Frivology

I’ve got a whole lot of podcasts to listen to these days… too many, I think. I actually just recently had to give some of them the axe and I brought a few new ones into the fold, thanks to Articulett at the RD Forums, who pointed me to some of her faves, who I’m now picking up on. I’ll be changing my links list to show the changes.

Of them, I have to say my favorites are: The crew at The Atheist Experience and The Non-Prophets and Chariots of Iron. I’ve never felt bored listening to any of these guys. My one wish? That there were some female voices out there. I just recently picked up the Skepchick Podcast, but I’m not sure they update often enough for me. Anyone have any recommendations?

Apparently, it’s easier than I thought to be a militant atheist.  Apparently, all you have to do is buy a t-shirt!

Check out how militant the new atheists are by logging on to the website of one of the movement’s patriarchs, Brit Richard Dawkins. There you can buy aT-shirt with a quotation from Dawkins’ best-seller, “The God Delusion.”The quotation spares no punches for those of us who believe in God and the Bible: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist…”

Well there you are! I cut short the intolerant diatribe, but don’t be surprised if you’re walking through the mall some day and you run smack into it - as I say, atheism is out of the closet, preaching their gospel with a fierce pitbull militancy we’ve never before seen here in the Western world.

via Atheists preach with evangelical fervour - The Daily Observer - Ontario, CA .

Well, crap… if a t-shirt makes you a militant, there’s an awful lot more militant Christians out there than there are militant atheists.

Picked it up on iTunes and watched it the other night.  It’s a really good film.  I may just watch it again over the weekend.  Here’s the end monologue: 

The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world actually could come to an end. Plain fact is: religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge, and having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists.  By those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. 

Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it, are our intellectual slaveholders - keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do. 

Most people would think that it is wonderful when someone says: “I am willing Lord, I will do what ever you want me to do”, except that since there are no Gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people, with their own corruptions, and limitations, and agendas. 

And anyone who tells you that they know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don’t. How can I be so sure? Because I don’t know, and you do not possess mental powers, that I do not. 

The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big question is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble. And that is what man needs to be considering that human history is just a list of getting shit dead wrong. 

This is why rational people, anti-religionists must end their timidity, and come out of the closet, and assert themselves, and those who consider themselves only moderately religious, really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. 

If you belong to a political party, or a social club that was tied to as much vicartry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you’d resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler - a mafiawife. With the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travellers. 

If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limbs into the future decimated by the effects of a religion inspired nuclear terrorism - lets remember what the real problem was: that we learned how to precipitate mass death, before we got pass the neurologist disorder of wishing for it. 

That’s it. Grow up, or die. 

It really muddied up my already muddied views on whether or not Atheists should be “militant”, which is exactly what I’ve been thinking about all this week, no matter what I’ve been listening to or reading.

This sort of ties into a much broader point I want to make eventually, but I’m going to take it piecemeal for now.  The Atheist Experience is one if my favorite atheist podcasts, and I get a number of them.  That isn’t to say I don’t have criticism.  First, a call-in show should be, IMHO, about 95% calls and about 5% talk about other things.  The reason I find it way more interesting than the NPRish podcasts has to do with the calls.  However, too much time is spent rehashing things discussed previously on The Non-Prophets, or chatting about someone’s pet subject.  Mind you, they aren’t terribly bad discussions and they can fuel what people call in about, but they usually don’t, making the show seem a bit disjointed.  Is it a call-in show, or is it a talk show?  Hard to pinpoint…

(continue reading…)

So today is Darwin Day, and I’ve been mulling over in my head for the past couple of weeks just what I wanted to say in this post.  I’m not a scientist by any means, and my understanding of Darwin goes as far back as high school, wich is around 15 years ago.  I’m reading ‘Why Evolution is True‘, but I don’t have a whole lot of time to read these days, being busy with work and a few other hobbies.  So, I stumbled along with idea after idea until something finally dawned on me… it’s something I’m sort of working slowly up to in my Losing My Religion series here at Frivology.  The series is about all of the different religions I hopped in and out of before I finally found peace in no religion and no belief, but the underlying theme to it is a personal bit of anecdotal evidence that there are certain people in this world who are hard-wired to be atheists.  Natural born atheists, so to speak… and I have to wonder, are human beings evolving into disbelief? 

About a year ago, I listened to Julia Sweeney’s ‘Letting Go of God’.  It moved me because Julia described all of the different beliefs she went through before she allowed herself to stop believing.  I did much the same thing.  Also like her, I wanted desperately to be a part of the moving ritual and beauty that religion can offer the world.  I, however, was cognitive enough of my own disbelief that I spent a great deal of time lying about what I felt.  I lied and said that I was wounded and needed Christianity to heal me.  I lied and said that I felt the warmth of God.  I lied and said that I felt the love of the Goddess… so on and so forth.  Some part of me knew I was lying, yet I craved the companionship, warmth and peace that so many “believers” seemed to have.  For me, though, I didn’t get that peace until I finally completely let go and admitted that I didn’t believe.  From the beginning, I never believed - couldn’t believe.  I was always meant to be an atheist.  It dawned on me, then, that I probably wasn’t alone.  Whatever made other people believe just wasn’t part of me. 

(continue reading…)

For the record, I’m on the fence as to whether or not Atheists should be loud-mouths.  I can both see the benefits of being rather vocally out in the public sector and the drawbacks.  I literally sway back and forth.  I tend to, personally, sway more toward the being loud part, no matter what the message is – but that’s because I don’t believe that the religious should have a monopoly on free speech.

No matter what, though, I have a real problem with people who describe themselves as religious essentially telling Atheists to STFU.  Mark Fefer of Seattle Weekly has done just that.  I actually caught up with him on his follow-up, but I think his first article is worth quoting.

I happen to be a religious person myself. But to have any reverend stand before the country and start directly addressing— on our behalf—a kindergarten version of God (old male, up there, controlling everything) as our government leaders bow their heads just seems wrong on its face. We all elected this president, and it’s not a religious office.

The trouble is that the only people speaking up loudly for separation of church and state are people who hate the church part.

via: Not Praying Along With Obama

Kind of a harsh introduction to what he thinks about atheists, don’t you think?  I certainly do. 

(continue reading…)

I’ve been a little quiet lately because I’ve had a lot of work to do, but I’ve been writing in my journal.  Everything that goes in there is incredibly raw, and often filled with grammatical errors and weird sentences that I certainly wouldn’t type out, but it’s a bit of a free-writing experience that lets me hammer out what I’m thinking about before I flesh it out somewhere else – like here.  The problem is that sometimes I get it out on paper and never get to the point where I’m fleshing it out.  I’ve got two pieces in there that I really need to somehow get here.  One is for Darwin Day, the other is good enough for now.

Friday, I stumbled upon a couple of posts that made the not-so-subtle jab that calling oneself an atheist is a rather negative means of introducing yourself.  The first is from Radosh.net:

The other day, Andrew Sullivan ran an idiotic letter asserting that atheists identify themselves by what they don’t believe in because "it’s a really cool way to get into the conversation in such a way that everyone has to defend their positions except you — you get to attack." It concluded, "Atheists should be forced to articulate their positive position (say, secular humanism) as price of admission to the conversation."

Now, I don’t know how this guy proposes to force anyone to articulate anything. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!) But the truth is he’s just wrong. Most atheists are delighted for the opportunity to let people know that they have positive positions on Life, the Universe and Everything. Many of us refuse to call ourselves atheists for precisely that reason.

To me, he seems to defend the act of calling oneself an atheist, then goes on to say that most atheists like to tell people about the good parts of their “beliefs”, which is why they don’t introduce themselves as atheists.  Kind of strange to me, but more than strange, it’s a little unsettling.  Mind you, I understand why one would take on this point, it just bugs me a bit.  By openly saying that someone doesn’t introduce themselves as an atheist to push the good parts of their beliefs, they are also saying that atheism, alone, isn’t a positive thing.

I guess, technically, this is true.  Atheism is the lack of belief in supernatural entities.  It isn’t someone’s view on the meaning of life, and it’s certainly not why someone might be so amazed at looking up at a sky filled with endless stars.  However, the sentiment that someone should refrain from calling themselves something that they are because it isn’t “positive” rings of so much self-censorship that it frankly scares me.  Like feminists who won’t call themselves feminists because they don’t want to be associated with “those people” or social progressives who insist on still calling themselves Republicans because they don’t want to be associated with “those people”.  I don’t think there’s anything wrong with owning up to what you are, and we – of all people – shouldn’t be perpetuating a stereotype that atheism, in and of itself, is somehow negative.  It isn’t.  It isn’t positive, either.  It’s a statement.  Like, “I’m a woman”, or “I like tomatoes”.

My fear is that if we keep censoring ourselves and putting fancy words up for what we are, we will dilute the reality that what we are should not only be tolerated, but should be just as celebrated as any religion.   I say, if you’re going to put yourself forward, put that big ‘A’ on your chest and make people accept it.  Don’t water it down.  My morals fall in line with that of a humanist’s, but when it comes to whether or not I believe in god?  I’m an atheist, and always will be.

Ever since the inauguration, I keep reading the same phrase (or hearing it uttered) over and over and over and over again… "Well, Christians are the majority, so we get what we want.  Shut up, Atheists." 

This is also characterized in this article at AlterNet, recounting some recent comments.  "Pilgrim" says:

Why can’t atheists keep their incessant whining to themselves instead of continuously denigrating believers who outnumber them?

I personally don’t give a hoot what atheists believe, and I wish they would just shut up and stop belittling those who don’t see things the way they do.

Things are not going to change because of their continuous grousing and ridiculing.

Well, Pilgrim (I feel like John Wayne suddenly), what you really need to realize is that our push to restore the separation of church and state isn’t just for our own, fat, atheist egos.  It’s because it’s fairer to everyone - including you.  Right now, you are right, Christianity is the majority.  But… Atheists, Agnostics, Non-Believers, Humanists and the Irreligious make up the second largest group.  If wackaloons continue to take over your religion, we can easily see it bolstering our ranks.  A few generations from now, when the tables are reversed, what would you rather see….

World #1: While Atheists are the majority, Christians are still allowed their churches, and still allowed their personal freedom to believe in whatever they want to.  While these beliefs aren’t carried out through the government, the government also doesn’t tell Christians they aren’t allowed.  While government-sponsored functions no longer make reference to god, jesus, the bible or anything religious, they also don’t force those who believe to stop believing. 

World #2: Atheists, now in the majority, decide to treat Christians like Christians have treated Atheists.  Christians who wear T-Shirts that have Jesus on them are frequently ridiculed and called names.  In some places, Christians are asked to REMOVE any paraphernalia, as it is offensive to non-believers.  All government-sponsored events start with an announcement that there is no god, and require those who take the oath of office to do so on ‘On the Origin of Species’.  Polls regularly state that the majority of the people of the United States trust Christians LESS than they trust Wall Street Investors and churches can rarely get zoning for their buildings to be built. 

Now… seriously … which world would you rather live in?  I know it may be hard - nay impossible - for a "true believer" to imagine a world where they aren’t the majority, but try.  I’d dare say that most atheists do not want World #2.  Most atheists are content to live in a world where there are dozens of religions that they don’t believe in so long as those religions don’t force their beliefs on them.  Similarly, while most atheists don’t really have any desire to deconvert everyone that they meet.  They’re content only to explain their disbelief when asked.  I realize I’m speaking in generalities here, but I believe these generalities are all fairly true.

So, for those who keep spouting the ‘We’re the majority’ line, remember… you may not always be the majority.  Do you really want to be treated the way that you treat us?

This is why I don’t really like the term ‘Humanist’ to describe Atheism (specifically).  In my (albeit brief) experience with the Atheist movement, I’ve found that those who want to use the phrase ‘Humanist’ over ‘Atheist’ tend to be a bit dismissive of Atheists.  Case in point:

Pat O’Brien, president of the Humanist Association, said his group considered working with atheist bus.ca but decided a pure atheist campaign would be too negative. "Joseph Stalin was an atheist," said Mr. O’Brien, who considers atheism an element of humanism. "He was not a humanist. We want to send a positive message. Atheism is what you’re not; humanism is a positive world view."

via: That there is no God is about all they agree on

I don’t know, maybe this is a New Atheist / Old Atheist or whatever you want to call it discussion, but it rankles me. To have someone who identifies along the same lines that I do, but who feels the need to bring in Stalin, often used by theists to prove that Atheists are all bad people is just … icky.  It’s like … sleeping with the enemy.