Skip to main content

Atheist or Humanist?

By Carl S. ~

There are a few conclusions I've reached after dealing with religion and believers for some years now. One of them is that no one can get through to a believer whose mind is made up and doesn't give a damn about evidence. This is not a judgment call, nor something I wish believers to feel guilty about. It's merely a remark about my observations. It is not condemnation but a bewilderment in trying to understand how this condition persists. (And I'm not alone on this. Numerous social/psychological studies are still in progress trying to understand this state of mind.) I feel sadness observing the fear, however small, in the demeanor of the believer whenever beliefs are brought up. I've concluded that for those who have made up their minds, their minds are closed. To that extent, such a one is, according to one writer, “incapable of learning.” This is sad, and self-defeating, all the more so if it is a habit firmly reinforced.

Another conclusion has to do with being an atheist living among those who are believers. I'm not so sure anymore that it's a good idea to come out as an atheist. For one thing, most people, not just believers, don't know what the term means. For another, many believers slam their mind's door when they meet an atheist trying to make a point. I've been accused of trying to “convert others to atheism,” as if it were a religion. This despite the fact that atheism is not a moral stance, that I'm talking about morality alone. The fact is that religions are the ones supporting missionaries trying to make converts to their chosen sects, as if each one of them is the one true one.

Though I am perceived as a threat as an individual, in actuality the threat comes from asking the avoided questions any precocious five year old child would bring up at the spur of the moment. These child-like questions and comments really throw believers, and it isn't because they're radical, but the ones many of us seriously and doggedly pursued, and they refuse to. Their minds are already made up. I keep encountering believers like the creationist who debated Richard Dawkins. He kept telling her to go to the Natural History museum nearby to see the evidence for evolution herself, and she kept refusing. Believers like her don't really want to be bothered with the facts, and that's a fact.

So I'm thinking that rather than be seen as a threat and shut out, I ought to consider something else. It's the questions themselves, which have to do with morality and rational thinking that they don't want to be bothered with. It isn't so much that atheists and agnostics are asking them, but that they are the queries of other human beings. This is important. These are human questions, not aimed for the most part as anti-religion ones. It is the anti-human, anti-morality, and anti-reason in faiths which we as human beings are challenging and have every right, even obligation, to challenge. And as such, religious sensitivities be damned. Much is poisoned and destroyed whenever fantasy becomes policy.

This brings me to another observation. Whenever and wherever faith overrides facts as policy, we all suffer. Religious persecutions, wars, and usurping of civilizations often have the same cause. Religions, like all other ideologies such as Nazism and Communism, are all about gaining absolute power, and such power controls “the truth.” While in the pursuit of such power, the ends justify the means. And if the ends justify even genocide, they are accepted by good people as a necessity for the greater or greatest good. (While the believers would deny this extreme as immoral, their belief in “sacred” scriptures demands such an extreme.) Whenever the power becomes absolute, whether in a nation or a church, what it declares as truth or falsehood must be believed, and punished if it is challenged. Personally, as a citizen who served in the military to support freedom of conscience and speech, I feel compelled to challenging attempts to suppress either of them through the use of religious righteousness.

Religions, like all other ideologies such as Nazism and Communism, are all about gaining absolute power, and such power controls “the truth.” So, rather than identify myself as an atheist, I've decided to shift the emphasis to humanist. Atheist is not a moral position, but humanist is, as in “There's no 'God,’ so we have to look after one another.” Humanism is positive and looks upon ignorance about morality as evil. I regard ignorance as the greatest impediment to goodness and human progress, and recognize that the world is filled with ignorance. And too much of human ignorance is due to the deliberate and preconditioned habit of religious indoctrination, which requires deprogramming to get people aligned with reality. As social philosopher Eric Hoffer observed, it is astounding how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. I want to be that precocious child who asks questions about beliefs and unbeliefs. They are very human concerns.

I'm just a human being concerned about the impact of irrational beliefs and the ignorance of reality, the resulting fears, paranoia, and confusions they produce. I speak as a human being to other human beings, rejecting all doctrines that divide us.

I encourage believers and non-believers alike to pay attention to the fact that the scripture writers really, really, hated humans, as shown by their constant, unending, negativity toward us.

I'm an enemy of the doctrine that unless a person believes certain things, that person doesn't have real value. My speaking out has and will produce backlashes of course, but I'm hoping that eventually at least one believer will have that “aha!” moment, when all the facts the person ignored or rejected come together as understanding. There is nothing quite as exhilarating as one free person's freeing another from dogma. After all, we do have the right to be free. And, we have a right to advocate for that right.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro