I go through spells where I just don't feel like writing. For years I had heard how terrible my writing is and I think that it has put a sort of block in my head where I just don't want to write some days...
However, lately I have also noticed that i have not real desire to try to write when I think it will do little good as well. What I mean is, that I see bloggers, lots of them, saying pretty much what I want to say. But very little seems to be coming out of it. The same stupid people reply with their attacks or the same supportive people with thier huzzahs. But I rarely see those, "wow I didn't know this", or "this really moved me", or "changed my opinion".
Recently I have been following the blogs and news about Jessica Ahlquist and man did she light a fire under the Theists asses recently. See she won her case against the Cranston Rhode Island school board for them having a prayer banner in their gymnasium. Well you would have thought she had been the person who actually nail good ol christ to the cross from the reaction she got. People attacking her left and right. It was disgusting, seriously sickening, watching the scathing attacks coming at her.
The hypocrisy of the religious follower never ceases to amaze me. I mean I know there are those "believers" who are nice and moral people. But do those morals really come from their religious belief, or is it they are moral people due to being raised to be so, taught it from their parents? If it came from their religion then you would not see certain "believers" attacking other then would you? No they would be like every other good moral person I know. So that pretty much shoots the whole "you can't be moral unless you believe" argument out of the water in my opinion.
Sure there will be those that follow this line of thought and argue, "well they don't really believe" or "they aren't really true christians".... Bullshit, if they didn't believe, if they weren't truly christian, they wouldn't be so fanatical, attacking the poor girl simply because she doesn't believe as they do. They are so routed in the idea that god exists and is there for them that ANY question or action opposed to their belief is an affront to their religion and thus to them. Do I have that backwards? Maybe its an affront to them and their beliefs so THEN it must be one to their religion too.
I see that in many cases. Look at the Catholic church for example. Not that the Catholics are some paragon of morallity or anything, but the church DID declare evolution to be perfectly fine and work just as well with their belief in a deity. But there are several followers that refuse to accept it and thus take any mention of it as an affront against them and their god.
Oh well. I need to get back to work the 'memtest' on the laptop I am working on is almost complete. Later, if I think about it, I will write what has been bugging me about the whole feminist/misogynist thing going on in the Skeptic community.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Astrology and Tarot Card Con-artistry
So earlier today I was on Facebook (yeah still using it) and I notice a friend of mine (Joel) in a debate, of sorts, with a friend of his (I will call her Jen) who subsequently de-friended him over the argument. Jen had made a post, which I wish I had screen captured, about how she was wanting to offer a friend referral discounted of 50% to do Astrology and Numerology reading for them. Now, I usually don't get involved in these sorts of "threads" that show up in my feed, as I did not know her except through his Facebook link. You know the one that is in the upper right that says Joel has posted a comment...
Anyway it peaked my interest as his comment was stating something along the lines of:
So back to this debate: I see her attack Joel telling him to leave her post as it was meant for friends, yet here I see it and I am not her friend; therefore, she posted it openly to drum up business, a logical conclusion. So I had to post being as at one time I used to be a reader. I stated that:
First and foremost, I know from the numerous readings I did throughout those years that they are vague, and I mean seriously vague. You can lay out a card and read it multiple ways and while you are interpreting it you get out of it what ever you want to. The person reading, will tell you that the meaning of the card is dependent on the surrounding cards and the nature of the question asked, or the reason for the reading in the first place. But truthfully, it is dependent on the reader and the person being read, ESPECIALLY if there is money involved.
There was this one reading I did for a friend of mine. She was seriously upset about a boyfriend, and how he was treating her. As I read the cards for her, she kept seeing positive results EVEN when the cards were in negative positions. I would read them as interpreted but she would say, "...maybe it is in reference to this situation or that situation." But ultimately she personally interpreted the reading in a positive direction and felt that things were going to be fine. Two months later they broke up and it was a BAD breakup. He assaulted her, went to jail, and she went into hiding for a little while. Then on top of that she blamed ME for her staying in the relationship. That was also the last reading I ever did...
I use to watch friends as they did readings for money and learned how they interpreted the cards. Understand, that as your reading the cards you're watching the person and how they are reacting to what your "interpreting" from the cards. The more favorable the reaction, the better they felt about the reading in general, the more likely they would pay for it. I also watched how they would twist and changed by "guiding" the subject into the interpretation, they would ask feeler questions.
See, when you're doing a reading your are NOT supposed to know the question as a reader, but ultimately the subject gives away the answer while doing the reading. The reader pulls it out of them through two things, interpretation, and feeler questions.
First, interpretation:
While reading the cards, they know you don't know the question, so you as the reader are having to try to "work for the interpretation" meaning, you lay out a card, and say:
Second, the feeler questions:
Feeler questions are sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, but always used. Let's go back to the example I had about the card as a past influence: After you lay the card out and you have a sense of where it is going, you then imply it as a statement, for example:
It is all based on conning your subject into giving you the answers you need to give them the reading they want. Plain and simple. It works JUST the same for bad news too - you give them bad news but you read from them and their reactions, the level of news they will accept.
This is accepted buy the subject as I mentioned before because it reinforces their beliefs and ideas. This very same reinforcement and reinterpretation happens in religion and in 'spirituality' circles. If you know where and what to look for you can see it in every "true believer".
Anyway it peaked my interest as his comment was stating something along the lines of:
"You realize the astrology/numerology has 0 lines of evidence for actually working. "Again, I am paraphrasing as the post has been hidden and Joel was de-friended so I lost access. Anyway, something I haven't mentioned AT ALL, to anyone - as I am sort of embarrassed by it, is that I used to be a reader. That is to say, I used to ascribe to Astrology readings and charts as well as Tarot readings. Yeah, that's right, I was one of those guys. Now, I never charged money, though people were ready and willing to pay, I always felt it was not right to charge for these things; however, I knew many others that would charge for the readings.
So back to this debate: I see her attack Joel telling him to leave her post as it was meant for friends, yet here I see it and I am not her friend; therefore, she posted it openly to drum up business, a logical conclusion. So I had to post being as at one time I used to be a reader. I stated that:
As someone who used to do readings, I know for a fact these things are fake. That people will take from these reading things that only support what they believe in and support their ideas, and in many cases, they will blatantly reinterpret the readings to fit the results they want.
First and foremost, I know from the numerous readings I did throughout those years that they are vague, and I mean seriously vague. You can lay out a card and read it multiple ways and while you are interpreting it you get out of it what ever you want to. The person reading, will tell you that the meaning of the card is dependent on the surrounding cards and the nature of the question asked, or the reason for the reading in the first place. But truthfully, it is dependent on the reader and the person being read, ESPECIALLY if there is money involved.
There was this one reading I did for a friend of mine. She was seriously upset about a boyfriend, and how he was treating her. As I read the cards for her, she kept seeing positive results EVEN when the cards were in negative positions. I would read them as interpreted but she would say, "...maybe it is in reference to this situation or that situation." But ultimately she personally interpreted the reading in a positive direction and felt that things were going to be fine. Two months later they broke up and it was a BAD breakup. He assaulted her, went to jail, and she went into hiding for a little while. Then on top of that she blamed ME for her staying in the relationship. That was also the last reading I ever did...
I use to watch friends as they did readings for money and learned how they interpreted the cards. Understand, that as your reading the cards you're watching the person and how they are reacting to what your "interpreting" from the cards. The more favorable the reaction, the better they felt about the reading in general, the more likely they would pay for it. I also watched how they would twist and changed by "guiding" the subject into the interpretation, they would ask feeler questions.
See, when you're doing a reading your are NOT supposed to know the question as a reader, but ultimately the subject gives away the answer while doing the reading. The reader pulls it out of them through two things, interpretation, and feeler questions.
First, interpretation:
While reading the cards, they know you don't know the question, so you as the reader are having to try to "work for the interpretation" meaning, you lay out a card, and say:
"In this spot, this card represents your past influence, in respect to the question. "What happens then is you have to "read" your subject to see if the card you are "interpreting" is applicable and fits. When you initially mention what the different meanings of the card are- in its orientation - the subject gives facial cues and ticks that lets you know you are or are not on the right path. As you read each card you get a sense of where it is heading. Once you get a good feel for that you go to the second part, "feeler questions".
Second, the feeler questions:
Feeler questions are sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, but always used. Let's go back to the example I had about the card as a past influence: After you lay the card out and you have a sense of where it is going, you then imply it as a statement, for example:
"This card represents past influence TO THE QUESTION"This sets the stage. You have already tied it to the question, to the past, now you use what the card can represent. Remember I said these things are vague? Well, this is how it works for the reader: Lets say you lay down a card that represents "struggle", and in that you can place statements and questions like this,
This card CAN represent struggleOK, you have just established that they had a recent altercation and it was personal. How big or influential it was depends on other body cues, for example: how big or small the person opens their eyes, if they hold their breath, the hand moves to their chest, a small vocal noise is made, etc. All of these reactions and more are cues that tell the "reader" the path they are on.
(Subject perks up)
The seriousness based on the other cards is high. Like a big fight you had recently? (watch for reaction)
(Subject nods. eyes widen, hand moves to chest)
It is all based on conning your subject into giving you the answers you need to give them the reading they want. Plain and simple. It works JUST the same for bad news too - you give them bad news but you read from them and their reactions, the level of news they will accept.
This is accepted buy the subject as I mentioned before because it reinforces their beliefs and ideas. This very same reinforcement and reinterpretation happens in religion and in 'spirituality' circles. If you know where and what to look for you can see it in every "true believer".
Friday, September 30, 2011
Today is Blaspheme Day, Hell everyday is Blaspheme Day for Me
Today, September 30th 2011 marks the 6th anniversary of the publishing of
cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammad in the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten. As a reaction to these cartoons, riots broke out among
Muslims who considered those cartoons to be “Blasphemous.”
Then, in 2009, the Center For Inquiry introduced Blasphemy Day to support the rights of people to criticize and satirize all ideas and beliefs. Religious ideas and beliefs should not be above criticism or beyond satire. Blaspheme is an act punishable by death in several nations. In America, blasphemy laws remain on the books in six states, though supposedly largely arcane and not really enforced, try to tell that to atheists that have run for office.
Well I agree with JT Eberhard, on his post this morning:
"
Then, in 2009, the Center For Inquiry introduced Blasphemy Day to support the rights of people to criticize and satirize all ideas and beliefs. Religious ideas and beliefs should not be above criticism or beyond satire. Blaspheme is an act punishable by death in several nations. In America, blasphemy laws remain on the books in six states, though supposedly largely arcane and not really enforced, try to tell that to atheists that have run for office.
Well I agree with JT Eberhard, on his post this morning:
"
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Right Wing is Just Incredibly Sickening to Me
During the September 7th Republican debate, the right wing crowd cheered Perry for Prisoner executions in Texas, which you can see here, youtube. Cheering for the death of others, seriously? But that's not all.
During the September 12th Republican debate, the right wing crowd cheered and yelled 'YEAH!' when Wolf Blitzer, while asking Ron Paul a question about healthcare states, 'So are you saying we should let him die?', which can be seen here, youtube. So cheer for the deaths of others, not once, but twice? This is deplorable, and inhumane. I mean the most absolutely dispicable sort of reaction in both cases. But wait that's still not all.
During the September 22nd Republican debate, some right wing crowd members Booed a Gay soldiers question that if any of the candidates would change or reverse to progress made for BGLT. Which can be seen here, youtube again (don't you just love youtube?). Booed? WTF??? The same people that scream we MUST support our troops. The same people that we profess we are to put these men and women on pedestals. These people jeered the question of a gay service member? The double standard hypocrisy of the right wing knows no bounds.
NONE of the candidates on stage commented or chastised any of these actions from on stage... NOT ONE!!! Save for the next day, when it was nice and safe, from their offices, statements were released. Like in the case of the latest incident with the booing of the serviceman, some of them released statements condemning the action. Rick Santorum claimed he didn't hear the boo's, however, he apparently has a hearing problem. Former New Mexico governor Garry Johnson, who said he heard the boos from the stage and condemned their intolerance, though again not from the stage. Also, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who thought the first response to a soldier in uniform should be to thank him or her for their service. Just watch the video yourself the boo's are as plain and loud as Rick Santorum himself when he starts to speak.
These are not fringe of society nut bags, hiding in the woods stocking up weapons. These are out in the open, right next door, or next to you on the bus, nutbags. These asses live in society with us and make their Idiocy know far and wide. These people with their uneducated stances and ill informed views, are not only open about it, but they think they are right! These same people are professed Christians by a LARGE margin and yet ignore the teachings of their own believed messiah of love thy neighbor (Mathew 19:19) and even love your enemies, do good to those who hate you (Luke 6:27).
These people Believe in a magic sky being, who is watching and judging them, for their actions. This is what is supposed to be "keeping them moral" and yet here they are being immoral and DENYING Christ by ignoring his teachings. These people who time and time again claim the moral high ground especially over atheists, also turn and show their true colors, in just how immoral they can be, time and time again. yet another HUGE example of the failure of religion. The point where the score keeper is supposed to keep everyone honest totally FAILS!!!
This is the true legacy of religion the failure to be a true means of social control, as it has been shown throughout history, the Dark ages, the Crusades,the Inquisition, the 'Manifest destiny' of American settlement, boarding schools, the Holocaust. These examples and many many more that can be cited for the failure of religion in society are are one of the biggest indicators of the lack of an actual existing god. For if there were a benevolent, all seeing, all powerful being, he would have, a long time ago, spoken to all and said:
The entire religious right culture, It's just incredibly sickening to me....
During the September 12th Republican debate, the right wing crowd cheered and yelled 'YEAH!' when Wolf Blitzer, while asking Ron Paul a question about healthcare states, 'So are you saying we should let him die?', which can be seen here, youtube. So cheer for the deaths of others, not once, but twice? This is deplorable, and inhumane. I mean the most absolutely dispicable sort of reaction in both cases. But wait that's still not all.
During the September 22nd Republican debate, some right wing crowd members Booed a Gay soldiers question that if any of the candidates would change or reverse to progress made for BGLT. Which can be seen here, youtube again (don't you just love youtube?). Booed? WTF??? The same people that scream we MUST support our troops. The same people that we profess we are to put these men and women on pedestals. These people jeered the question of a gay service member? The double standard hypocrisy of the right wing knows no bounds.
NONE of the candidates on stage commented or chastised any of these actions from on stage... NOT ONE!!! Save for the next day, when it was nice and safe, from their offices, statements were released. Like in the case of the latest incident with the booing of the serviceman, some of them released statements condemning the action. Rick Santorum claimed he didn't hear the boo's, however, he apparently has a hearing problem. Former New Mexico governor Garry Johnson, who said he heard the boos from the stage and condemned their intolerance, though again not from the stage. Also, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who thought the first response to a soldier in uniform should be to thank him or her for their service. Just watch the video yourself the boo's are as plain and loud as Rick Santorum himself when he starts to speak.
These are not fringe of society nut bags, hiding in the woods stocking up weapons. These are out in the open, right next door, or next to you on the bus, nutbags. These asses live in society with us and make their Idiocy know far and wide. These people with their uneducated stances and ill informed views, are not only open about it, but they think they are right! These same people are professed Christians by a LARGE margin and yet ignore the teachings of their own believed messiah of love thy neighbor (Mathew 19:19) and even love your enemies, do good to those who hate you (Luke 6:27).
These people Believe in a magic sky being, who is watching and judging them, for their actions. This is what is supposed to be "keeping them moral" and yet here they are being immoral and DENYING Christ by ignoring his teachings. These people who time and time again claim the moral high ground especially over atheists, also turn and show their true colors, in just how immoral they can be, time and time again. yet another HUGE example of the failure of religion. The point where the score keeper is supposed to keep everyone honest totally FAILS!!!
This is the true legacy of religion the failure to be a true means of social control, as it has been shown throughout history, the Dark ages, the Crusades,the Inquisition, the 'Manifest destiny' of American settlement, boarding schools, the Holocaust. These examples and many many more that can be cited for the failure of religion in society are are one of the biggest indicators of the lack of an actual existing god. For if there were a benevolent, all seeing, all powerful being, he would have, a long time ago, spoken to all and said:
STOP THIS FUCKING SHIT YOU DUMB-ASSES!!!!
The entire religious right culture, It's just incredibly sickening to me....
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Stop with the "it's just a theory bullshit"
Darwin never proposed Evolution, he proposed survival of the fittest or
natural selection... Huge difference, so try to keep it straight... but
If your not going to read the facts about it you'll never keep it
straight.... Also before you claim you have, I know most of you haven't
otherwise you would have know he never proposed evolution and thus would
not keep referring to him as the one who did... Oh and his (Darwin's)
"THEORIES" have already been proven, Natural Selection happens, we have
seen it all around us and witnessed it occurring....
Also if most of you had read and were even rudimentary versed in science, you would know the difference between hypothesis and theory but you don't. Because you people sling around "theory" like its some 4 letter word when in fact a theory has already been proven, which it why it is called a theory...
Part of the problem today come from the generalization use of the word theory in the English language in common conversation. For example when one individual looks at another individual and says something like:
"I have a theory why this object might not be working... "
it in fact, is a hypothesis, as it is unproven until said individual tests it.. But in modern Language theory has come to mean something completely different from what it actually means.
A nice explanation of Theory Vs Law, which is of course your next argument is as follows.
The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.
Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.
So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.
The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.
Read more:
"Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law: Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology"
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis...
Problem is though Most of you will never get it straight because you take and recycle the arguments of those before you believing the horse crap they spout and re-spout it yourself...
The Theory of Gravity
The Theory of the Principal of Super-Position
The Theory of Special Relativity
The Theory of Atomic Structure
The Theory of Nuclear Fusion
All of those are known just like:
The Theory of Evolution
That's why it isn't called
The Hypothesis of Evolution
Also if most of you had read and were even rudimentary versed in science, you would know the difference between hypothesis and theory but you don't. Because you people sling around "theory" like its some 4 letter word when in fact a theory has already been proven, which it why it is called a theory...
Part of the problem today come from the generalization use of the word theory in the English language in common conversation. For example when one individual looks at another individual and says something like:
"I have a theory why this object might not be working... "
it in fact, is a hypothesis, as it is unproven until said individual tests it.. But in modern Language theory has come to mean something completely different from what it actually means.
A nice explanation of Theory Vs Law, which is of course your next argument is as follows.
The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.
Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.
So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.
The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.
Read more:
"Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law: Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology"
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis...
Problem is though Most of you will never get it straight because you take and recycle the arguments of those before you believing the horse crap they spout and re-spout it yourself...
The Theory of Gravity
The Theory of the Principal of Super-Position
The Theory of Special Relativity
The Theory of Atomic Structure
The Theory of Nuclear Fusion
All of those are known just like:
The Theory of Evolution
That's why it isn't called
The Hypothesis of Evolution
Monday, September 19, 2011
Why are atheists suddenly attacking religion (christians)
I have seen this reference in many poll, poll responses, and blogs
spots... Thing is yeah it is fairly new but there is a reason why
Atheists are suddenly so vocal, and just because we are becoming more
vocal it is NOT necessarily an attack...
For many centuries it was a punishable offense to be an atheist in the world, In fact it still causes prejudice, in many cases people are ostracized for being openly atheist... People have been fired from jobs, kicked out of organization refused admittance to job and organizations for having the atheist stance... And example 15% of the US is now estimated to be atheist, how come there is only ONE atheist in government open about it? because simply put the is no way in hell an open atheist would get elected in this country... that one atheist came out after he had been elected to office...
Recently well known people (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc.) have stood up and said we are tired of it and fighting back against this continued oppression (YES Oppression). the atheists of the world have been and are still oppressed in many areas. In some communities around the world you are still open to be KILLED because of an atheist stance...
The reason it appears "the 'in' thing to do" is because millions of atheists who, until recently, have been afraid to speak openly, are now coming out, like the previously mentioned people, because of this oppression are saying "NO, we arent taking it any longer"... They are arguing back for once strongly and openly... they are feeling empowered and able to do so without fear of overt retribution...
As for the whole "attacking christianity all of a sudden", that is not the case. We are vocal against all religion, even peace loving Buddhist, As religion leads to illogical conclusions, conformity to authoritarian rule, and well closed mindedness in general. I could list a whole slew of other things as well but it would be redundant. The reason it appears to be christianity is the simple fact, really...
We live in a country (countries) dominated by christians, it is who we deal with on a daily basis and what cult/sects we are most familiar with. Many of us are Ex-christians, though many believers try to play that off. SO it would stand to reason that we would talk about christianity the most.
For many centuries it was a punishable offense to be an atheist in the world, In fact it still causes prejudice, in many cases people are ostracized for being openly atheist... People have been fired from jobs, kicked out of organization refused admittance to job and organizations for having the atheist stance... And example 15% of the US is now estimated to be atheist, how come there is only ONE atheist in government open about it? because simply put the is no way in hell an open atheist would get elected in this country... that one atheist came out after he had been elected to office...
Recently well known people (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc.) have stood up and said we are tired of it and fighting back against this continued oppression (YES Oppression). the atheists of the world have been and are still oppressed in many areas. In some communities around the world you are still open to be KILLED because of an atheist stance...
The reason it appears "the 'in' thing to do" is because millions of atheists who, until recently, have been afraid to speak openly, are now coming out, like the previously mentioned people, because of this oppression are saying "NO, we arent taking it any longer"... They are arguing back for once strongly and openly... they are feeling empowered and able to do so without fear of overt retribution...
As for the whole "attacking christianity all of a sudden", that is not the case. We are vocal against all religion, even peace loving Buddhist, As religion leads to illogical conclusions, conformity to authoritarian rule, and well closed mindedness in general. I could list a whole slew of other things as well but it would be redundant. The reason it appears to be christianity is the simple fact, really...
We live in a country (countries) dominated by christians, it is who we deal with on a daily basis and what cult/sects we are most familiar with. Many of us are Ex-christians, though many believers try to play that off. SO it would stand to reason that we would talk about christianity the most.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Confrontation Versus Accomodation (Re-posted)
I wrote this about 8 months ago but Felt it needed to be re-posted as this is STILL an argument being presented...
The following begins with a comparison between the Civil Rights movement and the current Atheist-Secularist movement, and the resulting social effects mustered in by confrontation. Using the Civil Rights movement as a model for comparison, I hope to illustrate the resounding effects of social change, heralded by the brave individuals who risk everything in order to bring about positive and intellectual changes in society. Next I focus on the issues surrounding Accommodation vs. Confrontation by using current day examples of the same bigoted hatred experienced by pre-Civil Rights minorities. I speak on behalf of atheists who are at those very same uncertain cross-roads today. Using science as a tool of measurement, I stand firm in my arguments that the only way to win our own civil rights and liberties, which are granted to every citizen of this country, is to confront those who attempt to oppress our way of life.On December 1st 2010, we celebrated the 55th anniversary of Rosa Parks’ defiant action of refusing to relinquish her seat to a white man on a Montgomery city bus in 1955. This, along with racial tensions that had been building all throughout the south. Sparked by events such as the murder of Emmett Till (Aug 1955) and the government’s inaction in taking steps to desegregate schools after the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the Brown vs. Board helped shape the future of our country.
In January and February of 1957, Martin Luther King and others set up the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In September of that year, nine black students, who were issued death threats, marched into Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, effectively ending the segregation of that school system. On February 1st 1960, four black students from North Carolina Agriculture and Technical College in Greensboro, North Carolina, began a sit-in at a segregated Woolworth’s lunch counter. Although allowed to sit, they were refused service. This event was then repeated throughout the South at parks, swimming pools, theaters, libraries, and other public facilities. Six months later, those first four students (The Greensboro Four) were served lunch at the same Woolworth’s counter.
This string of confrontations, and the many others to come after, bucked the norm of southern white society and pushed the government into realizing the harmful effects of marginalization. Finally legislation to guarantee the rights of minorities in this country was enacted. After decades of bowing to (accommodation) to laws like Jim Crow, African American communities fought for social change – the move toward equality had finally begun. Accommodation does nothing but allow the norm to persist without change because it goes unchallenged. Without upheaval, societies continue their status quo, the ruling class sees no need for change, and continues living with blinders on.
For many generations, atheists have accommodated society’s pious by remaining silently hidden away, afraid to openly admit their disbelief for fear of reprisal, attack, of being belittled, defamed, and punished for their points of view. Then, on September 11th, 2001 religious extremism attacked our country, and fear of remaining quiet outweighed the fear of being openly atheist. The drive to challenge irrational faith-based ideas came to the forefront due to people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and many others. Today atheists in this country are making a stand and saying “enough” no more accommodation for these irrationalities!
The concept of Confrontation vs. Accommodation is one of many issues at the very heart of this current social debate. Given what we know from historical precedence, one must ask “Why is this even an issue”? Well, where would the Civil Rights movement be if Rosa Parks had continued the practice of accommodating white privilege? Where would we be today if The Greensboro Four had not sat down at the Woolworth’s lunch counter? Where would this country be today if the founding fathers (and most of the country) had instead caved in and accommodated King George’s new taxes on the colonies?
Major changes do not happen with accommodation. Let’s face it, what is being asked for by the atheist community is a MAJOR change of the norms in this country. This is not a country built on Christian values, but some religious values ARE present in institutional structures, such as some court houses and town halls. Why? Because it was the dominant worldview of the early colonial Americans, and thus was socially accepted. Our forefathers recognized this, and that is why they granted us the ability to challenge and amend the Constitution in order to allow the document to evolve with our society while still maintaining the secular state they demanded and ultimately created.
The First Amendment was a stroke of genius for its time. No other country in the world HAD this type of doctrinal and political protection. However, our forefathers, enlightened men that they were, saw into the future. They knew full well that the prosecution of individuals for publically questioning the meaning of the Bible would land someone in jail for blasphemy. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Abner Kneeland in 1838, cited the last American case of blasphemy prosecuted in court. He was found guilty and sentenced to sixty days in jail, which he served in spite of calls for pardon on the merits of free speech rights. Our forefathers, being prominent freethinkers, knew this was a future concern, and they granted us the means to have legal grounds for confrontation.
Citizens have the right to have religious views separate from those of everyone else, even if that view is non-belief. This means that religion is protected from government sanction or dissolution. It also means that the government is protected from religious laws interfering on a secular society, or forcing us to follow ideas that aren’t ours demanded by someone else’s religious belief. That is the beauty of the First Amendment; its dual purpose statement works both ways. You have the right to your religious views and you have the right not to be coerced by someone else’s religious views. However, every day our rights are trampled on, and atheists have had enough!
For two hundred years, in the united states, it has been about accommodation, and in all that time atheists have feared persecution of their non-belief. There was some hope and inspiration when Darwin published his Origin of Species, but when rational secular schools tried to teach evolution, what happened instead was the famed Scopes Monkey Trial (poorly named as our nearest ancestors were apes, not monkeys!). The hope and inspiration that had blossomed faded after the court ruling. The teacher was found guilty, for Violating the Butler Act (1925-1967) for teaching evolution in the classroom, and fined for his crime. Not all was lost however, and in spite of accommodating the dominant religion, evolution has made its way into classrooms and centers for intellectual inquiry. Yet today, religion continues its attempts at devaluing evolution and secular society in order to push creationism in the classroom.
Why not confrontation? The fact that atheist exists is a simple enough cause for confrontation, so say the pious. The fact that we do not believe in what the religious whole-heartedly do believe in, is a major setting for conflict, and who draws the line in the sand? Our manner of thinking dare, to challenge the pious, who immediately begin a childish mantra of name calling and pointing of fingers. They claiming absolute truth, and declare their authoritative righteousness over others, asserting that any other manner of thinking is completely wrong, not to mention heretical.
Religious attacks upon atheists occur every day on internet sites and blogs. The religious presume atheists to be immoral and even evil, since atheists have no god to teach them morals, or perpetuate fears of everlasting punishment for misbehavior here on earth. Wait, did the religious moral ground stop the likes of Hitler or the crusaders of Middle Age Europe from slaughtering millions of people? Absolutely not! As a matter of fact, their precious holy texts justify slaughter, not to mention dozens of other activities that – by US judicial standards – would land someone in prison.
I have witnessed confrontation from the religious in other public arenas, not just the web. The 2005 Kansas State School Board voted to redefine “science” against the recommendations of a panel of scientists, with their ultimate goal of inserting Intelligent Design (ID) into the curriculum. The Dover, Pennsylvania trial in 2005, was ruled as an attempt by creationist to sneak creationism (a.k.a. Intelligent Design) into the science classroom disguised as legitimate science.
How about something more recent? The American Atheist Inc. billboard in New Jersey, which immediately got a response billboard attempting to counter the message…now that’s definitely confrontational on behalf of religion. Or how about the atheist ads on city buses in Dallas, Texas? They state, “Millions of Americans Are Good Without God”, and are countered by *confrontational* local churches, who scream, ‘It’s an attack!’ and threatening a bus boycott if the ads go up. In both cases, the billboards that the atheist groups promote are backed by statements saying that they are educating and getting the word out to people who self-identity as atheist, to reassure them that, they aren’t alone, and to get a hold of the local skeptic group or organization.
From Dallas, Texas
From Sacramento, California
How do you interpret these two billboards?
So who are the ones attacking here? How is a billboard advertising an opposite point of view for religion any different than a general religious billboard? Well, in the above example, it’s pretty obvious. To be fair, some Christian billboards are less offensive, passing along a friendly message – somewhat like the atheist billboard from Dallas.
Yet religion claims the oppressed position, saying that they are the ones being attacked, yet they are the ones calling atheists aggressive and or militant. How is being called militant an attack? You see, by tagging “militant” on, this is a psychological ploy to compare atheism with for example militant Muslim fundamentalists. Consider the centuries of oppression the atheists had to live under (and still do in some countries where you can be put to death for being openly atheistic).
The conformity of religious doctrines can be seen in numerous presentations by believers where they parrot (repeat) the supportive arguments that have been dis-proven, by recognized experts and scientists depending on the claim, or have no merit whatsoever, conjecture, or even outright lies. However atheists/skeptics tend to stick with what has merit in the form of evidence or supportive theories verified by science, and recognized experts. The religious, however, prefer to redefine things to fit their arguments. Take the word ‘theory’ for example: the religious are more than happy to apply this to hypothesis such as Intelligent Design, even though there isn’t a shred of evidence supporting it. “But it’s a Theory!!!” Nope, there is not one single peer reviewed paper presented to the scientific community showing evidence. Thus, Intelligent Design is only a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory. Believers are, however, happy to spin this as a valid ‘theory’ while at the same time spitting out the word “theory” as if it were a four letter word in reference to evolution as if it means nothing at this point.
We need confrontation if there is ever going to be another change in this society. We have to stop the encroachment of religion on science, and the law, to truly be free from religion, as granted to us by the First Amendment. We need to stop this delusion from affecting everyone outside the church, where promulgation of religious ideas subverts society with the message of ultimate rule. Great scientists have proven, decade after decade, they have the best answers to the natural world – religion does not have these answers – and rightfully so, because we are all the better for it. The confrontationists know that religious systems have not worked and thus are fighting against the perpetuation of such systems. Not to mention defending that which does work – namely science and free thinking logic – and it is exactly this which has propelled us into the 21st century. Science and logic has moved us further within the last four hundred years, than faith has within the past thousand years.
We are tired of being marginalized. We are tired of being labeled as immoral, and evil for not having faith. We are tired of the self-hate tactics used by the pious which leads to opinions of unworthiness. We are tired of public defamation, like when George Bush Sr. said, “I don’t think atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” We are tired of having to deal with religion being shoved at us from every angle and afraid of religious extremism taking control of the world. Today, the numbers of publicly open atheists are growing daily. Today is the time for change and confrontation is our only avenue to affect that change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)