Irony in the wake of the Libyan riots

Religion shows little respect for humanity while demanding it unconditionally

By an unapologetic atheist

By now you’ve likely heard about the four American Embassy workers in the port city of Benghazi, Libya, who were killed outside the consulate building as they attempted to flee a riot by Muslims allegedly upset over an American-made low budget movie which negatively portrays Islam and the prophet Mohammed.

That the event occurred on the 11^th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on American soil may have served as the catalyst for a press release the embassy released at the outset of the riots which would later turn deadly. In the release, consulate officials said they strongly condemn any attempt to denigrate religions and that religious freedom was paramount among American values.

Attempts to assuage the rabid hoodlums were futile as American diplomat Christopher Stevens—a man who, by many reports, was highly regarded by the people in the Mediterranean town—was murdered in a rocket-propelled grenade attack. It is not believed that Stevens or the three unnamed casualties were targets of the violence.

The overall theme of the attacks was anti-American sentiment apparently whipped into a frenzy by the movie “Innocence of Muslims,” made by Sam Bacile, a man who reportedly (according to AP) created the movie with the expressed purpose of insulting Islam.

The White House condemned the riots, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stopped just short of an apology for Bacile’s movie.

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton stated. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”

She further stated, “But, let me be clear, there is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

I’ll spare you the platitudes about what a tragedy this was and move right on to the offending notions: respect and tolerance for religion.

After all, what is religious tolerance? Why should I respect your beliefs?

“Tolerance” means to “put up with” and respect means “reverence for something.”

I certainly have no reverence for the range of silly-to-horrifying, of which the world’s religions consist.

And, since I have no desire to control how people spend their time, there is no need for me to “tolerate” anything. It causes me no harm for my neighbor to go to church. I am not physically disturbed by others when their thoughts turn to the ethereal.

I have no respect for the Qur’an’s treatment of women or the Judeo-Christian rituals of genital mutilation. But, no one needs my permission or “tolerance” to celebrate their holy days or pray in the public square.

What I do respect is the importance of concepts as vital to basic human liberty as free speech and free expression.

Religious beliefs and practices—so long as they do not directly harm another—are a form of free speech and free expression, and deserve to be protected as such.

In that I don’t owe anyone or anything my blind respect for their mere existence, and since the act of tolerating something that has no effect on me smacks of arrogance bordering on hubris … I will consent to neither.

What I do not have to respect or tolerate is a group of violent, superstitious dullards who harm people and property, stifle education and hijack legislation—regardless of how supreme they think their celestial dictator may be.

Ultimately, all humans should have the right to speak and express themselves as they see fit: whether that be by making a movie critical of religion or by praying to the east five times per day. What they don’t have a right to do is silence the voices of those with whom they disagree.

The popular, though spurious, solution to this issue of hurt feelings among religionists is to pass hate speech laws. Countries from Canada and Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Singapore and a dozen others have rules which criminalize everything from insulting and ridiculing religion to defaming religious figures and generally creating an air of disharmony between religious factions.

If it isn’t enough that entire groups of malicious cowards are given somewhat of a pass by blaming cartoons and movies and newspaper articles for their wicked actions, the passage of so-called hate speech creates an entirely new set of problems: what is hate speech? One man’s joke is another man’s denigration. My criticism may be your defamation. An off-color joke may be sufficient grounds for people on the other side of the planet to wage war. We’ve already seen for what 13 minutes of amateur cinema posted on youtube.com can be blamed.

Demands for respect or tolerance, to paraphrase Shocknet Radio’s John Mill, is something patriots do not need and scoundrels will not heed.

The freedom of religion is only as important as the freedom to hold up one’s middle finger; it is only as necessary as your ability to scream “Hell no, we won’t go!”; it is only as relevant as our ability to ridicule the ridiculous.

True freedom of religion will only exist as long as the freedoms of speech and expression are paramount.

I hope my enchanted brethren worldwide consider this last point before sharpening their swords and unfurling their crying towels: when you scheme to smother the expressions of others, you run the risk of extinguishing your own.

Atheists who stare at ghosts

 

Can non-believers believe in magic and still call themselves non-believers?

By an unapologetic atheist

Considering some of the far-fetched claims that escape the mouths of religionists it takes a good bit of nonsense to make me shake my head anymore.

However, just the other day I was witness to a couple of self-proclaimed atheists engaging in a discussion about contacting the dead. The one so-called “atheist” told the other so-called “atheist” that he knew some people who had contacted a dead relative using a OUIJA board. The gentleman went on to describe how the people uncovered details about the relative that they could never have known—this was his proof that the board worked. After a few minutes of watching this back-and-forth I interjected something along the lines of, “And to think: Milton-Bradley devised a means of communicating with the dead for only $14.99.” I was promptly informed that, not only was the OUIJA board a bonafide tool for clairvoyance, but it had existed before game companies latched onto it.

Sensing I had ambled into verbal minefield, I gracefully bid them adieu.

I knew arguing with them was pointless, but the conversation stuck in my brain. As I mulled it I thought back a few decades to when I was 12 years old. My family and I moved into a great big farmhouse that was well over a hundred years old.

In addition to rooms within rooms, creepy closet cubbyholes and an enormous cobweb-laden basement straight out of a Bela Lugosi flick, the landlords informed us our new abode was apparently haunted.

As a life-long atheist I was skeptical at the notion that the essence of some long-dead farmer was somehow magically lingering, floating from hall to hall, fulfilling his ghostly agenda. But, for reasons still unknown to me, my parents began reporting strange goings-on.

First they awakened one Sunday morning and told us they had heard the cupboard doors in the basement being flung open then violently slammed shut in the late-night hours.

Then there was the strange little girl my father swears he saw in an upstairs window one afternoon while we were all in the backyard.

The spookiest account allegedly involved my father who, in the basement starting a load of laundry, swears he heard a voice calling his name from one of the small dark rooms far off in the back.

At the time, and out of respect, I went along with the charade. I went so far as to make a game out of ghost hunting with my brothers in the basement and in the giant dark closets in the old place. Secretly, I knew it was all bunk. And, as I look back now, nearly every case of some ghostly “event” was witnessed by only one person: my father. Knowing the very rough life my father has led, I think it safe to say his “encounters” were likely stress-induced imaginings.

Perhaps you’re thinking that this is not so extraordinary. After all, many millions of people believe in ghosts and spirits, angels and demons. The anomaly in this case arises from the fact that both my parents claim to be atheists. Now, to be fair, my mother was raised Catholic, and I’m not sure I heard her say she didn’t believe in some sort of deity more than once, so I seriously doubt she is not at least a deist—which makes belief in the supernatural all the more plausible.

Contrarily, my father was much more affirmed in his non-theism, but his willingness to believe in magical beings places him in a completely other category than atheist. Perhaps he, too, is a deist.

The very definition of atheism is a lack of belief in gods, a rejection of religion and skepticism in the face of supernatural claims.

Would my parents have fallen for the self-delusional carnie trick that makes the OUIJA board work? I know not.

Neither can I answer why blatant spiritualists would consider themselves atheists. Perhaps this is merely a matter of ignorance as it relates to proper terminology. After all, there are numerous degrees of belief in the supernatural ranging from absolute belief in an established god character and its related rules and regulations to belief in an unspecified magical being or beings with no adherence to any established dogma and just about any combination of all or none in between.

Spiritualism, with its all-inclusive dogma that basically states all religions have some value, and all peoples worship the same magical creature whether they know it or not, can be confusing for people who were raised with stringent occultist bylaws and well-defined deity.

Though modern spiritualism dates back to 1848 when a family began allegedly communicating with the “spirit” of a dead man that, far removed accounts claim, came in the form of “rapping” on the family’s cabin.

By the late-1800s people were bedazzled by this new form of magic worship and soon folks were holding seances, getting their palms read and consulting with the new-fangled talking board marketed under the name “OUIJA.”

Considering the accounts detailed in the Abrahamic mythologies, it is apparent that belief in spirits and ghosts dates back at least several thousand years if not further.

Regardless of its origins, some people who believe in magic are calling themselves “atheists.” And, as cute as Richard Dawkins concept of everyone being an atheist because they all have certain religions they don’t believe in, a true atheist is one who does not believe in anything supernatural—or so I thought.

Just as I was ready to finish my research and begin this column I spotted a PEW survey on the religious landscape which claims 21% of atheist believe in a god.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Now, to be fair, the study included just over 35,000 people, of which 1.6 percent were supposed atheists; 2.4 percent were allegedly agnostic.

Once again I had to ask myself: was this a matter of people simply not understanding terminology? Perhaps a segment of the people interviewed gave purposely false answers. Maybe those who were identified as atheists were actually deists or all agnostics.

The bigger question may be: “Why does it matter?”

It matters to me because atheism as a social movement has always been a mish-mosh of people from all backgrounds who don’t necessarily have anything in common other than not believing in the supernatural. This makes for a frustrating and nearly impossible mission of fighting against religious tyranny.

However, it is increasingly evident that we do have more in common than we may have originally thought: we are all impinged upon in ways great and small by theocracy.

Whether it is something relatively minor like not being able to purchase liquor on a Sunday or holiday, or getting stoned to death for having sex out of wedlock, religion’s cruel claw is locked around the throats of billions worldwide.

If we are ever to unite under the banner of liberty and justice for all in this fight against religious supremacists, who work diligently to impose their beliefs in magic in nearly every aspect of life, then we must be armed with knowledge about liberty, law, religion and history—and if those in our numbers do not possess the ability to understand what they believe and who they are, then our goals are truly unreachable … like a ghost in the night.

Copyright an unapologetic atheist

This material may not be reprinted in part or whole without the author’s permission.

an unapologetic atheist is a long-time journalist and columnist in the areas of news and opinion ranging from humor to civil liberties.

Do atheists have faith?

I’ve written before about Dr. Frank Turek (whose name always makes me think of that old Nintendo game “Turok”) and his position that he doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist. As I have previously explained, because atheism is natural to humans and animals, while religion is unnatural, it actually requires no faith to be an atheist. Atheism is simply the artificial term applied to those who either remained non-theistic from birth or those who de-converted from whichever brand of occultism they had been forced into.However, I must admit, after consideration, that we do engage in a sort of faith whenever we rely on unseen forces or the promises of other humans. When you flip on a light switch you are confident it will trigger a flood of light. When you go to bed at night you are confident the sun will appear in the morning sky. When your wife says she loves you you have cause to take her word for it.Some would say these acts of expecting certain results from previously fruitful actions is akin to faith. But, there is a gaping hole in arguments like Turek’s when one considers that we have ways of proving there is electricity in the house’s wiring. We can look outside and quickly discern whether the sun has arisen once again. And, based on the body language, communication and behavior of loved ones we can generally tell with a good degree of accuracy how people feel about us. These are all situations with provable outcomes.The clever occultist may point to the history books for an instance when we all must engage in a faith of sorts. Assuming no one alive today was present during the Battle of Bull Run, we must take the word of the historical accounts. After all, what makes Custer’s Last Stand any more true than Jesus’ act of turning scant resources into many loaves of bread, fishes and gallons of wine? Why should we accept stories about King Henry V, but dismiss the adventures of Zeus? One of the major differences between the two is that one account retells supposed actions which are perfectly acceptable within the bounds of reason. We may not have seen the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but we have photographic evidence, witnesses and, most importantly, there is nothing magical or absurd about the idea of one country attacking another. Nations have warred one another presumably since men gathered in opposing groups. I may not have been around to see the Spanish Inquisition, but even now seemingly moralistic societies engage in torture of one form or another, so it is not beyond reason to assume some aspects of the event are true. Conversely, no sane person has ever witnessed a talking flaming shrubbery or the parting of a sea or a talking donkey.While it may seem cute and clever when occultists attempt to justify their outrageous claims without evidence by subverting good sense, it is merely another parlor trick; a little more flame and smoke meant to distract your attention from the man behind the curtain.It doesn’t require even the $2.00 worth of faith my wife bought at a roadside stand recently to recognize mythology and charlatans for what they are … just a little honesty and self-respect.aua

Picking your fights part 1: Philosophy and Godlessness

Writer, resident genius, and all-around great guy, GodlessNeanderthal presents a four part series on the problems that atheists sometimes cause themselves when they fail to choose their fights wisely, entitled: Picking your fights

Often in our struggles to oppose dogma and religious doctrine, we outspoken atheists have tendency to overlook the very natural and very necessary concept of philosophy.

For the most part, when philosophy becomes collateral damage in the war against religion it is understandable and sometimes necessary. The extremists and apocalyptic occultists love to interject their religion into every aspect of life to the point where the word “god” seems to automatically refer to their deity of choice. The extremists have done such a fine job at weaving their religion into nearly everything that even many atheists tend to forget that throughout much of the history of literature, god is a philosophical question NOT a theological answer.

The word “god” is not a dirty word. It is quite often the default word that espouses all the unanswered questions that many people have. In reality, when a relatively sensible person begins a question with “What if God…” they are doing nothing more than philosophizing. While a realist can recognize this as pointless and fruitless, in the human mind this is a logical step closer to releasing oneself from dogma and superstition.

As Martin Luther so eloquently put it: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but – more frequently than not – struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” When a person begins to pose questions of the very nature of their god, dogma begins to shrivel in the light of reason. That is precisely what people are doing when they ask philosophical questions about their, or any other god: they are reasoning.

There are far too many fellow atheists who automatically shout down any conversation about a god or gods by making the statement “There is no god.” They are actually slowing down the natural process that so many thinking minds use to pull away from religious dogma. And, isn’t it the heartfelt desire of most non-believers to live their lives with less or no interference from religious dogma? Regardless to how true or earnest your position, when you scream it in someones’ face, they will bristle against it. That’s just human nature.

Many religionists actually do have some valid questions that sometimes get overlooked out of concern that we might accidentally reinforce or support their religion by concession. When a religionist refers to “a God sized hole in your heart”, they are voicing their own concerns about not having a moral structure or a greater purpose for existence. This supposed “God sized hole” is easily filled with science, knowledge, philosophy, questioning, and wonder. When a religionist questions the morals and mores of the godless, it is more often that not, a legitimate question they are asking themselves even if they are being confrontational. Legitimate questions deserve legitimate answers. If no thinking atheist accepts “God dunnit.” as an answer for anything then why should “God didn’t do any of it.” be an acceptable answer for us to give?

While it does create a bit of a sticky wicket when an atheist “allows”, encourages, or participates in philosophical “what ifs” about the possibility of a divine creator, we must remember that the extremists will always use mental gymnastics and poorly considered arguments to defend their faith. However, the ones who can be reached and who can reason themselves out of their dogmas are an all too valuable prize. With each successive person who reasons increasingly away from the teachings of the church, the power and influence that the extremists hold begins to unravel.

We cannot reasonably expect to end religion with some sort of ultimate argument. The unique needs of the human mind may never allow religion to die completely. But, we can help reduce the influence of religion and hopefully change its direction into something that behaves in a more socially acceptable manner. It takes time, not force. It takes reason, not assertion. A person can only reason for themselves. You cannot do it for them. You can, however, provide support, encouragement, and guidance.

The next religionist you talk to may well be on their way to changing or refining their worldview. Are you going to shout them down and push them to stand their ground or are you going to give them the tools and guidance that they don’t have the courage to ask for?

-GodlessNeanderthal