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.

Abrahamic Theism Is A Death Cult

I have seen frequently in the exchanges between theists and atheists the claim that atheists/atheism has killed more people and is responsible for more of the world’s tragic human events.  This would be the one fallacy that the theists cling to for comfort when the facts point to the contrary.  Theism – Abrahamic sects [Christianity, Islam, and Judaism] are in fact the most prolific death cults on the planet.

Let’s start with the Christian claim the Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Hitler (actually Catholic), and Stalin being ‘atheists’, killed millions of people.  There is no question that these persons did horrible things and worked to eliminate persons who did not conform to their perceived ideology.  

I cannot find in any document that these pariahs used atheism to further their causes.  No evidence exists indicating that these populations were put to death due to their failure to participate in atheism.  Unless – you put on your biblical glasses (thanks Ken Ham) – then you can lie for Jesus all you desire to support your position and attract new followers.

When asked for evidence to support validity of this claim; the debate tends to devolve into accusatory statements and spraying hostility to deflect from the fact there is no direct evidence to support the position.  I have yet to have a Christian produce ANY clear evidence that the persons mentioned are acting on behalf of ‘Atheism’ to rid the world of non-participants in atheism.  North Korea is not a good example… the practitioners believe that their leader(s) are gods and it appears that atheism is not a good way of describing the necrocracy in that country.

Challenge: Theist please provide a clearly defined case of an atheist, leader or singular atheist who has advocated and acted on the presumption that atheism prescribe(s) death to those who do not follow the established dogma and ideology.

Actions of theists: - Especially ~ those of the Abrahamic sects, toward those who are not of the same faith paint a far different story.  The Christian, Islamic and Jewish operator’s manual (Bible, Koran [Quran] and Torah) have clearly defined actions to be performed by the believer on the non-believer… Death.  They also describe very horrible ways of dispatching non-believers.  This accomplishes three things:

1.       Affords the opportunity for the punisher (killer) to experience a euphoric event of taking the life of another person, sense of complete control.

2.       Inflicts horrible pain and suffering on the person being killed.  Usually in a humiliating way.  (cutting off your head, burned at a stake, throwing stones, shot in the head) whilst saying, “Allah -Ackbar”, “May Jesus have mercy on your soul.”

3.       Clearly advertises: Join us, and follow our dogma, or we will kill you – in a horrific fashion – in front of your friends and family.

Theism is a Cult of Death, and the practitioners are fully aware of this fact; but work hard to deceive themselves, conscript others given; the promise of eternal life in paradise, 72 virgins, and the Promised Land of milk and honey.  This being an “Army of god.”   Christians, Islamic fundamentalists... embrace genocide - In Africa, Christians/Muslims are working diligently to kill off the homosexual population:

History has presented, a well-documented, long and growing list of atrocities associated directly with the belief in a god(s).  Projecting these events onto atheism to escape the guilt and culpability is pure spinelessness and using your indoctrination to protect your fragile psyche.

Abrahamic Religions are barbaric and abhorrent cults with the emphasis on inclusion of the feeble minded and imposition of a horrific death of those who should be excluded for any dogmatic reason.  Mormons are included in this ever increasing cesspool of human detritus.

Theists:  Please be aware that your words, dogma, and actions do not match: this is a sign that either you are profoundly mentally ill or so intensely brainwashed that it would be in your best interest to seek help.  I am willing to fight you to the death to prevent your dogma from retarding humanity back to the dark ages.  Self introspection is highly recommended.....  You have pledged your allegiance to one (or more) of these sects. Think about it.

I Am Not My Atheism

Many persons take their religion so profoundly personal that when an atheist expresses something perceived as hateful or disrespectful the observation is that the attack is an individual one.  Nothing should be considered personal from a disrespectful attack on religion (any religion). 

Please keep in mind that if a practitioner of said religion is so enmeshed in the dogma, tradition, and belief structure they have difficulty separating where the religion ends and person begins there are internal issues of identity. 

I am not my atheism.  My atheism does not dictate my actions for me.  My current assessment of reality is that there is not enough, nor there is any credible evidence to support my belief in the existence of any god.  This does not discount my respect for any person that expresses an interest or belief structure that is invested in the existence of a god or gods.    My actions are never taken to directly insult nor infer insult to a person unless their actions have manifested a direct attack on me personally.

I have respect for the great majority of users on the internet.  Very few have gone out of their way to personally attack me or my lack of beliefs.  That is greatly appreciated.  I have also had a great deal of constructive conversations with persons who have had differing perceptions and beliefs.

Stated clearly and succinctly I have no respect for religion, all religions are in the same dubious pool.   My life experiences with three different sects of Christianity have given me nothing but a lifetime of broken promises, false hopes, and wasted prayers.   I do not hold any one person, or group of persons, responsible for this circumstance.   The blame lies squarely on the oversight and implementation of dogma, tradition, and edicts lay down by the authority of the religion. This is typically in a written form and known as holy scripture.

In my life (any and all) religion is function-less and devoid of any meaning.  It operates like a business to collect funds and then hides all its misconduct behind the idea that it must be respected because of its legal status as a religion.  It leaves a horrible feeling of mistrust in all of my dealings.

There are many in the community who work diligently to attack me and my secular friends for our lack of any belief.  There have been many who have stood upon their pulpit of love and acceptance to fabricate stories about persons who do not fit the religious standards casting us into hell and ‘rebuking’ us in the name of Jesus.    This two-faced and cowardly approach to dialog does not inspire confidence fostering a relationship between the secular (atheist) and the religious persons.  These double standards and unfair expectations of respect based on title and religion are irrelevant.  A religious practitioner should never expect anything more than respect from one human to another and no additional privilege or respect based on religious affiliation.

Atheists free from the threats locally will turn the internet to seek out persons of the same perception persuasion.  Doing this locally causes extreme reactions from religions for reasons that are veiled in ritual and dogma.  We are human and have feelings also.  We deeply love our families and have positive and lasting relationships with many people.  And we react strongly when we feel that we have been treated unfairly or in a fashion that is demeaning to us as human beings.

I advocate for atheism.  I operate under the principle that I have but one life to live and I have to make it count.  The only thing that will remain after my death is what actions I took, and I will be remembered for the legacy I leave.

I hold no resentments against anyone who does not feel the same way I do about religion.  The dialog is free of emotion and considered nondestructive until the attack is directed at a human being. 

Atheism Advocacy via Paper Route

Spending the last week participating in the Atheist Paper Route was well worth the time.  Initially I perceived it as waging some war on the religious factions in my home town.  After participating and starting some dialog with other atheists, I see it now more as a way of switching up the way that information and perspectives are shared.   Currently I am only one voice (delivery boy).

In this part of Idaho there are more churches than any other location I have ever lived.  One cannot travel more than half a mile on any road until you see a church or two.  There are a preponderance of Christian churches attuned to the charismatic evangelical populous and a very large number of Mormon stakes.

It often feels as though I live in the ‘Bible Belt of Idaho’ (a doubling of hellish experiences for an atheist).  There are a large number of missionary individuals going door-to-door to share their perspective on faith and to encourage many to join them for service at their holy place.    I have most certainly turned them away in a fashion that is appropriate and respectful.    Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

After posting several fliers on the doors of these establishments in an effort to ‘door-to-door’ advertise that atheists are here and we have valid points, the responses are typically bordering mild passivity.  I was expecting some letter to the editor with some fierce rhetoric (still waiting).  There was one church that did respond with a ‘Good Luck’ message on their sign. 

Is it a safe assessment of the situation that if they do not attend to us that we will fade into obscurity?   Maybe there is a more xenophobic approach that they are working hard to shield their populations from the information that is being dropped on their doorsteps? 

As the ‘Easter Season’ gets into full swing many of the churches have advertising to solicit new members to join them.  I will be there to deliver my paper and share with them that there are more options to choose from.  Remaining connected to some religion based in fear is asinine.    If I can reach one person give them the confidence to step out of the shadows it is well worth my time to advocate for atheism.

I want to thank the following:

@FreeAtheism

@GentleAtheist

@Atheist_Forever

@BrianBrachiopod

 For their support on Twitter!

Resources available here: Free Atheism Paper Route

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.