymies critical thinking. It stretches us to believe the unbelievable. And it poisons the foundational teachings we are using to train up the generations of tomorrow.
Pages like mine exist as a response... a counter-argument to ensure that the cacophony of superstition does not go unchallenged. And if your belief system is so undeniable, so factual, so provable, so real and so true, certainly it can withstand the opposing viewpoints presented here and elsewhere. Certainly, it can survive the acid tests.
Just remember. Religion began the argument. It amplifies itself before the world. And it threatens all mankind with punishment upon its rejection.
We are atheists. We are moral. We are reasonable. We are thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate, happy, fulfilled and well-informed.
And as long as religion insists on fixing human beings who are not broken, we will respond with the evidence that we are not the problem.
I say we take it a step further and truly identify the problem: irrationality. It promotes stupidity and is the greatest force working against humanity - and religion tells us we need it.
-
recommend
- recs 25
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to Zerowing21's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in Zerowing21's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (73)
@vickevlar -
hhahaExcellent post.
As an aside, I am disgusted with arrogant, condescending, superior-acting believers who wrongly assume the worst of others who disagree with their political/ religious views.
Those who today "wail," as you neatly expressed it, yesterday were empowered, and then caused others to wail, and moan, and weep. I know this, and I know it well, despite being a theist. It's all gone in a circle, and come home to roost.
I like where your blog is heading.
@UnconventionalButterfly - There is a fine distinction to be made. I do believe we should respect everyone's RIGHT to have their opinion. But, I don't think we have any obligation to responsibility to respect bad ideas or dumb opinions or harmful opinions.
@cal2323 - Well its your opinion if its a dumb or bad one, right? Idk, I just try to stay out of arguments as much as possible X]
@CoderHead - Well i just meant everybody, not just as respecting them. They need to respect our opinions too.... wouldn't that be awesome if we all just got along? ... Sorry if I upset you =\
You come over as a professional whiner. Let's face it, if you're so committed to the good news of humanism (whatever that might be) then you could go around some doors like the Christians do and tell people you have got good news for them to believe in nothing. If you're so committed to the cause, then have a collection among yourselves to enable you to put Prof Dawkins pseudo-intellectual tripe (a term used for his books by at least one fellow atheist) in hotel rooms. Or what's to stop you building an atheist temple, if there are people to go to it?
I'm not sure I can quote an exact case of an atheist sawing a head of an infidel, but I can refer to the fact that literally millions of people perished at the hands of atheists and their regimes during the 20th century.
As to proselytising, what on earth are you trying to do in your role as a ‘professional atheist’ if not proselytise people for your cause, the very thing you say is wrong in religious people? Your philosophy certainly cannot stand any form of testing as it is based on a lie – a lie that design and information can originate from nothing. You have it wrong. The onus is not on the theist to prove God exists as there is strong evidence of design and information around us. The burden of proof is actually the other way round.
‘We are atheists. We are moral. We are reasonable. We are thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate, happy, fulfilled and well-informed.’ I can't judge you on the validity of what you say but it does sound self-righteous and priggish, the very thing you accuse religious people of being. And your fellow atheists, ‘Uncle Joe’ Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al were also like this, eh?
I would honestly advise you rather than holding forth on a website generating a lot of hot air, to go into the world and achieve something. Go and start some medical clinics in the Developing World in the name of atheism like Christian missions have done for the last century. Then you'll have something concrete to show for your beliefs or lack of them. Go and show your compassion to people rather than just talking about it.
Of course, I realise you might be doing this already, in which case the very intellectually limited points you make on your blog do you a disservice. You sound like an angry young man, a rebel without a cause, a paragon of negativity, an eight ulcer man on a six ulcer job with all eight ulcers working.
I cannot see how you can seek to eliminate irrationality from the world by being so entirely irrational yourself. So please, by all means be an atheist, but why not put your energies into something rather more constructive?
@UnconventionalButterfly - You absolutely didn't upset me. I just wanted to correct what I saw to be a misunderstanding of how two opposing viewpoints ought to interact. No harm, no foul.
@kenedwards5 - You do realize that this blog post is actually from The Thinking Atheist, right? Attacking JT for sharing something he read (even if he completely agrees with it) is ignorant. Furthermore, your statement below is flawed in ways I'm sure you don't understand.
And your fellow atheists, ‘Uncle Joe’ Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al were also like this, eh?
These men may have been atheists (or not, who knows?) but they didn't act on secular humanist values when they murdered, imprisoned, and oppressed people. This comparison is much the same as me telling you that your moral framework is completely void and meaningless because of the Crusades.
If you'd like to see examples of good secular work being done, look up Doctors Without Borders, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the American Red Cross. The Atheist Experience has a list of secular charities that leaped into action during the Haiti disaster, some of which I already mentioned. I and other atheists I know regularly donate blood and also donate money to charities like these which don't spend any of their money on preaching, converting, or indoctrinating as part of their cause.
As for building an atheist temple, I hope you were joking. That's an incredibly childish thing to say - especially when you're accusing JT of being intellectually limited.
When you suggest putting energy into something more constructive, are you suggesting that's what religion is: constructive? Lives have been lost and advancement has been stopped in the name of religion. I think opposing that is a worthwhile cause. Your mileage may vary.
@kenedwards5 - Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot? Their motivations were power, not deconversion, nor atheism. They just happened to be non-religious.
On the other hand, the sheer amoung of death and torture inflicted by believers (often by religious authorities) with the ONLY intention of converting or eliminating unbelievers is staggering. Mao, Pot, and Stalin, even if their sole motivation had been to spread atheism, amount to less than a footnote compared to the scope and enormity of religious atrocities throughout history.
http://in-reason-i-trust.xanga.com/581896071/the-christian-holocaust/
Nice try, though.
@kenedwards5 - Quick, everybody stop reading and writing about things you believe are important, doing things you enjoy, and pursuing your interests, and instead pour your energy into constructive causes! You are not producing enough utiles for the greater good!
@CoderHead - JT said it was 'perfect' so I assume he agrees with it. I said these men were atheists - so are secular humanists. Of course, I know atheists who are good, people - not that they usually blow their trumpet like the idiot JT quotes as 'perfect'. I was just using the same comparisons that you guys usually do - ie lump everything together. Why do you never like it when your methods are used on your good selves?
As to the 'atheist temple' bit? The writer was whining because there wasn't one. So I assumed he wanted one - unless he was writing meaningless drivel, which is quite a possibility. So why tell me I'm childish? Why did the idiot say it in the first place if he didn't mean it?
Of course lives have been lost and advancement stopped in the name of religion. I recongize that. These things are terrible. But ever heard of Mao's 'great leap forward' which cost 35 million lives? That was done in the name of atheism! the problem with you guys you are blind to the obvious.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - if you believe that then you do not know anything about history. Their reasons were (at least partly) deconversion. That's the reason Christians were imprisoned, killed tortured and had their children taken away under these regimes. I'd recommend you the writings of Professor John Lennox who has actually been to these places and studied things first hand. I myself have met people who suffered under these terrible regimes simply because they were Christians. So don't try and pull that history denying stuff please.
Your last statement is totally misinformed. it has been estimated that the total deaths caused by so-called 'Christian' rulers over a five-hundred year period amounts to only about one percent of those caused by atheistic rulers in the 20th century. of course, this does not excuse the 'Christians' who were not following the commands of Christ in the first place. But it does put your statement into perspective. Just why don't you guys own up to atheism's gruesome track record instead of denying history?
@kenedwards5 - The writer wasn't whining about not having atheist temples. You'd do well to go back and read that entire paragraph. The comparison is being made as to the "footprint" of the religious compared to that of the non-religious. By your logic, the writer is also whining about not having to give 10% of his income to an atheist. Seriously, re-read it.
And stop calling people idiots. Do you want to have discourse or do you want to hurl insults? I can do either of the above if you wish, but I'll need to know which you prefer. I think everyone who's commented so far has been way more diplomatic than you.
BTW, you're going to have to do a lot better than that to show that Mao did what he did "in the name of atheism." How do agriculturalization, industrialization, collectivization, plunder, forced labor, and starvation reflect atheist core values?
@kenedwards5 - Each person bears the responsibility to do what is right as he judges it. Most people, if they are truly interested in doing the right thing will be and do the same things. This will vary according to culture of course, but for the majority of mankind it pans out pretty much the same. It's when we start to identify ourselves with a name, label, or group that we sometimes lose our sense of personal responsibility of doing right. This holds true no matter what name, label, or group we identify with, because we abdicate our choice in favor of the group choice in order to belong. It is not as right to 'belong' as it is to do the 'right thing' so we see problems anytime we see groups that deal with morality no matter what name, label, or group it is. So the issue can be brought down to each person's choice of how to judge right and wrong. They will either wrestle with the issues and make a personal decision, or they will not and just follow what the group says. Personally I think that abdication of choice in matters of morality in favor of a group is always the wrong decision, no matter what the group is. This is why I don't like religion, (and a lot of other groups) because it purports to know what is right and people go along with it without much thought.
When we look at history and see it riddled with men who acting alone or in a group committing evil, we like to judge the group, but it's really the individuals that make up that group who have given up their personal responsibility to judge the right and wrong of what they and what the group does. As groups enlarge and take in more people, even less choice is given the individual member to decide the right and wrong of anything. I think we can clearly see this with religion in America today. Your own arguments above are simply parroted canned arguments that long ago have been refuted, I don't believe that they could be your arguments because that would be too much of a coincidence. They are the judgments of the group you belong to, or the group that has influence over you. It is a very difficult thing to divorce yourself from the teachings of bias especially if you've given them ear for years and years, but it's a good practice to try it.
Non-believers also get caught up in the group mentality. They also start to form doctrines or so it would seem, but it's only because they keep saying the same things over and over. You can't refute a group because in order to do so requires that you have a doctrine. It's not as easy as talking to someone one on one, with groups the same things keep being said over and over until it becomes a doctrine or a movement, or group where people seek to belong. On the other hand, how can people of opposing viewpoints to religion be heard? It's almost a catch 22 to try and oppose religion, because you are almost always forced to appear as anti-religion, which most people see as a group or religion in itself. I think it's much more effective to speak to people one on one and challenge their beliefs until they are either supported or they collapse. The article above is just another volley in the ongoing debate which for those of us who've been in it a while is tiresome. It is unfortunately necessary to keep going in this direction in hopes that some will break out of the group and think for themselves occasionally. They should consider the truth claims of what they believe and whether or not what they say really is truth. For instance, does it make sense to think that because men do evil that they were born evil? How can we truly know there is a god if he does not prove himself to us? Is it more likely that there is an afterlife than there is that people need something to believe in to ease the fear of death? For every supernatural claim, there are many natural explanations, so why do we continue to believe in supernaturalism? If you find yourself faced with literally hundreds, if not thousands of questions like these, none of which cannot be answered with one shred of evidence that would stand up in a lowly court of law, how confident can you be that you are following truth?
@kenedwards5 - LOL! You're kidding, right? You're a riot. You're the one that's got it all wrong. All fucking wrong. Poor thing. Bye!
It's not the Christian in his home praying before he eats that bothers me. It's the ones in Congress trying to establish an American Theocracy that will pass laws saying we ALL must pray before we eat. They're the ones that bother me.
@CoderHead - exactly
@kenedwards5 - Yawn. Your arguments are just rehashed fodder which has long been debunked. You would have known this, if only you ventured over to Google once in a while.
@kenedwards5 -
1. Atheists do not believe in nothing. Show me one example of an atheist ever claiming that we believe in nothing. We believe in living life to the fullest and advancing the human species. By saying humanists and atheists "believe in nothing" you are doing little more than parading your own ignorance, as you often accuse me of doing.
2. Stalin and Mao did not kill because they were atheists. I'm not sure where you came up with this idea, but it's absurd. Why would you kill in the name of no god?
3. There is no design in nature. There is order, which originates from chaos. This is a basic principle of the universe.
4. Atheists do not claim that the universe originated from nothing. We simply claim that the scientific evidence has not been fully established for the origins of the universe. Rejecting the research of our most brilliant minds in favor of the myths of ignorant goat herders shows quite a bit of willful ignorance on your part.
All of your arguments are fallacious, and you have these bizarre misconceptions about atheism that have zero basis in reality. I suggest you pull your head out of your Bible and embrace reality. It can be difficult at times, but it is much better to face the truth then to cling to a lie, as believers like yourselves do.
@CoderHead - the implication (to me at least) was sorry there were no atheist temples. That was quite clear. The question of tithing - in all churches I know tithing is done not because someone is forced to do so but it is a voluntary contribution to the church based on practices of the Jews. I ask you - why can't people do what they want with their money? You would defend the right for someone to do what he wants with his money - then why not Christians? After all, who is stopping atheists giving 10% to their chosen cause of non-belief?
In calling people idiots I am only following the practice of JT who does it constantly. I assume then he approves of it.
If you believe Mao's terrible crimes were not directly influenced by his atheism then I'm afraid you have a very naive view of history and the dangers that atheism (in some forms) presents.
@TheThinkingPerson - sorry, but atheists believe there is no God. They therefore believe in nothing in that respect. They come from nothing and they are going to nothing. And because we originated by chance there is no logical basis to life or morality on this planet. That is logical thinking.
At the basis of mao and stalin and their philosophy was atheism. That's why they killled thousands if not millions of Chrkistians and people olf other religions in their purges. Please do not deny history by denying this fact.
Where do we see order originating from chaos on this earth today except with the application of intelligence?
Of course atheists believe we originated from nothing. There was no primary cause so we must have come from nothing. OK let's start after the big bang. There was hydrogen. Left to itself for millions of years it became people. And that is supposed to be intelligence? Duh!
Unfortunately I fear you are the one who is not embracing reality. Unfortunately my 'bizzare misconceptions' about atheism have their factual basis in history - much of which happened in my own lifetime. It is the neo-atheists who are trying to rewrite it rather than face it squarely.
@GodAintGood - I note you do not put one single argument of your own forward! Come on! Guys loike you worship the internet and the jerks who write on it. try thinking for yourself for a change.
@kenedwards5 - Re-read the paragraph. You're still not getting it and I suspect you won't, simply because you don't want to. The entire paragraph is stating that atheists don't have an intrusive presence and don't dictate behaviors to other atheists. The fact that there are no atheist temples just goes to show that atheism is not a religion and doesn't follow the set of rules and commandments that a religion does. Atheists also don't go door to door or ask for your money.
I'm not saying that people can't do anything with their money that they want. They can. But when atheists give money, it usually goes to causes like the ones I linked above where the funds are put to good use in medical care and relief, not to administrative costs of a church, housing and salaries of the clergy. Atheists don't ask each other for 10% of their income like churches do - tradition or not. And if you think the tithe is always a voluntary contribution I'd like you to speak to four people I know who were kicked out of their church because they wouldn't sign tithing pledges (or "covenants") with the church. Hell, I was guilt-tripped into giving my tithe when I was a churchgoer even when my finances were tight and I needed all the money I could get.
And as for atheists believing that we "came from nothing and are going to nothing," you're so very, very wrong. Everything of which I'm composed was here from the formation of the universe and will continue to be here long after I'm gone. I have a lasting legacy, even if I don't continue to live after my body withers away. I find that extremely humbling and awe-inspiring far more than some juvenile fairy tale about a mythical paradise with mansions on streets of gold.
But hey, to each their own.