Coexist – Really?

Symptom of the Universe has been enjoying an extended summer vacation – here is a quick piece that I have been brooding about for a few weeks – feel free to comment and discuss. 

Follow Symptom of the Universe on Twitter: http://twitter.com/sapblatt

The world is a vampire, sent to drain
Secret destroyers, hold you up to the flames

 Billy Corgan/Smashing Pumpkins 

Any drive through a modern, well-bred community will see a confluence of Volvos and Priuses adorned with bumper stickers pleading with all of us to coexist. The main argument of this movement, or better still – sentiment – is that all religious groups should get along with each other and play nice. Just be tolerant of one and another and accept each other for who they are and everything will be alright – one gigantic bohemian love fest for the world community. Is this where we are heading? Not likely. Is this realistic? Not at all. 

Coexist

Religious groups and groups in general are not in the inclusion business. By definition, a group excludes just as it includes. Sure, some more liberated groups are “open to all,” but many groups are designed to discriminate and exclude. A great many groups, both religious and secular, have no interest in coexisting with one another. For example – 

Do fundamentalist Christians want to coexist with Pro Choicers?

Do Zionists want to coexist with Palestinians?

Does Focus on the Family want to accept gays and lesbians? Do Mormons or fundamentalists?

Do Orthodox Jews accept the un-Orthodox?

Does the Taliban want to coexist with moderate Muslims (or anyone?)

Do the religious want to coexist with atheists (and vice versa?)

Did Nazis want to coexist with Jews?

Bosnians with Serbs?

Japanese with Chinese?

New worlders with indigenous groups?

North and South Korea?

Confederate and Union? 

A resounding no is the answer to all of these. 

We need to be educated about groups we are included in as well as groups we are excluded from. If I could answer to my readers and the world how to make all of these disparate groups love, tolerate and coexist I would be in Sweden accepting my Nobel Prize. We do need to be tolerant – it looks more and more like the only ones who are tolerant are the socially liberal folks. So many others are willing to start wars, discriminate, exclude and marginalize a great many people from the world’s communities. 

Fiction

Extremely large portions of our world are uneducated and will remain that way. Critical thinking is not part of the picture for a great many people and there is no denying mankind’s historical tribal roots and passions. People like to be part of a group – safety in numbers – he/she is one of us – some people just don’t belong. The fears are that these tendencies can prove to be discriminatory and hateful at best and fatal at worst. 

So as a liberally minded person I do not want to squash anyone’s beliefs – but I also do not want other’s beliefs and discriminations thrust upon me. I do have strong feelings against religion and higher powers but I also do not engage on the topic by assaulting others’ beliefs unless I am engaged to do so – I suppose at times my writing can provoke.

Where do we go from here? Is there hope? 

Coexist is not an answer but rather a utopian ideal that is unattainable. There may be no solution at all except for us to strive for knowledge of others who are not like us.

Atheism Is Not A Religion

A Response to a Reader of Symptom of the Universe

 Follow Symptom of the Universe on Twitter: http://twitter.com/sapblatt 

A Mr. Richard Fetter of Fort Lee, New Jersey writes in and says… – No, props to Gilda Radner, but truth be told “Matt W” wrote in to comment regarding an earlier Symptom of the Universe article Atheism – Savior of the World. A second article, Atheism is Not a Choice may also be of interest to anyone who has not yet read it.

Matt’s first critiques are common ones fielded by atheists daily – the idea that atheism is just another religion and that WE are as bad as fundamentalists in purporting our position to others. Allow me to retort – first, let’s define:

Agnostic – a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.[1]

And

Atheist – One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.[2]

We are all agnostic – anyone who denies this is not worth debating with. No one can prove the existence or non-existence of a god or Supreme Being. It is commonly understood that you can never prove a negative and that the burden of proof is required of those who are trying to prove it exists. Atheists state there is no god – there is nothing to find or prove there – believers say there is a god – show us some proof. The essential difference between atheists and deists and theist is that the latter two operate on faith and the former do not.

The theists are willing to live their life denying rational thought regarding Supreme Being(s) – the atheist will not and cannot operate this way. I am of course referring mainly to theists who believe fundamentally and make the total commitment to their belief. There are many churchgoers who use their heads as well and do not deny science – but have not followed the path to its obvious conclusions that religion and god are man made constructs. The religious will deny proven knowledge such as carbon dating, which proves the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, not 6000 years old which is believed by many because an uneducated writer penned it into the bible a few thousand years ago. Evolution is another scientific truth that has been proven over and over again. Recently life was started from scratch in a laboratory. Man is constantly learning about the natural world and each day that goes by the world becomes less mysterious. If atheists are coming across all high and mighty to you Matt it is because we have difficulty with people who can stare at scientific proof and say it is not true. This is both childish and foolish.

Matt also asked me if I have a good understanding of the Christian worldview – I will answer yes to that question. To reply to Matt’s asking “why is it unreasonable to believe in god if god was created in the minds of men who are rational creatures?” I say that god was created and accepted by man to explain the unexplainable. What was unexplainable 4000 years ago is largely understood today. Epileptics are not possessed by demons; the world is not flat; we do not live in a geocentric universe; man was not created and much of what is in the bible cannot be confirmed or proven by standard historical methods. Did Moses exist? If so how come there is no record of him and all of the trouble he created in Egypt? Egyptians were excellent historians and recorded everything. There is no evidence of the Exodus in Sinai either. This area has been the subject of many large-scale archaeological digs and nothing has been found of a large wandering tribe that spent forty years in the desert.

I researched the “noetic effect of sin” that you mentioned and I will honestly say that I am familiar with the concept, but have not heard the term used to define it. (It is the notion that sin undermines the intellect of man – it is big in Calvinism.) Note to Matt – you should not be shocked when an atheist does not know something – the fact that Christopher Hitchens had not heard of this concept is meaningless as he is willing and capable of learning its meaning – and most assuredly he was aware of the concept. As for the worldview of Christians – I was one for 12 years willingly and a few years after that unwillingly. I am also experienced in Judaism (I am an secular/atheist converted Jew if anyone cares.) I am familiar with the virgin conception, holy trinity and resurrection nonsense. I know what Christ preached and it makes no difference. Prophets were a dime a dozen in that era and this particular prophet was no more divine than you or me. He was a man who became a cult of personality that was eventually followed by millions via the dealings of the Church of Rome.

Your commentary on the noetic effect of religion is ludicrous to anyone who knows the Earth is over 6000 years old, has evolved and was not created in six days. In other words, Genesis is total bunk as is the concept of original sin, which is one of the most offensive Christian/biblical concepts. The idea that all babies are born with a stain on their record because of the activities of a mythical figure form 6000 years ago offends anyone who has had a child or has taken responsibility for their own actions. It is also incredulous and insulting to propose that your worldview/religion is the one correct religion and that it is superior to all others. You Matt, are also an atheist – the difference between us is that I also do not believe in “your” god – you do not believe in Allah, Zeus or the Hindu gods either. The Golden Rule that is so precious to all Christians is not even original – it pre-dates Christ by over five centuries and is attributed to Confucius (as well as the Jews, Buddhists, Babylonians, Egyptians etc. – it is a human attribute – not a god given law.)

You are building a silly argument for belief that is somewhere between Pascal’s Wager and some of the weak arguments put forth by famous Christian apologists like G.K. Chesterton, T.S. Eliot and C.S. Lewis (it is merely a coincidence that they all utilize the same naming format!) We should all submit to the one true religion (this is very absurd) and it is true because our minds are just trying to tell us not to submit to the god that we know is real and true. Tell me Matt – which sect of Christianity is the one true one? May I hazard a guess? It is the one you belong to and follow – right? You almost make me feel bad for the Pope, Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Mel Gibson, the Mormons and the Westboro Baptist Church. Damn – they all thought they were the right one. The above mentioned apologists would have us all believe just because “it would be better if there was a god,” “there must be a god,” “I could not live my life without knowing there is a savior who is watching out for me,” etc. Man may want a god, but certainly does not need a god or religion to be kept inline. Remember – US prisons are largely populated by people who state they are practicing Christians – in far larger proportions than there are atheists in jail.

Religions, cults, god and cults of personality are all synonymous with each other – they have brought us such landmark moments as the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, genital mutilation practices, World War II, Vietnam, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Kim il Jong in North Korea, Stalin and the Holocaust. Mankind will not be saved by mythical saviors and promises of an afterlife. It is all rubbish. Mankind needs to be educated and enlightened – learn from each others differences that we are all basically the same and we can take a big step in that direction by stepping away from religion and the worshiping of idols (by this I mean any religious figure) or real life maniacs that have caused so much pain, death and destruction. It is high time for mankind to open their eyes and wake up to the inherent dangers of group-think and we need to think for ourselves.

---

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Atheism Is Not A Choice

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/sapblatt

NOTE: By choice, I mean that after weighing the evidence and reading and learning – a critically thinking person has to be an atheist, or at the very least agnostic. To remain otherwise would be faith or superstition based and while that may be valid for many it is not a decision that will be arrived at via critical thinking.

One of the biggest rules “they” tell us to live by is not to discuss politics or religion. I of course throw caution to the wind and discuss them all the time; politics because I think it is very important in a quasi-democracy for us to discuss ideas and platforms, and to be informed. If your position is worth anything at all to you it should be worth discussing with the opposition. We did not build this great nation by having our forefathers be constantly worried about being PC or causing a ruckus – they debated, argued and negotiated. This leaves us with the other “not to be spoken about subject,” religion – or more specifically the anti-religion we call atheism. Religious people similarly do not want to engage in debate with atheists – this leads me to wonder just how strong their belief is?

So last Saturday afternoon I find myself with three hours to kill inside the nicely air conditioned train station in Stamford, Connecticut minding my own business. First I finished up an essay I had written earlier in the day on my prior life as a hard drinking man and then I found myself reading a book I had started earlier in the week – John Loftus’ “Why I Became An Atheist.” The book is an interesting look at an ex-preacher and how he grew over time to lose his belief in the supernatural and magical and began to realize that science was a much better route to answers. Interestingly, Loftus seemed to really lose his religion when his flock turned against him at a low time in his life (after he had an affair) when he needed community support and forgiveness the most. Funny how the flock did not follow the teachings of the bible that they deem so important.

When you least expect it…expect it. A very polite security guard who I had spoken with a couple of hours earlier walked by and knowingly asked me what I was reading. He was quickly called away, but soon returned. After seeing the title and assuming correctly that atheism was my position he quickly informed me that Jesus is coming back soon. I politely told him that was not true and he is in for a long wait. He seemed puzzled how I could not share his view. I told him that I would be happy to talk with him but he had to realize that there was no chance he would convince me of his view (I have been very comfortable in my lack of beliefs of over thirty years) and I realized I was unlikely to turn him into a free thinking skeptic – but I was sure going to try.

Willie, my new friend was not willing or able to think about the bible critically, or about god or Jesus (why does this never cease to amaze me?) He looked puzzled that Jesus would speak so clearly to him and yet not talk to me. He could not see how anyone could question the bible, the virgin birth or the resurrection. Of course I could not understand how anyone could understand the magic show that calls itself Christianity. I countered by questioning his ego-maniacal god who demanded total worship and this god’s genocidal, murderous and capricious ways. I pointed out to Willie that he also is an atheist (one of our standard methods) – the only difference between us is that I worship one fewer god. He really did not seem to grasp this at all until I elaborated. Then Willie had no issue with the statement as he does not consider the gods of the Hindus, Muslims, pagans, ancient Greeks, Native Americans ad infinitum to be true gods – yet somehow he thinks his god is a real god and the one. The interesting question of the Jewish god was better received until I pointed out that the Jews think Jesus was a man and not a god. Then he suddenly abandoned the Jewish version as well.

As much as Willie wants the entire world to share in his evangelical bible study groups view of Jesus, god and the bible I am not buying. It is man made material of a pretty low quality and it is not the least bit necessary for anyone to subscribe to the lies it puts forth. I will stick with science, research and the scientific method. It may not be perfect, but it allows for adaptation, correction, testing and retesting. Society has been served much better through scientific research and methods than it has been through god or religion. Some will find the atheistic view to be dogmatic and religion like – but it really is not. Atheism is simply the negation of the belief in a higher power or the supernatural. Everything is here and now in the concrete world – not off somewhere in the ether or the heavens. Like I have always said – “you cannot fake faith.” For me to believe in the lies of religion and the supernatural would require me to lie to myself – and that is something I will not do. Do I think Willie is lying to himself? No – not really. I think he is guilty of not opening his eyes to the world around him and he is certainly guilty of not questioning enough things that demand interrogation. Of course – Willie could turn that back on me and say I am guilty of “not opening my heart to Jesus.” Again – you cannot fake faith – and atheism is not a choice.

Link to a prior article I penned on atheism:

https://sapblatt.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/atheism-%e2%80%93-savior-of-the-world/