As an atheist, there are several holidays that I do not celebrate. A few of our holidays come from religious, usually christian roots. ...even though they have pagan roots that are undermined by the majority religion. Actually, there are a few religious holidays that I actually do celebrate, but not the way most celebrate them. I appreciate the roots that were pre-christian in these holidays, and since my fiance is pagan, I celebrate those with her.
I always found it interesting that we have a "Federal holiday" in our country that is not secular. While most of our national holidays celebrate the forming of our nation, or events that defined our culture as a secular nation, Christmas is on that list which goes against the first amendment. ..Not to mention that it's roots were undermined in the first place.
Very many holidays that we have, have roots that most people seem to not be aware of..even the people who invented them. Groundhog day for example has pagan roots. These roots are often forgotten, undermined or just plain stolen.
examples: Christmas and Halloween.
There is also a few holidays that I would like to NOT celebrate, though I do.
Valentine's day comes to mind. Like I've mentioned before, a lot of people dont seem to know the roots of a holiday because it is well hidden behind commercialism. Since St. Valentine has the holiday named after him, I'm obviously not a person who gives this holiday much attention..however, I have a girlfriend who would probably be a little upset if she didn't get a heart shaped box of candies and a few roses on this day.
Other holidays I do not celebrate are:
Easter - resurrection of a savior who I dont beleive in.
Columbus Day - This one has nothing to do with religion..this one has to do with the principle behind it. He killed and deceived natives and thought he landed in the east..but yet we celebrate him. Never made sense.
St. Patrick's day - this one is the same as St. Valentine's day.
Mardi Gras - this one isn't really a holiday..more so a popular celebration. It's a catholic celebration, that everyone seems to like to be a part of.
To sum everything up, I observe secular holidays and the original version of religious holidays because of an appreciation of there pagan roots.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Friday, December 3, 2010
Good Without God
I'm constantly hearing how Christianity is not only about doing the right thing because of the fear of hell and the reward you get in the afterlife, but it is something to live you're life by. They say that you need the believe of god to live a fulfilling life.
I for one, have never felt something missing in my life when I began to stray from religion. I beleive that I have a better grasp on what morality is because I'm no longer deluded with the thought that good and evil is black and white. I also beleive that I have a better grasp on how important life is to us. I understand that this life is all we have and we need to make the best of it, for not only us, but other people who are effected by our time here.
I've been told that I am just confused or that I am a rebel for "choosing" to be an atheist. First of all, I have never chosen anything. Atheism is no more a choice then you're sexuality is. Second of all, I feel that I know more about the world around me and even religious doctrine since I began to think freely. I am no longer oppressed by rules and guidelines that are indoctrinated into me. I have the obility to think freely with an open mind and learn things on my own.
If you didn't know me, you would have no idea if or not I beleive in a higher being, based on my actions. This is my point. It's upsetting when a self righteous person tells me how I act, without even knowing me personally. I'm also upset because just by being who I am, I am judged and feared. I'm also always blamed for things that are out of my control, and when I stand my ground on an issue, people feel like they are the ones being attacked. I'm tired of misconceptions. I'm tired of ignorance and intolerance. If you come from a belief structure that claims to be the most morally upright, then dont attack me when you are afraid of learning something that you would like to shelter you're self from.
Another thing I am tired of hearing of is that I am arrogant because I do not beleive in a higher being. I'm probably more modest then you are because I realize that we do not have all of the answers and probably never will. But at least we are trying based on real methods of thought, not just taking someones word for it. In my experience, a creationist is usually more arrogant because they feel that they are always right in what they beleive and is too closed minded to challenge their doctrine.
I feel that I am good without god because, everything I have, I work for and I do not let the limitations of religion slow me down. I take responsibility for my own actions. I do not wait for judgment to take responsibilities for them like you say I will have to when I face our creator. I face them when they happen, and I learn from my mistakes and actions. Everything we do in this life effects someone else, or something else on this earth. Hiding behind an idea of punishment and reward after death does nothing but hinder decisions you make in you're life. We must live for today, and for the tomorrow of others.
I never feel that I am missing out on something because I do not have a religion, or a relationship with a higher being. I take things in my life seriously and try not to take what I have for granted. Life is full of enough reasons to live well. We have loved ones, friends, relationships, the beauty of nature and the kindness of people just to name a very few. To think that you deserve anything else is just selfish. What makes a human life sacred or important enough for the creator of everything to love more then another?
I never claim to know for certain that there is no god. It can never be proved either way, but the thing about belief is, you dont need absolute proof. If you can not handle you're thoughts of only having to work with so many ideas to come to a conclusion, then it is only fear that is holding you back.
I do not have a fear of life or death, or a lack of control of my life. I am not concerned with what will happen to me in this life, because I am fine with the fact that I am the one who controls my life and my future. Nothing else. It is empowering to know that you are the one in control, and dont have to worship a tyrant to help you along you're way. After life is useless to me. I respect the natural cycle of life, and death to me is nothing more then the final step of my existence.
If you were to ask me how I came to this conclusion, I would say that it came from many years of thought and research of ideas. I have many reasons not to beleive in the doctrine and false hope of religion. If I were to list them here, I would be wasting you're time.
I dont miss out on anything that religion has to teach or offer us, because I have found more logical ways to make my life fulfilling.
these are only a few reasons why I am good without god.
I for one, have never felt something missing in my life when I began to stray from religion. I beleive that I have a better grasp on what morality is because I'm no longer deluded with the thought that good and evil is black and white. I also beleive that I have a better grasp on how important life is to us. I understand that this life is all we have and we need to make the best of it, for not only us, but other people who are effected by our time here.
I've been told that I am just confused or that I am a rebel for "choosing" to be an atheist. First of all, I have never chosen anything. Atheism is no more a choice then you're sexuality is. Second of all, I feel that I know more about the world around me and even religious doctrine since I began to think freely. I am no longer oppressed by rules and guidelines that are indoctrinated into me. I have the obility to think freely with an open mind and learn things on my own.
If you didn't know me, you would have no idea if or not I beleive in a higher being, based on my actions. This is my point. It's upsetting when a self righteous person tells me how I act, without even knowing me personally. I'm also upset because just by being who I am, I am judged and feared. I'm also always blamed for things that are out of my control, and when I stand my ground on an issue, people feel like they are the ones being attacked. I'm tired of misconceptions. I'm tired of ignorance and intolerance. If you come from a belief structure that claims to be the most morally upright, then dont attack me when you are afraid of learning something that you would like to shelter you're self from.
Another thing I am tired of hearing of is that I am arrogant because I do not beleive in a higher being. I'm probably more modest then you are because I realize that we do not have all of the answers and probably never will. But at least we are trying based on real methods of thought, not just taking someones word for it. In my experience, a creationist is usually more arrogant because they feel that they are always right in what they beleive and is too closed minded to challenge their doctrine.
I feel that I am good without god because, everything I have, I work for and I do not let the limitations of religion slow me down. I take responsibility for my own actions. I do not wait for judgment to take responsibilities for them like you say I will have to when I face our creator. I face them when they happen, and I learn from my mistakes and actions. Everything we do in this life effects someone else, or something else on this earth. Hiding behind an idea of punishment and reward after death does nothing but hinder decisions you make in you're life. We must live for today, and for the tomorrow of others.
I never feel that I am missing out on something because I do not have a religion, or a relationship with a higher being. I take things in my life seriously and try not to take what I have for granted. Life is full of enough reasons to live well. We have loved ones, friends, relationships, the beauty of nature and the kindness of people just to name a very few. To think that you deserve anything else is just selfish. What makes a human life sacred or important enough for the creator of everything to love more then another?
I never claim to know for certain that there is no god. It can never be proved either way, but the thing about belief is, you dont need absolute proof. If you can not handle you're thoughts of only having to work with so many ideas to come to a conclusion, then it is only fear that is holding you back.
I do not have a fear of life or death, or a lack of control of my life. I am not concerned with what will happen to me in this life, because I am fine with the fact that I am the one who controls my life and my future. Nothing else. It is empowering to know that you are the one in control, and dont have to worship a tyrant to help you along you're way. After life is useless to me. I respect the natural cycle of life, and death to me is nothing more then the final step of my existence.
If you were to ask me how I came to this conclusion, I would say that it came from many years of thought and research of ideas. I have many reasons not to beleive in the doctrine and false hope of religion. If I were to list them here, I would be wasting you're time.
I dont miss out on anything that religion has to teach or offer us, because I have found more logical ways to make my life fulfilling.
these are only a few reasons why I am good without god.
The Christian Response
http://studygrowknowblog.com/2010/12/01/noahs-ark-in-kentucky/
This is an interesting story. Apparently, the Creation Museum in Kentucky, is spearheading the plan to build a full-scale replica of the famed vessel and include it with its Creation Museum. The price of this venture is said to be over 24 million dollars and the park adjoining the museum will also be expanded.
I went to a few places on the Web where this information is shared and of course, the atheists, liberals, and agnostics were there in droves posting their trash talk. Of course, many of them not only castigated Christians for doing something like this, but concluded that the idea of a global flood and Noah’s Ark simply perpetuates the ignorance found within the belief system of many Christians.
The answer? Evolution, of course! To these same folks, evolution is THE answer to life on this planet, the variety of species and everything else that goes along with it. One brilliant individual wrote that evolution is seen every day in bacteria! Um…that’s great, but you would think after the billions of years that scientists have said that evolution has been occurring, we would see something far more substantial than the evolution of bacteria. Maybe my standards are just too high for the scientific community.
But if we take the time to go back over the history of evolution, what stands out are any number of hoaxes and downright frauds that scientists have attempted to perpetrate on the world, in the hopes of garnering respect for the religion of evolution.
We have the following for your consideration:
Piltdown Man: Found in a grave in England, 1912. Fossil was seen for what it was 41 years later, a complete hoax. Fragments of the skull had been stained with chemicals to give the appearance of age
Nebraska Man: this was based on one tooth – that’s right, an entire skeletal frame grew out of a tooth, which later turned out to be from a type of wild pig.
Java Man: skull and femur were found 50 feet apart and this was
Orce Man: found in 1982 in Spain, was proclaimed to be the oldest fossilized human skeleton. Though originally stating that the skull came from a man who lived roughly one million years earlier, they finally admitted that it most likely came from a 4 month-old donkey. Looks like Orce Man succeeded in making a jackass out of scientists whose sole desire is to pretend that God does not exist, and use any means necessary to achieve that end.
In spite of these and other serious mistakes, people who prefer not to accept the reality of God’s existence hang onto this distorted and preposterous fairy tale called Evolution. It has no basis in fact, evolutionists cannot even tell us for sure how life supposed began on this planet, and beyond that, there are no transitional fossils.
In other words, the theory of evolution is so convoluted and unbelievable that it should be classified as myth. However, it is the only thing that scientists have going for them that separates science from God.
It is also amazing how hostile some of the evolutionists can get when defending their pet belief or denigrating Christianity. In fact, they become very adept at ad hominem attacks, which is really all they can do.
I am asked to believe that from some ancient primordial soup, the complexity of life evolved into what we have today. That stretches credulity so far out of shape, it resembles nothing. How is that possible to have a primordial soup (no comment on where the soup came from) that in and of itself is so complex, or at least contains all the complexities necessary for life in all of its remarkable stages?
We are to believe that some group of amoebas somewhere in past time, had everything already somehow within it to evolve into the complex stage to which human beings have supposedly arrived in 2010? If that is the case, then why did it have to go through all those stages to begin with, when it could have simply become what we are now, saving a great deal of time and energy?
Evolutionists tell us that certain things are facts, yet in spite of the fact that science should be empirical, nothing within the evolutionary system is that. It is all guess work, stemming from perspective that “God does not exist,” therefore what happened? Science gives no consideration to the possibility of God because God cannot be empirically tested or defined. Neither can a good deal of things.
For instance, does the universe go on forever? If so, how do we know that? What happens to all the things that get sucked into a black hole? If they go to another dimension, why can’t we find a way to see that other dimension? If they do not go to another dimension, where do the objects go when they enter a black hole?
Here we are, in 2010, billions of years after the alleged beginning of evolution and all science can say is “possibly,” “maybe,” “likely,” and that is supposed to be good enough? Regarding the start of life on this planet, now science is telling us life may have come from the ocean. Great, but where did the ocean come from? Other scientists are now leaning toward the idea that life was seeded here either on the backs of crystals, or by aliens.
That would certainly solve the problem, wouldn’t it? If science can find a way to answer that question of the actual origin of life on this planet, then I’m sure they believe everyone will stop asking them about it. “Aliens! Aliens seeded life on this planet! End of story. Let’s move on!“ The faithful minions will respond with “Excellent! I knew science would eventually have the answer! Those crazy, ignorant Christians can finally shut up now.“
Where is the proof that life began on this planet either through crystals floating through space, or by being seeded here through the oversight of aliens? No proof? So, science is leaning toward something (again) that it cannot prove? Hmmm, that’s interesting, but certainly not a first.
So the Creation Museum in Kentucky is going to expand its park and include a 1:1 scale Noah’s Ark. That has all the atheists and “learned” people up in arms. Some even referred to it as child abuse (a brazen ad hominem attack).
I will say this: there is nothing that will prove God’s existence to people who do not want to be convinced. If God were to now part the heavens and speak to the people of the earth, He would still not be believed! People would simply wonder how the holographic imagery was created! It looks so believable!
If Noah’s Ark itself were found on top of one of the mountains of Ararat, people would still not accept the fact that there was a global flood. They would claim that a group of ignorant, conservative Christians had spent years building the thing only to pull back the curtain now that they had finished the task.
A number of years ago, while searching at the bottom of part of the Red Sea, a number of coral-encrusted wheels and things were found. They certainly looked like chariot wheels. In fact, in the same vicinity, bones and skeletons were found, along with coral-encrusted pieces of what appeared to be armor. Some of the bones and partial skeletons looked suspiciously like horses. Could it be? Could the event of crossing the Red Sea actually have occurred as recorded for us in the book of Exodus? Holy moley, Batman!
Immediately, a number of atheists weighed in on the subject intoning that it would take much more than a wheel – even if it did look remarkably like a chariot wheel – to convince them that the crossing of the Red Sea event had actually taken place, so there! Shortly after the discovery of these potential artifacts, Egypt decided that no one would be given permission to do any further research there and closed things down. There are a few pictures that recorded the evidence and eye-witness testimony of the individual who took the photos.
Do you see? Atheists could care less about facts, if those facts have anything even remotely to do with the possibility that God does exist. How many chariot wheels would it take to convince an atheist, 5? 10? 50? The answer is that it does not matter how many wheels might be located. Unless THOUSANDS of chariot wheels were located, they wouldn’t budge. Even if they did begin to budge, the credit would not be giving to Moses or the Red Sea crossing as described in Exodus. The chariot wheels and such would be said to be of something else altogether. Scientists and researchers would get together to find out if any other event could have taken place in that area throughout history. Even if they find something that might have something to do with something that would be remotely connected to some chariot someplace, they would say that the currents of the Red Sea (since it was probably FAR larger eons ago) washed the chariot wheels up/down to its current landing ground.
What possible thing could convince an atheist that God exists? Besides God directly opening their eyes to the truth, there is only one thing and unfortunately, it does not happen on this side of death. We all die. It cannot be helped. One day, every person will walk through the dark door of death. Once that is done, the truth will be instantaneous. Each and every person who walks through that door will immediately know whether God exists or not. It is that simple…and that final. There is no turning back. It’s over. All chances are gone.
This is where atheists get snippy and state that Pascal’s Wager is merely a philosophical argument that proves nothing. Wonderful, but I’m not talking about Pascal’s Wager, because Pascal’s Wager assumes only that salvation is good after death, and not before. In other words, Pascal’s Wager basically states “what have you got to lose? Receive Jesus now and you get free life insurance against hell.“ It’s the most ridiculous argument to try to convince someone to become a Christian, because they wind up becoming one (or thinking they do) for the wrong reasons.
While becoming a Christian is about not ending up in hell for eternity (actually, it’s the Lake of Fire, because according to Revelation, both death and hell are thrown into the Lake of Fire that burns forever), it is far more than that. It is the individual deciding to submit their life to God in order that God will use the individual as He sees fit in this life, in order to fulfill His purposes here and now.
Becoming a Christian is not about avoiding the eternal frying pan. It is about recognizing our dire need for God and the only salvation that is available. It is about allowing God through Christ Jesus to knock SELF off the throne and replace SELF with the only Person who should actually be there – Jesus.
Becoming a Christian starts with a spiritual transaction (cf. John 3) and grows from that vantage point. It is a life-changing transaction that takes place within a person, and continues throughout the remainder of the person’s life, only to culminate in eternity.
Becoming a Christian is not simply obtaining fire insurance against hell, and living the way I want to live now. That’s nothing. This is why people who call themselves Christian often fall from great heights. It is because the reality of the indwelling Holy Spirit does not exist. If He does not indwell the person, they are not a Christian. If He does not indwell the person, it is because they have never had a spiritual transaction. If they have never had a spiritual transaction, everything they do, say, or think in the Name of Jesus means absolutely nothing (except possible dishonor for Jesus).
I have no problem believing that a global flood wiped out everything except Noah, his immediate family and the animals with him on the Ark. Atheists scoff at the idea that two of every animal could have fit on the Ark. The math problem was solved long ago. What they also fail to see is that God brought the animals to Noah. Noah was to take them with him on the Ark, but there is nothing that indicates he actually went out and GOT the animals. Having said that, is it possible that God decided that dinosaurs would be left off the list as well as other animals?
Of course, atheists and others ridicule anyone who has the temerity to believe myths such as Noah’s Ark, yet these same individuals will, with a straight face, look at you and tell you that everything evolved from the great primordial soup in the sky.
Evolution leaves people valueless. If evolution is true, then man has no more value than snakes, rabbits, or rats. If the biblical account of Creation is true, then man is the pinnacle of God’s Creation, having supreme value.
The choice of beliefs is yours of course. The only thing I would caution you about is ask hard questions. Don’t take a scientists word for it and don’t take a theologian’s word for it. Do the homework yourself and stop parroting your
favorite Dawkins phrase, complete with cynical smirk.
Beyond this, do not believe that Christianity is merely (or only) an insurance policy. If that’s what you think of Christianity, better think again. We are to submit ourselves to Him in thought, word, and deed. If you cannot or are unwilling to do that, then ultimately, you will have no part in Him, or He withyou. I pray that you take the time to seek the truth and I pray that you do it today.
**************************************************************************************
First of all, I have "known" god more then you know. I HAVE prayed for his "truth" to no avail.
These are only a few things that I have to say about this right now....trust me, there is a lot more.
"Don’t take a scientists word for it and don’t take a theologian’s word for it." ...ok, then why do you take you're religious doctrine's word for it? you couldn't have done the homework because you cant even express logically that you even understand how evolution works.
when you can beleive something without any information behind it at all, over something that has been tested with trial and error and makes more sense then just falling out of the sky....you're beyond hope.
"many of them not only castigated Christians for doing something like this..." Oh and us "atheists, liberals, and agnostics" are never oppressed?
"you would think after the billions of years that scientists have said that evolution has been occurring, we would see something far more substantial than the evolution of bacteria." ....you haven't been paying attention have you?
"what stands out are any number of hoaxes and downright frauds that scientists have attempted to perpetrate on the world, in the hopes of garnering respect for the religion of evolution."...religion of evolution? wow, a scientific theory is a religion...you are so deluded. at least we are looking for the truth enough to make mistakes, the only reason you dont make mistakes with you're theory is because you gave up on looking for the truth.
you wonder why we take offense? you wonder why we are frustrated? you wonder why we actually use a method to our thought process??? this letter is exactly why. it's people like you that wont budge no mater what. science is ever changing moving forward with the information that we find. it's ignorant people like you that dont beleive in any other possibility and are stuck in you're ignorant ways.
the bible said that when the earth was completely flooded, god sent a great wind to blow it off of the earth....if a wind can blow all of that water off of the earth, how the hell was Noah still alive??? must have been a miracle.
You can tell this person doesn't even understand what fossil evidence we have. they seemed to enjoy pointing out our mistakes, but what do they have? just faith based on what someone told them.
if evolution leaves people valueless, and we are no more different then animals, how is you're morals that come from the bible which are incomplete and irrelevant make you any different? the difference is, morals come from life experience and logic.
"Pascal’s Wager is merely a philosophical argument that proves nothing." you think pascals wager is in you're favor? I hate to tell you but pascal's wager exists to contradict you.
if you need god to live you're life to the fullest, have substance and morals.. you're doing it wrong.
This is an interesting story. Apparently, the Creation Museum in Kentucky, is spearheading the plan to build a full-scale replica of the famed vessel and include it with its Creation Museum. The price of this venture is said to be over 24 million dollars and the park adjoining the museum will also be expanded.
I went to a few places on the Web where this information is shared and of course, the atheists, liberals, and agnostics were there in droves posting their trash talk. Of course, many of them not only castigated Christians for doing something like this, but concluded that the idea of a global flood and Noah’s Ark simply perpetuates the ignorance found within the belief system of many Christians.
The answer? Evolution, of course! To these same folks, evolution is THE answer to life on this planet, the variety of species and everything else that goes along with it. One brilliant individual wrote that evolution is seen every day in bacteria! Um…that’s great, but you would think after the billions of years that scientists have said that evolution has been occurring, we would see something far more substantial than the evolution of bacteria. Maybe my standards are just too high for the scientific community.
But if we take the time to go back over the history of evolution, what stands out are any number of hoaxes and downright frauds that scientists have attempted to perpetrate on the world, in the hopes of garnering respect for the religion of evolution.
We have the following for your consideration:
Piltdown Man: Found in a grave in England, 1912. Fossil was seen for what it was 41 years later, a complete hoax. Fragments of the skull had been stained with chemicals to give the appearance of age
Nebraska Man: this was based on one tooth – that’s right, an entire skeletal frame grew out of a tooth, which later turned out to be from a type of wild pig.
Java Man: skull and femur were found 50 feet apart and this was
Orce Man: found in 1982 in Spain, was proclaimed to be the oldest fossilized human skeleton. Though originally stating that the skull came from a man who lived roughly one million years earlier, they finally admitted that it most likely came from a 4 month-old donkey. Looks like Orce Man succeeded in making a jackass out of scientists whose sole desire is to pretend that God does not exist, and use any means necessary to achieve that end.
In spite of these and other serious mistakes, people who prefer not to accept the reality of God’s existence hang onto this distorted and preposterous fairy tale called Evolution. It has no basis in fact, evolutionists cannot even tell us for sure how life supposed began on this planet, and beyond that, there are no transitional fossils.
In other words, the theory of evolution is so convoluted and unbelievable that it should be classified as myth. However, it is the only thing that scientists have going for them that separates science from God.
It is also amazing how hostile some of the evolutionists can get when defending their pet belief or denigrating Christianity. In fact, they become very adept at ad hominem attacks, which is really all they can do.
I am asked to believe that from some ancient primordial soup, the complexity of life evolved into what we have today. That stretches credulity so far out of shape, it resembles nothing. How is that possible to have a primordial soup (no comment on where the soup came from) that in and of itself is so complex, or at least contains all the complexities necessary for life in all of its remarkable stages?
We are to believe that some group of amoebas somewhere in past time, had everything already somehow within it to evolve into the complex stage to which human beings have supposedly arrived in 2010? If that is the case, then why did it have to go through all those stages to begin with, when it could have simply become what we are now, saving a great deal of time and energy?
Evolutionists tell us that certain things are facts, yet in spite of the fact that science should be empirical, nothing within the evolutionary system is that. It is all guess work, stemming from perspective that “God does not exist,” therefore what happened? Science gives no consideration to the possibility of God because God cannot be empirically tested or defined. Neither can a good deal of things.
For instance, does the universe go on forever? If so, how do we know that? What happens to all the things that get sucked into a black hole? If they go to another dimension, why can’t we find a way to see that other dimension? If they do not go to another dimension, where do the objects go when they enter a black hole?
Here we are, in 2010, billions of years after the alleged beginning of evolution and all science can say is “possibly,” “maybe,” “likely,” and that is supposed to be good enough? Regarding the start of life on this planet, now science is telling us life may have come from the ocean. Great, but where did the ocean come from? Other scientists are now leaning toward the idea that life was seeded here either on the backs of crystals, or by aliens.
That would certainly solve the problem, wouldn’t it? If science can find a way to answer that question of the actual origin of life on this planet, then I’m sure they believe everyone will stop asking them about it. “Aliens! Aliens seeded life on this planet! End of story. Let’s move on!“ The faithful minions will respond with “Excellent! I knew science would eventually have the answer! Those crazy, ignorant Christians can finally shut up now.“
Where is the proof that life began on this planet either through crystals floating through space, or by being seeded here through the oversight of aliens? No proof? So, science is leaning toward something (again) that it cannot prove? Hmmm, that’s interesting, but certainly not a first.
So the Creation Museum in Kentucky is going to expand its park and include a 1:1 scale Noah’s Ark. That has all the atheists and “learned” people up in arms. Some even referred to it as child abuse (a brazen ad hominem attack).
I will say this: there is nothing that will prove God’s existence to people who do not want to be convinced. If God were to now part the heavens and speak to the people of the earth, He would still not be believed! People would simply wonder how the holographic imagery was created! It looks so believable!
If Noah’s Ark itself were found on top of one of the mountains of Ararat, people would still not accept the fact that there was a global flood. They would claim that a group of ignorant, conservative Christians had spent years building the thing only to pull back the curtain now that they had finished the task.
A number of years ago, while searching at the bottom of part of the Red Sea, a number of coral-encrusted wheels and things were found. They certainly looked like chariot wheels. In fact, in the same vicinity, bones and skeletons were found, along with coral-encrusted pieces of what appeared to be armor. Some of the bones and partial skeletons looked suspiciously like horses. Could it be? Could the event of crossing the Red Sea actually have occurred as recorded for us in the book of Exodus? Holy moley, Batman!
Immediately, a number of atheists weighed in on the subject intoning that it would take much more than a wheel – even if it did look remarkably like a chariot wheel – to convince them that the crossing of the Red Sea event had actually taken place, so there! Shortly after the discovery of these potential artifacts, Egypt decided that no one would be given permission to do any further research there and closed things down. There are a few pictures that recorded the evidence and eye-witness testimony of the individual who took the photos.
Do you see? Atheists could care less about facts, if those facts have anything even remotely to do with the possibility that God does exist. How many chariot wheels would it take to convince an atheist, 5? 10? 50? The answer is that it does not matter how many wheels might be located. Unless THOUSANDS of chariot wheels were located, they wouldn’t budge. Even if they did begin to budge, the credit would not be giving to Moses or the Red Sea crossing as described in Exodus. The chariot wheels and such would be said to be of something else altogether. Scientists and researchers would get together to find out if any other event could have taken place in that area throughout history. Even if they find something that might have something to do with something that would be remotely connected to some chariot someplace, they would say that the currents of the Red Sea (since it was probably FAR larger eons ago) washed the chariot wheels up/down to its current landing ground.
What possible thing could convince an atheist that God exists? Besides God directly opening their eyes to the truth, there is only one thing and unfortunately, it does not happen on this side of death. We all die. It cannot be helped. One day, every person will walk through the dark door of death. Once that is done, the truth will be instantaneous. Each and every person who walks through that door will immediately know whether God exists or not. It is that simple…and that final. There is no turning back. It’s over. All chances are gone.
This is where atheists get snippy and state that Pascal’s Wager is merely a philosophical argument that proves nothing. Wonderful, but I’m not talking about Pascal’s Wager, because Pascal’s Wager assumes only that salvation is good after death, and not before. In other words, Pascal’s Wager basically states “what have you got to lose? Receive Jesus now and you get free life insurance against hell.“ It’s the most ridiculous argument to try to convince someone to become a Christian, because they wind up becoming one (or thinking they do) for the wrong reasons.
While becoming a Christian is about not ending up in hell for eternity (actually, it’s the Lake of Fire, because according to Revelation, both death and hell are thrown into the Lake of Fire that burns forever), it is far more than that. It is the individual deciding to submit their life to God in order that God will use the individual as He sees fit in this life, in order to fulfill His purposes here and now.
Becoming a Christian is not about avoiding the eternal frying pan. It is about recognizing our dire need for God and the only salvation that is available. It is about allowing God through Christ Jesus to knock SELF off the throne and replace SELF with the only Person who should actually be there – Jesus.
Becoming a Christian starts with a spiritual transaction (cf. John 3) and grows from that vantage point. It is a life-changing transaction that takes place within a person, and continues throughout the remainder of the person’s life, only to culminate in eternity.
Becoming a Christian is not simply obtaining fire insurance against hell, and living the way I want to live now. That’s nothing. This is why people who call themselves Christian often fall from great heights. It is because the reality of the indwelling Holy Spirit does not exist. If He does not indwell the person, they are not a Christian. If He does not indwell the person, it is because they have never had a spiritual transaction. If they have never had a spiritual transaction, everything they do, say, or think in the Name of Jesus means absolutely nothing (except possible dishonor for Jesus).
I have no problem believing that a global flood wiped out everything except Noah, his immediate family and the animals with him on the Ark. Atheists scoff at the idea that two of every animal could have fit on the Ark. The math problem was solved long ago. What they also fail to see is that God brought the animals to Noah. Noah was to take them with him on the Ark, but there is nothing that indicates he actually went out and GOT the animals. Having said that, is it possible that God decided that dinosaurs would be left off the list as well as other animals?
Of course, atheists and others ridicule anyone who has the temerity to believe myths such as Noah’s Ark, yet these same individuals will, with a straight face, look at you and tell you that everything evolved from the great primordial soup in the sky.
Evolution leaves people valueless. If evolution is true, then man has no more value than snakes, rabbits, or rats. If the biblical account of Creation is true, then man is the pinnacle of God’s Creation, having supreme value.
The choice of beliefs is yours of course. The only thing I would caution you about is ask hard questions. Don’t take a scientists word for it and don’t take a theologian’s word for it. Do the homework yourself and stop parroting your
favorite Dawkins phrase, complete with cynical smirk.
Beyond this, do not believe that Christianity is merely (or only) an insurance policy. If that’s what you think of Christianity, better think again. We are to submit ourselves to Him in thought, word, and deed. If you cannot or are unwilling to do that, then ultimately, you will have no part in Him, or He withyou. I pray that you take the time to seek the truth and I pray that you do it today.
**************************************************************************************
First of all, I have "known" god more then you know. I HAVE prayed for his "truth" to no avail.
These are only a few things that I have to say about this right now....trust me, there is a lot more.
"Don’t take a scientists word for it and don’t take a theologian’s word for it." ...ok, then why do you take you're religious doctrine's word for it? you couldn't have done the homework because you cant even express logically that you even understand how evolution works.
when you can beleive something without any information behind it at all, over something that has been tested with trial and error and makes more sense then just falling out of the sky....you're beyond hope.
"many of them not only castigated Christians for doing something like this..." Oh and us "atheists, liberals, and agnostics" are never oppressed?
"you would think after the billions of years that scientists have said that evolution has been occurring, we would see something far more substantial than the evolution of bacteria." ....you haven't been paying attention have you?
"what stands out are any number of hoaxes and downright frauds that scientists have attempted to perpetrate on the world, in the hopes of garnering respect for the religion of evolution."...religion of evolution? wow, a scientific theory is a religion...you are so deluded. at least we are looking for the truth enough to make mistakes, the only reason you dont make mistakes with you're theory is because you gave up on looking for the truth.
you wonder why we take offense? you wonder why we are frustrated? you wonder why we actually use a method to our thought process??? this letter is exactly why. it's people like you that wont budge no mater what. science is ever changing moving forward with the information that we find. it's ignorant people like you that dont beleive in any other possibility and are stuck in you're ignorant ways.
the bible said that when the earth was completely flooded, god sent a great wind to blow it off of the earth....if a wind can blow all of that water off of the earth, how the hell was Noah still alive??? must have been a miracle.
You can tell this person doesn't even understand what fossil evidence we have. they seemed to enjoy pointing out our mistakes, but what do they have? just faith based on what someone told them.
if evolution leaves people valueless, and we are no more different then animals, how is you're morals that come from the bible which are incomplete and irrelevant make you any different? the difference is, morals come from life experience and logic.
"Pascal’s Wager is merely a philosophical argument that proves nothing." you think pascals wager is in you're favor? I hate to tell you but pascal's wager exists to contradict you.
if you need god to live you're life to the fullest, have substance and morals.. you're doing it wrong.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Stats and the Definition of Atheism - anonymous
"Below is on little research I did on atheist which centers around the stats and the definition of atheism. I did not go into a great amount of detail however. I typed it in research paper format. Here you go. It is a lot I know."
1. Introduction
The label atheist has an obvious negative connotation in society today. According to studies, atheists are one of the most stigmatized groups in the United States (Arcaro 50). Many nonbelievers decide not even associate themselves with the label though it clearly defines their beliefs or, rather, non-belief (Arcaro 53). Indeed, a copious number of skeptics fear coming out and revealing their disbelief to their family members and friends for fear of rejection and even physical and financial abuse (Arcaro 53). If one would read various atheistic blogs and forums, one could easily see evidence of their dilemma. The purpose of this report is to present what exactly is atheism and other various statistics amongst the non-religious group.
1. What is Atheism?
1. Definition of Atheism
Atheism has its roots in the Enlightenment Era with such renowned atheist philosophers such as David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Bertrand Russell (Thrower 97). In a more general sense, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. However many atheists object to this definition as with Charles Bradluagh (1833-1891) (Cliteur). He was one of the most influential advocates of atheism in the nineteenth century and defined it as follows:
“The atheist does not say ‘There is no God,’ but he says: ‘I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word ‘God’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or dis-tinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me.’” (Cliteur)
Amongst atheists, elucidating their non-beliefs is very important for the question “Who has to prove what?” (Cliteur). This idea is known as the weight of proof and typically, the one asserting a claim is the one who has back it up with evidence. To say there is no god is to make a claim and therefore, in discussions, an atheist must justify it. Take for instance this quote given by Paul Cliteur in “The Definition of Atheism.”
“Is not that the way we normally operate? I cannot prove that the world is not created by an elephant standing on the back of a tortoise, but why should I? It is the speaker who makes such a claim who has to prove his case.” (Cliteur)
Many atheists know that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove a negative such as proving there is no God. So atheism means simply the disbelief in and rejection of the proofs provided by theists for their perspective deities (Cliteur). The “a” in “atheism” is an alpha privans meaning it denies what follows which in this case is theism (Cliteur). It does not follow logically that one creates a belief system when one denies a belief system (Cliteur). This way, the atheist makes no claim and therefore the weight of proof is on the believer as Cliteur argues it should.
B. The Difference Between Agnosticism and Atheism
A person might ask then, what is the difference between agnosticism and atheism? Agnosticism is generally defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about God or the supernatural (Sorensen 777). Agnostics tend to claim neither faith nor disbelief in God and are often thought to be 50-50 on whether God exists (Sorensen 777). Some agnostics are even quite adamant that no one can know if God exists. In spite of that, atheism is the disbelief in God, while theism is the belief in God. Notice that agnosticism speaks of knowledge while atheism and theism speaks of belief.
The two labels do not appear to be mutually exclusive given that a person can believe or disbelieve in God without knowing for sure. So what can be argued is that one can be agnostic atheist or agnostic atheist which means that one can disbelieve in God without knowing he does not exist and one can believe God exists without knowing he does. Those few atheists and theists who say they know are often described as Gnostic atheists or Gnostic theists. In conclusion, simple agnostics claim neither faith not disbelief in God while atheists disbelieve in God.
C. Is Atheism a Religion?
Interestingly enough, atheism is recognized by the U.S. government as being a religion (Davis 707). According the New Oxford American Dictionary, religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman being(s). One would assume that atheism is the very antithesis of this and therefore is not a religion. Nevertheless in the case Kaufman versus McCaughtry, atheism is a religion and therefore should be given the same rights as one (Davis 708). The issue of rights started in 2005 with inmate James Kaufman who wanted to start an atheist group in prison at Waupan Correctional Institution in Wisconsin (Davis 707). He was not allowed to because his group was not religious in nature (Davis 707). He sued for a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and won in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Davis 707). Below is a quote from one of the Judges.
“The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a 'religion,' perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a 'way of life,' even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. A religion need not be based on belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must it be a mainstream faith.” (Davis 707-708)
In essence the court ruled that for the purposes of First Amendment rights, atheism is a religion and is therefore protected.
1. Stats on Atheists
1. General Statistics
Various studies have been undertaken to profile the non-religious in America and in other various countries. In this report we will focus on one particular extensive study of the non-religious community (Arcaro 51). The sample size was 8,200 and the study yielded interesting results (Arcaro 52). One of the important things the study found was that the respondents were overwhelming male with 74% and that 62% of atheists had an education level of college graduate or higher (Arcaro 52). Those surveyed also tended to be white and very liberal with 42% (Arcaro 52).
There are other labels that the non-religious tend to associate with themselves and they include but are not limited to Humanist, Bright, Freethinker, Skeptic, and Nonbeliever (Arcaro 52). When asked "Which word below [out of the aforementioned] do you most often use to identify yourself?" the respondents chose overwhelmingly for atheist with 71% (Arcaro 52). Those are the more eclectic labels but there are also some more discrete labels, such as “rationalist,” “critical atheist,” “anti-atheist,” “teleologist,” “non-theistic Re-constructionist Jew,” “agnostic atheist,” and “Gnostic atheist." (Arcaro 52)
However, one of the more striking findings in the survey was that in the United States 58% of the respondents did not feel comfortable with the label Atheist as opposed to 73% in Western Europe (Arcaro 52). This report will detail later what may be the cause of this.
B. Growth of Atheism
According to the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), religious belief is declining in America (Cheyne 56). The non-religious in America gained more subscribers than that the Catholics or Protestants in absolute terms (Cheyne 56). According to the survey, there are 19,838,000 more non-religious in the U.S. in 2008 than in 1990 (Cheyne 56). For comparison, the Catholics gained 11,195,000 members and the Protestants gained 10,980,000 members (Cheyne 56).
The Non-religious grew nearly as much as the Catholics and the Protestants did combined. The Catholics and Protestants numbers did not keep pace with population growth which indicates a decrease proportionally to the numbers (Cheyne 56). The members practically doubled for the non-religious amongst all races (Cheyne 56). No other religious sect can claim such an accomplishment during this period (Cheyne 56).
However, non-religious groups include much more than just atheists. They also include agnostics, spirituals, deists, etc (Cheyne 56). As of 2008, the non-religious consist of 15% of the population and atheist consists of only 1% of that 15% (Cheyne 56). That is not to say that atheism did not see a considerable rise in its numbers for it did (Cheyne 56). There seems to be two ways that the population is leaving religion (Cheyne 56). The hard way is explicit atheism and the soft way is the absence of religion as a main factor in life (Cheyne 56). In this case, people can still believe in God or a “higher power” but not adhere to any of the prominent religions.
Perhaps another factor that could explain the rise in non-religion is the uptick to anti-religious books from best-selling writers, such as Richard Dawkins, who is a well-known atheist and anti-theist, popularizer of science, and author of The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker. Another well-known popularizer of science is astrophysicist Carl Sagan with his book The Demon-Haunted: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Also the argument has been made that 9/11 aided in turning many away from religion altogether. Sociologist P. Zuckermann who studies such issues internationally said this:
“we can deduce that there are approximately 58 times as many Atheists as there are Mormons, 41 times as many atheists as there are Jews, 35 times as many atheists as there are Sikhs, and twice as many atheists as there are Buddhists.” (Cheyne 33)
However the number of atheists may be deceiving as to the genuine number because many simply do not like the label atheist so they describe themselves in other ways (Cheyne 52). Studies show that about twice as many people say they don’t believe in God as say they are atheists (Cheyne 53). Clearly, the “Nones” are quickly becoming one of the largest minorities in America and many have argued the most ignored politically.
1. Evidence of Stigmatism
Only 16% of atheists feel no stigmatism related to their disbelief in the U.S but the number was higher in Canada, UK, Western Europe, and Australia with (38%, 68%, 68%, and 56% respectively) (Arcaro 53).
pastedGraphic.pdf
Fig.1 “How Stigmatized do you feel atheists are in you culture?” Tom Arcaro, Skeptic Magazine Vol. 15 #4 2010 Pg 51
The stigmatism levels varied by regions (Arcaro 53). Those living in the Bible Belt region of the U.S. clearly felt more stigmatized than the rest of the country with 25% of the respondents strongly agreeing (Arcaro 53) And this is to be expected given the high number of religious people in that region. The following statistics demonstrate even more how atheists feel in society. 57% of atheists thought there would be minor repercussions if they revealed their atheism in the workplace, 61% within their own families, and 68% in their community (Arcaro 53). The numbers were lower in Western Europe, UK, Canada, and Australia (Arcaro 53).
Atheists report that many in the religious community believe them to be immoral, dangerous, and caught in “Satan's grip” by their surrounding environment (Arcaro 55). Which is ironic given that atheists don’t believe in Satan either. Marriages between theists have been troubled after one of the spouses de-converted to atheism (Arcaro 55). Children of atheist parents are being cornered and harassed in schools (Arcaro 55). In six states, nonbelievers are still barred from holding office at all including Arkansas and North Carolina (Waters 1).
Stories collected from the Anti-Discrimination Support Network (ADSN) contained more stories of firings, death threats, abusive family situations, and even threats of abuse in the military (Arcaro 55). An example of discrimination in military is from a New York Times article in April of 2008 concerning specialist Jeremy Hall being forced to leave Afghanistan war because he was an open atheist and he was receiving threats from his fellow soldiers because of his disbelief (Banerjee 1-2). Perhaps this clear up the saying “there are no atheists in foxholes." There obviously are atheists in the military but perhaps they are too afraid “come out” because of stories like Jeremy Hall’s. Stories such as these continue today and across the world (Arcaro 54).
1. Conclusion
From what has been presented, we have a small window to world of atheism. Atheists do not belief in God and they are no doubt one of the least trusted minorities in this country (Arcaro 50). According to a recent poll only 45% of the country said they would even vote for an atheist if he was otherwise qualified (Jones 1). In some states they are denied the right to be elected at all (Waters 1). Atheist tend to be white, very liberal, and well-educated males (Arcaro 50). Will there be a day when an atheist will not be feel he or she is being treated like a second-class citizen? Only time will tell. Given the rise in the non-religious and the decline of the religious, it is very likely that they will get the vindication they hope for.
VI. Work Cited
Arcaro, Tom. "The Stigma of Being an Atheist." Skeptic Magazine 2010: 5. Web. 9 Oct 2010.
Banerjee, Neela. "Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats." New York Times (2008): 1-2. Web. 22 Nov 2010. /span>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/26Atheist.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Jeremy%20Atheist&st=cse
Cheyne, James. "The Rise of the Nones." Skeptic Magazine. 2010: 56-60. Print.
Cliteur, Paul. "The definition of Atheism." Journal of Religion & Society 11.(2009): ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.
Davis, Derek. "Is Atheism a Religion? Recent Judicial Perspectives on the Constitutional Meaning of "Religion"." Journal Of Church & State. 47.4 (2005): 707-723. Print.
Jones, Jeffrey. "Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates." Gallup News Service (2007): 1-2. Web. 22 Nov 2010. /span>http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx>.
SORENSEN, ROY. "Meta-Agnosticism: Higher Order Epistemic Possibility." Mind 118.471 (2009): 777-784. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2010.
Thrower, James. A Short History of Western Atheism. London: Pemberton Books, 1971.
Waters, David. "Atheist Revival in Arkansas ." Washington Post (2009): 1. Web. 23 Nov 2010. /span>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/02/an_advocate_for_Atheists_in_ar.html>.
1. Introduction
The label atheist has an obvious negative connotation in society today. According to studies, atheists are one of the most stigmatized groups in the United States (Arcaro 50). Many nonbelievers decide not even associate themselves with the label though it clearly defines their beliefs or, rather, non-belief (Arcaro 53). Indeed, a copious number of skeptics fear coming out and revealing their disbelief to their family members and friends for fear of rejection and even physical and financial abuse (Arcaro 53). If one would read various atheistic blogs and forums, one could easily see evidence of their dilemma. The purpose of this report is to present what exactly is atheism and other various statistics amongst the non-religious group.
1. What is Atheism?
1. Definition of Atheism
Atheism has its roots in the Enlightenment Era with such renowned atheist philosophers such as David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Bertrand Russell (Thrower 97). In a more general sense, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. However many atheists object to this definition as with Charles Bradluagh (1833-1891) (Cliteur). He was one of the most influential advocates of atheism in the nineteenth century and defined it as follows:
“The atheist does not say ‘There is no God,’ but he says: ‘I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word ‘God’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or dis-tinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me.’” (Cliteur)
Amongst atheists, elucidating their non-beliefs is very important for the question “Who has to prove what?” (Cliteur). This idea is known as the weight of proof and typically, the one asserting a claim is the one who has back it up with evidence. To say there is no god is to make a claim and therefore, in discussions, an atheist must justify it. Take for instance this quote given by Paul Cliteur in “The Definition of Atheism.”
“Is not that the way we normally operate? I cannot prove that the world is not created by an elephant standing on the back of a tortoise, but why should I? It is the speaker who makes such a claim who has to prove his case.” (Cliteur)
Many atheists know that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove a negative such as proving there is no God. So atheism means simply the disbelief in and rejection of the proofs provided by theists for their perspective deities (Cliteur). The “a” in “atheism” is an alpha privans meaning it denies what follows which in this case is theism (Cliteur). It does not follow logically that one creates a belief system when one denies a belief system (Cliteur). This way, the atheist makes no claim and therefore the weight of proof is on the believer as Cliteur argues it should.
B. The Difference Between Agnosticism and Atheism
A person might ask then, what is the difference between agnosticism and atheism? Agnosticism is generally defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about God or the supernatural (Sorensen 777). Agnostics tend to claim neither faith nor disbelief in God and are often thought to be 50-50 on whether God exists (Sorensen 777). Some agnostics are even quite adamant that no one can know if God exists. In spite of that, atheism is the disbelief in God, while theism is the belief in God. Notice that agnosticism speaks of knowledge while atheism and theism speaks of belief.
The two labels do not appear to be mutually exclusive given that a person can believe or disbelieve in God without knowing for sure. So what can be argued is that one can be agnostic atheist or agnostic atheist which means that one can disbelieve in God without knowing he does not exist and one can believe God exists without knowing he does. Those few atheists and theists who say they know are often described as Gnostic atheists or Gnostic theists. In conclusion, simple agnostics claim neither faith not disbelief in God while atheists disbelieve in God.
C. Is Atheism a Religion?
Interestingly enough, atheism is recognized by the U.S. government as being a religion (Davis 707). According the New Oxford American Dictionary, religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman being(s). One would assume that atheism is the very antithesis of this and therefore is not a religion. Nevertheless in the case Kaufman versus McCaughtry, atheism is a religion and therefore should be given the same rights as one (Davis 708). The issue of rights started in 2005 with inmate James Kaufman who wanted to start an atheist group in prison at Waupan Correctional Institution in Wisconsin (Davis 707). He was not allowed to because his group was not religious in nature (Davis 707). He sued for a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and won in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Davis 707). Below is a quote from one of the Judges.
“The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a 'religion,' perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a 'way of life,' even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. A religion need not be based on belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must it be a mainstream faith.” (Davis 707-708)
In essence the court ruled that for the purposes of First Amendment rights, atheism is a religion and is therefore protected.
1. Stats on Atheists
1. General Statistics
Various studies have been undertaken to profile the non-religious in America and in other various countries. In this report we will focus on one particular extensive study of the non-religious community (Arcaro 51). The sample size was 8,200 and the study yielded interesting results (Arcaro 52). One of the important things the study found was that the respondents were overwhelming male with 74% and that 62% of atheists had an education level of college graduate or higher (Arcaro 52). Those surveyed also tended to be white and very liberal with 42% (Arcaro 52).
There are other labels that the non-religious tend to associate with themselves and they include but are not limited to Humanist, Bright, Freethinker, Skeptic, and Nonbeliever (Arcaro 52). When asked "Which word below [out of the aforementioned] do you most often use to identify yourself?" the respondents chose overwhelmingly for atheist with 71% (Arcaro 52). Those are the more eclectic labels but there are also some more discrete labels, such as “rationalist,” “critical atheist,” “anti-atheist,” “teleologist,” “non-theistic Re-constructionist Jew,” “agnostic atheist,” and “Gnostic atheist." (Arcaro 52)
However, one of the more striking findings in the survey was that in the United States 58% of the respondents did not feel comfortable with the label Atheist as opposed to 73% in Western Europe (Arcaro 52). This report will detail later what may be the cause of this.
B. Growth of Atheism
According to the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), religious belief is declining in America (Cheyne 56). The non-religious in America gained more subscribers than that the Catholics or Protestants in absolute terms (Cheyne 56). According to the survey, there are 19,838,000 more non-religious in the U.S. in 2008 than in 1990 (Cheyne 56). For comparison, the Catholics gained 11,195,000 members and the Protestants gained 10,980,000 members (Cheyne 56).
The Non-religious grew nearly as much as the Catholics and the Protestants did combined. The Catholics and Protestants numbers did not keep pace with population growth which indicates a decrease proportionally to the numbers (Cheyne 56). The members practically doubled for the non-religious amongst all races (Cheyne 56). No other religious sect can claim such an accomplishment during this period (Cheyne 56).
However, non-religious groups include much more than just atheists. They also include agnostics, spirituals, deists, etc (Cheyne 56). As of 2008, the non-religious consist of 15% of the population and atheist consists of only 1% of that 15% (Cheyne 56). That is not to say that atheism did not see a considerable rise in its numbers for it did (Cheyne 56). There seems to be two ways that the population is leaving religion (Cheyne 56). The hard way is explicit atheism and the soft way is the absence of religion as a main factor in life (Cheyne 56). In this case, people can still believe in God or a “higher power” but not adhere to any of the prominent religions.
Perhaps another factor that could explain the rise in non-religion is the uptick to anti-religious books from best-selling writers, such as Richard Dawkins, who is a well-known atheist and anti-theist, popularizer of science, and author of The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker. Another well-known popularizer of science is astrophysicist Carl Sagan with his book The Demon-Haunted: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Also the argument has been made that 9/11 aided in turning many away from religion altogether. Sociologist P. Zuckermann who studies such issues internationally said this:
“we can deduce that there are approximately 58 times as many Atheists as there are Mormons, 41 times as many atheists as there are Jews, 35 times as many atheists as there are Sikhs, and twice as many atheists as there are Buddhists.” (Cheyne 33)
However the number of atheists may be deceiving as to the genuine number because many simply do not like the label atheist so they describe themselves in other ways (Cheyne 52). Studies show that about twice as many people say they don’t believe in God as say they are atheists (Cheyne 53). Clearly, the “Nones” are quickly becoming one of the largest minorities in America and many have argued the most ignored politically.
1. Evidence of Stigmatism
Only 16% of atheists feel no stigmatism related to their disbelief in the U.S but the number was higher in Canada, UK, Western Europe, and Australia with (38%, 68%, 68%, and 56% respectively) (Arcaro 53).
pastedGraphic.pdf
Fig.1 “How Stigmatized do you feel atheists are in you culture?” Tom Arcaro, Skeptic Magazine Vol. 15 #4 2010 Pg 51
The stigmatism levels varied by regions (Arcaro 53). Those living in the Bible Belt region of the U.S. clearly felt more stigmatized than the rest of the country with 25% of the respondents strongly agreeing (Arcaro 53) And this is to be expected given the high number of religious people in that region. The following statistics demonstrate even more how atheists feel in society. 57% of atheists thought there would be minor repercussions if they revealed their atheism in the workplace, 61% within their own families, and 68% in their community (Arcaro 53). The numbers were lower in Western Europe, UK, Canada, and Australia (Arcaro 53).
Atheists report that many in the religious community believe them to be immoral, dangerous, and caught in “Satan's grip” by their surrounding environment (Arcaro 55). Which is ironic given that atheists don’t believe in Satan either. Marriages between theists have been troubled after one of the spouses de-converted to atheism (Arcaro 55). Children of atheist parents are being cornered and harassed in schools (Arcaro 55). In six states, nonbelievers are still barred from holding office at all including Arkansas and North Carolina (Waters 1).
Stories collected from the Anti-Discrimination Support Network (ADSN) contained more stories of firings, death threats, abusive family situations, and even threats of abuse in the military (Arcaro 55). An example of discrimination in military is from a New York Times article in April of 2008 concerning specialist Jeremy Hall being forced to leave Afghanistan war because he was an open atheist and he was receiving threats from his fellow soldiers because of his disbelief (Banerjee 1-2). Perhaps this clear up the saying “there are no atheists in foxholes." There obviously are atheists in the military but perhaps they are too afraid “come out” because of stories like Jeremy Hall’s. Stories such as these continue today and across the world (Arcaro 54).
1. Conclusion
From what has been presented, we have a small window to world of atheism. Atheists do not belief in God and they are no doubt one of the least trusted minorities in this country (Arcaro 50). According to a recent poll only 45% of the country said they would even vote for an atheist if he was otherwise qualified (Jones 1). In some states they are denied the right to be elected at all (Waters 1). Atheist tend to be white, very liberal, and well-educated males (Arcaro 50). Will there be a day when an atheist will not be feel he or she is being treated like a second-class citizen? Only time will tell. Given the rise in the non-religious and the decline of the religious, it is very likely that they will get the vindication they hope for.
VI. Work Cited
Arcaro, Tom. "The Stigma of Being an Atheist." Skeptic Magazine 2010: 5. Web. 9 Oct 2010.
Banerjee, Neela. "Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats." New York Times (2008): 1-2. Web. 22 Nov 2010. /span>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/26Atheist.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Jeremy%20Atheist&st=cse
Cheyne, James. "The Rise of the Nones." Skeptic Magazine. 2010: 56-60. Print.
Cliteur, Paul. "The definition of Atheism." Journal of Religion & Society 11.(2009): ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.
Davis, Derek. "Is Atheism a Religion? Recent Judicial Perspectives on the Constitutional Meaning of "Religion"." Journal Of Church & State. 47.4 (2005): 707-723. Print.
Jones, Jeffrey. "Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates." Gallup News Service (2007): 1-2. Web. 22 Nov 2010. /span>http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx>.
SORENSEN, ROY. "Meta-Agnosticism: Higher Order Epistemic Possibility." Mind 118.471 (2009): 777-784. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2010.
Thrower, James. A Short History of Western Atheism. London: Pemberton Books, 1971.
Waters, David. "Atheist Revival in Arkansas ." Washington Post (2009): 1. Web. 23 Nov 2010. /span>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/02/an_advocate_for_Atheists_in_ar.html>.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Is religion a force for good or evil? Tony Blair Vs. Christopher Hitchens
You have to watch the videos to know what all of this is about:
http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/christopher-hitchens-vs-tony?xg_source=activity
Everything that I will be talking about will probably have to do with what Tony blair said, everything that I didn't mention, I probably agreed with to some degree.
When the man in the beginning of this video said that sometimes people use "google machines" to prepare for a debate, he wasn't kidding. this seems to be exactly what Tony Blair has done. Everything He has said has been said before. He makes no new points which makes it very easy to rebuttal his argument.
Whenever there is a debate about wither or not religion is a force for good or evil, the first argument is always about religious charity. they say that "well, it cant all be bad because we have religious charities" or something like that. they say that their religion inspires people to do good. that may be so, but what of the non-religious who are inspired to do good based on human survival instinct, compassion, and experiences that have formed our personalities through out our life times? These people do not need religion to be inspired to do these things. What does that really tell you about the kind of people who are religious? Do they need some sort of special inspiration for basic human emotions? Wither you are inspired by faith, or just you're own naturally developed morality to help people, you are still helping people. It's that fact that people need an extra nudge from religion that I feel sad for.
He keeps saying that people of faith are kind to one another because of their faith, but it doesn't really have to do with rewards from their religion, he says that it is because their faith teaches them to love one another. well then, why is it necessary to claim that faith is a main reason for people to love one another, when secular people dont NEED faith to love one another?
I also find it disturbing how he can say that science and faith can in fact exist in harmony, that there doesn't need to be anything that divides the two. He says that faith's purpose in science is to understand how we should use the information that science gives us. He seems to forget that, going on faith, the very reason we are all here in the first place contradicts each other.
also, he goes on to say that the reason atheist dictators in the 20th century hindered the overall well being of tolerance is because of their atheism. this is certainly not true. It is because of communism. lust for power. greed and the need for total control. anyone with these motives, no mater what their beliefs are bound to cause harm. This is always one of the first arguments as well, that seems to be parroted during every debate.
I can never understand how people claim that without religion, the world would have a lack of morality. If you need a doctrine which is out dated, incomplete and that contradicts it's self to be moral, then I guess you really are better off beveling whatever lets you sleep at night. I really think that if you need religion to do good, and that it is only extremists who make it look bad for the religion as a whole, then if you believe in you're doctrine in the first place, you are deluded and that will only lead to extremism.
I think that religion will never be able to completely unite with everyone because even within them selves, they have a hard time uniting their different beliefs. I dont think that you can really unite a certain kind of people, with another certain kind of people, when the first kind of people need to feel that they belong to a congregation. They disagree with the other sects of their beliefs, and because of that feeling of helplessness, they feel that they need to ban together with like minded people. This may be good for some things, but it doesn't speak well for tolerance. True religion may not be about excluding people because they are different, but you cannot stop the intolerance when it happens to breed from it.
Tony says that "for some people, humanism isn't enough". this just proves that these people are deluded and that they are the true problem. In this same response, he implies that a higher being isn't necessary to religion, but yet it is found in every religion, and it always seems to be the thing that puts fear in people's hearts and causes confusion in the first place.
oh and I just found it funny that whenever Hitch brings up something that is directly caused be what a religious leader said, Tony says something like "well...there were also religious people who stood against it". well fuck, I would hope so. They cant ALL be stupid!
Also, we will never have complete secularism coming from religious people. Their politics are directly related to their beliefs and doctrine. It is deep into their personalities and is impossible to really control. He says that Israel and Palestine have problems because of politics, not necessarily religion, but he doesn't seem to realize that yes, they have other reasons to have conflict, but they are justifying their reasons with religious doctrine. It has been going on ever since it was "divinely inspired" to be written in the bible.
the bottom line is, anything can be a force for good or evil, no matter what it is. It all depends on who is using it.
so...who "won"?
http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/christopher-hitchens-vs-tony?xg_source=activity
Everything that I will be talking about will probably have to do with what Tony blair said, everything that I didn't mention, I probably agreed with to some degree.
When the man in the beginning of this video said that sometimes people use "google machines" to prepare for a debate, he wasn't kidding. this seems to be exactly what Tony Blair has done. Everything He has said has been said before. He makes no new points which makes it very easy to rebuttal his argument.
Whenever there is a debate about wither or not religion is a force for good or evil, the first argument is always about religious charity. they say that "well, it cant all be bad because we have religious charities" or something like that. they say that their religion inspires people to do good. that may be so, but what of the non-religious who are inspired to do good based on human survival instinct, compassion, and experiences that have formed our personalities through out our life times? These people do not need religion to be inspired to do these things. What does that really tell you about the kind of people who are religious? Do they need some sort of special inspiration for basic human emotions? Wither you are inspired by faith, or just you're own naturally developed morality to help people, you are still helping people. It's that fact that people need an extra nudge from religion that I feel sad for.
He keeps saying that people of faith are kind to one another because of their faith, but it doesn't really have to do with rewards from their religion, he says that it is because their faith teaches them to love one another. well then, why is it necessary to claim that faith is a main reason for people to love one another, when secular people dont NEED faith to love one another?
I also find it disturbing how he can say that science and faith can in fact exist in harmony, that there doesn't need to be anything that divides the two. He says that faith's purpose in science is to understand how we should use the information that science gives us. He seems to forget that, going on faith, the very reason we are all here in the first place contradicts each other.
also, he goes on to say that the reason atheist dictators in the 20th century hindered the overall well being of tolerance is because of their atheism. this is certainly not true. It is because of communism. lust for power. greed and the need for total control. anyone with these motives, no mater what their beliefs are bound to cause harm. This is always one of the first arguments as well, that seems to be parroted during every debate.
I can never understand how people claim that without religion, the world would have a lack of morality. If you need a doctrine which is out dated, incomplete and that contradicts it's self to be moral, then I guess you really are better off beveling whatever lets you sleep at night. I really think that if you need religion to do good, and that it is only extremists who make it look bad for the religion as a whole, then if you believe in you're doctrine in the first place, you are deluded and that will only lead to extremism.
I think that religion will never be able to completely unite with everyone because even within them selves, they have a hard time uniting their different beliefs. I dont think that you can really unite a certain kind of people, with another certain kind of people, when the first kind of people need to feel that they belong to a congregation. They disagree with the other sects of their beliefs, and because of that feeling of helplessness, they feel that they need to ban together with like minded people. This may be good for some things, but it doesn't speak well for tolerance. True religion may not be about excluding people because they are different, but you cannot stop the intolerance when it happens to breed from it.
Tony says that "for some people, humanism isn't enough". this just proves that these people are deluded and that they are the true problem. In this same response, he implies that a higher being isn't necessary to religion, but yet it is found in every religion, and it always seems to be the thing that puts fear in people's hearts and causes confusion in the first place.
oh and I just found it funny that whenever Hitch brings up something that is directly caused be what a religious leader said, Tony says something like "well...there were also religious people who stood against it". well fuck, I would hope so. They cant ALL be stupid!
Also, we will never have complete secularism coming from religious people. Their politics are directly related to their beliefs and doctrine. It is deep into their personalities and is impossible to really control. He says that Israel and Palestine have problems because of politics, not necessarily religion, but he doesn't seem to realize that yes, they have other reasons to have conflict, but they are justifying their reasons with religious doctrine. It has been going on ever since it was "divinely inspired" to be written in the bible.
the bottom line is, anything can be a force for good or evil, no matter what it is. It all depends on who is using it.
so...who "won"?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Beyond Anything I Can Think Of...
Ok, here's the story:
My father has been diagnosed with a disease that is shutting down both of his kidneys. It's no surprise, we've known this since my childhood, but things are getting worse. He's going to need a transplant and several people have tried to donate but were not able to. He is on a waiting list, but chances are he will never receive a kidney that isn't donated from a live candidate. They actually got their pastor at their church to make an announcement to the congregation in hopes someone will come forward that is able to donate a kidney. In the meantime, I have been asked if I would donate if all else fails.
This has got to be the biggest thing that has ever been asked of me. I replied with a no. I don't beleive that with all of my father's other heath issues that it would really even make too much of a difference, It wouldnt really be adding that much time, or even really improve his health enough to make him happy. not to mention I beleive that in this situation, it would seem like a hopeless cause. It also seems kind of weird to me. I guess..it's kind of unatural to think that it is ok to give someone an organ, just so they can squeeze a little more time out of life. Dont get me wrong, as an atheist, I relize that life is precious. it's all we have. But, these people are christian and they are asking such a big thing from me.
Wouldn't their religion comfort them in the fact that he is sort of coming to the point in his life that is supposed to be the most important factor of their faith? I mean..I guess I think that heaven should be seen as the destination here.
This is coming out all wrong...I love my dad and don't want anything to happen to them, but this is so conflicting. To make matters worse, they are making me feel pressured and judged because of my decision.
Pardon the language, but it is making me feel like shit. I feel that just because I am trying to live my own life, I am being selfish. I mean...I already have to do a lot of things for them, I'll have to do even more in the near future. I'll also have to help my mother take care of her father and autistic brother. To top it off...I'm trying to start my "life"...I have a girlfriend who I am planning on marrying, I want kids in the near future and I'm working on trying to find a career.
This is sooo much at once. I wish my parents would actually support me emotionally since I am relatively young and am starting out in life. Instead, all I'm getting from them is pressure.
Any thoughts? Opinions? Advise?
thanks for hearing me vent guys.
My father has been diagnosed with a disease that is shutting down both of his kidneys. It's no surprise, we've known this since my childhood, but things are getting worse. He's going to need a transplant and several people have tried to donate but were not able to. He is on a waiting list, but chances are he will never receive a kidney that isn't donated from a live candidate. They actually got their pastor at their church to make an announcement to the congregation in hopes someone will come forward that is able to donate a kidney. In the meantime, I have been asked if I would donate if all else fails.
This has got to be the biggest thing that has ever been asked of me. I replied with a no. I don't beleive that with all of my father's other heath issues that it would really even make too much of a difference, It wouldnt really be adding that much time, or even really improve his health enough to make him happy. not to mention I beleive that in this situation, it would seem like a hopeless cause. It also seems kind of weird to me. I guess..it's kind of unatural to think that it is ok to give someone an organ, just so they can squeeze a little more time out of life. Dont get me wrong, as an atheist, I relize that life is precious. it's all we have. But, these people are christian and they are asking such a big thing from me.
Wouldn't their religion comfort them in the fact that he is sort of coming to the point in his life that is supposed to be the most important factor of their faith? I mean..I guess I think that heaven should be seen as the destination here.
This is coming out all wrong...I love my dad and don't want anything to happen to them, but this is so conflicting. To make matters worse, they are making me feel pressured and judged because of my decision.
Pardon the language, but it is making me feel like shit. I feel that just because I am trying to live my own life, I am being selfish. I mean...I already have to do a lot of things for them, I'll have to do even more in the near future. I'll also have to help my mother take care of her father and autistic brother. To top it off...I'm trying to start my "life"...I have a girlfriend who I am planning on marrying, I want kids in the near future and I'm working on trying to find a career.
This is sooo much at once. I wish my parents would actually support me emotionally since I am relatively young and am starting out in life. Instead, all I'm getting from them is pressure.
Any thoughts? Opinions? Advise?
thanks for hearing me vent guys.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Killing In The Name Of Atheism
I have already talked about how morality is possible without religion in the past, and
this is just another reason that people have thought of to point the blame at atheism..especially I have found out, when you talk about events like the crusades, witch hunts or the inquisition. Personally, I'd hardly call us even...even if we DID kill in the name of our lack of belief.
there has been communist leaders who did not have faith in a god or religion, who have killed countless people for not thinking like them. But, was it because of atheism that they did this?
First, you have to understand that atheism is not a belief system. There are no Atheist principles or philosophies. I read a great quote once that said: "Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness."
Some of the reasons these rulers were responsible for the deaths of people that disagreed with them is because they did not agree with those in power. Some were anti-communists and opposed the government. The main reason, is because these people got in the way and were inconvenient for the corrupt rulers.
Most of the reason people were killed were because of political reasons. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a higher being.
The reason people would kill for a belief system in the first place is because of the doctrines that are followed, atheism however does not have any doctrine...so it couldn't possible be used as a credible reason for bad people to do bad things.
this is just another reason that people have thought of to point the blame at atheism..especially I have found out, when you talk about events like the crusades, witch hunts or the inquisition. Personally, I'd hardly call us even...even if we DID kill in the name of our lack of belief.
there has been communist leaders who did not have faith in a god or religion, who have killed countless people for not thinking like them. But, was it because of atheism that they did this?
First, you have to understand that atheism is not a belief system. There are no Atheist principles or philosophies. I read a great quote once that said: "Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness."
Some of the reasons these rulers were responsible for the deaths of people that disagreed with them is because they did not agree with those in power. Some were anti-communists and opposed the government. The main reason, is because these people got in the way and were inconvenient for the corrupt rulers.
Most of the reason people were killed were because of political reasons. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a higher being.
The reason people would kill for a belief system in the first place is because of the doctrines that are followed, atheism however does not have any doctrine...so it couldn't possible be used as a credible reason for bad people to do bad things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)