Why atheist will lose the war against religion.

I have been what I call a devoted and or a committed atheist for about 10 years now. After getting free from the repression of the “Steve Abrams” family of Kansas. Yes, the Steve Abrams that was on the Kansas State Board of Education that thought evolution wasn't such a good thing to teach in science classes in public school. So I have seen a few things change in the past few years in my life and in the current cultural discussion. I may go into that later but this deals with were I see us now as the new atheist movement.

There is a discussion of those that are leading the charge that we are to be either accommodationists or confrontationalists. I saw a panel discussion on this very subject at the Skepticon III in Springfield, MO a few weeks ago. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me that there is no difference in thought between the two camps as to how they view the supernatural or that divine. The issue comes down to the way to deal with the religious adherents. This is the area that I want to talk about.

With the ones that think we really have no need to deal with the adherents in a way that would cause confrontation, let me remind you that the fundamentalist adherents are a large and vocal group that have no reservation whatsoever to push their dogma onto use wholesale even to the place of discrimination, persecution and arrest if they could do so. I am sure many of you, like me, have withdrawn from the evangelical or fundamentalist background. Those of you that have surely realize the fervor and the emotional appeal that the dynamic religious leader has upon the group of adherents in the congregation.

I recall with clarity the way I would yell and jump and “praise” god when I was in a worship service. I wanted us to out to the places of “sin” and bring the word go god to them and see the power of god in action. To see it fulfilled. I knew that when the word of god was spoken that it wouldn't return void. [what ever that means.] I was one to confront the atheist and the morally lax to their face. I was one to prayer around the abortion clinic and boycott those things that I was told were back, such as movies and so on. But I was not unique in this point of view there were many others that had the same vigor and held the same view. In a way that was a very comfortable thing because as long as I was acting in the light of the Lord. So I knew that I was doing what was god's will. No one could convince me otherwise.

But as I have been involved in the atheist or skeptical or freethinker realm, it seems that there is none that take up the fervor that the dogmatic adherents banner. It is more of the intellectual and mental aspect of the cause that is the driving force of this movement. I have seen Richard Dawkins speak twice live and have heard and read much that Christopher Hitchens has said and wrote and many of the other movers and shakers in the new atheist. But this doesn't meet the level of one of the evangelical churches that is in your city and your neighborhood.

What do these men get for their barely provocative views? They get criticized by the so called old atheists. The ones that have been going along to get along for so long that they do not even realize that they are part of the reason that the radical adherents have been able to make such inroads in our public and private lives. I am even skeptical o f the alliance between the gay and the atheist community. I have notice that homosexuals are much more accepted by straight atheist than atheist are by religious homosexuals. TO WIT: At least I believe in God.

My goal is to help create and mobilize discussion and action to show the public that we are here and we are a force to deal with in our country. Our numbers indicate the hidden strength we have. We have just now have to have the courage of our convictions to stand up for what we believe. After all, if it was easy, anyone could do it.

What do I mean? It can be different for each person. Anything from keeping a marker and wiping out “In God We Trust” on our currency to attending and debating adherents in their religious places that are “open to all” and “welcome all.” Keep in mind that we, as taxpaying, atheist pay for them to have a special position in the country so we have every right to attend and discuss the things they are doing with the privilege they have within our country. The more they try to control our government, the more we should try to destroy and demolish their beliefs. They only believe in a fiction anyway so why not make them face the facts. Make them stand and prove what they believe in. My only weapon to use against these radical adherents is my mind and my voice. I see no reason to let the radical right overtake the moderates and liberal believers. As Hitchens and others have said, I am an anti-theist.

But the accommodationialist want to look at the least offensive religious persons and use them as a reason as to why we must work with them. That is bullshit. In every way if they want to join us then fine but we should by no means accommodate the moderate or liberal versions of a delusion just because they seem to agree with us on some issues. The point of view when they agree is, “You should agree with us.”

But until we see the adherents as an attack upon our species and our progress as humans then we will continue to flounder and fail to make this world a batter place for all who occupy it.

Chapter Nine; MY TEAM COMES TO PLAY part thirty-six

Of course I would insist that any course on world religion or religion in general have a section on atheists. It is clear that the atheist community has something to say about a great many number of subjects. Everything from climate change to fair housing, political corruption, good business policies, how the wars are being conducted, public funding of religious based organizations, equal rights for all Americans and so forth.

Keep in mind that while many atheists may actually take interest and have views on these and a great many more subjects the views held can be quite diverse. In Sam Harris' book The End of Faith, he makes great points about good reasons to minimize the influence of religion and why it should be minimized as much as possible. He spends a great deal of time dealing directly with Christianity, Islam and touching on Judaism and other faiths. But near the end of the book where he is trying to make his case for ending faith he slips out of the garden and begins trying really hard to justify a form of mysticism that separates the Conscience and objective awareness and the duality nature of our conscience existence.

I feel that Harris is either trying to hard to tie in a eastern philosophical view or exert his belief in some sort of a mystic world. While Harris went to some great lengths to try to make the connection to human happiness at the end of the book but he fails to make the step by step link cited in his book that, “spiritual experience, ethical behavior and strong communities are essential for human happiness.”

I would say that to a degree I found this distressing as he seemed to be endorsing a version of a spiritual nature possibility a forum of Buddhism. This however seemed to be the point of his book since he ends the main section of the book with his title. I would have to conclude that the end of faith would lead to a spiritual nature.

This is an example for me that atheists can agree with one another most of the time but have serious disagreements about other subjects. I thank Harris greatly for his book as it has done much for promoting a positive and a more concise view to the general public of what many atheist see as what is wrong with religion and why religious adherents can be use to hid more radical beliefs within the same general belief system. While the typical Methodist may disagree with abortion, it was that religious protection afford to the more radical Christian groups such and Operation Rescue and others that led a person like Scott Roeder to shoot and kill Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas while Tiller served as an usher at his Lutheran church. Roeder's radical views found a home in the radicalism of such organizations though I understand that he was almost universally condemned by even the abortion opponents. At least at the time. If some fellow Christian was to come against the views of Roeder, Roeder's defense could be something as simple as, “You don't understand what god wants to happen to Tiller.”

Statements like this in a religious context cannot be disputed. Yet I continue to be amazed by the religious adherents who will over and over again say that “they” are the only ones that has the “truth.” I would not expect to hear this if I was to speak about my objections to Harris' conclusion as I mentioned earlier. I feel as reasonable people Harris would at least attempt to listen to my reasons for disagreeing with him until he either determined I had no knowledge or comprehension of what he was talking about or he was able to see my perspective or some other alternative. Many believers also feel that if they were to loose their faith that they would have been a fool for all their life in which they based their actions upon their religion. I can see this but it brings to mind a story I heard where a researcher into some concept made a discovery breakthrough and when he did the presentation of the concept one professor that had been looking into an alternative view for several decades stood up in the audience and told him that he was thankful to him for reveling the errors of his ways. Then the professor led the applause for the presenter. I use this example to show that having accurate information is the goal of the rational thinker. While to the adherent, faith is the goal. So to destroy the faith is to destroy their world.

That is one great advantage to being a skeptic vis-a-vis an atheist. Disagreeing with each other and vigorous debate is a keystone of education and knowledge. But the acquisition of new reality based knowledge in religions either causes them to split, have war, or modify into a new belief system to accommodate the new reality. Believers that are convinced by themselves or by others that the actions they take in the name of their religion are right in spite of how they cause harm to their fellow man will stop at nothing to reach their goals. The actions that require one to have faith, rule out reason as faith rules out science. After all, “God” cannot have his followers second guess their actions or purposes with reason, logic, facts and science.

According the the book Atheists, Atheists are much more likely to support causes that have nothing to do with their belief system when it indicates an injustice. An atheist is also a more honest person than a person which holds dogmatic beliefs or are of a right wing mentality. There were other somewhat surprising but somewhat confirming results in the book that show atheists not only to be more honest and more self aware of the state of their behavior and mental state but are also more critical of people that both share and do not share their opinions. I would have to contend that this is in of itself a good definition of being a skeptic. If only the adherents in the religions were able to or encouraged to question those that provide the answers openly instead of having the same dogmatic message yelled into their brains or chanted week after week until they are mind numbed, we might have a much more peaceful and advance planet to live on. To wrap up this section I would like to just add;

GO ATHEISTS! YOU'RE NUMBER 1!

Coming Next Time;

Chapter Nine; FUNDAMENTALISTS, THE BIBLE IS NOT INEERENT part thirty-seven