Atheist X

Something changed on March 24th 2012.

 You probably didn't feel the earth move but the world changed much like the moving of a mountain. There was a rally in DC. 20,000+ people came together in the rain to validate disbelief. Please do not assume the lack of belief to be negative and English scholars please STFU about my use of the word disbelief.
 Disbelief brought people together, lots of people. The importance of this event has not yet been recognized. In a sense I am playing prophet while I write this but my inspiration does not come from divine sources, it comes from observation and intelligence.
 We sent a message to the government, to the news outlets, and to our fellow Americans. Atheist was a common word that day and no one suffered by hearing it unless they deserved it. David Silverman showed he is an able leader of the American Atheists and the numerous other groups who looked past the past to join in the rally showed free-thinkers truly can lead by example.
  It rained on the crowd, they did not care. Americans who came for no other reason than to see the nations capitol suddenly found themselves surrounded by people who had no god...and nothing happened. If there was ever an example of how much nothing can change something, this was it.
 As I walked among the crowd and talked to the people who had gathered a few things struck me. The event was like a rock concert without the drama and foolishness.Whole families sat in the rain listening to the speakers or talking amongst themselves oblivious to nature's effect.
  The nonbelievers came in all ages, sizes, and ethnicity be damned there were no differences here to create imagined barriers and keep like-minded people apart.
    Even though we have seen a tremendous growth in people who call themselves atheist, it has only just begun.
  While the  Four Horseman of Atheism"-Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens should be given credit for what they have done to bring atheism into the light, the torch has now passed. With the torch passed it was the 'little people' who fanned the flame into a bonfire in Washington DC.
  Bloggers, vloggers, podcasters and activists have become the atheist X factor, the force that has encouraged the nonbeliever to stand up and say so in public. The Four Horsemen slammed the word atheist on the table and atheist X, comprised of bloggers, vloggers, activists, and podcasters took it and ran into the streets. "You are not alone!" they have cried over and over. The atheist who felt isolated and alone was alone no longer.
   It is one thing to become an atheist, it is quite another to be able to talk about it freely amongst others.I don't think those who are trying to use religion to control others and implement laws based on belief in fictional people and stories counted on the X factor. They didn't count on those who had no fear to rally for atheism. Now the boulder has been pushed over the cliff, the genie has been let out of the bottle and the bottle has been broken, it can not be replaced even if someone dared to try. Atheism is the elephant in the room no one can walk around.
   The Reason Rally was an historic event. I believe as time passes it will be remembered as the beginning of serious change in our country.
 I'd like to give credit to the X factor atheist, those who do not care about numbers, shirt sales, or profit for what they have done. A value can not be put upon their work, you can not buy change it is earned by those who want it.
  
   In closing Id like to say I believe there is an effect that will  most likely help atheism more than any other. The effect is called the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon occurs when a person, after having learned some (usually obscure) fact, word, phrase, or other item for the first time, encounters that item again, perhaps several times, shortly after having learned it.
  As a result of this effect the words atheist and atheism are going to be given more attention. This means the work has just begun we must keep encouraging people to come out and claim their (dis)beliefs and we must keep important terms in the public eye and ears. There is still much change to be earned.

 

God debate, who really won? The audience.

     I watched/listened to a debate last night. It was Blair Scott, Communications Director for American Atheists up against Kyle Butt of Apologetics Press. The debate proposition was "God Does Not Exist" with Blair Scott arguing for the proposition and Kyle Butt arguing against it.
       I've heard Blair Scott speak a few times but I'd never heard of Mr Butt.
  The debate starts and Mr Butt steps up to the podium. One of the first things he mentions is that he has been trolling a certain "social site" and he came upon a comment on Blair's page. Someone had made a joke about Mr Butt on Blair's wall it seemed. Mr Butt was visibly not happy about being the butt of the joke and his comment about it was presented as if it had come from Blair or somehow been encouraged by him. Blair didn't make the comment, it was put on his facebook wall by a contact. We all know how that goes, none of us ever knows what the hell people on our friends list are going to say. If you post a perfectly innocent status next thing you know someone is telling stories about their bowel moments or some other random thing. Besides if you have the last Butt what do you think is going to happen? Do you expect people who don't know you, are never going to meet you, and probably think you are never going to read any posted comment, to pass up the painfully easy opportunity to joke about your name? Yea okay...
    After watching the displeasure flash across Mr Butt's face I thought for a moment He is using a facebook comment to put down the person he is debating about god? It seemed a bit childish to me and as he continued to speak it became clear I was right.
    Mr. Butt told his audience that Blair was sure to lose because you can not prove a negative. I almost expected him to reach out and point at Blair, cackle loudly and scream "We got you my pretty!" in a voice very much like the wicked witch. He didn't but he did ramble on for several minutes presenting arguments which have all been found to be incorrect or had still been considered 'debatable' This would have been business as usual but there was a hint of personal attack in Mr Butt's animus towards Blair. It continued through the entire debate, flaring up a couple of times.
   Mr Butt told a joke his opening came to an end. Blair Scott then started his opening. I was curious how he would address the fact that he could not win a debate where he had to prove the absolute non-existence of god.
    Then something very interesting happened. Blair admitted to losing the debate as it had been presented. He would not be trying to prove god didn't exist, he would be presenting some of the conclusions Atheists had come to and some of the counter arguments to Mr Butt's absolute claims. These would all be presented so that they could be considered by the audience. The audience would have to come to it's own conclusions. There was not going to be an Atheist standing on stage insisting everything he said was factual beyond a doubt.
   This approach was perfect for a couple reasons.
 1) If Blair had started by telling the crowd he was going to change their minds about god you would have been able to hear the minds snapping shut. He had only asked them to listen.
 2) No matter what was said from that point on, no matter how many times Mr Butt took petty shots and behaved like an egotistical prick who had all the answers. Blair was standing in front of a crowd giving them things to think about which would probably never been presented to them otherwise. Things that would help them make informed choices about their beliefs.
    I'm not going to go into the issues tossed back and forth between Blair and Mr Butt except one. Mr Butt said at one point the there were absolutes when it came to what was right and wrong. Besides showing that Mr Butt is unable to even consider another person point of view,it also showed how ignorant he is to the diversity of the world.
    Some people are going to say that Blair did not do well during this debate. While I can understand how they could come to that conclusion I found his presentation to be accurate and done with class, not by taking cheap shots at Mr Butt. Blair could have also admitted defeat and proceeded to describe exactly what kind of god the other side had shown to exist by using the bible. It would have been easy to paint the picture of a needy hypocritical being who seemed very bored and not very intelligent. That would have resulted in most of the crowd dismissing Blair as hateful or angry, the poor Atheist who just needed to find the love of jesus.
     Mr Butt gave me the impression of someone who talks to to everyone but his reflection in a condescending tone. I don't think he even one time admitted that he could be wrong. There is a saying that goes something like this "The wisest man is the one who realizes how little he knows" If Mr Butt possesses any humility at all he must be hiding it where the sun doesn't shine.

A question for jesus

When the ladies from the church first came to my door (very nice older ladies and very tolerant of yours truly it should be noted)I was tempted to do the old fast attack on them. Throwing questions at them faster than they could possibly answer then shouting "Can you answer even ONE of my questions!?" This would be followed by my door closing and a loud "JESUS CHRIST!"
They had come to my door just after I had finished my shower so I opened the door wearing jeans and no shirt, bald head and tattoos shiny and clean. I could tell that they had given at least a moments thought to running away. I laughed and asked how I could help them
The two ladies then went into autopilot opening their black books and asking me if I had accepted jesus. Unable to pull the fast attack on two elderly ladies holding olive branches I informed them I had not. They assured me it was something I needed to do. I disagreed and told them if they could answer some questions to my satisfaction then I would be happy to have jesus over for dinner every Wednesday evening and I would even invite him over for beers on weekends.
The ladies and I had a enjoyable conversation, I did do most of the talking.

If(big if) there is a god then why didn't he/she/it didn't design your life so that you have to take things 'on faith' daily? The world around you is interactive, allowing you to touch it, see it, feel it, test it, and experiment with it... you don't have to take any part of it 'on faith' except the part you are not part of because you are dead.
My son has cerebral palsy. He will never feed himself, use language, (except his own)he will never walk, he is unable to tell anyone if he has a pain or need of something. He is a wonderful kid and happy in his world. he has also gone through tremendous discomfort and needless suffering. Surgeries, pneumonia, seizures, are just a few things on the list. Some of the stories I could tell you would break your heart. What possible need could there be to cause this little boy to suffer?
When religious people get all weepy after hearing about my son and say "you just need to have faith" or "if you pray, jesus will help heal your son" I want to hit them in the face with a brick. Jesus isn't going to heal my son, he is who he is and that is the way it is. To be mad at god for his disability would be like being mad at jack frost for a cold spell.
I wonder why religious people can't use the same logic they use in everyday life when they consider an entity who is sitting in a magic kingdom looking over us and watching as children like my son struggle through life. What about the other children who suffer only to pass away? What about that child's family who live the rest of their lives with a pain no parent should ever know? Is this god testing them? Testing them for what exactly? If god feels the need to do some sort of SAT on people before they get into heaven or go to hell then why isn't everyone tested? Does he/she/it use a lottery system? That doesn't seem very fair, you would think a god that could create the universe could figure out a fair way of giving a test. What about the countless stories of loved ones lost, not quick and painlessly but after days, weeks, months, or years of suffering? Couldn't god find some way of cutting to the chase? Is she/he/it trying to make sure the story fills enough pages to satisfy the publisher?
Why can't the people who consider themselves the children of a loving god apply the same rational to that gods example as they would to anything else? Because god created everything then it's okay to treat people like shit? So if you give birth to a child it's okay to torment them? I think most people would say it's not.God clearly lacks any ability to provide clear guidance and as a role model it/he/she fails miserably. My dad was an alcoholic for a lot of my childhood (recovered now thank you very much) and he was 100x the role model god provides.
Those who follow organized religion use a 2000 year old book as their guide. usually the parts of the guide that actually apply are picked according to how comfortable they make the user.
If you were looking for a doctor would you pick one who learned his trade from a 2000 year old lesson book written in a language he wasn't fluent in, translated by random people with no medical knowledge, and he followed the book's instructions according to how easily they made it for him to live his life?
And what about it being okay to drink beer but if you smoke some weed you are a sinner? Where is the logic in that?? Wasn't pot created by god? Who came up with beer? Beer doesn't grow out of the earth or rain from the sky, doesn't man make beer?
With that the ladies had run out of time. They thanked me for the conversation and assured me they would relay some of my questions to whoever the head honcho was at their place and get back to me ASAP. I smiled , thanked them for stopping by, and informed them I would await their return. As I closed the door I thought to myself "Not a single answer..... JESUS CHRIST!"

Atheist Prick

Since I have become more outspoken as an Atheist I have noticed something about others who also call themselves Atheists. A lot of them are pricks. With a tendency to talk down to not just believers, but anyone they come in contact with. They will bounce into a conversation or forum with the sole purpose of trying to show others how smart they are. If a study comes out showing that Atheists know more about religion than believers, you better watch the hell out, the arrogance will be overwhelming. I remember when I was a kid and we expected my dad to acknowledge some task we had completed. Such as my going to school without cutting any classes. My father would remind me of a couple things. First, if I was going to school it was for my own good. Second, it wasn't a big deal to go to school. It certainly was not something anyone should get kudos for.It was normal behavior. When I was younger this point escaped me a bit. Now that I am older the point is very clear. I certainly don't expect my family to thank me every time I pay the rent and I don't expect my boss to shake my hand, look into my eyes and thank me from the bottom of her heart for showing up for work each day I come in. Such behavior is reasonable. I know the little guy on the Lucky Charms box is not real, neither is the easter bunny. Do I expect anyone to be impressed by this? No.

Would you like someone to thank you for putting on your pants every morning? You don't get acknowledgment for doing the basics. You need to go above and beyond, to excel, to put in extra effort, then people may notice... or maybe they won't. It shouldn't make a difference, you do what is right.
As Atheists who reject organized religions based on what they expect us to accept as reality we really don't have any right to think we are better than anyone else. We shouldn't expect anyone to consider us specially gifted in some way for having issues with what religion paints as truth.
Just to make my point clear....I am not talking about whether the Atheist movement should go around holding hands with believers and gently breaking the bad news about their god and/or religion to them or run up from behind and begin screaming "YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON!" Like I have said before, everyone has their own way of going about things, more power to 'em, no one way is going to work on everyone.
I would like to see more Atheists remove the chip from their shoulder, especially when dealing with those of a like-mind.From now on when I come across those types I will be running up behind them and screaming "Everyone is ignorant in some way, and arrogant pricks are just to dumb to know it." it's just my way.....

Proof of god??

I hear this a lot of times from religious people..."you cant prove god does not exist, so he does"
This is usually followed by a folding of arms and a smug look. Once and a while someone will say the above phrase and give me a wink as to say "Now I got ya!"
I would like to answer this like I have a thousand times before.
If you want to believe in a god, any god because no one can prove it/he/she does not exist then you must, in fairness believe in anything anyone could imagine.
This means you must believe in any imaginary figures you see in movies or cartoons. You must believe in the delusions of people you would call crazy. You must also believe in the monster your kid thinks lives in the closet and wants to eat them whenever the lights go off. You must have faith in aliens from other planets. You must believe in a magnetic pendant that cures cancer while it is around your neck. You must believe in water having memory of medicines that are diluted so strongly, your mind can not even grasp the number of zeros involved. You must believe in ghost, demon possession, and people being given directions by god to kill their children.
If the logic you follow is 'everything is possible if you believe' that would make you good a a writer for Disney movies. That same logic would also make you and idiot when it comes to real life.....