Atheism and Freedom

Atheism offers freedom in a particular respect. It offers freedom of the mind from religious indoctrination. Religion by its very nature, stultifies the mind and leaves one in a none thinking stupor. It does so, because it inculcates the mind with mysticism and such mysticism, befuddles clear thinking and distorts one's ability to fully grasp objective reality.

Of course one may fairly argue, that most of us go round with befuddled minds anyway and all of our minds are befuddled and handicapped with mysticism to a certain degree, whether we are religious or not. This of course, may well be true. But the point is, that religion is one of the very few belief systems, that individuals openly and often proudly say they hold as true, despite the evidence. Indeed, evidence is not needed, or wanted.

If one could prove the religious position with axiomatic facts, then it would not be religion. The point of an individual, being religious in the first place, is that one requires faith to do so and faith relies not on evidence, but an inner conviction of the 'truth' in spite of evidence. In almost any other area of life, we would call such 'thinking' insane. Sam Harris, author of the books, 'The End of Faith' and 'Letter to a Christian' has pointed this out too, to paraphrase, he has commented that, 'in almost no other area of our discourse, do we let such irrational ideas get a pass'.
-
Once an individual is inculcated with religion, it can very seriously conflict with their view on objective reality... that is, their ability to act objectively within that reality. Indeed, the more 'honestly' religious one makes an effort to be, the more dishonest one becomes, with reference to external reality. This is because, religious 'honesty' as apposed to honesty qua reality, leads to different modes of thinking.

Thinking in terms of religion, is not the same as thinking in terms of common sense. Indeed, common sense and religion are almost always pole opposites and the degree by which one is religious, is the degree by which those poles could be said to be separated. To be religious, almost always means letting go of common sense. But, because of the very nature of religion, it is almost impossible to be 'fully religious' ...meaning, one cannot be religious 24/7. To attempt such a feat would leave one so detached from reality, that one could not possibly function in the real World.

A theist by nature, needs to live within an implicit lie, at least some of the time, if not most of it. What such individuals do, is compartmentalize, so that their religion only takes up a narrow part of their life, so they are only really being religious now and again. This is where the distinction becomes less and less; when one moves from mild religion, to more extreme indoctrination. The religious extremist is so, because he or she, starts to compartmentalize less and less - their religion takes over their life.

One example of almost total indoctrination, which has severed individuals from the reality of living in the real World is the Phelps's family in America. This family believes that the more disconnected from the World they become, that the closer to God they are. By alienating the rest of humanity, they make themselves pure... They believe the majority of the 'outside-world' is living in sin and is going straight to hell. One would almost feel pity for these individuals, but on the other 'side of the coin', is the devastating 'mind-job' they are doing on children in their 'flock'.

The Phelps's family and it's subscribers can be seen at roadsides with placards saying: 'Thank God for 9/11', 'God Hates Fag Enablers', 'America is Doomed', 'Don't Pray for the USA' 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers'. Now as sick as these individuals are, they are a very small minority and not surprisingly, under-subscribed. The same of course, cannot be said for Islam, which is the most highly operative and destructive religion in the World today. The extremists within Islam, are a classic example of what mind distortion through religious indoctrination can achieve, when carried through to its extremes.

For most moderate religious individuals, what the term moderate really means is; being 'religious every now and again' ...for example going to Church on Sundays, reading a few prayers and singing a few hymns...

Religious extremists on the other hand, become so utterly imbued in their religious conviction, that all else starts to recede into the background and the religion starts to dominate every aspect of that individuals character. They start to be guided not by external events within reality, that require objective actions... but instead, are guided by subjective religious edicts, that guide them to action, not because of reality, but despite it. Such individuals often become withdrawn from society and in the worst case scenario, can become psychotic to the point of annihilation, not only of themselves but of others.

Because I personally have never been religious, at least not as I can remember, I have no idea what it is like to 'let go of religion'. But I do know that individuals who have done so, often experience a feeling of mental freedom, that is hard to describe in words. They feel like they have 'cut the mental chains' that were distorting their world-view and their ability to function as mentally healthy human beings.

So, would I go as far to call religion a mental disease of the mind... Yes, I would. But like biological diseases, there are often different strains, some more severe than others. For example, the Christianity of the Anglican church is more mild than Catholicism, but then again Islam is more destructive than both Christianity and Catholicism. But none of the monotheism's get a pass... They all have a vile and bloody history.

In her monologue on "Letting Go of God" Julia Sweeney gives a comic performance of what it is like to lose religion and at the end of the monologue, you are left thinking, losing God, is really losing nothing especially important, it is just a 'phantom of the mind'. But what letting go of God can bring is a new mental freedom, that allows one to think 'outside-the-box' of theistic mind stultification and take a new look at the World, with... 'Eyes Wide Open'.




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.

* Secure-Delete Software
o Delete your files once and for all, with the world's most secure data deletion software

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

Review: The Trouble with Atheism, Rod Liddle, Channel 4 TV UK

Rod Liddle's whole approach seemed to be based around the belief, that if you criticize religion your being arrogant. What's the big deal about religion that you cannot criticize it, even aggressively?

The whole program came across as an attack on atheists for attacking religious dogmatism, with the claim that the atheists are being just as dogmatic. Well, if religion were not as destructive in the World today, as it so clearly is, then Liddle may have had a point... As it is, his claim "rings hollow". Is it so surprising that atheists are so strident, when religion is causing so much violence in the World? ...I don't think so.

One of the most annoying claims that Liddle made, is that atheism is synonymous with communism. But, I agree with Richard Dawkins in his book 'The God Delusion', it is incidental to it.

Communism itself, I would say is a form of religion... secular yes, atheistic no; there is a difference. It is a dogmatic belief system, which is detached from reality, as is the belief in a personal God... Both theistic religion and communism are dogmatic belief systems, without objectively identifiable evidence of their validity.

Atheism, is not a dogmatic belief system, it is simply the none acceptance of God, based on improbability.

Liddle then goes on to do the same annoying thing with Darwinism, implying that Darwinism and atheism are synonyms (they are not of course, Darwinism is not an atheist Bible)... It is true that an acceptance of Darwinism may weaken an individuals religious convictions. But, the fact that it does is not the primary fundamental of Darwinism ...again, it is incidental. Rod liddle does not seem to be able to tell the difference between fundamental primaries and incidental coincidences. Why did liddle fail to mention that many Christians do accept evolution? ...Would that have weakened his argument?

I found it all rather one sided, with Liddle being far too nice to religion. The time for being nice to religion is up. Look where being too nice and too politically correct, in the name of not upsetting religious sensibilities has got us. It is this wishy-washy attitude to religion, that has allowed religious extremism to fester and spread like an untreated cancer.

It is aggressive ridicule of religion (including through the power of humour) that is necessary, to deflate its "untouchable status".

There was also a comment made, not by Liddle himself (though he didn't dispute it), that without Darwinism there doesn't seem to be any grounds for atheism... This is absurd, it suggests all atheists are Darwinist's and without Darwin atheism is not possible. The proof of the absurdity of this is myself. I have been an atheist all my life. Even as a young child I never bought into the God concept and I held this world-view, before I had any knowledge of Darwin. Of course, I am not denying that some theists may become atheists after reading 'The Origin of Species' ...But one could just as easily say someone became an atheist because they read Sam Harris, even if they are ignorant of Darwin.

And why does Liddle use phrases like "part of the atheist project" ...when referring to Darwinism, is he suggesting that Darwinism is part of an atheist plot to overthrow religion? ...Some kind of mass atheist conspiracy? (perhaps the overthrow of the geocentric view of the universe is part of the same plot). Notice, that not even once does he call Darwinism a scientific theory.

Then Liddle goes on to say that Darwin took on the religious establishment. No he did not, that is exactly what Darwin did not do, again it is purely incidental that Darwin's scientific identifications, where in conflict with religion. From what Liddle says it gives the impression that Darwin's purpose in discovering his theory, was done for the primary purpose of attacking religion. But Darwin was extremely sensitive to the religious beliefs of others and the last thing he wanted to do, was "rock the boat".

Virtually every point Liddle makes throughout the whole program is just plain wrong.

I am also utterly fed up with the coupling of the Nazi regime with atheism... Read this excellent article:

Hitler Was Not An Atheist
by John Patrick Michael Murphy

And finally, this was both sadly and hilariously the most pathetic comment of the whole program, Rod Liddle's absolutely absurd claim that "Communism was a utopia based on reason" ...Lol, if I didn't laugh, I would cry at such a ridiculous comment. Communism was not a system of reasonableness and it was not born out of reasonable thinking; but its antithesis... There was no reason to be found, that is why it was so inhumane... He is doing the same thing that he has done, throughout the whole program, linking atheism with a dogmatic belief system and making a wild claim that they can be coupled together as synonyms.

ENDNOTE:

I get the impression that Liddle made this specifically, as a direct counter-attack on Richard Dawkins 'Root of All Evil?' ...Even the filming style was similar (was it the same camera crew?), the shakey camera technique and even the music had a similarity.

The Root of All Evil? Was a superb series, in fact the only criticism I have of it, is that the interviews were all far too short. Liddle's effort on the other hand was lame.




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.

* Brains Power Pro
o Reprogram your inner thoughts using this subliminal software!