Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Atheism Explanation

First off, atheism is not a dirty word. It is simply the skeptical analysis of various religions, and religious interpretations. One interpretation of the Adam and Eve (Chava) story is that women are inherently evil, the current doctrine of Catholic Christianity. This drives people away. A loving God does not make 51% of the world evil. A (more) acceptable interpretation of the story is that women make progress happen and are responsible for the "birthing" of humanity. I won't talk about it in greater detail. Once the person questions God's motives, or the church's; a person will feel free to question it. Considering that believing in something with faith is not a proof of anything, other than devotion; free inquiry will take place.

Free inquiry is the kind of questioning a 3 year old uses, the incessant "why's" annoy anyone who has "the answers", and trying to answer the child eventually goes to advanced biology or physics, the theological equivalent is a lifetime of studying the nature of God(s). Thus, people who only literally read (or have never read) religious texts cannot give the would be atheist a complete picture of religions nature. But, religion still needs faith, and once it is broken, it is hard to regain. However, an atheist knows that faith need not beget faith. Meaning, blind faith is not worth the oxygen it takes up.

The mind of an atheist is that God is not real (or other versions that trend towards agnosticism) because it cannot be tested, the person is a skeptic. Skepticism, the opposite of faith, is not doubt. Skepticism is healthy. We are all skeptical of something, be it a con man on the street, or the con man on Wall Street, so why is religion any different? Why is religion a infallible entity? Why should religion not be analysed, like everything else. The reason I get, mostly, is that analyzing is akin to "attacking". Why? A string theorist would not feel "attacked" because I say that, as of now, there is no conceivable test for their prediction. Why?--because it is in the marketplace of ideas.

An atheist does not want to say religion is evil, because it is dead by association. That is a logical fallacy. Some atheists would want the world to be closer together, rather than ripped apart by religious conquests. We see bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India; we see killings in the United States, Great Britain, and France; and we see religion inspired killings all over the world. When you see the basis of a religion as bogus, then you must ask questions that make you bitter of the world around you. But, I know that religion can organize for social justice, and prepare the next generation with a sense of community. We know that the bad apples do not spoil the bunch. But, we wish people would question enough so that bad apples could not flourish.

Faith can be a wonderful thing. Cures are mostly medicine, and the will of the patient. The idea of God can help. But, for me, life itself is grand. The great diversity of life, on a blue marble floating through space and time, sends me into awe. The great cosmos, in its grandeur, opens me and I welcome it. Nature itself is powerful, and I dare say spiritual. The atheist, though, knows that the great dopamine release I feel is magical, without the need for magic. This inspires the same thought as any great God(s).

If you can deal with your existence on this lonely speck of dust, in the sea of the cosmos, then you're great. If you feel insecure, about being a mote of dust, on a humdrum planet, in a normal solar system, in a insignificant part of a insignificant galaxy, so big that it would take 26,000 years to reach the center, at the speed of light, so that you force your insecurities on others, then you're not using your religion correctly. I would think it is time to evaluate yourself. This planet needs you, do not waste yourself. The service to God(s) is great if it is a service to humans, all else is strange to an atheist.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Left Wing Hypocrisy (written from the left-wing)

First, the definition of hypocrisy is: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not"(Merriam Websters Online Dictionary) . An example would be Larry Craig (I had originally chosen Ted Haggard, but he said something redeeming, then the article got weird). For those of you who don't know who those people are, I'm sorry that you had to learn from a blog. So, what am I accusing Liberals of hypocrisy for? The Chick-Fil-A scandal. What's that Liberal crying out about how I'm being a "knuckle-dragging bigoted right-wing-nut-job neanderthal"? I'l get to explaining in a minute.

Chick-Fil-A is definitely a right-wing corporation; it opposes marriage equality and supports industrial size slaughter of innocent chickens.* It's a company I wouldn't support due to its zero (0) rating from Human Rights Campaign . (*as you can tell, I'm on the vegetarian scale) I've also never eaten their due to location. I don't feel I need to bash Chick-Fil-A further for the Liberal/Libertarian crowd.

So, "what gives" you may ask. Well, the people who say it's free speech, so you should buy Chick-Fil-A regularly as a sign you love the first amendment, are full of excrement (Though, Chicago's, San Francisco's, and Boston's mayors can't actually legislate Chick-Fil-A out of their cities ideologically, because that's not their ideology. I refer you to John Stewert.) However there is one thing we on the left should know. Do any of you go to Whole Foods? "Yes"—everyone who reads this blog. Well, you're in for a surprise. What do you think Whole Foods score is? You guessed it 75/100. "I thought it'd be 100/100"—ignorant Whole Foods shoppers. There's a dichotomy between shoppers and the corporation. Whole Foods shoppers are extremely supportive, the company is not.

From the HRC website: the company does not provide health benefits for same sex couples; does not offer equal health coverage for transgender individuals without exclusion for medically necessary care; and engages in action that would undermine the goal of LGBT equality. These should be deal breakers for the LGBTQA and allied community.

So, I ask you, liberals who are boycotting Chick-Fil-A, will you do the same for Whole Foods?—unless, of course, there are give-and-takes to economic activity to excuse hypocrisy. That is all.

(Keep protesting Chick-Fil-A, though.)