April 18, 2009, 6:45 pm by dc-agape.

I have recently been asked what attributes a Supreme Being/God/Force would have from my perspective as a Gay Atheist.

First, the question would have to be constrained to the difference between a personal God/Divine/Force and an impersonal one.  For the impersonal “Force” one already exists: Nature.  I don’t mean Gaia, even though the image does fit.  But I mean the nature of gravity, space, time, and relativity.  In the past I have made jokes about worshipping the “Gods of Chemistry”. 

Biochemistry is the god of life; it controls all the functions, actions, and consequences.  For example, overpopulation causes starvation, disease, and predation.  Within the body, hemoglobin carries oxygen and carbon dioxide because of a core of iron and the iron’s electronic state.

Analytical chemistry (my favorite) is knowledge.  We can learn the make-up of any substance due to the power of analysis.  We can also learn how to put the pieces of knowledge we have together to form a full picture using analytical techniques.

Physical chemistry is the creating force of the universe.  Without it we would have nothing…no atom would form, not star produce heat, no gravity to hold us on the earth.

The other chemistries all play a part as well (polymer, inorganic, textile, wood, soil, organic, etc).  I have also joked at the cruel sense of humor these “gods” have!  I am on the cusp of my most hated topic in chemistry: organic.  For a while I actually worked in a position as an organic chemist.  That I tried my hardest to avoid the topic and then to find myself making a living do exactly what I hated most…truly a cruel, cruel joke! 

If on the other hand the question is asking about a personal Devine Being …this experiment of mine is related to that question.  Ever scientist will tell you “give me the evidence, and I will believe”.  Two things might help explain how this is relevant.  First, all hypotheses, theories or Laws of science can have a chance of being wrong, some as small as 99.99%, but new evidence can disprove any of them.  Just as the Theory of Relativity changed the Newtonian Laws (but did not break them), these things happen.  An Atheist feels the same way about Theism.  The difference between Agnosticism and Atheism is that an Atheist has seen enough evidence to disprove the existence of a god.  The Agnostic only doubts the existence of a god.  Enough evidence can be as great as 99.99% but is usually only above 95% confidence.  But at the 95% confidence level extraordinary evidence must be supplied.  Second, a hypothesis is only a “working guess” until it is tested.  Even though I am above the 95% confidence level, it is still a hypothesis and not a theory or a Law that no god exists.  My hypothesis is being tested by this experiment.  By reading the Holy Texts of the Ancient Religions (starting with the Abrahamic ones), recording my observation, and allowing peer review of my “data”, I am doing exactly that: testing the hypothesis.  I of course cannot, in a single lifetime, read all the religious documents, nor can I become a scholar in any single one of them.  I also cannot remove my bias (existence of god), I may be able to limit it or soften it, but it will exist.  But in experimentation one must always battle bias, everything is open to interpretation.  Some people see things in a different light or at a different angle, and some people use a different measuring device.  Science is not cut and dry and there lies another one of my biases.  The world is not black and white; how can the Truth be only one thing? 

A personal Devine Being would have to conform to (or at least obey) the Laws that govern the known forces of existence.  The connection between natural and supernatural would have to be reasonable without arbitrary boundaries and without the whimsical nature of the Biblical God.  The Sky Daddy concept of modern Christianity would not work.  The concept of “I love you, but I am still sending you to hell (your room)” is just not appropriate for a Supreme Being.  The concept of “I give you freewill, but if you don’t do what I want…I’m sending you to hell (your room)”, just cannot fit a proper concept of a Supreme Being.  You will notice the “your room” concept in both of these.  A Supreme Being of the entire universe is not just a bigger and more powerful Father.  Such a creature would have way more important things to do than watch every living (and past living) human being and record all of our actions and intentions.  But then, maybe, I am expecting a more perfect Supreme Being than the one that exists.  Maybe I expect too much, like actually communicating with us instead of leaving bread crumbs to follow that have been eaten by scavengers.  Or maybe I expect too much, like thinking that if humans were so important (and loved) by “Him”, he would have sent the same message to all of us from the beginning of time, instead of allowing some to grow into huge nations with a false “Truth”.   But most of all, a personal Supreme Being would have to fit the evidence.  Instead, what I see is many different people attempting to make the evidence fit the Supreme Being. 

The evidence I see today is that everything has a cause and none of those causes need an exterior supernatural source.  Yes, the Big Bang and the formation of Life are not answered by scientific evidence.  But even emotions and motivations of the human mind are being revealed as having physical natural causes.  Little in this world is left that does not have a natural explanation, a personal Supernatural Being would have to prove first why it was needed and second what purpose it had in the greater scheme of existence.  Is there more out there than we puny humans have measured, seen, or experienced?  Certainly.  Is love for your enemy better than killing your enemy?  Without doubt.  But are concepts like these (Spiritual Truths) supernatural?  Why do they need to have an external source?  Yes, humans are puny in the sense of the size of the universe, and it should keep us humble.  Individual humans are miniscule, but our collective ability is overwhelming.  We, as a species, are intelligent enough to send people to the moon, cure polio, and be curious enough to explore the entire planet…what would a personal Supreme Being bring to us, personally, and the universe, in general?  Answering that question would be the attribute that a personal Supreme Being would have if one could exist in my perspective as a Gay Atheist. 

Posted in My Beliefs, Atheism, State of Mind, Introduction | Print | 60 Comments »

March 28, 2009, 7:36 am by dc-agape.

Image via Wikipedia

Since I am a gay Atheist it is useful to write and explain my personal beliefs as part of this experiment.  Having a balanced life is one of them.  Growing up three things strengthened this belief: family experiences, laws of the Southern States, and Dungeons and Dragons.  True I was a D&D™ fan.  I was also a Star Trek fan.  That show influenced other beliefs that will deserve a post to its self.

I grew up in a Southern Baptist/Presbyterian house.  One of the two is much more balanced than the other.  My mother was good at using daily experiences to show me the errors of actions (mine and other peoples) in an attempt to explain both forms of Christianity.  One of the first lessons on balance was about the difference between Southern Baptist (SB) and Presbyterian.  You see, in the early 1900’s SB went off the deep end: no drinking, no card playing, no dancing.  As with the Prohibition of the 20’s this was unsustainable to society.  After awhile the SB relaxed (a little) and began to allow these “sinful” acts.  But knowing the history made me question the “extreme” conditions of that religion, and later all religions.  Alcoholism and workaholics were two more of the lessons I learned about.  I was reminded on many occasions that my family had a history of both these conditions.  I was taught from an early age that I would be forced to confront those conditions and may even have to fight them my entire life.  I saw first-hand the damage workaholics can do to themselves and their families.  The 70’s had a few economic crises of its own.  As a younger teenager I was constantly warned about the damage that alcohol could do to the liver.  As I became an older teenager the first cases of “date rape” were becoming sensationalized.  I saw that in both the case of workaholics and alcohol abuse it was due to not keeping an “even keel”.  I also was able to recognize that religious fervor was similar, simply by the fact that it lasted only a slight bit longer than the effects of alcohol or throwing yourself into work.  During high school I got to “enjoy” the SB revivals that occur each summer.  And each summer the same people re-committed themselves to the exact same “promises” that they had the year before.  For those unaware of SB revivals it is a spiritual New Year’s Day resolution that is required if you don’t want to go to hell.  In the end I saw that all three did not solve the daily or the life problems that one faces.  All three just cover it up and let their “victims” forget about those problems for short periods of time.  Unfortunately, those problems have to be dealt with.  Forgetting them does nothing but postpone the inevitable confrontation.  I recognized that all three were forms of procrastination.  Two of the three were acceptable forms of procrastination but all three were the same.  All three required the same approach: a balanced life.

The Southern States (and many others) have some very archaic laws on their books (dumblaws.com).  During high school I was introduced to some of the laws that no one had bothered to remove.  It was exceedingly funny, until I realized that if someone wanted to pursue legal action, based on those laws, nothing could stop them.  This line of thought brought me to realize how humans try to control each other by arbitrary definitions of law.  Just take a look at that link to dumblaws.com; some of those laws are exceedingly precise to the point of it could only have happened once.  These laws were obviously someone’s pet peeve and that someone was powerful enough to make it a law.  In the end it taught me that you cannot control a society simply by writing a new law.  Using alcohol again, Prohibition is one of the best examples of this being true.  By this time I had also been exposed to both George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.  The concept of a totalitarian society was a catalyst for me to recognize that again balance was required.  These two separate but similar experiences, the dumb laws and the totalitarian society, could only be challenged by learning to live a balanced life.

So how does D&D™ fit in?  In the game there are 9 “alignments”.  Think of them as steps from being purely lawful and good to purely chaotic and evil.  At both extremes even one “falling of the boat” is disastrous.  I slowly learned the concept of “neutral” was not avoiding confrontation.  In fact, in the game pure neutral sometimes required as much work to maintain as the purely lawful good or the purely chaotic evil.  But in the neutral alignment you had the opportunity to re-align.  Using that alignment you were allowed to do both good and evil acts and both lawful and chaotic acts.  This made sense to me; it hit a deep nerve that resonated throughout my young mind.  But at the center of the concept of neutral was also the concept of balance – a balanced life. 

So I combined all the experiences I that I saw and recognized how each was damaging not just to the individual or family but to society as well.  The extremism of religion, alcohol, and work had major consequences.  Each avoided the “here-and-now”.  The dumb laws and the concept of totalitarian society did the same thing, except on a larger scale.  These were where the government avoided the “here-and-now”.  The concept of neutrality, not as avoidance, but as something to strive for could eliminate the consequences of these extremisms.  To say the least, living a purely “neutral” life by balancing both good and evil and law and chaos is not the optimal choice.  Today I lean towards what the game calls neutral good.  Some laws need to be broken, others should be held up at any cost.  But doing good for society and for individuals is always preferred.  Defining what is “good” for society, well, humankind is still trying to figure that one out.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The fundamental value of a book (thestar.com)

Posted in My Beliefs, Atheism | Print | 12 Comments »

March 16, 2009, 10:47 am by dc-agape.

Image by KLuwak via Flickr

Since this is my spring break, and even though grad students don’t get a holiday, I thought I could spend a little time answering a request for my personal beliefs.  I also have extra time this week because my research is automated and I will not have to go check on it till this afternoon.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Atheism is whether any ethics are involved.  Many people claim that Atheist have no morals.  Many other people claim that morals only come from a supernatural being.  Both of these misconceptions are totally false! 

Morals do not come from a supernatural being.  How do I know this?  I know this because human society would fall apart without most of us living by some moral standard.  A society that allowed theft, jealousy, murder, lying, and all the other “sins” would degrade into anarchy.  A different country, or city, or another human society would come in and destroy that “sinful” society simply because there was no organization (in the “sinful” society) to defend against the attack.  The only society with such “sin” would have to be a tyranny and as soon as the tyrant died (or shortly after) that society would fall to pieces.  Examples of that are the Roman empire (even after Christianization), the USSR, and the Khan dynasties.  Even the Southern Confederate States of America (CSA) were doomed to failure.  Slavery, which is not a sin in Christianity, was the downfall of the CSA – with or without the Civil War.  The Code of Hammurabi (Washington State University) is an excellent example of a society making rules to ensure peace and organization to the Babylonians in 1760 BCE (Wikipedia).  In fact, if you take the Creationist Young Earth hypothesis, that the earth was created on Oct 23, 4004 BCE (Christian History Timeline)…the Code of Hammurabi was written 10 years before Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, died (you have to do some math).  In other word, while YHWH was fiddling around with the patriarchs of Judaism, Hammurabi was setting up rules that his people should follow.  Yet Young Earth Creationist believed that man was so sinful that YHWH had deserted them.  So this “Spark of the Devine” required to have morals would not have been available to Hammurabi.  The Shang Dynasty of China started in about 1766 BCE (Washington State University) at the same time as the Babylonian Empire!  The Greek empire began its Mycenaean Civilization around 1600 BCE.  Looking at these dates, a gay Atheist can only come to one conclusion.  Humans began to recognize the need to have laws and organization to live in a “civilized” manner.  No supernatural being or “spark” was required.  As populations grew, law and order was provided so that the civilization could prosper.

Now where do Atheist morals come from?  The Ethical Society of Philadelphia has a wonder response to that.  One of the founding principles of Humanist Atheism (of which I hold as part of my life philosophy) is that the respect for the individual is undeniable.  Very much like the US’s founding principle of the Declaration of Independence without the supernatural “Nature’s God” and “their Creator” woo.  With this in mind: murder, theft, bearing false witness, cheating (sexually or financially), etc are all detrimental to the existence of human society.  But this, also, includes things that the Holy Bible, the Holy Qur’an, and the other Holy Texts of many religions do not uphold or teach.  Such examples as Women’s Rights and Equality, Minority Equality, Same-sex Marriage, a Ban on Slavery, and Intellectual Freedom are all covered by this same founding principle: the respect for the individual is undeniable.

What does this lead to?  It leads to a perfect example of our human purpose.  That purpose is to create a more humane environment on this small little rock that orbits a single star out of the 10²¹ stars in the universe.  The world/universe is a harsh place which is not designed with humankind in mind; it is our responsibility to make it as humane as each of us is capable.  By humane I mean exactly what Dictionary.com uses as a definition:Humane: characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed

Related articles by Zemanta

• Emancipation Proclamation (3quarksdaily.com)
• MSNBC In God We Trust NOT (andcoffeetoo.blogspot.com)
• Jesus, The Bible and Homosexuality- Explode the Myths Heal the Church (thebeautifulheresy.com)
• John Lewis on LGBT equality (bilerico.com)
• Atheist Gays and the Minneapolis Pride Festival (tuibguy.com)

Posted in My Beliefs, Atheism, State of Mind, Becoming an atheist | Print | 6 Comments »

March 8, 2009, 1:33 pm by dc-agape.

Geniza A Col 15-16

I am separating these two columns out from the rest of Geniza A because the 1951 publication of the “A and B” documents does not have these two columns.  Both these columns and, in fact, the rest of the Damascus Document (CD) continues with the regulations that are required to remain within the covenant with YHWH.  It would seem from reading and studying other points of view that the communities that these regulations refer to as the Yahad are the greater sect that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls are loosely affiliated with.  Very similar to individual churches in a single protestant denomination having slightly different rules than the denomination they belong to.

These two columns are about the Yahad requirements.  Most of these two columns also refer to taking the oaths and vows of the larger sect.  They begin with the difference between taking an oath on the Laws of Moses verse an oath taken on the covenant of the Yahad.  With a striking warning:  by vowing to the Laws of Moses any breach in the vow is a defilement of the name of YHWH.  In this case, the person will bear the burden of sin and die.  A vow on the covenant a breach of the vow will only require confession of sin and restitution for that sin.  Does this sound familiar?  Where in the Old Testament does it make commandments for the confession of sin?  In fact, in the OT, confession of sin usually brought stoning or banishment.  So this is definitely a new wrinkle on Judaism.  It seems very similar to the teachings of Christianity.  Since these sects were active within a century of Jesus’ time, there is no doubt that they influenced his teachings.  The more I read the Dead Sea Scrolls it becomes evident that Jesus was not making up new things but was using the best of the religious doctrine of the time between the many Jewish sects (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and this Yahad group to name a few).

This covenant that they can make an oath on without penalty of death is actually an oath to return to the Laws of Moses.  A new member of the Yahad must be examined by the “Overseer” (much later in the CD). Interestingly, the new member cannot be instructed about what the Overseer will examine!  The new member must come before the Overseer without any knowledge of what to expect.  It would seem the purpose of this was to test if the new member would return to the Laws of Moses with “a whole heart and with a whole soul”. 

If the new member passes this examination, he is required to study for one full year any area of the Law that he was weak in understanding.  But the Yahad were picky about who could be tested.  They required that “no simpleton, ignoramus, weak of sight, lame, crippled, deaf, or below the age of accountability could join the congregation.  There was the promise that the day the new member took the oath the “Angel of Obstruction” would leave him.  In other words, this sect whole heartedly believed that YHWH obstructed his chosen from understanding the Laws of Moses.  Freewill shattered once again!

Oaths are important to this sect.  Any promise made would have to be carried out, even if the promise required the death of the oath maker.  Worse was that any oath made that violated the Laws of Moses could not be carried out, even if by doing so the oath taker died.  Fathers and husbands could annul a woman’s oath if it violated the oath to follow the Laws of Moses.  Obviously, this sect did not give equal rights to woman as to men.  If they did the women would know when a vow was in violation of the Law of Moses.

The last sections of Column 16 rows 13-20 are very fragmented.  They describe the rule of freewill offerings.  It seems that these freewill offerings must not come from stolen goods or gained by extortion.  Anyone doing such a thing would be punished.  But the punishment seemed to be in the form of a “fair evaluation” in retribution, most likely in a monetary amount.  That seems very odd to me.  First, how do they determine how much was stolen or extorted to begin with?  Second, the stolen or extorted goods had a monetary value.  This seems very similar to today’s punishment of multimillion dollar companies or athletes by requiring them to pay a percent or two of their net income.   It does not punish them nor does it make them stop doing the exact same thing again.

And that is the crux of the problem with religion in the first place.  Religion gives no one a good enough reason to stop the “sin” that they have committed.   They pay a little price (maybe it is a little extra tithe or a small amount of guilt) and continue to do the exact same thing.  Religion does not teach the full value of the action people take that harms others.  Yet in Humanistic Atheism we recognize that our actions do hurt other people.  It is that recognition that inhibits us from doing what we know will hurt our fellow humans.  For example, almost all Atheists recognize the harm caused by bigotry (Life Without Faith) and discrimination (National Institute of Health). 

Posted in Damascus Document, Dead Sea Scroll, Atheism, Freewill, Readings | Print | 4 Comments »

February 14, 2009, 10:03 am by dc-agape.

The purpose of life has plagued mankind from the beginning of our species.  Christians have “The Purpose Driven Life” by Rick Warren (where he makes a living off this concept…truly Christian).  Atheists on the other hand, have been misinterpreted to have no purpose in life.  That could not be farther from the truth.  We have something I would like to call “the reason guided life”.  In that phrase “reason (dictionary.com)” has at least four meanings. 

First, our lives are guided by the “the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences”.  We use our minds to made decisions about what to do in life.  We do not rely on musty old books that have lost most of their original meaning to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences.  We look around the world and base our actions on those conclusions, judgments, and inferences.  We see someone down-on-their -luck and have just as much sympathy for them as the religious person does.  We see war torn areas of the world and seethe with disgust over the minor (usually religious) reasons for those wars.  We see the education of our children as of the greatest importance.  Using our reason, we know that the separation of church and state are critical to the function of our country (the US). 

Second, we use reason as “sound judgment; good sense” to guide our lives.  Good sense tells us that an all loving YHWH cannot exist, because too much pain and suffering are in the world.  By the Christian Bible this is due to one woman’s sin: Eve.  Reason would tell you that one person cannot be responsible for all the suffering in our world.  Good sense would tell you that punishing trillions of human lives for this one mistake is extremely un-loving.  Good sense also guides to understand that prayer is not as effective as action.  In the case of appendicitis…is prayer going to work or is surgery?  And no, common sense does not say do both.  It tells you to have the surgery, some people for extra safety might pray.  But it is the surgery that saves you.

We Atheist also use “normal or sound powers of mind; sanity” to guide our lives.  Sanity is not talking to imaginary voices/people, having delusion of persecution, or believing that a minister has a better grasp on life than you do.  Talking to yourself (from yahoo answers) is usually thought of as one of the first signs of insanity.  And in prayer no one is talking back…you are essentially talking to yourself.  The Christians here in the US have something they call “War on Christmas” and the “homosexual agenda”.  Unfortunately for the Christian, these are delusions of persecution.  I am both an Atheist and a gay man.  If either of the existed I would be on the front lines helping to win the war and get the agenda passed.  Christmas is a pagan holiday from pre-christian religions, Jesus was not even born on Dec 25^th.  The “agenda” failed miserably in CA recently.  If it can’t succeed there…there is no Homosexual agenda.  To believe that the pastor or clergy have a better grasp on YHWH’s will is just insane.  Look at the Catholic pedophile case (from Jan 2008), or closer to home the rate of pastor kids being the worst “sinners” (Preacher’s Kids International).

We also use this definition of reason: “Logic; a premise of an argument”.  Our arguments are based on logic (dictionary.com).  This includes reliability and persuasiveness.  The supernatural has neither of these traits.  YHWH is not reliable…sometimes the “answer is yes and sometimes the answer is no”.  “YHWH works in mysterious ways” is another common phrase used to explain the arbitrariness of events.  Prayer is definitely unreliable (God is Imaginary).

So Atheists do have a guide in life.  And it is a wonderful one.  It gives us something to live for…whether it is our work, our family, exploration, or enjoying life itself.  This guide also gives ethics, but that will be in another post. 

Posted in Atheism, State of Mind | Print | 1 Comment »

February 8, 2009, 6:57 am by dc-agape.

I feel that I did not stress one point in yesterday’s post on Atheism: Love.  I am certain that I did not express the concept of having only one life strong enough.  I also feel that I completely forgot another point.  The point that I forgot to bring up was the difference between compulsory love and “freewill” love.

When most religions believe that everything will be sorted out in the afterlife, it allows people to overlook injustice in a very un-loving manner.  This belief, that a supreme being will correct any problems that occur in our short lives, leaves many believers with the “someone else” will correct the evil that occurs here on earth.  This same belief leaves the believer with the concept that “sinners” don’t really need to be looked after, since they are going to hell.  This is an extremely un-loving approach to life on earth.  On the other hand, when an Atheist sees any atrocity our hearts are wrenched.  The reason that we feel the pain more than most believers is that we understand that each life here on earth is temporary and as a result, more presious than even the believer thinks.  We understand that there will be no sorting out after death.  Without the “us vs. them” mentality, it is even more painful for an Atheist to see pain and suffering in other living creatures (especially other humans). 

The biggest reason for Atheist sympathy towards other people is that we know, by the random act of birth, it could be any of us that are experiencing suffering.  We know that our birth into life is not “God” given.  This does not mean that we are ungrateful to be here, in fact, it might make us even more grateful than the believer!  We understand that if we had not been born we would not experience the joy of living.  Where as many believers think that they have somehow deserved the right to experience life.

One of the things that I found amazing when I de-converted was how much easier it was to love my neighbor.  Without the all-power deity demanding that I love my neighbor or being a “sinner”, I found that I could look through the eyes of my neighbor much easier.  I found that someone who hurt me was not a “test” from this powerful being, but instead it was just another human living their life the best they could.  I gained a stronger sympathy and forgiveness that religion cannot teach.  I also found that it was a much lighter weight on my shoulders to be loving; because it was my choice…I was not forced by my religion to love. 

What was even more amazing was that it is now almost impossible for me to hate anyone.  I have always been somewhat forgiving of others.  Now that I am an Atheist, I understand other people’s motives are just human nature.  They are not being used by YHWH or Satan to “distract” or “test” me.  They are acting just like what you would expect a human to act like.  Some humans are greedy, some are hateful, and some are loving by nature…not from some supernatural source but from their personal experiences (and maybe genetic make-up).

Posted in Atheism, Freewill, State of Mind, Becoming an atheist, Introduction | Print | 2 Comments »

February 7, 2009, 10:53 am by dc-agape.

All forms of philosophies have been used for the evil.  Christianity is full of it: the Crusades, the Witch Hunts, and even slavery.  The Muslim philosophy is turning out to be just as bad: terroristic attacks on numerous countries.  Even the Jewish philosophy is not immune: look at the devastation of Gaza (by Harry Shannon at TheSpec.com).  Many claims that Atheism is no different: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  But all three of these allegations were about ethnic cleaning not Atheism.  Atheism by far is the most peaceful philosophy man can embrace.  The reason for that is that Atheism grasps a level of love that no other philosophy can achieve.  In this post I will explain why love is central to the Atheist movement.

Atheism does not create the “us vs. them” thought patterns that all religions do.  Atheism itself is not coherent and as a result there is no us.  Without the “us vs. them” mentality we do not see other people as less human or less deserving of “salvation”.  An Atheist recognizes that all humans are equal; it is their faith in imaginary beings that create the discord between Atheist and religious people.  Our philosophy on life attempts to use all the tools at our disposal to explain life and create meaning for the benefit of all humanity.  It is this idea that makes us love everyone equally and creates the hope for the future that I described in my last post on Atheism.

But there is more to Atheism’s value of love than even this.  We recognize that this is the only life that all humans have.  As result, we understand that everyone deserves to have the best life here and now.  We are a small percentage of the US population and to make things worse we are one of the most despised minorities (from the religioustolerance.org website) here as well.  Of course, being a small despised minority gives us a unique perspective on the world…I am sure that other minorities in the US understand this point with crystal clear insight.  This unique perspective gives us even more insight in the injustices of the US theocracy.  Most of the Atheist out there must remain closeted because of fear from the “loving” christians in our country. For example there is VJack at Atheist Revolution that lives in a very “christian” (Bible-belt) part of the US who knows that it would be great folly to loss his anonymity.  As a result of these experiences, most (not all) Atheist have great love for their fellow neighbors.  We want what is best for our neighbors, for our country, and for our world.

It is true that the definition of “best” is subjective.  Christians believe that it is best that everyone is saved; Muslims believe that it is best that everyone believes in Mohammad.  But what is truly best is that we live in peace without the fear of religious terrorism, that everyone has an equal chance to become President, that no one is killed for being different, and many other that can be discussed. This is the love the Atheism represents and is determined to create. 

My next post on Atheism will be about “The Purpose Driven Life” that Atheism provides not the Christian example (which is somewhat hypocritical).  Why would you make a profit off helping your brothers and sisters in Christ?  Doesn’t that go against the 1^st century teachings of in the Book of Acts:

Acts 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

Lookup a word or passage in the Bible
Include this form on your page

——————————————————————————–

Posted in Atheism, State of Mind, Becoming an atheist | Print | 1 Comment »

January 31, 2009, 11:15 am by dc-agape.

Atheism means different things to each person.  For those who have only heard, second hand, Atheism can be a “very scary” word.  For those of us who live the Atheist life and walk the Atheist path it is a wonderful thing.  Even though Atheism is “the lack of belief in a god” (or gods or even all supernatural beings), many forms of the word are thrown around.  As the link above mentions, many thought patterns lead to the Atheist life.  I will be starting a series of posts on the positive aspects of Atheism.  Some of these aspects are: hope, joy, freedom (from religious guilt, from narrow mindedness, from dogmatic structure), awe, and love.  To many my last sentence will make no sense, which is because of religious indoctrination!  One more thing Atheists are free from.

In this post I want to explore the aspect of Hope.  Most TrueChristians™ do not believe that an Atheist can have much hope.  They could not be further from the truth.  We have many hopes: in the future, in individual selves, in humanity, in science, and in numbers (I explain that in a little bit).  We do not all have the same hopes, but ask an Atheist what type of hope they have and you will find that it is part of their personal outlook on life.

We have hope in the future, even if is only for equality.  To a Christian this may seem silly, only because being the majority (in the US) gives them the right to believe that everyone is being treated fairly.  Trina Hoaks at Friendly Atheist gives a good example of the hope that Atheist have of having equality.  To verify this, ask a gay or lesbian if they have equality!  You can even ask an African-American, many Mexican-Americans, or even anyone with Asian descent, the concept of equality is only felt by the majority.  Here in the US that would be the Caucasian Christian (male). 

Our hope for the future has multiple facets to it.  We hope for better education for our future generations.  One post from a number of years ago ends with a fierce example of this hope.  The court room battles over education are a sign of our hopes: PA, TX, and Kansas.  Equal access to education for the masses is extremely important, but we must recognize that people have different skills.  There is a difference between education and training.  I personally hope that one day we will personalize education for each individual.  Mass education leaves something to be desired.  The weaker “book” students get “left behind” while the stronger “book” students get bored.

Another form of hope that we have is in peace here on Earth.  Since Atheist know that we only have one life (all of us), almost all of us believe that human life is worth saving.  I will not use the word sacred, because that is too weak a word for what most Atheists believe about the value of all human life.  We hope that everyone will live a fruitful, happy, contented life with many joys and few sorrows.  To achieve this goal, Atheists understand that reason must be the driving force for society.  The religious divisiveness must end and the wars that religion has started must end.  But for this to happen we must have better education (see above).

Many of us Atheist do place our hope in science, and for good reason.  Yes, atrocities have been carried out due to science (sometimes in the name of science).  But look around you, even the plants that you see have been affected by science…fertilizers (hopefully you are not surrounded by nuclear waste or fall-out).  The cars, the phones, the window in front of you…all science.  The medicine you and your family took for any number of illnesses…all science.  Using the past as a predictor of the future, science will only make our lives more enjoyable, more full-filling, and more worthwhile.  Yes, we run the risk of annihilation with science.  To eliminate this risk we must have removed the risk of religious wars and better education for the masses. 

Posted in Atheism, State of Mind, Becoming an atheist, Introduction | Print | 2 Comments »