Just before anyone starts throwing around words around about who they think first coined the term, or the definition of Atheism, I'm not at all interested. Words, unless just made up in the here and now, do not mean just what everyone says they do in the here and now. If they have etymology derived from other words, to loose the meaning of the language from which they're derived also looses thousands of years of knowledge and human thought. So, I am going with the attitude behind the thought, and I just don't care if it's not what one particular person or people wanna call it. 'nuff said, here it is:
(all pictures used with no permission whatsoever)
10 THINGS ATHEISTS MAY WISH TO STOP SAYING ABOUT RELIGION (and religious people)
1. "Atheism - Good enough for these idiots" - written over a picture of some well known 'scientists'.
Regardless of the sheer arrogant overtones in the sarcasm intended (this generates a persecution complex, so think about that), many of those 'idiots' were not in fact Atheists (Charles Darwin, Socrates etc) and many of them believed religion and science were the same field (such as Isaac Newton). In any case, most of them or all of them never said that ANYTHING they discovered disproved the existence of God, teacups and all. Nearly all these people did not spend their days making fun of the Religious. These geniuses' shoulders would probably rather more thoughtful persons attempted to stand on them.
2. That they KNOW God doesn't exist
No Religion claims to be able to define God, therefore, you cannot know God doesn't exist - and yes one CAN know God does exist - by the majority of definitions, God is the same as 'all things in existence' and you could just as easily say, you spell the name of God mathematically as 'E=MC2' - the realtionship between all things perceived (if indeed that equation turns out to be true). It is meaningless to refute something of which one has no understanding as much as it is meaningless to report the existence of something the existence of which one has no evidence. You can say that there are no deities until you are blue as Hare, but you don't know a thing and to do so is as silly as some idiot telling everyone their God is a big hairy man in the sky.
3. That Religion is unscientific
Oh yes, I am going there. Science literally means knowledge. Being an Atheist does NOT mean one is a scientist! Being Religious DOES NOT mean one doesn't agree with science! EVERY religion is a science, even if you don't agree with it's methodology, it is a branch of human philosophy on the cohesion of the universe. The repeatable, independently observable empirical method, to find the laws of an objective reality is ONE paradigm of science, not the whole. This method which puts the burden of proof on the less accepted, uncommon and difficult to repeat observations is not going to ever give us all the answers. Much of those who claim to be the 'scientific community' are thus threatened by those who are willing to take into account that which is unable to be 'proven' using the 'empirical' method. This limits modern science immeasurably. Religion is a philosophical explanation of perception, and often implies a conscious cohesive force, some call God. There may be specific things accepted in a particular branch of what people call religion that are not in some 'scientific' circles, but to label the whole as unscientific forgets that each person explains their beliefs their own way, just as anyone, and certainly anyone who calls themselves a 'scientist' does.
4. That the Bible (or some other holy text) says we should 'X' or 'Y' (usually with a quote misunderstood and out of context)
This is usually (especially in the case of the Bible) as untrue as saying that Newton's writings describe the Laws of motion of the universe. No, they don't. They describe a history, and it's now been 'discovered' that most of his theories were wrong. But they are immensely useful. Scientific papers are a history, a story if you will, about what happened. The author includes their propositions (usually made to fit the results - which kind of makes the whole thing a bit of a lie) and follows with methods and conclusions, but they are a story to be considered by the reader. The Bible is this too, as are many 'religious' texts. They are a history according to the writers and interpreters of each of the books, and what you think about them is up to you. To quote it out of context as the Zealots do is of equal corruption and I would if I could, ask those who do, to honestly consider the deep root of the question of why they do it. How one interprets ANYTHING in life is up to them, and nothing worth listening to tells people what to think.
5. Stupid Memes like "Dear Religion, today you murdered…. Today I shot a man to the moon and blah blah, love Science"
Weapons all over the world were created by 'scientists', designers and engineers. The same ones who achieve there 'great' things attributed to the 'Scientific Community'. Psychologists from California carried out forced sterilisation and breeding experiments, and spawned much of the 'scientific' justification for the Nazi 'Master Race' arguments used by Hitler's reigeme. 'Scientists' work for Pharmaceutical companies, dictators and produce pseudo-scientific research to mislead through corrupt media companies globally. Most research these days is corrupted by commercial interests and the Oligarchy of the 'scientific' world, which has always focused on giving notoriety to those who have status, and the recognition of those with status. It drives the content, methodology, scope, purpose and result of the work, and it has a history of ignoring the facts, persecuting those who don't back up the popular theories, and out-right ignoring research done by genuine scientists who are not held in high esteem. Examples are everywhere, from the Greeks to the present day; look anywhere to find examples if you don't agree, it would be needless to worry you won't find out the same.
The moral is: to single out hysterical idiots who are not following their religion, is IDENTICAL to singling out bad science, corrupt scientists and things created and put into being by hateful, warmongers and others.
6. Religion is just a way to control people
Those who call themselves religious can be this way. Catholicism tried to keep the Bible from being printed, takes donations from the impoverished, sick and old, and sends it back to guild the Vatican; and the examples in all other mainstream religions are endless. Religion exerts a huge influence on politics the world over and uses wealth to try to control the financial world (esp. banks) - where power is traded. But is this religion, or just corrupt institution? Is it the same as the philosophy? Can you mix the organisation with the doctrine? Though many do, as anyone knows, this is utter nonsense. Religion is used, Science is used, all mainstream ideas are used, both sides are appealed to. It is the mass marketing of ideas, suppression of independent thought and wholesale herd mentality that control people, and this is actually not limited to any group, sector, culture or philosophy. When you say you're a part of a group, you risk your credibility when you disagree with what others who are in the group say, and that means you decide to agree to ideas you have not considered or found out for yourself. Enough sceptics have no concept of radioactive decay, yet mock those who don't believe in carbon dating. People use religion to control, and they use science, but would you blame the water when someone drowns you in it?
7. Atheism is based on Science. Religion is blind faith
No it isn't. Atheism, is saying that theism (the belief in a deity - or God) is incorrect, or at least holds the burden of proof. At it's heart, atheism rejects the blind acceptance of God, it is therefore saying 'think for yourself', and don't just accept a theory blindly. A true follower of this line of thought would not only question their own understanding of God (as mentioned earlier), but they would not accept the Scientific theories either without due scepticism, and before you say that you don't, check yourself; When did you last prove to yourself that atomic theory was correct?… how many papers have you read and cross-checked the methodology and results? People ask for blind faith, whether in science or religion. Religion can be used to justify blind faith, but to interpret text that way, or listen to those saying it, says more about the persons doing so, and little about the theories themselves
8. All Religious people think 'X' or 'Y'…
This is as ignorant as saying "All Black people are good at running". It is a ridiculous categorisation to say even two people think the same way, let alone billions
9. That Atheism is in opposition to religion
No it's not. even if someone said, "well, y'know, most of them…". Well, Is it true? Does it matter? Is that such and insight? Anyone can find the same correlation in any group. People believe the same sorts of things. There are nut cases everywhere as mentioned, but there are billions of people out there who call themselves religious - and many religions that support Atheism or hold Atheism as valid. Hinduism, Buddhism are examples. Secular ideologies and all kinds of personal spirituality can be fused with 'godless' principles. it's all based on what you're calling God. Atheism is not the opposition of religion, it is the opposition of theism, and Atheism itself has no strict ideology (which is why I'm writing all this), so chill out the generalities, or you'll end up sounding stupid.
10. Religious people ignore the truth
Ignoring the truth would be to say that anyone who is ignoring the truth, is also following their religious principles. What I mean by that is, if you're doing that, you are invariably NOT following your religion. NO RELIGION asks people to ignore the truth. No text, no principle, no philosophy. That would be idiocy. People ignore things that ask them to risk what they are afraid to.
Someone who says that 'religion' ignores new scientific developments has put their faith unduly in the researchers marketing. Remember, much of the Scientific community disagrees with itself - actually, that's quite a good thing if you think about it. In fact there is not a principle of science that does not have those who disagree with it. This is the beauty of having enough people, with enough perspectives, to see nearly everything a different way. It keep us all alert and inquisitive. If someone thinks the 'truth' is so certain, that it cannot be wrong, then most likely they have accepted some assumption blindly without realising it. Yes, many of those who call themselves religious have done this...but so has everyone else. We are all pre-conditioned; so who among us is aware of all the things they've accepted blindly? Because that person would have to know all aspects of all things, and hence…pretty much be like how people describe god. Are you a god? Do you know everything? Even if you did, should anyone believe it before they understood everything too? So they who do say the religious are ignoring the truth, may as well just go around saying they are the one and only god. That is the exact thing someone is asking another to do, if they say the other is the one who's doing it…. so they're doing it!….. irony…(if you could follow that)
Atheism is used to control people too. Science is constantly used in media to control the minds of people - It is the new religion of our time. This is just what our risk-averse, fearful minds decide to do. We have no one to blame for controlling us other than our cowardly selves. Added to all this is one thing worth repeating, which is, that a truly religious person, is seeking something with honesty, isn't it so? Maybe those who claim to be religious, actually aren't most of the time.
If anyone has considered what's written here and believes anything to be wrong, do leave an honest comment. But if you're full of emotional reaction, fear or indifference, please, don't waste your time. We all have a mind of our own, and I'm sure, no-one requires me, or anyone else to agree with them, to lead a fulfilling life hiding their heads in the sand.
