What is Militant Atheism?

Militant atheism draws up connotations in the minds of theists, with words like: strident, aggressive, belligerent... and atheism is even called a fundamentalist position by theists. You often here theists say, 'the atheists are being just as extreme as the extremists'.

I'm wondering, when was the last time someone saw an atheist suicide bomber or indeed, a less extreme theist, trying to surreptitiously, force Intelligent Design into the science curriculum in the classrooms of schools.

Indirect force within an American school, was used against a child, by a school board member... an advocate of Intelligent Design/Creationism: This was uncovered in the Kitzmiller vs Dover area school district trial - on the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection, where it was discovered that a child's artistic mural, on Evolution by Natural Selection, had been burned by a member of the school board.

When theists talk about militant atheists, what they are really doing is misappropriating the word militant. They are doing so, in comparing the militancy within religion and the verbally forceful criticisms of the militancy within that religion.

What theists get so upset about, is not really that atheists are militant, the real annoyance that 'gets under their skin' is the very act of criticizing. It is OK to criticize someone's politics, but apparently religion is 'sacred' territory and out of bounds.

Is a theists position really so feeble, that he or she cannot 'stand-it-up' to a little ribbing? ...even if that ribbing is often verbally forceful, strident, aggressive, belligerent or any other synonym one could think of... at the end of the day, it is just words.

There are those of course, who long for a World where criticism of someone's religious sensibilities, is considered to be insensitive, 'beyond the pale' and such criticism, is to be met with force. This position exists today in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular, where criticism of religion, is considered an objective crime and apostasy is virtually impossible, at least openly and is often met with extreme force.

There is this weird belief in society, that one can genuinely hurt someone by criticizing their religion, as if you have committed a heinous act and scarred the 'victim' for being to stridently verbal, in 'attacking' their belief. This of course is nonsense. Religion should no more escape criticism, than any other area of discourse.

With the rise of religious fundamentalism in the World today, it needs to be openly criticized to the 'ninth-degree'. The only reason most Christians in western society, are more tolerant to criticism of their faith, than are Middle Eastern Islamic fascists, is because Christianity went through reforms, which relied on open criticism. Of course, such openness, was not immediate, it was a shifting zeitgeist.

In the Dark Ages, many people were tortured and murdered by the Christian 'pious' leaders and it took time, through gradual steps of enlightened thinking, to move the zeitgeist forward.

Islam, unlike Christianity, has not had a reformation, it is still trapped in the 'Dark Ages' ...and is so, to such a backward degree, that some of its more extreme followers are driven back to living in caves.

The fact is then, that there really is no such thing as militant atheism, there is just verbal hostility to militancy within religion, that can and does lead to irrational acts of barbarism.

To paraphrase, journalist and author, Christopher Hitchens: "There is a militant force of Christianity in America, that wants to 'tear down the wall' of separation between Church and State". Indeed, Richard Dawkins the charles simonyi Professor of the public understanding of science, has asked the question: "Is America moving toward its own Christian style Taliban" - ?

I personally, do not feel I am being militant, at speaking out against religious intolerance... rather, I feel I am defending freedom of speech, against the militancy brought on by religious intolerance.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Password-Studio Software
o Crack Word, Excel and Access file passwords in seconds!

The Axe that Theists Grind

One of the many erroneous claims made for atheism, is that it is just another religion. Those that make this claim, are usually theists and they are theists with an 'axe to grind'. Writers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Dennett, Victor J. Stenger, Sam Harris - et al, are shifting the conversation, on the taboos of what is politically correct to say about religion and what is not.

The axe that theists now feel the need to grind, against atheists, who are finally standing up against religious intolerance, is an axe against what they like to call, militant atheism. They make the claim that the new energy surge of 'verbal abuse' against religion, is an extreme form of intolerance, that is as intolerant, as that whipped up by fundamental religious extremists.

But is atheism really so intolerant? - Suppose for a moment, that a new political party came into power, and that party was intolerant to people who wore glasses, these people were considered to be infidels against the 'blur free, visionary masses'. Now suppose the masses of non-thinking, followers, simply followed the dictates of the political leaders, who set up 'death commands' against the infidel glass wearing minority. The question to ask of this obviously absurd scenario, is: Would those that stand up against what they consider to be fascist intolerance; against the glass wearing minority, be seen to be as intolerant, as the forces they are attempting to verbally denounce?

Of course, the above scenario is very deliberately absurd. Any political leader with such an agenda against poor vision, would not be considered a leader with 'vision', but an insane madman (of course if you live in a dictatorship, then such absurdities become possible, in Cambodia under Pol Pot from 1975 to 1979. People wearing glasses, where considered to be dangerous intellectuals and were immediately shot).

But now lets suppose that a political party, with a religious agenda got into power, and that party was intolerant against: atheists, agnostics and those with different religious persuasions. Now suppose the masses of non-thinking, followers, simply followed the dictates of the political leaders, who set up 'death commands' against the infidel blasphemers... Is this really, morally any less abhorant, than the 'people in glasses' example above?

Now the scenario of glass wearing infidels, does of course strike us as completely absurd, something perhaps suited to an ironic Monty Python sketch. But why do we not place, at lease the same weight of absurdity, on the intolerance that comes out of all monotheism and when we do attack the absurdity, that leads to religious fascism, we are called intolerant atheists, is there not a double standard here?

...If religion claims to have a moral framework, by which to live in harmony with others, why does it so often cause disharmony between those of a different faith, or no faith. The double standard is that, when religious intolerance, so obviously raises it's head, even the religious moderates, particularly the intellectual elite, are liable to ignore it, or pretend it's not there. When atheists do draw attention to such intolerance, they themselves are called intolerant, that is the double standard.

It is OK to meddle in another's politics and denounce their view as radical or extreme. But it is considered politically incorrect to criticize their religion. The late Douglas Adams, author of 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' said of religion: "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!"

As for the often made claim, that comes from the mouths of theists, that atheism is just another religion, this is actually a political ploy by theists and is a 'straw man' argument, set up to avoid arguing against the more intolerant aspects of religion. It is a coy, ploy - To avoid examining religion,too closely, under the spot-light. If one can simply respond to an atheist, by saying 'your atheistic held point of view is a religion too', then one shifts the spot-lights focus, it is issue avoidance.

The fact is that, there is no element of atheism, that one could call religious, in anyway whatsoever. Religions, by there very nature are cultist and lead to mind stultification. This is caused by holding onto a belief based on faith and thereby avoiding reason, such faith is passed down through tradition. Theists tend to congregate and go through cultist rituals, such as prayer, conversion ceremonies, placing wafers on tongues, animal sacrifice, genital mutilations, self-immolation etc.

Atheism is simply a counter to theism, there is no aspect within its boundaries, that one could frame with any religious label. It has been noted, that there has never really been a strong secular lobby within politics. It has also been noted that, rounding up atheists and agnostics is like 'herding cats' ...These individuals, for the most part are simply to independent minded. As such, even if one attempted to get a 'religion of atheism' of the ground, it would be almost impossible. Cults rely on getting masses of individuals, to become non-thinking dupes, who are easily manipulated to think in the same way. Atheism specifically and secularism more generally, has the very opposite effect and leads to independent thinking, which has no element of a religious nature in its boundaries.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Anti Identity Theft
o Protect your online identity with this ultimate security suite

Explanation of the concept of the Meme

It was Zoologist Richard Dawkins who first developed the concept of the Meme:

A meme is (non-specifically) like a gene but is cultural rather than biological.... Genes replicate themselves in physical bodies (biological); memes on the other hand are purely cultural and replicate themselves in physical brains (philosophical and psychological).

All memes are created through metaphorical and analogical information - meaning: all memes are created through information that is language referenced.

The replicating power of ALL memes is human language; without human language memes would be impossible.

Memes can be singular or complex:

An individual meme is simply a single unit of knowledge such as for example; the Aristotelean axiom "A is A"

A complex meme is an amalgamation of memes into a complex structure such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Memes, more than anything else effect mankind's thinking patterns both individually and culturally. Individually in the short term, and culturally over many individuals in the long term.

Memes are the pattern makers of man's history just as genes are the pattern makers of man's biology. One can think of the way memes spread from individual to individual in much the same way that computer viruses spread from computer to computer.

A computer virus is a program written specifically to embed and integrate itself into your computers files. Some viruses are pretty harmless; on the other hand the most malevolent viruses cost companies millions every year.

But what about the meme virus.... How damaging can that be?

The fact is that memes can be good or bad, constructive or destructive to the mind.

A Complex Constructive Meme

An example of a Constructive Complex Meme is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. This is a constructive meme because it is none mystical in construction and is an integration of aspects of reality through the scientific method... A discipline that requires rigorous controls and adherence to the laws of physics.

Another example of a Constructive Complex Meme is Darwin's Theory of Evolution. In fact Darwin's Evolutionary Theory is perhaps the most convincing of all scientific theories. The evidence for Evolutionary Theory is now so stacked in its favor that it is almost certainly correct.

Still another example of a Constructive Complex Meme is Quantum Physics; the behavior of very small particles. It is an aspect of reality that is the opposite end of the scientific spectrum to that of Einstein's theories. Einstein investigated with the very big such as the motions of planets and stars and the "Fabric of Space Time". Niels Bohr, on the other hand investigated the tiny World of the Quantum... The behavior of sub atomic particles.

A Complex Destructive Meme

An example of a destructive Meme is any mind spun inner logic that de-constructs reality and poisons the mind with mysticism. The most pervasive and destructive Complex Destructive Meme throughout man's history has been religion.

All religions are as destructive to the mind as the most pernicious computer viruses. In fact if we continue with the computer analogy and think of the human brain in computational terms (of course this is not a perfect analogy, but for this purpose it will suffice) then we can see how bad programs (software) corrupt computers (hardware). So, drawing further on this analogy we could say that religion is corrupt software that gets loaded to the hard drive or brain.

An example of a destructive meme can be found in the Christian concept of mercy... A destructive anti-man concept; mercy leads to sacrificing oneself to a "higher cause" in this case God.

Christianity like all religions is a complex meme because it is full of complex concepts such as guilt and original sin.

Religion is at its most destructive and pernicious in its fundamental form.... As an example are the anti-science creationists who befuddle the minds of their followers with mystical memes, which claim to hold a monopoly on the truth, but in fact are a regression backwards; the antithesis of science and a regress into pseudoscience.

Thoughts

All learning begins with a thought and every man made object in the world began with a thought. All good actions begin with a thought; all bad actions begin with a thought. All thoughts are software programs and all thought programs are loaded into hard-wired brains. Depending on your point of view you may argue that Einstein's ideas were based on good software programming, and Hitler's ideas were based on bad software programming.

Software and Hardware?

Is it apt to talk about thoughts and brains in terms of software and hardware? Although thoughts differ markedly from computer programs and likewise brains differ markedly from computers still, the analogy is quite strong. One thing a computer cannot do, that a man can, however, is make choices. A computer cannot decide which software programs to load up to its hard-drive.

Bicameral and Modern Man

Bicameral animal man was a little like the no choice computer, in not having any choice in the software program uploaded to his hard-wired brain. Modern man should not suffer from this malady, yet he does.

Why? Because, by and large, most men and women are not in control or have ownership of their own software programs. Rather, the software programs they upload to their hard-wired brains, are created by second hand operators e.g., politicians, religious leaders, parents, teachers etc.

Computer and Brain

The computer differs in another important way: it is linear in operation, rather than spatial. It "thinks" from the bottom up, it correlates units and builds them into wholes.

The left side of our upper (Neo-Cortex) brain works in much the same way and it is responsible for speech, math, logic, sequences and words among others.

The right side of our upper brain, however, is spatial. It thinks from the top down, it manifests wholes, and breaks them into units. The right side of our upper brain is responsible for patterns, spatiality, music, images and visualization among others.

Brain Programs - Good and Bad

Before we begin on any journey we must know two things:

1. Where we are ?

2. Where we want to be ?

Once we know these answers, we may need something else depending on whether we know where our ultimate destination is or not: we may need a map. It is obvious that the wrong map will not get us to our destination. Brain programs are much like maps; bad programming will not get us there. If you keep using the wrong map you will constantly end up in the wrong place.

Corrupt Programs (bad maps)
The Holy Bible
Plato's Truths
War is a necessary evil

Clean Programs (good maps)
Aristotle's Logic
Unprovoked Force is immoral

Truth v. Honesty

Do you agree with this following statement?

"Einstein's theory of relativity is true, you cannot argue with the truth because it is undeniable."

Or what about this statement?

"Einstein's theory of relatively seems like an honest integration of physical laws, I shall take it on board, but I shall keep an open mind for future scientific models that may better explain the universe. Though it is unlikely that Einstein's theories will ever be totally undermined as they seem to measure up to physical experimentation, I shall never the less keep an open mind to the possibility of a better model".

Which of the above two statements do you agree with?

The first statement is based on static truth, whereas the second statement is based on dynamic honesty.

The reason the truth is static is because it short-circuits the brain into logical left-brain linear thinking, this leads to pigeon holing all ideas. Once you make a statement it gets pigeon holed into the yes or no, do or don't, good or bad boxes. Once in the box it remains there to forever gather dust. An example of a pigeon holed thought is "Death and Taxes are inevitable".

The second statement by contrast is based on dynamic honesty. The reason honesty is dynamic is because it never pigeon holes an idea or thought. Rather, it creates a feedback system.

Notice in the second statement, the open minded approach. This open minded approach belongs to the true thinker. This approach allows for the feedback of later gathered or developed data. By using this approach you have in affect programmed your super computer (brain) to constantly integrate any new or important data that challenges your old ideas, thoughts knowledge or perceptions.

Feedback and Thinking ... A Reciprocal Relationship

Thinking is a reciprocal relationship between thought and feedback. For example, you start to write a book on the impact on modern man of the information/technological revolution, based on what you already know.

As you write down your ideas, more ideas come in the form of feedback. This feedback comes in units where each unit represents a past subconsciously stored thought. It could be an idea, a formula, a summation, a calculation, among many others.

As this feedback comes, the process of thinking continues with you reasoning through each peace or unit of fed-back data. This reasoning is the key to correct thinking.

If you were bought up in an Aristotelian primacy of existence culture, then you will have high regard and respect for the art of reason. If on the other hand, you were brought up in an Platonist culture, then you most likely hold reason with little regard.

Unless you have read one or more honesty programs that have rewired your corrupted hardware (brain) with a clean software program, then it is most likely that you are hard-wired to fail in most areas of your life.

To start to turn the tide in your favor and put you on the road to success, you need to start loading clean software programs, up to your hardware (brain).

Example of a clean software program:

Man is an Island Unto Himself

It matters not where your God comes from, whether you pray at the altar or kneel before the state. In either case your mind has been corrupted with a demon and that demon is an illusion.

As long as that illusion is held up in your mind, you will remain a mystic, forever trapped in a non-world outside the realms of reality.

The only escape from that non-world is through your independent mind ... by identifying the only real and rational God in the universe. That God is your own individual-self and your recognition of your own individual mind.

To set yourself free in a world of irrationality is an act of individual self discovery. It is the most noble act in which you could ever partake... and that discovery is that there are no Gods, Ghosts, Demons, collectives or other mystical entities in the universe.

If there were, the universe would behave outside natural physical laws... in such a world survival would be impossible.

It does not matter whether your religion is Christianity or conservatism, Pope John Paul or the State. Whatever you decide to believe, your decision to follow is surrendering and that surrender is the biggest sin... it is the giving up of your true identity, your sense of self, to a higher cause.

But, that higher cause is an illusion, for there is not, and cannot be, a more important person to an individual than themselves and by sacrificing yourself to a "higher cause" you have given up your true nature, the meaning of what it is to be a human being.

I would argue with the old bromide: "no man is an island". At the last, a man is unto himself alone. No other human being can truly get inside another man's head. We are all independent entities and the average man does not and cannot exist. Every one of us is as different as chalk and cheese and it is this difference that leads us at the last to recognize our own Godship and the mastery of our own self. If we do have a spirit then it is nothing more than our sense of 'I'ness or individuality.

One of the most appalling acts of most religions is to mock this individuality to the point of burying it under a mound of poisonous lies. Once a person accepts such "truths" as facts, it isn't hard for them to become sacrificial lambs and fodder for governmental, religionist or cultist death machines. (In fact, all modern politico and religionist institutions are cults).

We are now well into the technological/information revolution. This is without doubt the most exciting and mind freeing time in man's history. Nothing more quickly sheds the dark shadows of illusion than the rational light of the informed mind.

Such informed minds are growing in number daily and they now have a powerful new tool in their armory ... The World Wide Web.

Rationality is quickly undermining and laying to rest the demons of our past ... we are entering a bright new world of rationality. But in this bright new world, we do not have to dispense with our spirituality as most scientists can testify.

For example, the pursuit of their own scientific goals takes on its own spirituality, and that spirituality comes from identifying the awesomely beautiful real world that has long been hidden behind the mystics' illusionary world.

"When watching men of power in action it must be always kept in mind that, whether they know it or not, their main purpose is the elimination or neutralization of the independent individual - the independent voter, consumer, worker, owner, thinker - and that every device they employ aims at turning men into a manipulate 'animated instrument' which is Aristotle's definition of a slave." (Eric Hoffer).

How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

...* UK Driving Secrets Guide
o Beat speeding tickets, cancel parking tickets and exploit other UK driving loopholes!

Being Good vs. Being Religious

There are many who genuinely believe that being good demands religion and without religion one cannot be good. If this were really true, then one would expect to see individuals of a secular persuasion, such as: atheists and agnostics ...running rampant on the streets and committing the most dastardly crimes. Why then are we living in a World where the most extreme crimes in the form of terrorism, are committed in the name of religion.

Also, if religion naturally leads to a more moral society, then why do statistics show that: Less than 1% of the US prison population is 'atheist' vs. about 10% in the general population. This is a 10 to 1 difference in ratio. That means if one takes the entire US prison population as 100% (of course) ...For it to be a 50% to 50% ratio equivalence between atheists and theists, then like the general population it should add up to 10% of the prison population.

But of course, the above statistics should not surprise us. All open minded individuals including those of a religious persuasion are willing to admit, that not only is a lot of crime committed in the name of religion, but a lot of extra-ordinary crime too: honor Killing, female genital mutilation, suicide bombing, fatwas etc (of course the religious extremists do deny it, as do many intellectuals).

Indeed, take religion away from someone and many of the reasons to commit abominable crimes disappears. If a scientist was doing a meta-analysis, he or she could only conclude that the World without religion would be less violent.

Authors such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins... have all made the valid point; that the more civil societies that have managed to separate Church from State, do not take their morality from scripture...

Nobody is reading Leviticus and following its edicts as commands to follow today, if they were, we would still see stoning in public for biblical transgressions - examples from Leviticus Chapter 20:

20:11 If a man has intercourse with his father's wife, he has committed a sexual offense against his father. Therefore, both of them shall be put to death by stoning.

20:13 If a man has intercourse with another man in the same manner as with a woman, both of them have committed a disgusting perversion. They shall be put to death by stoning.

What most religious individuals do when they read the bible is to 'cherry pick'... that is, to take on board the less harmful elements from scripture and dump the rest. But the point here is that the moral ability to identify good text from bad, has nothing to do with religion. The ability to identify moral codes within nature is available to all of us, religious or not (this point was made very well, by Richard Dawkins in the TV series: 'The Root of All Evil?').

The Nobel winning American physicist Steven Weinberg made the point very well, he said: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things - that takes religion.

How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* DVD Unlocker Software
o Make your DVD player region free, instantly

Who Created God?

On what basis would one first presume that God created everything? It certainly could not be a scientific basis. Science has nothing to say about God. The God concept is believed on faith and past down through tradition. Indeed, the more tradition behind a belief the more a mystic believes it.

Now of course, it is certainly true that science cannot disprove God either. But this is not a point in favor of the theist at the expense of the atheist. It is simply a plain fact of the scientific process, that one can neither prove or disprove a negative. If someone does make a claim that God exists then the burden of proof is theirs.

What one can do however, is add up probabilities that produce a sum, to the statistical probability of God and the likelihood of the existence of God. Several authors have done this and quite convincingly: 'God The Failed Hypothesis' by Victor Stenger and 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, are two examples. Stenger in particular, gives a brilliant scientific explanation of why God is statistically unlikely.

The point is, that unless you can produce evidence that shows a God created everything, then the question who created God? - is a non-starter, because one has yet to prove the first premise, which leaves the second premise mute.

However, if we do assume that God does exist for one moment, then the who created God question, does become a problem for the theist. Such a God would have to be far more complex than the universe he/she/it created, just as a watchmaker, is far more complex than a watch. But even if you make the assumption that such a complex being does exist, you have still answered absolutely nothing.

The next problem is that if you make the assumption, that such a complex being exists, you then have to answer the question: Who created the creator? - and such a creator would have to be even more complex still and so on... you end up in an infinite regress, simply going back one step after another ad infinitum.

A theist may simply say that God just exists and does not require an explanation... But that is a cop-out, because you are left with no explanation and God just becomes a belief held on a whim and believed as previously mentioned; based on faith and tradition and without reference to evidence.

The theist may then say: "Well of course the concept of a God doesn't require evidence, it is a belief held on faith" ...Well fine, if you wish to believe that OK. But then if that is the case, you cannot expect a skeptic to take the God concept seriously, anymore than a skeptic would take the concepts of fairies at the bottom of the garden and the tooth fairy seriously.

How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Quick-Type Software
o Automate your typing and save hours!