“…the children are our future …”
Into which beliefs is our future being indoctrinated?
Let’s face the fact that not all beliefs are equal in how they affect human interactions, which affect the future of humanity.
Shimkus
There has been a recent awakening of Atheism, not just here in America, but on a greater world-wide level, which raises the question: Why now? Why has this Atheistic crescendo occurred at this juncture? It is difficult to know whether there has been an increase in numbers of Atheists, but it is clear that Atheists have become more vocal in recent years, a crescendo welcome to my ears. As this crescendo builds, I look forward to the finale of crashing cymbals, tympanny, horns, woodwinds and the powerful swelling of orchestral strings that lifts us from the ancient primordial quagmire of religion.
I’m certain there are many contributing factors on different levels, but I think there are two primary developments that intersect at this time, creating a unique circumstance never before known; an intersection which creates a greater sense of angst than has been experienced among the world’s non-believers up to this point in human history.
World events have revealed a dangerous religious fundamentalism that appears to be growing among particular populations, and which advocates religious wars in which adherents are willing to kill and be killed on virtually any scale. This religious fundamentalist resolve to kill, when combined with the destructive ability that is now available to mankind, becomes a volatile and lethal menace.
As an antitheist – one who is actively opposed to theism – I, like many others, have become in recent years more vocal about my anti-religiosity, and so I am often asked why I am concerned about religious beliefs of others, why I feel “threatened” by those beliefs. Individuals who put this question to me usually take the position that the belief in a god of a particular religion by others should not concern me; that such a belief provides comfort to many individuals, that it provides cultural unity and teaches morals, that in any case it is harmless, and that I should not cast all believers into one group.
On the surface, all of the above admonitions seem reasonable. Below the surface, however, they all share one common failing: they fail to recognize that it is not actually belief that concerns me as much as actions based on those beliefs and the influences of those beliefs on society; influences, which, by the way, are not “harmless”.
Quoting Thomas Jefferson:
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor - over each other. - Thomas Jefferson
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. - Thomas Jefferson
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Erica K
Salon.com
Comments
Thanks for reading and commenting.
"...overly optimistic."
I can see why you conclude that based on my title. Believe me, though, I am most definitely NOT optimisitc about this. It's just that there has been an increase in recent years of atheistic voice, which is, at least, encouraging. But "optimistic" is definitely not something that describes ME in terms of my views about the current status of religion.
Yep. If Christianity was just a question of quaint people believing quaint things it wouldn't bug me. When however it is harnessed to greedy, destructive and insane political agendas, as is increasingly the case over the last 3 decades or so, it becomes - has become - a serious and potentially deadly problem.
Jefferson; a deist, yes, a christian, no, and vehemently opposed to tyranny known as “religion”.
I’m not sure I follow your reference to astrology and the “age of ‘Pisces’”. But, if we are entering the “Age of Wisdom”, it sure is coming slowly. And one thing is certain, as our friend Shimkus in the video above reveals, religion will not be a positive part of it.
It doesn’t take much to recognize that while it is true that not all religious adherents are a problem, it is true that a huge part of the world’s problems find their source in religious texts.
B-Fett,
I think people who attempt to defend religion by saying things like “it’s not the religion, it’s …” become part of the problem. The religion forms the foundation of the problematic beliefs that are the problem. Perhaps the primary problem is the suspension of reason and intellect in favor of blind faith in something imaginary, which necessarily opens the door to unreasonable actions.
Thanks for the clarification of your astrology comment. I wish that new “Age” would arrive before it’s too late for me to enjoy it.
;-O
You write, “Science cannot answer morality questions for us. My preferred religion is Shao Lin Buddhism - it is a striving for perfection of mind and body and devoid of theistic symbolism of any sort.”
I’ve always enjoyed Eastern philosophy, and I never really include Buddhism in my reference to religion because I don’t really see it as a religion, exactly for the reasons you list: “…it is a striving for perfection of mind and body and devoid of theistic symbolism of any sort.”
It is not based in something imaginary, at least as far as I can discern. Philosophy is one the, religion another, even if sometimes the two overlap in some ways.
RE: your suggestion, “Science cannot answer morality questions for us.”
I firmly disagree on that point. I think that is a myth, or perhaps more accurately, a propaganda campaign waged by religion for far too long. The first and most obvious problem with that falsehood is that religion itself does not truly answer any questions about morality; the foremost reason for that truth is that morality is a human invention, just as is religion. So if there is any correlation between religion and morality, I suggest it is that morality influences the invention of religion. Unfortunately, religion ultimately corrupts morality.
But, the thing that I find most frustrating with the assertion that “science cannot answer morality questions for us,” is that nobody who presents that line ever offers any evidence to support it. They suggest that we must have religion or we become immoral, which is an absurd implication on its face. I think we are seeing an emergence within science of processes that will, in fact, help us understand morality much better than we do through religious dogma, much like you describe Buddhism; “…devoid of theistic symbolism.”
The problem with relying on religion to define morality is that exactly that; we must first define morality and to do that we must understand what it is, what causes us to have a sense of it, and religion is devoid of any such understanding. At most it merely lays out a list of rules, but without any real understanding of why they are moral.
Jan,
Thanks for the follow-up.
I fully agree with what you said here. I think morality must ultimately be seen as based in “well being”. Unfortunately, religion does not consider that a valid criterion. But there are certain biological imperatives that are becoming better known and understood and that understanding will help us, as a species, to better understand what will improve our lives.