Atheism, Religion, and the Scarlet A in my Sidebar
Tagged with: atheism • religion
So the other day I read a post by Paul at Cafe Philos about “Standing up for Nontheists. It’s a very good post and is thought provoking, as all of Paul’s posts usually are.
For years, my deepest, most fervent and heart felt opinion on the ontological existence of deity has been a passionate conviction that the question of whether or not god exists is boring.
This is probably one of the few areas where Paul and I differ. But my interest in the issue comes more from my own stupidity on religion than from anything else. I wasted my younger years not learning all the interesting concepts out there in the world. Which leads to my interest in just about everything nowadays.
The main point made in Paul’s post is his frustration of seeing how atheist are treated in this country. And it can be very frustrating at times for an Atheist. Take the simple definition of the word atheism. It means lack of belief, specifically any religious belief. So Atheists are being mistreated, and in some cases abused, because of their lack of a belief. If that last sentence sounds odd to you, welcome to the world of an atheist.
What is the reason for the bigotry and mis-treatment of atheists over their lack of beliefs? Please tell me it’s not from some misguided thought about how a lack of a belief in any religion predisposes someone to more violence or criminal activity. Hopefully it’s not that myth about divorce rates. Does it have something to do with our lack of beliefs threatening your beliefs?
Whatever the reason, take any question from above and even if the answer is yes, bigotry and mistreatment to any human being is uncalled for. Part of living in a civilized society is treating others fairly, justly, and not discriminating. As well as giving someone the civil rights they deserve so long as they do not remove or encroach on the rights from someone else.
So, as Paul did with his blog, I will be adding the “Scarlet A” to my blog. Not because I necessarily care about the movement of outspoken atheists and not because I am the sort of person to sum up my feelings and thoughts with a bumper sticker slogan. But because I am tired of being treated differently for my beliefs and I want others to know why.
I add the “A” to my blog because what Nicole (see video below) went through is bullshit and undeserved. No belief should exclude someone from treating others fairly and humanely.
Welcome to my blog! Topics tend to focus on Science and Technology, but I throw in personal stuff too. I hope you enjoy!
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:03 am
Great post!
It’s good to see the “A” in your sidebar, Webs! I reckon this means we’ll be in hell together. I’ll bring the marshmallows, if you’ll bring the cards.
Somewhat more seriously, I believe it’s time to take the gloves off and fight back against the jerks who think it’s open season on atheists. One effective way we can do that is let people know how many of us support atheism as a right. If enough people start coming out in support of atheist rights, this thing will snowball. But even if it were to fizzle (and I think that unlikely), it’s good to be on the right side — the side for fairness, justice, and decency in how people are treated.
On a personal note, I like the idea of standing shoulder to shoulder with you in a good cause. More power to us!
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:55 am
I like the idea too Paul. I am going to write a guest post over at SEB. That should really help spread the message!!
April 29th, 2008 at 2:47 am
Welcome to the A-list, Webs!
I’m not one much for bumper-sticker advertising either (aside from the RCPM sticker on my car - have to support my favorite band!), but no one can deny that a simple graphic can make a huge statement. It’s nice to see our beautiful red A springing up in the oddest places. Rather tells the world without having to shout all the time that we’re not ashamed of our lack of belief. And, eventually, speaking out will make a difference. I’ve found a lot of people get a lot less hostile toward atheists when they find out I am one. They’ve just never known anything but a caricature before.
We’re here to tell ‘em: atheists are human. Deal.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Exactly! The religious haven’t figured out yet that calling atheists anti-American scumbags doesn’t work. Most teens nowadays don’t buy the rhetoric. Which is why I think I will at some point see the day when religion is a sort of thing of the past.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am
As a “true” believer and fearer of God, let me first say that I am absolutely fed up with people sticking their noses into other people’s practice. It is awful that knowing the identity of another person’s Faith is a concern…or even a question that we willingly answer.
Who hasn’t met a Bible-thumping mean-spirited back-stabbing viper? Sadly, such a motif is almost cliche. Yet, that same person would so adamantly look down on you atheists as damned subhumans.
Oh well. I am the author of a new cosmologic model that is hotly debated on my Scientific American blog for the last five months. http://science-community.sciam.com/blog/Hasanuddins-Blog/300005039 To date, the main gripe of detractors is that I am “TOO” religious for them. Which I find very odd because I don’t directly reference God as part of the model itself. I guess even non-believers can be exclusionary and mean.
As far as the model goes, the religious reference comes from its most ominous implication. That a stable black-hole sample generated at LHC this June would lead to an unstoppable sequence that would mirror the predictions in the Book of Revelations and the Quran. This is just an observation of a quirky coincidence, not an inherent pillar of the model.
As far as the model goes, to date, no detractors have been able to find a hole in it, while three wanna-be critics ended up supplying three new lines of evidence supporting the new model that did not appear in the original book. If anyone is interested, a free download of the new model is available at http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/u56srb Warning: it was written to the lay-audience, so there are more explanations than normal, therefore, the model doesn’t really get going until page 12.
But as far as religion goes: why should any of us waste any energy thinking about other people’s Faith or to waste energy thinking about how our own personal Faith is being perceived??? We were all born alone; we will all die alone; and if there is a God, we will all be judged alone.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I’m not really sure what to say Hasanuddin. Thanks for stopping by. I tend to read and appreciate the comments that actually have something to do with my post topic or at least generate a discussion on the issues of my post topic. Over 60% of what you wrote is about you and less to do about the subject.
When commenting on other people’s blog you might want to focus less on yourself and more on others. People will likely be more receptive to you and be more interested in reading what you wrote.
What I usually do is comment on someone else’s blog and mention something on the topic of that post. I give the option of the blog author and readers to decide if they like what I said enough to read my blog. Rather than force it upon everyone else.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:47 am
I did not mean to go off topic. My point was that overzealous atheists can be just as mean and unjest as overzealous atheists. To make that point I needed to reference current events that are unfolding. This is not a question of us v. them; it a personal v. societal question.
Why is it that we tell each other our belief status? Why should we care about the belief systems of others? Why do people put so much energy into this particular subject?
The fact is, the beliefs of other are superfluous to our own lives. No-one can categorically prove or disprove the existence of God or the might of one religion over the other. So why even worry?
There is no reason why anyone should force their religious/anti-religious beliefs on anyone else. It’s a mute discussion. If more people refused to even have this discussion, then there would be no more need for you to wear that A on your shirt
April 30th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Which is a fine point to make and is certainly the type of dialogue one would expect to elicit from a post such as this.
If that is what you meant to do great! I openly welcome such discussion. But in your first comment you did not do this. Which is why I commented.
Now onto some real dialogue… Excellent questions, I would love to attempt to answer them!
1) In general I’m not sure. But in this case I stated my view because of what was done to Nicole when she stated hers. No one deserves the treatment she received for simply stating her views of religion. And for her, Bill Moore, and many others I proudly state my position in the hopes we can get others to recognize that atheists are humans too, just with a different viewpoint.
2) I care about the belief system of others because it has an impact on the world. There are countless number of people that have died for religious reasons. Take for example the case of the 11 year old from Wisconsin. One can still make the case the parents will look at this as not a big deal because they will be reunited in heaven. This is just wrong on so many levels. And strips away the responsibilities of the parents.
3) Sort of the same question as number 2. But the specific answer I give is cognitive parsimony. People care because it matters to them and they are interested in the topic.
I care because real lives are damaged. I care because religion teaches us that God did it so we can stop trying to learn now. Meanwhile more secular countries are passing us in education and professional research. I care because some people think stem cell research means killing babies. I care because I want to leave a planet that my kids can live on and enjoy.
It will be a mute discussion when people are treated equally for their beliefs.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I believe we are not too far off in our philosophies (personal Faiths aside.)
Religion that is imposed upon another, is not going to be true Faith. Similarly, atheists have no right to condemn the religious for their beliefs. I brought up the turmoil over my new cosmologic model to illustrate that point. The fact that five different detractors tried to bring up my own personal Faith as a reason to find fault with the model was most surprising to me. The new model is syllogistic formal deductive logic–there is no call to divinity within it.
You’re 100% correct when you conclude that this will only be a mute discussion once “people are treated equally for their beliefs.” This is how it should be. To reiterate what I said in the first post: We are are born alone; We all die alone, and, if there is a God, We will all be judged alone.
I personally believe that one of the reasons why folks stick their noses into the business of others is because they somehow feel that wrongfully treating infidels will somehow gain them favor with God. However, such an assumption is in direct conflict with all the great religious texts. Assuming there is a God, the discriminatory actions of zealots (of all stripes) will have a negative effect on the Day of Judgement
April 30th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I think you are correct, are philosophies are not too distant. And I enjoy civil dialogue such as this. Thank you for not attempting to slap me across the face with the bible. Which I have received a few times before without much prompting.
The question this brings up is whether or not religions can survive without attempts at indoctrination of others? In other words, can a collective group sustain itself without attempts to bring others in? I’m not too sure they can. I don’t agree with indoctrination in any form, and will never let my child grow into any belief system, including mine. However, this may be one reason why religions attempt indoctrination. It’s an interesting question I haven’t thought about till now and I think I will write a separate post on this topic.
It’s truly refreshing to hear a religious person state that. I wish more people felt that way too.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
As far as indoctrination is concerned, if God is a true premise, then there is no need for indoctrination because God would be accessible to all people at all times. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that even in the least totalitarian of situations, during the Communist period, all of the religions within those regions survived even after churches, moques, and temples were secularized and the leaders removed. Sure, you could argue that maintaining religion was an act of “defiance” but if so, it was being commited by demographic types never associated with either defiance or rebelion. To me, this historic observation shows something else.
Another observation that points in the same direction is that anthropologically speaking, there are no godless cultures. Sure, deep in the jungles there were cultures that were neither Christian, Jew, nor Moslem, but they still saw the wonder and beauty or the natural world and they could “feel” the presence of something much more powerful than themselves. Whatever they ended up calling it or sacrificing towards it doesn’t matter, the fact is, they all felt something.
Now I would never pretend to know what someone else is thinking, but the commonality of this experience and the tenaciousness of religion during communism lead me to conclude that, if God exists, then it is for all times and all persons.
I meant what I said about the Day of Judgement and the action of zealots. But I was also referring to overzealous atheists, as well. The attack and abuse I have recieved in that direction (with respect to the new model) is amazing to me. Some of these folks seem to be trying to make the case that you can be scientific and religious, as if they were mutually exclusive and incompatible. Of all things to jump on!! I mean, the new model implies that mini black-holes will be stable–if LHC succeed–then we’re literally talking doomsday. Maybe all this talk of Judgement Day will be verified all too soon.
What I just don’t understand is why are athiests sometimes just as mean as Bible-thumpers? I mean, the Bible-thumper meanness can be rationalized that they believe they are doing God’s work. I honestly can’t figure a rationalization why atheists are mean to, make fun of, or discriminate against the religious.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:19 am
There are so many issues at play here I wouldn’t begin to speculate or draw conspiracy theories as to what is actually happening. Whatever the reason I doubt it’s all because of “X”. More likely there are ten or twenty factors that explain the real reason.
Not true at all, by any means. But regardless…
It doesn’t mean anything. If two thousand people told you the world is flat… (sorry, that was super cliché wasn’t it
) Okay, shoot back to 1970 or 1960. If nearly everyone in our society did not believe you when you said that humans have an impact on the global climate and we are warming up the planet, does that make your statement any less true? Of course not! You would be looked upon nowadays as intelligent for studying the science 40-50 years ago and being correct.
What the group thinks has nothing to do with reality. This is especially true for sociologists that study how humans tend to latch onto ideas that fit what they already think to be true. Meaning ideas accepted by groups are not anymore true than ideas accepted by the few because the idea was not collectively scrutinized by every member of the group.
This statement seems to imply that atheists have never tried to reach out to god or that we just never were in touch with god or any religion. But this isn’t true. In fact if you read a lot of atheist bloggers, many of them grew up into religion, studied the Bible, and didn’t like what he/she saw.
Les at SEB became an atheist because he actually read the Bible. DOF became an atheist after studying to become a minister and reading about the Universe and Earth. I started to become an atheist at a very young age when times were rough for me and I had no friends or people to talk to. I reached out for god and no one reached back. I tried talking to god and no one talked back. I didn’t get a sign, a warm fuzzy feeling, or anything. I had to figure out how to solve my own problems. Which basically set me on a path of secularism.
One reason god doesn’t make any sense to me is the same reason I don’t buy into conspiracy theories. It goes like this. You have the conspirator espousing “X”. Maybe the government did it, maybe it was the one armed man, whatever. The point is… if you want to stop the conspiracy theory all you have to do is kill the conspirator. In the case of religion… if you want to stop the atheist movement and you are god, all you have to do is send a message to those that ask for one. Answer the call of the atheist and the skeptic and BAM!!! No more atheist movement.
I am sure some atheist rationalize it that they are tired of being abused by the religious so they are going to speak out. I don’t agree with the methods some atheists use, but the strong spoken atheists give a voice to the timid atheist not willing to speak out. So their movement is somewhat necessary from that standpoint.
Maybe it’s just human nature for some people to look at the flaws in others rather than the beauty.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:54 am
Hasanuddin is one of the SCi-AM links I sent you about the Large Hadron Collider. I had no idea he was a poster at your blurg.
He’s got a good blog on Sci-am.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:26 am
Dear Webs,
You seem to be very convicted in your ways; I respect that, so am I. Now, I would never dream of engaging a convicted Lutheran, Evangelical, Jew, or Hindu over who’s religion is the surest shot to God’s favor. I will, however, engage an atheist over the question of Faith.
First: I was not referring to a subset of cases. I was referring using categorical statements. “Indigenous religions survived in all Communist regions,” and “All recorded anthropological tribes possessed some form of understanding in God, spirits, or magic.” The possible conclusions from these premises favor the possibility that God truly does permeate space-time. You claimed to know of a documented indigenous culture that possessed no concept of God, spirit, or magic, please elaborate because that would challenge the claim I made.
You, however, when you brought up the personal illustrations of your fiends did use a subset in attempts to validate a point. The life-stories of individuals does not directly relate to discussion within regions or cultures. The fact that some people lived through communism with no appreciation of God does not detract from the fact that the religions persisted within society under communism.
When I stated that God is always there, I meant that he permeates space-time. Why or how atheists are not connected was never meant to by imply. Again, atheists are just a subset of a much larger whole. Individual atheists are even more inconsequential to the trends of the whole. You supplied several reasons why individual atheist may not recognoize the existence of God, given the premise that God permeates space-time, but I’m sure there are many many other reasons. In some cases I’d even venture that there are self-labelled atheists who actually have a very good understanding of how to live in harmony within this world.
I think I might have a more formal answer for you regarding atheist nonrecognition of God, given the premise of permeating space-time. Actually, it isn’t really my explanations, rather it is Indonesian lore. This is what the Indonesians taught me of “magic.” First, they apologized that I was American. Apparently, most “albinos” (i.e., Caucasians) are impervious to the effects of magic. They explained that most Westerns were like “stones.” Though magic is around them, their surface is impermeable and it sloshes right off. My Indonesian friends apologies were sincere, because they were convinced that all Westerners were so, and it was kind’a pointless for them to explain further. But I insisted that they explain, no matter how impossible it might be for a white kid to understand Indonesian ideas.
So they continued, “There are three types of Magic: black, white, and Wahyuh…” Okay, for the following explanation I’ll use western examples. First, Black: black magic is like using Satan’s power under agreement—The analogy would be having a credit card with 100% compounding interest every second. You can buy lots of stuff, but you lose. White magic is worse: white magic is like tapping into God’s power-grid without permission—You can do much more wondrous things than with a credit card…but once the power company finds out what you’ve done (and they always find out) then you’re going to be in much more trouble than if you just had bad credit. The last type is the only type worth having is Wahyuh. [Sorry to use the Indonesian word, but there is no word in English that comes close. The closest words are “ordained,” “bestowed,” or “God-given,” but none are quite on the mark.] The idea is that for people who live their lives to maximize “pahalah” then they are rewarded as an ongoing aspect of their daily living. [Sorry again for the lack of an English word—basically, pahalah is the literal opposite of a sin, e.g., hard-work, learning, teaching, gardening, working with children, respecting neighbors, and acting to protect the weak.] The concept of “kharma” is similar, but in the case of Wahyuh there is an idea of correlation to deliberacy versus for want. What I mean by “deliberacy” aligns with selflessness. For example, if the intention to make a bequest is to gain favor with God, then it probably won’t, however, if the bequest is made with a conscious intent to increase harmony, order, learning, and/or science then it might gain favor. But to gain the maximum pahalah then one must use their resources during their lives to enrich the world, learn its wonders, and enjoy each other’s company.
Never have I meant to imply anything on atheists, individually or as a whole. Personally, I don’t believe that all self-described atheists are all that far away from God, whether they admit to a set religion or not. What I mean is that I’ve known plenty of people who have hated the “church” but have succeeded in living lives very much dedicated to furthering the greater-good, respect with nature, and love of fellow people. To me, they appear much closer to God than angry vipers picketing abortion clinics and hurling hateful insults at scared little girls.
I said in the beginning of this post that I would not engage a convicted Lutheran. Why? Because if they’re a good Lutheran, then they are probably picking up a lot of pahalah as they live. What could be gained by shaking their foundations? I used to live around the corner from a Lutheran bookstore. Every Sunday and Wednesday late afternoon they would open up one side as a food pantry and pass out bags of groceries to street people and poor working families, as the recession deepened the line got bigger. I was barely working and out of money. Though even in my poorest hour I never stood in that line, I knew it was there and I am forever grateful that there are Lutherans in this world. That goes for the good Hindu, Buddhist, and Jew as well. How they live their lives is of no consequence to me directly, though I am comforted that their earnest actions help make the world a better place for us all.
That is not to exclude the good “atheists” who do pahalah either. It’s just, without a spiritual roadmap, an atheist might be more compelled to act on urges that lead down wrong paths. True, there are Lutherans who gamble, slander, ridicule, hoard, discriminate, and cheat… but they have a doctrine than warns against those activities. What hindrance does an atheist have stopping them from engaging in acts that work against pahalah? Therefore I engage you now—not to convert you—but to just encourage you to do more good deeds (pahalah) in your day-to-day life. I’m not even going to try to tell you my own personal take on religion or my own practice. First, it would take too long and furthermore it doesn’t matter. Your life is your own; just know that what you do affects everyone and everything else.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I respect all religious people that conduct a conversation with me without resorting to Bible Thumping or Quoting. So again thanks, and it’s refreshing. I wouldn’t necessarily say I am stuck in my ways at all. I have changed my position on religion a decent number of times. I have developed it to the point I am at now through many articles read, discussions with others, speeches listened to, and interviews listened to as well.
The reason for my atheist stance is not due to stubbornness, but more due to a lack of evidence to the contrary. Show me a reason to support the conclusion of an all knowing deity.
As far as Godless cultures go, I remember reading about some, but I cannot find anything right now. So I will concede that point due to my lack of being able to find supportive evidence. However I am not a historian or sociologist, so I would never make the positive statement you made that every culture has god. This is not only incredibly difficult to prove, but also not very likely as scientists discover new information about the human brain and religion. As well as what anthropologists think about religion.
The point of the personal illustrations was to counter your claim of god existing for all people and time. There were three paragraphs discussing this issue. But regardless, if god exists for all people and time, why did he allow atheism? A movement that might lead to the demise of mass religion. Why would you even chance it if you were god?
If god exists for all people and time, why are people born with mental retardation? Does god have a sick sense of humor? Why do people survive 20-40 floor falls from buildings? I would rather die than live with 40 years of excruciating pain. Why is there AIDS and overpopulation in Africa? If the Catholics are correct then god is allowing AIDS and overpopulation to destroy entire races and cultures in Africa? And the list of questions just goes on and on. God has a lot to answer to.
I never argued that point. I argue that your point one religion passing communism has nothing to do with the existence of god or religion. Nazism made it past WW2, but people do not accept that theory.
Then where do atheists fit into your statement of god is always around and permeates space and time. I am just curious and trying to understand such a statement.
But the issue I am having trouble understanding is that atheists do exist and therefore would also have to fit into your statement of god permeating everyone and all time.
The number of atheists in the world is steadily rising. The number of secularists is also rising. The number of younger people not going to church or claiming to be a member or a part of a church or religious group is also rising. The attendance numbers of churches is on the decline. Just looking at numbers I would say individual atheists, especially the bloggers, are having huge relatively undocumented effects.
All the while, the world is not falling to pieces as some people would have us think.
Which is one possible conclusion. The other being people have a hard time letting go of something they have put all their energy and emotion into, and in some cases have spent their entire life rationalizing. The fact that religion has been around for as many years as it has proves nothing. Again we can use the metaphor of the flat Earth or the Sun rotating around the Earth.
And statements like that will really anger your outspoken atheists. Me I understand where you’re coming from and will just simply ask you to give a reference for it or state it as opinion rather than fact. Furthermore you can click on the links in this post to see further evidence of such a statement being false and not even having a correlation.
Nothing accept what they know to be wrong and evil, and what society says is illegal. And one would conclude that atheists would be more prone to acts against pahalah right? Click on the links above in the post to find that the opposite is true.
This sounds more like socialism or solidarity than preachings from a religion. And is exactly what I do in my day to day life and is why I like hearing such statements from people. I am never perfect by any means I do what I can to think of others. And the thing is, I don’t have a god to guide or direct me.
While I like the story of the Indonesians and I think their thoughts on god make sense, in the end who is right? If there is an all knowing being and the Indonesians are right or whoever, why the frak are we stuck to believe in Christianity and be doomed from the get go? How is it fair that I never had the opportunity to learn who the right god is? Hell I asked and asked and lost many countless nights of sleep over it. Why does god hate me?
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:01 am
Dear Webs,
You sound like a good person. In the end, that’s all that really matter. The label that we place upon ourselves (e.g., Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, whatever) are essentially meaningless to the correctness of a person’s path.
When I said that God permeates space-time and is there within us all, I didn’t mean to imply that in any stereotypical way. You yourself made a slip of the tongue that backs my point. In response to my question what stops atheist for doing acts that work against pahalah, you said, “Nothing accept what they know to be wrong and evil.” I believe, that everyone has a sense of evil, because of the premise that God permeates space-time.
Again, my understanding of the Last Day (Judgment Day) is that everyone will be assessed as a direct result of the stored record of all the acts committed by that individual. On that day, perhaps pahalah will act like currency: lot’s of it and you go first class, and a negative balance sends you to the cellar to wash dishes. Implicate in this model is the idea that no human on that day carries the badge of any religion. According to Indonesian lore, all individuals will be naked, mute, and individually. There will be no fast-talk, rhetoric, or explanation for your voice will be mute. Instead, account will be made audible by the person’s hand which will suddenly be given voice; and which cannot lie. Every pahalah and sin will be told. After that, we will be sorted.
Now, if you think about that account literally: an “atheist” stands just as much chance of getting sorted into Heaven as an “evangelical.” I’m serious. All the atheist has to have is a life filled with doing good deeds towards nature, life, and other human beings. Imagine the horror on the faces of the book-burning brimstone/hate parishioners when their hands start speaking of all the mean, nasty, hurtful, and discriminatory actions that had been committed in their lives. That is a key component of the Last Day—justice.
I’m going to leave you soon. It has been a lot of fun. Personally, I’d like to put off the Last Day until long after I’m dead and buried. But if my new model is correct, and those folks in Switzerland do start their LHC machine… the “Beast” really could be created. Along those lines, check out the CERN logo, how many true sixes do you see? The Book of Revelations is my absolute least favorite part of the whole Bible. I am not drawing any conclusions, I am just pointing out a very odd coincidence. Personally, I don’t believe it’s over until it’s over. Can LHC be stopped at this late hour? Not if I, and others, don’t try.
By the way, I am not connected to that lawsuit that was filed in Hawaiian federal court to demand the shut-down of the start-up of LHC. Their concerns are based on risk-assessment. My concerns are based on the new seamless and beautiful cosmologic model and its terrible implication that mini black-holes are stable.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:22 am
LOL!! You are speaking my language brotha. And I do try to live the best life I can. I am nowhere near perfect and constantly battle issues of ethics and morality, but I have a general sense of what I should and should not be doing, and I use it to guide me.
There are just too many questions and loose ends for me to buy into any culture’s idea of god. I must say your information on the Indonesians is very enlightening and I do appreciate what they think. But too many things don’t make sense. Too many random events I’ve witnessed. And in the end this seems to be what guides us and helps us to formulate our opinions, our life experiences. And I wish more people would focus on the importance of them.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Dear Webs,
I do have a confession to make. Yes, my initial post was a shameless attempt to alert you and your readership of a very important pending crisis that can still be averted. You called me on it, and I lied—I apologize. But I not sorry that I did, after all, these are all fine topics we covered and they need to be made public (just as do the concerns over LHC.) Perhaps they shall receive greater audience, but that all depends on what happens with LHC. What you and I just discussed were among the topics of the second book, which was also written this summer. The first book is the scientific model, imminent danger posed by LHC, and way to retool for a win-win for both safety and scientific advancement. The second book is all metaphysics and personal understandings (like the Indonesian understanding of Magic.) I suppose, this is the first preview of what is in that second book that I have given. Actually, I chose a path many months ago concluding that the second book will not be published until the current crisis is adverted. Had you not called me on my intent with the first post, I never would have begun discussing these topics. Therefore I owe you thanks.
There are a few topics that you brought up in the last post, but are not covered in the second book, which I will attempt to answer now.
You ask why is there tragedy in the world. First let’s be aware of what tragedy is: bad things, right? Well, if you put it in that context, most of the tragedies of our individual lives are inflicted by fellow human beings. Are you more likely to get mugged or hit by a tsunami? Which is worse, the hardship of losing a job or the cumulative effects of day-to-day backstabbing, power-plays, and disrespect among people you work with? Okay, we can’t force people to be nice—they must choose for themselves to walk such a path. Of natural tragedies, there are several categories, e.g., weather, geophysics, medicine, and coincidence. Why do bad things happen to good people? —I don’t know. But I can attest, from my own path toward self-awareness, some of the darkest times lead to some of the greatest advancements of my own personal “wisdom.” I don’t think I’m alone in this experience. Sometimes it’s hard to locate the silver-lining for all the fog. But time after time, I’ve seen it, grabbed it, and become a better/stronger human being as a result.
You ask why God would forsake the atheists. Personally, I don’t believe that is the case. As I said in the last post, the Judgment Day is described as an impartial culling of the herd. Brands, such as atheist, evangelical, bushman, etc, will have no place within the decision process. Rather the process will be based on the merits of the life-path decisions and actions that we individually created. Just because one is versed with a scriptural text, such as the Quran, does not necessarily translate into a life that was lived in pure pahalah. Whether you were using the Quran as a spiritual roadmap or you were an atheist relying on intuition—you made choices, committed crimes, and made good things happen. On that we will be judged—in that respect, the atheist is just as equal as the religious.
You mentioned the decline in church attendance. You allude to statistics that show an increase in secularization. And you attempt to make the claim that this is evidence for the non-existence of God. Hmmm, not really. It has always been true for church/religious history: trends come and go. In your post, you do not mention that although old-school steeple-type churches are on the decline, there is a sharp increase in evangelical stripmall/basement operations popping up world wide. But again, that fact is neither here nor there. That is my point. Whether people choose to attend church or not, it is just another choice. Yes, there is pahalah involved with that act—choosing to do other acts don’t not mean that the time was “wasted” nor does it imply that there is a reduction in accountability over that period. It is easy to imagine many alternate acts, which generate an equal amount, or even greater amount, of pahalah than going to church. What human possesses the omniscience needed to assess the merits of particular choices and opportunity-costs at any given juncture of another individual’s life? Not I. But, do I believe, we are all held accountable—until the Last Day where everything will be assessed, omnisciently.
I ended the last post by saying that my only hope in engaging you is to make you aware that all of your actions ultimately radiate outward and affect everyone and everything else. I’m glad you are, in fact, aware of this and try to live accordingly. If more people took to heart this one simple fact, the world would be a whole lot better of a place. This truth sounds very much like Chaos Theory, perhaps it is. It is easy to cause ripples and agitate the waters; it is much harder to smooth things out and create a better environment than had been before. But, individually and collectively, smoothing the waters and trying to build a better tomorrow is in our best interests—even though the short-term gains of such actions are often hard to recognize.
Honestly, I think the world is at a crossroads, literally. Actually, there appear to be several crossroads piled up on top of each other. The first test deals with science, man’s image of himself, and basic empathy. I believe the danger at LHC is very real. If pigheaded ego and disregard for the lives of all the poor people of Earth prevail, then I do believe that an apocalyptic sequence will be unleashed. The “Beast” will be our own creation. Ominously, the predicted demise of this planet being consumed by a mini black-hole would take several decades and would mirror doomsday stories from the Bible and Quran: earthquakes, fire, brimstone, and everyone pulled down to Hell. I have offered a solution: LHC can be retooled to accelerate and fire antiprotons, instead of protons, and then the experiments could be conducted “safely”—assuming the validity of the new Dominium model. Choosing to take the offered solution would be a win-win for everyone. LHC would be saved, science could advance, and we would no longer be in danger. The second crossroads is metaphysical. Understanding where and how we, as individuals, fit into the greater cosmos is essence of the second crossroads. Whether we will reach that second crossroads is unknown.
Regardless of what happens at LHC, we are all held accountable for the lives that we have drawn for ourselves. You ended your post by asking why God hates you. I could ask the same question about myself. Do you think I want to be spending all this energy trying to stop a project half a world away in Switzerland? Hell no! Do you think I want either fame or money from this book—again, no. The reality is that I am a quiet man who likes simple things and who prefers to be out of the spotlight. Yet here I am. My blog has caused a lot of turmoil—but not yet enough. Though the model stands impervious after five months of ardent attempts by detractors, LHC marches forward. As long as there is still hope, I will try to alert people. Only if “enough” people act, can this project be diverted. No individual is too small to have an affect on the future. No action is too tiny. But people need to know of the seriousness of this issue before they can react. I am driven by the thought of all the children that I have come to love. If anything, being saddled with the burden of this new model could easily be considered a curse. I believe the same holds for you as well. Although things might not be perfect in your life, I believe that some of those distasteful things in your life might contain hidden purpose for you alone to find and act on. Perhaps you fulfilled part of that purpose by roping me into this discussion. Perhaps you have future purpose and place within the current struggle to divert LHC. Who knows—you have many choices still to make and there is much that could be accomplished.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I agree, tragedies are proof there is no such thing as an omniscient being. If there was an omniscient being there would be no tragedies because the tragedies would then be a fault of the omniscient being. Since the being is omniscient, by definition the being can have no faults. Thus we enter the realm of circular logic or acceptance of no omniscient being.
This whole thing leads to one conclusion… there is no such thing as an omniscient being. We are in control of our own actions and destiny. Which flies in the face of the statement that god is present for all people and time.
Not what I asked. I asked why would god allow atheists to exist. It makes no sense. As in the case of the conspirator, all you have to do is silence the conspirator and there is no theory. In the case of atheists and god, all god has to do is silence the atheist and religion lives on forever. How do you silence the atheist? Answer their attempt to prayer, show them a miracle, etc. The fact there are atheists in the world flies in the face of the omniscient being theory.
Which means religion is pointless and a waste of time. If our actions are the only thing important than why spend time going to church, why pray, why read the bible, etc. I like your idea, don’t get me wrong, I wish more people would focus on their actions and future in terms of what they can do. I just think you give me more reason to think there is no god with that argument.
That was not the intention of the statistics I gave. The point was to show that atheists are increasing not decreasing and their numbers have an impact. Yes there are trends that come and go, but the numbers are large enough now, from just 20 years ago, that religions need to be rethinking how they reach out to people. I was making no other point than this.
I like your point on the ripple effect. There is a wonderful Simpsons episode on that very idea, where Homer creates the time machine and travels back and keeps screwing things up till he finally finds the best alternate life and says screw it!
Anyways, I think people think very short term for whatever reason, and that leads to strange thinking like we have no impact on what happens in the future. Such as the line of thinking that humans have no impact of the global climate change. Okay sure, dumping trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere has no impact.
Another way I heard it explained was the idea of a Monkeysphere.