When Atheism Violates Boundaries

 By CA - January 13, 2014

 On January 11, Salon.com published an article titled "15 ways atheists can stand up for rationality." One cannot overemphasize the importance of standing up for good values like rationality. The article encourages atheists to speak up, to freely refuse being part of religious customs, and to have their answer ready when conflicting religious people. Salon.com is an pro-atheist tabloid, focusing on politics and entertainment. The article expresses an opinion that religion corrupts societies, and that it should be exposed for what it is.

Salon.com logo

             The article quotes 15 religious statements and gives advice on how atheists should respond to them. The second statement is this: "Religion is a personal matter. It’s not polite to bring it up." Jeffrey Taylor, an author of the article, says that religion is fundamentally collective, continuing:

      "Nonbelievers need to further advance the cause of rationality by discussing it openly; doing so, as uncomfortable as it may be at times, will help puncture the aura of sanctity surrounding faith and expose it for what it is."

              The 11th statement says: "You have no right to criticize my religious beliefs." Underneath it, the author writes:

         "Wrong. Such a declaration aims to suppress free speech and dialogue about a matter influential in almost every aspect of our societies. No one has a right to make unsubstantiated assertions, or vouch for the truthfulness of unsubstantiated assertions on the basis of “sacred” texts, without expecting objections from thinking folk."

                There is a problem with these principles. One of the greatest victories of atheism and other present or past minorities was to shield their beliefs from people who tried to enforce their convictions on them. When the western society started treating people as individuals that have the freedom to believe what they choose, our civilization made a step forward.

              Of course, when debating social issues, religion should be discussed, and criticised if necessary, for the good of the public. The problem is starting a confrontation with individuals, criticising their personal beliefs, and believing to have the right to set them straight. If Salon.com intended to send a different message from what was explained in this text, they did a poor job not being clear. This offensive behavior is something that would normally be advised at some of the most conservative churches. These kind of advises show that atheism has an evangelical stream that wants to enforce "rationality" upon others who think differently.

              Rationality is an important value, but it is not the only one. Respect and the right to believe what you choose(being right or wrong) are equally important. In the most destructive relationships, one person often takes the right to change the other, stating that it is in her/his best interest – showing an extremely destructive behaviour.

                   Looking at other pro-atheist sites on the internet, one can see that the principles shown in Jeffrey Taylor's article are not foreign to other atheists. Atheism claims to have a superiorly better influence on society than religion. Atheists need to prove this in their discussion, in their videos on youtube and posts on forums, in their articles and news; they need to show class compared to their opponents from religious circles. Present situation indicates that this is not the case.

A Joint Where Evolution Loses Focus

 By CA - 12 January, 2014

The theory of evolution is the most widely accepted explanation of how life evolved. The theory states that once there was a simple organism that started to multiply. From this organism all life on Earth descended. As gene pools inside multiplied organisms were constantly changing, organisms changed, and only good changes were preserved because organisms with weaker genes struggled to survive, and further multiply. During billions of years, innumerable numbers of good changed occurred, resulting in today's complexity of life.

Charles Darwin shared this theory with the scientific world which, over the course of years, updated the system of evolution with most recent discoveries. A vast number of fossils were found. We learned of methods in which genes shape behavior of organism to preserve themselves. These biological findings point to the fascinating ability of genes to survive and spread.

Charles Darwin

However, biology has worked against the theory as well. Darwin's revolutionary work „On the Origin of Species“ was published in 1859. In that time, most scientists were yet to accept the cell theory which stated that the basic unit of organisms is the cell. G. H. Lewes, a contemporary of Charles Darwin wrote:

"The simplest form of organic life is not -- as commonly stated -- a cell, but a microscopic lump of jelly-like substance, or protoplasm..."

Darwin's generation knew very little of cell's complexity. Even today many scientists would agree on the notion that the cell is still more complex than we are aware. 

Having in mind what Darwin knew of biology, it was more convenient for his age than ours to ascribe spontaneity to the origin of the first living organism. As cell biology increases in depth, explaining the origin of first life form becomes a greater challenge. When you have an organism capable of multiplying, the evolution is set in motion. A problem emerges in explaining what happened before that. Abiogenesis is the branch of science dealing with this question. It stands as the base to the theory of evolution and it tries to show that life can originate from non-living matter. If we inspect the simplest organism on Earth, we can conclude that it is by far more complex than the most modern high-tech designs. And evolution cannot take place until this first "high-tech design" comes into existence. Regarding abiogenesis, there is no satisfactory scientific mechanism explaining how the first organism originated from non-living matter.

The theory of evolution has won over the scientific world. On the other hand, with every new discovery related to complexity of life, the theory loses more ground in its joint with abiogenesis. With theists offering the element of divine intervention, the predominantly atheistic science should respond. 

Are Churches Set to Self-Destruct

By CA - January 11, 2014

According to modern Christian beliefs, love towards God is the foundation for living a holy life. Christians usually declare faith as the greatest virtue in their religion; but faith in Christian sense is really a disguised love, because faith does not emphasizes pure belief in God's existence,  as much as it emphasizes importance of trusting Him, and feeling affection towards Him. A person can believe in God, but if he/she does not love Him, he/she will be lost. But if a person loves God, everything else will fall on its place.

A metaphor will be used to explain the next point. Imagine a club designed for men who want to be devoted to their wives. They gather once a week and they encourage each other to be better husbands. When a member enters a crisis, the club's role is to help him get back on his feet.

Next, imagine that this club has a huge influence on a certain member; everybody he knows is a member too. And the club works in the following manner: if you have problems in your marriage, you will get help, but will be considered as a less worthy member than others; if your marriage falls apart, you will be expelled.  

Further more, imagine this member earning his salary by working at this club. And finally, imagine this member in a dysfunctional marriage that should be ended.

The following questions should be asked:

1. Is he being enticed to start lying to others about his marriage?
2. Is he being enticed to stay married only because of what he would lose if he gets expelled?
3. Is he being enticed to convince himself that his marriage is healthy, while both he and his wife are suffering?

     If the answers to this questions are positive, we can conclude that this club serves as a burden to his marriage. The club policy even suggests that some members would be enticed to ignore marital problems on a daily basis, driven by fear of being cast out.

           In applying this metaphor to modern churches, it is evident that church membership suffers under the system which consumes their personal relationship with God - the pillar of Christian faith. This is especially applicable to church leadership. Churches use warnings, sanctions, and evictions in order to regulate love towards God. Love can be encouraged, but it cannot be forced. There is a place for discipline in every relationship. But discipline cannot solve crucial problems in a relationship, especially when being forced by a third party. When used in this manner, discipline functions as an extremely destructive tool.

In every healthy relationship a person needs to be allowed to struggle. This is fundamental, but contrary to the practice of typical churches. Assuming that there is a deity, just for the sake of the argument, Christians need to create places where they can struggle with their faith - perhaps even call this places "church." Otherwise, in a world that moves away from religion, they are moving towards self-destruction.

Will Atheism Kill Like Religion Did

By CA - January 9, 2014

Recent poll from The Guardian discovered that 71 % of its UK-based readers think atheism is winning the war against religion. It comes as no surprise from the country that established itself as one of world leaders in atheism.  The poll followed the words of Richard Dawkins who stated that he feels that "We are all moving away from religion." Numerous "dislikes" and only an occasional "like" on any youtube clip defending Christianity indicates that young people had chosen the worldview that is pushing aside religion. One of crucial battles that atheism is winning relates to  its success in destroying the reputation of the Christian God. On earlier occasion, Dawkins stated that

Richard Dawkins, a champion of atheism

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Atheism, of course, goes further in declaring that God never existed. By removing the divine component from religious scriptures and institutions, atheism shifts the blame for religious atrocities from God to people of religion. If that statement is true,  we can conclude that what stood behind the design of religion was mere human imagination, inside of religious minds. If we do injustice to Richard Dawkins and adjust his statement, it could read:

 "Human imagination, showing herself through religion, was jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

In time of its invention, Christianity demonstrated an advanced level of human rights, compared to its contemporaries. As the following centuries indicated, Christianity struggled to maintain its lead, and with time, found itself lagging behind.  It seems that it did not evolve rapid enough to stay superior among our generation.

Religious agenda is on the verge of being replaced by another. But the blame for its crimes of past cannot be placed upon God that does not exist; it should be placed on people which have used this agenda to express the character of "vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser."

Atheistic minds like Christopher Hitchens believed that "Religion poisons everything." But the question remains to be answered: Have people changed, or will they just find a way to use the new agenda like they did with the old one?