Unnecessary Gods

I started a conversation with some Twitter participants yesterday with the comment that: Theists work diligently to define away a god’s omnipotence.   I may address this in a later blog with more detail.  This in turn led to a dialog regarding a statement that I raised regarding gods and religions being unnecessary, continuing on; also indicating that religious actions and resources collected by religious sects are also wasteful and misdirected. 

I was then asked the question, what is necessary?     My response was to indicate that the basic human needs are met (using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) – there is really no need for humanity to neither accept nor embrace any religion.  Prayer has no effect on outcomes and is unnecessary.

I think there was some misunderstanding of the shape.  The shape of the hierarchy is a pyramid defined from the bottom up.  The bottom being the basis, or the foundation of human need being; Food, Water, Shelter, Sex - once those needs are met that can be built upon and establish the development of Safety and Security and the process goes on.  Maslow indicated that if primary needs are not met you will have difficulty, if not impossible, to get the higher order needs met.  This makes the persons who are lesser educated and in poverty highly vulnerable to cults, religions, and other con artists who work to obtain power and influence.

Religions were first formed for the need of making sense of the things that we as humans did not or could not understand.   Earth was a scary and unsafe place.  Religious/cultural leaders encouraged investment in an imaginary deity and huddling together sharing food, shelter, and meeting each other’s needs.  This was reinforcing the behavior of all parties and survival was enhanced.   As humanity becomes more informed and understands the dynamics of the space where we live, the need for religion to provide; Food, Warmth and Safety and Security are no longer necessary.   Many religions continue to use these as leveraging tools to keep their flocks attending or maintaining their commitment by controlling getting their parishioners needs met.

Given an entity (religion, church, or cult) is so influential as to use primary needs to control the actions of others; use of food, safety and security to elicit compliance to the dogma or tradition seems manipulative, unnecessary and bordering on criminal.    It is unneeded.  An argument that morals are delivered via religion is fallacious argument, morality is established by empathy and social reciprocity.  Religious morality is artificial and static imposed by sly hucksters.

Humanity will continue to exist without religion.  It becomes extremely wasteful of religions to construct building so that people can sit and listen to well-paid con men/women to convince them that the only way to survive death is to continue to come back and give them money, time and prayer.  If all that time, money and thought was invested in the development of a cure for some diseases or disabilities there would be far less suffering in the world.

Religion meets the needs of some persons.  Atheists (this atheist) do not need religion to feel safe and to have a productive life.  Defined: Atheism – A lack of belief, or faith in gods or deities.   It is not a religion.  There is no belief structure, commitment to any authority, and any exchange of funds or resources is typically done as an act of kindness and not a tithing to any deity or representative.  To define it as a religion is a projection of cognitive dissonance.

I am not my atheism.  I worship no man, deity, and do not waste my time praying or sitting in a church listening to someone lecture me on outdated, stagnant, and festering morality.

Morning Rant - Sex Ed and Dogma

Just had a great rant with my best friend via email.. Figured I would not waste the rant..

Some of what I have seen/read recently has to do with the establishment of moral underpinnings complicating the teaching of sex education. Given the application that a person's morality is based on a set of rules grounded in emotional constructs, and there are negative connotations applied to the basic attributes of human existence (religions/doctrine/archaic texts tend to lay claim to this perspective) and elicit a strong negative response emotionally when there is a perceived violation of these constructs creating cognitive dissonance. These rules are applied to elicit fear or trepidation and less to do with actual learning of reproduction and the actions associated with it.

 Parents of these students are so heavily entrenched in their thinking and the fear of information reaching their child that is contrary to the dogmatic principles they are infected with that it nearly paralyzes their actions. A parent shirking their responsibility for sexual education to the school or another entity should clearly understand that the actions of sexual reproduction, and/or sexual acts will be discussed in detail and without the associated emotional content.

 If one can separate the emotional construct from the context of a behavioral action based in reproductive biology and present only the facts associated with the reproductive act that is sex education. Chillingly there are so many religious and conservative factions that apply artificial rules or frameworks to this associating a strong emotional content because of the morality that was dispensed at a very young age.

 As a matter of circumstance and relevance morality does not come from dogma, doctrine or religious scripture. It existed long prior to the establishment of any religious or dogmatic construct written down in a book or on a rock somewhere.

 What is difficult for many people is to discern the fact that actions of reproduction should be taught, (somewhere, accurately an positively) so that the fledgling humans are not guessing and causing injury, spreading disease or unintentional pregnancies. The willful ignorance that most, if not all, religious sects advocate does nothing to foster development of independent rational actions or thoughts associated with reproduction.

 Whether the religies, conservatives, liberals, or just your basic human loons get it or not.... reproduction is going to happen between humans... whether they like it or not.... Morals taught by parents or teachers are irrelevant if based on complex dogmatic principles. Sexual behavior is a primary drive in humans equitable to the drive to obtain food and water. This has taken place for millions of years and the artificial application of dogmatic morality in the last 3000-4000 years only leads to complicate it further. Think of it this way we are teaching our kids morals and reproductive science based on a Bronze Age dogma. What does that say for us as a species?

 Facts and behaviors are real and can be measured and observed. To apply dogmatic principles to establish some moral code to this conduct only adds a layer of complexity that the student rarely if ever can understand due to the underdeveloped cerebral cortex of any human under the age of 25.

 If we don’t make some kind of effort to grow up we are destine to be stuck in the dark ages.