There is no God. The Absence of God: Religion is the Biggest Insult: A Rant for My Rights and for My Country

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Religion is the Biggest Insult: A Rant for My Rights and for My Country


I believe it is time for all us atheists to rise up and let everyone know that we're mad. Why are we mad? Because everyday that we experience in our lives, we see religion actively expanding its outreach and power even as its members are not proportionally expanding. Why do churches pay no property taxes? Why do pastors have the exclusive rights to opt out of Medicare or Social Security? Why are religious books not taxed? Why are no members of our dysfunctional congress atheists, even as 15% of the country are? Why does the Jewish lobby influence our government so much? Why is today's Supreme Court constantly ruling in favor or religion? Why are open prayer and Christian symbols still occurring in schools, even after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional? The list does not end there. Why, for example, is the teaching of creationism in our schools still highly occurring while evolution is still being ignored?

I cannot stand watching as my country actively brainwashes the new generation into believers of creationism, therefore slowing the study of science and evolution. It is these same people who put a shadow of doubt over any action to solve global warming, a scientific theory that almost all intelligent people agree on. Simply put, the United States of America is raising its new generation to be as scientifically ignorant as ever and this can only lead to problems in our future. At a time when scientists, doctors and engineers are so badly needed, we are educating our kids to be anti-science which practically ruins all hope of future economic prosperity. It used to be that this country produced the best scientists in the world, therefore giving us a priceless advantage that led to our incredibly successful 20th century. But because of the brainwashing going on in today's schools, all of this, my future and yours, has been put into both doubt and danger. Simply put, it has come the time for atheists to do something about this nonsense.

So why are we atheists standing back? Buying a few billboards won't do the trick. The fact of the matter is, we need to shine the light brightly on the unfairness religion brings to our country. How about an occupy churches movement? Why not start T.V advertising to media stations dying for money? Why not get our very brightest members on T.V, cable and local channels alike so as to debate the issue. We need to change the education kids are getting once and for all.

Furthermore, we atheists must accept the fact that we are one of the only groups still strongly being discriminated against. The fact that being an out of the closet atheist is still considered political suicide shows this clearly. This is simply not right. There are gays, women, and Muslims in the legislative branch of government, all groups who have been, and are still being discriminated against. Yet, atheists have no power. All of these groups have protested, debated, and fought to gain their rights and in some cases, the little rights they have. We atheists must do the same, whatever it takes to accomplish it.

We can't keep our thoughts to ourselves, we must fight to expand our outreach. Simple movements such as working to elect an atheist member to congress would jump start our cause to gain rights. The simple fact we must all grasp is that many of us are still scared to tell others, such as bosses or friends of our atheist beliefs. I find this ridiculous and insulting and so should you. So today, why not begin to come together, not under the millions of atheist groups out there, but rather a single, united alliance. Together we can fight for our rights, save the education system in this country, and fight to slow down the biggest threat in human history.

7 comments:

  1. I think the law should be that "religion" and "spirituality" are not to be openly or publicly discussed in politics, including those of any candidates running for any office. Churches and other religious organizations should not be apart of the election campaigning. And those who violate this should be heavily fined and dropped from the race if necessary. And, to answer your question, the reason we can't occupy churches is because there are ignorant psychos affiliated with those churches who will harm and or kill anyone so bold.
    I do agree, though. The forefathers of this country would be turning in their graves if that was possible, I'm sure. If they were alive today to see this they'd be beating their heads off of walls in frustration. I know I am as someone well-versed on the establishment of our nation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We could start with school boards. Anyone interested in promoting the teaching of science, rather than religiously backed myths, should run for a position on a local school board. These are the people who make the decisions about what is taught to the next generation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That is a very good idea. Better I would say, than to run for congress. How hard, do you think, such an operation would be to run?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Religion is not going anywhere at any time. It will still exist and grow unless Atheism provides empirical proof of its claims. Religion has passed the test of time and change. Faith has its demonstrable aspect that transcends the scientific method. Try convincing someone who has experienced God that God is not real. Good luck! http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your first sentence I will concede. But while it is true, as you say that Religion has stood the test of time, it is only because of religion's appealing nature, as well as the fact that their are a certain few who profit greatly from it. The bible was written by a bunch of old men 2000 years ago, and you're telling me that they could know what happened on Earth without any idea of the recent scientific developments of the last few years?

    Also, keep note of the fact that different cultures have different religions, unless a religion was imposed upon a people, just as a language might be. So when you say that religion has stood the test of change, that is not true when you get down to the specifics.

    Atheism meanwhile, is the lack of belief in anything. We use scientific evidence, but do not claim to have proof of anything, as we do not pretend to know everything as you do. How do we know their is no God you might ask? Well, the chances are one in a trillion. The existence of God is as likely as that of Santa Clause, no proof to back up either, but still, millions of people believe in them. The difference is, kids are willing to accept Santa Clause does not exist while their parents won't do the same thing for their own imaginary being.

    And maybe not being able to convince someone who is religious that God is not real has more to do with their stubbornness than anything! Thanks for commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wouldn't call religion necessarily appealing. There are religions out there that are either too demanding, too easy, too intellectual or just too strange.

    People are religious because they see the fruits of it in their lives. No one wakes up, "oh gee, let me be a Christian today.." they experience something and that experience to them is proof that they are in the right place in life, so to speak.

    The Bible is God's Word that shows the Salvific plan from Adam to Christ in human language and experience. It is not meant to answer worldly things because what will scientific knowledge about the universe do to change people's morals?

    However, there are some things there that give a hint of recently discovered scientific ideas (earth as a sphere, the universe expanding, evolution in Genesis etc), but again that is not the purpose of Scripture.

    Yes each culture may have different religions, but if you take the time to place them all alongside each other you will see they all have a lot of common ideas. Religion has indeed stood the test of time. Many major religious still adhere to their ideas and tenets. Only those that separate from them and do their own thing are the ones who add to those original tenets.

    Atheism is not a lack of belief. The word comes from the Greek "a- Theos" which means "without god or gods" and is used in the negative in that it is a rejection of gods. The "a" means "without" for example:asexual or "without sex." This is also used in the word Agnostic which means "without knowledge" which is in turn translated as someone who doesn't think anything is knowable. So the word "Atheism" cannot mean lack of belief in anything. A word that would better fit your definition is "Apisteuo" which literally means, "lacking belief, without belief." So you're an Apisteo not an Atheist.

    Scientific evidence is fine and dandy, but it is not objective. Years pass and ideas thought to have been fact are then rewritten. Science is only useful as far as our understanding of anything allows it. Religion doesn't pretend to know everything. We just use abstract thought to think outside the box of nature.

    You say the chances are one in a trillion that there is no God, but how did you get these statistics? Santa Clause is different because we know of its origin in a Catholic saint. We know how secularism twisted the image of this saint.

    "Proof" is subjective. You can give your wife a rose and to you that means you love her. However, I might say "no, that is not proof. You need to give her a diamond. That gift will show true love." Who is right? You or me? Which is the real proof that you love her your rose or a diamond?

    If you want proof of God, you have to go to the source. You have to ask God to reveal Himself to you and He will. Spoiler alert: it can be in any way so you have to have a keen mind and heart. God doesn't take orders from man so He will do things on His terms while taking into account your limitations as a finite being.

    You say God is imaginary but that has no substance. What is your contrast for this? In order for you to make this claim you would have to know everything about everything. You would need to know about matter, space, time, dimensions. You would need to know for a fact that this universe is really all there is and there isn't a multiverse or other dimensions with other beings existing in other space/time continuum's.

    People who are really religious will not be convinced because they saw the fruits of their faith. It would be like someone telling you to divorce your wife who you love and adore. How can you? Who are they to tell you to dump her if you see her as the best thing in your life?

    ReplyDelete
  7. A lot of points to get to:

    First of all, religion is most certainly appealing to the human mind. It is our nature to want to know things that cannot be explained and the belief in God is a great example of that.

    You're right, religion is just too easy. There are so many questions that we want answered, which really should be looked at one by one, but instead, are all explained by the existence of a super natural being. It was an explanation that, until 300 years ago, stood its ground, but with the recent developments of the scientific age, have been put into question and rightfully so.

    Regarding morals, science won't just write our values out for us. But as an atheist, I can tell you that I am at no shortage of values. For example, I know what is right and what is wrong, without needing to be threatened by the prospect of going to hell. The point is, you do not need to have faith in something to be a good person.

    You are right that many of todays prominent religions are similar in nature, and that all of those religions have survived for relatively long amounts of time. But that can be connected to the point I made earlier: religion is an easy way to answer our most pressing questions, and to fulfill the human curiosity.

    I'll pass over you trying to define atheism because that's just not a conversation worth having. I do not believe in God, that's atheism. Not believe = the absence of belief. I would think that to be obvious.

    Finally the part I've been eager to get to. You seem to be saying that science being rewritten through every new discovery takes away its legitimacy. Are you implying that stubbornly keeping the same theories/beliefs for thousands and thousands of year makes religion more legitimate? Does it not bother you that a man living 2000 years ago believed the exact same things that you do now?
    OF COURSE religion pretends to know everything. It claims to know how the world began, the values I should hold, that a super-being is watching over us at all times etc.

    Okay fine, if my Santa Clause argument wasn't good enough for you I'll give you another example. Does the Boraflora mean anything to you? Well, I could claim him to be my God. How about the pasta monster, or Mr. Meatballs, or Palamania? I could come up with a trillion of those (hence the statistic).

    Now, your right that proof was perhaps not the best word to use. But your paragraph about finding the proof of God at its source disgusts me. How do you claim to know all of these things about God if you indeed believe that religion does not claim to know everything? Also, the fact that I have to bow to him and do everything on his terms makes me a bit of slave doesn't it?

    By saying that God is imaginary, I mean that the chances of him existing are not even worth considering. Again, if tomorrow I saw Jesus on T.V, I would say, "crap, I was wrong." But that won't happen. Your whole rant about needing to know all these things about the universe to know whether God is imaginary could be used by me to challenge the existence of God. For example, I could say:

    "You say God is imaginary but that has no substance. What is your contrast for this? In order for you to make this claim you would have to know everything about everything. You would need to know about matter, space, time, dimensions. You would need to know for a fact that this universe is really all there is and there isn't a multiverse or other dimensions with other beings existing in other space/time continuum's."

    This would give me the exact same affect. An argument that could be used on both sides of dispute is not a credible one.

    Finally, your example of a wife is interesting but again, I don't think it proves anything. As a child, I could have loved Santa Clause (sorry to use this example again but its a good one) and wanted him to exist more than anything. But when my parents told me to dump him, I did even though I liked him so much. Loving God does not prove his existence.

    ReplyDelete