Freethinker's corner

I will not go quietly into the night!

recent posts

about

  • Wow, We Didn’t Build it, In the Correct Context

    If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

         The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires; we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

    Obama has caught a lot of flak for saying, “You didn’t build that”. In context though, which Republicans ignore, the meaning was quite different. Without a teacher, without roads, bridges, your business would be quite somewhat impossible. Business uses the Internet. A lot of work went into its fabrication. Government research, supported by taxpayer dollars, helped to create the internet. Success derives from personal initiative, but not solely because of it.

    If the infrastructure, to which all of us, all of us taxpayers, contributed our part, did not exist; then business would have no way to manufacture goods (electricity), to transport goods (roads, trains), and no plumbing (water systems).

    Obama was merely saying that without the support of everyone, the individual can’t build a business. So, lay off him already.


     

  • Just What Do All those isms Mean? September 24, 2012

    a·the·ism (th–zm)

    n.

    1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

    2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

     

    secularism [ˈsɛkjʊləˌrɪzəm]

    n

    1. (Philosophy) Philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, esp. in ethics

    2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs

    3. the state of being secular

    secular humanism

    n.

    1. An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.

    2. Secularism.

    secular humanist adj. & n

    There are more –isms, like Pantheism, Agnosticism, even materialism, but those three above  are the major non-religious –isms, in my opinion, in the world today.

    Despite these definitions, people in general have different views about atheism. My own definition is slightly different than the two given above. Disbelief and denial are simply not strong enough. Disbelief and denial would actually be the definitions given to non-believers by believers. To disbelieve in something leaves room for the existence of that something. Denial implies that it exists but that the atheist does not accept its existence. Atheist, in my view, is someone who asserts that God does not exist. I assert that none of the Gods humankind has invented, exist. This of course leaves some unknown entity, somewhere in the Galaxy, that might possess attributes beyond what we possess, the possibility of existence. Atheism: the assertion that there are no gods.

    As far as doctrine, pertaining to the second definition, what doctrine? Atheism has never had doctrine, as it is not a religion. Why would the religious be so adamant that atheism is a religion? If atheism can be labeled a belief, a religion, then it helps to legitimize their religion. If atheism is a worldview, as a religion is a worldview, religion is put on equal footing. Equal footing? Is that even appropriate here?

    Secular is sometimes looked upon as atheistic, when, in its truest sense, it denotes more of a neutral stance. The United States Constitution is a secular document. It neither promotes nor opposes any belief system.

    There are religious humanists who practice religious ritual minus the belief. I think there are some Jewish believers of this sort, and I imagine there might be a number of Catholics as well. There are many reports of Pastors in the pulpit who have lost their faith and simply go through the motions. Perhaps they are all religious humanists?

    Secular humanism is pro-humanity. Yet, though secular in name, most secular humanists are simultaneously atheists. This is not a neutral stance. Perhaps they would be better named atheist humanists. Perhaps the name Secular Humanists has caused many a religious individual, upon hearing someone say that the Constitution is secular, to think it atheist. Next we will have to call it neutral secular, even though secular is already neutral, in my viewpoint.

    Secular Humanism has adopted doctrine and the label of religion. While I personally agree with most, of what they have to say, I do not call my self humanist, though in fact I am pro-humanity. Each and every atheist is different. Each atheist has different ideas as to what is moral, or immoral, what is right, and what is wrong. Most atheists also think that no one should tell someone else how to live their lives.


     

  • Peaceful? The Heck They Are!

    Islam claims to be a religion of peace. As we can see from the reaction of its followers to a movie critical of Islam, made in the U.S., peace has very little if anything to do with Islam.mo-homer

    Both Islam and Christianity, as many have come to realize, have always been and continue to be, a plague upon humankind. The resources usurped by these mega-religions could be more appropriately used to provide housing and food for the downtrodden. As far as religion is concerned, however, that would be counter-productive. The poor down-trodden and suffering masses just also happen to be the greatest source of new adherents to these two immoral banes of humanity.

    Why is Islam aggressively violent? Whenever an authoritative philosophy comes into power, it exercises that power to enforce its dictates on everyone, not just its members. As their numbers increase, influence increases, as do attempts to force all others around them to conform to how the religion outlines people should live.

    christian-soldier

    Christianity is no different. In the United States there are still some states that preclude atheists from holding public office. There are six states that have articles in their Constitutions which prevent atheists from holding office.

    • Arkansas
    • Maryland
    • Mississippi
    • South Carolina
    • Tennessee
    • Texas

     These states have a highly religious population of the Christian persuasion, as well as office holders of the same ilk.

    Everyone has heard some of the more prominent preachers of the Christian faith make demands that Atheists be arrested, killed, or deported. They are not joking. It doesn’t matter how much the rational think that these people are living a delusion, this delusion is dangerous and can spur them into taking real action. All they need is enough of their numbers in office. The Constitution will not be enough to protect anyone from their religious fervor as they will rewrite it, or reinterpret it to their liking as the school board in Texas is doing with textbooks. It may be that within the next few years we will have to endure an authoritarian Christian regime.

    christian disposal

  • Just Plain Stupid

    stupid a

    Religious fundamentalists resist secular educational systems like the public schools and the colleges and universities with good reason. Such seats of higher learning are anathema to the religious dogma that they prefer be instilled within their children. If their children were actually taught how to think as well as learn that there are a myriad of alternate belief systems in the world, they fear, the little ones might reject the dogma for what it is, superstitious myth.

    After much reading and consideration I have come to the conclusion that there are at least three types among the religious. First, the willfully ignorant, who have been exposed to the truth of science, understood it yet have rejected it in favor of myth. Secondly, the truly ignorant, blissfully so, happily so. Thirdly, the plain stupid who are unable to see the absurdities of religion and are unable to grasp the science should they encounter it.

    Of the fundamentalists all three types reject evolution, insisting it is just a theory. Using a layman’s understanding of the word theory, they assert that the theory of evolution is a guess. In the view of scientists, however, the word theory means something more substantial, more solid. In the case of evolution the strength of observational, fossil, as well as genetic evidence is such, that in truth evolution is fact. The willfully ignorant, the first type above, able to understand it, still reject it, even though in every other aspect of their lives they are capable of using both logic and reason. They fail to use logic and reason only in the area of faith. The second type above doesn’t even care to learn about evolution, and are content to remain ignorant. The third type, the plain stupid, are simply that.

    Also willfully or ignorantly disregarded and resisted are some other facts.

    • The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not six to ten thousand. (Evidence overwhelming)
    • Dinosaurs never walked the Earth at the same time as humans. (Geological layers say they died out about 65 million years before humans.)
    • The ark was way too small as described.
    • much, much more

    Fundamentalists hate science because it threatens to destroy their beliefs. Beliefs so tightly held that all of reality is insufficient to cause any of the faithful to so much as consider they might be wrong.

     

     

  • Modern Christianity’s Newest Attempt to Separate Itself From It’s Bloody Past

    Christianity’s culpability in many wars and atrocities is well documented. From the Crusades to witch hunts and from its utilization in the motivation of a peoples toward war, Christianity’s  involvement is unquestionable. Yet, in the face of this evidence there are those today who wish to excuse Christianity, to disavow its involvement.

    Religion has been said to be the opiate of the masses. Religion, used to create illusory hope and happiness, with the promise of better things in an afterlife. This promise, of course, is conditional upon the individual’s acceptance and obedience to the doctrines of the faith.

    The outrageous tenets of Christianity require a great deal of abandonment from the natural tendency of the human mind for reason, common sense, and logical thinking. In the wake of such mental manipulation, a high degree of gullibility is created. This is the pathway used by many tyrants, dictators, and others to enable the influencing of the masses in a direction they would not otherwise be inclined to travel. By appealing to the faiths held by the people, those so inclined, can persuade them to support goals which lead to detrimental and disastrous consequences. Persecution of minorities, bloodshed, even wars have resulted from such twisted guidance.

    Despite all this, there is a new attempt, or is it simply a repetition of an old attempt, to provide an out for the religion of Christianity.

    It is true that wars have been fought for the enrichment of those who would wage them. There is no question about this. Yet, the masses require prompting for such causes, for many are of moral nature, simply seeking the means to survive and live their lives, rather than interfere with the lives of others. The common human communities concerns are improving their lives peacefully, providing an environment where they can prosper, grow their families. Stealing and cheating have become moral wrongs through the many ages of humans who have lived in social groups. Religion is a pathway through which the masses can be brought by which this moral underpinning can be overcome. The Bible is full of such examples throughout the Old Testament.

    Adolf Hitler, despite objections, professed to be a Christian. Through propaganda he was able to persuade the German people that all other races were inferior, and that God was behind them. Other races were seen as less than human, inferior in mental and physical attributes. Though many of the German people resisted this, the vocal majority accepted it, at least enough to establish it.

    The “out” proposed is this: It was all about wealth, the acquisition of land, and from the top clear to the bottom, everyone was aware of this. Religion, it has been proposed, was just an excuse.

    Mere greed? This really is an insult to all humanity, to reduce human morality to such a base level. World war II aside, it would take more than greed to persuade the masses to abandon primary social mores. People have to be convinced that they have the moral high ground, that what they are being exhorted to do is just and right. Religion provides the avenue for just such a scenario. By utilizing a population’s already devout belief, convincing them their deity is behind the effort, many a peaceful people have been brought to war, conflict, and destruction.

    In most cases, I think, the top rungs of leadership are fully aware that the conflicts being promoted are totally about wealth, resources, and land acquisition. Many in the ranks of the population, usually dissenters, may be aware also. Most have no clue and are persuaded through the appeal to their already strong faiths. Ignorance is no crime, and as intelligent as they may be, it is through the ignorance instilled by religious indoctrination they are rendered malleable to such influence. If you can be persuaded that a man walked on water, a man was able to part the Red Sea, or that a man was able to survive several days within the confines of a fish, then what is it to be made to believe that the man next door is devious, inferior, and should be exterminated.

    The misdeeds of religion through the centuries is well documented despite efforts to discourage its recording. Enough remains to condemn religion, perhaps even enough to provide a guilty verdict for God, if he existed. At least where I am concerned, I have seen enough to make the decision, that religion, especially the Christian religion, deserves no pardon for its moral crimes against humanity.

    “Without religion, what is a tyrant to do? (wringing hands feverishly)

    Of course there have been tyrants who used other means, other propaganda, to manipulate the masses. Their numbers pale in comparison to those who use faith as a means. In every case, however, an appeal to their vanity, their superiority, the rightness of their cause, is used to influence the people. Religion simply makes it easier.

    If any nation is to undertake such activities as war let it be for the right reasons, let it be debated endlessly as to the moral rightness or wrongness of the cause. Perhaps before the debate ends, the reasons for the conflict will evaporate, or a peaceful means will be found. There are more pressing issues for humanity, and always, always, better means to solve them than war.

  • Biblical Morality: Inspired Word of God says so….

    “God is the source of all that is Good.” That’s what he said, honest. Then again, doesn’t the same God claim to be the source of everything, nothing having existed before he said… “LET THERE…..” One can derive from this proclamation that whereas all good has it’s origins in God, so does all bad.

    The other day I came upon an interesting question. The question was “If Satan died, would God create another?” My immediate respond was “probably”. Without the bad, the good would not look so good. The contrast is very important. Coffee is a bitter drink, chocolate is sweet. When these two come together, the senses can be overwhelmed. How could you know what is good, if never having experienced bad? How could God rescue you, God reasoned, if no one was chasing you?

    Morality was a necessity of evolution. It developed as a result of the human need for forming in groups. Groups were important for survival, morality was important for peaceful co-existence. Morality developed eons before humankind fabricated it’s first God. Religion, God-belief, co-opted the concept of morality, it did not invent it. Prove this? Prove God exists, then I will attempt it. It is simply common sense reasoning for which there are examples in primitive tribes of humans.

    The good Christian, Christian defined as those who believe the Bible the inspired word of God, Jesus as God become man, …these good Christians who believe that morality is within the pages of the book claimed as the word of God, simply hasn’t read the Bible, or has decided that it contains cherries, which when picked stand alone without regard to whatever else is therein.

    One of the prime mistakes of religion, specifically the Biblical religion, was making available the tree of knowledge via Satan. This event makes Satan seem nearly a benefactor to humanity. “The knowledge was of Good and Evil”, the not too bright Christian might admonish. Actually such knowledge is very important and even now protects human beings by diminishing their gullibility. (Except, of course, in the case of those hapless Christians)

    The claim that “all good comes from God” is an arrogant one. This is a symptom of the Christian doctrine’s inherent arrogance. Those who dwell within the delusion cannot see it, but instead see it merely as God’s divine pronouncement. They view it as a ‘quality’ of their deity. Those looking from without the delusion can see it clearly for what it is…it is a claim of superior morality, the old “I am better than thou” syndrome. This has garnered the Christian delusion the disgust it justly deserves in many circles. The religion, as successful has it has been, might have been more so, had it not insisted in putting it’s dirty laundry on display, and it certainly is a type of dirty linen.

    Turn your reason on, use your brain’s power to analyze, and go back and read that Bible. See the horrors for yourself, bronze age concepts of morality simply do not stand up today. Even Jesus said some really fascinating things, you will find, if examined with your mind in drive, rather than in neutral.

  • That Helpless Feeling

    The hand-wringing continues. Frustration has melted into trembling fear. The arguments have not been going well. There is so little to work with… he left so little to work with. With such great power his might should be ever present, so easy to see, and yet… there is nothing. Could it be, that like the power which presents no visible sign, that he too… no, it’s unthinkable. Yet, much of that which was his domain is now explained as of natural origin, his domain shrinks by the day. Have they all, everyone, preacher, parents, told lies? Is that which has always stood as the inspired word of God, been instead, solely the writings of barbarians?

    Christians today struggle with telling the story of what they believe is their creator, just as they have since the lie was created. With no credible evidence their creator so much as exists and as a result of ever advancing science, it is difficult, in the face of increasing numbers of free-thinking people, to maintain a Christian family. With the truth all about them in the form of friends, teachers, nature, the children cannot be shielded from it for much longer.

    All the Christian has is the Bible. A badly written, badly compiled book of fables. Many books have been deleted, others added. Forgeries have been revealed. Even the authors of the four most famous books cannot be derived, those whose names grace those stories being used surreptitiously. So full of contradictions, errors, and outlandish claims.

    Leave them alone, some shout, let them believe it, what harm can it do? Well, we have reminders from history of what such belief can do. We have reminders today; people who are intolerant, bigoted, and full of hate, all for religions’ sake. Anyone who claims that such belief is harmless is simply in denial.

    The individual believer is harmless. It is when believers act in unison, in concert, that immoral activity becomes evident. It is when the believers assume power over others that crimes against humanity invariably occur. It is when in power over those who do not likewise believe, that the believer forces their views.

    It does not matter the religion: Christian, Muslim, any. Any religion that believes itself the only way, with the only “true” God, with the only way to heaven or paradise, will when in a position of power, force it’s beliefs on all within their purview.

    Organized religion must be opposed. Intolerant? Perhaps. The pillars supporting these monstrous threats to human well-being must nevertheless come down. Let’s start with this pillar: Churches must be taxed. As it stands now religion is being subsidized by everyone through total tax exemption on property and non-taxed donations. With our government so direly in need of funds we can no longer afford this unfair subsidizing of religion through tax exemption. Tax exempt status is suspect anyway, as it seems a shady circular way to get around the wall of separation between church and state.

    Next: We must come to a consensus on at which age children should be allowed exposure to religious indoctrination. They must be able to assess for themselves whether or not to accept or reject the doctrine of religion. “Freedom of Religion!”, cries the Christian. Yes, I suppose this would be a violation.

    As long as the children are indoctrinated at an impressionable age there will be no hope of eliminating the grip of the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humankind. Until children are en masse taught to think rather than what to think, the scourge from the bronze age will continue to flourish.

  • Death of a Newspaper

    Whether due to greed or desperation our local newspaper has started to charge for access to their website. Many newspaper websites have taken this route. Perhaps it is a necessary step, a needed path of revenue. Of course this assumes that the newspaper in question has a product worth buying. Our local newspaper is so lame that even investing the nominal charge of $10 a month is a difficult decision. After all, the main attraction of the site before was the ability to host my blog. Now that the blogs are gone the only remaining draw is the opinion section, or commenting on the various articles. Even that requires the nominal subscription and I am contemplating if it is worth the price.

    The Newspaper, News Journal, it is called, is very much a small town publication with a most definite religious slant. Conservative in a high degree no doubt to the publisher Gannett, and the new individual installed at the helm of the News Journal. Catering to the audience in this town means being subservient to the religious.

    My blog on the News Journal site, I have been told, created a great deal of traffic for the site, as well as caused many people to think. I was one of the few voices speaking out in opposition to those who toe the Republican speaking points and those who parroted the tired old memes of religious extraction. Now that blog is silenced, possibly forever.

    If the blogs are returned to the site I might consider a subscription of nominal amount. It certainly isn’t worth it now.

  • The Fascist Agenda

    Two previous Blogs “American Fascism is Alive and Well” and “Resisting Fascism in Your Hometown” expounded on the intrusion of the fundamentalist Conservative Right into the public schools using the vehicle provided by a 2001 ruling of the Supreme Court which provided a backdoor for religious proselytizing, thereby violating the separation of Church and State.

    It is not the intent of this vicious group of religious fanatics to just change the schools, they want total control, and failing in that, they desire the demise of the public school system. They wish to destroy the public schools by advocating a school voucher program, bleeding away the funds needed to operate the public school system. Using public tax money they wish to build religious schools. By taking control of the children, either by infiltrating the public school boards and installing religious instruction, in fact, proselytizing the students, or by destroying the public schools and establishing Christian schools, the ultimate goal is to make the United States into the “Christian Nation” they envision. In the end, if they are successful, and there is great doubt they will be, only Christians and the rich will receive an education, while most likely, the poor will receive nothing. Even if they fail, the effort will cause immense damage to the public educational system.

    Some facts revealed by Katherine Stewarts book : “The Good News Club: The Christian Rights Stealth Assault on America’s Children”:

    …2001 ruling by the Supreme Court, led by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Good News Club versus Milford Central School District, provided a backdoor to religious groups.

    …By 2010 there were 3,439 Good News Clubs, nearly all in public K-6 around the country.

    …In the past three decades the level of religious activity in public schools has risen and the associated religion related conflict level increased in synchrony.

    …As a result of Thomas and his allies on the Supreme Court religious groups have been elevated to a super category which has a substantially greater degree of access to the public schools than any other kind of group.

    …In 1974 Billy Graham and a group of nefarious cohorts formed the Lausanne Movement, an organization formed for the purposes of uniting evangelicals in the task of the total evangelization of the world.

    The First Amendment, thought a bulwark, a defense against Fascism, has been turned around and used to wedge religion into the public schools. It has been manipulated to provide an opportunity for fundamentalist Christian groups to exercise their intolerance. They do not want to have their religion included in the schools, they in fact desire that the schools be absorbed into their religion.

    It is easy to dismiss these people as fanatics, and yet it seems, the mean what they say and are attempting to carry it out. As Katherine Stewart warns: “Maybe we should listen to them now, before it’s too late.”

  • Tolerance Re-examined

    Tolerance is frequently urged by many groups of well-meaning promoters of the concept of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., in line with the guarantees of the Constitution.

    Tolerance, as Dictionary.com defines it,

    1.A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinion, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.

    2. A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.

    3. Interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal un-dogmatic viewpoint.

    4. The act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.

    As used by many these days to request that everyone’s right to exist and believe as they will, tolerance as defined in the first, second, and third might apply. I think these definitions are those used by most educated and knowledgeable people, while the fourth definition is not. The fourth, in my judgment, is the definition used by the bigots, the racists, the homophobes who do not accept people as they are, do not really think certain people have a right to existence, but merely tolerate them while they are powerless to eliminate them.

    Fundamentalist religious belief does not equivocate on the question of moral values, beliefs, practices, nationality that differ from their own. They do not tolerate them, they do not condone them, and would eradicate them if the law was not standing in the way. Their world is one of stark black and whites, with no moral shades of gray; no excuse for non-adherence. For example: No abortion for any reason, whatsoever. This leaves no room for possible deleterious health effects for the mom, including possible death. In fact many fundamentalists consider death in childbirth noble and a will of God. No room for debate on rape, the rapists child must be born. If the child can be seen in-womb with horrible deformities… it still must suffer birth and life, no matter how fruitless, no matter how much suffering. And there are many other examples of this compliance to rigid concepts, some from an ignorant era, others concocted by their own narrow life’s view.

    The question that needs to be answered, begs for an answer, is this: Should even the most fair minded individual be asked to tolerate someone who exercises no tolerance?

    Personally I have tried to reason with these close-minded and intolerant people. People thinking they know everything, instead having no knowledge at all. Self-righteous, arrogant, they consider their “tolerating” tolerance, justified, and only because to exercise what they truly believe would get them in trouble with the law, they restrain themselves. But wait, they are working to change that.

    They are infiltrating government, the courts, and the schools. This for the purposes of being in charge of running the government, making the laws, and stealing the next generation of children for their purposes. Being in government puts them in a position to propose new programs with religious intent. Being the judges sitting on the benches allows new laws, or interpretations, so that any opposition to new programs can be easily thwarted. Infiltrating the schools, proselytizing, and instilling their warped world view into the minds of the next generation will lessen any further opposition to desired programs as well as ensure implementation of religious doctrine.

    Perhaps the application of the term Tolerance should be for those who tolerate, and by that, I mean definitions 1,2,3, not 4. How can toleration for someone’s philosophy, a philosophy which is engaged in actively trying to eliminate your freedoms, and seize your government, be moral?