PSA

Dear Atheist Community,

Calling religious people names, being condescending, and using derisive terms like "sky daddy" pisses them off. When they are pissed off, they really don't want to listen to your arguments, it just validates their stereotypes about non-Christians. Bravo.

I understand that that is how you may want to talk amongst yourselves, and that sometimes debating a fundie is like debating a brick wall, but, well, I don't find "sky daddy" that funny =/ It doesn't pass my humor test, and just serves to show how much you don't care about religious beliefs because you are, in fact, that edgy and awesome. It ranks as pointlessly situationally offensive.

Granted, the bloggers that use these terms within the community are doing it for the atheist audience, and I have seen some of them debate with respect, but so many people dogpile with "Idiot" in a debate, which is, again, pointlessly offensive.

Apparently, as a strong atheist, I'm supposed to believe that all religion should be eradicated, and we should all live godless lives in harmony. I'm supposed to be confronting belief in God, and not try to "pass" as anything but an atheist.

Well, I think that's a bunch of crap.

If you're going to argue, you need to be respectful in these cases. It's the same as when a fundie calls you names and is irrational: you know it's safe to ignore them. If you want respect as an atheist, it is only fair to give it in return. Besides, in matters of faith, it isn't so simple as a logical argument. In a lot of cases, you either have it or you don't, or you used to have it, but the way your life and education took you means you don't have it anymore. It's not a light switch. I really don't think it's a rational part of humanity.

This is why these arguments (religious v. non-religious) rarely go anywhere beyond mutual respect. It's not an argument to be won, it's an argument to be felt.

Religion truly becomes a problem when it is not compatible with modern life and has a heavy role in government and society (I wouldn't mind living in a true Buddhist nation, not that Buddhist countries are doing too well at the moment, but that's not Buddhism's fault). It very much has this place in America, which is why the nation of my birth is one of the worst industrialized, rich nations on the planet in terms of women's rights and social welfare.

When religion is relegated completely to the private, to the community, I don't really think it's that bad. People need different things to remain whole, and some people like religion. When they use that religion to interfere with society, to bully, to try and stop science and reproductive rights, that is when religion is a harmful force. But then, any ideology can do that. It's not a magical property of just religion.

But, the idea of the world being better if we were all atheists is one I'm not sold on. True, there would be little opposition to evolution and certain types of scientific research, but people who tout the idea that life would be better if it were wholly secular are operating under the false assumption that the world would embrace secular humanism in its godlessness.

This is a pretty unlikely scenario.

There are plenty of secular theories that are just as harmful as religion, or, at least, still engender some of the same social problems, like the subjugation of women (Confucius touted this, and last I checked Confucianism isn't a religion).

"Atheistic" China still has all the markings of Confucian thought, down to the fully internalized way of ordering family members: father, mother, older brother, younger brother, older sister, younger sister, self. Is secular China a home of freedom, happiness, and scientific advancement? Perhaps the answer is "yes" to science, but in other social areas, it is having a hard time. My Mandarin teachers always sarcastically state "men are always first in China." And they manage to be first without God. This is not a socially stable and happy nation.

You could say that it is because Chinese culture is holding on to antiquated notions, just like the religious, but Chinese culture isn't static. It has been changing for years, including years of "gender equality" during the Cultural Revolution. It didn't stick after Mao's death. The 70s and 80s saw a full scale revival of "proper" gender roles, with little resistance. There was a revival of traditional values. I personally think it's natural for people to gravitate back towards older ways of doing things, even if they aren't necessarily the best in their situation.

In the end, people weren't convinced by gender equality, so they went back to what they knew and believed in.

Human beings like to create in-groups and out-groups. As we globalize, this is becoming harder and harder to maintain. Some people now categorize by nation, by language, by profession, by region of birth, by interest, by religion, but we all do it to an extent. People who are like us and are awesome and people who aren't like us (and therefore suck).

The same people who do and believe harmful things as fundies would likely find some sort of bullshit secular theory to keep up their unequal societies. There are also religious groups, such as the Quakers, who strongly believe in the separation of Church and State, and who I think are a wonderful example of how religion can be had without it being harmful to society.

But, seriously, the belief that we would all be better off without religion is rather misguided as some secular ideologies can be harmful. What that statement really means is, "we'd all be better off if we all believed more or less what I do," which sounds a lot like fundies, doesn't it?

It's an oversimplification of the underlying issues of society, a naive solution put out by people that like to poke members of their out-group (the religious) with sticks for amusement. Militant atheists are just as bad as militant anything else.

DISCLAIMER: I still believe in protesting religion in schools and the government, and coming down hard on people who want to erase the line between Church and State, and on people who use religion as an excuse to be horrible to people or to deny them rights. Debate creationists until doomsday to keep them out of schools, please. Just don't attack or think less of people because of religious beliefs. That's being childish, and yet, I hear atheists telling people that's what they should be doing.

Paved With Good Intentions

While I really like the idea of Richard Dawkins's OUT campaign, I have to admit that I am not too happy with the symbol he has chosen for it. Yes, I understand, it's the scarlet letter, and in a lot of ways, being an public atheist can lead to similar pariah treatment as being adulterous Hester Prynne.

I understand that's likely what is being got at. However, I don't like the scarlet letter as the galvanizing symbol for atheism. First and foremost, it is Puritan adultery punishment to me. And beyond that, it's the symbol for an immoral action, and the ignorant already associate atheism with immorality, no need to help that link along, especially when most atheists are highly ethical people who already fight the opinion that morality is impossible without religion. Not to mention that the shirts aren't clear on the meaning of said scarlet letter. It's just the letter and the generic "OUT campaign" website, which somewhat paints the picture of some immoral GLBT swingers club (I must admit that the phrase out campaign brings to mind GLBT issues in my mind).

So basically, it's a confusing shirt with a hateful symbol of immorality on it. Not exactly great press. Dawkins can appropriate it and twist it all he likes, but that's not going to change what most people are going to think when they see a scarlet letter and the word OUT campaign (adultery + gay). Yes, literarily it really stands for, and is used in speech as, a term for becoming a pariah, but it always has that seedy undertone. I don't want that further incorrectly associated with atheism.

If you really wanted to have a true OUT campaign wherein we all stood up and said, "we don't believe in God," lets at least get a shirt that communicates the idea that we are atheist/agnostic and we are just normal people, none of this flashy, literary, *wink*wink* appropriating of an immoral symbol, unclear bullshit. You don't get respect or standing by making secret codes. I can't exactly think of something better, but you need something clear, humanizing, and noncombative. In my opinion, these shirts and the symbol don't fit any of these requirements. It personally strikes me as a bit smug, which is not a big friend winner. It also feels hollow to me for some reason, akin to a publicity stunt.

I like the idea, I really do, but I hate the symbol chosen. I refuse to support something so careless as to not really take into account what that symbol is going to mean to a lot of people when they see it.

I'm also annoyed by all the bloggers complaining that the campaign isn't getting as much support as it should, that if all atheists would stand up and speak out, things would change for the better as we all stood in solidarity. This whole thing is so slapdash and pushy that I personally don't care for it. There are also people who have their own reasons to want to pass, as they are likely living in an area where they could legitimately become a pariah or lose job opportunities, or something silly. Coming out in this manner is highly personal, and I support a person doing it when they feel safe and ready. Perhaps they'd like to come out without the aid of a shirt, on their own terms. We don't need to start attacking one another's personal choices.

ETA: I found the opinion on the campaign here also very interesting. My own non-belief isn't something I dwell on, all the blogging and blog-reading notwithstanding. It's just a part of me. I think the campaign is trying to do a lot more things, like present atheist as humans too, and try to move forward from there... it just isn't doing it very well.

See, I knew that saying was bunk.

Of course I can't find the article at the moment, but I have read through a trusted outlet that the number of fundamentalist Christians in the military is increasing. Now, this really doesn't surprise me on a basic level. A lot of people who join the military, especially enlisted men, are undereducated, often poor, with few other prospects, which is a classic background for fundamentalism. Especially ones that are joining now, wishing to participate in freeing Iraq or whatever else it is that keeps them signing up.

On top of that, the military is traditionally very conservative, which, again, has links to fundamentalist Christian beliefs. So far, few surprises.

Now, we're hearing about fundies evangelizing the troops in hopes of conversion, which also explains the new numbers of fundies in the military (I severely doubt it's all the pro-war fundies that have been told to join up to support what they want to do). And, of course, the icing on the cake, a superior officer disrupting an atheist meeting and using his rank to bully his non-fundamentalist Christian brothers in arms.

Now, the way the chain of command works, this was a rather frightening experience, especially with all the threats and accusation this fundie meeting crasher supposedly spouted. Life for an elisted man kinda sucks, especially with a war going on. The military is a harsh place that hammers in chain of command as best it can, and isn't really always nice about it. This is the same chain of command that keeps command rape and sexual abuse of female soldiers operating. Even when such an abuse is reported, the offender, who is generally of higher rank, receives a slap on the wrist, which is what is likely to occur here (not that sex crimes and religious harrassment are equitable).

Even if the exact veracity of the story is in doubt, there are points that mean that there is need for a further investigation, namely that the officer attended willingly a meeting that he was an outsider of, and lied to do so, then used his power in conduct unbecoming of an officer. Now, whether he went for debate and got a bit overheated, or whether he did so with purely antagonistic purposes in mind is what an investigation is for.

While America has plenty of freedom of religion written into that old Constitution, the military's view seems to be more like freedom to choose your personal branch of Christianity. I've heard of enlisted men being bullied by their drill sergeant if they don't go to Church on Sunday, and who are forced to participate in group prayer as part of a mandatory exercise. Only recently were Wiccans able to have pentagrams put on their graves when buried in Arlington National Cemetary, and there were plenty of asses willing to have tantrums over it.

On some level, I am rather concerned by this. If fundies succeed in cementing their hold on the military, it just takes a few kooks to push it to a new, frightening level. But, beyond that, they seem to be sending the message that their men have guns and are combat trained.

How funny, that we have fundamentalist extremists fighting other fundamentalist extremists. If only the powers that be could see the irony.

EDIT: Oh, wait, there's more!

Freedom Packages, eh? I wasn't aware that we called care packages "French Packages." There really isn't much freedom in the packages, just shoving a doctrine down one's throat.

But, seriously, this is all rather sick and heavy handed, and, sadly, will have an impact among some kids who have nothing else, and are in an environment that makes them rather emotionally vulnerable and unstable. The idea of evangelizing to the Muslim community... surely SOMEONE had to realize that's more harm than good, right? Right? Anyone?

A bit of background.

Something very interesting about this atheist, I feel, is that in a roleplaying environment, I tend to gravitate towards clerics and paladins, and other healer characters, especially spiritual ones. You know, religious people. My favorite latex sword in the world, is that of the Templar.

And yet, in real life, I am firmly an atheist, and have been for over seven years, a full third of my short life.

It seems rather paradoxical, does it not? Some people may even say that my gravitational pull towards these sorts of characters could be taken as a sign that I really am religious and believe in a god, but refuse to admit it consciously.

Of course, I heartily disagree. For one, in these systems, clerics and paladins have solid proof that their deity exists. He or She grants them powers, appears to the strongest of them, and is easily observable in certain aspects of the universe. These people feel the presence of their gods. They can occasionally converse with them. The gods also do not necessarily create the world or do anything more proactive than grant powers to their very devout. But people know they are there.

This may be a good time to branch off a bit into my own history.

As a child growing up Roman Catholic, I never, ever, felt the presence of the God I was supposed to be worshiping. It all felt so hollow and unfulfilling, even as a pre-teen, like it was just a boring one hour show we had to sit through just because we were told that was the correct way of things. It was never a big deal to me, and in middle school, I tried very, very hard to be a good Catholic to see if the shortcoming was on my end rather than on Catholicism's. There were even times I convinced myself I was "lucky" that I had been born into a Catholic family and could then follow the "correct religion."

But, I can remember back to times that even as a child, Catholicism had shortcomings for me. Shortcomings I had to fill in myself. Evolution and science, for example. In middle school, we had a talk with a priest about evolution and how it related to God. I piped up with the badly phrased idea, "What if God just made a mistake and molded humans from apes to correct it?" The priest, of course, simply answered, "God never makes mistakes."

I hadn't quite expressed things properly, but I had come to the conclusion I hear from many Christians that have thought about the world's origins seriously, "No one knows how long a 'day' is to God. Nor do we know how a world is created. God could simply have guided creation through the process of evolution." The exceptionally thoughtful simply express that Genesis and the entire Bible are full of allegory that was meant to make sense to people over 2,000 years ago. Of course some oversimplification of the world's origins would need to be in order. The most important part of the tale is that God created the world, or at least had a heavy hand in its creation.

The other thing that had always bothered me about my faith as a child can be summed up in the phrase "Gandhi went to hell because he wasn't Christian." This was, of course, always followed up with, "but, it is a very mild level because he was a good person."

This had always seemed very, very unfair to me as a child. Though my parents were, and still are, Catholics that go to Church every Sunday and holy day and send my young sister to CCD, they always encouraged me to think for myself and never tried to force any ideas upon me. They wanted me to be an independent thinker, and in many ways they have succeeded, to an extent that must displease my mother on occasion. They tried their best to give me the most honest answers they could. In a lot of respects, they are pragmatic, even liberal, Catholics (my mother is pro-choice and strongly feminist, which surprised me when I found out a month ago).

But, I came up with the thought that "if you lead a good life, and follow your native religion well, God will let you into heaven." Already, at the age of eleven, I had come up with a more fair god than that of most fundamentalists. I could not concept an angry, spiteful God. I also had the thought in the back in my mind that we had no assurance that the Christian god was necessarily the correct one, and occasionally I believed that every religion was worshiping the same God in different, culturally appropriate manners. This is the crux of the other, dare I say it, intelligent, thoughtful believer's conditions: "you are held accountable for what you know."

It always seemed rather conceited to be so sure that our way was necessarily the correct, and only way to salvation. We have no real way to know, after all. The fact that anyone that thinks long and hard enough about the faith has to come up with these hedges is rather telling to me. And the fact that these hedges are often rejected by more fundamental believers is troubling.

I know there are many contradictions, double standards, and evidence of an unfair, petty OT God in the Bible, but those are things I did not find out or fully explore until I was solidly an atheist. The main thing that pushed me towards atheism was a lack of feeling in what I was professing. I swallowed the indoctrination wholeheartedly, as I have always been a people pleaser, but even that eroded away as I thought more and more about what I was taught and how it just did not feel correct for me or make sense in the world I saw before my eyes.

In many ways, I officially became an atheist because of a very horrible reason: peer pressure. My brand-new best friend in high school was an atheist, and we had a discussion about it. I ended up fully realizing that I really wasn't Catholic after all, and that I didn't feel a God in Church because he wasn't there. And that it only made sense that humanity came up with various religions to explain the unexplainable, give their lives a purpose, and feel better about death by creating an afterlife. I also felt that it wasn't fair that I went to Church, because my presence as someone who didn't believe, couldn't believe (because I had tried so hard) seemed unfair to the faithful.

Well, to be fair to my integrity, it is arguable whether or not she really influenced me that much. I have always been an open-minded individual, something I like about myself, but I also feel is problematic because I can feel very inconsistent as my opinion can change completely after hearing a good argument. I would make a horrible politician, as I could easily be called out as a "weeble-wobbler" on some issues. In a lot of ways, that conversation with Meg simply called attention to my lack of belief and made me confront it directly with good arguments. As I have continued along in life, that conviction has only become stronger.

An anthropology class my Junior year of high school validated me in my own mind, as well. We talked about religion, and how it is something created by society to deal with death, misfortune, and the unexplainable. It was nice to hear something I had thought of to partially justify myself pointed out as social science fact. Why can we, as a culture, discount an older religion as a comforting fantasy, but accept Christianity as viable and true? Would it not make more sense to lump all religions like this? Or that all religions were different ways of exploring the same truth? For sure, an older one must have a much larger claim to fact, if God was a constant in the universe. It seemed a vital logical flaw to me.

I have no issues with faith, however. There are always people that need it, so to speak, have been raised to need it. We have a part in our brain that houses our spiritual side. People with strong convictions have respect from me. In many cases, religion also provides guidance to people. It houses philosophies and ideas that can sometimes be used to live a better life. Buddhism is a great example of this.

I do pity my poor parents during this period. I came out to them, so to speak, in a very snotty manner when I was fourteen. I was talking with my mother, and said "well, I have something to tell you when I turn eighteen," as I had full knowledge of the house rules. I was a smug little thing, too, it is a wonder she put up with me. I eventually told her, I think she hit me, then went off to her room to cry. Enter a few years of religious tracts on my bed, forced Church attendance, and attempts to send me to high school CCD that I ended up skipping with an old friend from middle school. When I reached eighteen, Church stopped, as did any attempt to convert me.

Later, my mother told me she was disappointed (gah!), but it was really the way I had told her that upset her so much. I really can sympathize with that, as I was a gigantic brat at the time!

My parents are currently simply proud of me, and likely hope that I turn back to the Church at some point (my father's opinion on the matter was that my mother and he shifted Churches before they settled on Catholicism. I am simply going on my other spiritual odyssey before settling on something). While that unvoiced hope that I'll convert, the background worry for my soul, and the like are not things I appreciate, they have accepted things as much as they can, and we do not discuss these things in the house. I know that I am very lucky to have parents that will let it lie and love me very much regardless.

The most I ever heard from relatives about the topic was my grandmother sending me a book about spirituality, obviously geared towards Christianity, and that was it. I do not think my paternal grandfather knows, and I don't know how much of my family really knows. However, I do not really think the majority of them would mind that much. I have a family of partially lapsed Christians, liberals, and unconditional love. I'm very happy that I am lucky enough to not have a fundie in my immediate family.

After meeting my fiancé, and talking with him, I came to the realization that spirituality was possible in my godless existence, and was, in fact, something I wanted to explore. This is a part of my life that I have been neglecting, but I am of the firm belief that there are parts of the universe we don't understand yet, but can understand someday. Humans are a curious species, and I have no doubt that eventually we'll get all of this down.

Not believing in a god does not preclude spirituality. I can still have a "spiritual experience" when I see the pure beauty of the world that we live upon. Nara's Temple Complex. The Appalachian Mountains. The Eagle Nebula. All have spurred within me feelings of awe and appreciation. There are many things we can't explain yet with science. If I explore those, through meditation or what have you, I'm feeding my curious, spiritual side.

I do not make leaps of faith. I am not equipped to have blind faith; I do not believe in anything I cannot experience or observe. But, I am spiritual in my own way, and willing to accept that there are things we have yet to learn the answers to and that there are other ways to explore existence. Just not through "God." Above all, I am not a follower of any organized religion. Spiritual needs are unique from person to person, and the best spiritual journeys are the ones you make yourself at your own pace, whatever the conclusions. Organized religion usually breeds trouble eventually, as well as hampers spiritual growth in many individuals as most organized religions do not like their believers to ask questions or explore past the party line of set beliefs.

There is a fantastic discussion on spirituality here by Kadath on Livejournal. This is very close to how I feel, but my methodology is a little different, as I stubbornly explore some of the supernatural bits in a vaguely supernatural way as I know they have a rational explanation somewhere. To completely discount something because it is supernatural in nature is somewhat silly to me. After all, before we understand an idea it can appear much like magic or the supernatural. The most popular examples of this involve exposing great thinkers of the past to modern technology. While technology is man made, there is a lot of thought that much of the natural world and natural phenomenon were, in the past, explained by divine or supernatural origins (hence religion and folk belief). It is what humanity instinctively jumps to in the face of incomprehension. While a lot of "supernatural experiences" are bunk, I'm not going to discount all of them without research. But, that is neither here nor there.

Now, obviously, I do not believe in a higher power that mets out a purpose to us all. An afterlife is most likely a fantasy we invent because we are afraid of death and its unknowns. We have to make our purpose for ourselves as we scramble through existence. To believe otherwise, or that God lets us make scientific discoveries, or gives us a talent, belittles our existence. The fact that we are out here on our own and that we have achieved so much is one of the great wonders of our universe.

As Discworld's Death said, "Humans make life interesting. After all, in the face of all of the wonders of the universe, they invented boredom."

To return to the Templar/religious character discussion, these characters are strong moral people who are honestly doing good and service in their deity's name. A Templar was also regarded as a defender of the faith (though originally they were just a religious military unit in the Crusades).

I am a person high moral integrity. I do not service the community as much as I should, but I do what I do for the benefit of others as well as myself. I often think of others before myself. I have never embodied the "immoral atheist" stereotype. In fact, I believe that the thought process that God is necessary to the functionality of humanity is rather insulting to humanity! (It is also a lesser form of morality than creating and following laws for the good of society, but this is not the place to discuss this).

I love characters of high integrity and faith. In a setting where the gods are known to exist, I would of course be a believer. I would have no issues serving a real, present god. It's just that these fantasy worlds are the only place gods are real. And the gods never stand in the way of progress, learning or anything else unless they are evil. It is a place where good is good, neutral is neutral, and evil is evil. Evil gods do not masquerade as good entities. These are deities that I could see following, as they are upfront and honest in their classification.

The deity keeps worship of it more regulated, so to speak. While tenants do have the tendency to be warped, there is more interaction between deity and believer/the establishment, so there is a higher tendency towards quality control and consistency. Good gods do not commit atrocities in their name, unlike the OT version of God, nor do they tend towards some sort of irrational dictatorship style of religion. While a nonbeliever does not receive powers from a deity, if a person lives a good life, his or her lack of belief does not rob them of a good afterlife when they die. Evil is punished uniformly if repentance is neither sought nor genuine.There is far less, if any, contradiction.

And lastly, the gods in these environments are consistent. They do not personally interfere in matters unless the problem is a large one, and is something that they would normally find a reason to be proactive about. Otherwise, they stay hands off for the most part. This is not a world where God heals a sore throat, but ignores the prayers of people suffering in wars and poverty.

To me, clerics and paladins mesh best with the great, stubborn strength, goodness, and service that I want to play on occasion. The Greater Good, and all of that. You could even say that I endeavor to serve the Greater Good in my actual existence, and am saddened that few people do so in our leadership. I like to explore things that I feasibly cannot experience in my life, as well. I am not saddened by my lack of faith, in fact my beliefs make me very contented, but it is fun to explore how it affects a character. I know that people do not need religion to be strong, good, or strong, but I like the interplay... and the spells involved.

I'm drawn to the strong conviction of these characters, something I feel in many parts of my life.

Now, I refuse to go as far to say I'm a defender of science and my lack of faith. I am rather outspoken when pushed, and make no apologies for what I believe (or for my lack of belief). However, I'm not militant, unless my rights are in danger and people make some horrible assumptions. I'm really just eternally curious and wishing for fair play. I'm not sure where I am going with the end of this incredibly long spiel, so let's just go with I fell in love with a sword and a character style because the realm of fantasy is the only place they are viable. :)